Pope Honorius and Papal Infallibility Revisited
by Adam Murrell
Introduction: The Challenge from History
The doctrine of papal infallibility is of no little importance and should be considered in earnest since it has secured a place of prominence within Roman Catholicism. Many view this issue as a great stumbling block to ecumenical dialogue and conciliatory efforts, especially when viewed in light of the fact that detractors of papal infallibility have been placed under the pain of the anathema as promulgated in the dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus1 of the First Vatican Council in 1870. That one is placed under the anathema, the Church’s worst serious penalty, is enough to give one pause and concern to ruminate upon these matters. If one’s eternal soul is in jeopardy for not accepting this dogma then it stands to reason that the foundation of the claims of Rome must be meticulously investigated—and substantiated—before an honest inquiry.
With that said, however, if a single case of error can be brought against a Pope, then the doctrine of infallibility necessarily crumbles. The appeal to antiquity must be diligently pursued to determine if history buttresses Vatican’s claims or if dogma reinterprets facts. The historical record must be the ultimate judge and the annals of history must be investigated thoroughly—not to expose the faults of others sanctimoniously—but to bear witness to the truth. The Rev. W. Deviver, S. J. rightly asserted in his Christian Apologetics that if in the history of the papacy one solitary case could be cited where an ex cathedra act or decision contradicted another or of a General Council then such would be "absolutely fatal to the dogma of infallibility."2 Deviver further asserts confidently that from the day of Pentecost to the present not one such case of a contradiction or a misstatement exists. He manifests a confidence that history vindicates the dogma as propounded at the Vatican council. His assurity, however, is not shared by all. In fact, there are a leading number within Roman Catholicism that vociferously protested this dogma.
The serious student of Church history must not overlook the indefatigable efforts and conclusions of eminent scholars who have spent a lifetime studying the history of the Church and have reached a conclusion that is at open variance with the official position of Rome. To wit, one cannot look past Roman Catholic scholars such as Karl von Hefele who wrote concerning infallibility in the months following Vatican I: "I know not what else to do. To recognize something which in itself is untrue for divinely revealed, let him do it who can, I cannot."3 Later he penned: "…the new dogma lacks a true Biblical and traditional foundation."4
Hefele does not stand in isolation in his dissent. Roman Catholic scholar and Vatican I participant, Dr. Ignaz von Dollingar, fought vigorously against defining papal infallibility as dogma and presented his reasons before Archbishop Von Scherr on March 28, 1871 for refusing the doctrine. Dollingar concluded, "As Christian, as Theologian, as Historian, as Citizen, I cannot accept this doctrine."5 Similarly, Lord Acton, Regius Professor, University of Cambridge, and leading Roman Catholic erudite reached a similar conclusion when he affirmed that "all who are eminent for authority and knowledge—especially historians and theologians—protest against the new dogma."6 Thus, the fiercest opposition to this dogma comes not from Protestant objectors alone but from Rome’s own historians and scholars.7
For those who love truth and have not already surrendered their minds to the conclusion that the bishop of Rome can never error in matters of faith and morals, regardless of the evidence presented, will give serious consideration to the historical record and will rightly conclude with John Henry Cardinal Newman as he wrote in a letter to English bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham on January 28, 1870: "I look with anxiety at the prospect of having to defend decisions, which may not be difficult to my private judgement, but may be most difficult to maintain logically in the face of historical facts."8 Writing to the same recipient on a different occasion Newman proceeded to ask, "What will they do with Honorius, for he wrote on the de fide basis?"9 Cardinal Newman recognized that the case of Honorius was just one such historical fact that must first be adequately explained before mandating such dogma. Lord Acton similarly noted in a private letter of the Roman Catholic Church and her "lamentable sophistry employed in distorting historical facts—as e.g. the case of Honorius…"10
It is not just Protestants who take issue with Deviver’s conclusion. Many of the leading Roman Catholic voices even concluded that such dogma as papal infallibility is without historical substantiation. Even the novice of church history could point to the councils that have contradicted popes11 but the clearest expression against the dogma of papal infallibility centers solely upon Pope Honorius and his interaction with the Monothelite heresy. In that, the singular historical fact will be ample to answer the Jesuit challenge of papal infallibility.
