# Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility/Chapter 3

CHAPTER III
THE CASE OF HONORIUS
The case of Pope Honorius naturally occupied the attention of Roman Catholics more than any other instance of papal pronouncements, because it presented peculiar difficulties to the advocates of Infallibility. The literature created by this single case within the Roman Communion is enormous. We shall but represent its actual historical position in the development of the subject, if we treat it at considerable and even disproportionate length. For in reality it is no solitary incident. It reaches out into the Universal Councils of the Church. It shows the early conception of the relation between Council and Pope; what the Collective Episcopate thought of the nature of a papal definition of faith; what subsequent Popes thought of a predecessor's pronouncement.
To understand it we must revert to the conditions of Christian thought when the first four General Councils were completed. The Incarnation was then interpreted to involve two natures united in one Person. But the inferences which this statement required were not yet clearly thought out. The difficulty of the period was to allow full scope to the human nature in Christ. If there was one Person in Christ, then there must be one will, and that will manifestly divine. Accordingly it was supposed that His human nature had no human ​will. The relation of the divine to the human in Christ was thought to resemble that of the soul to the body, in such a way that the human nature was but a will-less passive instrument under the absolute control of the will which was divine.
This is the Monothelite heresy. It is a heresy of a disastrous kind, for it virtually denies the reality of the Incarnation. If the Son of God took a will-less human nature, then He did not take our human nature at all. For the will is essential to the perfection of our nature.
Now the Monothelite heresy was widely prevalent in the East: the real leader and chief promoter being Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Acting under his influence, Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, published in 633 a document asserting the existence of only one will in Christ. This was earnestly opposed by Sophronius, afterwards Patriarch of Jerusalem, who entreated Cyrus to cancel the objectionable statement, and visited Sergius with a view to enlist his support. This he naturally failed to obtain. But Sergius, with more subtlety than frankness, being in fact alarmed at the sensation produced by the heresy in Catholic minds, proposed as a compromise that both the assertion of one energy in Christ, and the counter-assertion of two energies should be abandoned. Sophronius consented. Sergius then wrote his famous diplomatic letter to Honorius of Rome, giving his own version of the controversy, explaining that in the interests of peace it was desirable that both expressions should be discouraged. To speak of "one energy" in Christ seemed strange to many, and offended them because it seemed to deny the duality of nature in our Lord; while the expression "two energies" offended others, because it would follow that there were two contradictory wills in Christ. Sergius ​then explained his theory by the illustration that as the body is controlled by the soul, so is the human nature in Christ controlled by His Divine Will—an illustration which certainly ought to have opened Honorius's eyes, even if the proposal to abandon the orthodox expression, "two energies," did not already alarm him. Now this letter of Sergius was condemned by the Sixth General Council. But this same letter Honorius approved.
Honorius replied that he learns from Sergius's letter that new controversies have been stirred up by a certain Sophronius, a monk, now Bishop of Jerusalem, against "our brother, Cyrus of Alexandria, who taught converts from heresy the doctrine of one energy in Christ." He is glad to hear that this expression, "one energy," has been abandoned, because it "might give offence to the simple." Honorius, however, asserts for himself "we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ," and explains that there was no diverse or conflicting will in the human nature of Christ; no conflict that is of the flesh against the spirit. He says that we may not erect into dogmas of the Church the statements that in Christ there is one energy or two, since neither the New Testament nor the Councils have so taught. He says, further, that he desires to reject everything which as a novelty of expression might cause uneasiness in the Church. He is quite aware that the expression "two energies" might be considered Nestorian, and "one energy" Eutychian. Accordingly, he "exhorts" Sergius to avoid both expressions and to keep to the already sanctioned phrases.
