12 October 638 A.D. Honorarius Dies—Rome’s 70th; Condemned by 6th Ecumenical Council; Monothelitism; Monophysiticism
12 October 638 A.D. Honorarius Dies—Rome’s 70th; Condemned by 6th
Ecumenical Council; Monothelitism;
Monophysiticism
Pope (625-12
October, 638), a Campanian, consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or
3 November (Jaffé, Mann), insuccession to Boniface V. His chief notoriety has come to him from the
fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680).
The letter of Sergius to Honorius
Monothelism
The reply of Honorius
The type of Constans
In what sense Honorius was condemned
Modern controversies on the subject
Character and work of Honorius
Sources
Chapman,
John. "Pope Honorius
I." The
Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton
Company, 1910.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm. Accessed 14 Jul 2014.
Pope Honorius I
This subject
will be considered under the following headings:
The
Letter of Sergius to Honorius
Monothelism
The Reply of Honorius
The Ecthesis of Heraclius
The Type of Constans
In What Sense was Honorius Condemned
Modern Controversies on the Subject
Character and Work of Honorius
Monothelism
The Reply of Honorius
The Ecthesis of Heraclius
The Type of Constans
In What Sense was Honorius Condemned
Modern Controversies on the Subject
Character and Work of Honorius
The letter of Sergius to Honorius
The Monothelite question was raised about
634 in a letter to this pope from the Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius.
He related that Emperor Heraclius, when in Armenia in 622, in refuting a Monophysite of the Severiansect, had made use of the expression "one
operation" (energy, energeia) of the Incarnate Word. Cyrus, Bishop of the Lazi, had considered this
doubtfully orthodox, and had asked advice of
Sergius. Sergius replied (he says) that he did not wish to decide the matter, but that the
expression had been used by his predecessor Mennas in a letter to Pope Vigilius. In 630 Cyrus had become Patriarch of Alexandria. He found Egypt almost entirelyMonophysite, as it had been since
the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Cyrus, by the use
of the expression for which Sergius had been able to produce such good
authority, had formulated a series of propositions, which most of the Monophysites were willing to accept,
and they were by this means reunited in large numbers to the Catholic Church, "so that those who formerly would
not speak of the divine Leo and the great Council of Chalcedon now commemorated both
with a loud voice in the holy mysteries". At this
juncture Sophronius, a Palestinian monk, famed for holiness, came to Alexandria. He
disapproved of the formulary of Cyrus, and Sergius was
evidently somewhat disquieted at this. The reunion of so many heretics was indeed glorious; but the ease
with which it had been accomplished must have seemed suspicious. Sophronius was not ready at once
with quotations from the Fathers to show that "two
operations" was the only orthodox expression. But Sergius
was ready to drop the expression "one operation" if Sophronius would do nothing that
might destroy the union already accomplished at Alexandria. Sophronius agreed. Sergius, however,
was not satisfied with recommending Cyrus for the future to refrain from all
mention of either one or two operations, but thought itnecessary to place the whole matter before the pope. Sergius has commonly been treated as a heretic who did his best to deceive the pope. It seems more fair and more accurate to
say that he was rather a politician than a theologian, but that he acted in good faith. He naturally was anxious to defend an
expression which the emperor had used, and he was unaware that the letter of Mennas to Vigilius was a Monophysite forgery. But Cyrus's large use of his formula and
its denunciation by St. Sophronius caused him to take precautionary
measures. His readiness to drop the expression shows modesty, if his wish that Sophronius's formula also be dropped
shows ignorance. Nothing could have been
more proper, or more in accordance with the best traditions of his see, than to refer the whole matter to Rome, since the Faith was in question.
