[mas cerveza por favor]

do you think the Council erred? Do you think they committed an injustice against Honorius?

Perhaps to be "Roman-ically correct," one should conclude that the council cannot err because it is infallible since it was certified by the pope. However not all council statements "define a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church." Disciplinary action is not a definition of faith or morals. St. Joan of Arc was condemned to death by a council but was later exonerated. So disciplinary actions against individuals are not infallible. The condemnation of Honorius' heresy is infallible but not the condemnation of the man.

[Diamond]

However not all council statements "define a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church."

[snip]

The condemnation of Honorius' heresy is infallible but not the condemnation of the man.

These two statements seem mutually exlcusive and contradictory. How could a teaching even be called a heresy in the first place without "defining a doctrine regarding faith" ?? And further, how could the condemnation of the heresy be called "infallible" if it did not "define a doctrine regarding faith"?

That doesn't make any sense.

Cordially,

[kosta50]

Perhaps to be "Roman-ically correct," one should conclude that the council cannot err because it is infallible since it was certified by the pope

No, that's not true at all. The Church as a whole cannot fail because it is believed the HS protects her and guides her. And an ecumenical council is a General council of the whole Church.