CathInfo.com

Yes, I know Paul VI approved of liturgy A as you put it, but nobody uses liturgy A.  Then that means that subsequent Popes who did the NO liturgy B were heretics, in error and not infallible. 

If JPII didn't use the approved liturgy, but instead, the doubtful liturgy B, that doesn't mean he's a heretic, or not infallible.  It just means he used a doubtfully valid mass, and would've committed a sin for doing so.  He could've used liturgy A in private...we don't know.  It has nothing to do with infallibility because no pope has said that liturgy B is approved.

I get a sense you don't know what you believe.  

I know exactly what I believe.  The key is to make distinctions between the NO that was approved (liturgy A) and the "diocesan" one that is everywhere corrupted by freemasons (liturgy B).  They are not the same.

You suggest the NO is intrinsically evil while saying it is only doubtful.  You said it destroys the Faith. Isn't that intrinsically evil?  

The non-approved, liturgy B destroys one's faith because it's VERY doubtful, said by a VERY doubtfully ordained priest, and also because 95% of the time, the atmosphere is scandalous, irreverent and sacrilegious.  It's also illegal, which makes it sinful.  It's not intrinsically evil because of the 5% chance that a real priest (which most aren't) says it reverently and has the proper intention.

You insist no one should not attend NO because Cardinals said it was doubtful, suggesting you follow Cardinals rather than Popes. 

The pope ordered Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci etc to study the NO.  Their conclusions were done on behalf of Paul VI.  

Secondly, again, the approved liturgy A is probably not doubtful, because the main change was saying it in the vernacular language.  Most everything else is the same as the TLM.  The problem is the un-approved liturgy B...this is VERY doubtful for a whole bunch of reasons.

You call it a communion service not a Mass. That's not doubtful, that's an impostor and intrinsically evil. 

The unapproved liturgy B is doubtfully a mass.  The offertory and canon prayers are woefully deficient.  For the 2,000th time!  It's all about DOUBT.  I'm not saying anything for certain, except that it's atmosphere and legality are sinful...this much is certain.  The validity question is unknown.  It depends on each and every priest and each and every mass.

You suggest that somehow, even though Popes have done the NO for years, they remain infallible, yet they in erred in matters of faith and are not infallible for doing/promoting the NO since it is doubtful and destroys the Faith. 

Popes can err privately and still be infallible officially.  Popes have their governmental office (which has nothing to do with infallibility) and their teaching office (which has to do with faith/morals and infallibility).  No post-V2 pope has ever said, infallibly, that the NO is ok, or must be attended.  Therefore, it remains optional.  There is no such thing as an infallible, but optional, teaching.  That's a contradiction.

Even if you didn't trust a particular Pope, there are several since Paul VI who continued to do the NO after that.  And now you say that there are two NOs as if the Popes along the way didn't actually do the one you say isn't even a Mass.  Subsequent Popes not only approved the NO they practiced, they participated and promoted it and defended it.  The buck has to stop somewhere--are all those Popes still infallible? 

Pope Benedict said that the consecration in english was wrong when it said "for all".  How many years was it wrong - 40?  So for 40 years all those masses were invalid.  Is that the pope's fault, or the bishops and priests, who wanted to corrupt the faith and destroy the mass?  The pope wasn't the one saying all those masses - the bishops and priests were.  Can he be everywhere at once?  Put the blame where it belongs - on the clergy, but not on the OFFICIAL liturgy A.  Should popes Paul and JPII have corrected this sooner?  Surely, but that's between them and God.  

You even suggest in the last of the statements above that Paul VI was guilty of silence and lack of action... as though he had not actually erred.  That's a cheap shot.  Paul VI wanted the NO, promoted it, watched it launch, and left it to legacy.  If the NO practiced in most of the Church since Paul VI (whom you called a heretic) is not Mass, then the subsequent Popes since and including Paul VI are all heretics for allowing an even worse Mass to take over.  

I never said Paul VI was a heretic.  You continue to put words in my mouth.

It MIGHT be a mass; it also MIGHT NOT be.  It's a mass of a bunch of doubts.  Do you understand the meaning of the word "doubt"?

The post-V2 popes may be heretics for a variety of reasons.  It's not my place to determine.  The facts speak for themselves.  They were not very orthodox.

That would make them all destroyers of the Faith, outside the Church for heresy, practicing false liturgies and way fallible.  Now, either the last several Popes erred in an epic way proving they were not infallible, (which means the Church isn't the true Church).  Or, none were Popes which makes those who believe they weren't popes, sedes.  

99% of diocesan bishops are definitely destroyers of the Faith because they allowed a false liturgy to grow in their diocese.  The post-V2 popes did promote the NO and they did not crack down on the bad bishops.  This is part of the papal governance office and has nothing to do with infallibility.

Secondly, the survival of the Church is not dependent upon the pope's personal faith or his sanctity.  The true faith is being kept alive in tradition and as St Athanasius said in the midst of the chaos of the Arian heresy:  "If the faithful are reduced to a handful, there is the Church."

Or...the NO is enough of a Mass to bring the Blessed Sacrament to men. 

The purpose of the mass is NOT to bring the Blessed Sacrament to men.  This is your false, protestant understanding of the mass, whose purpose is FOR GOD.  Holy Communion is for men; Mass is for God.  Mass is much, much more than just manufacturing the Holy Eucharist.

If the epic failure of the post conciliar Popes and error of the Church to stop a fake communion services masquerading as a mass for > than 50 years doesn't affect the promise of infallibility, then nothing could and the promise of it is meaningless.  

People said the same thing during the Arian heresy, when all those masses were invalid too.  1,000s and 1,000s of them were invalid, said by heretic bishops/priests and most people went along with it, for a variety of reasons.  Just like the pope during the Arian heresy didn't officially approve of these false masses, so the post-V2 popes have not OFFICIALLY approved of the DOUBTFULLY false NO masses.

It simply isn't possible for a Pope to introduce a Mass that isn't really a Mass into the Church, then leave it as a legacy of some sort, where subsequent Popes continued that legacy, but that doesn't affect infallibility.  Not possible. 

Paul VI introduced liturgy A.  What is said in 95% of diocese is a corruption of the approved liturgy, as Pope Benedict said happened, which is why he issued the "reform of the reform".  Yet today, which priests and bishops use the corrupt way, and which use the "reformed" way?  

More importantly, which bishops and priests are actually valid clerics?  Which priests have been taught the TRUE intention for mass, in the uber liberal and heretical seminaries that are run by freemasons/communists?  

Even if every diocese in the latin world used the approved liturgy A, there would STILL be major doubts because of the priest's ordination and his personal intention. 

Oh dear.  So, Mass being a matter of faith, and the Pope contradicts that Faith by doing a false or doubtfully valid Mass, and promotes others to do that Mass, and passes that Mass along without condemning it, then infallibility is shot.  What you propose denies the credibility of the Church and the infallibility of the Pope.      

Happenby...i think what you are driving at is not so much infallibility but indefectibility of the Church.