Monothelism
The Monothelite heresy is not in reality
distinct from that of the Monophysites. The last few years have
made us better acquainted with the writings of Timothy Ælurus, Severus of Antioch, and other Monophysites, and it is now plain
that the chief points on which the various sections of Monophysites were agreed against Catholicism were the assertions that
there is but one Will in the Incarnate Word, and that the
operations (activities, energeiai) of Christ are not to be
distinguished into two classes, the Divine and the human, but are to be
considered as being the "theandric" (Divino-human) actions of the one Christ (see EUTYCHIANISM). Now these two formulæ,
"one Will", and "one
theandric operation", are characteristic of Monothelism. It was not perceived by
the ancients that this Monothelism, when it arose, was no
new heresy, but expressed the veryessence of Monophysitism. This was because the war with the latter heresy had been a war of words. The Catholics, following St. Leo and the Council of Chalcedon, confessed two natures, physeis, in Christ, using the word nature to mean an essence without subject, i.e. as
distinct from hypostasis; whereas the Monophysites, following St. Cyril, spoke of
"one nature",
understanding the word of a subsistent nature or subject, and as
equivalent to hypostasis. They consequently
accused the Catholics of Nestorianism, and of teaching
twoPersons in Christ; while the Catholics supposed the Monophysites to hold that the human nature in Christ was so swallowed up in
the Divine that it was non-existent. It does not appear that the Monophysite leaders really went so
far as this; but they did undoubtedly diminish the completeness of the human nature of Christ, by referring both will and operation to the one Person and not to the two
distinct natures. It followed that ahuman free will and a human power of action were wanting to Christ's human nature. But this real error of theheretics was not clearly detected
by many Catholic theologians, because they spent
their force in attacking theimaginary error of denying all reality to
the human nature. Our new knowledge of the Monophysite theologyenables us to perceive
why it was that Cyrus succeeded so easily in uniting the Monophysites to the Church: it was because his formula embodied
their heresy, and because they had never held the error which he supposed they
were renouncing. Both he and Sergius ought to have known better. But Sergius, at
the end of his letter, gets very near to accuracy, when he says that "from
one and the same Incarnate Word proceeds indivisibly
every human and Divine
operation", for this does distinguish the human operations from the
Divine operations, though it refers them rightly to a single subject; and
Sergius proceeds to quote the famous words of St. Leo'sdogmatic letter to Flavian: "Agit utraque forma cum alterius
communione quod proprium est", which amount
to a condemnation of "one energy".
The reply of Honorius
It was now
for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did
nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not
authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak
with the voice of Peter; it condemned
nothing, it defined nothing. Honoriusentirely agrees
with the caution which Sergius recommends. He praises Sergius for eventually
dropping the new expression "one operation", but he unfortunately
also agrees with him that it will be well to avoid "two operations"
also; for if the former sounds Eutychian, the latter may be judged to be Nestorian. Another passage is even
more difficult to account for. Following the lead of Sergius, who had said that
"two operations" might lead people to think two contrary wills were admitted in Christ, Honorius (after explaining thecommunicatio idiomatum, by which it can be said
that God was crucified, and that
the Man came down fromheaven) adds: "Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was
our natureand not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created beforesin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin." Other passages in the letter are orthodox. But it is plain that
the pope simply followed Sergius,
without going more deeply into the question. The letter cannot be called a
private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had,
however, less publicity than a modernEncyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not
bind the Church to accept its teaching,
it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance. But before,
and even just after, the Vatican Council such a view was sometimes
urged, though almost solely by the opponents of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Part of a second letter
of Honorius to Sergius was read at
the eighth council. It disapproves
rather more strongly of the mention of either one operation or two; but it has
the merit of referring to the words
ofSt. Leo which Sergius had cited.
The ecthesis of Heraclius
Sergius,
after receiving the pope's letter approving his
recent cautiousness, composed an
"Ecthesis", or exposition, which was issued by the emperor towards
the end of 638. In conformity with the words of Honoriusit orders all the subjects of Heraclius to confess one Will in our Lord, and to avoid the
expressions "one operation" and "two operations". Before
Sergius died, in December, he assembled a great synod atConstantinople, which
accepted the Ecthesis as "truly agreeing with the Apostolic preaching"; the
letter from the Apostolic See was evidently the surety
for this. Honorius was already dead, and had
no opportunity of approving or disapproving the imperial document which had
been based upon his letter. St. Sophronius, who had
become Patriarch of Jerusalem even before Sergius wrote
to the pope, also died before the end of the year,
but not before he had collected a large number of testimonies of the Fathers to the "two
operations", and had sent to all metropolitans of the world a remarkable
disquisition, which admirably defines the Catholic doctrine. He also solemnly commissioned Stephen, Bishop of Doza, the senior bishop of his patriarchate, to go to Rome and obtain a final
condemnation of the new error. The Roman envoys who came to Constantinople in 640 to obtain the
emperor's confirmation of the new pope, Severinus, refused to
accept the Ecthesis, on the ground that Rome was above all synodical law. Severinus only reigned two months,
but condemned the Ecthesis, and so did his successor, John IV. Emperor Heraclius then wrote to the pope, laying the blame on Sergius, and
disowning the Ecthesis. He died shortly afterwards (February, 641). To his
elder son John IVaddressed a letter known as the
"Apology for Pope Honorius". He explains quite truly that both
Sergius andHonorius asserted one Will only because they would
not admit contrary wills; yet he shows by
his argument that they were wrong in using so misleading an expression. St. Maximus of Constantinople, a monk and formerly secretary of Heraclius, now becomes
the protagonist of orthodoxy and of submission to Rome. His defence of Honorius is based upon the
statements of a certain abbot, John Symponus, the composer of
the letter of Honorius, to the effect
that the pope only meant to deny that Christ had not two contrary humanwills, such as are
found in our fallen nature. It is true that the words of Honorius are inconclusively though
notnecessarily, heretical. Unfortunately the Monophysites habitually argued in just the same inconclusive
way, from the fact that Christ could have no rebellious
lower will, to prove that His Divine and human will were not distinct faculties. No doubt Honorius did not really intend to deny that there is in Christ a human will, the higher faculty;
but he used words which could be interpreted in the sense of that heresy, and he did not recognize that the
question was not about the unity of the Person Who wills, nor about the
entire agreement of the Divine Will with the human faculty, but about the
distinct existence of the human faculty as an integrant
part of the Humanity of Christ.
