Did Pope Honorius teach monothelitism publicly?

[Ignatius]

Here are some facts to consider:

1. Around 634, Pope Honorius gave the Patriarch Sergius the fated letter ordering the Patriarch to be silent on the matter of using the language of “one operation” or “two operations.”
2. At the time of Pope Honorius’ death in 638, the monothelite controversy was in full bloom.
3. The Sixth Ecumenical Council began in 680. That’s about 46 years folks!
4. At the first Session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council - called specifically to address the issue of monothelitism - the list of names of hierarchs - (both living and dead) and from all parts of the empire - to be judged were given. The list DID NOT INCLUDE POPE HONORIUS; equally of note is that the list DID NOT INCLUDE A SINGLE HIERARCH FROM THE LATIN CHURCH.
5. At this first Session, the monothelites responded by appealing, among other things, to the letter of Pope Honorius to Patriarch Sergius.
6. At the judgment of the Council in the 13th Session, the name of Pope Honorius is mentioned among the list.

With these facts in mind, what do you conclude?

DID OR DID NOT POPE HONORIUS PUBLICLY TEACH OR PUBLICLY ENJOIN THE CHURCH, EITHER LOCALLY OR UNIVERSALLY, TO BELIEVE IN MONOTHELITISM?

I thought the controversy was because they thought that he did not condemn it strongly enough!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I believe this question is something of a non-starter, given what appears to be the Roman belief that what Rome says is true as it is true because Rome says it. That sort of mind-scrambling reflexiveness means that even if someone were to produce something definitively proving that Honorius taught heresy in any way, or even if all the evidence currently available is sufficient to prove it, Rome will always find a way of excusing it based on some criteria or other, even if it has to make it up on the spot. In other words, it will ultimately affirm that while Honorius was considered a heretic by the Fathers, they clearly didn’t mean heresy the way we mean heresy, or they weren’t thinking of the issue the way we’re thinking of the issue, or any number of excuses to justify that politically desperate and ill-conceived pronouncement of Vatican I on infallibility in which the Roman Catholic Church effectually pinned the proof of the truth of its doctrine on a self-reflexive argument regarding the authority of one man’s office.

Ultimately, I agree with Jimmy (glossed by mardukm): that the pope was judged at all by a council proves that universal papal supremacy and jurisdictional authority is a later development and foreign to the early church.

Forgive me for being blunt, but this is how I see the issue, in a nutshell.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[gferrer]

Ultimately, I agree with Jimmy (glossed by mardukm): that the pope was judged at all by a council proves that universal papal supremacy and jurisdictional authority is a later development and foreign to the early church.

When Honorius was discussed by the council, he had been dead for forty years. Consequently, he no longer had any jurisdictional authority. So the above conclusion does not follow from the premises.

The real issue is that of infallibility, which only applies to definitions of doctrine. Honorius did not define a doctrine;it was his behavior rather than his teaching that led to trouble.

 

[SedesDomi]

It seems to me that whether Honorius taught monothelitism publicly or not, is immaterial, since – from an Orthodox perspective – Vatican One itself is proof of papal fallibility.

 

[marlo]

Its nice to be back. I believe pope honorius did not teach monothelitism publicly why? In my Opinion, because what he wrote (below) is absolutely Orthodox, but his mistake is using a heretical word. He acknowledge a heretical word and used it and apply it to an orthodox teaching, thus he did not teach Heresy Publicly, but he did not also suppress the Heresy, and in fact, when he acknowledged the Heretical word, the Heresy Grew. In which he was part of the Growth. therefore, Pope Honorius did not teach heresy, but rather an instrument of the Heresy. and that must be the reason why he was called a heretic.

“Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin.”

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Grace & Peace!

I believe this question is something of a non-starter, given what appears to be the Roman belief that what Rome says is true as it is true because Rome says it. That sort of mind-scrambling reflexiveness means that even if someone were to produce something definitively proving that Honorius taught heresy in any way, or even if all the evidence currently available is sufficient to prove it, Rome will always find a way of excusing it based on some criteria or other, even if it has to make it up on the spot. In other words, it will ultimately affirm that while Honorius was considered a heretic by the Fathers, they clearly didn’t mean heresy the way we mean heresy, or they weren’t thinking of the issue the way we’re thinking of the issue, or any number of excuses to justify that politically desperate and ill-conceived pronouncement of Vatican I on infallibility in which the Roman Catholic Church effectually pinned the proof of the truth of its doctrine on a self-reflexive argument regarding the authority of one man’s office.

