Posted on 01/24/2021 6:34:30 PM PST by Its All Over Except ...
This council was correct in anathematizing him citing his discussions with Sergius as proof to bolster their position.
He was anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople because he “followed them [certain heretics] in all things”.
Given his discussions with Sergius, the Council affirmed that he “confirmed “his impious doctrines”.
Later church teaching, upheld and bolstered by more than one pope, states that any one who holds any office, at the moment they ascribe to heresy, their power to bind and loose is undone and their ability to function in that office is undone, regardless if their heresy is known or not.
Secondly, any pope who disagreed with a pope being anathematized for monothelitism would be guilty of siding with monothelitism after it was known it was heresy, making that pope an arch heretic, beyond material heresy, needing to be tossed immediately.
It doesn’t apply that a pope must agree say in real time as no pope that is a heretic would agree with being tossed and the chair would be vacant before removal, thus no other pope to agree or disagree would occupy the chair of St. Peter.
Pope Leon stated that Honorius was anathematized not because he didn’t uphold the apostolic tradition, but because he “allowed the immaculate to be stained by profane treason”.
But nonetheless Leo did not say he should not have been anathematized.
Why do you say the council was right in anathematizing him?
Look at what Honorius did and did NOT do - he didn’t make a dogmatic decision (which means he failed as a Pope yes).
His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance.
If you actually read the letter, Honorius does... nothing.. he doesn’t agree, doesn’t disagree, doesn’t propagate, doesn’t condemn.
He deserved being censured for not doing something about the heresy. But he didn’t follow it, that is clear
Your statement fails because his initially anathematization was changed from him "siding with monothelitism" to "not doing anything about it"
And that's what Honorius did (or rather didn't) do - he didn't condemn it, but he didn't propagate it
and that's what I said viz "The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.” [Carroll, 254]" -
Has been debated for a long time.
Never really heard a good consensus.
After Vatican I, I am not aware of any mechanism to censure the pope while he is in office.
He has total supremacy in faith and morals.
I will say this one time:
680: Honorius was anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople along with the Monothelites, for “having followed them in all things”.[7] Citing his correspondence with Sergius, the Council accused Honoris of having “confirmed his impious doctrines”.[8]
Pope Leo II changed the Council’s Anathematization not for committing heresy, but for “imprudent economy of silence”.
Leo’s letter stated that Honorius was anathematized because he “did not purify this apostolic Church by the doctrine of the apostolic tradition, but rather he allowed the immaculate [Church] to be stained by profane treason.”
Ergo, Pope Leo never said he wasn’t anathematized, never said the council could not Anathematize him, never undid him being Anathematized, but rather changed the grounds of it.
680: Honorius was anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople along with the Monothelites, for “having followed them in all things”.[7] Citing his correspondence with Sergius, the Council accused Honoris of having “confirmed his impious doctrines”.[8]
Pope Leo II changed the Council’s Anathematization not for committing heresy, but for “imprudent economy of silence”.
Leo’s letter stated that Honorius was anathematized because he “did not purify this apostolic Church by the doctrine of the apostolic tradition, but rather he allowed the immaculate [Church] to be stained by profane treason.”
Ergo, Pope Leo never said he wasn’t anathematized, never said the council could not Anathematize him, never undid him being Anathematized, but rather changed the grounds of it.
If he wasn’t Anathematized, or if Pope Leo had declared it null and void completely, or said he had no real Anathematization ever placed upon him or said in 680 that Honorius is not anathema we would not be having this duscusdion for centuries now.
We know this because the debate has shifted to papal infallibility after this.
If he wasn’t Anathematized, or if Pope Leo had declared it null and void completely, or said he had no real Anathematization ever placed upon him or said in 680 that Honorius is not anathema, we would not be having this discussion for centuries now.
We know this because the debate has shifted to papal infallibility after this
So Pope Francis could declare Martin Luther to no longer be a heretic, he could declare that St. Paul’s writings in 1 Cor. 6 and elsewhere are null and void, he could say that Jesus’ words to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” no longer includes Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc?
Don’t think so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.