Papal authority vis a vis an Ecumenical Council

[mardukm]

What exactly does it prove to the non-Catholic polemic mind that the letter of Pope St. Leo was examined before it was accepted?

I used to utilize this same argument against the Catholic Church. But upon further study about what the Catholic Church herself teaches about the papacy (and not what non-Catholic polemicists claim), it turned out that this argument is a straw man.

It is a FACT that the Catholic Church has never claimed that the decrees of a Pope cannot be examined in the setting of an Ecumenical Council.

It is a FACT that the Council of Chalcedon was called in good part due to the efforts of Pope St. Leo.

Therefore, it is a FACT that Pope St. Leo had chosen to exercise his primatial prerogative through the Council, of which he was head.

So what argument can non-Catholic polemicists possibly have against the mere fact that Pope St. Leo’s letter was deliberated upon at the Council. Was this not St. Leo’s intention IN THE FIRST PLACE, as indeed his letters indicate?

“The truth itself likewise is both more clearly conspicuous, and more strongly maintained, when after examination confirms what previous faith had taught.” So wrote Pope St. Leo to Theodoret.

My Catholic brethren, don’t be afraid to affirm that the Pope’s letter was indeed deliberated by the Council as to its orthodoxy. In fact, that is what the Pope wanted!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

I think you’d better throw away that degree from EOPU, because it’s not getting you anywhere.

And Zosimos would have let Pelagianism go

That’s the EOPU twist on history. The REALITY is that 1) Coelestius (the Pelagian) deceived the Pope, and Pope St. Zosimus was simply unsure whether or not Coelestius was a Pelagian. There was no danger that Pelagianism would have been supported in any way by the Pope. In FACT, St. Zosimus eventually condemned Coelestius.:banghead:

…and then there’s our friend Honorius,etc…

Too much to say on the matter to fit in this thread. If you want to start a new one on the issue, please do so. I will say 2 things with which EOPU has never been able to come to terms:

1. When the Council opened, NONE of the gathered bishops were aware of Pope Honorius’ “heresy”;
2. Though Honorius was condemned as a heretic for confirming the heresy, he was never condemned, unlike the other heretics, as a teacher or spreader of the heresy.

This ratification by the pope claim is quite late, and quite ignored by the Councils. The Fifth Council ignored Pope Vigilius, until he got on board.

What in the world were those papal legates doing at the Nicene Council anyway? Further, I guess 431 A.D. is regarded as “late” in the history of the Church - that’s the date of the Council of Ephesus whose acts were ratified by the papal legates.
And the Fifth Council ignored Pope Vigilius? You cannot be talking about the Fifth ECUMENICAL Council, could you? For certainly, the bishops of that Council were constantly clamoring for the Pope’s decision. In fact, the Emperor, who initiated the Council, considered the Pope’s adherence SOOOOO important, that he actually kidnapped him and held him prisoner to force his acceptance! Doesn’t sound like this Council was doing much of the ignoring your teachers at EOPU have led you to believe.

As for Arianism and Monophysitism, Pope Sylvester did nothing at Nicea

Like I said, what in the world were those papal legates doing at Nicea?

and Pope Damasus did nothing at Constantinople I

So lacking and prejudicial is the education at EOPU that you did not learn that

1. Constantinople I was NOT initially intended to be an ecumenical Council. It did not claim to be so when it met (though the following year, it tried to pass itself off as such) It was simply a local Synod of the East, and was not even recognized by the Third Ecumenical Council (which, in the eyes of the Fathers of the Third Ecumenical, was actually itself the Second since what is now recognized as the Second – i.e, Constantinople I – was not as yet recognized as Ecumenical).
2. Constantinople sent its decrees to Pope St. Damasus to be approved in the following year 382.
3. The Council adopted Pope St. Damasus’ dogmatic decree on the Holy Spirit as its Canon 5.

(held by those in schism from Rome.)

