The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-09 00:00:00

POPE HONORIUS
j3Alrn PAPAL EV. F ALM-

(From the Westminster Gazette.)

" That Pope Honorius shared the errors of
the Monothelites," says a German divine of
repute, "is maintained by very many modern
heretics, but by very few Catholics." One of
these very few Catholics is Mr. Le Page
Renouf, the author of the pamphlet which
stands second in our list.

F. Schneemann, a German Jesuit, in strik-
ing contrast to Mr. Renours heated partizan-
ship, vindicates, in a calm and critical exami-
nation, Pope Honorius from the charge of
having given a decision ex cathedra in favour
of the Monothelite heresy, and proves, by
indisputable evidence, that he was condemned
by the Sixth (Ecumenical Synod, not as being
guilty of heresy, but only of having promoted
by his mistaken conduct the disastrous spread
of the Monothelite errors. The orthodoxy of
Honorius, and the purport of the anathema
pronounced against him have at various times,
and more especially during the Gallican dis-
pute as to Papal infallibility, been an inex-
haustible source of controversy. Since 1650,
almost every theologian of name, says Dr.
Do'linger, has been engaged in this contro-
versy, so that, within a period of 130 years,
more has been written on this ecclesiastico-
historical question than upon any other subject
in 1,500 years. What has been the result of
this long controversy ? What judgment has
Catholic literature pronounced on Pope Hono-
rius ? Did Pope Honorius, as Head of the,
Church, declare an heretical decision, and was
he condemned as a heretic by Councils and
Popes ? Such are the questions which F.
Schneemann undertakes to examine. His work
is divided into four chapters. The first chapter
treats historically of the Pontificate of Hono-
rius I ; the second is devoted to an inquiry
into his conduct in regard to the Monothelite
disputes ; the third to an elaborate exegetical
examination of the two celebrated letters of
Pope Honorius to the Patriarch Sergius, and
the fourth and concluding chapter explains
the real signification of the anathema of the
Sixth Synod pronounced against Pope Hono-
rius.

We will briefly examine some of the points
discussed in the second and fourth chapters,
reserving a more complete notice of this able
and interesting work until it appears in an
English version, as we understand will shortly
be the case.

Immediately after his death, says F. Schnee-
mann, the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius un-
derwent a most thorough examination. The
Monothelites were making the most of his
letter to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, and by giving a perverted interpreta-
tion to certain passages in it, endeavoured to
make it appear that Honorius had shared and
approved of their errors. In order
Athoroughlytanassuis
to investigate these charges, Abbot
was sent to Rome. He made numerous and
careful inquiries concerning them among the
most eminent and pious members of the Roman
clergy concerning these charges against Hono-
rius. What was the result of this investigation ?
Abbot Sohn, to whose great virtue St. Maximus
bears testimony, but whom Mr. Renouf con-
temptuously describes as a lying secretary, de-
clared that in the letter in question—in the
composition of which he was employed by the
compeeitnenstpojaukdingge
11
oPfo consequently
Honorius's
m e
a ninwonas a
the pop
of there being but one will in Christ, did not
deny the natural will in the humanity of Christ,
but only wished to exclude the corruption of
the will as it exists in us, the sinful opposition,
inasmuch as Christ had assumed, according to
the teaching of the Scriptures and of the
Fathers, a flesh free from sin. The other
members of the Roman clergy on being much
pressed by Anastasius on the point in question,
showed great indignation at the accusations of
the Monothelites, and justified Honorius. These
explanations were of such weight as not only
completely to convince St. Maximus of the
orthodoxy of Pope Honorius, but had also the
same effect on the Patriarch Pyrrhus, one of
the chief supporters of the heresy. In order
fully to appreciate the importance of St.
Maximus's testimony, it is but right to in-
quire what weight ought to be attached to
his judgment. Dollinger, says F. Schnee-
mann, calls him the most learned and the
acutest theologian of his time, and a noble
fruit on the tree of Grecian philosophy. In
truth, continues F. Schneemann, he was a man
profoundly versed in patristic learning and
most skilful in its application against the
Monothelites, whom he opposed with such a
zeal as to lay down his life in testimony of the
truth. As a friend of the Pope's and of St.
Sophronius, Anastasius was perfectly familiar
with the controversies of the time. Such,
then, was the man who, as often as he speaks
of Honorius, defends his orthodoxy, praising
him in the highest terms, and even counting
him among the opponents of the Eastern
heresy. In the same period we find other and
not less weighty witnesses in favour of Hono-
rius. John IV., who about two years after
Honorius's death ascended the Papal chair,
wrote an Apology of Pope Honoring, ad-
dressed to the Greek Emperor, in which he
declared that he would relate with the most
scrupulous fidelity the course of events which
were still fresh in everyone's memory. What,
then, is the testimony of this Pope ? He de-
clared that the Monothelite interpretation of
the words of Honorius was altogether alien to
the mind of this Prince of the Church
(penitus alienum, a matte Catholici Patris).
Pope John IV. then proceeds to explain at
length that Honorius, in the words he made
use of, intended to exclude in Christ only
the sinful will of corrupt nature, the concu-
piscence which the apostle calls voluntas carnis.
He infers this not only from the whole drift
of the arguments made use of by Honorius,
but also from the letter of Sergius, which
likewise speaks of two contradictory wills. But
quite apart, says F. Schneemann, from the his-
torical and scientific value of this testimony, it
is on a special ground entitled to a decisive
weight, as being an authentic explanation on
the part of a Pope—to whom, as to every
prince, such a right belongs—of the decrees
of his predecessor. Again, continues our author
in another point of view, is this document
of Pope John useful for our purpose, for it
shows us that the whole of the West, as the
Pope had learnt from numerous expressions
of opinion, was in a state of great excitement
on account of the letters of the Patriarch Pyr-
rhus, in which he gave currency to the new
errors, and, in order to confirm them, perverted
from their right sense the words of Honorius.
In the East also the faithful entertained a
favourable opinion of the orthodoxy of Hono-
rius. This is shown by a touching event re-
lated by the Bishop of Dora at the Lateran
Council. St. Sophronius, seeing that his op-
position against the Monothelite heresy, not
only produced no fruits, but, on the contrary,
only still further embittered his opponents,
took the Bishop of Dora, as lie himself relates,
to Calvary, and thus adjured him :—" You
will have to give an account to Him who on
this spot was crucified, and who once again
will come to the terrible judgment if you make
light of the great danger which the faith is
now exposed to. Go, since I am prevented
doing so by the invasion of the Saracens, from
the East to the West, until you arrive at the
foot of the apostolic chair, where the founda-
tions of the orthodox doctrines are, and do not
cease to lay bare to the holy men at Rome the
proceedings of the heretics, until the new heresy
be completely destroyed." From this account
it is evident, remarks F. Schneemann, that St.
of itoo pk Sophronius,aeter piaalrstoillEutsrg
although
oinHonorius, on the advice
hadhim e
controversy, recommendedwas,
nevertheless, firmly persuadediuths'
of the ortho-
doxy of this Pope—nay, regarded him as a
prop of the true faith. This testimony is the
more important since it was given after the
return of his ambassadors from Rome, and
he was fully informedwhen) consequently,

