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

Of course there is no end to the revision of history that Catholic apologists won't engage in to keep them from admitting what history shows us: Popes are not infallible. The article I linked to deals with your arguments, they are bogus.

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
------------------------------------------------------------

So much for scholarly objectivity. You give four citations:

1. © This Rock, Catholic Answers, P.O. Box 17490, San Diego, CA 92177, (619) 541-1131.

2. The Papacy and Infallibility: Keys of the Kingdom

This material will now be available only in my book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism.

To find out more about that book, and to order it directly from the publisher (1stBooks Library ), follow the link to my Catholic Apologetics: Books and Tapes page.

A sales pitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you serious?

3. Created by DAVE ARMSTRONG, Catholic Apologist and Free-Lance Writer, Joyful Husband, Daddy, & Celtic-American, Nature-, History- and Music-Lover

4. THE SUPPOSED FALL OF HONORIUS AND HIS CONDEMNATION by J. H. R. American Catholic Quarterly Review, v.7, 1882, pp.162-8 Electronic version Copyright © 1997, Classica Media, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Do you read this stuff? Really read it?

The usual Apologist response is rather typical:

Ex. "What argument can be drawn from the condemnation of Honorius against the infallibility of the Pope?"

Of course, this is misdirection. The question is: Was Pope Honorius I condemmed as a heretic by an Ecumenical Council?

The answer: YES