Not alone the heretical, but even some Catholic writers, have judged, from these expressions of Pope Honorius, that he fell into the Monothelite heresy; but they are certainly deceived;

We do not, by any means, deny that Honorius was in error, when he imposed silence on those who discussed the question of one or two wills in Christ, because when the matter in dispute is erroneous, it is only favouring error to impose silence. Wherever there is error it ought to be exposed and combated, and it was here that Honorius was wrong; but it is a fact beyond contradiction, that Honorius never fell into the Monothelite heresy.

The synod of Trullo is only one of the councils that condemned Honorius as a heretic.  He was also condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople, the Fourth Council of Constantinople and the Second Council of Nicea, which were all general councils of the Church.

And Honorius was not condemned for privately speculating about an undefined doctrine. He was condemned for what he wrote in two official letters to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, concerning matters of doctrine.  Sergius wrote to the Pope with questions about doctrine, and the Pope responded.   In one of the letters, Honorius said, “we acknowledge one will in Our Lord Jesus Christ” (Unde et unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostril Jesu Christi).  Keep in mind that he wrote that during the height of the Monothelite heresy.  Needless to say, the heretics jumped on that sentence. They used it to promote their heresy and prove that Honorius was in agreement with them.  What did Honorius do?  Instead of correcting them, as he should have, He imposed silence on St. Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was courageously defending the true doctrine of two wills in Christ, against the heretics.  Honorius was condemned as a heretic because he deserved to be condemned as a heretic.

Listen to what Constantinople III says about these events and Honorius in particular:

“After we had read the doctrinal letters of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus or Phasis and to Pope Honorius, as well as the letter of the latter [Honorius] to Sergius, we find that these docuмents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, also to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers of repute, and follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of these men must also be expelled from the holy Church, namely, that of Sergius who first wrote on this impious doctrine; further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor.  We anathematized them all. And along with them, it is our unanimous decree that there shall be expelled from the Church and anathematised, Honorius, formerly Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found in his letter to Sergius that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.  We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and the apostolic and patristic doctrines. Therefore we received it as useful to the Catholic and apostolic Church, and decreed that his name should be put upon the diptychs of the holy Church. (…)    to Honorius the heretic, anathema!^”

If anyone says Honorius was not a heretic, he is contradicting the express teaching of this general council and two others that taught the same.

Roscoe: “If Pope Honorius had been a heretic, some future Pope (whose Authority is higher than yours) would have declared him an anti-pope--  none has done so.”

That might be a doctrine of Roscoe, but it’s not a doctrine of the Catholic Church.  St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, had no problem admitting that Honorius may have been “altogether a heretic.”  

"Under the ancient Law, the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested with the pontifical robe and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was." (The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306)


Roscoe: “For this he is charged w/ being a 'heretical' Pope (of which there is no such thing).

What do you mean “there is no such thing” as a heretical Pope?  It's true that there’s never been a Pope who fell into heresy to the degree necessary for the Church to consider him a heretic, but that doesn’t mean there has never been a pope who fell into heresy, or that a pope cannot fall into heresy in the future (or the present).  Even Bellarmine, who gave his best effort to excuse the Popes who were accused of heresy, did not rule out the possibility that some popes might have been heretics, but only said it could not be proven that any had fallen into heresy.