Did Pope Honorius teach monothelitism publicly?

[Alethiaphile]

This is confusing.

Ya think?

 

[Claudius]

I think we need to keep in mind the teaching about what a council is and is not, what a council can and can not do. Councils can teach infallibly on issues of faith and morals when the Church gives them that authority. It is not the Council all on its own that is infallible just as it is not the Pope all on his own who is infallible. These are both examples of the Church being infallible. The Church is infallible on issues of FAITH and MORALS. The Bible also is infallible on issues of Faith and Morals.

So where does this lead us. We need to ask the question, by what authority was the sixth ecumenical council infallible on matters of Faith and Morals? What does being infallible on issues of Faith and Morals mean?

I can tell you what it does not mean. It does not mean that a Council can infallible declare by bill of attainer that someone is a heritic. They can claim infallible that a certain teaching is herasy but not that a person definatly held that heredical teaching as difined by the coucil because they do not know. They can say that anyone who believes such and such a teaching is a heritic but as far as naming names, that is beyond the infallibility of a council or even the Pope without a clear hearing. No such hearing, as required by the Cannons of the Church, was ever held in this particular matter.

We must also remember the situation of the Church at the time. People were being killed. People who you would to go Mass with had blood on their hands. There was a lot of anger. Can we expect anything less of a council who wished to gives its most harsh words to anyone they felt left them in this situation.

There are several points we must remember. The Pope can in fact be a heritic. However, he will be prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching Heresy. A council can in fact be a heretical council, and we have had a few of those but the Holy Spirit will prevent the Church from accepting the cannons from such a council.

Councils that are accepted by the Church are infallible on issues of Faith and Morals. A council therefore can not decide a question of an individual heritic, since the accused has the right to appeal to the Pope above the ruling of a council. Yes, the Pope trumps a council on this matter and the Cannons of the Church even say so going all the way back to the first ecumenical council.

This is why certain disciplinary rules that were adopted by one council and later changed by another council and may or may not still be in use today can be so. They are not issues of faith and morals and therefore are open to change by the correct judgements of the Bishops of the time. However, a doctrine of Faith and Morals by an infallible council can not change. The issue of the Calendar is not an issue of Faith and Moral but one of discipline to my understanding. The seventh ecumenical council declared as a matter of Faith and Morals that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father through the Son. That council declared the way to say this in Latin is Filioque, however some have charged that this is a bad translation and accuse the Latin Church of Heresy for it. The issue at hand is that the Holy Spirit proceeds ( the Greek actually says originates, a completely different verb) from the Father Through the Son. Filioque is one way to say that in Latin but there are others that could be used. The wording of a translationn can change but not the meaning of what is meant.

Pope Honorius did not teach heresy. The information we have on him also informs us that he did not believe in this heresy himself. Besides that, a Council does not have the authority to proclaim him a herefic. For all we know, he is sitting on a cloud in heaven right now and gets a chuckle over all the fuss never having expected to be remembered at all, but of course we don’t know and neither did the sixth ecumenical council. In fact, the evidence that we have suggest that did not even accept Surgius as the real Patriarch of Antioch. In all likelihood, Flavian II was still the real Patriarch of Antioch until his death as only the Emperor, not the Church, recognized Sergius.

Here is another good question though, suppose someone is denounced as a heretic by a council, are they always a heretic with ZERO possibility of reform and reunion with the Church? Of course not. The records of the councils themselves show us that certain individuals were denounced as heretics, or rather their wrong theology was denounced, and that person repented and came back to the Church. The cannons specifically talk about this. Even if Honorius held a heretical view, and a Pope can in fact be a heretic, he could have repented and righted himself.

What we do know is this, the Pope never taught the heresy and in the letter in question, he is actually telling someone to SHUT UP about the whole thing. He is telling Sergius NOT TO TEACH. This is far from teaching heresy, it is the Non teaching of anything.

The issue of Pope Honorius is only interesting to poeple who just want to be in schism and want to look for any reason to support that decision. An Honest and Objective look at the facts, doctrines, and cannons of the Church reveal to us that this is far from a legitimate challenge to Papal Primacy.

 

[Peter_J]

Claudius,

I sounds to me like you’re just saying anything you can think of to try and get the thread off-topic.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m asking you to consider whether such a marginalized charism could have derived from Christ as the guarantee of the Church’s victory against the gates of hell, as it is supposed to have?

