Pope Honorius I

Pope Honorius I (born in Campania; died 12 October 638)<ref name="ce" /> was the bishop of Rome from his consecration on 27 October 625 until his death. He actively supported the Christianisation of the Anglo-Saxons, notably by sending Saint Birinus to convert the West Saxons and bestowing the pallium on the archbishops of York and Canterbury, and worked to persuade the Irish and British churches to adopt the Roman Easter computus. He is most noted for his correspondence concerning Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople, in which he engaged with the Monoenergism controversy and the associated Monothelite doctrines. Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople (681) for following the Monothelites and confirming their doctrines. This condemnation was confirmed by Pope Leo II, who charged him with failing to extinguish the heresy. The anathema against Honorius I became a primary argument cited by opponents of the definition of papal infallibility during the First Vatican Council (1870).

Early life

Honorius I was a wealthy aristocrat born in Campania. His father was Petronius, who held the honorary title of consul. Little is known about Honorius I's life before he was elected pope on 27 October 625. He was consecrated two days after the death of his predecessor, Boniface V. The vacancy was short, a fact historians suggest was due to the presence in Rome of Isaac the Armenian, who, as the imperial exarch of Italy, was empowered to confirm the election.<ref name="Attwater">Template:Cite book</ref>

Papacy

As pope, Honorius I modeled his papacy after Gregory I and employed monks rather than secular clergy in the administration of the Lateran Palace. He supported Adaloald, the deposed Catholic king of the Lombards, but established diplomatic relations with Adaloald's Arian rival, Arioald. He did not succeed in resolving the Schism of the Three Chapters in Venetia and Istria, but attempted to appease the archbishops of Ravenna, who were dissatisfied with their subordination to Rome. Honorius actively supported the Christianisation of Anglo-Saxon England and sent Birinus to convert the West Saxons, but was less successful in convincing the Celtic clergy to abandon their divergent Paschal cycle. At the Sixth Council of Toledo, Honorius urged the Visigothic bishops to persevere in their policies regarding the Jews, referencing the precedents set by Gregory I.<ref name="Attwater"/>

Honorius intervened in early discussions regarding the controversy of Monoenergism, the teaching that Christ has only one energy, and the subsequent doctrine of Monothelitism, which posits that Christ has only one will; these stand in contrast to the Dyothelite teaching that he has two energies and two wills, both human and divine.<ref>Catholic Encyclopedia: Monothelitism and Monothelites</ref> Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople wrote to Honorius regarding the Monoenergism controversy, asking him to endorse a policy of silence to prevent endangering Church unity through disputes over whether Christ possessed one energy or two. Sergius argued that the doctrine of two energies could lead to what he considered the erroneous belief that Jesus has two conflicting wills.<ref name="Hefele, pg 25">Hefele, p. 25</ref> Pope Honorius's reply in 635 endorsed the view that discussions over energies should cease. He agreed that Jesus does not have two conflicting wills, but one will, reasoning that Jesus did not assume the "vitiated" (corrupted by sin) human nature tainted by Adam's fall, but rather human nature as it existed prior to the fall.<ref name="Hefele, pg 29-30">Hefele, pp. 29–30</ref>

Defenders of Honorius maintain that he did not endorse Monothelitism, as his later accusers would charge him with. His secretary and the scribe of the letter, Abbot John Symponus, later testified that the text referred to the human will alone, stating: "When we spoke of a single will in the Lord, we did not have in view His double nature, divine and human, but His humanity only."<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Honorius's successor, Pope John IV, defended him by stating that Honorius spoke "only of the human and not also of the divine nature" when using the phrase "one will." St. Maximus the Confessor also defended Honorius's orthodoxy. In his ecclesiastical history, the Venerable Bede described Honorius as a holy pastor, a characterization later cited by theologians such as Robert Bellarmine to argue against charges of heresy.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Honorius became aware of the rise of Islam and viewed the tenets of this emerging force as closely resembling those of the Arian heresy.<ref>Ata Ur-Rahim, Thomson 2003, p. 148., quote: "Pope Honorius was aware of the rising tide of Islam, whose tenets very much resembled those of Arius. The mutual killing of Christians by each other was still fresh in his memory, and perhaps he thought that what he had heard about Islam might be applied in healing the differences between the various Christian sects. In his letters he began to support the doctrine of 'one mind' within the doctrine of Trinity. He argued that if God had three independent minds, the result would be chaos. This logical and reasonable conclusion pointed to the belief in the existence of One God."</ref>

