"Your claim that other popes in office promulgated heresies is dismissed out of hand."Someday you're going to have to learn that these claims mean nothing without proof. You can SAY you "dismissed" something "out of hand" but you haven't actually shown any valid proof that would lead to doing so. It's just more noise from you.
"The links you posted indeed show heresies by Ratzinger but not promulgated after he was elected pope."Perfect example of my last point. That's an unsupported claim by
you. No evidence shown that he has not.
But if you'd like heresies "promulgated" by Benedict XVI -as- Pope. Those are readily found.
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/…/anti-pope-bened…"This type of confusion characterizes all those unfortunate deluded Catholics who still think , against the enormous evidence, that Bergolio is still some type of "pope"."The only delusion here is your selective focus on heresy.
The last four popes were techncially "heretics" according to some critics. For whatever fatuous reason you've just decided to ignore all of those heretical papacies and focus exclusively on Francis. That's the lowest form of hypocristy. It shows a cynical and complete disregard for the Church law and Church teachings. For you, they're just "tools" to use against Pope Francis, and like any tools, you toss them away when you're done using them for that purpose.
What you've shown, time and again here, is you don't in the slightest bit
care about
any of the Church's laws and teachings. If you did, you'd be every bit as concerned about the previous "heretical" papacies, the way
genuine legally-focused Catholics are, even if those popes weren't as aggressively malign as Francis.