But I never claimed that Papal Infallibility, as defined by Vatican I, guarantees the Church’s victory against the gates of hell, in and of itself.

The infallibility of ex cathedra statements isn’t the be-all and end-all of the Church.

Hope that helps,
Peter.

P.S. Don’t I even get a little chuckle for the googly-eyed guy?

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Claudius:

I think we need to keep in mind the teaching about what a council is and is not, what a council can and can not do. Councils can teach infallibly on issues of faith and morals when the Church gives them that authority. It is not the Council all on its own that is infallible just as it is not the Pope all on his own who is infallible. These are both examples of the Church being infallible. The Church is infallible on issues of FAITH and MORALS. The Bible also is infallible on issues of Faith and Morals.

Which authority tells us that the Church is infallible on issues of Faith and Morals?

I can tell you what it does not mean. It does not mean that a Council can infallible declare by bill of attainer that someone is a heritic. They can claim infallible that a certain teaching is herasy but not that a person definatly held that heredical teaching as difined by the coucil because they do not know. They can say that anyone who believes such and such a teaching is a heritic but as far as naming names, that is beyond the infallibility of a council or even the Pope without a clear hearing. No such hearing, as required by the Cannons of the Church, was ever held in this particular matter.

Honorius already was dead. It was impossible to grant him a hearing at the Council.

We must also remember the situation of the Church at the time. People were being killed. People who you would to go Mass with had blood on their hands. There was a lot of anger. Can we expect anything less of a council who wished to gives its most harsh words to anyone they felt left them in this situation.

Does a lot of anger discredit an ecumenical council?

At least two ecumenical councils (by Catholic reckoning; one by Orthodox) after Constantinople III re-affirmed the decisions regarding Honorius.

There are several points we must remember. The Pope can in fact be a heritic. However, he will be prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching Heresy. A council can in fact be a heretical council, and we have had a few of those but the Holy Spirit will prevent the Church from accepting the cannons from such a council.

Where does the Latin Church teach that the Pope is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching heresy?

Councils that are accepted by the Church are infallible on issues of Faith and Morals. A council therefore can not decide a question of an individual heritic, since the accused has the right to appeal to the Pope above the ruling of a council. Yes, the Pope trumps a council on this matter and the Cannons of the Church even say so going all the way back to the first ecumenical council.

Again, Honorius already was dead by the time of the Council. To my knowledge, there were no canons prohibiting a council from posthumously declaring someone a heretic.

Which canon of Nicaea I says that a Pope “trumps an ecumenical council”? I’d be interested in knowing.

This is why certain disciplinary rules that were adopted by one council and later changed by another council and may or may not still be in use today can be so. They are not issues of faith and morals and therefore are open to change by the correct judgements of the Bishops of the time. However, a doctrine of Faith and Morals by an infallible council can not change. The issue of the Calendar is not an issue of Faith and Moral but one of discipline to my understanding. The seventh ecumenical council declared as a matter of Faith and Morals that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father through the Son. That council declared the way to say this in Latin is Filioque, however some have charged that this is a bad translation and accuse the Latin Church of Heresy for it. The issue at hand is that the Holy Spirit proceeds ( the Greek actually says originates, a completely different verb) from the Father Through the Son. Filioque is one way to say that in Latin but there are others that could be used. The wording of a translationn can change but not the meaning of what is meant.

The Second Council of Nicaea declared the filioque as a matter of faith and morals? Where might I find this in the Council?

Pope Honorius did not teach heresy. The information we have on him also informs us that he did not believe in this heresy himself.

Which information?

Do we have more information than the holy fathers who actually lived at the time and reviewed Honorius’ letter to Sergius?

Besides that, a Council does not have the authority to proclaim him a herefic.

By what authority do we know this?

For all we know, he is sitting on a cloud in heaven right now and gets a chuckle over all the fuss never having expected to be remembered at all, but of course we don’t know and neither did the sixth ecumenical council. In fact, the evidence that we have suggest that did not even accept Surgius as the real Patriarch of Antioch. In all likelihood, Flavian II was still the real Patriarch of Antioch until his death as only the Emperor, not the Church, recognized Sergius.