This letter of Honorius was utilised in the East to justify the Monothelite heresy—the existence of one will in Christ. Honorius died shortly after its publication (638). His successor, John IV., defended Honorius's orthodoxy on the ground that, since Sergius's enquiry ​was concerned only with our Lord's humanity, the reply was similarly restricted to the same. A later successor, Martin I., held a Synod at the Lateran in 649, in which the two Patriarchs, Cyrus of Alexandria and Sergius of Constantinople, were both condemned as Monothelites; and in which, without any allusion to Honorius, it was affirmed that the coexistence of two wills in Christ was a necessary consequence of the co-existence of the two natures, human and divine. In 680 was held the Sixth General Council with a view to reconcile and reunite the East with the West. To this Council Pope Agatho sent a letter reaffirming the orthodox doctrine of two natural wills and operations, and declaring that his Church had, by the grace of God, never erred from the Apostolic Tradition nor submitted to heretical innovations. This letter the Council received and adopted; and proceeded to condemn as heretical the writings of his predecessor, Honorius, upon whom they gave judgment as well as upon the two Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople. After reading the letter of Sergius to Pope Honorius and that of Honorius to Sergius, the Council pronounced judgment in the following terms:—
"We find that these documents are quite foreign to the Apostolic dogmas, also to the declarations of the holy Councils, and all the Fathers of repute; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of these men must also be thrust forth from the Church, namely, that of Sergius, who first wrote on this impious doctrine; further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, etc. …. We anathematise them all. And along with them, it is our unanimous decree that there shall be expelled from the Church and anathematised Honorius, formerly Pope of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines."
The announcement of these decisions was made not to Pope Agatho, for he had died; but to his successor, Leo II. Leo accepted the decisions of Constantinople. He has carefully examined the Acts of the Council and found them in harmony with the declarations of faith of his predecessor, Agatho, and of the Synod of the Lateran. He anathematised all these heretics, including his predecessor, Honorius, "who so far from aiding the Apostolic See with the doctrine of the Apostolic Tradition, attempted to subvert the faith by a profane betrayal."
This condemnation of Honorius was reiterated by two more Ecumenical Councils. It recurs in the papal Profession of Faith uttered by each Pope on his accession down to the eleventh century. This formula is contained in the Liber Diurnus, a volume which has had a remarkable history. The Liber Diurnus is a collection of ancient documents relating to the Papal Office, forms of faith, and other formulas, which were in use in the Roman Church probably from the sixth to the eleventh centuries. The collection was made in Rome itself. At what precise date the formulas therein contained ceased to be in use the learned appear unable to say.
The Liber Diurnus disappeared from sight and almost from memory. Its very existence seemed uncertain. ​In the middle of the seventeenth century Holstein, afterwards librarian of the Vatican, found the MS. at Rome. Another MS. was found in the Jesuit College of Clermont in Paris. Holstein prepared an edition for the press. It should have seen the light in 1650. Nothing was wanting but approval of the censors. The approval was, however, refused, and the copies were consigned to imprisonment in the Vatican. The reason for this suppression is given by the liturgical writer, Cardinal Bona:—
"Since in the Profession of Faith by the Pope elect, P. Honorius is condemned as having given encouragement to the depraved assertions of heretics—if these words actually occur in the original and there is no obvious means of remedying such a wound—it is better that the work should not be published—præstat non divulgari opus."
Such was Cardinal Bona's opinion and advice.
Another learned writer, P. Sirmond, in a letter to Holstein, expressed himself with still more remarkable frankness:—
"It appears to me not so astonishing," said Sirmond, "that the Greek Monothelites should attempt to identify Honorius with their error, as it seems extraordinary that the Romans themselves, in the newly elected Pope's Profession of Faith, should have branded the name of Honorius together with the authors of heretical ideas, such as Sergius, etc., for having given encouragement to the depraved assertions of heretics. And yet such are the terms of that Profession of Faith, as I found it among the ancient formulas of the Roman Church. And this is the only reason which deterred me from ​producing an edition of it, notwithstanding my promise to Cardinal S."
The suppression of Holstein's edition created a sensation among the learned men of France. "The Liber Diurnus" wrote Launoy, "has been printed in Rome several years, and is detained by the masters of the Papal Court and the Inquisitors. These men cannot bear the light of ancient truth." However, in the year 1680, the Jesuit writer, Gamier, published an edition of the work. Whatever his motive may have been and it is still disputed, he was summoned to Rome to give an explanation, and died on the way. However, the mischief was out, and from that time authorised publication became easy. The great scholar, Mabillon, printed the work without let or hindrance, and the comparative indifference of the world exemplified the maxim that an institution which has survived a fact will also survive its publication.
Such, then, appear to be the historic facts, stated as objectively as we can state them.
We now proceed to give the various Roman explanations. "It is," says Hefele, the learned historian of the Councils, "in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathemas a Pope as a heretic." Certainly from an Ultramontane standpoint it must be so. And this perplexity has led to a curious and instructive variety of conflicting solutions from the days of Cardinal Bellarmine down to the present time.
