Thank you for your post donbosco. I would like to have a civil discussion about this later on this forum although I need to read up more on the SSPX (from both sides). Would you two mind if I were to reply to your questions later, maybe in a few weeks.
I will only say this for now. I think that the present Pope is a very holy man but has not been a great Pope (but I'm not saying he's been terrible either). Pope St. Celestine V abdicated after only five months because he could not handle the responsibilities and was not a good Pope. While I do not think the present Pope should resign (partially because most of the alternatives are worse), I think there are some similarities between the present Pope and St. Celestine V. If you don't mind, I will debate with you later about the Pope's infalliblity and when we should obey him and when we don't have to. There are certain times when we should criticize the Church's leaders and certain times when we should not. I will try to see if I can find something on this written by one of the doctors of the Church or someone else of unquestioned knowledge and holiness.
What would be the alternatives if the Pope expires? Would they be any better?
You're welcome.
In regards to your statement:
"...about the Pope's infalliblity and when we should obey him and when we don't have to. There are certain times when we should criticize the Church's leaders and certain times when we should not. I will try to see if I can find something on this written by one of the doctors of the Church or someone else of unquestioned knowledge and holiness,"
I can save you some trouble. Go directly to the infallible Vatican I document that defined papal infallibility. You have to read it carefully, study it, and let it sink in. Do not trust someone's interpretation of it. It clearly enumerates the requirements of authentic infallibility, which are much more restrictive than we are led to believe of late. Modernists at the time hotly disputed it, in fact a whole group of men walked out of Vatican I at that time, and called themselves "Old Catholics," a schismatic sect that seems to endure even to today. They left the Church because they disagreed with the primacy of Peter, in regards to infallibility. Curiously, they had been in the Church their whole lives, under the then longstanding definition that it's necessary for "every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff." But they suddenly left when that topic was further refined at Vatican I. Incidentally, Vatican I was adjourned under social unrest at the time, with the clear understanding that it would one day be resumed, as it was incomplete. Vatican II was supposed to be the resumed work of the previous council, some 90 years later, but it was not. How can I say this? Simply because to be the continuation of Vatican I, Vatican II would have to have a document SAYING that it is a continuation, but there is none, and the topic was never addressd and incorporated into Vatican II. Therefore, after 140 years, Vatican I has not been completed.
It should come as an intellectual shock to you that contrary to the Modernists in 1860, the Modernists of today (or post-Modernists) are frequently found proclaiming loudly that the Pope is infallible in EVERYTHING HE SAYS OR DOES. They fulfill the Protestant criticism of Catholics which accuses us of making the pope a virtual false god.
I have a friend in Orange County who was in the seminary after the revolution, feeling a calling to the priesthood, but eventually left before ordination because he was too dismayed with the theological corruption all around him. Ken Fisher has lived like a monk ever since, encouraging the faithful to pray the Rosary and to resist modernism in the Church. His principal focus is the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the corruption promoted by Mahony. Mr. Fisher started a group called Concerned Roman Catholics of America with a newsletter and website. He likes to point out the more positive aspects of the current pontiff, and has been saying for years now that John Paul II has spoken infallibly in regards to the prohibition against women's ordinations. I can't find anyone to cogently disagree.
But here's the rub: when Pius XII defined the Assumption, there was no question about whether it was an infallible definition. Similarly, when Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854, there was no question, and likewise the definition of papal infallibility is clear for all to see. But here we have the modern ambiguity in action: the current pontiff speaks out against a modern error, and we Catholics are left to wonder whether or not it is infallible. We only hear little voices in the wilderness saying that it is. It's not declared as such by bishops or priests from the pulpit (or "ambo" which is all that's left of it in many "worship spaces").
Is His Holiness JPII afraid of something? Is he worried that making the prohibition against women's ordination clear would somehow be contrary to his other actions or something? Like I have said before here on FR, it is a mark of the postconciliar era in the Church to shun any kind of punitive definition. Ever since Vatican II, for a pope to dare proclaim that Catholics must believe (fill in the blank) or else suffer automatic self-excommunication, it has been virtually inconceivable. D2 again, a diametrical reversal of Apostolic tradition.
My heart goes out to the poor Sister Lucia of the Immaculate Heart, who saw the prophetic warning of this plague on the Church, and lived her sheltered life witnessing the prophesy come true. She suffered a dry martyrdom, and would rightly one day be proclaimed a virgin martyr. But we would have to ask, "if she was a martyr, who was her persecutor?" The answer to which, if St. Joan of Arc is any example, means the Church would need two or three hundred years, if ever, to come to the point of proclaiming her so.
With all due respect, there is absolutely no similarity between JPII and Celestine V. JPII has overseen the greatest growth in numbers in the history of the Catholic Church and was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union, one of the worst regimes in the history of the world.
Make sure, in your readings on the SSPX, you google up "The Letters of Richard Williamson." His discourses will turn your stomach.