Yes PV, the whole point is that 2 different popes, both of the popes of the Council, said that a Pope (Honorius I) was both a heretic and a true pope at the same time.

Obviously these 2 popes did not first consult with Lad and the other sedes who would have corrected and educated those popes by telling them that there can be no pope who is a heretic, that such a thing was impossible and a vile heresy to even say and if they said it again, then the sedes would be forced to anathematize both pope Agatho and Pope Leo II and strip them of their papacy for spewing heresy. 

Yes, yet another pretinacious heretic lying about what Pope Leo II said, despite my having actually cited the Pope, where Leo explicitly differentiated between the actual heretics and Honorius, the latter being condemned for permitting heresy.  It's not about "consulting" with me, you lying filth ... it's about you lying about what Pope Leo II actually said.

Pertinacious non-Catholic heretic Stubborn also ignores the fact that MANIFEST heresy causes loss of membership in the Church and therefore papal authority, and something having become manifest decades after his death cannot cause the deposition from office of someone who's long death.

We have the wicked heretics here atttempting to smear the Church just so they can pretend they're Catholic by putting Prevost's picture up in the vesibule, even though their actual ecclesiology is heretical.

Do you think, for example, that a canonical judge would condemn one with the crime of heresy if that judge did not hold with moral certitude that the one condemned is guilty of the sin of heresy?  No.  The judge must have moral certitude that he is guilty of the sin of heresy.  Otherwise, the judgment would be unjust.  The crime of heresy is based upon the sin of heresy.

I think this ^ is what Ladislaus was trying to tell you...

I think this ^ is what Ladislaus was trying to tell you...

Please stop with AI interpretation and read MacKenzie directly.

In Canon Law, the concept of crime necessarily supposes the existence of sin.

Heresy consists precisely in holding firmly to error which is in some way known to be error, for reasons which may be true in themselves, but which do not justify the assent given to the error. Without this quality of pertinacity, there may be material sins of heresy,—erroneous acts of judgment which de facto are opposed to revealed truth. With this quality, such acts are formally sinful, and constitute the subjective element in the delict of heresy, and are the subjective reason for the serious penalties inflicted by the Church.

It is only when the sin of heresy is externalized that the individual is guilty of a delict, and subject to judgment in the external forum of the Church, and punishable by the penalties contained in the penal legislation of the Fifth Book of the Code of Canon Law.

That heresy in general is a violation of laws to which have been added canonical punishments, is too patent to need proof. But it may be advisable to note that these punishments are incurred only by an external and morally imputable act, and to indicate how these limitations affect the status of those who have committed sins of heresy.

The principle was established from early times that canonical punishments cannot be incurred by subjective sins. There must be some external act, whose malice derives from the subjective sin, but whose effect is a disturbance of the life of the Church as a social body.

The second essential characteristic of a delict is that it be morally imputable. The external act must be (or at least must seem to be), the expression of a mind that is aware of, and a will that is freely committed to, a sinful act. The preservation of order, and the elimination of quibbling excuses, make necessary the provision that where the external delinquent act has been committed, the existence of sin be presumed.

We therefore deal hereafter with heresy as an externalized, morally imputable violation of the Church’s law.

Well, it seems to understand it better then you.

An act that has the characteristic of a morally imputable sin that one freely commits - does not mean you are to judge the internal forum.

If the judge does not believe that the person on trial is guilty of the sin of heresy, then he must not judge him guilty of the crime of heresy.  It is that simple.  Without sin, there is no crime.

Augustine says similiar:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-a-quote-by-st-francis-de-sale-too-much-for-rr/msg1010541/#msg1010541

.....for every crime is a sin, though not conversely.

The AI seems to define interior sin as sin that is not externalized.

Define "internal forum".