You're kidding, right?  I always give a straight answer. As for you, you couldn't even give me a straight answer whether "the Church" canonized the writings in the New Testament!!

Stubborn has one of the most bizarre twisted minds I've ever encountered, and it's a waste of time to debate him other than to call out his grave errors and heresies for the sake of not allowing third-party readers to be persuaded by the poison he spews.  He constantly begs the question, engages in circular arguments, redefines terms to create bizarre tautologies, has absolutely no comprehension of a "distinction" or a "sylllgogism", regularly denounces all 20th century theologians, later adding all 19th century theologians into the mix when someone provided citations from them to contradict his heresies.

So, when we put out the syllogistic argument with the MAJOR premise that the "Pope cannot teach error" (oversimplified here for the sake of illustration), he'll respond with ... but the Sedevacantists claim that the Pope can teach error (since it's glued inextricably into his cold dead brain that these men had to have been Popes).  When you explain that the argument is in the form modo tollentis where, we affirm the proposition that Popes cannot teach error, and then because the V2 papal claimants did teach error, conclude they were not popes ... well, you might as well be speaking in Chinese, since the proposition that "Montini was not the pope" being a conclusion of a syllogism simply "does not compute", "does not comptue".  Or he'll create tautologies.  He says that Magisterium is inerrant, making you think he agrees with the SVs, but what he says is that untrue things that the papal claimants teach are not "Magisterium", and so he creates an absurd meaningless tautology, where "Magisterium" is just the TRUE things that the Popes teach, rendering it without error by tautological definition.  Then he'll claim the SVs believe the Popes DID teach error, again begging the question that they are Popes, which is precisely what the SVs dispute.  It's just mindboggling really.



Sadly, however, he's not kidding.  We wish he were.

Stubborn has one of the most bizarre twisted minds I've ever encountered, and it's a waste of time to debate him other than to call out his grave errors and heresies for the sake of not allowing third-party readers to be persuaded by the poison he spews.  He constantly begs the question, engages in circular arguments, redefines terms to create bizarre tautologies, has absolutely no comprehension of a "distinction" or a "sylllgogism", regularly denounces all 20th century theologians, later adding all 19th century theologians into the mix when someone provided citations from them to contradict his heresies.

So, when we put out the syllogistic argument with the MAJOR premise that the "Pope cannot teach error" (oversimplified here for the sake of illustration), he'll respond with ... but the Sedevacantists claim that the Pope can teach error (since it's glued inextricably into his cold dead brain that these men had to have been Popes).  When you explain that the argument is in the form modo tollentis where, we affirm the proposition that Popes cannot teach error, and then because the V2 papal claimants did teach error, conclude they were not popes ... well, you might as well be speaking in Chinese, since the proposition that "Montini was not the pope" being a conclusion of a syllogism simply "does not compute", "does not comptue".  Or he'll create tautologies.  He says that Magisterium is inerrant, making you think he agrees with the SVs, but what he says is that untrue things that the papal claimants teach are not "Magisterium", and so he creates an absurd meaningless tautology, where "Magisterium" is just the TRUE things that the Popes teach, rendering it without error by tautological definition.  Then he'll claim the SVs believe the Popes DID teach error, again begging the question that they are Popes, which is precisely what the SVs dispute.  It's just mindboggling really.



Sadly, however, he's not kidding.  We wish he were.

From now on, always remember that a true pope and heretic, Pope Honorius I, was formally and officially declared a heretic and anathematized by the pope during the infallible Third Council of Constantinople. The pope at that Council declared that a valid, true pope to be a heretic the whole time he occupied the Chair of St. Peter until his death.

For the sake of argument, however, let's say that Honorius HAD been anathematized.

Even then I can't answer the question, since the anathematization occurred after his death, when he was no longer Pope.  So the anathema had no effect on his possession of papal office.  Was Honorius a manifest heretic during his lifetime?  Can't say, don't know ... and I suspect nobody else can say either.  I've not seen evidence that anyone considered him a heretic while he was in possession of papal office, and a decree cannot change the past and retroactively remove him from office.

No, since you embed an assumption into the question that I am not certain of.  St. Robert Bellarmine states that there's some reason to suspect that the condemnation of Honorius represents a later interpolation into the original decree.

"even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic"

I can neither confirm nor deny that this is true, so I can't answer the question.

“And in like manner we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”
— Pope St. Leo II

Now, since Pope St. Leo II both ratified the Sixth Ecuмenical Council and personally anathematized Honorius for fostering heresy, independently of any disputed line in the conciliar acts, the condemnation cannot be dismissed as uncertain. Do you affirm or deny that Pope St. Leo II anathematized Honorius?

