Talk:Pope Honorius I

Untitled
5/22/2017 - I have added a citation to Hefele's History of the Councils, Volume 5, which gives a page by page description of all the original letters and council documents. I think we can remove the "This article needs additional citations for verification" template message. Are there any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PluniaZ (talk • contribs) 05:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

5/29/2017 - Having not heard any objections, I will remove the "This article needs additional citations for verification" template message. PluniaZ (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

6/26/2017 - I would just like to note that I approve of the version of the article I am reading as of now. This is the first time I've logged in to Wikipedia in years, and it is good to see someone finally addressing this article. My gratitude, PluniaZ. It is one I had given up on. Thanks for fixing it. -Cullinarn  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullinarn (talk • contribs) 04:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The traditional Catholic defence of Honorius was that in asserting 'one will' in Christ he was not denying him a human will, but simply insisting on a perfect harmony of will in Christ. This defence is sound. But the same defence applies to all the monotheletes. Their condemnation at the Lateran Synod of 649 and the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680-1 was based on misrepresentation. See the article in Studia Patristica 48 (2010), 221-32. RMP. 29 July 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Meredith (talk • contribs) 07:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The phrase in the body of the Wikipedia (attributed to Pope Honorius) "manifestation of the will" cannot be correct. In a translation of his Letter to Sergius, I see "we acknowlege one will". Definitely not "we acknowledge one manifestation of the will"

The translation, cited at http://www.geocities.com/moorishorthodoxchurch/BISEXHONORIUS.html, is:

Begin quote--- 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. End quote-

I added a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which I think clarifies some of the seemingly contradictory statements in the article. I would suggest that someone, who is more proficient with computers than I, rewrite the article and synthesize or remove the material that reads like a running debate. -Cullinarn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullinarn (talk • contribs) 04:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Main Picture the same as Main Picture for Pope Symmachus
Why is the main picture for Pope Honorius I the same as that of Pope Symmachus? Who is this really a picture of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsepe (talk • contribs) 02:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They are not the same. They are similar, which is unsurprising, considering that they are both mosaics from the same church. But if you look at the faces, they are clearly not the same man, and to prove it, one is holding a building (Honorius is probably the patron of a church) and the other, Symmachus, is holding a book, probably the Gospels. Elizium23 (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Monotheletes?
A section of the article was added by User:Richard Meredith mentioning a certain group named the "monotheletes". No citation was provided and it looks like a typo of "monothelites". Maybe he could provide further information? --Mechamutoh (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent Edit
"removing redundancy, possible plagiarism"++ Hello Mechamutoh and all! I agree my form is a work in progress, and I leave too many edits without actually saying what I did in the edit notes(I actually didn't know it was required), so I completely understand any frustration. The most recent edit has removed a lot of the primary sources on the topic! Furthermore, whilst I didn't plagiarise from the website, you linked: I have never seen it before, why that website is coming up is because I quoted primary sources, which would likely be all over the web. The problem now is that this most recent edit is missing these primary sources! It took me hours to find them from the source material and they were still present in your revision immediately before this one, but why edit it again and remove the first-hand material itself? Finally, why add an opinion from John B Bury? I understand he may have interpreted it as such, but wouldn't the list be exhaustive if we added opinions from every author who spoke on the topic? It makes perfect sense to me to leave the part where it says "That Honorius actually agreed with Sergius on the doctrine of Monothelitism has given rise to much discussion" because that is true: there is a significant body of people that have differing views on the topic. What is frustrating me is simply the removal of the primary sources. Your edit immediately preceding this one was great! But now this current one is too skewed towards Catholic sources, all the other references and primary sources are missing! All I ask is that the primary sources get added back in. Maluhia! Let me know what you think! Take care brother

H.A Elysian (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)H.A Elysian

Hello, H.A Elysian. Let's go over each topic one by one. Sorry that it ends up being quite a wall of text but it might be worth it to be as thorough as possible.


 * Removal of primary sources. I removed the citations to (Giovanni Domenico) Mansi because all relevant quotations of acts of the third council of Constantinople were already present in Percival 1900, p. 342-343, which not only is a primary source, but also is more readily accessible and is in English. It's not like Mansi and Percival are mutually exclusive, I would just use them together in a way that makes it somewhat clear that they already cover each other instead of it seeming like part of the information is in one and another part is in another.


 * Plagiarism. The site in question is this article by Dr Roberto de Mattei. I stumbled across it while looking up the sources added in the article. The excerpt "it would be difficult to imagine that they could have been tricked or had misreported on such an important and delicate point as the condemnation of heresy of a Roman Pontiff" which you added here is verbatim from the article and had no citation, so I removed because it seemed like original research. In fact, the exact same primary sources were referenced both in Mattei's article and the Wikipedia section, and both were presented in a very similar structure. The latter similarities alone don't account for plagiarism, but the verbatim excerpt does.


