forget what we have often remarked, that even if, not only private bishops, but the whole Seventh Council and the Eighth had condemned Pope Honorius for heresy, it would not follow from this that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is untenable, unless it be first shown that Honorius was anathematized for having taught heresy ex cathedra.* That gentleman mixes together those two questions, which every Catholic theologian should carefully distinguish and separate. With regard to the second profession of faith contained in the Liber Diurnus, Mr. Renouf believes that it has not even a word to qualify the acceptation of all its acts, whether as regards the definition of faith or the condemnation of the heretics. First of all, we remark that it is not at all requisite that every profession of faith should explicitly express what is always implicitly supposed by every Catholic. But, moreover, in our case we believe that, at least with reference to the condemnation of Pope Honorius, a hint may be found in it of what Mr. Renouf requires. In fact the words, "pravis eorum assertionibus fomentum impendit" re-echo to us Leo's words: "flammam hæretici dogmatis. negligendo confovit." It seems that the second profession of faith was moulded in this part on Leo's declaration and limitation of Honorius's condemnation. We, moreover, cannot understand how readily our opponent tries to underrate the importance of a document, on which De Marca himself had set great value for the defence of Honorius. The word eorum, says Mr. Renouf, after Honorius has most ungrammatically been referred to auctores, with the intention of excluding him from the list; but it manifestly refers to Constantinopolitanos. I do not know what are the grammatical principles of Mr. Renouf; I know only that, according to the most elementary rules. of grammar, the word "eorum" is to be referred to the names of the Patriarchs who had been mentioned,-Sergius and the others, who were qualified as the authors of the new heretical dogma.§ So that the obvious and necessary meaning of the text is that Honorius contributed fuel to the iniquitous assertions of the Constantinopolitans, Sergius and Pyrrhus, &c., who had been the authors of the new heretical dogma: therefore, together with them and the others, he was condemned by the Sixth Council. That * "Pope Honorius,” p. 130, &c. +"The Case of Pope Honorius," p. 56. Ibid. 1. c. § The words are as follows:- "Auctores vero hæretici dogmatis Sergium, Pyrrhum, Paulum, Petrum Constantinopolitanos, una cum Honorio, qui pravis eorum assertionibus fomentum impendit," etc.-" Liber Diurnus," c. ii. tit. ix. (Migne, PP. LL,, t. cv. p. 52). profession of faith draws clearly a line of demarcation between the fault of Honorius and that of the Patriarchs of Constantinople. If the fault of Honorius was that of having fostered and encouraged the evil assertions of the authors of the heresy, how can he have been one of the authors of the heresy itself? Before taking in hand the other part of the controversy concerning the sense in which the Sixth Synod intended to condemn Pope Honorius, we must make a passing remark on what Mr. Renouf says at page 66 and following. He first expresses surprise at what I say at page 135, as to the meaning of a Council pronouncing an anathema against a Prelate after his death. He believes that Leo II. understood the anathema in a different sense when he told the Spanish bishops that Honorius and the other Monothelites "æterna damnatione mulctati sunt."* Does Mr. Renouf believe that the synodical anathema, inflicted on persons after their death, implies their eternal damnation? If so, what would he think of the authors of the famous Three Chapters being anathematized by the fifth Council, though they had submitted to the profession of Chalcedon, and had been declared orthodox by that Council? Would he admit in that case that the conciliar sentence could in any wise influence the sentence already pronounced on them by the Eternal Judge? Would he admit that the authors of the Three Chapters, who had submitted to the confession of faith sanctioned at Chalcedon and had been declared orthodox by that Council, should be believed" æterna damnatione mulctati " because they were anathematized by the fifth Council, together with their writings? Does he think that the sentence of anathema inflicted by the Church after death gives any certainty of their having been condemned by Christ? If he holds these opinions, we have nothing to say to him. But no theologian and no Catholic, we believe, will agree with him in this view. The anathema pronounced by the Church against any of her children after their death has no other meaning, as we remarked elsewhere,† than to condemn the fault which they committed in their lifetime, as it appeared before her tribunal; she strikes their names out of the diptychs and erases their pictures from the churches, in order to repair the evil consequences of their faults, and to caution their successors against falling into the same crime. Therefore, in consequence of the anathema, the name of Honorius ought to be struck from the diptychs and his image erased from the churches. If that had been done, nothing would have been added to the import of the sentence of his condemnation. Nor would it be an argument against his orthodoxy, but a simple consequence of the anathema, whatever the reason which led the Synod to the act of condemnation. But Anastasius, or the author of Pope Agatho's life, suppresses the name of Honorius in the list of those whose names were struck out of the diptychs, and whose ikons were erased in the Greek churches. Baronius, quoting that passage, argues that the name of Honorius must have been kept in the Oriental diptychs, because it is certain that it had been left in them at the time of the Monothelites. In our pamphlet on Pope Honorius we have adopted the remark of the learned annalist, without adding ought thereto. If Mr. Renouf had read was (as there should have been),* instead of is (a blunder), he would have been in no need of wasting his ink on two pages of banter. Moreover, Mr. Renouf evidently intended to make capital out of that argument, as if we had laid any great stress upon it for the defence of Pope Honorius, in order to be able to claim a rebutting victory. But this gentleman forgets that in historical matters we do not require that every argument should be apodictic, capable of standing by itself, and of affording by itself alone demonstrative evidence for the thesis in question. It remains shortly to explain