Pope excommunicated?

[Fr_Ambrose]

MichaelTDoyle:

They may not err in preaching in faith and morals but they may err in the application of those faith in morals. The dogma is correct, it does not extend the infallibility to judging a *particular *human being as being guilty of contradiction of a belief. One is a statement of truth; the other is an action.

Whatever… I am sure Arius will be pleased to learn that he has not really been condemned by an Ecumenical Council.

An Ecumenical Council thought it was important enough to deliver an Anathema against Pope Honorius after his death. That’s good enough for me when a Council declares a Pope a heretic.

It is also good enough for me that it was ratified by Pope Agatho and then by Pope Leo II.

It is good enough for me that the condemnation was included in the Roman Breviary for Pope Saint Leo’s day until the late 1700’s.

For further information on this see
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=124554&postcount=95

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Pope Honorius. The charge against Pope Honorius is a double one: that, when appealed to in the Monothelite controversy, he actually taught the Monothelite heresy in his two letters to Sergius; and that he was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the decrees of which were approved by Leo II. But in the first place it is quite clear from the tone and terms of these letters that, so far from intending to give any final, or ex cathedra, decision on the doctrinal question at issue, Honorius merely tried to allay the rising bitterness of the controversy by securing silence. In the next place, taking the letters as they stand, the very most that can be clearly and incontrovertibly deduced from them is, that Honorius was not a profound or acute theologian, and that he allowed himself to be confused and misled by the wily Sergius as to what the issue really was and too readily accepted the latter’s misrepresentation of his opponents’ position, to the effect that the assertion of two wills in Christ meant two contrary or discordant wills. Finally, in reference to the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, it is to be remembered that there is no ecumenical sentence affirming the fact either that Honorius’s letters to Sergius contain heresy, or that they were intended to define the question with which they deal. The sentence passed by the fathers of the council has ecumenical value only in so far as it was approved by Leo II; but, in approving the condemnation of Honorius, his successor adds the very important qualification that he is condemned, not for the doctrinal reason that he taught heresy, but on the moral ground that he was wanting in the vigilance expected from him in his Apostolic office and thereby allowed a heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its beginnings.

Source : newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Sarah Jane:

Finally, in reference to the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, it is to be remembered that there is no ecumenical sentence affirming the fact either that Honorius’s letters to Sergius contain heresy

On the contrary. The Ecumenical Council is explicit in condemning Pope Honorius as a heretic on the basis of his letters to Sergius.

Here are the words of the Council Fathers:

“And in addition to these [other heretics] we decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of Elder Rome, be with them cast out of the Holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, **because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things and confirmed his wicked dogmas.” **

The sentence passed by the fathers of the council has ecumenical value only in so far as it was approved by Leo II; but, in approving the condemnation of Honorius, his successor adds the very important qualification that he is condemned, not for the doctrinal reason that he taught heresy, but on the moral ground that he was wanting in the vigilance expected from him in his Apostolic office…

On the contrary. Pope Saint Leo II is explicit in condemning Pope Honorius for his perversion of the doctrine of Catholic faith.

In the words of Leo II:

“…also Honorius, who did not illuminate the Apostolic See with the doctrines of the Apostolic tradition, but **by profane prodition attempted to subvert the immaculate faith; **and all, who died in his error…”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Father, Sarah Jane and I gave our sources for our quotes.

Would you mind terribly giving your source for this–
<<And in addition to these [other heretics] we decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of Elder Rome, be with them cast out of the Holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things and confirmed his wicked dogmas." >>

and this <<in the words of Leo II:

“…also Honorius, who did not illuminate the Apostolic See with the doctrines of the Apostolic tradition, but by profane prodition attempted to subvert the immaculate faith; and all, who died in his error…”
Little “snippets” taken out of context are not acceptable as refutations or arguments, IMO.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Tantum ergo:

Little “snippets” taken out of context are not acceptable as refutations or arguments, IMO.

My apologies. This information has been traded around so much that the attributions have dropped off along the way.

The ecumenical condemnation of Pope Honorius is contained in the acts of the thirteenth session (28 March) of the Sixth Ecumenical Council:

“Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God, that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to the pious and great emperor, and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary
to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema. And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas”.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Tantum ergo:

Father, Sarah Jane and I gave our sources for our quotes.

Little “snippets” taken out of context are not acceptable as refutations or arguments, IMO.

Dear Tantum Ergo,

I was keen to see the sources for the quotes but, alas, when I looked at Sarah Jane’s message in this discussion I found no sources whatsoever. All she has done is present us with a section from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and when one checks that out it also offers no sources. All it gives is a version of the condemnation of Pope Honorius - but no reference to any sources.

Sarah Jane, are you able to offer any sources for your view? It would be useful to have further information substantiating the Roman Catholic viewpoint since Honorius is always popping up in catholic-orthodox dialogues.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Tantum ergo:

Father, Sarah Jane and I gave our sources for our quotes.

Little “snippets” taken out of context are not acceptable as refutations or arguments, IMO.

Dear Tantum Ergo,

You’re playing games with me, aren’t you?

I checked your messages in this thread and you have actually given no quotes and no sources, so your opening sentence above makes no sense to me.

Is it fair to hold me to higher standards than you hold yourself. But all same, please note that I have supplied the reference to the particular session of the Ecumenical Council which anathematized Honorius for heresy.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

The Supposed Fall of Honorius and His Condemnation

mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Perhaps, Father, you missed the post where I suggested the New Advent site. Here is the site: www.newadvent.org.

I actually referenced my sources on the Honorius controversy on ANOTHER thread, therefore, my apologies for any confusion on your part. However, I am perfectly willing to give the source for my contention that Honorius himself was not a heretic and did not promote the teaching of heresy in the Catholic church–here’s the link.

newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Father, where did you get the information about << contained in the acts of the thirteenth session (28 March) of the Sixth Ecumenical Council:
Is there an extant copy of the acts in English?

This is what I found about the sixth ecumenical council at New Advent:

Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III (680-681)

The Third General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch, 174 bishops, and the emperor. It put an end to Monothelitism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.>>

And this, in further detail, same site:

There has been in the past, owing to Gallicanism and the opponents of papal infallibility, much controversy concerning the proper sense of this council’s condemnation of Pope Honorius, the theory (Baronius, Damberger) of a falsification of the Acts being now quite abandoned (Hefele, III, 299-313). Some have maintained, with Pennacchi, that he was indeed condemned as a heretic, but that the Oriental bishops of the council misunderstood the thoroughly orthodox (and dogmatic) letter of Honorius; others, with Hefele, that the council condemned the heretically sounding expressions of the pope (though his doctrine was really orthodox); others finally, with Chapman (see below), that he was condemned

because he did not, as he should have done, declare authoritatively the Petrine tradition of the Roman Church. To that tradition he had made no appeal but had merely approved and enlarged upon the half-hearted compromise of Sergius...Neither the pope nor the council consider that Honorius had compromised the purity of the Roman tradition, for he had never claimed to represent it. Therefore, just as today we judge the letters of Pope Honorius by the Vatican definition and deny them to be ex cathedra, because they do not define any doctrine and impose it upon the whole Church, so the Christians of the seventh century judged the same letters by the custom of their day, and saw that they did not claim what papal letters were wont to claim, viz., to speak with the mouth of Peter in the name of Roman tradition. (Chapman)

The letter of the council to Pope Leo, asking, after the traditional manner, for confirmation of its Acts, while including again the name of Honorius among the condemned Monothelites, lay a remarkable stress on the magisterial office of the Roman Church, as, in general, the documents of the Sixth General Council favour strongly the inerrancy of the See of Peter. “The Council”, says Dom Chapman, “accepts the letter in which the Pope defined the faith. It deposes those who refused to accept it. It asks [the pope] to confirm its decisions. The Bishops and Emperor declare that they have seen the letter to contain the doctrine of the Fathers. Agatho speaks with the voice of Peter himself; from Rome the law had gone forth as out of Sion; Peter had kept the faith unaltered.” Pope Agatho died during the Council and was succeeded by Leo II, who confirmed (683) the decrees against Monothelism, and expressed himself even more harshly than the council towards the memory of Honorius (Hefele, Chapman), though he laid stress chiefly on the neglect of that pope to set forth the traditional teaching of the Apostolic See, whose spotless faith he treasonably tried to overthrow (or, as the Greek may be translated, permitted to be overthrown).