Is that why they sought Rome’s approval the following year? Obviously, the schism was not as bad as your teachers at EOPU have made it out to be. As I mentioned to you in a previous post, it was a confusing time many were in communion with two parties, even while those two parties were not in communion with each other.

Rome adopted their Creed anyway

“Anyway?” The schism was not doctrinal, but merely ecclesiastical. There is no reason Rome would not have adopted a Creed which was identical to its own Faith. :banghead: Comments like this really make you wonder about the quality of the teachers at EOPU.

until the Arians got them to deform it in Spain.

Really? The Arians established a Creed in Spain? Please, brother. Burn that degree from EOPU even as you read this!

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Rome got involved because Rome was becoming irrelevant in the world, much as the current state of the EP makes him do rather grandiose things.

Did your teachers at EOPU forbid you to read the Fathers for yourself? Brother, the reason that Rome got involved in the Canon 28 issue was because the Council Fathers REQUESTED his confirmation.

Anthony:

How can you say that when you and mardukm have claimed that Constantinople was second to Rome? Pope Damasus and Pope Leo disagreed with that claim.

Isa Almisry:

And the Church ignored them.

Oh? As far as Pope St. Damasus is concerned, was this the Church that did not even recognize that there was a Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople when the Ecumenical Council at Ephesus met? Was this the Church that was in communion with that great See of Alexandria, even before Chalcedon? NOT!
As far as Pope St. Leo is concerned, though Constantinople became second to part of the Christian world (certainly not in the eyes of the Westerns), St. Leo’s cause eventually exhibited its divine righteousness. Indeed, as Pope St. Leo argued, a See cannot gain its ascendancy by virtue of its civil status – the only sure and valid criterion is apostolicity. Indeed, at the end of the very same century, Constantinople began to claim its status not by virtue of its civil rank, but because of its establishment by St. Andrew. So though Constantinople may have won the battle, Rome won the war.

If you sense sarcasm, I’ll admit it has flavored some of my comments. It’s all I can do to keep a civil tongue (or pen) in the face of the all the lies and half truths perpetrated by your teachers at EOPU.

Blessings, despite my frustration,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Ask our sponsers:
During the years of conflict between East and West, the Roman pontiff remained firm, defending the Catholic faith against heresies and unruly or immoral secular powers, especially the Byzantine emperor. The first conflict came when Emperor Constantius appointed an Arian heretic as patriarch. Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.
catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp
St. Gregory was bishop of Constantinople 379-381.

So that had to do with the Arians,not Gregory. Rome never had a problem with Gregory. He was bishop of Constantinople for only a few months.

He was the Orthodox Catholic (the reason why he was brought) bishop of Constantinople for a couple of years.

No, just the one sitting in it with the right to speak ex cathedra Sancti Petri.

They anathematized a dead pope,on flimsy evidence.

So I guess we can disregard the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Interesting, for behold just exactly what was in Pope St. Agatho’s letter that apparently was well scrutinized and accepted as “divinely written” by the council:

"For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ [Rome], has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, “Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.” Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.

That the same Fathers who approved of Agatho anathematized Honorius shows that they did not hold the ultramontanist interpretation of these words.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

CONT’d

Did your teachers at EOPU forbid you to read the Fathers for yourself? Brother, the reason that Rome got involved in the Canon 28 issue was because the Council Fathers REQUESTED his confirmation.

And when he refused, the Church moved on, as Pope Leo himself admits in his frustration that the bishops still under him (but on their way to New Rome) in Illyria have accepted and follow c. 28.

Oh? As far as Pope St. Damasus is concerned, was this the Church that did not even recognize that there was a Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople when the Ecumenical Council at Ephesus met? Was this the Church that was in communion with that great See of Alexandria, even before Chalcedon? NOT!

By 394 c. 3 had already been accepted by New Rome (of course), Alexandria, and Antioch.

There is much talk of Constantinople I not being recognized at the time of Ephesus, by it is arguing from silence at best. We already see the Church operating according to Constantinople I. Indeed, if it were not for C I, there would be no need to call Ephesus, as the bishop of Herakleia could have dealt with his suffragan.

