Francis Plans To Resign - Author Of Dictator Pope

There are now "rumours" in Rome that Francis is planning to resign later this year, writes Henry Sire (Twitter, January 27) referring to “multiple sources.” Sire calls the unlikely rumour “conceivabl…
That new Pope you've drawn casting Jorge et al out of the Vatican..... It's not the Byzantine Catholic Patriarch is it? It's like listening to the Early Church Fathers when he's speaking. 😇

vkpatriarhat.org/en/
François envisage de démissionner, dit l'Auteur du "Pape Dictateur"
catholique.forumactif.com/t666-news-au-29-janvier-2020
Il y a maintenant des « rumeurs » à Rome selon lesquelles François prévoit de démissionner plus tard dans l'année, écrit Henry Sire (Twitter, 27 janvier) en parlant de « sources multiples ».

Sire qualifie de « concevable » cette rumeur improbable, car François pourrait plani…More
François envisage de démissionner, dit l'Auteur du "Pape Dictateur"
catholique.forumactif.com/t666-news-au-29-janvier-2020
Il y a maintenant des « rumeurs » à Rome selon lesquelles François prévoit de démissionner plus tard dans l'année, écrit Henry Sire (Twitter, 27 janvier) en parlant de « sources multiples ».

Sire qualifie de « concevable » cette rumeur improbable, car François pourrait planifier à sa succession le cardinal Tagle :

« La certitude d'un successeur bergolien peut lui valoir plus qu'une année ou deux de plus pour lui-même dans la papauté. »

[Henry sire est dans les choux. Je rectifie le tire : l'Antéchrist envisage de rester ad vitam æternam...]
iwirawan
Publicity stunt. I don't believe, not one iota.
Petrus 'Romanus' Parolin waits for his hour...
DEFENSA DE LA FE likes this.
Fr. Dwight Longenecker spreads the same rumour
Quoting 'Moses' "From my cold dead hands."
Unrepentant Jorge of the Pachamamas will only resign in a pine box.
St Michael the Archangel defend us in battle
Frank the Antepoop likes this.
AUSTEEN IVEREIGH CONFIRMED THAT RUMMOR TO BE TRUE AND HE IS A BERGOGLIAN. HE SAID HE WILL RESIGN THIS YEAR WE WANT HIM TO RESIGN NEXT MONTH.
HE SAID AT THE BEGGINIG HE WILL BE THREE TO FOUR YEARS AND SO FAR HE IS ALMOST SEVEN SO FAR.
Frà Alexis Bugnolo likes this.
DEFENSA DE LA FE likes this.
tearlach
I BELIEVE HE WILL WHEN MARTIN LUTHER KING COMES BACK FROM HELL AND ASK FOR FORGIVENESS, WHICH IS NEVER.
Frank the Antepoop and one more user like this.
Frank the Antepoop likes this.
advoluntas@aol.com likes this.
Antipope Bergoglio cannot resign an office he never held in the first place.
Thors Catholic Hammer likes this.
True. But the heat is on concerning exposure of the antipope.
This “ resignation “ stunt is a kite designed to placate suspicious cardinals who would see it as an end to the nightmare.
...which begs the question who is Pope now? Benedict XVI resigned by his own admission. If he didn't, some would argue that he wasn't a valid pope in the first place.

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

If we start using Canon Law and Church Magisterium to invalidate "anti-pope bergogolio", the last four popes before him are faced with the same problem.
DEFENSA DE LA FE likes this.
To Ultraviolet
Another illogical argument from you.
Pope Benedict’s resignation violated Canon 332 no 2.
As such many including myself conclude that he did not legally resign and therefore remains the pope.
Your absurd argument is that if he did,nt resign then he was never a pope in the first place!!!!!!!!

Bergolio in my view was never a pope.
But let’s agree with you for the sake of argument …More
To Ultraviolet
Another illogical argument from you.
Pope Benedict’s resignation violated Canon 332 no 2.
As such many including myself conclude that he did not legally resign and therefore remains the pope.
Your absurd argument is that if he did,nt resign then he was never a pope in the first place!!!!!!!!

Bergolio in my view was never a pope.
But let’s agree with you for the sake of argument that he was.
Bergolio published formal doctrinal heresy in Amoris Laetitia where he openly rejects Christ’s defined teaching on adultery.
No pope in the history of the church has ever promulgated such formally heretical teaching on a matter of grave importance.
The promulgation of such formal heresy immediately separates any pope from Christ and from the papacy.

Your counter argument is that four past sitting popes including Benedict have done the same thing.
When I asked you to provide me with one single example you refuse to do so and then wave documents containing multiple such alleged heresies in my face and expect me to argue about all of them.
It is quite childish on your part
.
But I will grant you one last opportunity to furnish evidence of one single doctrinal formal heresy on a grave matter promulgated by a sitting pope.
You claim to be knowledgeable about these matters so it should not be hard for you.
I suspect though I am talking to the wall , to a person terrified to accept the plain fact the Bergoglio is not a pope and that the only safe course in this disaster for Catholicism is to continue regard Benedict as a valid pope.
On the contrary, my argument is quite logical and you calling it differently shows nothing.

