The Petrine views

[Wandile]

Father John

You make the assertion that Rome has been blemished by heresy and has been in a state of heresy. Yet the same subsequent popes at the synod of Rome as well as others went onto claim, before and AFTER the condemnation of Honorius, that the Roman church has never been tainted. The Lateran Synod, convoked by St. Martin against the Monothelites, fifteen years after the date of Honorius’s letter, condemned the Monothelites and anathematized them by name, without making any mention of Honorius; it even asserted that all the Roman pontiffs had not, since the rise of the heresy, desisted from solicitude for the faith, writing to the erring, etc. The series of these pontiffs is as follows: Honorius I. (628), Severinus (640), John IV. (642), Theodore I. (649), St. Martin I., Pope St. Agatho,who convened the Sixth General Council, defended Honorius before the Fathers there assembled, and said that Honorius had exhorted the erring that :

at least, by keeping silence, they should desist from the error of their doctrine."

With all due respect, if you are the historian you claim to be, then you would know Honorius was NOT condemned for teaching the heresy, but for allowing heresy to spread (Negligence). The fathers of church are in agreement with me on this.

Father did you ignore all the post where I showed that when Honorius said “One will…” that they meant one human will. As opposed to two human wills of flesh and mind.

THAT IS NOT MONOTHELITISM

THAT IS ORTHODOXY

Father I even brought proof from the person whoa actually wrote the letter. Who better to know what it actually meant than the persons who actually wrote the letter right? Well the Abbot John wrote the letter together with Honorius and he testifies by saying :

We said that there is one will in the Lord, not of his divinity or humanity, but of his humanity solely."

His second successor, Pope John IV (642), confirmed Honorius’ intention, stating that Honorius’ purpose was to simply :

deny contrary [human] wills of mind and flesh."

It seems like you haven’t read the letters of Honorius because if you did…you would know then that What the Abbot John is saying is true.]]

 

[AndyP2010]

He was until Rome went into schism. As second in rank, Constantinople has inherited the position once held by the Bishop of Rome. All that is needed for reunion is for Rome to go back to the position he held during the age of the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils and to reject any Catholic doctrine not held at that time by the whole Church.

Fr. John

I will take that as a yes for the sake of our discussion. So historically speaking, was’t that title “first among equal” claimed by Caesar Augustus

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father John

You make the assertion that Rome has been blemished by heresy and has been in a state of heresy. Yet the same subsequent popes at the synod of Rome as well as others went onto claim, before and AFTER the condemnation of Honorius, that the Roman church has never been tainted. The Lateran Synod, convoked by St. Martin against the Monothelites, fifteen years after the date of Honorius’s letter, condemned the Monothelites and anathematized them by name, without making any mention of Honorius; it even asserted that all the Roman pontiffs had not, since the rise of the heresy, desisted from solicitude for the faith, writing to the erring, etc. The series of these pontiffs is as follows: Honorius I. (628), Severinus (640), John IV. (642), Theodore I. (649), St. Martin I., Pope St. Agatho,who convened the Sixth General Council, defended Honorius before the Fathers there assembled, and said that Honorius had exhorted the erring that :

With all due respect, if you are the historian you claim to be, then you would know Honorius was NOT condemned for teaching the heresy, but for allowing heresy to spread (Negligence). The fathers of church are in agreement with me on this.

Father did you ignore all the post where I showed that when Honorius said “One will…” that they meant one human will. As opposed to two human wills of flesh and mind.

THAT IS NOT MONOTHELITISM

THAT IS ORTHODOXY

Father I even brought proof from the person whoa actually wrote the letter. Who better to know what it actually meant than the persons who actually wrote the letter right? Well the Abbot John wrote the letter together with Honorius and he testifies by saying :

His second successor, Pope John IV (642), confirmed Honorius’ intention, stating that Honorius’ purpose was to simply :

It seems like you haven’t read the letters of Honorius because if you did…you would know then that What the Abbot John is saying is true.]]

I have and I have read the work of professional historians. Try Walker’s A History of the Christian Church pp, 181-182. It was Honorius who suggested that instead of teaching that in Christ there is one energy there is one will. That began the heresy of Monothelitism. Try Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity p. 184 which states that Pope Honorius accepted the teaching that in Christ there is one will. or Thomas Brokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church pm “…Pope Honorius was anathematized at the third Council of Constantinople (680) as a heretic along with four byzantine patriarchs.” This last quote is particularly important because it is the text used in the adult education classes of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Shreverport. There is no way to get around this. The historical record is clear, the 6th Ecumenical denounced Pope Honorius by name for teaching heresy.

