No, Hesychios cheap tactics are not my domain for it is you who malign Honorius without just cause by calling him a Monothelite, i.e., there is nothing in Sergius’s letter which proves he was one (nor was he condemned as such). Contarini was in error when, in fact, he failed to produce (intentionally I’m not sure) the whole quote/sentence to qualify the way in which Honorius used the expression, “one will”, here is the full sentence:
Contarini only wrote: “Where we acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ.”, thus giving the impression that Honorius was indeed a Monothelite. A further explanation of what was meant by “one will” is quoted below:
You and everyone else who states that Honorius was condemned for being a Monothelite are distorting the facts and I will not let you get away with that.
.
Good grief Josie this is bordering on the ridiculous. Here is the text of the infallible, ireformable Sixth Ecumenical Council as accepted by
your Church.
To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! ***To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! *** To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!
And
Therefore we declare that in him there are two natural wills and two natural operations, proceeding commonly and without division: but we cast out of the Church and rightly subject to anathema all superfluous novelties as well as their inventors: to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius and Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter (who were archbishops of Constantinople), moreover Cyrus, who bore the priesthood of Alexandria, and with them Honorius, who was the ruler (πρόεδρον) of Rome,
as he followed them in these things.
And from the Imperial Edict
The heresy of Apollinaris, etc., has been renewed by Theodore of Pharan and confirmed by Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, who also contradicted himself.
And
so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy
And from the answer of the Monothelites themselves given at the Sixth Council
We have brought out no new method of speech, but have taught whatever we have received from the holy Ecumenical Synods, and from the holy approved Fathers, as well as from the archbishops of this imperial city, to wit: Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, as also from Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, and from Cyrus who was Pope of Alexandria, that is to say with reference to will and operation, and so we have believed, and so we believe, so we preach; and further we are ready to stand by, and defend this faith.
Here is the
link to all of the documents I just referenced.
The council didn’t say something like, “to Honorius, for not speaking up when he should have, anathema!” or anything like that. It says, to Honorius, THE HERETIC. It is completely unambiguous. There is absolutely no question that the council condemned him as a heretic.
I thought that once something was defined infallibly by an Ecumenical Council it was beyond question? Since as a Catholic apparently you feel you have the right to question the findings of the Sixth Council do you have the right to question other councils such as Vatican I and it’s pronouncement on Papal Infallibility? I’m trying to understand your position because something isn’t adding up.
Either way I’m not going to argue this anymore. The evidence is clear to anyone without a vested interest to deny that Honorius was a heretic. It can speak for itself.
Yours in Christ
Joe
