صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

gians of every school, a view peculiar to a certain section of Ultramontanes: whereas it is held by many Gallicans. Catholics maintain that every decree of an Ecumenical Council is passed by the assembled fathers, on the implied and necessary condition that it receives the sanction of the Roman Pontiff. This is the reason why all the Ecumenical Councils in their final address to the Pope beg of him to confirm their decrees by his Pontifical authority. But none of the synodical Acts could be regarded as an infallible tenet, or having force of ecclesiastical law, unless it have been promulgated as such by the Pope to the universal Church. This is the doctrine of all Catholic theologians, save a few Gallicans. Mr. Renouf and his friends should begin by refuting this doctrine and by convincing divines of the truth of its contradictory, before asking them to judge of the case of Honorius by different principles.

Now Mr. Renouf maintains that the Sixth Ecumenical Council has been simply confirmed by the Holy See. In proof of that he alleges the three professions of faith contained in the Liber Diurnus of the Roman Pontiffs. In the first of them the Pope solemnly promises to observe the first five Ecumenical Councils "usque ad unum apicem immutilata," "et una cum eis pari honore et veneratione sanctum Sextum Concilium. . . . quæque prædicaverunt prædicare; quæque condemnaverunt ore et corde condemnare." In the second and third profession of faith the like expressions are to be found, with this exception, that in the second mention is made of the condemnation of Honorius; but of this we will speak further on. As to the general expressions used in the three professions, they prove nothing in favour of the assertion of our adversary; because they refer only to the decrees of faith, since it is in them that the final definition of the revealed doctrine is pronounced, and the final condemnation of heretics and heresies. The Roman Pontiff proposes to the belief of the faithful only the dogmatical canons or the definitions of faith which have been definitively sanctioned by the Synod. But over and above this the doctrinal decisions of a general Council are of faith only so far forth as they receive the sanction of the Roman Pontiff, and according to the import and extent of that sanction. Now that Pope Leo II. did not intend to confirm the condemnation of Honorius, as implying that this Pope was a teacher of heresy, appears, as we maintained in our pamphlet, from his

*If the Pope has pronounced his doctrinal decision before the Council had been assembled, his decision should be regarded as infallible and definite, before the synodical decree had been published.

"The Case of Pope Honorius," p. 55.

letters themselves on the subject of the Sixth Council. Mr. Renouf has not attempted to prove that Pope Leo sanctioned every part of the Acts of the sixth general Synod, and every reason referred in them for the condemnation of those whose names are mentioned in the definition of faith. He asserts that Pope Leo II. not only accepted and confirmed the Synod, but also approved of and promulgated the edict of the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus with reference to the Council. He further adds that, "in the Pope's reply to the Emperor's letter there is not a word which indicates the slightest disapproval of anything either in the edict or in the proceedings of the Council." * But his silence proves nothing, especially when in many a place he clearly states his views concerning the condemnation of Honorius. Nor can his approval and promulgation of the Emperor's Edict be construed against our assertion; because in the very passage referred to by Mr. Renouf as a striking proof of the contrary, he (the Pope) says nothing which can bear that meaning. In it he praises the Emperor for the support given to the Council, for the peace restored to the Church, and for his having contributed to spread throughout the world the truth of the Apostolic teaching by his imperial edict. He continues to eulogize the Ecumenical Council for having followed in everything the apostolical rule and the teaching of the Fathers. He moreover declares that he consents and confirms with his Apostolic authority those things which had been defined by the Council, because it had most fully preached the faith which the Apostolic See of Peter received with veneration. Finally, he ranks the Third Constantinopolitan Council with the Ecumenical Synods. Now in all this the Pope has in view only the last Definition of the Council, which put down the Monothelitic heresy and secured the triumph of the Catholic doctrine. In fact, as we remarked in our pamphlet, it was only to the Definition of faith that Pope Leo II. required the signature of all the bishops.† It is true that he sent to the Bishops the Edict of the Emperor and the prosphonetic address to the same prince. But he acted thus in order to show, as he says, in his reply to the Emperor, that "by the sentence of the Synod, and by the decree of the imperial Edict, as by the two-edged sword of the spirit, all ancient and recent heresies are destroyed with all their blasphemies." Thus not only there is no proof whatever for what our opponent asserts, but his opinion is also refuted by the very letter of Pope Leo himself.

"The Case of Pope Honorius," p. 57.

See his Letters, ii. iv. v. (Labbe, t. vii. pp. 1456-57, 1460, 1462).
"Relatio Leonis Papæ ad Imp. Constantinum" (Labbe, 1. c. p. 1152).

But Mr. Renouf appeals now to the letters of Pope Leo, for the purpose of proving from them that the Pontiff intended to condemn Honorius as guilty of heresy. The first passage he refers to is from Leo's relation to the Emperor Constantine. We had remarked in our pamphlet that the words ry Beßw Tpodooía can by no means be understood to apply to Honorius, but to the originators of the heresy,-Sergius, Cyrus, and their followers. We defended this view in some letters inserted in the Tablet; and we were glad to see that the learned Mr. Maunoury, in some articles in defence of Pope Honorius, published by the Univers, agreed with us. The learned Father Franzelin, in his treatise De Incarnatione, had already maintained the same opinion. Would Mr. Renouf charge them with want of scholarship? In our volume on Papal Infallibility we have again examined this controversy, and we believe we have made it evident from the.very wording of the Greek text that the sentence quoted above refers to the Patriarchs of Constantinople, who originated the heresy of the Monothelites. We invite our readers to peruse from p. 277 to p. 281 of that volume, and they will be convinced of the exactness of our assertion. We must only here remark, as we did in that work, that even were the words in question to be explained as they have been by many Catholic writers, they would fail to fix on Honorius the guilt of heresy. This is why his apologists. readily admitted the interpretation of their opponents. The task they had in hand was not that of clearing Pope Honorius from all fault whatsoever, but only from the charge of heresy. On the contrary, Gallican writers, who intended to convict the Pope of heresy, must by necessity admit Mr. Renouf's view of the sense of this passage. Consequently neither the authority of earlier writers, nor that of the others, can give the least countenance to Mr. Renouf's erroneous view.

