The Petrine views

[mardukm]

The Council says that he confirmed his doctrines. What else under the great blue sky could that possibly mean but that Honorius in the eyes of the council taught the same doctrine as they?

It means exactly as it says - that the letter confirmed the doctrines of Sergius (which, btw, utterly refutes Fr. John’s imaginative claim that Pope Honorius’ letter was the origin of the heresy). How does a confirmation from a private letter, a letter that itself instructs Sergius to be silent about/avoid using the terms at issue (i.e., not to publicly preach either view), support your claim that Honorius publicly taught the matter. Btw, you did not answer my second question.

Also, this distinction between private and public letters is very modern. The ancients, unlike our wonderful American Supreme Court since Roe v. Wade, did not have a concept of a right to privacy, and communications which were meant to be kept secret or private would not be done in the form of epistolary, but perhaps only in the form of secret documents which only the signers possessed (and would have signed in person), or dread oaths and the like (much like the sort of shocking documents it was alleged in the Seventh Session of Second Constantinople that Pope Vigilius had signed in secret with Justinian).

If you claim there was no difference, I assume you are claiming that Sergius had been going around publishing this letter, and thus it was general knowledge to the public? If this is so, please attempt to answer the second question I posed (if you can) - why is it that NONE of the Council Fathers knew that Pope Honorius was even involved in the controversy UNTIL Sergius produced his PRIVATE letter from Honorius? .

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The Tome of Leo was not accepted by the Council of Chalcedon simply because it was written by a Pope, but only after a committee studied the document and decided that it was Orthodox.

So what? That does not mean the Tome was not infallible Truth, does it? In fact, the Council gave a resounding affirmation of its Truthfulness (with a capital “T”).

The very fact that the Tome of Leo was studied first by a special committee of the council to decide if it was orthodox before it was accepted shows that the council did not recognize the authority of a Pope issue doctrinal proclamations binding on the whole Church.

Their affirmation of the Tome proved that they did.

On this particular point, I admit it is a matter of interpretation of the plain facts. There are a lot of other points, however, that I believe your interpretation depends on an excision or neglect of important historical facts (as an example - among others - the claim that a synod/council is above its head bishop)…

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

If you claim there was no difference, I assume you are claiming that Sergius had been going around publishing this letter, and thus it was general knowledge to the public? If this is so, please attempt to answer the second question I posed (if you can) - why is it that NONE of the Council Fathers knew that Pope Honorius was even involved in the controversy UNTIL Sergius produced his PRIVATE letter from Honorius? .

Just which council fathers are being reference here? The Fathers of the Third Council of Constantinople?

 

[Cavaradossi]

If you claim there was no difference, I assume you are claiming that Sergius had been going around publishing this letter, and thus it was general knowledge to the public? If this is so, please attempt to answer the second question I posed (if you can) - why is it that NONE of the Council Fathers knew that Pope Honorius was even involved in the controversy UNTIL Sergius produced his PRIVATE letter from Honorius?

To be clear, the Council Fathers referenced here are the Fathers of the Third Council of Constantinople, right?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680-1) begins the process.

“because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines”

This is the first acknowledged evidence thus the letter, which can be further read through for example “Faith of the Fathers” Volume 1-3.

What isn’t true is the existing evidence extends past this letter to any taught or confirmed doctrines. The heretical aspect is re-affirmed though Pope’s/Councils. Later his words were considered babble, and other than apostolic continuity.

There was no infallible teaching within his moments of lapsed reason and thinking which he indeed put to paper. I could be wrong but I don’t see much more than that.

 

[Wandile]

From session 13 of the Third Council of Constantinople:

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

newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

And also Pope Leo II, who in the Latin version of his letter to the Emperor wrote:Honorius, who did not keep this Apostolic Church pure with doctrine of Apostolic tradition, but endeavoured to overthrow the unspotted faith by his profane betrayal."

