Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Richard Price on Honorius Affirming Monothelitism in his Letter to Sergius and Quinisext/Trullo Reaffirming 3rd Constantinople's Anathama of Honorius

Addressing the Honorius issue, Richard Price, in his commentary and translation of the Lateran Synod of 649 wrote that:

 

Around 641 [Maximus the Confessor] composed a defence of Pope Honorius’ orthodox credentials in his First Letter to Sergius, arguing that the pope’s ‘one will’ had in fact designated the divine will (and indeed, in a desperate addendum, that he had not stated ‘one will’ in the first place) . . . Maximus, cannot, of course, be considered a proto-champion of the later, monarchic claims of the post-Gregorian popes: the principal criterion of Rome’s pre-eminence remained its commitment to orthodox doctrine. (Richard Price, “Understanding the Crisis” in The Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649 [Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2014], 36, 37)

 

Continuing, Price acknowledges Honorius did teach Monothelitism:

 

Honorius’ letter to Patriarch Sergius is famous, indeed notorious, for its statement of one will in Christ, which resulted in the pope’s anathematisation as a heretic at the Council of Constantinople in 681. Honorius’ profession has sometimes been taken as a misguided Latin intrusion into a sophisticated Greek debate, the significance of which the western pope could not have appreciated. But this statement was but incidental in a letter the chief purpose of which was to express agreement with Sergius’ prohibition of the expression of either one or two operations in Christ. Honorius extends and elaborates on the propositions put forward by Sergius, agreeing with him in his criticism of Sophronius, whom Sergius had described as jeopardising the great gains made for orthodoxy by Cyprian of Alexandria, and repeating the position of the PsÄ“phos that a single Christ is the subject of both the divine and the human acts. Honorius supports Sergius’ prohibition on the grounds that the expressions one or two operations are innovations in the faith, ‘utterances which not even synods ordained or canonical authority saw fit to clarify’. He himself refuses to judge whether these expressions are correct or not, but echoes the sentiments of Sergius against hairsplitting theological argument (which the patriarch had dubbed as ‘superfluous wrangling over words’), by saying that these are matters for ‘grammarians or wordsmiths’. Honorius’ rejection of defining the number of operations in Christ was intended as a defence of Chalcedon against the introduction of changes or additions to it. He sets out the ‘royal road’ of Chalcedon, condemning the heretical extremes of Nestorius and Eutyches, and deploring unnecessary theological debate that can only undermine the teaching of Chalcedon.

 

Honorius’s statement of one will in Christ was prompted by a passage in Sergius’ letter where the patriarch, discussing how the idea of two operations could be an occasion for scandal, stated that Christ cannot possess two opposed wills. The pope builds upon Sergius’ statement, explaining how Christ’s will was not subject to conflict as human will is because how Christ’s will was not subject to conflict as human will is because his will was without sin: ‘We acknowledge one will in the Lord Jesus Christ, since manifestly our nature was assumed by the Godhead without sin in it – clearly the nature that was created before sin, not the one that was corrupted after the transgression.’ Christ’s sinless will did not oppose the divine will, but was in complete obedience to it. Honorius explains the conflict expressed by Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane as not indicating a real conflict of wills, but rather as intended to give an example of mankind of submission to God’s will. In his affirmation of one will in Christ, Honorius sets out a monothelete position, denying that Christ possessed a human will subject to human passions. But at the time he made these statements these views were not seen as controversial. It was only when Maximus developed his own critique of the monothelete position that affirmations of one will came to be seen as incorrect. (Ibid., 46-47, emphasis in bold added)

 

It was not just as the 6th Ecumenical Council (3rd council of Constantinople [680/681]) that Honorius was (formally) condemned as a heretic. At Quinisext (AKA Trullo) in 691/692, Honorius was also condemned. In its explanation of canon 1 (“Ordinance about preserving without innovation or impairment the faith handed down by the six holy ecumenical councils”), the bishops at Quinisext wrote the following, reaffirming the anathema issued against Honorius et al only a decade prior:

 

[23] We also acknowledge as something to be kept inviolate the confession of faith of the holy sixth council convoked recently in this imperial city in the reign of our emperor Constantine of divine memory, which received powerful confirmation through the pious emperor’s sealing its rolls in order to preserve it for all time. It issued the devout clarification that we are to believe in two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations in the incarnate dispensation of our one Lord Jesus Christ true God. It condemned by a pious decree those who falsified the correct teaching of the truth and taught the congregations that there is one will and one operation in the one Lord our God Jesus Christ, namely Theodore of Pharan, Kyros of Alexandria, Honorious of Rome, Sergios, Pyrrhos, Paul and Peter who presided in this God-protected city, Makarios bishop of Antioch, his disciple Stephen and the insane Polychronios. It thereby preserved intact the common body of Christ our God. (The Canons of Quinisext Council (691-2) [trans. Richard Price; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2020], 79, emphasis added)

 

Commenting on the above, Price notes that:

 

The reaffirmation of the anathematization of Pope Honorius, because of his letter to Sergios of Constantinople of 634 that speaks of ‘one will’ in Christ, is not to be interpreted as an anti-Roman gesture, since the coupling of his name with those of the condemned monothelete bishops of the East was prominent in the Definition of Constantinople III (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Series secunda, II.2, 772, 6-10), which Rome had fully accepted. (Ibid., 79 n. 42)