The Petrine views

[tdgesq]

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.

Yeah, that. It’s difficult to see how “failure to teach” makes one a heretic, although I don’t think it’s far from the reality.

You have Honorius some 50 years or so before the council telling Sergius that he doesn’t think the term one energy (operation) or two energies should be used, then makes the infamous statement “we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ.” His letters are used by the Monothelites to support their position, particularly Macarius of Antioch.

Now the Third Council of Constantinople is called. It infallibly defines that “so we believe that in our one Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, undividedly, and two natural wills and two natural operations . . . .” Honorius has been dead for almost 40 years, yet the literal language of his letters are not consistent with the newly declared formula of the Council.

As expected, his writings are condemned; particularly in this situation where they have been publicly used by the Monothelites. And as was done historically, it wasn’t just the writing that was anathematized. It was also the writer. I don’t fault the Council for doing it in the historical context. It simply couldn’t allow anyone to be misled by these earlier letters given the new infallible declaration of the Council.

Did Honorius actually believe in Monothelitism? I highly doubt it. If you read the letters to Sergius, he doesn’t want him teaching about one or two operations at all. He insists on speaking only of the two natures of Christ. The “one will” language, in my opinion, likely refers to the denial that Christ had a will governed by concupiscence. The language of Honorius’ first letter to Sergius bears this out. This is the testimony of St. Maximus as well.

Was the Council incorrect in declaring Honorius a heretic? I believe it was. I think it ultimately condemned him because he did not clearly teach what the Council later held to be dogma. In fact, it was easily interpreted as teaching the opposite. This was the position of the Roman Church for centuries thereafter; which, incidentally, also referred to Honorius as a heretic.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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 am rather certain, however, that Honorius’ letters (or at least certain passages of them) were already known in the East, because the supporters of the Ecthesis (which was basically an edited version Sergius’ First Epistle to Honorius) pointed to Honorius’ approving remarks of ideas laid out in Sergius’ Epistle. The topic, for example, pops up in St. Maximus’ disputation with Pyrrhus. St. Maximus in fact went to great lengths to try and salvage Honorius’ “one will” formula, going so far as to claim that it was forged. But the Sixth Ecumenical Council seemed not to think that the passages were salvageable, which is why they condemned Pope Honorius and ordered the letters to be burned.

 

[tdgesq]

I am rather certain, however, that Honorius’ letters (or at least certain passages of them) were already known in the East, because the supporters of the Ecthesis (which was basically an edited version Sergius’ First Epistle to Honorius) pointed to Honorius’ approving remarks of ideas laid out in Sergius’ Epistle. The topic, for example, pops up in St. Maximus’ disputation with Pyrrhus. St. Maximus in fact went to great lengths to try and salvage Honorius’ “one will” formula, going so far as to claim that it was forged. But the Sixth Ecumenical Council seemed not to think that the passages were salvageable, which is why they condemned Pope Honorius and ordered the letters to be burned.

All of this is known to me, except the part about Maximus’ claim that the letters from Honorius were forged. Do you have a citation for this? Thanks.

 

[Cavaradossi]

All of this is known to me, except the part about Maximus’ claim that the letters from Honorius were forged. Do you have a citation for this? Thanks.

Opusc. 20, PG 91, 244B-245B

 

[tdgesq]

Opusc. 20, PG 91, 244B-245B

Sorry, I don’t recognized the shorthand citation. Could you give me a full citation, or better yet, a link? Thanks.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Sorry, I don’t recognized the shorthand citation. Could you give me a full citation, or better yet, a link? Thanks.

Opuscula Theologica et Polemica 20, in Patrologia Graeca volume 91, 244B-245B

 

[Wandile]

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.

Pope Leo II said :

And with them Honorius, who allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be tarnished."

"With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning,** but fostered it by his negligence**

This is where I get my line of reasoning. I hope this helps

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

I am rather certain, however, that Honorius’ letters (or at least certain passages of them) were already known in the East, because the supporters of the Ecthesis (which was basically an edited version Sergius’ First Epistle to Honorius) pointed to Honorius’ approving remarks of ideas laid out in Sergius’ Epistle. The topic, for example, pops up in St. Maximus’ disputation with Pyrrhus. St. Maximus in fact went to great lengths to try and salvage Honorius’ “one will” formula, going so far as to claim that it was forged. But the Sixth Ecumenical Council seemed not to think that the passages were salvageable, which is why they condemned Pope Honorius and ordered the letters to be burned.

