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.”
This conclusion was followed up by burning the heretical letters,
including that of Pope Honorius. It is significant that when the
Council were about to proceed to pronounce the Anathemas, George,
Patriarch of Constantinople, was anxious to secure the omission of his
predecessors’ name, but the majority overruled him. So the sentence was
uttered, “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the
heretic Honorius.”
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.[51] 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.[52] 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:[53]--
[51] Rosière, xxxix.
[52] _Ibid_. xviii.
[53] _Ibid_. cxiii.
“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_.”[54]
[54] _Ibid_. cxiii.
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.”[55]
[55] Rosière, cxiv.
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.”[56] However, in the year 1680, the Jesuit writer,
Garnier, 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.[57] 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.
[56] _Ibid_. xlix. lvii.
[57] _Ibid_. lx. lxi.
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,[58] 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.
[58] _History of the Councils_, i. p. 181. (Engl. trans.).
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[59] 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.
[59] _Works_, V. xvii. p. 67.
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.[60] 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.
[60] Turmel, _Hist. Théol. Positive_, p. 315.
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[61] 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?
[61] Bossuet, t. xxi. p. 76.
A recent Roman writer[62] 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.
[62] Turmel, _Hist. Théol. Positive_, p. 76.
“To allow that a Pope had been solemnly charged with heresy even as
a private doctor was too much for the infallibilists. On the other
hand, the Gallicans could not forget Bossuet’s retort. ‘When can a
Pope have cause to speak _ex cathedra_ if not when consulted by the
entire East?’”[63]
[63] Turmel, _Hist. Théol. Positive_, p. 317.
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,[64] almost invariably
abandoned among defenders of Papal Infallibility.
[64] Turmel, _Hist. Théol. Positive_, p. 32.
But, after all, was the Universal Council mistaken in the
interpretation 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,[65] “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.[66] 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.”[67]
[65] _History of the Councils_, p. 32.
[66] _History of the Councils_, p. 36.
[67] _Ibid._ p. 54.
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.”[68]
[68] _Ibid._ p. 58.
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.”[69]
[69] _History of the Councils_, p. 184.
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_.[70]
[70] Page 317.
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. Garnier,
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.