Fr. John

 

[Wandile]

I have and I have read the work of professional historians. Try Walker’s A History of the Christian Church pp, 181-182. It was Honorius who suggested that instead of teaching that in Christ there is one energy there is one will. That began the heresy of Monothelitism. Try Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity p. 184 which states that Pope Honorius accepted the teaching that in Christ there is one will. or Thomas Brokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church pm “…Pope Honorius was anathematized at the third Council of Constantinople (680) as a heretic along with four byzantine patriarchs.” This last quote is particularly important because it is the text used in the adult education classes of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Shreverport. There is no way to get around this. The historical record is clear, the 6th Ecumenical denounced Pope Honorius by name for teaching heresy.

Fr. John

Nobody denies that Honorius was a heretic. But in what sense was he a heretic is what is of concern. Condemnation at the council is as authoritative as you and me as a council is not infallible with regards to judgment of persons. But even if The condemnation was correct, the Fathers all testify that Honorius was condemned for negligence , not teaching heresy. The Fathers of the church have proclaimed! The subsequent popes issued a decree about this and NOBODY during the time , eastern or western, questioned it. I trust them over some “scholars” who were not even there during that time.

Secondly do you trust the opinion of a scholar who came one and a half thousand years after these events or the opinion of a person who actually wrote the letter who was actually there? Lets be intellectually honest now…

What do you make of the quote of Abbot John? The co-author of the letter? Do you just simply ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist?

 

[Peter_J]

Nobody denies that Honorius was a heretic.

I thought some did deny that, but I’ll admit I haven’t been following this conversation perfectly.

 

[Wandile]

I thought some did deny that, but I’ll admit I haven’t been following this conversation perfectly.

The argument is that Honorius never taught the heresy… It is that he allowed it to spread and that is why he is a heretic

 

[spina1953]

The argument is that Honorius never taught the heresy… It is that he allowed it to spread and that is why he is a heretic

Wandile: I agree with your statement. it is what Catholic posters have stated. However, how did Honorius cause it to spread? it seems to me that at the time mail service was rather slow and why would not those in the east knowwng that the heresy started in the East would not have said something and find out just what the Honorius meant instead of waiting till after he died to have an coouncil to decide the issue and then condemn him when it could have been settled wile he was still alive? Or am I misunderstanding something here?

 

[Wandile]

Wandile: I agree with your statement. it is what Catholic posters have stated. However, how did Honorius cause it to spread? it seems to me that at the time mail service was rather slow and why would not those in the east knowwng that the heresy started in the East would not have said something and find out just what the Honorius meant instead of waiting till after he died to have an coouncil to decide the issue and then condemn him when it could have been settled wile he was still alive? Or am I misunderstanding something here?

Nope no misunderstanding. The problem is that Honorius never issued a dogmatic stance on where the roman church stands with regard to monothelitism. He just asked all relevant parties to leave the issue and remain quiet. His good intention was his downfall as in not issuing a decree, he allowed for the heresy to prosper without it being corrected. That is what the fathers say.

 

[spina1953]

Wandile: I understand what you are saying. However, Honorius was writing to a Patriarch as I understand it a private letter in response to the patriarch who wrote him about thinking he had or was thought by some and wanted to know what Honorius thought. maybe Honorius did not really understand or that he needed time to think about it before making any real decisions on the matter. It seems to me that the heresy was spreading before Honorius was even aware of it in the East and since there were oter Patriarchs as well as other Bishops why did they not try and inform Honorius of what they thought of the matter. but in the end it seems to me that they waited till Honorius died before calling an Counical to detremine the matter and then condemn Honorius for his lack of not deciding it was a heresy. Do you see where I am going with this? It just seesmtpo me that those in the East decided to condemn Honorius before even a council was called, and the council was just a formality.

 

[tdgesq]

For proof all you have to do is look at any standard history of Christianity. They all credit Pope Honorius with the origin of the heresy of Monothelitism. Even the New Advent Site admits that he wrote . . . .

