The Papal Ring is an easy proof of who is Pope Rafał_Ovile . No big long explanations, no clever twistings of Canon Law or Church Magisterium. No huge paragraphs of technical wording.

The Pope wears the Fisherman's Ring. No one else. No Fisherman's Ring? The man is not Pope. Simple as that.

Benedict XVI's ring was officially defaced after his resignation.

webarchive.loc.gov/…/1301028.htm

@Thors Catholic Hammer kept claiming Benedict XVI still wears the Papal Ring. He does not because he is not Pope anymore.

@Ultraviolet : You made me nearly wait. Francis is not a valid Pope.

Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation the 11th February 2013 after more than 1 month that Bank of Italy with Bank of Germany blocked the payments at the Vatican (from the 1st January to the 12th February 2013)
- The 12th February 2013, Bank of Italy lifted up the ban on the plastic cards and the ATMs
- There was nothing else done against the pretext of money-laundering scheme invoked by Bank of Italy, except the announcement of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI the day before and even the 12th February when Bank of Italy reversed her decision no decision was done in order they could justify to reverse their decision... So there can't be no other reason at all
- Pope Benedict XVI chose to announce his resignation the 11th February 2013 which is not only the feast day of Our Lady of Lourdes but also the feast day of the Lateran Treaty... That Pope Benedict XVI chose to announce his resignation this very day is not a coincidence as many know that magistrates used to chose a date in memory of an event that please them in the same way that Pope or Cardinals used to give the imprimatur for a book or release an encyclical on the feast day of a saint in relation with the book or their speeches. The Lateran Treaty was made in order to compensate the loss of the Vatican's territories and properties. That this date was chosen and not another mean there is a sequel in the same way that there was a sequel to Vatican I with Vatican 2 due to the invasion of the Italian army in the Vatican in 1870. It's not a hazard that in the both dates it was a question of a financial convention as if the agreement was again put into question and then the Vatican himself...
- The light struck the dome of the Vatican the same day the 11th February 2013 and no one that believe in God's signs can say that it's a mere coincidence...

Pope Francis is not validly elected, we have the talks of some Cardinals that plotted to get rid of Pope Benedict and get Francis :
- Cardinals Daneels admitted that he was part of a mafia that plotted to get him elected.
- Saint John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Universi Domini Gregis, 79, clearly condemns the constitution of a “Mafia” like the Sankt-Gallen group: “Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope's lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings.”
Ironically, he published the Apostolic Constitution in February 1996, the very year that the Sankt-Gallen group was formed.
- Cardinal McCarrick, now defrocked, also explained why they plotted to get Francis and how through the Mafia of Saint Gall

And if it wasn't enough, we have the message of Our Lady of La Salette that says that "neither the Pope nor his successor will see the Triumph of the Church". Our Lady can't be wrong as she knows everything she wants from her Son who is God. If Francis was a validly elected Pope, she would have had to say in order to be correct : "neither the Pope nor his predecessor will see the Triumph of the Church". It makes a huge difference and not only for a linguist...

And last but not least, even Francis doesn't recognise himself as the Pope given that he officially de-emphasizes papal titles.. Another part of the text :
"Pope Francis has on several occasions emphasized his role as a bishop, rarely referring to himself as pope or pontiff -- even on the night of his electionwww.ncronline.org/…/cardinals-elect… in St. Peter's Square it was "the task of the conclave was to give Rome a bishop.""

He acts like he's still just a Bishop while Pope Benedict XVI kept his office and many distinctive signs that are those of the Pope like his name.

"with Bank of Germany blocked the payments at the Vatican."

This is called a Post Hoc Fallacy. Correlation does not prove causation.

"- There was nothing else done against the pretext of money-laundering scheme invoked by Bank of Italy,"

...that YOU know about Ludovic Denim . Bankers don't broadcast every private decision and negotiation in the news.

"That Pope Benedict XVI chose to announce his resignation this very day is not a coincidence as many know that magistrates used to chose a date in memory of an event that please them in the same way."

First, you're assuming this is the case for Benedict without showing proof that it is so. Second, let us assume you are correct and Benedict XVI chose the date as a reference. You've already acknowledged it is the Feast for Our Lady Of Lourdes, so you've already provided an explanation for the date.

Third, Benedict XVI did not resign on 11th February 2013. If your theory was correct, he should have resigned on that date. He didn't. He resigned on 28 February 2013 which disproves your theory.

"The light struck the dome of the Vatican the same day the 11th February 2013 and no one that believe in God's signs can say that it's a mere coincidence..."

