Please explain to me why our Lord instituted the Papacy?

Also please explain to me what use there is in having a pope if one can arbitrarily decide, based on what they believe coincides with tradition, what laws promulgated by the pope, what saints he canonizes, or what liturgy he imposes are to be accepted or rejected?

I've authored this post NOT to be argumentative, but merely to help me understand how R&R Catholics deal with, from my perspective, an apparent contradiction.

Please explain to me why our Lord instituted the Papacy?

Many reasons why ... one was to unite us and since we are scattered (today) in our opinions of wonderment of why the current  conciliar popes contradict the past popes and teach things that were condemned by Divine Law, such as the breaking of the  First Commandment.   All of which prove the Chair of Peter is empty of a True Catholic at this time.  Better known as the Great Apostasy foretold to us in the Bible.  
 

Question: If Chapter 12 of Daniel is to happen, no Sacrifice and the length of time it will be, then if their is a "Pope" why is there no Mass?  The Precious Blood is so powerful that without it, it would be better to be without the Sun.

A catholic Pope is needed to keep the Precious Blood happening.  We must experience what it is like without the True Mass.  For it to end, means no true Catholic Pope?

I grant you that a pope can remain pope with mortal sin and such, BUT No Precious Blood?, how can a pope (catholic?) be a True pope?  Not possible. Right now, we all agree as Traditional catholics, that the New Order mass is more than invalid and more than an insult to   Christ. Any clergy that says a New Order (mess), is against Christ. Can not be pope.  It is made public over and over again.  No tribunal is needed to say, "excommunication".  Anyone can do this. example: a catholic marrying with a protestant minister.  Excommunicated.  Join the Masons, excommunicated.

We wait for Christ to come to set it right again.

Songbird reading your post above triggered in my mind what the good nuns taught us back in the late 40's - 50's; if the world lost the Precious Blood flowing from the altar in our Church the blood of man will flow on the streets of the world.  

With the destruction of the Sacrament of Ordination, there can not be a Mass offered only a Protestant service.

Hilarious that all of the replies so far seem to be from

those who HOLD the sedevacantist position.

Nothing like reading a thread title.  Good job.

We are waiting for you to give a serious shot at the answers to those questions.

Hilarious that all of the replies so far seem to be from

those who HOLD the sedevacantist position.

Nothing like reading a thread title.  Good job.

Another point of why this wasn't put into the RR section instead of the Sede section, especially since he addresses RR in particular?

Please explain to me why our Lord instituted the Papacy?

For the supreme ruler, head of the Church, Vicar of Christ's Kingdom on earth.

Also please explain to me what use there is in having a pope if one can arbitrarily decide, based on what they believe coincides with tradition, what laws promulgated by the pope, what saints he canonizes, or what liturgy he imposes are to be accepted or rejected?

One does not, far as I know, "arbitrarily decide" any of those things initially, but after many years of contradictory teachings, with time, it becomes easier because then one knows to automatically reject his contradictory to traditional teachings, laws and canonizations, least ways unless he commands us to do something Catholic.

I've authored this post NOT to be argumentative, but merely to help me understand how R&R Catholics deal with, from my perspective, an apparent contradiction.

This snip from Fr. Wathen may help explain......

There is nothing saying that the pope is infallible in the exercise of this plenipotentiary authority. Nor is there anything in Divine Revelation or ecclesiastical law which guarantees that the pope will never make an unwise law, or repeal a wise one; appoint an inept bishop, or a bad one; impose an unjust interdiction, or refuse to impose a necessary one; teach erroneous notions (even rank heresy) and say and do things which lead to mistaken conclusions, or permit his subordinates to do so. Nothing - except Divine Providence, if He so chooses - prevents there being a totally incompetent, or imprudent, or immoral pope. Indeed, forbidding as such a thought may be, it is not inconceivable (i.e., out of the realm of possibility, or, the same thing, contradictory to the doctrine of papal infallibility) that there ascend the Throne of St. Peter a malicious pope, one bent on the total destruction of the Church, he being faithless enough to think such a thing possible!

