[Claud]

I don’t see the contradiction with what I posted.

Honorius promoted/allowed a heresy, and he was posthumously anathematized. Anathematized meaning he ceased to become Catholic.

But—note well—in this case Honorius was never deposed. He died in 638 still Pope. He was followed by eight more Popes. Then, 40 years having passed, we got Pope St. Agatho and the condemnation of Honorius.

So in all this forty years, was there anyone arguing that Honorius left his see vacant and all the Popes from Severinus on were not true popes?

You can’t mentally convict a Pope of heresy and then just decide that he is therefore not Pope, or that subsequent Popes are not valid. You may have your personal opinion and that’s fine. But for it to be binding, it has to be done officially and ratified by a Pope and Council, the way the 6th Ecumenical Council anathematized Honorius or the Council of Constance settled the Avignon mess. If Francis or any modern pope needed to be anathematized, it’d have to be by the same process.

And that stands to reason right? Or else every dummy could just go around inventing their own arbitrary papal lines and claimants.

[Repent and Believe]

To answer just one of your remarks for now (more in a later post).

Thus addressing your remark: “You can’t mentally convict a Pope of heresy and then just decide that he is therefore not Pope, ...But for it to be binding, it has to be done officially and ratified by a Pope and Council...”

Binding is taken care of by God. I can live my life freely based on what God has bound as long as I am aware of it. A manifest heretic cannot be pope and is already judged by God as such.

The expression of my opinions are important to the Church, for it can be at times through the assistance of a layman’s or a combination of movements exhibited by the flock that the Church comes to declare something as binding. (Just as the bleating of the sheep can call to the attention of the shepherd that an enemy has infiltrated the flock.)

It is thus, that as I attend faithfully the Mass as it has been said properly for centuries by the Church, said by a Priest ordained in the apostolic line of succession, yet while not accepting imposters as pope, that I become a sign to the Church such that she may soon declare some official pronouncements against recent claimants to the chair, all with the aid of my “bleating”!

How many sheep must be eaten before a sheep is allowed to bleat out its alarm at the presence of a false shepherd? Must it await permission from the shepherd to bring something to his attention (or doesn’t it always have his permission, as in “PRAY always.”)?

[Repent and Believe]

“Honorius promoted/allowed a heresy, and he was posthumously anathematized. Anathematized meaning he ceased to become Catholic.

But—note well—in this case Honorius was never deposed. He died in 638 still Pope. He was followed by eight more Popes. Then, 40 years having passed, we got Pope St. Agatho and the condemnation of Honorius.”

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_

From what source(s) does this information hail? (What publication so reports that Honorius was anathematized and condemned)?

[piusv]

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case;

How does this not apply to your stated case? At Vatican I, this question was asked. The answer was "there was never such a case". How does Honorius suddenly become such a case? Wouldn't the Cardinals at Vatican I know the correct history of the Church? It is clear that Honorius' situation is not the same and Catholics need to stop using him as an example to "prove" that popes can be manifest heretics and remain the head of the Church.