R. Sungenis: I glanced at Mr. Larson’s treatment of John Paul II and Assisi but I didn’t see anything noteworthy there. I will address his distinction between “natural liberty” and “moral liberty” later. Be that as it may, the above paragraph from Mr. Larson is very confusing. What right has Mr. Larson to claim that John Paul’s pontificate is “the greatest chastisement ever visited by Christ upon His Church”? Did Mr. Larson confer with John Paul II to obtain this thoroughly negative evaluation of his 25-year pontificate? I don’t think so. And I’m sure if Mr. Larson asked John Paul II what John Paul II thought of his 25-year papacy, John Paul II would be much more positive. In fact, just the other day John Paul II praised Cardinal Kasper for initiating Assisi-like programs for the Church! So what Mr. Larson regards as “the greatest chastisement,” John Paul II regards as his greatest achievement. Quite ironic, is it not, especially from a reviewer such as Mr. Larson who thinks that the person of the pope is so far above criticism? Unfortunately, these are the kinds of contortions into which John Paul II has put Catholic apologists. They find themselves having to reinvent the art of logic in order to even attempt a defense of the pope’s actions. How Mr. Larson can defend a pope who tells pagan religions to pray to their false gods for mundane blessings, and yet never say a word to these pagans, for 16 years, regarding their responsibility to forsake their false religions and convert to Christianity, is beyond the pale. God didn’t call Mr. Larson to defend such actions, He called him to condemn them, and to show people that John Paul II has disgraced the papacy with these actions, even though the papacy itself still survives and will remain inviolate. As I said above, we will see Pope Agatho and Pope Leo II say the same thing regarding disgrace of the papacy brought on by Pope Honorius, yet maintain that the papal office itself remains pure and error free.

Mr. Larson: I would also recommend reading my short chapter on Pope Honorius. And because of the serious errors to be found in Mr. Sungenis’s treatment of this subject I feel obliged to offer the following.

R. Sungenis: I am grateful to Mr. Larson for bringing up this matter, since it is high-time we cleared the air about Pope Honorius. Besides the statement I have quoted from our own popes regarding the errors certain popes have made (NB: non ex cathedra errors), I think we will be in for a few surprises regarding Pope Honorius I.

Mr. Larson: Pope Honorius I: The case of Pope Honorius is of importance to this discussion because he is the only Pope in the almost 2,000 year history of the Church who, it is falsely claimed, was legitimately condemned by the Church itself.

R. Sungenis: First of all, although Pope Honorius was not the only pope who erred in non ex cathedra statements (e.g., there was Liberius, Vigilius, Boniface IV, John XXII, et al), it only takes one instance of error to set the precedent for the rest of history, and not coincidentally, that is precisely how Pope Agatho and Pope Leo viewed the situation with Pope Honorius, that is, as a precedent-setting event.

Mr. Larson: After referring to my use of Vatican I’s statement, “knowing fully that this See of Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples’, Mr. Sungenis continues:

“The ironic thing about this statement is that it is precisely what Pope Agatho stated after he declared Pope Honorius a heretic! [we will see that this statement is a simple falsification of historical fact]....So how could Pope Agatho, on the one hand, condemn Honorius as a heretic, but on the other hand, say the See of Peter was preserved without error? Because Agatho separated Honorius’ non-infallible “personal” opinion from the infallible “office” of the papacy. Without that crucial distinction, there indeed would have been ‘error’ in the See of Peter”

It is important to realize what is going on here. Mr. Sungenis is not just trying to prove that some Pope at sometime made a mistake in judgment or taught something in a non-infallible manner which may have contained error (as in the instance of Pope John XXII). He wants it to be established the a Pope can really lose his faith, become a full-blown heretic, and thus once-and-for-all separate the office and its promises from the person of any reigning Pontiff. The stakes are high. As I said, this is the only case in almost 2,000 years where there is really any possibility of claiming that the Church condemned a Pope as a heretic. So let us look closer.