Forgive for insolence for saying this, but there is hardly any grace in this argument. Faith is open to reason and reason shows that a simplistic understanding of the matter has gaps and lapses.

The same argument would aptly apply to the some people in the Orthodox churches who reject the claims of the Catholic Church simply on the ground that they cannot accept it and then come up with tons of excuses to make it look like they are defending “tradition”.

Ultimately, I agree with Jimmy (glossed by mardukm): that the pope was judged at all by a council proves that universal papal supremacy and jurisdictional authority is a later development and foreign to the early church.

If Vatican I claimed that the Pope cannot and has never been judged by anyone on any matter, then yes, Jimmy would be right. But the Catholic Church only asserts that the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, teaches infallabily and such teachings are irreformable by virtue of the Divine gurantee. He may make bad decisions on other matters (and often does as history shows), and it would be in order to point that out so that others can learn from them.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Forgive for insolence for saying this, but there is hardly any grace in this argument.

If anyone was being insolent, it was me. Forgive me. I realize I was being impolitic, but I could think of no other way to express my frustration apart from bluntness.

Faith is open to reason and reason shows that a simplistic understanding of the matter has gaps and lapses.

I wish I could believe that this was the general understanding of Rome–but the rule of reason as a guide to faith seems to be applicable only on rare occasions, and only when it favors the Roman position. As an example, the Roman teaching against condom use as a tool in the fight against AIDS beggars reason.

The same argument would aptly apply to the some people in the Orthodox churches who reject the claims of the Catholic Church simply on the ground that they cannot accept it and then come up with tons of excuses to make it look like they are defending “tradition”.

Absolutely. Substitute “Protestant” for “Orthodox” and it still works. For the record, I have much respect for the Pope, the office and the man. I believe he is Patriarch of the West (though he doesn’t anymore) and I believe he is the successor of St. Peter and first among equals where his brother bishops are concerned (when Damasus I started calling his brother bishops “sons,” that should have been a clue that there was trouble afoot). I do not, however, believe in Universal Papal Supremacy, which notion (particularly as it is popularly understood and defended) is what keeps me from desiring to swim the Tiber.

If Vatican I claimed that the Pope cannot and has never been judged by anyone on any matter, then yes, Jimmy would be right. But the Catholic Church only asserts that the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, teaches infallabily and such teachings are irreformable by virtue of the Divine gurantee. He may make bad decisions on other matters (and often does as history shows), and it would be in order to point that out so that others can learn from them.

You’re right that Vatican I does not make the claims of the false decretals, but popes throughout history have. And that’s the trouble–inasmuch as the popes claim this authority by virtue of their office, Vatican I will support their claim.

For instance, when Innocent III writes, "Now just as the moon derives its light from the sun and is indeed lower than it in quantity and quality, in position and in power, so too the royal power derives the splendor of its dignity from the pontifical authority… " how is this substantially different from (or how does this contradict) the assertion of the false decretals that regarding the pope, “no mortal man may presume to reprehend him, forasmuch as he is judge of all and is judged of no one”? They seem to say the same thing to me, or if there is a difference it is that the assertion of the false decretal is just the natural consequence of Innocent’s declaration.

For me, the issue is not Vatican I in itself–properly understood, infallibility as the council defines it is not such a big deal. The issue is Vatican I in the context of the program of Papal Supremacy, in which context it represents the capstone to the entire enterprise by articulating as doctrine what should have remained widespread pious opinion or a de facto discipline. I’ll say it again, by articulating the doctrine of infallibility, Rome definitively pinned the proof of its doctrine on a self-reflexive argument. In so doing, it reasserted the idea of Papal Supremacy as effectively enshrined in the infallibility doctrine, necessitating a revisionist view of history from which Rome cannot now escape. If Honorius taught heresy, Rome could never admit it. Therefore, Honorius never taught heresy.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[SedesDomi]

For me, the issue is not Vatican I in itself–properly understood, infallibility as the council defines it is not such a big deal. The issue is Vatican I in the context of the program of Papal Supremacy…

However, the program of Papal Supremacy has not been infallibly defined (or has it?); thus, the program could be changed, altered, transformed, even modified back to pre-1054 levels.

 

[antgaria]

Peace,

Just my one cent on the issue… I have many other thoughts and opinions, but this one seems to be ignored by many debates on this issue.