Right… And he chuckled when Pope Leo II and two subsequent ecumenical councils confirmed him as a heretic.

Here is another good question though, suppose someone is denounced as a heretic by a council, are they always a heretic with ZERO possibility of reform and reunion with the Church? Of course not. The records of the councils themselves show us that certain individuals were denounced as heretics, or rather their wrong theology was denounced, and that person repented and came back to the Church. The cannons specifically talk about this. Even if Honorius held a heretical view, and a Pope can in fact be a heretic, he could have repented and righted himself.

Yes, they can come back to the Church. BUT, the fact remains: they were heretics.

The ecumenical council, which had the life of Honorius before them, does not mention Honorius as repenting of the heresy which he embraced.

What we do know is this, the Pope never taught the heresy and in the letter in question, he is actually telling someone to SHUT UP about the whole thing. He is telling Sergius NOT TO TEACH. This is far from teaching heresy, it is the Non teaching of anything.

Can you please direct me to the specific paragraphs in Honorius’ letter to this effect?

The issue of Pope Honorius is only interesting to poeple who just want to be in s***** and want to look for any reason to support that decision. An Honest and Objective look at the facts, doctrines, and cannons of the Church reveal to us that this is far from a legitimate challenge to Papal Primacy.

The bishops of Vatican I found it an issue. I guess they just wanted to be in … well, I won’t go any further then this.

 

[Harpazo]

This thread is interesting, and from what I have read so far, Mardukm has presented some very convincing research and evidence. If this article hasn’t been presented yet, I’ll add it in.

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Claudius]

Claudius,

I sounds to me like you’re just saying anything you can think of to try and get the thread off-topic.

What is off topic. This is what we are talkiing about, is it not? I don’t see any other topic raised.

 

[tdgesq]

It clearly (despite what brother Mardukm says) takes a doctrinal position. As to ex cathedra:

Well, apparently my inference as to your position was correct after all.

1. Was Honorius speaking as a private person? Of course not.

I agree, he was at least speaking as the Bishop of Rome. The question is whether he was exercising “his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority” and defining “a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church.” That he was not speaking as a private person does not answer the question.

1. Was Honorius speaking strictly to the diocese of Rome? Clearly not, since the letter is addressed to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Again, I agree. He was speaking to the Patriarch of Constantinople. That still does not answer the question of infallibility as set forth in Vatican I.

Therefore, the only alternative is that he was speaking as the “Universal Pastor”. And it’s pretty clear (to me) that he intended to bind the Church. I think that makes it ex cathedra.

This is the fallacy of false alternatives: He did not speak as a private person and he did not speak to the diocese of Rome; therefore, he was speaking as the universal pastor of the entire Church. Here is a third alternative. He was speaking as Bishop of Rome to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Letters between the Bishop of Rome to other Patriarchs were commonplace during the time of Honorius. That does not make them infallible pronouncements, even if the discussions pertain to faith and morals.

 

[Claudius]

Which authority tells us that the Church is infallible on issues of Faith and Morals?

Chist’s Authority

Honorius already was dead. It was impossible to grant him a hearing at the Council.

Dead people are given hearings by the Church all the time, and the outcome of those hearings can be appealed to Rome.

Does a lot of anger discredit an ecumenical council?

Certainly not, but knowing about it does allow us to understand what is really going on. There was no way to consider murderers as part of the Church. We should not be surprised by the ruling at all. The council was infallible when it pronounced the teaching as a heresy. At the same time, the council was not infallible in making up a list of names of people who held that heresy, in this matter they could have made mistakes that could been appealed. History tells us that some men even did appeal to Rome.

At least two ecumenical councils (by Catholic reckoning; one by Orthodox) after Constantinople III re-affirmed the decisions regarding Honorius.

Yet not council states that Honorius was himself a herecit, nor has any council stated that they know for a fact that he believed in this heresy. They do condemn him for not doing his job right. At the same time though, you could have a string of one houndred councils denounce him as a heretic and it would still not be a Holy Spirit inspired, completely infallible statement, because a Council is ONLY INFALLIBLE ON MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS.

Where does the Latin Church teach that the Pope is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching heresy?

