The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDOY, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 16, 1868.

POPE HONORWS AND PAPAL _IMAM-
-13114171'.

(From the Westminster Gazette.)

As their fashion is, uncritical disciples too
often exaggerate the errors of their masters.
Such is the case with Mr. Renouf. What
Dr. Dsllinger insinuates, or implies, or infers
from arguments which he adduces, Mr. Renouf
rashly asserts as facts, which are denied only
by mendacious writers—from Abbot John to
F. Perrone—or disputed merely because of
the alleged necessities of a theological system.
The points which Mr. Renouf maintains in
his pamphlet : " The Condemnation of Pope
Honorius," are —lst, That Pope Honorius
held the Monothelite heresy ; 2nd, That he
pronounced an heretical definition ex cathedra, ;
3rd, That he was condemned by Popes and
Councils for teaching heresy ; and 4th, That
the Theory of Papal Infallibility is demon-
strably untenable.

Against these conclusions of his thesis, Mr.
Renouf listens to no argument, accepts no evi-
dence however entitled to consideration, and
rejects every interpretation of Pope Honorius'
words but that put upon them by the Monothe-
lite heretics themselves ; and, with an assump-
tion of contemptuous disregard which ill be-
comes a Catholic writer in so grave a question,
puts aside the almost unanimous testimony,
as F. Schneemann abundantly proves, of Catho-
lic writers from the days of Honorius down to
our own. Our business, however, is to dis-
cover for Ourselves what authorities beyond
the few writers whom he refers to, Mr. Renonf
has for his singular assertions. The chief
authority whom Mr. Renouf evidently relies
on, and whom it is most strange that he
does not cite by name, or even allude to
throughout his pamphlet, is Dr. Dellinger.
Is this " economy,' which Mr. Renonf 'so
freely attributes to Popes and saints, caused
by the ill-repute on account of his anti-Papal
tendencies, which of late years Dr. Dellinger
has fallen into among Catholics, both in Ger-
many, in England, and in Rome ? It was
chiefly to refute the recent opinions of Dr. Del-
linger on Pope Honorius, for they are not those
maintained in his history of the Church, that
F. Schneemann wrote his famous justification
of Pope Honorius, which neither Dr. Dellinger
nor any of his disciples have as yet been able to
rebut.

Putting, then, Mr. Renouf aside, let us in-
quire into the value and authority of the few
Catholic writers who, during the 17th and 18th
centuries, have accused Pope Honorius of
heresy, and briefly examine the arguments on
which that opinion is based. It is noteworthy
that the two most important impugners of
Pope Honorius' orthodoxy in modern times
brought forward their accusations under the
pressure of external circumstances, not to say
at the instigation of motives hostile to the
Pap:icy, and that both these writers, in doing
so, contradicted the deliberate conclusions
arrived at by calm and critical study in works
which will deservedly hand down their names
to the admiration of posterity. These twin de-
famers of Pope Honorius are Bossuet and Dr.
Dollinger. Bossuet, in his " Defense de la de-
clarations du Clerge Gallican," and Dr. Dol-
linger in his " Papstfabeln." Yet Bossuet in
his classical work, " Discours sur l'histoire
universelle,ll speaking of the Monothelites,
says :—" They concealed their poison under
ambiguous phrases ; a false love of peace
prompted Pope Honorius to propose to them
not to speak either of one or two wills. The
Pope, deceived by their artifices, in his generous
mercy consented to a silence in which false-
hood and truth were alike suppressed." Further
on, he says :—"The' Council of Constantinople
did not spare Honorius because he had spared
the heretics." Thus *rote Bossuet before he
became a tcol in the hands of Louis XIV., at
whose command, as is well known, his de-
fence of the declaration of the Gallican clergy
was written, in which, as a necessary defence
of Gallicanism, he brought against Pope
Honorius the charge of heresy. In like
manner Dr. Dollinger, in his " Lehrbuch," in
which he deliberately and critically treats of
the doctrines of the Church, says that Pope
Honorius did not distinctly declare himself in
favour of the Mouothelites, and that if he
maintained that there was one will in Christ,
in saying so he only meant the conformity
interpretation rePtoatpieon
of the human with the divine will. This in-
terpretationp
ut Honorius'itpen t,wordsem
biys
theth e
natural
almost unanimous judgment of Catholic theo-
logians and historians. How comes it that
now Dr. Dollinger has dd su en Jr veered around,
and put on Pope Honorius' language a con-
trary construction? "If the -Mon:thene heresy
was so emphatically and so distinctly contained,
as Dr: Dollinger now asserts, in the letters of
Pope Honorius, how was it," asks F. Schnee-
mann, " that the great Church historian had,
for .so long a period, not been able to detect
it ?" Whatever may have been Dr. Dolli ' nger s
motive in now adopting the Monothelite in-
terpretation, the use he makes of the alleged
heresy of Pope Honorius is so to circumscribe
the limits and the relation of Papal Infalli-
bility to the Church as to destroy its essential
character.