I don’t enjoy doing this: here’s what New Advent states about the origin of the Monothelite heresy:

The origin of the Monothelite controversy is thus related by Sergius in his letter to Pope Honorius. When the Emperor Heraclius in the course of the war which he began about 619, came to Theodosiopolis (Erzeroum) in Armenia (about 622), a Monophysite named Paul, a leader of the Acephali, made a speech before him in favour of his heresy. The emperor refuted him with theological arguments, and incidentally made use of the expression “one operation” of Christ. Later on (about 626) he inquired of Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis and metropolitan of the Lazi, whether his words were correct. Cyrus was uncertain, and by the emperor’s order wrote to Sergius the Patriarch of Constantinople, whom Heraclius greatly trusted, for advice. Sergius in reply sent him a letter said to have been written by Mennas of Constantinople to Pope Vigilius and approved by the latter, in which several authorities were cited for one operation and one will. This letter was afterwards declared to be a forgery and was admitted to be such at the Sixth General Council. Monothelitism.

New Advent specifically states that Honorius was not the origin of the Monothelite heresy. I just don’t understand what you hope to gain by saying otherwise, except lose credibility.

And the Sixth Ecumenical Council did not find Honorius to be the origin of Monothelitism either; quite the contrary:

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.

Not even the Council agrees with you that Honorius was the origin of the Monothelite heresy.

 

[mardukm]

Great job, brother. I had pointed out to Fr. John earlier that the 6th Ecum places Honorius in a separate category than the actual originators of the heresy. But I did not take the time to actually quote the Council.

Having read the original texts, I wholeheartedly believe that Pope Honorius was not a monothelite, but a miathelite. In fact, he uses exactly the term “mia thelema” in his letter to Sergius. Not that the OOC and the CC need anything more to validate the mutual acceptance of the Orthodoxy of each others’ Christology, but I personally believe Pope Honorius simply reinforces the common Christological dogma of the OOC and the CC. Of course, many in the EOC still do not accept the Orthodoxy of Oriental Christology. I think that until the matter of monophysitism versus miaphysitism is fully resolved between the EOC and the OOC, the issue of the Orthodoxy of Honorius between the EOC and the CC will likewise remain unresolved.

Of course, this is notwithstanding the false and ahistorical claims that:
(1) Pope Honorius actually publicly TAUGHT monophysitism;
(2) Pope Honorius was the ORIGIN of the heresy.

These latter two claims are just opinions with no historical support, and have nothing to do with the issue of what Pope Honorius actually proposed in his private letter to Sergius.

Blessings,
Marduk

And the Sixth Ecumenical Council did not find Honorius to be the origin of Monothelitism either; quite the contrary:

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.

Not even the Council agrees with you that Honorius was the origin of the Monothelite heresy.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

Sorry. I thought your question was merely rhetorical, not actually requiring an answer.

Yes, it refers to the 6th Ecum. I am at fault for any confusion, because I stated that Sergius produced his letters at the Council. I meant that the supporters of Sergius produced his letters at the Council. Sorry. Sergius was, of course, dead by the time the Council met, and my statement inadvertently gave the impression that Sergius was still alive.

Blessings,
Marduk

I still have received no response to my request for clarification. I shall ask again, in hopes of receiving a response.

In this question you asked of me,

Are the Council Fathers referenced in this question the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council?

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John,

Your interpretation of history neglects several historical facts.

The 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 553, shows without question that an
Ecumenical Council does not need ratification from the Pope.

So why did the emperor bind him until he gave his confirmation?

Instead, the Pope must obey an Ecumenical Council.

It wasn’t Ecumenical until Pope Vigilius gave his confirmation (like every other Council that has come to be regarded as Ecumenical). Did Western Christendom consider it as “Ecumenical” before Pope VIgilius gave its confirmation? If not (an historical fact), how can you justify your claim? Please respond. IOW, if it was not Ecumenical until Pope Vigilius gave his confirmation, how can you say that “the Pope must obey an Ecumenical Council?” Isn’t it rather the case that the Pope as head bishop can be corrected by his brother bishops?

The 5th Ecumenical Council met despite Vigilius’s opposition

The Pope was not opposed to an ecumenical council. He was only opposed to where it was held. That is historical fact.

and condemned the Three Chapters.

