"Anyone who claims Bergolio is Pope also blasphemes the Holy Spirit." @"Jimmies". Catholics claim
Francis is Pope, not
"Bergoglio". So right from the start, schismatics betray themselves by their vocabulary. That means
you, Jimbo. You, and your dippy convert blogger fantasy-girlfriend.
Now most, if not all, Catholics freely admit
Francis is pope. Benedict did,
after he resigned, that is. Let's see if this sounds familiar at all...
"I'm grateful to be bound by a great identity of views and a heartfelt friendship with Pope Francis. Today, I see my last and final job to support his pontificate with prayer."(direct quote). You've seen it before, but I'm including it for everyone else's benefit.
Let us apply some reason to this using logic. You're fond of using the word "logic" as a prop, another flavor of your rhetorical "jimmies" sprinkled through your comments. But like always, you never use logic. I do.
Your premise, verbatim.
"anyone who claims bergoglio is Pope also blasphemes the Holy Spirit".Allowing for your sloppy half-witted conflation between "Bergoglio" and "Francis", the following occurs.
Bergoglio claims Bergoglio is Pope.
Benedict claims Bergoglio is Pope.
Both men, therefore, blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.
For weeks now, you've repeatedly conflated error with heresy. I've corrected that mistake God knows how many times, but you ignore correction which is, technically, what heresy truly is under Canon Law 751.
Using your standards, presenting an error is the same as committing "heresy".
Benedict has called Francis Pope, and refered to him as Pope while underscoring that he, Benedict, is not. Like so:
"In any case, I wear the white cassock in a visibly different way to how the Pope wears it."(source)Therefore, using YOUR standards, Benedict presents the "error" that Francis is Pope, he's presented it
repeatedly, and
that makes it "heresy".
Heretics can't be popes and thus, "Ergo" as you'd phrase it,
neither man can be Pope.
Benedict included! You're a sedevacantist according to
your standards and
your "logic".
That's assuming 1.) your premises are correct,
which they aren't and 2.) you applied such reasoning honestly,
which you never do. That concept has no meaning for you whatsoever, any more than the truth does.
However, your argument fails twice on the first premise.
1.) Claiming Pope Francis is Pope isn't blasphemy. It's a fact.
2.) Even if the claim was supposedly correct (and it ain't), The claim
itself isn't blasphemy against the Holy Spirit...., not according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You don't know what you're talking about and you're making it up as you go along. You know what time it is? Check your phone or that tacky Felix The Cat wall clock swingin' his tail in the kitchen. What time is it? It's
Correction Time....
...and
this time, Mr. Yerian, it's going to stay
up.
:DThe Catechism of The Catholic Church explains in
paragraph 1864:
"There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss."Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the refusal to repent
from sin. Committing a sin itself, even repeatedly, isn't Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Saint John Paul II's 1986 Encylical
"Dominum et Vivificantem" explicitly clarifies this point on the Catechism. He writes,
"‘Blasphemy’ does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spiriit in words, it consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the cross."The saint continues..
" blasphemy against the Holy Spirit consists precisely in the radical refusal to accept this forgiveness, of which he is the intimate giver and which presupposes the genuine conversion which he brings about in the conscience."In short, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, has
nothing at all to do with stating one man or the other is Pope.
You're doing what you always do.
You're telling lies in that bold, declarative manner you're so fond of.
These are your little "Jimmies" and they stink of a pathetic, middle-aged bachelor's attention-seeking from a woman who wouldn't give him the time of day,
I don't use the word
bachelor idly.
Originally, a "bachelor" was a young knight
who followed the banner of another.
...of course, "young" doesn't apply to a guy turning fifty in two or three years. The rest does, with Sir Jimmy spurring his broken-down old nag clippity-clop wherever Lady Anne leads.
A "bachelor" is also person who has received a degree from a college -
and gone no further, not according to his LinkedIn profile, regardless of his claims here on GTV.
A "bachelor" is also an unmarried man
annnnnd... . (wait for it) a male animal
without a mate during breeding time.
That's you, point by point and I am SO not touching that last one.
:DLet's stick with the first definition since it evokes some measure of chivalry and courtly love. I'm a sucker for a sappy romance, and this has one sap trying to impress another one. Ohio's Don Quixote, riding the tail-end of middle age, tilting at windmills trying to impress St. Joan of Arse. .
You're not going to win M'Lady's favor, no matter how many times you play "white knight" and fawningly repost her garbage. Is
that your notion of courting the famous blogger lady?
You'd do better shoplifting a present for her, next time you're stocking Walmart's shelves with the usual shoddily-made garbage.. Pick something
classy, something that'll remind her of
you every time she looks at it.