www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West between popes

One last chance!

How about "REMUS" or "RAM" or "RAMOS" (as in Domingo Ramos?)

Just suggesting.

Byzantine Orthodox,

The 6th Ecumenical Council only anathemized the pope after his death, he never taught heresy, nor could any resignation be forced. If a resignation from a pope is forced then the pope continues to be pope. If a conclave were to be held to elect a new pope in this case it would be invalid because the other man would still be pope. A pope CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT be forced out of office. Resignation is not a formality. It is a absolute MUST for a Pope CANNOT be kicked out of the Papal Office. It would render the same situation that I brought up earlier in this post.

God Bless,
Michael

Dear Mike,

Great to hear from you again!

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Pope Honorius was indeed censured by the sixth Council for heresy, and this condemnation was confirmed by his successors well into the 12th century - every succeeding pope had to reaffirm the condemnation of Honorius for his involvement with the heresy of Monothelitism.

So if you say Honorius was NOT a heretic, then you make his successors the heretics for confirming that he was. I leave that to you to think about - I certainly didn't condemn Honorius so don't shoot the messenger here.

(I also personally believe that that condemnation of Honorius should be lifted for a number of reasons and that he should be counted as a saint.)

Administratively, a pope may hang on to office as long as he wishes, as we know the antipopes did.

But it is a teaching of the Church that if a pope should EVER become a heretic by espousing heresy, he thereby CEASES to be pope and Catholics MUST cease there loyalty to him and must even resist him, as St Robert Bellarmine said.

The administrative "how" of all this is something that has really never been established since the accusation of heresy against a living pope has never occurred.

(Unless one is a sedevacantist ).

And if you are wondering about my loyalty to the Pope, it is complete and I have relatives whose cause for Beatification for suffering for their loyalty to Rome is pending.

So if you want to teach me about loyalty to the Supreme Pontiff, please don't waste your breath

Have a good Lent!

Alex

Dear to Christ Alex,

It is unfair to Honorius to claim that he held heretical views. It is still a matter of much debate, as his Letter to Sergius CAN be read in an orthodox way.

His response to Sergius was nebulous about one will or two, and he did condem two wills. But as his Secretary testified, that the Pope only meant to deny that Christ had not two contrary human wills, such as are found in our fallen nature. Not to imply that there was not a Divine Will and a Human Will.

Patriarch Sergius misunderstood Honorius and issued the Ecthesis, which proclaimed a single will. By the time the Ecthesis was issued Honorius was dead and could offer no more clarification.

And you will also note, that the Council did NOT actually condem Honorius for being a Heretic but, for allowing Heretical views to be promulgated.

Yours in Christ,


And Leo II, in his confirmation of the Council, expressly abrogated the anathmatization (is that a word??), and substituted a condemnation for negligence only.


-Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Actually, I believe personally that Honorius was in all things perfectly Orthodox and Catholic!

We can view things from much better historical perspectives today than ever before.

But the fact remains that he was condemned and that his successors affirmed that condemnation - i.e. one had to reaffirm the condemnation of Pope Honorius before assuming the papal office until well into the 12th century.

Again, it was not I who condemned him!

As to exactly why he was condemned and for what - it is of little consequence.

Pope Dioscoros of Alexandria, nephew of St Cyril of Alexandria was condemned not for heresy - although he was certainly of the Miaphysite party that we know today was not heretical at all, but Cyrillian - but for his behaviour at the "Robber Synod" and for beating up St Flavian etc.

The point is that his condemnation by the Roman/Byzantine Council would mean that the condemnation would have to be lifted by an authoritative council for full communion to be restored and for his name to be in the calendar etc.

The same is true of Honorius. Certainly a Pope could cancel his condemnation by the Council - but that MIGHT get a contemporary Pope in more hot water with the Orthodox over the Papal/Conciliar authority issue.

Some of the ideas contained in the works of Origen were condemned, but not Origen himself. Yet this was enough to ensure that he wasn't canonized. (He was also involved in some other matters that made the Church wonder about him, like his self-castration.)

And Nestorius was censured for heresy and today there is a movement afoot to rehabilitate him, especially since Nestorius himself was to have said that his views on the Natures of Christ were identical to those of St Flavian of Constantinople - which is what Dioscoros always believed to begin with . . .

Oy vey, I say!

In fact, both the Miaphysite AND the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church traditions have agreed with Rome on orthodox Christology, despite the fact that their teachers are still under anathema via previous Councils . . .

Honorius appears like a real pussycat by comparison, indeed.

But the fact that a Roman Pope could have fallen into heresy, or have been implicated with it is something the Roman Church herself affirmed when it decided to exclude Pope Liberius from the calendar of Saints for an episode of "weakness" on his part when dealing with heretical affirmations, as we know. But Rome stopped short of condemning him for heresy or anything related to that.

And yet, Liberius is a full saint in the East . . .

But the condemnation, for whatever reason, of Honorius remains and it is a serious matter since it was pronounced by an Ecumenical Council and confirmed by Rome - a confirmation that holds fast to this very day.

Alex

This just caught my attention and I want to intrude before I continue reading and for clarification because this is being used by opponents against papal infallibility.

