Honorius by name? Accordingly the solution dear to Bellarmine and Baronius has been abandoned by the strongest advocates of Papal Infallibility.
2. A second explanation admitted that Honorius was condemned, but asserted that he was only condemned in his private capacity, as an individual theologian, and not as Pope.
One obvious advantage of this theory was that at any rate it did no violence to historic documents. It encouraged no universal scepticism as to sources. Bellarmine himself suggested it as an alternative to those who could not be satisfied with discrediting wholesale on suspicion the long series of documents. But Bellarmine did not like the theory; for he held that although the opinion that a Pope can err as a private teacher is probable, yet the opposite opinion was more probable still. However, for those whom it might assist, there it was. All that the Council meant to say was that Honorius by his private letters promoted heresy.
Private letters! echoes Bossuet[1] scornfully. When, then, is a decision given, ex cathedra, unless when the successor of St Peter, being consulted by the entire East, should suppress a deadly error and strengthen his brethren? Or did he prefer to be deceived, when, being so interrogated, he did not reply under these conditions in which he knew that he could not be deceived?
A recent Roman writer[2] assures us that the opinion that the letter of Honorius was compiled as a private theologian has never been enthusiastically received, never achieved a real success. Its partisans have been few in number and authority.
