II. In none of the Acts of the Council is it said that Honorius is called a heretic because he maintained or taught heresy.
I think this assertion is kind of funny. How could he not be a heretic when the conciliar acts say:
To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!
Maybe in bornacatholic's mind it should read.
To Honorius, the orthodox, anathema! He wasn't a heretic, right?
Explaining away Pope Honorius is essential to prove papal impeccability.
Perhaps bornacatholic should examine his errors of implicitly deifying the pope and proclaiming the his solemnly defined dogma of papal impeccability, instead of pointing out my alleged errors.
He just is mad that he can't win a debate with me.
The only thing he is able to do is to trot out arguments about "divinely-constituted" authority and not deal with the issues.
Criticism of the abuse of authority is the prerogative of every Catholic.
Maybe Catholics should follow the example of the august Pope Honorius and preach that Christ has One Will and One Operation.