"Impossibility"? First you talk "precedent", now you move the goalposts to "impossibility"?
I didn't move any goalposts. I'm starting at the doctrinal level and moving towards a plausible analysis of the situation. Simply put, it would be foolish to assert that something "can't be happening." if the evidence prooves otherwise and their is no doctrinal promise to prevent it from happening.
Your entry into this thread addressed the issue of papal irresistibility. As precedent you cited the case of St. Paul rebuking St. Peter. My response to this was to point out that what is now being alleged with respect to the last four popes has no precedent because of the scale and breadth of the impropriety of which they are accused.
The scale and breadth has no bearing on the truth of the principal. Popes can err. and multiple times. They can have a disequilibrium of mind and the natural factors of the modern world can exascerbate it.
So you say, "OK, but you can't say it's not impossible".
You stipulated that rebuke of a Pope has happened multiple times in history. I asked what makes you think this era is somehow exempted from this situation.
It isn't. Very little is.
The point is, that some things are. The Doctrine of the Church cannot change. The Church will survive somehow, somewhere, it is indefectible. There is no Salvation Outside the Church, that will not change no matter how modernists try and reformulate the dogma, we have no non-Catholic saints from the post resurrection era.
It's not "impossible" that the real Paul VI was held prisoner in the basement of the Vatican as the Palmar de Troya people claimed. To use your words, "there's nothing in Catholic doctrine which says it's impossible".
Your using an example that I suspect you think is silly. The FACT that several Popes in a row have been tainted with liberalism is far more probable than someone thinking that the Pope would have to don a disguise and flee the Vatican as Pius IX had to in 1848.
We're both agreed, aren't we though, that there is a not insignificant difference between saying that something is not "impossible" (me) and saying that something is almost certain (you).
No. There is a negative charism of infallibility that rules out certain possibilities. The problem that most people won't face in this day and age is the idea that something "can't possibly be happening" when it is happening in plain sight and there is no promise of Christ that prevents it, but somehow many Catholics pretend there is a doctrine that prevents this reality from happening. Even when Cardinal Ratzinger refers to the "ruins" of the current Church and apologizes for his role, neo-Catholics just pretend he never said it.
You're betting your eternal salvation on the proposition that you know better than the Pope what the Holy Spirit wants for the Church. Good luck.
The Holy Spirit doesn't work in secret. I have access to all revelation that is necessary for salvation. It has all been revealed publicly. The Holy Spirit does not call the Pope on the phone and tell him to engage in ecumenism (which has nothing to do with Catholic doctrine) it is a pet project of the Pope and his disaster alone to make an accounting for. Given a choice between JPII's views on the Church and her priveleges and the papacy itself and St. Pius X's views, I will follow the tried and true path of the Pope that I know is in Heaven and pray for his intercession for the one that is not.
"Plausible" analysis? How about "subjective" analysis? A "personal" analysis. We're talking about your personal assessment of the situation aren't we?
The doctrinal promise is Our Lord's to St. Peter and his successors.
The scale and breadth has no bearing on the truth of the principal. Popes can err. and multiple times. They can have a disequilibrium of mind and the natural factors of the modern world can exascerbate it.
Indeed it does have a bearing. If there is no limit to the extent to which Popes can err and the extent to which they can lead the Church astray, then the promise of Jesus to Peter is empty. As is the promise that He would not leave us orphans and the promise that the gates of hell would not prevail.
"They can have a disequiibrium of mind"? If I understand your premise correctly there has been a collective and continual disequilibrium of papal minds for the past half century. Your mind of course, is crystal clear and unshakeable. The popes have all been crazy but you have it all figured out.
You stipulated that rebuke of a Pope has happened multiple times in history. I asked what makes you think this era is somehow exempted from this situation.
No. I stipulated that certain popes had been rebuked in certain situations. Infrequently. I never said that this era was exempt and it's entirely possible that someone like Cardinal Ratzinger has, in private, told the Pope that he believes he should consider a particular course of action rather than another. I would consider that to be a "rebuke" of the style St. Paul used with St. Peter.
The total rejection of successive popes and their work and teaching rises above the level of a "rebuke" as does the unauthorized consecration of bishops without papal approval. That is rebellion.
The point is, that some things are. The Doctrine of the Church cannot change. The Church will survive somehow, somewhere, it is indefectible. There is no Salvation Outside the Church, that will not change no matter how modernists try and reformulate the dogma, we have no non-Catholic saints from the post resurrection era.
What and where is the Church? It is built on the Rock, Peter and those in union with him. Sever that union, as when excommunication is incurred and you are outside the Church.
Your using an example that I suspect you think is silly. The FACT that several Popes in a row have been tainted with liberalism is far more probable than someone thinking that the Pope would have to don a disguise and flee the Vatican as Pius IX had to in 1848.
You're right. It is silly. But not impossible. Which is precisely why I used it. Your whole argument is based on the premise that because there is nothing which makes it impossible (at least in your opinion) for popes to lead the Church completely astray then it must be happening. My point was that "possibility" opens the door to all sorts of ridiculous scenarios such as the one I cited. It doesn't however, make them real. And when your eternal salvation is at stake it is folly to go down this road.
No. There is a negative charism of infallibility that rules out certain possibilities. The problem that most people won't face in this day and age is the idea that something "can't possibly be happening" when it is happening in plain sight and there is no promise of Christ that prevents it, but somehow many Catholics pretend there is a doctrine that prevents this reality from happening. Even when Cardinal Ratzinger refers to the "ruins" of the current Church and apologizes for his role, neo-Catholics just pretend he never said it.
What is happening in plain sight?
The Holy Spirit doesn't work in secret.
Really? Perhaps you'd care to show me where this is laid out in the Catechism. Is this Catholic doctrine?
I have access to all revelation that is necessary for salvation.
You don't need the Pope, in other words. Most protestants say the same. Glad that protestantism is working out for you.
It has all been revealed publicly.
Revelation you mean? Yes it has. But it's preservation and explanation has been entrusted to the successors of Peter and those united to him.Not you.
The Holy Spirit does not call the Pope on the phone and tell him to engage in ecumenism (which has nothing to do with Catholic doctrine) it is a pet project of the Pope and his disaster alone to make an accounting for.
I'll agree that the Holy Spirit doesn't have a cell phone, but are you saying that the Holy Spirit doesn't work through the Pope and more importantly, can't?
How do you know what takes place between God and the Pope? You're way out in deep waters here, my friend.
Given a choice between JPII's views on the Church and her priveleges and the papacy itself and St. Pius X's views, I will follow the tried and true path of the Pope that I know is in Heaven and pray for his intercession for the one that is not.
Like, I said, "good luck".