On the contrary, my argument is quite logical and you calling it differently shows nothing.
"Pope Benedict’s resignation violated Canon 332 no 2."[no evidence of this given] other than your say-so Citing a law and showing where it applies are two different things.
"As such many including myself conclude that he did not legally resign and therefore remains the pope."Band-wagon fallacy. Many including yourself may conclude incorrectly. Many
others conclude that Benedict XVI was never a valid pope at all.
holywar.org/Ratzinger.htmOthers conclude based on his alleged heresies he excommunicated himself.
"Your absurd argument is that if he did,nt resign then he was never a pope in the first place!!!!!!!!"Obviously you failed to recognize the point of the
comma in my sentence. The comma separates two possibilites, it isn't a conjunction like "and".
Learn to read.
"Bergolio published formal doctrinal heresy in Amoris Laetitia where he openly rejects Christ’s defined teaching on adultery. No pope in the history of the church has ever promulgated such formally heretical teaching on a matter of grave importance. The promulgation of such formal heresy immediately separates any pope from Christ and from the papacy."That's a reasonable argument. Just one correction. The "grave importance" of the matter, or lack, doesn't change whether a doctrine is heretical. Promoting
any heretical doctrine would be sufficient. The problem facing the Church comes from what you correctly described next:
"Your counter argument is that four past sitting popes including Benedict have done the same thing."More precisely, and vitally important: my counter argument is that other critics, people like you, have produced a large body of evidence "that four past sitting popes including Benedict have done the same thing."
"When I asked you to provide me with one single example you refuse to do so and then wave documents containing multiple such alleged heresies in my face and expect me to argue about all of them."Wrong. I
don't expect you to argue about all of them. I
know you can't.
You know you can't. If you understood how debate works, you would be forced to recognize the following:
1.) By
your standards, Francis is an invalid Pope.
2.) Others, using
your standards, can show the previous four Popes were
also invalid.
3.) If you disagree with the evidence they produced, then
you must show it is wrong,
all of it since only one instance of heresy is sufficient to invalidate a Pope.
4.) You can't show the evidence is wrong.
5.) That means the evidence stands unchallenged, and by
your standards, the previous four Popes were also invalid.
Your approach is the childish one, along with rampantly irrational.
If you choose to invalidate Francis papacy using church teachings then you must also acknowledge those same church teachings invalidate the last four popes.
If you disagree, then you must show how those church teachings don't apply and you can't and you won't.
Your GTV grand-standing doesn't change your double standards.
There is an alternative.
Accept
all the Popes as valid, regardless of their teachings... Francis, Benedict, all of them. Trust in God's judgement on whom he allows to sit on Saint Peter's Throne.
You don't have to like a Pope or even agree with a Pope to acknowledge he holds the office.
"But I will grant you one last opportunity to furnish evidence of one single doctrinal formal heresy on a grave matter promulgated by a sitting pope."Grant? Who the heck are
you to "grant" anything? The burden of proof is, was, and remains on
you.
The evidence has been presented. Here are nine examples of heresy just for Benedict XVI since he's the only one of the four previous popes still alive.
www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofb16.htmI don't need to re-write them or pick only
one because you "grant" it.
We've discussed this before. I understand your tactic. You want to reduce this entire debate down to ONE point and you want
me to present it so you can debate with
me.
As I've said before. I am not your opponent, Thor. Your opponent is the truth. Your opponent is
reason itself and reason beats you every time.
You must disprove ALL the evidence of heresy against ALL four popes if you want to continue arguing that only Francis has invalidated himself.
" a person terrified to accept the plain fact the Bergoglio is not a pope and that the only safe course in this disaster for Catholicism is to continue regard Benedict as a valid pope."...and that's where you're wrong again. I'm not terrified at all. But unlike you, I refuse to pick and choose between supposedly "heretical" Popes.
From a traditionalist point of view, Benedict was
also a disaster, as was John Paul II and John Paul I, and John XXIII. But they were still all Popes. I don't like him, but so is Francis.
Catholicism has continued for the last half a century of modernist insanity long before Francis' papacy. It will continue after Francis. Catholicism will continue to the end of time because Christ said so.
