7. Not alone the heretical, but even some Catholic writers, have judged, from these expressions of Pope Honorius, that he fell into the Monothelite heresy but they are certainly deceived because when he says that there is only one will in Christ, he intends to speak of Christ as man alone, and in that sense, as Catholic, he properly denies that there are two wills in Christ opposed to each other, as in us the flesh is opposed to the spirit and if we consider the very words of his letter, we will see that such is his meaning. We confess one will alone in Jesus Christ, for the Divinity did not assume our sin, but our nature, as it was created before it was cor rupted by sin." This is what Pope John IV. writes to the Emperor Constantine II., in his apology for Honorius: "Some," said he, admitted two contrary wills in Jesus Christ, and Honorius answers that by saying that Christ perfect God and perfect man having come to heal human nature, was conceived and born without sin, and therefore, never had two opposite wills, nor in him the will of the flesh ever combated the will of the spirit, as it does in us, on account of the sin contracted from Adam." He therefore concludes that those who imagine that Honorius taught that there was in Christ but one will alone of the Divinity and ofthe humanity, are at fault (8). St. Maximus, in his dialogue with Pyrrhus (9), and St. Anastasius Bibliothecarius (10), make similar defence for Honorius. Graveson, in confirmation of this (11), very properly remarks, that as St. Cyril, in his dispute with Nestorius, said, in Catholic sense, that the nature of the Incarnate Word was one, and the Eutychians seized on the expression as favourable to them, in the same manner, Honorius saying that Christ had one will (that is, that he had not, like us, two opposite wills one defective, the will of the flesh, and one correct, the will of the Spirit), the Monothelites availed themselves of it to defend their errors. 8. We do not, by any means, deny that Honorius was in error, when he imposed silence on those who discussed the question of one or two wills in Christ, because when the matter in dispute is erroneous, it is only favouring error to impose silence. Wherever there is error it ought to be exposed and combated, and it was here that Honorius was wrong; but it is fact beyond contradiction, that Honorius never fell into the Monothelite heresy, notwithstanding what heretical writers assert, and especially William Cave (12), who says it is labour in vain to try and defend him from his charge. The learned Noel Alexander clearly proves that it cannot be laid to his charge (13), and in answer to the great argument adduced by our adversaries, that in the Thirteenth Act of the Sixth Council it was declared that he was anathematized Anathematizari praevidimus, et Honorium eo quod invenimus per scripta, quae ab eo facto sunt ad Sergium, quia in omnibus ejus mentem secutus est, et impia dogmata confirmavit" replies that the Synod condemned Honorius, not because he formally embraced the heresy, but on account of the favour he showed the heretics, as Leo II. (Optimo Concilii Interprete, as N. Alex, calls him) writes to Constantine Pogonatus in his Epistle, requesting the confirmation of the Synod. In this letter Leo enumerates the heretics condemned, the fathers of the heresy, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, successors in the See of Constantinople he also anathematizes Honorius, not for embracing the error, but for permitting it to go on unmolested: Qui hanc Apostolicain Ecclesiam non Apostolicae Traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam maculari permisit." He also writes to the Spanish bishops, and tells them that Theodore, Cyrus, and the others are condemned, together with Honorius, who did not, as befitted his Apostolical authority, extinguish the flame of heretical doctrine in the beginning, but cherished it by negligence. From these and several other sources, then, Noel Alexander proves that Honorius was not condemned by the Sixth Council as heretic, but as favourer of heretics, and for his negligence in putting them down, and that he was very properly condemned, for the favourers of heresy and the authors of it are both equally culpable. He adds that the common opinion of the Sorbonne was, that although Honorius, in his letters, may have written some erroneous opinions, still he only wrote them as private doctor, and in no wise stained the purity of the faith of the Apostolic See and his letters to Sergius, which we quoted in the last paragraph, prove how different his opinions were from those of the Monothelites.
St. Alphonsus. The History of the Heresies, pg. 181-182
For Stubborn and AL - HERE ^ we have ANOTHER Doctor of the Church - telling you why your futile attempt to, "destroy the grave error of the sedes", by using the case of Pope Honorius, is doomed and you are "deceived".
His explanation SHOULD actually satisfy you just as good as any of St. Robert's reasons. You can have your, "Honorius the heretic!", but you can't eat it too...
He in no way stained the Apostolic See like you would like to smear him with by equating him with the concilar false Popes - who would actually have, and continue to, tarnish and pollute the Apostolic See with heresy, blasphemy, and sacrilege.
Therefore they are NOT true Popes., and the above from St. Alphonsus makes you look even more intransigent and foolish then you already do (if that were possible).
Poll
