Please be aware that, from now on, I will be far more diligent about keeping comments on topic, that is, directly related to the post, and in keeping with the spirit of the blog: “to facilitate friendly, irenic and constructive online discussion” about Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism.

If you read deeper into the facts of the case, you will see why your reading of the canon is incorrect. Honorius was not on record as having taught monothelitism, which is why his anathema had to be distinguished from those who had held and taught monotheletism.

Honorius was condemned based on a letter he sent Sergiusl. In the letter, he agreed to Sergius’ suggestion that for the sake of unity the Church drop both the (heretical) “one operation” and the (orthodox) “two operations” formulae. In agreeing to ban the orthodox formula, he weakened the case for the faith. But at no time can it be demonstrated that he ever argued for “one operation”.

Hence the council condemned him, not for teaching heresy, but for obstructing the fight against it, which is a serious enough charge.

Rome doesn’t claim it can’t make mistakes, and the case of Honorius clearly demonstrates that the bishop of Rome *can* err. He just doesn’t err in actually teaching heresy. While Honorius was an embarrassment, his case doesn’t engage Catholic truth claims with respect to Rome’s teaching authority.

I suspect that I am wasting my breath here as every amateur Orthodox polemicist ‘knows” in his heart that Rome claims to be infallible, that Honorius was condemned for being a monothelite, etc. no matter what evidence catholics offer. Unfortunately these two misconceptions seem to figure as unshakable articles of faith for Athonite Orthodoxy independently of any facts.

Anathema, btw, is a general ecclesiastical condemnation. Think about it. How do you deny the eucharist to someone who is already dead?

This is depressing beyond belief. Thank God for irenical Orthodox like evagrius and our esteemed host. If it weren’t for them, I would lose hope.

There has been no real dialogue, just individuals writing missives, ( mine included), that go past one another.

Mr. Dimitriadis, I resent the statement you made regarding faith in Christ. I suppose you wish to argue that only the Orthodox have faith in Christ since all others who have faith in Christ are demonically deluded. That is quite an uncharitable, unChristlike attitude.

Sigh. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

I’m sorry, but this is getting depressing.

So…on Mount Athos monks have attacked each other with crowbars, picks, and shovels (IIRC). Does that discredit Mount Athos? Does it discredit all her saints?

Panagiotis, I will say it again with feeling: You are not worthy to unlatch Saint Francis’s sandals. And if you think you have made a compelling case against his sanctity, you are kidding yourself. Seriously.

Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us!!

Diane

You wrote:

[ And in addition to these [i.e. in addition to, and so separate from, those "holdings views contrary to our orthodox faith"] we decide that Honorius also ]

“In addition to” DOES NOT MEAN “and separate from”. Quite the opposite: including the following in the preceding.

But, furthermore, it is clear that he is being condemned for holding “wicked dogmas” and following the heretic in his views. That was the understanding of the council and that is why they are condemning him.

Also, anathematizing is the same as excommunicating, so I am not sure why you make that point. Both mean that he is being separated from the Church, not longer has communion with the Church, is not of the church.

And, the point here is that he taught heresy, isn’t it. See, the chair didn’t save him. (I know, you hate that, but you also don’t get it: the chair of Peter is no guarantee, only a holy life.)

( Have you ever visited Assisi? It oozes “holy.” )

No, but on the strength of the video I saw a few years ago of the Pope and the representatives of the “world’s religions” gathered in Assisi and the prayers they offered up together and the little flames the lit together and all the rest of that syncretistic abomination, I think I’ll decline. That gathering was oozing something, alright, but it wasn’t holiness, that is for sure. They said, though, that it was the “spirit of assisi”. If they were right, that is just another nail in the coffin of Francis’ holiness for me.

Evagrius,

If the Christ in the Church is the same Christ outside of the Church – that is our experience of Him in the Mysteries – then, yes, of course, we have a common faith in Christ. But, then, if that were the case, we’d be united, wouldn’t we?

[having read your little missives I see no change from the first one you wrote.]

Is that a pre-requisite here – automatic change? So, if you aren’t changing what you say, making it more palatable to the non-understanding, your not accepted in ecumenist circles? Wow. Everyone is expected to change, so no one is expected to have it right? We are not talking about my personal spiritual struggle – of which daily repentance and change is a necessity – but the UNCHANGING Truth of the Church. What is it, exactly, that I should have changed since arriving here?

And, are you implying that visions are visions are visions? That is, because St. Symeon had “visions etc.”, that means whoever has visions must also be like St. Symeon? That kind of seemed like what you were implying.

And finally, really: “I have clarified what I perceive as Orthodoxy but not actually Orthodoxy itself?” Are you a psychologist? You must know another Orthodoxy I haven’t met yet. Wouldn’t it be better to say, “your presentation of Orthodoxy isn’t what I understand it to be/isn’t my experience of Orthodoxy” and then to tell me what that is? Otherwise, it just sounds like psychobabble.

evagrius: Hear hear! And thank you!

Panagiotis: I hope you will excuse me if I do not accept Seraphim Rose as an authority on the sanctity of Saint Francis of Assisi. Blessed Seraphim was a good and holy man, but he was also an anti-Catholic crank.

Have you ever visited Assisi? It oozes “holy.”

You truly know not whereof you speak.

“I may have already said this before on this blog, but I don’t like historical revisionism: Honorius was condemned, end of story.”

It’s not the end of the story unless you are uninterested in what he was condemned for. You seem to assume, on no evidence whatsover, that he was condemned for monothelitism.

Here is what the anathema actually said:

“Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema. And in addition to these [i.e. in addition to, and so separate from, those "holdings views contrary to our orthodox faith"] 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”.

In other words, Honorius was “condemned” (he couldn’t be excommunicated as he had been dead some 40 years) for not condemning Sergius’ letter, and not for actually being a monothelite. I am quoting the actual canons here, so can hardly be accused or “revisionism”.