Most Trustworthy Sources: “Francis Is Very Sick"

I'm not "self affirming" anything. There is definitive proof he is a heretic, which means he can't be pope. He's automatically excommunicated. Which means he is an anti pope.

Besides that, we have a made up position, not canonical, not installed by Christ, nor any previous pope, called "Pope Emeritus", which brings in the legitimacy of a previous resignation. That would also mean he's an antipope.

At this point, your constant position, which actually argues against all Canon Law and prima facie proof, is the flat-earth position. And that's called self-assurance. It's a soothing mechanism for you.

You believe, fervently, that a man who spouts daily heresies is the Vicar of Christ. What is wrong with you?

Sad.

"There is definitive proof he is a heretic, which means he can't be pope."

...and others claim the same thing for JP II,... AND for the former Benedict XVI. They're wrong and so are you. All you ever do is "reference" such "definitive proof" without citing it. You never present it. You can't because Canon Law 751 contradicts your definition of "heresy".

This is old news, Jimmy. You pushed this nonsense so often I finally even made a post covering the subject and you've never once been able to refute the points made. You can "claim" you did just like you can "claim" Canon Law supports you. But you can't post a quote proving your claim. THAT is "definiive proof" you are wrong.

"He's automatically excommunicated. Which means he is an anti pope."

You don't make that determination, The Church does. Likewise, other crack-pots claims Benedict XVI was "automatically excommunicated" as well. They're no more right than you are.

"Besides that, we have a made up position, not canonical..."

Who's "we"? :P You're a spokesman for which group now? Who's appointed you their voice? We? uh-uh. You're you.

You've tried this "Emeritus" argument already. The very term itself carries, as part of its definition, the title refers to a FORMER office held. "Emeritus" is a fancy synonym for just that: someone who USED TO hold an office and DOESN'T any longer.

...and, no, what title other people choose to give Benedict AFTER he resigns has no bearing on the legitmacy OF his resignation. Sloppy logic!

"At this point, your constant position, which actually argues against all Canon Law and prima facie proof..."

Skip the Perry Mason wanna-be terminology. You're not arguing Canon Law. You -can't- argue Canon Law. All you do is what you're doing right now: making a claim ABOUT Canon Law that you can not and will not factually support WITH Canon Law.

I've got copy-pasta. You've got noise like this. :D

Correction: You are not qualified to judge "heresy" on behalf of The Church. Meaning, Francis doesn't "spout daily heresies" just because YOU say they are heresies. Fallacy of circular reasoning.

What's wrong with me? I've corrected these mistakes of yours day after day after day and you keep repeating them. What's wrong with you?

@Ultraviolet Sorry kid, JP2 and B16 never denied Catholic dogma. Maybe you've got a different copy of Canon Law, but 751 buttresses everything I've ever said about Bergoglio.

And more than that, there cannot be an expanded Papal Office to include a "Pope Emeritus". There is one pope, he holds office and ministry, he cannot keep one. a resigned pope is no longer a pope. He isn't part of the "office" of pope. And thus, Benedict 16 never properly resigned, Canon Law is invoked, and legally, not just morally, Bergoglio cannot be pope.

What is old news is your gaslighting. I find it so intriguing that you're rather passive about Bergoglio's many heresies, his sins, his offenses before God, but absolutely radical about defending him as "pope".

You'd rather have a demon squatting on the chair of St. Peter, actively destroying the TLM you're so proud to attend, turning the Church into a Lutheran abomination, denying core Catholic dogma, than having a Catholic pope.

You've got serious problems man. Strong cognitive dissonance, strong fear, and an intentional aversion to truth.

You're less Catholic than my Southern Baptist grandmother. Even she recognized the pope had to be CATHOLIC.

"Sorry kid, JP2 and B16 never denied Catholic dogma." Sorry Jimmy, The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is Catholic dogma. According to his critics, Benedict XVI denied that. The necessity of baptism for salvation is Catholic dogma. According to his critics, JP II denied that.

"Maybe you've got a different copy of Canon Law, but 751 buttresses everything I've ever said about Bergoglio."

That's why you never quote it or show how it "buttresses everything" you ever said. That's what I do to show you're wrong. I did that two years ago when you were posting under your (now banned) "Zecharia" account. Like so:

Canon Law 751 states "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt."

Why is this distinction between an obstinate act (denial or doubt) and an act per se so important?

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

Citation (Merriam-Webster dictionary entry: "Obstinate")

An obstinate denial or an obstinate doubt 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.) He has certainly expressed his views.
b.)-d.) have not.

