Ahh....so the Pope really isn't Catholic.
Thanks for clearing that up.
If what you say really is true, then we might as well fold the tent and all go home. If we're comfortable with the notion that God has allowed a rupture in the Church and as a result, recent Popes are not worthy of credence, then we've embraced Protestantism.
Hey marshmallow, isnt this the kind of guy who likes to butter his bread on both sides?
You are falling into the same mistake as the sedevacantes, a conundrum. Catholics do not even need step into debate on those two simplistic, false, conclusions. Sedevacantesism (he is not a pope because he teaches error) or Papalolotry (he can't teach error because he is the pope).
. If a pope is opposed to 1900 years of POPES on some opinion, then in that opinion he is separated himself from antiquity. AND so have any others that follow him against 1900 years of popes.
Vatican Council I: Pastor Aeternus
First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ
Chapter 4: On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff
6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS (400-450 AD)CONFESSOR OF THE CHURCH
"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty." (Commonitorium)