I don't think you properly understand the charism of infallibility nor the infallibility of the Church. You believe the pope can be an unorthodox head of the Catholic Church. This is wrong.

Quote from: SJB

I don't think you properly understand the charism of infallibility nor the infallibility of the Church. You believe the pope can be an unorthodox head of the Catholic Church. This is wrong.

If it was this simple, there would be no sede vs non-sede debate.

Quote from: SJB

Well, that's where the theological sources come in. I didn't say it was simple, but following the approved sources is the correct way for a Catholic to analyze it.

Yet there is still debate? Not being simple, and making an opinion a dogma (or at least acting that way) are two different things.

I'm sorry I don't know what sedeplentism is...?

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: s2srea

I'm sorry I don't know what sedeplentism is...?

It is a dogmatic fact that B16 is a true pope and must be recognized as such.

In that case, I am not. I personally believe he may or may not be pope. Regardless, we have no authority to make that decision apart from holding personal opinions. Once you become a lay member, or a priest or bishop,  preaching this and telling people it MUST be true and it is imperative they believe this as well, it is erroneous and dangerous.

I don't think anyone has ever been condemned for not being sedevecantist in the history of the church, have they? Can you find that in any catechism?

7. And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,"[14] with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecuмenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said. There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.

Your quote did not answer his question, nor was your quote even about his question.