There is, at the same time, nothing in the definition of the Papacy which guarantees that the Supreme Pontiff could not give sinful commands and permit, or even encourage, the gravest abuses, or raise wicked and conspiratorial men to the episcopacy and the cardinalate, to give them free reign to teach every kind of error and command or permit every kind of misdeed. In a word, there is no divine promise that the pope will not be permitted to use his great authority in the most wicked and destructive ways.

Such a pope would not, despite any and all manner of unholy action, lose his own legitimacy, nor his all-comprehensive jurisdiction, nor the divine prerogative of infallibility; so that, should an avowed conspirator become the Roman pontiff, were he converted, he might immediately set about repairing the damage he himself had helped to inflict on the Church, without needing to be re-elected and re-instated or re-confirmed in his office; only his private confession and absolution from any censure he might have incurred would be required.....

Popes are not infallible in the exercise of their legislative power; they are capable of enacting both foolish and bad laws, of commanding that which is foolish and that which is sinful......

 

These words of Fr. Feeney in Bread of Life explain it perfectly:

The gate of the Kingdom of Heaven in beatitude was opened for the first time by the entrance of Jesus. The keys to that gate were put in the hands of Christ’s Vicar on earth when He said to Peter, and his successors: “And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” No matter what we do in the way of justification, we can never enter salvation unless we enter it under the leadership of him who has the keys to that Kingdom.

That flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus Christ is none other than the Pope, our Holy Father, a visible head for Christ’s visible Church. He is a man whom we can point to as the visible Vicar on earth of the visible Christ in eternity. He is as pointable-at now in time as Jesus once was when He walked the streets of Jerusalem, followed by Peter and His Apostles.

It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation. Justification is useless for purposes of the Beatific Vision unless submission to Christ’s Vicar has been added to it in essential complement.

Pope Boniface VIII, in 1302, infallibly declared in his bull, Unam Sanctam: “We declare, say, define and pronounce, that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” A defined dogma can never be changed. It holds for every age; it applies to every generation, until the end of time.

If you do not have a belief in, and submission to, a visible Holy Father and a visible Church, with clear distinguishable marks, you will never get into Heaven.

Therefore, unless someone is able to present to me irrefutable objective proof that Pope Francis is not a valid successor of St. Peter or point out to me where Blessed Peter is to be found today (where Peter is, there is the Church), I have NO choice BUT be in juridical union with him and full communion with the hierarchy (I'm NOT SSPX).

What happens in the unfortunate case of the Pope being a freemason Jєω? Well, a freemason or any other person is deprived of his office by due canonical process; but when it comes to the Roman Pontiff, there is no such process so why do I have to worry about it?. Still, there is no principle in Catholicism which allows a layman to separate from the hierarchy which has elected and still recognizes the Bishop of Rome as such. I better worry about the salvation of my immortal soul and an increase in a Christ - like holiness. I know with the certainty of Faith that the tangible and visible Sacraments are absolutely necessary for salvation so staying home alone on Sundays is out of the question.

I am somehow inclined to favor the sedeprivationist position after having studied the Cassiciacuм thesis. The reason for this is twofold: the nightmarish pontificate of Pope Francis and the evident failure of the R&R SSPX approach.

These words of Fr. Feeney in Bread of Life explain it perfectly:

Quote from: Fr. Feeney

...
If you do not have a belief in, and submission to, a visible Holy Father and a visible Church, with clear distinguishable marks, you will never get into Heaven.

We're living with the paradox of the Holy Father himself not exactly believing in or submitting to that!

I am somehow inclined to favor the sedeprivationist position after having studied the Cassiciacuм thesis. The reason for this is twofold: the nightmarish pontificate of Pope Francis and the evident failure of the R&R SSPX approach.

Sedeprivationism does sort of recognise and resist the pope. It's not burning its bridges. I think I prefer it to sedevacantism.  

Like it or not, whose image and inscription is this?