Since you asked,
BrotherBeowulf I'm on the side of the Church, which is the
right side. I'm also on the side of
consistency. I'm
-not- on the side of hypocrisy and double standards like
you, I've had this general conversation with dudes like you before.
Let's start with the basics: Apply your standards evenly or not at all.
If you wish to scream about
"false popes", "sacrilege blasphemy and apostasy", fine. Other critics just as
determined as you, just as
obsessed as you, have found plenty of supposed "sacrilege blasphemy and apostasy" during the reigns of the last four popes. If Pope Francis is a "false pope" using
your quoted standards, so are the last four popes. Congratulations, you're a sedevacantist and that means you're also a schismatic.
canonlawmadeeasy.com/…/can-you-be-both…Either that, or you must disprove each and every instance of
"sacrilege blasphemy and apostasy" critics have found under the reigns of the last four popes.
All of them. So long as one instance remains unproven, so long as one charge stands, that Pope is just as guilty. Assuming you're morally consistent
which you're not..
Good luck trying to disprove the photos of John Paul II kissing the quran or the videos of Benedict XVI praying with Muslms and Jews. --and that's before we get into the
technical aspects of "apostasy" based on supposedly heretical teachings.
But you don't
care about the last four Popes, do you? That's where the hypocrisy and the double-standards kick in. Your kind never care. You aren't
true to your
own standards.
Instead, what you do is
pick and choose your "valid" popes based on arbitrary like or dislike. You are entirely willing to ignore
"sacrilege blasphemy and apostasy" from a
"false pope" because you
like him. That's your
real standard and that isn't good enough. It brands you a hypocrite of the worst sort. You're making a mockery of the very Church doctrines you cite because you
ignore them when it suits you.
"Not enough he should black out the Mass,"Too bad he didn't. You're blaming the Pope for the actions of his Bishops. They're the ones cancelling the Mass. This is a popular tactic for Francis' critics: blaming the Pope for the actons of his subordinates. Like always, it's a double standard, like so:
"head of the Homosexual Network Strangling the Church."...and as I've told you before, that "Homosexual Network" came into power since Vatican Council II. The abuse scandal happened under
JP II and Benedict XVI.
If you blame the Pope
today for homosexually sympathetic clerics in the Church, again, I say:
apply your standards evenly or not at all.
Which Popes appointed those clerics?
Which Popes allowed those clerics to work their evil for
decades?
You want to blame "the Pope"?
Blame the last two. If you argue the Pope
today is head of such a network, then by all rights you should also say the same thing about the popes who allowed that network to grow.
...but that's what you DON'T do. That's what you NEVER do. You
like those Popes so, like every other fraud, you simply
ignore what happened during those Papacies.
You don't care. That what gets me... Your accusations are used selectively, in bad faith, and arbitrarily based on your only true standard: your own personal feelings. That's a despicable misuse of the Church's doctrines and, no, I'm not going to be a party to your hypocrisy. You're not on the side of the
Church. You're not on the side of
truth. You're not consistent with
yourself. So I'm not on
your side because your side is
stupid and wrong.
Protip: Ultraviolet photography is used in astronomy for a reason. I "see" more clearly and much,
much farther than you ever will. Ultraviolet is also used extensively in detecting flaws and counterfeits, notably the
flaws in your reasoning and your
counterfeit selective outrage. You see, Bro? This is how you make a metaphor work.
:D"Immaculate Heart or Bergoglio. Fatima or the False Pope."Your Fallacies Are:
1.) Fallacy of A False Dilemma "aka Black or White"
2.) Being a Hypocrite.
Here are some infographics to help you out.