of the opinion of the Roman Court regarding
this controversy.
The opinion, then, of his contemporaries, of
those most competent to speak, and of those
most deeply engaged in the controversy, was
undoubtedly in favour of the orthodoxy of
Pope Honorius. Such testimony is not lightly
to be disposed of. It is of cumulative force.
First, we have, as F. Schneemann relates, the
evidence that the whole Church, which up to
his death had entertained a favourable opinion
of the orthodoxy of Honorius, was plunged
into a state of excitement when, after his death,
it was found that the Monothelites publicly
claimed what in his lifetime they had only in
secret professed to believe, that the Pope was
a supporter of their heresy. Rome was be-
sieged with inquiries as to the meaning of
this pretence. Hereupon witness after wit-
ness, on whose competency, virtue and know-
ledge no doubt could be cast, arose bearing
testimony in favour of the orthodoxy of Pope
Honorius. First came the notary who himself
composed the incriminated letter, then the
most influential members of the clergy at Rome,
who, by their close intercourse with the Pope,
could not well be otherwise than familiar with
his opinion .on a controversy which engaged
every one's attention; then there was his suc-
cessor, to whom belonged the right of authen-
tically explaining the decree of his predecessor;
in addition, there was St. Sophronius, than
whom there was no one whose evidence finder
the circumstances could be less suspected, and
he, in the most formal and solemn manner,
bore testimony to the orthodoxy of Honorius.
Then the conduct of the heretics themselves,
their trickery and cunning devices, exposed
the fallacy of their assertion that they had en-
joyed the support of Pope Honorius; and, lastly,
what better evidence in his behalf could the
Pope need than Maximus, the sainted martyr to
the cause of orthodoxy, as conspicuous for his
learning as for his virtue ? And it was he
who triumphantly refuted the false charges
brought against Honorius by the Patriarch
Pyrrhus, the most audacious of his accusers.
So far, then, as contemporary evidence of
the most authentic character is concerned, a
favourable judgment mast be pronounced on
the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius.
For want of space we can only briefly refer
to the next stage of this controversy, which
was comparatively quiet until the Council of
Constantinople. Pope Agatho, in his letter to
the Emperor Constantine, repeatedly, and with
emphasis, declared that the Popes have never
erred against the faith, and that the security
for this infallibility was provided by the pro-
mise given by Christ to Peter. Dellinger does
not deny that Pope Agatho said this in spe-
cial reference to Honorius. Moreover, Pope
Agatho, in saying that since the beginning of
the Monothelite controversy, the Popes have
never omitted to warn the Patriarchs of Con-
stantinople to abstain, at least by silence, from
their heresy, plainly referred to Honorius, for
no other Pope would have contented himself
with only imposing silence on the teachers of
error. This letter of Pope Agatho F. Schnee-
mann points out as of the highest importance,
since it was solemnly approved of by the Sixth
(Ecumenical Council, and even Bossuet ac-
knowledges that this approbation was extended
also to the detailed exposition of the infalli-
bility of the Holy See which was contained
in that letter. _ _ _

