Honorius the Heretic

[Mickey]

I am planning to use brother Mickey’s post from the Papal Problems thread on Honorius as a springboard for discussion.

Hey brother!

Better yet. How about this?

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

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

It is a no-brainer. This is all one needs to read. The council speaks for itself. There does not need to be any twisting of meanings or context or explanations or Latin Catholic apologetics.
The man was a heretic–plain and simple.
So start with this brother mardukm.

 

[SiempreFiel]

Hey brother!

Better yet. How about this?

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

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

It is a no-brainer. This is all one needs to read. The council speaks for itself. There does not need to be any twisting of meanings or context or explanations or Latin Catholic apologetics.
The man was a heretic–plain and simple.
So start with this brother mardukm.

Hello brother in Jesus Christ,

Are you sure that Pope Honorius’ case disproves papal infallibility?

 

[Mickey]

Hello brother in Jesus Christ,

Are you sure that Pope Honorius’ case disproves papal infallibility?

I do not believe I ever argued from that position. I do believe he was a heretic, but my reading of early Church history does not reveal a charism of papal supreme infallibility as we see today and as defined by the 1870 doctrine.

I just like to debate sometimes.
And it seems that there are those who deny that he is a heretic.
So I will debate it.

 

[SiempreFiel]

I do not believe I ever argued from that position.

It’s good to know that you don’t use Pope Honorius’ case as proof against papal infallibility. All this time I was under the impression that you did.

I do believe he was a heretic, but my reading of early Church history does not reveal a charism of papal supreme infallibility as we see today and as defined by the 1870 doctrine.

I agree that Pope Honorius was a heretic. Yet, like you, I don’t believe it disproves papal infallibility.

Do you believe there is a proof against papal infallibility?

 

[East_and_West]

Its true. Honorius may have in fact been a heretic. And if so, it is quite amazing that the charism of infallibility granted to Church by God did not ever allow Pope Honorius to proclaim heresy as dogma for the entire Church. If anything, I think the case of Honorius is an amazing testament to gift of Papal infallibility. God will not even allow a heretical Pope to teach heresy to the Church!!! How cool is that? :extrahappy: :extrahappy: :extrahappy:

 

[Genesis315]

The relevant question is:

Did Honorius intend to definitively bind the entire Church to the heresy? And the answer is no.

What papal infallibility means is that if the Pope says we have to hold or believe something we can do so in faith.

 

[Genesis315]

It’s also debatable whether Honroius was actually a heretic himself, or whether he was just too concilliatory to them. It seems to me to be the latter.

 

[Allyson]

A segment of the summary of Abbe Guettee of the circumstances around the monothelite controversy and Pope Honorius.

This result encouraged the Monothelite bishops, who were also sustained by the Emperor Heraclius. Sophronius, a monk of Alexandria, had declared against his bishop, and had gone to Constantinople to confer upon the question with Sergius, whom he found in perfect agreement with Cyrus. Sophronius, in despair for this new errour, was returning when he was elected Bishop of Jerusalem. Sergius, believing that in his high position Sophronius would declare against him, and would seek the support of the West, wrote to Honorius, Bishop of Rome, setting forth his doctrine, and its good results in the East, particularly at Alexandria. Honorius replied with his famous letter, in which he also only recognizes one will and one operation in Jesus Christ; he censured those who were in favour of admitting two, and promised to remain in perfect harmony with Sergius, telling him, however, at the same time, that the Church should not be troubled by this new question, whether there were one or two wills or operations, and that such a war of words should be left to grammarians.

    Sophronius, ordained Bishop of Jerusalem, at once assembled his synod, and read before it the letter of communion, which, according to custom, he was to address to the other Patriarchs of the Church. He sent it to Sergius and also to Honorius. This letter was very explicit in regard to the two wills and two operations. Honorius, having, read it, told the messengers of Sophronius that, for the good of the Church, it was best not to agitate that question. The messengers agreed to this, and Honorius wrote to the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, making the same request.

