You think he is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra, correct, that means twice in the last two centuries?  What kind of Church is it that you have created in your fevered imagination, Stevus?

SECT. 31 — Papal Judgments and their Infallibility.

I. The Pope, the Father and Teacher of all Christians and the Head of the Universal Church, is the supreme judge in matters of Faith and Morals, and is the regulator and centre of Catholic Unity. His decisions are without appeal and are absolutely binding upon all. In order to possess this perfect right and power to exact universal assent and obedience it is necessary that they should be infallible. The Vatican Council, completing the definitions of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, the Second Council of Lyons, and the Council of Florence, and the Profession of Faith of Pope Hormisdas, thus defines Papal Infallibility: “The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when, in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the Universal Church — by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals ; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.” (Concil. Vat., sess. iv., cap. 4).

II. The person in whom the Infallibility is vested is the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra; that is to say, exercising the highest doctrinal authority inherent in the Apostolic See. Whenever the Pope speaks as Supreme Teacher of the Church, he speaks ex cathedra; nor is there any other ex cathedra teaching besides his. The definition therefore leaves no room for the sophistical distinction made by the Gallicans between the See and its occupant (Sedes, Sedens). An ex cathedra judgment is also declared to be supreme and universally binding. Its subject-matter is “doctrine concerning Faith or Morals;“ that is, all and only such points of doctrine as are or may be proposed for the belief of the Faithful. The form of the ex cathedra judgment is the exercise of the Apostolic power with intent to bind all the Faithful in the unity of the Faith.

The nature and extent of the Infallibility of the Pope are also contained in the definition. This Infallibility is the result of a Divine assistance. It differs both from Revelation and Inspiration. It does not involve the manifestation of any new doctrine, or the impulse to write down what God reveals. It supposes, on the contrary, an investigation of revealed truths, and only prevents the Pope from omitting this investigation and from erring in making it. The Divine assistance is not granted to the Pope for his personal benefit, but for the benefit of the Church. Nevertheless, it is granted to him directly as the successor of St. Peter, and not indirectly through the medium of the Church. The extent of the Infallibility of the Pope is determined partly by its subject-matter, partly by the words “possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals.” Moreover, the object of the Infallibility of the Pope and of the Infallibility of the Church being the same, their extent must also coincide.

From the Infallibility of ex cathedra judgments, the council deduces their Irreformability, and further establishes the latter by excluding the consent of the Church as the necessary condition of it. The approbation of the Church is the consequence not the cause of the Irreformability of ex cathedra judgments.

III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the docuмents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the docuмent. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical docuмents must be applied. The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—

1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.

2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.

3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.

4. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.

This is why I've asked in the past for there to be a separate Crisis section for non-sedes. Some sedes here reduce EVERY news item and discussion to Pope bashing, vigorously promoting their absurd "thesis", attacking other Trads, comparing them to Neo-Caths if they believe there is a Pope, etc.

It's getting really tiring and is creating an atmosphere in this subforum that kills all true discussion.

The mindset of the sede is completely different from that of an SSPX'er. The sede has already thrown the baby out with the bathwater and assumes a false reality through which he sees and interprets all events spreading his despair, rash judgment, and hopelessness through all he touches.

If you want to live in your fantasy world of your own making where BXVI doesn't exist and you run your own church and you are your own Pope like a Prot, be my guest. But keep your judgment and robotic propaganda sound bytes to yourself.

A fruitful discussion is only possible with other Traditionalists who are not living in a false reality with false premeses.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Matthew created this site and has it posted that this is a forum dedicated to the SSPX view of the crisis. Sedes are here as a courtesy. It is precisely because of this problem that hardly any other Trad forum allows sedevacantist discussion.

If I wanted to get into a sede debate EVERY TIME I post, there should be a subforum dedicated to sedevacantism I could go into.

As it stands I want to talk about issues regarding the crisis in the Church WITHOUT discussing sedevacantism. That is becoming almost impossible on this forum as some sedes turn every crisis discussion into a referendum as to who is Pope. It is toxic and fatal to this entire subforum which is one of the main purposes of the larger forum.

I again urge Matthew to please create a separate Crisis forum where sedevacantism discussion is banned and/or ban it from this subforum and create a separate Sede subforum.

Thank you.

If you want to debate Sede-ism there should be a forum for that. If you want to discuss the crisis without discussing sedeism, there should be a forum for that too. That's all I'm saying.