Did Pope Honorius teach monothelitism publicly?

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joe

and said that a particular teaching, that Christ had two wills, should not be taught. Unfortunately, what he said should not be taught was the orthodox doctrine.
I have no doubt that:

1. Honorius intended by his letter to stop the doctrine that Christ had two wills from being taught in the Church;

Actually, he did not teach that the doctrine of two wills should not be taught. Rather, he simply instructed Patriarch Sergius not to embroil himself in a controversy over the matter of two wills or one will. That is FAAAAAR from saying what you claim Pope Honorius to have said. BTW, on what basis have you formed your opinion? In any case, whatever way you want to interpret Honorius’ handling of the situation, you simply cannot deny that, if he actually intended to stop the doctrine of two wills, then he also intended to stop the doctrine of one will, for he commanded silence on both terminologies (if commanding silence is interpreted by you as an attempt to defy the doctrine). Please be consistent.

The fact is, the issue of one will -two wills was still rather fresh. There was certainly no explicit consensus on it at the time.

1. That Honorius sent his letter in virtue of his position as Bishop of Rome, and therefore Head, as he saw it, of the Church; and

True enough. But whether he intended to deny the doctrine of two wills and intend for that denial to be the public teaching of the Church - well, that is another issue altogether.

1. That the letter had, for a time, exactly the intended effect, resulting indirectly in the persecution of those such as St. Maximos who stood firm on the orthodox doctrine.

Actually, the effect was exactly the opposite of what Pope Honorius intended. Pope Honorius in fact DID NOT WANT any controversy on the fresh issue. Please give further explanation as to what you think Pope Honorius actually “intended?”

Interesting how you bring St. Maximos name into the conversation, for he actually defended Pope Honorius’ memory against the monothelite heretics appealing to Honorius as being on their side! In any case, please desist from accusing Pope Honorius of things that he never did nor intended.

Anyone care to dispute any of the above?

Yes!!! See above.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Brother Madaglan,

I will respond to your thoughtful posts later. I suspect I won’t be back online for another two or three days.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

For me, this thread mostly just underscores the fact that many people sorely need to read the actual statements from Vatican I.

Vatican I never said that the Pope cannot publicly teach heresy, but only that he exercises infallibility whenever he defines a dogma. (Or, to be even more precise, whenever he makes an ex cathedra statement; but that basically boils down to whenever he defines a dogma. It definitely does not mean whenever he teaches something publicly.)

I could go on, but I think I’ve been in enough discussion of Papal Infallibility lately (see here for example).

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Joe

Actually, he did not teach that the doctrine of two wills should not be taught. Rather, he simply instructed Patriarch Sergius not to embroil himself in a controversy over the matter of two wills or one will. That is FAAAAAR from saying what you claim Pope Honorius to have said. BTW, on what basis have you formed your opinion? In any case, whatever way you want to interpret Honorius’ handling of the situation, you simply cannot deny that, if he actually intended to stop the doctrine of two wills, then he also intended to stop the doctrine of one will, for he commanded silence on both terminologies (if commanding silence is interpreted by you as an attempt to defy the doctrine). Please be consistent.

The fact is, the issue of one will -two wills was still rather fresh. There was certainly no explicit consensus on it at the time.

True enough. But whether he intended to deny the doctrine of two wills and intend for that denial to be the public teaching of the Church - well, that is another issue altogether.

Actually, the effect was exactly the opposite of what Pope Honorius intended. Pope Honorius in fact DID NOT WANT any controversy on the fresh issue. Please give further explanation as to what you think Pope Honorius actually “intended?”

Interesting how you bring St. Maximos name into the conversation, for he actually defended Pope Honorius’ memory against the monothelite heretics appealing to Honorius as being on their side! In any case, please desist from accusing Pope Honorius of things that he never did nor intended.

Yes!!! See above.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m finding that Pope Honorius directed not only one letter but two letters to Sergius. This seems odd, since the translation of the Council I’m using mentions only one letter written in response to Sergius’ letters. In any case, the source I’m reading goes on to say that, in his first letter, Pope Honorius taught that Christ has one-will. In the second letter, Pope Honorius denies that Christ has two energies and affirms that Christ has only one energy. According to the footnote, this latter point is taken from the Catholic scholar Hefele. Catholilc Encyclopedia (newadvent) also mentions a second letter from Honorius to Sergius that was read at the 8th Ecumenical Council (according to Catholic reckoning), but goes on to describe the points of the letter differently.

There is much discussion about what Honorius wrote and intended, but so far as I can tell, there is no extant copy of his letter(s) to Sergius, which, so far as I can tell, were burned.

See: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xi.viii.html

 

[Madaglan]

St. Maximos the Confessor’s Letter to Marinus:

monachos.net/library/Maximus_the_Confessor,Letter_to_Marinus-_on_the_Filioque

The letter, written in 641, many years before Constantinople III, defends Honorius against his accusers in Constantinople and elsewhere.

 

[tdgesq]

For me, this thread mostly just underscores the fact that many people sorely need to read the actual statements from Vatican I.

Vatican I never said that the Pope cannot publicly teach heresy, but only that he exercises infallibility whenever he defines a dogma. (Or, to be even more precise, whenever he makes an ex cathedra statement; but that basically boils down to whenever he defines a dogma. It definitely does not mean whenever he teaches something publicly.)

I fully agree. The issue begins and ends with whether the statement meets the infallibility criterion.

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

* when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
      o that is, when,
           1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
           2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
           3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, 
* he possesses,
      o by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, 
* that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
* Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. [piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#papal%20infallibility%20defined](http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#papal%20infallibility%20defined)

Sorry to come in on this thread so late. It seems to me that it all depends what you mean by “publicly”. Did Honorius go up on the balcony of the (old) Vatican and announce his teaching to the world? No. Did he issue a Bull or an encyclical? No. The point is, popes didn’t do those things at that time. When they wanted something to be decided and taught, they issued orders and letters, either to councils or to other prelates. Which is exactly what Honorius did.

I agree that the form of the papal bull and apostolic letter had not been developed. The term “encyclical” is actually far more ancient, but even today most statements in an encyclical would not meet the infallibility criterion.

I disagree with your characterization of what we know of Honorius’ letter to Sergius as an ex cathedra statement. Here is what we have so far, provided by you earlier:

The critical phrase in Honorius’ letter sent in reply is:
“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.”

I can’t vouch for their translation. Joe

Can you demonstrate how that qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

I’m finding that Pope Honorius directed not only one letter but two letters to Sergius. This seems odd, since the translation of the Council I’m using mentions only one letter written in response to Sergius’ letters. In any case, the source I’m reading goes on to say that, in his first letter, Pope Honorius taught that Christ has one-will. In the second letter, Pope Honorius denies that Christ has two energies and affirms that Christ has only one energy. According to the footnote, this latter point is taken from the Catholic scholar Hefele. Catholilc Encyclopedia (newadvent) also mentions a second letter from Honorius to Sergius that was read at the 8th Ecumenical Council (according to Catholic reckoning), but goes on to describe the points of the letter differently.

There is much discussion about what Honorius wrote and intended, but so far as I can tell, there is no extant copy of his letter(s) to Sergius, which, so far as I can tell, were burned.

See: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xi.viii.html

I just wanted to drop a note to let you know how much I appreciate your research into the matter. Hefele was one of the prominent Fathers of the Vatican Council, and, IIRC, his research on the case of Honorius was the one presented to the Council for consideration. I will have to look up my old notes/sources on Vatican I to see the specifics of the discussions on the matter.

I look forward to resuming our conversation in a few days.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by tdgesq:

I fully agree. The issue begins and ends with whether the statement meets the infallibility criterion.
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

* when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
      o that is, when,
           1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
           2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
           3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, 
* he possesses,
      o by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, 
* that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
* Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.[piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#papal%20infallibility%20defined](http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#papal%20infallibility%20defined)

I agree that the form of the papal bull and apostolic letter had not been developed. The term “encyclical” is actually far more ancient, but even today most statements in an encyclical would not meet the infallibility criterion.

I disagree with your characterization of what we know of Honorius’ letter to Sergius as an ex cathedra statement. Here is what we have so far, provided by you earlier:

Can you demonstrate how that qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement?

I do not believe Alephiaphile claimed anywhere that Honorius made an ex cathedra statement, but that he publically taught heresy. But I could be wrong.

 

[Peter_J]

I disagree with your characterization of what we know of Honorius’ letter to Sergius as an ex cathedra statement.

I do not believe Alephiaphile claimed anywhere that Honorius made an ex cathedra statement, but that he publically taught heresy. But I could be wrong.

