Pope Honorius

[aquinasg]

I was wondering if anyone can explain in a simple way what happened with Pope Honorius. All the articles I see on it are so complicated. Was he condemned as a heretic by a Council ratified by a Pope If so, how do we reconciled that with these quotes?:

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’” (Denz. 330)

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 11: “By passing judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of the venerable Councils…” (Denz. 352)

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 32: “… As the hinge while remaining immoveable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because ‘the highest See is judged by no one.’” (Denz. 353)

Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”

 

[TrueLight]

I was wondering if anyone can explain in a simple way what happened with Pope Honorius. All the articles I see on it are so complicated. Was he condemned as a heretic by a Council ratified by a Pope If so, how do we reconciled that with these quotes?:

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’” (Denz. 330)

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 11: “By passing judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of the venerable Councils…” (Denz. 352)

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 32: “… As the hinge while remaining immoveable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because ‘the highest See is judged by no one.’” (Denz. 353)

Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”

I’m reading an excellent history book called a Popular History of the Catholic Church. It goes over the Church’s history starting from the beginning.

Today I read about a time in Church history, where a council made up of Bishops, priests, even princes, convened to judge Popes.

At that time, there were two Popes: John XXIII and Gregory XII (long story). Pope John XXIII was considered to be a lousy pope and a General Council convened, charged him with simony and deposed him. Gregory the XII abdicated after strong pressure from the Council .

On November 11, 1417, a conclave that consisted of twenty-three cardinals and 5 prelates from 6 nations elected a new Pope, Martin V. That placed an end to the schism that had created two Popes.

During this whole mess, for the first time, there was discussion of the Pope deferring to a Council.

The Pope’s power was never the same again.

 

[amsjj]

Well, this is all rather complicated and I speak under correction, but the excerpts below answer your core question (Was he condemned as a heretic by a Council ratified by a Pope?).

+++ +++ +++

It was now [during the time of the Monothelite heresy] for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing.

… Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside at a general council which met at Constantinople on 7 Nov., 680. They brought with them a long dogmatic letter in which the pope defined the faith with authority as the successor of St. Peter. He emphatically declares, remembering Honorius, that the Apostolic Church of St. Peter has never fallen into error.

… In the thirteenth session, 28 March [681], the two letters of Sergius were condemned, and the council added: “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”. These last words are true enough, and if Sergius was to be condemned Honorius could not be rescued. The legates made no objection to his condemnation. The question had indeed arisen unexpectedly out of the reading of Macarius’s packet; but the legates must have had instructions from the pope how to act under the circumstances.

Some other writings of the condemned heretics were further read, including part of a second letter of Honorius, and these were all condemned to be burnt. On 9 Aug. in the last session, George of Constantinople petitioned “that the persons be not anathematized by name”, that is, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter. He only mentions his own predecessors; but Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus, and Honorius would evidently have been spared also, had the legates supported the suggestion. But there was no attempt to save the reputation of Honorius, and the petition of George was negatived by the synod. In the final acclamations, anathema to Honorius, among the other heretics, was shouted. The solemn dogmatic decree, signed by the legates, all the bishops, and the emperor, condemns the heretics mentioned by St. Agatho “and also Honorius who was pope of elder Rome”, while it enthusiastically accepts the letter of St. Agatho. The council, according to custom, presented an address of congratulation to the emperor, which was signed by all the bishops. In it they have much to say of the victory which Agatho, speaking with the voice of Peter, gained over heresy. They anathematize the heretics by name, Theodore, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, Peter, Cyrus, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”, and Macarius with his followers. The letter to the pope, also signed by all, gives the same list of heretics, and congratulates Agatho on his letter “which we recognize as pronounced by the chiefest head of the Apostles”.

… The emperor’s [Constantine IV] official letter to the pope is particularly explicit on these points. It should be noted that he calls Honorius “the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself”, again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius’s contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. It was in this sense that Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well acquainted with the history of the Type, and with the Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, and the defences by St. Maximus. It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.

[TBC]

 

[amsjj]

St. Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

… Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils without special remark; also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: “Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions” (Liber diurnus, ii, 9). It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius.

… Pope Honorius was much respected and died with an untarnished reputation. Few popes did more for the restoration and beautifying of churches of Rome, and he has left us his portrait in the apsidal mosaic of Sant Agnese fueri le mura. He cared also for the temporal needs of the Romans by repairing the aqueduct of Trajan. His extant letters show him engaged in much business.

