SSPX poised for formal schism?

[Elizabeth502]

Not sure I can sort through all of your many caveats, but as I understand it the SSPX would like several of the teachings of Vatican II changed or abrogated. Most notably (to me anyway) are the Council’s teachings on salvation and on the Jewish people. I am sure there are others, but those are the two that I hear most often.

To clarify: I am not asserting that Vatican II’s teachings in those areas were new or novel or a break with the past, although I believe that some take them to be all of those things.

Be careful of confusing the actual documents of Vatican II (its teachings) with the widespread erroneous understandings and poor dissemination/interpretations of those teachings. Two very different animals. An awful lot of incoherent, sloppy theology proceeded from the latter, as opposed to the former. (Some theologians took some of the “soft” language in some of the documents and ran hard left with that language, without justification. And some of that [bad] theology became informally accepted and seeped into formal catechesis, eventually.}

 

[Brendan_64]

Be careful of confusing the actual documents of Vatican II (its teachings) with the widespread erroneous understandings and poor dissemination/interpretations of those teachings. Two very different animals. An awful lot of incoherent, sloppy theology proceeded from the latter, as opposed to the former.

It isn’t the sloppy erroneous interpretations of Vatican II that the SSPX take issue with, they take issue with actual texts of Vatican II and refuse to accept them. If it was simply a case of them taking issue with the erroneous interpretations made by some clergy and theologians, then there would not be a barrier to them being in full communion with Rome.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Just adding that I didn’t claim the bolded part. I am claiming that until the hierrarchy shares some sense of crisis and addresses that with action of some kind, groups like the SSPX will probably not diminish, and may even expand. (Probably depends on how much such groups see the crisis as intensifying rather than merely stagnating.)

Various statements of condemnation – officially or not – are also not a solution, because the root catalyst for their very existence is not, in their eyes, being addressed. And any change in perception will probably not occur until there are visible and unambiguous responses to that original catalyst.

Right. Wasn’t trying to imply you did think that. But we all do need to have faith in the Church and often resolutions to problems are not instantaneous.

It is very disappointing to me that Pope John Paul’s instructions weren’t followed to begin with. I may be fanciful, but I imagine we’d be in a much better place if only one bishop had been ordained according to JPII’s plan, and the EF had continued to be taught and offered within official Church direction.

Oh well, we are where we are. I pray that all SPPX (and other groups-right and left) are reconciled to the church within my lifetime.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It isn’t the sloppy erroneous interpretations of Vatican II that the SSPX take issue with, they take issue with actual texts of Vatican II and refuse to accept them. If it was simply a case of them taking issue with the erroneous interpretations made by some clergy and theologians, then there would not be a barrier to them being in full communion with Rome.

I will grant you that recent statements, especially, make reconciliation less foreseeable than previously, but (again) that has been intensified by the statements of our current Pope.

Oh well, we are where we are. I pray that all SPPX (and other groups-right and left) are reconciled to the church within my lifetime.

Indeed. However, I continue to be troubled by inconsistent catechesis, whatever its origin. Having so many Catholics believing so many different things is not contributing to unity, apart from formally “separatist” groups.

There is not a universally understood hermeneutic of continuity.

 

[pnewton]

That being said, I don’t believe they are the enemy either, which is what I see so much here on CAF.

They are neither the enemies or the heroes. Like all of us, each one has that which is good and that which is bad. I do believe that they have been used by as a tool of the enemy though, but then aren’t we all at one time or another. Anything that divides the Body of Christ is not of the Holy Spirit. Yet they need just as much mercy and understanding as we all do.

As to our Holy Father’s words, I don’t know if I completely agree with what he’s saying, if that is in fact what he is saying.

I guess this is something time will tell. I did not suggest a false dichotomy. No, it is not either or, but the Holy Father has been clear that we have developed a lop-sided emphasis. St. Paul spoke of that which comes first and that which comes latter in spiritual growth.

 

[Brendan_64]

I will grant you that recent statements, especially, make reconciliation less foreseeable than previously, but (again) that has been intensified by the statements of our current Pope.

What statements would they be? All Pope Francis has done is reiterate Catholic teaching. Nothing Pope Francis has said is not in line with the CCC. Pope Francis has not contradicted his predecessor in this regard.