As far as Pope St. Leo is concerned, though Constantinople became second to part of the Christian world (certainly not in the eyes of the Westerns), St. Leo’s cause eventually exhibited its divine righteousness. Indeed, as Pope St. Leo argued, a See cannot gain its ascendancy by virtue of its civil status – the only sure and valid criterion is apostolicity. Indeed, at the end of the very same century, Constantinople began to claim its status not by virtue of its civil rank, but because of its establishment by St. Andrew. So though Constantinople may have won the battle, Rome won the war.

In the end even Rome had to accept the new ranking, in their own Latern (?) council. So who won the war?

We’ve been told that Constantinople didn’t claim St. Andrew until after the schism (further “proof”). Did you all misdate?

I’ve never seen an argument which based Chalcedon c. 28 nor Constantinople I c. 3 on St. Andrew. Not from the Orthodox anyway.

If you sense sarcasm, I’ll admit it has flavored some of my comments. It’s all I can do to keep a civil tongue (or pen) in the face of the all the lies and half truths perpetrated by your teachers at EOPU.

Blessings, despite my frustration,
Marduk

Well, what can I say? You seem to believe in a Rome that doesn’t hold to ultramontanism. Such a place doesn’t exist.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

I think you’d better throw away that degree from EOPU, because it’s not getting you anywhere.

Not at the non-ultramontanist apologist seminary at Rome, which doesn’t exist.

That’s the EOPU twist on history. The REALITY is that 1) Coelestius (the Pelagian) deceived the Pope, and Pope St. Zosimus was simply unsure whether or not Coelestius was a Pelagian. There was no danger that Pelagianism would have been supported in any way by the Pope. In FACT, St. Zosimus eventually condemned Coelestius.:banghead:

The fact that St. Augustine had trouble with getting Zosimus to recognize that New Rome had expelled Celestius and Carthage had condemned him for heresy. Zosimus was a johnny come lately.

Too much to say on the matter to fit in this thread. If you want to start a new one on the issue, please do so. I will say 2 things with which EOPU has never been able to come to terms:

1. When the Council opened, NONE of the gathered bishops were aware of Pope Honorius’ “heresy”;

Evidence?

So they just decided to anathematize him for kicks?

1. Though Honorius was condemned as a heretic for confirming the heresy, he was never condemned, unlike the other heretics, as a teacher or spreader of the heresy.

Confirming the brethren, eh? I think the words are that he supported them in ALL things.

What in the world were those papal legates doing at the Nicene Council anyway? Further, I guess 431 A.D. is regarded as “late” in the history of the Church - that’s the date of the Council of Ephesus whose acts were ratified by the papal legates.
And the Fifth Council ignored Pope Vigilius? You cannot be talking about the Fifth ECUMENICAL Council, could you? For certainly, the bishops of that Council were constantly clamoring for the Pope’s decision. In fact, the Emperor, who initiated the Council, considered the Pope’s adherence SOOOOO important, that he actually kidnapped him and held him prisoner to force his acceptance! Doesn’t sound like this Council was doing much of the ignoring your teachers at EOPU have led you to believe.

What papal legates are those? Hosios? He is often claimed as the pope’s legate, but he owed his position, placement and post at the Council due to his relationship to Constantine, not Sylvester.

Yes, they wanted unanimity at EC 5, and dragged the Pope to New Rome kicking and screaming. But when he REFUSED to have anything to do with the Council, they went ahead anyway, struck him from the diptychs (and yes, you can omit a hierarch and not excommunicate his see, at least not until the see sides with the bishop omitted), issued its pronouncement, which Vigilius was forced to sign.

Come to think of it, now I see why you all place great stock in Florence.

I don’t get your comments on Ephesus.

Like I said, what in the world were those papal legates doing at Nicea?

Besides trying to impose mandatory clerical celibacy, it seems not much.

