Replies

And you consider the Council to have been in error when they with one voice cried, “To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

I refer you to my prior to responses. I did not say the council was in error. I outlined the sense in which the term is to be understood with respect to Honorius; based on Pope St. Agatho's letter - accepted by the Council - which asserted the orthodoxy of his predecessors; and the See of Rome being free from doctrinal error - thereby excluding Honorius once again.

I believe what I have outlined preserves the council from the charge of error. Rather, it is your thesis that puts the council into error. That is, if it is as you would seem to have it: that the Council believed Honorius was 'minded contrary to the faith'; then you must conclude the Council erred in accepting St. Agatho's letter which implicitly insists the opposite.

"...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..."

Your logic, if followed, would mean that the council erred in accepting St. Agatho's letter. Rather, I see no reason to accuse the council of error at all. St. Agatho's letter, the Council's acceptance of it, and the Council's judgment re Honorius are perfectly consistent.

It’s not my position, I’m defending, but the position of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: besides the formal cry of anathema naming him heretic, there are at least two other places in the Acta that explicitly condemn him for heresy, one of which I quoted.

I don't see that this statement impacts or responds to anything I've said up to now. You quote the Fathers of the Council, but you are not open to the full context of the case or the council (e.g., what Honorius actually said ["define nothing"], St. Agatho's letter, St. Leo II's view, the saints who defended Honorius, etc). You are excluding evidence, as if you have blinders on, which makes your thesis untenable.

I've agreed, the Council called him a "heretic", but I have shown how and why this must be understood in the sense that he 'fostered' the heresy through negligence. As St. Agatho said, apparently with Honorius in mind, "woe" to the one who 'covers over the truth in silence.' The blame of such one is similar to the one who teaches the lie explicity; but the action or inaction are of two different sorts as one considers it in relation to what the teaching of papal infallibility actually entails.

Honorius was not the one to teach the lie (he said he "defines nothing"); rather he failed to teach the truth and was severely faulted for it...and that is perfectly consistent with the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility, i.e., the popes are protected when they teach ex cathedra, and not when they don't (as with Honorius)!

Being soft on monotheletism was bad enough for the Fathers to condemn him as a heretic, the views of the worthy saints you listed to the contrary notwithstanding.

The point of mentioning the saints (e.g., St. Maximus, etc) was not that they defended Honorius with regard to whether he properly exercised his office or not; rather they defended him specifically on the question of whether he taught the heresy or was himself a monothelite. That is a good witness against the accusation he was a monothelite - unless you want to call these saints, such as Maximus, Agatho, Leo II, heretics. Regarding the nature of the council's condemnation, I have already addressed that question.

I think you err in drawing a distinction between the condemnation by the Council of Sergius and Honorius and that of Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter. The only distinction between them is that the last four were suggested for condemnation in the letter of St. Agatho, while the first two were condemned on the basis of the Council's own examination of their writings. The relevant passage from that Acta being

The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, 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 who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.

You are arguing from silence, or perhaps the placement of a period (which may or may not have been there in the original Greek Acta -- I am unable to find a source for the Greek Acta online and even if I did, unless it indicated that it used the original punctuation, rather than modernizing it, a matter of controversy among Byzantinists, it wouldn't settle the matter), in claiming that because the Holy Fathers did not repeat the phrase "minded contrary to our orthodox faith" in their condemnation of Sergius and Honorius, that the relevant distinction is between those explicitly so described in one sentence and those condemned "with these" in the following sentence beginning with "And", rather than between those suggested for condemnation by St. Agatho in his letter and those found heretical by the Council's own examination.

I suspect there is really not much point in continuing our discussion. Each of us arguing for a position the other, due to his ecclesiological commitments, regards as completely unsupportable. I seem to recall that in a similar circumstance the discussions between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Lutherans at Tubingen ended with a request from the former to cease writing about doctrinal matters, and write only for the sake of friendship. Perhaps we should end in like manner.