I believe in this case there was no doubt about his interior disposition - it’s not that “we cannot judge what we do not see”, we saw (and heard) his plainly heretical teachings. As you said, “that interior disposition needs to be manifested in some definitive, public way”, and it seems it was with him, so the Council anathematized him.As for your first question, ultimately the interior disposition is left to the judgment of God since we cannot judge what we do not see. That interior disposition needs to be manifested in some definitive, public way for it to have public consequences obviously. How does it work in the EO Churches? To determine who is a canonical, orthodox bishop, do you go by their outward profession or their interior disposition unknown to the faithful? I don’t see how the latter would even be workable.
Their outward profession - same as Honorius.How does it work in the EO Churches? To determine who is a canonical, orthodox bishop, do you go by their outward profession or their interior disposition unknown to the faithful?
I meant with Honorius it didn’t seem to have become public until after he died–there doesn’t seem to have been anyone accusing him of being a heretic while he was alive based on his letter to Sergius or any knowledge of the letter. If I recall, after receiving the letter from Honorius, Sergius composed his Ecthesis and then put it forth along with the letter at a synod in Constantinople, but Honorius had already died in the meantime (Sergius himself died shortly thereafter). Popes Severinus and John IV would then condemn the Ecthesis and Sergius’s successor Pyrrus for not withdrawing it (he later went to Rome and recanted) and all this was the basis for Honorius’s posthumous condemnation at the general Council.I believe in this case there was no doubt about his interior disposition - it’s not that “we cannot judge what we do not see”, we saw (and heard) his plainly heretical teachings. As you said, “that interior disposition needs to be manifested in some definitive, public way”, and it seems it was with him, so the Council anathematized him.
Btw way, a person does not have to be a cardinal or a current bishop to be elected pope. It has to be someone able to meet with the requirements of bishop.So, long story short, a heretic or excommunicated cardinal can be elected Pope, validly?
While I agree it is still a possibility, Ecumenical Councils are not to be taken word-for-word. 5th Ecumenical Councils states that Fathers profess and agree with everything certain Church Fathers teach. Technically it would mean Augustinian Theology being dogmatized at said Council (problem for Orthodoxy) and also St. Ambrose’s opinion that Baptism in name of One of Trinity is valid (“I baptize you in name of Jesus”)- which poses problem for Catholicism. This is however easily explained as it was figure of speech- Augustine’s theology wasn’t perfectly known by Council Fathers at the time and neither was St. Ambrose’s opinion.I think the exact words of the Council clearly condemn him as a heretic
Well, they literally called him “Honorius the heretic - anathema!” That is very serious and grave thing to say, and you can’t make such a statement unless you fully mean it:Ecumenical Councils are not to be taken word-for-word.
Thank you for the reply. Honestly I have never studied this time period, so I’m at a loss to comment. Must do more reading.I meant with Honorius it didn’t seem to have become public until after he died–there doesn’t seem to have been anyone accusing him of being a heretic while he was alive based on his letter to Sergius or any knowledge of the letter. If I recall, after receiving the letter from Honorius, Sergius composed his Ecthesis and then put it forth along with the letter at a synod in Constantinople, but Honorius had already died in the meantime (Sergius himself died shortly thereafter). Popes Severinus and John IV would then condemn the Ecthesis and Sergius’s successor Pyrrus for not withdrawing it (he later went to Rome and recanted) and all this was the basis for Honorius’s posthumous condemnation at the general Council.
From 5th Ecumenical Council:Well, they literally called him “Honorius the heretic - anathema!” That is very serious and grave thing to say, and you can’t make such a statement unless you fully mean it
We can discuss Augustinian issues on another thread, but never in the history of the Church was it said that an anathema wasn’t actually an anathema. This has never been argued anywhere, by anyone, at any time because it’s frankly absurd. Pope Honorius was declared a heretic and anathematized.From 5th Ecumenical Council:
We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers , Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose , Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine , Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith .
If taken too literally it means Augustinian Theology is dogmatic. Something neither of our Churches hold. Yet I would argue that saying that you follow someone in every way as well their writings on True Faith is serious thing and you can’t make that statement if you don’t fully mean it. Sometimes we overestimate how informed Council Fathers were. Augustine was translated to Greek in 13th century so it is implausible they all read all his works.