I believe Madaglan is correct; but I don’t want to go back and read this thread again to see who said what (reading it once was plenty).

To me, the important point is that if Pope Honorius publicly taught heresy (and I’m trying to stay out of that argument), that does not in any way contradict Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I.

God bless you all,
Peter.

 

[tdgesq]

I do not believe Alephiaphile claimed anywhere that Honorius made an ex cathedra statement, but that he publically taught heresy. But I could be wrong.

I went back and looked at the statement, and in fairness to the poster, he did not go so far as to say that the statement by Honorius was made ex cathedra. I inferred that from his statement.

If that claim isn’t being made, then I have no further comment on the matter.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Can you demonstrate how that qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement?

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

1. Was Honorius speaking as a private person? Of course not.
2. Was Honorius speaking strictly to the diocese of Rome? Clearly not, since the letter is addressed to the Patriarch of Constantinople.
   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. Joe

 

[Alethiaphile]

To me, the important point is that if Pope Honorius publicly taught heresy (and I’m trying to stay out of that argument), that does not in any way contradict Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I.

If the charism of papal infallibility is so narrowly restricted that it does not prevent a pope from publicly teaching heresy, then what good is it? Seriously, would Christ have solemnly conferred such a marginal charism? How does it prevent “the gates of hell” from prevailing against His Church, as the reasoning behind the doctrine of infallibility goes?

I’ll give my blunt opinion: the doctrine of papal infallibility was largely proclaimed for its own sake, with little thought to how it might actually be used. The point was to defeat the last vestiges of conciliarism and Gallicanism, and restore the papacy’s prestige after the loss of the papal states. Pius IX wanted the power, and he and his allied bishops pressured the Council into granting it, although they were forced to compromise somewhat.
Now, almost 140 years later, still no one is certain what is an ex cathedra pronouncement and what isn’t. Which, to me, would seem to detract from the uselfulness of it. Joe

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Now, almost 140 years later, still no one is certain what is an ex cathedra pronouncement and what isn’t. Which, to me, would seem to detract from the uselfulness of it.

Funny, Alethiaphile, I think Catholic theologians were quite clear which instances of doctrine definition invoked the divinely-given charism of papal infallability. Perhaps you were confused, but no matter. What is not clear is what constituted infallabily defined doctrine by the ordinary universal Magisterium defined by Vatican II.

But I think Alethiaphile in his earlier post might have highlighted a difference in understanding between Catholics and Orthodox. The Orthodox might consider that whenever the Pope addresses other Bishops, he is speaking definitively and hence infallabily, This would explain part of their suspicion of the authority of the Popes: that somehow it would so easily encroach on the duty of the local Bishop to teach. Of course, the Catholic Church doesn’t make this claim for the Pope, and so some Orthodox are naturally confused. To us Catholics, the definition of papal infallability at Vatican I and II are clear, useful and meaningful and captures what is in Tradition since the time of the Apostles, but because the Orthodox approach the matter from a different perspective a priori, they have difficulty embracing this element of truth.

In any case, Pope Honorious only encouraged the bad policy of forbidding the usage of both heretical and orthodox terms. To base on that one letter and say that he taught heresy is a little ambitious. It would be akin to saying that the Orthodox position of preferring to leave undefined any doctrines to be evidence that the Orthodox Churches are teaching heresy simply for refusing to define.

 

[steve_b]

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

1. Was Honorius speaking as a private person? Of course not.
2. Was Honorius speaking strictly to the diocese of Rome? Clearly not, since the letter is addressed to the Patriarch of Constantinople.
   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. Joe

what about the agreement Sergius and Honorius had to silence on the matter? Sergius didn’t remain silent, but does that sound like an intent by Honorius to bind the Church? Nope!!!

 

[Peter_J]

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

1. Was Honorius speaking as a private person? Of course not.
2. Was Honorius speaking strictly to the diocese of Rome? Clearly not, since the letter is addressed to the Patriarch of Constantinople.
   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. Joe

Alethiaphile,

I agree with you that: 1. Honorius was not speaking as a private person and 2. Honorius was not speaking strictly to the diocese of Rome (since the letter is addressed to the Patriarch of Constantinople).

I do not agree with you that it follows from 1. and 2. that Honorius must have been speaking as the “Universal Pastor” – if that’s your reasoning, then you are considerably more ultra-montantist than most Catholics that I know.

