God preserves the Church from ex-cathedra error which we are boiund to believe for salvation and if Popes make private error, this can be ignored - Matt 23:1-3
But we are strictly bound to maintain submission:
"We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.
Well, where have I disputed this? Your pontificating on this point (pardon the pun) implies that I reject or question it. I do not. That you imply that I do is one example among several of the strawmen you've decided to erect and tear down in this thread in lieu of addressing my actual points.
Ask any Sedevacantist on the forum - I am not one of their rank. I find it to be an untenable solution to the current crisis as, with each year that the supposed "vacancy" persists, it grows closer and closer to formally contradicting the infallible definition of the First Vatican Council that St. Peter would have perpetual successors.
In all of the damnable mess of this Modernist Crisis, from the Council on down to today there has been but one ex Cathedra pronouncement which demands of me the submission of my will and intellect - and that is Pope John Paul II's formal prohibition against the idea of "ordination of women" to the priesthood. And I accept, affirm and submit to that pronouncement, tranquilly and happily.
But where error is pronounced or gravely sacrilegeous scandal is committed, it will not do to merely "ignore." These must be actively, openly opposed. The majority of Conciliar Catholics ignorantly believe that anything a pope says or does is infallible and enjoys the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Thus, the danger to souls posed by these scandals and errors is very real, and our opposition to them - over and above merely "ignoring" them - is necessary to protect not only our own Faith but also that of these poor ignorant souls. This does not constitute a "refusal of submission" to the Roman Pontiff; rather quite the opposite. It is a total submission to the Roman Pontiff - all of them, 2000 years' worth, whose past judgments and pronouncements in defense of Tradition still bind us today. So condemnation of Assisi does not constitute a "refusal of submission" to Pope John Paul II, but an act of total submission to Pope Pius XI, whose pronouncements in Mortalium Animos still bind us today - and a holy and Catholic desire to see the postconciliar pontiffs affirm and submit to those selfsame pronouncements which bind them as well.
"I make no judgments about about the intentions and interior dispositions of these men; I make no judgements on their formal guilt or innocence."
Yes you do and unjustly so. Your reasoning is gibbersih and your "opinions" (and in the case of Fr Martin "his guilt") do not in anyway void the credibility of the testimonies of him or Fr Amorth. Rejecting the witness of Fr Amorth, because he may believe in Medjugoje, is saying because of this he must be a liar, which is absurd.
No one is speaking of "guilt" but you, Andy.
To wit: Fr. Amorth praises an apparition which itself unambiguously advocates the condemned error of religious indifferentism. I do not say he sins in so doing. I do not say that all else that comes from his mouth are lies. I say that it damages his credibility.
It does so in much the same way that the credibility of, say, an antiques appraiser would be damaged if he were on record praising the craftsmanship of a vase he attributes to the Han dynasty... a vase which he has only to turn over to find "Made in Mexico" printed on its base.
The reason for you lack of objectivity, is because you dishonestly skew your appraisals for fear that finding yourself wrong (which you are - and very!) and thus you will be indicted for all the hate and self-exaltation you have directed against the conciliar church under a mask of false piety and which you presently hide in your soul in false justification.
Irrational, emotionalistic pap.
Are you so frustrated in this debate, Andy, that you will toss your rational faculties to the wind so blithely; that you will criticize me for "lacking objectivity" and in the very same breath, dare to declare on behalf of Almighty God His impending "indictment" against me for my "dishonesty," "hate" and "self-exaltation" and "false justification," which you state that I "hide in (my) soul?"
How long have you had the gift of reading hearts, Andy?
Does it bother you that the repeated and rigorous distinctions I have made between the objective judgments I am required to make (and thus do) and the subjective judgments I am forbidden to make (and thus do not) now stand in stark relief in this thread against your own pronouncements on not only my interior dispositions
(subjective judgment) but also the outcome of my particular Judgment by Almighty God
(usurpation of judgment)?
I am satisfied that my arguments have respected the Thomistic distinctions between objective and subjective judgments far more than yours. Which of us was the more "vapid" and which of us employed "gibberish" in his reasoning? Let the reader read and decide; but, far more importantly, let Almighty God Who alone
knows men's hearts and Who alone
Judges men's souls accordingly, decide. His Will be done.