I feel sorry for anyone reading this site who believes in what you write, Caminus.
Your bad faith shows itself time and time again. When you are confronted with a blanket heresy of Vatican II you just change the thread and act as if you never heard anyone mention it. And that is exactly what will happen if a concerned VII parishioner writes to his most likely invalidly consecrated fake-bishop. They will get stonewalled. It seems you approve of these terrorist tactics to the point you've adopted them yourself.
God will be your judge. Believe me, He is going to read you in the "light of tradition," His tradition and His unchanging truth. But those who really want to know about the numerous and consistent heresies of Vatican II can easily find them in any daily article at Christ or Chaos or various other websites. These "popes" have systematically flouted every single rule in Pope Pius X's "Oath Against Modernism."
Oh yeah -- and this.
TOGETHER WITH US MUSLIMS WORSHIP THE ONE TRUE GOD
Now, if Honorius was called a heretic by some for what he wrote in a private LETTER, what does that make the "Popes" who promote the above-mentioned blasphemy in a dogmatic encyclical? This one blasphemy is enough to prove all the charges against the VII Popes that anyone of common sense know to be true in their gut.
Caminus said:A thousand errors, omissions, ambiguous, scandalous propositions that even smack of heresy do not amount to one heresy, just as a thousand venial sins do not amount to one mortal sin.
Sophistry. This is how people like you will try to convince the fearful that they must stay within an anti-Christ sect pretending to be the Church -- that the "Popes" have skirted the edge of the abyss of heresy, but not fallen in.
Even if this were true, which as I have shown it is not, do you think Christ spoke with "a thousand errors, omissions, ambiguous, scandalous propositions"? Then why should the Vicar of Christ do the same? Is Christ divided against Himself?
It is also a fallacy that a Pope can avoid teaching the faith entirely and avoid being charged.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Pope Honorius:
"It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing."
In other words, the sin of Pope Honorius was one sin of omission, so tiny in comparison to the daily acts of the VII "Popes," and this was in a LETTER. This was enough to bring him under the charge of heresy.
Honorius, who may not have been a heretic, is still reprimanded for not teaching the faith clearly, for neglecting at one crucial moment the duty of his Office which is to TEACH.
It is debatable whether a Pope can simply refuse to teach and still remain Pope. But the VII Popes went beyond just not teaching. They taught the opposite of Catholicism, a new theosophist gnostic quasi-Catholic muck. They are not only out-and-out heretics, they are not even Catholic.