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.
Not, there's zero merit in the argument ... it's just more bullshit to try backing up those who adhere to heretical versions of R&R theory.
This really isn't hard, but it's only when you're brain has been depraved by the heretial paradigm (that Archbishop Lefebvre didn't hold, BTW, despite those heretics who hide behind him to justify their errors) ...
You cannot poshumously and retroactively strip someone of office, an office that he already lost at death. It's only manifest heresy that deposes from office, and at no time did the heresy become manifest during his lifetime where it would have caused loss of office. I'm sure that if various orthodox Cardinals would have stood up and called out Honorius, he would have backed down.
And what part of where I cited Pope Leo II 3 different times did not compute to those heretics among you who deny the indefectibility of the Church to bolster your heretical ecclesiology?
He stated no fewer than 3 times that Honorius was anathema for not defending the dogma, and in fact was distinguished from the inventors of the dogma.
Theologians unanimously agree that he was no monothelite himself, and there are about a half dozen variations on how to reconile this with Constantinople.
1) Bellarmine, Baronius, Pighi -- this was an interpolation by Theodore into the original Council docuмents
2) Third Constantinople did call him a heretic, but then Leo II clarified the intent or modified it in his endorsement when he clearly stated that Honorius was no heretic.
You also beg the question and play time paradox games. Popes cannot be stripped of authority after they had already lost it in death. Church cannot go back and depose Pius IX in 1848. That's the reason that Honorius stayed in office until his death, since the "heresy" (which he never actually held, but he failed to protect the Church against it) never became manifest during his lifetime And then, if you DO somehow claim that Honorius could be declared a manifest heretic after the fact, then you can pinpoint the time when it became manifest, and then the question you beg about his having remained pope his entire life would become disputed. To this day there are about a half dozen Popes in history that theologians dispute whether they were actually popes, and if theologians did agree with this principle of retroactive deposition by manifest heresy, then Honorius too would have to fall in that category.
Poll
