HONORIUS I, POPE

Pontificate: Oct. 27, 625, to Oct. 12, 638. The liber pontificalis identifies Honorius as a native of the Campania and son of the consul Petronius. If his election as pope received the traditional imperial confirmation, it came not from the Byzantine Emperor himself, but from the exarch at Ravenna, as is known to have been the case in 686 (Liber pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne [Paris 1886–92, 1958] n. 85).

West. Honorius was immediately involved with affairs in Italy. In 625 he demanded that Exarch Isaac (625–643) send to Rome for penance those bishops who had helped Arioald, Duke of Turin, to overthrow the Lombard King Adaloald (616–625). Then, two letters of June 10, 627, deal with the excesses of the Sardinian official Theodore, and two later ones commit the government of Naples to the notary Gaudiosus and the military captain Anatholius. Honorius's epitaph asserts that he ended the minor schism caused by Istria's refusal to accede to the condemnation of the three chapters pronounced in 553 by the Council of constantinople ii. The fact seems to be that on Feb. 18, 628, Honorius provided a Roman subdeacon, Primogenius, to Istria's See of Grado (which see Primogenius continued to hold as late as 642 or 649).

As for Spain, Honorius sent the deacon Turninus to the Council of toledo vi (638) with instructions to urge the prelates to greater efforts in restraining the infidels. Caspar (2:671) holds that this letter referred to the Jewish question. In any event, the reply written by Bp. braulio of Saragossa in the name of the whole synod (Patrologia Latina, ed. J. P. Migne [Paris 1878–90] 80:667–670) makes it clear that such a papal admonition was uncalled for. It is a fact, however, that the decrees of the Council

of Toledo VI (J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio [Graz 1960–] 10:663)—like those of the Council of Toledo IV in 663 (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 10:633–35)—reveal a decidedly anti-Jewish attitude on the part of the Spanish hierarchy.

England's Venerable Bede (Ecclesiastical History 2.17–19) records Honorius's grant of the pallium in 634 to Abp, honorius of canterbury and Abp. paulinus of york. However, the document by which Honorius is supposed to have bestowed primacy upon Canterbury (P. Jaffé, Regesta pontificum romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum 1198, ed. P. Ewald, [Graz 1956] 590–882 2021) is now considered a forgery [Gregorianum 12 (1931) 44–46]. Bede notes that the Pope appealed to Britain's Celtic Christians to abandon their non-Roman manner of calculating Easter. Honorius also sent Bishop Birinus to labor among the West Saxons (Ecclesiastical History 3.7).

Controversy over Monothelitism. More important, perhaps, than Honorius's involvement in the West was the role he played in the byzantine church's vital controversy over monophysitism, which by this time had also given rise to monothelitism. His actions in this affair occasioned violent debate over his orthodoxy, over papal infallibility, and over the relationship of pope and council—issues that were contested down to vatican council i.

In a letter of 634 (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 11.529–37) Patriarch sergius i of constantinople reported current developments to Honorius. At stake was an attempt to win Eastern Monophysites back to Catholic unity by means of a formula that stressed oneness of operation in Christ. A year earlier Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria (630 or 631–643 or 644) had successfully reconciled dissidents in his patriarchate by professing "one theandric operation" in the Lord (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 11:565d). However, the monk Sophronius, soon to be patriarch of Jerusalem (633 or 634–638) had adduced patristic evidence for two operations in Christ and had required Cyrus to promise that in the future he would speak neither of one nor of two operations. In his letter Sergius stated that he himself accepted the Catholic faith as expounded by Pope leo i. He too had counseled Cyrus to refrain from speaking of operations, even though the patriarch's personal sympathies lay with a theology of a single operation, and he thought that mention of a double operation would only imply that Christ was in possession of two contrary wills, with the human will being set against the divine in undergoing the Passion. At the end, his letter sought the Pope's reaction.

Honorius's reply has been preserved in the Greek translation that was read at the Council of constantino ple iii on March 22, 681 (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 11:537–544; the Latin in Patrologia Latina 80:470–474 is probably a retranslation). The Pope fully supported the position that there be no further discussion of either one or two operations, preferring to leave such questions to grammarians. Rather, he urged concentration upon the one Christ who operates both in His divine and in His human nature. He cited the formula of the Council of chalcedon to the effect that the two natures are unconfusedly and immutably united, and from this unity Honorius deduced the presence of a single will in Christ since His human nature is uncorrupted and not subject to the law of the members to which Rom 7.23 refers. He interpreted Mk 14.36 ("Not my will …") as spoken for our instruction in accord with the "economy" of the assumed humanity and not as marking a will differing from that of the Father's will. By economy Honorius meant "a manner of speaking." This, indeed, appears to be Monothelitism and would exclude a true human will in Christ. However, Galtier (Gregorianum [Rome 1920–] 29:53–61) maintains that the Pope was actually positing a real human will in a real humanity, yet a will that is ever submissive to Christ's divine will.

Chapman (Dublin Review 139:129–134) has remarked that Honorius's reply to Sergius was a private communication and does not fall into the category of public papal definitions of faith guaranteed by infallibility. However, it is undeniable that Honorius did counsel not mentioning either one or two operations in Christ, thus at least placing the heretical assertion (one operation) on an equal plane with the orthodox expression (two operations).

