Sixth Ecumenical Council (Third Council of Constantinople)

[rben20]

Hello,

Just wanted to ask what you all thought about the Council as far as Pope Honorius I. How are we to reconcile the anathema of the Pope with Vatican I and it’s claims? Wouldn’t there be a contradiction or some kind of proof that even the Pope can error when it comes to faith and/or morals?

 

[steve_b]

Hello,

Just wanted to ask what you all thought about the Council as far as Pope Honorius I. How are we to reconcile the anathema of the Pope with Vatican I and it’s claims? Wouldn’t there be a contradiction or some kind of proof that even the Pope can error when it comes to faith and/or morals?

The definition of infalibility

*"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is *when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

• Did Honorius define a doctrine in the case brought against him at the council? No
• Honorius would need to not only define a doctrine, he would have to state the doctrine was to be held by the universal Church. Did he do any of that? No

Therefore, Honorius didn’t violate the teaching on infallibility.

 

[mardukm]

Hello,

Just wanted to ask what you all thought about the Council as far as Pope Honorius I. How are we to reconcile the anathema of the Pope with Vatican I and it’s claims? Wouldn’t there be a contradiction or some kind of proof that even the Pope can error when it comes to faith and/or morals?

Solid proof that Pope Honorius never taught the monothelite error publicly (i.e., that it was a teaching of the Church that all Christians must believe) is the fact that the Fathers of the Sixth Council did not even know that Pope Honorius had any part in the heresy to begin with. In fact, the monothelite error was considered by all to be a heresy infecting the Eastern portion of Christendom, not the Western (and Honorius was the Patriarch of the West at the time). When the Council opened, a list of the names of those who were to be judged was given out, and Pope Honorius’ name was not among them. It was only after one of the accused bishops produced a PRIVATE letter given by Honorius to Sergius that Honorius’s name was included.

Remember - the God-given protection of infallibility given to the Church is ONLY with regards to the public, universal Faith of the Church. It does not protect the private belief of individual members of the Church, not even the Pope. This is one of the biggest misunderstandings that non-Catholics have about the Church’s teaching on infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Trebor135]

Solid proof that Pope Honorius never taught the monothelite error publicly (i.e., that it was a teaching of the Church that all Christians must believe) is the fact that the Fathers of the Sixth Council did not even know that Pope Honorius had any part in the heresy to begin with. In fact, the monothelite error was considered by all to be a heresy infecting the Eastern portion of Christendom, not the Western (and Honorius was the Patriarch of the West at the time). When the Council opened, a list of the names of those who were to be judged was given out, and Pope Honorius’ name was not among them. It was only after one of the accused bishops produced a PRIVATE letter given by Honorius to Sergius that Honorius’s name was included.

Remember - the God-given protection of infallibility given to the Church is ONLY with regards to the public, universal Faith of the Church. It does not protect the private belief of individual members of the Church, not even the Pope. This is one of the biggest misunderstandings that non-Catholics have about the Church’s teaching on infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

But given that our seventh-century forebears had no access to modern means of communication, how would the pope have disseminated to the Christian world an official statement he had already made on the local level?

 

[mardukm]

But given that our seventh-century forebears had no access to modern means of communication, how would the pope have disseminated to the Christian world an official statement he had already made on the local level?

Word of mouth. There is a period of 42 years between the bishopric of Pope Honorius and the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Surely, if such an error was being taught by a Pope and spreading in the West, the East would have known about it within that period of time.

Besides, Italy/Rome was a commercial center. Any news of what a Pope was teaching publicly would have spread fast.

Remember that several of the names on the list of persons to be judged were already dead. The judgment of their teaching was based simply on what people heard them teach.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Hello,

Just wanted to ask what you all thought about the Council as far as Pope Honorius I. How are we to reconcile the anathema of the Pope with Vatican I and it’s claims? Wouldn’t there be a contradiction or some kind of proof that even the Pope can error when it comes to faith and/or morals?

Honorius did not define or condemn anything. He was later condemned for negligence not for teaching heresy but for failure in extinguishing a heresy.

 

[Trebor135]

Word of mouth. There is a period of 42 years between the bishopric of Pope Honorius and the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Surely, if such an error was being taught by a Pope and spreading in the West, the East would have known about it within that period of time.

Besides, Italy/Rome was a commercial center. Any news of what a Pope was teaching publicly would have spread fast.

Remember that several of the names on the list of persons to be judged were already dead. The judgment of their teaching was based simply on what people heard them teach.

