Canon Law governs discipline, not dogma, and cannot reinterpret or nullify the judgment of an Ecuмenical Council, as St. Robert Bellarmine explains in De Romano Pontifice, Book IV.

The Sixth Ecuмenical Council judged Honorius in the external forum and condemned and anathematized him as a heretic without presuming to judge the internal state of his soul before God. The council records and acclamations read in the Sixteenth Session: “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to Pyrrhus, to Paul, to Peter, and to all heretics and those who side with heretics” as recorded in Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV, Session XVI and in Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, cols. 635‑637.

Pope St. Leo II ratified the Council and personally anathematized Honorius for permitting the Monothelite heresy to corrupt apostolic doctrine. This judgment concerns public doctrinal failure and heretical deviation and not mere administrative negligence. The text of his letter to the Emperor and the bishops of Constantinople confirming the Council reads in Mansi XI, cols. 726‑728 and is included in the Roman Breviary prior to 1955.

An anathema is a juridical and doctrinal act of the Church against heresy or its culpable promotion, whether or not the word heretic is explicitly repeated in every formula. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in Summa Theologiae, II-II, q.11, a.2, that such acts concern external forum judgments.

Honorius remained Pope until death and was condemned posthumously. This demonstrates that a pope can objectively fall into heresy and still remain pope and that only the Church, through an Ecuмenical Council confirmed by a Pope, can render such a judgment without compromising indefectibility.

Council-Ordered Letter Destruction, Mansi XI, which burned Honorius’s letters to Sergius for heretical content.
Decree of Faith, Session XVIII, Mansi XI, which declares Honorius a tool of error for Monothelitism.
Report to Emperor Constantine IV, Mansi XI, confirming Honorius “has been punished with exclusion and anathema.”
Letter to Pope Agatho, Mansi XI, formally recognizing his culpability.
Imperial Decree, Mansi XI, condemning Honorius as “the confirmer of heresy.”
Trullan Canons, Canon 10/11, Denzinger, pre‑1955 edition, listing Honorius among those condemned.
Seventh Ecuмenical Council Affirmation, Acts of Nicaea II, 787, confirming adherence to the Sixth Council’s anathemas.
Roman Copy of the Acts, Vita Leonis II, Mansi XI, cols. 637‑638, preserving Honorius’s name.
Papal Oath in Liber Diurnus, Forcella edition, 1888, in which newly elected popes swore against Monothelite originators, explicitly naming Honorius.
Roman Breviary Pre‑1955 and Bossuet Commentary, listing Honorius among those excommunicated by the Sixth Council.

“To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!” -Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV, Session XVI
— Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, cols. 635–637

He was still Pope.

This has been settled by the dogmatic council.

End of discussion.

So ... listen up, moron.  "Objective" heresy, whatever you retardedly mean by the term, which never enters the debate anywhere in the entire discussion of the "5 Opinions" ... has nothing to do with losing membership in the Church.  You can be "objectively" in heresy in an occult manner also.  Occult "objective" heresy does not result in loss of membership in the Church (except if you adhere to one extremely minor opinion).

Despite your bloviations, which not a few people dispute, according to what's by far the most widely accepted opinion, it's MANIFEST heresy that results in loss of membership in the Church, and subsequent loss of office.  If it had become manifest in 681, by that time Honorius was no longer Pope, and loss of office would have been moot, since he had long prior lost his office due to ... having died.

You need to prove that Honorius' heresy had been MANIFEST ... WHILE HE WAS STILL POPE, i.e. during his lifetime, when a loss of office could still have occurred.

He remained Pope until the end of his life because his heresy had not become manifest at any time during his lifetime.  You can be sure in the early 7th century, Catholics were not shy about denouncing heresy, so it if had been evident and manifest to Catholics during his reign that he had been a heretic, the would have risen up and driven him out of the city.

You need to demonstrate that his heresy was manifest during his lifetime ... and stop being an idiot.

For my very limited money, the real issue isn't whether or not a particular man wearing a white cassock is legit.  The real issue is that the society of which the man in white is unquestionably the head is a complete fraud, a counterfeit of Holy Mother Church, devouring its own members and endeavoring to eradicate supernatural faith from this world.  We don't just keep our distance from one man, but from the entire, clearly-problematic society/institution/etc.  The fact that we refer to it as the Conciliar Church indicates it is an illegitimate invader -- something not limited to just the one man or his predecessors.  While the lack of any sort of juridical acknowledgement of this reality is a presently-insurmountable obstacle, we all know that thing headquartered in Rome is not Holy Mother Church and is to be avoided at all costs.

Just as Jesus Christ truly died, why do we think it is impossible that His Mystical Body could die a mystical death, if you will?  If you argue that such a thing simply cannot ever happen, how is what has clearly already occurred substantially different?

Sedes need to remember, as popes Pius IX and Pius XII and others have taught, that Christ and the Church are one and the same thing, as such, the Church on earth can no more be destroyed or cease to exist than Christ can be destroyed or cease to exist - because they are "one and the same thing." This is the indefectibility of the Church, which requires a strong faith to believe in -  especially in these days.

To this I respond that I do not deny the condemnation; on the contrary, I admit it according to what I said moments ago; but I distinguish the word heretic, which is quite imprecise and was still more so at the time of the councils in question. It was designated not only to those who professed the heresy knowingly and obstinately, but also to those who benefited it in any manner whatsoever, be it by their silence and negligence when their responsibilities obliged them to take action, be it by defending persons or the writings of heretics, be it even due to their communication with these heretics, or that they involuntarily admitted their doctrines. You see that under the same appellation were found comprised a throng of individuals whose culpabilities were very different, or even non-existent when the will did not take part.

If the doctrines of the Church's indefectibility and infallibility be true, then as a Catholic, you have to have enough faith in you to believe that whatever the conciliar popes have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church's attribute of infallibility hence indefectibility. Catholics believe with certainty of faith that no matter what anyone says or does  whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church.

Catholics believe this with certainty of faith. It is only the enemies of Christ's Church who do not believe this, which is why they keep trying (in vain) to destroy the Church.