This papal fault was compounded after Honorius received a synodical letter (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 11:461–509) from Sophronius of Jerusalem that argued from the diversity of the divine and human natures to the distinction of operations in the Lord (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 11:481–484), although it did not raise the question of the number of wills in Christ. A fragmentary notice (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 11:580–581) to Sergius—Honorius's reply to Sophronius is lost—shows that the Pope was again intent upon terminating any discussion as to one or two operations and had received a pledge to this end from Sophronius. However, Honorius was quite insistent upon two integral natures in Christ, each operating in a manner proper to it in the one person of the Son of God. What is deplorable in Honorius's approach to the whole Monophysite controversy is not his theology, but his failure to realize that the new terms introduced into the discussion required official evaluation. Four years later (638) this line of thinking reached a natural conclusion with the appearance of Emperor heraclius's Ecthesis (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 10:992–997), that simply forbade reference to operations and confessed but a single will in Christ (see typos).

Honorius's successor, Pope severinus, seems to have condemned Monothelitism (Regesta pontificum romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum 1198, 2039); and Pope john iv, who assuredly anathematized the Ecthesis (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 11:9), deplored the action of the new patriarch of Constantinople, pyrrhus, when he cited Honorius's authority in favor of Monothelitism (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 10:682–686). John's interpretation of his predecessor's mind is that Honorius's exclusion of two contrary wills in Christ is explicitly limited to the human nature; he was in no way envisioning a single will common to both the divinity and humanity. This is a valid observation as far as it goes, but it says nothing of Honorius's blindness in prohibiting discussion on the number of operations in Christ.

His Condemnation Evaluated. Honorius's stand became the subject of much criticism. In a disputation of July 645 St. maximus the confessor (d. 662) replied to the deposed Patriarch Pyrrhus that Honorius kept within the limits of the problem proposed to him and thus did not have to enter into the further question of the will inherent in the divine nature of Christ (Patrologia Graeca ed. J. P. Migne, [Paris 1857–66] 91:329b). However, subsequent developments, especially the Lateran Synod of 649 under Pope martin i, which condemned Monothelitism and whose 18th canon named Patriarch Sergius a heretic, and the assembling of the sixth ecumenical council, constantinople iii (680–681), led inevitably to a reevaluation of Honorius's action. At Constantinople III, in the presence of papal legates who had delivered an important dogmatic letter from Pope agatho, Honorius was mentioned several times and his two letters to Sergius were read at the 12th and 13th sessions. At the 13th session (March 28, 681), Monothelites were condemned and expelled from the Church; these included Honorius "because … by his letter to Sergius he followed his opinion in all things and confirmed his wicked dogmas" (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 11:556C). In the final session of Sept. 16, 681, Honorius was again listed among the heretics because he had followed in the footsteps of Sergius and Cyrus (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 11:636; 656;665). The council's letter to Pope Agatho, asking confirmation of the Acta and marked by recognition for Rome's magisterium (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 11:684–88), also lists Honorius among the heretics, where, the council fathers said, he was placed in accord with Agatho's own letter.

Agatho, however, had died Jan. 10, 681, and it was his successor, Pope leo ii, who had to evaluate the Acta. In 682 Leo wrote to Emperor constantine iv approving the council and condemning Honorius "qui hanc apostolicam ecclesiam non apostolice traditionis doctrina lustravit sed prophana pro traditione immaculatam fidem dari permittendo conatus est" (MS Vat. Reg. lat. 1040, fol. 84r; variant reading Patrologia Latina 96:408). In a similar letter to the bishops of Spain, Leo charged Honorius with negligence: "qui flammam heretici dogmatis, non ut decuit apostolicam auctoritatem, incipientem extinxit, sed negligendo confovit" (Patrologia Latina 96:414B). A third papal letter, to the Visigoth King Ervigius, states that Honorius allowed the unsullied standard of apostolic tradition inherited from his predecessors to be soiled: "qui … regulam quam a praedecessoribus suis accepit, maculari consensit" (Patrologia Latina 96:419D). It is in this sense of guilty negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius.

Honorius is credited with beautifying several Roman churches and with founding the monastery of SS. Andrew and Bartholomew in the vicinity of the Lateran.

Bibliography: Liber pontificalis, ed. l. duchesne (Paris 1886–92, 1958) 1:323–327. Patrologia Latina, ed. j. p. migne (Paris 1878–90) 80:469–484, p. jaffÉ, Regesta pontificum roman-orum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum 1198, ed. s. lÖwenfeld et al. (Graz 1956) 1:223–226; 2:698. Clavis Patrum latinorum, ed. e. dekkers (Streenbrugge 1961) 1726–28. j. chapman, "The Condemnation of Pope Honorius," Dublin Review 139 (1906) 129–154; 140 (1907) 42–72. c. j. von hefele, Histoire des conciles d'après les documents originaux, tr. and continued by h. leclerecq (Paris 1907–38) v.3. h. k. mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages from 590 to 1304 (London 1902–32) 1:304–345. j. tixeront, History of Dogmas, tr. h. l. brinceau, v.3 (2d ed. St. Louis 1926) 153–184. É. amann, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. a. vacant et al., (Paris 1903—50) 7.1:93–132. Dictionnaire de théologie catholique Tables générales 2112–13. e. caspar, Geschichte de Papsttums von den Aufängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft (Tübingen 1930–33) 2:523–619. p. galtier, "La Première lettre du Pape Honorius," Gregorianum (Rome 1920–) 29 (1948), 42–61. f. x. seppelt, Geschichte der Päpste vonden Anfängen bis zur Mitte des 20. Jh. (Munich 1959) 2:47–58, 74–76, 428–429. r. bÄumer, Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, ed. j. hofer and k. rahner (Freiberg 1957–65) 5:474–475. g. rowekamp, Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur (Freiburg 1998). a. r. terrero, "El problema judio en la mente de tres importantes personajes del siglo VII: un papa, un Obispo español y un rey visigodo," Espacio, Tiempo y Forma: Historia Antigua, Serie II (Madrid 1993) 585–604. j. n. d. kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes (New York 1986) 70–71.

[h. g. j. beck]