In 1907, Catholic historian Dom John Chapman published his book, The Condemnation of Pope Honorius. In this volume, he argued that, while Honorius did teach that Christ had one, not two wills (which in Trinitarian theology is a heresy [monotheletism]), he was only a material heretic; he was not a formal heretic as he his letters to Sergius affirming monotheletism were not ex cathedra pronouncements, instead they were written by Honorius as a private theologian, and therefore, does not render null and void the definition and parameters of Papal Infallibility as explicated in 1870 by Pius IX at Vatican I.
Chapman’s apologetic has been followed by many Catholic apologists, such as Robert Sungenis in his October 2000 debate against James R. White and John Salza and Robert Sisco in their book, True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors. Trent Horn in The Case for Catholicism offers such an apologetic as a possible answer to the Honorius issue.
Writing in 1910, Anglican William John Sparrow Simpson (1859-1952) wrote the following on this approach (which, IMO, is perhaps the best route a Catholic apologist can go down when discussing Honorius—if I were a Catholic apologist, I would use the Chapman approach as opposed to others that have been proposed):
One 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 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 would not be deceived?
A recent Roman writer (Turmel, Hist. Théol. Positive, p. 76) 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.
“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?’” (Turmel, Hist. Théol. Positive, p. 317) (W.J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility [Milwaukee: The Young Churchman Press, 1910], 39-40; see pp. 31-47 for a fuller discussion of Honorius and his condemnation at the sixth ecumenical council and how Honorius poses a great problem to the dogma of Papal Infallibility)