Legacy

In the XIII session of the Third Council of Constantinople on 28 March 681,<ref name="Ostrogorsky127" >George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (Rutgers University Press, 1995), 127.</ref> the monothelites were anathematized by name, "and with them Honorius, who was Bishop of Rome, as having followed them in all things." Citing his written correspondence with Sergius, Honorius was subsequently accused of having confirmed his impious doctrines. The XVI session reaffirmed the condemnation of the heretics, explicitly stating, "To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!"<ref name="Percival1900">Template:Cite book</ref><ref name="Mansi, XI, col. 622">Template:Cite book, quote: "[...] Sergio hæretico anathema, Cyro hæretico anathema, Honorio hæretico anathema, Pyrro hæretico anathema [...]"</ref> This concluded with the decree of the XVII session on 16 September 681, that Honorius had not stopped provoking scandal and error in the Body of the Church; for he had "with unheard of expressions disseminated amidst the faithful people the heresy of the one will", doing so "in agreement with the insane false doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus and Themistius."<ref name="Mansi, XI, col. 733">Mansi, XI, col. 733</ref> The Roman legates made no objection to his condemnation.<ref name="ce">Template:CathEncy</ref>

Pope Leo II's letter of confirmation of the Council commended it, stating that it had "perfectly preached the definition of the true faith,"<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> and made reference to the condemnation of his predecessor:<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Within the year, a Latin translation of the Acts of the council had been disseminated and signed by the Bishops throughout the West. The condemnation of Pope Honorius was reiterated by Pope Leo's successors and<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> subsequent councils,<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> and was included in the Roman Breviary lessons for the Feast of St. Leo II until the eighteenth century. As a result, Honorius would later be the subject of sustained criticism by opponents of papal infallibility in the discussions surrounding the First Vatican Council of 1870.<ref name="ce"/>

In the time surrounding the First Vatican Council, there was an attempt to re-evaluate the case of Honorius I. This was driven both by the historiographical controversy it generated during the debates on the definition of papal infallibility (since many opponents argued that the existence of a heretic Pope would contradict such Catholic dogma), and by the possibility of achieving his rehabilitation being freed from the anathema if it were proven that he did not believe in the Monothelite heresy and that his condemnation was a historical misunderstanding. That Honorius actually agreed with Sergius on the doctrine of monothelitism has given rise to much discussion. J. B. Bury argues that the most reasonable conclusion is that Honorius did not really apprehend the point at issue, considering it more a question of grammar than theology, for he placed "one energy" and "two energies" on exactly the same footing; in Bury's words, "it was for the 'imprudent economy of silence' that he was condemned".<ref name="Bury, pg 252">Bury, p. 252</ref> Louis Nazaire Bégin, whose work bore the Imprimatur of the Catholic Church, argued in the same way. He stated that Honorius was not a "formal heretic", but only a "material heretic" (or perhaps merely negligent but still orthodox)<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> for tolerating the Monothelite heresy instead of believing and teaching it; thus, his condemnation was based on the guilt of negligence, and he could be exonerated from the anathema and excommunication.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Bibliography

• Bury, John B., A history of the later Roman empire from Arcadius to Irene, Volume 2 (2005)
• Template:Cite book
• Hefele, Charles J., A History of the Councils of the Church, From the Original Documents, Volume 5 (1896)
• Template:Cite book
• Template:Cite EB1911

External links

• Guilty Only of Failure To Teach
• History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590–1073, Philip Schaff