Honorius the Heretic

[East_and_West]

No need to buy. If it free of charge.

Blessings,
Marduk

Free Pizza? YAY!!! :extrahappy:

 

[SiempreFiel]

Free Pizza? YAY!!! :extrahappy:

I had three slices of Giordano’s pizza for breakfast today.

 

[mardukm]

I had three slices of Giordano’s pizza for breakfast today.

Don’t you Latins have rules against that during your Lent?

 

[ralphinal]

Don’t you Latins have rules against that during your Lent?

Nah, Rome is in Italy. Pizza doesn’t count.

 

[Mickey]

I already demonstrated that the dogma of infallibility is based on Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

Sorry brother. I do not see it.

Your difficulty rests in the anachronism of applying the modern restricted view of “heresy” to the case of Honorius, nothing more.

Heresy is heresy. Nothing more. Nothing less.

IF Honorius was a heretic in the modern sense of the word, then God will judge him.

Indeed–in any sense of the word.

This will be determined by cautious examination, not prejudicial bias which refuses all the evidence.

So your official position is that these letters from Honorius did not exist?

No need to buy. If it free of charge.

I do not accept tainted merchandise–even if it’s free!

 

[Mickey]

Wait a minute. I had not read ahead. We were talking about pizza! Nevermind! I’ll take the free pizza!!!

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_12_15.gif

 

[ralphinal]

Wait a minute. I had not read ahead. We were talking about pizza! Nevermind! I’ll take the free pizza!!!

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_12_15.gif

Typical EO. Too busy arguing about the Pope to eat the free Pizza.

 

[Mickey]

Typical EO. Too busy arguing about the Pope to eat the free Pizza.

Guilty as charged.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Allyson,

Your searching on the truth of the matter is inspiring. Please permit the following responses.

(con’t from last post)

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.

It doesn’t really matter whether or not he satisfied the conditions of the Vatican definition. Pretend for an instant that the Vatican definition did not exist. We must still deal with the criterion of Scripture and the Fathers - was the Pope teaching publicly, and did he teach anything that Honorius expected the rest of the Church to believe? The fact that he ordered silence on the matter for BOTH positions seems to dictate a negative reply to both questions.

1. 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.

The question of HOW Honorius violated the faith must still be considered. Was Honorius violating the Faith in the sense that he was publicly teaching against the Faith? Or did he violate the Faith simply by failing in his solemn duty to uphold it (i.e., keeping silent on the whole matter)…

1. 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.

The question of supremacy does not come into play at all. We just need to apply the existing criteria of Scripture and Tradition on what a bishop is expected to do…He was condemned for failing to perform his duty, not for actively and publicly teaching in opposition to the faith.

1. 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.

Again, the issue of supremacy does not need to come into play. Would you agree that, by ordering silence for either position, Pope Honorius was NOT even TEACHING ANYTHING to which the faithful would be required to give assent?

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.

What do you make of the quotes from St. Sophronius and the Synod of Cyprus that I gave? Keep in mind that those are only a few of the many, many quotes throughout the history of the unidivided Church of the first millenium to the same effect.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ASimpleSinner]

It’s not really an issue for us either, it’s not part of our tradition and never has been. Was there a dogma of papal infallibility in the pre-schism Church? If not it seems the burden of proof falls on you to prove to us that it was a legitimate addition. No?

Was their a dogma? Well, was their a precedent of heresy in the Roman Church?

(* From Dave Armstrong’s website, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:

For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

The Arian schisms (343-98);
The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415);
The Acacian schism (484-519);
Concerning Monothelitism (640-681);
Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43).

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.)

All things being equal, and Rome having always come down on the side of what was considered orthodox… working hard against the Catholic apologists explination of the Honorarius episode to insist - against all better explination - that Honorarius was a heretic would - if we conceded (I do not) - only serve to have ONE Pope in the first millenia who could even possibly be argued to have been in heresy…

That being the case, and all other things being equal, demanding that the worse case scenario - that Honorarius was in heresy - serves to put ONE POPE ALONE (against Catholic explinations) outside of orthodoxy in the first millenia… And the case for his heterodoxy, ain’t that strong.

This is telling.

 

[Allyson]

Part of this is sheer speculation.
Fact: The letter of Honorius to the Patriarchs is not extant, lost in antiquity.

Abbe Guettee makes suppositions based on more general facts of the whole episode. But it seems obvious he has to add this speculative portion, because he needs to justify his equally speculative statement that by virtue of this lost letter, “Sophronius saw that the faith was in peril”

But it certainly cannot be the case that the contents of the letter caused Sophronius concern that the faith was being imperiled. In fact, in a subsequent request to the bishop of Rome to make definitive judgment on the matter, he admits with high praises that the Apostolic See is the “foundation of the holy doctrines.”

