Francis’ Transvestites: “Go and Sin Again”

I love how you quote the same Canon Law after I did. @Gesù You forgot this part Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff and that's YOU, sucker. Fantastic scholarship. Go fry some more asparagus. Now explain the difference between heresy and error. There -is- a difference. even if @San Atanasio ora pro nobis can't tell the difference between the office and supporting the person in it. That's the funny part. Stupid peasants, the both of you. In truth I dislike Francis. But that doesn't change his claim to the papacy. This is beyond your understtanding which begins at cleaning the stable and ends somewhere around making empanadas. It's all you're good for. Nice YouTube. Here.

@Gesù è con noi "He accepts a heretic as pope" Wrong. Heresy and error are two different things. A Pope may err, everything a Pope states is not automatically infallible. Heresy, as the Church defines it in Canon Law 751, is "an obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; "

Obstinacy shows a deliberate course of action, i.e. "stubbornly adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion."

In this context, the term shows that
a.) the accused heretic has expressed a view
b.) The Church has disgreed with that view as contrary to its teachings.
c.) The Church has attempted to correct the accused heretic
d.) the accused heretic has opposed that correction by the Church.

Regarding Pope Francis,
a.) has happened.
b.)-d.) have not.

You aren't qualified to represent The Church in doing b.-d., not in law or in fact.

Your opinion that the Pope doubts or denies a truth taught by the Church to be divine is not an objective fact. Likewise, your opinion that his supposed doubt or denial is maintained in an obstinate manner is also an opinion. You haven't shown The Church has attempted to correct it and failed has no support.

@San Atanasio ora pro nobis "@Ultraviolet has become a devil's advocate to persecute Catholics."

So why am I the one always correcting YOUR falsehoods? Why am I the one who quotes The Church's laws against YOUR mistakes? I fight for the truth and I use the truth in my fight. You run around like the chickens in your front yard pecking in every direction looking for "proof" except where and HOW you should. That other third-world peasant @Gesù è con noi brays like a burro about "Bergoglio" but can't stay on "the news" here.

You two complaing about ME "attacking Catholics" but you do so as an attack at me. The hypocrite always cries in pain when he strikes other people. ;-)

"this user is not here to defend Catholic doctrine" @San Atanasio OPN -except I'm the only one around here ever citing Canon Law and the Catechism. Try again.

So you attack me, call me a troll want other users to "report" me then you complain about "attacking Catholics" Good job, hypocrite.

"diverting the spotlight from the news." and I'm the one who keeps yanking that spotlight back on the GTV news here.... where it belongs.

"because you don't have the recording of what he said." this article on GTV doesn't mention it. I am discussing the content of this article. You are discussing everything else, @Gesù è con noi Go start your own post for that.

"That is why you are not interested that there is evidence that Bergoglio is a gay activist"

I am interested in seeing a claim about THIS article supported from THIS article. If this is how you present evidence for anything, I was being too kind calling you a dummy.

"and that this story is connected to the previous one." You see? This article on GTV does not include a link to ANY previous article. No connection.

"You acknowledge that Bergoglio is a gay activist."

I acknowledge Pope Francis is a horrible pope.You just noticed that, you silly peasant? Good for you! I haven't said anything about gay activist, but it wouldn't surprise me. When GTV posts about that.that, then I'll review the article's claims.

"Your argument is ridiculous." My argument is a legal one. Criticize this article with this article

" Your argument shows that you are not interested in the truth but in attacking Catholics".

Im not attacking Catholics. I am attacking falsehoods about this article.

It has a VERY funny cartoon, though. I think I will dress as the hippie for All Souls carnival at my parish this year. I LOVE his embroidered trouser cuffs.

Did you notice? GTV's cartoonist has an eye for detail. Those are accurate bell-bottom "flare" cuffs from the early 1970s.

"According to you Bergoglio appears in all the news" - I am discussing the subject of this GTV article. According to GTV en.news, not me, Francis wasn't there and wasn't quoted. You haven't shown otherwise in this article.

"Bergoglio does not fulfill the function of a pope in the Vatican." --Sadly, to my everlasting regret, he does. He's doing a splendid job of being an absolutely wretched Pope.

"everything is done without his authorization." The Vatican is a huge organization. I ask you a question. Was former-Pope Benedict XVI and Saint John Paul II and Pope John Paul directly responsible for the actions of each and every priest in the abuse scandals? Yes or no?

If yes, show that they knew and approved thousands of scandals all over the world. If no, then why do you blame Francis for what some stupid crazy priest says in South America?

"You bury your head in the sand so you cannot see or hear."

I see and hear when you blame the Pope unfairly. Blame him for being a marxist and I will agree. Blame him for pushing climate change and I will agree. Blame him for things you can not prove and will show your errors.

"...denies reality. You need help " -Gesù -YOU you quotes transvestites and blame the Pope for what those sick men say about him. Who needs help again? :D

"The transvestite prostitutes first contacted the apostate Andrea Conochia"

Not Pope Francis.

"then they used the almoner Konrad Krajewsk"

Not Pope Francis.

and that is where your "bridge" ends. at Konrad Krajewsk.

...and nothing from THIS article on GTV. I ask you to prove your claims about THIS article using THIS article. Not a site in Italian or a site that brings up a 404 error.

The transvestite prostitutes first contacted the apostate Andrea Conochia, parish priest of Torvaianica. The news explains that the transvestites asked for help because the prostitutes had no clients due to the coronavirus then they used the almoner Konrad Krajewsk as a bridge to Bergoglio. The almoner Konrad Krajewsk after contacting Bergoglio immediately returned with the money. The transvestites sent an audio message to Bergoglio thanking him. www.korazym.org/…/don-andrea-come… www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/…/365868 www.churchmilitant.com/…/pope-races-to-a…

@Gesù è con noi "the article quotes a transvestite." Is that a quote by Pope Francis? No. "Father Conocchia says..." Is that a quote by Pope Francis? No. "The article comments...,"Is that a quote by Pope Francis? No. "Apparently the Pope himself blesses him."

That is the article writer's opinion.

It is an assumption. So again, I say. Quote Pope Francis from the article. Show where Pope Francis met these me, blessed these men, spoke to these men, etc. You haven't and you won't.

As for your latest article: “Francis’ response was immediate,” the paper reported... Krajewski “immediately brought personally...

Again, Francis is not Krajewski and your own source recognizes this. Notice what they say: Pope Francis has allegedly provided

Journalistst use "allegedly" when they make a claim they do not have factual proof for making. They ALLEGE because they can not PROVE I can say "allegedly" you are a thief, a liar, and a sadist who tortures cats. As long as I say "allegedly" that means I don't have to show any proof. It is an ALLEGATION not a FACT.