Thanks for bringing this us. There are two things going on here:
(1) The Ecthesis, which, though it utilized Pope Honorius’ letter, did not mention his name.
(2) A private disputation between St. Maximos and some monothelites (an exchange of letters), wherein Pope Honorius is appealed to by the monothelites, and St. Maximos defends Pope Honorius’ honor.

Even if the disputations between St. Maximos and the monothelites were made public, the Orthodox Catholics no doubt easily adhered to St. Maximos’ explanation of the matter. Indeed, there was not a shred of evidence that monothelitism was publicly taught or preached by anyone in Western Christendom. Confirmed by St. Maximos’ own defense of Pope Honorius, who could believe that Pope Honorius’ was involved?

So there’s no likelihood that there was any general public knowledge of Pope Honorius’ involvement (not saying this is what you are claiming). Any connection Pope Honorius had with the matter was by virtue of the private letters to Sergius and that alone. And the first time such letters were actually made known was at the 6th Ecum. No one was going around claiming that this was a public teaching of the Church of Rome, not even the monothelites - for they certainly had no basis for such a claim.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

This is where I get my line of reasoning. I hope this helps

But negligence, both in English and in Latin can imply either being derelict or being careless. If it is understood in the first sense, then it should be quite extraordinary to think that one should be condemned as an heretic simply for being derelict in his duties, for this would be a moral failing, and moral failings have in the past been considered grounds for deposition and condemnation, but not typically (at least in any case that I can recall) as grounds for being branded as an heretic as well. On the other hand, if Pope Leo II means to say that Honorius by his doctrinal carelessness—and there is no question that Honorius’ two epistles to Sergius were quite carelessly written, which is why people are evidently able to read whatever Christology they want into them—fostered the flames of heresy, then the punishment of being branded as an heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council seems much more sensible, does it not?

 

[mardukm]

But negligence, both in English and in Latin can imply either being derelict or being careless. If it is understood in the first sense, then it should be quite extraordinary to think that one should be condemned as an heretic simply for being derelict in his duties, for this would be a moral failing, and moral failings have in the past been considered grounds for deposition and condemnation, but not typically (at least in any case that I can recall) as grounds for being branded as an heretic as well. On the other hand, if Pope Leo II means to say that Honorius by his doctrinal carelessness—and there is no question that Honorius’ two epistles to Sergius were quite carelessly written, which is why people are evidently able to read whatever Christology they want into them—fostered the flames of heresy, then the punishment of being branded as an heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council seems much more sensible, does it not?

I agree with you, It’s not the “negligence” part that caused him to be branded a heretic, but the “fostered” part.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Pope Leo II said :

Quote:
And with them Honorius, who allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be tarnished."

If it does, I’m not seeing how. The quote doesn’t say “To foster it by negligence is to be a heretic.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thanks for bringing this us. There are two things going on here:
(1) The Ecthesis, which, though it utilized Pope Honorius’ letter, did not mention his name.
(2) A private disputation between St. Maximos and some monothelites (an exchange of letters), wherein Pope Honorius is appealed to by the monothelites, and St. Maximos defends Pope Honorius’ honor.

What proof is there that St. Maximus’ Disputation with Pyrrhus was “private?” Why then was it recorded and subsequently reproduced?

Even if the disputations between St. Maximos and the monothelites were made public, the Orthodox Catholics no doubt easily adhered to St. Maximos’ explanation of the matter. Indeed, there was not a shred of evidence that monothelitism was publicly taught or preached by anyone in Western Christendom. Confirmed by St. Maximos’ own defense of Pope Honorius, who could believe that Pope Honorius’ was involved?

