We reject the Novus Ordo Mass simply because it is promulgated by an anti-Pope,

Do you think that rejecting an Ecunemical Council and a Liturgical Rite promulgated by the legitimate Pope is true obedience in any way?

Also, I notice another contradiction in your position. Whereas you reject Vatican II Council and the conciliar Popes on the basis of not having defined any "dogmas" or ex-cathedra statements; you are rather quick to condemn Pope Honorius of formal heresy when it is obvious that he did not engage the infallible Magisterium, defined any doctrine, or pronounce an ex-cathedra statement. 

Regarding the case of Pope Honorius, I could take side with the Gallicans and other enemies of the Papacy on his case, but as a Roman Catholic why in the world should I ever do that?

I rather take side with the Church fathers in Vatican I Council when defining the dogma of Papal Infallibility, as well Pope Leo XII when in the letter of confirmation of the Council, when he clearly interprets it as intending to criticize Honorius not for error of belief, but rather for "imprudent economy of silence". In other words,  he was condemned, not for having taught error, nor as a formal heretic, but only for not acting proactively against the propagation of Monotheletism.

This is the Catholic version.

Also, I notice another contradiction in your position. Whereas you reject Vatican II Council and the conciliar Popes on the basis of not having defined any "dogmas" or ex-cathedra statements; you are rather quick to condemn Pope Honorius of formal heresy when it is obvious that he did not engage the infallible Magisterium, defined any doctrine, or pronounce an ex-cathedra statement.

It is the quintessential sign of the heretic and the schismatic to think and act in hostility against the Roman Pontiff.  

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg586898/#msg586898
 
D. M. Drew:
There are a number of problems with your reply to Sr. Marianne Lorraine Trouve on December 20.
 
Firstly, no Church father or doctor or magisterial docuмent has ever claimed that each individual pope possessed a "never-failing faith."  St. Thomas and Rev. Haydock do not even address the question in their commentaries.  Rev. Cornelius a Lapide in his great Commentary specifically addresses this question and says that the "never-failing faith" was a personal grace granted to St. Peter alone.  The promise to his successors was that they would never engage the Church's attribute of infallibility to teach error.  Pope Honorius was declared a heretic by at the Sixth Ecuмenical Council that was approved by the Pope Leo II. It matters not whether his heresy was formal or only material except to Honorius himself.  If the pope is taken as the rule of faith, then he must be preserved from even material heresy because for the faithful following his example it would make no difference.
 
Furthermore, there is not logical contradiction between Infallibility and a pope being a heretic and more than the heretic, Caiaphas being the high priest, who was a Sadducee and denied the doctrine of the resurrection, prophesized being the High Priest, that Christ should die for the nation. Even Balaam's Ass can be used by God to teach the truth.  
St. Thomas' denying the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with this argument. St. Robert Bellarmine may or may be correct that a pope has never fallen into formal heresy but the point is moot. Again, it makes no difference whatsoever, except to the pope himself, whether or not the heresy is formal or merely material...

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg587166/#msg587166
This is a good point, Mr. Drew. Whether the heresy is material or formal, is completely irrelevant as the effect would be the same.

First off, I don't care if he was a heretic or not.  I'm not the one who thinks papal heresy affects his chair (unless the Church deposes him).  It is irrelevant to my "agenda" whether Honorius believed the heresy, or simply kept quiet.

Secondly, there are 9 ways to be an accessory to someone else's sin - silence being one of them.  And since the pope has the SUPREME duty to condemn error, and Honorious did not, then it's logical to say that his silence accepted the heresy, in some degree - and the pope to a higher degree is guilty, since his duty is greater.  As St Thomas Moore, a lawyer, always said of the law:  "Silence gives consent".  Thus, it is just that Honorius is connected to heresy and rightly condemned.

But really, it doesn't matter if he was a heretic officially.  He's not one in the same manner as the V2 popes, but you're the one who thinks this matters, not I.In conclusion, Cantarella, your above statement then is retarded.  You're saying that Drew has a contradiction because he treats V2 popes the same as Honorius.  I explained that the treatment being the same is not a contradiction.  Then you said the situations AREN'T the same, and my explanation is wrong.  Well...YOU'RE THE ONE WHO SAID THEY SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You even contradict yourself in a matter of posts.  Amazing.

The Church cannot depose a Pope. All it can do is recognise the seat as having been vacant.