[dangus]

>> Would this be a bad time to mention that several of the Popes were condemned as heretics by the Councils? <<

No, but it would be a incorrect. I get Honorius and Liberius mixed up, but there was one incident where a council condemned a letter which was believed to have been issued by a Pope who was being persecuted by Emperor Constantinus. The council did not condemn the Pope, but only the letter. In any event, three things are relevant:

1. The belief the Pope signed the letter was a false inference from lies by Constantinus.
2. The council declined to condemn the Pope.
3. Even if the Pope had signed the letter, it would have been a sin, since it would have sown much confusion, but could a letter extracted through torture, hundreds of miles away from the Papal see, possibly be understood to be ex cathedra?

If you have any other citations of a council condemn a Pope as proclaiming heresies, please do share. The incident I described is explained in "Pope Fiction," but the author engaged in written "debates" after the publication. No-one proffered any better examples than the one I cited.

[monkfan]

If you have any other citations of a council condemn a Pope as proclaiming heresies, please do share.

Nope, I sure don't. But the Church has had no shortage of naughty Patriarchs, the See of Rome being no exception. Given that, we're disinclined to recognize any one bishop, Pope or otherwise, as being infallible, even when speaking ex cathedra. Call us paranoid if you like. ;)