AES: This is quite a non-answer. The question you asked, I've answered many times. We must denounce the man claiming to be Pope because of many reasons. One big one is converts to the faith. If we are converting someone and are telling them about the Dogma about subjection to the Roman Pontiff or Pope Pius IX's teaching about obedience to the Pope, how can we expect them to adhere to these teachings when we claim we don't "always" need to be obedient? We would have to tell them that we can determine when we have to be obedient, that's not Catholic. This is where the teaching about membership in the Church comes in and the fact that we are not in communion with heretics nor should we ever consider heretics our Pope.
This is already way, way beyond ridiculous. You asked: "If we are converting someone and are telling them about the Dogma about subjection to the Roman Pontiff or Pope Pius IX's teaching about obedience to the Pope, how can we expect them to adhere to these teachings when we claim we don't "always" need to be obedient?" Because you must start with the elementary and fundamental Catholic principle that we are not permitted to obey anyone, not even the pope if by obeying means sinning. Exactly what is it about this simple Catholic principle that you do not understand anyway?
Were you ever taught as a child, or ever, that we are not bound to obey anyone, not even the pope, if by obeying means sinning?
AES: As far as your "we are to be subject to God first" statement, this implies that it is not something that God revealed to us, that we must be subject to his Vicar on Earth. You act as though being subject to the Pope is not being subject to God or vice-versa. Being subject to the Pope IS being subject to God.
WHAT?? This probably the most ridiculous thing you have EVER posted. The pope is NOT God - give me a flipping break! The pope did not create the universe out of nothing, nor did he split the Red Sea, do any miracles or etc. ad nausem. We MUST disobey him if obeying him means sinning - were you ever taught this?
I take for granted that all Catholics know this or were taught this and live by this basic Catholic principle, but I am obviously wrong, particularly for those not born and raised in the true faith. But now that you know this, I do not understand how you cannot apply this to the whole "pope problem" you sede's have - and the reason you would apply it is in order to be in adherence with the dogma.
AES: This is why I don't like arguing this with you. You ignore what the argument is and the one I'm making. You ignore the teaching in cum ex and often cite a different part that is not relevant. A person who's a heretic before election cannot be elected. Even if he could, as soon as the election is over, he would still be a heretic and have no lawful authority in the Church since he is not part of it. You argue with me as if I believe these recent claimants somehow were elected, were valid Popes, and then lost their office. I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS.
I do not ignore what the argument is, nor the teaching of Cum ex. I am simply trying to convince you that we have no authority *or reason*, nor are we even permitted to decide the status of the pope.
I am arguing the core, which is the fact that you do not understand or refuse to accept the indisputable fact that it does not matter whether you "believe this" or not - per the dogma. We have no choice in the matter - per the dogma. You cannot prove the pope is not the pope, and if you could, because you are nobody, it still would not matter - per the dogma. You must be subject to the man elected and accepted as pope - that is dogma.
The Church has never given anyone the luxury or option of deciding the status of the man elected by all the cardinals and accepted as pope by the whole world - that man is the pope. No matter how heretical or how evil, no matter how great or holy, after he is elected we have no reason, absolutely, positively zero reason whatsoever to decide his status as long as we remain faithful and faithful to the fundamental Catholic principle that teaches if obeying him means sinning, we are not bound to obey him.
What is so difficult to accept about this?