R. Sungenis: Mr. Larson has a unique way of exaggerating his opponent’s position.

Mr. Larson: Pope Agatho, contrary to what Mr. Sungenis says, did not condemn Honorius as a heretic. Pope Agatho (678-681) reigned during the period that the Third Council of Constantinople was in session. He wrote a letter to Emperor Constantine IV, and this letter was read aloud at the Council. The Pope condemned all the major promoters of the Monothelite heresy by name. But if one is looking for the name of Honorius, it is conspicuous by its absence. Mr. Sungenis quotes the passage from Pope Agatho’s letter containing the scriptural passage about the See of Peter remaining ever free from all blemish of error, but he does not quote the other passages in this letter which reveal the total lack of truth in his claim that Pope Agatho condemned Honorius for heresy. These passages follow.

“Let your tranquil Clemency [the Emperor] therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing….

In other words, Pope Agatho, instead of doing what Mr. Sungenis wants him to do, does just the opposite. If possible, he makes an even stronger case than Vatican I for the doctrine that the personal faith of his predecessors (and all Popes) is never-failing.

R. Sungenis: First of all, let me clarify my statement that Pope Agatho called Pope Honorius a heretic. Pope Agatho did not say it directly, but he did so indirectly, through his own letter, and through the Roman Council of 680 that his legates confirmed. Pope Leo was more direct, and I will cover him later.

While we are on Pope Agatho, the fact is, he made the same distinction I am making, that is, between the “person” of the pope and his infallible papal “office,” in order to defend the Catholic Church from the charge of formal heresy. Here is what Agatho writes:

“The heretics have followed some passing expressions imprudently set down by one Pope [Honorius], who made no appeal to papal authority, nor to tradition from St. Peter. Against this I put the repeated, the continuous protest of Pope after Pope, authoritative, grave, deliberate. Their voice was intended to be, and was, the voice of the infallible Roman Church.” (Mansi, xi, 285).

I think this statement says everything I have said above, in a nutshell. Notice first that Agatho admits (by his reference to “imprudently set down by one Pope”) that Honorius put to writing the erroneous statement that Christ had “one will.” As I noted earlier, this erroneous statement was included in a letter that Pope Honourius wrote to Sergius, and it is recorded in Denzinger 251.

To explain this erroneous statement, Pope Agatho does not give unbridled immunity from error to Pope Honorius himself (as Mr. Larson does), rather, Agatho says Honorius “made no appeal to papal authority”! In other words, Agatho explains for us that Honorius separated his “person” from the papal “office” when he wrote the letter to Sergius. He wrote a private letter to Sergius, and according to Agatho, this does not qualify as “papal authority,” since Honorius did not claim such authority when writing it. Now, this explanation of Honorius comes directly from one of our popes, speaking authoritatively in his papal office, as to how we should understand the issue, and it is quite clear that Agatho’s explanation runs counter to Mr. Larson’s explanation. In fact, I don’t know of one pope or council who has ever argued the way Mr. Larson is arguing this case, that is, by making no distinction between the “person” and the “office.”

At the request of the Emperor, Pope Agatho called a council for this matter. This was the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which took place on Novermber 7, 680. It was here that Agatho’s long letter (an excerpt quoted above) was read to the Council. Agatho sent two papal legates to the council, representing himself. At the twelfth session, Honorius’ written correspondence with Sergius is brought up for the first time. The council then drafts a response to these erroneous letters, stating:

“…those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names shall also be cast out of the holy Church of God, that is, Sergius, who was prelate of this God-protected royal city, and was the first to write about this impious dogma, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who presided on the throne of this God-protected city, and who held the same views as the others, and also Theodore, who was Bishop of Pharan; all which persons were mentioned by Agatho, the most holy and blessed Pope of elder Rome, in his letter to the most pious and divinely strengthened and great Emperor, and were cast out by him, as holding view contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema. And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things and confirmed his wicked dogmas.”

Obviously, this is only fair. To have condemned Sergius and to have spared Honorius would have been grossly unfair. If Sergius began the heresy, Honorius continued it by his written approval.

