Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/507

 HOMOLOGOUMENA

449

HONDURAS

This kind of homily is commonly called a "prone". The fourth kind is that which first paraphrases and explains the entire Gospel, and then makes an appli- cation of it. This, the method of St. Chrysostom, seems, except where the "higher homily" applies, to be the best, because it can guard against the besetting defect of the homily, namely, a tendency to lack of unity and continuity. The advantages of the homily are that it is a form of preaching which was in use from the very beginning of Christianity; it is simple and easily understood ; it affords a better opportunity than the formal sermon for interweaving Sacred Scripture. The most appropriate time for the homily is at the early Mass; for the formal sermon, at the principal Mass; and for the catechetical sermon (see HoMiLETics), at the evening devotions. As to its place in the Mass, the homily is usuaUy preached after the first Gospel; but St. Francis de Sales would prefer that it come after the Communion, and in his letter to the .Archbishop of Bourges he quotes the words of St. Chrysostom: " Quam os illud quod SS. Mysteria suscejiit, da-monil^us terrible est"; also those of St. Paul (II Cor., xiii, 3): "in experimen- tum quEeritis ejus, qui in me loquitur Christus."

For Clementme Homilies, see Clementines.

Keppler in Kirchenlex., s. v. Humildik; Duchesne, Chris- lian Worship (tr. St. Louis, 190S): Schmid, Manualoj Patrology (St. Louis, 1899); Thomassin, Velus el Xova Ecde^fB Doctrina (Paris, 1688); Digbt, Mores CoWoiiVt (London, 1846); Neale, MedicEval Sermons (London, 1856); MacNamara, .5acred Rhet- oric (Dublin, 1882); Potter, Sacred Eloquence (New York, 1891); SCHUCH, The Priest in the Pulpit (tr. New York, 1905); Hamon, Traite de la Predication (Paris, 1906) : .Mourret, Lecons aur I'art de pr^cher (Paris, 1909). Bardenhewer, Palrology, tr. Shahan (St. Louis, 1908): See bibliography of Homiletics.

P. A. Beechek.

Homologoumena. See C.\non op the Holy

Scriptures.

Homoousion (Gr. oiJ.ooii(nov — from o/iis, same, and oiffla, essence; Lat. consubstantialem, of one essence or substance), the word used by the Council of Nic^ea (325) to express the Divinity of Christ. Arius had taught that the Son, being, in the language of Philo, the Intermediator between God and the world, was not eternal, and therefore not of the Divine substance, but a creature brought forth by the free will of God. Homoousion was indeed used b.y philosophical writers to signify "of the same or similar substance"; but, as the unity of the Divine nature was not questioned, the word carried the fuller meaning: " of one and the same substance". However, not only is o/uit am- biguous; the word ouo-ia itself was often taken as equivalent to vTr6<TTa(Ti! (person), as apparently is the ease in the anathema attached to the Nicene Symbol. And therefore the affirmation of the identity of nature might be taken in the heretical sense of the Sabellians, who denied the distinction of person. It was only after many years of controversy that the two words acquired their distinct meanings, and the orthodo.x were able to describe the Trinity as one in ousia and three in hypostasis or persona. Previously to the Council of Nicjea, Tertullian had already used the Latin equivalent of Homoousion, conceding to Prax- eas the Sabellian that the Father and Son were unius substantiie, of one substance, but adding duarum personarum, of two persons (Adv. Prax., xiii). And Dionysius of Alexandria used the actual word in a letter to Dionysius of Rome (Athan., " De dec. Syn. Nic", XXV, 26), and again in his letter to Paul of Samosata. On the other hand,Origen, who is, however, inconsistent in his vocabulary, expresses the anti-Sabellian sense of Dionysius of .Alexandria by calling the Son " Hete- roousion". The question was brought into discussion by the Council of .Antioch (264-272) ; and the Fathers seem to have rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase er^pas oiatas, that is, Hete- roousion, "of other or different ousia". Athanasius and Basil give as the reason for this rejection of Hom- VII.— 29