It was Pope Benedict who the SSPX couldn’t seem to deal with. But could they deal with any Pope when they come and lay down their own terms to the Pontiff? To insist that the Catholic Church in effect ditches Vatican II (not ditch erroneous interpretations, but ditch the texts of VII). To insist that Rome ditch what has been deemed as infallible as terms for their return is just ludicrous. The SSPX were in effect placing themselves in a position of authority over the Pope. They are part of the Catholic Church, they are obliged to obey their Pope.

It really is quite sad, but the SSPX’s attitude towards Pope Benedict, along with recent statements could lead one to conclude that they don’t actually want to come into full communion with Rome and are looking for an exit from the Church in such a way that they can claim that they had no real choice in the matter. It’s very sad really. If they were to behave with obedience (as they are obliged to) in the manner of the FSSP, they could actually do a lot to serve the wider faithful through the EF Mass.

 

[TMC]

Be careful of confusing the actual documents of Vatican II (its teachings) with the widespread erroneous understandings and poor dissemination/interpretations of those teachings. Two very different animals. An awful lot of incoherent, sloppy theology proceeded from the latter, as opposed to the former. (Some theologians took some of the “soft” language in some of the documents and ran hard left with that language, without justification. And some of that [bad] theology became informally accepted and seeped into formal catechesis, eventually.}

That may or may not be the case, but its clear that the SSPX takes issue with the actual Vatican II documents and teachings, not with some spin put on them after the fact. Certainly that is what the SSPX leadership has said.

 

[otjm]

I’m sorry, but Catholic South America is not without problems, and significantly so. They are merely different problems than those of North America.

I did not say South America was without problems, and by the way I stated my comment, a discerning reader would have understood that. Thank you for pointing out what others may not have perceived.

You can keep telling posters that they’re “off-topic,” but the facts are that the SSPX (topic of this thread) was and is a response to perceived crises, plural. Initially and today. The canonical situation has been talked to death, and I think most people are aware that the SSPX is on the margins of the Church and remains in ambiguous status at best. The election of Pope Francis has intensified concerns within some such groups about the direction of the Church. (I’m not an SSPX-er) To the extent that there is a perception, accurately reported in the media or not, that the Pope is disinclined to view the western Church to be in crisis, the SSPX will likely be more inclined to schism, and thus discussion of hypothetical “crises” is quite on-topic.

It seems clear that you don’t wish to address it, but other posters do, because the SSPX (topic of thread) wants to.

It was and is a response to a perceived problem, and their perception is seriously skewed as to the source of the problem. We seem to have a number of people wringing their hands over Pope Francis. That is in large part due to the fact that those wringing their hands do not understand that the secular press should never be the source of information concerning the Catholic Church.

And having read the Pope’s comments - not from the secular press but from reliable Catholic sources, I am aware, as anyone else who reads reliable sources should be, that this Pope clearly recognizes there is a crisis in the world; and that world includes both Catholics who have left the Church, and those who were merely baptized and never went further in their faith, as well as those who are not Catholic - which is pretty much the greater majority of the world.

And as he has so clearly and unequivocally stated, the world - including the greater majority of those baptized Catholic - need to be evangelized, for they have not the faintest clue who Christ is. That, however, has precious little to do with the bishops (and priests) of the SSPX.

The SSPX will not be more likely to drift into schism because of this. They are more likely to drift into schism because they simply will not comply with what the Church - as represented by the dicastery and at the direction of Benedict 16, said was the minimum necessary.

The issue with the SSPX is truly simple, but it takes critical thinking to separate all the chaff from the last 40 or so years and distill what the essence of the issue is. I have no doubt that if they do end up in formal schism, that people will be going on and on about how it was Pope Francis, and his “failure to understand the true crisis in the Church”; and we will see Benedict blamed, and John Paul blamed, and Paul blamed. And there will be all sorts of rationalizations about this and that and other sundry non-issues. Coincidence is not causality, a point that the bishops and priests of the SSPX can’t seem to learn. Add to that a Church teaching prior to Vatican 2 (since they seem so enamored with prior teaching and so put off by the documents), that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error when it teaches on faith and morals, and their arguments simply fall apart. A point (about the Holy Spirit) I learned in grade school before John 23rd was any more than just another bishop.

