Here we go again. You really weren't paying attention when I was busy countering all this nonsense from Thors Catholic Parrot, were you BrotherBeowulf?

"UV--You are blindly following Francis."

Wrong. I'm also tired of idiots like you repeating this same old lie. I recognize Francis is the Pope. I don't follow him. I don't approve of him. I don't like him. Got that?

"I wonder why."

Easy. You "wonder why" because you're an idiot. Like most idiots, you ignore all information that doesn't fit with your idiotic delusions.

That doesn't change whether I'm explaining how I -don't- follow Francis or when I point out for the umpteenth time why, like it or not Francis is the Pope. You "wonder why" because idiots are, by definition, stupid.

"Further, your thinking Schönborn is more of a problem than..."

I haven't advanced any such line of thinking. That's a strawman argument on your part. You're making things up because idiots can't argue against what I actually said.

"the false pope Antipope Francis"

Like that other idiot Thors Catholic Hammer, you seem to believe repeating a baseless claim makes it true. That's "magical thinking" and the real world doesn't work that way.

"Francis is not the pope for several reasons. I'll briefly list three for you, if you care to know."

You bet I do! Now things get interesting! :D

"First, Pope Benedict resigned the ministry, in part at that,"

Wrong. Benedict made no such "partial" resignation. In his resignation letter he wrote... "with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff..."

His resignation contained one crucial point: that it was "in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff..."

This means whatever is necessary for that action to occur, i.e. "the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff..." is included in his resignation.

www.forbes.com/…/pope-benedict-s…

Benedict did not retain any partial powers or make a "partial" resignation. There is no such provision in canon law nor does there need to be. Papal resignations are just like secular ones. You either quit the job or you don't. Benedict quit, he quit entirely and not "in part at that".

"and not the office, as required by canon law 332."

Wrong. First, Papal resignations are covered in Canon Law 332 Section 2. Let's be precise here. No sloppy generalities. You have a weak, clearly second-hand, understanding of canon law and that just isn't going to cut it. Not when you're discussing the subject with me.

Second, there is no such requirement to resign "the office" in Canon Law 332.2. The word "office" is used in the context of delineating the what IS required for. a valid resignation of the Papacy.

There are only two requirements for a valid resignation: "it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested"

www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P16.HTM

Benedict stated and has re-stated he did so freely and he's made his intention to resign very public which fulfills the condition of the resignation being "properly manifested". Incidentally, there are no stated requirements under Canon Law for what constitutes "properly manifested". so don't go there.

"Second, whatever little Pope Benedict did resign"

Wrong. Benedict resigned the Papacy, not some of it or "whatever little" you like to claim. You're just making this garbage up and it shows.

Benedict made the nature of his resignation very clear in his last general audience. Notably, using the word "office".:

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

www.vatican.va/…/hf_ben-xvi_aud_…

That, incidentally, also debunks a tangential claim that goes... "Benedict didn't really resign the OFFICE of the Papacy." or a similar invented extra-Canonical requirement.. "He didn't USE the word 'office' as required."

The use of the word isn't a requirement in Canon Law 332.2 But hey, today's you're lucky day! Benedict used it anyway.

...annnnd. that means, (wait for it) Benedict XVI resigned. All the wishful thinking and contrived reasoning isn't going to change Canon Law or his fulfillment of it. Neither are crazy conspiracy theories, like this one:

", was most likely coerced,"

Pure speculation and outright fantasy on your part. Zero proof supplied, as usual. As such, your citation of Canon Law 188 is irrlevant until incontrovertible proof is supplied. Good luck with that.

Benedict has said repeatedly he resigned of his own free will. You've got a long, uphill climb to disprove the man's own words.

www.ncregister.com/…/benedict-xvi-qu…

When you imply otherwise, you're calling Benedict a liar. At this point, I'm not even surprised. Let's face it, you don't have any more respect for Benedict than you do Francis.

"Third, the conspiracy to force Benedict out of his Chair was..."