Now, from what source did you find the reference to the acts at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, please?

 

[mtr01]

Fr Ambrose:
I am not concerned with any infallibity which attaches to Honorius as Pope and the distinctions which you draw between a Pope’s private heresy and his ex cathedra proclamations of heresy. This makes no sense to me since I do not believe in infallibility for any one bishop.

I’m not sure I understand, Father. Are you suggesting that Honorius being anathematized somehow disproves the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility? If so, you misunderstand the doctrine. The distinction between private heresy and ex cathedra pronouncements are at the heart of the Catholic understanding of infallibility. Specifically, infallibilty is a negative protection against teaching heresy ex cathedra. It doesn’t prevent a private heresy, which (as I mentioned before) is more an issue of impeccability.

You state that you don’t believe one bishop can be infallible on his own. That’s fine, as I understand, the Orthodox Church believes only in the infallibility of the ecumenical councils. However, if you want to refute a Catholic doctrine, then you must do so as the Catholic Church teaches it.

Trying to refute papal infallibilty by arguing from your premise that there is no difference between private heresy and formal teaching of heresy is off the mark. In essence you are refuting a doctrine that is not held by the Catholic Church.

As an aside, is the Orthodox understanding of infallibilty (as in the ecumenical councils) a negative protection (as is the Catholic view)?

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Not having read all the previous posts, but rather having scanned over some of them, I’ll just add my 2 cents, which has probably already been said better than I’ll say it.

Honorius was not teaching to the effect that he was “infallibly” supporting any heresy. He was led into doctrinal error regarding a matter of faith, for sure. But suppose you as a Catholic (or Reformed, or Baptist, or Oneness Pentecostal, it doesn’t matter) tell a friend or person you are cooresponding with that such and such is what your church teaches, when in fact that’s not what it teaches, that doesn’t mean that you are damned to hell, or that you are beyond correction, but rather that you are unaware of whatever point of doctrine that is in question.

Obviously, the Pope should be more studious and careful in the opinions which he holds, and Honorious should have been. But the Catholic Council was taking great care to preserve the truth, even at the defamation of a certain Pope. Papal infallibility, even as a Protestant, I can see is not “disproven” by such an argument as the one about Honorious being anathematized. Rather, it gives us better understanding on the nature of the office.

As Catholics, you should have proper respect for your earthly Head, god on earth, the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Tantum ergo:

heresy in the Catholic church–here’s the link.

newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Thanks for this. However, I do not see any references from the Councils or to either Pope Agatho or Pope Saint Leo II except those selected to favour the Catholic postion on this matter of Honorius. Leo’s negative writings on Honorius are suppressed.

People have been questioning the integrity of the NewAdvent site (it is from the 1913 Encyclopedia and the time of triumphalism). It is considered out of touch with modern scholarship in history and theology and it is overtly partisan…

See here
Catholic Encyclopedia - Out of Date?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=10934&highlight=Encyclopedia

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Sarah Jane:

The Supposed Fall of Honorius and His Condemnation

mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm

Yikes! This old article from 1882 is either deliberately mendacious or written out of ignorance. It is obvious that the author has not even read the condemnation of Pope Honorius by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The Council condemns him as a heretic and not “as one who has been negligent” which is the mistaken assertion of the “J. H. R.” who wrote this article.

Just one quote will suffice to show J.H.R’s incompetency:

“In none of the Acts of the Council is it said that Honorius is called a heretic because he maintained or taught heresy.”

Here is some of what the Council actually says:

SESSION XIII.

(L. and C., Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 943.)

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.

and from the Council also:

SESSION XVI.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1010.)

[The Acclamations of the Fathers.]
Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches!O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!

Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch! Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate!

To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema!
To Honorius the heretic, anathema! To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul
To Peter
To Macarius, the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen
To Polychronius
To Apergius of Perga
To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!
May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

mtr01:

I’m not sure I understand, Father. Are you suggesting that Honorius being anathematized somehow disproves the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility?

Honorius was Pope at the time when the Church of Rome was Orthodox. He would never have considered himself infallible. Nor would any of the Popes preceeding or succeeding him.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Todd Easton:

Honorius I died in 638 so this was a posthumous condemnation which to me is rather pointless as excommunication/anathema are disciplinary measures of the Church intended to bring about conversion and repentance, which is impossible for those who have died… There is an article in the 1912 Catholic Enclycolpedia on the subject of Honorius I, www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm. Essentially, he was condemned because, as a later pope would write, “Honorius, … did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical [Monothelism] teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence.”

Which is why the posthumous condemnations of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Ibas of Edessa in 553 by the Fifth Ecumenical Council do not make much sense - as well as leaving a bad taste in the mouth: the first two especially were notable teachers of their churches, so the Council was in effect saying that their contemporaries had been wrong in thinking them orthodox. By such reasoning, today’s defender of of the faith could be tomorrow’s heretic.​

If the Sixth Council was wrong in its condemnation - where is its infallibility ? And if it was right - where is the Pope’s ? Or aren’t the canons, or the anathemas, of Ecumenical Councils, infallible ? ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fr Ambrose:

Thanks for this. However, I do not see any references from the Councils or to either Pope Agatho or Pope Saint Leo II except those selected to favour the Catholic postion on this matter of Honorius. Leo’s negative writings on Honorius are suppressed.

People have been questioning the integrity of the NewAdvent site (it is from the 1913 Encyclopedia and the time of triumphalism). It is considered out of touch with modern scholarship in history and theology and it is overtly partisan…

See here
Catholic Encyclopedia - Out of Date?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=10934&highlight=Encyclopedia

FWIW, the 1976 edition of Denzinger’s “Enchiridion Symbolorum…” does include extracts from a letter of Leo II in 682 confirming the Council and anathematising those it anathematised - Honorius included. What is not perfectly clear, is the precise reason for Leo’s condemnation of Honorius: is it for doing evil, or for permitting evil to befall ?​

 

[jordan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtr01
I’m not sure I understand, Father. Are you suggesting that Honorius being anathematized somehow disproves the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility?

Fr Ambrose:

Honorius was Pope at the time when the Church of Rome was Orthodox. He would never have considered himself infallible. Nor would any of the Popes preceeding or succeeding him.

Forgive me Father…

The question was not whether Honorius would have considered himself infallible. The question was whether you are suggesting that this incident “somehow disproves the Catholic doctrine of infallibility.”

This is a the critical question wrt this discussion. This is a doctrine that, although defined in fairly recent history, applies to all formally proclaimed Church teachings pertaining to faith and morals from St. Peter to JP II…and there is much history which fed the formal definition.

Whatever the details of the matter are regarding Honorius’ understanding of the issue - what he might have written in letters that no longer exist - or whether his prime failure was lack of action - this case does not impact the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Honorius taught nothing “ex cathedra” on the subject.

I’m sure you were not suggesting that; but this needed clarification.

God bless.

jb

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

jordan:

this case does not impact the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Honorius taught nothing “ex cathedra” on the subject.

I’m sure you were not suggesting that; but this needed clarification.

Of course, nothing is the Roman Catholic Church has an infallible and ex cathedra basis - apart from two very recent doctrines of the last 150 years, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

There are no other doctrines in the Catholic Church which have received an infallible endorsement from any Pope.

Presumably this means that all other doctrines are not guaranteed to be infallible? Or is there another mode within Roman Catholicism which ensures infallibility of teaching apart from the Pope?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Father, I’d like to introduce you to T. More. (Look him up in the member profiles). He has a thread going on “What is the importance of Papal Infallibility” and several of the posters there have addressed your last two questions in their responses.