The type of Constans
Pyrrhus, the successor of Sergius, was condemned
at Rome for refusing to withdraw
the Ecthesis. Emperor Constans deposed him for political
reasons, and set up a new patriarch, Paul. Pyrrhus recanted at Rome. Paul, on his appointment,
sent the customary confession of faith to the pope. As it did not confess two wills, it was condemned
by Pope Theodore. Paul first showed anger, but then prevailed on Constans to
withdraw the Ecthesis, for which was substituted a Typos, or "Type", in
which it was again forbidden to speak of one or two operations, but "one Will" was no longer
taught; instead it was said that neither one nor two wills were to be spoken of, but
no blame was to attach to any one who had used either expression in the past.
The penaltiesfor disobedience
were to be: deposition for bishops and clergy, excommunication, loss of goods or perpetual exile for
others. This edict was based upon a misinterpretation of the Apology of John IV, who had shown that "one Will" was an
improper expression, but had declared that Honorius and Sergius had used it
in an orthodoxsense. But John IV had neither defended nor
blamed Honorius and Sergius for wishing
the expression "two operations" to be avoided. It was consequently
assumed that Honorius was right in this, and it
was quitelogical to assimilate the
question of one or two wills to that of one or two
operations. The penalties were severe; but both patriarch and emperor declared that
they forced no man's conscience. The Type, unlike the
Ecthesis, was not an exposition of faith, but a mere prohibition of the use of certain words, for the avoidance
of wrangling. The edict was issued about the first half of 649. Pope Theodore died in May, and was
succeeded by St. Martin I, who in the great Lateran Council of 649 solemnly condemned the Ecthesis
and the Type asheretical, together with Cyrus,
Sergius, Pyrrhus (who had fallen back), and Paul. The emperor was
furious. He had the pope dragged to Constantinople, loaded
with chains, and exiled him to the Crimea, where he died amartyr for the Faith in 655. St. Maximus also suffered for his devotion to orthodoxy and his loyalty to the Holy See. The decrees of the Lateran Council which were sent to all bishops by St. Martin as papal dogmaticdecisions, mark a
new stage in the Honorius controversy. Honorius and Sergius must stand or
fall together.John IV defended both. St. Martin condemns Sergius and
Cyrus, and not a word is said in favour of Honorius. It was
evidently felt that he could not be defended, if the Type was to be condemned as heretical because it forbade the orthodox expressions "two
operations" and "two Wills", since in
this it was simply followingHonorius. But be it carefully noted that the Type of Constans is not Monothelite. Its "heresy"
consists in forbidding the use of orthodox expressions together with
their heretical contraries. A study of
the Acts of theLateran Council will show that the
question was not as to the toleration of Monothelite expressions, for they
were forbidden by the Type, but the prohibition
of the orthodox formulæ. No doubt it was still held at Romethat Honorius had not intended to teach
"one Will", and was,
therefore, not a positive heretic. But no one would deny that he
recommended the negative course which the Type enforced under savage
penalties, and that he objectively deserved the same condemnation.
