www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology In defense of the Catholic Church

“No Ecumenical Council, as such has condemned the Pope of Rome or the Latin West.”


I can't help responding to this one because while attending a Pontifical seminary years ago there was some discussion over one Pope that was condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, namely Pope Honorius (625-638). This incident has always boggled my mind.

I later read that Pope Leo II (682-83) re-enforced that condemnation by obliging future popes to state the "Papal Oath" condemning the late Pope Honorius.

Pope Honorius was officially condemned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Session 13):

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-126.htm#P5872_1297340

… and Anathemas were issued by the bishops (Session 16):

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-127.htm#P5878_1299498

… and was even listed as one of the heretics condemned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in the old Roman breviary until it was taken out around the time of the Great Schism (11th C) for whatever reason.

How reliable are these websites? Are they mistaken? Is this what really happened at the Sixth Ecumenical Council?

Someone once brought up the issue on another website that, in the case of Honorius, it was the heresy and not the person that was condemned, therefore preventing the Pope from being in error, whereas in the East it is both the person (heretic) and the heresy because they are naturally inclined to teach error.

I was wondering if someone can help clarify these things for me. They have haunted me ever since I attended the Latin seminary and I have trouble getting a straight answer. Thanks for any resolution on this matter.


Joe

[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Cantor/Diaconal Student Joe Thur,

If they don't make you a deacon and then a married priest soon, there is not justice . . .

Pope Honorius was the one who lived in St Maximos the Confessor's time and his monothelite heresy not only brought him into heresy, but the entire church, including the Nestorians of the time.

Constantinople appeared already "used" to having its Patriarchs and other Easterners condemned as heretics, as we know, Nestorius himself was a Patriarch.

It was more rare to have a Pope implicated in heresy because, by that time, Rome had ceased to be an important ecclesial centre and certainly could not compare with Antioch, Alexandria or Constantinople where theological ideas flourished, resulting in many more charges of "heretic" being hurdled about.

The earliest example of a Pope being given a theological question mark is Pope Liberius who was said to have signed an heretical document (under pressure?). He is the first of the early Popes not to be given the honours of the altar by the West, although the entire East certainly venerates him as a Saint. But he was never charged with heresy.

John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) takes note of Honorius in a number of his books.

He cites his case as a clear-cut case of a Pope who certainly had subscribed to heresy and his successors, until the 12th century according to him, were obliged to renew that anathema on assuming the Chair of Peter.

Honorius was later "rehabilitated" and the anathemas stopped. Somehow, he was made to appear like Liberius, an innocent victim in the entire monothelite mess. His rehabilitation, never formally declared by Rome, continues to this day.

Somehow, this rehabilitation is not extended to the Eastern Patriarchs who agreed with him in this heresy . . .

It is as if to maintain the doctrine of papal infallibility one has to show that no Pope ever personally fell into heresy.

Catholic canon law basically makes provision for a Pope falling into heresy. This would force him to abdicate since he would no longer be Pope.

And the point is that if modern Catholic theologians deny that Honorius was ever a heretic, what does this make of his many successors following him for several centuries, all of who pronounced censure against their predecessor for heresy?

Alex

Dear Father Elias,

Change the 7 to a 3, and I might agree with your statement. :p

Dear Catholicos,

A good point!

The problem is compounded here not only with the fact that the RC Church has added another 14 Ecumenical Councils of its own into the equation, but also that some Orthodox believe there are two more Ecumenical Councils for a total of 9 (Fr. Romanides as an example).

I have my own formula for union between Byzantine Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy - I thought I'd try it out on you, do you mind?

IF the Oriental Orthodox agree that what is contained in the later four Councils is acceptable to them in terms of doctrine, could not they formally admit these four Councils as Orthodox Councils, but still continue to celebrate liturgically the first 3?

If you agree, you would be the first Catholicos to give your assent and hopefully the others will follow suit .

Alex

Dear Alex,

Liturgically commemorating the Three goes without saying. One of my problems with the Malankara Catholic Church is that, despite anything anyone says about Eastern Catholic Churches being or being allowed to be completely Orthodox in theology, the Malankara Catholics commemorate Chalcedon and omit saints who were not Chalcedonian, like Severios and Dioscoros. This is sad, since it and a few other things make the Malankara Catholics look less like "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" and more like "Roman Catholics of the Malankara Rite"...it's one reason why I don't think I want to be a Malankara Catholic...Byzantine Catholics seem more consistent in this regard...they don't commemorate Vatican I :p .

I think all Oriental Orthodox consider the teachings of Councils 4-7 to be Orthodox teachings, but they don't relate to us, really, but more to the Constantinopolitans. So calling them "Orthodox Councils" might not be so much of a problem, I don't think. To call them Ecumenical, however, might be another thing.

What exactly makes a council Ecumenical? If it's the fact that all the bishops are present, then Councils 5-7 are out, I would think, and perhaps Chalcedon too? If it's not this, but something else, what is it? What makes a council an Ecumenical Council? Based on my knowledge of that, I think I could answer you better.