The pages is still not found. Well done. :D

The man who owns the New York Times is Jewish. Just thought you should know since you ARE going on about..."But if Jews, then you that its part pf their big agenda."

So you criticize Jewish historians and then post articles from a a Jewish owned newspaper.

Have fun trying to post a link, Pattfm. I'll leave you to it, then.

I understand that, Pattfm. I'm discussing the page you're trying to link!

Maybe you're doing this to be stupid on purpose.

Only you could manage to fail at something as basic as posting an URL

Better still, wait until you get home and try accessing GTV from your computer and not with your mobile.

Then you can figure out why you're complaining about Jews while trying to post an URL to a Jewish-owned newspaper.

At this point, it doesn't matter.

"1. The information on that link is just accusation if you really read it."

...which you didn't since each so-called accusation has multiple citations.

"2. Many other Saint like St. Theresa of Avilla was accused with similar accusations."

Irrelevant to the discussion. None of these Popes were saints, either.

"3. There has been a unbroken line of Succession of Peter. Those who usurped the Chair are called anitipopes."

Yeah, that's nice. Pattfm. It's a pity Benedict XVI resigned. It's a shame the Curia elected Francis in his place. Francis being a lousy Pope wouldn't change even if Benedict XVI had passed away first.

"3. Other popes before who? Other freemasons, homosexuals?"

...that moment when you realize Pattfm can't count from 1-4 without screwing it up, much less write a coherent sentence. :D

"...by Jews of course."
Your Fallacy Is: Genetic.

E.g. Pope Leo X:
1. Was accused of homosexuality after his death.
2. In the midst of inquisitions?

The Very first thing to do is to know who the accusers are.
If they are Protestants, then you can excuse their ignorance a bit. But if Jews, then you that its part pf their big agenda.

History isn't an accusation. Facts don't stop being facts because of the religion, nationality, gender, or ethnicity of the person presenting them.

I forgot that logic is beyond you. My apologies for that.

Nobody is attacking "Our Lady of ____" or the divinity of Christ. You're attacking the people writing about history because you can't cope with history as it happened.

You're also forgetting the original sources of this info werent "Jewish" or "Protestant" or "Atheists". But why should you let a little thing like that stop you?

Pattfm, we are discussing the source of the historical information about the Popes, not the page history on Wikipedia. Specifically I was referring to the primary source documents these historians used.

You can't read English properly. You can't post a link without failing miserably. You don't know what you're talking about.

"So you have prostituted from the article on Wikipedia to the reference in your reference?"

You need to learn better English grammar before you can write this type of sarcasm without showing your mistakes. I'm not going to be your English tutor. ;-)

"Other popes before him actually WERE homosexuals." by Jews of course.
1. The information on that link is just accusation if you really read it.
2. Many other Saints like St. Theresa of Avila was accused with similar accusations. Joan of Arc was accused of being a witch.
3. There has been an unbroken line of Succession of Peter. Those who usurped the Chair are called anitipopes. Those who are the true representatives of Christ are called The Vicar of Christ i.e., pope.
3. Other popes before who? Other freemasons, homosexuals?

@Ultraviolet.
Listen you arrogant clown who thinks you are the only person alive who knows papal history.
Past homosexually active popes never ever questioned or promoted a homosexual lifestyle.
All of them conceded the mortally sinful nature of such lifestyles and never publicly condoned them.
You seem now to think that because I expose Bergoglio's public contempt for catholic teaching I have forgotten Benedict’s breaches of canon law.
On every single catholic moral , doctrinal and legal front the alleged papacy of Bergoglio fails badly

But you keep defending it and spitting at those who expose it.
Are you yourself a homosexual?

In relation to Pope Benedict the evidence of an incomplete resignation is overwhelming.
Wake up and stop defending the indefensible.

"Listen you arrogant clown who thinks you are the only person alive who knows papal history."

...said the man who cries all the time about how he's a victim of "vitriol" and "abuse" and "bullying" and "intimidation" and "harrassment".

"Past homosexually active popes never ever questioned or promoted a homosexual lifestyle."

Re-read that sentence of yours out loud Thors Catholic Hammer and then you'll realize how stupid you truly are.

It's also a great example of you making things up again. No proof, no evidence, just your big beak inventing new distinctions without a shred of evidence.

History also disproves you. Those "queer popes" were blatant and it was a scandal. Homosexuals in authority "promote homosexual lifetsyles", by living them and encouraging others to do so.

"All of them conceded the mortally sinful nature of such lifestyles and never publicly condoned them."

Post direct quotes from every one of the Popes accused. Put up or shut up, Crackers. From now on, every time you tell one of these lies, you must supply proof.

Your secondary claim is self-disproving, incidentally.

A queer Pope condones being queer simply by the lifestyle he leads. It becomes common knowledge, as it did during those Papacies, and other queers realize the Pope is "one of them" and condones their actions..

"You seem now to think that because I expose Bergoglio's public contempt for catholic teaching I have forgotten Benedict’s breaches of canon law."

Wrong. You simply choose to ignore them, just as you do with the heresies both he and John Paul II formally taught.

You simply don't care, any more than you care about the truth. It's just a word for you. You lie about Francis, you lie about me, you lie about history. You lie every day. It's what you do.

"But you keep defending it and spitting at those who expose it."

You tell that lie regularly. I'm not defending the policies of Pope Francis. You want to "expose" them? Go right ahead, Crackers. But that doesn't change the fact Francis is Pope.

"In relation to Pope Benedict the evidence of an incomplete resignation is overwhelming."

This is you repeating a lie you can't prove using Canon Law. Last time you tried, I wiped the floor with you.

...and yes, I am arrogant. Slapping you around every day on GTV has that effect on me.

The "passive voice" is always a give-away that you know a statement is false, as well. Every time, Crackers. Every day. :D