Funny you quote Pope Leo II because this testimony of St. Leo would prove, not that Honorius was a heretic for teaching the heresy but , in that very same passage St. Leo says that Honorius was condemned,

“because by his negligence he had fanned the flame of heretical dogma”

 

[LionHeart777]

To whom it may concern,

I found the following article written by Fr. Francis Dvornik, called “Byzantium and the Roman Primacy”, at this address:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

I read/skimmed all the way until some of the information on Pope St. Hadrian’s letter and the edits were discussed. This article, while the Orthodox posters may not agree with all of the assertions made and conclusions drawn by Fr. Dvornik in it, nevertheless appears to be more understanding of the Byzantine mindset and arguably paints the Byzantines more favorably than at least one other work I’ve read (specifically on the topic of canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon).

Regards,

Nick

 

[spina1953]

I Like to thank you for the web site. I just got done reading it. very interesting. Seems to me after reading the whole of it that the East accepted the Pope as the leader and head of all of the Churches. It also goes into some detail about the problems Between East and West thinking and cultures aspects etc. again thanks.

 

[frjohnmorris]

That was the explanation in the official Relatio of Bishop Gasser. Namely, the term definit must be clearly expressed - as far as doctrinal matters go, anyway
(1) So what if he quotes several Fathers to evince what their practice was? How does that make it a doctrine?
(2) Please clearly cite where Vigilius “teaches” that the Church cannot judge one contrary to his status at death? IIRC, he was just giving examples of the practice of those that went before, stating that he did not dare to do it, so others should not do it as well
A decision that still awaited his confirmation.
Your interpretation that the fathers went ahead DESPITE Pope Vigilius does not align with the text of the Sentence. Here was the course of events:
(1) Vigilius issues the Judicatum then withdraws it, when the West and other Eastern bishops protested;
(2) Vigilius initiates a Council, wanting it in Italy or Sicily to ensure equal representation. But Julian convened it in the East w/ a preponderance of bishops under his control.
(3) Vigilius refused to attend, but was forced by the Emperor to do so.
(4) Vigilius did not participate at the Council, but promised to make a separate judgment against the matters in the 3 chapters.
(5) Vigilius made his judgment in the Consitutum (signed w/ some other bishops), affirming the orthodox doctrine of the Church, while condemning the heterodox doctrines in the 3 chapters, but refused to condemn any person and the letter of Ibas.
(6) The Constitutum was not made public to the Council because the Emperor refused to do so.
(7) Thus, based on Vigilius’ promise in (4) above, the last impression of the Council fathers was that Vigilius intended to condemn the 3 Chapters, proceeding w/ the Sentence in good faith that they were one with their head bishop. Indeed, the last mention of Vigilius in the Sentence was his promise to make a separate judgment on the matter.
(8) So the Councils fathers were simply waiting for the separate judgment of their head bishop - in effect, his confirmation.
Ummm. That’s what I said.:shrug
(1) A "rival synod - an imaginative claim. What support is there for it? Did the other bishops condemn this so-called “rival synod” in its Sentence? Were the other bishops even aware that a “rival synod” was being held? The idea is rather ridiculous.
(2) Thanks for the quote. It’s interesting that no anathema was made, as was wont for such matters in those days. The issue was not one of doctrine, contrary to your earlier claim.
(3) Since it was Pope Vigilius’ intention to call a council in the first place, then that means he intended the matter to be judged by a council composed of bishops from everywhere, not by himself. The effective authority here was the formal collegial authority of a council, not the personal authority of the Pope. That his brother bishops corrected their head bishop on this matter is NO big thing. It is a very natural procedure in the principle of collegiality - sometimes it is the head bishop who must accept correction; other times it is other bishops who must accept correction.
(4) In any case, this was not really a contest between the formal personal authority of the Pope, on the one hand, and the formal collegial authority of the Pope with his brother bishops, on the other (for even the Eastern bishops thought they were giving a Sentence in consensus with an expected judgment by the Pope). Rather this was a contest between the Emperor and the Pope.
Catholic Canon law recognizes that a decree must be published before it is effective. The Constitutum was never published - it was not effective.
Blessings,
Marduk

The 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 553, shows without question that an
Ecumenical Council does not need ratification from the Pope. Instead, the Pope must obey an Ecumenical Council. The 5th Ecumenical Council met despite Vigilius’s opposition and condemned the Three Chapters. 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. He was only restored to office after he repented and and accepted the decrees of the council.
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. Thus the 5th Ecumenical Council rejected the authority of the Pope to overrule its decisions and upheld the primacy of an Ecumenical Council over the Pope. The decree also implies that the primacy of Rome is purely honorific.

