Obviously partaking of your neighbours saliva when you receive communion on the tongue is not a problem for you.
[Every catholic over 7 knows this can and sometimes does happen accidently ]
Your claims in the matter sound bogus which makes me doubt you have ever recieved communion on the tongue.

But as you continually insist that the morally degenerate universe of antipope Francis is that of a valid "pope" I will leave you to your fate and to perdition.

"Obviously partaking of your neighbours saliva when you receive communion on the tongue is not a problem for you."

...again, you repeat these claims, without any proof. This is your de facto rhetorical stunt for everything. Repeat, repeat, repeat, the same old lie.

"Every catholic over 7 knows this can and sometimes does happen accidently"

...again whenever you're wrong you fall back on claiming "everyone" or "every catholic" knows your lie is true.

"Your claims in the matter sound bogus which makes me doubt you have ever recieved communion on the tongue."

I've been receiving communion on the tongue for years and your paranoid germ delusions have never once happened.

"blah-blah-blah Antipope Francis... SQUAWK."

...again Thor's Catholic Parrot sprays his post with "bile" and cracker crumbs.

1. There's no such thing as an extra ordinary minister of the Eucharist. The minister of the Eucharist is the priest who is the celebrant. The laity who distribute communion are extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion EHC.

2. Any priest who says that the introduction of EHCs is to speed up distribution of communion is not telling the truth. They were introduced by activist hack liturgists as false participatio actuosa.

If you want to get technical about it Dr Bobus They're not called "extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion EHC", either. They're officially called just "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion."

www.usccb.org/…/extraordinary-m…

canonlawmadeeasy.com/…/questions-about…

I don't mind charitably making accomodations for someone's OCD but it would help if they got their facts straight, particularly since

1.) They're taking the time to post a correction and

2.) ...the term I used is both a recognied colloquialism and fully understood by all parties.

@Ultraviolet

14 hours ago
This TLM mass you claim to attend seems not to be doing you any good at all considering the high levels of vile abuse you spew at people who disagree with you.
Like many crypto sedevacantists you reject the true catholic church and her only true pope Benedict xvi.

"considering the high levels of vile abuse you spew at people who disagree with you."

...said the man who spews vile abuse at Pope Francis literally every day he posts on GTV.

...said the man who goes out of his way to lash out at me every time I correct his falsehoods.

Better check your reasoning, @Thors Catholic Hammer

"Like many crypto sedevacantists you reject the true catholic church and her only true pope Benedict xvi."

Don't use words you don't understand, Thor. I'm not a "crypto sedevancantist" or any sort of "sedevancantist" at all. Francis is Pope. Benedict XVI resigned.

An excommunicated formal heretic [laetetia sententiae] like Francis can not be a pope.
Its noteworthy that you absolutely refuse to engage with the argument that Amoris laetiiae contains formal heresy in promoting sacriligious communion].
You then hide behind the pretense that popes since Vat2 promulgated doctrinal heresy when in office despite failing to post one single SPECIFIC example of same when asked.
You also fail to address the manifest errors that Benedict made in canon law concerning canon 332 no 2. WHATEVER BENEDICT RESIGNED IT WAS NOT THE OFFICE [MUNUS] OF POPE.
YOUR INSISTENCE THAT FRANCIS IS A VALID POPE I CAN NOW ONLY ASSUME IS TIED IN WITH YOUR MORALLY PERVERTED ANTI CATHOLIC UNIVERSE THAT FINDS IN FRANCIS A KINDRED SOUL.

Whoo whee! Check out da Bold Text. Looks like @Thors Catholic Hammer has some "bold-hurt" goin' on here. :D

"Its noteworthy that you absolutely refuse to engage with the argument that Amoris laetiiae contains formal heresy in promoting sacriligious communion."

You've used this tactic before. It's YOUR job to prove your claim and the only proof you've supplied is endlessly repeating the claim.

Your interpretation of the document is your own. Your interpretation has zero support among Francis' staunchest critics among the Curia, people who have a much more serious interest in seeing him removed.

"You then hide behind the pretense that popes since Vat2 promulgated doctrinal heresy when in office despite failing to post one single SPECIFIC example of same when asked."

That lie again? Oh dear. We all know what happens when you repeat that lie. I don't provide ONE example, I post links to the big scary list of ALL of them for ALL the Popes, from critics who are every bit as fierce and opinionated as you are. List to follow at the bottom, just like always.

"You also fail to address the manifest errors that Benedict made in canon law concerning canon 332 no 2."

Manifest errors? None supplied, none presented except as always YOU claiming they exist without ever demonstrating any.

I'm more than happy to discuss Canon Law 332 Section 2 with you. Show a "manifest error" in Benedict XVI's resignation. c'mon... well?

YOUR MORALLY PERVERTED ANTI CATHOLIC UNIVERSE

...and this from the man who likes to wring his hands in other posts complaining about my "bile" and "abusive posts".

Oh, you poor innocent lamb. How terribly you've been wronged! :P

You're like all pathological liars, Thor. You LOVE dishing out that kind of abusive garbage but then you're sensitive delicate feelings are easily bruised when you're mocked for being a deceitful idiot.

