Another one.

Argumentum ad Nauseam, Thor. If your standards for "recent excommunication" and not being "catholic" are true, then Benedict stopped being "catholic" and "excommunicated" himself years ago.

I asked you to post one single example of a doctrinal heresy promulgated by a sitting pope between Pius X and Benedict XVI.
You have lamentably failed to do so and waffle on with made up assertions about previous popes.
The only so called "pope" making doctrinal heresies almost dailiy is the usurper Bergoglio confident that he can do so without contradiction from his abused prisoner the real Pope Benedict.

I have, now, posted repeatedly an entire archive of sites detailing accusations of various heresies, doctrinal ones included, against the last four popes. I'll re-post the list here just in case you "haven't seen it".
I am not required to re-argue the indictments already researched and compiled by others.
That's the whole point of scholarship. If you wish to claim the indictments are false, then YOU must disprove them. ALL of them. For each Pope.
...and you haven't because you can't.
"waffle on with made up assertions about previous popes. "
Nothing "made up" about them, Thor. If they were "made up" you would have easily disproven ALL of them... just as I keep challenging you to. Just as you must. Just as you don't. So one more time... just for you, darling...
Saint John XXIII was supposedly and anti-pope, apostate and heretic.
introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/…/the-case-agains…
stevensperay.wordpress.com/…/pope-st-john-xx…
www.amazon.com/…/B0007F89MO
romancatholicfaith.weebly.com/…/the_scandals_an…
Paul VI was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.
novusordowatch.org/paul-vi/
crc-internet.org/…/6-book-against-…
pontifexverus.wordpress.com/…/answering-a-fre…
romancatholicfaith.weebly.com/…/the_scandals_an…
John Paul I was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.
novusordowatch.org/john-paul-i/
www.ncronline.org/…/shortest-pontif…
www.scribd.com/…/The-Scandals-an…
Saint John Paul II was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.
www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php
www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofjp2.htm
Benedict XVI was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.
www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofb16.htm
www.opusdeialert.com/footnotes.htm
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/…/anti-pope-bened…
holywar.org/Ratzinger.htm

To Ultraviolet
I asked you to post one doctrinal heresy on a serious matter of faith and morals by a sitting pontiff .
I am not interested in your cut and paste lists because they are not an argument from you.
I can only conclude that you may not know what my question means or even what a doctrinal heresy on faith and morals is.
Anybody can trawl the net for the endless lists you post.
But you can even select one doctrinal heresy to back up your position.
Not one.
Now again.
Post up one doctrinal heresy by a sitting pontif
ONE.
Do you understand?

I've noticed your qualifications increase in direct proportion to the weakness of your position. :)
Not heresy but "doctrinal" heresy. Not any matter, but a "serious" matter. Not just a serious matter, but also one on "faith and morals". Not any pontiff but a "sitting" pontiff.
Happily the standards for heresy, "doctrinal heresy" included, are much lower than the bars you arbitrarily try to set when your ears get pinned.
Further, all the "pontiffs" I mentioned are relevant, not just "sitting" ones. Every bishop and cardinal alive today owes their career to at least one of those men. Pope Francis elevated John Paul II and John XXIII to sainthood, which raises all sorts of tangential issues of legitimacy.
"I am not interested in your cut and paste lists because they are not an argument from you."
Oh? So you would like an argument from me, would you?
How nice. I've presented this one several times already and still you keep ducking it.
My argument is one of canonical uniformity: Canon Law and Church Magisterium are constant and apply to all Popes, not simply the one you dislike..
If you wish to indict Francis of heresy, then you must also indict the last four popes (Benedict XVI included) on the same charge. If you wish to invalidate Francis' papacy on grounds of heresy and automatic self-excommunication, then you must also invalidate the last four popes as well... including Benedict XVI.
Or, you can acknowledge that all these "popes" are, in fact, valid Popes (past and present) on no other basis than God has allowed them to hold the title uncontested by Him, regardless of how supposedly fraudulent or invalid someone (you or anyone else) may believe the claim. You finger-wag at Francis and prattle on about heresy. Others do the same at his four predecessors.
My "cut and paste lists" as you like to call them, aren't my argument, Thor.
They're evidence in support of my argument. Specifically, they support my argument's premise: ALL of these popes can be considered guilty of heresy by referencing some point of Canon Law or Church Magisterium. ALL have advanced heretical doctrines.
Examples of these have already been researched and compiled by others. I freely admit that. As I said, that's the whole point of scholarship.
To successfully refute my argument, you must disprove my evidence. Because I know what I'm doing, I constructed my argument in a way you must disprove ALL the evidence for ALL the popes I mentioned.
...and you can't do that. You know it and I know it.
Demanding that I re-word other scholars' research as though it were my own doesn't disprove the evidence they have already compiled.
I"m well aware how badly you want to shift the burden of proof and turn this into a fierce debate over "one" doctrinal heresy.
Unfortunately for you, my argument isn't based on -one- accusation of heresy. My argument is based on numerous instances of heresy committed by all four of the previous popes.
For me to support my argument, naturally I need a great deal of evidence, hence the "endless lists" compiled by others.
My evidence, which I've linked, is an "endless list" of sites presenting numerous instances of heresy, over half a century's worth, contrasted with the canon laws and church teachings broken.
If I post a dozen sources of evidence in support of my argument, and each of those sources provides a half-dozen or more examples, I don't have to re-write and re-discuss each and every last one simply because you loudly demand it.
That isn't how rational debate works and you well know it. This is simply a bad-faith deflection because you can not or will not do what is required to validly refute the evidence presented.
Derisively calling it a "cut and paste list" is a weak ad hominem against the material, but it doesn't refute the evidence of heresy on those "lists". It just shows how increasingly desperate you are to avoid doing so.
You asked for an argument from me and I have presented one. My argument is based on the sum total of evidence, not on any "one" individual instance.
Conversely, you must refute ALL the evidence for ALL the popes mentioned and I don't envy you the task. :D
So long as one example of heresy remains unrefuted for each of the four popes preceding Pope Francis, my argument stands.