When Patriarch Sergius asked Pope Honorius his opinion on the discussions going on about whether in Christ there are one or two operations or one or two wills, the Pope wrote two letters to him of which fragments have been preserved. The Pope decided not to settle the matter in a solemn manner. However, he was careless in his use of words and at one point did speak of the "one will" in Christ. He probably meant this in terms of the moral unity between Christ's will and the will of the Father. However, he did help to foster the Monothelite (one-will) heresy, and he was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople in 681. The following points need to be considered.

1. There is nothing in the letters of Pope Honorius which indicate that he was intending to make a formal definition of faith and morals in a solem manner. Moreover, Honorius was dead when the decree of Patriarch Sergius was made public.

2. While the Third Council of Constantinople did condemn Honorius as a "heretic," Honorius is never referred to as a Monothelite. The word "heretic" at that time could be applied to people who fostered heresy as well as to people who openly taught heresy.

3. When Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the Council, he did not refer to Honorius as a heretic but as one who failed to defend the faith properly (and who therefore fostered heresy by negligence). When subsequent councils and popes reaffirmed the condemnation of Honorius, they were reaffirming Honorius' condemnation in the sense established by Pope Leo II (i.e. for negligence rather than for heresy per se).

4. St. Maximus the Confessor (580-662), the greatest opponent of Monothelitism, defended the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius and believed that what the pope wrote in his letters can be understood in an orthodox light. Maximus also speaks in the most exalted terms of the "universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing" granted to the Roman See by "the very Incarnate Word of God." How could he say this if the case of Honorius counted against papal authority? See Mansi 10:687-692

5. At the Third Council of Constantinople, it was proclaimed that "Peter has spoken through Pope Agatho." When the Emperor issued an edict promoting the decrees of the Council in his realm, he refers to the faith that has been "preserved untainted by Peter, the rock of faith, the head of the Apostles." How could the papal office be spoken of in such exalted terms if the case of Honorius was understood as a threat against its authority? Why would subsequent saints like St. Theodore of Studion (d. 826) refer to the Pope as "the limpid and forever unalterable source of orthodoxy" if the case of Pope Honorius was taken as a sign of the papacy's lack of infallibility?

Dear elexie,

There is much talk today about this matter - the fact remains that Honorius' condemnation is on the books of an infallible Ecumenical Council.

And rather than try to rationalize it all out, it would be better to tell the opponents of the papal primacy that the Fathers of that Council enthusiastically AFFIRMED the primacy of Rome and that of the Pope of Rome while, at the same time, castigating Honorius.

Honorius' condemnation has NOTHING whatever to do with papal primacy or inerrancy!

Neither does Pope Liberius' weakness exhibited in dealing with the heretics of his day - for which Rome refused to number him among the saints, but which the East has.

Ultramontanists have even gone so far as to "blow off" the sixth Ecumenical Council as an "anti-Roman Eastern Council" which is utter nonsense since Honorius' successors approved it and reaffirmed Honorius' condemnation until the 12th century.

And what is all this about the fact that Honorius was dead when he was condemned?

So what?

When has that stopped Church authority from condemning error in belief or practice?

When John Wycliffe was condemned for heresy, his body was dug up and burned!

On a positive note, perhaps a future union Council could revisit this issue and lift the condemnations of Pope Honorius and also others implicated with the Monothelite/Monophysite heresy such as Dioscoros of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch.

Alex

But did the Council say it was explicitly for heresy, or just because of his clumsiness in dealing with the matter?

Logos Teen

Dear Teen Logo,

The Council's decree didn't really make the distinction, although, as has been correctly stated, the Pope of the day did.

But ultimately, it makes little difference - the fact is that Honorius was condemned by a Council and this condemnation was ratified by Rome itself.

If what is being said is that a Pope could NEVER personally fall into heresy - could someone present evidence to confirm this as a doctrine or whatever?

The Church herself will never be led into error and when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" he cannot speak error.

Could he speak error otherwise? Yes, he could and this doesn't mean that somehow Rome ceases to be what it is.

Roman Popes have censured their predecessors, including Pope Liberius as well as Honorius.

And does anyone here really want to defend the Renaissance popes, such as Pope Alexander VI?

There were truly sorry examples of popes at that time and, again, the fact that there was no mechanism by which they could be deposed was not a good thing in the history of the Church - outside a Council that is.

The Cause of the Dominican Friar, Girolamo Savonarola has been introduced again - he actually tried to start a petition among the bishops to have Alexander VI ousted via Council. This speedily led to his condemnation and burning at Florence, although we know today that Alexander VI lifted the excommunication against him before his death and Pope Julius II wanted to canonize Savonarola a saint.

When told that it was the Church herself in Florence that condemned Savonarola to death, Pope Julius said, "The confession of sin (by the Church in Savonarola's death) does not defile - sin defiles."

Although Savonarola's Cause became one of the "Praetermissi" (put on hold) because the Borgias were still quite powerful, Pope Julius II had an image of Savonarola painted over a Vatican door, but without inscription as to who it represented.

Anyway, this is not such a big issue. Honorius was condemned, that can be lifted in a future council and the fact that a pope CAN fall into heresy affects not one iota the indefectibility of the Church.

Alex

His clumsiness :p