IMHO, the contents of the Pope’s lost letter, which was also sent to the other Patriarchs, was a request to hold an ecumenical Council on the whole issue.

Abbe Guetee’s summary may indeed be considered factual. But he leaves out so much context that its main use is really only for polemical purposes.

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother Marduk,

Good to know that that letter is missing! It occurred to me later that I have another secondary source which deals briefly with the issue of Honorius (Posted below.) It shows that Guettee may also leave out the slight modification which Honorius and Sergius made from sinlge energy to single will. Although this doesn’t change much about the situation in which Sergius and Honorius took.

The second primary source I quoted came from the EWTN library, and I believe the quote comes from early on the the documents of the councils, and names Honorius. I will check on its temporal place.

I think that it is important to look at several sources to determine what is more historically accurate. Thank you for the additional comments on the text. I have also skimmed through your extended post, but intended to spend some more time on them.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Allyson]

Hello Everyone at the Thread!

Well, I have been at work ($$$) for a couple days, but in my spare time I have typed up some additional secondary source text from an author less incendiary – George Ostrogorsky, just to throw some more info into the mix. In the reflection time that I have had. I realized that I have made a serious omission; I have not explained whether I think that Honorius was a heretic because he was condemned by a council after his death.

I have always found it a little frustrating when people with disparage Origen as a heretic because he was condemned AFTER he is death. I have always distinguished between those who held heretical beliefs, but were never corrected by peers before death, and those who are heretics are those who, while their error has been pointed out to them, have not changed their teaching/belief. Honorius therefore was not a heretic in the stricter sense, but held a heretical belief, and made it known. Postmortem condemnations do have a purpose, to demonstrate the gravity of an error.

So why be a pseudo-provocateur on this thread:

I am not, nor ever have been a member of and Orthodox Church, and I am not aware of the arguments you (Sempre Fiel or anyone else) have heard before. I am interested in discussing the historical circumstance, which surround the issue, because you can not really base a proof on opinion. I am interested in exploring this issue, which is why I picked up on this thread. I have far to go in my own personal study. The direct question really is after all, not whether Honorius was a heretic, but what his role in the Monothelite controversy reveals about the character of the role of the Bishop of Rome was in the early Church? and so then his role today?

I provided quotes before in hopes of giving some meat for discussion. I choose the sources for convenience (i.e.), everyone can find them on the internet. However, it is true that you can attribute bias to one of them, Abbe Guettee, and probably justifiably so in several spots, and if you do not agree with him, he is doubly hard to read. I find however that he gives MANY primary text in large pieces (the textual veracity of which I am interested in determining, I have already found that the American editor (I think) has marked on in an unrelated section as a forgery - a small piece of text)], or in several cases, in their completion, and then gives his own analysis. I find the primary texts to be valuable, because I lack access to many. A problem of course is that they are in translation, so I welcome any pointers to where I can find other translations for comparison, or the original language.

In the interest of providing an alternative secondary source, I have taken the time to type out the following, which is not available full text online. If anyone wishes the authors citations, please PM me. This is from the work considered the foremost study of the Byzantine Empire. The author passes no judgment on the question at hand. It is rather a general yet comprehensive study of the political and religious history of the Byzantine people and culture.

I hope that you find these at least and interesting read of history, I promise no more long quotes on this thread.
HAPPY READING!!! [my note: indicates where I give a summary of previous information that makes a reference clear. it is not my opinion, but rather what I hope is an accurate representation of Ostrogorsky’s plot line.]

See next post! and God Bless.

 

[Allyson]

From George Ostrogorsky’s History of the Byzantine State, Revised Edition 1969; Rutgers Univeristy Press (Still in Print) I give the two paragraph’s (in full) in which Pope Honorius I is discussed.

