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)

And if one were to deny Honorius was condemned and anathematized, one would also have to deny the authority and affirmation of the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eighth Ecuмenical), because it explicitly confirms the Sixth Council’s condemnations.

“Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod {6 Constantinople III}, which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down … So, we anathematize Theodore … and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs…”

— Definition of the holy and universal Eighth Synod (Fourth Council of Constantinople, 869–870)

This is very controversial history.

I would simply say that no one should be too ready to consider Pope Honorius to have been a heretic without first reading St Robert Bellarmine's very thorough consideration of the question in his defence.

In relation to this affirmation, in particular, St Robert has this answer:

What if someone were brought in that could not believe that the Sixth Council would be corrupted; he could look to another solution, which is in Juan de Torquemada. He teaches that the Fathers of the Sixth Council condemned Honorius but from false information, and hence erred in that judgement. Although a legitimate general council could not err in defining dogmas of faith (and the Sixth council did not), still it could err in questions of fact. Therefore, we can safely say that those Fathers were deceived by false rumours and did not understand the epistles of Honorius, and wrongly enumerated Honorius with the heretics.

So one would not have to deny the authority of these councils. We are not dealing with definitions of faith or morals.

Thank you PV!

Hey "Catholic Trumpet guy (AL)" dare we hope that you will say...

However, the question at issue is not our personal readiness to judge him, but the historical fact that the Sixth Ecuмenical Council anathematized Honorius by name, that Pope Leo II confirmed that judgment, and that the Eighth Ecuмenical Council explicitly reaffirmed the Sixth and repeated its list, including Honorius.

Oh, I thought the question was "heretic but pope until death? (Pope Honorius I case)".

The answer seems to be: "not at all certain that he was a heretic, quite possibly (perhaps even probably) not".

Perhaps you are making the point that these Councils considered him to be a heretic, yet he was not posthumously stripped of office.

There seems to be some merit in that argument, yet it still does not involve the Church's infallible magisterium.

Just as Pope Honorius I did not teach heresy ex cathedra, an impossibility, he remained pope until his death, despite being anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council, confirmed by Pope Leo II, and reaffirmed by the Eighth Ecuмenical Council. The councils judged his theological error, not the legitimacy of his office. By the same principle, no earthly authority can remove a pope, and post-Vatican II popes likewise retain the papal office until death or valid resignation, even if their non-ex cathedra teachings are or were theologically erroneous propositions, opinions suspected of heresy, or opinions approaching heresy. Such teachings may also render a pope materially heretical, meaning the error exists in the teaching without imputing formal, obstinate heresy to the person. They can, however, be posthumously condemned and anathematized as heretics by a council and ratified by a pope, just as Honorius I was.

According to the platform, this post has been read 2,587 times. By God’s grace through the Blessed Virgin Mary, it continues to reach many more souls. By this same grace, it is hoped that it may help them reject the spiritual death of human reason alone that the error of sedevacantism spreads, and guide those called to truly embrace the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX of old.

I can say no more without risking verbosity. May God forgive me if I have exceeded its bounds. It is time to sign off and leave the work in the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary.


Vive le Christ-Roi! Vive la papauté! Vive le pape! Vive sa Mère, la Reine, et son Cœur Immaculé! Et vive les bons prêtres!

I basically agree with your position, even if your logic is not always spot on.
Let us follow the wonderful guide given to us by Providence in Archbishop Lefebvre.
And if you are that 'Catholic Trumpet Guy' as was previously posted, get your priest back in line with all the good bishops and priests of the Resistance for his own good and the good of all the faithful, so that you can "truly embrace the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX of old".

Just as Pope Honorius I did not teach heresy ex cathedra, an impossibility, he remained pope until his death, despite being anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council, confirmed by Pope Leo II, and reaffirmed by the Eighth Ecuмenical Council. The councils judged his theological error, not the legitimacy of his office. By the same principle, no earthly authority can remove a pope, and post-Vatican II popes likewise retain the papal office until death or valid resignation, even if their non-ex cathedra teachings are or were theologically erroneous propositions, opinions suspected of heresy, or opinions approaching heresy. Such teachings may also render a pope materially heretical, meaning the error exists in the teaching without imputing formal, obstinate heresy to the person. They can, however, be posthumously condemned and anathematized as heretics by a council and ratified by a pope, just as Honorius I was.

Now you're just a lying piece of excrement.  You've been correct already repeatedly with three different citations where Pope Leo II clearly declares that Honorius was not a heretic but was condemned for not having defended dogma.

But you're a lying heretic who tries to reject the indefectibility of the Church ... just like the heretics used Honorius to bring an assault against papal infallibility.

Scuм like you, after you've been repeatedly corrected, when you ignore clear citations from Leo II and then repeat your lies and slanders ... that demonstrates pertinacity in your heresy, and you too are anathema.

As for how "no earthly authority can remove a pope", you seem to be spouting the lie of pseudo-bishop Schneider that the only Catholic position is the one that maybe 2 theologians ever held, that a Pope can never lose office.  While it is true that no eartly authority can REMOVE a pope, a Pope can be removed ipso facto by God for manifest heresy, the opinon that's held by most thoelogians, and then Cajetan's opinion, second, that the Church can "ministerially remove" a Pope, by which he means that the Church can declare him deposed ... and it's a blend of these two opinions that the sedeprivationists and sedeimpoundists (like Fr. Chazal) hold.

Your fake lying syllogism has been exposed.  Per the Bellarmine opinion, heresy severs membership in the Church only when it's become MANIFEST, and not if it's occult.  You deliberately blur the issue by throwing out there this gabage about "objective" heresy, which does not enter into the debate, since both manifest and occult heresy are "objective" heresy.  So just pull that out of your ass to deliberately confuse the issue.

At not time did Honorius' heresy become manifest during his lifetime, and he was held to be completely orthodox, and ther'es no principle by which the Church can retroactively depose a pope from office.

What can happen is that the Church can issue a future declaration indicating that a Pope who was doubted during his lifetime, and disputed, was or was not actually a Pope.  There are several such that theologians are not sure about today, where they're sometimes listed as popes, sometimes as antipopes, and the Church can make a clarification on the matter.

But your lie of Pope Leo II confirming him to be a heretic has been refuted, with actual citations from Pope Leo II where he clearly distinguishes between the heretics (the inventors of the heresy) and Honorius for failing to defend it.  In the mind of the Church, over and over again, and sometimes explicitly taught, the Church declares that not only the heretics but those who fail to condemn the heretics are anathema and lumps them together in the anathema, but as far as membership in the Church is concerned, it's only heresy that deposes, whereas an anathema for failing to defend the faith would be a form of punitive excommnication.

This might be another Salza account ... and this time he's not pretending to be a female.

But you ignore everything that's been posted and regurgitate your heretical lies.  That renders you a pertinacious heretic and you're outside the Church.  Unless you repent, you're going to end up in Hell, since you lack the Catholic faith.