Is the Pope Catholic?
According to Martin Luther and the Lutheran Confessions, the pope fulfills the Scriptural description of the Antichrist.
I am a loyal Catholic and don’t really care too much about canon law at this time as we are dealing with criminals. Wuerl has left the country, so we are told, just like a mafia don going on the run. The bishop of Cheyene we are told had a long track record of sodomy against boys long, long before he was made a bishop. we have a network of criminals who are trying to destroy the church and they will use canon law in their defense, trying to make us quiver and shake with fear. If you are a criminal and an accessory then canon law, heresy really makes no difference to me.
This one has. He doesn’t believe there’s a hell. He doesn’t think gay is a fundamental disorder. He believes there should be gay “marriage” in the church. He trashed the church’s longstanding teaching that the death penalty is allowed under certain circumstances.
He’s a pope in name only. Worthless....
I don’t find anything disagreeable about the article, but she doesn’t actually answer the question!
The better question is, “Can a heretic become Pope!?”
More concerned about what to do with the misguided cardinals who elected Pope Francis.
I’ve become so disgusted over the current state of the Church that I have a hard time even reading articles about it.
Would Yogi steal a picnic basket?
If the pope is the supreme authority on who is guilty of heresy, and has absolute unhindered power to declare such, and render them powerless, then he must do so to himself if RCs are to disregard his authority.
► CCC 882 For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.
►Can. 1404 M The First See is judged by no one. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P5A.HTM
Dictatus papae [1075] (a compilation of 27 statements of powers arrogated to the Pope that was included in Pope Gregory VII's register under the year 1075), likewise asserts,
That he himself may be judged by no one. - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp
>The First Vatican Council, which infallibly declared papal infallibly (overcoming opposition) stated:
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. [so much for the EOs] — First Vatican Council, Chapter 3 (1869-1870) http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm
"We read that the Roman Pontiff has pronounced judgments on the prelates of all the churches; we do not read that anybody has pronounced sentence on him"... The reason for which is stated thus: "there is no authority greater than that of the Apostolic See"... "That which the First See has not approved of cannot stand;..." — Leo XIII - Satis cognitum; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html
Rightly, therefore, has Leo X. laid down in the 5th council of Lateran "that the Roman Pontiff alone, as having authority over all Councils, has full jurisdiction and power to summon, to transfer, to dissolve Councils, as is clear...there is nothing to show that the Apostles received supreme power without Peter, and against Peter. Leo XIII - Satis cognitum
3. Only he can summon universal councils
4. No synod can be called valid without the pope's agreement.
5. No scripture is of authentic authority without his authority
6. Who does not agree to the decrees of the apostolic see is to be considered a heretic.
8. Who delivers a judgment against him should be deposed, as is seen from Dioscurus. - Propriae auctoritates apostolicae sedis; http://legalhistorysources.com/ChurchHistory220/TopicFive/DictatusAvranches.htm
And Francis the Jesuit could likely spin much of a real change into a "clarification." After all, if V2 could so so, why not him?
Your (copy-protected) source article by a lady canon lawyer mainly deals with how hard it can be to judge one as guilty of heresy, and does not get into the arguments against the pope being judged and effectively excommunicated as guilty of heresy.
Excerpts:
A Catholic who commits heresy is excommunicated latae sententiae, as per canon 1364.1...
In short, when it comes to answering specific questions about Popes and heresy, we are forced to extrapolate, which means that readers who expect to find a definitive answer to these questions here will be disappointed—because there simply isn’t one...
Heresy involves denial of a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith. This might sound beautifully poetic—but in reality, “divine and Catholic faith” is a precise phrase pertaining to a specific category of the Catholic Church’s teachings...
In his 1998 Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, Pope John Paul II attempted to clarify the varying degrees of importance attached to the different levels of these teachings...
That’s immediately crystal-clear to everyone, right? In all seriousness, we’ll come back to the question of what this means, and which beliefs fit into this category in a moment. In Ad Tuendam Fidem, John Paul II described for the first time the second category of Catholic beliefs,..
There’s also a third category, which even before Ad Tuendam Fidem was already found in canon 752:..
Well, what’s the difference between the first category of teachings (denial of which constitutes heresy), and the second and third categories? If you’re unsure, you’ve got a lot of company. ..
With his characteristic razor-sharp precision, Ratzinger tried to explain more clearly the sorts of teachings which fall into each of these categories ..
This explanation is unquestionably helpful, but still, let’s be frank: it’s not always immediately clear to anybody which category a particular tenet of our faith falls into. If it falls into the first category, obstinate denial of it constitutes heresy. If it falls into the second or third category, obstinate denial of it is a punishable offense—but it isn’t heresy. In a nutshell, it’s possible for a Catholic to refuse to accept some elements of the Catholic faith without ipso facto being a heretic...
the term heresy has a very precise theological/canonical meaning, and so it shouldn’t be tossed around indiscriminately. This means that any suggestion that a Pope is involved in heresy must be made with tremendous caution.
ANYone can.