1. First explanation: It was boldly asserted in the seventeenth century that Pope Honorius was not condemned at all. The historian, Baronius, made himself ​responsible for this view, and Bellarmine followed him. No doubt the documents as we possess them affirm the contrary; but then they must have been interpolated and falsified. The reasons given for this procedure are that the Council of the Lateran over which Pope Martin presided condemned the Monothelites, but did not mention Honorius. Also that the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople could not possibly have condemned Honorius as a heretic; for that would make them contradict Pope Agatho's letter, to the effect that the Apostolic Church had never strayed from the path of the Apostolic Tradition, nor yielded to the perversions of heretical novelties. Either, therefore, the Council's words are falsified, or the letter of Agatho is falsified, or the Council and Agatho disagree. But no one asserts this last, and no one has ever suggested the second, therefore the first alternative is the one to be maintained. Bellarmine shows grounds to mistrust those fraudulent Greeks. He gives numerous instances of forgery. Baronius conjectures that a heretical Bishop, finding his own name in the Council's list of the condemned, quietly erased it and substituted that of Pope Honorius.
Bossuet thinks the mere recital of these conjectures sufficient refutation, and deplores that so learned a man should be dishonoured by these fictions. Sceptical criticism so utterly unfounded would, if universally applied, destroy the foundation of all historic certainty.
A recent Roman writer (1906) says that the theory of Bellarmine and Baronius offers valuable advantage, that is to the Ultramontane, but is attended by enormous difficulties. For, if the fraudulent Greeks interpolated the Acts of the Council, who interpolated the letter of Leo II. in which he accepts its conclusion and condemns ​Honorius by name? Accordingly the solution dear to Bellarmine and Baronius has been abandoned by the strongest advocates of Papal Infallibility.
2. A second explanation admitted that Honorius was condemned, but asserted that he was only condemned in his private capacity, as an individual theologian, and not as Pope.
One obvious advantage of this theory was that at any rate it did no violence to historic documents. It encouraged no universal scepticism as to sources. Bellarmine himself suggested it as an alternative to those who could not be satisfied with discrediting wholesale on suspicion the long series of documents. But Bellarmine did not like the theory; for he held that although the opinion that a Pope can err as a private teacher is probable, yet the opposite opinion was more probable still. However, for those whom it might assist, there it was. All that the Council meant to say was that Honorius by his private letters promoted heresy.
Private letters! echoes Bossuet scornfully. When, then, is a decision given, ex cathedra, unless when the successor of St Peter, being consulted by the entire East, should suppress a deadly error and strengthen his brethren? Or did he prefer to be deceived, when, being so interrogated, he did not reply under these conditions in which he knew that he could not be deceived?
A recent Roman writer assures us that the opinion that the letter of Honorius was compiled as a private theologian has never been enthusiastically received, never achieved a real success. Its partisans have been few in number and authority.
3. A third explanation of the case of Honorius is that he was condemned for heresy, but mistakenly; the Council being in error on a question of fact. Bellarmine proposes this as an alternative solution to those who cannot be induced to believe that the Decrees of the Sixth General Council have been interpolated and corrupted. It may be said that Honorius was actually condemned by the Council as a heretic, but that they acted on false information. If infallible in doctrine, they were not infallible in questions of fact. If the reader objects, and interposes an enquiry whether Bellarmine understands Honorius's letter better than an Ecumenical Council understood him, the ready reply is that Pope Agatho said that his See had never strayed. Pope Agatho understood the letter of Honorius better than the Greeks assembled in the Council. If you ask why, then, didn't the legates of Agatho resist the condemnation, Bellarmine answers that this was diplomatic. They acquiesced to avert a greater evil; namely, continuance of false doctrine. Thus, according to Bellarmine, to secure the condemnation of the Monothelite heresy, the legates sanctioned the condemnation of a Pope for heresy—apparently on the principle of two evils prefer the less—with consequences, however, which Bellarmine does not seem to have thought out. If the reader still persists, in his incredulous temper, to ask, Why, then, did Pope Leo in his letter after the Council also condemn Honorius? it is suggested that ​you can say that Leo followed the legates of Agatho; he preferred to let sleeping dogs lie. But we are not bound, says Bellarmine, to follow Leo, We may follow Agatho. For you see that whether Honorius erred is, after all, a question of fact: and in questions of fact even Popes may differ.
