[ultima ratio]

I do not misread the Vatican I statement. This is why Cardinal Newman made the point that it sets limits on the papacy. This is why Cardinal Ratzinger makes the same point, that the pope is not an absolute monarch. The pope is not a god to be worshiped--as you do. That is idolatry, not Catholicism. When the Pope misuses his authority and commands what is wrong, he must be disobeyed, not worshiped. The faith comes first.

[BlackElk]

Strawman: You claim I worship the pope. I do not. I simply recognize that where Peter is there is the Church like twenty centuries of Catholics preceding me who felt no need to call themselves traditionalist and managed to keep civil tongues in their heads as to popes who were mostly far less impressive than this one.

If John Henry Cardinal Newman thought otherwise [giving you the improbable benefit of whatever doubt there might be], he was wrong too. In any event, no one estabnlished you or Marcel Lefevbre or John Henry Cardinal Newman as judge over this or any other pope. which is the point you must refuse lest you sink back into the personal insignificance that you merit and have difficulty in futuro drawing attention to yourself.

Let's see: ultima ratio on the one hand and JPII on the other: whose is the authority? I'm going with JPII which certainly seems like the safe choice. If God did not want JPII, he would not be there. If He wanted you, you would be there. JPII is pope. You are not. I have no doubt that Cardinal Ratzinger would agree since he serves JP II as head of the Holy Office. Aren't you nervy citing Ratzinger who is, after all, the trusted confidante of the pope you despise by appointment of the pope you despise. Have you no shame? Why are we arguing about this? Just because you want attention, that's why!