"It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing."

"for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.

I don't know how any traditionalist can dance around this anymore. Let this sink in:  "unblemished by any error" Now either words don't mean anything when the Church speaks from a Pontifically approved Council or PF is not the pope. It has come down to black and white.

"For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter, not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles...

...Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks Ex Cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."

The Church is where St. Peter is.

A political infiltration in the Vatican is possible. St. Peter's Faith failing is impossible.

It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.

So the successor to St. Peter can teach 1.2 billion Catholics can divorce, get remarried, and then receive communion. Annnnd, the second marriage God himself will approve of.

Do you wish to defend that statement?

In the past, such rubbish would have led its proponent to die at the stake. Now a days we have people supporting the notion that Francis is pope while people are out there acting right now on Amoris Laetitia through its implementation via the October 2016 edition of Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Flat out adulterers' are justified in putting their filthy little piggy mouths around the absolute pure God by a "successor" of St. Peter. Simply incredible. If anyone were to even suggest back in 1958 such a thing could happen they would have been excommunicated and thrown out of the Church.

A heretic cannot be a Pope. Especially one who teaches people to commit adultery.

When the time comes I am going to die a happy man when that fire from the sky comes a knocking.

Wait, you're a sedevacantist now?  Or do you believe Benny is pope?

And *that's* why most Catholics should avoid the subject of sedeism completely.,

I remember very well that Bergoglio promised the Holy Communion to divorced and "remarried" to his niece or some other family member living with a man other than her husband - in the very beginning of his iron fist rule. He also stated that most Catholic marriages are invalid. In his opinion some not married couples have a real marriage, while many married in Church do not. People don't know what they are promising - he said. Therefore he denies any role for the Holy Spirit, only an ability or inability of couples to be content enough to want to be together (as long as love lasts). If they don't, it means that there was no marriage. Marrage exists only, when people want to stay together.