These are long, but the represent a very small portion of the book. I hope that they do not violate the posting policies.

p. 107 The recovery of the Eastern provinces once more confronted the Empire with the problem of monophytism. The Patriarch Sergius had no delusions about the gravity of the situation and he made unceasing efforts to restore peace in the Church. He made use of the doctrine of a single energy in Christ which had arisen in the eastern provinces of the Empire, for the assumption that the divine and human natures of Christ had one active force (enérgeia) seemed to offer a compromise between the dogma of Chalcedon and monophysitism.(1) Sergius therefore supported the teaching of a single energy, and he entered into negotiation with the eastern churches. The Patriarch’s action seemed to be justified on political grounds, for there was no doubt that the longstanding doctrinal differences between Constantinople and the monophysite East had contributed considerably to Persian successes [my note: previous border wars, where the Empire lost territory, now recovered]. Heraclius himself also adopted this same teaching. During his eastern campaigns he had already discussed the question of ecclesiastical union with various churchmen in those areas, particularly in Armenia, After the reconquest of the monophysite provinces, negotiations were continued on a more extensive scale and with increased vigour, for the necessity of coming to terms now seemes even more urgent than before. A promising beginning was made, and union seemed assure, not only in Armenia, but in Syria, as well as in Egypt where Cyrus, Patriarch since 631, gave the project his strong support. Pope Honorius also gave his sanction to the policy pursued by Sergius and Cyrus. Bus disillusionment was not long delayed. In Syria, and more particularly in Egypt, the work of reconciliation had only been achieved under pressure, and the opposition from both orthodox and monophysites only grew daily stronger. The champion of the orthodox opposition was the monk Sophronius; he had become Patriarch of Jerusalem in 634 and was famous for his powers of oratory. He relentlessly scourged the new doctrine as a bastard form of monophysitism and a corruption of the orthodox doctrine of Chalcedon. Pressure from this opposition, and the views expressed by Pope Honrius, who showed that he had doubts about the teaching of the single energy, though he accepted , however, a single will in Christ, apparently lead Sergius to modify his position. He relegated the single energy to the background, and now propounded the doctrine of a single will (thélema) in Christ. This new monothelete formula, set out in an edict drafted by Sergius, was promulgated by the Emporer in 638 under the name the Ecthesis and put up in the narthex of the Hagia Sophia. The leaders of Church and State supported monotheletism, and with the death of Sergius on 9 December 638 the ardent monothelete Pyrrhus took his place as Patriarch of Constantinople. It was, however, clear that the Ecthesis was a futile effort. It was rejected both by the orthodox and by the monophysites and was stringly repudiated by Honorius’ successors in Rome. As a means of reconciliation montheletism had failed just as badly as the conbined efforts of Churhc and State to produce a compromise in earlier centuries. As in the case of previous attempts at reconciliation, it had only produced fresh hostility and increased confussion. The situation was further complicated by the Arab conquest of Syria and Palestine, both of which had occupied by the same enemy by 638, while Eygypt was soon to suffer the same inevitable fate. Thus monotheletism had failed in its political aim, and the religious ferment in the eastern provinces which had assisted the Persians was now to do the same in the case of the Arabs. [my note: The Byzantine Empire, already culturally diverse became further so with various incursions of Slavs, Bulagars, and others. These cultural differences made political unity tenuous, and attempts at creating uniformity or patriotism (my word) though the use of common expression of doctrine – religious unity – often failed. And the outer lying provinces, desiring the sense that they controlled their political destinity, would surrender easily to conquering empires (Persian or Arab and back again to Byzantine).] (1) Ostrogorsky cites sources – contact me if you are interested in them.

 

[Allyson]

MANY YEARS LATER AFTER THE ARAB INVASIONS SHRANK THE TERRITORY HOLDINGS OF BYZANTIUM.

p. 127 Developments in the East necessitated a reorientation of Byzantine ecclesiastical policy. With Byzantine reverses in the East, the provinces which had fallen to the Arabs had no longer to be reckoned with, and any further maintenance of monotheletism was therefore pointless. As a means of reconciling the eastern Christians this ecclesiastical policy had proved useless, and it had only brought about disastrous complications between Byzantium itself and the West. In consultation with Rome, Constantine IV summoned a Council to Constantinople to put an end to monotheletism. This was the sixth General Council of the Christian Church and it had the unusually large number of eighteen sessions, lasting from 7 November 680 to 16 September 681. The doctrines of the two energies and the two wills, which had been set aside not long before, where now reinstated as the orthodox teaching of the Church. Monotheletism was condemned, and the leaders of the monothelete party together with its earlier champions, the Patriarch Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Cyrus and Pope Honorius, were excommunicated. The Emperor took a prominent part in the proceedings of the Council. He was present at the first eleven, and most important sessions, as well as the last session, and he took the chair and led the discussion. At the formal closing of the session, after he had put his signature to the decisions of the Council, he was acclaimed by the ecclesiastical assembly as the protector, and even as the interpreter, of orthodox belief: ‘Long life to the Emporer! You have revealed the meaning of the natures of Christ. Lord, preserve the Light of the World! Constantine, the new Marcian, live forever! Constantine, the new Justinian, live forever! You have destroyed all heretics!’ (Mansi XI, 656)

:hypno:

 

[Allyson]

Dear sister Allyson,

Your searching on the truth of the matter is inspiring. Please permit the following responses.