Now then... Let's begin with a quote from Piux IX

"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." -Blessed Pope Pius IX

Saint John XXIII was supposedly and anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/…/the-case-agains…
stevensperay.wordpress.com/…/pope-st-john-xx…
www.amazon.com/…/B0007F89MO
romancatholicfaith.weebly.com/…/the_scandals_an…

Paul VI was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

novusordowatch.org/paul-vi/
crc-internet.org/…/6-book-against-…
pontifexverus.wordpress.com/…/answering-a-fre…
romancatholicfaith.weebly.com/…/the_scandals_an…

John Paul I was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

novusordowatch.org/john-paul-i/
www.ncronline.org/…/shortest-pontif…
www.scribd.com/…/The-Scandals-an…

Saint John Paul II was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php
www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofjp2.htm

Benedict XVI was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofb16.htm
www.opusdeialert.com/footnotes.htm
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/…/anti-pope-bened…
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/…/principles-of-c…
holywar.org/Ratzinger.htm
novusordowatch.org/benedict-xvi/

@Ultraviolet
"I don,t provide ONE example"

You dont provide ONE example because there is not ONE EXAMPLE IN EXISTENCE of a valid pope in office proclaiming doctrinal heresy.
Your lists and sources are all quite useless no matter how many you supply.Its noted that most of them come from well known sedevacantist sources.
My accusation that you are a crypto sedevacantist looks more and more accurate.

You clearly do not know the difference between a pope in office and a papal candidate.

@Ultraviolet
Manifest errors?

A pope must use the word Munus[office] when resigning under the strict rule of canon 332no2
Benedict used the word ministerium[ministry] which is a different thing.

Benedicts subsequent actions plus statements by his representative+Ganswein indicate beyond any doubt that his resignation was only partial .

A partial papal resignation is not a resignation from the office of the papacy

"You dont provide ONE example because there is not ONE EXAMPLE IN EXISTENCE of a valid pope in office proclaiming doctrinal heresy."

Wrong. That's why you can't refute the ones cited on the pages I linked. I've said it before. You're arrogant enough that if you could refute all of them, you would.

I'm not going to pick "one" accusation for each or any pope because ALL of them must be refuted to disprove the claim.

I understand your tactic perfectly. You want to debate ONE issue with me, the entire claim riding on ONE point you can give your full attention to like never before.

Unfortunately for you, that isn't the argument I made. :D My argument is that you are a fraud. You focus on Francis' supposed heresy and ignore the supposed heresies of his four predecessors.

You claim Pope Francis is an anti-pope and automatically excommunicated because he's advanced "doctrinal heresy".

Other critics make the same accusation against the last four popes.

They have spent years picking through every single thing those men have ever said or written for what they see as proof of heresy.

If you want to argue their claims are wrong. Then you must refute their examples. All of them. So long as one supposed example of heresy remains unanswered, you have failed to refute their claim.

I don't have to re-write them. You seem to fancy yourself as a skilled debator but you don't know how frame an argument. I do which is why I have manuevered you into this position.

"Your lists and sources are all quite useless no matter how many you supply."

This is what crazy sounds like. Saying something is useless ain't makin' it so, Thor. :D

"Its noted that most of them come from well known sedevacantist sources."

Genetic Fallacy on your part. You're attacking the source instead of the information presented by the source..

"My accusation that you are a crypto sedevacantist looks more and more accurate."

Wrong. You are a liar, Thor. You just throw these accusations around without even checking them against your other accusations.

When I argue Francis is Pope then I can't be a "crypto sedevacantist".

Your "accusation that" is like all your accusations: rubbish for the same purpose.

To defame, to besmirch, to lie. Now go cry some more how you, innocent cherub that you are, are the hapless victim of vile insults, hatreds and abuse.

The same hypocrisy that leads you to seeing heresy in only one Papacy also guides your tongue.

One last point. There is nothing "partial" about a resignation, in secular life or in the Church.

A man either resigns from a job or he doesn't. Get a real job and try "partially resigning" you silly idiot.

"Not capitalizing Extraordinary makes no difference in the essential meaning."

Adding EHC to the term certainly does. ;-) EHC what? Extremely Hippie Christians? Who can say? The USCCB site certainly doesn't include your mysterious abbreviation. What you're doing is making excuses for supplying a "correction" that isn't technically correct.

"Ministers of the Eucharist, e(E)xtraordinary or not, is ambiguous enough to allow essential change to the meaning and cause confusion"

That's nice. However, I didn't write "Minsisters of the Eucharist." I wrote "Eucharistic Ministers" and in reference to a post where a lay-person is administering the Host. In that context, the meaning is self-evident. The canon law site I linked demonstrates the term may not be technically accurate but a.) it's commonplace and b.) its understanding is clear. So no, it doesn't "cause confusion" at all.

Like a lot of very technical people, you're first one to start finger wagging over anyone else not using the exact terminology.

But when your correction is also technically wrong, then you shrug off your own error with some lame excuse, it "makes no difference in the essential meaning".

How generous you are in forgiving your own lack of precision while criticizing it in others. Gotta love those double standards, Dr Bobus