The Pope that was a heretic

The question of Pope Honorius I comes up a lot in questions concerning the matter of papal infallibility by both Traditionalists who maintain good standing with the Church and enemies of the Church using his example to slander the Church. It is important to remember in these trying times that papal infallibility is never meant to be used to bind the Church to error. No Pope can bind the Church to error. If a Pope does this, he marks himself as a heretic and may be excommunicated by his successor. Legally, only a Pope can actually excommunicate another Pope. Thus, a Pope has no right to alter religious teachings or rites to such a decree that he makes a mockery of the public worship of the Church. That would make him a heretic since our liturgies our already defined by the Church as divinely instituted traditions. So when it comes to what to make of Pope Francis's pontificate, it is important to ask the question to what extent can he lead the Church astray from the teachings of Christ? He cannot. Papal infallibility does not permit that.

Pope Honorius I is the most well-known example of a heretic who was the Pope. The story starts off in a series of private letters that he wrote concerning the teachings of monotheletism. The series of letters was written between Pope Honorius I and Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, starting in 634 A.D. Sergius was "explaining that while campaigning in Aremnia back in 622, the emperor had refuted a Monophysite cleric he was debating by saying that although there were indeed two natures in Christ, there was one 'operation' or will between them." (Coulombe, Vicars of Christ, 114) As Coulombe points out, if there is only one will between Christ's human and divine natures, then Christ would cease to be perfect man and the economy of salvation would certainly fall apart!

Sergius had seen four years earlier, after Cyrus became Patriarch of Alexandria and had observed almost all of Egypt to be Monophysite, "using the Emperor's formula allowed him to reconcile many Egyptians Monophysites back to the Catholic faith" (114). Of course, this is problematic. And it unironically fits in with what a lot of liberal theologians try to do with the faith today. They believe that if they "water it down" and make it more "rational", then people will come to the faith more easily. The problem is that there isn't much left of the faith after you water it down like that. Teaching errors so that people can be "reconciled" to the Catholic faith is an odious way to bring union to the Church indeed! It creates chaos in the Church. As a former High Anglican in a Continuing Anglican movement who has just recently converted to Catholicism, trust me, I am well aware of chaos theory and the effects that liberalizing a Church does to a faith. It also does a severe disservice to those who actually want to believe the Catholic teachings but then see that others are being exempted from it.

So the story continues. "Sergius was willing to instruct Cyrus to stop using 'one operation' so long as Sophronius would not jeopardize such unity as had already been accomplished" (114). Sophronius was a brave monk who stepped up to rebuke the nonsense going on pointing out that Christ is both human and divine and so he must have two wills. Sergius wanted a definitive statement from the Pope and so he sent a letter. Well Honorius's reply didn't directly answer the question. But Honorius I did in fact say in his reply "that there was only one will in Christ" (114). Honorius I's statement was an obvious heresy. This eventually led to him being branded as a heretic and formally excommunicated by Constantinople III (680-681) (115). "In 638, Sergius issued an exposition of [Honorius's] teaching, the Ecthesis" which taught the error known as Monothelitism (115).

Severinus took the reigns of the Papacy after Honorius I's death and after his election sent legates to Constantinople for confirmation. The Emperor Heraclius "demanded that Severinus approve the Ecthesis but Severinus refused (116). The Emperor withheld his confirmation as a result. So the saga of the Ecthesis continued. John IV became the Pope soon after Severinus's brief reign and wrote to the Emperor's son in defense of Honorius I but insisted that Honorius was trying to say Christ did not have contradictory wills (117). Theodore I also had to deal with the conflict with the Emperor who issued a document called the Type which forbade people from speaking of two wills (121). It was "based on a misinterpretation of John IV's Defense" but "Theodore died before he could react to the Emperor's order" (121). St. Martin I "held a council at the Lateran, at which Cyrus of Alexandria and Sergius, Pyrrus..., and Paul of Constantinople were all condemned as heretical--as were the Ectheis and the Type" (122). The Emperor Constans ordered Martin's arrest and forced him into exile. The Emperor Constans ordered the second of Martin's successor, St. Eugene I, but Eugene was spared by the Muslim seizure of Rhodes (123). While the three immediate successors of St. Eugene I had easier pontificates with the East, the culmination of victory against Monothelitism came under the reign of St. Agatho whose letter sent to the Third Council of Constantinople condemned the Monothelites. "[Honorius I] was posthumously condemned as a heretic by that council on March 28[, 681]" (125).

Pope Honorius I's heresies are well-known in Church history but often times ignored. If not for Pope Honorius I, I would most definitively be a sedevacantist under the current situations with Pope Francis. But I know better than that which is why I reject sedevacantism. Papal infallibility does not mean the Pope is free from error or sin. It means he cannot defined a doctrine that the Church has not already declared. The Pope is ultimately a son of the Church and must understand that he is servus servorum dei (the servant of the servants of God). That Honorius I indeed was excommunicated and understood to be a heretic is further served by the fact that his successors from 681 up until the 11th century, had had to repudiate him as such at their papal consecrations (Meyendorff and Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy: The Church AD 1071-1453, 162). It's not mere anti-Catholic rhetoric to acknowledge this fact. I think remembering that there has been a Pope that was excommunicated would benefit the Catholic Church greatly as the liberals desperately attempt their coup de grȃce of God. Remembering this key moment in history would severely blunt their arguments as they seek power and control.