Did Pope Honorius teach monothelitism publicly?

[Madaglan]

Well, I’m going to get going. It was good discussing Honorius.

One thing with which I’ll conclude: in theory, even if all the Roman Popes since Apostolic times were shown to be heretics and to even have publically taught heresy, this would not itself discredit papal infallibility, which is very specific and does not comprehend all public teaching of the Pope.

Of course, as I’ve read elsewhere, if a Pope were ever to become a heretic, he would cease to be Pope. So, if this is true, there really is no such thing as a heretical Pope, only a heretic formerly known as Pope.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

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.

That is one possible way of interpreting what the Council said, but there is an alternative which I have mentioned in an earlier posting, and which I will state briefly. The Council proceedings have clarified their condemnation of Pope Honorious with statements such as “[Pope Honorious] followed [Sergius’s] view and confirmed his impious doctrines”, and “[Pope Honorius] followed them in all things”. These phrases could be understood that the Council did not understand Pope Honorious to have actually taught heresy, but that he was an accessory to their crime. Secondary evidence that the Monophysite heresy did not rock the Church in Rome, nor did those illuminaries who came after Pope Honorius but before the Council make similar condemnations of Pope Honorius. The alternative becomes more plausible IMHO.

Of course, this whole discussion is quite funny since in the light of ecumenical dialogues, theologians have come to understand that the so-called Monophysite heresy had little substance beside semantics. So perhaps Pope Honorius was really right and the hot-headedness and passion that followed led to an unnecessary schism in the Church. Perhaps on very late hindsight, the condemnation of the Council is more embarassing than the tepid behaviour of the Pope. Of course, only God really knows!

 

[tdgesq]

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.

It is not part of the decrees of the council. None of the first seven anathematize Honorius. I think it’s a little bit disingenuous of you to pass that off as a conciliar decree.

 

[Mickey]

None of the first seven anathematize Honorius.

**The Sixteenth Session of the Third Council of **Constantinople

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

 

[Gofer]

Copy-paste is awesome!

 

[bpbasilphx]

Fr. Charles Connor on THE GREAT HERESIES on EWTN said he did, but not infallibly.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

**The Sixteenth Session of the Third Council of **Constantinople

**”**To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!****”

Thank you for keeping Catholic apologists honest. I side with Dom Chapman myself, who wrote the 1917 CE article on Honorius. There can be no denying the condemnation of Honorius. But in what way he was regarded a heretic is the issue - did he publicly teach heresy, or was he a heretic in some other fashion?.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Permit me to add for everyone’s consideration Apostolic Canon 58, which imposes on bishops who are “merely” NEGLIGENT in their duty to their flock the same punishment for bishops who fall into actual heresy - namely, deposition.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother bpbasilphx,

Fr. Charles Connor on THE GREAT HERESIES on EWTN said he did, but not infallibly.

Do you have a link? I suspect - as I have heard that position before - that the claim is a derivative proposition, not an actual proposition. In other words, the Pope can be supposed to have taught publicly by virtue of the fact that the Patriarch approached him AS the Pope, which is inherently a public office. However, this is not the same as stating that the Pope actually taught it publicly - as in proclaim from the ambo or lectern or pulpit to the entire Church that monothelitism was the faith of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Fr. Charles Connor on THE GREAT HERESIES on EWTN said he did, but not infallibly.

Perhaps Fr. Connor made an infallible statement without even realizing it.

 

[tdgesq]

Dear brother Mickey,

Thank you for keeping Catholic apologists honest. I side with Dom Chapman myself, who wrote the 1917 CE article on Honorius. There can be no denying the condemnation of Honorius. But in what way he was regarded a heretic is the issue - did he publicly teach heresy, or was he a heretic in some other fashion?.

Blessings,
Marduk

It isn’t quite as clear cut as that. There is no denying that there was a recorded session at Constantinople III where the Fathers declared him a heretic and pronounced the words of anathema. The question is whether that was a decree of the entire council.

The text from which Mickey cites comes ultimately from Schaff’s works, which is contained verbatim on the New Advent website without any of Schaff’s commentary. As I mentioned previously to another poster, Schaff also includes a letter to the emperor from the council. It does not constitute a conciliar decree either.

If you look at Tanner’s collection of conciliar decrees, he does not include the session cited by Mickey. Why?:

The doctrinal conclusions of the council were defined in the 17th session and promulgated in the 18th and last session on 16 September 681. The acts of the council, signed both by 174 fathers and finally by the emperor himself, were sent to Pope Leo II, who had succeeded Agatho, and he, when he had approved them, ordered them to be translated into Latin and to be signed by all the bishops of the west. Constantine IV, however, promulgated the decrees of the council in all parts of the empire by imperial edict. The council did not debate church discipline and did not establish any disciplinary cannons. piar.hu/councils/ecum06.htm

Whether only the 17th & 18th sessions were signed by the council or whether Tanner determined anything prior to that is not doctrinal in nature, I can’t say. That is the source though from which I made my argument that the council did not decree Honorius anathema.

The same is true of Nicaea II. If you look at Tanner’s collection, there is no decree of anathema of Honorius signed by the fathers. piar.hu/councils/ecum07.htm

As I mentioned previously, Constantinople IV ironically does anathematize Honorius, although it is not accepted as an ecumenical council by the Orthodox. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church did eventually anathematize him.

 

[JJR1453]

Permit me to add for everyone’s consideration Apostolic Canon 58, which imposes on bishops who are “merely” NEGLIGENT in their duty to their flock the same punishment for bishops who fall into actual heresy - namely, deposition.

Blessings

Hello mardukm,

If I am not mistaken, the Roman church never accepted all 85 Apostolic canon’s. They only recognize 50 to be “orthodox rules of antiquity”.

As Schaff makes note:

“The seventh oecumenical Council (787) readopted the 102 canons, and erroneously ascribed them to the sixth oecumenical Council.The Roman church never committed herself to these canons except as far as they agreed with ancient Latin usage” (Schaff, Hist. Chur. Vol. IV Ch. XI Sec. 114)

The 85 Apostolic canon’s were included in the 102 canon’s quoted above.

However, your point is well made. Seeing as how the Easterns were in abundance at the council, this canon certainly lays claim to historical significance.

God bless

JJR

 

[Mickey]

the Catholic Church did eventually anathematize him.

Yes.

**SESSION XVI. **
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1010.)

[The Acclamations of the Fathers.]

Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches!O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!
Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch! Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate!
To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! **To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! **To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul the heretic, anathema!
To Peter the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema! May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!

 

[tdgesq]

Yes.

In terms of decrees of a council, here actually:

So, we anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs Apollinarius, Eutyches and Severus and proclaimed that the flesh of God, while being animated by a rational and intellectual soul, was without a principle of action and without a will, they themselves being impaired in their senses and truly without reason. piar.hu/councils/ecum08.htm

As I stated before you ever posted on the matter: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3875296&postcount=99

 

[Mickey]

As I stated before you ever posted on the matter:

It is quite obvious that he was declared and continously confirmed as a heretic.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So, we anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen

Constantinople IV anathematized Peter and Paul?

 

[mardukm]

Constantinople IV anathematized Peter and Paul?

That just goes to show you how wrong they were to anathemize Pope Honorius!!!

What I find funny also is the way some non-Catholics quote the anathemas of the Sixth Council on persons like they were some sort of dogmatic decrees! I think that is an EO peculiarity. The OO know that anathemas against persons are not irreformible, though anathemas on doctrines are.

Blessings,
Marduk