BTW St. Leo II added his own condemnation of Honorius to that of the 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils, branding Honorius a heretic and traitor to the Roman See and the Apostolic Faith.
i just want to make sure that you have completely disregarded the most reliable source, the very co-author's- of the letter- testimony of what was meant in order to continue slating a pope condemned by a council who was not even alive to defend himself? bearing in mind that anathemas against persons by ecumenical councils are not infallible. you simply disregard this evidence from the abbot John as if it doesnt exist and its significance?
The claim that Honorius is a heretic is based on his seemingly positive words to Sergius regarding the expression "one will":
"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"
Though used by the monothelites, the expression "one will" also admits of an orthodox interpretation. In Ins letter to the Romans, Paul writes of two wills at work within man—the "inner being" which delights in the law of God on the one hand, and the "different law" at work in the body which makes one a prisoner to the law of sin on the other (Romans 6:21-23). Such a conflict of wills within Jesus Christ's human nature is impossible, as Honorius explains, since God assumed that human nature that existed before the fall—"the nature which was created before sin"—and not the human nature that was corrupted by sin. Honorius uses "one will" in relation to Christ's human nature and not, as did the monothelites, to his person. If Honorius had denied a human will in Christ, there would have been no need to make such a distinction between the wills of pre- and post-fallen human nature.
The truth is, although monothelites such as Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constantinople, did cite Honorius after his death, the Pope had orthodox defenders who insisted upon his orthodoxy and rejected the attempts of heretics to misuse his words. Maximus the Confessor, who was martyred by the monothelites, wrote that heretics
"lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming Honorius to be one with their cause" (Ad Petrum illustrem, quoted in the online Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent).
Pope John IV defended Honorius, saying he meant only to deny,
"contrary wills of mind and flesh" (Apologia pro Honorio Papa, quoted by Joseph Costanzo, S.J., in The Historical Credibility of Hans Kung, 105).
These defenders were virulent opponents of monothelitism who would not dare countenance an expression they condemned unless they were convinced Honorius had in fact used it in an orthodox sense. No one ever accused them of heresy for having defended Honorius's use of "one will."
In his letter to the Emperor that was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agatho 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" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 328—339).
Honorius did indeed resist the heresy insofar as he urged "silence" with regard to the expression "one operation," which he rightly considered Eutychian.
Pope Leo II condemned and ratified the councils decision on Honorius because he "did not endeavor to preserve" the faith and for having "permitted" it to be assaulted, but not for having either invented, taught, or adhered to the heretical doctrine (Paul Bottalla, S.J., Pope Honorius Before the Tribunal of Reason and History, 111-112). Elsewhere, Leo II says :
"Honorius, who did not, as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence" (Leonis II ad Episcopos Hispanie in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:455; emphasis added).
In summarry, Honorius failed to teach and was thus condemned