 

[otjm]

Perhaps that is what you are saying, but that’s not what I’ve been seeing in a lot of these threads. I’ve seen a lot of people saying they’re Protestants, comparing them to Old Catholics, saying their Masses are invalid (rather than illicit), etc. In these ways, people give the impression that the SSPX is an enemy of the Church, and this is far from the truth.

Well, if you look at the Anglican/Episcopalians, who get lumped in with the other Protestants, the point is not far off the mark. The same with the Old Catholics; both issues got down ultimately to an issue of obedience.

And though they may appear to be heading toward schism, they have not crossed that line as of yet, and I think we should all hope and pray that that doesn’t happen.

What has not happened is that Rome has not formally declared them in schism. There is de jure schism, and there is de facto schism. They are clearly not in de jure schism. Whether or not they are in de facto schism has been argued for quite some time; if the comments which started this thread are correct, it is hard to argue against it. It is not my, or your, or anyone else’s duty to declare them to be in de facto schism; but there is also the rather plain spoken farmer’s comment: if it has feathers, webbed feet and quacks, it is not a horse, or a goat, or a turtle.

Another thing I’ve seen is that when some people on here are talking about the SSPX, they talk about the people that attend their chapels rather than the SSPX itself, saying that these people think they are “holier than the Pope” and are radical in their views. I’m guessing these same people see the SSPX in a bubble, and that everyone that goes to SSPX Masses fit perfectly into this bubble. This is simply not the case. If you actually meet some who attend, you find many are faithful Catholics just like anyone else.

I can’t speak for others; I know one person personally who attends SSPX chapel. I knew him well before he got involved, but lost contact and several years later ran into him. The experience was akin to talking with someone who was irrational, and that is the best I can say. I do not extrapolate from that to anyone else who may attend SSPX chapel.

I’ve yet to see any good come from these SSPX threads, and if the SSPX are not allowed to share why they feel the way they do because it violates the rules, they should just get rid of these threads altogether.

Given that I have seen any number of people say they are or will pry for the SSPX, I can’t say no good comes from it. But there are good an valid reasons not to let SSPX’ers share why they feel the current Pope, the last 3 (I am ignoring John Paul 1 since he never really had time to wade in), the bishops of the world, and the official Magisterial teaching of the Church are all wrong. And perhaps your most telling word is “feel”, because if one accepts what was taught prior to Vatican 2 - that the Church when officially teaching faith and morals, is protected by the Holy Spirit, then all anyone is left with is “feelings”. Makes for a not so good lounge lizard song, but lousy theology.

It is only off topic because I was disagreeing with pnewton’s response to me and his interpretation of the Holy Father’s words.

I know, but those things tend to gain a life of their own, and the moderator has already waded in.

 

[otjm]

It is my opinion as well, when we hear a pope say this:

“In vast areas of the earth,” Pope Benedict XVI recently stated to the assembled members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who met in plenary session, “the faith risks being extinguished, like a flame without fuel.” ** Over and over during the course of his pontificate, the Pope warned that the world–especially the affluent Western world–faces a “crisis of faith.”**

The comment about no crisis of faith was a very short-handed statement of what John Paul 2 said to Archbishop Lefebvre. The archbishop was trying to say that the documents of Vatican 2 were the cause of the crisis in faith; John Paul 2 said that the Archbishop could not use the context of “crisis if the faith” as a way to justify his ordination of bishops without Rome’s approval. And that, in itself is a very short-handed (but a bit longer) explanation of the dialogue between the two. JP@ never said there was no crisis of faith at all; only that Lefebvre could not use the part of Canon law he was trying to use.

In the meantime, we are happy to chastise a group of Catholics who, as I understand it, want some “doctrinal problems” clarified. Since even some of the hierarchy has recognized certain issues as being ambiguous, or at the very least, problematic, I would hope and pray that the Society through God’s direction is regularized and that they find their way home to us.

Then, you misunderstand it. If the SSPX “want some 'doctrinal problems clarified”’ then what they need to do is sit down with Rome and discuss the matter. Rome has clarified it. Rome said, in effect “You are wrong”. Rome said what they had to accept; they have said (apparently) that they will not accept it. What they are being chastised for is not for wanting an explanation; they are being chastised for failing to accept the explanation.

The short of it is they do not teach Rome the Faith; Rome teaches them. Rome has the Magisterium, the teaching authority. They do not have the Magisterium, but that is how they are setting themselves up as.

