The Anathematization of Honorius, Bishop of Rome

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Perhaps one of the most disputed a Popes in history; Honorius was excommunicated and anathematized by the 6th Ecumenical Council. Contrary to popular thought in the Roman Church, he was condemned for the teaching of heresy. He was a Monothelite.

Session XIII:

The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome , as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.

...

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.

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 Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul To Peter To Macarius the heretic, anathema! To Stephen To Polychronius To Apergius of Perga To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!

This issue is one of significant importance to the Orthodox Christians and the Old Catholics, who reject the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Honorius publicly taught heresy.

Pope Leo II confirmed the council and condemned Honorius. ( Also Honorins. qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolilcae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes, qui in suo errore defuncti sunt. ) The old Papal Oath found in the Liber Diurnus, used from the fifth to eleventh century by all new popes, also condemns Honorius as a heretic.

I look forward to friendly, charitable discussion on this subject.

 

[Philip]

Also Honorins. qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolilcae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes, qui in suo errore defuncti sunt.

Care to help those of us who haven't read Latin since high school?

The old Papal Oath found in the Liber Diurnus, used from the fifth to eleventh century by all new popes, also condemns Honorius as a heretic.

Of this I was not aware. Do you have a link to the oath?

 

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Care to help those of us who haven't read Latin since high school?



Of this I was not aware. Do you have a link to the oath?

I had hoped some of our Roman Catholic brethren could help us with the latin. It was in parentheses just to provide a reference to the quote itself. However, I did find on Catholic Encyclopedia a loose translation:

And with them Honorius, who allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be tarnished.

This is a quote from Leo's letter. Check here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Also, while I find the oath referenced on many websites, Roman Catholic and Protestant, I have yet to find the document itself. I'll post it as soon as I do. Catholic Encyclopedia gave me this quote from said oath, however:

...Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ii, 9)

I should like to confirm these references though, so I'll keep searching.

 

[Philip]

Check this site. I just found it, so I don't know how reliable it is. However, it is a starting point. It lists a papal oath from Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum from c. AD 670. It doesn't mention Honorius, but then, the Council did not meet until AD 680. The oath does include the following interesting passage:

I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.

It certainly seems to leave open the possibility that a pope could be a heretic.

Some other interesting quotes from that site:

The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.'

If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this
when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII [1316-1334].

 

[NewToLife]

To be fair i think that Honorius would probably escape being named a 'formal' heretic though it is clear that he was in fact a heretic and implicitly taught heresy by giving support to those who taught it explicitly.

The episode would seem to be fatal to the innovation of papal infallibility but I suspect that a catholic apologist will be able to reproduce an arguement that will conclude that he was not a heretic but was condemned for failing to condemn others who were. I never found the arguement in question convincing, it seems plain to me that Honorius was explicitly condemned as a heretic, nevertheless you should be aware that a line of reasoning exists that will allow a Catholic to avoid such a conclusion.

 

[JVAC]

I have never taken latin, but I am going to try and use this dictionary and see what we get, don't mark this as infallible.

qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolilcae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes, qui in suo errore defuncti sunt

"Who seduces with this canon law and does not see it is not traditonal apstolic doctrine, but impious betrayal and frightfulness is an effort to overthrow the faith, and all who stray in his error are dead"

That is what I can do with a dictionary knowing no grammar, hopefully it is close. I start latin monday

-James

 

[ScottBot]

To be fair i think that Honorius would probably escape being named a 'formal' heretic though it is clear that he was in fact a heretic and implicitly taught heresy by giving support to those who taught it explicitly.

The episode would seem to be fatal to the innovation of papal infallibility but I suspect that a catholic apologist will be able to reproduce an arguement that will conclude that he was not a heretic but was condemned for failing to condemn others who were. I never found the arguement in question convincing, it seems plain to me that Honorius was explicitly condemned as a heretic, nevertheless you should be aware that a line of reasoning exists that will allow a Catholic to avoid such a conclusion.

I simply find it laughable that in nearly 2,000 years, this is the best arguement against papal infallibility that people can come up with, that Pope Honorius I did not take the opportunity to officially denounce monothelism.

 

[JVAC]

I simply find it laughable that in nearly 2,000 years, this is the best arguement against papal infallibility that people can come up with, that Pope Honorius I did not take the opportunity to officially denounce monothelism.

This is deffinately an argument, but I wouldn't say the best, for I haven't heard them all for there is a great number.

I would also like to say that if there was a better proof for this dogma of papal infallibility there would be more Roman Catholics. The defense for this dogma is always very speculative, and apologists rely heavily on "intimations" from texts rather than expressions and confessions. One can prove Rome's primacy in the early Church but not infallability, because only Synods possesed the "authority of the Church".

-James

 

[ScottBot]

This is deffinately an argument, but I wouldn't say the best, for I haven't heard them all for there is a great number.

I would also like to say that if there was a better proof for this dogma of papal infallibility there would be more Roman Catholics. The defense for this dogma is always very speculative, and apologists rely heavily on "intimations" from texts rather than expressions and confessions. One can prove Rome's primacy in the early Church but not infallability, because only Synods possesed the "authority of the Church".

-James

More Catholics? There are already more Catholics in the world than all of the other Christian sects combined. If there were better refutation for Catholic Doctrine, there world be more non-Catholics than there are Catholics.

 

[QuantaCura]

The episode would seem to be fatal to the innovation of papal infallibility

If only you could show where ol' Honorius while speaking ex cathedra, and intending to teach the universal church, formally defined a heresy as a dogma, then you'd have us. Until then keep looking.

