Ok then, what did Honorius do as bishop of Rome, in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, except define a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church?
Explicitly defined teachings are always based upon implicit teachings that have existed for many years or since the beginning of the Church. Petrine infallibility has been operational since it was established by Christ and exercised by Peter's early successors.
The dogma of Petrine infallibilty was apparently unknown in Honorius' era because forty years after he committed error, i.e., was fallible, in defining a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, he was anathematized for it by an Ecumenical Council, an anathamazation that was affirmed by subsequent Popes and Councils.
Yes, apparently, but I have been trying to show you that this issue of Honorius is moot to our discussion because it does not undermine the doctrine of infallibility.
How does an historical case study in fallibility of a Pope's teaching on a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church become moot to a discussion of the doctrine of infallibility? Only by overruling the facts of history by dogma. That's why you say:
Since a pope is not allowed to transgress infallible doctrine, he obviously cannot do so ex cathedra.
You see? It's impossible by definition! If that's not circular reasoning I don't know what is. Pope Honorius and subsequent Councils and Popes must not have gotten that 19th century email on papal infallibility.
Not only is the reasoning circular, it is useless because you never know whether some current promulgation will be overturned forty years from now or not.
Cordially,
I looked it up at the Catholic Encyclopedia. This is what they said about Honorius' letter in question:
"The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance. But before, and even just after, the Vatican Council such a view was sometimes urged, though almost solely by the opponents of the dogma of Papal Infallibility."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
The dogma of Petrine infallibilty was apparently unknown in Honorius' era because forty years after he committed error, i.e., was fallible
No. Honorius' letter did not undermine the doctrine of infallibility because it did not meet the test of an ex cathedra utterance. The fact that the Seventh Century letter from Honorius is the strongest case against infallibility you can draw from tumultuous 2000 years of Catholic history speaks volumes.
Not only is the reasoning circular, it is useless because you never know whether some current promulgation will be overturned forty years from now or not.
The reasoning could only be circular to a Protestant with no objective standard for determining truth, depending solely upon his own subjective interpretation of Catholic scriptures. Catholics have such an objective standard, even if they sometimes forget to use it. If one detects error coming from the pope according to objective standard, one knows immediately upon detection that the utterance is not ex cathedra. What could be more straightforward than that?