And you consider the Council to have been in error when they with one voice cried,
“To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”
It’s not my position, I’m defending, but the position of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: besides the formal cry of anathema naming him heretic, there are at least two other places in the Acta that explicitly condemn him for heresy, one of which I quoted. Being soft on monotheletism was bad enough for the Fathers to condemn him as a heretic, the views of the worthy saints you listed to the contrary notwithstanding.
I refer you to my prior to responses. I did not say the council was in error. I outlined the sense in which the term is to be understood with respect to Honorius; based on Pope St. Agatho's letter - accepted by the Council - which asserted the orthodoxy of his predecessors; and the See of Rome being free from doctrinal error - thereby excluding Honorius once again.
I believe what I have outlined preserves the council from the charge of error. Rather, it is your thesis that puts the council into error. That is, if it is as you would seem to have it: that the Council believed Honorius was 'minded contrary to the faith'; then you must conclude the Council erred in accepting St. Agatho's letter which implicitly insists the opposite.
"...this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things..."
Your logic, if followed, would mean that the council erred in accepting St. Agatho's letter. Rather, I see no reason to accuse the council of error at all. St. Agatho's letter, the Council's acceptance of it, and the Council's judgment re Honorius are perfectly consistent.
It’s not my position, I’m defending, but the position of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: besides the formal cry of anathema naming him heretic, there are at least two other places in the Acta that explicitly condemn him for heresy, one of which I quoted.
I don't see that this statement impacts or responds to anything I've said up to now. You quote the Fathers of the Council, but you are not open to the full context of the case or the council (e.g., what Honorius actually said ["define nothing"], St. Agatho's letter, St. Leo II's view, the saints who defended Honorius, etc). You are excluding evidence, as if you have blinders on, which makes your thesis untenable.
I've agreed, the Council called him a "heretic", but I have shown how and why this must be understood in the sense that he 'fostered' the heresy through negligence. As St. Agatho said, apparently with Honorius in mind, "woe" to the one who 'covers over the truth in silence.' The blame of such one is similar to the one who teaches the lie explicity; but the action or inaction are of two different sorts as one considers it in relation to what the teaching of papal infallibility actually entails.
Honorius was not the one to teach the lie (he said he "defines nothing"); rather he failed to teach the truth and was severely faulted for it...and that is perfectly consistent with the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility, i.e., the popes are protected when they teach ex cathedra, and not when they don't (as with Honorius)!
Being soft on monotheletism was bad enough for the Fathers to condemn him as a heretic, the views of the worthy saints you listed to the contrary notwithstanding.
The point of mentioning the saints (e.g., St. Maximus, etc) was not that they defended Honorius with regard to whether he properly exercised his office or not; rather they defended him specifically on the question of whether he taught the heresy or was himself a monothelite. That is a good witness against the accusation he was a monothelite - unless you want to call these saints, such as Maximus, Agatho, Leo II, heretics. Regarding the nature of the council's condemnation, I have already addressed that question.