Honorius remained pope until his death and was condemned by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council; to deny his objective guilt of heresy is to mock the Council’s binding authority, relativize its dogmatic judgment, and contradict immutable Church teaching.
The question was strictly affirm or deny, and introducing a third option by denying his guilt before God not only violates the poll’s structure but effectively claims that an Ecuмenical Council, which defines dogma infallibly, erred in its judgment, a logical and theological impossibility that undermines the Church’s authority.
What is your point in bringing up a controversy like this? You do realize that historians and theologians don't even agree on the facts of the case. The records kept were not perfect.
And you do realize that the action of the Third Ecuмenical Council was a disciplinary action, right? If they did not correctly understand the facts of the case, their judgement was not valid.
Just because the disciplinary action dealt with the dogmatic subject matter of a "heresy," that does not mean that the disciplinary action was itself a dogmatic statement.
Topic: Sedevacantism Proven Wrong by La Salette (Read 249913 times)