 |
| Pope Honorius |
The Crime of Honorius: Neglect of Duty or Straight-Up Heresy?
One way that Roman Catholic apologists try to "save" Honorius is by saying that his mistake/crime was not of being a heretic, but rather of being uninformed and neglectful of his duty as the Roman Pontiff. This is refuted by looking at the language used in the documents which condemn and anathematize Honorius:
"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, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), 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" (Sixth Ecumenical Council, The Definition of Faith)
Notice the language used here - Satan "actively employed them [Honorius included] in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks...". This sort of language shows that they were not simply condemning Honorius as a "private theologian", but rather as the bishop of Rome (as the text explicitly refers to him, before anathematizing him).
"Therefore we declare that in him there are two natural wills and two natural operations, proceeding commonly and without division: but we cast out of the Church and rightly subject to anathema all superfluous novelties as well as their inventors: to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius and Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter (who were archbishops of Constantinople), moreover Cyrus, who bore the priesthood of Alexandria, and with them Honorius, who was the ruler (πρόεδρον) of Rome, as he followed them in these things." (Sixth Ecumenical Council, The Prosphoneticus to the Emperor)
Again, Honorius is said to have "followed them [heretics] in all things". This is a clear statement that shows that the council didn't simply condemn for mere negligence, but for heresy.
"And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." (Sixth Ecumenical Council, Session 13)
"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!" (Sixth Ecumenical Council, Session 16)
Some have tried to say that the acts of this council are not authentic, an assertion for which zero proof exists. However, even if it were the case, we still have other documents from the same time period condemning Honorius for heresy:
The Imperial Decree confirming the Council says this:
"We anathematise and reject those also who are the heretical authors and patrons of the false and new dogmas. We name, moreover, Theodore, who was Bishop of Pharan, and Sergius who was Bishop of this our Royal city protected by God, agreeing with him in precept and equal to him in impiety, to these also Honorius, who was Pope of Elder Rome, who was the fautor of their heresy, going with them and confirming it in all things." (Mansi, 11:683)
Pope Leo II, in his letter to the Spanish king Ervig says the following:
"All the authors of the heretical assertion condemned by the sentence of the venerable Council have been cast out of the unity of the Catholic Church, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus, Bishop of Alexandria, Sergius, Paulus, Pyrrhus and Peter, formerly Bishops of Constantinople, and together with them—una cum eis— Honorius, Bishop of Rome, who consented that the spotless rule of Apostolical tradition which he had received from his predecessors should be polluted, likewise also Macarius of Antioch, and his disciple Stephen and Polychronius too...and all these—omnes hi—together with Arius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Severus, Theodosius, Themistius, preaching one will and one operation in the Godhead and Manhood of our Lord Jesus Christ, endeavoured shamelessly to defend heretical doctrine...All of whom [including Honorius]—quos omnes—with their errors the divine judgment has cast forth from His Holy Church." (Mansi, 11:731-732)
The 7th ecumenical council (Nicaea II), reaffirmed Honorius' condemnation as a heretic:
"We have also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus," (Letter of Nicaea II to the Emperor and Empress)
In the papal chancery Liber Diurnus, it has the following formula:
‘With these five universally venerated Councils we recognise the Sixth Holy Universal Council...which bound by eternal anathema the authors of the new heretical dogma, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, Bishops of Constantinople, together with Honorius, who fomented their perverse assertions." (quoted in Hefele, vol. 5, pg. 187)
Some have tried to appeal to the following words of Pope Leo II to say that Honorius' crime was merely negligence rather than actual heresy:
"And in like manner we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, 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." (Pope Leo II's Letter to the Emperor, quoted in Hefele, Chapman, Denny, etc.)
John Chapman, in a book trying to defend papal infallibility in light of the Honorius situation, nonetheless says the following about the above-quoted words of Pope Leo:
"It has been sometimes said that St. Leo in these words interprets the decision of the Council about Honorius in a mild sense, or that he modifies it. It is supposed that by 'permitted to be polluted' Leo II means no positive action, but a mere neglect of duty, grave enough in a Pope, but not amounting to the actual teaching of heresy. If Leo II had meant this, he would have been mistaken. Honorius did positively approve the letter of Sergius, as the Council pointed out. Further, the merely negative ruling of the typus had been condemned as heresy by the Lateran Council....The anathemas on Pope Honorius have been again and again confirmed. " (John Chapman, The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, pgs. 114-115, source at Internet Archive)
All of the above information clearly shows that Honorius was not just being "neglectful", but rather publicly teaching heresy.
"That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentence of the Synod against him." (Charles Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 181)
[Hefele then gives many examples from the acts of the 6th ecumenical council to prove his point].
Did Honorius Teach Monothelitism Ex Cathedra?
The next issue which we must examine is whether or not Honorius taught his heretical views ex cathedra. Many Roman Catholic apologists will say that even if Honorius was a heretic (and he was, as I demonstrated above), this would not necessarily refute papal infallibility since he was not teaching in his office as the the successor of Peter and teacher of the whole Church of God.
However, notice the following language from the documents of the Sixth Ecumenical Council:
"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, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), 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" (Sixth Ecumenical Council, The Definition of Faith)
"And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." (Sixth Ecumenical Council, Session 13)
No comments:
Post a Comment