In addition to Dr. Dollinger, Professor
Hefele, in the "Tiibinger Quartalschrift" (1857,
vol. 1), and in his "Conciiiengeschichte"
(vol. 4), has treated of the question of Pope
Honorius. Professor Hefele says, as to the
result of his investigation, that Honorius had
given expression not to heretical, but to un-
clear thoughts, and consequently did not intend
by his words to convey a heretical meaning,
and only by his prohibition of the expression
" two energies," and the improvident use of
the technical term of the heretics—one will—
die he become a participator in their heresy.
But Professor Hefele makes use of too strong
an expression when he says Honorius forbade
the expression " two energies," for in reality
he only advised its discontinuance. The words
he used were not jubemus, but only hortumur ;
and moreover he made the messengers of
Sophronius promise only conditionally not to
use the expression in case that was that their
opponents did not retain the expression " one
energy."
In examining the authorities whom Dr. Dol-
linger cites in support of his view, F. Schnee-
mann observes that the best of the Gallican
writers, such as Tournely, Natalis -Alexander,
Languet, and De Alarm vindicate Pope Hono-
rius from the charge of heresy ; and he then
proceeds to examine the value of the testimony
of the writers on which Dr. Dollinffer relies.
One of these was Richer, a friend of noto-
rious Sarpi and Dupin, both of whom were
banished by the French Government on ac-
count of their un-Catholic opinions. Dupin,
especially, was charged by Bossuet with hold-
ing un-Catholic doctrines, and was denounced
by Pope Clement XT. as a man of very bad
principles. And Richer's work, moreover,
was proscribed by two French provincial
Councils, as well as by Rome, and at the
Council of Pistoja, the development of his
principles was condemned as heretical. But
it may be alleged that Bossuet, in his " Defense
de la declarations du Clerge Galilean," which
was the great bulwark of Gallicanism, adopted
the opinions of these writers ; but what little
value as an independent and critical testimony
is to be attached to this chef d'oeuvre of Gal-
licanism may be learnt from the external his-
tory of this work. It was written, as has
already been said, at the command of the King,
in order to defend the Galilean articles, which-
had incurred the disapprobation of the Holy
See, and it was never published during Bos-
suet's lifetime. Up to his death he was engaged
in introducing emendations, and so doubtful
was he as to the justice of the cause he had
unwillingly undertaken to defend that he did
not venture to publish this book during his
lifetime. Indeed, he entrusted the manuscript
to his nephew, on the express condition to give
it only to the King, whom he besought not to
allow of its publication, unless it was abso-
lutely required on grounds of public necessity.
Forty-years later -this book was published with-
out, however, the numerous emendations made
by the author, without the consent of the

King, and not under the conditions which
its author had imposed. Many doubts, and
not without reason, have been expressed as to
its genuineness. "What kind of judgment,"
asks F. Schneemann, "is to be pronounced on
such a work ? Is a work published after the
death of its author and against his express
wish, and without any of his emendations, en-
titled to very great consideration ? And what
is its internal value ? • It is not," our author
remarks with great justice, " the result of
calm investigation ; it is not the work of an
untrammelled mind ; it is written, indeed, by
great genius, but in the service of an absolute

