The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 23, 1868,

POPE HONORAUS AND PAPAL IMAM-
BILI7I'.

(From the Westminster Gazette.)

Before proceeding briefly to notice Mr.
Renour s jubilant declamation on the supposed
" subversion of the theory of Papal infalli-
bility," by the alleged condemnation for heresy
of a Pope by " three (Ecumenical Councils and
a long series of Roman Pontiffs," and his still
more rash and offensive warning to the Catho-
lic Church on the folly of " identifying Chris-
tianity with a system of theology (llltramon-
tanism) which is demonstratively untenable,"
it will perhaps be better to examine a few
of the collateral evidences which the opponents
of Pope Honorius bring forward in support
of the charge against his orthodoxy. The re-
sults which we have already arrived at in the
course of this review of F. Schneemann's
work may be thus recapitulated :-Ist. That
it is conceded that the letters of Pope Hono-
rius to the Patriarch Sergius are susceptible
of a Monothelite as well as of an orthodox
interpretation. 2nd. That contemporary tes-
timony, as well as modern criticism, is, with
a few notable exceptions, in favour of the
orthodox interpretation. 3rd. That the Sixth
(Ecumenical Council, in as far as its decrees
were ratified by the Pope, condemned Hono-
rius, not for teaching heresy, but for betray-
ing the Church by negligence ; and 4th. That
Pope Agatho, Honorius's immediate successor,
declared in a document, solemnly accepted by
the Sixth Council, that the Popes have never
erred from the Faith, and that, since the com-
mencement of the Monothelite disputes, the
Popes had never omitted to warn the Patriarchs
of Constantinople to abstain, at least by silence,
from heresy.
It is clear, if for no other reason, that this
declaration of Pope Agatho has special refer-
ence to Honorius, inasmuch as no other Pope
but he would have contented himself in only
imposing silence upon such a dangerous heresy.
In this Sixth (Ecumenical Council a twofold
judgment, says F. Schneemann, was pro-
nounced by the Church, united with its Head.
On the one hand, Honorius was pronounced
free from heresy ; on the other, he was con-
demned for promoting, by his conduct, the
growth of heresy. In this brief recapitulation
of the results of our investigation into the
alleged condemnation of Honoring, we desire
again to call to mind the important fact, which
Mr. Renouf and the opponents of. Pope Hono-
rius conveniently forget—namely, that the de-
crees of a council are only valid so far as they
have been confirmed by the Pope. The Sixth
Council acknowledged as much by seeking
Papal confirmation for its decrees. But the
condemnation which the council had pro-
nounced on Pope Honorius was explained and
confirmed by Pope Leo, as we have already said
in our first notice, with the express limitation
conveyed in the following declaration addressed
to the Emperor :—" We pronounce anathema
on the inventors of the new error—that is—on
Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria,
Sergius, Pyrrhus, 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
abandonment, suffered the pure faith to be de-
filed." This limitation of Pope Leo's judgment
to a condemnation of Pope Honorius, not for
heresy, but for a negligent betrayal of the
faith, clearly shows that there is no contradic-
tion, as Dr. Dollinger pretends, in the judgment
of Pope Leo and the declaration of Pope Aga-
tho, that the Popes had never erredin faith. F.
Schneemann remarks, in reference to this
pretence of Dr. Dollinger's, that men should
not be so ready, on such superficial grounds, to
find contradictions in the words of councils
and of Popes. If such, then, as we have seen,
was the judgment on Honorius, pronounced
by the Pope and the Sixth Council, no refer-
ence, in general terms, to this condemnation,
made by after councils and ratified by subse-
quent Popes, alters in the slightest the charac-
ter of the original condemnation. Therefore,
when the impugners of the orthodoxy of Pope
Honorius bring forward, as Dr. Dollinger does,
and, of course, his disciple, Mr. Renouf, that
not only did the Eighth Council confirm the
anathema on Honorius, but that Pope Adrian
11. spoke in his letter, appended to the acts of
the Eighth Synod, of Honorius's being accused
and condemned on account of heresy, such
a reference by a Pope or council to a former
judgment, without further investigation into
the question, leaves the earlier judgment un-
affected and unaltered. What the judgment
was before, so it remains after the reference.
Hence the assertion of Mr. Renouf, that coun-
cils subsequent to the Sixth Synod, and a
long series of Pontiffs, condemned Pope Hono-
rius for heresy, falls to the ground, since, as
we have shown; the judgment of the Sixth
Council, so far as it was ratified by the Pope,
did not condemn Honorius fOr heresy, but
for something else, and subsequent councils
and Popes in referring to the Sixth Council
did no more. To accumulate, as Hefele does,
acts of councils and of Popes condemnatory
of Honorius, is not, then, as we have seen,
to alter, by a hair's breadth, the judgment pro-
nounced in the Sixth Synod by Pope and coun-
cil. Neither can any meaning other than that
expressed in his confirmation of the Sixth
Synod,
beimputed to Pope Leo from his letters
to Spain, in which he speaks of Honorius. On
the contrary, they explain still more clearly
the nature of Honcrius's offence. In his first

