Ultraviolet you evidently know nothing about Wednesday audiences. They have always been for pilgrims and tourists. Scarcely any Romans attend them, for the reasons you cite. Therefore, the scarcity of a crowd reflects on Bergoglio's international image. As for his Roman Image, I do not think you would get 1% of the 5% of Romans who do practice their faith to even go if they were especially invited. Bergoglio is detested as an abberation which everyone hopes will die as soon as possible.

"You have accused all popes since VAT2 of being formal heretics."

Liar! I have never accused ANY of the Popes of any such thing. You're making things up again, Thors Catholic Hammer . You're repeating the same lie from a different thread, no less. Quote me word for word, liar! That is only way you can prove your claim. Link the post where I made such an accusation. Link it so everyone can read my words as I wrote them! My words, not your "summary", not your "interpretation", Not your endlessly repeated lies.

Put up or shut up, you demented parrot. Repeating a lie on different threads doesn't make it true, Thor. You should know that by now.

"A formal heretic can not be a pope."

As I have said many times before, by your standard, the one I'm quoting right now, then John Paul II is guilty as well. He approved the document "Dominus Jesus" and others have found it to be heretical as well.

www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote it. What does that say of his subsequent papacy? You don't care about heresy at all, except as an excuse to attack Pope Francis.

After that, those supposed "heresies" don't bother you one bit. Not the "heresies" JP II formally approved, nor the "heresies" Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, none of them.

What I say is this: Either you must apply the same standards uniformly to all popes or you must give all popes the benefit of the doubt and trust in God to decide the validity of the papacies..

Got that, Thors Catholic Parrot? THAT is what I say.

-----
...and trust a shill to always think first of a purely financial motive. The notion I might actually believe in what I say never crosses your mind. Who pays you, Frà Alexis Bugnolo?

Clearly not nearly enough of those you wish were paying you, eh? ;-)

Further, you do not speak for "everyone" on GTV, False Friar. Only those whose delusions you encourage, whose falsehoods you spread in the hopes of turning a tidy profit at the expense of genuinely well-meaning Catholics.

...and you didn't answer my question, Fraudlent Fra. Surely you of all people must know what a sedevancantist is. When I say Francis, for all his many failings, is Pope, that negates any possibility of the term applying. What then is your exuse for supporting what you certainly know is a lie? What is your excuse to further compound it with an additional falsehoods of your own?

Clearly your cassock and your membership in a religious order doesn't stay you from making false accusations of "professional troll", or spreading false fears of GTV getting "taken down". I've wondered about this for some time now...

How exactly do you reconcile what you say here on GTV with that moment when you drop to your knees at the altar rail, stick out your gummy spittle-flecked tongue and profane the Blessed Sacrament?

And I invite everyone to ask why you of all people ignore Christ's teaching, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God."

You have never ONCE exhorted your pet parrot to tone down the daily abuse and falsehoods he shrieks at the Pope. or the foulness he sprays at other members here, particularly me.

Strange how your oh-so-pious sensitivity to "extreme abusive language" never gets offended by any of that Frà Alexis Bugnolo. Fancy that, eh? ;-)

Thank you ever so much for not explaining why you endorsed a lie told by your parrot, much less justifying the ones you've spread yourself.

Speaking of language, your selective outrage proves one thing. On GTV, Fra is always just two letters away from Fraud.

Ultra violet, if you want me to take your side, you might start by not insulting me and then apologizing. You attempted to rebut Thor by affirming that all post vatican II popes are just as heretical as Bergoglio. So that is why Thor and I think you are a sede. However, if you think that they are heretics but Bergoglio is not, becuase somehow is his superior or exempt, then I grant you are not a sede, but you are still very confused. I suggest you calm down and stop insulting everyone. Even you nick seems to imply that you want to attack everyone else. I am praying for you.

I don't especially care if you take my side or not, Frà Alexis Bugnolo . I want you to take the side of truth! As I tell Thor, apply your standards uniformly.

Why finger-wag at me about "extreme abusive language" when you're consistently silent when it comes from anyone else, especially Thor.

"You attempted to rebut Thor by affirming that all post vatican II popes are just as heretical as Bergoglio. So that is why Thor and I think you are a sede."

That's assuming Thor argues in good faith. He does not and never has.

Thor, being Thor, throws whatever accusation he feels will best defame a critic and sway the reader to his views. Simply put, Thor is a liar and the truth is not in him. That's not an idle accusation on my part.