Background to the Monothelite Heresy
Just as the First Ecumenical Council in 325 failed to pacify the Arian heresy, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 did little to quell the firestorm of controversy that was brewing over the relationship of the two natures of Christ. The decades following the decision at Chalcedon was unable to unite the varying groups and the Christological differences only grew deeper that by the sixth century the main opposing factions were the Chalcedonians and the Monophysites. The former embraced Chalcedon’s language in affirming two natures in one person, while the latter followed Cyril in embracing "one nature after the union."12 Each side believed the council’s decision could be interpreted to support its views and the chasm further divided.
It was Eastern Christendom that fell under the greatest influence of the Monophysites. Constantinople and Antioch were the two apostolic sees that fully embraced Monophysitism with Severus, the patriarch of Antioch being the chief spokesman for the growing movement.13 But it was also during this time of crises that another question invariably surfaced directly related to Monophysitism. Specifically, if it were possible that Christ had only one nature, then would it follow that he too only had one "energy"14 and one "will"? Those that said yes to energy were labeled Monenergists against the Monothelites who affirmed the one will of Christ.
The theological leaders of this rapidly expanding group of Monothelites found vocal leaders in Theodore, bishop of Pharan and in the bishops of the patriarchal see of Constantinople, namely, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul. Standing at open variance to the Monothelite belief were Sophronius, Maximus, and the Popes Martin and Agotho. These men were at the forefront in representing the Monothelites and Dyothelites (meaning two wills), but the religious tension was just one factor that distressed the emperor.
Persian and Arab invaders gave Emperor Heraclius enough cause for concern that in 638 he collaborated with Sergius and Pope Honorius in issuing his Ekthesis which affirmed Monothelitism and forbid further discussion about the topic. The desired result was to achieve unity in the face of external military opposition. The issue, however, was far from settled. Dyothelites objected to the decree and pointed to the many passages in the Bible that spoke to the separate and distinct wills of Christ.15 Furthermore, these men pointed out the logical necessity of Christ having two wills as they argued that the incarnation would be incomplete without such and an incomplete incarnation would render redemption incomplete. Therefore, Christ must have had a fully human will in order to redeem, to purify, and to sanctify His people.
The issue continued to fester and in the year 648 Emperor Constans II issued his Typos, which forbade discussing the controversy and failed to give preference to either view. The aim was to arrest the growing tension with respect to any Christological controversy beyond what had already been approved at the ecumenical councils. The imperial edict did little to abate the controversy, and Pope Martin I overtly disregarded his edict.
The Roman bishop assembled the first Lateran Council in October 649, attended by 105 bishops, and anathematized Monothelitism and the Ekthesis and Typos edicts, while sanctioning Dyothelitism. Martin I then promulgated the acts of the council to the Christian world and concurrently sent a Greek translation to Emperor Constans II. The emperor responded by deposing the Roman bishop, exposing him to extreme treatment, and sending him by ship into exile. Martin I, however, died in 655 from maltreatment, but his two-will doctrine survived long after his temporal existence to form the basis of accepted orthodoxy today.
The Third Council of Constantinople
Constans II ruled for another 13 years after the death of Martin I until he was murdered in 668. His son, Constantine IV Pogonatus, ascended to become emperor and wished to restore fellowship between the East and the West. Unlike his father, he stood neutral with respect to this issue but cultivated good relations with the bishop of Rome and other leading Dyothelites. Longing for a unified Church, Constantine called a General Council at Constantinople and presided over 18 sessions from November 680 until September 681. After both sides were presented for full discussion the council sanctioned and articulated the two-will doctrine of the Dyothelites and further "expressly condemned Pope Honorius I as a Monothelite heretic"16 along with other bishops who propagated the Monothelite heresy.
