Lord Phan,

I don't believe Honorius was declared a heretic. I believe he was condemned for his silence/ negligence in the face of heresy.

Saint Maxim has actually written a “Dialogue” directed at Pyrrhus who had succeeded Sergius. This “Dialogue” has been preserved in the Vatican's Library. St. Maxim stages himself facing heretical Pyrrhus who cites Honorius as a witness supporting his side. And the saint personally replies that Honorius had always been Catholic. He puts forward several pieces of evidence, among which is the statement of Honorius' secretary to whom the pope had dictated his letters to Sergius. Maxim says: “The man is still alive and bears witness that Honorius has never thought of negating two will­powers in Our Lord Jesus Christ. The secretary asserts that where Honorius seems to be refusing the duality, one must understand what he means aright: he thinks of the conflicting tendencies in human nature. They are the result of sin, but have never existed in Jesus”.

Let us quote Saint Maxim directly:

“Pyrrhus: what can you answer about Honorius who, a few years ago stated in the letters he sent to Sergius that obviously there was but one will-power in Our Lord Jesus Christ?

“Maxim: Which version of these letters must be considered as the more undeniable, the more consistent with truth: either the one by the secretary who wrote under Honorius' direction, and who is all the more reliable as he is still alive after illuminating all the western countries with the splendour of religious integrity, or had we better confide in what is reported by the citizens of Constantinople who conveniently utter only what pleases them?

“Pyrrhus: the more trustworthy interpretation is afforded by the one who wrote the letters.

“Maxim: now then, this is what the latter wrote to Emperor Constantine (III) when Pope John (IV) ordered him to give his own account: ‘You may be sure that what we have said of the one, unique, will-power in Our Lord, must not be understood as describing both his natures at once, the human and the divine one. This applies only to his human nature. When Sergius announced that some people taught that there were two will-powers fighting each other in Jesus Christ, we answered that there were no conflicting inclinations in Him’.”

The Council could not condemn Honorius for any heresy, unless warring against itself and Agatho`s letter by plainly asserting contradicting declarations. For in his first letter Agatho, writing as the reigning pope to the Emperor, expressed the doctrine that was read to the conciliar Fathers during the 4th session: “This is the original substance of our faith, the very one that has been maintained in either tempestuous or halcyon days by the spiritual Mother of your most serene Empire.  She cannot be any other than the Church of Christ's apostles, that supported by God's grace has never wandered out of the true path of Tradition, which the years to come will clearly show; for She has never admitted the corruption of later heresy: on the contrary she has preserved the Deposit of Faith immaculate, as she received it at the beginning from Jesus' apostles who ruled Her.  She will keep it unsullied to the end.  Indeed She thus achieves what was divinely promised by our Lord, who said to the Prince of disciples what has been reported in the Gospels; ‘Peter, Peter, now Satan has claimed his right to sift you like wheat; but I have asked for thee that thy faith should not fail; as for thou, when you are converted, steady thy brethren’   May your Serene Majesty think that the Lord and Saviour of all, the very essence of our faith, has promised that Peter's orthodoxy could not fail and has commanded him to confirm the faith of his brothers; which every one of the Pontiffs that have preceded me, the minim among them, has always done carefully, as has been universally acknowledged.”

    There you note that Agatho does not only say that Faith has never failed in St. Peter's See, and cannot fail either, so that the supreme Pontiff cannot officially decree anything contrary to the Deposit of Faith, but also that every one of his predecessors, among whom Honorius is included, has always resisted heresies and steadied his brothers in the true Faith. And, further below, after enumerating as heretical the Monothelists Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul and Theodore, he concludes: “Consequently we must use the utmost energy to rescue and liberate the Holy Divine Church from the errors of such Doctors, in order that all the members of the hierarchy, of the clergy, of the Christian population may confess and teach with us the right orthodox and apostolic doctrine which is founded upon the rock of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles of our Church, who through the grace and protection of this self-same Peter remains unsullied by any error whatsoever.”

    This epistle received unanimous approbation from the Synod. Indeed the Conciliar Fathers approved Agatho enthusiastically in their acts 8 and 18: “These words are not really Agatho's: blessed Peter has spoken through him.” This is my way of arguing from these data: if Honorius had actually been a Monothelist, how does Agatho, while combating the Monothelist heresy, brazenly dare pretend:

1) that none of his predecessors has ever deviated from Truth.

2) then that other churches have been smeared by errors of their Prelates

3) and that eventually Rome alone should have remained immaculate ?

    On the other hand if the Council states that Peter has expressed himself through Agatho, while the latter proclaimed that the Roman pontiffs have constantly strengthened their brothers' faith, and never succuмbed to any heresy, how then do the Conciliar Fathers dare anathematize Honorius in almost every synodal act? It is, obviously, then necessary either that the acts should have been falsified, or that Agatho's letter should have been counterfeited. In default of which the Council inflicts upon itself and Agatho a cutting contradiction, which even heretics never suggested. The second possibility has nowhere been mentioned and no trace of it has ever been found. We must then stick to the first possibility.

Quote from: Christian

Why is it a sin? Don´t you have the right to profess any other religion? If you are using a right you cannot sin.

Actually, no one has the right to profess any other religion. No one has the right to reject God and His Church, only the free will to do so.

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Christian, you said:

"If you accept the possibility BXVI may not be the Pope you cannot accept him. This is comonly taught by thoelogians. A doubtful law is not law; a doubtful Pope is not Pope.

That is not correct. Some people believe that Pius XII was a doubtful Pope, so using your logic we must conclude that because Pius XII did some things that are questionable, he must not be a valid Pope. Heck, there were a few nutcases here who believed both Pius V and X were anti-popes. So should we assume that they aren't Popes since other people think they aren't?

And even though it's true that it will be the laypeople that help save the Church through the Grace of God, it doesn't mean that they should judge a still-reigning Pope.  

Well a distinction has to be made here. One thing is to have a subjective doubt and other different thing is if it is objective.

My point is if you have a (subjective) positive and prudent doubt whether or not BXVI is the Pope, you can´t accept him, in the same way as you can´t say "well, maybe this is a sin but I do it anyway".

The fact that someone says "X is not Pope" is not enough for everybody to have that doubt. I may disagree (in fact I do disagree) with those who accuse Pius XII of heresy. I don´t even have the least doubt about his Papacy.

You see the difference?

One person here originally thought Pius XII was an anti-pope because of his decision to promote Bugnini or something like that. I don't think that qualifies as a heresy, though.

I see the difference, but what I'm saying is that just because you have a doubt about a Pope's Papacy does not mean you must say "The Pope isn't Pope, I have doubts about his Papacy so he must be an anti-pope!".

Let me apply your logic in this sense. If someone has doubts that the Traditional Latin Mass is the True Rite of the Catholic Church, should they assume that because of those doubts the Novus Ordo must be the Rite of the Church? That does not apply as logical reasoning.

Therefore having this for certain I said that Honorius could have been canonically condemned only if he ceased to be Pope through heresy.

There must be some mechanism in place in order to determine whether the Pope has fallen into heresy and thus tacitly abdicated his office.  But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made, until the conclusion of the investigation, thus your entire theory fails.

Quote from: Caminus

There must be some mechanism in place in order to determine whether the Pope has fallen into heresy and thus tacitly abdicated his office.  But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made, until the conclusion of the investigation, thus your entire theory fails.

What does tacit mean, Matthew?