"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)
"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.
It's an undeniable fact that St. Peter did not walk uprightly with the gospel at Antioch. That wasn't heresy and he didn't lose his office because of that. So any Pope can commit the same imprudences and maintain his office and be reprehensible. So, the meaning from the Council must include those types of errors.
"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,
Let's say a Pope is undermined by his inferiors when it comes to a discipline of the Church (ie. altar girls) and instead of correcting the issue and making his will known, he does a flip flop on the issue and breaks his promise to Mother Teresa. Other examples might be communion in the hand, Church architecture, or in Liturgy with the priest facing God with the faithful behind him.
justice,
to deprive priests and faithful of the pious traditions of the Church for no legitimate reason. to protect criminals and allow the persecution of the innocent in his Church
prudence,
concerning ecumenism, possibly thinking he's striving towards an unknowable "unity" and instead promotes indifferentism and syncretism.
temperance,
an unhealthy love of performance and theater, an addiction to adulation.
hope,
by relying on secular means towards secular ends instead of spiritual means towards spiritual ends. (the UN or "solidarity" movement)
charity
by allowing those of false religions to be misled into thinking that they are on equal footing with the RCC.
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).
A bishop, not necessarily a Pope (the case of John 22 proves that) and not necessarily in Rome itself. And there will be a group of people thinking in the light of the faith. How small can that group be?
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).
First the SSPX is not and does not claim to be a "shadow heirarchy". The bishops are as archbishop LeFebvre referred to them as "Sacrament Machines". The original avoidance of having one of the bishops as Superior was to avoid the accusations. The accusations happened anyway, so the policy was discontinued. Second, it doesn't seem that Card. Hoyos was providing a rebuttle that proved his point. And history seems to favor the situation as envisaged by the SSPX as possible.
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)
And what did Fellay say right after that? But, just curious; What did you think of Fellay's conference? I thought he laid out his position very well. I've been passing that transcription along to several people.
"Your conception and your interpretation of these states of necessity are not consistent with faith in the indefectibility of the Church"
How can it be possible that this indefectibility of the Church extends to the conduct of every priest and every Bishop?
Clearly, it does not.
Without getting into the specifics of what constitutes material heresy, there are priests NOW who teach that homosexual behavior is not sinful, who knowingly give communion to supporters of abortion and couples cohabiting in illicit relationships, who teach that the miracles performed by Our Lord did not occur, and on and on.
While the Church as the supernatural Body of Christ is indefectible, it is not the case that everyone who claims the mantle of Catholicism conforms in all regards to Catholic dogma.
You are relying on a statement that something "has been" in the past as a guarantee that it can never happen, when it is happening all around you.
Did you click on the Vatican link above and read Saint Pius X on modernists, thoroughly and carefully? A pope and a saint clearly says that you are mistaken in your central thesis. A pope and a saint clearly says that Hoyos was mistaken (although I personally think Hoyos was lying).
Men—priests, bishops, cardinals—are not indefectible. We have no guarantee that they will not attack—have not attacked—the Catholic faith, in an attempt to change it to something more to their (modernist, which is to say leftist) liking.
You take statements that a pope can never fall into heresy as a guarantee that he can't be mistaken; that he can't be politicked into things he doesn't really understand, that he can't be threatened, intimidated, flim-flammed...
There is no guarantee that such men will not attain to great power within the Church, and will not work great harm. There is no guarantee that such enemies of the Church will not teach thus and so, when true Catholic teaching is just the opposite of what they say. There is no guarantee whatsoever of any of those things.
The only guarantee we have is that in the end—which could be thousands or tens of thousands of years from now—Our Lord wins.
The first time this happened the parties to the disagreement were Saints Peter and Paul—and yet you insist that there is a guarantee it will never happen, so when Mahoney institutes buggering boys as a sacrament, we must obey. You use those arguments to insist on obedience to the very modernists that Saint Pius X called "enemies of the Church."
I understand your desire for reliability in Catholic authority. I share it. I hate being told by a priest, "We don't think that's a sin any more," when the Catholic Church held it to be a sin for 19+ centuries.
But I can see the difference between what modernists are teaching now and what the Catholic Church taught for 19+ centuries, and I see no indication of any new Divine Revelations that justify those changes. I can see changes in liturgy which, while not heretical, weaken the power of the liturgy to bind the faithful to the Church—and I can see that such was exactly the objective of those who instituted the changes.
You say Mahoney; I say Aquinas. You say Bernardin; I say Augustine. You say Vat II; I say 19+ centuries of coherent teaching and Tradition.
However, I also say that only time and experience will open your eyes, so this is most likely my last post on this thread.