He was no longer pope. A pope can't be judged.
I think the question of whether Honorius was really a dyothelite or not is beside the point. The fact of the matter is, he whiffed that letter so badly that an Ecumenical Council had no problem condemning him.He was dead. He was no longer pope. Even then Pope Leo annulled the council decree and Changed it from the charge of heresy to one of negligence.
So what if he was dead?
So your Pastor Aeternus claims. The Church says otherwise.
The Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council show that the Fathers debated the issue of judging the dead, answering in the affirmative, and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council so judged Pope Honorius.
The Pope was St. Agatho. Not Honorius.
Pope St. Agatho had joined Honorius. In the tomb, that is. Not in the respective place in the afterlife.
Posthumous anathemas happened all the time.Yes they did.
Either way, a negligent Pope is still not the unfailing bulwark of orthodoxy.He was orthodox and taught orthodox doctrine. The See of Peter at Rome is unfailing in teaching orthodox doctrine.
Never will it be and never has it happened that a roman pope has taught authoritatively and publicly a heretical doctrine
Here's another example.https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6
We do not claim that his protection of the faith will be perfect. Only that he will protect the faith.
And as Honorius' condemnation shows, he didn't.
The process of protection may be ugly, as the pope is not impeccable, but he is guaranteed to teach orthodox doctrine when speaking authoritatively on a matter of doctrine and morals for all the church.
term undefined by you all in boldface
Who defended Honorius' orthodoxy and said this :
It did because without times resistance to the east and montholetism we would be monothelite today.No, if it wasn't for St. Maximus
they have not conformed to the sense of the Apostolic see, and what is laughable, or rather lamentable, as proving their ignorance, they have not hesitated to lie against the Apostolic see itself . . . but have claimed the great Honorius on their side. . . . What did the divine Honorius do, and after him the aged Severinus, and John who followed him? Yet further, what supplication has the blessed pope, who now sits, not made? Have not the whole East and West brought their tears, laments, obsecrations, deprecations, both before God in prayer and before men in their letters? If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God.... It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her — nay, to our Lord — by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy.... Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see[/b]St. Maximus was present at the great Lateran council held by St. Martin at his instance in 649. He wrote from Rome (where he stayed some years):
The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.
St. Maximus, when told "Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord's day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch," replied ""Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching."http://www.saintjonah.org/articles/maximos1.htm
and the Fathers of the Fifth Council we would be monothelite today. It isn't as though the Pope performed the entire Council himself. You're giving the Eastern bishops of the Council too little credit.Yes indeed the fathers of that council. Yet if Rome consented to the heresy, the council wouldn't even exist. Rome didn't waves magic wand, it espoused orthodox doctrine and condemned all who disagreed.
not under Pope Honorius it didn't. Jerusalem under St. Sophronius (whence came St. Maximus) led the way.