[utahagen]

“I think it’s getting a lot harder for people to buy into the pope’s claim to “infallibility”.”

What “infallibility” means is that even if a Pope should be a jackass or a scoundrel or a madman, God will prevent him from officially corrupting core teachings of the Catholic Church. Pope Francis is, in my opinion, at best, an egomaniacal buffoon; at worst, diabolical. Indeed, he already has casually contradicted Humana Vitae during the course of one of his airplane press conferences. However, he has not and cannot officially change real Catholic teaching. This is why you are seeing the push-back from theologians over that bizarre footnote that seems to endorse giving communion to the divorced, remarried, and unchaste, in a recent papal letter.

[detective]

“What “infallibility” means is that even if a Pope should be a jackass or a scoundrel or a madman, God will prevent him from officially corrupting core teachings of the Catholic Church”

I agree. The Pope is only considered to be infallible when speaking ex cathedra. But I believe Pope Francis is an enemy of the Catholic Church and Christianity in general.

Pope Francis’s whole purpose and goal is the undermine the faith.

Pope Francis has done much to destroy the respect for the Pope built up slowly over the years, especially by Pope JPII. It is hard to believe that this is not intentional.

[Kenton]

What “infallibility” means is that even if a Pope should be a jackass or a scoundrel or a madman, God will prevent him from officially corrupting core teachings of the Catholic Church.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm fine with that.

[piusv]

Unless the “pope” is an anti/false pope. Then he is not protected by the Holy Spirit.