Fr. John

 

[LionHeart777]

I Like to thank you for the web site. I just got done reading it. very interesting. Seems to me after reading the whole of it that the East accepted the Pope as the leader and head of all of the Churches. It also goes into some detail about the problems Between East and West thinking and cultures aspects etc. again thanks.

You’re welcome!

 

[frjohnmorris]

I’ve read the documents before. I don’t recall it stating anywhere that the letter of Pope Honorius was “the origin of the Monothelite controversy.” Can you please cite the exact text? As stated before, as a professional historian yourself, I’m sure you can distinguish between fact and interpretations imposed on the facts.

Humbly,
Marduk

Originally Patriarch Segius taught that Christ had one energy which was called Monoenergism. This began the controversy. Pope Honorius suggested in a letter to the Patriarch that it would be better to refer to Christ as having one will. That began the heresy of Montheliteism. The exact text of the condemnation of Honorius is found in the Sentence against the Monothelities found in vol. XIV of the Second Series of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, p. 342-343 The text of the Sentence against the Monthelites sent to the emperor reads, “After we had received according to your promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius sometime 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 doctrine, to the declaration 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 harmful to the soul.” In session XVI of the council, p. 343, the council declared, “To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!” I do not know what could be more clear than that. Pope Honorius was officially proclaimed an heretic by an Ecumenical Council. That certainly undermines the whole theory of papal infallibility. More importantly it also shows that Ecumenical Councils have the authority to judge Popes. Vatican I states that there is no authority higher than the Pope that means that in Roman Catholicism, even an Ecumenical council cannot judge a Pope. That teaching directly contradicts the teachings of the ancient undivided Church as this example shows for the ancients Pope were not above the authority of an Ecumenical Council as they are today.

Fr. John

 

[tdgesq]

Originally Patriarch Segius taught that Christ had one energy which was called Monoenergism. This began the controversy. Pope Honorius suggested in a letter to the Patriarch that it would be better to refer to Christ as having one will. That began the heresy of Montheliteism.

There is simply no support for this theory. The letters from Honorius to Sergius are here for all to read: LETTERS FROM HONORIUS TO SERGIUS. I request that you retract your statement, as it is not supported in anywise by the extant letters - that anyone who wishes can read.

The exact text of the condemnation of Honorius is found in the Sentence against the Monothelities found in vol. XIV of the Second Series of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, p. 342-343

We know. I provided the link to it earlier. What it also shows is that the condemnation was based solely on the letters to Sergius (Honorius had died some ten years earlier), which it appears that most EO who comment on this subject haven’t actually read.

“To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!” I do not know what could be more clear than that. Pope Honorius was officially proclaimed an heretic by an Ecumenical Council.

Called by Pope Donus, presided over by Pope Agatho, and confirmed by Pope Leo II. Your conclusion doesn’t seem very clear at all.

That certainly undermines the whole theory of papal infallibility. More importantly it also shows that Ecumenical Councils have the authority to judge Popes. Vatican I states that there is no authority higher than the Pope that means that in Roman Catholicism, even an Ecumenical council cannot judge a Pope.

If you have read the infallibility criterion of Vatican I, then you should know that private letters from a Pope to another Patriarch cannot be an infallible pronouncement. And Honorius wasn’t even Pope at the time he was anathematized, as he was long dead.

It is a macabre ugly affair to proclaim the anathema posthumously against a bishop of the Church. It is, in my opinion, a shameful historical practice of the Church that has been rightly abandoned. I do understand why it was done. The Council (including Pope Leo) had declared Monthelitism to be a heresy, and Honorius’ letters - which everyone who wants to comment on this issue should read - did not clearly condemn it. His letters had become public and left the matter open to interpretation and doubt, particularly his first letter that contains language about the one will of Christ. Yet none of this establishes that Honorius was a material heretic, or that he made an infallible pronouncement that was annulled by a later Council, or even that a Council has the power to adjudge any soul to be separated from the Church after death.