As such, Agatho’s papal legates raise no objections to the Roman Council. In fact, as its presidents, the legates must have proposed the condemnation of Honorius to the council, and the legates must have known that Agatho would not have disapproved, since they do only the pope’s bidding. As such, the council ordered Honorius’ letters to Sergius to be burned, since they were “agreeing in one impiety and hurtful to the soul.”

As it stands, the council agreed with all that Agatho wrote, and Agatho agreed with the council through his papal legates. This is no discord or discrepancy between pope and council regarding Honorius.

In the final decree of the council on Sept. 16, 681, it begins by accepting the five general councils and the creeds of Nicea and Constantinople, and it condemns the “one will” heretics, including Honorius, saying: “But the devil raised up Theodore…Sergius, Phrrhus, Paul and Peter…and also Honorius, who was Pope of Elder Rome…to teach one will and operation after the fashion of the impious Apollinarians, Servians and Themistians.” It then adds:

“And this holy an ecumenical Synod, faithfully and with uplifted hands greeting the letter of the most holy and blessed Poe of Elder Rome, Agatho, to our most faithful Emperor Constantine, which casts out by name those who have preached and taught, as we have said, one will or one operation in the dispensation of the Incarnation of Christ, our true God…” (Mansi xi, 632).

The decree was signed by the whole Council, first by the two papal legates, and last by the Emperor. At the moment of his signing, anathema was again proclaimed against all the heretics, including Honorius.

After this, the council addresses the Emperor, citing Pope Agatho:

“Therefore, in accordance with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and in agreement with one another, and assenting to the letter of our most blessed Father and most high Pope Agatho, addressed to your Majesty, and also to that of his holy synod of 125 bishops…And lest anyone should reprehend the divine zeal of the all-holy Pope or the present angelic assemblage, we have followed his teaching and he the Apostolic and Patristic tradition…with us fought the Prince of the Apostles (Greek: ho koruphaiotatos protapostalos) for to assist us we had his imitator and the successor to his chair, who exhibited to us the mystery of theology in his letter.”

And thus, when signed by Agatho’s papal legates, the victory over Honorius and the eastern bishops is attributed to Pope Agatho.

The council then addresses a letter to Pope Agatho:

“The greatest diseases demand the greatest remedies, as you know, most blessed one. Wherefore, Christ, our true God, has revealed you Holiness as a wise physician, mightily driving away the disease of heresy by the medicine of orthodoxy, and bestowing health on the members of the Church. We therefore leave to you what is to be done, since you occupy the first see of the universal Church and stand on the firm rock of faith, after we have dwelt with pleasure upon the writings of the true confession from you paternal blessedness to the most pious King, which also we recognize as pronounced by the chiefest head of the Apostles, and by which we have put to flight the dangerous opinion of the heresy which lately arose…according to the previous condemnation pronounced on them in your holy letters – we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Paul, Pyrrhus and Peter, and besides these…Macarius…Stephen…and Polychronius.”

Notice that Honorius is numbered among those whom the pope had already condemned, though in the original condemnation he had been rightly set down as an addition made by the Council.

The Emperor then wrote an edict putting the decrees of the council into effect. Here the Emperor makes an official declaration of the inerrancy of Rome:

“These are the teachings of the voices of the Gospels and Apostles, these the doctrines of the holy synods, and of the elect and patristic tongues; these have been preserved untainted by Peter, the rock of the faith, the head of the Apostles; in this faith we live and reign…”

Thus, even the Emperor recognizes the vital role that Agatho played in condemning Honorius.