You haven't shown any such conspiracy even existed or that Benedict was "most likely coerced" or any other such nonsense. You're building your argument on an unsupported premise. A premise directly contradicted by Benedict himself.

"Bergoglio has given every sign--which I believe you have noticed--of apostasy heresy and false teaching for seven years now."

...and I repeat what I have said many times before: "apply your standards evenly or not at all". Critics have found evidence of "apostasy, heresy and false teaching" in the last four popes, Benedict XVI included.

Your argument is made in bad faith.

You don't care about "apostasy, heresy and false teaching", except when you're discussing Pope Francis. In any discussion of his predecessors, you go back to not caring.

If you cared about "apostasy, heresy and false teaching" you would condemn all Popes when such evidence supposedly appeared. You don't because you don't care and never have. The Church's historical position on "apostasy, heresy and false teaching" is a tool for you to bang at the current Papacy and when you're done, you discard it.

You don't have any geniune belief in those doctrines. If you did, you'd apply them uniformly and you don't.

JP II was praising Pachamama and kissing the Quran long before Francis was waving bowls of dirt and signing the Abu Dhabi documents.

www.patheos.com/…/pope-st-john-pa…
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/…/anti-pope-john-…

Benedict XVI promoted, according to the analysis of some determined critics, numerous heretical false teachings. Judging by your misreading of Canon Law, those are well beyond your intellectual grasp. So let's stick to something simple. Benedict XVI prayed in non-Christian religious services with both Muslims and Jews.
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/…/anti-pope-bened…

Where was your outrage then, BrotherBeowulf? Nowhere.

You liked those Popes so you simply chose to ignore any supposed instances of "apostasy, heresy and false teaching. "

You don't like the current Pope so now "apostasy, heresy and false teaching" are important for you. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple. You are making a mockery of the very Church doctrines for which you pretend such concern.

"(2), Bergoglio is the criminal head of a criminal clerical Homosexual Network Strangling the Church,"

Zero evidence supplied except your say-so.

The terrible abuse scandal and the resulting cover-ups afflicting the Church were happening for decades under the last two Popes.

If there is such a "network," it was already in place during the Papacies of JP II and Benedict XVI.

When creepy paedo-priests were running rampant under JP II and Benedict XVI, you never held the Pope directly responsible for it. Now you do. More of your double-standards, more of your hypocrisy.

You didn't care about "criminal clerical homosexual networks" operating under JP II. You didn't care about "criminal clerical homosexual networks" operating under Benedict XVI. So don't pretend you care about them now.

"Further, Antipope Francis singlehandedly caused the blackout of the Sacraments--worldwide,"

Wrong. Again. Like usual. The "blackout" is happening at the diocean level. You're blaming the Pope for the actions of local Bishops.

It's the same "narrow vision" you have with your criticisms in general. You blame the Pope, and this pope only, for the behavior of homosexually-inclined clerics. Again, just as conveniently, you forget those men rose to power under JP II and Benedict XVI.

But you like those Popes so, again, you just ignore the supposed "criminal clerical homosexual networks" that ran during their Papacies. You give those Popes the benefit of the doubt. But not this one. Double standards again, just like always.

You see only what you want to and ignore the rest because your criticisms are sham. .

Sure, Francis is a bad Pope. But he's still Pope. So were JP II and Benedict XVI. JPII is even a recognized saint now.

If you're going to criticize Pope Francis on the basis of Church doctrine, then by all rights you must apply that standard equally to the Popes before him. The same is true for criticizing Papal complicity in "criminal clerical homosexual networks".

...which is why you just won't do that.

You're not true to your standards any more than you're true to the Church's doctrines on "apostasy, heresy and false teaching ".

When JP II or Benedict XVI advanced all sorts of potentially questionable notions, you didn't care whether they were apostates or heretics or if their teachings were false. You didn't care about the cover-ups or the abuses and you certainly didn't blame those Popes for what was going on.

You liked those Popes and that's the only silly, irrational standard you do have. Everything else is just a superficial justification to legitimize that.

Anything else or are you done?