It doesn’t really matter whether or not he satisfied the conditions of the Vatican definition. Pretend for an instant that the Vatican definition did not exist. We must still deal with the criterion of Scripture and the Fathers - was the Pope teaching publicly, and did he teach anything that Honorius expected the rest of the Church to believe? The fact that he ordered silence on the matter for BOTH positions seems to dictate a negative reply to both questions.

The question of HOW Honorius violated the faith must still be considered. Was Honorius violating the Faith in the sense that he was publicly teaching against the Faith? Or did he violate the Faith simply by failing in his solemn duty to uphold it (i.e., keeping silent on the whole matter)…

The question of supremacy does not come into play at all. We just need to apply the existing criteria of Scripture and Tradition on what a bishop is expected to do…He was condemned for failing to perform his duty, not for actively and publicly teaching in opposition to the faith.

Again, the issue of supremacy does not need to come into play. Would you agree that, by ordering silence for either position, Pope Honorius was NOT even TEACHING ANYTHING to which the faithful would be required to give assent?

What do you make of the quotes from St. Sophronius and the Synod of Cyprus that I gave? Keep in mind that those are only a few of the many, many quotes throughout the history of the unidivided Church of the first millenium to the same effect.

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother Marduk,

AAAHHH!!!, I just realized this post was here too. I will take a close look at the quotes you mentioned. I put infallibility together with Headship (Supremacy), because it seems to be that these things go hand in hand in Catholic thought.

The following occurred to be last night: that if I remember correctly Vatican I was called to deal with the problems of Modernism for the Church, at least this was a big issue in the writings of the Popes - and for good reason. I am formulating thoughts on this, maybe for another thread. It seems to be that infallibility as a doctrine proclaimed at this council had as its aim, defending the content of the faith and the role which the Pope in Rome plays as defender of the faith as the head of the Church. Modernism and the Enlightenment attacked the very basis of our faith - that Christ was that Son of God who became man and dies for our sins, and it also attacked the role of the Authority of the Church - which in Europe is supremely represented by the Pope. So, what this says about the doctrine of infallibility should make for and interesting discussion.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Allyson]

Wait a minute. I had not read ahead. We were talking about pizza! Nevermind! I’ll take the free pizza!!!

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_12_15.gif

MMMMmmmm!!!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Wait a minute. I had not read ahead. We were talking about pizza! Nevermind! I’ll take the free pizza!!!

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_12_15.gif

I was going to offer Mickey free pizza, but Mickey put me on ignore…

 

[Mickey]

And I will throw something else into the mix. Has anyone ever heard of the Keenan Catechism? I have just read that the third edition of this Catechism in 1854 calls the idea of Papal infallibility “a protestant invention”!

This Catechism has the approbation of four bishops!

I must delve further into this.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

And I will throw something else into the mix. Has anyone ever heard of the Keenan Catechism? I have just read that the third edition of this Catechism in 1854 calls the idea of Papal infallibility “a protestant invention”!

This Catechism has the approbation of four bishops!

I must delve further into this.

Doubtless if collecting examples of novelty or cherry picking the rich, rich library of Catholic faith for evidence of confusion or inconsistency is your goal, that will be a GREAT thing for you to do.

On another thread Mickey maintains it was impossible to learn if all papal bulls were infallable (which they are not) even when Mickey was a Catholic… But nowadays, without understanding the Catholic Faith (or is that the case?) copious amounts of time are spent (1) telling us we are wrong and (2) parroting the most polemic assertions against us…

Can’t find straight answers on Papal infaillabilty, but you can find an obscure catechism from 154 years ago as evidence against us?

Something does not seem right.

 

[Mickey]

Can’t find straight answers on Papal infaillabilty, but you can find an obscure catechism from 154 years ago as evidence against us?

Hmmm? Out of my laziness, I did not yet place you onto my ignore list and behold…what do I see…more insults, anger, arrogance, and attacks. It is no secret that I do not agree with papal infallibility and I am researching every angle of it. I did not know the status of Papal bulls, and there were some very kind Catholic Christians who answered the question for me (in between the nasty sarcastic insults of A.S.S.)

Now instead of continuing to be a pedantic jerk, (your words not mine), do you have anything constructive to say about the Keenan Catechism or will you just continue to attack me personally?