 

[frjohnmorris]

There is simply no support for this theory. The letters from Honorius to Sergius are here for all to read: LETTERS FROM HONORIUS TO SERGIUS. I request that you retract your statement, as it is not supported in anywise by the extant letters - that anyone who wishes can read.

We know. I provided the link to it earlier. What it also shows is that the condemnation was based solely on the letters to Sergius (Honorius had died some ten years earlier), which it appears that most EO who comment on this subject haven’t actually read.

Called by Pope Donus, presided over by Pope Agatho, and confirmed by Pope Leo II. Your conclusion doesn’t seem very clear at all.

If you have read the infallibility criterion of Vatican I, then you should know that private letters from a Pope to another Patriarch cannot be an infallible pronouncement. And Honorius wasn’t even Pope at the time he was anathematized, as he was long dead.

It is a macabre ugly affair to proclaim the anathema posthumously against a bishop of the Church. It is, in my opinion, a shameful historical practice of the Church that has been rightly abandoned. I do understand why it was done. The Council (including Pope Leo) had declared Monthelitism to be a heresy, and Honorius’ letters - which everyone who wants to comment on this issue should read - did not clearly condemn it. His letters had become public and left the matter open to interpretation and doubt, particularly his first letter that contains language about the one will of Christ. Yet none of this establishes that Honorius was a material heretic, or that he made an infallible pronouncement that was annulled by a later Council, or even that a Council has the power to adjudge any soul to be separated from the Church after death.

Pope Honarius’ first letter contains the statement, “Whence, also, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ…” What else is that but Monthelitism? The 6th Council was right. Pope Honarius did teach Monothlitism, which was the heresy that Christ had only one will. The Orthodox Church proclaimed Calvin and Luther heretics at the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem in 1672 after they were both dead. Heresy is heresy whether the heretic is alive of dead. 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. 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. 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. The 4th Ecumenical Council assumed the authority to study the Tome of Leo to determine whether or not it was Orthodox. The 5th Ecumenical removed the name of Pope Vigilius from the list of canonical Bishops until he accepted its decrees. Therefore Vatican I violated the principles established by the Ecumenical Councils that no Bishop including the Bishop of Rome is above the authority of an Ecumenical Council which has the authority to judge the Bishop of Rome.
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. St. Paul wrote, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” II Cor. 5:21. Through the communication of attributes, the human nature of Christ was cleansed of sin and deified. Christ too our sins upon Himself and died for us on the Cross to liberate us from the power of sin and death.
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 and no Bishop is not subject to the higher authority of an Ecumenical or the judgment of his brother Bishops. The Roman Catholic Church gives too much power to the Pope. 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. You cannot accept Vatican I without rejecting the first 1,000 years of Christian history.

Fr. John

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

Nice opinion. And it is only that - an opinion - not even a theory (for a theory necessarily has facts to back it up, whereas opinions, not necessarily so).

Monoenergism did not come first. Rather Monothelitism came first. This is plain from the following facts:
(1) According to Sergius’ letter to Pope Honorius, his purpose for believing in two energies or operations was because he did not want to make it seem as if there were two contrary wills in the Lord. So monoenergism already presupposes monothelitism and was already evident in Sergius’ teaching (it did not originate with Pope Honorius).
(2) The documentary evidence from the 6th Ecum places the condemnation of monothelitism first, and then monoenergism second in its expositions of faith (Pope Agatho’s letter, the Council’s definition of Faith, etc.)
(3) Every mention of the two heresies places monothelitism first, and monoenergism second.
(4) The 6th Ecum’s Definition of Faith itself defines that it is the Will that moves the Operations. Thus, monothelitism necessarily comes before monoenergism in chronological consideration.

The opinion that monoenergism came first, and afterwards a separate issue of monothelitism arose (because of Pope Honorius’ letter to Sergius) has no historical - nor even a logical -basis in fact, but is merely an eisegetic misinterpretation imposed on history, with the sole purpose not to be faithful to the historical record, but rather (it seems) to unjustifiably demean the papacy.

I do not and will not regret telling it as it is, but I ask for your forgiveness if my words cause any hurt feelings.

