And how are we to know that the council is a true council? Even true councils can act and teach in error when they are not doing so in union with the pope. 

Quote from: Clemens Maria

"Private interpretation" is a loaded term.  It has bad connotations.  And I think it is being used in the wrong context here.  To see why, consider the Great Western Schism.  Was St. Catherine of Siena using private interpretation when she submitted to Pope Urban VI?  At the same time, was St. Vincent Ferrer using private interpretation when he submitted to Clement VII?  If you read about the circuмstances you will understand why it was difficult to know at the time who was the true Roman Pontiff.  We are all responsible for identifying where the Church is.  If some man wearing a roman collar opens a church in your neighborhood and claims to be the Catholic Church, you are responsible for knowing whether his claim is true or not.  Sometimes it will be very easy to know and other times it will be more difficult.  We happen to be living in a time when it is more difficult.  But it was also difficult during the Great Western Schism and we had multiple saints who chose the wrong guy and were still canonized afterwards.  But in the GWS case, at least both claimants actually professed the Catholic faith.  Today, the guy wearing the white cassock is worshipping demons and yet still Catholics are calling him the pope.  I'm not expecting those Catholics to be canonized when the smoke clears.

forlorn's response:
Well that's kinda the point. The fact that even learned and holy saints guessed wrong proves the peril of private interpretation, and the fact that people were left to private interpretation as to who the pope was is largely why the Schism lasted so long. Most likely not even the popes themselves were sure who the real pope was. My point is that any General Council to depose a heretical pope would lead us to a situation just as bad as the GWS at the very least by virtue of the fact it'd split the Church in two, with Catholics forced to use private interpretation to decide which side is correct.

Nope, that's not what they believe.

Care to elaborate?

Have you yet affirmed or denied that you are either Siscoe or Salza?

Ladislaus: To me it seems that the entire argument of S&S is that the Pope continues to have full papal authority until it's declared otherwise by the Church in a General Council.

Affirmed.

... God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.