Replies

There is a detailed response to Webster's allegations about Pope Honorius here. Dave Armstrong's page on the papacy has more Honorius information and is part of his wider, most excellent Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site.

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.
THE SUPPOSED FALL OF HONORIUS AND HIS CONDEMNATION

Name one Pope who taught heresy.

OK, thanks for asking. It wasn't me who said so it was an ecumenical church council.
------------------------------------------------------------

You didn't use an approved "Catholic Apologist" site. How can anyone trust what "Protestants" say.

For an interesting read go to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Pope Honorius I

Pope (625-12 October, 638), a Campanian, consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V

His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680).
. . .
On the other hand the chief advocates of papal infallibility, for instance, such great men as Melchior Canus in the sixteenth century, Thomassinus in the seventeenth, Pietro Ballerini in the eighteenth, Cardinal Perrone in the nineteenth, have been careful to point out that Honorius did not define anything ex cathedra.
------------------------------------------------------------

The entire article is a good read:Pope Honorius I>
------------------------------------------------------------

I love the Catholic Encyclopedia. It is a fine example of a publication torn between the need of historical accuracy and, yet defending sometimes untenable positions .

OK, thanks for asking. It wasn't me who said so it was an ecumenical church council.

This has been talked about before you know. For convenience sake I'm just going to re-post my responses to this argument made long ago...

He didn't actually teach it, so he can't be a Heretic now can he. And that was the belief of Pope St. Leo II. The Council of Constantinople 680-681 drew up a list of condemned Monothelite haretics in the thirteenth session of the council March 28, 681, it states, as an after thought...

...And along with them, it is our unanimous decree that there shall be expelled from the Church and anathematised Honorius, formerly Papa of old Rome, because we find in his letter to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.

But Pope Honorius had never provided such a statement. Culpably, he left the matter open. Fortunately such a moment of madness in an ecumenical council does not conflict with Catholic doctrine about the Holy Spirit being present, for His presence does not guarantee councils from error, other wise there would be no need for a Pope to review and confirm them for the Church.

The council sent its decrees to Pope St Leo II who confirmed the final decree, while at the same time redefining its language on Pope Honorius conforming to the fact that he had not endorsed Sergius' ideas, but only refrained from condemning them. This we know from the five extant letters of St Leo II in which he states that Pope Honorius was condemned not for being a heretic but for negligence in not denouncing the heresy.

The fact remains that no decree of a council has effect in the Catholic Church unless and until it is confirmed by the Pope, and Only in the form that he confirms it Therefor, Pope Honorius was never condemned for heresy by the supreme Church authority, but only for negligence allowing a heresy to spred and grow, when he should have denounced it. This matter was extensively debated during the First Vatican Council.

By the way, I wouldn't' go to Christian Resources if I were you. From an earlier post I made... JHavard: Just how would any one go about finding an anti Catholic web site, you have every site monopolized with your own anti non-Catholic spin?

Look up Christian Resources on Yahoo. Its one of the many I've come across and it's full of demonstrably historical inaccuracies, and biblical fallacies, and most of the common arguments lobbed at us. Not to many Proddies actually advocate the killing of "papists" youd have to go back in history to find them, perhaps you've heard of them? Luth, Knox, Zwingli,... The fact is the whole Rebellion was and is an anti-Catholic thing ergo all true Protestant web sites are anti-Catholic just as all true Communist web sites would be opposed to Capitalism.

Hay RCs out there, I think at this point we should be able to continue arguing with the Proddies by just re-posting old stuff. After all it is what they do[g].