Rome has said that the documents can and must be read in continuity with prior teaching. The SSPX has said they cannot be reconciled.

Rome has the Holy Spirit backing it (the Magisterium, see above). The SSPX does not. I would agree that we should pray they will be reconciled; Rome has said they want the SSPX reconciled. It is up to the SSPX to decide if they want to accept Rome’s authority, or not.

Keep in mind that Rome, and the vast majority of the bishops world wide don’t have a problem with ambiguity. Only a very, very small minority of people do.

 

[otjm]

I don’t think that is true.

Please elucidate. That was a bit terse…

 

[Elizabeth502]

I did not say South America was without problems, and by the way I stated my comment, a discerning reader would have understood that. Thank you for pointing out what others may not have perceived.

I am a discerning and in fact advanced reader. You apparently thought you were much clearer than you were.

the problems we are having in the Church with which most are familiar are in the western Church - Europe, the Americas (and primarily North America) and Australia.

From my reading I think there are many problems in South America, perhaps even as many as in North America, but far different.

It was and is a response to a perceived problem, and their perception is seriously skewed as to the source of the problem.

To you. Your perception may be no less “skewed” than theirs is. I wonder if that has occurred to you.

The SSPX will not be more likely to drift into schism because of this. They are more likely to drift into schism because they simply will not comply with what the Church - as represented by the dicastery and at the direction of Benedict 16, said was the minimum necessary.

Whether you or I want to accept this fact, they may in fact be “more likely to drift into schism” since the election of Pope Francis, given that whatever you find “clear and unequivocal” about Pope Francis’ statements is perhaps not what they find clear and unequivocal, or, to put it another way, what is clear is something that may harden, not soften, their position regarding the orthodoxy of the modern Church, which is why they drifted into a movement in the first place.

The issue with the SSPX is truly simple, but it takes critical thinking to separate all the chaff from the last 40 or so years and distill what the essence of the issue is.

Again, to you and your perception, it’s all “truly simple” and perhaps you believe you are the only “critical thinker” with regard to their position? They would beg to differ with you that they should just Get With the Program. (so to speak) One need not be sympathetic to them or one of them to understand the logic of their position, despite lamenting their position and preferring unity.

I think at some point you’re going to have to accept that not everybody who is a seasoned and tested critical thinker agrees with you.

 

[Brendan_64]

If the SSPX “want some 'doctrinal problems clarified”’ then what they need to do is sit down with Rome and discuss the matter. Rome has clarified it. Rome said, in effect “You are wrong”. Rome said what they had to accept; they have said (apparently) that they will not accept it. What they are being chastised for is not for wanting an explanation; they are being chastised for failing to accept the explanation…

The reality is that the SSPX don’t want clarification on some doctrinal issues, they expect Rome to agree with the SSPX’s view on these ‘doctrinal problems’. In doing so the SSPX are in effect putting themselves in a position of authority over the Pope.

As Catholics we are bound to accept the teachings of the Church on issues of faith and morals, and this includes accepting as infallible what the Church deems is infallible. We are simply not free to take a position of , “We strongly and sincerely disagree with what the Church is teaching, therefore we are refusing to accept it”. This applies as much to the SSPX as it applies to any of us.

This is not some sort of negotiation. This is not some sort of ecumenical discussion with another denomination in order to explore common ground. The SSPX are Catholics, they are bound to accept the authority of the Pope. A child should not expect to be able to negotiate with its mother.

It is really very sad, and not just for the SSPX. The SSPX has a lot to offer us all, in terms of opening up the EF to the wider Catholic faithful (most of whom have never attended an EF Mass, and many have never heard of it). The SSPX could be of great service to the Catholic Church, but they need to get out of their ‘bunker’, and as Catholics accept the authority of Rome.

 

[promultisguy]

Somehow the post I intended to attach to this thread somehow disappeared as I was reviewing it before I hit the post button. I will try to make it short if I can.

