I've heard this line of reasoning before, but IMO it represents a substantial shift that has taken place in Catholic apologetics. What I don't understand is if Christ doesn't pick their pope, why do Catholics still hail the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, and not as the Vicar of the Church?
"I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. … I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined....There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!"
-- then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,
as quoted by Deacon Greg Kandra, from
Does the Holy Spirit pick the pope? Ratzinger didn’t think so.
It’s no wonder Catholics don’t think the Holy Spirit works in the lives of believers to lead them into spiritual truth.
They don’t even believe He leads them in running their own church.
And how does that fit in with an infallible magisterium?
You can’t be infallible when you are depending on human effort and not the Holy Spirit’s guidance and direction.
Honestly, just when you think you’ve heard it all from Catholics, they come along with some other bizarre statement that if a non-Catholic made it would be attacked as *hate*, and it leaves you kind of gobsmacked, wondering why anyone in their right mind would follow a *church* like that.
I think we have a miscommunication on what the word vicar means, although I think I see where you're coming from.
That is honest, and "DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) states,
The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an "ex cathedra" pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter.
With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations. - http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM