Any attempt to deny, evade, or reinterpret this fact not only ignores authentic Church history, 

Saint Robert Bellarmine’s analysis of Honorius’ letters does not negate the historical fact that Honorius was formally condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council. While Bellarmine argues that the letters, properly understood, did not contain explicit heresy, this distinction does not alter the Council’s act nor does this historical act depend on agreeing with Bellarmine. Honorius’ name appears in the conciliar decrees labeled “heretic” and “anathema.” The Council did not state that his papal office was vacated; he remained pope until his death. This confirms that a pope can be formally condemned and anathematized without automatically losing the pontificate. Regardless of whether one accepts Bellarmine’s interpretation of the letters or debates Honorius’ moral culpability, the Council’s labeling remains historically verified and unambiguous.

All this to say, I can fully agree with Saint Robert Bellarmine that Pope Honorius I did not formally teach heresy, and still affirm the historical fact that Pope Honorius remained the Roman Pontiff until his death, even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic.

If that were the case, then he would be partaker of the sin, but they say, Satan spread the heresy "through them" which can only mean through Pope Honorius and the others....

the contriver of evil - has found instruments suited to his own purpose–namely - Honorius, who was pope of elder Rome - has not been idle in raising *through them* obstacles of error against the full body of the church - the heresy of a single will

Contriver of evil = Satan
Instruments = Pope Honorius and the others
Obstacles of error = the heresy of a single will

The contriver of evil (Satan) was busy raising through them (pope Honorius and the others)  obstacles of error (heresy) against the whole Church = Satan using Pope Honorius and the others to spread the heresy of a single will against the whole Church.

He clearly does not imply that any of them merely did not stop the heresy, he says that the heresy was spread through them against the whole Church.

1) Bellarmine does not claim the council’s acts were forged.

2) The council’s condemnation is accepted by Bellarmine as part of the historical record.

3)His argument focuses on how to interpret Honorius’ letters, not denying the council’s docuмentation.

His debate is about interpretation of content, not denial of the docuмented acts.

Can you summarize?

So you are saying that St. Robert holds Pope Honorius and the others as being innocent of heresy? Ok.

That the Council docuмent with 2 popes officially declaring him and the others of heresy is a fraud? In reality neither the pope nor the others are guilty of heresy?

Whether Pope Honorius was a heretic or not, we have 2 popes in a council that declared he was, no? Or is the fraud that the crooks inserted his name? 

If the condemnation of Honorius and the others is fraudulent, what would be the purpose in that unless he was a very vigilant and "anti-single will" pope? - which makes the Council useless and is altogether contrary to what the docuмent actually says.

Thank you for the intellectual honesty. 

I find it refreshing.  I'm perfectly find with disagreements, since people are entitled to disagree on the vast majority of points.

Where I get extremely frustrated is when people lie, and distort, and then they ignore the points you're making, but just re-assert their gratuitious claim repeatedly.

When someone points out ... "well, it's not as clear-cut as you claim, since it's highly disputed", intellectual honesty requires that you have a look.  Then, if you want to say ... "well, those other opinions are irrelevant, at least to this issue, because ...".  That's OK, even if your because is wrong, since then we move on to the next point in the discussion / debate / argument.

What isn't OK is just to pretend that information or evidence does not exist and just repeat your assertion ... "Council condemned Honoriuis as a heretic.  Leo II approved."

Both of these premises we respond to with the old "DISTINGUO".  To the first point, that it's disputed whether Honorius was condemned as a heretic.  To the second, Pope Leo was clearly listing Honorius as being guilty of PERMITTIING the heresy rather than personally adhering to it.  At that point someone might respond that this distinction does not apply here because ...

But these guys completely ignore that and just keep parroting back their original assertion, committing the "ad nauseam" fallacy.  Imagine a parrot just repeating:  "Baaah.  Honorius heretic.  Leo cofirmed.  Honorius heretic.  Leo confirmed."  Then you say, "wait a minute, I don't think this is clear".  "Baaah.  Honorius heretic.  Leo confirmed."

This demonstrates intellectual dishonesty where you already decided ahead of time what you want to believe and are not basing your conclusion on an honest and rational and ojective evaluation of the evidence.