Caminus said:He, like SV's, can't seem to comprehend that the Pope could be an instrument of the devil in many ways and still remain a member of the Church.
You can't seem to comprehend that some of us can make a distinction between an immoral Pope and one who has promoted error and/or heresy through an ecuмenical Council -- an impossibility.
You also can't seem to acknowledge this distinction yourself; you just keep ignoring it and hoping it will go away.
For all I know every Pope since the Renaissance has been part of some giant Kabbalistic plot. Maybe the Pharisees have been sitting in the Temple since Leo X. I don't care. I care about what they teach in their official capacity, about the Magisterium. As long as the Magisterium is pristine, there are no worries on my end. But there is no way that the encyclicals of Paul VI and up can be part of the true Magisterium.
That is why sedevacantists exist, not to mention the SSPX. But the easily exploded myth of the SSPX is that an ecuмenical council approved by a true Pope can err.
Here we get back to my other post about SSPX being more extremist than home-aloner sedes. If VII was only AMBIGUOUS, you have no cause to divorce yourself from the rest of the Church. You should be like Attila Guimares, recognizing and resisting from within the infected structures. But if it actually taught error or heresy, you should be sedevacantist. Either way, there is no purpose for SSPX.