Interesting explanation–I’d never heard it before. But why did no one at the council step forward to say something like the following?: “The letter of Pope Honorius to the archbishop of Constantinople actually contains no heresy, notwithstanding the honest misinterpretations of the text by some of the esteemed council fathers here assembled. In all of Pope Honorius’s public teaching, as a matter of fact, the archbishop of Old Rome was entirely orthodox, propounding firmly and consistently that Christ possessed two wills, or refusing to discuss the matter entirely.”

And the content of the letter in question seem to indicate that its writer is giving an official teaching–how else would the recipient have interpreted such phraseology as “We confess one will of Our Lord Jesus Christ”?

God bless,
T.

 

[Vico]

Interesting explanation–I’d never heard it before. But why did no one at the council step forward to say something like the following?: “The letter of Pope Honorius to the archbishop of Constantinople is being misunderstood–it contains no heresy, notwithstanding the honest misinterpretations of the text by some of the esteemed council fathers here assembled. In Pope Honorius’s public teaching, in fact, the archbishop of Old Rome was entirely orthodox, propounding firmly and consistently that Christ possessed two wills and not one.”

Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III, 680-681
**THE SENTENCE AGAINST THE MONOTHELITES. **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. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const3.asp

 

[Trebor135]

I edited my post after Vico began his reply–I hope a moderator can update his message accordingly.

Thanks to Vico for citing the sentence of the Sixth Ecumenical Council–if Marduk is correct, perhaps Pope Honorius publicly taught orthodoxy and privately condoned/promoted heterodoxy. An attitude of duplicity on the part of an individual enjoying such great influence as an archbishop cannot be immediately discounted…

 

[Trebor135]

I edited my post after Vico began his reply–if a moderator happens to be reading, please update his message accordingly.

Thanks to Vico for citing the sentence of the Sixth Ecumenical Council–if Marduk is correct, perhaps Pope Honorius publicly taught orthodoxy and privately condoned/promoted heterodoxy? (It is indeed troubling that an attitude of duplicity on the part of an individual enjoying such great influence as an archbishop cannot be immediately discounted…)

 

[steve_b]

I edited my post after Vico began his reply–if a moderator happens to be reading, please update his message accordingly.

Thanks to Vico for citing the sentence of the Sixth Ecumenical Council–if Marduk is correct, perhaps Pope Honorius publicly taught orthodoxy and privately condoned/promoted heterodoxy? (It is indeed troubling that an attitude of duplicity on the part of an individual enjoying such great influence as an archbishop cannot be immediately discounted…)

Here’s something for consideration

There is a sense where if the explanation of a subject is not perfect, it can LOOK like someone is saying one thing but MEANING something else.

for example. Jesus said

Jn 6:38
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

And we know that whatever Jesus did, He did perfectly!!! Correct?

How could that be interpreted / misinterpreted? The Church teaches Jesus has 2 wills, Divine and Human. But on the surface of that statement from Jesus, He says He is NOT using one of them…right? At the time of Honorius, Monothelitism was being taught in the East. Monothelitism teaches Jesus has 1 will not 2. Surgius is having communications with Honorius via letter about this issue.

if Honorius was not absolutely precise with what he wrote, (and we’ll not know what he wrote because the writings were all destroyed) he could have been misinterpreted. Honorius had been dead for decades by the time of this trial. He had no chance to explain to anyone in his defense, what he wrote and meant… Honorius asked Sergius to keep their conversation just between them. Apparantly Honorius honored that because no one knew what Honorius communicated with Sergius about, till decades later. That demonstrates to me 2 things.

1. 
   *]Honorius, had no intent to define anything or teach anything. Therefore infallibility isn’t an issue
   *]It also demonstrates, be extra careful what you put in writing and how you say it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Trebor,

Interesting explanation–I’d never heard it before. But why did no one at the council step forward to say something like the following?: “The letter of Pope Honorius to the archbishop of Constantinople actually contains no heresy, notwithstanding the honest misinterpretations of the text by some of the esteemed council fathers here assembled. In all of Pope Honorius’s public teaching, as a matter of fact, the archbishop of Old Rome was entirely orthodox, propounding firmly and consistently that Christ possessed two wills, or refusing to discuss the matter entirely.”

The nuance between monothelitism and miathelitism seems to have been lost on many people during that time period. There was more than one way to interpret the words of Pope Honorius. IF it was to be interpreted in an orthodox way, then there would be no problem (see my following comment). But it was being used by the heretics in a heterodox way. And that was enough for the Council Fathers to condemn the letter as such.