Who has the temporal authority to represent the Church in correcting the supposed errors of the Church's highest temporal authority?

The author fails to say, yet this is vital for establishing even a superficial, much less legally valid, accusation of heresy according to Canon Law 751.

That's me quoting Canon Law. That's me showing how Canon Law applies to this case. You don't do that because you can't do that.

"And more than that, there cannot be an expanded Papal Office to include a "Pope Emeritus"."

Since Benedict resigned it isn't a Papal Office. It's a title and one others forced upon him. Benedict himself said so:

Benedict explained that when he initially stepped down he wanted to be called "Father Benedict" rather than Pope Emeritus or Benedict XVI, but "I was too weak at that point to enforce it."

"There is one pope, he holds office and ministry, he cannot keep one."

A title others give him is not the office or the ministry. The title others give him "emeritus" shows he is a FORMER pope. That's what any "emeritus" is someone who USED TO BE something.

"And thus, Benedict 16 never properly resigned..."

Utter garbage Zero support shown as always from you. Just like your endless blather about how Canon Law supports you. Zero support shown. As usual, there's never any evidence backing your claim.

Oh boy, Jimmy's using Loads O' Bold! What's "old news" is you've banned more times than anyone else on this site for spouting this kind of garbage.

"I find it so intriguing that you're rather passive about Bergoglio's many heresies..."

I find it intriguing you keep choosing to make the same fallacies of circular reasoning. It isn't ignorance on your part, it's deliberate wilfull supidity. You're not the arbiter of heresy as The Church uses the term. You don't get to decide Benedict XVI and JP II weren't "heretics" for their errors but Francis supposedly is. Where on earth did you pick up such an insane delusion YOU speak for The Church?

"You'd rather have a demon squatting on the chair of St. Peter, actively destroying the TLM you're so proud to attend..."

The same one you don't attend. :D Always cracks me up how you'll raise the very Mass you're just as quick to sneer at. Understandable hypocrisy.

You don't care about the TLM. You care about "Bergoglio". The TLM is just an excuse for you to justify your insane hatred of the Pope.

"turning the Church into a Lutheran abomination"

If it is, we can thank Vatican Council II for that. Your attitude here is a perfect example of that "Lutheran abomination". Two Popes state error after error, but they're not heretics because YOU say so. The latest pope states error after error but he supposedly a heretic because YOU say so. No, Jimmy. YOU don't get to make that call.

"Strong cognitive dissonance, strong fear, and an intentional aversion to truth."

Cool story, Dr. Phil. Cognitive dissonance is YOU picking and choosing which Popes are allowed by YOU to spout errors and which are not. You live in Double Standards City, Jimmy.

"You're less Catholic than my Southern Baptist grandmother."

Finally the truth comes out. I knew you were a ex-Lutheran with a Lutheran upbringing. Thank you for confirming it. This explains your entire attitude "The Church teaches whatever I say it does." It's pure Lutheran "Sola Scriptura" wrongly applied to faith you don't understand.

What you're displaying is the non-existant catechesis in the (your words) " Lutheran abomination" of the modern Church.

The Catholic Church makes the official ruling on who is a heretic by Church standards, not ex-heretics like you.

Well, Louis IX, if Providence is just Bergoglio will not be spendng the eternity of existence with Him. He has been a nasty, vituperative, vindictive, uncharitable, mendacious, despotic .anti-Scripture bizarre occurrence in the history of the Church. Not even the Borgias match him in his hatred for those who dared to chanllenge him. Why God allowed this excrement to occupy the chair of Peter transcends human understanding. What Bergoglio has done to drive Catholics away from the Sacraments is simply disgusting.

@Angelo Santelli You asked, “Why God allowed this excrement to occupy the chair of Peter transcends human understanding.”

God sent us exactly what we deserve. We will not be blessed with a holy Pope until we repent and society changes her ways.

Can you imagine what God sees and hears from the untold number of abortions committed each day? When men lay with men!

I think the next Pope to be elected soon will, to the surprise of all the progressives, be a Pope much like in the mold of Benedict XVI...or even better. It is not impossible that the new Pope will be a good Patriarch that Francis in his wicked term passed over every time he created a group of Cardinals. I think it is wise to remember that not ALL of Francis' cardinal appointments are radical progressives like himself. And most of those that are that he appointed are 75+. Parolin won't get it, or Tagle, or Zuppi, or Cupich, or any other of the liberal talking heads always mentioned. I think it will be a Benedict XVI cardinal, and someone very much like him liturgically....or even more so.