The Fourth Council of Constantinople - Another TOFP clanger

[Nazianzen]

OK, jumping around a bit - it's a lot less boring than reading the book consecutively, probably because the book was obviously not written consecutively...

Siscoe and Salza assert (p. 668), under the title of "The Art of Deception and Detraction," that we never refer to a certain canon of the Fourth Council of Constantinople. They particularly emphasize our dishonesty in not referring to this quote. They seem quite emotional about it.  They list several sedes, by name, as those thoroughly dishonest people who never mention this text.  I suppose this emotion is connected with the importance that this text has for Siscoe and Salza, who deploy it something like seven or eight times (based on a quick text search) through their book, and in fact it's the very first quote in the entire volume, placed as the first in a series on the page after their Dedication, even before the Contents (of lesser importance only to the wonderful pictures of the two authors, and their self-admiring biogs, on the previous page).  So this is a killer text for them, as they see it.  Here's what they say:

"Of course, in all the articles and blogs of these self-promoting internet writers (Cekada, Dolan, Sanborn, Lane, Daly, the Dimonds, Speray, Ibranyi, Drolesky, etc.), one will never find a reference to the teaching of the Fourth Council of Constantinople..." (Emphasis in the original.)

I found the experience of reading that accusation a little odd, because I know the sedes found that quote, and published the text that Siscoe and Salza accuse us of hiding.  Twice.  First in 2007, then again in 2014, on the Bellarmine Forums:

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=594&p=17858#p17858

Where do Siscoe and Salza think they found it?     After all, it's obvious they don't read actual books, they get virtually all their material from the Internet. 

Of course, the text itself refers to crimes other than heresy, which is, as all know who have done any reading at all, an exception to the general rules regarding criminal accusations and procedures, and as the Decretals and the Code of Canon Law make abundantly clear.  Indeed, perusing the Decretals, one is struck by the fact that this canon does not appear in any of the canons that deal with heresy, loss of office, or judgments about heresy.  I am not suggesting that Siscoe and Salza knew this when they decided by private judgment what the meaning of that text was - no, I am not so silly as to think that they have done the reading required to know what any such text might mean, and to be fair to them, they don't pretend to have done any reading, as their footnote harvesting makes clear.  People who harvest footnotes are telling the world that they don't read.

Now, ask yourself, would a person with any sense of justice or love of truth have made the accusation that Siscoe and Salza made?

And, would people who are dishonest and who quote selectively (as S&S say sedes are), have published this text in the first place?

The whole book is constructed with such methods, and with the same level of concern for truth.  It's an extraordinary production.

[Nazianzen]

Browsing around some more, I noticed this:  "For his actions (and lack thereof), in the face of the Monothelite heresy, Pope Honorius was formally condemned as a heretic by three ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church (Constantinople III in 680- 681, Nicea II in 787, and Constantinople IV in 869-870), as well as a local Church council (Trullo in 692)."

We'll get back to Honorius and the slanders of Siscoe and Salza against him, but for the moment it will be helpful in assessing the reliability of those two to notice just one point in this excerpt, which is that the Council "in Trullo" was an anti-Roman conciliabulum, not a council of Catholic bishops.  Mansi, whom S&S refer to in footnotes, even thought they've probably never seen the outside of the work, and certainly have never read (it's in Latin), described it as the "pseudo-sixth" council, and a "conciliabulum reprobatum."  Even those with a passing familiarity with Church history immediately recognize the name "Trullo" as a non-Catholic assembly. 

For further consultation:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm

[abc123]

Browsing around some more, I noticed this:  "For his actions (and lack thereof), in the face of the Monothelite heresy, Pope Honorius was formally condemned as a heretic by three ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church (Constantinople III in 680- 681, Nicea II in 787, and Constantinople IV in 869-870), as well as a local Church council (Trullo in 692)."

We'll get back to Honorius and the slanders of Siscoe and Salza against him...

3rd Council of Constantinople where at the 13th session it issued this decree: "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." The Sixteenth Session adds: "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"

Whether or not you believe Honorius adhered to heresy or not it is not slander to point out the objective and unavoidable fact that he was condemned by name as a heretic at an Ecumenical Council and that the Roman breviary for nearly a thousand years confirmed the same in the office of, I believe, Pope St. Leo the Great.

[Saint_Augustine]

Browsing around some more, I noticed this:  "For his actions (and lack thereof), in the face of the Monothelite heresy, Pope Honorius was formally condemned as a heretic by three ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church (Constantinople III in 680- 681, Nicea II in 787, and Constantinople IV in 869-870), as well as a local Church council (Trullo in 692)."

We'll get back to Honorius and the slanders of Siscoe and Salza against him...

3rd Council of Constantinople where at the 13th session it issued this decree: "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." The Sixteenth Session adds: "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"

Whether or not you believe Honorius adhered to heresy or not it is not slander to point out the objective and unavoidable fact that he was condemned by name as a heretic at an Ecumenical Council and that the Roman breviary for nearly a thousand years confirmed the same in the office of, I believe, Pope St. Leo the Great.

Quite so. But it was in his private correspondence in which he confirmed the Patriarch of Constantinople in his error. It was not a public act of the Churh of Rome or its bishop.

[Prayerful]

Browsing around some more, I noticed this:  "For his actions (and lack thereof), in the face of the Monothelite heresy, Pope Honorius was formally condemned as a heretic by three ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church (Constantinople III in 680- 681, Nicea II in 787, and Constantinople IV in 869-870), as well as a local Church council (Trullo in 692)."

We'll get back to Honorius and the slanders of Siscoe and Salza against him...

3rd Council of Constantinople where at the 13th session it issued this decree: "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." The Sixteenth Session adds: "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"

Whether or not you believe Honorius adhered to heresy or not it is not slander to point out the objective and unavoidable fact that he was condemned by name as a heretic at an Ecumenical Council and that the Roman breviary for nearly a thousand years confirmed the same in the office of, I believe, Pope St. Leo the Great.

It was a condemnation confirmed by Pope Leo II and the Synod of Toledo, which sat by his mandate. Pope Honorius had not proclaimed heresy (ex cathedral (a Pope could not), but he made himself ineffectual against the Monothelite heretics by weakly giving political assent to a political fudge. He was negligent, and his weakness against heresy harmed the Papacy, like Popes Vigilius and Pelagius did later with the Three Chapter schism. There is no positive interpretation of what Pope Honorius did. He was not under possible threat to his life like Vigilius, seeking desperately needed relief for the city of Rome.

Again, laymen can't judge Popes, nor renegade priests.

[Clarence Creedwater]

Browsing around some more, I noticed this:  "For his actions (and lack thereof), in the face of the Monothelite heresy, Pope Honorius was formally condemned as a heretic by three ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church (Constantinople III in 680- 681, Nicea II in 787, and Constantinople IV in 869-870), as well as a local Church council (Trullo in 692)."

We'll get back to Honorius and the slanders of Siscoe and Salza against him...

3rd Council of Constantinople where at the 13th session it issued this decree: "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." The Sixteenth Session adds: "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"

Whether or not you believe Honorius adhered to heresy or not it is not slander to point out the objective and unavoidable fact that he was condemned by name as a heretic at an Ecumenical Council and that the Roman breviary for nearly a thousand years confirmed the same in the office of, I believe, Pope St. Leo the Great.

It was a condemnation confirmed by Pope Leo II and the Synod of Toledo, which sat by his mandate. Pope Honorius had not proclaimed heresy (ex cathedral (a Pope could not), but he made himself ineffectual against the Monothelite heretics by weakly giving political assent to a political fudge. He was negligent, and his weakness against heresy harmed the Papacy, like Popes Vigilius and Pelagius did later with the Three Chapter schism. There is no positive interpretation of what Pope Honorius did. He was not under possible threat to his life like Vigilius, seeking desperately needed relief for the city of Rome.

Again, laymen can't judge Popes, nor renegade priests.

St. Francis de Sales said that Honorius was not a manifest heretic, which is the type that would make him automatically cease to be pope. Nevertheless, that Doctor of the Church says that Honorius was "perhaps" a heretic, because it cannot historically be determined. He mentioned Honorius along side John XXII.

