A fact from Typos of Constans appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 June 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Pope Martin I was abducted and tried for high treason because of his opposition to the Type of Constans?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
"Incidentally" is a POV introduction to a POV paragraph that insinuates that there is a "problem" with papal infallibility. This is an old anti-Catholic canard that various WP:RS such as catholic.com readily refute. Honorius was not "disowned by his successors" and they did not consider him a heretic, so the POV implications need to be addressed. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this issue to the talk page. This paragraph as it stands is well referenced to a reliable source. Its meaning should not be amended without an overwhelming weight of independent and reliable sources. If other RSs have a different view, then, obviously, they may be added as a counter-point. Note that publications funded by or 'in-house' to the organisation whose CEO is the subject of the paragraph may not be regarded as reliable sources in this context. Also note that what you or I consider to be "true" is irrelevant; we are not reliable sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do read the replies, thanks. I can provide plenty more WP:RS documenting the reality. I am sure there are plenty of anti-Catholic screeds designed to attack papal infallibility that seem to support your version, but it is a red herring. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph (still blatantly editorializing in your preferred form) is totally throw-away and snarky. So it "caused difficulty" - what kind of difficulty? We can't say, that would be telling! "For Catholic theologians" - like which ones? Care to name names? That would be telling! (Catholic theologians are a numerous and diverse group, and they all disagree with one another.) "Disowned" - how was he disowned? He's still titled "Pope" and he's still in lists of Popes, so they didn't do a very good job of the disowning. "Papal infallibility" - buzzword compliant! What about it? Don't actually explain how this relates to the topic - that would be telling! So if you editors object to my improvements, why don't you fix the paragraph yourself? It's horrible! 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know, most of this could probably be solved by not putting it in Wikipedia's voice. The "Modern controversies on the subject" section of the Catholic Encyclopedia seems to support the incident being a problem for papal infallibility, but a problem for which Catholics have argued solutions, such as
On the other hand the chief advocates of papal infallibility, for instance, such great men as Melchior Canus in the sixteenth century, Thomassinus in the seventeenth, Pietro Ballerini in the eighteenth, Cardinal Perrone in the nineteenth, have been careful to point out that Honorius did not define anything ex cathedra. But they were not content with this amply sufficient defence. Some followed Baronius, but most, if not all, showed themselves anxious to prove that the letters of Honorius were entirely orthodox. There was indeed no difficulty in showing that Honorius was probably not a Monothelite. It would have been only just to extend the same kindly interpretation to the words of Sergius. The learned Jesuit Garnier saw clearly, however, that it was not as a Monothelite that Honorius was condemned. He was coupled with Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, the Ecthesis, and the Type. It is by no means clear that Sergius, Pyrrhus, and the Ecthesis are to be accounted as Monothelite, since they forbade the mention of "one operation"; it is quite certain that Paul and the Type were anti-Monothelite, for they prohibited "one Will" also. Garnier pointed out that the council condemned Honorius for approving Sergius and for "fomenting" the dogmas of Pyrrhus and Paul. This view was followed by many great writers, including Pagi.
and
Bishop Hefele before 1870 took the view that Honorius's letter was not strictly heretical but was gravely incorrect, and that its condemnation by an ecumenical council was a serious difficulty against the "personal" infallibility of the popes. After his hesitating acceptance of the Vatican decrees he modified his view; he now taught that Honorius's letter was a definition ex cathedra, that it was incorrectly worded, but that the thought of the writer was orthodox (true enough; but, in a definition of faith, surely the words are of primary importance); the council judged Honorius by his words, and condemned him simply as a Monothelite; Leo II accepted and confirmed the condemnation by the council, but, in doing so, he carefully defined in what sense the condemnation was to be understood. These views of Hefele's, which he put forth with edifying modesty and submission as the best explanation he could give of what had previously seemed to him a formidable difficulty, have had a surprisingly wide influence, and have been adopted by many Catholic writers, save only his mistaken notion that a letter like that of Honorius can be supposed to fulfil the conditions laid down by the Vatican Council for an ex cathedra judgment (so Jungmann and many controversialists).
The existence of such arguments doesn't mean once can simply declare "there is no problem" in Wikipedia's voice, given that the Catholic Encyclopedia also quotes Leo II's letter of confirmation as "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, ...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" and says "Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils without special remark; also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: "Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ii, 9). It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned." --tronvillain (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the contentious nature of the content, and it being a bit of a sidetrack, I argue for deletion because of lack of relevance and focus and per EXTRAORDINARY. Especially lack of relevance to the subject of the article.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)21:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear to be contentious that he was anathematized, as seen at Pope Honorius I#Anathematization, but the ""The issue of a Pope being disowned by his own successors has caused difficulty for Catholic theologians ever since, especially when discussing papal infallibility" is probably unnecessary.
--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