And the content of the letter in question seem to indicate that its writer is giving an official teaching–how else would the recipient have interpreted such phraseology as “We confess one will of Our Lord Jesus Christ”?

Such a statement from my perspective as a miaphysite poses no problem, It is similar to the monophysite/diophysite misunderstanding that had existed between the non-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians for about 1,500 years. To say “We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ” does not necessarily deny that Christ had a human and divine will, but simply that the two wills of Christ are united as one, and never contradict each other. This is in fact the explanation proffered by Pope Honorius’ scribe (the one to whom Honorius dictated his letter for Sergius), and it is the defense that St. Maximos the Confessor provided for Pope Honorius as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Trebor,

I edited my post after Vico began his reply–if a moderator happens to be reading, please update his message accordingly.

Thanks to Vico for citing the sentence of the Sixth Ecumenical Council–if Marduk is correct, perhaps Pope Honorius publicly taught orthodoxy and privately condoned/promoted heterodoxy?

I don’t think there can be any doubt that Pope Honorius did NOT teach the heresy publicy. If you will carefully read the excerpt brother VIco provided, you will notice that the basis of the Council’s condemnation of Pope Honorius is SIMPLY and ONLY because of the PRIVATE letter he gave to Sergius - “because of what we found written by him to Sergius.” All the others who were condemned were on the list because of their PUBLIC teaching on monothelitism - they were the source of the heresy. If you will notice, Pope Honorius is placed in a separate category from them, though condemned nonetheless.

(It is indeed troubling that an attitude of duplicity on the part of an individual enjoying such great influence as an archbishop cannot be immediately discounted…)

It is indeed troubling if you consider Pope Honorius as a private individual, but I think it bodes well for the doctrine of “papal infallibility” that Pope Honorius did not proactively and publicly teach the heresy. It is important to always remember that infallibility - according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, not the misrepresentations of non-Catholics - is a Grace of God that protects the public, universal Faith of the Church, not the private belief of individuals (not even the Pope).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother Trebor,

The nuance between monothelitism and miathelitism seems to have been lost on many people during that time period. There was more than one way to interpret the words of Pope Honorius. IF it was to be interpreted in an orthodox way, then there would be no problem (see my following comment). But it was being used by the heretics in a heterodox way. And that was enough for the Council Fathers to condemn the letter as such.

Such a statement from my perspective as a miaphysite poses no problem, It is similar to the monophysite/diophysite misunderstanding that had existed between the non-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians for about 1,500 years. To say “We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ” does not necessarily deny that Christ had a human and divine will, but simply that the two wills of Christ are united as one, and never contradict each other. This is in fact the explanation proffered by Pope Honorius’ scribe (the one to whom Honorius dictated his letter for Sergius), and it is the defense that St. Maximos the Confessor provided for Pope Honorius as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

And when exactly did Maximus the Confessor defend the heretic Honorius? In which writings of his may I find this defense of Honorius, the bishop of Rome who was anathematized posthumously by the wise Fathers of the Third Council of Constantinople for his promotion of the monothelite heresy?

 

[Vico]

Cavaradossi,

Some notes of the orthodoxy of St. Maximus, with no explicit support of Pope Honorius.

a. A timeline:

Ecthesis drafted by Sergius 638 A.D.
Ecthesis signed by Heraclius (Monothelitism) becomes edict 638 A.D.
Honorius died in 638 A.D. without approving Ecthesis.
St. Maximus opposed Monothelitism beginning in 640 A.D.
Pope John IV rejects the Ecthesis
Theodore I rejects the Ecthesis
Letter of St. Maximus to Marinus circa 643 A.D.
Monothelitism was declared heresy in 680-681 A.D. Anathema of Honorius and others.

b. Extract from the letter of St. Maximus to Marinus: But it is necessary to know that in the case of natures and natural energies we have found expressions in these Fathers that signify unity rather than duality, such expressions as ‘one Incarnate nature of God the Word’,29 ‘the theandric energy’,30 ‘shown to have kinship with both’.31 But in the case of natural wills, I do not know of any expressions that express unity, but only ones that designate different names and dual number.
How then and for what reason should it ever be necessary to ask whether there is one will or two wills in Christ the God, however thoroughly we examine the question, since encouraged by the teaching and legislation of the Fathers we confess and maintain two natural wills in the same person, just as the natures themselves with their natural energies, since we know the difference between them?

