The pope is only infallible under very precise conditions. When a pope says something wrong and tries to label it 'ordinary magisterium', you simply ignore him, as Pius IX said.  Paul VI was not the first heretical pope in Church history.

Unbelievable.  This is where R&R has brought us.  No Catholic theologican has ever taught that Catholics can "simply ignore" the Pope.

This is the biggest heretical hodge-podge articulation of R&R that I have seen yet.

This isn't about the strict limits of papal infalliblity but about the overall indefectibility of the Church, which would be gutted if the Church's Magisterium could become substantially corrupt, so corrupt that Catholics must break communion with it in order to remain Catholic, and where Catholics cannot in good conscience particpate in the Public Worship (Mass) of the Catholic Church.

While Pius IX was overseeing the formulation of the dogma of papal infallibility in Vatican I, the bishop of Brechin asked, "What happens if a future pope teaches heresy?"  Pius IX, with his characteristic nonchalance, answered, "You just don't follow him."

When these disastrous recent popes say things contrary to what their predecessors defined, it is not magisterium.  The Church remains indefectible and no shadow of corruption takes hold of the Magisterium.

But indefectability is apparently not wounded by the complete disappearance of the hierarchy?

Just more sede nonsense.

How is the "legitimate" hierarchy all being heretics or heretic enablers any better?

While Pius IX was overseeing the formulation of the dogma of papal infallibility in Vatican I, the bishop of Brechin asked, "What happens if a future pope teaches heresy?"  Pius IX, with his characteristic nonchalance, answered, "You just don't follow him."

What is the source of this quote?    


It appears the Diocese of Brechin ceased to be Catholic in 1558.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Brechin


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese_of_Brechin

Unbelievable.  This is where R&R has brought us.  No Catholic theologian has ever taught that Catholics can "simply ignore" the Pope.

“If (the Pope) lays down an order contrary to right customs one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good defence.” - Suarez, De Fide, disp.X sect.6, n.16.
 
“If a man is sincerely convinced that what his superior commands is displeasing to God, he is bound not to obey…The word ‘superior’ certainly includes the Pope.”   - Cardinal Newman, Difficulties of Anglicans, pp.260-61.

“If the Faith be in danger, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public. Thus, St. Paul, who was the subject of St Peter, called him to task in public because of the impending danger of scandal concerning a point of Faith. As the gloss of St Augustine says on Gal 2:11: ‘St Peter himself set an example for those who rule, to the effect that if they ever stray from the right path they are not to feel that anyone is unworthy of correcting them, even if such a person be one of their subjects.’” - St Thomas Aquinas, S.Th.IIaIIae,q33a4ad2.
 
"Although it clearly follows from the circuмstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not simply to be obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of the Faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or the divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over, ignored." - Cardinal Torquemada OP (1388-1468), Summa de Ecclesia, p47-48

"Great as our filial duty of reverence is towards whatever (the Pope) may say, great as our duty of obedience must be to the guidance of the Chief Shepherd, we do not hold that every word of his is infallible, or that he must always be right" - Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val, The Truth of Papal Claims, 1902,  p19...  Commenting on St Paul's resisting St Peter as related in Galatians: "Even today a bishop might expostulate with a Pope, who in his judgement might be acting in a way which was liable to mislead those under his own charge, and then write to his critics that he had not hesitated to pass strictures upon the action of the successor of St Peter... The hypothesis is quite conceivable and in no way destroys or diminishes the supremacy of the Pope. And yet an individual bishop does not occupy the exceptional position of St Paul, a fellow Apostle of the Prince of the Apostles. Even a humble nun, St Catherine of Siena, expostulated with the reigning Pontiff in her day, whilst fully acknowledging all his great prerogatives." -Card Merry del Val, Ibid. p74

“Were he (the Pope) to wish to destroy the Church or to commit an act of similar magnitude, there would be a duty to prevent him, and likewise an obligation to oppose him and resist him. The reason being that he does not possess power in order to destroy, and thus it follows that if he is doing so it is lawful to oppose him” - Sylvester Prieras, prominent Dominican defender of papal authority against Martin Luther, in Dialogus de Potestate Papae, 1517.

