As part of my daughter’s birthday party last year, my wife and I decided to organize, among other fun games, an occasion where all the little boys and girls broke out a Piñata filled with candy. We expected this particular game to last only 10 minutes or so, but were surprised to find that this Piñata, despite several serious hits, simply wouldn’t break. After 20 minutes of sustained beating, I finally had to “help the process” by discreetly inserting an incision in a place that would cause the final demise of the poor piñata.
When I began to reflect recently on the question of papal infallibility, it didn’t take long for poor Pope Honorius to stick in my mind, the most celebrated case of alleged papal error. When I reflected on the merits of the charge against this Pope, I couldn’t help but smile and compare these charges to the beatings my daughter’s poor Piñata received last birthday. But to a large extent, it has been the ability of the Pope (papal infallibility in particular) and the Piñata to resist the blows inflicted on them without granting them a prize. So, in memory of that brave and strong Piñata, I have endeavored to present a concise defense of papal infallibility and how Pope Honorius did not alter it.
The events leading up to the Monothelite heresy were typical of those faced by the Early Church. Being challenged with a number of Christological controversies during that time, the Church had to protect itself from being pulled and pushed in divergent directions that even denied the divinity of its Lord and his humanity. As soon as one heresy appeared, another heresy soon showed its ugly face, sometimes harbored in those that were previously rejected. This, then, is the context surrounding the supposed fall of Honorius and the Church’s teaching on papal infallibility.
In 431 AD, the Council of Ephesus had to define, when condemning the heresy of Nestorius, that our Lord subsists in one person and not in two, as Nestorius had proposed. Later at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, in opposition to Eutyches and the Monophysites, the Council declared that Christ had two natures (divine and human) and not a single divine nature, as Eutyches had taught. From these two heresies a third heresy emerged: Monothelitism, the heresy that maintained that there was only one will in Christ, the divine to the point that that human will had been totally absorbed into the divine will.
The main participants in the heresy of Monothelitism and the alleged capitulation of Pope Honorius and breakdown of papal infallibility are:
Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Honorius, Bishop of Rome.
The formulation of the error was first proposed by the Patriarch of Alexandria who proposed the formula in this way:
“That this same one Christ and Son, carries out both actions that belong to him as God, and those that are human, by a single theandric operation.”
In resistance to Cyrus’s formulation, Sophronius refused Cyrus his support and backed Sergius in order to help crush the heretical formula. Unknown to Sophronius (who only later ascended to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem), Sergius was a secret Monothelite who supported Cyrus’s formulation. In order to suppress the growing dissent on the Monothelite question, Sergius wrote to Honorius but withheld part of the formulation that Cyrus had proposed. Sergius did indeed defend Cyrus’s formula, but he only did so in relation to the word ‘one’ and conveniently left out and suppressed the most vital expression of Cyrus’s formula which was the word “theandric” (1).
Translator’s note: in Greek theandrica, that is, divine AND human
After addressing his position in veiled language, Sergius did not ask for a dogmatic ruling on this issue, but only requested a sentence of silence to be imposed for the “good of the Church” in order to end heavy discussions about the conflicting expressions. This fact is confirmed by Honorius’s response to Sergius:
“…taking into account the simplicity of man and to avoid controversies, we must, as I had already said, define neither one nor two operations in the mediation between God and man” (2) [Non nos oportet unam aut duas operationes praedicare]
There are some things worth mentioning in Sergius’s action. First, he knew well that if he had communicated his heretical view clearly and without deception, there was a high risk of being contradicted by the Pope. Second, the Pope asked not to define anything on this issue and on that basis alone, the breakdown of papal infallibility that is often raised is a baseless controversy. Third, the fact that Sergius requested the intervention of the Bishop of Rome to silence the entire Church on that issue only strongly supports the held Catholic view that the Roman See had primacy over all other Sees.
The allegation that Honorius was a Monothelite came from this text written to Sergius:
“Wherefore we acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, because evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it that was assumed by the Godhead, that is, the nature that was created without sin, not the nature that was vitiated by sin” (15)
Now stop and carefully reflect on these texts. Honorius clearly does not say that Christ possesses only one will, which concurs to be divine. Rather, Honorius points out that Christ has only one human will opposed to two human wills. Also, notice how Honorius agrees with Sergius and “admits a will of our Lord…” up to this point he argues only about the terms of Jesus’ humanity.
If there were two human wills in Christ there would be a conflict within Him, but we know that is not the case since Trinitarian Christology claims that the Son assumed human nature that was pure and free from the desecration of sin, as this was, for example, before the fall. Furthermore, we know that will is a function of the person’s nature. Therefore, since we have a human nature, we only have a human will. Our Lord, on the other hand, having a divine nature and a human nature has two corresponding wills.
His second successor, Pope John IV (642), confirmed Honorius’ intention, noting that Honorius’ purpose was simply “to deny contrary [human] wills of mind and body” (5) This was later confirmed by Abbot John, who was Honorius’ clerk and secretary: “We said that there is a will in the Lord, not of his divinity alone, nor of his humanity alone, but of his humanity without sin” (6). Saint Maximus “The Hammer”, Doctor of the Church and Martyr also insisted that Honorius maintained only a human will in Christ not a will in its entirety. He wrote that the heretics “lie against the Apostolic See by claiming that Honorius was one with their cause” (7)
In addition to, therefore, eventually granting Sergius his request for silence in the Church, Honorius’s comments are indeed very interesting since they are, to tell the truth, entirely opposed to the Monothelite heresy. Honorius wrote:
“You must confess, together with us, one Christ our Lord, operating in every nature, divine OR human operation” ]in uirisque naturas divina vel humano operantem]
Honorius’s formula is “directly opposed to that of Cyrus, who had not said, ‘operating divine OR human actions’, distinctly and separately, but ‘operating divine AND human actions’, in conjunction and in a mixed way, by a single operation, which was neither simply human nor simply divine, but always theandric – that is, composed of divine and human. “But Sergius had defended the article of Cyrus’ agreement in relation to the use of the word ‘one’ (as to the word ‘theandric’, Sergius had prudently DELETED IT IN HIS REQUEST to Honorius!) (1)
Furthermore, all subsequent Pontiffs (Pope Severinus (640), Pope John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653) up to even Pope Agatho tacitly defended the orthodox doctrinal position of Honorius and condemned Monothelitism. In fact, “in his letter to the Emperor which was read at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agatho (678-681) affirmed the infallibility of the apostolic see and noted that he and ALL his predecessors, thus including Honorius, ‘have never ceased to exhort and warn them (ie the Monothelites) with many prayers, that they, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of dogma’ (8)
One can immediately note Agathon’s care in selecting the language above by commenting that, at the very least, no Pontiff uttered a doctrinal error. He says that all Popes were doctrinally orthodox even if some did not exercise the influence they possess and instead “remained silent.”
“The names of those men whose doctrines we reject are…Sergius…Cyrus…Pyrrhus…Paul and Peter…and…Theodorus…all those whom the holy and thrice-blessed Agathon, Pope of Old Rome…rejected, because they are of a mentality contrary to our orthodox faith, all those whom we define are to be expelled from the Holy Church of God and anathematized, including Honorius…because from what we find written by him to Sergius, who, from every point of view he followed his point of view thus confirming his impious doctrine” (9)
Again, if one reads this text carefully a number of things come to light. First and foremost, Honorius is not mentioned among those who are “of a mentality contrary to our orthodox faith”, which are, “Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter and Theodore”. He can share his punishment but not the reason that caused it. If he were a heretic and positively taught the doctrine of Monothelitism, our opponents would have no convincing explanation for the deference shown to Honorius by not including him on the list of those who are “contrary to the orthodox faith.”Unless our opponents wish to appeal to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the supreme office which he holds in the Church as a reason for the omission of Honorius, the alternatives are few and far between.
Second, what precisely did Honorius write to Sergius? As I already cited above, Honorius defended the orthodox position of a human will of Christ and that he agreed that silence should be imposed on the Church. These were those writings (and not some invented heretical pronouncement) that the Council is referring to when it says “from what we found written by him to Sergius” that condemned Honorius’ actions in an external forum. Indeed, the Council is correctly condemning Honorius for the given practice but not for a theological confirmation of the heresy.
Third, there are two more comments in the text, both contained in the phrase “[Honorius] followed [Sergius’s] opinion confirming his impious doctrines.” The last phrase, “confirming his impious doctrines,” does not, by itself, condemn Honorius of heresy since one can confirm something even by silence (and, in this case, negligence) or by a pronounced teaching. Therefore, the key to the phrase depends on “he followed his opinion.”If this phrase means that Honorius believed the heresy, then our position would certainly be hurt. However, if the phrase in question refers rather to Sergius’s disciplinary request to impose silence in the Church, then the position of our opponents is called into question. In fact, while it is true that the Latin version says “sequi mentem ejus,” which is ambiguous, and can mean any opinion (ie whether following Sergius’s heretical doctrine or following Sergius’s request for silence), the original Greek text, from which the Latin translation comes, unambiguously “followed the advice” (4).
Fourth, the Acts of the Lateran Council of 649 were dispersed around the East and West, and followed the same basis of protocol as the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople and anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, but, as my thesis maintains, the name of Pope Honorius is curiously absent from the anathemas. The Council affirmed that since its beginnings of Monothelitism, no Roman Pontiff had deviated from maintaining the Catholic Faith.
Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed the Council’s condemnation and noted:
“[Honorius] did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but rather allowed it, which was undefiled, to be contaminated by profane teachings” (10) (11)
“[Honorius] did not extinguish the flame of heresy as was appropriate to his apostolic authority, but through negligence he fueled it” (11)
Once again, we see that our thesis holds. The first quote indicates that the Pope “permitted” the contamination of profane teachings, but did not teach it, while a second selection accuses Honorius of embracing the heresy out of “negligence” – again, hardly challenging the definition of papal infallibility or even Honorius’s personal orthodoxy.
As I had already implied above, while there is really little support here to refute papal infallibility, we must be careful to appreciate that Honorius was not a saint. In fact, he was a negligent Pope who caused much harm to the Church, and the Council is right to condemn his actions.
“It is expressly said, in the Acts, that God cannot endure that rule of silence, “Et quomodo non indigneretur Deus qui blasphemebatur et non defendbatur” “And how could God but be indignant, who was blasphemed and NOT defended?”(13)
Because of his negligence, the Sixth (and Third) Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680-681) burned Honorius’ letters, called him a “heretic,” and anathematized him. His actions were approved by Pope Leo II and his decisions confirmed again at the next two Ecumenical Councils.
The Council called Honorius a heretic, but we must remember that in the Early Church the term “heretic” could have two meanings: for those who maintained and pronounced the error formally and/or materially and for those “who neither taught nor maintained the error themselves, but were complicit in allowing the heresy, either by protecting it, favoring it, or by not repressing it” (14) This last sense of allowing heresy has been understood and“confirmed by various examples in ancient times” (12)
This secondary “soft” sense is possible for any Pope as it was for Honorius. A Pope may indeed be negligent in his office, but this does not necessarily mean that he is guilty of impugning an article of faith.
As far as the definition of papal infallibility is concerned, invoked at the First Vatican Council of 1870, it allows a Pope to be negligent on the papal throne but not, obviously, to pronounce an error from there.
The First Vatican Council taught:
…we teach and define as divinely revealed dogma that:
when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when
i) in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians,
ii) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority
iii) he defines a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the entire Church,
He possesses, through the divine assistance promised to him in the blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer desired his Church to enjoy in order to define doctrine concerning faith and morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of their own accord, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
(Vatican I, On the authority of the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff, 4:9)
When we compare the above definition of papal infallibility with the statement of Honorius we quoted above, we can see quite clearly that the breach of papal infallibility that Honorius had supposedly caused is quite ridiculous:
“…taking into account the simplicity of man and to avoid controversy, we must, as I have already said, define neither one nor two operations in the mediation between God and man” (2) [Non nos oportet unam aut duas operationes praedicare]
translator’s note: define nor = not define
In short, not only has papal infallibility not been broken, but there is no concrete proof that Honorius was, in and of itself, a formal or material heretic. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite conclusion, even if it must be granted that Honorius was a negligent Pope. In the end, what this means is that our Protestant critics must look elsewhere because that elusive Piñata will elude them forever.
John Pacheco The Catholic Legate November 1, 2002
Author: John Pacheco
Translated: Beatriz Aparicio
Source: The Catholic Legate
_________________________________________
Footnotes:
(1) The Supposed Fall of Honorius and His Condemnation (JHR) American Catholic Quarterly Review, v.7, 1882, p.163
(2) Scripta dilectissimi filii quoted by William Shaw Kerr in A Handbook of the Popecy, 196)
(3) The Supposed Fall of Honorius and His Condemnation (JHR) American Catholic Quarterly Review, v.7, 1882, p.166
(4) The Supposed Fall of Honorius and His Condemnation (JHR) American Catholic Quarterly Review, v.7, 1882, p.166
(5) Apologia pro Honorius Pope, quoted by Joseph Costanzo, SJ, in The Historical Credibility of Hans Kung, p. 105
(6) The Supposed Fall of Honorius and His Condemnation (JHR) American Catholic Quarterly Review, v.7, 1882, p.164
(7) Ad Petrum illustrem, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908
(8) Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed., p.328-339)
(9) Sermons XIII, NPNF, Vol. 14, p.343)
(10) Leonis II ad. Constantinum. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, Vol. 14, p.352
(11) Leonis II ad Episcopos Hispaniae in the Catholic Encyclopedia 7:455)
(12) Pope Honorius Before the Tribunal of Reason and History, Paul Bottala, SJ, p.107
(13) Sermo Prosphonetics, Act. XVIII
(14) The Supposed Fall of Honorius and His Condemnation (JHR) American Catholic Quarterly Review, v.7, 1882, p.165
(15) Scripta fraternitatis vestrae quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:453
(16) A History of the Councils of the Church, vol.6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896; AMS Reprint, 1972) Charles Joseph Hefele, 29.
(17)The Building of Christendom: A History of Christendom, vol.2 (Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom College Press, 1987), William H. Carroll, 253
