Honorius and infallibility

[GrzeszDeL]

In order to appease the obvious desire for a tuss-up over Honorius and the alledged counter-evidence against Papal infallibility which his story provides, I give you Ronald Knox’s letter to Arnold Lunn:
To the best of his human wisdom, [Honorius] thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine… Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!"

Honorius did not teach monothelitism; he simply did not admonish Sergius for teaching monothelitism. Even then, however, his letter to Sergius was not any sort of solemn ex cathedra pronouncement, and as such, it is irrelevant to the subject of Papal infallibility.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GrzeszDeL:

Honorius did not teach monothelitism; he simply did not admonish Sergius for teaching monothelitism. Even then, however, his letter to Sergius was not any sort of solemn ex cathedra pronouncement, and as such, it is irrelevant to the subject of Papal infallibility.

Honorius’ case is very relevant. Why? Because subsequent Popes exercised* their* infalliblity to condemn their predecessor as a heretic.

You will have to argue against Pope Agatho and Pope Saint Leo II that their infallibility is irrelevant. They both ratified the decrees of the 6th Ecumenical Council which anathematized Honorius as a heretic.

Were both these Popes lacking in infallilibity when they ratified the Council Fathers’ condemnation of Honorius?

Grz, can you know more than both these Popes? They lived at the time of Honorius. They were in a position to judge him a heretic.

1. His condemnation is found in the Acts of the 13th Session of the 6th Ecumenical Council.
2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same Session.
3. In the 17th session of the 6th Ecumenical Council, the Council Fathers proclaimed:

“Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.”

1. In the decree of faith published at the17thSession it is stated that “the originator of all evil the Devil… found a fit tool for his will in … Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.”
2. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that “Honorius,
   formerly bishop of Rome” they had “punished with exclusion and
   anathema” because he followed the monothelites.
3. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it “has slain Honorius with an anathema”
4. The imperial decree speaks of the “unholy priests who
   infected the Church and falsely governed” and mentions among them
   “Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who
   contradicted himself.”

The Emperor goes on to anathematize “Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.”

1. Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.(1)
2. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is
   mentioned in the Trullan Canons (No. I).
3. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the
   anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts
   the same is said.
4. Honorius’s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)
5. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus(2) taken by
   each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh century, in the form
   probably prescribed by Gregory II:

“smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, together with Honorius because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.”

1. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod.

With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and that the Popes after him used their infallibility to uphold the decision against him.

 

[Thepeug]

I’d be interested to hear other thoughts on this subject. I think Fr. Ambrose has a good point. Anyone?

God bless,

Chris

 

[PhilVaz]

Fr. Ambrose << With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council >>

The two defenses for this I’ve heard in the past are (1) Honorius was condemned for helping heretics or “fostering heresy”, or (2) Honorius was condemned as privately teaching heresy, since these were private letters to another Bishop, not something taught to the whole Catholic Church as infallible (De Fide) doctrine (or ex cathedra).

Most Catholic apologists take the first response – Madrid’s book Pope Fiction, Keating in Cath and Fund, and the articles by Steve OReilly in This Rock. Others take the second response, like the John Chapman article on Honorius who also has a whole book on this subject, and the debate I heard with Bob Sungenis vs. James White (Oct 2000 in Clearwater, FL) on this issue.

Trying to demonstrate that the Honorius condemnation of the sixth century violates the nuanced definition of papal infallibility of the 19th, is a little anachronistic. Either (1) or (2) will do to respond to the alleged violation. If Honorius was really a heretic, he was condemned for being one privately, or perhaps the language can show he didn’t really teach Monothelitism and was therefore condemned for fostering or helping the heresy along rather than stamping it out.

Phil P

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

PhilVaz:

The two defenses for this I’ve heard in the past are (1) Honorius was condemned for helping heretics or “fostering heresy”, or (2) Honorius was condemned as privately teaching heresy, since these were private letters to another Bishop, not something taught to the whole Catholic Church as infallible (De Fide) doctrine (or ex cathedra).

Dear Phil,

I suppose you know that I am Orthodox and not Roman Catholic?