“If the Pope by his orders and his acts destroys the Church, one can resist him and impede the execution of his commands.” - Vitoria, Dominican theologian, Obras de Francisco de Vitoria pp. 486-67                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
“Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks the souls or destroys the civil order, or above all destroys the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will…” - St Robert Bellarmine, De Summo Pontifice, n.30, lib.II, cap.102 

The Catacombs - Archbishop Lefebvre - On the Second Vatican Council
 
     “The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, Ecuмenism, Religious Liberty, Collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism… A wholly different version of Revelation, of Faith, of philosophy! Very grave! A total perversion! How we are going to get out of all this, I have no idea, but in any case it is a fact, and as this German theologian shows (who has, I believe, another two parts of his book to write on the Holy Father's thought), it is truly frightening. So, they are no small errors. We are not dealing in trifles. We are into a line of philosophical thinking that goes back to Kant, Descartes, the whole line of modern philosophers who paved the way for the Revolution.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)
 
     “…it is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy, despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.” (from I Accuse the Council)
 
     “We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analyzing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
  
     “It is stupefying to read in the Docuмentation Catholique that the Lutheran-Catholic Commission of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and thus an official Roman commission, said in effect that numerous points in the Council were drawn from the teachings of Luther…” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
 
     “Some say the Council was good and has good, but only the reform is bad. But that is not true! Why? Because when Rome gave the reform, they always say the reforms they do, they do in the name of the Council. In the name of the Council! It is evident that all reform came from the Council, and if the reform is bad, it is impossible that the Council is good and all reforms are bad. Because that is the authentic interpretation of the Council by Rome!” (Conference, May 11, 1976)
 
     “This Council gives the same rights to error as to Truth! That is impossible.” (Conference, May 11, 1976)
 
     “We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. ... This reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt. It comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the reform. ... That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council.” (Declaration of Faith, November 21, 1974)
 
     “We can think that there is Rome and Rome: [on one hand,] there is the Rome which is eternal in Her Faith, Her Dogmas, Her concept of the Sacrifice of the Mass; [on the other hand,] there is the temporal Rome which is influenced by the ideas of the modern world, an influence which the Council itself did not escape.” (October 13, 1974)
 
     “The Church, in the course of the 1960's, thus during the Council, acquired values that have come from outside the Church, from the liberal culture - due secoli - from two centuries of liberal culture. It is clear: these are the "rights" of man, it is religious freedom, it is ecuмenism. It is Satanic.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)
 
     "Without rejecting this Council wholesale, I think that it is the greatest disaster of this century and of all the past centuries, since the founding of the Church." The Angelus A Matter of Principle
 
     “I never…I don’t accept the Council! Because you are destroying the Catholic State in the name of the Council! It is sure! It is evident!…This Council gives the same rights to error as to Truth! That is impossible…This new faith, it is a new religion. It is a protestant religion. That is a fact! How is it possible that the Pope gives the authorization to this change? How it is possible that the pope can sign this constitution (on liturgical change)? It is a deep mystery…If I take the position of the Council, I am betraying my Mother Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, conference, 1976)
 
     We [Bishop de Castro Mayer and the Archbishop] fought together to prevent the errors of Liberalism, which are a cancer in the doctrine of the Church, spreading themselves in the texts of the Council. ... Unfortunately, this Liberal principle has been adopted by Vatican II. ... If one does not want to believe that these texts are Liberal, one has just to see the consequences: ecuмenism (all religion on an equal footing), and the laicization of the states. Ordination Sermon 1988
 
     And, so I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger], "What is the source of these bad fruits? For me, it is the Council of aggiornamento; that signifies the Council of the changes. What changes? Changes in the sacraments, changes in catechisms, changes in the Bible, so that we are no longer Catholics [but] are like Protestants. ... And he said, "No! No, no, no, that does not come from the Council; it comes from bad interpretations of the Council; it comes from abuses of the reforms." I said, "That is not true. That comes from the new orientation of the Church in the Council, especially by ecuмenism." Changes in the Sacraments...We are like Protestants 1985
 
     The Church has always dreaded novelties, even in her vocabulary and that is why she has held on so strongly to the Latin language in the principal form of Tradition, viz. the Roman Church. For it is by a tendency to novelty that heresies, schisms, and errors have come about. This spirit of novelty, mutation, and change has succeeded in entering into the Church. It necessarily tends to destroy Tradition. The Second Vatican Council, which wished to be the Council of "up-dating," opened the door to this spirit of change and novelty. (Principles and Directives - 1982 General Chapter)
 
     The Council should have been the occasion of the reaffirmation of the Truth of the Church and the necessity of the social reign of Jesus and Mary against the errors of Protestantism and Teilhardian naturalism and against socialism and communism. Ordinary Protestants would have been converted en masse. They were disposed to it and their debacle was profound on the eve of the Council. But the Modernists, traitors to the Church, used the Council to favor their compromise with all the modern errors, profiting from a weak pope and a pope disposed to radical changes. All of the commentators on the Council recognize the triumph of the liberals who did not hide their satisfaction and who neutralized or drove from the Roman Curia all of the conservatives and who took the reins of government, centralizing power in the Secretariat of State in order to be certain of managing the ecuмenical revolution so much desired by the enemies of the Church. The work was quickly carried out in all fields. Destruction also followed quickly. In this pastoral Council the spirit of error and lies was able to work at its ease, placing time-bombs everywhere which, in due course, would destroy the institutions. (Principles and Directives - 1982 General Chapter)
 

No, he didn't, stop spreading that made up lie or give a credible source.
The best indication this is completely made up is that sometimes people say it was the bishop of Brechin, sometimes of Brixen and sometimes that the bishop's name was Brixen.
What Pius IX actually said to a person minimising the Pope's authority (like you do) is: "Tradition?! I am Tradition!"

Living Tradition. It is traditional after all! The Pope makes it! You had better follow your own advice and provide a source lest you come under your own judgement!

Your evidence of a lie, is no evidence at all.

Fr Chazal produces the same quote in Contra Cekadam, but again, sadly, with no reference:
"There is danger that a future pope would become a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith... do not follow him. If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him" - Letter to the Bishop of Brixen, quoted in Contra Cekadam p60.

Pope Pius IX reigned from 1846-1878. From 1856-1879, the Bishop of Brixen was Vincent Gasser, famed for his Official Relatio on Papal Infallibility at Vatican Council I. Perhaps he is the one in question. His Relatio at the Council is even more condemning of your false and exaggerated notion of Papal Infallibility:

The gift of infallibility : the official relatio on infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I : Gasser, Vinzenz, 1809-1879 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

"Vincent Gasser was born in 1809, taught dogmatic theology after ordination to priesthood, was nominated by Emperor Franz Joseph as prince-bishop of Brixen in the Tyrol in 1856 and died there as bishop in 1879". Dom Cuthbert Butler wrote in his history of the Council "Mgr Vincent Gasser... stands out as the most prominent theologian of the Council". He was the official spokesman of the Deputation De Fide at the Council, entrusted with drawing up the draft and explaining it to the Council Fathers, which he did in his Relatio. Here are some quotes from this work which you can read in full above:

"It should not be said that the Pontiff is infallible simply because of the authority of the Papacy but rather inasmuch as he is certainly and undoubtedly subject to the direction of the divine assistance. By the authority of the Papacy the Pontiff is always the supreme judge in matters of faith and morals, and the father and teacher of all Christians. But the divine assistance promised to him, by which he cannot err, he only enjoys as such when he really and actually exercises his duty as supreme judge and universal teacher of the Church in disputes about the Faith. Thus, the sentence 'The Roman Pontiff is infallible' should not be treated as false, since Christ promised infallibility to the person of Peter and his successors, but it is incomplete, since the Pope is only infallible when, by a solemn judgement, he defines a matter of faith and morals for the Church universal"

"The purpose of this prerogative is the preservation of truth in the Church. The special exercise of this prerogative occurs when there arise somewhere in the Church scandals against the faith... and we should piously believe that , in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontifical judgement...

"Note well. It is asked in what sense the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is 'absolute'. I reply and openly admit: in no sense is pontifical infallibility absolute, because absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, who is the first and essential truth and who is never able to deceive or be deceived. All other infallibility, as communicated for a specific purpose, has its limits and its conditions under which it is considered to be present. The same is valid in reference to the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. For this infallibility is bound by certain limits and conditions."

"Now before I end this general relatio, I should respond to the most grave objection that has been made from this podium, namely, that we wish to make the extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic Faith. Indeed, this is a very grave objection, and when I heard it from the mouth of an outstanding and most esteemed speaker, I hung my head sadly and pondered well before speaking. Good God, have you so confused our minds and our tongues that we are misrepresented as promoting the elevation of the extreme opinion of a certain school to the dignity of dogma...?  As far as the doctrine set forth in the draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, namely, that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls 'pious and probable', was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy... it is evident (apparet) that the doctrine in the proposed Chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school..."

While Pius IX was overseeing the formulation of the dogma of papal infallibility in Vatican I, the bishop of Brechin asked, "What happens if a future pope teaches heresy?"  Pius IX, with his characteristic nonchalance, answered, "You just don't follow him."

When these disastrous recent popes say things contrary to what their predecessors defined, it is not magisterium.  The Church remains indefectible and no shadow of corruption takes hold of the Magisterium.

Characteristic nonchalance?



Yeah, try reading some actual Pius IX quoted above. Try reading the whole Quartus Supra and tell me how it fares with your position.