OCR Text |
Show l)urcf) and fbe Papacy Popes, as Teachers of Faith and Morals. Always Taught Same Doctrines Honorius Vindicated. (Written for Intermountain Catholic.) The claims of the Christian religion to the belief of the world rest on the divinity of its founder. "If Christ be j not risen, then is our faith vain." wrote St. Paul. To the Resurrection. Christ Himself always appealed us His final ' and greatest proof tbat He was God. I Like its divine founder, the Catholic I Church appeals to the orthodoxy of ! Its Supreme Pontiffs in faith and morals mor-als during their long line of existence. Their reign, commencing with Peter in ! the first century down to Leo NHI in I the twentieth century, takes in the 1 whole period of the Christian religion. By none has the original deposit of j faith been ever impugned, nor has any I Pontiff denied the faith of the Church I as defined in General Councils and pro- j mulgatd by their predecessors. In 1 matters of human prudence they may have erred; some had their faults and none was impeccable: but in defining doctrines of faith and morals there has been no change or deviation from the j faith first delivered to the saints. This constitutes the divine side of the Church, and in it there has been no scandal. Many scandals have been, now are, and will continue to the end in connection with the human side. Christ so predicted: "It is necessary that scandal cometh. but woe unto them through whom they come." Pride and malice, jealousy and hatred, ha-tred, have singled out from the '2'A Pontiffs two names only whose orthodoxy ortho-doxy eould be questioned. These are Popes Liherius and Honorius. The former's for-mer's faith was vindicated in my lar-t communication. The charges against the latter, too. have been time and time again exploded. Honorius succeeded Boniface IV in I 625. During his pontificate he sent St. Birnus to England. It was this saint who baptized the king of Wessex and gave the pallium to the archbishop of Canterbury. Honorius is accused of favoring the heresy of the Monothe-Iiter Monothe-Iiter as presented to him by Sergius. Dr. Dollinger, in his "History of the Church," tells in what the heresy consisted. con-sisted. "Sergius. a heretic, taught that in Christ there was only one operation, and. only one power of will, springing as from its cause from the Logos, who employed the human nature only as His instrument." This was contrary to the true faith, namely, that the two wills of Christ involved in-volved necessarily two operations. Sergius, Ser-gius, the author of t'he doctrine (which was by no means novel, being a revival re-vival of that of Eutyches), appealed to Pope Honorius. The Supreme Pontiff Pon-tiff detected the erroneous doctrine, but not wishing to enkindle animosity or religious discussion, and hoping the heretical teaching of Sergius would die a natural death, he "recommended si-ler.ee." si-ler.ee." His recommendation was construed con-strued as a tacit consent of Sergius and his heresy, and for this Honorius was condemned by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 680. He was not condemned as a dogmatic teacher by the council, but for having imprudently favored the error of the Moriotheletes instead of crushing it out with all his Pontifical authority. The universal church assembled in council did not condemn Honorius of teaching heresy dogmatically, but it did accuse him of negligence in n,-vt condemning Sergius and his followers. The letter written by Honorius to Scr-giuv. Scr-giuv. which is adducd as an - idcr,. . of the Pope's guilt, was a private document, docu-ment, and in no sense ;1ti ex-cathedr.i teaching, for it was not sent to a stu-g!e stu-g!e Catholic bishop. The letter itself shows that Honorius did not wish or intend to act in his infallible teaching capacity. f.,r he warned Sergius or" this fact: "VYo have not to tea.Ii ..r to define either one m- two operations." Pope .gaiho. bis ninth successor, wlio presided at the council which ci t.demne.l lliitiorius. claimed Papal infallibiiity. .Addressing the -ou:icil. he said: "The splendid light of faith transmitted successively from the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul by means of their successors, even to our humility, has been preserved pur-' and without spot, without eer bavin been obscured by heresy .r .',. iid by error." In a letl'-r to the emperor Agatlio makes the same claim. "The Lord and Savior of us all." he wrote, "the author au-thor of i.ur faith, lias promised that the faith of Peter shall never fail, and commanded him to confirm his brethren. breth-ren. No one Is ignorant that all the apostolic Pontiffs have done this with confidence." Could Pope Agalho impugn the faith of Honorius whilst claiming immunity from error for all the successors of St. Peter? Therefore, it follows that the sixth Council, with the approbation of Pope Agatlio. did not condemn Honorius on the false assumption of having taught what was contrary con-trary to faith, but for being remiss and neglecting to teach what was the faith. Dr. Dollinger. referring to the controversy, has said: "Sergius wrotij a most artfully composed letter to gain to his side the Pontiff Honorius," and, then adds: "Honorius suffered himself to be misguided." Agatho's successor. Leo II, after sanctioning the decrees of the Council and referring to the condemnation of Honorius. who "allowed the faith to be exposed to subversion." wrote to the bishops of Spain an encyclical explaining explain-ing what he meant: "He (Honorius) did not extinguish at. its commencement commence-ment the flame of heretical doctrine, as became his apostolic authority, but by negligence nourished it." What follows, from the decrees of th general Council. Pope Agatho's approval ap-proval and Leo's subsequent action? It follows that the Roman Pontiff has never erred and could not err on any point of faith or morals. It follows. . secondly, that Honorius. for his remissness, re-missness, had cast reproach upon the Holy See: that he neglected to use the I apostolic powers which were his as j they had been and still are. those of 1 the visible heads of the Church. The f anxiety of non-Catholics to find some j flaw in the Pope's dogmatic teaching j is no greater than was that of the Greeks at Florence; yet they, accord- ing to Dr. Dollinger. did not even al- j lude to Honorius. Why? Because, un- derstanding the entire subject, they j were satisfied that Honorius did not r, teach heresy, nor was he so condemned j by the universal Church, or any of his successors. (To be Continued.) , i |