But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation.Of course, earlier there was much simpler:
To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!...following the polychronia to the Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch and to the council and the senate. (Quite the opposite of "accept[ing] the orthodoxy of Honorius.")
You would have us believe that the Harps of the Spirit erred in making these declarations, and this despite your church still giving lip-service to the authority of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils which we Orthodox also recognize. (Search your recently issued Catechism for references to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils -- even with your theory that a papal assent is needed for a council to have ecumenical authority, is there any doubt, given the content of the Papal oath from the 8th to the 11th century, that Rome assented to the acts of the Sixth?)
The fact the heretics cited Honorius is not decisive as to his actual guilt; as heretics of all times cite the Gospels as well to support their position. Certainly, you would not say the simple fact a heretic cites the Gospels, for example, is enough to indict the Gospel writers of heresy? Of course you would not! Your line of reasoning is fallacious. You cite heretics against Honorius, I cite St. Maximus, Pope St. Agatho and Pope John IV in favor of his orthodoxy. Who do you believe...the heretics?
The condemnations of the Council likewise attribute to him the active promotion of the heresy -- the strongest being that given after the restating of the Creed:...
No one is suggesting that the term "heretic" was not applied to Honorius, but the issue is in what sense. In session XIII, he is not included amongst those called "contrary minded to the faith" - he is rather judged for what he wrote to Sergius, wherein he supported a rule of silence, i.e., that both sides should keep quiet:
“…the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate (are)…Sergius… Cyrus …Pyrrhus…Paul and Peter…and…Theodore…all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome…rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the Holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius…because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” (Session XIII, NPNF, v. 14, p. 343)
So, we have Honorius condemned, not for being "contrary minded" to the Faith (as are Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, etc); instead he is listed separately as being condemned "with them", because he followed Sergius (i.e., accepted the suggestion for a rule of silence proposed by Sergius). We see in his letters to Sergius that Honorius does not actually confirm the monothelite doctrine; in fact, he expressly defines nothing at all! Honorius said:
"...as regards the ecclesiastical dogma and what we ought to hold and teach, on account of the simplicity of man and to avoid controversies, we must, as I have already said, define neither one nor two operations in the mediator between God and man."
Honorius defined nothing. Honorius failed to see the real issue here; clearly, mistakenly thinking, as he says, it is an idle dispute for "grammarians"; rather than a moment in which certain expressions (e.g., "one operation", or "two operations") had to be decisively ruled upon. Honorius explicitly defined nothing - and therein lies his fault.
Therefore, it was his failure to define in favor of the orthodox expressions - rather affirming the heterodox ones (which he did not do) -- that aided the growing monothelite heresy in the East. Thus, in effect, Honorius had 'favored' the heresy by failing to condemn it when the opportunity presented itself, and thereby aided its dissemination by his gross, negligent inaction. This is the sense that Pope St. Leo II - who would confirm the council - accepted and understood the condemnation of Honorius:
“…Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence." (Leonis II ad Episcopos Hispanie)
You would have us believe that the Harps of the Spirit erred in making these declarations, and this despite your church still giving lip-service to the authority of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils which we Orthodox also recognize.
I certainly would not say an ecumenical council, which requires confirmation of its acts by the pope, can err. There is no safer way to determine if a oouncil is a robber council or not - other than whether or not it maintains its communion with Rome, as proved in Church history and the Acts of the councils. Given your acceptance this Council, do you accept all of Agatho's letter, as it did? Agatho, for example, says all his predecessors (thus including Honorius) were orthodox:
"Wherefore the predecessors of Apostolic memory of my littleness, learned in the doctrine of the Lord, ever since the prelates of the Church of Constantinople have been trying to introduce into the immaculate Church of Christ an heretical innovation, have never ceased to exhort and warn them with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma, lest from this they make the beginning of a split in the unity of the Church, by asserting one will, and one operation of the two natures in the one Jesus Christ our Lord..." (Agatho's letter)
In so far as Honorius urged a silence that applied to the heterodox position his orthodoxy is defensible. Even the Council fathers did not list him with the those "contrary minded" to the faith. However, the silence to which he agreed, as shown above, also applied to formulations which were orthodox, and necessary to combat the heretical ones. In this regard, the Council, in condemning Honorius, could ground itself in full agreement with Agatho's letter, wherein he said:
"Woe is me, if I cover over with silence the truth which I am bidden to give to the exchangers, i.e., to teach to the Christian people and imbue it therewith. What shall I say in the future examination by Christ himself, if I blush (which God forbid!) to preach here the truth of his words?" (Agatho's letter)
So, this is the 'woe'...the fault of Honorius. Not for teaching a lie, or affirming one, but for having covered the truth through silence. Honorius was not condemned for teaching a heresy, but for failing to teach the truth. And this is in agreement with Agatho's letter, the Council's self-stated agreement with all things written in Agatho's letter, and Leo II's statement re Honorius fostering heresy through negligence, etc.
(Search your recently issued Catechism for references to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils -- even with your theory that a papal assent is needed for a council to have ecumenical authority, is there any doubt, given the content of the Papal oath from the 8th to the 11th century, that Rome assented to the acts of the Sixth?)
The papal oath relative to Honorius has to be understood in the same sense the council's condemnation was approved by the Apostolic See of Rome. So, in essential agreement with Agatho, Leo II - who was the one to confirm the council (Agatho being dead by the end of it)- is seen to have accepted Honorius' condemnation in the sense that Honorius 'fostered it through negligence.' It was in this sense Honorius was a 'heretic'; rather than for having taught heresy.
Consequently, there is no contradiction with the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility; as the doctrine applies to instances when the pope intends to teach ex cathedra, and not to when he does not (as in the case of Honorius).
As a final observation, your position fails to reconcile all the facts, for example, you must ignore St. Maximus and John IV who defended the orthodoxy of Honorius, you must ignore Pope St. Agatho's letter, you must ignore Pope St. Leo II's understanding of the condemnation and you must consider the Council in error for accepting St. Agatho's letter - wherein the orthodoxy of Honorius is implicity defended.
Then also, you must reject, where the council accepted Agatho's letter:
"...because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things..."