The Anathematization of Honorius, Bishop of Rome

[dignitized]

Christ is the head of the church. Many people interpret this as a single physical creature with a literal head of Christ. However if you follow the original analogy Christ uses you see the church differently. Christ says the church is the bride and that He is the bridegroom. If you follow this scriptural image you now have 2 separate entities, one is Christ and the other is the man-ran establishment.

A good point one that I had overlooked. A man and a woman are one when they are bride and groom. The Bride is therefore a part of the groom without being the groom himself.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

. . .a historical discussion over one of the ahem less than bench mark popes . . .

Again, in the interest of an open and honest discussion, let's examine the facts (see here http://www.christianforums.com/show...16&postcount=30)

Your brother in Christ.

 

[dignitized]

why did you link to this thread?

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

why did you link to this thread?

I had intended to link to a previous post. Here it is in detail.


"In the interest of an open and honest discussion, let us examine the facts.

The Monothelite question was raised about 634 in a letter to pope Honorius from Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. He related that Emperor Heraclius, when in Armenia in 622, in refuting a Monophysite of the Severian sect, had made use of the expression "one operation" (energy, energeia) of the Incarnate Word. Cyrus, Bishop of the Lazi, had considered this doubtfully orthodox, and had asked advice of Sergius. Sergius replied (he says) that he did not wish to decide the matter, but that the expression had been used by his predecessor Mennas in a letter to Pope Vigilius. In 630 Cyrus had become Patriarch of Alexandria. He found Egypt almost entirely Monophysite, as it had been since the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Cyrus, by the use of the expression for which Sergius had been able to produce such good authority, had formulated a series of propositions, which most of the Monophysites were willing to accept, and they were by this means reunited in large numbers to the Church, "so that those who formerly would not speak of the divine Leo and the great Council of Chalcedon now commemorated both with a loud voice in the holy mysteries". At this juncture Sophronius, a Palestinian monk, famed for holiness, came to Alexandria. He disapproved of the formulary of Cyrus, and Sergius was evidently somewhat disquieted at this. The reunion of so many heretics was indeed glorious; but the ease with which it had been accomplished must have seemed suspicious. Sophronius was not ready at once with quotations from the Fathers to show that "two operations" was the only orthodox expression. But Sergius was ready to drop the expression "one operation" if Sophronius would do nothing that might destroy the union already accomplished at Alexandria. Sophronius agreed. Sergius, however, was not satisfied with recommending Cyrus for the future to refrain from all mention of either one or two operations, but thought it necessary to place the whole matter before the pope. Sergius naturally was anxious to defend an expression which the emperor had used, and he was unaware that the letter of Mennas to Vigilius was a Monophysite forgery. But Cyrus's large use of his formula and its denunciation by St. Sophronius caused him to take precautionary measures. His readiness to drop the expression shows modesty. Nothing could have been more proper, or more in accordance with the best traditions of his See. He then referred the whole matter to Rome, since the Faith was in question.

It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing. Honorius entirely agrees with the caution which Sergius recommends. He praises Sergius for eventually dropping the new expression "one operation", but he unfortunately also agrees with him that it will be well to avoid "two operations" also; which may be misinterpreted as Nestorian. Other passages in the letter are orthodox. But it is plain that the pope simply followed Sergius, without going more deeply into the question. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance. Part of a second letter of Honorius to Sergius was read at the eighth council and it has the merit of referring to the words of St. Leo which Sergius had cited.

Sergius, after receiving the pope's letter approving his recent cautiousness, composed an "Ecthesis", or exposition, which was issued by the emperor towards the end of 638. In conformity with the words of Honorius it orders all the subjects of Heraclius to confess one Will in our Lord, and to avoid the expressions "one operation" and "two operations". Before Sergius died, in December, he assembled a great synod at Constantinople, which accepted the Ecthesis as "truly agreeing with the Apostolic preaching"; the letter from the Apostolic See was evidently the surety for this. Honorius was already dead, and had no opportunity of approving or disapproving the imperial document. Emperor Heraclius then wrote to the pope, laying the blame on Sergius, and disowning the Ecthesis. He died shortly afterwards (February, 641). To his elder son John IV addressed a letter known as the "Apology for Pope Honorius". He explains quite truly that both Sergius and Honorius asserted one Will only because they would not admit contrary wills; and he shows by his argument that they were wrong in using such a misleading expression. No doubt Honorius did not really intend to deny that there is in Christ a human will, the higher faculty; but he used words which could be interpreted in the sense of that heresy, and he did not recognize that the question was not about the unity of the Person Who wills, nor about the entire agreement of the Divine Will with the human faculty, but about the distinct existence of the human faculty as an integrant part of the Humanity of Christ.

St. Maximos of Constantinople, a monk and formerly secretary of Heraclius, now becomes the protagonist of orthodoxy and of Rome. His defence of the now deceased Honorius is based upon the statements of a certain abbot, John Symponus.

In the mean time Emperor Constans set up a new patriarch, Paul. Paul, on his appointment, sent the customary confession of faith to the pope. As it did not confess two wills, it was condemned by Pope Theodore. Paul first showed anger, but then prevailed on Constans to withdraw the Ecthesis, for which was substituted a Typos, or "Type", in which it was again forbidden to speak of one or two operations, but "one Will" was no longer taught; instead it was said that neither one nor two wills were to be spoken of, but no blame was to attach to any one who had used either expression in the past. This edict was based upon a misinterpretation of the Apology of John IV, who had shown that "one Will" was an improper expression, but had declared that both Pope Honorius and Partriarch Sergius had used it in an orthodox sense. But John IV had neither defended nor blamed Honorius and Sergius for wishing the expression "two operations" to be avoided. But both patriarch and emperor declared that they forced no man's conscience. The Type, unlike the Ecthesis, was not an exposition of faith, but a mere prohibition of the use of certain words, for the avoidance of wrangling.


In what was Honorius condemned? Emporer Constans was murdered in 668. His successor, Constantine Pogonatus, did not trouble to enforce the Type. At his request Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside at a general council which met at Constantinople on 7 Nov., 680. They brought with them a long dogmatic letter in which the pope defined the faith with authority as the successor of St. Peter. He emphatically declares, remembering Honorius, that the Apostolic Church of St. Peter has never fallen into error. He condemns the Ecthesis and Type. The Monothelite Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius, had been allowed to present other testimonies, which were examined and found to be incorrect. The Patriarch of Constantinople, George, and all the council accepted the papal letter, and Macarius was condemned and deposed for not accepting it. Honorius, so far, had been thrice appealed to by Macarius, but had been mentioned by no one else. In the twelfth session, 12 March, 681, a packet was produced which Macarius had sent to the emperor, but which the latter had not opened. It proved to contain the letter of Sergius to Cyrus and to Honorius, the forged letter of Mennas to Vigilius, and the letter of Honorius to Sergius. In the thirteenth session, 28 March, the two letters of Sergius were condemned, and the council added: "Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God". On 9 Aug., in the last session, Emporer George of Constantinople petitioned "that the persons be not anathematized by name".

Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. It was in this sense that Patriarch Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well acquainted with the history of the Type, and with the Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, and the defences by St. Maximos.

The fault of Honorius for which he was condemned lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in other words, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra condemning it. As St. Leo said "With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, . . . .by his negligence." That is , he did not insist on the "two operations", but agreed with Sergius that the whole matter should be hushed up. You see, the condemnation was for not exercising his position as pope as they thought he ought to have done."