@Ultraviolet a bribed and corrupt college of cardinals is not the Church. We have had antipopes in the past. We have one now. And since Benedict did not revert to his given name, answers to Your Holiness, wears the papal white and still lives in the Vatican, not to mention his authorship of a faulty resignation, Benedict is pope.

What you call "Derpy" is his rejection of Mary's holiness, his rejection that hell exists, his rejection of god's judgment, his endorsement of adultery, homesexuality, his honoring of abortionists, and his worship of native amercian idols and gods. Sorry, the man is not pope. The Church, by its 2000 years of dogma, tradition, canon law and the words of Jesus Christ Himself say so. Not the freemasons in the Vatican.

An "antipope" implies a legitimate or at least a contrary claimant for the Papacy. There isn't one. Benedict resigned. He's said so repeatedly, Jmy1975

Benedict has publicly acknowledged the Pope is Francis. Consequently, Benedict chose the title Pope Emeritus. Nor would he be required under Canon Law to revert to his given name. Btw... a LOT of people live in the Vatican.

But let's stick with Benedict. If you're talking Papal fashion, hey... let's dish! Benedict no longer wears the white Papal mozzetta or the Papal ring -the one bearing his Papal title BENEDICTVS XVI was destroyed following his (wait for it) resignation.

If you want to argue the validity of Benedict's resignation according to Canon Law, oh please... :D

You're new, so you haven't had the pleasure of arguing this subject here. Fair warning, this is going to end badly. ;-)

No, really... I'm telling you this ahead of time. The 'experts' have stopped arguing Benedict's supposed resignation on GTV for a reason.

Sure, they repeat their claims on their own blogs where they can delete embarrassing comments. But here? In an open news post where they can't make a public humiliation simply vanish?

No. ;-)

Here's a more cautious approach before you embarrass yourself making the same mistakes they did.

Just find a photo of Pope Emeritus Benedict still wearing his Papal ring -it should have an oval shape and read BENEDICTVS XVI.

It looks like this.

This is what Benedict wears now and, no, that isn't the Papal ring. It's his episcopal ring. probably this one:

You'll also notice in that photo, Francis is wearing the Papal mozzetta and Benedict is not. Now that you know what you're looking for, do some photo scouting and come up with a winner. If you can't, think twice about diving into the deep, dark waters of Canon Law.

Protip: "derpy" is online slang for foolish or stupid. Greta Thunberg is derpy and her derpiness has nothing to do with the Blessed Mother. Many of Pope Francis' comments, especially his eco-nonsense are derpy for similar reasons..

A scandalous Pope is still Pope.History has been full of them....

"and his worship of native amercian idols and gods"

You mean like this? ;-) If you think that's bad, what about the guy who was praying in mosque? Under the guidance of a Muslim religious leader, facing Mecca like any other Muslim, no less? If Pacamama rituals are bad, Allah should be even worse, yes? :D

@Ultraviolet Bergolio's actions prove he isn't a pope. Period. Heretics, lovers of the devil, AND TEACHERS TEACHING ANTI CHRISTIAN DOGMA, cannot be pope.

There cannot be a pope emeritus. You're either a pope or you're not. Ganswein, B16's spokesman, and B16 himself have said he would continue the ministry of the pope. He can't do this. As almost 2 millennia of tradition and canon law have shown, he has to resign the office completely. He did not. And since Jesus invented the papacy, no one can change it.

Hitch a ride with this man, that's your choice. The choice is between a terrible pope who partially resigned, but is still pope and loves Jesus, or a "derpy" guy who has openly taught sacrilege and evil.

I forgot, Bergolion (Francis) refuses to kneel or genuflect before Jesus, but has no problem doing it in front of government leaders.

Don't be ignorant.

Good luck!

"Bergolio's actions prove he isn't a pope. Period.

What do John Paul II's actions prove? What do Benedict XVI's actions prove?

Apply your standards evenly to all Popes or to none.

"AND TEACHERS TEACHING ANTI CHRISTIAN DOGMA, cannot be pope."

Using your standards, then JP II and Benedict XVI cannot be pope either. Critics have found plenty of heresies in the writings of both men

www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofjp2.htm

www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofb16.htm

"There cannot be a pope emeritus."

You should check what an Emeritus is. The title supports your position!

--"a person retired from professional life but permitted to retain as an honorary title the rank of the last office held"--

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emeritus

"You're either a pope or you're not."

Agreed. Benedict XVI resigned and has said so repeatedly and also underscored he did so freely. According to Canon Law 332.2 those are the only two requirements for a valid Papal resignation and Benedict has fulfilled both of them..

"Ganswein, B16's spokesman, and B16 himself have said he would continue the ministry of the pope."

Did he now? Can you find a source with a direct quote? Or are you just mis-remembering what actually WAS said?

"As almost 2 millennia of tradition and canon law have shown, he has to resign the office completely. He did not."

