Honorius and de Mattei

[christusimperat]

A pretty comprehensive undermining of the standard narrative going on here. Set to be a long series.

We judge this to be an unsound project. First, it assumes what it sets out to prove, namely that our current crisis has precedents in history, and that cases like Honorius are relevant or analogous to our day. It assumes this by ignoring key theological principles, and by drawing false parallels, as we shall see.

Secondly, the "bad popes" in de Mattei's book have been dealt with at length by authoritative pre-conciliar theologians and historians before the council. His narratives read like the non-Catholic objections presented, clarified, and answered in their works. Like those objections, his narratives neglect important distinctions, and present doubtful things as certain. He shows limited awareness of their similarities to such objections – or of the ways in which theologians have resolved these supposed problems.

https://wmreview.co.uk/2021/07/01/pope-honorius-and-roberto-de-mattei-i-the-history/

[Nazianzen]

Excellent work.

[Prayerful]

De Mattei calling Honorius a heretic is surely going a farther than the sources allow. Standing condemned for failing to defend truth, for even forbidding its defence, is not the same as bald heresy. Frankly I own some of these recent official defences of approved tradition, but only have referred to them for little points.

Thanks for the article. I'll certainly read it.

[Elizabeth.2]

Looks like Dr. de Mattei is going to eat humble pie soon.

[christusimperat]

De Mattei calling Honorius a heretic is surely going a farther than the sources allow. Standing condemned for failing to defend truth, for even forbidding its defence, is not the same as bald heresy. Frankly I own some of these recent official defences of approved tradition, but only have referred to them for little points.

Thanks for the article. I'll certainly read it.

In fact, he is going further than the sources he himself quotes. Actually, he contradicts them.

[Michael Wilson]

From the article:

However, even Bellarmine does not rely on his own authority: he himself follows "John IV, [St] Martin I, [St] Agatho and [St] Nicholas I ["the Great"], the Supreme Pontiffs; [and] the Roman Council gathered under Pope [St] Martin," who held that these letters were free from error, and, as Bellarmine says, understood them better than those condemning them.[28]

[TradGranny]

Roberto Mattei's problems go far deeper. Mattei worships Plinio de Oliveira and his TFP cult, which Bishop Mayer (who had previously supported the group) called "an anti-Catholic, anti-clerical heretical sect." The Bishop came to understand that TFP and its offshoots are "controlled opposition."

[christusimperat]

Part II has been published:

https://wmreview.co.uk/2021/07/29/honorius-de-mattei-ii-undoubtedly-magisterial-acts/

[King Wenceslas]

"There is no doubt but that Pope Honorius I (625-638) was personally orthodox. However, through his prohibition against speaking of two modes of operation ["two wills" in Christ] he unwittingly favoured the Monothelite error ["one will in Christ"]. The Sixth General Council wrongly condemned him as a heretic. Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed his anathematisation but not for the reason given by the Council. He did not reproach him with heresy, but with negligence in the suppression of the error.[1]"

Sedevancantist: Honorius - good Pope didn't declare any heresy

Non-sedevancantist: Honorius - bad Pope - allowing heresy to spread throughout the Church and is as bad as being a heretic

You see the sedevancantist has to keep the narrative up: There has never, never, never been any heretical Popes ever before 1958. Then they can go off and create their own Church for ever and ever and ever without having a Pope. See how that works?

[Michael Wilson]

On Pope Honorius; the author of the article gives a citation from "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Dr. Ludwig Ott on the Honorius case:

    There is no doubt but that Pope Honorius I (625-638) was personally orthodox. However, through his prohibition against speaking of two modes of operation ["two wills" in Christ] he unwittingly favoured the Monothelite error ["one will in Christ"]. The Sixth General Council wrongly condemned him as a heretic. Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed his anathematisation but not for the reason given by the Council. He did not reproach him with heresy, but with negligence in the suppression of the error.[5]

As far as I know Dr. Ott was never a sede-vacantist; his handbook of dogmatic theology was used widely in the Church up to Vatican II.
The author of the article goes on to point out some of the most controversial aspects of Dr. De Mattei's work:

Assertions addressed in Part I:
    That Honorius wrote letters to the Patriarch Sergius which contained error[6] – as if this is not denied, or doubted by very many Catholic authorities;
    That Honorius's letters were "anathematized with the note of heresy"[7] – as if this was not also widely denied or doubted; and finally
    That Honorius was himself anathematized as a heretic[8] – as if this is not also widely denied or doubted.

