In my post speculating on whether certain statements made by Pope Francis are truly compatible with Christian teachings, I asked if there could be a heretic pope, that is to say, a pope who made a pronouncement on Catholic doctrine at odds with scripture or Catholic traditions. In fact, there has been at least one such pope. Pope Honorius I who served as the Bishop of Rome from 625 to 638. As Pope, Honorius I endorsed the doctrine of Monothelitism, a doctrine which was rejected as heresy at the Third Council of Constantinople. That council also anathematized Honorius by name along with the Monothelites generally, formally condemning that Pope as a heretic.
Pope Honorius I
You might be wondering what on Earth Monothelitism is and why Pope Honorius I supported the doctrine. To understand what was going on here, we are going to have to explore early Medieval Christian theology as well as the history of Italy in the seventh century. Medieval Christendom was divided between the Latin-speaking west and the Greek-speaking east. In general, the leaders and theologians of the east were far more interested in debating abstruse points of theology than the more prosaic west. This might be the result of the difference in the intellectual cultures of the eastern and western parts of classical civilization. The Greeks produced philosophers like Plato and Aristotle who developed grand theories about the universe, while the Romans were more interested in building roads and aqueducts. Whatever the reason, this difference between east and west meant that the leaders of the east, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria had all supported some doctrine that was eventually declared heretical, while the Roman Pope just went along with whatever seemed most orthodox.
One of the more contentious matters of dispute among Christian theologians was precisely who and what Jesus Christ actually was. Was Jesus, the Son of God, a subordinate being created by God (Arianism) or God Himself, one person in the Trinity. If Jesus was God, how precisely was His human and divine natures related? Was Jesus a human who had been “adopted” by the Father, wholly divine (Monophysitism), or some blend of human and divine (Dyophysitism)? For various reasons, perhaps more to do with politics and nationalism than theology, the doctrine of Monophysitism became widely held in Syria and Egypt, while the idea that Christ had two natures held sway in Greece, Anatolia, and Constantinople, not to mention the Latin West.
In 451, the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon condemned Monophysitism and affirmed that Jesus Christ had two natures, one wholly divine and one wholly human. The Monophysites simply refused to recognize the Council of Chalcedon as legitimate and went their own way. Not even pressure and persecution by the Roman government could make the heretics see the error of their ways. Rather, they began to see the Roman or Byzantine government as an oppressive regime of heretics and there was a continual danger that the Monophysites of Egypt and Syria would either rebel themselves welcome any invaders as liberators. This did indeed occur when the Sassanid Persians invaded the Byzantine Empire in the Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602-628.
To forestall similar defections when the Arab Muslims invaded in the 630s, The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius proposed a compromise. With the assistance of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius I, the emperor promulgated the doctrine of Monothelitism or One Will. Christ had two natures, just as the Orthodox contended, but only one will or energy. Like many compromises, the compromise of Monothelitism failed to please either side. The Monophysites were not satisfied and the Orthodox were horrified by any compromise with the heretics. Heraclius had the Patriarch of Constantinople on his side, though, and he decided that if he could get the Pope, with the Papacy’s reputation for unwavering orthodoxy, on his side everyone would accept the new doctrine. So, Heraclius and Sergius put some pressure on Pope Honorius.
Heraclius
You might think that since Rome is a long way away from Constantinople, Honorius wouldn’t care too much about pressure from the Emperor. In fact, Italy was a part of the Byzantine Empire in the seventh century and the Pope was a subject of the Byzantine Emperor. A century before Heraclius, the emperor Justinian had determined to recover the western provinces of the Roman Empire from the Germans who had invaded and occupied them. Justinian was especially eager to reconquer Italy from the Ostrogoths since it was a bit silly for him to refer to himself as the Roman Emperor when he didn’t even control Rome. Unfortunately, neither the Byzantines didn’t really have the strength to gain a quick and decisive victory over the Ostrogoths and the war ground on for decades, doing more damage to Italy than the barbarian invasions had. All of Justinian’s efforts were wasted in the end, as not long after he died the Lombards invaded Italy and conquered most of the peninsula. The Byzantines were stubborn, though, and managed to hold on to the southernmost parts of Italy as well as a strip of territory in Central Italy extending from Ravenna to Rome. So, for at least a little while longer the Pope had to worry what the Roman Emperor wanted, and Pope Honorius gave his support for the doctrine of Monothelitism.
Italy in the seventh century
It was all for nothing in the end. The Islamic armies overwhelmed the Byzantines, with the support of the Monophysites in Egypt and Syria who greeted the Arabs as liberators from the tyranny of the heretical court in Constantinople. By the end of the seventh century, the Byzantine Empire was reduced to a rump empire in Anatolia, Greece, and the Balkans, with toeholds in Italy. The Monophysites were permanently lost to Christendom and there didn’t seem to be much point in compromising with them. As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the Third Council of Constantinople met in 680 and condemned Monothelitism along with Pope Honorius.
The story of the Heretic Pope does not seem to have much relevance today. When the First Vatican Council debated the question of Papal infallibility back in 1870, opponents of Papal Infallibility brought up Honorius I, pointing out that a pope who was subsequently anathematized for heresy could hardly be considered, in any sense, infallible. Supporters of Papal Infallibility noted that Honorius was not speaking ex-cathedra and that his understanding of the details of the Monothelite controversy was hampered by his ignorance of the Greek language.
Are there any lessons to be learned from the history of Honorius I? Perhaps his story shows that it is not a good idea to place too much power into the hands of just one man, particularly in matters of religious doctrine. The Catholic Church might be better served by having regular ecumenical councils of Bishops to decide basic policy with the Pope being a sort of executive who is first among equals rather than an absolute ruler. The story of Honorius I might also demonstrate the peril of mixing politics with religion. The whole Monophysite/Monothelite controversy would have been of little concern to anyone except theologians if it had not become a matter of nationalism and imperial politics. It might also show the need for Christian unity in the face of Christianity’s enemies. The Muslims would not have taken Syria, Palestine, and Egypt from the Byzantines so quickly if the populations of those regions had not been disaffected from Constantinople by religious differences.
No matter what lessons may be learned from the story of the heretic pope, it is an interesting bit of Papal history, not as strange as the Cadaver Synod, perhaps, but fascinating none the less.
Tags: byzantine empire, Christianity, heresy, Honorius I, Italy, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Pope
Questions, comments, praise