Emperor Constantine fully supported the council’s decision. He immediately promulgated an edict enforcing the decision and anathematizing all heretics to including the Roman bishop Honorius I as well. The edict promised deposition, confiscation, and exile to any and all who followed in the footsteps of Honorius and taught the doctrine of Christ’s one will.
Pope Leo II confirmed the acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and the anathemas of Honorius, together with the Monothelite leaders, "who did not set himself to keep this Apostolic Church pure by the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by a profane betrayal endeavoured to subvert the undefiled faith."17
The Heresy of Pope Honorius
The reign of Pope Honorius (625–638) was a much discussed issue during the Vatican Council because it had a special bearing upon the dogma in question. That is to say, papal infallibility rested solely upon the principle of false in one, false in all. Honorius’ connection with Monothelism is well-documented and is without dispute in many historical areas. The annals of history will prove sufficient to stand on its own.
In 634, Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, wrote to Honorius describing his attempts at reconciling the Monophysites with the Chalcedonian faithful and sought the Pope’s approbation with respect to his theology. Sergius, in his letter, again propounded his Christology and denied the orthodox position that Christ held two wills. Honorius obliged his acquaintance by responding with the words, "Therefore we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ."18 Honorius’ usage of the plural "we confess" demonstrates that the bishop was not writing as a private theologian but was in fact speaking ex cathedra in the discharge of office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians in defining a matter of faith. This was the same conclusion reached by the General Council when they concluded in their acts that they have "judged that Honorius…followed [Sergius] in his mind in all things, and authoritatively confirmed his impious dogmas."19
The Council in the same session condemned a second letter from Honorius to Sergius as well as other authoritative letters in which the bishop taught heresy to Cyrus and Sophronius. Honorius’ letters were ordered to be burned at the council.
The subsequent sessions of the council proved just as condemning for Honorius as was the thirteenth. The sixteenth session concluded with the bishops proclaiming, "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc."20 Two sessions later the rhetoric was even more fierce in that the council stated that the Devil "found a fit tool for his will in…Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc."21 Three of the eighteen sessions were dedicated to condemning Honorius explicitly as a Pope that defiled his office by teaching heresy.
The synodical epistle to Pope Agatho upon conclusion of the General Council indicated that they complied with the bishop of Rome’s request in his letter. The epistle read that they slew Honorius, among other Monothelites, with the anathema in accordance with the Pope’s wishes.
That the Sixth General Council officially condemned Honorius for teaching heresy is substantiated through historical examination. Roman legates sent to the council concurred with the acts of the council and Pope Leo II formally accepted the anathematizing of his predecessor, Honorius. The idea of papal infallibility had yet to develop and it would not be until nearly two centuries later that the notion was first proposed.
Subsequent Councils and Papal Actions
If time heals wounds, the decades that passed between the sixth and the next two general councils did not prove sufficient in forgetting the condemnation of Honorius. The seventh and eighth ecumenical councils both repeated the anathemas of the sixth. That is, the two councils following Third Constantinople upheld the judgment that the bishop of Old Rome profaned the undefiled faith by teaching ex cathedra that Christ had only one will. Now while one might say Honorius was an innocent heretic since the church had yet to pronounce orthodox dogma with respect to the two wills of Christ, Honorius’ theological insights failed to meet the level one would expect of a bishop sitting in the chair of Peter.
The Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages did not want to forget the stain Honorius inflicted upon her. That is, the memory of the heretical Pope Honorius was at the forefront of every papal oath as found in the Liber Diurnus—the ecclesiastical formulae used when assuming the office of the Papacy from the fifth to the eleventh century. Gregory II is credited with prescribing the phrase, "smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics."22 Popes from the time of Gregory until the eleventh century all proclaimed with their words that Honorius, bishop of Rome was not infallible but was in fact a heretic.
