[Cronos]

Thirdly you say "Pope Leon stated that Honorius was anathematized not because he didn’t uphold the apostolic tradition, but because he “allowed the immaculate to be stained by profane treason”."

and that's what I said viz "The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.” [Carroll, 254]" -

[Its All Over Except ...]

If he wasn’t Anathematized, or if Pope Leo had declared it null and void completely, or said he had no real Anathematization ever placed upon him or said in 680 that Honorius is not anathema, we would not be having this discussion for centuries now.

We know this because the debate has shifted to papal infallibility after this