The Church has always taught this in one form or another but the most resent and clear promulgation of this truth is Vatican I. The fact that the Pope is infallible and the fact that the Councils are infallible do not come from one another however. It is not the case of an infallible Pope declaring that Councils are infallible so that infallible councils can declare the Pope infallible. The CHURCH is infallible and the CHURCH exersises this infallibility through the Councils and through the Pope. The Church teaches that Councils are infallible on matters of faith and morals. The Church teaches that the Pope is infallible in his teaching copassity. To deny this is to deny the authority that Christ gave to the Church.

Again, Honorius already was dead by the time of the Council. To my knowledge, there were no canons prohibiting a council from posthumously declaring someone a heretic.

And again, you can have a houndred concils say so but it will never be infallible and always open to appeal to Rome.

Which canon of Nicaea I says that a Pope “trumps an ecumenical council”? I’d be interested in knowing.

Give me a day and I will find it for you and post it. A pretty clear court system was set up in the council, appeal to the Patriarch and final appeal to Rome.

The Second Council of Nicaea declared the filioque as a matter of faith and morals? Where might I find this in the Council?

If is in the section on the Creed, defined as a matter of faith and morals that the Holy Spirit (in greek) originates from the Father Through the Son. The matter of how to correctly translate that is not a matter of faith and morals but the translation that has been used all the way up to the present day, and even at the seventh ecumenical council was “Filioque”. Two other ecumenical councils have also defined definatley the Church’s opinion on this, that “Filioque” means “my means of the Son” (the Latin way to say through the Son. In Latin, orginating “through” something does not make any sense but by means of something does. This is why in Latin we do not, and have never, used the verb originate int he Creed at this point, we have always prefered the verb Proceed instead.

Which information?

Do we have more information than the holy fathers who actually lived at the time and reviewed Honorius’ letter to Sergius?

By what authority do we know this?

We still have the information about him, I dare say more so now, that was avaliable at the council.

Right… And he chuckled when Pope Leo II and two subsequent ecumenical councils confirmed him as a heretic.

They did not actually NAME him as a heretic. Check the cannons.

Yes, they can come back to the Church. BUT, the fact remains: they were heretics.

And the fact remains that the Councils in question did not in fact NAME Honorius as a heretic, and even if it did, it would not be an Infallible teaching of the Council.

Besides that, even if honorius was a heretic (and the Pope can in fact be a heretic we must all remember) that does not make Papal Primacy or Church infallibility wrong and does not support continued schism from the successor of St. Peter who is in Rome today, nor would it have even justified going into schism with Rome at the time of Honorius or any other heretic Pope. Council after council have denounced schism as a matter of Faith and Morals by the way. I will pull these cannons for you in due time.

The ecumenical council, which had the life of Honorius before them, does not mention Honorius as repenting of the heresy which he embraced.

The council never said Honorius “embraced” heresy. You are putting too much onto them and going farther then they did. You really want to say “well since old honorius was a heretic that must mean that all popes are heretics so I am really in the right to not be Catholic” but you are way off base. Attacking Honorius is not really an attack on the Church or the Papacy. It is just " I want to do anything to stay in schism."

Can you please direct me to the specific paragraphs in Honorius’ letter to this effect?

I will get this for you and post it in the Greek if I can.

The bishops of Vatican I found it an issue. I guess they just wanted to be in … well, I won’t go any further then this.

and we see your true intention come out, you want to call all Latins heretics and are willing to make up whatever nonsense you can to justify whatever morbid hatred for us that you hold. Vatican I was infallible on matters of Faith and Morals because the Church says so. There is a very important council for the Eastern Orthodox that is sometimes called the 5th-6th council that is held to be infallible by Eastern Orthodox but when we truely understand what a council is, we see that it is not infallible at at all since it does not decide any issue of faith and morals but instead only Prex and made several cannons that go against actual Infallible councils. So if you want to attack the councils and call them into question, I would begin with this one.

 

[LittleOne1]

This is long, but it has a good section on Honorius:
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#III

And no he was not teaching ex cathedra (which theologians say only has happened twice for sure… the Doctrine of the Faith made statements of how many of JPII’s encyclicals were not ex cathedra. Not everything the Pope says in public is ex cathedra just like Pope B16’s Jesus of Nazareth is not ex cathedra.) This letter was at best a response to Sergius written in a confusing way that Honorius probably was not sharp to understand. If he was teaching ex cathedra, I am sure there would have been an attempt on more occasion than two letters to teach this to others.