"Pope Benedict’s resignation violated Canon 332 no 2."

[no evidence of this given] other than your say-so Citing a law and showing where it applies are two different things.

"As such many including myself conclude that he did not legally resign and therefore remains the pope."

Band-wagon fallacy. Many …More
On the contrary, my argument is quite logical and you calling it differently shows nothing.

"Pope Benedict’s resignation violated Canon 332 no 2."

[no evidence of this given] other than your say-so Citing a law and showing where it applies are two different things.

"As such many including myself conclude that he did not legally resign and therefore remains the pope."

Band-wagon fallacy. Many including yourself may conclude incorrectly. Many others conclude that Benedict XVI was never a valid pope at all.
holywar.org/Ratzinger.htm

Others conclude based on his alleged heresies he excommunicated himself.

"Your absurd argument is that if he did,nt resign then he was never a pope in the first place!!!!!!!!"

Obviously you failed to recognize the point of the comma in my sentence. The comma separates two possibilites, it isn't a conjunction like "and".

Learn to read.

"Bergolio published formal doctrinal heresy in Amoris Laetitia where he openly rejects Christ’s defined teaching on adultery. No pope in the history of the church has ever promulgated such formally heretical teaching on a matter of grave importance. The promulgation of such formal heresy immediately separates any pope from Christ and from the papacy."

That's a reasonable argument. Just one correction. The "grave importance" of the matter, or lack, doesn't change whether a doctrine is heretical. Promoting any heretical doctrine would be sufficient. The problem facing the Church comes from what you correctly described next:

"Your counter argument is that four past sitting popes including Benedict have done the same thing."

More precisely, and vitally important: my counter argument is that other critics, people like you, have produced a large body of evidence "that four past sitting popes including Benedict have done the same thing."

"When I asked you to provide me with one single example you refuse to do so and then wave documents containing multiple such alleged heresies in my face and expect me to argue about all of them."

Wrong. I don't expect you to argue about all of them. I know you can't. You know you can't. If you understood how debate works, you would be forced to recognize the following:

1.) By your standards, Francis is an invalid Pope.

2.) Others, using your standards, can show the previous four Popes were also invalid.

3.) If you disagree with the evidence they produced, then you must show it is wrong, all of it since only one instance of heresy is sufficient to invalidate a Pope.

4.) You can't show the evidence is wrong.

5.) That means the evidence stands unchallenged, and by your standards, the previous four Popes were also invalid.

Your approach is the childish one, along with rampantly irrational.

If you choose to invalidate Francis papacy using church teachings then you must also acknowledge those same church teachings invalidate the last four popes.

If you disagree, then you must show how those church teachings don't apply and you can't and you won't.

Your GTV grand-standing doesn't change your double standards.

There is an alternative.

Accept all the Popes as valid, regardless of their teachings... Francis, Benedict, all of them. Trust in God's judgement on whom he allows to sit on Saint Peter's Throne.

You don't have to like a Pope or even agree with a Pope to acknowledge he holds the office.

"But I will grant you one last opportunity to furnish evidence of one single doctrinal formal heresy on a grave matter promulgated by a sitting pope."

Grant? Who the heck are you to "grant" anything? The burden of proof is, was, and remains on you.

The evidence has been presented. Here are nine examples of heresy just for Benedict XVI since he's the only one of the four previous popes still alive.

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

I don't need to re-write them or pick only one because you "grant" it.

We've discussed this before. I understand your tactic. You want to reduce this entire debate down to ONE point and you want me to present it so you can debate with me.

As I've said before. I am not your opponent, Thor. Your opponent is the truth. Your opponent is reason itself and reason beats you every time.

You must disprove ALL the evidence of heresy against ALL four popes if you want to continue arguing that only Francis has invalidated himself.

" a person terrified to accept the plain fact the Bergoglio is not a pope and that the only safe course in this disaster for Catholicism is to continue regard Benedict as a valid pope."

...and that's where you're wrong again. I'm not terrified at all. But unlike you, I refuse to pick and choose between supposedly "heretical" Popes.

From a traditionalist point of view, Benedict was also a disaster, as was John Paul II and John Paul I, and John XXIII. But they were still all Popes. I don't like him, but so is Francis.

Catholicism has continued for the last half a century of modernist insanity long before Francis' papacy. It will continue after Francis. Catholicism will continue to the end of time because Christ said so.
Frank the Antepoop likes this.
"I'm a Catholic and attend New Rite Masses"
MyronM
The shared papacy is gaining momentum: there will be three like popes.
God forbid!
J G Tasan likes this.
Two retired popes?
No. One pope. One retired antipope.
Frà Alexis Bugnolo and one more user like this.
Frà Alexis Bugnolo likes this.
DEFENSA DE LA FE likes this.
BENEDICT IS OUR POPE.
Thors Catholic Hammer and one more user like this.
Thors Catholic Hammer likes this.
Frà Alexis Bugnolo likes this.
And the world would breath a sigh of relief. Good riddance. But i doubt we'll be so lucky or rid ourselves of this pox of an antipope so easily or so soon.