Popes and cardinals sin, that is no surprise! But the Holy See was still fully Catholic when Alexander VI presided in Peter's chair.
By the way, I notice you don't use bold fonts to highlight the exception pronounced by Pius IX: "SO ONLY IT DOES NOT TOUCH THE DOMATA OF FAITH AND MORALS."
That differentiates disciplinary pronouncement from dogmatic pronouncements on faith and morals. That's not an "exception" of Bl. Pius IX, but one invented by the liberals to try to get out of the disciplinary authority of the Church.
You might also have quoted his famous admonition that when a pope does not teach Catholic doctrine, we should not follow him.
You mean this statement: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him", ripped from the context of a letter? The Pope doesn't teach anything contrary to the Catholic faith, so there is no worry there. (Only defined dogmas are de fide Catholica)
He did so in a letter--not formally--and said so wrongly, since no member of SSPX has ever denied papal authority--though the SSPX DID deny that this Pope was orthodox and it DID defend against his heterodox assault on Catholic Tradition and the ancient Mass in particular.
Why do you lie about the Holy Father? He has not assaulted the ancient Mass. If he were truly heterodox as you assert, he would have simply suppressed all the ancient rites, instead of encouraging the Eastern churches to hold to their traditions and establishing the FSSP as a society of Pontifical Right.
And "Ecclesia Dei" is not just a "letter", but an Apostolic Letter given motu proprio, one which enjoys the his supreme apostolic authority. He explicitly states:
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.[Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 751.] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.[Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382.]
He declares that it was a schismatic act and that they are schismatics.
All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra)
This pontificate is pushing an agenda that has nothing whatever to do with Catholicism or the salvation of souls and is an attempt to establish a new pan-religion by means of the destruction of whatever is specifically and uniquely Catholic.
LOL! This is just nonsense. If the Pope wanted to destroy "whatever is specifically and uniquely Catholic", it would be obvious. 25 years and his "reformation" still hasn't made itself known? These must be part of the attempt to establish a "pan-religion" by the destruction of whatever is "uniquely Catholic":
Those look just like ecumenical pan-religious documents. One can see the spirit of the "Future of God" conference in Fatima in them!
This is not mere sinfulness--it's heresy. Try again--this time with your blinders off.
This Pope teaches syncretism and indifferentism--not in writing, never on paper--but in what he does. That is the scheme--to little by little change the Church and the way Catholics believe by DOING what clearly undermines the faith. His example is bad--and should not be followed.
The motu proprio was about granting the Indult. The comment about "schism" was an aside--and was wrong. It was wrong because it contradicted the Pope's own canon law which provided for exceptions--which the Archbishop appropriately evoked. The exception was the allowance for disobedience during a state of necessity.
Just as when a house is on fire it is all right to break and enter to save the souls inside, so in a time of crisis in the Church it is all right to disobey the Pope. It is a self-deception to think Lefebvre was wrong and the Pope was right about the state of the Church. Of course Lefebvre was right--there WAS a state of necessity--and there still is. The faith is being assaulted--by Rome herself.
If you were honest with yourself, you would recognize the obvious--that this Pope is wrong about many things and it is doing great damage to the faith. But you are not honest. You pretend there's nothing wrong with a pope who opposes Catholic Tradition and punishes it, but approves the worship of false gods in Catholic chapels. But surely you must realize this attitude is unique in all the history of the faith for two thousand years. It is exceedingly shocking and strange--and ultimately inexcusable.