Attempts to Rehabilitate Honorius
Copious attempts to rehabilitate the image of Honorius and uphold the possibility of papal infallibility have been put forth with great zeal since 1870. There is no singular answer in vogue by Roman Catholic apologists for obvious reasons. One of the earliest explanations came from Cardinal Bellarmin and Bishop Bartoli who wrote without much persuasion that Honorius’ letters were a Greek forgery. This idea, however, was short lived and failed to garner much support. Even Dollinger concluded such speculation to be a "lamentable expedient."23
Another argument propounded came via Joseph Pennachi, Professor of Church History in the University of Rome, who argued that the council had ceased being ecumenical at the time it promulgated its anathemas. Cardinal Baronius has suggested another possibility by which the case of Honorius could be easily reconciled with Vatican’s dogma. That is, the acts of the council were corrupted over time and as such are untrustworthy and fallacious. The gratuitous assertion was refuted easily by Hefele in his History of the Council in which he concluded that Baronius’ conclusions were utterly indefensible.
Recent years have provided a new line of Roman apologists who continue to invent new defenses. Patrick Madrid asserts in his book Pope Fiction that Pope Leo II "confirmed the council’s decrees but redefined its language regarding Pope Honorius, making it clear that Honorius had not endorsed the Monothelitism of Sergius, but had failed in his duty to condemn it."24 Therefore, Madrid argues, Honorius was not condemned for heresy but simply because he neglected to prevent Monothelitism from spreading and growing.
The problem with such reasoning, however, is that it fails to address the reality that the Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned Honorius and others for teaching heresy—and not simply for allowing Monothelitism to be taught. Furthermore, Leo never corrected the language of the council nor did he ever refute the anathemas. Leo confirmed the findings of the council and it was also the wording of this council that the seventh and eighth councils adopted in their condemnations of Honorius as well. Despite the vast evidence against Madrid’s argument, perhaps the greatest flaw comes by way of anachronistically reading history. The tacit assumption in his argumentation is that the council’s decrees had no effect until the bishop of Rome officially confirmed the results. That idea had yet to find its way into the universal church, and would not do so for another two centuries after the Sixth General Council where the first expression of papal approval is found in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. Madrid, and others, make the fatal flaw of taking a modern day belief and reading it back into history in order to defend the dogma articulated at the First Vatican Council.
No Genuine Assurance from Rome
The dogma of papal infallibility was designed to bring comfort to Christians who feared that error could permeate the official teaching of the Church. Vatican’s dogma was supposed to give her followers assurance that the highest leaders will never lead the body of Christ astray on matters of faith and morals. But let the reader be reminded that Honorius had died more than four decades before his condemnation at Constantinople. No Pope spanning the over 40 years between Honorius and his anathematizing uttered one word against his teachings. So for the countless followers who believed his teachings with respect to Christ’s one will lived and died under the fetters of excommunication without even knowing it. Those individuals thought they had assurance their entire lives, but were in fact lead astray. It took a General Council and almost half a century to pass before the truth about his official teachings was corrected.
Applying that same principle today, how does one know with any certainty that what Pope Benedict teaches today will not be anathematized at a council that is convened 40 years from now? How does the Roman Catholic Church provide any assurance today that Benedict’s letters, unlike Honorius’, will not be burned as "profane and soul-destroying?"25 What assurance can this dogma provide someone that what is taught today is truly ex cathedra and will not be reversed under the ruse of teaching as a private theologian? The answer, of course, is that no such assurity can be made with any certainty as history has amply demonstrated.
The First Vatican Council decreed papal infallibility to the chagrin and against the wishes of countless bishops and Roman scholars who understood what it means to make such claims. To accept the decrees of Vatican is to allow the Church to interpret history, but the Protestant scholar can in good conscience allow history to judge the veracity of infallible dogma, and can conclude with Dr. Dollinger "that the theory of papal infallibility had been introduced into the church only by a long chain of purposeful fictions and forgeries."26 The truth discovered through a learned historical and biblical observation will reveal to the Christian today that the Lord has already revealed to His people everything necessary for salvation. Christ has already told us He is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). That one infallible source and interpreter of all truth is sitting at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, continuously interceding for His people, both now and for all eternity.
