Author Topic: Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved  (Read 1941 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline roscoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7332
  • Reputation: +509/-279
  • Gender: Male
Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved
« on: February 14, 2019, 03:50:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • My understanding of this incident is that Honorius speculated in private about a matter of dogma that had not been defined yet. For this he is charged w/ being a 'heretical' Pope( of which there is no such thing).

    While reading the History Of Medieval Spain by J O'Callaghan I encountered the following on pg 81:

    " When Pope Honorius exhorted the Spanish Bishops not to be lacking in diligence against the Juws,..... the Sixth Council Of Toledo informed the Pope that he need not be distressed about the efforts of the Spanish Bishops in the matter... :cheers:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6763
    • Reputation: +3748/-1099
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved
    « Reply #1 on: February 14, 2019, 04:14:30 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

    Pope Honorius was condemned, not for having held or promoted a heresy, but for the sin of ommission, in not condeming error and not using his Petrine office to teach clear truth.  One can draw many parallels between his actions and many popes in our century.  Here is a listing of censures/rebukes he received for his non-action...all this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

    ----

    In the thirteenth session, 28 March, the two letters of Sergius were condemned, and the council (Constantinople) added: "Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God", that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to the pious and great emperor,

    "and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema. And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas".

    The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, ...and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."

    In Pope Leo II's letter to the Spanish King Erwig, he said: "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."

    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.


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7332
    • Reputation: +509/-279
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved
    « Reply #2 on: February 14, 2019, 05:30:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • V2 NA is about as reliable as Wikipedia. If Pope Honorius had been a heretic, some future Pope(whose Authority is higher than yours) would have declared him an anti-pope--  none has done so. :cheers:

    % btw-- this is the first time I have heard of the 'Trulian' Synod
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline RomanTheo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 152
    • Reputation: +93/-34
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved
    « Reply #3 on: February 14, 2019, 08:21:26 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • My understanding of this incident is that Honorius speculated in private about a matter of dogma that had not been defined yet. For this he is charged w/ being a 'heretical' Pope( of which there is no such thing).

    While reading the History Of Medieval Spain by J O'Callaghan I encountered the following on pg 81:

    " When Pope Honorius exhorted the Spanish Bishops not to be lacking in diligence against the Juws,..... the Sixth Council Of Toledo informed the Pope that he need not be distressed about the efforts of the Spanish Bishops in the matter... :cheers:


    The synod of Trullo is only one of the councils that condemned Honorius as a heretic.  He was also condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople, the Fourth Council of Constantinople and the Second Council of Nicea, which were all general councils of the Church.

    And Honorius was not condemned for privately speculating about an undefined doctrine. He was condemned for what he wrote in two official letters to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, concerning matters of doctrine.  Sergius wrote to the Pope with questions about doctrine, and the Pope responded.   In one of the letters, Honorius said, “we acknowledge one will in Our Lord Jesus Christ” (Unde et unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostril Jesu Christi).  Keep in mind that he wrote that during the height of the Monothelite heresy.  Needless to say, the heretics jumped on that sentence. They used it to promote their heresy and prove that Honorius was in agreement with them.  What did Honorius do?  Instead of correcting them, as he should have, He imposed silence on St. Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was courageously defending the true doctrine of two wills in Christ, against the heretics.  Honorius was condemned as a heretic because he deserved to be condemned as a heretic.

    Listen to what Constantinople III says about these events and Honorius in particular:

    “After we had read the doctrinal letters of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus or Phasis and to Pope Honorius, as well as the letter of the latter [Honorius] to Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, also to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers of repute, and follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of these men must also be expelled from the holy Church, namely, that of Sergius who first wrote on this impious doctrine; further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor.  We anathematized them all. And along with them, it is our unanimous decree that there shall be expelled from the Church and anathematised, Honorius, formerly Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found in his letter to Sergius that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.  We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and the apostolic and patristic doctrines. Therefore we received it as useful to the Catholic and apostolic Church, and decreed that his name should be put upon the diptychs of the holy Church. (…)    to Honorius the heretic, anathema!

    If anyone says Honorius was not a heretic, he is contradicting the express teaching of this general council and two others that taught the same.

    Roscoe: “If Pope Honorius had been a heretic, some future Pope (whose Authority is higher than yours) would have declared him an anti-pope--  none has done so.”

    That might be a doctrine of Roscoe, but it’s not a doctrine of the Catholic Church.  St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, had no problem admitting that Honorius may have been “altogether a heretic.”  

    "Under the ancient Law, the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested with the pontifical robe and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was." (The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306)


    Roscoe: “For this he is charged w/ being a 'heretical' Pope (of which there is no such thing).

