Sec. 324. The Anathema on Pope Honorius, and, the
genuineness of the Acts of the sixth Œcumenical Council
If we have so far given extracts from the Acts of the
sixth Œcumenical Council, we are now required to examine more closely the
question respecting the anathematising of Pope Honorius. It is in the highest
degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Œcumenical Council should
punish with anathema a Pope as a
heretic! In order to get rid of all the difficulties resulting from such a
fact, Baronius and his followers have maintained that the Acts of the Council
which speak of the anathema on Honorius are forged,
whilst others have thought that the Acts indeed are genuine, but that the
Council condemned Honorius, not for heresy, but for negligence (because he was silent at the wrong time). Both of these
attempts at explanation have recently been quite decidedly opposed by Professor
Pennacchi in Rome, the most distinguished of the later defenders of Pope Honorius. He has most distinctly maintained that
the Acts of the sixth Œcumenical Council are genuine, and that in them Pope
Honorius was anathematised as a real heretic (formalis).
That, however, the sixth Œcumenical Synod actually
condemned Honorius on account of heresy,
is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the
sentences of the Synod against him.
(1) At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March
28, 681, the Synod says: “After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of
Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope
Honorius, and also the letter of the
latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign (omnino
alienas) to the apostolic doctrines, and
to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and
follow the false doctrines of
heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor (βδελλυττόμεθα) them as hurtful to the
soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely,
that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of
Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of
Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the
Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal
decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematised
the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view
and confirmed his impious doctrines (κατὰ πάντα
τῇ ἐκείνου [of Sergius] γνώμῃ ἐξακολουθήσαντα καὶ τὰ αὐτοῦ ἀσεβῆ κυρώσαντα δόγματα).”
(2) Towards the end of the same session the second letter
of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered
that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in
Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately
be burnt, as hurtful to the soul (see p. 169).
(3) Again, the sixth Œcumenical Council referred to
Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and
exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops
exclaimed: “Many years to the Emperor, many years to the Roman Pope Agatho,
many years to the Patriarch George of Constantinople, etc. Anathema to the
heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus,” etc., etc. (see p. 173).
(4) Still more important is that which took place at the
eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith
which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we
read: “The creeds (of the earlier Œcumenical Synods) would have sufficed for
knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the
originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may
diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore
of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus
of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church
by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the
two natures of the one Christ” (see p. 173 f.).
(5) After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the
Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod
published the usual λόγος
προσφωνητικός, which, addressed to the
Emperor, says, among other things: “Therefore we punish with exclusion and
anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus,
and with them Honorius, formerly bishop
of Rome, as he followed them” (see p. 176 f.).
(6) In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter
to Pope Agatho, and says therein: “We have destroyed the fort of the heretics,
and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in
your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus,” etc. (see p. 178).
(7) In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth
Œcumenical Synod stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The
Emperor writes: “With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches,
Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church,
who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of
Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome (ἐτὶ δὲ καὶ Ὀνώριος ὁ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας
Ρώμης πάπας γενόμενος), the strengthener (confirmer) of
heresy who contradicted himself (ὁ τῆς
αἱρέσεως βεβαιωτὴς, καὶ αὐτὸς
ἑαυτῷ προσμαχόμενος).
“We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this
present, … besides, we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of
the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, … also
Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went
with them, and strengthened the heresy (ἐτὶ δὲ
καὶ Ὀνώριον τὸν τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης πάπαν γενόμενον, τὸν κατὰ
πάντα τούτοις συναιρέτην καὶ σύνδρομον καὶ βεβαιωτὴν τῆς αἱρέσεως” (see p. 178 f.).
From all this it cannot be doubtful in what sense Pope
Honorius was anathematised by the sixth Œcumenical Council, and it is equally
beyond doubt that the Council judged much more severely respecting him than we
have done above. We were obliged to allow that Honorius disapproved of the
Monothelite term ἕν θέλημα, uttered literally nude crude, and the orthodox term δύο ἐνέργειαι; but we also proved and showed from his
own words that it was only in the expression that he erred, whilst in truth his
opinions were orthodox. The Council, on the contrary, simply gave attention to
the incriminated, unlucky expressions, which were misused by the Monothelites,
and pronounced its sentence on these, on their sound, on the mere fact that
Honorius had so written. (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils
of the Church, From the Original Documents, 5 vols. [trans. William R.
