but there sure are plenty of Catholic historians who deny that Honorius never spoke the heresy attributed to him, and plenty of theologians who say it doesn't matter since he was at minimum not speaking freely and not from the Chair of St. Peter. That isn't the point. He was condemned as a heretic by the 6th Ecumenical Council, and this condemnation was accepted by his sucessors and repeated by them in the Papal Coronation Oath until the 11th century. And he was writing to Patriarch Sergius as the teacher of all Christians when he so fumbled orthodoxy.
>>That isn't the point.
WHOOPS! Doarn right it isn't the point. *sheepish* Wrong guy... I had Liberius in my head.
This is cool: THE SUPPOSED FALL OF HONORIUS AND HIS CONDEMNATION
(
http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm) It claims, among much else, that while Honorius was condemned for failing to correct Sergiusm he did declared that no-one should affirm whether there were one or two natures; he did not incorrectly affirm either, so there was no false statement by him.