Do people think that the fathers at the Vatican I Council had not heard of Pope Honorius nor read any indication of the trouble he had gotten himself into? I would think that the fathers of Vatican I were quite aware of that. Has anyone know of, or read any discussion in Vatican I about whether Honorius was a heretic?

The reason I ask, is that I think despite the fact of Honorius, I believe that the bishops believed what they were declaring to be valid… again despite. So I would dare say, can we say that Rome is not “always finding a way” to skirt the issue, but has maintained from Vatican I what was defined with the limitation that allow the infallibility to be true.

That is to say, things like public teaching, etc., that are seen by some as Rome trying to squirm out of a whole, are actually what were from the beginning intended? Meaning that the Vatican I fathers looked at Pope Honorius’s case, and determined that since he was not attempting to teach doctrine publicly and did not fall under the scope of infallibility.

I ask somewhat in a question manner because of my infamiliarity with the Vatican I documents, and so I appreciate any clarifications people can give.

In Him,
Anthony

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mark,

I believe this question is something of a non-starter, given what appears to be the Roman belief that what Rome says is true as it is true because Rome says it. That sort of mind-scrambling reflexiveness means that even if someone were to produce something definitively proving that Honorius taught heresy in any way, or even if all the evidence currently available is sufficient to prove it, Rome will always find a way of excusing it based on some criteria or other, even if it has to make it up on the spot. In other words, it will ultimately affirm that while Honorius was considered a heretic by the Fathers, they clearly didn’t mean heresy the way we mean heresy, or they weren’t thinking of the issue the way we’re thinking of the issue, or any number of excuses to justify that politically desperate and ill-conceived pronouncement of Vatican I on infallibility in which the Roman Catholic Church effectually pinned the proof of the truth of its doctrine on a self-reflexive argument regarding the authority of one man’s office.

Actually, as I stated earlier, the dogmatic definitions on papal infallibility was simply an application of the Church’s existing understanding of infallibility on its exercise by the Pope. There was no attempt to wriggle out of a tight situation. In fact, before the case of Honorius was even brought up at the Council, the basic form of the dogmatic declaration had already been laid out. So the dogma was not formed as a response to certain difficulties of the past - far from it. That infallibility (of a Church or Council) necessarily involves ONLY PUBLIC teaching was already in the mind’s eye of the Council Fathers. To repeat, the dogmatic definition on papal infallibility was simply an application of the Church’s existing understanding of infallibility on its exercise by the Pope.

Ultimately, I agree with Jimmy (glossed by mardukm): that the pope was judged at all by a council proves that universal papal supremacy and jurisdictional authority is a later development and foreign to the early church.

That the Pope cannot be judged PERIOD is not part of the dogmatic declarations of Vatican I. Where did you get that information?

Forgive me for being blunt, but this is how I see the issue, in a nutshell.

You’ve done nothing wrong. The kind of honesty you display is what keeps sincere dialogue going.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mark,

I wish I could believe that this was the general understanding of Rome–but the rule of reason as a guide to faith seems to be applicable only on rare occasions, and only when it favors the Roman position. As an example, the Roman teaching against condom use as a tool in the fight against AIDS beggars reason.

Since codoms are not 100% effective, using it would lull people into a false sense of security. Your “reason” breaks down when such a thing occurs, and it has many times. Thus, the only TRULY reasonable position is the Catholic Church’s, which teaches that abstinence and chastity are the only SURE methods of not contracting AIDS.

Absolutely. Substitute “Protestant” for “Orthodox” and it still works. For the record, I have much respect for the Pope, the office and the man. I believe he is Patriarch of the West (though he doesn’t anymore) and I believe he is the successor of St. Peter and first among equals where his brother bishops are concerned (when Damasus I started calling his brother bishops “sons,” that should have been a clue that there was trouble afoot).

Actually, the Fathers of some Ecumenical Councils addressed the Pope as “Father.” If you would like to pursue this topic, I would be happy to do so elsewhere (i.e., not in this thread)

I do not, however, believe in Universal Papal Supremacy, which notion (particularly as it is popularly understood and defended) is what keeps me from desiring to swim the Tiber.

It is obvious you are an intelligent person. I would love to discuss this topic with you some time. Every person so far with whom I have discussed this topic invariably has had a false understanding of papal supremacy. But this thread is not the place for it. If you would like to start another thread, explaining your understanding of papal supremacy as the first post, I would be happy to engage you in an intelligent conversation. However, such a topic would probably be best broached in the Apologetics Forum instead of here.