So lacking and prejudicial is the education at EOPU that you did not learn that

1. Constantinople I was NOT initially intended to be an ecumenical Council. It did not claim to be so when it met (though the following year, it tried to pass itself off as such) It was simply a local Synod of the East, and was not even recognized by the Third Ecumenical Council (which, in the eyes of the Fathers of the Third Ecumenical, was actually itself the Second since what is now recognized as the Second – i.e, Constantinople I – was not as yet recognized as Ecumenical).

Constantinople III also started in a similar way, and ended up the same way, ie. Ecumenical.

And again, those of you at that non-existent non-ultramontanist semiary at Rome have to deal 1) with the fact that in 394 at Constantiople that See’s primate, and those of Alexandria and Antioch personally conducted themselves according to Constantinople I. 2) if Constantinople wasn’t Ecumenical (as it claimed, you admit, in 382), then Nestorius would have been deposed by his superior at Heracleia.

1. Constantinople sent its decrees to Pope St. Damasus to be approved in the following year 382.

Qui tacit consentit.

1. The Council adopted Pope St. Damasus’ dogmatic decree on the Holy Spirit as its Canon 5.

So Rome couldn’t have been as ignorant of Constantiople I, as is often claimed.

Is that why they sought Rome’s approval the following year? Obviously, the schism was not as bad as your teachers at EOPU have made it out to be. As I mentioned to you in a previous post, it was a confusing time many were in communion with two parties, even while those two parties were not in communion with each other.

That is not a problem for us. For ultramontanists, it creates a big problem, as Rome is be all and end all of all things (yes, I know at that non-existent seminary, that simply don’t pay attention to what Vatican I and II say on the matter).

“Anyway?” The schism was not doctrinal, but merely ecclesiastical. There is no reason Rome would not have adopted a Creed which was identical to its own Faith. :banghead: Comments like this really make you wonder about the quality of the teachers at EOPU.

Unfortunately, for ultramontanists ecclesiastical schism IS doctrinal. Nothing without the man in Rome.

Really? The Arians established a Creed in Spain? Please, brother. Burn that degree from EOPU even as you read this!

CONT’d

The reason I often seen given for deforming the Creed at Toledo is the existence of Arians there, centuries after they died out in the East.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Concerning the papal legates at Nicea I:

among the Latins we know only Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage, Mark of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, Donnus of Stridon in Pannonia, and the two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, representing the pope
newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

Funny, how it was Hosius, Constantine’s advisor, and not Victor nor Vincentius, the pope’s legates, who presided at Nicea I.

 

[mtr01]

That the same Fathers who approved of Agatho anathematized Honorius shows that they did not hold the ultramontanist interpretation of these words.

On the contrary, it demonstrates that your understanding of the “Honorius issue” does not match that of the council Fathers. In fact I believe you have stated in the past that the council Fathers would have had to have been delusional to write such a thing to Pope Agatho.

As brother Marduk explained just a couple of posts ago, Honorius was anathematized for not quashing the heresy; not for holding to or teaching it. Pope Martin understood this, St. Maximos understood this, Pope Honorius’s secretary understood this, the council Fathers understood this. Apparently it is only modern Eastern Orthodox (and Protestant) polemicists that do not understand this.

 

[Mickey]

The Third Oecumenical Council of Constantinople (680-681)
condemned the heresy of monothelitism and condemned and excommunicated Pope Honorius (after his death) as a heretic, as did Pope St. Leo II, who followed the Council, in these words:

"Having found that [Honorius’s letters] are in complete disagreement with the Apostolic dogmata and the definitions of the Holy Councils, and of all the approved Fathers; and that, on the contrary, they lead to the false doctrines of the heretics, we absolutely reject and condemn them as being poisonous to souls.

**“We also state that Honorius, formerly pope of the elder Rome, had ****been also rejected from God’s Holy Catholic Church and is being **anathematized, on account of the writings that he sent to Sergius, where he adopted his ideas in everything, and reaffirmed his impious principles. He is shown to be incapable of enlightening this Apostolic Church by the doctrine of Apostolic Tradition, in that he allowed its immaculate faith to be blemished by a sacrilegious betrayal.”

