before the horror of the Catholic world? Or did not the Pope of the period assent to their decrees as being in no way conflicting with Catholic principles?
4. A fourth explanation of the fact has been proposed. It is acknowledged that Honorius was condemned, but asserted that he was not charged with heresy, but only with imprudence.
This was the theory of Father Garnier, the Jesuit, editor of the Liber Diurnus. An admirable summary of his opinions is given by Turmel in his Histoire de la Théologie Positive.[1]
Garnier read the Council's sentence that Honorius "followed the false doctrines of the heretics." This means, says Garnier, that he failed in courage to oppose them. If Honorius was declared excommunicated and anathematised, this only meant that he had made himself congenial to heretics by imposing silence on certain expressions, not that he had sanctioned heretical ideas. If the Council ordered his letters to be burnt, as tending to the same impiety as those of Sergius, this did not mean that they were necessarily heretical. A writing may tend to impiety by its omissions just as much as by its positive assertions. Garnier then faced the great difficulty that the Council proclaimed Anathema to Sergius and to Honorius. … Anathema to all heretics. Anathema to all who have taught or teach one will and one energy in our Lord Jesus Christ. Surely, this time, Honorius is included among the heretics. Garnier is quite equal to the occasion. Granted that the Pope was anathematised simultaneously with the Monothelite, yet it does not follow that the motive of his condemnation was the same. Gamier, therefore, says Turmel, closed the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council with the conviction that
- ↑ Page 317.
