No, you misunderstand. Infallibility is a charism of protection for the Church bestowed by the Holy Ghost upon a valid pope to never in issuing a solemn public universally binding teaching on faith or morals, proclaimed as such, to ever be in error.
A papal conclave to elect a pope has no guarantee that the electors will choose the best and holiest candidate. If the electors fast, pray and sincerely ask for guidance of the Holy Ghost in the matter, then the possibilities considerably improve! If they don't, then......
What we are discussing among ourselves is whether the person elected, was even a Catholic, that is held the Catholic Faith whole and entire, in the first place. If he was not a Catholic but instead formally held heresy, then the election is null and void. One cannot be the earthly Head (Christ being the real Head) of the Mystical Body of Christ, if one is not even a member of it.
Those of us who see that the wolves are not sheep nor shepherds recognize that this applies to all the heretics 'elected' since 1958 and the start of the non-Catholic Vatican-2 'church'.
It's a matter of Divine Law expressly codified in the following Apostolic Constitution of which I'll provide a few excerpts:
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-]
that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
So who decides what a valid pope is?
The lay people certainly are not in position to make that determination.
The college of cardinals elects him.
Were they wrong?
Did the Holy Spirit guide them in their selection?
There is ZERO proof of this assertion.
A papal conclave to elect a pope has no guarantee that the electors will choose the best and holiest candidate.
There is PLENTY of proof of this one!
How does that contradict what I simply said, that RCs debate whether papal elections are infallible (or at least some believe the election of a pope are guided by the Spirit). Even here a poster has said that "the acceptance of a Pope by the universal Church is infallible and therefore demonstrates that the election was valid." And "If one believes the Holy Spirit moves the hearts of the Cardinal Electors in the election of a new Pontiff, then the both the election of Paul VI, and his subsequent actions, were guided by the same Spirit." RC apologist Mark Shea wrote that "The burden of proof is on those who wish to argue that councils or papal elections they don't like are not the work of the Holy Spirit."
Infallibility is a charism of protection for the Church bestowed by the Holy Ghost upon a valid pope to never in issuing a solemn public universally binding teaching on faith or morals, proclaimed as such, to ever be in error.
In addition,
- Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility: In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of the Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith or morals; but within the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians call the direct and primary object of infallible authority: it was for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ's teaching that the Church was endowed with this charisma. But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church.
Ratzinger: 9. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed … or to be held definitively … with an act which is either defining or nondefining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Roman pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a nondefining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the successor of Peter.
, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium,which necessarily includes the pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.
In any case, papal elections require assent;
10. The third proposition of the professio fidei states: “Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciates when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act”...
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations ...37 (Ratzinger: Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei; https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/media/articles/doctrinal-commentary-on-ad-tuendam-fidem-joseph-cardinal-ratzinger/
Those of us who see that the wolves are not sheep nor shepherds recognize that this applies to all the heretics 'elected' since 1958 and the start of the non-Catholic Vatican-2 'church'.
Although i believe modern V2 Rome has contradicted past RC official teaching and yet binds RCs to assent to its modern teaching, it was not my intent to engage in the debate over which side it right (and extends to your position) but that this examples divisive nature of Catholicism For despite asserting unifying assent to the pope, and criticizing for divisions due to variant interpretations of Scripture, RC likewise variantly their supreme authority, which itself teaches unScriptural beliefs.
Well, then Peter who catholics claim as the first pope, must not have been legit.
11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? Galatians 2:11-14