 

[anthony022071]

As for Arianism and Monophysitism, Pope Sylvester did nothing at Nicea,

The Byzantine-Slavonic Menaion, January 2:

“Father Sylvester…thou didst appear as a pillar of fire, snatching the faithful from the Egyptian error [the Arian heresy] and continually leading them with unerring teachings to divine light. … Thou hast shown thyself the supreme one of the Sacred Council, O initiator into the sacred mysteries, and hast illustrated the Throne of the Supreme One of the Disciples. … Endowed with the See of the leader of the apostles, you became an outstanding minister of God, enriching, establishing, and increasing the church with divine dogmas. You were the prince of the sacred council and you adorned the throne of the head of the disciples; like a divine prince over the holy Fathers you confirmed the most sacred dogma.”

vintage.aomin.org/bjoprem.html

< "Pope Silvester was represented by two Roman priests, Victor and Vincent, and also by the Bishop of Cordova, Hosius. Both St. Athanasius and Theodoret confirm that Hosius was the president of the Council. In a list drawn in order of rank, the historian Socrates lists Hosius first of all bishops, before more eminent bishops. In fact, Hosius and the two priests signed the decrees first. After their signatures comes that of St. Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria. By right, no priest should have signed before any bishop. Neither did the bishop of Cordova, Spain have the right to sign before a Patriarch. The other Spanish bishops signed further down on the list, where Hosius would have, had he merely been representing himself, and not Pope Sylvester.

The synod was convened, according to the Sixth Ecumenical Council - Constantinople III - by Constantine and Pope Sylvester: “Arius arose as an adversary to the doctrine of the Trinity, Constantine and Silvester immediately assembled the great Synod at Nicea.”

According to Socrates, Pope Julius asserted that, “Ecclesiastical discipline prohibits that a decree be received by the Churches unless sanctioned by the Roman Church.” Pope Julius ruled the Church 11 years after the Council and was the Pope who affirmed Athanasius’ orthodoxy. Athanasius himself quotes this same pontiff rebuking the Eusebians for bypassing his authority (which he “received from the blessed Apostle Peter”) in condemning the church of the Alexandrians.

In Dionysius’ collection of the Acts of Nicea, he affirms that the Pope approved the Council: “And it pleased the council that all these things be send to the Bishop of Rome, Silvester.” >

Asia did NOT mean the whole East. It meant Asia Minor. Egypt was never included in it.

Canon 28 does not mention Egypt,and yet Pope Leo considered it to be an attempt to have jurisdiction over Alexandria. That must mean that Asia included Egypt.
The Greeks and Romans considered Egypt to be an Asiatic civilization,not an African one.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

On the contrary, it demonstrates that your understanding of the “Honorius issue” does not match that of the council Fathers. In fact I believe you have stated in the past that the council Fathers would have had to have been delusional to write such a thing to Pope Agatho.

What I said was if the ultramontansit twist on these words were true, then they were delusional.

As brother Marduk explained just a couple of posts ago, Honorius was anathematized for not quashing the heresy; not for holding to or teaching it. Pope Martin understood this, St. Maximos understood this, Pope Honorius’s secretary understood this, the council Fathers understood this. Apparently it is only modern Eastern Orthodox (and Protestant) polemicists that do not understand this.

And why then no distinction then in the anathemas?

 

[mtr01]

What I said was if the ultramontansit twist on these words were true, then they were delusional.

Ok. Given, as you suggest, that the Council Fathers scrutinized Pope Agatho’s letter for orthodoxy and concluded it was “divinely written as from the hand of Peter”, how would you interpret:

“…because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church [Rome] of his has never turned away from the path of Truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred…”

and

“…For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ [Rome], has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, “Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.” Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing…”

In a way that is not ultramontrane nor delusional?

And why then no distinction then in the anathemas?

