My point was simple and clear, I thought.
I look to Pope Benedict XVI for Catholic teaching. Not to Gerry (who?) Matatics, God bless him.
Is that too difficult to grasp?
I look to Pope Benedict XVI for Catholic teaching. Not to Gerry (who?) Matatics, God bless him. Is that too difficult to grasp?
It's not too difficult to grasp. It's too simplistic to be rational. And it's not a Catholic way to learn Catholic teaching. It's the Protestant notion of papal impeccability once again. Gerry Matatics does nothing but parrot what the Magisterium of the Church has stated and the Catholic Church has always taught. As he has said many times, "Don't believe anything because Gerry Matatics says it. Here's the source: if you have a problem with that. You have a problem with the Church and with Our Lord himself."
The Pope is not automatically THE Theologian of the Church. Popes like John XXII were and can be wrong at any time not covered under the stringent marks of magisterial teaching. For example a Pope can't say that transubstantiation is no longer a valid understanding of the consecration of the bread and wine. The magisterium has already ruled on that. But he can come up with his own lame-brained version of teaching that can foster error. Whether it's magisterial or even his own error will depend on the signs of the authentic, the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium being invoked.
If Pope Benedict declares everything JPII ever did as invalid and then the next Pope reverses that. What are you going to do? At some point, you are going to have to face Catholic truth and abandon this cartoon that is promoted by Catholic Answers and EWTN. God left a lot of room for the screwing around of the human men he left in charge of his Church. Popes are not excluded from being disasters. Councils are not positively called by the Holy Spirit. And Councils are not promised good fruits.