The Threatened Series - 30
THE MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY
HONORIUS (27 Oct 625 - 12 Oct 638) did much that was good, and sound,
and useful. Like his predecessor Gregory he turned his mansion into a
monastery. His epitaph states - though overstating its case - that he
ended the schism of Venetia-Istria over the condemnation of the Three
Chapters. He supported the English mission, congratulating King Edwin
on his conversion. He sent Birinus to evangelize the West Saxons. So
far so good. But . . .
"In 634 Honorius received a fateful letter from Sergius, patriarch of
Constantinople (610-638), proposing that all talk of one or two modes
of operation in Christ should be banned; instead it should be asserted
that one and the same Son was the subject of every operation, human and
divine, of the God-man. The formula 'two distinct natures but one
operation', he explained, had been found invaluable in the east in
winning over disaffected monophysites, but had come under fire from
Sophronius, the new bishop of Jerusalem (634-8), as monophysitism in
disguise.
"In a hasty reply [Q. - How do we know it was hasty? How hasty is
hasty? What is the normal time for composing a reply? - Oriens]
Honorius not only expressed approval, but went on to argue that, since
the Word acted through both natures, he had only one will [Surely he
must have taken a little time to work that out? - Oriens]; he
developed the same thesis (technically 'monothelitism') in further
letters to Sergius, Sophronius, and others [And were these all hasty
too? - Oriens].
"This view fitted well with the policies of Sergius and of Emperor
Heraclius (610-41), who in 638 published his Ecthesis, a decree which
forbade all mention of operations, one or two, in Christ, and ordered
the confession of a single will in him." (ODP pp. 70-71)
I have enclosed a few queries in brackets, because it seems to me that
Kelly lets Honorius off rather lightly; and I detect a tradition of
going easy on Honorius. Thus Bettenson speaks of 'Honorius, who seems
to have thought the terminology a matter of indifference' (Documents of
the Christian Church, p. 128). ODCC (s.v. 'Monothelitism' speaks of
'two unguarded letters' - again, how do we know that they were
unguarded?).
The fact is, that Honorius was the Vicar of Christ, writing to the
Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem on a subject of the utmost
importance, relating to a heresy which had occupied the attention of
two Ecumenical Councils. It is a bit beside the point to say that he
was 'unguarded' or 'hasty'. The truth is, he was wrong. And it was
not a matter of letting the matter through on the nod, or with a rubber
stamp* from his secretary. He actually developed the heresy; it was
he, not Sergius, who first spoke of 'one will'. He was a heresiarch.
Or do I err?
Oriens.
* Or whatever served for a rubber stamp in the pre-latex era.
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|