Dear Claud,
"Of course that's true, but it's also true that Honorius came the closest a Pope has ever come to teaching error,..."
I disagree. Honorius merely refrained from teaching orthodoxy, while not actually ever enunciating anything that was at fault.
I think John XXII is the closest we had to a pope who actually taught error. Pope John actually held, as a private theologian, though while pope, that the blessed dead would not behold the Beatific Vision until the Last Judgment. He didn't teach this from the Chair of Peter, and attached no authority to his views. He eventually repudiated his own view, and taught authoritatively that the blessed dead do behold the Beatific Vision before final judgment.
I think that's as close as we've seen a pope to teaching error. Although, even here, he held a view as a private theologian that had not yet been definitively decided, and thus, did not hold what was yet formally heretical.
sitetest
Sorry, I was imprecise. I understand that that was indeed the case. I had this out with a Protestant a few months back, and back then I couldn't find all the relevant historical sources on line, but given bornacatholic's post #9 it seems correct.
The conciliar anathemas backed by Pope Agatho, rather than the actual following of Sergius, makes the Honorius case seem more grave to me. Maybe I'm wrong on that score though.
I disagree. Honorius merely refrained from teaching orthodoxy, while not actually ever enunciating anything that was at fault.
>>Facts are Pope Honorius explicitly taught that Christ had one will. "Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin."
So, are you then allowed to teach that Christ has one will because Pope Honorius said so? I guess there is nothing wrong with the above quote from Pope Honorius, right?