You’re right that Vatican I does not make the claims of the false decretals, but popes throughout history have. And that’s the trouble–inasmuch as the popes claim this authority by virtue of their office, Vatican I will support their claim.

The problem with your viewpoint is that much of the contents of the False Decretals were actually true and real statements gathered from early Church Fathers. Whatever later claims the Popes had based on the False Decretals were mostly based on actual patristic texts. Just about the only thing objectionable that Popes of the late Middle Ages utilized from the False Decretals were forged statements about the power of the papacy over the secular State. In effect, the objectionable portions of the False Decretals do not even touch upon the actual ecclesiastical concerns between the Orthodox and the Catholics.

For instance, when Innocent III writes, "Now just as the moon derives its light from the sun and is indeed lower than it in quantity and quality, in position and in power, so too the royal power derives the splendor of its dignity from the pontifical authority… " how is this substantially different from (or how does this contradict) the assertion of the false decretals that regarding the pope, “no mortal man may presume to reprehend him, forasmuch as he is judge of all and is judged of no one”? They seem to say the same thing to me, or if there is a difference it is that the assertion of the false decretal is just the natural consequence of Innocent’s declaration.

As noted, don’t confuse the excessive papal claims over the secular State in the late Middle Ages, on the one hand, with the legitimate claims of the papacy to be “teacher of the whole world,” a principle that has the most solid basis in the patristic Church.

If Honorius taught heresy, Rome could never admit it. Therefore, Honorius never taught heresy.

Actually, the more solid Catholic argument does not deny that Honorius taught heresy (though I personally believe he did not). Rather, it is the understanding that he did not teach PUBLICLY on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SedesDomi,

However, the program of Papal Supremacy has not been infallibly defined (or has it?); thus, the program could be changed, altered, transformed, even modified back to pre-1054 levels.

Yes, Vatican I did indeed define Papal primacy/supremacy. Though the way non-Catholic polemicists describe it, you’d think they never read the documents, and certainly not the many explanations of its contents from the Council Fathers themselves.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Anthony,

Just my one cent on the issue… I have many other thoughts and opinions, but this one seems to be ignored by many debates on this issue.

Do people think that the fathers at the Vatican I Council had not heard of Pope Honorius nor read any indication of the trouble he had gotten himself into? I would think that the fathers of Vatican I were quite aware of that. Has anyone know of, or read any discussion in Vatican I about whether Honorius was a heretic?

The reason I ask, is that I think despite the fact of Honorius, I believe that the bishops believed what they were declaring to be valid… again despite. So I would dare say, can we say that Rome is not “always finding a way” to skirt the issue, but has maintained from Vatican I what was defined with the limitation that allow the infallibility to be true.

That is to say, things like public teaching, etc., that are seen by some as Rome trying to squirm out of a whole, are actually what were from the beginning intended? Meaning that the Vatican I fathers looked at Pope Honorius’s case, and determined that since he was not attempting to teach doctrine publicly and did not fall under the scope of infallibility.

I ask somewhat in a question manner because of my infamiliarity with the Vatican I documents, and so I appreciate any clarifications people can give.

Yes, Vatican I discussed the issue of Pope Honorius. It was brought up by the Minority Party at Vatican I AFTER the definition already had its basic form. All that was left to consider was whether or not the case of Pope Honorius would invalidate the definition.

FACT: the Fathers did NOT change the definition to fit the circumstance of Pope Honorius. After much lively discussion, it was asserted that the case of Pope Honorius (because he did not teach publicly nor to the Church at large) did not affect the definition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by mardukm:

Actually, as I stated earlier, the dogmatic definitions on papal infallibility was simply an application of the Church’s existing understanding of infallibility on its exercise by the Pope. There was no attempt to wriggle out of a tight situation. In fact, before the case of Honorius was even brought up at the Council, the basic form of the dogmatic declaration had already been laid out. So the dogma was not formed as a response to certain difficulties of the past - far from it. That infallibility (of a Church or Council) necessarily involves ONLY PUBLIC teaching was already in the mind’s eye of the Council Fathers. To repeat, the dogmatic definition on papal infallibility was simply an application of the Church’s existing understanding of infallibility on its exercise by the Pope.

