 |
 |
|||
POPE HONORIUS
TRIBUNAL OF REASON AND HISTORY.
BY THE
REV. PAUL BOTTALLA
1.-Origin and Nature of Monothelism
2.-The two letters written by Honorius to Sergius, their
true character
3.-Ortodox Doctrines containing the two letters of
Pope Honorius to Sergius
4.The Sixth Synod and the Condemnation of Pope
Honorius
PREFACE.
It had been the writer's intention, on issuing his recent work on the Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, to follow up the argument by the publication of another volume on Papal Infallibility. But circumstances have led to an alteration in his plan, and have induced him to anticipate a little, and at once publish an Essay on the supposed fall and heresy of Pope Honorius. This change is rendered advisable by the pamphlet of Mr. P. Le Page Renouf, which appeared in May last, entitled The Condemnation of Pope Honorius. Mr. Renouf has not been satisfied with following in the steps of Dr. Döllinger in that writer’s unfortunate crusade against Papal Infallibility; he must aim yet higher. He believes that “an influential party in the Church is looking forward with impatience to the day in which their favorite dogma (Papal Infallibility) shall be defined as an article of faith, introduced into our Catechism, and made obligatory under pain of anathema upon all the children of the Church”. He seems to suppose himself, on this account, to have received from on high the mission of giving the alarm to all the theologians of the Catholic world that Ultramontanism is preparing to win a new victory over the opposite party. He, a layman, without any solid foundation of theological study, comes forward to caution Catholic theologians against the artifices prepared and the snares laid for them; he informs them that they are about to be led to reject the old maxim of Vincent of Lerins, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnious, as a test of Catholic doctrine; that they will have “to abjure the Creed of Pope Pius, according to which they have sworn that they will never interpret Scripture otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers”. He is therefore good enough to instruct them that there is not a single Father who favors the Ultramontane theory of Papal Infallibility; not a Council which has believed it; that the existence of such privilege was in fact never heard of till after the separation of the East from the West; that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was not consistently developed before the Sixteenth Century, but rather “elaborated in that age”; that Ultramontanism is of recent date, for the greater proportion of the medieval theologians rejected an opinion, afterwards adopted by writers whose “combined weight cannot even tend to make an article of faith”. The bold assertions heaped up by Mr. Renouf in tribus pagellis is not so amazing as the tone of contempt and the unbecoming and even outrageous language which he adopts towards the most learned theologians, and the whole body of Catholic writers who have attempted to defend Papal Infallibility, whether in general, or in the particular case of Pope Honorius. “They represent”, Mr. Renouf tells us, “a pseudo scientific method of reasoning in theology”; “they strangely misunderstand the spirit of St. Thomas, whom they ignorantly admire; they betray an utter ignorance of the real nature of the controversy”; “they altogether misrepresent the matter”. He condemns in the strongest terms their “ignorant assertions, which have been”, as he says, “common of late”; he attributes to them “bad arguments”, “monstrous forms of hypothesis”, “miserable evasions, which cannot have been sincerely believed in by their authors”. He goes still further. Without a particle of that reserve which common courtesy, if no other feeling, ought to have suggested, he accuses them of falsehood, of stupid bigotry, of dishonesty. “It is a simple untruth”, he asserts, “to say that Honorius was condemned for neglect”. Yet he ought to know that, at the present day, this is the opinion most commonly held among Catholics. “It is a sheer dishonesty”, he adds in the next page, “to shut one’s eyes to the strongest words of the Council”. “It is stupid bigotry to assert”, he says in another place, “that Honorius was in good faith”. In such terms does this civil-spoken writer charge the bulk of modern theologians with bigotry and dishonesty. He speaks yet more plainly of F. Perrone, the well-known Professor of Theology at the Roman College; he cites a passage from the Proelectiones Theologicoe, naming the author, and then remarks upon it, “under this contemptible quibbling we have the assertion of an untruth”. To speak thus contemptuously of the great mass of
Catholic theologians is not only unbecoming a Catholic writer, but also, we
make bold to say, it ill suits the character of an English gentleman; and
persons of all religions should join in reprobating the use of such language. Mr.
