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.

This is something Lad cannot get himself to do because he has said that if he ever believed such a thing that he would be bound to follow the pope and go whole hog Novus Ordo. He's either pope or a heretic, there is no being both at the same time.

Otherwise, what he repeatedly accuses of others of being umpteen times over the years, he would now be. He would have to admit that he is a vile old catholic heretic because it's blasphemous to believe that popes can be a heretic and remain pope.

But before any of that, please know and believe that we forgive you Lad.

I'm not sure if there's any way to get you to understand this, but I'll try one more time.  You would not have to believe that what these putative Conciliar popes have done cannot violate the Church's indefectibility ... IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THEY ARE POPES.

Every time you post, you simply assume that they are Popes.

Let's try a simple example ...

MAJOR:  Dogs cannot walk upright on two legs.
MINOR:  This animal walks upright on two legs.
CONCLUSION:  This animal is not a dog.

This is an argument in the form referred to as modus tollens or modo tollentis.

MAJOR:  IF P, THEN Q.
MINOR:  NOT Q.
CONCLUSION:  THEN NOT P.

This is the SV argument.

MAJOR:  Legitimate Popes cannot teach grave error to the Universal Church or promulgate a Mass that's offensive to God and harmful to souls.
MINOR:  Montini (aka "Pope" Paul VI) taught grave error to the Universal Church and promulgated a Mass that's offensive to God and harmful to souls.
CONCLUSION:  Montini was not a legitimate pope.

I'm not interested in debating the details, since that's precisely what the SV vs. R&R debate is about ... but here I'm simply trying to explain that in the SV framework, the Popes have not taught error or promulgated a harmful / offensive Mass ... BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT POPES.

For whatever reason, this most basic of logical arguments doesn't not sink through into your skull, and it's really not that hard.

Just stop it, moron.

Let's try this again.  We know you've got this stupidity stuck in your cold dead brain, and it'll be nearly impossible to extract it.

By far the majority opinion among theologians is that MANIFEST heresy causes loss of office.  Honorius was not a manifest heretic at any point during his lifetime.  Nobody considered him a heretic or knew of his heresy.  Consequently, he never lost papal office, since at not point while he was in possession of his office did he become a manifest heretic.  If in 381 his heresy became manifest (something that's highly disputed but you lie about and claim that it's certain), Honorius no longer held the office at that time, since he had already been separated from it by death for several decades.

I'm so utterly sick of the liars everywhere even on a Traditional Catholic forum.

You also pretend that the issue is just cut and dry, certain, solemnly affirmed by the pope, etc. --- because it's necessary that it be so for your stupid-ass bullshit lying argument.

If you actually look into the matter, many pages have been spent on the question, and it is by no means as cut and dry as you claim with your lies.

St. Robert Bellarmine, along with Baronius, Pighi, and others ... believe that the insertion of Honorius' name into Third Constantinople was a later interpolation by the Greeks, and there had in fact been precedent for that prior to this scenario.  Others don't believe that.  But there are the later statements by Pope Leo II.  But Leo II in his statements did NOT actually call out Honorius for heresy, but for his failure by omission to condemn heresy.  So some theologians held that Leo's "endorsement" of III Constantinople included an amendment of the reference to Honorius as a heretic ... even among those who believe that the inclusion of his name on the list was real.

Just the summary of the debate goes on for pages ...
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

But you lie about how it's cut-and-dry, that an Ecuмenical Council said it and that Leo II solemnly endorsed it.  Bullshit.  Both statements are disputed, and then, of course, in the end, some recognition of heresy long after someone's dead cannot result in a loss of office during the person's lifetime.  Honorius finished his life with a good reputation, without anyone accusing him of heterodoxy, much less heresy at any time.

Let's say now that someone today uncovered some letter from Pius IX where he admits to being some Masonic agent bent on destroying the Church, and so they decide to anathematize Pius IX.  Let's say this letter was dated to 1848.  So, what?, then ... does the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception now become an un-dogma, after the fact, after untold millions had accepted it as dogma with the certainty of faith for many decades?  Does Papal Infallibility become an un-dogma now also?  Does Vatican I now become an un-Ecuмenical-Council?  But, then, wait.  Pius IX reigned for 31 years.  In that case, nearly all the Cardinals who elected the next Pope, Leo XIII, weren't even legitimate.  So we've not had a Pope since 1846 either.

Ridiculous.  Manifest Heresy removes from office only when it becomes manifest.  Occult heresy does not remove from office.  Both are "objective" heresy.  Heresy that becomes manifest later cannot retroactively depose a Pope.

Next I will pull some quotations from Pope Leo II where he describes the condemnation of Honorius.

By far the majority opinion among theologians is that MANIFEST heresy causes loss of office.  Honorius was not a manifest heretic at any point during his lifetime.  Nobody considered him a heretic or knew of his heresy.  Consequently, he never lost papal office, since at not point while he was in possession of his office did he become a manifest heretic.  If in 381 his heresy became manifest (something that's highly disputed but you lie about and claim that it's certain)

First, I do not assume they are popes, I believe they are popes - why? because that is the Catholic default position. This default position, among other things, is based on reality. 

I already know the sedes believe that "the Popes have not taught error or promulgated a harmful / offensive Mass ... BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT POPES." Everybody knows this. They believe this even though their starting (and ending) point, i.e. the MAJOR, is wrong. IOW, their opinion-turned-doctrine is based on a false premise per the Council of Constantinople. This false premise is the sede default position.

I'm now waiting for you to start calling both Pope Agatho and Pope Leo II old catholic heretics and condemn the whole Third Council of Constantinople while you're at it. 

Pope Honorius I

Pope (625-12 October, 638), a Campanian, consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680)