"You are a chancer terrified to debate a specific point of argument."...and which
point of argument are you
debating, Thor? Hmmm?
;-)You aren't debating any
point in my
argument.
You are demanding I re-present evidence
for my argument when it has already been presented.
That isn't a
point of argument and you're not
debating it. That's you displaying your refusal to engage in a proper argument at all.
If you find my sources are in error, it is up to
you refute the evidence of heresy they provide.
Demanding I re-write the material and re-present it is not a valid rebuttal of what you have left unanswered, unchallenged, uncontested..
There's nothing "anti-Catholic" about these sites. Only Catholics still care this much about heresy.
Let's begin with Benedict XVI, shall we?
www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofb16.htmThere. Cited and contrasted with Church teachings and even the Gospels.
What is more troubling is many of these heresies were advanced before Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI. Now when you and others begin foaming at the mouth at Francis, the argument goes, "a heretic can not be pope... and look what begoglio said here and here."
Apply that reasoning to Ratzinger/ Benedict XVI.
I don't have to
re-write them just simply because you stamp your rhetorical feet and cover your ranting in
bold text.
Put up or shut up, Thor. When you're done with those, I'll supply more.
:DThen we can move backwards to other "valid popes" as you call them. John Paul II, for example. Surely
he is a valid pope. He's a saint as well. The same for John XXIII.
Shame on me? Coming from you, cries of "shame" are as empty as your... debating. I'm not even sure I should call it that at this point.