[ultima ratio]

That is not my position. Only ex cathedra statements on faith and morals are universally binding--and they are never novelties. JPII would not dare attempt to make one of his novel beliefs binding on the universal Church. Were he to attempt to do so, his own legitimacy as pope would immediately be called into question.

[pegleg]

That is not my position.

So if you agree no errors have been introduced into the Universal Church in matters of Faith and Morals why aren’t you in communion with the Bishop of Rome?

[gbcdoj]

JPII would not dare attempt to make one of his novel beliefs binding on the universal Church. Were he to attempt to do so, his own legitimacy as pope would immediately be called into question.

I think that if the Pope were to write in such a manner he would be accused of denying Papal infallibility.

If the Pope were to impose something upon the universal Church as binding (with required interior assent), such a judgment would be infallible and have a note of at least ecclesiastical faith. The only legitimacy that could be called into question would be the Catholic legitimacy of the detractors of said definition.

[saradippity]

Only ex cathedra statements on faith and morals are universally binding--and they are never novelties.

I just love watching you and the Modernists march in goose step regards ex cathedra statements. Every new church catechechism class I have attended says exactly that,then the "facilitators" cite the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption as the two examples of the only ex cathedra pronouncements in recent history.

Using your argumentation,how can you defend "Qua Primum",the Tridentine Mass can hardly be defended as having sprung from directly from scripture or the early Church fathers,can it?