Most of the teachings declared infallible are found from final declaration of councils on teachings and the magisterium ordinarium; not ex cathedra.

To most Christians including most Catholics, how the Church defines which teachings are infallible is usually not known well, so it can be easy to see why something like Pope Honorius may cause people to stumble.

In the end, Pope Honorius never made the statements or actions that would fulfill ex cathedra (I would say JPII’s encyclicals are closer to being something ex cathedra, and none of them are considered that, since JPII knew councils and the magisterium ordinarium already have them declared as such on many issues like male only priesthood, or abortion is immoral).

 

[Peter_J]

Chist’s Authority

Dead people are given hearings by the Church all the time, and the outcome of those hearings can be appealed to Rome.

Certainly not, but knowing about it does allow us to understand what is really going on. There was no way to consider murderers as part of the Church. We should not be surprised by the ruling at all. The council was infallible when it pronounced the teaching as a heresy. At the same time, the council was not infallible in making up a list of names of people who held that heresy, in this matter they could have made mistakes that could been appealed. History tells us that some men even did appeal to Rome.

Yet not council states that Honorius was himself a herecit, nor has any council stated that they know for a fact that he believed in this heresy. They do condemn him for not doing his job right. At the same time though, you could have a string of one houndred councils denounce him as a heretic and it would still not be a Holy Spirit inspired, completely infallible statement, because a Council is ONLY INFALLIBLE ON MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS.

The Church has always taught this in one form or another but the most resent and clear promulgation of this truth is Vatican I. The fact that the Pope is infallible and the fact that the Councils are infallible do not come from one another however. It is not the case of an infallible Pope declaring that Councils are infallible so that infallible councils can declare the Pope infallible. The CHURCH is infallible and the CHURCH exersises this infallibility through the Councils and through the Pope. The Church teaches that Councils are infallible on matters of faith and morals. The Church teaches that the Pope is infallible in his teaching copassity. To deny this is to deny the authority that Christ gave to the Church.

And again, you can have a houndred concils say so but it will never be infallible and always open to appeal to Rome.

Give me a day and I will find it for you and post it. A pretty clear court system was set up in the council, appeal to the Patriarch and final appeal to Rome.

If is in the section on the Creed, defined as a matter of faith and morals that the Holy Spirit (in greek) originates from the Father Through the Son. The matter of how to correctly translate that is not a matter of faith and morals but the translation that has been used all the way up to the present day, and even at the seventh ecumenical council was “Filioque”. Two other ecumenical councils have also defined definatley the Church’s opinion on this, that “Filioque” means “my means of the Son” (the Latin way to say through the Son. In Latin, orginating “through” something does not make any sense but by means of something does. This is why in Latin we do not, and have never, used the verb originate int he Creed at this point, we have always prefered the verb Proceed instead.

Which information?

Do we have more information than the holy fathers who actually lived at the time and reviewed Honorius’ letter to Sergius?

We still have the information about him, I dare say more so now, that was avaliable at the council.

They did not actually NAME him as a heretic. Check the cannons.

And the fact remains that the Councils in question did not in fact NAME Honorius as a heretic, and even if it did, it would not be an Infallible teaching of the Council.

Besides that, even if honorius was a heretic (and the Pope can in fact be a heretic we must all remember) that does not make Papal Primacy or Church infallibility wrong and does not support continued schism from the successor of St. Peter who is in Rome today, nor would it have even justified going into schism with Rome at the time of Honorius or any other heretic Pope. Council after council have denounced schism as a matter of Faith and Morals by the way. I will pull these cannons for you in due time.

The council never said Honorius “embraced” heresy. You are putting too much onto them and going farther then they did. You really want to say “well since old honorius was a heretic that must mean that all popes are heretics so I am really in the right to not be Catholic” but you are way off base. Attacking Honorius is not really an attack on the Church or the Papacy. It is just " I want to do anything to stay in schism."

