.

I believe that the Pope's personal Roman Faith cannot fail. Our Lord specifically prayed for this intention. It was not only for St. Peter but for his legitimate successors as well. If Christ prayer is inefficacious, what hope is there for mine?

Of one thing I am certain though and it is not an opinion of mine: It is impossible that the Pope teaches judicially against the Faith...as teaching heretical error in an Ecunemical Council.  

Popes may err personally; not judicially or definitely.

I see you found the rest of that quote as well. Here it is for everyone else to see and judge:

For to what other See was it ever said I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy Faith do not fail? so say the Fathers, not meaning that none of Peter's seat can err in person, understanding, private doctrine or writing, but that they cannot nor shall not ever judicially conclude or give definitive sentence for falsehood or heresy against the Catholic Faith, in their Consistories, Courts, Councils, decrees, deliberations, or consultations kept for decision and determinations of such controversies, doubts, questions of faith as shall be proposed unto them: because Christ's prayer and promise protected them therein for conformation of their Brethren.
Comment to Luke 22:31, Douay Rheims, 1582

So it DOES NOT mean that "Peter and any of his successors can err in person, understanding, private doctrine or writing".

But it DOES mean that "Peter and his successors shall not ever judicially conclude or give definitive sentence for falsehood or heresy against the Catholic Faith, in their Consistories, Courts, Councils, decrees, deliberations, or consultations kept for decision and determinations of such controversies, doubts, questions of faith as shall be proposed unto them".

If I am not mistaken, then "judicially conclude or give definitive sentence" is another way for saying "bind". So they cannot bind us to error. And if they cannot bind us, we can resist them in these errors.

Do you at least agree that your opinion that the pope cannot even privately fail in his faith contradicts these comments?

ETA: I see you now changed your formula to "personally err", but if I am not mistaken, it used to be "his faith cannot fail at all".

What does it say here?

Cantarella,
 
You have made your personal profession of faith that everything from every ecuмenical council is infallible.  You have made your personal profession of faith the each and every pope possess a personal never-failing faith. Both of these are odd “dogmas” in your make-believe church that does not or ever will have a pope or an ecuмenical council. You would think that fact that two ecuмenical councils ratified by their reigning pontiffs approved declarations that “anathematized” Pope Honorius for “heresy” should at least make you stop and consider the hopeless contradictions that are running around in your head.
 
It is absurd that you should be posting a reply to defend your “dogma” that the pope possesses a personal never-failing faith with this simple citation that does not even support your claim.  The quote you have provided only says regarding the never-failing faith of the pope is that “he may not judicially or definitively err” which is exactly what has been already affirmed. It is absurd because I have already posted from the commentaries from St. Thomas’ Catena Aurea, Rev. George Haydock’s Commentary, and Cornelius a Lapide’s Great Commentary on this subject. St. Thomas and Haydock’s do not even mention the question of a personal never-failing faith as a possibility.  Lapide’s Commentary directly refutes it:

“But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not”.
For thee, because I destine thee to be the head and chief of the Apostles and of My Church, that thy faith fail not in believing Me to be the Christ and the Saviour of the world. Observe that Christ in this prayer asked and obtained for Peter two especial privileges before the other Apostles: the first was personal, that he should never fall from faith in Christ; for Christ looked back to the sifting in the former verse, that is the temptation of His own apprehension when the other Apostles flew off from Him like chaff and lost their faith, and were dispersed, and fled into all parts. But Peter, although he denied Christ with his lips, at the hour foretold, and lost his love for Him, yet retained his faith. So S. Chrysostom (Hom. xxxviii.) on S. Matthew; S. Augustine (de corrept. et Grat. chap. viii.); Theophylact and others. This is possible but not certain, for F. Lucas and others think that Peter then lost both his faith and his love, from excessive perturbation and fear; but only for a short time, and so that his faith afterwards sprang up anew, and was restored with fresh vitality. Hence it is thought not to have wholly failed, or to have been torn up by the roots, but rather to have been shaken and dead for a time.
 
Another and a certain privilege was common to Peter with all his successors, that he and all the other bishops of Rome (for Peter, as Christ willed, founded and confirmed the Pontifical Church at Rome), should never openly fall from this faith, so as to teach the Church heresy, or any error, contrary to the faith. So S. Leo (serm. xxii.), on Natalis of SS. Peter and Paul; S. Cyprian (Lib. i. ep 3), to Cornelius; Lucius I., Felix I., Agatho, Nicolas I., Leo IX., Innocent III., Bernard and others, whom Bellarmine cites and follows (Lib. i. de Pontif. Roman).

