Promises to Peter do not include protection from doing real evil or committing blunders on a huge scale. The divine protection Peter enjoys is very circumscribed--and it's high time you and bornacatholic started thinking like real Catholics and rejected the notion that the pope is some kind of godlike being who never misjudges and never sins. He is a man like other men, someone in charge of a vast organization who enjoys a particular papal charism under very circumscribed conditions. He was never intended as a being for Catholics to worship. Nor was his charism granted to maximize his own celebrity or to push for closer ecumenical relations but to protect the deposit of faith. If a pope doesn't do this, then no matter how much CBS or NBC or the National Council of Churches or the UN or the cheering crowds, admire him, he is still a failure.
The notion, moreover, that to consecrate bishops in order to preserve the ancient Mass from a certain destruction is somehow a "rebellion" sets truth on its end. Marcel Lefebvre spent twenty years trying to preserve Catholic Tradition from the gang of Vatican marauders out to destroy the traditional faith in the name of a second-rate council hijacked by those with a wrecking-ball agenda. The real rebellion was on the part of Rome and its hierarchy, not on the part of the traditional Catholic community--and their corruptions and devastations now litter the Catholic landscape. This Pope, moreover, has applauded the general demolition and has promoted the men who do this--some of them heretics, some of them perverts, some of them outright crooks, most of them mediocrities at best--but yet he had promoted not a single traditionalist priest, not even one of singular wisdom or sanctity. Not a one. On the contrary, there can be no doubt JPII intended their elimination within the Catholic Church when he denied his mandate. He only relented a smidgen when he met resistance--that of the Archbishop and his followers--but he did so grudgingly, at the same time unjustly disparaging the opposition he met.
So suppose you stash your rationalizations for the colossal breakdown of the Church everywhere, especially in the West. The causes are evident--and they have nothing to do with the traditionalist movement whatsoever. You need to ascribe blame where it truly belongs--with the revolution emanating from the very top. And in this regard it also would behoove you to recall an even more apt scriptural passage than the one you've posted: that of Christ warning about phony prophets--men who seem like spiritual shepherds but care not a whit for the sheep they are supposed to be leading to salvation. He warned that these men were wolves in sheep's clothing. He also advised how to tell them from the true prophets: by their fruits we were supposed to know them--not by their celebrity nor high status within the Church. So we are expected to use our common sense. Because a rotten tree produces rotten fruit and a good tree produces good fruit. And I ask you--what have been the fruits of the postconciliar papacies besides widespread corruption and devastation? What fruits have been good enough or sufficient enough to justify the truly colossal breakdown of faith within the Church for the past forty years? To my mind nothing whatsoever can justify the revolutionary agenda that has caused the present devastation.
BTTT