Replies

"'Knowledgeable' Catholics know that there can never be a choice between Rome and the Faith itself. 'Tu es Petros...'"

What baloney. Popes can sin. They can make mistakes--like Paul VI and JnPII--and plenty of them. They are sworn to uphold Sacred Tradition for this reason. They are not identical with the faith. If you were truly as knowledgeable as you claim to be, you would know this. So now let me ask you--is Rome correct when it now says, in contradistinction to past popes, that the Jews need not be converted, that their Covenant is sufficient for their salvation and that they do not need redemption by Christ like other men? Is Rome correct when it now defines the Mass as a "supper" and denies its propitiatory sacrificial dimension, in violation of Trent? If your answer is no--and you surely know it is no--then Rome does not uphold the Faith. Thank God it is being sustained by other means outside the Vatican.

What baloney. Popes can sin. They can make mistakes--like Paul VI and JnPII--and plenty of them. They are sworn to uphold Sacred Tradition for this reason. They are not identical with the faith. If you were truly as knowledgeable as you claim to be, you would know this.

I've often put the dichotomy to Catholics about which is more important - the RCC's authority, or the RCC's teaching. I have almost universally been told it was the Church's unbroken chain of authority that is more important. One Catholic here on FR told me about something called Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia, and was told it as a defense that the Pope axiomatically cannot err on matters of faith or morals. He used it as a defense, to say there is no dichotomy for the faithful within the RCC.

Assuming I'm understanding you right, you're the first person inside Catholicism I've ever heard to say that the Pope is fallible, that he can make mistakes - or even commit sin - in the course and content of his duties.