http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04310a.htm
"There has been in the past, owing to Gallicanism and the opponents of papal infallibility, much controversy concerning the proper sense of this council's condemnation of Pope Honorius, the theory (Baronius, Damberger) of a falsification of the Acts being now quite abandoned (Hefele, III, 299-313). Some have maintained, with Pennacchi, that he was indeed condemned as a heretic, but that the Oriental bishops of the council misunderstood the thoroughly orthodox (and dogmatic) letter of Honorius; others, with Hefele, that the council condemned the heretically sounding expressions of the pope (though his doctrine was really orthodox); others finally, with Chapman (see below), that he was condemned..."
blah blah blah. You guys might want to figure out which lie is the best and then stick to it. It would do wonders for your credibility.
Even presuming the worst slander, Pope Honorius did not mandate that the false doctrine be held as true; he stated that it may be taught. This would have been done under severe duress, and with no intention of teaching the flock.
Not heresy, just accessory to heresy? Hokay!
As for the condemnation of the Filioque, I believe you refer to a Pope who instructed that it not be said. This is quite a different thing than declaring that it is false; he did so in attempt to make peace with the schismatics who opposed it.
Don't kid yourself. The condemnation of the Filioque went far beyond politics. The Filioque is logically absurd. St. Photios made this clear. Pope John VIII was no doubt aware of it. Now you want to talk like Rome was just throwing us a pacifier. That's mighty crass.
Of course, the fact that those schismatics now use the olive branch to lash the papacy says much more about the schismatics than the papacy. Paul VI instructed that masses be ordinarily conducted in the vernacular; that doesn't mean that Latin masses were heretical.
The only thing we are lashing you with is the truth. Something you have obviously lost your taste for.
And, um, yes, that is (part of) the definition of "infallible" to which I refer. Reads pretty clear to me that they did not mean "impeccable" or "inerrant." There's a little problemmatic fuzz...
as opposed to clarity. Thank you.
...as to how directly the Pope has to invoke infallibility. (i.e., is an encyclical automatically infallible, or does the Pope specifically need to say that the content of the encyclical states teachings which are obligatory for the faithful?)
And here we go. Shifting and hem-hawing, just as I anticipated. Thanks for not dissappointing me.
Drop me a note when your vision clears.