(You should read what Cardinal Newman has to say on Pope Honorius, which can be found here.)

But even if Pope Honorius was speaking as the “Universal Pastor”, it still would not be an ex cathedra statement unless he was dogmatically defining something.

 

[Peter_J]

If the charism of papal infallibility is so narrowly restricted that it does not prevent a pope from publicly teaching heresy, then what good is it? Seriously, would Christ have solemnly conferred such a marginal charism? How does it prevent “the gates of hell” from prevailing against His Church, as the reasoning behind the doctrine of infallibility goes?

Are you, an Orthodox Christian, actually disappointed that Vatican I didn’t define a stronger form of Papal Infallibility?
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_3_1v.gif

(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

 

[Madaglan]

Funny, Alethiaphile, I think Catholic theologians were quite clear which instances of doctrine definition invoked the divinely-given charism of papal infallability. Perhaps you were confused, but no matter. What is not clear is what constituted infallabily defined doctrine by the ordinary universal Magisterium defined by Vatican II.

But I think Alethiaphile in his earlier post might have highlighted a difference in understanding between Catholics and Orthodox. The Orthodox might consider that whenever the Pope addresses other Bishops, he is speaking definitively and hence infallabily, This would explain part of their suspicion of the authority of the Popes: that somehow it would so easily encroach on the duty of the local Bishop to teach. Of course, the Catholic Church doesn’t make this claim for the Pope, and so some Orthodox are naturally confused. To us Catholics, the definition of papal infallability at Vatican I and II are clear, useful and meaningful and captures what is in Tradition since the time of the Apostles, but because the Orthodox approach the matter from a different perspective a priori, they have difficulty embracing this element of truth.

** In any case, Pope Honorious only encouraged the bad policy of forbidding the usage of both heretical and orthodox terms. To base on that one letter and say that he taught heresy is a little ambitious. It would be akin to saying that the Orthodox position of preferring to leave undefined any doctrines to be evidence that the Orthodox Churches are teaching heresy simply for refusing to define.**

The ordinary magisterium is generally seen as infallible. No Latin Catholic (except, perhaps, those crazy SSPX ) would ever challenge a teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

Again, I don’t know where you are getting this idea that Honorius only failed in that he forbade the usage of both heretical and orthodox terms. An important thing to note (unless I am proven wrong) is that WE DO NOT HAVE EXTANT COPIES OF HIS LETTERS TO SERGIUS. They were burned according to what I have read.

This means that, if one sees Honorius as innocent, one must use secondary evidence, especially from before that Council which condemned him, and then, after doing so, impugn the judgments of the many holy bishops who in union with one another determined that Honorius, in his letter, followed, and in all ways, the heresy of Sergius.

An ecumenical council, guided by the Holy Spirit, judged that Honorius, in all ways, followed the impious doctrines of Sergius. This Council is accepted by both Catholic and Orthodox as an ecumenical council of the Church.

 

[Madaglan]

Alethiaphile,

I agree with you that: 1. Honorius was not speaking as a private person and 2. Honorius was not speaking strictly to the diocese of Rome (since the letter is addressed to the Patriarch of Constantinople).

I do not agree with you that it follows from 1. and 2. that Honorius must have been speaking as the “Universal Pastor” – if that’s your reasoning, then you are considerably more ultra-montantist than most Catholics that I know.

(You should read what Cardinal Newman has to say on Pope Honorius, which can be found here.)

But even if Pope Honorius was speaking as the “Universal Pastor”, it still would not be an ex cathedra statement unless he was dogmatically defining something.

It’s interesting the question that Newman sets up: did Honorius teach heresy as an infallible authority *or *as a private bishop?

Newman does not leave room for the possibility that a bishop of Rome can publically teach heresy as more than a private bishop and yet not be exercising “papal infallibility.”

Again, there is an ordinary magisterium that, while not seen as having the defined infallibility of an ex cathedra statement, still has the character of infallibility.

 

[excaliber]

This is confusing.
I just want to know if The Roman Catholic Church has ever taught anything incorect.
How can that be hard…they did or did not???

 

[Alethiaphile]

Are you, an Orthodox Christian, actually disappointed that Vatican I didn’t define a stronger form of Papal Infallibility?
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_3_1v.gif
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

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?