Crisis in the Church / Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?« Last post by SeanJohnson on Today at 07:20:14 PM »
No. I just added a citation above. It's because, IF (and it's highly debated) he did sign the formulae, he did so under duress, and it was not a free act (akin to the Paul VI was being blackmailed over sodomy position).Same thing with Vatican II:
It was not an act of the Magisterium period. At best it was a personal act. Whatever he signed was in no way being taught to the Universal Church.
Whatever is novel is ipso facto relegated to the level of the authentic magisterium, and to be equated with the public pronunciations of a private doctor.
That these counterfeit teachings use the organs of the Church to diffuse them adds to the deception, but is ultimately irrelevant.
What is relevant is that just as the general hierarchy followed Liberius (despite his teaching being non-binding), so too have they followed the conciliar popes (who have not lost their offices because of these heretical teachings, because they are opinions of private doctors publicly diffused).
If you want to then retort that a heretic cannot be pope, we are back to the same old Bellarmine/Cajetan/JST opinions that an heretical pope does not lose his office without the intervention of the Church vs the false sede interpretation of Bellarmine which pretends he loses it ipso facto even before the Church pronounces the defection.