Honorius question
The Honorius question or the Honorius dispute was triggered by the condemnation of Pope Honorius I as a heretic by the sixth ecumenical council in Constantinople in 681 and has led to controversial discussions in the Catholic Church since then.
prehistory
After the Council of Chalcedon (451), in the dispute between the Monophysites and the Nestorians about the divine and human nature in Jesus Christ, defined Jesus Christ as true God and true man at the same time (and thus based more closely on Nestorianism), this led to the schism between on the one hand the Greco-Roman and the ancient oriental churches. On the other hand, the Orthodox side also objected to the resolutions of the council in the following period and attempts to mediate with the Monophysites were made. The Henoticon of Patriarch Akakios , approved by Kaier Zenon , in turn led to the so-called Akakian schism between the Roman and Orthodox Churches. It was not until Emperor Justinian I (527-565) that the teachings of Chalcedony were reasserted through tough measures in the east as well. At the beginning of the 7th century Theodore von Pharan resumed the discussion and tried again to connect the resolutions of Chalcedon with the unity of the nature of Christ; he thus became the author of the teachings of monotheletism or monenergism . On this basis, Patriarch Sergios I of Constantinople attempted a reconciliation with the Monophysites. Together with Emperor Herakleios he strove for a reunification with the oriental church. In negotiations with Cyrus , the Patriarch of Alexandria, and Sophronios , later the Patriarch of Jerusalem, a linguistic compromise was reached. In a letter Sergios presented this agreement to the Roman Pope Honorius and asked him for an assessment.
The correspondence between Sergios and Pope Honorius
Sergios's letter to Honorius describes in detail how the compromise came about: The dispute over two wills or one energy that would have worked in Jesus Christ was ultimately regarded as a superfluous dispute over words. One should avoid the dispute by neither stipulating their position in a binding manner, and adhering to the usual statements of the church fathers. Christ is the incarnate Word of God and from him divine and human energy go undivided. Pope Leo also taught this. Together with the copies of other letters on this question, Sergios finally asks Honorius to give him his opinion on the matter in writing.
Although the originals of Honorius' two letters of reply were burned during the sixth ecumenical council of 681, they are preserved in the acts of the council and thus in numerous manuscripts and printed matter. The letters were not written by Honorius himself. Maximus Confessor and Anastasius Bibliothecarius report unanimously that a certain Abbot John wrote the first letter. The fact that a deacon Sericus was the author of the second letter is right at the beginning of this. Both letters, however, were confirmed by Honorius.
The letters remain vague in their argumentation and avoid a clear decision in favor of one of the two faiths. Honorius considers the statements of the Council Fathers of Chalcedon and Pope Leo I to be final and the dispute over the concepts of one or two energies to be a useless, if not dangerous, annoyance. Nevertheless, he writes in the first letter: That is why we also profess a will of the Lord Jesus Christ , which was later understood as a decision in favor of monotheletism.
According to Kreuzer, Honorius did not want to make this decision consciously; rather, he sees in the imprecise and vague language a blatant lack of theological education on the part of the Pope, above all a very little familiarity with Greek theology. The stronger emphasis on the will in Christ over the energies led to decades of conflict between the followers of monotheletism and duotheletism, which finally came to an end in the sixth ecumenical council - the third in Constantinople.
The sixth ecumenical council
The council, which opened on November 7th, 680 in the imperial palace in Constantinople, was preceded by an exchange of letters between Emperor Constantine IV and Pope Agatho , in which both expressed their will to end the disputes. Of course, Agatho leaves no doubt that the patriarchs are the authors of the monotheletic doctrine and that this doctrine is to be rejected. He appointed eight legates to take part in the council for the Roman Church.
In the first session the Constantinople were asked by the Romans to produce evidence of the teaching of the one will and the one energy. Patriarch Makarios appealed to the Fathers of the Church, the Synods, Sergios and other patriarchs and besides Cyrus also Pope Honorius. The following sessions dealt extensively with documents that the respective pages submitted to support their position, allegations of forgery, comparisons with other transcripts and audits. After Patriarch Georgios accepted the view of the Roman Church at the eighth session, the essential decision had been made. In the following sessions, several followers of the one-will or one-energy teaching were condemned and expelled from the church.
