OK. Jackass.

I sure can be and I'm working on not doing that, and I am sorry for doing that, and I do apologize for my insulting you.

Now, instead of replying with snide remarks, can you give a legitimate and logical explanation for the elephant in the room, i.e.  that after 1344 years and 197 popes later, nobody has corrected the encyclical, or even labeled it with a disclaimer or warning, nor has anyone even said anything about it being fraudulent except St. Robert?

If you cannot do that, then as unpleasant, unbelievable and even blasphemous as it may be to you, it is still an indisputable fact that there is a binding and official Church docuмent from The Sixth Ecuмenical Council (also known as Third Council of Constantinople) which binds us to believe and which has stood the test of time for 1344 years and 197 popes so far, that a pope was a heretic and a pope at the same time.       

Meanwhile, poster ArmandLouis has posted additional sources confirming the legitimacy of the docuмent here and here. 

Whether you choose to believe it, blow it off or acknowledge it or not, there is an argument there. 

Don't put words in my mouth - I never said we should "blow it off, it was no big deal". I said, "Take up the arms of your betters (St. Robert et al.) and defend the Church against Her enemies - rather than AID THEM by using their same arguments to bash, "the evil wrong sedes."  

Well, the rest of the world will adhere to the council docuмent, you will not. Got it. 

Oh the Irony!

Here we have a "Stubborn" person yet living who blows of EXPLICIT OBJECTIVE MATERIAL HERESY issued publicly for all to consume, i.e. Trump, ""God became man when Mary gave birth to a son, Jesus," =  HERESY

This same "Stubborn" person wants to nitpick Pope Honorius' and his PRIVATE letters that were discovered after his death and affirm him a "heretic" (for his own evil end I might add). He wants YOU to affirm it too. He wants you to share in his errors.

What Honorius was accused of postmortem pales in comparison to the above.

A living person spewing heresy about the Incarnation - needs to be publicly corrected (which NCR did already). Those who PUBLICLY support this heretical statement need to be corrected publicly as well.

But, "no, no, lets just ignore that ENORMOUS and MONSTROUS insult to Christ and His Mother, which is actually impossible to honor Mary with anyway (as Dom Gueranger taught) but he even goes on to say, "HOW BEAUTIFUL, LOVELY, on top of it!

The hypocrisy is astonishing.

Sorry your butt got hurt because you failed to actually READ the heresy he spewed.

But now why quadruple down on your support for the heretical statement issued and "blow it off"?

Because, you are a pertinacious, stubborn, jackass - that is why.

If you won't recant please just please stop already, you are digging yourself in further and further with every post in defense of his heresy.

The sixth ecuмenical council would certainly pronounce - anathema against you - THIS INSTANT for your intransigent support of a heretical statement.

Honorius remains a true Pope - who stands accused of failing to defend the faith as he ought to have (when alive), You are all over him, while you, yourself - commit the actual crimes you would like to definitely smear him with and BLOW IT OFF AS NOTHING....

What a nitwit you are lol

The White house letter was written by non-Catholics and as they understand it. Have a little Understanding man and don't be so fired up to immediately condemn to hell everyone except yourself. I've heard a whole lot worse from non-Catholics. They are already going to hell, you should be surprised and even glad that they got as much correct as they did. Maybe you should work on getting rid of some or all of your bitterness. 

As for the heretic pope Honorius, the rest of us Catholics have no choice in the matter, we all must go with the encyclical from the Council.

All Catholics accept the council - you have made no point whatsoever.

Stop acting like a Protestant and using their devilish devices to smear the Church because you need to, "destroy the wrong-headed sedes."

Yes, all Catholics accept the Council, but you don't accept the Council posthumously condemning Pope Honorius as having been both a pope and a heretic at the same time. I mean what's your major malfunction junior? It says it right there in the Council's encyclical.  But I'm the one like a Protestant.  

Just because all of a sudden all Councils infallible to you anymore doesn't mean they aren't infallible to all sedes.

Obviously, your conclusion does not follow.

You in fact set yourself up as pope and declare a new doctrine of the Church - the doctrine of sedevacantism.

You're completely missing the point.  It was OP who made his argument against SVism rest upon the premise that Honorius had become a pertinacious heretic.  SkidRow was merely refuting that particular argument, not using it to further any particular contrary position.

As Skid points out, AL created this poll because he thought he had some slam-dunk argument against sedevacantism, and not just against sedevacantism, but promoting the one Opinion that Bellarmine dealt with in his treatment of the "5 Opinions", namely, that a Pope cannot lose his office short of death or resignation.  He stated precisely that "conclusion" early on in this thread.

MAJOR:  Honorius was a pertinacious manifest heretic.
MINOR: Honorius remained Pope his entire life and did not lose the papal office.
CONCLUSION:  Pertinacious Manifest Heresy does not cause loss of office.

THIS is what the whole point of this stupid thread was.

We pointed out early on that the MAJOR is disputed, and therefore, due to the logical principle of peiorem partem sequitur conclusio (logical weakest link, where the conclusion can be no more certain than the weakest of its premises), the CONCLUSION is equally disputed.

Instead of dealing with the fact that the MAJOR is disputed, he kept wasting everyone's time by just repeating the assertion over and over again, applying the ad nauseam technique.

"Catholic writers dispute that Honorius ever became a pertinacious manifest heretic."

To which he would just say ...

"Third Council of Constantinople declared him a heretic.  Pope Leo II approved the Council."  like the parrot,  "baaaah, baaaah, baaah"

This whole stupid argument went on interminably, and apparently this dead horse is still being beaten here ... when intellectual honesty would have put an end to it within the first couple pages.

Despite his brilliant reasoning, which he tries to pretend has the support of an Ecuмenical Council and Pope Leo II ... by far the two most widely held opinions about a heretic pope are those of Bellarmine (ipso facto deposed) and Cajetan (must be "ministerially" deposed), but evidently none of these theologians saw the light of OP's unassailable argument, or else, they would have dropped that opinion.  Bellarmine, for instance, argued that 3 Constantinople didn't condemn Honorius but that some Greeks interpolated his name into the Council texts.  That's a minority opinion, but ... no matter how you slice it, OP's argument fails, but he remains clutching it with his cold dead brain no matter what evidence has been adduced against it.

[img width= height= alt=G8k-G8-Hq-Ww-AAJA6e" border="0]https://i.ibb.co/vxcMBjCL/G8k-G8-Hq-Ww-AAJA6e.jpg[/img]

So we definitely need more Thuc Popes to deal with this.

But I really hope you're imploring the intercession of Pope Saint John Paul II The Great on your faith journey.