...because God expresses his displeasure with such weak displays??? Read your bible, Ludovic. When God is angry, humanity knows it. This has already been debunked.

www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21630874

The Vatican itself denied it.

Incidentally, Jim Caviezel was also struck by lighting while on the cross in the role of Jesus. It's still the best, most brutal depiction of The Crucifixion ever filmed.

"Pope Francis is not validly elected, we have the talks of some Cardinals that plotted to get rid of Pope Benedict and get Francis"

There are always scheming cardinals. Welcome to Italian politics, Ludovic! If you truly believe Cardinals don't do this for every Pope, then you're even more naive than John Paul II trying to forbid the same practice that got him elected.

"Our Lady can't be wrong as she knows everything she wants from her Son who is God."

Of course Our Lady can not be wrong. I fully agree with you there. But your interpretation of Our Lady's words definitely CAN be wrong. She didn't name the Pope she was referring to, did she? No? Then your interpretation is just like anyone else's.

"And last but not least, even Francis doesn't recognise himself as the Pope given that he officially de-emphasizes papal titles."

Pope Francis enjoys such false displays of "humility". Technically, Francis is Bishop of Rome. He still acknowledges himself as Pope and rules with an iron fist.

"He acts like he's still just a Bishop...

Don't we all wish? :D On the contrary, Francis is so tyrannical he has been nicknamed the "Dictator Pope". It even became the title of a book.

cruxnow.com/…/author-of-the-d…

Got anything else?

I do appreciate you offering some new interpretations. I don't agree with them, naturally. They're easily disproved and without too much effort. But I'm still grateful. At least they were your own.

I can't describe how boring it is to see Thor parrotting Bugnolo on Canon Laws 17, 188, and 332:2.

Actually, on second thought, I can describe it. I just refrain from using such language here on GTV. ;-)

Of course, you're just a pro-Israeli as you wrote it to me in a long and full tirade so your arguments are just vain and empty... I'm not even surprised about your denial as I see how they infiltrate the Catholic church for more than a century with peoples like you commenting all the news in order to influence the majority.

The fact is you're not clever at all as you said to me that you're are for Israel so that I know what means your opinion. Your arguments are just denials of God's sign so you're ludicrous... I will publish just now a book about peoples like you : it's called "the shocking story of the infiltration and subversion of the American nationalist movement" and it speaks about peoples like you acting for Israel.

Trying to make this about me is a bad mistake, Crackers. I'm a better debator than you and I thrive on this. ;-)

History has seen Popes who did more than actively promote the homosexual lifestyle. They WERE homosexuals. They were still, for all their sins, valid Popes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexuall…

This is why even extremely conservative cardinals like Burke and Sarah and Zen are willing to recognize Francis as Pope. We understand history. You are blind to it. Try again, Crackers. This time with out the hyperbole.

@Ultraviolet

Your vain self promotion is as ugly as is your rejection of truth.

You also remain blinded entirely by the slime unleashed on the entire catholic world by Jorge Bergoglio SJ who poses as a “pope”
Stop defending the indefensible.

Another lie from you. @Thors Catholic Hammer Another false accusation from you. On a Sunday, no less.

Direct quote: "The issue is that you continue to recognize..."

If you want to make "the issue" about me, then you lie when you say I'm promoting myself. .. You're the one doing it, you stupid parrot.

" Stop defending the indefensible". ...said the man who can't post a photo of "the real Pope" wearing his Papal Ring.

That's the easiest proof of who's Pope. No big walls of text, no re-wording and inventing Canon Law. It's real simple. The Pope wears the Papal Ring.. Nobody else does.

To be clear and to be fair, the churches in the East descending from the apostles have always had both married priests and celibate priests. In the West the discipline of exclusively celibate priests was a later development.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (promulgated by Rome) is built off of the motu proprio 'Cleri sanctitati' which as it relates to married clergy references the early councils of the Church. As Canon 374 (CCEC) says, "Clerics, celibate or married, should shine forth with the splendor of chastity;. . ." (English translation from Canon Law Society of America)

We must be careful that we don't denigrate marriage in claiming to uphold a standard (a discipline) of the celibate clergy, and fall into ancient heresies ourselves.

The presence of the Eastern churches (and their different practices in the same unity of the sacraments) is a witness to the apostolicity of the Church and a defense against error - see the canons of the councils of Nicea, Contantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon (predominately Eastern bishops) and the gift of the great (Eastern) theologian Athanasius to understand the value of listening to and valuing something that is different than yourself.

No one in the Eastern church is trying to impose married clergy on the Western church.