It's true, nobody can judge a pope. But as for the ability to discern that a man has already ceased to be pope, is clearly affirmed by that same Doctor.

[ts aquinas]

IIRC, the oath taken by the popes, for 3 centuries following the council, upon coronation, included the elect restating that Honorius was a heretic.


So were multiple councils that included canons reinforcing the decree that Honorius was heretic, as well as 3 centuries of papal oaths, are in error, but St. Francis De Sales is not and they need him to correct him? Who is infallible here?

[Clarence Creedwater]

IIRC, the oath taken by the popes, for 3 centuries following the council, upon coronation, included the elect restating that Honorius was a heretic.


So were multiple councils that included canons reinforcing the decree that Honorius was heretic, as well as 3 centuries of papal oaths, are in error, but St. Francis De Sales is not and they need him to correct him? Who is infallible here?

You certainly are not. It's been confirmed by Pope Pius IX who raised him to be a Doctor. St. France de Sales didn't know of the documents you are thinking of? Surely he did, and understood them correctly. You must not be.

[ts aquinas]

IIRC, the oath taken by the popes, for 3 centuries following the council, upon coronation, included the elect restating that Honorius was a heretic.


So were multiple councils that included canons reinforcing the decree that Honorius was heretic, as well as 3 centuries of papal oaths, are in error, but St. Francis De Sales is not and they need him to correct him? Who is infallible here?

You certainly are not. It's been confirmed by Pope Pius IX who raised him to be a Doctor. St. France de Sales didn't know of the documents you are thinking of? Surely he did, and understood them correctly. You must not be.

Did the councils, with a valid pope sitting on the chair of Peter, anathematize Honorius as a heretic? Yes or no?

[Clarence Creedwater]

IIRC, the oath taken by the popes, for 3 centuries following the council, upon coronation, included the elect restating that Honorius was a heretic.


So were multiple councils that included canons reinforcing the decree that Honorius was heretic, as well as 3 centuries of papal oaths, are in error, but St. Francis De Sales is not and they need him to correct him? Who is infallible here?

You certainly are not. It's been confirmed by Pope Pius IX who raised him to be a Doctor. St. France de Sales didn't know of the documents you are thinking of? Surely he did, and understood them correctly. You must not be.

Did the councils, with a valid pope sitting on the chair of Peter, anathematize Honorius as a heretic? Yes or no?

Again, as if St. Francis de Sales, a Saint and Doctor, could have been so ignorant or stupid!  You are apparently treating some documents in the wrong way. I have no problem with Honorius being "perhaps" a heretic. But I do know that nobody judged him while he was alive, and that while he was alive he was not a manifest heretic, with no attempt to enter heresy into official organs of the Church. Because of these facts, I really don't care to study the documents, because they really are not pertinent to today's situation.

[Saint_Augustine]

IIRC, the oath taken by the popes, for 3 centuries following the council, upon coronation, included the elect restating that Honorius was a heretic.


So were multiple councils that included canons reinforcing the decree that Honorius was heretic, as well as 3 centuries of papal oaths, are in error, but St. Francis De Sales is not and they need him to correct him? Who is infallible here?

You certainly are not. It's been confirmed by Pope Pius IX who raised him to be a Doctor. St. France de Sales didn't know of the documents you are thinking of? Surely he did, and understood them correctly. You must not be.

Did the councils, with a valid pope sitting on the chair of Peter, anathematize Honorius as a heretic? Yes or no?

Yes, but the 6th ecumenical council says it was because he confirmed others in their heresy, he didn't teach it magisterially. He was a heretic via validation of heretics in private correspondence. In other words, a participant in the sin of their heresy.

[An aspiring Thomist]

IIRC, the oath taken by the popes, for 3 centuries following the council, upon coronation, included the elect restating that Honorius was a heretic.


So were multiple councils that included canons reinforcing the decree that Honorius was heretic, as well as 3 centuries of papal oaths, are in error, but St. Francis De Sales is not and they need him to correct him? Who is infallible here?

You certainly are not. It's been confirmed by Pope Pius IX who raised him to be a Doctor. St. France de Sales didn't know of the documents you are thinking of? Surely he did, and understood them correctly. You must not be.

