Pope Honorius I

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shlomey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(italics below are mine)
Ghosty said:
one could be *[called ] *a heretic simply for not speaking out against heresy, for example, rather than having to profess the heresy itself; incidentally, this is exactly what Honorius was found guilty of.
Click to expand...
Exactly, He was condemned exactly because he did not speak out strongly enough. This is a far cry from what the OP is trying to imply.
 
Mickey said:
There is no question what the early Church “meant” by heretic.

A heretic is a heretic–and Honorius was a heretic. We are in agreement. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Remember, Mickey, that Dioscoros of Alexandria was anathemized as a Monophysite heretic despite never proclaiming Monophysitism, and in fact condemning it and its author, Eutyches. He was viewed as a ) going against the Canons of the Church, and b ) giving heresy a forum within the Church, yet he was declared a “heretic”.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
Remember, Mickey, that Dioscoros of Alexandria was anathemized as a Monophysite heretic despite never proclaiming Monophysitism, and in fact condemning it and its author, Eutyches. He was viewed as a ) going against the Canons of the Church, and b ) giving heresy a forum within the Church, yet he was declared a “heretic”.
Click to expand...
Was he declared as a “heretic” by a council? I do not know.

But I do know that Honorius was a bonafide heretic.

However, if you would like to start a thread about the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy, Coptic Orthodoxy, and the Roman Catholic Church as it relates to the Eutychian doctrine of monophysitism, I will try to find the time to participate after we celebrate the blessed Nativity.
 
mardukm said:
Actually, the early Church’s understanding of “heretic” was a lot more general than it is today. But I’ll have to explain it to you in detail next week.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Please do explain it.

I do nto see any issue regarding Papal Infallibility here.
My issue would be:
  1. A Council declared Pope Honorius I
    a) a heretic
    b) anathema (Michael Cerularius was alos declared anathema)
and keeping the Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio in mind, what can we say about a pope who was an anathematized heretic?
Was he even a pope?
Or was the Council wrong?

:confused:

I’m no theologian, thus I am confused.
 
I agree with everything you said (just for the record) [user]Ghosty[/user] up to this point! I hope my agreeing with you doesn’t make you loose any credibility! 😃 I would also like to add: Pope Honorius I (625-638) was anathematized by the 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils and The Council held in the time of St. Photius and by Popes: Leo II, Adrian II, John VIII and Agatho.
 
Shlomey said:
So the question being: was he even a “real Pope”?
If not, then we would not have an unbroken line of Petrine Successors?
Click to expand...
Would it be significan if we didn’t have an unbroken line of ‘Petrine Successors’? Of course not! Keep in mind that the pope is not the successor of the man who was pope immediately before him; if that were the case, then an unbroken line of successors would be important. On the contrary, though, each pope is ‘Successor of the Prince of the Apostles’.

This question arises, I think, because of monarchical thinking. An insight I had recently because of things I’ve read on other threads is that people try to reason by analogy and they think in terms of models of the Church, with resulting difficulties because the Church is simply sui generis; there’s just nothing like it.
 
Shlomey said:
Please do explain it.

I do nto see any issue regarding Papal Infallibility here.
My issue would be:
  1. A Council declared Pope Honorius I
    a) a heretic
    b) anathema (Michael Cerularius was alos declared anathema)
and keeping the Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio in mind, what can we say about a pope who was an anathematized heretic?
Was he even a pope?
Or was the Council wrong?

:confused:
Click to expand...
If one is wanting to apply 2009 definitions to an incident that happened in the 600s, then the following applies:

The CCC defines Heresy as such:
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11
Click to expand...
Pope Honorius did none of this so by definition he was not a heretic. I really think that the whole Heresy and Excommunication thing was more because Leo II and the council probably felt that they were “cleaning up someone elses mess” One cannot apply rules to someone who has been dead for even 40 years that weren’t in place when they died and had a chance to repent.

No where does it say Honorius was deposed as Pope, that means he was still a Pope.

In “Scott Hahn on the Papacy” he states:
This is such assurance for us that whether John XI or John XII, two of the most sinful Popes in all of history or Alexander VI; I mean these guys were scoundrels. We have had scoundrels for Popes. Out of the hundreds of Popes, it’s amazing to think that there were really only three or four scoundrels, but that should bother you. But should it cause you to overthrow your confidence in listening to the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Pope? No, of course not. For one thing, you can be grateful that these scoundrels were too busy sinning to even attempt teaching from the seat of Peter. They didn’t, and they brought great confusion upon the Church so it is a deplorable condition.
Click to expand...
But let’s consider one fact. Jesus chose twelve Apostles, didn’t He? And what about those twelve Apostles? One of them was Judas. Did Jesus know it beforehand? You bet He did. Why did He choose him? Maybe to get us ready for Judas priests in all generations.
Click to expand...
 
Okay, and the term “heretic” Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio uses is the one in line with the ancient understanding or the CCC teaching?

Peace
 
OK, I’m not the most attentive reader, but this summarizes what I understand of the case. Correct me if I’m wrong in anything essential.

Honorius was faced with two factions. One believed proposition A. The other believed proposition NOT A. Rather than teach one proposition or the other as the teaching of the Church, he avoided the issue and taught neither. In the course of time, he died. Subsequently, a council proclaimed proposition A to be orthodox and proposition NOT A to be heretical. Since Honorius did not teach proposition A, the council declared him a heretic.
 
rad314 said:
OK, I’m not the most attentive reader, but this summarizes what I understand of the case. Correct me if I’m wrong in anything essential.

Honorius was faced with two factions. One believed proposition A. The other believed proposition NOT A. Rather than teach one proposition or the other as the teaching of the Church, he avoided the issue and taught neither. In the course of time, he died. Subsequently, a council proclaimed proposition A to be orthodox and proposition NOT A to be heretical. Since Honorius did not teach proposition A, the council declared him a heretic.
Click to expand...
Is the Council’s declaration infallible?
And why would it use the term “heretic” in a wrong sense?
Or even anathema

Does not anathema mean (in the past) that one is condemned to descend to hell upon death?
 
This encyclopedia is nearly a hundred years old, but you’ll find a lot of good material there. Try ‘Honorius I’ and ‘anathema’.

newadvent.org/cathen/
Shlomey said:
Is the Council’s declaration infallible?
Click to expand...
It appears to be, but I haven’t examined it closely enough to be sure. Let’s assume that it is.
Does not anathema mean (in the past) that one is condemned to descend to hell upon death?
Click to expand...
Note especially the last few lines of the entry for ‘anathema’. It’s always conditional. Sanctions such as excommunication are always meant as calls to repentance. Beyond that, it’s always God, not the Church, that judges souls. (Familiar with the three conditions for mortal sin?) The Church has no teaching to the effect that any given person is in hell, not even Judas. So, while the Church can teach definitively that a certain belief is heresy, she doesn’t teach that any given heretic is, in fact, in hell.
It may be my practicality intruding here, but I have difficulty getting concerned about an anathema against someone who was dead at the time. If I had been living when the council made its declaration, I would have been more concerned with whether I was a heretic than with whether a dead man had been.

I’m more concerned with his being deposed. It seems to me that he couldn’t have been deposed retroactively. Wouldn’t it work that he would be declared a heretic and then immediately deposed? If so, since he was dead, it made no practical difference.
 
Shlomey said:
And why would it use the term “heretic” in a wrong sense?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that in former times it was considerably easier to label someone a heretic. I can’t imagine any competent authority today declaring a dead person a heretic. (Repeating a finding reached while the person was alive, maybe – but that’s different.) Don’t you think Honorius I (may he rest in peace) was surprised to find himself declared a heretic? If someone sufficiently important were suspected of heresy today, there would be so many discussions and meetings and hearings involving the suspect (not to mention appeals for repentance) that he would have absolutely no doubt about what was happening and exactly why.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Articles about Pope Honorius

**THE TRUTH ABOUT POPE HONORIUS **
By ROBERT SPENCER
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

Guilty Only of Failure to Teach
The Case of Pope Honorius Doesn’t Disprove Papal Infallibility
By Steve O’Reilly
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea5.asp

White Is Wrong
Rebutting James White’s Rebuttal on Pope Honorius
By Steven O’Reilly
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp
Click to expand...
So, the final documents of the council were infallible, since the pope approved them, and Honorius was rebuked for negligence, not condemned for heresy; further, no questionable teaching by Honorius met the conditions for an infallible declaration.

I can live with that. In fact, I will.
 
Dear brother Shlomey,
Shlomey said:
Is the Council’s declaration infallible?
And why would it use the term “heretic” in a wrong sense?
Or even anathema

Does not anathema mean (in the past) that one is condemned to descend to hell upon death?
Click to expand...
Catholics and Oriental Orthodox believe that Ecumenical Councils are specially guided by God in defining the FAITH. We do not believe that guidance extends to the condemnation of persons. A Council’s condemnation of persons (as opposed to its condemnation of heresy) is NOT infallible and can be subject to error.

History bears this out. The Fifth Ecumenical Council itself was called to condemn certain persons that the Fourth Ecumenical Council had exonerated. Pope Dioscorus was previously thought to be a heretic, but no longer. Similarly with Nestorius.

In short, a Council is infallible with regards to declaring WHAT is heresy. On the other hand, it is not infallible with regards to declaring WHO is a heretic.

Is that a sufficient answer?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Is that a sufficient answer?
Click to expand...
Yes, thank you all very much.

I really appreciate the effort you put into helping me clear my ignorance.

God bless
 
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was issued long after the time of Honorius I. That document is merely of the temporal authority of the Church, and it is not in force. The Pope tried to bind future Popes to that temporal decision, but he was unable to do so. No Pope can bind future Popes to his temporal decisions, because then the authority of each subsequent Pope would be progressively diminished. But instead, each Pope has the same full authority as the head of the Church on earth that Peter had.

As for Pope Honorius I, he did not commit heresy. The question was whether Jesus had two wills or only one. The Magisterium had not decided the question at that point in time, nor did Honorius teach, or publicly express a theological opinion, one way or the other. He merely wrote some private letters giving his advice to avoid deciding the question for now.

A subsequent Ecumencial Council, exercising the fallible temporal authority of the Church, condemn what he had written in those letters, mainly because they thought the Pope should have decided the question. They did not excommunicate someone; Honorius had died many years prior to that Council. No one can be excommunicated after death.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was issued long after the time of Honorius I. That document is merely of the temporal authority of the Church, and it is not in force.
Click to expand...
It’s talking about heresy. How is that a matter that is merely temporal?

Blessings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top