letter to the Bishops of Spain, Leo. 11. points
out exactly in what his treachery and defile-
ment of the Faith consisted. After referring
to the anathema on the Monothelites, he adds,
" together with Hon.orius, who did not, as be-
came the apostolic authority, extinguish the
incipient flame of heresy, but fanned it by his
negligence." His betrayal, therefore, consisted
in his negligence • and this betrayal, because
it dishonoured the dignity of the Apostolic
authority, was the defilement he alluded to of
the Roman Church.

In his letter to King Erwig, referring to the
inventors of the Monothelite heresy condemned
by the Council, Pope Leo says, "and together
with them, was condemned the Roman Honorius

who suffered the defilement of the immaculate
rule of apostolic tradition which he had re-
ceived from his predecessors." In the profes-
sion of faith found in the " Diarium RR.
Pontificum," to which Dr. Dollinger also re-
fers, it is not said as Dr. Dollinger asserts, and
Mr. Renouf repeats that "Honorius assented
to the false doctrines of the heretics," but
drawing clearly the distinction between the
auctores and fautores of heresy, and designating
by-name the other condemned Patriarchs as
auctores, of Honorius it is simply said : Qui
pravis eorum assertionibus fomentum impendit.
Nowhere, then, have the Popes declared that
the guilt of Honorius was in having himself
taught the Monothelite heresy, and in the con-
firmation and publication of the Synodal de-
crees they expressly limit the anathema pro-
nounced on Honorius so as to exclude him from
a condemnation for heresy. And the Popes
are, as a learned German writer remarks, at
the very least the authentic and ultimate inter-
preters of the Synodal decrees; but it is beyond
question that the Popes only confirmed the de-
crees alluded to in this dispute in the sense and
with the interpretation they put upon them.
" No one, therefore," says a learned writer in
the lidtholik, whom F. Schneemann refers to,
" is compelled by Church authority to consider
Honorius as a heretic, and it is moreover his-
torically incapable of proof at the very least, if
not altogether false, that Honorius, either ex-
cathedra or otherwise, formally gave expres-
sion to a dogmatic error." Such, then, is the
result we have arrived at ; but this result is
nothing new, but the common belief held in
the Catholic Church. " There are now but
few," says a writer of weight—" and they
moreover of suspicious tendencies or of no
great authority—who condemn Honorius as a
heretic." There is nothing in the tone or
in the substance of Mr. Renouf's pamphlet,
we regret to say, which will remove him from
either of the above categories.
We must defer what we have to say on
the general question of Papal infallibility until

next week, when we shall bring this already
protracted review to a close. What opinions
Mr. Renouf may express in favour of the now
exploded Gallic= theory can be of little in-
terest, and, as compared with the theory started
by F. Ryder, of but little practical importance
to Catholics. The defence which the genius
of Bossuet failed to make good is not likely,
in Mr. Renouf's hands, to be more successful.
We feel indeed but little interest in such a dis-
cussion. The only point which we cared to refer
to was the alleged heresy of Pope Honorius.
Until Mr. Renouf is able to substantiate his
accusation that Pope Honorius thought heresy
ex cathedra, his assertion that the Ultramon-
tane system of theology is demonstrably " un-
tenable," will have no weight whatsoever.

whence he could draw. We are not saying 3
that such should be his action, so much as this
—that we cannot possibly figure to ourselves
the frame of mind a man must be in to do
otherwise. He either believes, or he does not
believe. If he believe, then he must—he can-
not help, but he must—act as a believer. If
a man believes he is walking into a furnace,
he cannot but turn away. If he believes not,
then our argument is not addressed to him.
Again, if he believe, does he not, or should he
not, go a step further—must he not do ?
Those who know, and have eyes clearly to
see the power of principle, cannot those same
eyes open upon the duty of action, of doing
one's share ? If a man can see but partially,
and moves not, should not that partial vision
give him light enough to try and see more ?
If a man, in fine, feel himself out of gear
with what he knows in the secret folds of his
heart is the Church of God and the armoury
in which principles of true, lasting, and over-
whelming force alone are stored—should he not
get up, rouse himself, look at his position, and
clean self out to make room for the norma
of a stronger and nobler life than that of petty
conceit, minute talent, and schoolmaster lore ?
We think so, for we hold that man's mind when
filled with self, and miserable human talent, is
weakness; but filled with the light and strength
of God, through the voice and guidance of
God's own spirit—becomes like that spirit—
tender, strong, masterful, and constraining.—
Westminster Gazette.