Passing over to the third stage of this trial,
which history and science have conducted con-
cerning the orthodoxy of Honorius, F. Schnee •
mann tells us that on account of their multi-
tude it is impossible for him to take note of
all the various writers who, since the Councils
of Constance and of Basle, since the outbreak
of the Reformation and of the Jansenistical
and Gallican controversies, have written on the
subject, it is necessary to limit his inquiry to the
results of the controversy attested by the most
competent judges. In the first instance, then,
says F. Schneemann, let us refer to Garmer,
whose magnificent literary labours Dollinger
acknowledges with praise, and who thus sums
up the judgment of Catholic historians and
writers of repute:—"ln an earlier epoch many
may have considered Honorius as a heretic ;
but now, since the matter has been investi-
gated with greater diligence and care, there
are but few—and they, moreover, of suspicious
tendencies, or of no great authority—who con-
demn Honorius as a heretic." As a second
authority F. Schneemann cites Papebroch, the
most eminent of the Bollandists. " All," he
says, "at least who are orthodox deny that
any heresy is contained in the letter of Pope
Honorius." F. Schneemann says he might
quote the testimony as to the result of the
elaborate controversy concerning Honorius, of
Italian writers, such as Orsi Muzzarelli, Litta,
but he prefers, as less open to suspicion in this
matter, the Doctors of the Sorbonne and the
supporters of the Galilean articles. Tournely
who, according to Dr. Dollinger, upheld the
honour of French theology in the 18th cen-
tury, says that " almost all theologians vindi-
cate Honorius from the error of the Mono-
thelites." Bishop Languet, the friend of Bos-
suet and a doctor of the Sorbonne, also attests
"to the almost universal agreement of the
elder and of modern theologians in the defence
of Honorius."

The result of historical evidence as shown in
the testimony of the vast majority of Catholic
writers of learning, eminence, and authority, is
to acquit Pope Honorius of heresy. If it be
added that in this judgment, pronounced after
a controversy which lasted two hundred years,
writers of the most opposite schools concur,
Ultramontanists and Gallicans, secular and
regular clergy of the most diverse shades of
opinion, scholastic theologians and historians,
and even Jansenists, so certain is it, argues
F. Schneemann, that at the least it is not evi-
dent that Honorius taught anything heretical
in his letters. But if he did not teach error,
it is acknowledged on all sides that by a mis-
taken policy in his treatment of the Patriarch
Sergius, he gave a great encouragement to
the growth of the Monothelite heresy. Had he
gone to work, says F. Schneemann, with
greater circumspection, the insidious devices
of the Monothelite Patriarchs would not have
escaped his notice. He was also to blame for
his too great attachment to the Greek court,.
Ecclesiastical history, as F. Schneemann well
remarks, shows by innumerable examples
that nothing so dazzles the eyes of princes
of the Church as an immoderate fear of break-
ing with the State. That Honorius did, how-
ever, withstand the Monothelites, is evident
from the fact, which his immediate successor,
Pope Agatho, points out, that he imposed
silence upon them; but, in enjoining them to
abstain from their heresy by silence, he also,
for peace sake,
imposed silence on the ortho-
dox. Such a method of dealing with the con-
troversy was not, as F. Schneemann justly
remarks, a right or a sufficiently stringent
avay of resisting the inroads of an insidious
heresy. It showed a want of watchfulness
on the part of Honorius, for, had he listened
to the representations of Sophromus, and op-
posed Sergius with energy, the spread of the
heresy might have been checked. It was his
duty as Pope to have done this, and, for this
culpable negligence, by which heresy was
encouraged, Honorius, says F. S
hneemann, was
condemned by the Sixth (Ecumenical Council,
and by Pope Leo, who confirmed the acts of
that council. The decrees of a council, as is
well known to every Catholic, are only valid
in so far as they have received Papal confir-
mation, but the condemnation of Honorius by
the Sixth Council was confirmed by Pope Leo
11., with the express limitation that Honorius
had only suffered the pure faith to be defiled.
In the document confirming the Council, Leo
11. says, " We pronounce anathema on the in-
ventors of the new error—that is—on Theodore
of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyr-
rhus, Paul, Peter, and, likewise, on Honorius,
who did not put his hand to the work of
purifying the Apostolic Church by the teaching
of Apostolic tradition, but, by profane aban-
donment, suffered the pure faith to be de-
filed."

The result of F. Selmeemann's investiga-
tions proves, therefore--first by in4insio pro-
-7