 * A personal nitpick would be the citation to Desclée (1899). Analecta romana etc., a secondary source which Mattei also cites. It gave me some trouble to verify. In the Wikipedia article, "Desclée" is treated as the last name of the author, when in fact it's part of the name of the publisher (Desclée Lefebvre), and the actual author is Hartmann Grisar. After some searching, I found that the content referenced by the citation can be readily verified here. I don't know Italian, so I don't know what exactly that excerpt of the book actually contains and what purpose the citation is actually serving. Mattei uses it as a secondary source (which it is) because he uses it to mention a perspective of Grisar, but the Wikipedia article seems to be using it as a primary source for Pope Leo II's letter. If Grisar's perspective isn't actually relevant, I recommend removing this citation because Mansi, XI, col. 733 alone would suffice as a reference.


 * "Why add an opinion from John B Bury?" Bury's work was already being cited there before you modified the article. In fact, when I mentioned here that "the editor [...] altered information in a way that's not in the source cited" I was precisely making reference to his work, which says, exactly: "it was for the 'imprudent economy of silence' that he was condemned". You changed the "for" to a "through", which is not Bury's quote (and therefore would constitute original research). I corrected it but you undid my edit claiming that "it is in the source material", but I think you misunderstood what the "source material" actually was: I was referring to Bury's work, not the other works which you added only later. In subsequent edits your alterations became further removed from the content of Bury's citation even though the citation remained there. It would mean that the article "contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text". But I fixed that, and the current version is again faithful to Bury's quote. Please verify the citations and don't write what's not in the citations, otherwise it seems like citations are simply being thrown around. I added the "That Honorius actually agreed with Sergius on the doctrine of Monothelitism has given rise to much discussion" part not because it's true but because it's verifiable, more specifically, it's what Bury actually says. That's the whole principle I've been trying to uphold here, nothing more and nothing less.


 * "Wouldn't the list be exhaustive if we added opinions from every author who spoke on the topic?" Not necessarily. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pope Honorius which is referenced in the section summarizes the debate at one point, mentioning numerous prominent figures and their respective opinions in various camps. (Cf. the paragraphs onwards from "The question has not only been debated in numerous monographs, but is treated by the historians and the theologians, as well as by the professed controversialists. Only a few typical views need here be mentioned.") In my opinion, the treatment of Catholic Encyclopedia is exhaustive enough on the subject, and I considered including it in the Wikipedia article, because it would provide a wider and more balanced perspective on Honorius' legacy. But that wasn't my goal in the first place, I only wanted to clean up what was already there and that was work enough in itself. Maybe the article could be included as "further reading". I'll leave that up for other editors.


 * "But now this current one is too skewed towards Catholic sources." All the sources cited before and now are by catholic authors (even the primary ones, such as G. D. Mansi), so the article didn't become any more or less skewed. But it could be argued that changing the contents of the article in a way that misrepresents and even contradicts the catholic sources, even adding original research (cf. MOS:WTW), is in itself skewed against Catholic sources.

--Mechamutoh (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Good to hear from you again!

Would you agree that the current version is fine? I have no problem with it: it has the original sources incorporated in a better manner.

It had honestly taken me quite a bit of time compiling the article as is and to see it disappear like the previous edit was just a bit frustrating. To see the primary sources go was a bit of a blow but I am beginning to see now what you mean by verifiable text. It makes a lot more sense; essentially, and correct me if I am wrong, what we are supposed to be doing here is find reliable sources and information relevant to the topic and provide a balanced neutral overview of the events: not what we THINK the events mean, even if to us personally they seem obvious.

With regards to the verbatim quote, I had been working on the article with a friend of mine, who presented that sentence to me as if it were his own work, I have just reread it now and I can see exactly what you mean, I am glad it is gone now. For what a man's word is worth on the internet: I had never seen the article you posted before, so I was quite confused initially. Thank you for changing the John Bury quote so that it was verifiable, and cleaning up after my work in the dark that first time. I appreciate it.

Let me know what you think --H.A Elysian (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)H.A Elysian

By the way, Roberto de Mattei is a conservative, so he might be trying to push an opinion which is far from the historical consensus. Anb by conservative, I mean everytime you hear about any conservative initiative in the Catolic Church, you are very likely to find him somewhere. Veverve (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

His Father Petronius
Where is it cited that his father was the consul Petronius? This seems inaccurate. Most families from this period laid false claim to a connection to Ancient Rome aristocracy. Historians dismiss these claims as an attempt to establish legitimacy. Was there even a Roman consul into this time period? 2601:18C:8400:7140:D9B4:37CA:2B8E:79CE (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)