Martin Luther's thinking was not exactly the same because the heresiarch Luther, whom Bergoglio called a witness of the faith, attacked a legitimate pope and the legitimate Church. The Church has anathematized those who support heretics. Bergoglio's heresy has been classified as the greatest blasphemy because he equated false religions invented by men with the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ and challenged the Holy Trinity. Bergoglio's apostasy has reached such a low point that he can no longer even be considered a Christian. And let us remember that Bergoglio's apostasy began in Argentina. And the Magisterium of the Church has decreed that the election of a heretic who has previously strayed from the faith as pope is invalid and null. The Horror! A Buenos Aires journalist …
Ironically, those (liberal) Catholics who use Martin Luther's argument to defend the apostate Jorge Bergoglio should remember precisely what Bergoglio himself called those who persecuted the (heretical) Protestants (which includes themselves) "possessed by the devil." Francis asks for Pentecostals Forgiveness: …
They use (liberal Catholics) a false rhetorical question, since it's not about "judging a pope," but rather a heretic invalidly elected pope. And that authority resides in the Magisterium of the Church, which has decreed in perpetuity that the elevation of a heretic is invalid and null. If all those who occupied the chair of Peter had been recognized as popes, we wouldn't have had a list of antipopes. And we would have had the names of several popes reigning at the same time, as happened in the Western Schism, when Catholic faithful did not know who the legitimate pope was for almost forty years.
“If my pastor starts saying crazy things I find a new pastor. So if your pope starts saying crazy things, maybe he’s not the Pope.” Martin Luther's thought exacly, "find or start another church." I understand Charlie saying this because he was apparently on an honest journey from the world of the protestant revolution. But there is no excuse for any faithful Catholic to hold this wicked position.
Sorry, I should have said, “can a Pope teach heresy?”. Obviously not. Now please don’t tell me we cannot decide what blatant heresy is. If it were so what is the point of the Ten Commandments? (Since we would not be able to discern right from wrong, false from true none of God’s covenants would bind).
You can never judge your superiors, heretic or otherwise. You can discern privately what they teach if it is not a solemn command or infallible teaching, which most is not.
You can shout from the rooftops the truth of a definitive doctrine, but not the judgment of a particular person (unless they are your inferior). Privately discern, yes. .Judgement(especially GOD's Heirarchy in public), always diabolic. Period.
"You can shout from the rooftops the truth of a definitive doctrine, but not the judgment of a particular person" --- Showing that ones teaches heresy or favors heresy is not "the judgement of a particular person". For example, he may be not compos mentis but it does not change the fact of heresy/favoring heresy.
The primary issue is the legitimate authority to publicly judge or correct superiors. In the modern revolutionary anarchist world, everyone fancies themselves with independent authority and a "right" to protest. The spirit of "Antifa" is widespread.
Who cares what a heretic thinks about the religion? Only people like him: criticising post-conciliar popes because of their heterodoxy but themselves having the very smell of heresy. PS And Liberalism/Americanism is one of the nastiest heresies of present times.
A very logical and well researched piece on the papacy. I hope all Catholics will read and digest the wisdom that Charlie Kirk presented to us, even though he was not a Catholic.
One more comment from la verdad prevalece