www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Primacy of Saint Peter

You pulled one quote out of context from Fr. Meyendorff. That is cherry-picking. It's okay, I am guilty of that often.


The council called him an outright heretic. There is no sugar coating it.[/quote]

Whoah! Recluse and I are on the same page with this one. The words of the Council are both harsh and unambiguous--deservedly so.

Break out the Baklava!

Well, if I have brought Stuart and Recluse together on some thing -- I think I deserve some sort of online citation for this!

The point is still what kind of "heretic" Pope Honorius was condemned as.

The qualitative difference is still there. He didn't act as pope when he should have to counter Monothelitism. It was St Agatho, his successor, who did so and the Council praised Agatho for doing that.

Sometimes the issue of Honorius is brought forward as a jab at the papacy.

In fact, while Honorius failed and was condemned, it was he that was condemned and not the papacy.

That was the point I was responding to in Fr. Morris' post.

Long live the Pope! (There, I might have brought Stuart and Recluse together yet again . . . is there no online citation that I would be up for here?)

See, Recluse, I'm not so bad after all. And as for you, Stuart . . .

Alex

There are not "degrees" of heretics. A heretic is a heretic. The council condemned him as a heretic.


He was the Pope....and he was a heretic. I'm not sure why you are trying to twist it.

Dear Recluse,

There are certainly degrees of heresy, like sinfulness, and theologians/historians examine such subtleties.

If you see things in black and white, that's your call and I respect it.

Again, it was not my intention to "twist" anything. But if you would like to impute motive, that's your call.

Thanks for lighting the candle for Jeremy.

Alex

No way, Stu, just conciliar over-kill, if you ask me.

Dear Utroque,

Thank you for your insight here!

Alex

Sorry if it disturbs you Alex. But there is no way around it. Pope Honorius was a heretic and the council was very clear about it.



You can most certainly continue your discussion on the other thread if you think it will help Jeremy and his family. But I will not be a part of the discourse. I can only pray for them.

Insightful or not, this whole thing against poor Pope Honorius is a non-starter.

1. Pope Honorius was condemned by the Council as an heretic for an heresy he did not teach.

2. He was not, nor could he have been there, to defend himself.

3. His letters (the evidence) were burned. Poof!

That's enough for me. Was there treachery involved? Who knows? Like I sad, "Over-kill".

So you do not believe the council? You think he was not a heretic?


The anathema was repeated many times after that council.


Wow! Treachery! So the Holy Spirit did not guide this council when they condemned him as a heretic?

In fact, the case of Honorius is often quoted by those who are against the authority of the Pope of Rome.

It was his successor, Pope St Agatho, who led the charge to condemn Honorius via his letter.

Agatho spoke with the Voice of Peter in that letter as he condemned Monothelitism and what his predecessor did. He did not present his letter to the Council for deliberation.

The Council accepted the papal letter with enthusiasm and proclaimed that Peter had indeed spoken through Agatho.

So the fact that this Bishop of Rome, Honorius, was condemned had no bearing on the usually habitual orthodox authority of the Bishops of Rome.

If we were to question the authority of the Pope based on Honorius' case, we would also have to question that of the Eastern Patriarchs, since a number were condemned along with Honorius.

And there have been many more heresiarchs who have occupied the Sees of the Christian East than at Rome.

Alex

In the letters of Pope St. Agatho to the Emperor and Council that I have read he mentions nothing of Honorius. He does write this very poignant passage:

There were many in the East who were also anathematized for the same heresy. That is the point. The East does not attribute supremacy or infallibility to Her Patriarchs.

Let us look at the Council again. It is very clear.

SESSION XVI.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1010.)
[The Acclamations of the Fathers.]

Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches!O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!
Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch! Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate!

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

May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!