Because, as both I and Anthony (I believe) have demonstrated over the past year or so, historically there was never such a distinction made. Heretic was a title used both for those who held and taught heresy as well as for those who did not hold or teach a heresy, but did not quash it/allowed it to flourish. Therefore it is unreasonable to demand a distinction be made where no disctinction ever existed.

I posit that a correct understanding of the anathema against Honorius explains how the Fathers were able to conclude Pope Agatho’s letter was “divinely witten” and concurrently condemn Honorius. It is only the incorrect understanding of the condemnation that leads one to the (false) dilemma of having to conclude some kind of delusion on the part of the Fathers.

 

[anthony022071]

Because, as both I and Anthony (I believe) have demonstrated over the past year or so, historically there was never such a distinction made. Heretic was a title used both for those who held and taught heresy as well as for those who did not hold or teach a heresy, but did not quash it/allowed it to flourish. Therefore it is unreasonable to demand a distinction be made where no disctinction ever existed.

catholic-legate.com/articles/honorius.html

< The claim that Honorius was a Monothelite came from this text written to Sergius:

“Wherefore we acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin.” (15)

Another source translates it: “We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, since our [human] nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the Fall.” (16)

Now stop and reflect carefully on these texts. Honorius clearly does not say Christ possesses merely one will, which happens to be divine. Rather, Honorius states that Christ has only one human will as opposed to two human wills. Furthermore, notice how Honorius agrees with Sergius and “acknowledges one will of our Lord…” yet he goes on to discuss this one will in terms of Jesus’ humanity only. Now why would Honorius speak against the existence of two human wills? The answer lies with Sergius’ inquiry. He had deceptively suggested the orthodox view (i.e. one human will) in order to establish a false context where Honorius would confirm the heretical position of “one will” in total. He could then use the Pope’s concurrence to further the Monothelite heresy.

If there were two human wills in Christ there would be a conflict within Him, but we know that not to be the case since Trinitarian Christology demands that the Son assumed a human nature which was pure and undefiled by sin, as it was, for instance, before the Fall. Furthermore, we know that the will is a function of the nature of the person. Hence, as we have only one human nature, we only have one human will. Our Lord, on the other hand, having a divine nature and a human nature has two wills corresponding to each.

His second successor, Pope John IV (642), confirmed Honorius’ intention, stating that Honorius’ purpose was to simply “deny contrary [human] wills of mind and flesh.” (5) This was later confirmed by the Abbot John, who was a scribe and the secretary to Honorius: “We said that there is one will in the Lord, not of his divinity or humanity, but of his humanity solely.” (6) St. Maximus “the Hammer”, Doctor of the Church and Martyr also insisted that Honorius maintained only one human will in Christ not one will in toto. He wrote that heretics “lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming that Honorius to be one with their cause.” (7)

Besides, therefore, eventually granting Sergius his request for silence in the Church, Honorius remarks are very interesting indeed since they are, in point of fact, entirely opposed to the Monothelite heresy. Honorius wrote:

"You must confess, with us, one Christ our Lord, operating in either nature, divine OR human actions [in uirisque naturis divina vel humana operantem]

Honorius’ formula is “directly opposed to that of Cyrus, who had not said, ‘operating divine OR human actions’, distinctively and separately but ‘operating divine AND human actions’, conjuctively and in a mixed manner, by one, sole operation, which was neither simply human nor simply divine, but always theandric - that is, compounded of divine and human.” But Sergius had defended the article of Cyrus’ agreement in regard to the use of the word ‘one’ (as for the word ‘theandric’, Sergius had prudently SUPPRESSED IT IN HIS APPEAL to Honorius!)" (1)

Morover, all of the subsequent Pontiffs (Pope Servinus (640), Pope John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653)) up to and including Pope Agattho tacitly defended Honorius’ orthodox doctrinal position and condemned Monothelitism. In fact, “in his letter to the Emperor that was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agattho (678-681) asserted the infallibility of the apostolic see and stated that he and ALL of his predecessors, thus inclusive of Honorius, ‘have never ceased to exhort and warn them (i.e. the Monothelites) with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma.’”(8)

