I don't mind a serious hard-ribbed discussion and clear statements, unlike my friend @Liturgyworks. It's easy to be offended for him and myself and other people who are not in the favored group, as the RC apologetic has always maintained, but I don't care about being offended when there is truth involved, so thanks for stating the traditional RCC perspective. Here is my thing though, with regard to the crisis you guys are currently finding yourselves in. I understand that you've got prophecies about a dark time in the future. But if this indeed does come to pass: "evil will be taught as good and good as evil and the Papacy will fall", then I do not see how we may say that the Roman Church has not defected from the faith. If the Papacy will fail, and IF it's true that "on Peter I will build my church" (an interpretation Anglicans reject), then if Peter fails, the Church fails, and the entire infallible nature of Rome disappears. This means that not only it would cease to have been infallible then, but that it never had the character of infallibility; and so Trent, Vatican I, even the Lateran councils, the promulgation of transubstantiation, in short the entire last 1000 years which gave Rome its modern identity, may be wrong, according to your own concession (not according to my Anglican apologetic). If the Papacy fails, then Rome does not have the character of infallibility, by Rome's own internal logic. So even if this dark time was truly predicted in RCC prophecies, I don't see how at least one essential facet of the Roman church can survive here. And if Rome never had the character of infallibility, then it was no more, and no less, than another kind of Anglicanism. A particular church, with its own history of liturgy, tradition, and theology.