[cmj328]

It depends on the culpability of the mistake.

The Cardinals who lied about the Pope surely bear much responsibility for their false witness. Those lies were from Hell. If someone were to sincerely believe the Cardinals’ direct testimony, would they be culpable at all?

But if someone were to sit in judgment not on facts, but on pride, to say in his heart: “I don’t agree with the Pope, therefore I will say he is not Pope”, they would certainly be culpable. And if someone chooses to believe not the sworn testimony of Cardinal-eyewitnesses to a Conclave, but the theoretical screed of some anonymous rando on the Internet, well then, by what authority does he believe the rando?

[ebb tide]

How about a pope that says Hell doesn’t exist; that unsaved souls are merely extinguished?

Or that Jesus Christ was not Divine until His resurrection?

Or that adulterers may receive Holy Communion?

Or that Jews do need conversion to be saved?

Or says we talk too much about abortion, but goes on endlessly about global warming, the great reset, mandates abortion-tainted vaccines to all Vatican employees?

Or a “bishop of Rome” who has abandoned all the Catholics in Red China.

Or a callous clown that tells a woman who was pregnant with her eighth child, all by C-section that she was “tempting God” and Catholics need not breed like rabbits?