c. And a footnote from book:The Condemnation of Pope Honorius
By DOM JOHN CHAPMAN, O.S.B.
1907
At:
archive.org/stream/a620530200chapuoft/a620530200chapuoft_djvu.txt
2 St. Maximus uses the same arguments in his letter to Marinus, and he tells us that he had heard from the holy Roman abbot, Anastasius, that he had heard the Abbot John Symponus, the writer of Honorius’ letter, affirm that he never made any mention in it of the abolition of the natural human will in our Lord, but only of the lower will of the flesh, adding that the letter had been corrupted by the Greek translators. This seems to be untrue of the version read at the sixth Council, as it was examined and approved by the papal representatives. St. Maximus has perhaps slightly exaggerated the testimony of Abbot John in repeating it (Mansi, x. 695).

 

[mardukm]

And when exactly did Maximus the Confessor defend the heretic Honorius? In which writings of his may I find this defense of Honorius, the bishop of Rome who was anathematized posthumously by the wise Fathers of the Third Council of Constantinople for his promotion of the monothelite heresy?

The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions it in its article on Monothelitism:
newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm

It is interesting that the article notes St. Maximos understand of the notion of “united will” (“But if the word will is taken to mean not the faculty but the decision taken by the will (the will willed, not the will willing), then it is true that the two wills always acted in harmony: there were two wills willing and two acts, but one object, one will willed; in the phrase of St. Maximus, there were duo thelemata though mia gnome.”) - perhaps that is why he was more understanding of Pope Honorius.

“In like manner, St Maximos the Confessor defended Pope Honorius I (who was, by that time, dead) with the notion that the Pope had only overstressed a point, rather than intending a heresy.”
Fr. Michael Azkoul (a priest with HOCNA), orthodoxcanada.org/Augustine%20%20an%20exploration.html

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions it in its article on Monothelitism:
newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm

“In like manner, St Maximos the Confessor defended Pope Honorius I (who was, by that time, dead) with the notion that the Pope had only overstressed a point, rather than intending a heresy.”
Fr. Michael Azkoul (a priest with HOCNA), orthodoxcanada.org/Augustine%20%20an%20exploration.html

Blessings,
Marduk

That is the letter I quoted from but it contains no mention of Honorius, rather the footnote refers to what St. Maximus said, regarding the use of a mistranslation. But it was mute because the sixth compared Latin and Greek copies to come to a conclusion.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions it in its article on Monothelitism:
newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm

It is interesting that the article notes St. Maximos understand of the notion of “united will” (“But if the word will is taken to mean not the faculty but the decision taken by the will (the will willed, not the will willing), then it is true that the two wills always acted in harmony: there were two wills willing and two acts, but one object, one will willed; in the phrase of St. Maximus, there were duo thelemata though mia gnome.”) - perhaps that is why he was more understanding of Pope Honorius.

“In like manner, St Maximos the Confessor defended Pope Honorius I (who was, by that time, dead) with the notion that the Pope had only overstressed a point, rather than intending a heresy.”
Fr. Michael Azkoul (a priest with HOCNA), orthodoxcanada.org/Augustine%20%20an%20exploration.html

Blessings,
Marduk

Why should I take their word for it? In what work of Maximus the Confessor may I find him defending the person of Honorius, bishop of Rome? General inferences drawn from his allowance for the term theandric energy (which is necessary, because the term was used in the writings of pseudo-dionysus), or his understanding that the wills are executed in unison by the one hypostasis of the Word are not good enough. You claimed that he defended the person of Honorius against the charge of the heresy of monothelitism. I wish to see evidence from his first-hand works that he did so.

 

[mardukm]

Why should I take their word for it? In what work of Maximus the Confessor may I find him defending the person of Honorius, bishop of Rome? General inferences drawn from his allowance for the term theandric energy (which is necessary, because the term was used in the writings of pseudo-dionysus) are not good enough, or his understanding that the wills are executed in unison by the one hypostasis of the Word are not good enough. You claimed that he defended the person of Honorius against the charge of heresy. I wish to see evidence from his first-hand works that he did so.

I don’t know of the specific work from St. Maximos. Perhaps you can contact Fr. Michael Azkoul for his resources?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t know of the specific work from St. Maximos. Perhaps you can contact Fr. Michael Azkoul for his resources?

Blessings,
Marduk

If he does not cite Maximus in his article, then his claim is unsubstantiated.