Bishop Hefele on Pope Honorius [pp. 273-301]

1872.] VON HEFELE ON POPE HONORIUS. 289
c. This conciliar judgment was not only confi~~med by the
Emperor but also by the reigning fore ~~mse1f, who rereateJ
it in his own terms. Thus Pope Leo II. (Agatho had meanwhile died Jau. 10th, 682) says in his reply to the Emperor:
"We in like manner anathematize the inventors of the new
error, that is Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius... and also Honorius, who did not sanctify this apostolic Church by the doctrine of the apostolic tradition, but attempted to subcert the immaculate faith by a profane treason,
(profana p~oditione immaeu1&~tum ~dem subvertere conatus est;
the Greek text reads, allo~ved-~ap~~~p~J~-to be pe~~verted,)
and all who died in their error." (3Iansi, ubi supra, p. 731.)
ci. The same Pope Leo II. in his epistle to the Spanish
bishops says: "Theodore, Cyrus, Sergius, etc., are punished
with eternal condemnation... together with llo~o~'ius, who
did not, as became his apostolic authority, extinguish in the
beginning the flames of a heretical dogma, but by his negligence nourished it (negligendo confovit)." ~Iansi, p. 1052.
e. He wAtes in the same sense to the Spanish king: "They
are condemned... and together with them Honorius of
Rome, who consented that the immaculate rule of the apostolic tradition should be stained (maculari consensit)." Alansi,
p. 1057.
In these very expressions, "negligendo confovit," and
"maculari consensit," Pope Leo II. just hits the right point.
From the first epistle of Honorius he saw that the Pope
started from the correct doctrine respecting the person of
Christ, that is from the Council of Chalcedon; but that he
made false conclusions; so that, in his heart he did not mean
heresy, while in fact he condemned the specific orthodox
term, "two enerfies," and sanctioned a specific heretical expression," one will." He did not do this with vicious intent,
but from "negligence," and "lie eonsen1~ed to the perversion
of the faith." So that Pope Leo II. acknowledged that the
condemnation of Honorius by the General Council was
grounded in just reason 5; and it did not at all occur to him
to doubt about the comIeteney of the Council.
f. The anathema imposed upon Honorius w~s immediately