[OLD REGGIE]

The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some apologists still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.

He taught "error" exercising his office as Pope. Doesn't it take some fancy footwork to claim the "unbroken" lines of Pope weren't broken with him and/or to say the Church, represented by Pope Honorius, can not teach error?

"He didn’t start up a new religion; however what he did do was bad enough."

Some would say the RCC is not the same religion as the early Church; that it is indeed a "new" religion.

[MarkBsnr]

The Pope wandered off into heresy; Church teachings did not and the Church took it seriously enough that it took the steps as drastically as it did to make sure that any error lurking in the wings or under the carpet were eradicated. You must admit that the reaction was pretty drastic.

Some say a lot of things; look at the current crop of Presidential candidates for instance. It doesn’t make them either true or untrue.