Humbly,
Marduk

Originally Patriarch Segius taught that Christ had one energy which was called Monoenergism. This began the controversy. Pope Honorius suggested in a letter to the Patriarch that it would be better to refer to Christ as having one will. That began the heresy of Montheliteism. The exact text of the condemnation of Honorius is found in the Sentence against the Monothelities found in vol. XIV of the Second Series of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, p. 342-343 The text of the Sentence against the Monthelites sent to the emperor reads, “After we had received according to your promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius sometime 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 doctrine, to the declaration 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 harmful to the soul.” In session XVI of the council, p. 343, the council declared, “To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!” I do not know what could be more clear than that. Pope Honorius was officially proclaimed an heretic by an Ecumenical Council. That certainly undermines the whole theory of papal infallibility. More importantly it also shows that Ecumenical Councils have the authority to judge Popes. Vatican I states that there is no authority higher than the Pope that means that in Roman Catholicism, even an Ecumenical council cannot judge a Pope. That teaching directly contradicts the teachings of the ancient undivided Church as this example shows for the ancients Pope were not above the authority of an Ecumenical Council as they are today.

Fr. John

 

[mardukm]

Btw, folks, the term “one will” was contained in the spurious letter of Mennas to Vigilius, which predates the letter of Honorius to Sergius by several decades. Again, it is false to claim that Pope Honorius was the “origin” of the monothelite controversy.

 

[Wandile]

Pope Honarius’ first letter contains the statement, “Whence, also, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ…” What else is that but Monthelitism? The 6th Council was right. Pope Honarius did teach Monothlitism, which was the heresy that Christ had only one will. The Orthodox Church proclaimed Calvin and Luther heretics at the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem in 1672 after they were both dead. Heresy is heresy whether the heretic is alive of dead. 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. 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. 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. The 4th Ecumenical Council assumed the authority to study the Tome of Leo to determine whether or not it was Orthodox. The 5th Ecumenical removed the name of Pope Vigilius from the list of canonical Bishops until he accepted its decrees. Therefore Vatican I violated the principles established by the Ecumenical Councils that no Bishop including the Bishop of Rome is above the authority of an Ecumenical Council which has the authority to judge the Bishop of Rome.
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. St. Paul wrote, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” II Cor. 5:21. Through the communication of attributes, the human nature of Christ was cleansed of sin and deified. Christ too our sins upon Himself and died for us on the Cross to liberate us from the power of sin and death.
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 and no Bishop is not subject to the higher authority of an Ecumenical or the judgment of his brother Bishops. The Roman Catholic Church gives too much power to the Pope. 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. You cannot accept Vatican I without rejecting the first 1,000 years of Christian history.

Fr. John

Father this post is flawed…

The claim that Honorius was a Monothelite came from this text written to Sergius:

Wherefore we acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin.

Now notice that Honorius clearly does not say Christ possesses merely one will, which happens to be divine. Rather, Honorius states that Christ has only one human will as opposed to two human wills. Furthermore, notice how Honorius agrees with Sergius and “acknowledges one will of our Lord…” yet he goes on to discuss this one will in terms of Jesus’ humanity only. Now why would Honorius speak against the existence of twohuman wills? The answer lies with Sergius’ inquiry. He had deceptively suggested the orthodox view (i.e. one human will) in order to establish a false context where Honorius would confirm the heretical position of “one will” in total. He could then use the Pope’s concurrence to further the Monothelite heresy.

If there were two human wills in Christ there would be a conflict within Him, but we know that not to be the case since Trinitarian Christology demands that the Son assumed a human nature which was pure and undefiled by sin, as it was, for instance, before the Fall. Furthermore, we know that the will is a function of the nature of the person. Hence, as we have only one human nature, we only have one human will. Our Lord, on the other hand, having a divine nature and a human nature has two wills corresponding to each.

the Abbot John, who was a scribe and the secretary to Honorius and fellow composer of the letter attested to this 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.”

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

Nice opinion. And it is only that - an opinion - not even a theory (for a theory necessarily has facts to back it up, whereas opinions, not necessarily so).

Monoenergism did not come first. Rather Monothelitism came first. This is plain from the following facts:
(1) According to Sergius’ letter to Pope Honorius, his purpose for believing in two energies or operations was because he did not want to make it seem as if there were two contrary wills in the Lord. So monoenergism already presupposes monothelitism and was already evident in Sergius’ teaching (it did not originate with Pope Honorius).
(2) The documentary evidence from the 6th Ecum places the condemnation of monothelitism first, and then monoenergism second in its expositions of faith (Pope Agatho’s letter, the Council’s definition of Faith, etc.)
(3) Every mention of the two heresies places monothelitism first, and monoenergism second.
(4) The 6th Ecum’s Definition of Faith itself defines that it is the Will that moves the Operations. Thus, monothelitism necessarily comes before monoenergism in chronological consideration.

The opinion that monoenergism came first, and afterwards a separate issue of monothelitism arose (because of Pope Honorius’ letter to Sergius) has no historical - nor even a logical -basis in fact, but is merely an eisegetic misinterpretation imposed on history, with the sole purpose not to be faithful to the historical record, but rather (it seems) to unjustifiably demean the papacy.

I do not and will not regret telling it as it is, but I ask for your forgiveness if my words cause any hurt feelings.

Humbly,
Marduk

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. Do not read New Advent style propaganda, 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. The council did not condemn Honarius for heresy without reason. They studied his letters to Patriarch Sergius and found the heretical. This shows that the claim of Vatican I that Rome has been blameless of heresy is false. It also shows that the claim that an Ecumenical Council has no right to judge the Pope is also false, for the ancient Ecumenical Councils did not hesitate to assume the authority above the Bishop of Rome as the example of handling of the Tome of Leo by Chalcedon which only accepted it after a committee studied it and proclaimed it orthodox, the condemnation of Pope Vigilius unless he accepted the decisions of the 5th Ecumenical Council and the anathemization of Pope Honorius by the 6th Council all show. The ancient Church knew nothing of the kind of papal authority affirmed by the 1st Vatican Council.

Fr. John

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Btw, folks, the term “one will” was contained in the spurious letter of Mennas to Vigilius, which predates the letter of Honorius to Sergius by several decades. Again, it is false to claim that Pope Honorius was the “origin” of the monothelite controversy.

That may be true, but it was the letter of Pope Honorius that persuaded Patriarch Sergius and others to adopt the language of “one will.” Anyone can read the acts of the 6th Ecumenical for themselves a ccel.org/fathers.html
Why does anyone put the 1st Vatican Council above a universally accepted Ecumenical Council?
Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

It means exactly as it says - that the letter confirmed the doctrines of Sergius (which, btw, utterly refutes Fr. John’s imaginative claim that Pope Honorius’ letter was the origin of the heresy). How does a confirmation from a private letter, a letter that itself instructs Sergius to be silent about/avoid using the terms at issue (i.e., not to publicly preach either view), support your claim that Honorius publicly taught the matter. Btw, you did not answer my second question.

If you claim there was no difference, I assume you are claiming that Sergius had been going around publishing this letter, and thus it was general knowledge to the public? If this is so, please attempt to answer the second question I posed (if you can) - why is it that NONE of the Council Fathers knew that Pope Honorius was even involved in the controversy UNTIL Sergius produced his PRIVATE letter from Honorius? .

Blessings,
Marduk

Read any history of the period written by a respectable historian. Even this site shows that Honorius favored the Monothelite position en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorius_I%2C_Pope and romancatholicism.org/honorius-heresy.htm

Is is not a fact that the 6th Ecumenical Council condemned Pop Honorius for heresy? That settles the matter. Vatican I cannot claim that Rome has never been blemished by heresy when an Ecumenical Council condemned a Pop for heresy.

Fr. John

 

[LionHeart777]

Read any history of the period written by a respectable historian. Even this site shows that Honorius favored the Monothelite position en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorius_I%2C_Pope and romancatholicism.org/honorius-heresy.htm

Is is not a fact that the 6th Ecumenical Council condemned Pop Honorius for heresy? That settles the matter. Vatican I cannot claim that Rome has never been blemished by heresy when an Ecumenical Council condemned a Pop for heresy.

Fr. John

Fr. Morris

The first site is Wikipedia and the 2nd is a Sedevacantist site, or at least seems to lean that way. The latter also seems to advocate the denial of the Holocaust. Both make mere assertions as well.