Not saying PF is the Antichrist, but if he were the Antichrist, I’m not sure the playbook would be much different than this. To assert that PF eclipses scripture and tradition is just beyond the pale. It’s an assertion that PF is not the servant of the Church but rather the master. No servant can serve two masters. Is Jesus Christ the master, or is it PF?
“Freed from disordered attachments”... Sounds like the advisor is all ready to declare the canonization of Pope Francis.
Very few Saints achieved total freedom from disordered attachments. That’s the same as saying perfect virtue.
He's *free from disordered attachments*????
What the heck is that supposed to mean?
this guy is a heretic—love to see him gone!
Of course. Didn’t some guy say?
He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much: and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much. (Lk. 16.10)
I knew he would:
Jesuit. Argentine. Francis I.
Maybe he literally believes that,
"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," (CCC 882)
Can. 331 By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
Can. 1404 M The First See is judged by no one. Code of Canon Law - IntraText
First Vatican Council: 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)
That he himself may be judged by no one. - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp
"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
Whether a pope can be declared a heretic, contrary to his own supreme judgment, and thus cease to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church, and thus be deposed against his will, is matter of debate (which it seems only a pope can settle). Arguing against this, Cajetan Bellarmine states,
For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope...it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself which is constituted by those parts. - https://www.fisheaters.com/bellarmine.html
Moreover, 'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)
Well; why NOT??!!??
It’s quite clear; from the pages of FR; just what an Anti-Unum Sanctum is!
Pope Obama?
Cardinal Raymond Burke said tonight on EWTN WorldOver, that what this Rosica character is saying is wacko or something like that.
And if there is anyone who can correctly judge such things, it is Cardinal Burke. God Bless this holy prelate.