This is confirmed in a letter that the Emperor himself wrote to Pope Leo, since Agatho had died soon after the end of the council in January 682. The Emperor recounts how he had invited the Pope to send representatives to a council. One paragraph of the Emperor’s letter states:

“The letter of Pope Agatho…we ordered it to be read in the hearing of all, and we beheld in it as in a mirror the image of sound and unsullied faith. We compared it with the voices of the Gospels and of the Apostles, and set beside it the decisions and definitions of the holy ecumenical synods, and compared the quotations it contained with the precepts of the Fathers, and finding nothing our of harmony, we perceived in it the word of the true confession of Peter unaltered…We all received it willingly and sincerely, and embraced it, as though it were Peter himself. Marcarius alone, who was prelate of Antioch, with those whom he dragged after him, divided from us, and drew back from the yoke of Christ, and leapt out of the sacerdotal circle; for he refused altogether to agree to the all-holy writings of Agatho, as though he were even raging against the corypheus Peter himself…Glory be to God, who does wondrous thing, who has kept safe the faith among you unharmed. For how should He not do so in that rock on which He founded His church, and prophesied that the gates of hell, all the ambushes of heretics, should not prevail against it…” (Mansi, xi, 713).

The Emperor then addressed a letter to the Roman Council who condemned Honorius:

“You yourselves were present with your ecumenical chief pastor (Greek: to oikoumeniko archipemeno), speaking with him in spirit and in writing. For we received, besides the letter from his blessedness [Agatho], also one from your sanctity…We did not neglect to compare them with care. And, therefore, in harmony of mind and tongue we believed with the one and confessed with the other, and we admired the writing of Agatho as the voice of divine Peter, for nobody disagreed, save one.” (Mansi, xi, 721).

As we can see, there is complete collaboration between the pope, the emperor and the council. All are in agreement about Agatho’s infallible decree, and all are in agreement that Honorius’ name is added to those condemned for the heresy.

Mr. Larson: Pope Honorius (625-638) was, of course, the predecessor of Pope Agatho (678-681). It is obvious, therefore, that Pope Agatho’s statement concerning the never-failing faith of his predecessors refers also to Pope Honorius. This reference becomes even more specific in a subsequent passage:

“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 cease 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 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….”

Anyone with knowledge of these events immediately recognizes that the phrase “at least by silence” refers to only one man: Pope Honorius, who ordered silence upon the contesting parties in Constantinople and elsewhere. Therefore, even though he does not mention him by name, the famous letter of Pope Agatho gives clear testimony of the never-failing faith of all his predecessors, and contains a specific reference to the orthodoxy of Honorius.

R. Sungenis: I think I know why this is the only paragraph from Agatho’s letter that Mr. Larson quotes, for it is the only possible excuse he can find in his attempt to exonerate Honorius. Despite Mr. Larson’s efforts here, still, Agatho does not mention Honorius by name, and thus there is no proof that Agatho is even attempting an exoneration. Obviously, if Agatho had intended on apologizing for Honorius, he would have done so directly and candidly. Nevertheless, although it is true that, at one point Honorius recommended silence in regard to the issue of “two wills,” still, Honorius did not remain silent but wrote his letter to Sergius with the words: “Hence, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ,” which is a heresy.

It is important to note that, in his letter to Sergius, although Honorius praises Sergius for his insight in disapproving the expression “one operation,” unfortunately, he goes on to sanction the phrase “one will” because “our Lord Jesus Christ also, because surely our nature, not our guilt was assumed by the Godhead…For Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit without sin…” Hence, the reason Honorius gives for using “one will” is that Christ has a human will, only not an additional corrupt lower human will, which he wrote to Sergius. Sergius had maintained that if there were “two operations” there would be two contrary wills. Honorius replies that to teach “one operation” is a Eutychian heresy, but to teach “two wills” is a Nestorian heresy, and thus advises that both phrases are to be avoided. Obviously, then, Honorius is as much in the dark of the true understanding as Sergius. This, however, does not harm the doctrine of papal infallibility, since, as Agatho himself stated, Honorius “made no appeal to papal authority, nor to tradition from St. Peter.” At most Honorius could be condemned as a private heretic, just like Sergius and the rest of the eastern bishops.

Mr. Larson: We next come to the Third Council of Constantinople. Before looking at the complexities of this case concerning Pope Honorius, it would be good to summarize the outcome. The bishops at the Council went directly against the decisions of two previous Popes (Agatho and John IV – more on his letter concerning Honorius in a moment), and declared Honorius a heretic. When it came time for the ratification of the Council documents, Pope Agatho had died.

1 2 3 4