Sophronius, who saw that the faith was in peril, wrote a paper, in which he proved from the Fathers that, according to the constant traditions of the Church, two wills and two operations should be recognized in Jesus Christ. He proved this to be the necessary consequence of the two natures. In despair of convincing Sergius and Cyrus, who had openly declared in favour of the contrary doctrine, he sent one of his suffragan bishops to Rome, hoping to overcome her hesitancy rather than to convert Constantinople or Alexandria. We are ignorant of the result of this embassy. Honorius died in 638, and was succeeded by Severinus, who in turn was succeeded soon after by John IV. It was during the brief pontificate of Severinus that the Emperor Heraclius published his Ἔκθεσις or Exposition, to give an official character to the Monothelite doctrine. This Ἔκθεσις was addressed to all the bishops, and was solemnly accepted by those of Alexandria and Constantinople. It is not known whether Severinus approved it or not. But after the death of Heraclius, John IV. condemned it in a Roman council. We perhaps owe that condemnation to the explanations of the envoy of Sophronius. Sergius had died before this decision of the Roman council. Pyrrhus, his successor, set up in opposition to the decision of John IV. the letter of Honorius, John’s predecessor. John attempted an apology; but the letters of Sergius and Honorius still exist; they prove that John’s defence was untenable; that Honorius had perfectly understood Sergius; that he had answered him, agreeing with the letter he had received from him; that both rejected in a general way the two distinct wills and operations. It was with justice, then, that Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the sixth œcumenical council, as we shall shortly see.

From the First Session of the council in the Decree’s can be found this discussion and judgement of Honorius.

“Having examined the pretended dogmatical letters of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus, and the replies of Honorius to Sergius, and finding them opposed to the doctrine of the Apostles, to the decrees of the councils, and to the sense of all the Fathers, but agreeable, on the contrary, to the false doctrines of the heretics, we entirely reject them, and detest them as calculated to corrupt souls. And while we reject their impious dogmas, we also think that their names should be banished from the Church—namely, of Sergius, formerly Bishop of this city of Constantinople, who first wrote upon this errour; of Cyrus of Alexandria; of Pyrrhus Paul, and Peter, Bishops of Constantinople; of Theodore, Bishop of Pharan; all of whom Pope Agatho mentions in his letter to the Emperor, and hath rejected. We pronounce anathema against them all. With them we think we should expel from the Church, and pronounce anathema against Honorius, formerly Bishop of Old Rome. We find in his letter to Sergius that he follows, in every respect, and authorizes his impious doctrine.” (Conc. Constant, sees xiii in Labbe’s Collection.)

AND:

In the sixteenth session, after the profession of faith of the Patriarch George of Constantinople, the council rung with declamations, and among others, with the following: “Anathema to Theodore of Pharan, to Sergius, to Cyrus! Anathema to Honorius the Heretic!” In the profession of faith of the council, read in the last session, Honorius is condemned with the other heretics; anathema is again pronounced against him as well as against the other Monothelites.

I got both from here.

I know some may find the source problematic, but I think that the overall scholarship is very keen. I provide it as one take on the controversy.

(con’t)

 

[Allyson]

(con’t from last post)

As for the questions of the original posting:

1. I don’t think that Honorius even thought of himself in terms of “teaching in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians.” It would then be anachronistic to use the case to prove infallibility. Really this question asks about authority and whether the Pope has Supreme Authority, now whether he is infallible in that capacity.
2. Yes it was a matter of faith, the council certainly thought so (see above). This doesn’t answer you original question directly because I don’t think he thought in terms of #1. However, it important to ascertain whether he was considered to be in violation of the Apostolic faith, which he was, so what actions he took does touch on faith and morals.
3. No, for the reasons stated in 1 above. I am sure he thought he was teaching and acting with the full Apostolic authority of the Episcopate, but again, not in any supreme sense.
4. I am not sure how you would determine that, at least from the evidence I know of. Again, this would only make sense if 1 were true.

Questions 3 and for really seem to be asking about the same thing as 1. If you add that 2 also hinges on one, than really you in essence have one question with four angles.

