Editing Pope Honorius I (section)

== Legacy ==

In the [[Third Council of Constantinople]] on 16 September 681,<ref name="Ostrogorsky127" >[[George Ostrogorsky]], ''History of the Byzantine State'' (Rutgers University Press, 1995), 127.</ref> the monothelites were [[anathema]]tized by name "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things" in the XIII session. Citing his written correspondence with Sergius, Honorius was subsequently accused of having confirmed his impious doctrines; the XVI session reaffirmed the condemnation of the heretics explicitly stating "to Honorius, the heretic, anathema!",<ref name="Percival1900">{{cite book|last=Percival|first=Henry Robert|title=The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church|url=https://archive.org/details/sevenecumenicalc00perc/page/342/mode/2up|access-date=9 September 2021|series=A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (second series)|volume=XIV|year=1900|publisher=James Parker & Co|page=343}}</ref><ref name="Mansi, XI, col. 622">{{cite book |title=Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio |last=Mansi |volume=XI |page=622 |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101078252119&view=1up&seq=325 |access-date=9 September 2021}}, quote: "[...] Sergio hæretico anathema, Cyro hæretico anathema, ''Honorio hæretico anathema'', Pyrro hæretico anathema [...]"</ref> and concluding with the decree of the XVII session that 
Honorius had not stopped provoking scandal and error in the Body of the Church; for he had "with unheard of expressions disseminated amidst the faithful people the heresy of the one will", doing so "in agreement with the insane false doctrine of the impious Apollinaire, Severus and Themistius".<ref name="Mansi, XI, col. 733">Mansi, XI, col. 733</ref> The Roman legates made no objection to his condemnation.<ref name="ce">{{CathEncy|wstitle=Pope Honorius I|last=Chapman|first= John|volume=7}}</ref>

[[Pope Leo II]]'s letter of confirmation of the Council commended it for it had "perfectly preached the definition of the true faith"<ref>{{cite book |last1=Chapman |first1=John |title=Condemnation of Pope Honorius |pages=112–115 para. 24}}</ref> and made reference to the condemnation of his predecessor:<ref>{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/analectaromanadi00gris/page/406/mode/2up |access-date=9 September 2021 |last=Grisar |first=Hartmann |publisher=Desclée Lefebvre |title=Analecta romana |date=1899 |location=Rome |pages=406–407}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, [[Theodore of Raithu|Theodore, Bishop of Pharan]], [[Sergius I of Constantinople|Sergius]], [[Pyrrhus of Constantinople|Pyrrhus]], [[Paul II of Constantinople|Paul]], and [[Peter of Constantinople|Peter]], betrayers rather than [[Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople|leaders]] of the [[Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople|Church of Constantinople]], and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.<ref name="Mansi, XI, col. 733">Mansi, XI, col. 733</ref>}}

Within the year a Latin translation of the Acts of the council had been disseminated and signed by the Bishops throughout the West. The condemnation of Pope Honorius was reiterated by Pope Leo's successors and<ref>{{cite book |title=Religion past & present : encyclopedia of theology and religion |date=2007–2013 |publisher=Brill |location=Leiden |isbn=9789004146662 |edition=[4th, English]}}</ref> subsequent councils,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hefele |first1=C.J |title=Histoire des Conciles, vol III. |date=1909 |location=Paris |pages=520–521}}</ref> and was included in Breviary lessons up until the eighteenth century. As a result, Honorius would later be the subject of vigorous attacks by opponents of [[papal infallibility]] in the discussions surrounding the [[First Vatican Council]] of 1870.<ref name="ce"/> In contemporary times, that Honorius actually agreed with Sergius on the doctrine of monothelitism has given rise to much discussion, and [[John B. Bury]] argues that the most reasonable conclusion is that Honorius did not really apprehend the point at issue, considering it more a question of grammar than theology, for he placed "one energy" and "two energies" on exactly the same footing; in Bury's words, "it was for the 'imprudent economy of silence' that he was condemned".<ref name="Bury, pg 252">Bury, p. 252</ref>