In what sense Honorius was condemned
Constans was murdered in 668. His successor, Constantine Pogonatus, probably did
not trouble to enforce theType, but East and West remained divided until
his wars against the Saracens were over in 678, and he
began to think of reunion. By his desire Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside at a general council which met
atConstantinople on 7 Nov., 680. They
brought with them a long dogmatic letter in which the pope defined thefaith with authority as the successor of St. Peter. He emphatically
declares, remembering Honorius, that theApostolic
Church of St. Peter has never
fallen into error. He condemns the Ecthesis and Type, with Cyrus,
Sergius, Theodore of Pharan, Pyrrhus, Paul, and his successor Peter. He leaves no power
of deliberation to thecouncil. The Easterns are to have the privilege of reunion by simply
accepting his letter. He sent a book of testimonies from the Fathers, which were
carefully verified. The Monothelite Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius, had been
allowed to present other testimonies, which were examined and found to be
incorrect. The Patriarch ofConstantinople, George, and all the council accepted the papal letter, and Macarius was condemned anddeposed for not accepting it. Honorius, so far, had
been thrice appealed to by Macarius, but had been
mentioned by no one else. In the twelfth session, 12 March, 681, a packet was
produced which Macarius had sent to the emperor,
but which the latter had not opened. It proved to contain the letter of
Sergius to Cyrus and to Honorius, the forged letter of Mennas to Vigilius, and the letter
of Honorius to Sergius. In the
thirteenth session, 28 March, the two letters of Sergius were condemned, and
the council added: "Those whose
impiousdogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also
shall be cast out of the holy Church of God",
that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, Theodore, all which names
were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to the pious and great emperor,
"and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodoxfaith; and these we define to be subject to anathema. And in addition to
these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we
have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things,
and confirmedhis wicked dogmas". These last words are true enough, and if Sergius
was to be condemned Honorius could not be rescued. The legates made no objection to his
condemnation. The question had indeed arisen unexpectedly out of the reading of Macarius's packet; but the legates must have had
instructions from the pope how to actunder the
circumstances.
Some other
writings of the condemned heretics were further read,
including part of a second letter of Honorius, and these were
all condemned to be burnt. On 9 Aug., in the last session, George of Constantinople petitioned"that the persons be not anathematized by name", that is,
Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter. He only mentions
his own predecessors; but Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus, and Honorius would evidently have been
spared also, had the legates supported the suggestion.
But there was no attempt to save the reputation of Honorius, and the petition of George was negatived by the synod. In the final acclamations, anathema to Honorius, among the other heretics, was shouted. The solemn dogmatic decree, signed by the legates, all the bishops, and the emperor, condemns the heretics mentioned by St. Agatho "and also Honorius who was pope of elder Rome", while it
enthusiastically accepts the letter of St. Agatho. The council, according to custom, presented an
address of congratulation to the emperor, which was signed by all the bishops. In it they have much to say of the
victory which Agatho, speaking with the
voice of Peter, gained over heresy. They anathematize the hereticsby name, Theodore, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, Peter, Cyrus, "and
with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all
things", and Macarius with his followers. The
letter to the pope, also signed by all, gives the same list
of heretics, and congratulates Agatho on his letter "which
we recognize as pronounced by the chiefest head of the Apostles". The
modern notion that the council was antagonistic to the popereceives no support form the Acts. On the contrary all
the Easterns, except the heretic Macarius, were evidently
delighted with the possibility of reunion. They had never been Monothelites, and had no reason to
approve the policy of silence enforced under savage penalties by the Type. They praise with
enthusiasm the letter of St. Agatho, in which the
authority and inerrancy of the papacy are extolled. They
themselves say no less; they affirm that the pope has indeed spoken,
according to his claim, with the voice of Peter. The emperor's
official letter to the pope is particularly explicit
on these points. It should be noted that he callsHonorius "the confirmer of
the heresy and contradictor of
himself", again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving
Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodoxand heretical expressions under the
same ban. It was in this sense that Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well
acquainted with the history of the Type, and with the
Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, and the defences
by St. Maximus. It is clear,
then, that the council did not think that it
stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and
in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed
to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of theRoman See. The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact
that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern
language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.
St. Agatho died before the
conclusion of the council. The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving
to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according
to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which
the council gets its ecumenical rank, arenecessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: "We anathematize the inventors of the newerror, that is, Theodore, Sergius, ...and
also Honorius, who did not
attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Churchwith the
teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane
treachery permitted its purity to be polluted." This appears to express
exactly the mind of the council, only that the council avoided suggesting that Honoriusdisgraced the Roman Church. The last words of the
quotation are given above as in the Greek of the letter, because
great importance has been attached to them by a large number of Catholic apologists. Pennacchi, followed by
Grisar, taught that by these words Leo II explicitly abrogated the
condemnation for heresy by thecouncil, and
substituted a condemnation for negligence. Nothing,
however, could be less explicit. Hefele, with many others
before and after him, held that Leo II by the same words
explained the sense in which thesentence of Honorius was to be understood.
