Researching subjection to the Roman pontiff is interesting. It seems the prevailing Catholic interpretation is that subjection to the Roman pontiff is absolutely necessary for the salvation of Roman Catholics, but not for anyone else. This reconciles the infallible last sentence of Unam Sanctam with Vatican II.
Further research shows the commerce clause of subjugation to the Roman pontiff. "We declare that in no way do we wish to usurp the jurisdiction of the King...And yet, neither the King nor anyone else of the faithful can deny that he is subject to us where a question of sin is involved."
So if sin is involved, then the Roman pontiff rules supreme and even Kings must bow. In the life of man, where isn't sin involved? Yup, exactly like the commerce clause.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church
And just who determines when sin is involved and the decision is made to not have to obey the pope?
Is that made by the magisterium?
The clergy?
The individual layperson?
And on what basis? Isn’t that then all a matter of one’s personal interpretation of what sin is, based on what? Scripture? The Catechism? Trent? Who decides what to pick to listen to? On what basis? And when?
Seems to me that it becomes an individual decision, a judgment call, as it were.
Since only an ecumenical council can censure or depose a pope, and an ecumenical council's conclusions must be sanctioned by him, it pretty much excludes censure or deposing a pope.
Quite the system, anb RCs attack Prot as elevating individuals.