2. Fortunately, I don't have to argue with him since what you have posted from Summa Theologica seems much more relevant to the ongoing medieval controversies within Christendom over the misbehavior of monarchs (i.e., lay investiture of bishops) than it does with raging rebellious BISHOPS who take it upon themselves to exercise the power to appoint bishops which is reserved to the Holy See. God help us! In the time of Aquinas, diocese were probably still choosing their own bishops by popular acclamation. Archbishop Cordileone would not likely be elected Archbishop of San Fransicko where he is the last link with civilization.
Nice try.
Any similar attempts will bring the reminder that Aquinas also believed that the unborn infant did not become a human being until "quickening." I have little doubt that Aquinas, if he were among us today, and shown Pope Saint John Paul II's encyclical The Gospel of Life, would say "How about that I must have been wrong! I submit to his authority." I also suspect Aquinas, if appointed an Inquisitor to sit in judgment on Marcel the Defiant, would have had no problem turning him over to be burned at the stake if he refused to repent. Those were the good old days!
At first I thought you were a cafeteria catholic, by choosing which popes were right and which popes were wrong.
But I’ve now seen that you have admitted you are a sedevacancist.
Your denial of the dogma of EENS also makes one a material heretic.