Which explanation. That “one will” referred to the divine will, that “one will” referred to the human will, that the letter was forged, or that it can be unambiguously deducted from the phrase “one will” that Honorius meant to speak of a complete human will? Which of St. Maximus’ mutually exclusive explanations of the famous confession of “one will” are we supposed to accept on his authority? But that is, of course, the exact problem with the confession of “one will” from Pope Honorius’ letter. It is so vague that it could be interpreted in many of these fashions. But in context of his docetic reading of the Agony in the Garden, it should be clear that Honorius by one will meant to exclude the possibility of two different wills in Christ. Thus for Honorius, Christ does not truly will for self-preservation nor does he will that the Father’s will be done over his own, but rather Christ merely speaks these words in order to teach us to prefer the will of the Father over our own.

So there’s no likelihood that there was any general public knowledge of Pope Honorius’ involvement (not saying this is what you are claiming). Any connection Pope Honorius had with the matter was by virtue of the private letters to Sergius and that alone. And the first time such letters were actually made known was at the 6th Ecum.

I would like to see a source for that claim, please. The books I have read indicate that the letters were burned for reason of their contributing to the cause of the Ecthesis.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I agree with you, It’s not the “negligence” part that caused him to be branded a heretic, but the “fostered” part.

I think perhaps that my remark has been misread. There are several ways to understand how one could foster something by negligence. One is by being derelict in one’s duties, which certainly would be a moral failing. But it is hard to see how that would make one worthy of condemnation as an heretic (Peter J, being ever sensible as he is, I think has hit the nail on the head; it is something utterly strange to believe). And indeed, I think it would make Pope Honorius the only case of this happening amongst all condemned heretics if one were to accept this definition of negligence. But then if one understood negligence as referring to carelessness instead, like the carelessness with which Honorius epistles were made, which helped form one of the central tenets laid out in the Ecthesis (doubtlessly, Sergius got the formula of “one will” from Pope Honorius, for Sergius, prior to his correspondence to Honorius does not use this formula), I think it makes a bit more sense how Honorius could have himself been condemned as an heretic.

 

[Wandile]

If it does, I’m not seeing how. The quote doesn’t say “To foster it by negligence is to be a heretic.”

Yes but he was considered a heretic by even the Church of Rome. Pope Leo II says this is why he was branded and condemned as a heretic as this is the ONLY reason why he was condemned. Look the reasoning goes:

“A good man is no better than the evil man if the good man does nothing to stop evil from occurring, for the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines derelict as ; “Failing to do what should be done”

Honorius meets this definition as he failed to take a stance in heresy and as such is guilty of letting it spread. As such he is no better than the actual proponents of the heresy as both their deeds gave the same end product.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes but he was considered a heretic by even the Church of Rome. Pope Leo II says this is why he was branded and condemned as a heretic as this is the ONLY reason why he was condemned.

Well that’s fine then, but I’m wondering why you bothered to provide a quote from Pope Leo II that doesn’t say that.

Regardless, could you post the quote from him that does say that? I wouldn’t know where to begin looking for it.

 

[mardukm]

What proof is there that St. Maximus’ Disputation with Pyrrhus was “private?” Why then was it recorded and subsequently reproduced?

Because they contained a great record of the controversy. That does not mean they were not originally correspondences addressed between the disputants themselves. And just how “public” were these letters supposed to be? And exactly when were these letters made “public?” I really don’t understand the point of your reply.

Which explanation. That “one will” referred to the divine will, that “one will” referred to the human will, that the letter was forged, or that it can be unambiguously deducted from the phrase “one will” that Honorius meant to speak of a complete human will? Which of St. Maximus’ mutually exclusive explanations of the famous confession of “one will” are we supposed to accept on his authority?

I have no comment about the forged letter. I’ll need to see the context before I can believe what you are saying. As far as the "divine will’ and “human will” being mutually exclusive explanations, that rationale sounds suspiciously like Nestorianism. So you’ll excuse my rejection of that rhetoric.

But that is, of course, the exact problem with the confession of “one will” from Pope Honorius’ letter. It is so vague that it could be interpreted in many of these fashions. But in context of his docetic reading of the Agony in the Garden,

Can you please expand on this “docetic” claim?

it should be clear that Honorius by one will meant to exclude the possibility of two different wills in Christ.
Or it could merely mean to exclude the possibility of two opposing wills.

