What it actually is, is sedes feel that we are all obligated to determine the status of popes. 

Strawman.  You are not required to determine the status of PUTATIVE popes (you constantly beg the question).

You ARE however required to uphold Catholic teaching regarding the nature of the Church, the papacy, the Magisterium, and the obligations Catholics have to remain in submission to and communion with these ... nor are you premitted to effectively deny the indefectibility of the Church in her mission like many of you R&R do, and you in particular have been pertinacious in this heretical depravity of yours.

You could, for instance, adopt a "Doubt & Resist" type of position, or else adopt the position of a Father Chazal or even, for all I care, entertain the hypothesis that the legitimate Popes are drugged, imprisoned, branwashed, Manchurian candidates, and therefore effectively out of their minds and not acting freely, or else they've been replaced by doubles and are being chained up in the Vatican dungeons.  Now, you might be crazy for believing some versions of these things, but at least you wouldn't be a heretic as you are now, by constantly rejecting Catholic ecclesiology and denying the indefectibilty of the Church exactly as any Prot, Orthodox schismatic, or Old Catholic would.

“To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!“

In Session XVI of the Sixth Ecuмenical Council (680–681), Honorius I was formally labeled a “heretic”, alongside other Monothelite leaders, yet he remained pope until his death. The council’s acclamation reads verbatim:



“To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema!
To Sergius, the heretic, anathema!
To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema!
To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!
To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul, the heretic, anathema!
To Peter, the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius, the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen, the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius, the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga, the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema!
To all who side with heretics, anathema!”

— Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV: The Sixth Ecuмenical Council, Session XVI


The council language itself used the word “heretic” in association with his name.



The dogmatic decree itself (as recorded in Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, cols. 635‑637) also states:

“…Honorius, qui fuit Papa antiquae Romae… haeretico anathema…”

English: “…Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome… anathema to the heretic…”



The Council repeatedly identified Honorius as a heretic, both in the acclamations of the bishops and in the formal dogmatic decree

Yes, the Old Catholics rejection of the dogma of PI was the flashpoint of their heresy. But the underlying theological reason they thought they could reject the dogma is their belief that Pius IX taught heresy and Pius IX was the true Pope, and they started their own Church.

You don't claim to have started your own Church (yet), but you take positions that would justify starting your own Church. You are a member of the Stubbornized Wathen/SSPX Church, which you call the Catholic Church. You pick and choose what you like and those things are dogmas, and people who don't agree are "heretics." You don't use the Church's criteria for what a heresy is. You have your own criteria. So you have practically started your own Church.

The Church through its theologians and Canon Law teach that any ecclesiastical officeholder who "defects from the faith" tacitly resigns from his office. The heretic is the one who removes himself. You are not removing or deposing anyone when you recognize that a heretic is not the Pope.

The loss of office (the tacit resignation) happened automatically according to Canon Law. It happens if any Catholic detects that the Pope truly manifests as a heretic. That Catholic who detects this (you in this case) are told to act as if the officeholder has lost is authority/jurisdiction immediately upon manifesting heresy.

So you say the Pope is a heretic. If you truly believe that, then Canon Law requires you to act as if there is a vacancy in that office. This is what the Sedes do. They do it because they understand the law and theology behind calling a putative Pope a heretic.

The Sedes don't play this insane contradictory game of having your Pope and your heretic too. If the man is a heretic (and Prevost is), then he is not a true Pope. He is a usurper.

While you are satisfied to take it upon yourself and decide popes are not popes due to their heresies, I will stick with tradition. I am satisfied to leave that judgement up to the Church after the popes' deaths. I have zero reason to make that call, zero reason to even think about it, zero desire to get sucked into the idea. I will stick with tradition. 

"....The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind *us* to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours. 

We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed.

Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means  that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.

Sedevacantism, in deposing the pope, says that the Church has no head and we have a right to say that the Church has no head - and therefore the Church has no one to preside over it, the people have no one to look toward in any respect, the *only* consequence is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, violated, or it's destroyed. That is the result of anarchism....." - Fr. Wathen in an interview with one of the Dimonds

Thanks for posting about this ArmandLouis!

From Magisterium AI...

"Yes, Pope Honorius I was declared a heretic and anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople (also known as Constantinople III, held from 680 to 681) for his role in promoting or confirming the Monothelite heresy, which posited that Christ had only one will (theandric) rather than two distinct wills (divine and human) in harmony.
This condemnation occurred in the council's thirteenth session on March 28, 681, and was reiterated in the final dogmatic decree of September 16, 681, as well as in an accompanying imperial edict."

Well gee wiz, look at that will ya? A mere 43 years after the death of a heretic pope, the Church officially declared him a heretic - but did not declare him to not be pope.

You all can stop insisting that to even say such a thing makes one an old catholic heretic.

Snip of the list of popes in historical order from the CE....

Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)

Thanks for posting about this ArmandLouis!

From Magisterium AI...

"Yes, Pope Honorius I was declared a heretic and anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople (also known as Constantinople III, held from 680 to 681) for his role in promoting or confirming the Monothelite heresy, which posited that Christ had only one will (theandric) rather than two distinct wills (divine and human) in harmony.
This condemnation occurred in the council's thirteenth session on March 28, 681, and was reiterated in the final dogmatic decree of September 16, 681, as well as in an accompanying imperial edict."

Well gee wiz, look at that will ya? A mere 43 years after the death of a heretic pope, the Church officially declared him a heretic - but did not declare him to not be pope.

You all can stop insisting that to even say such a thing makes one an old catholic heretic.

Snip of the list of popes in historical order from the CE....

Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)

We don't live in the 600s. We live in the 2020s. In the 600s, Canon Law, as we know it, did not exist. In Canon Law of 1917 and of 1983, any ecclesiastical office holder who "defects from the faith" automatically loses his office.

But just like the Old Catholics do, you will appeal to practices that have been abrogated or superseded by new ones. 

Next thing you'll be doing is following the Old Catholics in making St. Vincent of Lerin's quote ("That which has been believed everywhere, always, by all")  the "rule of faith" and misinterpreting it to mean we must reject Pastor Aeterus. 

We don't live in the 600s. We live in the 2020s. In the 600s, Canon Law, as we know it, did not exist. In Canon Law of 1917 and of 1983, any ecclesiastical office holder who "defects from the faith" automatically loses his office.

But just like the Old Catholics do, you will appeal to practices that have been abrogated or superseded by new ones.

Next thing you'll be doing is following the Old Catholics in making St. Vincent of Lerin's quote ("That which has been believed everywhere, always, by all") the "rule of faith" and misinterpreting it to mean we must reject Pastor Aeterus.

You are wrong, you are preaching contrary to the Council of Constantinople. I agree with the Council, you do not. You made your opinion superior to the declaration of an infallible Ecuмenical Council of the Church. 

Your only recourse now is to post walls of texts showing the Council did not say that or did not mean what it said or was wrong. 

You apparently just heard about this controversy? It was resolved over a thousand years ago. St. Robert Bellarmine said that he was not a formal heretic. Many other theologians have commented on the very complex situation of Honorius.

But it has not relevance to us now. Because, again, we don't look to older practices of the Church that have been abrogated and superseded by later Canon Law. We look to what current Canon Law tells us.

You cannot look to older practices (Church tradition) when it comes to this issue, but you use it for all other issues. Sedeism is found nowhere in the traditions of the Church, but now you know that there was an heretical pope, condemned as a heretic pope after his death by another pope - as I have been saying.

And as far as Canon Law goes, we can debate that as well. Start with Canon 1556 "The First See is judged by no one."