I know what you are posting patricius, you seem to be fishing for loopholes. Honorius was anathematized for heresy not only by the Councils, but by the Liber Diurnus as well. To say he did not define anything heretical is wrong.
Hi ArmyMatt,
Thank you.
Where did Pope Honorius define something heretical? If possible, please quote exactly what was said and why you believe it is a definition of faith (a dogmatic statement binding on the faithful).
As I understand it, he rejected the idea of "one operation" (one will) because it sounded Eutychian (Monophysite).
So he did reject Monophysitism and Monothelitism.
As I understand it, his error was to reject the idea of "two operations", because he thought that this involved the idea of Christ having a sinful human nature, and because "two operations" sounded Nestorian (much as Chalcedon seemed to hesitate about defining "in two natures", until pushed hard to do so by Leo and Marcian).
But did he dogmatically define that Christ does not have two wills? If so, where?
I know he was condemned, but was it for defining something heretical, or was it because he had failed to define Catholic orthodoxy as Head of the Church?
As I understand it, Honorius had said that people should not refer to Christ as having one operation (one will), but should refer to him as one Operator (i.e. one person).
Obviously that contradicts Monothelitism (as well as Nestorianism).
In his letter/s to Sergius of Constantinople., Honorius said that Christ had two natures, and added:
"instead of one operation.... we should confess one operator"
That hardly is consistent with Monothelitism.
Also, St. Maximus the Confessor said that Honorius was not a heretic, but was saying that Christ did not have a "will of the flesh" (i.e. a sinful will).
That's my honest understanding, though I am not really qualified to be an apologist, given my great limitations, and that I may be mistaken in various ways.
As I understand it, the 6th Ecumenical Council affirmed Pope Agatho's letter, which said that the Papacy had never been heretical.
As far as the Liber Diurnus, I don't know anything about that.
Moreover, according to Dave Armstrong--who could be wrong--there were 10 Patriarchs of Constantinople in the early Church who were Monophysite or Monothelite.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html
And between 341 to 681 at least 2 of the three great Eastern Patriarchates were simultaneously heterodox for 112 years.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html
And essentially the whole Eastern clergy missed the mark at the Robber Council of Ephesus and by signing the Henoticon
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html
I'm not trying to bash the East here, or to suggest that Catholics are better than the Orthodox. I'm just trying to put the claims against Honorius in perspective.
I realize that many of the great theologians in the early Church were from the East, such as Athanasius (who submitted his case to Rome), Cyril (who submitted his case to Rome), Basil (who submitted his case to Rome), Gregory Nazienzen (who praised the faith of Rome), etc.
However, as I understand it, both Cyril of Alex. and Athanasius said Christ was "One Nature Incarnate", which does sound Monophysite or Miaphysite. But they were saints, however, and not heretics.
Thank you,
Pat