Such a distinction between the pope's view and the council's view is not justified by close examination of the facts. At best
such a system of defence was exceedingly precarious, for the milder reading of
the Latin is just as likely to be original:
"but by profane treachery attempted to pollute its purity". In this form Honorius is certainly not
exculpated, yet the pope declares that he did not
actually succeed in polluting the immaculate Roman Church. However, in his letter
to the SpanishKing Erwig, he
has: "And with them Honorius, who allowed the
unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which he received from
his predecessors, to be tarnished." To the Spanish bishops he explains his meaning:
"WithHonorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the
flame of heretical teaching in its first
beginning, but fostered it by his negligence." That
is, he did not insist on the "two operations", but agreed with
Sergius that the whole matter should be hushed up. Pope
Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh
and eighth ecumenical councils without special remark;
also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century
to the eleventh in the following words: "Together with Honorius, who added fuel
to their wicked assertions" (Liber
diurnus, ii, 9). It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius.
He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact;
and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having
resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not
condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it
would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he
admittedly had excellent intentions.
Modern controversies on the subject
The
condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 28 June (St. Leo II) until the eighteenth
century. Difficulties made themselves felt when, after the Great Western Schism, papal infallibility began to be doubted. Protestantism and Gallicanism made vigorous attacks on
the unfortunatepope, and at the time of the Vatican Council Honorius figured in every pamphlet
and every speech onecclesiastical subjects. The question
has not only been debated in numerous monographs, but is treated by the historians and the theologians, as well as by the
professed controversialists. Only a few typical views need here be
mentioned.
Bellarmine
and Baronius followed Pighius in denying that Honorius was condemned at all. Baronius argued that the Acts of the Council were falsified by Theodore, a Patriarch of Constantinople, who had
been deposed by the emperor, but was
restored at a later date; we are to presume that the council condemned him, but that
he substituted "Honorius" for "Theodorus" in the Acts. This theory has
frequently been shown to be untenable.
The more
famous Gallicans, such as Bossuet, Dupin, Richer, and later
ones as Cardinal de la Luzerne and (at the time of the Vatican Council) Maret, Gratry, and many others, usually held with all Protestant writers thatHonorius had formally defined heresy, and was condemned for so doing. They
added, of course, that such a failure on the part of an individual pope did not compromise the
general and habitual orthodoxy of the Roman See.
On the other
hand the chief advocates of papal infallibility, for instance, such
great men as Melchior Canus in the sixteenth century, Thomassinus in the seventeenth, Pietro Ballerini in the eighteenth,
Cardinal Perrone in the nineteenth, have been careful to point out that Honorius did not define anything ex cathedra. But they
were not content with this amply sufficient defence. Some followed Baronius, but most, if not all,
showed themselves anxious to prove that the letters of Honorius were entirely orthodox. There was indeed no
difficulty in showing that Honorius was probably not a Monothelite. It would have been only just to extend the same kindly
interpretation to the words of Sergius. The learned Jesuit Garnier saw clearly, however,
that it was not as a Monothelite that Honorius was condemned. He was
coupled with Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, the Ecthesis, and
the Type. It is by no means
clear that Sergius, Pyrrhus, and the Ecthesis are to be accounted as Monothelite, since they forbade the
mention of "one operation"; it is quite certain that Paul and the Type were anti-Monothelite,
for they prohibited "one Will" also. Garnier pointed out that the council condemned Honorius for approving Sergius and
for "fomenting" the dogmas of Pyrrhus and Paul. This view was
followed by many great writers, including Pagi.
A theory put
forward by Pennacchi at the time of the Vatican Council attracted an unnecessary
amount of attention. He agreed with the Protestants and Gallicans in proclaiming that the
letter of Honorius was adefinition ex cathedra; that the pope was anathematized by the council as a heretic in the strict sense; but
the council, not being infallible apart from papal confirmation, fell in
this case into error about a dogmatic fact(in this point Pennacchi was preceded by Turrecremata, Bellarmine, Assemani, and many
others), since the letter of Honorius was not worthy of censure. Leo II, in confirming the council, expressly
abrogated thecensure, according to this view, and substituted a condemnation
for negligence only (so also Grisar--see
above). There is evidently no ground whatever for any of these assertions.
