"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.