Renouf has no words of praise or commendation for any of the Catholic writers
who belong to what he calls the Ultramontane school; but he exalts to the skies
all those who were the promoters of Gallicanism.
He gives the epithet of great to the well-known Defensio Declarationis Cleri Gallicani, by which book he thinks “the Ultramontane theory may be said, to have been thoroughly exploded”. He calls excellent the book of Cardinal de la Luzerne on the declaration of the French clergy in 1682, in attempted refutation of Cardinal Orsi’s work on Papal Authority and Infallibility. “All the learned priests he met in France”, he asserts, “or indeed heard of, were determined Gallicans, and they were men of eminent piety”. On the contrary, the founder of the Univers, who, as he believes, “brought a large portion of the French clergy to share his own view” (of Ultramontanism), is described by him as “a fiery, ignorant, and unscrupulous convert from unbelief or indifference”. He seems to lament that “the most ardent apostles of Ultramontane theories have been laymen rather than priests, converts rather than men who have always been Catholics”. We are able to give him some comfort by the assurance that neither is the success of Ultramontanism in Germany wholly due to the influence of Görres and Windischmann, nor “was the impulse to it first given in England by the Tablet, under the editorship of two ardent converts, who were for a long time a terror to the ecclesiastical authorities”. We are fully convinced that in Germany, as well as in England, the Catholic Clergy would indignantly reject so groundless an assertion. But how is it that, whilst Mr. Renouf bitterly deplores the influence of laymen in these affairs, he, a layman, appears to aim at the leadership of the English Catholic Clergy in a career of upholding Gallican theories? We do not take upon ourselves to judge the private intentions of the author: we judge his pamphlet, which, by its dogmatic tone, certainly appears to manifest some such hopes. Even if this were not Mr. Renouf’s intention, how is it that he, a Catholic, comes forward to arouse the rebellious spirits of this country against the infallible authority of the Vicar of Christ? Does he think that the English Catholic Clergy want scientific advice, or that they are willing to receive it at his hands? We have formed far too high an estimate
of their solidity in holding Catholic principles to be able to harbor such an idea of them. We are sure that the
Catholic Clergy of England have one opinion concerning Mr. Renouf’s
conduct,—namely, that he need not trouble himself with Catholic controversies:
that he may safely leave to them the care of theological matters; and that he
may hope for better success in his labors if he confine himself to Egyptian
philology.
We should have taken no notice of the immoderate and insulting language of Mr. Renouf, had he not mixed it up with a heap of undigested difficulties against Papal Infallibility. By such an accumulation of charges, without any order or explanation whatever, simple people may be easily led into error. Therefore it is necessary to clear up, analyse, and examine as to their bearing and purport, such difficulties and charges. But as this cannot be done within the limits of a pamphlet, and since we hope shortly to publish the second part of our work—The Pope and the Church—on Papal Infallibility, we will refer to it for the explanation of those difficulties which Mr. Renouf has scraped together from some half-forgotten books, and then dressed up with the purpose of proving that Papal Infallibility is untenable. At present we limit ourselves to pleading the cause of Pope Honorius,
against whom Sir. Renouf's pamphlet is principally aimed. We are glad to
assume the position of humble followers of such men as Mamachius, Baronius, Pagi,
Petavius, Garnier, Thomassini, Belarmine, Natalis Alexander, Orsi, Ballenni,
and other theologians of the greatest reputation for learning, who in defending
the cause of Pope Honorius, have defended Papal Infallibility; and we are proud
to take to ourselves a part of those outrageous invectives which Mr. Renouf
does not blush to cast upon some of the most eminent writers which the Catholic
Church has produced.
|
||||
|
 |
|
||