Thus for Honorius, Christ does not truly will for self-preservation nor does he will that the Father’s will be done over his own, but rather Christ merely speaks these words in order to teach us to prefer the will of the Father over our own.

Prefacing a statement by “thus” usually means “I’m about to inject my own opinion into the matter.” Please offer some solid proof for your opinion.

I would like to see a source for that claim, please. The books I have read indicate that the letters were burned for reason of their contributing to the cause of the Ecthesis.

I don’t understand what relevance this has to the statement I made. Please explain. Also, where is the statement to be found from historical records that the letters were burned (I don’t know the answer to that one, so I hope you can provide it)?

I think perhaps that my remark has been misread. There are several ways to understand how one could foster something by negligence. One is by being derelict in one’s duties, which certainly would be a moral failing. But it is hard to see how that would make one worthy of condemnation as an heretic (Peter J, being ever sensible as he is, I think has hit the nail on the head; it is something utterly strange to believe). And indeed, I think it would make Pope Honorius the only case of this happening amongst all condemned heretics if one were to accept this definition of negligence.

I don’t know what “negligence” has to do with anything. Please explain. I said that he was condemned for fostering it. It doesn’t matter how that came about. He fostered it. PERIOD. That was why he was condemned as a heretic.

But then if one understood negligence as referring to carelessness instead, like the carelessness with which Honorius epistles were made, which helped…

This is more in line with what I meant. The old Catholic Encyclopedia states that not even carelessness in expression was the issue. It says (article “Monophysitism”) that Honorius was a heretic for forbidding the expression “two operations.”

form one of the central tenets laid out in the Ecthesis

Hardly formative. Rather, the idea of “one will” was already around even before Honorius entered the picture. The notion of “one will” was contained in the pretended letter of Mennas to Vigilius.

(doubtlessly, Sergius got the formula of “one will” from Pope Honorius,

Nah, The term “one will” was already contained in the pretended letter of Mennas to Vigilius, which was one of the main “proofs” of the monothelites, several years before the matter even came to the attention of Pope Honorius.

for Sergius, prior to his correspondence to Honorius does not use this formula)

Are you aware of the contents of Sergius’ letter to Pope Honorius? Perhaps you don’t know that monothelitism - not just monoenergeism - is already plainly expressed in that letter. Also, are you aware that the sentence of the 6th Ecum was that Honorius followed Sergius - yet you claim it was the other way around? I’m sure you’ll understand that in good conscience, I believe the Ecum Council rather than you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[spina1953]

Dear Cavaradossi,

Thanks for bringing this us. There are two things going on here:
(1) The Ecthesis, which, though it utilized Pope Honorius’ letter, did not mention his name.
(2) A private disputation between St. Maximos and some monothelites (an exchange of letters), wherein Pope Honorius is appealed to by the monothelites, and St. Maximos defends Pope Honorius’ honor.

Even if the disputations between St. Maximos and the monothelites were made public, the Orthodox Catholics no doubt easily adhered to St. Maximos’ explanation of the matter. Indeed, there was not a shred of evidence that monothelitism was publicly taught or preached by anyone in Western Christendom. Confirmed by St. Maximos’ own defense of Pope Honorius, who could believe that Pope Honorius’ was involved?

So there’s no likelihood that there was any general public knowledge of Pope Honorius’ involvement (not saying this is what you are claiming). Any connection Pope Honorius had with the matter was by virtue of the private letters to Sergius and that alone. And the first time such letters were actually made known was at the 6th Ecum. No one was going around claiming that this was a public teaching of the Church of Rome, not even the monothelites - for they certainly had no basis for such a claim.

Blessings,
Marduk

Mardukm: I agree with what you are saying. I was only satisfied only in that the info given, not that I agreed with it all. That being said, I still think that there were politic’s involved in some way, a power struggle between those who for whatever reason wanted to get at Patriarch Sergius by way of Pope Honorius. I also still think that Pope Honorius was not negagent in that he may have wanted to think about what was going on and since mail was slow in those times he may have thought that those in the East would take care of the matter without calling a Ecum.Council. I really do not know but only trying to get a grip on it by reading between the lines so to speak. If I am wrong oh well. just tryingt to learn and understand the issue. I still think its a lot of politic’s about the whole issue.Thanks

 

[Wandile]

Well that’s fine then, but I’m wondering why you bothered to provide a quote from Pope Leo II that doesn’t say that.