Some folks on these threads seem to think that everything that comes out of the mouth of the Pope is the word of God. Not so! Every Pope is different. The current Pope Francis seems to take exception to the decree of the previous Pope Benedict, Summorum Pontificum. He has now placed an obstacle in the way of the Franciscans of the Immaculata celebrating the traditional Latin Mass. For those of us who have fought for the 'extraordinary form of Mass to be said in our diocese, are we not to be disappointed in this action by our Holy Father? If we are allowed disappointment shall we be forbidden from expressing this disappointment? There are those who seem to think that we must ‘hang on’ to every word emanating from the Pope as though infallability hangs in the balance, or that we will somehow give scandal. Learn to get over it. This is scrupulosity and it is a display of weak simpleness of faith. As Catholic people we are not obliged to be led by the nose on everything the Pope says or does. Not everyone who disagrees with the Pope is attempting to unravel the Church or her teachings.

Secondly, I’d like to give my opinions on a few things that affect us as traditional minded Catholics. Let it be known that many of us have fought hard to get the traditional Missal of 1962 into our diocese. We continue to strive to be counted in as normal Catholic people in union with the Holy See. Sometimes it is an uphill struggle with the priests, bishops and laity in the diocese who see themselves as Catholic and us as some archaic hangers-on that they are not sure of. What we really want is to nourish our Catholic faith in the best way we can find. We find the usus antiquior as the best expression of our Faith that we could imagine.

Thirdly I’d like to say that although many of us choose to assist at the approved Mass, we see those who assist at Mass in the SSPX chapels as brothers in Christ and see them as fully Catholic as the rest of us. We all acknownedge and abide by Church dogmas and doctrines to the best of our God given abilities and we all recognize the Pope as representing the true Faith founded by Jesus Christ.

That said, I would like to say that we likely would not have the ‘old use’ Mass today were it not for the SSPX who have maintained it throughout all the battles to suppress it. We thank you SSPX for keeping the Holy Mass integral all those years following the Council.

My next topic here may upset some but I will express my thoughts anyway. As you all know, Bishop Fellay of the SSPX and Pope Benedict had numerous discussions over the past several years with regard to the possibility of ‘regularizing’ the SSPX. It was Benedict’s great desire to bring unity to the Church. He has communicated with the Orthodox, the Anglicans, and other Christian communities, all in the hopes of reunification. He grew too old to fulfill his ardent desire. As I understand it he had hopes to study and pray about the conflicts that held back the SSPX from inclusion. At one point he seemed willing to review certain statements and directives contained in some if the sixteen documents of Vatican II for compliance with accepted Church doctrine.

There are several places where contradictions to established doctrines occur. Some of us, though we are not graduate theologians see many of the same conflicts or contradictions. Like us, the priests and bishops of the SSPX long for unity with Rome but they also insist that the doctrinal contradictions be resolved. The problem is that some of the wording of the documents may be interpreted in more than one way and could place obstacles in the way of understanding what is meant. Other statements appear to more clearly contradict Catholic teaching on doctrinal issues. This is no small matter though many who are not well versed in the exactness of Catholic theology may just blow right by it and consider it trivial matter. Some on this thread write that the SSPX has tried to push the Holy Father around and demand that he goe their way or take the highway. From where I come from this is not the intention of the SSPX at all. They simply refuse to accept what they see is contrary to the Catholic Faith they know and love. I often rub elbows with their laity. Some attend our ‘approved’ Mass on occasion.

As our new Pope settles down into his work, it now appears that he is not interested in continuing dialog with the SSPX in any meaningful way. It is said that he is not going to be focused on doctrinal issues. If this is true, I am saddened since current Catholic practice has wandered away from fundamental teachings such as those touching on ethics and morality especially, but the detrimental effects of 50 years of experimentation with the Liturgy. The words of Pope Pius Xth rings in my ears: “Wanting to reconcile the Faith with the modern ‘spirit’ leads not only to a weakening of the Faith, but to it’s total ruin”.

 

[Brendan_64]

Some on this thread write that the SSPX has tried to push the Holy Father around and demand that he goe their way or take the highway. From where I come from this is not the intention of the SSPX at all. They simply refuse to accept what they see is contrary to the Catholic Faith they know and love. I often rub elbows with their laity. Some attend our ‘approved’ Mass on occasion.

They refuse to accept Vatican II (an infallible ecumenical council) and demanded that the Church reject it as a ‘condition’ of their return to full communion. They refuse to accept the authority of the Pope and are in effect placing themselves as a higher authority to the Pope on this.

As our new Pope settles down into his work, it now appears that he is not interested in continuing dialog with the SSPX in any meaningful way.