This theory appeared congenial to some in the sixteenth century. But then it received an unexpected application, being utilised by the Jansenists to justify their treatment of papal decisions with respectful incredulity. Whether certain doctrines were or were not contained within the pages of Jansenius's great book was not a question of faith but of fact. Consequently it was enough to adopt towards any papal assertions on the subject an attitude of external deference while maintaining unchanged one's inward convictions.
This application opened the eyes of papal theologians to the dangerous character of the theory. It became, says Turmel, almost invariably abandoned among defenders of Papal Infallibility.
But, after all. was the Universal Council mistaken in the intepretation it placed upon the theological contents of Honorius's letter? Upon this question Roman writers have been sharply divided. This was the defence set up for him by his immediate successor, but obviously not accepted by the long line of his successors who condemned him; nor by the Ecumenical Council which pronounced its judgment upon him; nor by the two other Ecumenical Councils which followed.
Honorius's successor, Agatho, indeed asserted that his See had never deflected from the way of truth, and that the Roman Pontiffs had obeyed the injunction laid upon Peter to strengthen his brethren. This language ​was accepted by the Fathers of the Sixth Council. But what they understood by it, said Bossuet, can be readily gathered from the following single fact: they approved the teaching of Agatho, but they condemned the teaching of Honorius. Manifestly they did not endorse the theory that no Roman Pontiff had ever deflected from the faith, or that his decisions deserved the unquestioning submission of Christendom. All that the Council could have assented to was that as a general fact the truth was held in Rome; without pronouncing any opinion as to the invariable fidelity of individual Popes. If Agatho meant more than this, he was, said Bossuet, mistaken in a question of fact. His statement must be set beside that of Leo II., who affirmed that Honorius, "instead of suppressing the flame of heretical views by his apostolic authority, encouraged it by his neglect."
The immediate successors of Honorius passed over his error and spared his memory. This was natural. For his pontificate was exemplary in other respects; he died in the peace of the Church; he had not acted with evil intentions; nor was he pertinacious in defence of his error; nor did anything in the condition of the Western Church require a public refutation of his error. But in the East it was otherwise. The Monothelites publicly supported themselves under his authority. Accordingly, the Sixth Council felt compelled to condemn Honorius also, as having in all things followed the lines of Sergius and promoted his dangerous teaching. Thus the Council's reply to Agatho's letter on the invariability of his See was an announcement that they had condemned his predecessor.
Bellarmine boldly asserts that in any case Honorius's letters contain no heresy. He only forbade the use of the terms, "one will," or "two wills" in Christ, a course ​which, according to the same writer, only shows his prudence. The critical words, "Wherefore we confess one will in our Lord Jesus Christ," are, as his explanation shows, a reference exclusively to Christ's human nature. What he meant was that in Christ as man there were not two conflicting wills of the flesh and the spirit.
Bossuet replied that probably Honorius was not heretical in his private convictions. But he very badly instructed the Patriarchs who consulted him; and he secured peace at the price of silence as to the Orthodox Faith. He spoke disparagingly of the teaching of Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who maintained the Catholic Truth upon the subject, and favourably of Cyrus of Alexandria, who propagated the false doctrine. His language suggests heretical explanation. It was most unsuited to the special occasion and the requirements of the Church. It failed to give any definite guidance on the doctrine in question; and, by its vague and general terms, promoted the very error which ought to have been suppressed.
Perhaps the ablest Roman criticism on the contents of Honorius's letter is that of the historian Hefele. It should be read in the form in which he published it prior to the alterations which the Vatican Council forced upon his historical expositions. "Honorius," says Hefele, "did not grasp the matter aright at the very beginning." He argued briefly but inappropriately that where there is one Person there is only one Worker and therefore only one Will. He said that in our ordinary corrupted nature there are certainly two wills, that of the flesh and that of the spirit, but that the former is only a consequence of the Fall, and therefore could not exist in Christ. "So far Honorius ​was quite on the right way; but he did not accurately draw the inferences." He ought now to have said: Hence it follows that in Christ, since He is God and man, there exists, together with His Divine Will, only the incorrupt human will. But Honorius kept the human will entirely out of account. He thought that to maintain the co-existence of two distinct wills in Christ would compel the admission of two contradictory wills. He ought to have answered Sergius, You are quite right in saying we must not ascribe two contrary wills to Christ; but, nevertheless, there are in Christ two wills, the divine and the incorrupt human. Instead of which Honorius asserted: "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ." Hefele, even after the Vatican decision, felt constrained to describe this statement as "the unhappy sentence which, literally taken, is quite Monothelite."
