There is an issue of scale and proportion here. What is being alleged in the modern era is that pope after pope after pope (John XXIII, Paul VI, JPI, JPII) has been in error and if I correctly understand some contributors to this forum, they have been in error in almost every area of their ministry. They are not being accused of doing something wrong. They are being accused of doing everything wrong.
That is unique, I believe. What is being alleged is not mistakes in specific issues but a wholesale hijacking of the Church by successive popes such that it has gone in completely the wrong direction.
To buy into this theory one must go a whole lot further than simply accept the idea that he is not irresistible. One must subscribe to the idea of a complete papal dereliction of duty over decades by different popes.
This is not the same thing as Paul's rebuke of Peter.
Is this era free from that possibility for some reason?
However it needs to be said that these occasions have been infrequent- I believe that is correct- and the person doing the rebuking has been someone formed in outstanding holiness through great suffering.
I'm not so sure of that as a rule, St. Paul was a murderer and persecutor of Christians, St. Augustine lead a life of sin and debauchery, Moses was a murderer, Samson was a killer and vain and arrogant. Formation had little to do with their ability to fight for God.
Furthermore, they were rebuked over specific issues.
LeFebvre and the SSPX have constantly pointed to the specific doctrinal areas that they have issues with. Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, the implementation of the Council and the refusal to define the documents of the Council in accord with tradition. The principles for which they stand are quite public and can be found on their many official websites.
There is an issue of scale and proportion here. What is being alleged in the modern era is that pope after pope after pope (John XXIII, Paul VI, JPI, JPII) has been in error and if I correctly understand some contributors to this forum, they have been in error in almost every area of their ministry.
For the sake of argument, where is this an impossibility in Catholic doctrine?
They are not being accused of doing something wrong. They are being accused of doing everything wrong.
Not speaking for others, I will only say, that the self-contradictory content of the statements of post-conciliar Popes (including John XXIII though along with JPI, the least contradictory due to their deaths ) Paul VI contradicts JPII on the Rosary. (Paul put the kibbosh on adding mysteries to the Rosary and thought all additions should be new devotions separate from the Rosary) JPII contradicts himself on Communion in the Hand, Altar girls etc. One minute it's forbidden another it's an "enrichment." The worst is his view of the papacy itself as demonstrated in "Ut Unum Sint" where he is "open to a new situation" regarding the exercise of papal primacy and never defines what it is. He alludes to a heretical position that is outright condemned by Vatican I as a common consent to allow the papacy to moderate disputes.
That is unique, I believe. What is being alleged is not mistakes in specific issues but a wholesale hijacking of the Church by successive popes such that it has gone in completely the wrong direction.
That it has gone in any direction is the crux of the argument. The Catholic Church is not "progressive or conservative" As St. Pius X indicated there is a tension between progressive and conservative forces which work seemingly at odds but actually work together to undermine the Church. Truth is truth, it doesn't move. Ecumenism is a movement, not a truth. Ecumenism (false ecumenism) has been the main focus of all the post conciliar pontiffs. To resist these "movements" in the Church is not heresy but rather a strong defense of the unchanging and immutable truths of the Church.
To buy into this theory one must go a whole lot further than simply accept the idea that he is not irresistible. One must subscribe to the idea of a complete papal dereliction of duty over decades by different popes.
We would look today on a papal sex scandal as an impossibility but the Church has many examples in history. We are only talking about 40 years thus far. Democrats held the U.S. House for more than that with an ideological influence on the country. The Soviets were in power for 70 years. It is far easier for a modernistic Pope to place similarly thinking prelates all over the Church in a few years and undermine it terribly.
This is not the same thing as Paul's rebuke of Peter.
How so? I see JPII's actions with regards ecumenism as the exact same thing but on a grand scale as far as the immediate influence he has and the damage done to Catholics regarding Indifferentism. They are both the single actions of a single Pope. The difference is the speed in which the information travels and the level of politicking it takes for a bishop to set the Pope straight on these issues. JPII and Paul VI both had and have layers of ministries blocking a brother bishop from keeping the big cheese in line. St. Augustine would never be tolerated in today's Church with his constant meddling in other bishop's territories and his lack of tolerance with their errors.