Only because they were under the impression that this was likewise the intention of their head bishop, Pope Vigilius. That is the historical fact according to the Sentence of the 5th Ecum which plainly relates that:
And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in this royal city, was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapter, and had often condemned them orally and in writing, nevertheless afterwards gave his consent in writing to be present at the Council and examine together with us the Three Chapters, that a suitable defintion of Faith might be set forth by all…Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith, since each one needs the help of his neighbor…But when often he had been invited by us all, and when the most florious judges had been sent to him by the most religious Emperor, he promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters. And when we heard this answer…being gathered together, before all things we have briefly confessed that we hold that faith…[thence comes the Sentence]
The fathers of the Council did not consider Pope Vigilius to be in opposition to them, and there is no indication in their Sentence of such an idea - contrary to your claim. In fact (as is evident from the highlighted portion above) they understood that they could not make a sentence without him, but only together with him - again, contrary to your claim.

When Pope Vigilius refused to meet with the council or accept its decrees, the council deposed him by taking his name off of the dipytchs, or official list of Bishops.

An opinion which has no historical proof. If you can Father, please show us when the deposition took place, for it is certainly not evident from the Council records - is there even any extra-conciliar evidence that a deposition took place? Did the Westerns elect a new bishop of Rome? Was there even an anti-Pope? Did the Emperor even try to appoint one? Are we expected to believe that for six whole months, no attempt was made to secure another bishop of Rome after this supposed deposition? I imagine you will not respond to these pointed questions (as with many others), since you already know that, as an historian yourself, you realize there is actually no evidence for your claim.

Referring to their discussions with Pope Vigilius the council declared:
“And to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers. For although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing to define on the question then raised touching the circumcision of the Gentiles, until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures.”
This is a very important declaration, for the council affirms the equality of the Apostles and cites their example of conciliarity.

It is unfathomable that you can use this as evidence for the novel and unpatristic claim that a Council does not include its head bishop. The fathers of the 5th Ecum asserted that the bishops must be gathered together, as were the Apostles. Since the Apostles included their coryphaeus St. Peter when they met in council, how do you conclude that the bishops at the 5th Ecum intended their gathering to exclude Pope Vigilius’ own sentence? Please respond - or not. It is evident that your opinion, your whole interpretation of history, revolves around an unpatristic claim that is contrary to AC 34 - that on matters of importance for the whole Church, the consent of the head bishop is NOT necessary. Don’t bother with the “it does not apply to the universal level” opinion. I gave you clear evidence earlier that AC 34 applied on the universal level. Your response was silence.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Thus the 5th Ecumenical Council rejected the authority of the Pope to overrule its decisions

Straw man.

and upheld the primacy of an Ecumenical Council over the Pope.

You have as yet provided no historical evidence for the claim, as the historical evidence dictates that every Council needed the confirmation of the Pope before it could be regarded as “Ecumenical.” Your history simply neglects the historical fact that every Council that claims Ecumenical status asked for and received the confirmation of the bishop of Rome (well, no explicit records of such for the 1st Ecum, since records are rather sparse for that Council, but there is explicit evidence of it for all the other Councils).

The decree also implies that the primacy of Rome is purely honorific.

Yes, thanks for admitting that your opinion depends on implications, not historical facts.

Pope Honarius’ first letter contains the statement, “Whence, also, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ…” What else is that but Monthelitism?

It could be miathelitism. From my own perspective as a Copt, certainly not a problem.

The 6th Council was right. Pope Honarius did teach Monothlitism,

“Teach?” I believe you forgot to use the word “implies” in your statement, for the opinion being proferred is not actually based on the historical evidence.

Roman Catholics resort to all kinds of technicalities and verbal gymnastics to deny it, but the fact remains that the 6th Ecumenical Council officially proclaimed that Pope Honorius was an heretic. That is an historical fact that cannot be denied.

Yes, I’ve met Latin Catholics - Absolutist Petrine advocates - who deny it. They are obviously wrong. Informed Catholics admit the condemnation, but reject emphatically the Ahistorical opinion that Pope Honorius publicly taught it. much less that he was the origin of it.

Therefore, Vatican I is wrong, because it claims that no power on earth can judge the Pope. Here we have an Ecumenical Council of the ancient undivided Church that judged a Pope.

And your proof is an opinion based on no historical facts (that the 5th Ecum deposed the Pope)? Strange, especially coming from an historian.