For it was necessary that Christ, by His most wise providence, should provide for His Church, which is ever being sifted and tempted by the devil, and that not only in the time of Peter, but at all times henceforth, even to the end of the world, an oracle of the true faith which she might consult in every doubt and by which she might be taught and confirmed in the faith, otherwise the Church might err in faith, quod absit! For she is as S. Paul said to Timothy, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. iii 15). This oracle of the Church then is Peter, and all successive bishops of Rome. This promise made to Peter, and his successors, most especially applies to the time when Peter, as the successor of Christ, began to be the head of the Church, that is, after the death of Christ.

Rev. Cornelius a Lapide, The Great Commentary, Luke 22:32

This is in perfect accord with Vatican I definition of papal infallibility which specifically cites the gift of never-failing faith and dogmatically affirms exactly what that means.

Vatican I, Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, 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. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

 But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

 Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, 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. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

What is “the divine assistance promised to him (the pope) in blessed Peter which the divine redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine.”?  The answer is given in the narrative text, it is the “gift of truth and never-failing faith (that) was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors.” 
 
The dogma demonstrates that the never-failing faith enjoyed by the popes is exactly what Rev. Cornelius a Lapide said that was, that is, “a certain privilege… common to Peter with all his successors, that he and all the other bishops of Rome (for Peter, as Christ willed, founded and confirmed the Pontifical Church at Rome), should never openly fall from this faith, so as to teach the Church heresy, or any error, contrary to the faith.”
 
If you take the trouble to count, you will see that Lapide references more than a dozen Church Fathers, doctors, and popes in support of this interpretation. It is not just that the pope does not possess a personal never-failing faith, to be believe that he does is papolatry which is both the cause and is the fruit of holding the pope as your rule of faith.
 
Drew

I was referring to the last part of your sentence "we can resist them in these errors"

We know that General Councils ratified by the Pope do not promulgate heretical errors, so there should be nothing to "resist".

That is why Vatican II Council is so relevant to us, in our struggle against International Jewry, Masonry and Modernism, because if this Council indeed taught error, then the only way that this could have ever happened was if an anti-Pope, an illegitimate successor of St. Peter ratified it.

It is the indication of an official infiltration to the Holy See.

Besides, it is not only one or two errors in a Letter somewhere that we as Traditionals are "resisting", or an imprudent interview in a plane. It is a complete swift of the Magisterium as to appear coming from a completely alien religion. It is an overwhelming succession of evils for Roman Catholicism. Wouldn't you agree?

Canterella,
The conciliar religion is not by any measurable means the, Faith of the Church. It is indeed alien doctrine in concept and in practice. One needs to come to that clear conclusion, before they can discuss what that means and its implications.  There is no sense in discussing whether or not we can be bound to something which is foreign to the Holy Religion.
Vatican II was the Jєωιѕн council, it was executed  by them, along with their Freemasonic brethren and wicked and traitorous Bishops which was a final assault in the collapse of Catholicism started in 1789.

Yet, you believe that an Ecunemical Council promulgated by the legitimate Pope (which represents the Church Universal) did just that.

Cantarella,

A personal never-failing faith of all popes is not a "pious" belief that you are free to hold because it is not true.
 
The word "universal" includes the attribute of time.  If you remove the attribute of time, you do not have a "universal." This is by definition and cannot be ignored. Those that do are influenced by the error of nominalism which is absolutely incompatible with the Catholic faith.

You are correct in saying, "Popes may err personally (in faith and morals); but not judicially or definitely. "Judicially" and  "definitely" are qualities necessary for engaging the Magisterium.

There is some truth in all error.  You do not do the defense of the Catholic faith any good by trying to whitewash historical facts.  Two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective popes "anathematized" Pope Honorius for "heresy."  Either Honorius was not a heretic and two ecuмenical councils approved by the pope erred, or he was a heretic and in spite of his error, God preserved his Church as He promised he would then and as He is doing today. The proof for the Indefectibility of the Church is that there is, and has been, faithful Catholics who keep the dogmas of our faith and worship God by the "received and approved" rites of the Church throughout the current crisis.

Vatican II bound nothing on the Catholic conscience that was not already bound before.
 
Facts have to be normative and Dogma the firm ground of truth on which you stand. If not, you will be washed away in the storm that is coming for things are going to get much worse.

Drew

Sir, YOU do not do the defense of the Catholic faith any good by trying to whitewash historical facts.  



Saint Robert Bellarmine says otherwise...

Here's another historical fact, brought up recently by one who held a contrary "pious belief". And I have yet to see the answer to those important questions.

The comments from the 1582 Douay Rheims bible mentioned "erring in understanding, private doctrine or writing" on the one hand, and "judicially conclude or give definitive sentence" on the other hand.

Therefore:

1. Can everything be put into either one of these two categories, or is it possible there is a gray area in the middle? For example, in which category would you put pope Francis' so called "plane interviews"? Are they mere "errors in private understanding" or are they "definitive sentences"?

2. Where do "decrees promulgated by an Ecuмenical Council" belong, and more specifically, what are the specific requirements to consider a decree as "promulgated by an Ecuмenical Council"? Does it include everything said by anyone during that council, or are there certain criteria that need to be met in order to be considered such a "decree"? And does every "decree" have the same force? For example, if or when the theological notes of the council are missing, is everything said or "decreed" automatically considered as infallible? If you think so, if you think everything is black and white, then why did the Church ever bother with theological notes?

3. When before you claimed that a pope's faith "cannot fail", not even privately, is that compatible with "erring in understanding, private doctrine or writing"? In other words, can one "err in understanding, private doctrine or writing" without his faith being in any way affected? "Erring in private doctrine" sounds to me very close to (if not the same as) "occult heresy". Or am I mistaken again?

Besides, the PERSONAL never-failing faith is a red herring tossed out here by R&R.  That's a pious belief that may be held ... or it may not be held.  I personally believe this.

What Vatican I teaches is that Peter AS PETER (not personally as Jorge Bergoglio for instance) has a never-failing faith, that as a public teacher exercising his teaching office, he cannot lead the Church into error.  

The only people who have EVER said the pope’s personal faith can’t fail, on this thread, is Cantarella and Bellator.  Cantarella says it’s a doctrine.  And she repeats it every 4th post.  And she’s not “R&R” so you are WAAAAY OFF.  

Your options depend on your opinion that Honorius was definitely a manifest and obstinate heretic in the same sense as these current apostates. This is NOT definitive. There is a difference between failing to stamp out Heresy and explicitly teaching heresy to the entire Church in his official capacity.

CE on Honorius: "No doubt Honorius did not really intend to deny that there is in Christ a human will, the higher faculty; but he used words which could be interpreted in the sense of that heresy, and he did not recognize that the question was not about the unity of the Person Who wills, nor about the entire agreement of the Divine Will with the human faculty, but about the distinct existence of the human faculty as an integrant part of the Humanity of Christ."

CE on Honorius: "They praise with enthusiasm the letter of St. Agatho, in which the authority and inerrancy of the papacy are extolled. They themselves say no less; they affirm that the pope has indeed spoken, according to his claim, with the voice of Peter. The emperor's official letter to the pope is particularly explicit on these points. It should be noted that he calls Honorius "the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself", again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. It was in this sense that Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well acquainted with the history of the Type, and with the Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, and the defences by St. Maximus. It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra."

You should read the whole entry about this Pope.

I have said nothing regarding the personal guilt of Pope Honorius excepting that the matter is of no importance to anyone except Pope Honorius. It is a historical fact that two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective popes, more than two hundred years apart, condemned Pope Honorius by name for the crime of "heresy" and "anathematized" him again by name.

So what are you claiming? Pope Honorius was not guilty of "heresy" and two ecuмenical councils approved by their respective popes erred in their condemnation? Or that Pope Honorius' heresy was only material and not formal? So what! For those who make the pope their rule of faith, it makes no difference whatsoever if the pope's error is formal or only material. The consequences are the same.

Those who worship the pope seem very anxious about this fact but the effort to excuse Pope Honorius creates a much bigger problem. The claim that the popes possess a personal never-failing faith is not true. Those who keep peddling this myth should simply read the biblical commentaries that draw upon the Church Fathers and Doctors and previous Popes. Not St. Thomas' Commentary, not Rev. George Haydock's Commentary, nor the Great Commentary of Rev. Cornelius a Lapide claim that any Church Father ever held this opinion. It's not as if it were debated question. Not one held this opinion that every pope possesses a personal never-failing faith. As previously posted, Lapide brings it up only to directly and explicitly deny it.

They do the same thing with St. Peter, who did possess a personal never-failing faith, by claiming that the problem with Judaizers was a simple matter of discipline rather than a grave doctrinal and moral error which it most certainly was and remains today. It would have eventually made the Church of Jesus Christ a sect within the ѕуηαgσgυє. They also ignore the fact, as St. Thomas affirms, that faith can be denied by actions as well as words. It can also be denied by failing to act when duty obligates. The "dissembling" of St. Peter lead St. Barnabas into the same error that had been corrected at the Council of Jerusalem. If St. Paul had not "withstood him to the face," he would have continued to lead others into the same grave error. The accusation was for falling away from the "truth of the gospel."  That is a most serious charge, not a question of simple discipline. 

This is why we pray for the pope.

Drew