He will keep repeating a falsehood even after it's been factually disproven. He simply doesn't care. An accusation of "sedevacantist" from Thor is nothing more than a handy way to deflect attention where it should be namely on his double standards.

First off, your own accusation is incorrect.

I am NOT "affirming that all post vatican II popes are just as heretical as Bergoglio." I have always been exceedingly careful to present the arguments of heresy others make against the previous Popes as strictly their own.

So why do I raise them at all? Because that's Francis' critics should be doing if they truly care about such Papal "heresies".

We'll get back to Thor and his ilk in a moment. Let's talk about the accusation you are making, this one:: "...I think you are a sede"

First off, what is a "sede"? I'm sure you think you know but the precise meaning of the term might surprise you.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism

A sedevacantist holds (and I'm quoting wiki here) "that the present occupier of the Holy See is not truly pope".

Traditionally, the basis for this view has been the recent papacies' "modernist" views. You and Thor have a different basis: the previous occupier of the Holy See is still alive and you contest the validity his resignation.

Regardless of the cause, you and Thor are, in fact, technically true sedevacantists. You argue "the present occupier of the Holy See (i.e. Francis) is not truly pope".

Your basis for doing so might be different from traditional sedevacantists but your conclusions are ultimately the same.

I am not a "sede".

I recognize the Pope is Francis. I don't like Pope Francis. I don't support Pope Francis or approve of what Pope Francis is doing to the Church. But that doesn't change the facts: 1.) Benedict resigned. 2.) Francis was elected as successor.

Thor's arguments for denying the legitimacy of Francis' papacy change according to his fancies. The most recent one goes... "Amoris Laetitia is heretical. A pope who formally promotes heresy has excommunicated himself. Therefore Francis is not pope." He invariably follows this by asserting Benedict still is pope.

Again, even using Thor's own conclusion, he is a sedevacantist. He denies the validity of the current Pope. That's sedevacantism, and remains so even if he chooses to advance a different candidate in Francis' stead.

He's tried to argue in various ways that Benedict didn't "truly" resign and none of them are worth the time it takes to repeat them. They're wrong and, by now, I've personally disproven probably every major argument.

My last and best opponent was finally reduced to no better answer than accusing me of being a troll. ;-)

If Thor (or anyone else) truly cares about the ramifications of supposed "heresy" advanced by a Pope, then he should apply those standards equally to all Popes, not just to Francis but also to Francis' predecessors.

Thor does not do this, which is why I call him a hypocrite.

Other critics who truly do apply these standards evenly find substanital evidence of supposed heresies in the last four papacies. Notice how I just presented those critics views without endorsing them. That was deliberate.

I raise their findings as examples of Thor's hypocrisy and double-standards.

If, as Thor might claim, "promulgating formal heresy as Pope invalidates the Papacy", then by his reasoning, Saint John Paul II was not a valid Pope either. Critics have found evidence of heresy in the document "Domine Jesus" which JPII approved -as pope.

A secondary argument that Thor and others like to argue goes as follows:

"A manifest heretic can not ever be a valid pope and invalidates/ excommunicates themself" Supposedly Cardinal Bergoglio could not ever become a valid Pope because they point to one supposed heresy or another before he became elected.

I say again, if they wish to apply that standard then they must apply it equally to all cardinals who were elected Pope, including Cardinal Ratzinger. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger authored "Domine Jesus". If the document is heretical, then by their standards he is a heretic as well and "could not ever be a valid Pope" either.

My argument is a simple one. Either the critics of Francis apply their standards uniformly to all Popes, including John Paul II and Benedict XVI -or- they give all Popes the benefit of the doubt -including Francis.

I accuse Pope Francis' critics of hypocrisy, Thor especially, because he does neither one nor the other.

As I've said many times before and I'll repeat it again for your benefit, I don't like Pope Francis.

Pope Francis is a bad Pope. But he is Pope. That remains true regardless of my opinon of what he does as Pope.

When I acknowledge Francis is Pope, the term "sedevacantist" no longer applies. A sedevacantist is anyone who claims Francis is not truly Pope, regardless of whether they present another candidate for the Papacy.

"Even you nick seems to imply that you want to attack everyone else."

*sigh* No.

Ultraviolet is a wavelength of light.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet

It's commonly used for sterilization and inducing fluorescence which has a wide variety of applications.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence

I'd like to thank you for praying for me but I'm not quite certain what the content of those prayers entail. ;-) There are many who pray for Pope Francis every day and Heaven help the man if those prayers are ever granted.