Replies

Again, one asks "is this a matter of faith or morals for all time?" If yes, then we have an infallible statement - when in union with the Bishop of Rome. In Honorius I case, I don't think we have a matter of faith and morals. In any case, Honorius's problem was not faulty teachings, but not pursuing heresy sufficiently when he saw it.

I was specifically asking about the actual beliefs of Honorius I. It appears that is the minimum he was held accountable for. Since an infallible Council declared that he had heretical beliefs, is this not a matter of faith and morals? How can a heretic be whole with the faith?

As I said, Honorius's case is one of insufficient witness against heretical opinions. Apparently, he was initially taken in by the wording of a monophysite statement. Words can be written to mean different things. For example, "Trinity" is in the lingo of Mormons, but it doesn't mean the same thing. Honorius did not preach that Jesus had one will. Apparently he did not attack the Monophysites enough to suit the future Coucils' desires. But who are we to judge at what point Honorius saw through the writings and recognized the heresy? In the end, he was not a monophysite.

Regards