The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the 6th Ecumenical Council. Therefore the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the decision of the 6th Ecumenical Council that a Pope taught heresy and the authority of the 6th Council to judge a Pope.

Sorry. This conclusion deserves a

The 4th Ecumenical Council assumed the authority to study the Tome of Leo to determine whether or not it was Orthodox.

I never knew that the Catholic teaching on “papal” infallbility included blind obedience. I am 100% certain that adherence to the dogmas of the Church comes through an informed conscience with volitional acceptance. Can you please offer proof from our Magisterial documents to the contrary, Father? Otherwise, you should really admit that the statement above is a another straw man argument.

Pope Honorius’ Christology was defective because he did not teach that in Christ, God assumed fallen human nature and healed of its fallen nature. The teaching of the Fathers is that as the divine nature of Christ is of one essence with the Father, so also is His human nature of on essence with us.

Have you read Honorius’ letter to Sergius? In it, Honorius specifically states: confessing that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Mediator between God and man, worked the divine works by means (mesiteusashv) of the manhood, which was hypostatically united to Him, the Logos, and that the same worked the human works, since the flesh was assumed by the Godhead in an unspeakable, unique manner.

This statement from Pope Honorius directly contradicts your claim. As in other cases, your opinion is based on extrapolated implications, not on historical fact. The only facts are:
(1) Honorius was condemned for heresy;
(2) The sole content of this charge was confirming the heresy of Sergius in his private letter to him.
(3) A reading of Honorius’ letter(s) plainly indicates that the only thing implying his heresy was the use of the term “one will,” which - though its intent was orthodox, as explained by his scribe, as well as St. Maximos - unfortunately gave monothelites an excuse to spread their heresy.

An objective historian will admit that these are the only facts of the matter. Your own claims do not depend on the historical record at all.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Even if it were not for the case of Pope Honorius, there is no way that I could accept the 1st Vatican Council. No man is infallible

Straw man. V1 did not teach that a man is infallible. I have explained this previously with historical proof (among others, the change in title of the Decree on infallibility). As this matter has been explained at least twice before to you - with no response from you - yet you persist in the false caricature, can we conclude that on this particular point, you are (excuse the saying) simply being obstinate, Father? If it is the case that perhaps you have simply not yet read those explanations, then please say so. As it is, I seriously pray that this is not the kind of demeanor that is brought o the Orthodox-Catholic dialogues.

and no Bishop is not subject to the higher authority of an Ecumenical or the judgment of his brother Bishops.

If one reads AC 34, one readily discovers that the head bishop - among all the bishops - has a unique importance for the validity of any act of the body of bishops. The disagreement of any one bishop (aside from the head bishop) will not affect the validity of an act of the body of bishops. But if the head bishop disagrees, it indeed affects said validity. Of course, this does not mean (as Absolutist Petrine advocates are wont to pretend) that the head bishop is the sole determinant for the validity of said acts - only that his agreement is more important than the agreement of any other single bishop.

The Roman Catholic Church gives too much power to the Pope.

This statement correctly applies to the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations of papal authority, but would only be a straw man in the context of the High Petrine view. On the other hand, your opinion (which I am not so quick to assign to the EOC as a whole) gives no power at all to head bishops, which is just as unpatristic as the Absolutist Petrine excesses.

That was not the case in the time of the ancient undivided Church. Go back and reread Canon 34 of the Apostles that has been cited, I believe incorrectly, to require all Bishops to yield to papal authority. The canon clearly states “But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all.” If the canon does apply to the papacy, it does not give him unlimited authority, but rightfully requires him to submit to the will of the other Bishops in the Church.

Every single Catholic who has participated in this thread has adhered in their remarks to the full extent and force of AC 34 - that the consent of the head and the consensus of his brother bishops are BOTH necessary (the High Petrine view). The only one in this entire thread who has corrupted AC 34, Father, is you – for you have consistently neglected the first part of the Canon which indeed requires that the bishops cannot act without the consent of the head.

You cannot accept Vatican I without rejecting the first 1,000 years of Christian history.

But it’s evident from the explanations above that your interpretation of history is the one that atually neglects many very important historical facts. Your neglect of certain portions of the historical record does not necessarily equate to a rejection of those facts. It might simply be that you were either unaware of these facts prior to our discussion, and it is difficult to let go of previously held notions, or in your assessment of the history, you have simply not asked the same questions as others. If the latter, it is natural that you have drawn different conclusions, since your premises are different. Of course, I do believe that your premise (the Low Petrine view) is unpatristic and that you are eisegetically reading this bias into the historical record.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John

I am sorry but you have been misinformed. It was Honorius who suggested changing the doctrine of one energy to one will in his letter to Sergius.

How could Pope Honorius suggest something that was already believed by the monothelites? Please explain. As explained, the spurious letter of Mennas already utilized the term “one will.” It was this letter (several decades before the Pope’s letter to Sergius) which was the basis of the monothelite belief in one will. Pope Honorius’ only mistake was to likewise use the term “one will.” The 6th Ecum itself affirmed that monothelitism is the basis for monoenergism. So your claim that monoenergism came first is inaccurate. At best, monoenergism concurrently existed with monothelitism, given that monothelitism is the very basis for monoenergism.

Do not read New Advent style propaganda,

I did not read New Advent, but the historical documents from Hefele’s History of the Councils.

they falsify the historical record to fit Roman Catholic doctrine, as anyone who has read a real work on church history by a qualified historian. Read the decrees of the 6th Council, itself.

Father, actually it is your claim that monoenergism came first that falsifies history. The 6th Ecum certainly does not support your claims.

The council did not condemn Honarius for heresy without reason. They studied his letters to Patriarch Sergius and found the heretical.

It was Pope Honorius’ use of the term “one will” that they found heretical. Your opinion that they charged Pope Honorius for denying the two, united natures is pure speculation and utterly false. If you have ever bothered to read the contents of Pope Honorius’ letters, you would know that he admitted the two, united natures - so unless you are accusing the Fathers of the 6th Ecum of illiteracy or stupidity, they cannot possibly have charged Pope Honorius of monophysitism.

In Christ,.
Marduk

 

[Wandile]

Wandile: I understand what you are saying. However, Honorius was writing to a Patriarch as I understand it a private letter in response to the patriarch who wrote him about thinking he had or was thought by some and wanted to know what Honorius thought. maybe Honorius did not really understand or that he needed time to think about it before making any real decisions on the matter. It seems to me that the heresy was spreading before Honorius was even aware of it in the East and since there were oter Patriarchs as well as other Bishops why did they not try and inform Honorius of what they thought of the matter. but in the end it seems to me that they waited till Honorius died before calling an Counical to detremine the matter and then condemn Honorius for his lack of not deciding it was a heresy. Do you see where I am going with this? It just seesmtpo me that those in the East decided to condemn Honorius before even a council was called, and the council was just a formality.

It seems that Honorius knew about the heresy in the east but he was not the greatest theologian and cared more for church unity. As such hr advised all relevant parties to refrain from all talk of one energy or one will. Look there was no conspiracy to condemn Honorius. The council, a far as I know, never knew about Honorius’ guilt until the private letter was brought up. Our own Roman bishops condemned him for negligence too. It was the duty if Honorius to stamp out any seeds of heresy whether in private or publicly/officially. He didiny and as such was guilty of allowing heresy to spread by not taking a stance. That is the crux of the matter. I hope this clarified why Honorius is a heretic.

 

[spina1953]

It seems that Honorius knew about the heresy in the east but he was not the greatest theologian and cared more for church unity. As such hr advised all relevant parties to refrain from all talk of one energy or one will. Look there was no conspiracy to condemn Honorius. The council, a far as I know, never knew about Honorius’ guilt until the private letter was brought up. Our own Roman bishops condemned him for negligence too. It was the duty if Honorius to stamp out any seeds of heresy whether in private or publicly/officially. He didiny and as such was guilty of allowing heresy to spread by not taking a stance. That is the crux of the matter. I hope this clarified why Honorius is a heretic.

Wandile: Thanks for the info. it cleared up my thinking about thesubjest that is being discussed. I was not really sure as to all of the events that took place as to the why Honorius was condemned. So Thanks again for your response.

 

[Peter_J]

Wandile, with all due respect to spina1953’s being satisfied, I find your statement that “he allowed it to spread and that is why he is a heretic” a little bizarre.

 

[spina1953]

I do not that I was satisfied but thought that Wandile was giving the info as he understood it. I understand where he was coming from. but I do wonder if there were some politic’s going on, but thats just speculation on my part.