Hefele also was unable to accept the excuse for this language, proposed by Honorius's immediate successor, to the effect that, being consulted only on the manhood of Christ, there was no occasion to speak of anything else than the human will. This interpretation Hefele characterises as suavior quam verior. For it is simply untrue that he was consulted only on the contents of Christ's human will. Sergius did not ask whether we ought to acknowledge in Christ a will of the flesh and a will of the spirit. He asked nothing at all on this subject, but asserted that in Christ there can be only one will. Hefele's conclusion accordingly was that Honorius encouraged heresy by enjoining silence on the orthodox expression, "two energies," and still more by the unhappy expression, "We confess one will in our Lord Jesus Christ."
But even then, Hefele is constrained by his historic ​insight to recognise that the Sixth Ecumenical Council thought much more seriously of Honorius's errors than Hefele himself does; especially as controlled by the Vatican Council. After recalling the association of Honorius with Sergius and others, and the exact language of the condemnation, Hefele says:—
"From all this it cannot be doubtful in what sense Pope Honorius was anathematised by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and it is equally beyond doubt that the Council judged much more severely respecting him than we have done."
Into the significance of this difference of judgment Hefele does not enter. But apart from all enquiry whether the estimate of an Ecumenical Council outweighs that of an individual theologian, apart from the question of the accuracy of their decision, there lie the theological principles which this severity of judgment on a papal utterance involved. Such condemnation obviously assumes a certain conception of the value and authority of papal decisions. Hefele said that "It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic." And on Ultramontane presuppositions so it is. Does not this, together with the evident difficulty which a modern Romanist experiences in bringing himself to accept this Ecumenical decision, betray a singular deviation from the principles of an earlier age? That which seems to-day "in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible," did it appear in that light to the age in which it was decreed? Did the startled representatives of the Apostles shrink away in silent amazement at their own audacity, abashed ​before the horror of the Catholic world? Or did not the Pope of the period assent to their decrees as being in no way conflicting with Catholic principles?
4. A fourth explanation of the fact has been proposed. It is acknowledged that Honorius was condemned, but asserted that he was not charged with heresy, but only with imprudence.
This was the theory of Father Garnier, the Jesuit, editor of the Liber Diurnus. An admirable summary of his opinions is given by Turmel in his Histoire de la Théologie Positive.
Garnier read the Council's sentence that Honorius "followed the false doctrines of the heretics." This means, says Garnier, that he failed in courage to oppose them. If Honorius was declared excommunicated and anathematised, this only meant that he had made himself congenial to heretics by imposing silence on certain expressions, not that he had sanctioned heretical ideas. If the Council ordered his letters to be burnt, as tending to the same impiety as those of Sergius, this did not mean that they were necessarily heretical. A writing may tend to impiety by its omissions just as much as by its positive assertions. Garnier then faced the great difficulty that the Council proclaimed Anathema to Sergius and to Honorius. … Anathema to all heretics. Anathema to all who have taught or teach one will and one energy in our Lord Jesus Christ. Surely, this time, Honorius is included among the heretics. Garnier is quite equal to the occasion. Granted that the Pope was anathematised simultaneously with the Monothelite, yet it does not follow that the motive of his condemnation was the same. Gamier, therefore, says Turmel, closed the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council with the conviction that ​Honorius was nowhere condemned for heresy, but simply for his imprudence.
The theory of Garnier, says Turmel, has met with an approval in the theological world, which has only increased with the passage of time. It became the favourite defence of Honorius down to the eve of the Council of the Vatican.
* ↑ Rosière, xxxix.
* ↑ Ibid, xviii.
* ↑ Ibid, cxiii.
* ↑ Ibid, cxiii.
* ↑ Rosière, cxiv.
* ↑ Ibid. xlix. lvii.
* ↑ Ibid. lx. lxi.
* ↑ History of the Councils, i. p. 181. (Engl. trans.).
* ↑ Works, V. xvii. p. 67.
* ↑ Turmel, Hist. Théol. Positive, p. 315.
* ↑ Bossuet, t. xxi. p. 76.
* ↑ Turmel, Hist. Théol. Positive, p. 76.
* ↑ Turmel, Hist. Théol. Positive, p. 317.
* ↑ Turmel, Hist. Théol. Positive, p. 32.
* ↑ History of the Councils, p. 32.
* ↑ History of the Councils, p. 36.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 54.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 58.
* ↑ History of the Councils, p. 184.
* ↑ Page 317.