Since it is unlikely that he would have thought in the terms you have laid out you questions with, it would be anachronistic to discuss his actions in those terms. Something else must be identified.

I don’t think that because a Pope was condemned as a heretic is in itself an argument against infallibility. It seems far more common that the case of Honorius is used to show that the Early Church did not see the Bishopric at Rome as it is seen today.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Allyson]

It’s also debatable whether Honroius was actually a heretic himself, or whether he was just too concilliatory to them. It seems to me to be the latter.

It seems to me that in establishing communion with them and in saying that he agreed with them on the theology, he was doing a fair bit more than being conciliatory. To focus in on a portion of my quote above:

Honorius replied with his famous letter, in which he also only recognizes one will and one operation in Jesus Christ; he censured those who were in favour of admitting two, and promised to remain in perfect harmony with Sergius, telling him, however, at the same time, that the Church should not be troubled by this new question, whether there were one or two wills or operations, and that such a war of words should be left to grammarians.

My emphasis

God Bless,
R.

 

[Allyson]

Sorry for all the long posts, but I wanted to provide some primary and secondary texts for the discussion.

Rather than comment I will highlight the passage which caught my eye where Honorius is implicated in hetrerodoxy, and another indicating that Jerusalem was seen as teaching the orthodox faith.

From the EWTN Document Library:

THE SENTENCE AGAINST THE MONOTHELITES.

SESSION XIII.

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, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this
God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Truthstalker]

Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the church in his teaching capacity. He was cited as a heretic and a demonstration of the lack of papal infallibility in the church prior to 1870. The dogma was promulgated despite Honorius being a prime counterexample to the dogma. There was a minority of learned scholars at Vatican I such as Bishop Hefele who submitted to the doctrine and the Catholic Apologist Doellinger, who felt that he could not violate his own integrity in submitting, who opposed the promulgation of the doctrine as contrary to historical fact.

The Orthodox do point to Honorius as an example of a papal heretic. A pope could be a heretic again. If a heretical pope promulgated a heretical statement as an infallible pronouncement, Catholics would never know it. On Wednesday they would defend what they abhorred Tuesday.

The Orthodox aren’t the only ones who object to the doctrine of papal infallibility. It is interesting to see the Catholics dance around the issue in their efforts to disprove that Honorius shows the error of papal infallibility. Just see how much they stretch things to make sure he doesn’t poke holes in their doctrine.

He taught error in his official capacity. But he didn’t speak it ex cathedra. Straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

Catholics should be doing much better apologetically here.

 

[Truthstalker]

SiempreFiel;3343173If the answers to the above questions are sufficiently demonstrated to be all "yes":

This is a biased setup. He CLAIMED to be teaching all Christians, for one thing. He was teaching on faith and morals (how many wills does Christ have? He said one - a heretical statement). He implicitly was teaching heresy authoritatively, as determined by the Council and as condemned by the following Popes. He was not condemned as a private person but as the bishop of Rome, teaching heresy in his official capacity. Caught. Convicted. Condemned for all time officially as an official Church act, not just once but by numerous Popes.

What more do you want? If a Pope claimed Muhammad was right, and was condemned by a Council for saying it, and the following Popes all cursed him as well, it would be about the same. This is an extremely clear demonstration of the falsity of the doctrine of papal infallibility, and Catholics only avoid that clarity but attempt to dodge and weave and muddy the waters.
I would like to see Catholics clearly and honestly face the issue. Not split hairs. Not bob and weave.

 

[Genesis315]

A Pope being a heretic is really irrelevant to the doctrine of papal infallibility. St. Francis de Sales explains this here:

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/papacy/fds_pope14.html

 

[Gamera]

Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the church in his teaching capacity.

No. He was never even accused of having taught heresy, let alone of having taught heresy as a matter of required belief.

 

[SiempreFiel]

This is a biased setup. He CLAIMED to be teaching all Christians, for one thing. He was teaching on faith and morals (how many wills does Christ have? He said one - a heretical statement). He implicitly was teaching heresy authoritatively, as determined by the Council and as condemned by the following Popes. He was not condemned as a private person but as the bishop of Rome, teaching heresy in his official capacity. Caught. Convicted. Condemned for all time officially as an official Church act, not just once but by numerous Popes.