I will get this for you and post it in the Greek if I can.

and we see your true intention come out, you want to call all Latins heretics and are willing to make up whatever nonsense you can to justify whatever morbid hatred for us that you hold. Vatican I was infallible on matters of Faith and Morals because the Church says so. There is a very important council for the Eastern Orthodox that is sometimes called the 5th-6th council that is held to be infallible by Eastern Orthodox but when we truely understand what a council is, we see that it is not infallible at at all since it does not decide any issue of faith and morals but instead only Prex and made several cannons that go against actual Infallible councils. So if you want to attack the councils and call them into question, I would begin with this one.

Sigh. Is there a Latin phrase for “This man does not represent us”?

 

[Alethiaphile]

I agree, he was at least speaking as the Bishop of Rome. The question is whether he was exercising “his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority” and defining “a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church.”
(snip)
This is the fallacy of false alternatives: He did not speak as a private person and he did not speak to the diocese of Rome; therefore, he was speaking as the universal pastor of the entire Church. Here is a third alternative. He was speaking as Bishop of Rome to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Letters between the Bishop of Rome to other Patriarchs were commonplace during the time of Honorius. That does not make them infallible pronouncements, even if the discussions pertain to faith and morals.

First off, I want to eliminate the possibility that you are saying that the letter was, in effect, a “private” letter, which is what you seem to saying. Dom John Chapman in his article on Honorius for the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, who doesn’t consider the letter ex cathedra, nvertheless dismisses the idea that it is merely private correspondence:

The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical.

So it was an official letter, written in Honorius’ capacity as pope. I hope we can all agree on at least that.
Now I say that I believe Honorius took a doctrinal postion because states in his letter that Christ had “one Will”. From Phillip Hughes, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils (available in full online), p. 138: “From this [a correct statement about the way the Divine Saviour works divine acts and human acts] the pope passes to the statement that in our Lord is one will. This, he says, is what we believe…” Sounds like taking a doctrinal position to me. Now Hughes, a Catholic historian, goes on to say that the pope misunderstood the dispute, and really wasn’t talking about the same thing Sergius was in saying that Christ had one will, and I accept that. But I don’t believe the pope’s subjective misunderstanding is relevant here.
Hughes continues: “The pope ends by a warning that the new controversy will revive the old, and the contending parties will be taken to be either Eutychians or Nestorians, and the faith of the ordinary simple people be disturbed. Let Sergius follow the pope’s example and impose silence about these matters…” [My emphasis]

You may disagree, but that reads to me as if Honorius, in his concern for the Universla Church, is instructing Sergius to “impose” an official policy of silence on the Univeral Church. In what capacity could Honorius do that except as Universal Pastor? And isn’t imposing silence on a doctrinal topic a “binding” of the Church?

As to the effect, Dom Chapman writes: “The result of the pope’s letter was the so-called heresy of Monothelitism, which up to this point can scarcely be said to have existed, except as an opinion under discussion”. [Quoted by Hughes, p. 139]
This is contrary to what Mardkm wrote in his post. The policy given here by Honorius, at Sergius’ urging, became the official decree, the “Ecthesis” of the Byzantine Emperor Herclius, which states “we confess there is but a single will”. It was for failure to subscribe to that decree that the opponents of Monothelitism, including St. Maximos, were persecuted.
So, to me, it seems like Honorius intended to bind the Church on a doctrinal issue, and did.
Now I agree that Honorius was without malicious intent, and was not the instigator of the heresy or the policy enforcing it, and that is why the Sixth Ecumenical Council, while condemning him for heresy, treats him somewhat differently, stating that he “confirmed” the heresy, and “gave way” to Sergius. Honorius was not a heresiarch. But clearly the Council felt that he had failed in a duty to stop a heresy, and, by a public act (his letter) furthered it. Joe

 

[Peter_J]

Alethiaphile,

Thank you for an excellent post. There are a couple of things I’d like to say in response to it.

So, to me, it seems like Honorius intended to bind the Church on a doctrinal issue, and did.

It appears so. But even when a pope binds the Church, he is not making an ex cathedra statement unless he actually defines a dogma. (As LittleOne1 pointed out, JPII said that all Catholics need to believe that the priesthood is restricted to men, but even this wasn’t an ex cathedra statement because he wasn’t defining it dogmatically.)