(Latin text of Leo II’s letter: Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, Col. 726–728, Epistola Leonis PP. II ad Caesarem et Episcopos Constantinopolitanae Synodi confirmationem)

Leo II was born almost 200 years after Honorius. He was basing his anathema off of the factual assumptions of others.

Again, Popes are limited human creatures. They do not have the power to time-travel. Nor do they have the power to make dogmatically certain judgements about the internal forum. Stop trying to turn disciplinary statements into dogmatic statements.

I am sorry, but what your suggesting above is a condemned error, treating dogma or Church teaching as if it can evolve, change, or be adapted to human reason, historical circuмstances, or individual conscience. [Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1907, §13.]


Pope St. Leo II’s birth nearly 200 years after Honorius does not diminish his authority. He did not need to time-travel to exercise his office. As Pope, he confirmed the Sixth Ecuмenical Council which condemed and anathematized Pope Honorius I as a heretic, and personally anathematized Honorius for permitting heresy. This condemnation concerns objective, public error, Honorius’ failure to oppose the Monothelite heresy, not the private state of his soul. Such judgments fall squarely within the Church’s competence to define dogmatic truth and condemn public heresy and are therefore dogmatic acts, not mere disciplinary statements. To deny Leo II’s anathematization or reduce it to discipline undermines the authority of the Pope and an Ecuмenical Council, contradicting immutable Church teaching.

This absolutely destroys the grave error of sedevacantism, because Pope Honorius I remained Pope until his death! 

Dieu protège le Pape, vive la Papauté !



(Latin text of Leo II’s letter: Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, Col. 726–728, Epistola Leonis PP. II ad Caesarem et Episcopos Constantinopolitanae Synodi confirmationem)

I am sorry, but what your suggesting above is a condemned error, treating dogma or Church teaching as if it can evolve, change, or be adapted to human reason, historical circuмstances, or individual conscience. [Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1907, §13.]


Pope St. Leo II’s birth nearly 200 years after Honorius does not diminish his authority. He did not need to time-travel to exercise his office. As Pope, he confirmed the Sixth Ecuмenical Council which condemed and anathematized Pope Honorius I as a heretic, and personally anathematized Honorius for permitting heresy. This condemnation concerns objective, public error, Honorius’ failure to oppose the Monothelite heresy, not the private state of his soul. Such judgments fall squarely within the Church’s competence to define dogmatic truth and condemn public heresy and are therefore dogmatic acts, not mere disciplinary statements. To deny Leo II’s anathematization or reduce it to discipline undermines the authority of the Pope and an Ecuмenical Council, contradicting immutable Church teaching.

This absolutely destroys the grave error of sedevacantism, because Pope Honorius I remained Pope until his death!

Dieu protège le Pape, vive la Papauté !



(Latin text of Leo II’s letter: Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, Col. 726–728, Epistola Leonis PP. II ad Caesarem et Episcopos Constantinopolitanae Synodi confirmationem)

I was mistaken in my previous post. Leo II was Pope during the Third Ecuмenical Council (Constantinople III). So, you are correct, he did not need to time travel. 

But you seem to think that Honorius was condemned by the Council during his Pontificate. Is that what you think? If so, it is not true.



Did the Third Ecuмenical Council Condemn Pope Honorius I During His Lifetime?

No, the Third Ecuмenical Council (Constantinople III) did not condemn Pope Honorius I during his lifetime.

• Pope Honorius I died in 638 AD.
• The Third Council of Constantinople (the Sixth Ecuмenical Council) convened 42 years later, from 680 to 681 AD.

Therefore, Pope Honorius I was condemned posthumously (after his death).

Yes of course Pope Honorius I was condemned posthumously as a heretic by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council. Pope St. Leo II ratified the Council and personally anathematized him, this demonstrates that the Church can objectively define and condemn error across time and that dogmatic authority is not constrained by human perception or temporal limitations, and that the Magisterium’s judgment is binding and timeless, independent of historical distance or personal knowledge of the condemned.

Most importantly, Honorius I proves a pope can be a heretic and still be pope. Only an Ecuмenical Council and the Pope can declare and condemn such public heresy. Most importantly, Catholics can trust the Church’s indefectibility! Her teaching authority remains unfailing, even in extraordinary cases.

And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Dieu protège le Pape, vive la Papauté !

No it doesn't prove "a pope can be a heretic and still be a pope." Honorius was condemned for not doing enough to police the heresy, not because he himself was a heretic. The quote from Leo II that you provided says:

“And in like manner we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

— Pope St. Leo II

Honorius "did not attempt to sanctify [the Church]" and "permitted [the Church] purity to be polluted." Which is to say, he was a Pope who did not do his job. That is different from being a "heretic."