What more do you want? If a Pope claimed Muhammad was right, and was condemned by a Council for saying it, and the following Popes all cursed him as well, it would be about the same. This is an extremely clear demonstration of the falsity of the doctrine of papal infallibility, and Catholics only avoid that clarity but attempt to dodge and weave and muddy the waters.
I would like to see Catholics clearly and honestly face the issue. Not split hairs. Not bob and weave.

Dear friend,

Brother mardukm contended in POST #17 that:

1. 
   *]Pope Honorius was not teaching in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians.
   
   *]Pope Honorius was not teaching some doctrine of faith or morals. Admittedly, Pope Honorius did make a judgement on a matter of doctrinal faith.
   
   *]It is not sufficiently evident that Pope Honorius intended to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority. Admittedly, Pope Honorius did expect Sergius to submit to his judgement with “religious assent”.
   
   *]Pope Honorius did not demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching.
   
   In conclusion, brother mardukm contends that using the case of Pope Honorius as a proof against the doctrine of papal infallibility is irrelevant/insufficient.
   
   I encourage you to provide evidence against brother mardukm’s claims. In other words, I encourage you to respond to POST #17.
   
   Thank you for your valuable (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[Allyson]

Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the church in his teaching capacity. He was cited as a heretic and a demonstration of the lack of papal infallibility in the church prior to 1870. The dogma was promulgated despite Honorius being a prime counterexample to the dogma. There was a minority of learned scholars at Vatican I such as Bishop Hefele who submitted to the doctrine and the Catholic Apologist Doellinger, who felt that he could not violate his own integrity in submitting, who opposed the promulgation of the doctrine as contrary to historical fact.

If it’s good enough for the 19th Century, it’s good enough for me.

I think earlier I said I wasn’t sure if this case could be fairly used against infallibility, i.e. exclusively against that or in an anachronistic way. It seems that there is more to it than that. It strikes right at the issue of authority. The way it was determined that Honorius was i error was that his position was put on trial so to speak at an ecumenical council (that is a council involving more than one jurisdiction of the Church).

The point I was trying to make earlier was that the question of infallibility can not be applied in the way which the original poster would like - that is anachronistically.

Cheers:coffeeread: ,
R.

 

[Allyson]

No. He was never even accused of having taught heresy, let alone of having taught heresy as a matter of required belief.

I think we need to define ‘teach’ and ‘taught’ here? He very obviously was seen to have been holding a heretical position if you see my quotes from the council above. He shared that he held this position in writing, and the council Fathers considered this dangerous enough. He certainly was not acting infallibly by taking and professing the Monophysite position.

I would say that profession is a form of teaching. By professing what I believe, I also teach it to all who hear (or read) me.

 

[Allyson]

In conclusion, brother mardukm contends that using the case of Pope Honorius as a proof against the doctrine of papal infallibility is irrelevant/insufficient.

So since you seem to agree with Mardukm that it is irrelevant/insufficient, in which direction shall the question of infallibility be taken? After all you only picked one ‘classic case.’ is there another to be examined, and have now appeared to reject its use either way?

 

[SiempreFiel]

So since you seem to agree with Mardukm that it is irrelevant/insufficient, in which direction shall the question of infallibility be taken?

That would be up to the Orthodox and all those who don’t believe in papal infallibility. They have to come up with a proof against papal infallibility.

After all you only picked one ‘classic case.’ is there another to be examined, and have now appeared to reject its use either way?

I did not pick the case!

Many Orthodox insist on using Pope Honorius’ case as proof against papal infallibility. As such, I’ve given them the opportunity to prove to us that Honorius’ case refutes papal infallibility.

So far, the Orthodox have not been able to produce evidence that would support their point of view beacuse of two interrelated reasons: (1) the criteria for teaching infallibly was not met; (2) there’s an anachronistic problem.

Nevertheless, the result is the same; Pope Honorius’ case does not serve as proof against papal infallibility.