oousion the fact that the SabelUan Paul of Samosata took it to mean "of the same or similar substance''. But Hilary says that Paul himself admitted it in the Sabellian sense "of the same substance or person", and thus compelled the council to allow him the pre- scriptive right to the expression. Now, if we may take Hilary's explanation, it is obvious that when, half a century afterwards, Arius denied the Son to be of the Divine ousia or substance, the situation was exactly reversed. Homoousion directly contradicted the heretic. In the conflicts which ensued, the ex- treme Arians persisted in the Heteroousion Symbol. But the Semi- Arians were more moderate, and conse- quently more plausible, in their Homoiousion (of like substance). When one considers how the four creeds formulated at Antioch (341) by the Semi-.\rians ap*- proached the Nicene Creed as nearly as possible with- out the actual word Homoousion, there may be a temptation to think that the question was one of words only; and the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia (359) may seem to ha.ve been well advised in their conciliatory formula " that the Son was like the Father in all things, according to the teaching of Holy Writ". But this very formula was forced from the P\athers by the Emperor Constantius; and the force and fraud which the Semi-.Arians used throughout the greater part of the fourth century, are proof sufficient that the dispute was not merely verbal. The dogma of the Trinity was at stake, and Homoousion proved itself to be in the words of Epiphanius " the bond of faith", or, according to the expression of Marius Victorinus, " the rampart and wall of orthodoxy." (See Arian- ism; Nic/ea, Council op; Trinity.)

Athanasius, Epist. de decretis Synodi Nicaents; Idem, De Sijnodis Arim. et Seleuc.: EusEBius Cesar., Ad sucb parceciiB homines: Theodoret, Hist. Bed., I, xi; Hardouin, I, 421; Hefele, Hist, of Councils, tr., I, 239-447; Alzog, Univ. Church Hist., tr., I, sects. Ixxviii, ex: Dollinger. Compend. Church Hist., 269; Mohler. Athanasius the Great, etc.; Petavius, Theol. Dog.. II: De Trin., lil). IV, cap. v; Newman, Tracts Theol. and Eccl., Dis. iv, De vocibus anathemasmi, etc.; Idem, The .Arians, Appendix, note 4, Usia and Hypostasis; Idem. St. Athanasius, II, Homoousios.

James Bridge. Horns. See Emesa.

Ho-nan — Southern, Northern, Western — ViCARi.\TEs Apostolic op. See China. Honduras. See Comayagua, Diocese op.

Honduras, British, Vicariate Apostolic op. — The territory of the vicariate is co-extensive with that of the British Crown Colonjr of the same name. It lies to the south of the peninsula of Yucatan, from which it is separated by the Rio Hondo; is bounded on the east by that part of the Caribbean Sea known as the Bay of Honduras, on the south and west by the Republic of Guatemala; and has a total area of 7562 square miles, being approximately equal in size to the State of New Jersey. Statistics concerning this part of the world are largely conjectural. According to a fairly careful estimate, the total population of the vicariate at present is some 40,000; of which the Catholics number about 23,500. Of this latter num- ber, however, not more than 14,000 are with any regularity and frequency reached by the ministrations of the vicar Apostolic and his assistants. There are in the vicariate eight churches served by resident priests, and fifty-five chapels, in which, from time to time, priests from the residences say Mass and adrnin- ister the sacraments. At present, under the vicar Apostolic, Right Reverend Frederick C. Hopkins, S. J., titular Bishop of .\thribis, the vicariate is min- istered to by (i priests, all members of the Society of Jesus, under the immediate jurisdiction of the Mis- souri pro\'ince, assisted by four clerics not priests, and by four lay brothers, all of the same society.

The territory long known as British Honduras was originally part of the Spanish claim, but in the first half of the seventeenth century was settled by English