Just because a pope is a heretic doesn’t mean he’s an anti-pope.  Too many people with an agenda (ie Fr Cekada) want to condone and lessen the evil that Honorius allowed.  Heresy by omission is a serious dereliction of duty by a pope.  

Well, both SVs and R&R cite Honorius.  R&R will use Honorius as the case of a heretic who nevertheless remained Pope.  SVs claim there was no heresy.  I think it's clear, and it was determined to be the case by the Council, that Honorius did in fact make some materially/objective statements.  I don't agree that this was a case of mere omission.  That one author who claims that Honorius MEANT there was only one will in Jesus vis-a-vis his human nature is stretching greatly, and I do not find that assertion credible.

I do believe the he had fallen prey to monothelitism, but I don't believe that he was pertinacious about it, nor had it been explicitly condemned by the Church, nor did he teach it to the Universal Church as Church doctrine ... so it lacked the notes of infallibility.  SVs have issues because they exaggerate the scope of infallibility to include even letters to individual bishops.  R&R unduly minimize the scope of infallibility, claiming that the 99.5% of the Church Magisterium that lacks the formal notes of infallibility can go corrupt at any given time.

Well cuм Ex wasn’t around when Honorius was around so it doesn’t apply.  The problem is you assume that the Church has “standard operating procedures” for when a pope turns bad.  You think cuм Ex is an instruction manual that Catholics pull out to explain what to do next.  This ain’t the case.  The Church has never clarified any of this, which is why +Bellarmine and many other theologians debates for decades on what happens.  And let’s not forget that +Bellarmine lived right after cuм Ex was made law, so he’d have all the opportunity to explain his theories based on this.  Yet...we find in his writings that the issue of a heretical pope is NOT clear and the Church has NOT made definitive statements on the issue.  

Thank goodness the sedes have it all figured out.

Sorry but my understanding is that cuм ex Apostolatus Officio says( in so many words) just that-- a heretical pope is an anti-pope...  as there is NO SUCH THING as a heretical pope..  :cheers:

An anti-pope is not a heretic, or not necessarily. My understanding is that he is a non-pope, as in the time when there were supposedly three popes. Only one could be the pope. The others were anti-popes (non-popes) set up in opposition. Nothing to do with heresy.

Well, sedeprivationism admirably addresses legitimate objections against both the SV and R&R positions.  Or call it what you want.  Father Chazal articulated a similar position, although he rejects the term.  Point is, due to heresy and positive doubt, they lack formal authority, and yet nevertheless they remain in possession of their offices until determined otherwise by the Church.

An anti-pope is not a heretic, or not necessarily. My understanding is that he is a non-pope, as in the time when there were supposedly three popes. Only one could be the pope. The others were anti-popes (non-popes) set up in opposition. Nothing to do with heresy.

There are fundamental errors in the above response. I will reply if no one can figure it out within the next couple hours.. :cheers:

Sorry for the delayed response but your error is that the GWS Fr Popes are NOT anti-popes specifically because there was No heresy at the end of GWS. Pedro De Luna fell into heresy for a bit but he retracted.

See Attwaters Catholic Dictionary under antipope. Also see von Pastor( or is it Fr Parsons?) where it is disclosed that a compromise was reached at the end of the Schism wherein it was resolved Catholics are allowed to recognise either Fr or It series of Popes because there was no heresy.  Additionally Pope Alex VI gives legitimacy to Fr pope Alex V by being numero VI. :cheers:

What do you mean by 'Fr'? I assumed it stood for French, meaning the Avignon line, but they were not accepted as valid. The Pisan line were the ones who agreed on the compromise with the Italian line and ended the Schism. 

Sorry but the French Popes of GWS ARE valid. Alex VI tells us this by succeeding Alex V. The Avignon Popes are BEFORE GWS. GWS begins when Avignon Pope moves BACK to Rome. :cheers:

Alex V was a Pisan Pope.

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Roscoe has to equate anti-pope with heresy in order to add a “proof” to the sede list.  Don’t think the Church has ever defined what an anti-pope is.  So Roscoe and others, use faulty logic and private interpretation to back into a “certainty”.