 

[JVAC]

More Catholics? There are already more Catholics in the world than all of the other Christian sects combined. If there were better refutation for Catholic Doctrine, there world be more non-Catholics than there are Catholics.

I wasn't playing the numbers card, I was playing the Schism card. It doesn't matter how many people are led down a certain path, but are they being led down the right path. And that is why we are here to discern the right path. Now if the path you say is correct, the path of papal infallibility, then there should be simple proofs that are irrefutable. Those I have not seen. If I may see them, I will be happy to join the Roman Bishop in Communion, but I have never seen a simple irrefutable proof.

-James

 

[QuantaCura]

I wasn't playing the numbers card, I was playing the Schism card. It doesn't matter how many people are led down a certain path, but are they being led down the right path. And that is why we are here to discern the right path. Now if the path you say is correct, the path of papal infallibility, then there should be simple proofs that are irrefutable. Those I have not seen. If I may see them, I will be happy to join the Roman Bishop in Communion, but I have never seen a simple irrefutable proof.

-James

Same goes for your dogmas

 

[JVAC]

Same goes for your dogmas

Touche ,

The Church has always gathered together to formalize doctrine, since the 1st council of Jerusalem, to the Great Councils of Niceae, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon. Never is it recorded in the early Church a Roman dogma that stood alone without the backing of a Synod. Even then, the most pious Emperor Theodosius, in his edict, did not rely on the Pope alone for the true faith to be expressed, but the Pope and the Patriarch of Alexandria. That Pious Emperor did not look to the Church as being led by one see, but by catholic unity.

The canons of the councils give alone to rome, primacy, and recource, but not infallibility, this St Athanasius speaks as resting in the Holy Synod as being "The Word of God". Athanasius records that God's will is shown through councils and not through the Pope. Athanasius could have said the Word of God which the Roman Bishop spoke, for the Roman Bishop was in agreement with Athansius, who posessed the title of "Pope" as well. Yet Athansius writes on the congregation, the communion of Bishops. In like manner Rome betrayed the Homoousious creed of Nicaea by signing a Homoiousious creed in the mid 300's (you'll have to wait for the cite, I am away from my recources).

I will not take up any more time, but suffice it to say these are just a few examples of my many problems with this dogma, if you could clear them up that would be great.

-James





_______
Addition

Those above were somethings I have noticed, also there is another website that has some interesting things http://www.bookofconcord.org/treatise.html

 

[Philip]

If only you could show where ol' Honorius while speaking ex cathedra, and intending to teach the universal church, formally defined a heresy as a dogma, then you'd have us. Until then keep looking.

Does anyone have a list of when the Pope has done this? I have yet to see a definitive list.

 

[NewToLife]

If only you could show where ol' Honorius while speaking ex cathedra, and intending to teach the universal church, formally defined a heresy as a dogma, then you'd have us. Until then keep looking.

Any non Vatican Catholic who has debated this issue will be only too well aware that the doctrine was very carefully constructed too allow the private opinion/non ex cathedra get out clause to be invoked to cover the myriad problems that would prove fatal to the doctrine otherwise. Your arguement has all the credibility of declaring that you can trump any historical evidence as invalid on the basis that you say so.

 

[NewToLife]

I simply find it laughable that in nearly 2,000 years, this is the best arguement against papal infallibility that people can come up with, that Pope Honorius I did not take the opportunity to officially denounce monothelism.

Who said Honorius is the best arguement? He was simply the subject of this thread.

By the way is it really reasonable to claim that people have had 2000 years to find arguements against an invention of the 19th century Papacy? I dont think so, in fact I think it's, as you put it, laughable.

 

[ScottBot]

Who said Honorius is the best arguement? He was simply the subject of this thread.

By the way is it really reasonable to claim that people have had 2000 years to find arguements against an invention of the 19th century Papacy? I dont think so, in fact I think it's, as you put it, laughable.

19th century invention my foot. Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256 AD, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

 

[NewToLife]

19th century invention my foot. Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

No Orthodox questions this but it's hardly a proof of Papal infallibility as you try to make it here.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256 AD, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

Wow now I'm convinced, a couple of individual patristic quotes and an admission that the understanding has 'developed'. Blessed Augustine carries little theological weight for Orthodox, given that he held to a number of errors and St Cyprian of Carthage had a view of ecclessiology that in many respects neither your church nor mine embrace, odd then that he should be quoted on a matter of ecclesiology as if he is a major authority then.

 

[ScottBot]

No Orthodox questions this but it's hardly a proof of Papal infallibility as you try to make it here.



Wow now I'm convinced, a couple of individual patristic quotes and an admission that the understanding has 'developed'. Blessed Augustine carries little theological weight for Orthodox, given that he held to a number of errors and St Cyprian of Carthage had a view of ecclessiology that in many respects neither your church nor mine embrace, odd then that he should be quoted on a matter of ecclesiology as if he is a major authority then.

Who said I am trying to convince anyone of anything. People asked why Catholics believe what that believe about the pope, I provided an explanation. If people want to believe that the moon is made of Swiss cheese, that is their prerogative.

 

[NewToLife]

Who said I am trying to convince anyone of anything. People asked why Catholics believe what that believe about the pope, I provided an explanation. If people want to believe that the moon is made of Swiss cheese, that is their prerogative.

We agree, you are quite free to believe the moon is made of Swiss cheese, it is after all every bit as tenable a position as holding the nonsense of papal infallibility to be true.