In the 12th session on March 20, 681, the letters between Sergios and Honorius were finally read out, which were then rejected as heretical in the 13th session on March 28, 681. Honorius himself was judged: We expel the former Pope Honorius von Altrom from the holy Church of God and anathemize him because we found that in the letters he addressed to Sergios, he followed his intentions in everything and confirmed his godless teachings .
This judgment was reaffirmed in the final meeting on September 16, 681 and the teaching of two wills and two energies was declared to be orthodox. Agatho was informed of the resolutions in a letter to the Pope. However, after he had already died at the beginning of the year, his successor, Pope Leo II , received the letter and in a letter to Emperor Constantine approved the results of the council; he expressly endorses the condemnation of Honorius.
The treatment of the Honorius question up to the 19th century
Immediately after these events, the Roman Church began to cover up the condemnation of Pope Honorius. Honorius was already mentioned in the Vita of Leo II as a convict at the council, but no longer referred to as Pope. This procedure can also be found in the Liber Diurnus and is adopted by several authors of church history works from the Middle Ages, so that knowledge of the Honorius case gradually waned. Humbert von Silva Candida even mentions Honorius in a pamphlet against the Greek Church as one of the convicts of the Sixth Council, after he had previously stressed that, unlike the Greek patriarchs, no Pope had yet erred. Other medieval scribes consider Honorius to be an Antioch patriarch or no longer know Honorius at all.
It was only after Nikolaus von Kues and Torquemada had taken up the discussion about the condemnation of Honorius in the 15th century that a long series of writings began, especially with Albert Pigge , which either wanted to explain the case of a heretical pope through forgery by the Greeks or highlighted it that Honorius had made his erroneous judgment as a private person and that the office of Pope was not affected by it.
The declaration of the Pope's infallibility at the 1st Vatican Council
With Karl Joseph von Hefele , Bishop von Rottenburg and professor of philosophy, philology and Catholic theology in Tübingen, a Catholic clergyman again dealt intensively with the Honorius question in several writings in the middle of the 19th century. He distinguished the subjective orthodoxy of Honorius from the objective heresy which was expressed in his letters. Therefore he could rightly be condemned by the sixth ecumenical council.
This view of Hefeles became explosive because he was a participant in the 1st Vatican Council on which Pope Pius IX. the Papal infallibility wanted to impose a dogma. From the beginning, Hefele belonged to a minority who rejected this definition of infallibility for historical reasons, including the condemnation of Honorius. In a speech on May 17, 1870 and in several other writings and statements, Hefele spoke out against the dogmatization of infallibility, but without being able to convince the majority of the Council Fathers. Together with 54 other bishops, he left the council before the infallibility of the Pope was declared to be a doctrine of faith, in order not to have to vote against the Pope.
With the declaration of papal infallibility on July 18, 1870, the Honorius question was also regarded as decided in the Catholic Church.
literature
-
Giovanni Domenico Mansi : Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio
- Vol. 11, Florence 1765.
- Vol. 52, Arnheim & Leipzig 1927
- Gerhard Schneemann : Studies on the Honorius Question . Herder, Freiburg 1864.
- Karl Joseph von Hefele: Causa Honorii papae . Angelis, Naples 1870.
- German translation: The Honorius question . Translated from Latin by Hermann Rump. Russell, Munster 1870.
- Another German translation: Honorius (I.) and the 6th general council. Authorized translation. With an addendum by the author . Laupp, Tübingen 1870.
- Georg Kreuzer : The Honorius question in the Middle Ages and in the modern age , Popes and papacy, Volume 8, Stuttgart 1975, ISBN 3-7772-75182
Footnotes
Georg Kreuzer: The Honorius question in the Middle Ages and in modern times