"Your tactic is called fillibustering."Wrong. For starters, this isn't a
legislative proceeding and I'm not delaying it. Typical. You fabricated a new definition for an existing word that means something entirely different.
Another lie from you as usual.My "tactic" is called
debating. You
can't debate and it shows. You confuse
debate with
rhetoric. Your endlessly repeated claims never have any support except
your big mouth. You invent and ignore canon law as you invent "facts" and ignore real ones.
Benedict doesn't wear his Papal Ring anymore, for example. You just lie and say he does, but you can't find a photo of him wearing it. You lie. It's a simple as that.
"A sitting pope can only be excommunicated for formal heresy on a grave matter."[citation needed, none supplied as usual]
Define "grave"? More precisely, where does the Church define "grave"? As opposed to how YOU define it. Your definitions are as arbitrary as any other nonsense that pours out of your beak.
What Canon Law are you citing? None supplied. As usual.
"I have asked you many many times to post one single example of this from any of the four popes you refer to."...and I have supplied that list many, many times.
I'll supply it again! I don't have to re-write every example because YOU demand it.
My argument is simple. You are a hypocrite. If Francis is an automatically exommunicated heretic anti-pope etc. etc., then
so are the last four popes on similar grounds. That includes Benedict XVI.
Or... we can give them ALL the benefit of the doubt, including Francis.
If you feel the previous four popes did NOT formally advanced
any heretical teachings, then YOU must disprove
all the heresies other critics HAVE allegedly found.
This isn't about ONE instance.
Your tactic is obvious. You want to fallaciously reduce this entire discussion to ONE example you can fixate on like never before. But that is NOT my argument and I'm NOT going to allow you to re-write my position to suit your dishonest grand-standing.
...like calling a website "dodgy". That's
you falsely attacking the source of the info because you can't refute the information they provide.
Worse, it isn't just ONE website. There are numerous sites all criticizing the last four popes.
YOU are the one who "runs away" from doing what YOU should to prove YOUR claim. Disprove EVERY accusation of heresy critics have found against the last four popes. ALL of them.
If you can't or you won't, then the accusations stand as does MY argument that you're a hypocrite.
"so I ask you again post ONE EXAMPLE OF A FORMAL HERESY BY A SITTING POPE ."...and I ask you AGAIN to go to each of the sites and disprove ALL of them.
"IF YOU WISH TO RETAIN ANY SHRED OF CREDIBILITY YOU WOULD DO AS I ASK."That isn't how debating works, Thor,
and you know it.
I've lost count how many times I've explained why YOU need to disprove the material supporting MY claim. Others have compiled the evidence and YOU must disprove it.
You're inherently dishonest. You lie as easily as anyone else speaks the thruth because you truly do seem to believe saying thing magically makes them true.
I don't have to re-write it or choose one example just because YOU keep screaming I should. Grow up. Debate like an intelligent adult, not like an middle-schooler.
Benedict XVI denied the Resurrection. That's an error he advanced as Pope. He also advanced a bunch MORE.
www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/RazResArt.pdfnovusordowatch.org/…/deniers-of-the-…...along with lots of other bad stuff that YOU simply ignore and "run away from".
ttp://
www.calefactory.orgwww.opusdeialert.com/footnotes.htmwww.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/…/anti-pope-bened…www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/…/principles-of-c…holywar.org/Ratzinger.htm 
