# Petri Privilegium/III/Appendix 6

Layout 2
VI.
THE CASE OF HONORIUS.
I have intentionally refrained from treating the historical evidence in the case of Honorius in the text of the fourth chapter, for the following reasons:
1. Because it is sufficient to the argument of that chapter to affirm that the case of Honorius is doubtful. It is in vain for the antagonists of Papal Infallibility to quote this case as if it were certain. Centuries of controversy have established, beyond contradiction, that the accusation against Honorius cannot be raised by his most ardent antagonists to more than a probability. And this probability, at its maximum, is less than that of his defence. I therefore affirm the question to be doubtful; which is abundantly sufficient against the private judgment of his accusers. The cumulus of evidence for the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff outweighs all such doubts.
2. Because the argument of the fourth chapter necessarily excludes all discussion of detailed facts. Had they been introduced into the text, our antagonists would have evaded the point, and confused the argument by a discussion of details. I will, nevertheless, here affirm, that the following points in the case of Honorius can be abundantly proved from documents:
(1) That Honorius defined no doctrine whatsoever. (2) That he forbade the making of any new definition. (3) That his fault was precisely in this omission of Apostolic authority, for which he was justly censured. (4) That his two epistles are entirely orthodox; though, in the use of language, he wrote as was usual before the condemnation of Monothelitism, and not as it became necessary afterwards. It is an anachronism and an injustice to censure his language, used before that condemnation, as it might be just to censure it after the condemnation had been made.
To this I add the following excellent passage from the recent Pastoral of the Archbishop of Baltimore:
​'The case of Honorius forms no exception; for 1st, Honorius expressly says in his letters to Sergius, that he meant to define nothing, and he was condemned precisely because he temporized and would not define; 2nd, because in his letters he clearly taught the sound Catholic doctrine, only enjoining silence as to the use of certain terms, then new in the Church; and 3rd, because his letters were not addressed to a general council of the whole Church, and were rather private, than public and official; at least they were not published, even in the East, until several years later. The first letter was written to Sergius in 633, and eight years afterwards, in 641, the Emperor Heraclius, in exculpating himself to Pope John II., Honorius' successor, for having published his edict—the Ecthesis—which enjoined silence on the disputants, similar to that imposed by Honorius, lays the whole responsibility thereof on Sergius, who, he declares, composed the edict. Evidently, Sergius had not communicated the letter to the Emperor, probably because its contents, if published, would not have suited his wily purpose of secretly introducing, under another form, the Eutychian heresy. Thus falls to the ground the only case upon which the opponents of Infallibility have continued to insist. This entire subject has been exhausted by many recent learned writers.'
On the question of Vigilius, see Cardinal Orsi De irreformabili Rom. Pont. in definiendis fidei controversiis judicio, tom. i. p. i. capp. 19, 20; Jeremias a Benetti's Privileg. S. Petri vindic. p. ii. tom. v. art. 12, p. 397, ed. Roman. 1759; Ballerini De vi et ratione primatus, cap. 15; Lud. Thomassin, Disp. xix. in Concil., Petr. De Marca Diss. de Vigilio; Vincenzi in S. Gregorii Nyss. et Origenis scripta cum App. de actis Synodi V. tom. iv. and v.
On the question of Honorius, amongst older writers: Ios. Biner S. J. in Apparatu eruditionis, p. iii. iv. and xi.; Orsi, op. cit. capp. 21-28; Bellarm. De Rom. Pontif. liv. iv.; Thomassin, op. cit. diss. xx.; Natalis Alex. Hist. Eccles. Saec. VII. diss. 2.; Zaccaria Antifebrom. p. ii. lib. iv. Amongst later authors, see Civiltà cattolica, ann. 1864, ser. v. vol. xi. and xii.; Schneeman, Studia in qu. de Honorio; Ios. Pennachi de Honorii I. Romani Pontificis causa in Concilio VI.