    What do you mean “there is no such thing” as a heretical Pope?  It's true that there’s never been a Pope who fell into heresy to the degree necessary for the Church to consider him a heretic, but that doesn’t mean there has never been a pope who fell into heresy, or that a pope cannot fall into heresy in the future (or the present).  Even Bellarmine, who gave his best effort to excuse the Popes who were accused of heresy, did not rule out the possibility that some popes might have been heretics, but only said it could not be proven that any had fallen into heresy.  

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4572/-576
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved
    « Reply #4 on: February 16, 2019, 10:54:05 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • From St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, in "The History of Heresies and Their Refutation":

    Quote
    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;




    Quote
    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 a fact beyond contradiction, that Honorius never fell into the Monothelite heresy.

    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4572/-576
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved
    « Reply #5 on: March 29, 2019, 09:11:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • M. Guerard Des Lauriers on the controversial case of Pope Honorius:

    Quote
    “If the inadvertence or casualness of Honorius I was real, then still it was only occasional; it did not exclude the habitual intention to serve the Good-End confided to the Church. This defection, if it really took place, did not deprive Honorius I of the Communication of the ‘being with’ proceeding from Christ which constituted him as Pope formaliter during his whole Pontificate. Whereas the defective behavior of Paul VI is numerous and convergent. Only this accumulation permits, and sadly requires, to conclude that the current occupant of the Apostolic See does not have the habitual intention to realize the Good-End committed to the Church. Hence it follows that, to the contrary of Honorius, he is NOT Pope formaliter” (C.d.C., n° 1, p. 53, note 43).


    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved
    « Reply #6 on: March 29, 2019, 09:22:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • The synod of Trullo is only one of the councils that condemned Honorius as a heretic.  He was also condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople, the Fourth Council of Constantinople and the Second Council of Nicea, which were all general councils of the Church.

    And Honorius was not condemned for privately speculating about an undefined doctrine. He was condemned for what he wrote in two official letters to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, concerning matters of doctrine.  Sergius wrote to the Pope with questions about doctrine, and the Pope responded.   In one of the letters, Honorius said, “we acknowledge one will in Our Lord Jesus Christ” (Unde et unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostril Jesu Christi).  Keep in mind that he wrote that during the height of the Monothelite heresy.  Needless to say, the heretics jumped on that sentence. They used it to promote their heresy and prove that Honorius was in agreement with them.  What did Honorius do?  Instead of correcting them, as he should have, He imposed silence on St. Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was courageously defending the true doctrine of two wills in Christ, against the heretics.  Honorius was condemned as a heretic because he deserved to be condemned as a heretic.

    Listen to what Constantinople III says about these events and Honorius in particular:

    “After we had read the doctrinal letters of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus or Phasis and to Pope Honorius, as well as the letter of the latter [Honorius] to Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, also to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers of repute, and follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of these men must also be expelled from the holy Church, namely, that of Sergius who first wrote on this impious doctrine; further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor.  We anathematized them all. And along with them, it is our unanimous decree that there shall be expelled from the Church and anathematised, Honorius, formerly Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found in his letter to Sergius that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.  We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and the apostolic and patristic doctrines. Therefore we received it as useful to the Catholic and apostolic Church, and decreed that his name should be put upon the diptychs of the holy Church. (…)    to Honorius the heretic, anathema!

    If anyone says Honorius was not a heretic, he is contradicting the express teaching of this general council and two others that taught the same.

    Roscoe: “If Pope Honorius had been a heretic, some future Pope (whose Authority is higher than yours) would have declared him an anti-pope--  none has done so.”

    That might be a doctrine of Roscoe, but it’s not a doctrine of the Catholic Church.  St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, had no problem admitting that Honorius may have been “altogether a heretic.”  

    "Under the ancient Law, the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested with the pontifical robe and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was." (The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306)


    Roscoe: “For this he is charged w/ being a 'heretical' Pope (of which there is no such thing).

    What do you mean “there is no such thing” as a heretical Pope?  It's true that there’s never been a Pope who fell into heresy to the degree necessary for the Church to consider him a heretic, but that doesn’t mean there has never been a pope who fell into heresy, or that a pope cannot fall into heresy in the future (or the present).  Even Bellarmine, who gave his best effort to excuse the Popes who were accused of heresy, did not rule out the possibility that some popes might have been heretics, but only said it could not be proven that any had fallen into heresy.  
    :applause:

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved
    « Reply #7 on: March 29, 2019, 09:27:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, in "The History of Heresies and Their Refutation":





    :applause:


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved
    « Reply #8 on: March 29, 2019, 09:29:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Please note that I am only applauding the high level of argumentation by Roman Theo and Cantarella, and not taking either side.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 24578
    • Reputation: +13753/-3673
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved
    « Reply #9 on: March 29, 2019, 10:04:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Based on my reading of the facts, I do believe that Honorius was objectively heretical in some of his statements.  Where there's doubt is regarding his pertinacity.  Certainly the matter had not been explicitly defined by the Church at the time he wrote those things to Sergius.  And the letter to Sergius does not meet the notes of infallibility, since it was not a teaching to the Universal Church deciding/imposing a matter of faith (it's very similar to some of those Pope Innocent letters cited incorrectly by St. Alphonsus as making the BoD de fide).