You're directly contradicted by Benedict XVI's own words at his last general audience as Pope, immediately before his resignation went into effect.

"I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church..."

www.vatican.va/…/hf_ben-xvi_aud_…

That's not "Ganswein said that Benedict said..".Those are Benedict's own words.

Also, since you aren't citing Canon Law (and woe to you if you try), please don't lecture me on the requirements of Papal resignations. I say this with no malice: I know them infinitely better than you do.

"And since Jesus invented the papacy, no one can change it."

Benedict didn't change the Papacy, he resigned from it. He isn't the first to do so.

"Hitch a ride with this man, that's your choice."

Recognizing the current lawful head of the Catholic Church is not "hitching a ride with this man." It's a legal view. Case in point: When he was in office, I recognized President Barack Obama was the president of the United States. I didn't like the man, I didn't like his policies, but that didn't change the fact he WAS president, all the same.

"The choice is between a terrible pope who partially resigned,"

You keep repeating this claim absent any proof. In debating terms, that's a fallacy known as argumentum ad nauseam.

"or a "derpy" guy who has openly taught sacrilege and evil."

...see my previous link to Benedict XVI's teachings.

It's time you apply your standards evenly to ALL the Popes.

"I forgot, Bergolion (Francis) refuses to kneel or genuflect before Jesus, but has no problem doing it in front of government leaders."

Officially, Francis "has a bad back". However, his behavior does not change Canon Law regarding the validity of Benedict XVI's resignation or Francis' subsequent appointment.

"Don't be ignorant."

...said the guy who didn't know Benedict contradicted him. :D

Heck, you can't even find me a photo of Benedict still wearing his Papal ring or the Papal mozzetta after his resignation. He doesn't because he isn't Pope anymore.

@Ultraviolet JP2 and B16 never denied dogma of the Church. They never denied Hell, denied The existence of original sin, denied the Holiness of Mary, nor violated the commandments by worshipping other gods. That JP2 and B16 were bad popes (is in case of B16) is unquestioned. Heresy has its own requirements. And you should know this. Bergolio does the work of the devil. And you're part of the legion if you believe otherwise. Here's hoping for your epiphany.

"JP2 and B16 never denied dogma of the Church."

Cool story bro. That's why both charts contrast the statements made by each pope against Catholic dogma.

"They never denied Hell, denied The existence of original sin, denied the Holiness of Mary,"

...as opposed to all the alleged heresies they DID advance. Why do you ignore those? That's right. because you want to pretend they're just "bad popes" but still pope. If Francis isn't Pope for his errors, neither are Benedict and JP II for their own. Or they all remain pope despite their errors.

" nor violated the commandments by worshipping other gods."

...except JP II partipated in Amazonian pagan rituals and Benedict prayed in mosque to an entity called Allah.

"Heresy has its own requirements. And you should know this."

I also know when you're ignoring extensive evidence of alleged heresies when it suits you.

" And you're part of the legion if you believe otherwise."

That's a No True Scotsman Fallacy, btw.

@Ultraviolet Let's assume you're right. Let's assume JP2 and B16 were heretics. That means they weren't pope except in title and elected by the same people that voted for your fav man, Bergolio. That also means Bergolio is a heretic and that there hasn't been a legitimately elected pope for a long time. So are you a sedevacantist? Or buried under cognitive dissonance due to your pride and ignorance?

Bergolio isn't the pope. And by canon law, B16 is still pope.

Fact is, the case for Berger being a heretic is clear, it's so obvious. But it's also been detailed by people smarter than you. www.ncregister.com/images/uploads/open-letter.pdf

You ally yourself with the Devil. You just do. At least be man enough to admit it. Bro.

Apparently I didn't make myself adequately clear. Recognizing a person as holding an office is not the same as supporting what they do while in office.

Barack Obama was a US president. Bill Clinton was also a US president. I didn't vote for either of them. I didn't like either of them. My dislike and diapproval doesn't change the fact they WERE the president.

The same applies to Pope Francis. I don't like him. I don't approve of him. My dislke and disapproval doesn't change the fact Francis IS Pope. So, no he isn't my "fave man" man as you call him. A "fave" or "favourite" is not only approval, it's the apex of that approval.

"Let's assume you're right. Let's assume JP2 and B16 were heretics.

...considering you haven't supplied any evidence to the contrary, that may be a prudent assumption to make. ;-)

"That also means Bergolio is a heretic and that there hasn't been a legitimately elected pope for a long time."

If you are true to your standards and apply them evenly to the popes discussed, then YOU must acknowledge that.

Otherwise, you're just another brainless hypocrite who arbitrarily decides which supposed heresies and errors negate a papacy and which do not.

"So are you a sedevacantist? Or buried under cognitive dissonance due to your pride and ignorance?"

That's a fallacy of a false dilemma. Sloppy, sloppy reasoning, Jimbo. :D Y'know... you might want to hold off on accusing me of "ignorance" when you keep making these kinds of mistakes.