Regardless, could you post the quote from him that does say that? I wouldn’t know where to begin looking for it.

I think you are mistaken. There is not quote where he says because of his negligence that Honorius was a heretic. The quote provided was from Pope Leo II’s commentary on the condemnation of Honorius ans the events surrounding the council ans why he was condemned. Now he was condemned as a heretic, this is a fact. Leo’s Commentary explains why he was condemned as such:shrug:

 

[Peter_J]

There is not quote where he says because of his negligence that Honorius was a heretic.

Alright. Thank you for not leaving me hanging.

The quote provided was from Pope Leo II’s commentary on the condemnation of Honorius ans the events surrounding the council ans why he was condemned. Now he was condemned as a heretic, this is a fact. Leo’s Commentary explains why he was condemned as such:shrug:

Okay, then could you post the quote where he does so?

 

[tdgesq]

Okay, then could you post the quote where he does so?

The closest thing I have seen is from HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH, VOL. 5 by Charles Hefele.

With greater precision than the Synod, however, Pope Leo II pointed out
the fault of Honorius, when, in his letter to the Emperor, confirming the
decrees of the sixth OEcumenical Council, he says: “Pariter
anathematizamus novi erroris inventores, id est Theodorum Pharanitanum
episcopum, Cyrum Alexandrinum, Sergium, Pyrrhum, Paulum, Petrum
Constantinopolitanze Ecclesia subsessores magis quam praesules, necnon
et Honorium, qui hanc apostolicam ecclesiam non apstolicae traditionis
doctrina lustravit, sed profunda proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere
conatus est (in the Greek, subvevti permisit, parecw>rhse), et omnes qui
in suo errore defuncti; sunt” (see p. 180). From this it is clear that Pope
Leo II also anathematized Honorius, because he did not bring the apostolic
doctrine to light, i.e., did not speak out as a teacher, and so, by the
violation of his sacred duties, allowed the falsification of the faith (the
Greek, th~| bebh>lw| prodosi>a| mianqh~nai parecw>rhse, etc., is not only
milder, but also more accurate, and consistent with the expression of Leo160
in his letter to King Ervig, whilst the Latin text (a mere translation from the
Greek) plainly does wrong to Pope Honorius).
In like sense, Pope Leo II expressed himself in his letter to the Spanish
bishops: “Qui veto adversum apostolicae traditionis puritatem
perduelliones exstiterant…aeterna condemnatione mulctati sunt, i.e.
Theodorus Pharanitanus, Cyrus Alexandrinus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus,
Petrus Constantinopolitani, cum Honorio qui flammam haeretici dogmatis
non, ut decuit apostolicam auctoritatem, incipientem extinxit, sed
negligendo confovit.” (See p. 182.) And so, in fact, it was. Honorius
ought; to have suppressed the heresy at its beginning by a clear exhibition
of the orthodox doctrine, but he fostered it by his negligence, by his
unhappy words to Sergius (in his first letter especially).
Once more Leo n. speaks of the anathematizing of Honorius, in his letter to
the Spanish King Ervig, thus: “Omnesque haereticae assertionis auctores
venerando censente concilio condemnati, de catholicae ecclesiae
adunatione projecti sunt, i.e. Theodorus Pharanitanus episcopus, Cyrus
Alexandrinus, Sergius, Paulus, Pyrrhus, et Petrus, quondam
Constantinopolitani praesules; et una cure eis Honorius Romanus, qui
immaculatam apostolicae traditionis regulam, quam a praedecessoribus
suis accepit, maculavi consensit” (i. e. he allowed the maculari, (a) from
negligence, since he did not come forward against it, and (b) since he used
an expression which the heresy turned to its own use). Whether this letter
proceeded from Pope Leo himself, or from his successor Benedict II, is
here indifferent

Section 324.