Assertions to be addressed in Part II:

    That these letters "are undoubtedly magisterial acts"[9] – asserted without a reference, and also widely denied by authorities,
        And thus implying a dubiously wide concept of the papal magisterium.

These points allow de Mattei to claim the following;

    That in "the non-infallible ordinary Magisterium there may be errors and even, in exceptional cases, heretical formulations" which are later condemned[10] – asserted without a reference, and when applied to the papal ordinary magisterium, misleading and denied by Catholic authorities;
    That Pope Honorius was truly a heretic[11] – as if this was not denied by almost all Catholic authorities;
        Thus also implying that a manifest heretic can be pope, also denied by very diverse sources.

After pointing out the erroneous aspects of Dr. De Mattei's work, he (the author) goes on to state:

These points allow de Mattei to claim the following;

    That in "the non-infallible ordinary Magisterium there may be errors and even, in exceptional cases, heretical formulations" which are later condemned[10] – asserted without a reference, and when applied to the papal ordinary magisterium, misleading and denied by Catholic authorities;
    That Pope Honorius was truly a heretic[11] – as if this was not denied by almost all Catholic authorities;
        Thus also implying that a manifest heretic can be pope, also denied by very diverse sources.

Affirming that Honorius taught error and was condemned as a heretic implicitly requires us to reject many Catholic authorities and doctrines about the Church and the papacy. This we cannot accept. Vatican I and St Pius X taught that, no matter how far disciplines such as history might progress, we must always hold to the "same dogmas", in the "same sense" and according to the "same acceptation" in which they were received.[12] We wish to be traditionalists not just regarding liturgical rites, but in an integral sense. This includes holding fast to the theology which the Church has received.

Finally, the very sources that De Mattei uses contradict many of his affirmations as the article goes on to explain.

[christusimperat]

"There is no doubt but that Pope Honorius I (625-638) was personally orthodox. However, through his prohibition against speaking of two modes of operation ["two wills" in Christ] he unwittingly favoured the Monothelite error ["one will in Christ"]. The Sixth General Council wrongly condemned him as a heretic. Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed his anathematisation but not for the reason given by the Council. He did not reproach him with heresy, but with negligence in the suppression of the error.[1]"

Sedevancantist: Honorius - good Pope didn't declare any heresy

Non-sedevancantist: Honorius - bad Pope - allowing heresy to spread throughout the Church and is as bad as being a heretic

You see the sedevancantist has to keep the narrative up: There has never, never, never been any heretical Popes ever before 1958. Then they can go off and create their own Church for ever and ever and ever without having a Pope. See how that works?

Are you saying that Ludwig Ott is on the side of sedevacantists?

Given that he is a totally standard pre-conciliar writer, representative of all the other sources quoted, doesn't that give you pause?

[Nazianzen]

"There is no doubt but that Pope Honorius I (625-638) was personally orthodox. However, through his prohibition against speaking of two modes of operation ["two wills" in Christ] he unwittingly favoured the Monothelite error ["one will in Christ"]. The Sixth General Council wrongly condemned him as a heretic. Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed his anathematisation but not for the reason given by the Council. He did not reproach him with heresy, but with negligence in the suppression of the error.[1]"

Sedevancantist: Honorius - good Pope didn't declare any heresy

Non-sedevancantist: Honorius - bad Pope - allowing heresy to spread throughout the Church and is as bad as being a heretic

You see the sedevancantist has to keep the narrative up: There has never, never, never been any heretical Popes ever before 1958. Then they can go off and create their own Church for ever and ever and ever without having a Pope. See how that works?

Someone obviously has to keep the narrative up, but it's equally obvious that it isn't the sedes.

Your lack of awareness of your own response is really something to observe.

[Prayerful]

Ott says (page  150 of the TAN version) the sixth General Council was wrong to condemn Honorius as heretic and that the Pope was right to fault him to neglecting to defend truth. Pope Leo II confirmed the anathema, but held it not to be a condemnation for heresy, but for neglect.