the last part of our controversy, that is to say, how and for what reason Pope Honorius was really condemned by the Fathers of the sixth Council. We again remind our readers that this part of our argument is not at all necessary for the defence of the dogma of Papal Infallibility, for which Pope Honorius's case has received so great celebrity. Nevertheless its further explanation may doubtless contribute to the full understanding of the whole controversy, and cast some light on the main question of Papal Infallibility. But a few remarks are necessary concerning the Sixth Council, before coming to the point in question. And first of all we must do justice to the accurate researches made on the subject by Father Colombier in the articles quoted above. He has fully proved that the process against Pope Honorius was only undertaken when the news of Agatho's death had arrived at Constantinople. On this account he shows to us that the death of the latter took place on the 10th January, 681, between the fifth and the sixth session (7 Dec. 680; 12 Feb. 681): that is to say, one year earlier than has been commonly fixed by historians and by Hefele himself. Nor could the news of his death reach Constantinople, in that age, before the month of March, between the ninth and the *Ibid. 1. c. line 26. tenth session (8 and 18 March). I have carefully examined his proofs and confronted the documents which he alleges, and I am fully satisfied with his conclusions; but with a view to brevity I refer my readers to his articles and to No. V. of his learned letter, which he addressed to Mgr. Hefele. Unquestionably till the eleventh session, when, as we suppose, the Byzantine metropolis was informed of Pope Agatho's death, we find not even the slightest hint of any process in contemplation against Pope Honorius. In the eleventh session, the Emperor Constantine ordered that the papers intrusted to him the year before by Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch, should be read and examined in public session. That was evidently a pretext. The papers contained documents collected by Macarius in defence of his error; but the Patriarch had already been deposed and condemned in the eighth session, and he had made no appeal whatever to the papers which he had put in the hands of the Emperor long before his condemna tion. But among the documents gathered by the Monothelite Patriarch was the letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius. And we venture to say that this was the only reason for examining the whole documentary evidence, as a favourable occasion of indictment against the Sovereign Pontiff was wanted: but it was laid hold of as soon as it was known that the Holy See was vacant. We cannot possibly conceive that the imperial judges and the Patriarch of Constantinople, George, would have undertaken such an unexampled step against an illustrious Pope whilst the great Pontiff Agatho was living. Nor can we understand how the Papal Legates could have abstained from any protest against the attempted condemnation, which not only was not implied in the Papal instructions, but was manifestly against them. But with regard to the Papal Legates, the historiau Eutychius records, in his Annals, that the Papal Legates were deprived of their presidency before the cause of Honorius was brought into the Council.* This is the reason why Matthew Cariophylus, in his refutation of Nilus in the Council of Florence, maintained that Honorius was condemned by the faction of the Oriental Bishops.† And he argues as follows:-Either the Papal Legates consented to the act of the condemnation of Pope Honorius, or they did not if they consented, they acted against the orders of Pope Agatho, who had enjoined on them to deal only with matters of faith: if they did not consent, the Synod, which condemned Honorius was only a faction. But if Pope Agatho ceased to live before the * "Annales" (Migne, PP. LL., t. cxi. p. 1114). Ibid. 1. c. eleventh Action of the Council, as F. Colombier has proved, it it is plain that the Papal Legates, being without instructions, and deprived of their presidency in the Synod, preferred to abstain from any protest, till the matter had been referred to Rome. But, moreover, how was the trial against Pope Honorius conducted? First of all we remark in it a great interference of the civil power in an affair which wholly devolved on the ecclesiastical authorities. The imperial judges assumed the initiative in the whole business; they imposed on the assembled bishops the obligation of examining the documents concerning Honorius, and to pronounce their sentence; they threatened them, that unless they acted accordingly, their decisions in the case of Macarius of Antioch would not be put into execution.* In the opening of the thirteenth session, the Synod was reminded of the engagements undertaken in the preceding session, and that it was expected to fulfil its engagements. † These engagements were fulfilled without any examination whatever of the documents, without any discussion, without any cross-examination of those who were interested in the affair. A simple perusal of the letter of the Pope was held to be a sufficient justification of the most severe sentence which has ever been pronounced against a Pope! What authority has that sentence in the Catholic Church? The authority of the tribunal was at least doubtful, its procedure was quite illegal, its justice most problematic. An indictment was made, for the first time, against a great Pope who had worked much for the unity of the Church; but such an indictment was made only on account of the pressure of the civil power, without any initiation whatever from any ecclesiastical authority, without any authorization from the Apostolic See. On a cause of such importance, and of so delicate a nature, no discussion is allowed, no witnesses are called, no defence is admitted, no votes of the assembly are requested; a sentence is pronounced under the pressure of the imperial representatives, and it is conceived in terms of so great a bitterness, which betrays the existence of an imperial faction in the Council. Such is the document, which Mr. Renouf, and others, bring forward as an irrefragable refutation of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Had not the name of Honorius been mentioned in the formula of faith among the condemned by the Council, had not Pope Leo II. approved the whole of that formula, and manifestly confirmed the condemnation of Pope Honorius, we would give to the *Sess. XII. Conc. VI. (Harduini, t. iii. p. 1327). |