Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: pravknight
Would you have followed Pope Honorius when he taught Monothelitism from the Chair of Peter (And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.

You're right. It is very important for serious Catholics pondering the limits of infallibility to study the Honorius case. It certainly makes one a little more careful.

7 posted on 05/16/2006 9:12:28 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: Claud

http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm


8 posted on 05/16/2006 9:31:12 AM PDT by bornacatholic (Pope Paul VI. "Use of the old Ordo Missae is in no way left to the choice of priests or people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Claud
I. Many were condemned by the Sixth Council; Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Petrus, Paulus, Macarius, etc., and together with these, Honorius. Of all the rest we find it said, in the condemnatory clauses of the Council, that they had maintained one will in Christ; nowhere is this said of Honorius. Therefore it cannot be proved by the authority of the Council that Honorius taught one will in Christ.

II. In none of the Acts of the Council is it said that Honorius is called a heretic because he maintained or taught heresy.

III. It is said expressly, and not once only, that Honorius is condemned because, by his silence, he fostered the Monothelites and followed the counsel of Sergius. For example, Act. Conc. XIII., "We execrate the impious dogmas of these men, and we judge that their own names shall be cast forth from the Holy Church of God, that is to say, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, and Paul, and also Theodore. . . . And with these we order that Honorius be cast out and anathematized, because we find by the writings, made to Sergius, that in all things he followed his counsel and confirmed his impious doctrines." The Latin has sequi mentem ejus, which is ambiguous, aud may mean either to follow the doctrine, or follow the intention and plan of Sergius; but the original Greek text, of which the Latin is a translation, has, without any ambiguity, "followed the counsel."

Honorius, therefore, is not condemned like the rest for his impious dogmas, but because, by following the counsel of Sergius, he did not repress but strengthened (confirmavit) an impious dogma.

IV. It is expressly said. in the Acts, that God cannot endure that rule of silence, "Et quomodo non indigneretur Deus qui blasphemebatur et non defendebatur." "And how could God but be indignant, who was blasphemed and NOT defended?" (In Sermo Prosphonetics, Act. XVIII.) Hence, also, and for the same reason the Council is indignant, and hurls its anathema against Honorius

. V. The letters of Honorius were burned because they were destructive to the Church and favorable to the heretical contumacy of Sergius, not indeed, in doctrine, but in their approbation of the rule of silence and in too great lenity toward the heresiarch. They are condemned not because they contained the same impiety as the writings of the others, but because "ad unam eademque impietatem tenderent;" they tended (in the Greek concurred) to one and the same impiety."

VI. If, therefore, Honorius is called a heretic, and is anathematized and cast out, it is not for heresy, but for connivance towards heretics. And expressly in this sense was the intention of the Council interpreted by the Emperor Constantine, who was not only present at the Council, but took part in it. In the same sense did St. Leo interpret it, who, having carefully examined the Acts of the Council and conferred with the legates who presided over it, approved them and translated them into Latin. Both Constantine and Leo say that Honorius was condemned, not because he taught error, but because he had favored and strengthened heretics, and had, not stained the Church himself, but suffered it to be distained by others.

*That is the truth anouit Honorius. However, even IF prav's personal opinions were accurate, that STILL would not give him permission to disobey.

Who died, resurrected, and gave him authority to judge when a Pope is right or wrong and when he can be disobeyed? That idea is purely protestant and gives prav authority over the sucessors of Peter, Ecumenical Councils etc. It is private judgement pure and simple

9 posted on 05/16/2006 9:41:25 AM PDT by bornacatholic (Pope Paul VI. "Use of the old Ordo Missae is in no way left to the choice of priests or people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Claud
1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

The condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 28 June (St. Leo II) until the eighteenth century. Difficulties made themselves felt when, after the Great Western Schism, papal infallibility began to be doubted. Protestantism and Gallicanism made vigorous attacks on the unfortunate pope, and at the time of the Vatican Council Honorius figured in every pamphlet and every speech on ecclesiastical subjects. The question has not only been debated in numerous monographs, but is treated by the historians and the theologians, as well as by the professed controversialists.

*Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Those with a protestant mindset still use Honorius as a battering ram to try and destroy Christian unity and attack the Living Magisterium

10 posted on 05/16/2006 10:55:39 AM PDT by bornacatholic (Pope Paul VI. "Use of the old Ordo Missae is in no way left to the choice of priests or people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson