CathInfo.com

Admitting that the sins and errors of Catholics, i.e. the human element, can injure the Church, disfigure or harm the Church, is not only theologically permissible, the doctrine is taught in the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers.  You are confounding the Spotless Bride, whose perfection is to be found in the Church Trimphant and the human element of the Church Militant, thus creating an erroneous picture of the Church, much like Calvin did with his ecclesiology of the elect and the Donatists who refused to admit such blemishes.

In fact, members of the Church can become more perfectly united to the Mystical Body within, the Saints being the exemplars of this truth.  If that is true, the converse is also true, that such intrinsic spiritual union that is to be perfected, can be lessened, imperfect or in some manner defective.      

During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."

This refers to the Church's divine constitution, Her holiness in doctrine, in the Sacraments, in Her intrinsic, mystical relation with Our Lord Jesus Christ.  On the other hand, this does not prevent individual members from becoming sinners and marring the Church according to Her human element.  Therein lies the distinction that you are missing and consequently are perverting Catholic doctrine reducing it to absurdity.  If your understanding is correct, how do you account for the evil that Catholics do?  Do you seriously assert that it has no affect on the Church, its internal unity, its activity and its very existence?  The errors that Mortalium Animos addressed were errors that touched upon the very essence and nature of the Church and that is why Pope Pius IX made such reference to Cyprian's statement.  The quote from Auctorem Fidei refers to traditional discipline established by authority and antiquity, therefore it is not applicable to a non-authoritative, experimental discipline that is binding upon no one; reforms that did not come from the "Church" properly speaking, but from a commission of errant men.  Therefore the quote is immaterial.  

Regarding language, unless you would accuse ABL of a terrible schizophrenia, you must take it in a certain sense.  The Vatican obviously was not literally a "masonic lodge" and therefore he used figurative, descriptive language that described a certain reality.  But if you don't have the patience to discern the sense of a man's words, then I suggest you get out of this debate altogether as the temperament of your mind won't allow you to engage in serious discussion.    

Caminus said:

This refers to the Church's divine constitution, Her holiness in doctrine, in the Sacraments, in Her intrinsic, mystical relation with Our Lord Jesus Christ.  On the other hand, this does not prevent individual members from becoming sinners and marring the Church according to Her human element.

Holiness in doctrine, you mean such as saying that false religions have seeds of the Word?

Holiness in the sacraments, you mean in the bastardized and invalid New Rite of Consecration?  Or how about the Mass without any consecration at all entirely approved of by JPII?  I won't speak about the "for all" in the Novus Ordo Mass because you will say that it isn't the official Novus Ordo Mass, and apparently you think that the true Church is kept alive by a rubric preserved in glass somewhere that is never used...

As for individual members being "sinners," it is now nigh-on two years since I've been here that you refuse to address the real issue which is that heretics are not just sinners, but non-Catholics.  They are not members of the Church.  What does it say about you that you are TRYING to confuse people, to make them equate those who commit mortal sins of the flesh or whatever, with heretics?  You are intellectually dishonest.  You know very well that mortal sinners are dead members of the Church; and heretics are not in the Church at all.  But in your posts, you blur the difference -- now why would someone who wants the truth do that, hm?  The irony of you always talking about distinctions is so very rich... You are the last person who should accuse anyone else of not making distinctions.  All I can say is that for someone who wants to be the lay version of Garrigou-Lagrange you certainly aren't very rigorous in your arguments, relying on a bunch of sophistry and hedging.

If a heretic could be Pope, when the Holy Ghost has promised the Pope would be infallible on faith and morals, how would we ever know where the truth is?  If a Pope could disfigure the Deposit of Faith, Christ's Church has no meaning, no sense.  Your "Peter" doesn't have the keys; he is a latchkey kid whose mommy is Bishop Fellay, and who can have his privileges -- like infallibility -- revoked for bad behavior, then given back to him when he's good...  Which in effect makes this totally random out-of-nowhere figure Bishop Fellay the Pope...  He is the one who decides when what the Pope says is true or not, instead of God.  Everything is backwards; we can no longer trust the Pope to teach us correctly on faith and morals, we just pick and choose what we like among his various teachings.  This is what you call a rock?  It's more like moldy Swiss cheese.

The logical consequence of the SSPX position is basically a subtle form of Old Catholicism -- you have, in effect, established a democratic form of Church government and effaced the papacy.  It's yet another form of revolution, naturalizing what is supernatural, taking the Holy Ghost's supernatural protection of the Pope and replacing it with a purely natural and man-made ( and thus precarious and doomed ) protection in the form of Bishop Fellay.