view that all discussions over energies should cease, and agreed that Jesus does not have two conflicting wills, but one will, since Jesus did not assume the vitiated human nature tainted by Adam's fall, but human nature as it existed prior to Adam's fall. Honorius was apparently aware of the rise of Islam and viewed this religion's tenets as closely resembling those of Arius. Legacy In the Third Council of Constantinople, the monothelites were anathematized by name "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things" in the XIII session. Citing his written correspondence with Sergius, Honorius was subsequently accused of having confirmed his impious doctrines; the XVI session reaffirmed the condemnation of the heretics explicitly stating "to Honorius, the heretic, anathema!", and concluding with the decree of the XVII session that Honorius had not stopped provoking scandal and error in the Body of the Church; for he had "with unheard of expressions disseminated amidst the faithful people the heresy of the one will", doing so "in agreement with the insane false doctrine of the impious Apollinaire, Severus and Themistius". The Roman legates made no objection to his condemnation. Pope Leo II's letter of confirmation of the Council commended it for it had "perfectly preached the definition of the true faith" and made reference to the condemnation of his predecessor: Within the year a Latin translation of the Acts of the council had been disseminated and signed by the Bishops throughout the West. The condemnation of Pope Honorius was reiterated by Pope Leo's successors, subsequent councils and included in Breviary lessons up until the eighteenth century. As a result, Honorius would later be the subject of vigorous attacks by opponents of papal infallibility in the discussions surrounding the First Vatican Council of 1870. In contemporary times, that Honorius actually agreed with Sergius on the doctrine of monothelitism has given rise to much discussion, and John B. Bury argues that the most reasonable conclusion is that Honorius did not really apprehend the point at issue, considering it more a question of grammar than theology, for he placed "one energy" and "two energies" on exactly the same footing; in Bury's words, "it was for the 'imprudent economy of silence' that he was condemned". References Bibliography Bury, John B., A history of the later Roman empire from Arcadius to Irene, Volume 2 (2005) Hefele, Charles J.,