The Society of St. Pius X’s book Most Asked Questions about the Society of St. Pius X says the Vatican II “Popes” CANNOT teach infallibly

Heresy of the Week, Week of 10/28/05
By Bro. Peter Dimond
For more see: Heresies of the Week Relating to “Traditional” Issues and Persons

Most Asked Questions about the Society of St. Pius X, Question 7: But shouldn’t we be following John Paul II?, pp. 38-40: “The Pope is infallible primarily in matters of faith and morals, and secondarily in matters of discipline (legislation for the Universal Church, canonizations, etc.) to the extent that these involve faith and morals (cf. Principle 4), and then only when imposing for all time a definitive teaching.
     “Now ‘infallible’ means immutable and irreformable (Principle 6), but, the hallmark of the conciliar Popes, like the Modernists, is a spirit of evolution.  To what extent can such minds want irreformably to define or absolutely to impose?  They do not and, in fact, ‘they cannot…’ (Archbishop Lefebvre, Econe, June 12, 1984.) Cf. Question 15, n.3.” (Angelus Press, 1997)

The Society of St. Pius X is not merely stating here that John Paul II did not fulfill the requirements to speak infallibly; the SSPX is stating that John Paul II cannot speak infallibly. 

For those who are for some reason not grasping the impact of this statement by the SSPX, allow me to summarize it: the SSPX correctly points out that an infallible teaching by a Pope on faith or morals is irreformable, as Vatican I declared (Denz. 1839).  But according to the SSPX, the Vatican II “Popes” are such Modernists that they believe in the evolution of doctrine; they don’t believe that anything is irreformable.  So, according to the SSPX, even though they are valid Popes, the post-conciliar “Popes” CANNOT teach infallibly!  This is a rejection of Papal Infallibility. 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: “…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.  But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.”

By definition, a Pope is the Bishop of Rome who possesses supreme jurisdiction in the Church and who CAN teach infallibly, if he fulfills the requisite conditions.  If he is incapable of speaking infallibly, he is perforce not a valid Pope.  To state that one can be a valid Pope and be incapable of speaking infallibly, as the SSPX does, is like stating that one can be a valid Pope and not hold supreme jurisdiction in the Church.  It is a contradiction in terms, a rejection of one of the signal divine protections given to the occupants of the Papal Office, as defined by Vatican I.

All of these schismatic positions (e.g, the SSPX’s rejection of “Canonizations” proclaimed by their “Pope”) and perversions of the Papal Office are a result of the SSPX’s failure to see the truth of the sedevacantist position (i.e., that the Vatican II “Popes” are not Popes at all, but Antipopes).  

For more see: Heresies of the Week Relating to “Traditional” Issues and Persons