Attending Novus ordo under parental order

[Rube]

You know very well yourself that one theologian doesn't make you right.

See? I knew you'd move the goalposts.

What did John of St. Thomas say? Did he explicitly say that the average person could not personally conclude the man ceased to be pope?

Yep. Suarez and Cajetan have said the same. They say the man remains Pope until sentence is passed by the Church (e.g. Council of Cardinals).

For me to have moved the gold posts, you would have had to first see me say somewhere that one theologian is enough to consider something true. I have never said that, nor thought that.

I know that in the final analysis, we don't keep retaining the opinions of all theologians. I know they have differed, and their differenced made progress towards a solution. That is the way it should be. I know what things have been relinquished from long ago. All the things approved for public lay and clerical consumption show that a pope can automatically become a heretic, and that the laity are capable of discerning and acting upon it immediately; and when the times comes for a new pope to be elected, the Church must make a declaration of fact that the former one already ceased to be pope, and this is done so that all the people who were incapable of discerning it before, are forced to recognize it.

[Quaremerepulisti]

For me to have moved the gold [sic] posts, you would have had to first see me say somewhere that one theologian is enough to consider something true. I have never said that, nor thought that.

You are arguing quite dishonestly as usual, and positing a red herring.  You moved the goal posts from the issue of what is necessary to prove the "default" mentality and practice in the Church, to a claim that one theologian's position is enough to consider something true (which no one here is saying).

What you said was this:

It's the default mentality and practice within the Church, and always has been. You need to find a theologian that explicitly says to the contrary.

And so I find a theologian that explicitly says to the contrary, which therefore disproves your claim about what the default mentality and practice within the Church is.  But you obviously lack the intellectual honesty to admit this.  Instead, you move the goalposts into a discussion about whether what one theologian says is enough to consider something true.

All the things approved for public lay and clerical consumption show that a pope can automatically become a heretic, and that the laity are capable of discerning and acting upon it immediately...

So John of St. Thomas, Cajetan, and Suarez are not "approved for public lay and clerical consumption"?

[Rube]

For me to have moved the gold [sic] posts, you would have had to first see me say somewhere that one theologian is enough to consider something true. I have never said that, nor thought that.

You are arguing quite dishonestly as usual, and positing a red herring. You moved the goal posts from the issue of what is necessary to prove the "default" mentality and practice in the Church, to a claim that one theologian's position is enough to consider something true (which no one here is saying).
What you said was this:

It's the default mentality and practice within the Church, and always has been. You need to find a theologian that explicitly says to the contrary.

And so I find a theologian that explicitly says to the contrary, which therefore disproves your claim about what the default mentality and practice within the Church is. But you obviously lack the intellectual honesty to admit this. Instead, you move the goalposts into a discussion about whether what one theologian says is enough to consider something true.

All the things approved for public lay and clerical consumption show that a pope can automatically become a heretic, and that the laity are capable of discerning and acting upon it immediately...

So John of St. Thomas, Cajetan, and Suarez are not "approved for public lay and clerical consumption"?

Okay, so now in one message you judge me to be, and to have been, a liar, as well as laugh at me for something you think I said. You are not doing so hot in giving a good example here.

Click on my name and view my posts, and you will see that I have in the past said just what I explained about theologians, and how what some of them have said in the past has not been retained.

I wrote:

It's the default mentality and practice within the Church, and always has been. You need to find a theologian that explicitly says to the contrary.

I already explained to you that I am saying here that it is that the default practice in the Church is what *I* am saying about judging/acting when perceiving a heretic, and that when I told you to find a theologian, this means the burden of proof is on you. I don't believe there is one, and for you to even begin, you need to find a theologian. This means that I am admitting I don't know it all and might not be aware of some quote, and if you have one, its value is based on what he said, when, and by whom.

I am aware of John of St. Thomas, Cajetan and Suarez. They certainly do have things to say about legally determining a pope as a heretic, which means they say what the Church MUST do legally, and not what the laity CANNOT do "morally". That is what I am asking you to find, the latter.