What interests me is not that Honorius was a heretic (I accept that as a fact because an Ecumenical Council anathematized him as such) - but my interest is in the exercise of infallibility of two subsequent Popes, Agatho and Saint Leo II, who ratified the Council Fathers’ decree against Honorius.

I have not researched it but I think that is the only instance where Popes have acknowledged that one of them was a heretic?

 

[Ghosty]

Fr. Ambrose: I’m not sure I’m catching your point. Yes, later Popes condemned him as a heretic. The question of why they did so is frankly irrelevant to the issue of Papal Infallibility. By accusing a Pope of private heresy, the later Popes invoked their own Infallibility without remotely damaging the principle of Infallibility. The only example of Infallible teaching in the whole case is by the later Church on the pronouncement of Anathema.

It’s an interesting case to be sure, and it’s the only time I know of where a Pope was declared Anathema, but it doesn’t touch on the subject of Infallibility at all. I guess I’m trying to figure out why this case is of such interest beyond the purely academic and historical recording of declarations of Anathema.

 

[Aris]

It must be remembered that the reason Honorius is brought up is the question of infallibility.

Therefore Father, you must set out to prove the following:

1. That Honorius taught heresy
2. That Honorius spoke infallibly for that heresy
3. That #2 satisfies all conditions of speaking ex-cathedra

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

It must be remembered that the reason Honorius is brought up is the question of infallibility.

Therefore Father, you must set out to prove the following:

1. That Honorius taught heresy
2. That Honorius spoke infallibly for that heresy
3. That #2 satisfies all conditions of speaking ex-cathedra

1. He was condemned as a heretic by an Ecumenical Council… “…to Honorius the heretic, anathema…” This clinches it, unless one wants to argue that an Ecumenical Council may err, in which case the burden of proof is on the person who opposes the Council. (Are Catholics not obliged to give intellectual consent to the Ecumenical Councils?)
2. Neither Honorius nor the two Popes who condemned him believed in their own infallibility, either broadly or in the restricted circumstances developed by Pope Pius IX in 1869 (Vatican I). The burden of proof lies on you if you believe otherwise.
3. A non sequitur. See No. 2.

 

[hlgomez]

Fr. A,

The question is “Did Honorius taught false doctrines speaking ex-cathedra?” Try to nail down your point.

Pio

 

[oat_soda]

this subject has been beaten to death. why not talk about early church fathers view of the primacy of the pope, both pros and cons.

this has a link about the honorius issue and refutes the protestant and orthodox arguments

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

 

[Vincent]

Fr Ambrose:

1. Neither Honorius nor the two Popes who condemned him believed in their own infallibility, either broadly or in the restricted circumstances developed by Pope Pius IX in 1869 (Vatican I). The burden of proof lies on you if you believe otherwise.

Do you mean to say that the Catholic position is that the Pope must believe he is infallible for papal infallibility (as defined in 1870) to be exercised?

 

[PhilVaz]

Fr. Ambrose << Dear Phil, I suppose you know that I am Orthodox and not Roman Catholic? >>

Yes I figured that or Anglican/Episcopal.

From your original list:

Fr. Ambrose << 7. The imperial decree speaks of the “unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed” and mentions among them “Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.” The Emperor goes on to anathematize “Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.” >>

ALSO

Fr. Ambrose << 12. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus(2) taken by each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II: “smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, together with Honorius because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.” >>

Honorius “confirmed” the heresy, he “strengthened” the heresy, and/or he “assisted” the heretics. I.E. which could mean he simply “fostered” or helped the heresy along. But he himself was not a monothelite. That’s one reading of these. The other reading is that Honorius was indeed a monothelite, and was condemned for such, but since his letter was private, he was privately a heretic. He didn’t teach this heresy as solemn ex cathedra publicly to the whole Church, but in private letters to another Bishop. So neither option violates the Vatican I definition, since there are careful criteria layed out in the definition for when a statement is ex cathedra.

Phil P

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

hlgomez:

Fr. A,

The question is “Did Honorius taught false doctrines speaking ex-cathedra?” Try to nail down your point.

Pio

The question is without sense. It is anachronistic.

The faux doctrine of papal infallibility and ex cathedra declarations was not defined until the late 19th century.

Honorius had no idea of infallibility for himself or any other Popes. He would not have recognised an ex cathedra statement if he had fallen over one.