To Ultraviolet
Are you going to present just one case of specific doctrinal heresy on a matter of faith and morals by any sitting pope ?
It seems that you refuse to do this for the simple reason that it is impossible.
You know this but hide behind endless lists , verbiage and bluster.
That tactic does not work and anybody looking at your posts can see you are drowning.

To Ultraviolet.
The sum total of evidence?
If so then please select one specific example of papal doctrinal heresy by a sitting pope on a matter of faith and morals .
It should be very easy for you based on your massive assertions.
I’m waiting.
I expect I’ll be waiting for all eternity.

"Are you going to present just one case of specific doctrinal heresy on a matter of faith and morals by any sitting pope ?"
Are you going to keep making a demand after I've already explained its irrelevancy? Yeah, of course you are! Because at this point, that's all you've got left: the same fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam ad infinitum!
As I said, I understand your tactic perfectly. You asked for an argument, you got it! I supplied evidence and now you must refute it. All of it.
Instead, you want want me to graciously (not to mention inaccurately) compress my argument down to one "doctrinal heresy" for you to argue over.
Unfortunately, I'm not going to allow that. That wasn't my argument. You did ask for an argument, didn't you? :P
This isn't about whether or not you can win one debate over one doctrinal heresy. Oh, I know you want me to let you try that.
So sorry, no. For you to refute my argument, you must disprove all the evidence presented against all four popes. All of it, Thor. Against all of them.
Otherwise, you're doing exactly what I've originally accused you of: hypocritcally picking and choosing which "heresies" you focus on and which you're willing to ignore.
The ugly truth is you don't care in the slightest about "heresy" or canon law or the magisterium of the church. They're just tools for you to criticize Francis' papacy while blithely ignoring the errors of his predecessors. Any heresies they might have advanced simply don't interest you.
Like a few others here, you a fraud and do what all frauds do: ignore everything the Church teaches that contradicts your position.
"It seems that you refuse to do this for the simple reason that it is impossible.."
Failed reasoning. I refuse to do this for a much more simple reason: I don't have to.
Why should I provide you a line of debate you have no right to ask for? Why should I allow someone I've beaten to get back up for a second chance?
The argument I offered doesn't require me to re-present all the evidence supporting it. If I cite a physicist's work, I don't need to re-prove his formulae simply because you ask me to.
If you believe there's an error, then proving your claim is up to you.
If you wish to disprove evidence of heresy against the four popes, good!
That's what you should be doing! In fact, you need to disprove all of it, not just one example. And you're not because you can't.
Seems your knowledge of the church's teachings isn't quite up to the enormity of that task is it, Thor?
"That tactic does not work and anybody looking at your posts can see you are drowning. "
...speaking of tactics, whenever you're wrong you resort to "anybody can see that..." followed by your latest error. You need new material, Thor. That's one's getting mighty threadbare.
In this case, it's fair to say anybody can see you're not doing what you should.
"I expect I’ll be waiting for all eternity."
You have no reason to "wait". I'm the one who's waiting for you! What you should be doing is (somehow) refuting over half a century's worth of quietly advanced heresies that didn't grab the headlines.
You wanted an argument from me, and so you got one. ;-) I supplied evidence supporting my argument. There's a lot of it. My argument is based on that fact. All four previous popes have advanced numerous doctrinal heresies.
If you feel the evidence is inaccurate, prove it. That's your job and loudly demanding I let you do something else won't change it.
This isn't about whether you can counter just one doctrinal heresy. When I formulated my argument I went out of my way to deny you this from the outset. I made certain to box you in precisely where you are now.
...and bleating the same irrelevant demand isn't going to change that. A pity. ;-)

To Ultraviolet.
More endless waffling and running away from my question.
You are a chancer terrified to debate a specific point of argument.
I ask again post the evidence of one specific papal doctrinal error.
ONE.
You can t do it because there none from a valid pope.
But you refuse to do that and hide behind a barrage of false anti catholic accusations.
Shame on you

"You are a chancer terrified to debate a specific point of argument."
...and which point of argument are you debating, Thor? Hmmm? ;-)
You aren't debating any point in my argument.
You are demanding I re-present evidence for my argument when it has already been presented.
That isn't a point of argument and you're not debating it. That's you displaying your refusal to engage in a proper argument at all.
If you find my sources are in error, it is up to you refute the evidence of heresy they provide.
Demanding I re-write the material and re-present it is not a valid rebuttal of what you have left unanswered, unchallenged, uncontested..
There's nothing "anti-Catholic" about these sites. Only Catholics still care this much about heresy.
Let's begin with Benedict XVI, shall we?
www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofb16.htm
There. Cited and contrasted with Church teachings and even the Gospels.
What is more troubling is many of these heresies were advanced before Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI. Now when you and others begin foaming at the mouth at Francis, the argument goes, "a heretic can not be pope... and look what begoglio said here and here."
Apply that reasoning to Ratzinger/ Benedict XVI.
I don't have to re-write them just simply because you stamp your rhetorical feet and cover your ranting in bold text.
Put up or shut up, Thor. When you're done with those, I'll supply more. :D
Then we can move backwards to other "valid popes" as you call them. John Paul II, for example. Surely he is a valid pope. He's a saint as well. The same for John XXIII.
Shame on me? Coming from you, cries of "shame" are as empty as your... debating. I'm not even sure I should call it that at this point.