This quotation is taken from Fr Laux, in his "Church History", page 157-158:
"The last effort made to conciliate the Monophysites led to a new heresy. Sergius, since 610 Patriarch of Constantinople, thought that by declaring that there was only one will in Christ, the Syrians and Egyptians would be satisfied and give up their schism. Sophronius, the saintly and learned Patriarch of Jerusalem, opposed this teaching as heretical: Monotheletism (Gr. monon, one, and thelema, will), he rightly maintained, was nothing but disguised Monophysitism. Anxious to prevent Rome from interfering on the side of Sophronius, Sergius wrote to Pope Honorius I (625-638), misrepresenting his own teaching and that of his opponents. "Honorius, who believed that the opponents of Sergius held that there were two conflicting wills in Christ, responded by asserting that there was only one will in Christ, meaning thereby that there could not be a conflict between the divine will and the human will," and agreed with Sergius that the expressions, "one principle of action" or "two principles of action" (one will or two wills) where in future to be avoided as mere grammatical subtleties.
The fathers of the Sixth General Council condemned Honorius as a heretic. But in confirming the decrees of the Council— and it must be remembered that no council has any infallibility unless it's definitions are confirmed by the Pope— Pope Leo II declared that Honorius was guilty of heresy only in so far as he had permitted himself to be duped by Sergius and, through his negligence, had been largely responsible for the spread of the heresy. The action of Honorius cannot be merged as an argument against Papal Infallibility. A careful reading of his two letters to Sergius—one is preserved entire, the other in part— leaves the impression on an unprejudiced mind that he was no Monothelete, although he uses expressions that could be easily misinterpreted, especially if torn from their context. He adopts the words of Sergius, but understands them in an orthodox sense. It is true that he forbids the use of the expressions "one will" and "two wills", but he nowhere says that he requires all the faithful to accept this decision under pain of separation from the church. Hence he did not intend to teach Ex Cathedra.""At Constantinople, Sergius had anticipated that once Sophronius was patriarch, news of developments in the East would soon reach Rome. So before Sophronius' synodical letter reached Rome, Pope Honorius had received a letter from Sergius. The patriarch informed the pope of the events that have transpired in the East. He told Honorius that he haas enjoined Cyrus of Alexandria to avoid discussion of one or two operations because this was thought innovation in doctrine and scandalized many. Especially talk of two operations would lead many to assume in Christ two wills contrary to each other, while the Fathers teach that the humanity of Christ always performed it's natural operation just when and how and inasmuch as the Word willed, at all times and in all things moved and directed by the divinity of the Word. Rather, we should confess with Leo that from one and the same Incarnate Word all divine and human energy proceeds indivisibly and inseparably.
Not fully understanding the state of the question in the East, Honorius responded favorably to Sergius' letter. He made three points. First, we should avoid speaking of one or two operations; these are new and scandalous disputes about words. It would be Nestorian to speak of two operations; Eutychian to speak only of one. Scripture attests to the fact that Christ is the one working agent of the divinity and humanity and that he worked in a great many ways. Neither the apostles nor the fathers spoke of one or two operations. The question should be left to the philosophers and grammarians or best left in silence. Secondly, Jesus Christ, who is one person, has performed both human and divine works through the concourse of two natures; the same Christ has worked in his two natures both divinely and humanly. Thirdly, we must hold the unity of Christ's will, for while the Word truly took our nature, he did not take our vitiated nature; he took our flash but not the law of flushed repugnant to that of the Spirit. There was in Christ no will leading in a direction opposed to the law of the Spirit. Christ's words: "I came down from heaven, not to do my will, but the will of Him who sent me" (Jn 6:38) and "Father, not what I will, but what you will" (Mt 26:39) do not reveal a will deferring from the Father's but merely the economy of the humanity which he had assumed, to give us an example upon which to model our willing submission to God. In a second letter to Sergius, after having received Sophronius' synodical profession of faith, Honorius repeated the doctrine of his first concluding that it was better to speak of one operator and two operating natures. He added that he had so informed Sophronius of Jerusalem and Cyrus of Alexandria. With the pope apparently one over to his view, Sergius continue to press his policy on the east."JOHN IV 640-642I’m more than willing to discuss further Pope John IV’s letter of defense on Honorius’ part, if anyone is interested (I would be at least). But I don’t think the statements of Maximus and the abbot John entirely clear Honorius here for reasons which I have already explained via Honorius’ letters themselves.
You’re going to have to be more specific. I’m looking at the entire corpus of Leo II’s letters in the Patrologia Latina right now, and never does that pop up in a word search or a skim. Are you sure that you are quoting Leo or might you be quoting the historian that you are pulling from? If it is the latter, then I ask that you give me the citation he gives in his respective footnote or endnote.“I keep hearing references to these other letters of Leo. Please show them to me. I’ve read quite a number of letters by Leo II, and I don’t know what you are talking about.”
Pope Leo II stated: “because by his negligence he had fanned the flame of heretical dogma”.
