[Campion]

"The Roman Catholic" is bound to obey his superiors (in their lawful spheres of authority) unless they command him to sin. Holding heretical opinions is sin. Therefore, if the Pope were to demand adherence to a novelty of doctrine that was inimical to the faith -- heresy, in other words -- I would be morally bound to reject that teaching.

[ealgeone]

"The Roman Catholic" is bound to obey his superiors (in their lawful spheres of authority) unless they command him to sin. Holding heretical opinions is sin. Therefore, if the Pope were to demand adherence to a novelty of doctrine that was inimical to the faith -- heresy, in other words -- I would be morally bound to reject that teaching.

Is that spelled out in canon law or is that your take?

Further, as a lay person, who cannot understand the Scriptures on your own....how do/can you determine what is or is not heresy?

[kosciusko51]

Therefore, if the Pope were to demand adherence to a novelty of doctrine that was inimical to the faith -- heresy, in other words -- I would be morally bound to reject that teaching.

I believe this is very close to the argument that Luther expressed at his trial. "the pope's decretals have thrown utter disorder into Christianity, have surprised, imprisoned, and tortured the faith of the faithful...contrary to the gospel."

[metmom]

"The Roman Catholic" is bound to obey his superiors (in their lawful spheres of authority) unless they command him to sin. Holding heretical opinions is sin. Therefore, if the Pope were to demand adherence to a novelty of doctrine that was inimical to the faith -- heresy, in other words -- I would be morally bound to reject that teaching.

But on what basis does one have the right or ability to determine that the pope is in heresy or sin and they don't have to adhere to doctrine?

How is the laity qualified to make that determination?

Does it depend on the person's interpretation of the CCC?