From: Chapman, John. “Pope Honorius I.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 26 Oct. 2011 newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm.

+++ +++ +++

Pope Honorius died on 12 October, 638. The Third Council of Constantinople, also called the Sixth Ecumenical Council, took place in Constantinople in 680-681 AD. So to wrap up, yes, he was condemned after his death. The following show how he was condemned:

Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius’s contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban.”

… The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.

… and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."

… He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius.

+++

The text of Dom Chapman’s work “The Condemnation of Pope Honorius” originally appeared in “The Dublin Review,” 1906-7 and was reprinted as a tract by the London Catholic Truth Society in 1907. It is available online at:
third-millennium-library.com/History-of-the-Popes/GalleryofHistory/Pope_Honorius/CONDEMNATION-OF-POPE-HONORIUS.html

take care,
amsjj

+++
Jesus, God and man,
imprisoned by love in Thy most holy Sacrament,
have mercy upon us.
– Blessed John Henry Newman, December 22, 1851

Tú y yo sabemos por la fe que oculto en las especies sacramentales está Cristo,
ese Cristo con su Cuerpo, con su Sangre, con su Alma, y con su Divinidad,
prisonero de amor.
– San Josemaría Escrivá, 1 junio 1974

 

[Cavaradossi]

For those interested, this is a translation of the actual anathema on Honorius.

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.

The full text can be found here: newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

 

[aquinasg]

Well, this is all rather complicated +++ +++ +++

… In the thirteenth session, 28 March [681], the two letters of Sergius were condemned, and the council added: “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**”.

Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius’s contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban.

[TBC]

Gosh I am so confused. Isn’t there a conradiction in this article?

 

[Warrenton]

Gosh I am so confused. Isn’t there a conradiction in this article?

no contradiction. They are saying that Pope Honorius abetted heretics, not that he promulagated heresy.

Hence, it is claimed, Honorius did not teach error, but failed to take the steps required by the office of the papacy to suppress error.

 

[aquinasg]

Nop, if you read it carefully you’ll see the contradiction. Honorius followed Sergius’s is “all things”

 

[guanophore]

Nop, if you read it carefully you’ll see the contradiction. Honorius followed Sergius’s is “all things”

This is not a contradiction. Personally embracing error, and officially teaching error are two different things. When the Fathers say that the Holy See cannot be questioned, they are referring to the infallible teaching of the Church, and Ex Cathedra in partiuclar. Honorius failed to promulgate at all, and his duty was to make an Ex Cathedra statement against the heresy.

 

[aquinasg]

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 32: “… As the hinge while remaining immoveable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since **no one should remove their status **because ‘the highest See is judged by no one.’” (Denz. 353)

Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, **On trials **in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”

The only conclusion I can come up with is that Pope Honorius ceased to be Pope once he “embraced heresy”, although some argue he didn’t mean to embrace heresy at all. This is the most confusing papal issue I’ve come across

 

[JM3]

From the last link in post #4.

Papal Infallibility and the Sixth Council.

These letters may help us to decide whether “the Bishops who composed the Council had no, even rudimentary, idea of Papal Infallibility”. The Pope imposed terms of communion. The Council accepts the letter in which the Pope defined the faith. It deposes those who refused to accept it. It asks him to confirm its decisions. The Bishops and the 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. The Council holds the same traditional views about Rome which we have heard from Constantinople, from Palestine, from Africa, from Cyprus.

All this is not the Vatican definition, for it is not definite. But the very least that is implied is that Rome has an indefectible faith, which is authoritatively promulgated to the whole Church by the Bishops of the Apostolic See, the successors of Peter and the heirs at once of his faith and of his authority.

How was it possible to assert this, and yet in the same breath to condemn Pope Honorius as a heretic? The answer is surely plain enough. Honorius was fallible, was wrong, was a heretic, precisely 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. The Roman tradition had been asserted with authority by Popes Severinus, John IV, Theodore, Martin, and their successors; and Martin had sealed his testimony with his sufferings and death. Neither the Pope nor the Council consider that Honorius had compromised the purity of 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 7th century judged the same letters by the custom of their own 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. The grounds of both judgments are in reality the same, viz., that the Pope was not defining with authority and binding the Church.