I looked back at your posts and you do acknowledge the pope. What am I missing? Is your text somehow supposed to contradict mine?
Naturally, a Pontiff who became a notorious heretic could not be Pope. One who does not belong to the Church cannot be the Head of the Church. But this is not detrimental to the inerrancy of the particular Roman Church, which I proved from Bellarmine and Vatican I.
What is the definition of the particular Roman Church?
Look back at post 25. When I said the following: "Where, when did Christ ever say that Rome would always have the Faith?" You replied with the following quote from St. Robert Bellarmine:"Not only the Roman Pontiff is unable to err in faith, but also the particular Roman Church".
If you agree that is is possible that a person who has been elected by the college of cardinals as the Supreme Pontiff can be a manifest heretic and capable of losing the Faith, then we are on the same page.
I am, in no way, saying that this is the case with Pope Benedict XVI. My point was to Rutles4ever (in post 4) that the seat could be vacant but that the does not mean that the gates of hell have prevailed.