German Synod’s "Conservative Opponent" Receives Communion in the Hand - From A Girl
At the January 30 opening Mass of the German Synodal Way, “Conservative” Regensburg Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer was served Holy Communion by a girl. The February 9 issue of the Konradsblatt, the diocesan …More
At the January 30 opening Mass of the German Synodal Way, “Conservative” Regensburg Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer was served Holy Communion by a girl.
The February 9 issue of the Konradsblatt, the diocesan newspaper of Freiburg, wrote that it was a "symbol" that during the opening mass the bishops were sitting among the faithful and were served Communion by women.
On the picture behind Voderholzer is “conservative” Freiburg Archbishop Stephan Burger. One wonders whether the two celebrated Mass on that day.
#newsFxncdaoolh
The February 9 issue of the Konradsblatt, the diocesan newspaper of Freiburg, wrote that it was a "symbol" that during the opening mass the bishops were sitting among the faithful and were served Communion by women.
On the picture behind Voderholzer is “conservative” Freiburg Archbishop Stephan Burger. One wonders whether the two celebrated Mass on that day.
#newsFxncdaoolh
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"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 …More
"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.
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.