CathInfo.com

Actually, if it weren't so tragic, it'd be quite comical how you guys preach the Church teaches that the popes cannot preach error, yet that is exactly what they have done for over 50 years. Instead of realizing there is something drastically wrong with your faith and your thinking process, you stick with that false idea implanted in your brains, and take it upon yourselves to claim popes are not popes, as if that is something you can actually even know lol.

If you actually believe it is a teaching of the Church that popes, and bishops united with the pope cannot teach errors, then you sin by not "submitting" to the pope and bishops, because the teaching of the Church is that you must submit to the pope because he can never teach error, that he will have an unfailing faith and forever be infallibly safe, lest he lead the whoooole Church into error. But that idea is not to your liking, so you find it much more to your liking to blow off that whole idea of submitting by claiming to know popes are not popes.

The truth is, preferring instead to decide the pope is not the pope in your effort to relieve you of your imaginary obligation to submit, you have zero faith in your own idea of what you say the Church teaches. Isn't that the truth?

If you have any faith whatsoever in your idea of the Church's teaching, then those teachings that you say you deem to be heresy and error coming from the pope and bishops, are actually authentic, true Catholic teachings - according to what you say the Church teaches regarding the pope and bishops. Isn't that the truth?

Hence, you are guilty of grave disobedience to the popes and hierarchy and sin by claiming them to be illegitimate and also rejecting as heresy, authentic Catholic truths which have become the magisterium since they were taught by the popes and bishops, but at least you have settled the pope problem that never existed while condemning all who try to help you see how wrong you are. Bravo idiots!    

 

There's remote potency and proximate potency.  I myself have the potency to be Pope, but that's a remote potency.  When the Church designates a candidate to be Pope, that's proximate potency, and in fact has a degree of act in it.  He's the Pope-elect in act.  That is obviously different than my remote potency to the office.

Basically, your statement reduces to fact that you claim that I and Jorge Bergoglio are the same when it comes to our potency to the papacy.  You don't understand that there can be degrees of potency.

You don't understand the terms involved, so you need to stop falsely condemning that which you've made clear you do not understand.  Moments ago you spoke of the office being in potency ... demonstrating that you have absolutely no clue about what is even being discussed.