You are using a double standard.
Well, lets look at the post to which you replied with the above.
Please don't dodge my question by throwing it back at me. Do you have the direct word of Pope Leo II himself on how he viewed Pope Honorius's condemnation? A yes or no answer will do.
So far, all you've cited regarding what Pope Leo II said about Pope Honorius is an article by Steven O'Reilly in which O'Reilly says
that Pope Leo said such and such. The thing is, Mr. O'Reilly doesn't even quote Pope Leo on this; he just says, "Pope Leo did not count his predecessor as one of the 'inventors' of the heresy..." and credits a couple of letters from Pope Leo as his source. Have you read these letters yourself? Can you quote them for us? If you cannot, and all that you can do is tell us how Steve O'Reilly interprets them, then please don't cite these letters of Pope Leo as evidence for your case.
No. You are the one who needs to prove his case here, and all you've done is ramrod the same arguments with the same [second-hand] source citations, hoping that you'll finally override our rebuttals with your own pigheadedness. This doesn't prove anything except that you love to argue.
For the last few pages of this thread, you have argued quite vocally--roughly half of the posts beginning with your citation of an article by Robert Spencer in Reply #208 are yours--that there is no way Pope Honorius can be considered an active teacher of heresy. The past couple of nights you have spent arguing from another article posted by Steve O'Reilly on the same RC apologetics web site. Clearly you are trying to prove something, which places the burden of proof on you to cite sources that substantiate your assertions.
Neither of these articles cites that many actual quotes of the popes and other persons whose material supposedly supports the weight of their arguments. Spencer and O'Reilly both write as if they trust in their readers' first hand knowledge of the primary source material they credit (or as if they expect their readers to trust them at their word). I personally don't think this very convincing. If you really want to convince us of the truth of your word, then you need to start providing for us primary source materials from the fathers themselves to support your point of view. You also need to start citing individuals whom we
respect as authorities. Otherwise, your case will be very easily dismissed by your readers here as bearing no substance.
For my defense, I have merely been working with the other posters here to offer rebuttals to your arguments. In the court of public opinion, I'm not aware that I really need to do anything except plant the seeds of doubt that your word is true. Even so, I have made some effort to be somewhat convincing by either quoting primary source documents or at least citing articles that do. The article I posted from William Webster, for instance, included an excerpt several paragraphs long of the official minutes of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and actually prefaced the excerpt with a statement saying, "The reader can judge for himself from the Council's own statements
how the situation with Honorius was viewed and whether it would have agreed with the assertions of Keating and Knox that Honorius did not actively teach anything." Sure, Mr. Webster offered his own interpretation, but he also expressed his hope that his readers could see for themselves what the official record of the great council actually said. I personally think such reference of primary sources more convincing than what you have done thus far.