Leo never said anything about Sergius duping anyone. I have the letters right in front of me. That interpretation relies heavily on the passive voice of some of the verbiage. I think one can reasonably accuse Sergius of misrepresenting dithelitism, but that has more to do with his position/interpretation of the hypostatic union.Code:This quotation is taken from Fr Laux, in his "Church History", page 157-158: "The last effort made to conciliate the Monophysites led to a new heresy. Sergius, since 610 Patriarch of Constantinople, thought that by declaring that there was only one will in Christ, the Syrians and Egyptians would be satisfied and give up their schism. Sophronius, the saintly and learned Patriarch of Jerusalem, opposed this teaching as heretical: Monotheletism (Gr. monon, one, and thelema, will), he rightly maintained, was nothing but disguised Monophysitism. Anxious to prevent Rome from interfering on the side of Sophronius, Sergius wrote to Pope Honorius I (625-638), misrepresenting his own teaching and that of his opponents. "Honorius, who believed that the opponents of Sergius held that there were two conflicting wills in Christ, responded by asserting that there was only one will in Christ, meaning thereby that there could not be a conflict between the divine will and the human will," and agreed with Sergius that the expressions, "one principle of action" or "two principles of action" (one will or two wills) where in future to be avoided as mere grammatical subtleties. The fathers of the Sixth General Council condemned Honorius as a heretic. But in confirming the decrees of the Council— and it must be remembered that no council has any infallibility unless it's definitions are confirmed by the Pope— Pope Leo II declared that Honorius was guilty of heresy only in so far as he had permitted himself to be duped by Sergius and, through his negligence, had been largely responsible for the spread of the heresy.
A point I never denied, and often acknowledged. That’s not the ultimate issue though."It is evident… that his [Honorius’ s] opposition to the idea of ‘two wills’ was based on the interpretation of ‘two wills’ as ‘two contrary wills.’
It appears you agree that Pope Honorius was not a heretic, but that your contention is that Pope Honorius was condemned as one. Correct?…A point I never denied, and often acknowledged. That’s not the ultimate issue though.
Okay, this gave me enough to find what you were referring to (to the King of Spain). Thank you.From Dom John Chapman’s “Pope Honorius”
In this form Honorius is certainly not exculpated, yet the pope declares that he did not actually succeed in polluting the immaculate Roman Church. However, in his letter to the Spanish King Erwig, he has: “And with them Honorius, who allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be tarnished.” To the Spanish bishops he explains his meaning: “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.” That is, he did not insist on the “two operations”, but agreed with Sergius that the whole matter should be hushed up. Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils without special remark; also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: “Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions” (Liber diurnus, ii, 9). It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a “private heretic”, for he admittedly had excellent intentions."
No, I believe Honorius was a heretic. I just don’t think he was a very smart or sophisticated one. My view is this: He says things that lend credence to monothelistism, but consistently avoided taking sides himself because he feels that he is in over his head.It appears you agree that Pope Honorius was not a heretic, but that your contention is that Pope Honorius was condemned as one. Correct?
It seems to me that you agree that Pope Honorius was negligent regarding the controversy rather than an actual heretic. You’re just looking for the documentation confirming that point from Pope Leo II?
And again, I don’t think that statement is mutually exclusive to Honorius writing private letters with heretical content. One can neglect correct teaching while also espousing error at the same time. I think I am further bolstered in this interpretation due to the fact that Leo considered Honorius as a public enemy and had departed from apostolic tradition. One can depart from tradition by neglecting it. This would also explain why Leo used pariterque in his first letter as well as using the stronger verb consentio, etc. Much of this I addressed in my previous post # 164 on page 11.In a letter to the bishops of Spain Pope Leo II explained the reason why the council excommunicated Pope Honorius. He wrote:
“Those who truly had stood as public enemies, opposed as they were to the purity of apostolic tradition, indeed departing from it, were punished with eternal condemnation: that is, Theodorus Pharanitanus, Cyrus Alexandrinus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Peter of Constantinople, along with Honorius, who put out the flame of heretical dogma that was beginning then, not as befitting apostolic authority, but by neglecting (the flame) fanned it.”
docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_FqAQK65fVVN2RiNzVmZTItYTU4NS00NjQxLWIzNzQtNjQ5YjBhOTgyZDYz&hl=en_US
You misunderstand me. Again, what the abbot says doesn’t absolve Honorius. The Monothelites made the same argument. They argued that because Christ did not have a lower will, there is no way to prove that his human will was distinct from his divine will. Therefore, the Monothelite would argue that there was one will and it resides in the personhood of Christ rather than his nature.Rohzek it appears you are forcing the issue. You have succinctly been proven wrong with explicit quotes. The primary source quotations of Honorius speaking of only humanity are served to show that he was not a monothelite. There is a passive acknowledgment of orthodox teaching when the abbot John says “not of his divinity and humanity” thus implying the acknowledgment of wills in each. Nevermind that the west and the abbot John were actually orthodox and he is the man who wrote the sentence. You cannot claim it doesn’t clear Honorius because the whole purpose of stating that it was an acknowledgment one will in Christ’s humanity was stated by the abbot for the purpose of distancing himself and the Pope from the eastern monothelite heresy. Hence the west jumped to defend Honorius when shocking news surfaced that the heretics claimed him as their own. The west knew Honorius and his doctrine and nee he was at least theologically orthodoxy.
