Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-04-17

10 IumOItu, Oh Tie IbOlul vi ICNdutlile iiis
errors and submitting to the teaching Of
the Church-this isolated sentence from
that same letter OF Pope, Honorius:
1--WE confess one will of Tor i'm in our
Lord Jesus Christ" But let him read
the context, and then he will be better
able to judge the Pope's meaning-and
this is not modern interpreta-
ton, but it is the Interpretation given
to it by the POpe's own secretary, the
Abbot John. THE Pope was fortunate
enough TO have a secretary | will
translate portion Of the letter, imme-
diately following the words cited from
Janus; il is a continuation of the same
sentence: Because it was nature, not
our fault, (culpd) which was assumed by
the Divinity; that nature, indeed, such
as il was created before sin, not as viii
ated by sin; and this idea continues to
run through all that portion of his let
ter. HonOrlus, as his learned secretary
afterwards explained, meant merely to
deny that there was in the human ma
ture of Jesus Christ, that deprdYd wiu,
which wars against the spirit;
that there was in Christ that twofold
will, which st. Paul declares he felt
within himself. For the good that
WOuld, | do not; but the evil which
| WOuid not, that do" rom. vii, l9).
Pope HonOrius maintained, land he was
in that thoroughly othodOx) that in
Christ's human nature, there was but
one will, and that always in perfect ac-
cord with and submission to the will OF
the Divinity. But why, it may be
asked, if he were defining the doctrine
OF the church, was he not more ex-
pliCit? But here again precisely Is,
where our opponents make mistake,
that is fatal TO their argument. Honorius
was writing p''irdte letter to Serglus,
and not defining dogma of faith and
teaching the whole church &c cdthedrd.
In his second epistle to Sergius he says
expressly: Non nos oportet undm
vel duas operationes DEFINIENTEs pra-
edicare." But was he guilty of no fault
in connection with this heresy? | do
not deny that when he had been better
informed OF the true character of the
rising hercsy, he failed to do his duty;
and for this he was Justly condemned.
But instead OF an argument against, this
very condemnation furnishes the strong
est proof in favor of the teaching office
of the Bishop OF Rome. Had he done
his duty as his office required him to do,
he would have treated the novel doc
trine and its abettOrs as Leo y. treated
Luther and his heresy. Mr.. Steele
coolly tells us that the Emperor
Constantine ". presided at the
Sixth General Council, which
passed a sentence of condemnation
against HOnorius. The Council was
called at the request OF the Emperor by
Pope st. Agatho, whose legates Theo-
dore, George and John presided in the
name of the Sovereign PontiiT.
Passing over the question raised by
certain learned men, whether the de-
crecs OF the Council were not tampered
with by the impious Theodore, mot the
Papal legate, but Bishop of Pharan be-
fore they were forwarded to the Holy
See for confirmation, We know this fact
that Pope Leo III, who confirmed the
said DEGREES, did not approve the con-
Of IlOnyrnis as guilty
OF heresy; and without the Papal sane
ton, the decres of General Councils
are not binding. After expressly con-
demning as inventors OF the new
error" Theodore, UI Pharan, Cyrus, of
Alexander and others, Pope Leo also
condemned llOnOrius for PERMITTING the
immaculate doctrine OF the Apostolic
See To be corrupted. "-'qm 80 immac-
ulatam (dOctrinam) maCulari permlslt.
Later on, again enumerating those whom
he expressly condemned as guilty OF
heresv, he adds scum HOnOriO, qld tam
mann hdcriici dOgmdtis, non at decred ApOS-
tOIicdm ductDritdtem, Wcipicutcm ertinrH,
sed ueqligendO eontOrt." Translation: "to-
ycthcr with HIOnOrius, who by NEGLI-
GENCE fostered the flame OF heretlcal
teaching, and did not cXtinguish
it in the beginning, as it became
his apOstolcal authority" There is
certainly vast difference between dog
matically and officially teaching error,
and ncglec,ing to extlnguish it. My
answer then to ldnus is:
First-Honorius was not censured for
teaching heresy, but for neglectlng To
use his Apostolical authority in repress-
ing Monothelism; therefore his acCusers
must acknowledge that he had that au-
thority.
Sccond-Honorius in his letter TO
Sergius, was not, as he expressly stated,
defining the Catholic doctrine. His let
ters were addressed to a single indyid-
ual, not TO the universal church.
Third-There is nothing in his letters
10 Scrpius. contrary to Catholic orthO-
doXy.
Therefore, this argument too, borrow
ell from Idnus, falls to the ground.
here give notice to the Rev. Mr..
Steele that, if he wishes me to pay heed
10 his future cifusions, he must sup
press insinuatiOns that are as base as
they are hascless. When an adversary
challenges my right 10 restrain him
within the bounds Of Christian proprie-
ty, he falls in my estimation beneath
any other notice than that which is i'm
piled in silent contempt.
JONI J. kAIS,