What are your views of the Keenan Catechism as published before 1870 which denies papal infallibility, even going so far as to call it a “Protestant invention”?

 

[steve_b]

Grace & Peace!

I believe this question is something of a non-starter, given what appears to be the Roman belief that what Rome says is true as it is true because Rome says it. That sort of mind-scrambling reflexiveness means that even if someone were to produce something definitively proving that Honorius taught heresy in any way, or even if all the evidence currently available is sufficient to prove it, Rome will always find a way of excusing it based on some criteria or other, even if it has to make it up on the spot. In other words, it will ultimately affirm that while Honorius was considered a heretic by the Fathers, they clearly didn’t mean heresy the way we mean heresy, or they weren’t thinking of the issue the way we’re thinking of the issue, or any number of excuses to justify that politically desperate and ill-conceived pronouncement of Vatican I on infallibility in which the Roman Catholic Church effectually pinned the proof of the truth of its doctrine on a self-reflexive argument regarding the authority of one man’s office.

Ultimately, I agree with Jimmy (glossed by mardukm): that the pope was judged at all by a council proves that universal papal supremacy and jurisdictional authority is a later development and foreign to the early church.

Forgive me for being blunt, but this is how I see the issue, in a nutshell.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Here is the conclusion to this article. Please read the entire article.

:
all emphasis mine

However, opponents of papal infallibility in the case of Honorius are wanting for such diligence.

Honorius

• explicitly said “we must not define” the disputed expressions; yet Mr. White and Mr. Webster conclude he did so.
• Honorius expressly agreed to a rule of silence to quiet both sides in a dispute over “idle questions”; yet Mr. White and Mr. Webster conclude he issued a rule of faith that all should profess.
• Honorius clearly spoke of a human will in Christ; yet Mr. White and Mr. Webster conclude that Honorius, like the monothelites, denied any human will in Christ.
• Constantinople III excluded Honorius from the category of those considered “minded contrary” to the orthodox faith; yet Mr. White and Mr. Webster conclude the council included him in this category.
• Pope John IV defended the orthodoxy of Honorius when a monothelite patriarch appealed to Honorius’s letters; yet Mr. White concludes no pope “uttered a word.”

from catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp

For further reading Re the 5th bullet point above:

• Pope John IV defense of Honorius in context newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm newadvent.org/cathen/08422b.htm
  When it comes to will & operation of Jesus, Jesus said it best of himself

Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

 

[steve_b]

What are your views of the Keenan Catechism as published before 1870 which denies papal infallibility, even going so far as to call it a “Protestant invention”?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3714167&postcount=497

 

[Madaglan]

steve b,

concerning the second to last bullet:

In the XIII session of III Constantinople:

Honorius is anathematized and expelled from the Church of God on the basis of the Council determining that Honorius, in his letter to Sergius, confirms the impious doctrines of the latter.

 

[steve_b]

I wish I could believe that this was the general understanding of Rome–but the rule of reason as a guide to faith seems to be applicable only on rare occasions, and only when it favors the Roman position. As an example, the Roman teaching against condom use as a tool in the fight against AIDS beggars reason.

AIDS so far is incurrable and deadly. Therefore, if one is TRULY concerned with reason & faith, and fighting AIDS, one won’t try and figure out ways to use “tools” to purposefully engage in behavior that is known to transmit AIDS,

 

[steve_b]

steve b,

concerning the second to last bullet:

In the XIII session of III Constantinople:

Honorius is anathematized and expelled from the Church of God on the basis of the Council determining that Honorius, in his letter to Sergius, confirms the impious doctrines of the latter.

That was explained in the article.

 

[Madaglan]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3714167&postcount=497

The Keenan Catechism before Vatican I declares that the decisions of the Pope are not obliging unless received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, the bishops.

Vatican I declares that the *ex cathedra *statements of the Pope, in themselves, do not need confirmation of the Church and are irrerformable, that is, final.

The 1896 edition has the following:

Q. *But some Catholics before the      Vatican Council denied the Infallibility of the Pope, which was also      formerly impugned in this very Catechism: (Controversial Catechism*,      Edition Edinburgh, 1846, p. 117).
A. Yes; but they did so under the usual reservation—"in so      far as they then could grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her      future definitions"—thus *implicitly* accepting the dogma; had they      been prepared to maintain their own opinion contumaciously in such case they      would have been Catholics only in name.

aloha.net/~mikesch/claims.htm