monarch in defence of a bad cause. What
can the greatest genius do if it fall into evil
ways ?" And yet this book is the chief autho-
rity which is set up against the giants of.
Catholic literature and science, who have
defended Pope Honorius. But it is time to
pass on to the other authorities appealed to as
evidence against Honorius's orthodoxy. One
of these is Cardinal de la Luzerne, of whose
judgment on this question Mr. Renouf makes
great use, forgetting, however, to inform his
readers that at the period just prior to the
French Revolution, when the Honorius ques-
tion was so much discussed, he not only voted
in favour of Pope Honorius, but wrote in de-
fence of his orthodoxy. It was only later on,
after the French Revolution, when he was en-
deavouring to show that the safety of the
Church in France depended on its intimate
connection with the Bourbon throne, that
he wrote an apology of the Gallican articles,
and that he changed his opinions on the Hono-
rius question.
We have now to examine faults graver
than mere superficial criticism or hasty gene-
ralization into which an unhappy anti-Papal
spirit seems to have betrayed Dr. Dollinger.
Since Dr. Dollinger's influence has not been
without its evil effect in England, we are under
no obligation to attenuate the judgments pro-
nounced by competent critics in Germany,
that too great a reliance must now no longer
be placed upon the historical accuracy or
critical acumen of Dr. Dollinger, especially in
matters in which the rights and prerogatives
of the Papacy are concerned. F. Schneemann
exposes, without comment or any approach to
severity in statement, several instances, in
which Dr. Dollinger has been guilty of sup-
pression of evidence that told against his case,
and of perversion or misrepresentation of the
judgment of witnesses whom he cites in sup-
port of his views. Let us take, says F. Schnee-
mann, the instance of Cardinal Sfondrate, Bel-
larmine, and Baronius, together with many
others, as is well known, Maintained that the
acts of the sixth Synod had been falsified.
Thereupon Dr. Dollinger remarks in his
Papstfabeln that against the endeavours of
Bellarmine, Baronius, and of others after them
to set aside historical and copiously attested
facts by throwing suspicion on witnesses and
documents Cardinal Sfrondate has spoken out
strongly in the following words : —" Quid
hoc est aliud quam contra torrentem navigare,
omnemque historiam ecclesiasticam in dubium
vocare.? Sablata vero historia et consequenter
traditione usuque ecclesiae, quae to arma contra
haereticos satis valida habebis ? Male ergo,
ut nobis quidem videtur, Ecclesiae illi con-
sulunt, qui ut Honorii causam tueantur, his-
toriam ecclesiasticam exarmant.—Ergo si tes-
tibus agenda ll
res est, Honorius Papa ereticus
° fait." Strop.- words of a verity, observes F.
Schneemann; but they lose their force, at least
inasmuch they seem to speak against Hono-
rius, Bellarmine, and Baronius by what imme-
diately follows, but which Dr. Dollinger, we
may observe, omits : " Si vero causam ipsam
rationesque attendas, ob quas haeresis postu-
latur Honorius, fatendum est, innocentem esse
et noxa liberum." Cardinal Sfondrate proves
this at length, and maintains that: "Honorius
haeresim Monotheletarum non adstruit sod
plane destruit.—Clarissime dicit, non esse di-
cendam unam voluntatem vel operationem, sed
unum operantem. Apertissime singulis naturis
propriam operationem tribuit." So much for
the fairness of Dr. Dollinger's mode of mak;
ing use of quotations.
We come now, says F. Schneemann, to
another defender of Papal infallibility. Dr.
Dollinger, after pointing out that the Jansenists
maintained Honorius had been unjustly treated
by the Sixth Synod, which deceived itself; but
that their opponents by the distinction be-
tween positive and negative heresy, did violence
to the clear words ca the Synod, thus speaks of,,
Fenelon (Papstfabeln, p. 148) ; " Bat Fenclon
has already reminded us that by all these arti-
fices whereby the orthodoxy of Honorius is in-
tended to be saved nothing is gained." Dol-
linger thus seems, says F. Schneemann, to refer
the criticism of Fenelon to the assertion of
the Jansenists as well as to that of their op-
ponents. But unjustly; for Fenelon in the
passage quoted nowhere designates the dis-
tinction between positive and negative heresy
as an artifice or idle interpretation. We find,
indeed, just before the passage quoted by Dol-
linger, a similar sentence : En vain pour parer
cet inconvenient ou se retrancherait a dire
que ce Pape ,n'a ete anathematise par le
concile que comme fauteur d.'heresie, et
non pas comma heretiquee. But these are
hot the words of Fenelon, but of the Jansen-
ists, whom he is refuting. How, moreover,
could Fenelon call this distinction an artifice,
as he emphatically at least elsewhere expresses
his concurrence with those who maintain this
distinction. But even the words of Fenelon,
which Dollinger quotes but does not trans-
late quite accurately, indicate as much. Fene-
lon writes thus : "Suppose que le sixieme con-
cile suivi en ce point par plusieurs papes, eut
cm que le texte d'Honorius etait heretique,
&c., &c." By this construction Fenelon in-
tends it to be understood that the supposition
which he makes was not made in reality .but
was only imaginary, and, consequently, that
the Church had not condemned Honorius as a
heretic. But Bollinger ascribes to Fenelon
just the contrary, making him repudiate as an
artifice the distinction between heresy and the
favouring of heresy. In another point Fene-
lon differs from Dollinger. Dollinger says of
-Torquemada, Baronius, Bellarmine, and of
others, that they simply sacrificed the dignity
of an (Ecumenical Council to the interests of
their theory, and maintained, as did the Jan-
senists later, that the Council was deceived in
its judgment of the Decretals of Honorius.
Verily, observes F. Schneemann, a severe re-
proach against such devout and learned men.
Fenelon, he shows, on the contrary, proves by
an exhaustive examination and comparison of
the words of these theologians that the expres-
sions, although inaccurate, had in reality a
Catholic sense.
Referring to Dr. Dollinger, F. Schneemann
says the, example of Fenelon shows us with
what care Catholic theologians should folk)*
the principle, long ago
expressed by the
u only,
nc a
tuhnedr l
e
sense
; butcompulsion, e
sb
pe
Fathers, that the words of a Catholic should
is this true
eeiinatlelyrpreted in an
in regard to the departed worthies of Catholic
theology. Want of space forbids us to pursue
in further detail the exposure of the misin-
terpretations and false quotations into which
Dr. Dollinger has been betrayed. It is enough
to remark that Dr. Bollinger quotes Bishop
d'Argentre as maintaining
"that. the Council
had rightly condemned Pope Honorius as a
heretic ;" but F. Schneemann shows that
neither the words quoted, nor their equivalent,
are to be found in the passage referred to
by Dr. Dollinger, but that the direct contra-
dictory is maintained. For in the passage in
question, d'Argentre refers to a treatise of his
on Pope Honorius, in which he expressly main-
tains and proves that it cannot be said that
Honorius was condemned by the Church as a
heretic. Again, Dr. Dollinger claims Cardinal
'Orsi, the ardent upholder of Papal infallibility,
as acknowledging
the untenableness of the
efforts made by short-sighted theologians to
maintain the orthodoxy of Honorius. Brit De
la Luzerne, whom F. Schneemann quotes, not,
having himself access to the works of Cardinal
.Orsi, says that the Cardinal maintained the
opinion that Honorius was now accused' of
heresy only by
Protestants. Professor liefele,

