[OLD REGGIE]

Simply put, papal infallibility is thanks to the grace of the Holy Spirit when

1.the Pope solemnly declares i.e. TEACHES
2.
3.a teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation, he, under the Holy Spirit's protection is preserved from even the possibility of theological, dogmatic error.

I'll go with number 2. (To be determined as required.)

The Sixth Ecumenical Council infallibly found Honorius guilty of Heresy and Excommunicated him.

The Catholic Church has a unique practice of "Retroactive Definition" in order to explain away past practice.

By his letters Honorius taught error.

[Cronos]

A very clear note is that Honorius never issued a dogmatic decree in regards to the controversy of Christ's wills

Honorius wrote that, "on account of the simplicity of man and to avoid controversies, we must, as I have already said, define neither one nor two operations in the mediator between God and man" (Scripta dilectissimi filii quoted by William Shaw Kerr in A Handbook on the Papacy 196, emphasis added). he basically said "let's keep quiet and not support either side as that will only cause mischeif"

In order for the case of Honorius to disprove the doctrine of papal infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council, it is not sufficient to claim the pope was a monothelite. It must be demonstrated (which it cannot) that the pope taught (note: taught, explicitly) heresy as defined by Vatican I (The pope must exercise his office as "teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority," and he must define a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be "held by the whole Church" (Pastor aeternus 4, iv, quoted in The Church Teaches, John F. Clarkson, S.J. et. al, ed., 102).

Remember what we said of "A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching" Honorius did not teach Monothelitism, all the facts, every history shows that he did NOT teach Monothelitism

[Natural Law]

"The Catholic Church has a unique practice of "Retroactive Definition" in order to explain away past practice."

The Church has repeatedly demonstrated to review and correct past mistakes. This is in stark contrast to whatever moonbat cult you belong to whose member appears to dodge every question and not anything of substance.

[Cronos]

papal infallibility is thanks to the grace of the Holy Spirit when
1.the Pope solemnly declares i.e. TEACHES
2. a teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation,

he, under the Holy Spirit's protection is preserved from even the possibility of theological, dogmatic error.

Pope Honorius did NOT teach Monothelitism in any way, as a solemn teaching to the Church.

Honorius' failing was that he did not condemn the followers of Monothelitism --> he basically said "let's keep quiet and not support either side as that will only cause mischeif"("on account of the simplicity of man and to avoid controversies, we must, as I have already said, define neither one nor two operations in the mediator between God and man"
B Hence there is no question of Honorius and papal infallibility as he never taught for or against the heresy (his failing and why he was rightly condemned was because he did not teach against it, but said shhh)

The council rightly ANATHEMIZED Honorius because Honorius failed to be a bishop and teach against the heresy

[metmom]

The pope is infallible, except when he’s not.

[Cronos]

And, of course, to remind you, what IS Monothelism? It tries to understand how divine and human relate in the person of Jesus. It taught that Jesus had two natures but only one will. This is contrary to the more common Christology that Jesus Christ has two wills (human and divine) corresponding to his two natures.

What was the historical background? In the 5 century AD there were debates on the nature of Jesus Christ. Although the Church had already dogmatically defined that Christ was the Son of God, just what his exact nature was was open to debate. The Church had declared the notion that Jesus was not fully divine heretical in the 4th century during the debates over Arianism and had declared that he was God the Son become human. However, as he was both God and man, there now emerged a dispute over exactly how the human and divine natures of Christ actually existed within the person of Christ.

The Christological definition of Chalcedon, as accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran churches, is that Christ remains in two distinct natures, yet these two natures come together within His one hypostasis. This position was opposed by the Monophysites who held that Christ possessed one nature only. The term Monophysitism covered two specific versions of this form of Christology. The first, Eutychianism, held that the human and divine natures of Christ were fused into one new single (mono) nature. As described by Eutyches, his human nature was "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea", and therefore his nature was really divine.[2] The second is referred to as Miaphysitism, which contends that, after the union, Christ is in one theanthropic (human-divine) nature, which is generated from the union of two natures, the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration. It is this version of Monophysitism to which the Oriental Orthodox churches currently adhere.

This internal division was dangerous for the Byzantine Empire, which was under constant threat from external enemies, especially as many of the areas most likely to be lost to the empire were the regions that were in favour of Monophysitism, and who considered the religious hierarchy at Constantinople to be heretics only interested in crushing their faith.

In these provinces, the Non-Chalcedonians were far more numerous than the Chalcedonians. In Egypt for instance, some 30,000 Greeks of Chalcedonian persuasion were ranged against some five million Coptic Non-Chalcedonians. Meanwhile, Syria and Mesopotamia were divided between Nestorianism and Jacobitism, while the religion of Armenia was wholly Cyrilline Non-Chalcedonian. Consequently the Monothelite teaching emerged as a compromise position. The Byzantine emperor Heraclius tried to unite all of the various factions within the Empire with this new formula that was more inclusive and more elastic.

[Cronos]

And, in all of these discussions about the Trinity — what do YOU, as a Unitarian believe in regarding the Trinity? Don’t unitarians deny the Trinity and the divinity of Christ?