You can not imagine my frustration!!!
I had a post all ready and pretty and such, and when i clicked submit I was horrified to see "Invalid Session" and to see that my entire post was *poof* gone.
well, I went over this post with an Orthodox friend of mine, and since I'm too tired to rewrite everything, I'll just post what he had to say based on the following quotes:
"If a pope decides he himself wants to believe in a non-trinitarian God, that would not be a violation of infallibility, UNLESS he were to declare his this heretical beliefs as a dogma (teaching) of the Church."
If the Pope believes in a non-trinitarian God, it may not be a violation of infallibility, provided that he does not officially teach his heretical belief as a dogma of the Church. But if he believes that, and makes that belief of his public, even if he doesn't bind the Church to believing that, he is a heretic. Saint Robert Bellarmine teaches that if a Pope believes in heresy, he ceases to become the Pope. But who can judge the Pope to determine if he believes heresy? There is, in Roman Catholicism, no authority above a Pope. The Cardinals could not just vote for a new Pope, because there is one already existing who hasn't been deposed or removed from office because *no one can do that*. An ecumenical council of the entire Church cannot be summoned to judge the Pope and depose him for his heresy because 1) an ecumenical council, according to the RCC, is summoned, presided over, and approved by a Pope, and such a Pope is not likely to cooperate with his own judgement, and 2) the teaching of the council of Constance (?) that the ecumenical council is above a Pope was rejected by the RCC.
So we have a contradiction: Saint Robert says that a Pope who is a heretic ceases by that fact to be the Pope, but in order to be a heretic, the Church must officially proclaim you as such, and in order to do that, you must be judged as one by a superior authority, but the way the system is now, there is no one superior to a Pope except the Holy Trinity. So infallibility may not technically come into play here, but there is a more subtle question. Can the Pope ever really become a heretic, even if he doesn't force his teaching on the Church? Saint Robert takes it as a given and provides for what should happen if he does become one, but the way the system is, there's no way to practically carry that out. The actual definition may not preclude him becoming a heretic, but certainly the substance of the dogma would seem to argue in favour of the Pope being prevented from becoming a heretic, because even that would be too dangerous.
"It should be noted that Honorius neither taught nor affirmed any heresies, but rather remained silent concerning a specific one. By todays standards, silence cannot be construed as heresy. However, his error was one of morals, remaining silent when correction should have been administered. This is the "heresy" that some subsequent popes refer to. Silence on an issue even ex cathedra cannot be considered infallible. Only a public declaration ex cathedra on matters of faith or morals is considered to be infallible. The pope is not immune to personal sin. He sins like the rest of us."
According to canons that existed in the undivided Church (and to my knowledge, these have never been rejected by the RCC, although, because the Pope is considered the highest "legal" authority, what he says goes, ancient canons notwithstanding), you could completely reject the heretical beliefs of a bishop, but if you still maintained full communion with him, you too were a heretic, not because you positively believed what he taught, but because you were indifferent to it.
Saint Basil the Great, while yet a deacon, broke communion with his own bishop because of his heretical beliefs; today we remember Saint Basil, but most of us forget who his bishop was. For a subordinate (like Basil in that position) to reject his superior (the bishop) as a heretic, is a bold move, and some would say irresponsible. But that is how seriously the principle implied in this canon was taken by the Church. You could preserve the true faith. You could reject the heretical beliefs of a bishop. But if you preserved communion with that bishop, in spite of his heretical beliefs, even if you didn't espouse them, you also were a heretic. It is not a stretch of the imagination, therefore, to think that Honorius' "silence" concerning Monothelitism was more than enough to deem him a heretic in matters of faith at that time.
Furthermore, the concept of proclamations ex cathedra is not something that was known back then, from all I've read. In the undivided Church, there was no disconnect between "what I believe" and "what I officially teach in my official position" that I know of. If you believed something, you taught it. If it was wrong, you were a heretic. It is very simple. It seems to me that the current RC position (if what I'm gathering from this is indeed the current RC position) that a Pope can personally believe heresy, but not be a heretic unless he officially teaches it as a binding teaching for the whole Church, is somewhat erroneous.
Bishops in the undivided Church were caught for heresy simply for believing heresy, even if they didn't expect anyone else to believe it, even if they taught it as one option among several, etc. Whether they recanted or not was up to the individual, but the Church did get them.
At any rate, it was Sergius of Constantinople who came up with the first idea for the heresy (which I think was one of several attempts at reconciling the Monophysites and bringing them back into the Church), which he ran by Honorius. It was Honorius who took that teaching, written in a letter, and taught something different in a reply letter to Sergius, and Sergius ran with it. What Honorius taught in that letter was Monothelitism, a heresy.
I would like to see documentation from those councils that condemned Honorius in order to determine whether it was for his silence, or for his heretical teaching, that he was condemned. In either event, it is not correct to apply "today's standards" to a seventh century issue.
The above was him, he also made the statements that whether or not "ex cathedra" was how he made his belief known, he was condemned by subsequent popes for at least a hundred years, and still far before infallibility was ever defined, and even condemned and judged by an ecumenical council. Didn't think anyone could judge or condemn a pope, but an ecumenical council did...
I had other things to say, but they were in my other post, which is now non-existent, and that's so very frustrating...sigh...so I'm just exhausted now, and I'm gonna take a rest.