The Case of Pope Honorius I:
What Was Really Condemned validly
by the Third Council of Constantinople?
Table of Contents
- Historical Background
- The Third Council of Constantinople
- The Condemnation of Honorius in the Acts
- The Authority of the Acts
- Pope Leo II
- The Interpretation by Classical Catholic Theologians
- Have Modern Editors Altered the Acts?
- A Methodological Principle
Conclusion
List of Sources
- Historical Background
In the seventh century the Monothelite controversy divided the Christian East. Catholic doctrine, as defined by the Church, teaches that Christ possesses two complete natures, divine and human, and consequently two natural wills and two natural operations. Source: Acts of the Third Council of Constantinople, Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, volume XI, Florence and Venice, 1759-1798, Latin/Greek. Pope Honorius I (625-638) became involved through his correspondence with Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople. These private letters, written long before the council of 680-681, later formed the main evidence.
- The Third Council of Constantinople
The Third Council of Constantinople was convoked by Emperor Constantine IV and met between 680 and 681. It is known as the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Source: Mansi XI. Its principal objective was to put a definitive end to the Monothelite controversy. The council solemnly defined that Christ possesses two natural wills and two natural operations, without division, confusion, change or opposition. Source: The dogmatic definition in sessions 17-18, Mansi XI, approximately 620-664. This belongs to the infallible teaching of the Church before 1964.
- The Condemnation of Honorius in the Acts
The historical acts of the council repeatedly mention Honorius alongside the other condemned figures such as Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter and Macarius. Expressions such as “Honorio haeretico anathema” (Anathema to Honorius the heretic) appear. Source: Sessions XIII and XVI, IntraText and Schaff editions of the acts, based on ancient manuscripts. The dogmatic decree states that Honorius followed Sergius and confirmed his impious doctrines. Source: Quoted in primary sources such as the Acts in Mansi XI. This goes beyond mere silence and involves active accusations.
- The Authority of the Acts
An ecumenical council receives its supreme authority only through confirmation by the Roman Pontiff. This constitutes a constant Catholic teaching before 1964. Source: Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, libri IV, Rome, 1586 or later editions. Not every sentence in the acts carries the same authority. A clear distinction between the acts and the actual definition therefore remains necessary.
- Pope Leo II
Pope Leo II approved the dogmatic definitions of the council, particularly the teaching on the two wills and operations in Christ. He did not, however, confirm all details of the acts, especially not the strongest accusations of personal heresy against Honorius. Source: His letters, Migne Patrologia Latina 96. In these letters Leo II describes the fault of Honorius as follows: he did not extinguish the flame of heretical doctrine as became the Apostolic authority, but by his negligence fostered it. Source: Leo II’s confirmation letters, cited in Hefele and Schaff. The emphasis lies on negligence in governance, not on all details of the acts.
- The Interpretation by Classical Catholic Theologians
Classical theological handbooks interpret the condemnation in the light of Leo II’s confirmation. Honorius committed a grave fault of government; he failed to defend the Tradition adequately, but he did not issue an ex cathedra definition imposing Monothelitism on the universal Church. Source: Theologians such as Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, and others in editions from the 16th to 19th centuries. There is no contradiction with papal infallibility as defined at Vatican I (1870), according to the teaching before 1964.
- Have Modern Editors Altered the Acts?
There is no convincing evidence of substantial alterations by modern editors to portray Honorius more unfavorably. The relevant expressions already appear in traditional editions such as Mansi from the 18th century. The core question remains the interpretation in the light of papal confirmation.
- A Methodological Principle
A Catholic theologian does not examine an ecumenical council in isolation, but in connection with the acts, the definition, the papal confirmation and the constant interpretation of the Church. This is the methodology in classical theology. Source: For example in the works of Suarez or similar editions before 1964. Both aspects must always be considered together.
Conclusion
The case of Pope Honorius remains a delicate chapter in historical theology. The Third Council condemned him in strong terms in the acts. Dogmatic authority rests on papal confirmation. Pope Leo II placed the emphasis on negligence. Classical theologians follow this line. The historical evidence and Catholic teaching on papal infallibility are not necessarily opposed, according to the teaching before 1964. Precise distinctions remain indispensable here. This study limits itself to well-established elements and avoids disputed points without further verification.
List of Sources
- Mansi, J.D. Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, Florence-Venice, 1759-1798, Latin/Greek.
- Migne, J.P. Patrologia Latina, vol. 96 (Leo II), Paris, 1844-1855, Latin.
- Hefele, C.J. Histoire des Conciles, 19th century editions, French translations based on original sources.
- Schaff, Philip (ed.). Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, vol. 14, New York, 1900, English with Greek/Latin.
- Bellarmine, Robertus. De Romano Pontifice, Rome, 1586 ff., Latin.
This study is based on established sources and follows strict theological methodology from before 1964. In the present crisis of the Church, from a sedevacantist standpoint, the teaching on the Roman Pontiff and the councils remains of great importance for the defense of the integral Tradition.