because whenevr i see the quote, the reference says its from his Opuscula Theologica et Polemica. Look the quote says what it says. If it upsets you in any way, I'm sorry but until the quote can be disproven as authentic, it deserved the credibility applied to it. ...
The original Greek text of the letter is gone. It doesn't exist anymore - or, what's more likely - never existed to begin with.
Alot of things from antiquity exist within a language not of the original. If this were the standard for authenticity, we would dismiss 90% of what we know of the ancient world. Even the bible itself as we don't have originals. Like the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. By your logic its more likely it never existed to begin with.
If a text from the Greek Fathers confirming papal supremacy exists only in a Latin "translation" (or forgery) I get a little suspicious. And no, as a classicist I can say that your post about languages from antiquity makes no sense whatsoever.
Alas just like the Tome of Leo, the letter to sergius can be read in an orthodox light. [...] I guess its how you read the documents
The letter abused St. Sophronius for fighting monothelitism. I don't know how one could possibly read something like that in an orthodox light.
Hence subsequent popes said Honorius was guilty of letting heresy spread, NOT of embracing heresy.
Then they're wrong, because the letter is unmistakably heretical. Even the Roman Catholic Bellarmine said as much.
The fathers knew better. Those popes probably knew people who knew honorius and in Rome honroius was said to be orthodox. even Pope Agatho said all popes of Rome have been orthodox, this included honorius
I haven't got time but here is a link. Read through it
Indeed, the fathers did know better than these amateurs, and this is why an Ecumenical Council, composed of around 150 fathers condemned Pope Honorius as an heretic, a condemnation which Pope Leo II confirmed, writing that Honorius attempted to overthrow the right faith, and also writing to the Spanish bishops that Pope Honorius is destined to be damned eternally. This condemnation was also repeated at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, as well as in Pope Hadrian II's letter to the Council of Constantinople of 869, and at the very same Council of Constantinople. Honorius' name was also included in a list of monothelite heretics as part of one of the lessons of the second nocturn for the feast day of Pope Leo II. Frankly, Latin apologists do great harm to their faith when they waver on the condemnation of Honorius, for they show firstly that they are so heretical and formless in their faith that they cannot even recognize what parts of Honorius' teachings were monothelite in nature (namely, his docetic exegesis of the Agony in the Garden), secondly that they are willing to engage in what basically amounts to cafateria Christianity and revise what once was the consensus patrem (so much so that the condemnation of Honorius as a monothelite even made its way into a liturgical service of the Roman rite), and finally they show through the use of mutually exclusive arguments (that is, some claim that the council condemned Honorius as a private heretic, others that the Council condemned him in error, others still that his condemnation was not for heresy but for negligence, and yet others who claim that his inclusion in the list of monothelites condemned at the council is the result of forgery) that they are literally grasping at straws to defend Papal Infallibility from the case of Honorius, the monothelite heretic. You may pick and choose what you wish to believe, but I myself prefer to hold fast to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and of numerous popes and saints all of which showed clearly that Honorius was a monothelite.
This argument is flawed
The controversial passage that Honorius wrote is this
We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, since our nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the Fall.
Honorius clearly does not say Christ possesses merely one will, which happens to be divine. Rather, Honorius states that Christ has only one human will as opposed to two human wills. Furthermore, notice how Honorius agrees with Sergius and "acknowledges one will of our Lord…" yet he goes on to discuss this one will in terms of Jesus' humanity only. Why would Honorius speak against the existence of two human wills? The answer lies with Sergius' inquiry. He had deceptively suggested the orthodox view (i.e. one human will) in order to establish a false context where Honorius would confirm the heretical position of "one will" in total. He could then use the Pope's concurrence to further the Monothelite heresy.
If there were two human wills in Christ there would be a conflict within Him, but we know that not to be the case since Trinitarian Christology demands that the Son assumed a human nature which was pure and undefiled by sin, as it was, for instance, before the Fall. Furthermore, we know that the will is a function of the nature of the person. Hence, as we have only one human nature, we only have one human will. Our Lord, on the other hand, having a divine nature and a human nature has two wills corresponding to each.
His second successor, Pope John IV (642), confirmed Honorius' intention, stating that Honorius' purpose was to simply "deny contrary [human] wills of mind and flesh."
This was later confirmed by the Abbott John, who was a scribe and the secretary
to Honorius: "We said that there is one will in the Lord, not of his divinity or humanity, but of his humanity solely."
St. Maximus "the Hammer", Doctor of the Church and Martyr also insisted that Honorius maintained only one human will in Christ not one will in too. He wrote that heretics "lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming that Honorius to be one with their cause."
Besides, therefore, eventually granting Sergius his request for silence in the Church, Honorius remarks are very interesting indeed since they are, in point of fact, entirely opposed to the Monothelite heresy. Honorius wrote:
You must confess, with us, one Christ our Lord, operating in either nature, divine OR human actions [in uirisque naturis divina vel humana operantem
Morover, all of the subsequent Pontiffs (Pope Servinus (640), Pope John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653)) up to and including Pope Agattho tacitly defended Honorius' orthodox doctrinal position and condemned Monothelitism. In fact, "in his letter to the Emperor that was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agattho (678-681) asserted the infallibility of the apostolic see and stated that he and ALL of his predecessors, thus inclusive of Honorius
'have never ceased to exhort and warn them (i.e. the Monothelites) with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma.'"
Fourthly, the Acts of the Lateran Council of 649 were dispersed widely throughout the East and West, and followed the same basic protocol as the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople and anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, but pope Honorius' name is curiously missing from the anathemas. council even went on to assert that from the very beginnings of Monothelitism, no Roman Pontiff had departed from keeping the Catholic Faith.
Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed the Council's condemnation and stated:
[Honorius] did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.
[Honorius did not] as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence."
…he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.
here Again, we see our thesis maintained. The first citation indicates that the Pope "permitted" the pollution of profane teaching, but did not teach it himself, while the second selection indicts Honorius for fostering the heresy by "negligence" – again, hardly a challenge to the definition of papal infallibility or even Honorius' personal orthodoxy.
Because of his negligence, not formal teaching of heresy, the Sixth Ecumenical Council (and the third) at Constantinople (680-681) burned the letters of Honorius, called him a "heretic", and anathematized him. Their actions were approved by Pope Leo II and their decisions confirmed again at the next two Ecumenical Councils.