www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Monotheletism and the Sixth Ecumenical Council

христос воскрес!

A while ago I wrote and asked for any recommendations for my final-year (undergraduate) dissertation topic. I am happy to say that it is now (very almost) finished! I hand it in on Friday, and am making last minute corrections now.

I ended up writing it on the comparision of the notions of authority between Rome and Constantinople, in the context of the Monothelete controversy and the Sixth Ecumenical Council. It has been a fascinating area to research, although I don't have enough words for everything I wanted to say!

Although it's a dissertation (and therefore 10,000 words long), I'm very happy to provide it for anyone who would like to read it. I realise I would be throwing myself among the wolves, who are eminently more qualified than I am, but I figure that amateurs have to start somewhere.

I wish all a very happy and holy continuation of the Easter season. Please pray for me!

In Christ, Joseph.

Dear Joseph,

Congratulations, sir, on your achievement!

If you have a moment, could you comment on this issue - was Pope Honorius anathematized for heresy or for being seen to be complicit in heresy? How can we understand that?

Alex

Christ is Risen! Joe, I'd love a copy =) If you have an expended version, I'd love to see that too!

I will you please send me this dissertation?

XB

Dear Alex,

Many thanks for your message!

OK, now to boil a year's reading down to a few words...It is absolutely clear that Pope Honorius was anathematised by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and his name was included among the other principal Monotheletes. However, the question of whether he was personally a Monothelete or not has been the subject of great debate ever since the time of the First Vatican Council. As you'd probably expect, the Catholic theologians arguing for his heresy were principally those who did NOT support the definition on Papal Infallibility. Likewise, those who were writing after Vatican I, supporting papal infallibility, argued that Honorius was not speaking 'ex cathedra'. In more modern times, scholars returned to vindicating Honorius as personally orthodox, until (big 'O') Orthodox scholars (such as Fr. J. Meyendorff) began once again seeing him as a true Monothelete.

It seems to be a very difficult question. I myself have had problems. At first, I constantly applied the 'ex cathedra vs. not ex-cathedra' aspect to the debate, forgetting that such a notion did not exist at that time.

It seems that, although Honorius approved of the Monothelete formula, he was certainly less 'forward' about it than the Emperors and Patriarchs of Constantinople. That is to say, he 'welcomed' the formula for the sake of Church unity, but didn't set out trying to force it upon everyone. However, the fact that he died soon after his letter to Patriarch Sergius prevents us from knowing what he would have done (possibly God took him to Heaven to prevent 'Peter' from speaking heresy...wink, wink ;))

Just now a question occured to me: Can anyone really be called a heretic until what they believe has formally been condemned by the Church?

Wouldn't be the only time in history that a Pope has died suddenly before proclaiming what would have been disasterous and potentially heretical. I can't recall the details, but there have been a few, including certain dogmatic proposals and one instance of a dangerously erroneous translation of Scripture. :p

God bless!

XB!

It would be very interesting to know more...can anyone enlighten the ignorant?

Joseph.

I believe that one of the Popes around the time of the Council of Trent was going to "Infallibly" publish an "Official" translation of Scripture and dropped dead before doing so.

The great heretics were much like great saints--they believed so staunchly in their faith that they were willing to die for it. This cannot be denied. Heresey has been a part of the church since its very foundation--one could argue that Judas was the first heretic, as he knew the truth personally in a way you or I could not comprehend, and he rejected it. The church has declared and anathematized heretical doctrine and those who profess it for centuries, this is nothing new. But any one of us can fall into heresey, and in fact, many of us believe doctrines that are heretical. Not because we intentionally fight against the truth, but due to our ignorance, we hold certain things as truth when they are in fact not. Again, a lack of watchfulness can easily let false docrines into the intellect and attack the very foundations of what we have been taught by the Church. I think, we all have the capacity to be heretics, and at times fall prey to heresy--but through prayer, fasting, and faithfulness to the sacraments, even heresy can be overcome. Look at Constantine the Great... the Orthodox venerate him as a Saint, but he was baptised on his deathbed by an Arian Bishop. If there's hope for him, there's hope for all of us.

Oops... that last post was in response to Byzantine Latino... not sure his/her real name.

RE: "Can anyone really be called a heretic until what they believe has formally been condemned by the Church?"

The question is posed: "Can anyone really be called a heretic until what they believe has formally been condemned by the Church?"


Of course. A given teaching does not "become" true or false only when the Church has pronounced upon it. Anti-Trinitarian teachings were wrong before the Council of Nicea as well as afterwards; the Virgin Mary did not "become" Theotokos at the Council of Ephesus, and so on, and so on.

Fr. Serge

And the fact remains that Pope Honorius himself was anathematized by his successors up until the 12th century.

Dear Drageses,

Actually, Constantine isn't venerated as a saint because he was an Arian - he was simply baptized by Arians and their sacraments were quite valid (there were three Arian sects all told).

Many saints from heretical churches were also included in the Catholic calendar owing to their long-standing cult.

Alex

Alex,

I said he had an Arian baptism--not that he was Arian himself.
If he's not venerated, then why are there Greek Orthodox churches dedicated to Sts Constantine & Helen?

Constantine's feast day is celebrated on 21 May, the Fourth Sunday after Pentacost--along with his mother Helena. Nestorius, Arius, etc., were not made "Saints" of the Orthodox church so what you just said makes no sense at all.

If you have a cannon or source document to show this, please do so--always looking to learn something from its source if one exists. Thanks.

Mark.

Dear Mark,

Yes, he was baptised by Arians (or Semi-Arians) as Eusebius writes, but he is venerated as a Saint etc.

It's not that Arius or Nestorius were ever honoured by Orthodoxy, but Saints who were themselves Arians (St Artemius the Dux Augustalis of Egypt, St Sabas and St Nicetas the Goths etc.), Miaphysites (St David of Garesja, St Shio etc.) and others.

The Bollandists actually expunged the name of "Artotis" from June 6th of the Catholic calendar when they found out that is was placed there by an Arian scribe and it was none other than . . . Arius the arch-heretic himself . . .

Sorry for the confusion.

Alex