...especially since I'm the one who keeps having to point them out for you, poor thing. ;-)

Cognitive dissonance presupposes inconsistency. Funny you should mention it.

Like nearly all of Francis' critics, the rare sedevacantists excepted, you acknowledge and insist JPII and Benedict XVI were pope even while tacitly conceding they committed the same errors as Francis.

That's hypocrisy (i.e. moral inconsistency), pure and simple. It's an outgrowth of a failed line of reasoning generally defined as, "But Francis is different..."

He isn't. Error is error. Heresy is heresy. Apostasy is apostasy. If you choose to argue Francis isn't Pope based on those charges, you must do the same for Benedict XVI and JP II. Or you must show that what JP II and Benedict XVI did wasn't error, or heresy or apostasy and good luck with that.

Incidentally, no. I am not a sedevacantist. Quite the opposite. My views are entirely consistent. I recognize John Paul II was Pope, Benedict XVI was Pope, and Francis is Pope now.

"Bergolio isn't the pope. And by canon law, B16 is still pope."

Repeating a claim absent proof is a fallacy called "argumentum ad nauseam". Repeating it doesn't prove it. You couldn't prove a claim based on Canon law if your life depended on it. :P Heck,

I'm still waiting for you to find a picture of "the pope" still wearing his Papal ring and mozzetta. That's just grade-school level "find a picture" and you can't even do that.

"Fact is, the case for Berger being a heretic is clear, it's so obvious."

...and others, have made the same case against JP II and Benedict XVI. So? Apply your standards evenly or not at all.

If Francis is not Pope because he's a supposed heretic, the same is true for JPII and Benedict XVI. Critics have extensively documented alleged heresies against both of those popes. The Church also recognizes JP II is a saint, in addition to Pope.

"But it's also been detailed by people smarter than you."

You're confusing intelligence with education. A common mistake. It's also the reason people who are, in fact, technically better educated than I am, still lose when we argue. :D

For example: Pointing out they're supposedly "smarter" doesn't mean you are, Jimbo.

If nothing else, they know the difference between Bergoglio and Berger. And you don't. :D

By the way, being "smarter" or even better educated doesn't automatically imply being correct. That's a fallacious appeal to authority.

You'd know that if you were at least as smart or as well educated as the person your arguing with right now.:D

Y would also notice I haven't argued Francis wasn't a heretic. I'm arguing YOU don't apply your standards evenly for invalidating the papacy.

Those learned writers argue Francis isn't Pope because he's a supposed heretic. Ironically, they cite other possible heresies advanced by JP II (in points VI and VII) while condemning Francis. That made me smile...

..and so?

If heresy negates a papacy as your own source argues, then Benedict XVI and JP II weren't Popes either, since other critics have gone point by point through their papacies contrasting their statements with established Catholic doctrine and teachings.

Can't have it both ways, Jimbo.

"You ally yourself with the Devil. You just do. At least be man enough to admit it. Bro."

Is Nancy Pelosi a US Representative? Yes or no?

If she is, then by your logic, you ally yourself to what she stands for including being pro-abortion.

durr-hurr, "at least be man enough to admit, bro". :P

@uktraviolet, the papacy is not like holding secular political office. If you aren't Catholic in mind, body, and spirit you are not of the office. You are not pope. You simply cannot be pope. The ministry and the office of the pope require complete communion. Again, you're blinded by your pride. Let's agree to disagree. I'll be right from every Catholic standpoint, and you will be right from a diabolical standpoint. Cheers.

"the papacy is not like holding secular political office."

On the contrary, that's exactly what it's like, even down to the voting. Jmy1975

The mistake you're making is assuming recognition of his office implies approving of his policies/ ideology.

It doesn't. This is why many devout clerics, even ones who routinely criticize Francis' policies, still acknowledge Francis is pope. He holds the office/ title/ rank of Pope, even if he's theoretically a bad pope, or a heretical pope or an apostate pope. The same would also apply to Francis' predecessors.

They were elected to be Pope. What they -did- as Pope (good or bad) is between them and God.

Obama was a bad, pro-abortion president, but he was still president.

"If you aren't Catholic in mind, body, and spirit you are not of the office. You are not pope. You simply cannot be pope. The ministry and the office of the pope require complete communion."

If you believe that, fair enough. Apply that argument to Benedict XVI and JP II, then. Also Paul VI and John Paul I and Saint John XXIII

"I'll be right from every Catholic standpoint,"

Ah, but you're NOT following a Catholic standpoint! More precisely, you're not following a Catholic standpoint uniformly. You can't be true to the Church when you ignore Her teachings just because you like a certain Pope and then re-apply them when you do not. That's hypocrisy.

...as for my pride, don't worry. Rafał_Ovile will help you make feel a lot better about yourself.

Comparatively speaking, he is to you what you are to me. That might be pride on my part, but it's also charity. ;-)