Behind Liberius as the poster-child "disproving" papal infallibility and papal supremacy is Pope Honorius, the only Successor of Peter to be condemned by an Ecumenical Council as a heretic.
In all honesty, the case against Honorius is cut and dry: in a written response to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Honorius said that when discussing the operations of Christ, it would be best not to say one Operation (that would hint at Monophysitism), or two Operations (that would hint at Nestorianism). In addition he mentions the one Will of Christ (which is a phrase Monophysites liked to use). His fault is obvious: in using the phrase "one Will" he permitted the heresy of Monophysitism to continue, and his failure to condemn the idea of one Operation also allowed the heresy to continue, no matter how you cut it. For this, the Council of Constantinople in 670AD anathemitized him.
From this simple summary, it is easy to say that if the supposed defender of Christian Faith can slip into error like this and promote (if not blatantly teach) heresy, then the office he holds cannot be free from error. But there is much more than meets the eye in this example. To start, we will look at the issue of Papal Supremacy, as reflected in the case of Honorius and what is debatably the effect of his error, the Third Council of Constantinople, and the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
The idea of Papal Supremacy is simple: the Bishop of Rome, by virtue of his office being the Office of Peter (whom Christ chose to be the rock His Church was founded on, and whom Christ called to "feed My sheep"), is the supreme teacher of faith and morals for the Church. This means that when issues of faith and morals arise, the pope has the last say (being the chief teacher). This, of course does not leave out Scripture or Tradition, because it should be obvious to many that neither is crystal clear, and there will be matters that need clarification. When these situations arise, the Church turns to the chief teacher, the Successor of Peter, and whatever he says goes. That, in a nutshell, is what Papal Supremacy means.
In the case of Honorius and the Third Council of Constantinople, we see numerous events that scream "Papal Supremacy". First, we have the issue of Honorius' letter. In the east, Monophysitism was strong, and the Patriarch of Alexandria, Cyril, attempted to bring the Monophysites into the Church by using the phrase "one operation" (which the emperor Heraclius had used in defense of the Catholic Faith). This won over scores of Monophysites, and Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople was pleased, especially since the phrase was used in a forged letter from pope Vigilius to Mennas, Sergius predecessor (Sergius believed the letter to be authentic). However, a monk named Sophronius, with no justification from the Fathers or Tradition, warned against the phrase. Disquieted, Sergius referred the matter to Honorius, the Bishop of Rome. Why? Because there was no where else to turn. The Bishop of Rome had, at the Council of Chalcedon, defined that there were two Natures and Two Wills in the single Person of Christ: Divine and Human. The Bishop of Rome had defended the use of images in sacred worship (which was part of the Tradition of the Apostles). In short, when it mattered, the Successor of Peter needed to decide the matter. The mere fact that Sergius went to Rome (not Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Ephesus, or any other See or Metropolitan) reflects the attitude of Papal Supremacy. But that is not all.
Honorius' letter reaches Sergius, and this is where it gets interesting. While Honorius never defined anything, just advised against certain word usages, his opinion was treated as authoritative, so much so that both Sergius and the emperor, Heraclius, promulgate a credo known to history as the Ecthesis. This Ecthesis uses not only the suggestion of Honorius, but the phrase "one operation". After this was sent throughout the East (as a matter of state, because Emperors can do that), Heraclius sent the Ecthesis to Rome for Honorius' approval. Here again, we have a deference to Rome to ensure that the Catholic Faith is completely and accurately taught, which is what Papal Supremacy refers to. But the situation doesn't end there. When the Ecthesis reached Rome, it was condemned by Honorius' successor, Severinus (who reigned only two months) and his successor, John IV. Heraclius not only blamed Sergius for the Ecthesis (which is partially accurate, Sergius wrote it, Heraclius promulgated it), but he recanted from it. In short, when Rome spoke, he listened. But wait, there is more!
When Sergius died, Pyrrhus was elevated to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but he was condemned at Rome for failure to remove the Ecthesis. He was removed by Heraclius, and his successor, Paul sent a confession of faith to Rome. Rome condemned the confession of faith, because it didn't use the phrase "two Wills". So, if the Bishop of Rome isn't really the chief teacher of the Church, nor is he the chief bishop, why was he sent a confession of faith by the newly elevated Patriarch of Constantinople? If the Bishop of Rome has no authority, then why did he see fit to condemn said confession for a lack of orthodox phraseology? It doesn't end there.
At the request of Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside over what became the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. His legates were given a letter, written by Agatho, which solemnly defined the Catholic Faith, and all the East needed to do to reunify with the Catholic Church (since because of Paul and Pyrrhus, almost the entire East was in schism) was to accept the dogmatic proclamation by the Successor of Peter. Almost to a man, the Council agreed.
In regards to Papal Supremacy, what more needs to be said about the case of Honorius? It seems clear that from the beginning, the bishops of the East sought the approval of Rome in defeating Monophysitism (and later Monothelitism). If anything, the case of Pope Honorius I only secures Papal Supremacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment