I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Popes are made sinless in virtue of their office.
Part of the problem is the unwillingness on the part of many to admit the plain fact that Popes aren't made sinless by virtue of their office. Usually the question is answered with a dodge, "Jesus Christ founded his Church on the Rock..." as if that is supposed to answer the question.
"So, that would leave open the possibility of a Pope not maintaining the rule of faith in his person."
I disagree and I refer you to Bellarmine's judgment about the impossibility of a heretical pope.
Wait a minute, "not maintaining the rule of faith" is not necessarily equivalent to being a heretic. How bad can a Pope be and still not be a heretic? I think the answers to questions like this are what will be needed to move the conversation concerning today's controversies forward.
In any case it is irrelevant since what we are discussing here is whether it could happen that the Roman Church cease to be Catholic,
Again, let's narrow this, by "Roman Church" what is it specifically we are talking about? Political and moral corruption in the Apostolic Palace? We both know that has existed over the centuries.
not whether the Pope could fall from his see, as would happen if he became a heretic.
I don't believe the Holy See has ever ruled definitively on the matter. Bellarmine's opinion is speculative. But he also envisaged a legitimate Pope having to be resisted. But the question I'm asking is how bad can a Pope be as a leader of the Church? I'm not talking sede, I'm asking what is the absolute worst thing or things a Pope can do and still retain the Chair? As I stated before, once we find that untouchable place, everywhere before that point is possible.
"For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor".
Looks like a sufficient guarantee to me that the Catholic religion will never end up having to be based out of Econe.
I don't see an explicit guarantee that a Pope will always "walk uprightly with the truth of the gospel" and I also don't see what the difference may be some day if a Pope needs to flee to Econe vs. Avignon or to another place if necessary. The Roman See is where the bishop of Rome is, even if he is not in Rome.
Of course, many in the SSPX don't see it that way.
Obviously Bishop de Mallerais is not stating that Econe is the Center and that Archbishop LeFebvre invoked the magisterium of the Church as if he was the Holy Father himself. The terms "echoe of tradition" and that LeFebvre is the saviour OF the Magisterium and proof of the Indefectibility of the Church. The comparison with St. Paul at Antioch with St. Peter can't be ignored
"Was he a card-carrying member of the SSPX apologist's task force?"
Not that I know of. Are you? :)
I'm definitely not. Just a Catholic layman. I was just trying to clarify your use of the term SSPX apologist.
"Not maintaining the rule of faith in his person" certainly sounds like him becoming heretical! But you say I have misunderstood you, so I'll accept that.
How bad can a Pope be and still not be a heretic?
It would seem that a Pope could be quite "bad" without being a heretic, by committing personal sins against courage, justice, prudence, temperance, hope, and charity without committing any sin directly against faith.
Again, let's narrow this, by "Roman Church" what is it specifically we are talking about? Political and moral corruption in the Apostolic Palace?
I am saying that the Roman Church, as a corporate entity of laity and clergy, can never cease to be Catholic; that is, she can never cease to preserve in herself the tradition handed down from the Apostles: "so when the Fathers or the Pontiffs say that the Roman Church cannot err, they want to say; in the Roman Church there will always be a Bishop teaching Catholicly and a people thinking Catholicly." (De Romano Pontifice, lib. 4 c. 4). Therefore the situation can never arise in which it would be necessary to create a sort of shadow-hierarchy to preserve the indefectibility of the Church, as the SSPX claims. "Your conception and your interpretation of these states of necessity are not consistent with faith in the indefectibility of the Church" (Cardinal Hoyos, Letter to Bishop Fellay, April 5, 2002).
Bishop Fellay himself admits:
I am sure that theologians from the beginning of the 20th century would have considered us heretics if they had heard what we are saying, which is not a personal opinion, but merely a description of the current situation. I mean that in the past, theologians would have considered what is actually happening today to be impossible, inconceivable. (Conference, Brussels, June 13, 2005, in Christendom no. 1, Sept-Oct 2005)