also simply reckons Cardinal Orsi among the
defenders of the orthodoxy of Honorius. We
can ourselves attest to the fact that Cardial
Orsi maintains an opinion in this controversy
directly the reverse of that attributed to him
by Pr. Dollinger. So much, then, for the
accuracy of Dr. Dollinger. The very authorities
whom he has cited in behalf of his opinion speak
against him. In repudiating Dr. Dollinger's
assumption of the right oT putting an exclusive
monothelite interpretation on Pope Honorius'
letters to the Patriarch Sergius, in exposing the
inaccuracy, to say the least, of his quotations,
and the paucity and untrustworthiness .of the
witnesses he brings into court against the
orthodoxy of the Pope, and, above all, in
reminding Catholics that the acts of a Council
are only valid in so far as they are confirmed
by the Pope, F. Schneemann has, by antici-
pation, completely cut the ground from be-
neath Mr. Renouf's feet. Mr. Renouf, with
uncritical blindness, seems in his pamphlet to
have relied implicitly on Dr. Dollinger's asser-
tions, trusted to his authorities, and servilely,
though without acknowledgment, adopted his
conclusions ; lie cannot, therefore, be surprised
that his rude and blundering attacks on the
orthodoxy of Pope Honorius, on the sanctity,
on the venerable wisdom, and the profound
learning of 'so many saints, theologians, and
historians, should disentitle him to any con-
sideration beyond what is charitably extended
to a blind, and, therefore, partly irresponsible,
follower of an untrustworthy leader. Mr.
Renouf has the greatest right to complain of
Dr. Dollinger.