But it is far stranger to see how this gentleman takes no notice of the remarks which we made in our pamphlet on the letter of Pope Leo II. to the bishops of Spain against the charges against Pope Honorius, which he grounded thereon in his pamphlet. He again quotes the passage of Leo's letter, where it is distinctly said of Honorius, "who did not extinguish at its outset the flame of the heretical dogma, as was required by the dignity of the apostolic authority, but by his negligence fostered it." These words are the antidote to the charge of heresy alleged against Pope Honorius. Pope Leo shows that he was not condemned because guilty of heresy, but because he was negligent in the discharge of his pastoral office. Mr. Renouf remarks only that the word negligendo can easily be harmonized with the charge of heresy. He says that negli

gence may imply doing something without duly weighing the consequences; and that "the real neglect of Honorius consists in allowing the letters of the Abbot John to be written in his name and subscribed with his hand."* But, to begin with the second remark, even were we to grant (what we absolutely deny) that the letters written by the Abbot John contain heretical tenets, Pope Honorius could never be proved formally guilty of heresy, because by a gross neglect he allowed the letters to be written in his name and subscribed by him. He would certainly be liable for that to great punishment, but he would never on that account be a formal heretic. Because it could be said in his favour either that he did not read the letters, trusting the learning and the orthodoxy of his secretary; or that he misunderstood the real drift and meaning of several propositions contained in them; and no one could prove the contrary. A real and formal heresy requires the interior assent to the error condemned by the Church, and the obstinacy in maintaining it against the true doctrine proposed by the competent ecclesiastical authority. Now we meet with none of this in the case of Pope Honorius: consequently he could not at all be condemned as a heretic, because by a most guilty neglect he allowed letters containing heresy to be written in his name and subscribed with his hand, either without reading or understanding them. But, on the other hand, we have already refuted this objection as absolutely groundless, because the letters in question contain no error whatever in matter of faith.

As to the other remark of Mr. Renouf, we confess that we are at loss to understand whether that gentleman intends anything definite, or is using words devoid of all intelligible sense. He says that there is more than one kind of negligence, and that they do not necessarily imply inactivity. But in this he is wrong, for negligence in every language means the omission of due vigilance. He who is guilty of negligence may act, and, commonly speaking, he acts in some way or the other; but his action does not properly constitute his negligence, when it is only its consequence and fruit. A prodigal may be called by Cicero "negligens in sumptu"; that is to say, making useless expenses, because he did not attend to the proper manner of spending his money. In the Capitulare de Villis it is said, “fraus de latrocinio vel de alio neglecto"; because negligence, culpable negligence, often causes harm to others; in fact, the full passage which Mr. Renouf copied from Du Cange is as follows: "Si familia nostra partibus nostris aliquam facit fraudem de

"The Case of Pope Honorius," p. 62.

latrocinio aut alio neglecto, illud in caput componat." And Du Cange himself explains the word neglectum by negligentia; and he adds: "sed maxime ea quæ culpæ proxima est." Therefore this instance, with the others brought forward by Mr. Renouf, prove only that negligence is often culpable and punishable. But this is beside the question, because we admit that the negligence of Pope Honorius was culpable, and deserving of the punishment which was decreed by the Sixth Council. What we deny is that his fault of negligence harmonizes with the charge of heresy made against him. As to Leo's letter to King Erwig, Mr. Renouf takes no notice of what we wrote in our Apology. We have already proved that Pope Honorius was by no means included by Leo II. among the "omnes, &c." who had held a heretical doctrine: because he had unquestionably excluded him from the class of those heretics who had defended with obstinacy the heretical dogma of the Monothelites. Pope Leo expressly distinguished the case of Honorius from that of the other heretics: "all these " preached one will and one operation in the Divinity and in the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ; but Honorius only permitted the immaculate rule of the Apostolical Tradition to be polluted. As we remarked in our pamphlet, the word Tapεxúρnoε does not imply a complete surrender of faith, as if Leo had directly said that Honorius polluted the Church by his heresy. This assertion of Mr. Renouf should be proved before being accepted. The letter of Leo to the bishops of Spain, confronted with that to King Erwig, affords further evidence as to the Pontiff's real meaning. Let us then conclude that the sentence of condemnation against Pope Honorius, pronounced by the Sixth General Council, was sanctioned by Leo II. only in as much as it charged on Honorius a gross neglect in the discharge of his Pontifical duties.

Now, it were a sheer loss of time to repear here what we observed in our pamphlet concerning the Seventh and Eighth Ecumenical Councils in the case of Pope Honorius. Our opponent has ignored what we wrote on the subject from p. 129 to 135 of our pamphlet; and we are not called on to defend what he has not thought fit to attack. What Mr. Renouf has said in the matter, in his second pamphlet, is only a réchauffée of what he asserts in his first; with this difference, that, speaking in the latter of the Seventh Synod, he quotes on his side names and passages which we had already, in our pamphlet, expressly shown to be irrelevant;* and he further seems to

* "Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of History," p. 131. "The Case of Pope Honorius, p. 63.

VOL. XX.-NO. XXXIX. [New Series.]

L

« السابقةمتابعة »