Did the councils, with a valid pope sitting on the chair of Peter, anathematize Honorius as a heretic? Yes or no?

Yes, but the 6th ecumenical council says it was because he confirmed others in their heresy, he didn't teach it magisterially. He was a heretic via validation of heretics in private correspondence. In other words, a participant in the sin of their heresy.

If I remember correctly, he was anathematized for what he wrote in his letter. I think the Council condemended the letter itself. Could be wrong though. In any case, he is called a heritic by multiple Councils.

[Saint_Augustine]

IIRC, the oath taken by the popes, for 3 centuries following the council, upon coronation, included the elect restating that Honorius was a heretic.


So were multiple councils that included canons reinforcing the decree that Honorius was heretic, as well as 3 centuries of papal oaths, are in error, but St. Francis De Sales is not and they need him to correct him? Who is infallible here?

You certainly are not. It's been confirmed by Pope Pius IX who raised him to be a Doctor. St. France de Sales didn't know of the documents you are thinking of? Surely he did, and understood them correctly. You must not be.

Did the councils, with a valid pope sitting on the chair of Peter, anathematize Honorius as a heretic? Yes or no?

Yes, but the 6th ecumenical council says it was because he confirmed others in their heresy, he didn't teach it magisterially. He was a heretic via validation of heretics in private correspondence. In other words, a participant in the sin of their heresy.

If I remember correctly, he was anathematized for what he wrote in his letter. I think the Council condemended the letter itself. Could be wrong though. In any case, he is called a heritic by multiple Councils.

Yes. Quite interestingly though, St.Maximos the Confessor, his contemporary and friend of Pope St. Martin I believed him to be innocent. It is nevertheless true that he confirmed others in heresy.

[ts aquinas]

IIRC, the oath taken by the popes, for 3 centuries following the council, upon coronation, included the elect restating that Honorius was a heretic.


So were multiple councils that included canons reinforcing the decree that Honorius was heretic, as well as 3 centuries of papal oaths, are in error, but St. Francis De Sales is not and they need him to correct him? Who is infallible here?

You certainly are not. It's been confirmed by Pope Pius IX who raised him to be a Doctor. St. France de Sales didn't know of the documents you are thinking of? Surely he did, and understood them correctly. You must not be.

Did the councils, with a valid pope sitting on the chair of Peter, anathematize Honorius as a heretic? Yes or no?

Yes, but the 6th ecumenical council says it was because he confirmed others in their heresy, he didn't teach it magisterially. He was a heretic via validation of heretics in private correspondence. In other words, a participant in the sin of their heresy.

No, he was condemnend as a heretic in plain language in 3 councils and also by 300 hundred years of papal oaths.

Honorius said to Sergius: "Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin." Sounds like binding language by modern mechanics.

[Clarence Creedwater]

IIRC, the oath taken by the popes, for 3 centuries following the council, upon coronation, included the elect restating that Honorius was a heretic.


So were multiple councils that included canons reinforcing the decree that Honorius was heretic, as well as 3 centuries of papal oaths, are in error, but St. Francis De Sales is not and they need him to correct him? Who is infallible here?

You certainly are not. It's been confirmed by Pope Pius IX who raised him to be a Doctor. St. France de Sales didn't know of the documents you are thinking of? Surely he did, and understood them correctly. You must not be.

Did the councils, with a valid pope sitting on the chair of Peter, anathematize Honorius as a heretic? Yes or no?

Yes, but the 6th ecumenical council says it was because he confirmed others in their heresy, he didn't teach it magisterially. He was a heretic via validation of heretics in private correspondence. In other words, a participant in the sin of their heresy.

No, he was condemnend as a heretic in plain language in 3 councils and also by 300 hundred years of papal oaths.

Honorius said to Sergius: "Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin." Sounds like binding language by modern mechanics.

It's not the word "we", it's the document that must be considered. You know that. And the document was certainly not a binding document on universal faithful. Funny, but the lengths people go today to say that V2 docs don't mean anything and then suddenly a letter from Honorius to an eastern Patriarch is elevated to some universal dogmatic constitution?  C'mon give us a break here!