Replies

It seems to me not terribly productive for us lambs to speculate on whether he could be deposed and who could do it,

He cannot be, without his consent, and thus you are stuck with him just as you are with proabortion, prosodomy public figures that Rome manifestly affirms as members in life and in death

We are, however, entitled to distance ourselves from him and even to disobey him when he asks us to help him betray the duties of his high office—out of love for that very office.

But that presumes that the duty of the flock is to determine whether the judgment of the pope is correct (which RCs condemn Bible Christians for doing), vs the pope - from whom (in RC teaching) flows the power of the rest of the clergy - being the supreme judge of just what is the meaning of Catholic teaching. The only way out is to relegate the forms of teaching that Francis is condemned for to being simply personal opinions. But which means that it is a duty of the flock to determine which magisterial level each teaching falls under. Which again leads to divisions.

Instead we have the broad papal requirements to basically submit to all public papal teaching. For:

'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)

'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)

I hope some of our 'faithful' FR Catholics have gone to confession; repenting over what they have posted here!!

...other public documents...