One will notice immediately Agattho’s careful selection of language above by remarking that, at the very least, no Pontiff pronounced a doctrinal error. He says that all Popes were doctrinally orthodox even if some did not exert the influence that they should have and “kept silent” instead. >

 

[anthony022071]

catholic-legate.com/articles/honorius.html

< Thirdly, there are two other issues in the text, both contained in the phrase “[Honorius] followed [Sergius’] view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” The latter phrase “confirmed his impious doctrines” does not, by itself, convict Honorius of heresy since one may confirm something either by silence (and, in this case, neglect) or by a pronounced teaching. Therefore, the key part of the phrase hinges on “followed his view”. If this phrase means that Honorius believed the heresy, then our position would be certainly wounded. However, if the phrase in question refers rather to Sergius’ disciplinary request to impose silence on the Church, then it is our opponents whose position is called into question. In point of fact, while it is true that the Latin has “sequi mentem ejus”, which is ambiguous, and may mean either view (i.e. either following Sergius’s heretical doctrine or following Sergius’ request for silence), the original Greek text, of which the Latin is a translation has, without any ambiguity, “followed the counsel.” (4)

Fourthly, the Acts of the Lateran Council of 649 were dispersed widely throughout the East and West, and followed the same basic protocol as the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople and anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, but, as my thesis has maintained, Pope Honorius’ name is curiously missing from the anathemas. The council even went on to assert that from the very beginnings of Monothelitism, no Roman Pontiff had departed from keeping the Catholic Faith.

Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed the Council’s condemnation and stated:

“[Honorius] did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.” (10)

“[Honorius did not] as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence.” (11)

“…he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.” (17)

Again, we see our thesis maintained. The first citation indicates that the Pope “permitted” the pollution of profane teaching, but did not teach it himself, while the second selection indicts Honorius for fostering the heresy by “negligence” - again, hardly a challenge to the definition of papal infallibility or even Honorius’ personal orthodoxy.

As already intimated above, while there is really little support for a refutation of papal infallibility here, we must be careful to appreciate that Honorius was not a saint. In fact, he was a negligent Pope who caused much damage to the Church, and the Council was right in condemning his actions.

"It is expressly said, in the Acts, that God cannot endure that rule of silence, “Et quomodo non indigneretur Deus qui blasphemebatur et non defendbatur.” “And how could God but be indignant, who was blasphemed and NOT defended?” (13)

Because of his negligence, the Sixth Ecumenical Council (and the third) at Constantinople (680-681) burned the letters of Honorius, called him a “heretic”, and anathematized him. Their actions were approved by Pope Leo II and their decisions confirmed again at the next two Ecumenical Councils.

The Council called Honorius a heretic, but it must be remembered that in the early Church the term “heretic” could have two meanings: to those who maintained and pronounced the error formally and/or materially and to those “who neither taught nor maintained error themselves, but were accessory to the pertinacity of heretics, whether by protecting them, by favoring them, or by not repressing.” (14) This latter sense of permitting heresy has been understood and “confirmed by several examples in antiquity.” (12)

This secondary “soft” sense of heresy is possible for any Pope just as it was for Honorius. A Pope can indeed be negligent in his office, but in and of itself, this does not necessarily mean that he is guilty of impugning an article of faith.

As far as the definition of papal infallibility, invoked at the First Vatican Council in 1870, is concerned, it permits a Pope being negligent while on the Papal throne but not, quite obviously, actually pronouncing error from it. >

 

[anthony022071]

He was the Orthodox Catholic (the reason why he was brought) bishop of Constantinople for a couple of years.

Gregory Nazianzus wasn’t made bishop of Constantinople until immediately before the council.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Gregory Nazianzus wasn’t made bishop of Constantinople until immediately before the council.

He was the Orthodox Catholic bishop for some time. He was only given official recognition by the emperor immediately before the Council.

Sorry not to follow the caesaro-papist line, but as soon as he arrived to lead the Orthodox Catholic party, he was bishop, whether the emperor agreed or not.