What are you talking about? Every pope after the 8th century took an oath condemning Honorius. You don’t just get to dismiss that out of hand, especially when it is coupled with another affirmation of his condemnation at the 7th Ecumenical Council and the 8th (presumably 869) with no fanfare whatsoever.Further Pope John IV presided over a council which proclaimed christs two wills in the west in the Lateran and at the same council stated that which I quoted about Honorius not being a monothelite, but was only concerned with one will in the humanity of Christ. To interpret this to somehow imply monothelitism is to force Honorius to be something that his words do not even proclaim. Rather this is the tactic of the heretics which St Maximus explicitly mentioned. The west knew and understood honorius and he was never seen as a heretic in the west. Rather he was seen as bot doing his duties correctly by being negligent. Hence even centuries after the whole controversy Venerable Bede praises Pope Honorius as “sound in doctrine” and almost makes him a saint.
Yes, I know that you have provided quotes, AND I have addressed them. You still have yet to explain the issue with the phrase “one with these the Roman Honorius,” the adverb pariterque, and the emphasis on the verb consentio. These are serious issues with regards to understanding Leo’s views.We stated he was condemned for negligence and provided quotes. They are explicit but you realise this but wish to condemn an innocent man regardless of the evidence provided because, as many easterners, any attempt to make the roman pontiffs heretics is a victory. This attitude is all too common. There is no debate here. There once was but now that the evidence has been laid bare, you really have no legs left to stand on other than your stretched and laboured inferences from silence and strained hypotheses.
But I will counter your post later when I get time.
I know what their stance was. They claimed because he had a pure human nature free any original sin, thee would never be a conflict between human and divine natures and thus his human will was thus consolidated to the divine (a form of Monophysitism). This is obviously erroneous.You misunderstand me. Again, what the abbot says doesn’t absolve Honorius. The Monothelites made the same argument. They argued that because Christ did not have a lower will, there is no way to prove that his human will was distinct from his divine will. Therefore, the Monothelite would argue that there was one will and it resides in the personhood of Christ rather than his nature.
The oath had this :What are you talking about? Every pope after the 8th century took an oath condemning Honorius.
Again the eastern churches condemned him. That we acknowledge but west never condemned him for heresy. That is ahistorical. So quoting eastern councils for support is pretty much doing nothing for you.You don’t just get to dismiss that out of hand, especially when it is coupled with another affirmation of his condemnation at the 7th Ecumenical Council and the 8th (presumably 869) with no fanfare whatsoever.
.As for Bede, I’m assuming that you are referring to his brief letters that he records from Honorius in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Bede praises him for settling the debate in Britain over the proper date for celebrating Easter. He never addresses the Monothelite debate. I consider that a plus for Honorius, but it’s another issue altogether.
Not likely, it IS what he was talking about. The author of the letter testified. This smacks of a pressing desire to condemn the man rather than assess objectively his case.As for what Pope John IV says with regards to the two wills in the human nature part, I’ll repeat myself again. Even if, which is likely, that Pope Honorius was only speaking about the one will with regards to Christ’s humanity
He cannot be assumed guilty, he must be proven so. The very sentence which today is the reason why easterners call him a heretic is actually an embarrassing misunderstanding of that sentence which is the only ground for which the council counted him among the heretics.it does not absolve the issue.
It concedes this pint to easily. St Robert Bellarmine, a doctor of the church (more weight than the Catholic Encyclopedia) has proven Honorius innocence by assessing all the evidence.This same argument was used by the Monothelites, which the Catholic Encyclopedia, if it means anything however so it may be dated, even concedes.
BUT you have failed to refute them. A mere rebuttal does not equal a refutation. A refutation is something you have not provided but rather bland and strained conjecture.Yes, I know that you have provided quotes, AND I have addressed them
St.Robert bellarmine knew latin and deduced the same meaning as every catholic here who has refuted you. I don’t know Latin so incant answer but I am in great company here.You still have yet to explain the issue with the phrase “one with these the Roman Honorius,” the adverb pariterque, and the emphasis on the verb consentio. These are serious issues with regards to understanding Leo’s views.
The abbot John’s statement is enough to refute your whole arguments. He did not rest the will in the person of Christ for the abbot John states “we confessed one will not of his divinity and humanity”… What are those if not natures? The issue of will is comected ti natures hence he says what he says. Like I said the abbot John wrote the letter.And as for Honorius’ letters themselves, no one has addressed my charge that Honorius rested the will of Christ within his person, rather than within his nature. If I am wrong, then show me where Honorius rests the wills of Christ within his natures instead of his personhood. I’ve highlighted specific segments of his two letters with regards to this, yet I haven’t received an answer with specific quotes and explanations. These are fair requests on my part, so I don’t appreciate the attacks on my personal integrity by virtue of my religious denomination. I never said the same about any Catholic here, so I would at least expect the same respect.
Awesome! Thank you.