This article explains the alleged discrepancy pretty well, I think:
ericsammons.com/article.html?ArticleID=3&Page=4
If the Pope is your superior and the magisterium is your foundation, why do you not follow their teaching?
I appreciate the link to this rather well written article.
That having been said, there is little in it which disproved my statement. It is true, that when any man is baptized, he becomes, in a certain sense, a member of Christ’s Church, and since baptism imprints an indelible character on the soul, this will never change.
However, it has always been held also that after a person reachs a reasonable age he is not acting out of inculpable ignorance, but is now openly professing error. When one does this, one loses the Faith, and does not have it again until they hold to it whole and entire.
I can be baptized Christian when young, but if I grew up to practice Buddhism, I am no longer Christian, even if the imprint on my soul makes me united to the Church spiritually. Belief is what makes us Christian, not merely being inducted as members. In another example, If a man is an outspoken communist but joins the John Birch Society is he truly a Bircher? No, his name may appear on the membership rolls, but since he does not profess their beliefs and share their values, he is not one of them.
This article also selectively ignored other certain papal encyclicles which do not help his case:
Leo XIII:“So long as the member was on the body, it lived; separated, it lost its life. Thus the man,
so long as he lives on the body of the [Catholic] Church, he is a Christian; separated from her, he becomes a heretic” (Encyclical Satis cognitum of June 29, 1896).
Pope Pius IX stated: “He who abandons the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded, is falsely persuaded that he is in the Church of Christ” (Quartus supra of January 6 1873, n. 8).
Scripture also:
“He who hears you (Peter) hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me (Lk 10:16).”
I could go on: Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII, Council of Florence, etc.
The Pope is law-giver insofar as as he is under the Law. As Solon in Ancient Greece and St. Thomas point out, if a ruler rules outside the law, he is not within his authority, which is limited by the Law itself. The Holy Father is not a divine dictator who may proclaim at will whatever strikes his fancy, he must be within his legitimate authority.
The Popes I cite above were merely repeating that which was held “always, everywhere, and by all,” as St. Vincent says, and passed on the Faith as it was given to them. If Christ only established one Church, and that Church is the Catholic Church, to say we find real and true Christianity practiced elsewhere in other sects is completely illogical. Either there is one true place Christianity is found, or it exists nowhere.
It appears that when the Popes from John XXIII on made favorable statements toward protestantism, this seems to be an act outside of their lawful authority. Just as the pope cannot decree ducks are now dogs, so the popes cannot say protestantism is something it never was. If I ignored the Holy Father’s discrepency with the prior teaching of the Church, I am not faithful servant, merely a dog who blindly follows his master.
Any faithful servant of the Pope must always remember his job is to make certain that the Holy Father does his job proclaiming the Gospel, and warn him should he start to stray from the narrow path. True authority is built on the fidelity to its foundation, which here is Christ, and cannot be excercised apart from this foundation. If we desire to be faithul, we must pray for those who guide us in Faith.