Also consider what Cardinal Newman says:

1. This rule is so strictly to be observed that, though dogmatic statements are found from time to time in a Pope’s Apostolic Letters, &c., yet they are not accounted to be exercises of his infallibility if they are said only obiter —by the way, and without direct intention to define. A striking instance of this sine qua non condition is afforded by Nicholas I., who, in a letter to the Bulgarians, spoke as if baptism were valid, when administered simply in our Lord’s Name, without distinct mention of the Three Persons; but he is not teaching and speaking ex cathedrâ , because no question on this matter was in any sense the occasion of his writing. The question asked of him was concerning the minister of baptism—viz., whether a Jew or Pagan could validly baptize; in answering in the affirmative, he added obiter , as a private doctor, says Bellarmine, “that the baptism was valid, whether administered in the name of the three Persons or in the name of Christ only.” ( De Rom. Pont ., iv. 12.)

 

[tdgesq]

First off, I want to eliminate the possibility that you are saying that the letter was, in effect, a “private” letter, which is what you seem to saying. Dom John Chapman in his article on Honorius for the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, who doesn’t consider the letter ex cathedra, nvertheless dismisses the idea that it is merely private correspondence:

I don’t really know as we don’t have the letter to examine. You might as well quote Bishop Hefele who at one point opined that it was an ex cathedra pronouncement. My problem with Hefele is that I have read his statement on that and he provides virtually no analysis.

The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical.

So it was an official letter, written in Honorius’ capacity as pope. I hope we can all agree on at least that.

Accepting Chapman’s statement at face value, what you would have is a letter to a Patriarch dealing with an issue of faith for which the Patriarch has solicited an opinion. It would not be a “private” letter in the sense that it would be expected to be circulated by Sergius. Modern encyclicals are generally addressed to the entire body of bishops. I can accept that it was expected the letter to Sergius would be circulated.

As for it being written in his capacity as pope rather than his theological opinion as bishop of Rome, Chapman appears to disagree:

It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing.
. . .
As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance.

Here is how Popes speak when they are exercising authority that binds the entire Church:

We therefore interdict in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and forbid by the authority of the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles, in whose stead we preside over this Roman Church, that any bishop or secular person hereafter presume in any way to devise occasions of interfering with regard to the revenues, property, or writings of monasteries, or of the cells or vills thereto appertaining, or have recourse to any tricks or exactions: but, if any case should by chance arise as to land disputed between their churches and any monasteries, and it cannot be arranged amicably, let it be terminated without intentional delay before selected abbots and other fathers who fear God, sworn upon the most holy Gospels.
. . .
We ordain, then, that this paper by us written be kept to for all future time, in force and unadulterated, by all bishops; that both they may be content with the rights of their own churches and no more, and that the monasteries be subject to no ecclesiastical conditions, or compelled services, or obedience of any kind to secular authorities (saving only canonical jurisdiction ), but, freed from all vexations and annoyances, may accomplish their divine work with the utmost devotion of heart. newadvent.org/fathers/360202041.htm

Here is Pope Gregory I exercising authority over the entire Church as the Roman Pontiff in a letter to a local bishopric. Gregory was Pope well before Honorius.

What Chapman is trying to tell you is that regardless of the letter’s known circulation, it was not an exercise of “his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority” and defining “a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church.”

Whether he’s right or wrong I cannot tell you because we don’t have the letter. I’m having a hard time believing it hasn’t been preserved in any form.

 

[Madaglan]

This thread is interesting, and from what I have read so far, Mardukm has presented some very convincing research and evidence. If this article hasn’t been presented yet, I’ll add it in.

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

I read the article, and also significant portions of Pope Agatho’s letter to the emperor.

Some observations on Pope Agatho’s letter:

1. Pope Agatho claims that his predecessors have always preached the truth.
2. When Pope Agatho claims “woe is me if I fail to preach the truth,” he adds that his predecessors have preached the truth, thereby, it would seem, suggesting that all his predecessors have preached the truth.
3. Pope Agatho nowhere names Pope Honorius in his letter.
4. When Pope Agatho writes of his predecessors warning the bishops of Constantinople to, at least by silence, desist, he is writing in the plural (more than one bishop of Rome). At least, this is the case with the English translation.
5. Pope Agatho identifies the “corruptors [of the truth]” as “suppressors of the truth by silence.”

From his letter, it appears that Pope Agatho nowhere attributes error or failure to any of his predecessors. He writes that his predecessors have preached the truth. He writes also that those who suppress the truth by silence are corruptors [of the truth]. It seems to me that those guilty of “silence,” those who are the suppressors of truth by silence, are not the bishops of Rome but the bishops of Constantinople. Although, it is odd that the bishops of Rome would urge, at the very least, silence. I can’t read the original language, so I admit a degree of ignorance here.

Let me quote the relevant section of the council:

Whence also blessed Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, gives warning and says: But though we, or an angel from the heaven should preach to you any other Gospel from what we have evangelized to you, let him be anathema. Since, therefore, such an extremity of punishment overhangs the corruptors, or suppressors of truth by silence, would not any one flee from an attempt at curtailing the truth of the Lord’s faith? Wherefore the predecessors of Apostolic memory of my littleness, learned in the doctrine of the Lord, ever since the prelates of the Church of Constantinople have been trying to introduce into the immaculate Church of Christ an heretical innovation, have never ceased to exhort and warn them with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma, lest from this they make the beginning of a split in the unity of the Church, by asserting one will, and one operation of the two natures in the one Jesus Christ our Lord: a thing which the Arians and the Apollinarists, the Eutychians, the Timotheans, the Acephali, the Theodosians and the Gaianitæ taught, and every heretical madness, whether of those who confound, or of those who divide the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ.

source: newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

 

[Madaglan]

Some additional thoughts. The article claims (as do many rational posters here) that Pope Honorius was orthodox, and that he was only condemned for confirming Sergius’ view of “keeping silent.”

Pope Agatho nowhere explicitly mentions Honorius in his letter to the emperor. Overall, it appears, based on my reading, that Pope Agatho sees his predecessors as ardent preachers of the truth against the false lies of bishops of Constantinople who have been teaching monothelitism.

What I find interesting is the language of the Council in reflection and response to Pope Agatho’s letter:

The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God

This is quite odd. Pope Agatho in his letter exalts the orthodoxy of his see, claiming that his predecessors have always preached the Apostolic truth.

Yet here, the Council determines that the documents revealing doctrines taught by these men are “quite foreign” to the apostolic dogmas, and follow the false teachings of the heretics.

The word “doctrine” is important, because the word indicates these were the teachings of the men, and not simply their private erroneous views.

The way it seems to me: the Council distinguishes between the bishops of Constantinople and Honorius, bishop of Rome, not because Honorius was any less a heretic or less culpable, but because Pope Agatho, in his letter, only mentions the bishops of Constantinople (and not Honorius) as perpetrating this heresy. The Council accepts Pope Agatho’s suggestions, but additionally, after reviewing Honorius’ letter to Sergius, finds Honorius likewise guilty of the heresy. To me, it appears that the Council accepts Pope Agatho’s suggestions, but also goes beyond those suggestions, even going so far as to contradict Pope Agatho’s implicit claim that all his predecessors have been orthodox. .

 

[Madaglan]

What Chapman is trying to tell you is that regardless of the letter’s known circulation, it was not an exercise of “his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority” and defining “a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church.”

Whether he’s right or wrong I cannot tell you because we don’t have the letter. I’m having a hard time believing it hasn’t been preserved in any form.

I agree with you on the difficulties of not having the letter itself.

Although he may not have defined any doctrine for all Christians to hold, the Council mentions that the doctrines of Honorius, as found in his letter to Sergius, are quite opposed to the true teaching of the Church.

 

[Madaglan]

This is not from the Third Council of Constantinople, but rather from the Second Council of Nicaea, held 787:

We have also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematised their own evil will.

source: newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm

I’d like to know the significations of the Greek verb translated here as “held.”

 

[tdgesq]

This is not from the Third Council of Constantinople, but rather from the Second Council of Nicaea, held 787:

source: newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm

No, it isn’t a conciliar document. It is a letter from the council to the emperor. If that is what you are looking for though, go take a peek at Constantinople IV where Honorius is anathematized.

 

[Madaglan]

No, it isn’t a conciliar document. It is a letter from the council to the emperor. If that is what you are looking for though, go take a peek at Constantinople IV where Honorius is anathematized.

Conciliar means of or pertaining to a council. The document was sent by the council to the emperor and empress at the end of the council. It is a conciliar document.