Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/513

 HONORIUS

455

HONORIUS

defences by St. Maximus. It is clear, then, that the council did not tliink that it stultified itself by assert- ing that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimetl to be, an authoritative ex- position of the infallible faith of tlie Roman See. The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.

St. Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confir- mation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its oecumen- ical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: "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 per- mitted its purity to be polluted." This appears to express exactly the mind of the council, only that the council avoided suggesting that Honorius disgraced the Roman Church. The last words of the quotation are given above as in the Greek of the letter, because great importance has been attached to them Ijy a large number of Catholic apologists. Pennacchi, followed by Grisar, taught that by these words Leo II explicitly abrogated the condemnation for heresy by the coun- cil, and substituted a condemnation for negligence. Nothing, however, could be less explicit. Hefele, with many others before and after him, held that Leo II by the same words explained the sense in which the sentence of Honorius was to be understood. Such a distinction tietween the pope's view and the council's view is not justified by close examination of the facts. At best such a system of tlefence was exceedingly pre- carious, for the milder reading of the Latin is just as likely to be original: "but by profane treachery at^ tempted to pollute its purity". In this form Hono- rius is certainly not exculpated, yet the pope declares that he did not actually succeed in polluting the im- maculate Roman Church. However, in his letter to the Spanish Iving Ermg, he has: "And with them Honorius, who allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be tarnished." To the Spanish bishops he explains his meaning: "With Honorius, who did not, as be- came the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence." That is, he did not insist on the "two operations", but agreed with Sergius that the whole matter should be hushed up. Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anath- ematized by the TruUan SjTiod, and by the seventh and eighth cecumenical councils without special re- mark; 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 con- demned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions.

Modern Conthoversies on the Subject. — The condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 2S June (St. Leo II) until the eighteenth century. Difficulties made themselves felt when, after the Great Western Schism, papal in-

fallibiUty began to be doubted. Protestantism .and Gallicanism made vigorous attacks on the unfortunate pope, and at the time of the Vatican Council Honorius figured in every pamphlet and every speech on ecclesi- astical subjects. The question has not only been de- bated in numerous monographs, but is treated by the historians and the theologians, as weU as by the pro- fessed controversialists. Only a few typical views need here be mentioned.

Bellarmine and Baronius followed Pighius in deny- ing that Honorius was condemned at all. Baronius argued that the Acts of the Council were falsified by Theodore, a Patriarch of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the emperor, but was restored at a later date; we are to presume that the council con- demned him. but that he substituted "Honorius" for " Theodorus " in the Acts. This theory has frequently been shown to be untenable.

The more famous Galileans, such as Bossuet, Dupin, Richer, and later ones as Cardinal de la Luzerne and (at the time of the Vatican Council) Maret, Gratry, and many others, usually held with all Protestant writers that Honorius had formally defined heresy, and was condemned for so doing. They added, of course, that such a failure on the part of an individual pope did not compromise the general and haliitual orthodoxy of the Roman See.

On the other hand the chief advocates of papal in- fallibility, for instance, such great men as Melchior Canus m the sixteenth century, Thomassinus in the seventeenth, Pietro Ballerini in the eighteenth. Car- dinal 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 Hon- orius w-as probably not a Monothelite. It would have been only just to extend the same kindly interpreta- tion to the words of Sergius. The learned Jesuit Garnier saw clearly, however, that it w-as not as a Monothelite that Honorius was condemned. He was coupled with Sergius, PjTrhus, Paul, the Ecthesis, and the T\-pe. 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 ^\'^I1 " also. Garnier pointed out that the council condemned Honorius for approving Sergius and for "fomenting" the dogmas of Pi,Trhus and Paul. This view was fol- lowed by many great WTiters, including Pagi.

A theory put forward by Pennacclii at the time of the Vatican Council attracted an unnecessary amount of attention. He agreed with the Protestants and Galileans in proclaiming that the letter of Honorius was a definition ex cathedra ; that the pope was anath- ematized by the council as a heretic in the strict sense; but the council, not being infallible apart from papal confirmation, fell in this case into error about a dogmatic fact (in this point Pennacchi was preceded by Turrecremata, Bellarmine, Assemani, and many others), since the letter of Honorius was not worthy of censure. Leo II, in confirming the council, expressly abrogated the censure, according to this view, and substituted a condemnation for negligence only (so also Grisar — see above). There is e\ndently no ground whatever for any of these assertions.

Bishop Hefele before 1870 took the view that Hono- rius's letter was not strictly heretical but was gravely incorrect, and that its condemnation by an oecumeni- cal council was a serious difficulty against the "per- sonal" 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,