Clark; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896], 5:181-84)
Hefele originally wrote his
work before Vatican I. However, he had to make a number of adjustments in light
of the definition of Papal Infallibility (1870). As we read in the author’s
preface:
A mere glance at the number of pages in this new edition
(800 instead of 732) will show that it may be properly called an enlarged edition of this portion of the History of the Councils. Whether I am
justified also in designating it as an improved
edition, my respected readers will be in a position to judge after they have
examined sections 284, 285, 289, 290, 296, 298, 314, 324, 360, 362, 366, 367,
368, 370, 374, 375, 378, 383, 384, 399, and 406–408. Several ancient councils
not previously known have now been inserted in their proper place, many new
investigations have been made use of, many earlier mistakes and defects have
been rectified. The most important alterations are introduced into the sections
which refer to Boniface, the apostle of the Germans, and to Pope Honorius i.
Occasion for the former was given by the recent investigations of H. Hahn,
Dünzelmann, Oelsner, Alberdingk-Thijm, and others. With regard to the
modifications made in reference to Pope Honorius, I have thought it fair to
distinguish clearly every departure of the second edition from the first, which
was in any way important. Even in the first edition, as well as in the Latin
memorial [prepared for the Vatican Council], Causa Honorii Papæ, I laid down as my conclusion: That Honorius
thought in an orthodox sense, but unhappily, especially in his first letter to
the Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, he had expressed himself in a
Monothelite manner. This position I still hold firmly; but I have also given
repeated fresh consideration to the subject, and have weighed what others have
more recently written; so that I have now modified or entirely abandoned many
details of my earlier statements; and, especially with regard to the first
letter of Honorius, I now form a more favourable judgment than before.
It remains incontestable that Honorius himself made use
of the Monothelite expression una
voluntas (in Christ), and that he disapproved the shibboleth of orthodoxy, δύο ἐνέργειαι (duæ
operationes), but he did both under a misunderstanding, since, at the
beginning of the great dogmatic conflict, he had not clearly enough
comprehended the two terms. That, in spite of the unhappy, heretically sounding
expression, he thought in an orthodox
sense, as already remarked, I maintained before; but I must now add that, in
several passages of both his letters, he did not endeavour to express the orthodox thought.
When, for example, in his first letter, he ascribes to
Christ the Lex Mentis, he, in
accordance with the Pauline manner of speech (Rom. 7:23), which he followed,
meant nothing else than the incorrupt human
will of Christ, so that eo ispo he
maintained two wills in Christ—this human
will and also the divine.
If, nevertheless, Honorius would allow only unam voluntatem in Christ, he understood
by this the moral unity of the
incorrupt human will with the divine will in Christ. No less do we find, even
in the first letter of Honorius, indications that he himself assumed two
energies or operationes in Christ
(see below, p. 40); but he expresses himself much better on the subject in his
second letter, when he writes: “The divine nature in Christ works that which is
divine, and the human nature accomplishes that which is of the flesh,” i.e., there are two energies or operationes to be distinguished in
Christ. As, however, Hororius himself made use of the Monothelite expression una voluntas, and disapproved of the
orthodox δύο ἐνέργειαι, he seemed to support Monothelitism,
and thereby actually helped to promote the heresy.
As in the first edition, so also now I hold firmly that
neither the letters of Honorius nor the Acts of the sixth Œcumenical Council,
which condemned him, have been falsified; but also, notwithstanding the
objections of the Roman Professor Pennacchi (see sec. 324), for whom personally
I have a great respect, I still maintain the Œcumenical character of those
sessions which pronounced anathema on Honorius; and I come to the conclusion,
that the Council kept to the mere words of the letters of Honorius which they
had before them, to the fact that he
himself made use of the heretical term and disapproved of the orthodox phrase,
and on this ground pronounced his sentence. In earlier times, tribunals
generally troubled themselves much more with the mere facts than with psychological considerations. Moreover, it did not
escape the sixth Œcumenical Council, that some passages in the letters of
Honorius were in contradiction to his apparent Monothelitism (see sec. 324).
With greater accuracy than the Council, Pope Leo ii. pointed out the fault of
Honorius, showing that, instead of checking the heresy at its very beginning by
a clear statement of the orthodox doctrine, he helped to promote it by negligentia (cf. sec. 324). (Ibid.,
ix-xi)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