 

[Melchior]

If Honorius had made an ex cathedra statement or ratified or approved an Ecumenical Counsel in favor of Monothelitism then there would be an issue. As I understand Popes can and do commit error. But if a Pope makes an official pronouncement of something pertaining to faith or morals in a manner binding on the whole church then it is the official teaching of the church. Since Honorius never did this, even if he ex cathedra was not a developed doctrine in his day, then there is not a very strong argument here against the Catholic Church as far as I can see.

One Protestants perspective.

Mel

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Fr Ambrose:

The question is without sense. It is anachronistic.

The faux doctrine of papal infallibility and ex cathedra declarations was not defined until the late 19th century.

Honorius had no idea of infallibility for himself or any other Popes. He would not have recognised an ex cathedra statement if he had fallen over one.

No, he didn’t have the terminology, but he had the authority to bind all the faithful to a teaching.

Scott

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Melchior:

If Honorius had made an ex cathedra statement or ratified or approved an Ecumenical Counsel in favor of Monothelitism then there would be an issue. As I understand Popes can and do commit error. But if a Pope makes an official pronouncement of something pertaining to faith or morals in a manner binding on the whole church then it is the official teaching of the church. Since Honorius never did this, even if he ex cathedra was not a developed doctrine in his day, then there is not a very strong argument here against the Catholic Church as far as I can see.

One Protestants perspective.

Mel

It’s an interesting perspective. Because of the particular circumstances created at Vatican I for the exercise of papal infallibility, the Vicar of Christ may, in theory at least, be a heretic.

This cannot happen in any other Church. If, for example, the Russian patriarch were to advocate a heresy such as Monothelitism and wrote letters to other Monothelites encouraging them (which is what Honorius did with the monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius) the Russian patriarch would be deposed very quickly by the Synod of the Russian Church.

If the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church expressed seriously heretical doctrine he too would eventually be removed from office.

The Roman Catholic Church is unique in Christendom in that its leader may be heretical but remain in office.

 

[Melchior]

Fr Ambrose:

It’s an interesting perspective. Because of the particular circumstances created at Vatican I for the exercise of papal infallibility, the Vicar of Christ may, in theory at least, be a heretic.

This cannot happen in any other Church. If, for example, the Russian patriarch were to advocate a heresy such as Monothelitism and wrote letters to other Monothelites encouraging them (which is what Honorius did with the monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius) the Russian patriarch would be deposed very quickly by the Synod of the Russian Church.

If the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church expressed seriously heretical doctrine he too would eventually be removed from office.

The Roman Catholic Church is unique in Christendom in that its leader may be heretical but remain in office.

Good point, Father. But I wonder if that would happen today or if it was unique to the particular time. After all, most Bishops East and West at one point in Church history were Arians. Athanasius was in the minority. But I can see how that is different.

On the other hand Cyril Lucaris remained Patriarch of Constantinople for sometime as a Calvinist. He was removed and put back in office several times until his murder. Then the Synod of Jerusalem did something similar to the later Popes you mentioned, though more directed to Calvinism that to Lucaris himself.

Either way it is interesting. Your point does make sense, especially when we are talking about what the hierarchy will tolerate. I wonder what would happen if the next Pope did something similar. Would the Bishops have the courage (or orthodoxy for that matter) to depose him? I hope we never know.

Mel

 

[Vincent]

Fr Ambrose:

Honorius had no idea of infallibility for himself or any other Popes. He would not have recognised an ex cathedra statement if he had fallen over one.

What makes you think that the Roman Pontiff has to know what infallibility is (and the 1870 definition, no less) before he can pronounce an infallible act?

 

[mark_a]

Vincent:

What makes you think that the Roman Pontiff has to know what infallibility is (and the 1870 definition, no less) before he can pronounce an infallible act?

Is infallibility less about the Pope and more about what we as Catholics are to do in matters of faith and morals?

 

[Vincent]

mark a:

Is infallibility less about the Pope and more about what we as Catholics are to do in matters of faith and morals?

I would think that Catholics are, at the very minimum, to provide the religious submission of will and intellect to matters of faith and morals “presented as true or at least as sure”, even if they don’t come with the mark of infallibility.