    Some Church Fathers promoted opinions that were later explicitly condemned as heretical, but they're still listed among the catalog of saints.

    Now, the Church's judgment that he was a heretic is in fact very strong, but again it doesn't strictly meet the notes of infallibility.  And it's a bit problematic to "remove" from the Church someone who's already dead.  If Honorius had been in heaven, a member of the Church Triumphant, would he be pulled out of there and thrown into hell by virtue of this declaration?

    I don't believe that Honorius was guilty of pertinacious manifest heresy that would cause him to have lost the office, but I do believe he was materially heretical on the point, at least at on time during his reign.  

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 24578
    • Reputation: +13753/-3673
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved
    « Reply #10 on: March 29, 2019, 10:08:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Constantinople stated that they found the DOCUMENTS to be heretical, i.e. judged material/objective heresy to exist in them.

    Then it stated that the NAMES of these heretics (including that of Honorius) should be "expelled from the Church".  So when expelling Honorius, one could read that as "his name shall be mud".  There's no way to expel someone from the Church if he's already dead.


    Offline LeDeg

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 483
    • Reputation: +295/-51
    • Gender: Male
    • I am responsible only to God and history.
    Re: Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved
    « Reply #11 on: March 29, 2019, 03:35:53 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Based on my reading of the facts, I do believe that Honorius was objectively heretical in some of his statements.  Where there's doubt is regarding his pertinacity.  Certainly the matter had not been explicitly defined by the Church at the time he wrote those things to Sergius.  And the letter to Sergius does not meet the notes of infallibility, since it was not a teaching to the Universal Church deciding/imposing a matter of faith (it's very similar to some of those Pope Innocent letters cited incorrectly by St. Alphonsus as making the BoD de fide).

    Some Church Fathers promoted opinions that were later explicitly condemned as heretical, but they're still listed among the catalog of saints.

    Now, the Church's judgment that he was a heretic is in fact very strong, but again it doesn't strictly meet the notes of infallibility.  And it's a bit problematic to "remove" from the Church someone who's already dead.  If Honorius had been in heaven, a member of the Church Triumphant, would he be pulled out of there and thrown into hell by virtue of this declaration?

    I don't believe that Honorius was guilty of pertinacious manifest heresy that would cause him to have lost the office, but I do believe he was materially heretical on the point, at least at on time during his reign.  
    This. It amazes me how some try to ignore the clear language of the councils declarations. 
    "The whole secret of the campaigns unleashed against Europe can be explained in two words: Masonry and ƈσmmυɳιsm... we have to extirpate these two evils from our land." -Franco

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7332
    • Reputation: +509/-279
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved
    « Reply #12 on: March 29, 2019, 05:21:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  •  Holy Church has never declared Honorius to be an anti-pope. He was deceived as to what was really happening in Espana in an age when it took 3 months to get a letter to Rome & back. Why are so many so eager to find something wrong w/ the Pope? See Fr Parsons-- Studies In Church History v1 :cheers:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 24578
    • Reputation: +13753/-3673
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved
    « Reply #13 on: March 29, 2019, 05:34:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Holy Church has never declared Honorius to be an anti-pope. He was deceived as to what was really happening in Espana in an age when it took 3 months to get a letter to Rome & back. Why are so many so eager to find something wrong w/ the Pope? See Fr Parsons-- Studies In Church History v1 :cheers:

    People are eager to find a precedent for today's crisis where we see Popes uttering heretical statements, and to see how the Church reacted to it.

    You are correct that Honorius has not been declared an anti-pope.  His DOCUMENTS were denounced as heretical, but there's no evidence of pertinacity in heresy.  And III Constantinople removed his name from the Church.  I suspect that the major practical effect of that is closing the door to a potential canonization of Honorius.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6763
    • Reputation: +3748/-1099
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Pope Honorius I Mystery Solved
    « Reply #14 on: March 29, 2019, 05:42:19 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just because a pope is a heretic doesn’t mean he’s an anti-pope.  Too many people with an agenda (ie Fr Cekada) want to condone and lessen the evil that Honorius allowed.  Heresy by omission is a serious dereliction of duty by a pope.  


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16