[ultima ratio]

No, it is your premises which are wrong. You wrongly assume the Pope is superior to Tradition itself, whereas he is only its protector. His office exists to guard the deposit of faith, not to undermine it. When he assaults that tradition, handed down from apostolic times, he supercedes his own authority and must be disobeyed. This is because the faith itself comes before the papacy, not the other way around.

I think it's instructive how you deal with this. You do not use actual arguments, you use verbal abuse. This has been your tactic from the beginning. When this hasn't worked, you use sarcasm or ridicule. You will post the arguments of others on occasion. What you don't do is trust your own reasoning. I don't wonder at this since your reasoning is bankrupt. There are no arguments to use against what is so compellingly self-evident. So you hurl insults.

If you had been paying attention, you would know I never said 40 popes were FORMALLY heretical, but stated they had been materially so. I posted comments making this clear several times. I stated that Robert Sungenis on CAI, in one of his posts criticizing this Pope for the Assisi prayer meetings, pointed out that Vatican I had documented more than 40 popes who had been theologically mistaken about Catholic doctrines in serious ways. I have repeatedly given this source and you either haven't read it or choose to ignore it.

[Catholicguy]

<> Wrong. I provided a link that puts the lie to that false charge. I have never said the Pope is superior to tradition. The rest of that paraghraph is pure protestantism amasquerading as traditiuonalism. Pathetic

I couldn't care less about how you charcaterise my approach. You are an SOS COWboy (Slave of Satan, Church of Winona boy) and I think that fetching appelation for you.

You STILL haven't provided any evidence for material heresy of the Popes. You STILL cite it...Pathetic SOS COWboy<>