We should do F. Schneemann an injustice
were we not, before quitting this portion of our
subject, to refer to his philosophical remarks
on the general principles of interpretation. It
is in this particular power of referring facts
to general principles that Dr. Dollinger is
deficient. In spite of his learning and acute-
ness, he is sadly wanting in breadth of mind
and in the power of philosophic generalization.
This want is conspicuous among many and
great excellencies in his Church history ; it
lies at the bottom of most of his inconsistencies
and errors. The very keenness of his mental
vision contracts its range and predisposes him
to seize upon isolated facts to the neglect of
general principles, by which alone these facts
can be reduced to an intelligible and consistent
system. Under the impulse of irritation of
external circumstances, this original defect is
painfully conspicuous in most of Dr. Dollinger's
recent publications, but more especially so in
his Papstfabele Judged by the rule which F.
Schneemann lays down as a universal principle
in Canon as well as in Civil law, Dr. Dollinger's
judgment on Pope Honorius must be reversed.
This principle recognised in like manner in
the Roman law lays down as a universal rule
that ambiguous expressions admit of an in-
terpretation, especially by him who made use
of them, and by his successor in legislation ;
and, lastly, great weight is attached to the ex-
planation of science, especially if it be unani-
mous. Applying this principle to the decision
of the Honorius question, F. Schneemann says
it is not evident that the words of the Pope
are to be taken in the heretical sense, he will
moreover, even grant, that it is not clear that
they are to be understood in an orthodox
sense. Room is left for interprptation. If, then,
Honorius, especially in his first letter, expressed
himself inaccurately, yet in his second he ex-
plained himself more clearly, and maintained
in a most unmistakeable manner the Catholic
Dogma against the Monothelites. Moreover,
ambiguous words are to be explained according
to the intention of the author, and abundant
evidence, as we have already seen, attests to
what was the real meaning of Pope Honorius.
How is it possible, says F. Schneemann, after
duly weighing the various testimony as to the
intention of the Pope, the report of his secre-
tary who composed the letters, the judgment
of the Roman clergy, and the official decla-
ration of his successor, together with the almost
unanimous agreement in the Catholic world of
science and letters as to the orthodox meaning
of Pope Honorius, how is it possible, then, in
contradiction to all this evidence, to attach an
heretical sense to his words.

In justice to F. Schneemann we ought to
mention here that we have had to omit, partly
for want of space, and partly on account of its
scientific character, the exhaustive energetical
examination of the two incriminated letters
of Honorius, the result of which we may state
is a conclusive proof, to be evaded only
by subterfuge or perversion of facts, that the
letters of Honorius in no way teach or contain
heresy. In vain did so great a genius as
Bossuet expend twenty years' labour in endea-
vouring to convict the Pope of teaching heresy ;
in vain have been the labours and the learning
of Dr. Dollingcr ; all their efforts have been
dashed to pieces against the Rock on which
the Church was founded ; for " Peter," as
Bossuet himself says, "lives in his Successors."
If, then, as we have seen, no heretical inter-
pretation can justly be put on Pope Honorius's
letters, what becomes of the allegation so loudly
and so rashly blurted out, not indeed so much
by Dr. Dollinger as by his indiscreet disciple,
Mr. Renouf, as to the utter and evident un-
tenableness of the theory of Papal infallibility?
Next week we shall enter more particularly into
this aspect of the question, and by the help of
Dr. Ward's latest publication—the ablest, per-
haps,and the most convincing of his invalu-
ableseries—contrast Mr. Renouf's attempt to
substitute for Papal infallibility the infallibility
of General Councils with F. Ryder's attempt,
so to circumscribe and limit the infallibility
of the Pope and Church as to make its exer-
cise not a matter of constant use, but of rare
occurrence in the course of centuries. Were
we now called upon to express an opinion as
to the relative dangers to Catholicity of the
two schemes we should, not speaking of the
manner in which they are propounded, with-
out hesitation pronounce F. Ryder's novel and
insidious theory to be by far the more danger-
ous, since its adoption by English Catholics
would practically render, as far as they are
concerned, the infallible judgment of the
Church inoperative on all but very rare and
exceptional occasions, and would, as Dr. Ward,
we think has somewhere well observed, com-
pletely revolutionize the attitude of their
minds towards the Church.