"A Pope cannot then be guilty of heresy". Right?
"Pope" Honorius was convicted of heresy and anathematized by the 6th Ecumenical Council. Right?
Honorius either wasn't a Pope or the Pope is not infallible when teaching on matters of faith or morals. Right?
Wrong. Certainly a part of it, but not the whole. See below.
"A Pope cannot then be guilty of heresy". Right?
Wrong. He certainly can be. See below.
"Pope" Honorius was convicted of heresy and anathematized by the 6th Ecumenical Council. Right?
Got one right. Thus disproving one or both of the above.
Honorius either wasn't a Pope or the Pope is not infallible when teaching on matters of faith or morals. Right?
A logical conclusion based on incorrect assumptions. Thus incorrect. (But in a very logical way). :-)
"A Pope cannot then be guilty of heresy". Right?
"Pope" Honorius was convicted of heresy and anathematized by the 6th Ecumenical Council. Right?
Honorius either wasn't a Pope or the Pope is not infallible when teaching on matters of faith or morals. Right?
The last time I checked, Peter denied being a disciple of Jesus three times, right?
I guess we're all human, right?
Jimmy Swaggert and Jimmy Baker were perfect in all ways, right? (Maybe you became a fundamentalist after that incident, if you need, which you do, more information, just ask)
Humanity alone cannot avoid sin, right?
It takes God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (or whatever you want to call what came at the Pentecost), right?
Were these not my words-"...infallibility does not mean absent from sin, or somehow supernatural."
Was Honorius preaching from the "Chair of Peter?"
tHe AnTiLiB