Honorius and Monotheletes

[dairygirl4u2c]

This info is courtesty of christian truth:
[url="http://www.christiantruth.com/pope.html"]http://www.christiantruth.com/pope.html[/url]



Honorius believed in the error of monotheletes, as all can agree. CC apologists attempt to brush his belief off as only personal belief not as definitive ex cathedra statement. But here is an infallible council by CC standards statement condemning him. Judge for yourselves:

[quote]Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!...
Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris[/quote]

The above statements prove that the condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements, taught by the infallible council. The following points show this to be the case:

The Council condemns him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his official capacity as pope and not as a private theologian.
He is condemned for following after and confirming the heresy of montheletism.
He is condemned for actively disseminating and propagating heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church.

The only argument I can see is that only portions that the Pope agrees with are infallible in even councils which are generally infallible? The only problem with this is that of course the Pope wouldn't acknowlede his own error, and the fact that the Council deemed it as error to the whole church cannot be brushed off lightly.

My question to you is, was it only a letter that was condemned or what exactly was the council's basis for saying he taught error to the church?

It's also important to note that even if he did not intend to teach it to all, that the East did end up believing it because of him. The circumstantial evidence might then suggst that he taught it to all.



Thank you to the Photius thread for bringing this to light. I think the fact that Photius believed what he did along with the eastern bishops (even to this day) is an indicator against the notion of infallibility. Of course you will simply say he was a stubborn bishop and brush off the eastern church without much thought. Above are some facts that Photius based his claim which are so far unrefuted.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 30 2005, 01:08 PM']The above statements prove that the condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements, taught by the infallible council. The following points show this to be the case:
[right][snapback]839824[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Councils don't do anything [i]Ex Cathedra[/i].

In fact, only two Popes have done anything [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] themselves.

[son_of_angels]

The same thing, however, could be applied to any opinion which the pope actively and purposely pursues from his office. Consider, especially, the recent pope's opinions concerning the death penalty. His opinions are and were pursued from the Vatican, and are still being pursued by many bishops, however much I disagree with them.

I would say, just from the document mentioned, that from his office the opinion spread, but, if there is another document in which he solemnly decreed this matter as a dogma of the Catholic faith, I have never seen it. Moreover, if you read the letter itself, it is arguable that the pope was NOT supporting Monotheletism, but was simply misunderstood by bishops throughout the world (perhaps even himself misunderstanding the arguments).

[Fidei Defensor]

Here is some info from New Advent:

[quote]In the letter to Honorius, Sergius unwittingly develops another heresy. He admits that "one operation", though used by a few Fathers, is a strange expression, and might suggest a denial of the unconfused union of two natures. But the "two operations" are also dangerous, by suggesting "two contrary wills, as though when the Word of God wished to fulfil His saving Passion, His humanity resisted and contradicted His will, and thus two contrary wills would be introduced, which is impious, for it is impossible that in the same subject there should be two wills at once, and contrary to one another as to the same thing". So far he is right; but he continues: "For the saving doctrine of the holy Fathers clearly teaches that the intellectually animated flesh of the Lord never performs its natural movement apart from, and by its own impetus contrariwise to, the direction of the Word of God hypostatically united to it, but only at the time and in the manner and to the extent that the Word of God wishes," just as our body is moved by our rational soul. Here Sergius speaks of the natural will of the flesh, and of the Divine will, but makes no mention of the higher free will, which indeed is wholly subject to the Divine will. He may indeed be understood to include this intellectual will in "the intellectually animated flesh", but his thought is not clear, and his words simply express the heresy of one will. He concludes that it is best simply to confess that "the only begotten Son of God, who is truly both God and Man, works both the Divine and the human works, and from one and the same incarnate Word of God proceed indivisibly and inseparably both the Divine and the human operations as St. Leo teaches: Agit enim utraque, etc." If these words and the quotation from St. Leo mean anything, they mean two operations; but Sergius's error lies precisely in deprecating this expression. It cannot be too carefully borne in mind that theological accuracy is a matter of definition, and definition is a matter of words. The prohibition of the right words is always heresy, even though the author of the prohibition has no heretical intention and is merely shortsighted or confused. Honorius replied reproving Sophronius, and praising Sergius for rejecting his "new expression" of "two operations". He approves the recommendations made by Sergius, and has no blame for the capitula of Cyrus. In one point he goes further than either, for he uses the words: "Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ." We may easily believe the testimony of Abbot John Symponus, who wrote the letter for Honorius, that he intended only to deny a lower will of the flesh in Christ which contradicted His higher will, and that he was not referring at all to His Divine will; but in connexion with the letter of Sergius such an interpretation is scarcely the more obvious one. It is clear that Honorius was not any more a wilful heretic than was Sergius, but he was equally incorrect in his decision, and his position made the mistake far more disastrous. In another letter to Sergius he says he has informed Cyrus that the new expressions, one and two operations, are to be dropped, their use being most foolish. [/quote]
[quote]In one of the last four months of 638 effect was given to [Honorius'] letter by the issue of an "Exposition" composed by Sergius and authorized by the emperor; it is known as the Ecthesis of Heraclius. Sergius died 9 Dec., a few days after having celebrated a council in which the Ecthesis was acclaimed as "truly agreeing with the Apostolic teaching", words which seem to be a reference to its being founded on the letter of Honorius. Cyrus received the news of this council with great rejoicings. The Ecthesis itself is a complete profession of Faith according to the five General Councils. Its peculiarity consists in adding a prohibition of the expression one and two operations, and an assertion of one will in Christ lest contrary wills should be held. The letter of Honorius had been a grave document, but not a definition of Faith binding on the whole Church. The Ecthesis was a definition. But Honorius had no cognizance of it, for he had died on 12 Oct. The envoys who came for the emperor's confirmation of the new Pope Severinus refused to recommend the Ecthesis to the latter, but promised to lay it before him for judgment. Severinus, not consecrated until May, 640, died two months later, but not without having condemned the Ecthesis. John IV, who succeeded him in December, lost no time in holding a synod to condemn it formally. When Heraclius, who had merely intended to give effect to the teaching of Honorius, heard that the document was rejected at Rome, he disowned it in a letter to John IV, and laid the blame on Sergius. He died Feb., 641. The pope wrote to the elder son of Heraclius, saying that the Ecthesis would doubtless now be withdrawn, and apologizing for Pope Honorius, who had not meant to teach one human will in Christ.[/quote]

[spiritmech]

I am the starter of the Photius thread.

Let me be clear in stating that my intentions in the Photius thread were informative, not argumentative (that's why it says "Not a debate"). The responses that I got were fine and in no way can you accurately represent them as any sort of "brushing off." Please, if you're going to get on your high horse about something, please do it in your own name and on your own time. I am not here to argue East vs. West so please do not drag me down into your silly little anti-Roman-website-quoting.

Also, please learn what ex cathedra means.
sm

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 30 2005, 02:08 PM']
Thank you to the Photius thread for bringing this to light. I think the fact that Photius believed what he did along with the eastern bishops (even to this day) is an indicator against the notion of infallibility. Of course you will simply say he was a stubborn bishop and brush off the eastern church without much thought. Above are some facts that Photius based his claim which are so far unrefuted.
[right][snapback]839824[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Honorius was condemned for not condemning Sergius (he was passive), not for professing a heresy. The quote you posted is not even sited correctly and does not seem to match up with copies of the entire council.

Edited December 30, 2005 by thedude

[Myles Domini]

I thought reading chapter IX of Venerable Cardinal Newman's 'Letter to the Duke of Norfolk': [url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section9.html"]The Vatican Definition[/url] might aid the participants in this discussion.

INXC
Myles

[Myles Domini]

Another nice piece: [url="http://veniaminov.blogspot.com/2004/11/and-you-can-quote-me-eastern-papal.html"]Eastern Papal florilegium[/url] for those who have been led to believe that the East did not know the doctrine of Roman Primacy. Indeed, to my knowledge Easterns were the first to record this explicitly in patristic literature via St Irenaeus and the quotations from the Byzantine-Slav liturgy would indicate that they still do so today in fact...

INXC
Myles

Edited December 30, 2005 by Myles

[qfnol31]

[quote name='spiritmech' date='Dec 30 2005, 02:44 PM']Also, please learn what ex cathedra means.
sm
[right][snapback]839965[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[i]Ex Cathedra[/i] literally comes from the Latin meaning "From the Chair [of the Bishop, in this case of the diocese of Rome - Holy Father].

The Roman Pontiff speaks [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] when he defines infallibly a dogma of the Church in a matter of faith or morals.

Simply, it's a definition of something faith or morals in the Church (which I would argue was already taught before, but now has a definition added).

[spiritmech]

I'm fully aware of what ex cathedra means. I was speaking to the original poster, who obviously does not.

I was *agreeing* with the Catholics on this one.

Don't shoot the messenger :
sm


[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 30 2005, 06:51 PM'][i]Ex Cathedra[/i] literally comes from the Latin meaning "From the Chair [of the Bishop, in this case of the diocese of Rome - Holy Father].

The Roman Pontiff speaks [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] when he defines infallibly a dogma of the Church in a matter of faith or morals.

Simply, it's a definition of something faith or morals in the Church (which I would argue was already taught before, but now has a definition added).
[right][snapback]840289[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='spiritmech' date='Dec 30 2005, 11:22 PM']I'm fully aware of what ex cathedra means. I was speaking to the original poster, who obviously does not.

I was *agreeing* with the Catholics on this one.

Don't shoot the messenger  :
sm
[right][snapback]840366[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

We love you sm

LOL

INXC
Myles

[journeyman]

[quote name='spiritmech' date='Dec 30 2005, 05:22 PM']I'm fully aware of what ex cathedra means. I was speaking to the original poster, who obviously does not.

I was *agreeing* with the Catholics on this one.

Don't shoot the messenger  :
sm
[right][snapback]840366[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


That would be why the original poster has an "I do not rep the Church" tag

Welcome spiritmech . . . hope you return often

[dairygirl4u2c]

Maybe it's not ex cathedra. Perhaps as I have indeed heard before, he's only spoken ex cathedra twice. I used what the link used.. whatever the case, it's speaking from the chair infallibly. Such as when "no salvation outside" he said we pronouce and define, and all such similar definitions. Let's not get side tracked too much on my careless use of the word, and get back to the main point being made?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 30 2005, 06:02 PM']Maybe it's not ex cathedra. Perhaps as I have indeed heard before, he's only spoken ex cathedra twice. I used what the link used.. whatever the case, it's speaking from the chair infallibly. Such as when "no salvation outside" he said we pronouce and define, and all such similar definitions. Let's not get side tracked too much on my careless use of the word, and get back to the main point being made?
[right][snapback]840437[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, your main point has already been addressed. If you would like clarification on the issue of Honorius, someone has actually gone to the trouble of copying and pasting the relevant sections from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

[Myles Domini]

Absolutely Jeff. Moreover, I really think you should read chapter IX of Newman's letter to Norfolk DG.