It was the Third Council of Constantinople; not the Fourth.

And per your own reasoning, such condemnation of Pope Honorious is of dubious veracity; given that the narrative is not enclosed in a dogmatic canon. All the councils, from Nicea to Vatican I, have worded their dogmatic canons "If any one says...let him be anathema"; but if any teaching proposed by the Church is outside this strict bracket; is not infallible and therefore subject to error, according to Drew.

Thanks for the correction but the purpose of the post had nothing to do with Pope Honorius' condemnation or the fact that the citation in question is not a dogmatic canon. The purpose of recommending your reading this introduction to the Council is to see all the Church fathers of the Council affirm all the dogmatic proclamations of previous councils one by one; to see that in their judgments against all the heretics and heresies, the dogmatic canons are repeatedly mentioned as their rule of faith by which they 'govern their lives'. Dogma as the proximate rule of faith should be something that you should have no problem accepting from what you have posted in the past. Unless, that is, if you are determined to follow the errors of sedeprivationism or sedevacantism in which case, dogma has to take a back seat just as it does with those promoting salvation by implicit desire.

Drew

But Drew maintains that it is the Magisterium which determines dogma; the Prots reject the whole idea of "magisterium." He says, in effect, the Magisterium provides us nourishment to eat (which Prots deny), but it cannot eat itself (and you agree with him; see below).

By what "rule of faith" do you determine that the current Magisterium has gone "off the rails" and needs to be rejected?

No matter what the "rule of faith" is, at some point you must determine if the "rule of faith" applies to something, in this instance the current Magisterium. Even if your position is "doubt" and not rejection, that is still your determination of dubiety. If you base that on prior Magsterial statements . . . so does Drew in relying on infallible Magisterial utterances.

If you say the current Magisterium isn't the Magisterium, and its rules shouldn't be followed . . . how do you know that?

One of Drew's quotes on page 14, reply #200:
https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=48225.195

Does this mean absolute inerrancy in every single proposition that proceeds from the Magisterium?  No.  But it does mean that the Magisterium will always be a safe and reliable and sure guide to Catholic faith overall.

I absolutely disagree with your underlined philosophy above, which comes from Fenton.  I've quoted many other theologians who say that the fallible magisterium can err greatly; the fallible magisterium is NOT ALWAYS "safe and reliable".  If it was, then the pope's power of infallibility is pointless.

Dr(j)ew got completely destroyed by Cantarella and Ladislaus.

Dr(j)ew got completely destroyed by Cantarella and Ladislaus.

Only true in the minds of the sedes.

Only true in the minds of the sedes.

This.

It was the Third Council of Constantinople; not the Fourth.

And per your own reasoning, such condemnation of Pope Honorious is of dubious veracity; given that the narrative is not enclosed in a dogmatic canon. All the councils, from Nicea to Vatican I, have worded their dogmatic canons "If any one says...let him be anathema"; but if any teaching proposed by the Church is outside this strict bracket; is not infallible and therefore subject to error, according to Drew.

I apologized too soon assuming that you had checked the sources and were correct. I took another look and see that I was correct in my citation. The quote that I provided was from the Fourth Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople and not as you said from the Third.  The Third condemned Pope Honorious as a heretic and the Fourth Council of Constantinople confirmed this condemnation saying:

Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod {6 Constantinople III}, which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down that in the two natures of the one Christ there are, as a consequence, two principles of action and the same number of wills. So, we anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs Apollinarius, Eutyches and Severus and proclaimed that the flesh of God, while being animated by a rational and intellectual soul, was without a principle of action and without a will, they themselves being impaired in their senses and truly without reason.
The quote provided on the dogmatic canons being their rule of faith is from the first canon.
Fourth Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople

But again, the "anathema" against Pope Honorius was not my point in the post. The post was to demonstrate how the council Fathers held dogma as their rule of faith. So I will post again the First Canon from the Fourth Council of Constantinople in its entirety:

If we wish to proceed without offence along the true and royal road of divine justice, we must keep the declarations and teachings of the holy fathers as if they were so many lamps which are always alight and illuminating our steps which are directed towards God. Therefore, considering and esteeming these as a second word of God, in accordance with the great and most wise Denis, let us sing most willingly along with the divinely inspired David, The commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes, and, Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths; and with the author of Proverbs we say, Your commandment is a lamp and your law a light, and like Isaiah we cry to the lord God with loud voice, because your commands are a light for the earth. For the exhortations and warnings of the divine canons are rightly likened to light inasmuch as the better is distinguished from the worse and what is advantageous and useful is distinguished from what is not helpful but harmful.

Therefore we declare that we are preserving and maintaining the canons which have been entrusted to the holy, catholic and apostolic church by the holy and renowned apostles, and by universal as well as local councils of orthodox [bishops], and even by any inspired father or teacher of the church. Consequently, we rule our own life and conduct by these canons and we decree that all those who have the rank of priests and all those who are described by the name of Christian are, by ecclesiastical law, included under the penalties and condemnations as well as, on the other hand, the absolutions and acquittals which have been imposed and defined by them. For Paul, the great apostle, openly urges us to preserve the traditions which we have received, either by word or by letter, of the saints who were famous in times past.
Canon I, Fourth Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople

If you do not want to stumble in the darkness of our current crisis in the Church, you must keep the dogmatic canons as "many lamps which are always alight and illuminating our steps which are directed to God." 

Drew