Yep.  As I said, you clowns don't even believe in the Magisterium, the existence of a teaching AUTHORITY extrinsic to and formally distinct from the truths themselves.  So John Paul II writing an encyclical is the same as some poster on CI?  You're hopelessly daft and have gone completely astray from Catholicism.  This is the logical consequence of Drew's "dogma is the rule of faith" garbage.

Since you're a person who, up until a couple of years ago, thought the Magisterium was nothing other than the hierarchy, I don't think you should be trying to teach anybody about the Magisterium or debating anything about it. Just my opinion. Also, the person that heeds anything you say about it would be quite foolish.

I have said nothing regarding the personal guilt of Pope Honorius excepting that the matter is of no importance to anyone except Pope Honorius. It is a historical fact that two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective popes, more than two hundred years apart, condemned Pope Honorius by name for the crime of "heresy" and "anathematized" him again by name.

So what are you claiming? Pope Honorius was not guilty of "heresy" and two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective popes erred in their condemnation? Or that Pope Honorius' heresy was only material and not formal? So what! For those who make the pope their rule of faith, it makes no difference whatsoever if the pope's error is formal or only material. The consequences are the same.

Those who worship the pope seem very anxious about this fact but the effort to excuse Pope Honorius creates a much bigger problem. The claim that the popes possess a personal never-failing faith is not true. Those who keep peddling this myth should simply read the biblical commentaries that draw upon the Church Fathers and Doctors and previous Popes. Not St. Thomas' Commentary, not Rev. George Haydock's Commentary, nor the Great Commentary of Rev. Cornelius a Lapide claim that any Church Father ever held this opinion. It's not as if it were debated question. Not one held this opinion that every pope possesses a personal never-failing faith. As previously posted, Lapide brings it up only to directly and explicitly deny it.

They do the same thing with St. Peter, who did possess a personal never-failing faith, by claiming that the problem with Judaizers was a simple matter of discipline rather than a grave doctrinal and moral error which it most certainly was and remains today. It would have eventually made the Church of Jesus Christ a sect within the ѕуηαgσgυє. They also ignore the fact, as St. Thomas affirms, that faith can be denied by actions as well as words. It can also be denied by failing to act when duty obligates. The "dissembling" of St. Peter lead St. Barnabas into the same error that had been corrected at the Council of Jerusalem. If St. Paul had not "withstood him to the face," he would have continued to lead others into the same grave error. The accusation was for falling away from the "truth of the gospel."  That is a most serious charge, not a question of simple discipline.

This is why we pray for the pope.

Drew

So all of the other popes do not have a promise of "never ending faith" like St. Peter, right? So when Francis ratifies in the future an ecuмenical council's decree that there can be women priests........

From your last post:These are Protestant heresies. Putting laymen interpreters on the level of Bishops and declaring we owe no religious assent to their teachings. Yes their ordinary teachings are fallible, but we are still obliged to give them religious assent. You are falling into the exact same trap the "reformers" of the Reformation did.

As I said before, spoken like a true NOer.

Novus Ordo'er? I'm a sedevacantist.

I was only born and raised a trad. You must have studied your errors under +Sanborn not long after we left him due to his preaching of errors. So to you, yes, I'm the one that has completely lost touch with Catholicism. See how that works?