Some Catholic apologists have tried to
defend the opposite extreme that Honorius’s letters was not official, but only
private letters to a fellow bishop expressing his personal opinion. But this
does not hold, since Honorius was answering a doctrinal question posed by
Sergius. Furthermore, his letter had an impact in ecclesiastical affairs, being
used as a foundation for Church discipline for decades. So, it was obviously
seen as official. Nor can we argue that Honorius’s letter are later
forgeries—their authenticity is above suspicion. (Pedro Gabriel, Heresy
Disguised as Tradition [Saint Louis, Miss.: En Route Books and Media, LLC.,
2023], 339-40)
In my opinion, the way to unite these
knots is to read the whole affair through the lens of a developed doctrine on
papal magisterium, specifically the principles laid out in Lumen Gentium,
the Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio fidei, and Donum Veritatis.
Namely, we must make a distinction between two separate affirmations: doctrinal
statements (teaching) and disciplinary decisions (practical implications.)
Honorius did the former when he confessed “one will,” and the latter when he
confirmed Sergius’s action of not allowing the use of both “one will” and “two
wills.”
As far as doctrine goes, we know that
a magisterial teaching must be read according to the pope’s “manifest mind and
will.” John IV, Maximum the Confessor, and Symponus convincingly argue that
Honorius’s manifest mind wand will when he confessed “one will” was not to
teach Monothelitism, but to condemn the proposition that Jesus had two
contradictory wills, something that St. Agatho also condemned in is acclaimed
letter to the Third Council of Constantinople.
As regards discipline, we know that
Honorius meant well, for he wanted to avoid scandal. He was acting at a time
when the Monothelite propositions had not yet fully crystallized. It was not
yet clear at the time that they were dealing with a new heresy. But as the
controversy raged on, this discipline became detrimental to the spread of
orthodoxy, since it silenced orthodoxy alongside heresy. We have seen in the
previous chapter that, though criticizing
a discipline enjoining papal approval is dangerous, the faithful can try
to change the discipline they see as imprudent, as long as they do not force
the issue if such is obviously not the will of the pope. In this case, Honorius
did not have time to reinforce or reverse anything. However, the discipline was
overturned by both popes and councils—who more than anything, have the
authority to do so. Those who, appealing to a false tradition, refused to
accept the disciplinary reversal were the ones who ended up being condemned as
heretics.
The discipline itself contains no
heresy. The most that we can say is that the discipline fostered heresy by
defect. Honorius can, therefore, be condemned solely for negligence. Which is
precisely what his anathema says, if we take into consideration the way it was
ratified by Leo II. Therefore, Honorius does not cast shadow onto papal
reliability in the least. This has, in fact, been the traditional understanding
of the Church for centuries, until anti-Catholic apologists tried, for the
first time, to drive a wedge between Honorius and Church’s indefectibility to
promote their own agenda. (Ibid., 340-41)