Bishop Hefele before 1870 took the view
that Honorius's letter was not strictly heretical but was gravely
incorrect, and that its condemnation by an ecumenical council was a serious difficulty
against the "personal"infallibility of the popes. After his hesitating acceptance of the Vatican decrees he modified his view; he
now taught that Honorius's letter was a definition ex cathedra, that it was
incorrectly worded, but that the thought of the writer was orthodox (true enough; but, in a definition of faith, surely the words are of primary
importance); the council judged Honorius by his words, and
condemned him simply as a Monothelite; Leo IIaccepted and confirmed the condemnation by the council, but, in doing
so, he carefully defined in what sense the
condemnation was to be understood. These views of Hefele's, which he put
forth with edifying modesty and submission as the best explanation he could
give of what had previously seemed to him a formidable difficulty, have had a
surprisingly wide influence, and have been adopted by many Catholic writers, save only his mistaken notion
that a letter like that of Honorius can be supposed to fulfil
the conditions laid down by theVatican Council for an ex cathedra judgment (so Jungmann and many
controversialists).
Character and work of Honorius
Pope Honorius was much respected and
died with an untarnished reputation. Few popes did more for the
restoration and beautifying of churches of Rome, and he has left us his portrait in the apsidal mosaic of SantAgnese fueri le mura.
He cared also for the temporal needs of the Romans by repairing the aqueduct
of Trajan. His extant letters show him engaged in
much business. He supported the Lombard King Adalwald, who had
been set aside as mad by an Arian rival. He succeeded, to
some extent, with the emperor's assistance, in reuniting the schismatic metropolitan See of Aquileia to the Roman Church. He wrote to stir up the zeal of thebishops of Spain, and St. Braulio of Saragossa replied. His connexion
with the British Isles is of interest. He sent St. Birinus to convert the West Saxons. In 634 he gave
the pallium to St. Paulinus of York, as well as toHonorius of Canterbury, and he wrote a letter
to King Edwin of Northumbria, which Bede has preserved. In 630 he
urged the Irish bishops to keep Easter with the rest of Christendom, in consequence of which
the Council of Magh Lene (Old Leighlin) was held; the Irish testified to their traditional devotion to the See of Peter, and sent a
deputation to Rome "as children to
their mother". On the return of these envoys, all Southern Irelandadopted the Roman use (633).
Sources
PIGHIUS, Diatriba de Actibus VI
et VII Conc.;
BARONIUS, Ann. Eccl., ad ann. 626 and 681, with
PAGI's notes on 681; BELLARMINE, De Rom. Pont., iv, II; THOMASSINUS, Dissert. in Concilia, XX; GARNIER, Introd. to Liber Diurnus (P.L., CV); P. BALLERINI, De vi ac ratione
primatus;
DAMBERGER, Synchronistische
Geschichte der Kirche, (15 vols., Ratisbon, 1850-63, II; BOTTEMANNE, De Honorii papæ
epistolarum corruptione (The Hague, 1870);
DÖLLINGER, Papstfabeln des
Mittelalters (1863); SCHNEEMANN, Studien über die
Honoriusfrage (Freiburg im Br., 1864);
HEFELE, Causa Honorii papæ (Naples, 1870), a
treatise presented to the Vatican Council; IDEM,Honorius und das
sechste allgemeine Concil (Tübingen, 1870); IDEM, Conciliengeschichte, III and IV (written
about 1860, altered in 2nd ed., 1873; th. Edinburgh, 1896); LE PAGE RENOUF, The Condemnation of
Pope Honorius (London, 1868), against
the definition; BOTALLA,Pope Honorius before the tribune of reason and history (London, 1868; IDEM in Dublin Review, XIX-XX (1872);
PENNACCHI, De Honorii Romani
Pontificis causâ (Ratisbon and Rome, 1870);
GRATRY, Lettres (Paris, 1870); WILLIS, Pope Honorius and the
Roman Dogma(London,
1879), the principal Protestant attack in English; JUNGMANN, Dissertationes selectæ
in Historiam eccl.,
II (Ratisbon and New York, 1881); BARMBY in Dict. Christ. Biog., s.v.; GRISAR in Kirchenlex., s.v.; CHAPMAN, The Condemnation of
Pope Honorius,
reprinted form Dublin Rev., CXXXIX-XL, 1906
(London, 1907); HERGENRÖTHER, Handbuch der allgem.
Kirchengesch.,
I, gives a good summary of opinions. Minor works are enumerated it CHEVALIER, Bio-bibl., s.v. Honorius.--On the general history
of Pope Honorius, see the Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE; and MANN, The Lives of the Popes, I (1902), pt. I.
Comments
Post a Comment