The SSPX made it pretty clear to Pope Benedict that they would not accept Vatican II and made it clear that they would only return to full communion with Rome if the Church rejected Vatican II. The Church clearly cannot do that so what would be the point of further discussions until the SSPX accept the authority of Rome on this?

And there is a whole world of people who need the Gospel brought to them. There is a whole world that needs evangelising. Perhaps Pope Francis think that bringing the Gospel to the whole of humanity might be a greater priority and better use of his time than to sit down with the SSPX while they demand that the Church rejects Vatican II?

Some folks on these threads seem to think that everything that comes out of the mouth of the Pope is the word of God. Not so! Every Pope is different. The current Pope Francis seems to take exception to the decree of the previous Pope Benedict, Summorum Pontificum. He has now placed an obstacle in the way of the Franciscans of the Immaculata celebrating the traditional Latin Mass. .

Nonsense. The Pope is not opposed to Summorum Pontificum. The issue with the Franciscans was a matter specific to them. People seem to forget that Cardinal Bergoglio was one of the first bishops in the world to respond to Summorum Pontificum by instituting a Latin Mass in Buenos Aires.

But why let facts get in the way? Much easier to paint Pope Francis as the ‘enemy’ of traditional Catholicism, despite the fact that as Bishop of Buenos Aires he was one of the first bishops to support the Latin Mass, and despite the fact that it was under Pope Benedict that the talks with the SSPX broke down (seemingly irreparably) as a result of the outrageous demands they made of Rome (demands which they will have known could simply not be met).

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

As our new Pope settles down into his work, it now appears that he is not interested in continuing dialog with the SSPX in any meaningful way. It is said that he is not going to be focused on doctrinal issues. If this is true, I am saddened since current Catholic practice has wandered away from fundamental teachings such as those touching on ethics and morality especially, but the detrimental effects of 50 years of experimentation with the Liturgy. The words of Pope Pius Xth rings in my ears: “Wanting to reconcile the Faith with the modern ‘spirit’ leads not only to a weakening of the Faith, but to it’s total ruin”.

But the traditional belief about a Pope is that he is chosen by the Holy Spirit.

This is obviously a matter of Faith (of the famous Faith and Morals). It is right in the Holy Father’s wheelhouse, as it were. Infallibility guaranteed, right?

Problem with the SSPX, in my view, is that they appear to be acting as if they are the Church, and the Church is the splinter group.

That, and it appears that they want it all. They want to be able to worship using the EF (no problem with that, at all) and, and to me this is key, they appear to want those of us that love the OF (particularly with the latest changes in English translation) to be forced to assist at an EF Mass. A case that calls for a “mind your own business”, no? Unless I am missing something.

Finally, those that argue EF Mass only (as the SSPX seems to be doing) as opposed to having an OF in the vernacular at all to “preserve tradition” (small t intentional), seem to overlook the fact that Latin was the vernacular for what? the first 600-700 years of the Church. So people assisting at Mass in those days could understand all of it.
The OF seems to me to fit that model perfectly. Again: am I missing something?

 

[Lormar]

But the traditional belief about a Pope is that he is chosen by the Holy Spirit.

Luigi, was Alexander VI chosen by the Holy Spirit?

Maybe it would be more accurate to say that the electors pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but not that the pope is chosen by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Luigi, was Alexander VI chosen by the Holy Spirit?

Maybe it would be more accurate to say that the electors pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but not that the pope is chosen by the Holy Spirit.

I would argue that he is (picked by the Holy Spirit), amico mio. Even when the cardinals “make a mistake” electing a particular Pope that falls way short personally, the Pope has never made a major error* regarding Faith and Morals.

*I add this because I am not a Church historian, and it is possible that a Pope has made a minor error that I am unaware of. I do believe, however, that that is not the case.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would argue that he is (picked by the Holy Spirit),

That’s actually not accurate. This has been pointed out time and again by recent Cardinals. I’m not referring to the SSPX, obviously. Popes are not literally “picked by the Holy Spirit.” It’s as Lormar has described above.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

That’s actually not accurate. This has been pointed out time and again by recent Cardinals. I’m not referring to the SSPX, obviously. Popes are not literally “picked by the Holy Spirit.” It’s as Lormar has described above.

Thanks for the clarification.

Does not really change that they are infallible re: Faith and Morals.