http://www.romancatholicism.org
|
|
The Roman Catholic Church Condemned Pope Honorius I as a Heretic and Excommunicated Him IntroductionPope Honorius I
(625-38) was posthumously condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the
Church by the ecumenical Council of Honorius
actively maintained the heresy in official papal letters written to Sergius I, patriarch of To give a brief summary from the Council’s
acts, which are quoted more fully later where it is clear that Honorius is being spoken of: “We find that these documents [including
those of Honorius] 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…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…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The
devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we
slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as
lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the
tabernacle of God. &c.” In order to approve the decrees of the
Council, Pope St. Leo II (681-3) wrote to the Emperor that he anathematised Honorius because he “endeavoured by profane treason to
overthrow the immaculate faith of the Roman Church”, not because of mere
negligence (as some also lie). “Nec non et Honorium [anathematizamus], qui
hanc apostolicam ecclesiam non apostolicæ traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est.” (Mansi,
Tom. XI. p. 731) The Council of Trullo
(692) repeated the condemnation. Two succeeding ecumenical councils
ratified the sentence, Council II Nicea (787) and
IV Constantinople (869-70). Popes approved both. From the eighth to the eleventh century
all new popes had to swear in their Papal Oath before assuming the office
that they accepted that The lessons in the Roman Breviary
for the office of St. Leo II listed until the sixteenth century Honorius among those excommunicated by First we shall give the testimony of
historians regarding the condemnation of Honorius
and then we shall give extracts from the acts of the
councils in which the condemnation was given, linking also to the full texts. Testimony of historiansFirst we cite the Roman Catholic historian
and bishop of Rottenburg, Karl Joseph von Hefele (1809-1893). His work on the ecumenical councils
is very highly regarded by Catholic theologians. “The standard
work of Hefele’s, however, is the ‘Conciliengeschichte’ in seven volumes, reaching to the
fifteenth century and embracing the history of dogma, canon law, liturgy,
ecclesiastical discipline, and political history, so far as necessary. Von
Funk rightly says that ‘as one of the most detailed and thorough works on
church history, it has attained a prominent place in the learned literature
of our time.’” (Johannes Baptist Sägmüller, Karl
Joseph von Hefele, Catholic Encyclopedia
1910) He wrote of the
condemnations of Honorius as follows. “It is in the
highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council
should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic!…That, however, the sixth
Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on
account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following
collection of the sentences of the Synod against him: “At the entrance
of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says: ‘After reading
the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople
to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and
to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter
to Sergius, we found that these documents were
quite foreign...to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the
holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of
heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor...them as hurtful to
the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church,
namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on
this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of
Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish
them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision
that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the
former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found
in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he
followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine.’ “Towards the end
of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius
to Sergius was presented for examination, and it
was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the
archives in Again, the sixth
Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the
sixteenth session, on Still more
important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on “After the papal
legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this
decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual (logos prosphoneticos),
which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things: ‘Therefore we
punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan,
Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus,
and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius,
formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them.’ “In the same
session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho,
and says therein: ‘We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain
them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your
holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.’ “In closest
connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial
decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes: ‘With this sickness
(as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did
those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times
falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan,
Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome...the strengthener
(confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself...We anathematise all
heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present...besides, we anathematise and
reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely,
Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also
Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in
everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.’ “It is clear
that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius...in a
letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical
Council...in his letter to the Spanish bishops...and in his letter to the
Spanish King Ervig. Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical
Synod, mention is made by...the Trullan Synod,
which was held only twelve years after...Like testimony is also given
repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in
its principal document, the decree of the faith: ‘We declare at once two
wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth
Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning...Sergius,
Honorius, Cyrus, etc.’ The like is asserted by the
Synod or its members in several other places...To the same effect the eighth
Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the
fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal
oath...according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to
swear that ‘he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with
eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism),
Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc.,
together with Honorius.’” (A History of the
Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187). Next we shall cite the testimony given in The
Seven Ecumenical Councils by Henry R. Percival, which is likewise very
informative on the matter. He wrote, “most Roman controversialists of recent
years have admitted both the fact of Pope Honorius’s
condemnation, and the Monothelite (and therefore
heretical) character of his epistles.” “I shall
therefore say nothing further on this point but shall simply supply the
leading proofs that Honorius was as a matter of
fact condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. 1. His condemnation
is found in the Acts in the xiiith Session, near
the beginning. 2. His two
letters were ordered to be burned at the same session. 3. In the xvith Session the bishops exclaimed ‘Anathema to the
heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic
Honorius, etc.’ 4. In the decree
of faith published at the xviijth Session it is
stated that ‘the originator of all evil ... found a fit tool for his will in
... Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.’ 5. The report of
the Council to the Emperor says that ‘Honorius,
formerly bishop of 6. In its letter
to Pope Agatho the Council says it ‘has slain with
anathema Honorius.’ 7. The imperial
decree speaks of the ‘unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely
governed’ and mentions among them ‘Honorius, the
Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.’ The
Emperor goes on to anathematize ‘Honorius who was
Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and
strengthened the heresy.’ 8. Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says
that he too anathematized Honorius. ‘Also Honorins. qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolilcae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes, qui in suo errore defuncti sunt.’ 9. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is
mentioned in the Trullan Canons (No. j.). 10. So too the Seventh
Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in
several places in the acts the same is said. 11. Honorius’s
name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis
II.) 12. The Papal
Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus
taken by each new Pope from the [eighth] to the eleventh century, in the form
probably prescribed by Gregory II., ‘smites with eternal anathema the
originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc.,
together with Honorius, because he assisted the
base assertion of the heretics.’ 13. In the
lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman
Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among
those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. Upon this we may well hear Bossuet: ‘They suppress as far as they can, the Liber Diurnus: they have erased
this from the Roman Breviary. Have they therefore hidden it? Truth breaks out
from all sides, and these things become so much the more evident, as they are
the more studiously put out of sight.’ “With such an
array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the
fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned
and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.” (The Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh: Clark, 1899)) Unsurprisingly, some Catholic theologians
deceived on this matter and some apologists still do, refusing to admit that
the pope was condemned and excommunicated as a heretic by the council. “[They] have been driven to desperate efforts.
Some pronounce the acts of the Council, which exist in Greek and Latin,
downright forgeries (Baronius); others, admitting
the acts, declare the letters of Honorius
forgeries, so that he was unjustly condemned by the Council (Bellarmin)—both without a shadow of proof; still others,
being forced at last to acknowledge the genuineness of the letters and acts,
distort the former into an orthodox sense by a non-natural exegesis, and thus
unwillingly fasten upon œcumenical Councils and
Popes the charge of either dogmatic ignorance and stupidity, or malignant
representation. So Perrone, in his Dogmatics, and Pennachi, in his
Liber de Honorii I. Rom.
Pont. causa , 1870, which is effectually disposed of by Hefele in an Appendix to the German edition of his tract.”
(Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom) Pope Honorius
was condemned as a heretic by three
ecumenical councils. All newly elected popes had to profess his
condemnation before they could assume their office until the eleventh century
and all Latin priests recited it in their breviary until the sixteenth. It is
incredible that ecumenical councils under the care of papal legates and
approved by popes would anathematize and excommunicate a pope without the
utmost care and that Rome would have all her popes and priests confess it for
a thousand years were it not justified. There is no room for doubt here. His heretical
letters were burnt by order of the council and only a scrap survived; it is ridiculous that
some should try to construct a case to acquit Honorious on the basis of the scrap and in the face of so much historical testimony. Extracts from the councilsEcumenical Council of
|
|
