Clicks303
Ultraviolet
4

A Refutation of Zechariah 4:14's "Why Pope Francis..."

GTV user Zechariah 4:14 posted a treatise called "Why Pope Francis is an Antipope: Canon 332.2".

Edit: Zechariah 4:14 has changed his name once again. GTV should seriously consider disabling the function as it serves no productive purpose.

In this work, the author makes numerous false claims on the subject and about me in particular. Normally, I'm indulgent with this user's errors, his ignorance and his rampant propensity for telling lies. Given the formal nature of his treatise and the severtiy of his accusations, that is no longer an option.

This is a point-by-point refutation of the author's claims.

--> "Canon Law frequently discusses both parts of the papacy, the ministry and the office of the post. Ministerium and munus."

No citations given. Unsupported claim and irrelevant to Canon Law 332 §2. which does not mention or discuss "both parts of the papacy" either in English or Latin.

Canon Law states: 332 §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."

Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)

--> "In his resignation later, Benedict resigns the ministry. Specifically. He says it multiple times."

Benedict clarifies the nature of his resignation with the following: "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 will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Citation: (Resignation Letter of Benedict XVI Vatican Website)

Benedict's resigned "in such a way" that "the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is"

Whatever is required for that to occur, Benedict covers with his qualification "in such a way" that "a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked". Whatever is required for that to occur, Benedict's resignation covers becaushe he resigns "in such a way" this must occur.

--> "Canon 332.2 discusses the resignation of the office.

"332.2 If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounces his munus, there is required for validity that the renunciation be done freely and manifested duly, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever."


That is false. Canon Law 332 §2 does not say: "If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounces his munus"

Canon Law states 332 §2 in English states . "If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."

Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)

Canon Law 332 §2 uses the word "happens" not "happen". Further, Canon Law does not mix Latin and English the way the author does.

Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)

The author then begins using a numerical system for his points which I will retain.

--> "1) Canon Law doesn't use ministerium and munus interchangeably. It is precise."

The irony of this author lecturing on the precision of Canon Law! Canon Law 332 §2 doesn't use Latin and English interchangeably and "happen" does not appear in the English tranlation of Canon Law 332 §2

--> "2) Canon 332.2 says them (sic) resignation of the office must be manifested properly."

That is false. Canon Law 332 §2 states (verbatim) , "it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested"

Canon Law 332 §2 states "the resignation". It does NOT state, "the resignation of the office". This is how people lie by subtly re-phrasing Canon Law.

Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)

-->"3) B16's resignation only mentions the ministry, multiple times."

Benedict's resignation letter mentions the ministry. But Canon Law 332 §2 does not require a specific mention of the "office". Additionally, Canon Law 332 §2 does not establish a resignation must be soley by written letter.

Canon Law 332 §2 requires (verbatim) "the resignation is made freely and properly manifested"

There are only two points required for a valid Papal resignation. Two points only they are (verbatim) "freely and properly manifested."

Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)

Point One: "Freely"
Benedict states the freedom of his resignation in his letter thusly: "For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare...

Citation: (Resignation Letter of Benedict XVI Vatican Website)

Point Two: "Properly Manifested"
The concept of "properly manifested" isn't defined under Canon Law 332 §2 or anywhere else in Canon Law.

Benedict published a written letter of resignation and he publicly stated his resignation in his last General Audience, Wednesday, 27 February 2013

He stated: "I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church,.."

Citation: (Transcript of Benedict XVI's Last General Audience Vatican Website)

Benedict has also said, "Francis has a strong presence. Much stronger that I could ever have with my physical and mental weaknesses," he observed. "To remain in my office would not have been honest."

Citation: (Tekton Ministries article: "Ratzinger’s Request: Simply call me ‘Father Benedict’ ")

Benedict explicitly used the term "office" in reference to the papacy and his renunciation of it, both during his resignation and afterwards. This shows conistency in Benedict's statements and in Benedict's understanding of the Papacy as an "office". He referred to it as such and he renounced it.

-->"4.a) From his dress…"

Benedict addressed this directly and refutes the author's claim.

"At the moment of my resignation there were no other clothes available. In any case, I wear the white cassock in a visibly different way to how the Pope wears it. This is another case of completely unfounded speculations being made,"

Citation: (Catholic World Report article: "Benedict XVI rejects conspiracy theories: 'There is no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation' ”)

Not only does Benedict acknowledge he dresses differently, he also raises two additional points. a.) he differentiates between himself and "the Pope" as two separate individuals b.) he refers to "the Pope" as a singular individual.

This also contradicts a claim the author makes later on, "that B16 "expanded" the papacy." Benedict did no such thing and refutes that claim as well.

In particular, Benedict no longer wears the Papal shoulder-cape, the Papal sash, or the Papal ring. Pope Francis does. as seen in the following photo.

Citation: (High resolution NPR Media photo)

-->"4.b) his residence…,"

Vatican City:. Population: 825 Living in the Vatican does not make one Pope.

Citation: (Wikipedia article: "Vatican City")

-->"4.c) his holding on to his papal name…"

Benedict refutes this as well:

--Benedict explained that when he initially stepped down he wanted to be called 'Father Benedict' rather than Pope Emeritus or Benedict XVI, but 'I was too weak at that point to enforce it.'--

Citation: (Tekton Ministries article: "Ratzinger’s Request: Simply call me ‘Father Benedict’)

-->"4.d) being addressed as His Holiness"

Benedict is not responsible for the persistent errors others, or the agenda they try to perpetuate by doing so.

-->"4.e.) …from Ganswein's explanation that B16 "expanded" the papacy.

Ganswien's claims have no more validity than the author's. Zero direct citations for the author's claim as well.

By contrast, in addition to Benedict's clear distinction between himself and the Pope, he has refuted this notion of an "expanded" papacy.

--there is no “diarchy” (dual government) in the Church today--

Benediict specifically identified and contracted such a concept

Citation: (Catholic World Report article:Benedict XVI rejects conspiracy theories: “There is no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation”)

--> "4.f) and from the fact he didn't mention both the ministry and OFFICE of the pope.

Canon Law 332 §2 does not list this as a requirement. Again: "it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."

Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)

The only two points required for a valid resignation under Canon Law 332 §2 are (verbatim) a.) "made freely" b.) "and properly manifested". Nothing else is listed or required. These points have been covered already.

-->"4.g) "we are redirected to Canon 188, which means..."

That is false. Canon Law 332 §2 does not contain any "redirection" to "Canon 188". The author, presumably is referring to Canon Law 188. The Vatican website entry for Canon Law 332 §2 contains no such redirection.

Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)

The author fabricated a false claim of a "redirection" where none exists.

--> "5.) Benedict did not legally resign, by design, and thus his resognation (sic) is invalid and thus he is still pope."

The author's claim about Benedict's "resognation" is as faulty as the author's spelling!

Benedict fulfilled both points required for a valid Papal resignation under Canon Law 332 §2 This has been already addressed numerous times.

Further, The author is manufacturing a motive that does not exist and is contradicted by Benedict's own words. He states:

"Speculations about the invalidity of my resignation are simply absurd.”

Citation: (National Catholic Reporter article: "Benedict rejects rumors on why he resigned as "simply absurd' ")

The author "Zechariah 4:14" now moves from inventing motives for Benedict to inventing them for me.

-->6.) No matter how bad the Bergolians (@Ultraviolet on GTV) want Bergolio to be pope he isnt.

This is an outright lie on the author's part on multiple points and this isn't the first time I've been forced to correct it, either with him or with others.

a.) I am not a "Bergoglian"

I covered this over a year ago in my last post: "The Lion of Judah & Lyin' From KristianKeller"

I wrote: "I do not support Pope Francis. I don't like Pope Francis. I don't approve of Pope Francis. But Pope Francis is the Pope. I don't like that either. I have repeatedly explained this to KristianKeller. I've repeatedly explained this to many people here."

…and now I'm forced to explain it once again to another idiot who pretentiously names himself after Scripture while profaning all it stands for..

Citation: (GTV article: "The Lion of Judah & Lyin' From KristianKeller")

b.) I don't "want Bergoglio to be pope".

I've said so repeatedly to this author, whatever he chooses to call himself today, but the man continues to repeat his lies..

The Papacy is not a matter for the laity to decide.

Benedict XVI resigned. Cardinal Bergoglio was elected and took the name Francis. "Father" Benedict fully recognizes Francis as pope.

The author then abandons his numbering system so I shall dispense with it as well.

-->"He is an Antipope."

Wikipedia defnes an "antipope" as follows:

"An antipope is a person who, in opposition to the lawful pope, makes a significant attempt to occupy the position of Bishop of Rome and leader of the Catholic Church."

Citation: (Wikipedia article: "Antipope")

For someone to be an "antipope" there must be two things:

a.) Opposition to the lawful pope

Benedict has publicly called Francis "Pope Francis" and promised to "support his pontificate".

--In his letter to Tornielli, Benedict also confirmed that he had written, in a letter to Swiss theologian Hans Kung, a longtime friend and intellectual rival, that he was "bound by a great identity of views and a heartfelt friendship with Pope Francis" and that he sees "my last and final job to support his pontificate in prayer.

Professor Kung quoted the content of my letter to him word for word and correctly,” Benedict wrote. He concluded by saying that he hoped he had answered Tornielli’s questions in “a clear and adequate way."--


Citation: (National Catholic Reporter article: "Benedict rejects rumors on why he resigned as 'simply absurd' ")

There is no opposition -to- or -by- either man.

b.) A significant attempt to occupy the position of Bishop of Rome and leader of the Catholic Church.

Benedict specifically renounced his claim to the "Bishop of Rome" verbatim in his written resignation.

Citation: (Resignation Letter of Benedict XVI Vatican Website)

Simply put, the author, Zechariah 4:14, aka Zecc.4:14, aka JamesMichaelYerian, aka Still_I_Rise, aka JMY45, aka whatever else he calls himself today is factually incorrect and deliberately so.

I have repeatedly corrected all of these points in discussions with him before. yet he persists in repeathing them.

I have dubbed these repeated lies "Jimmies" after their author's real name. They are used in a relelentless propaganda campaign, against the Pope, against me, against anything "Jimmy" doesn't like.

He arguing in bad faith and, most importantly, he is terrified of an open discussion of his claims by anyone at all.

He's disabled the comments to his post and he's blocked me from replying to him everywhere else on this site.

By contrast, this post is open to all and I have never, ever blocked anyone on GTV for any reason.

"Blocking" another user is an admission of defeat.

I never have, I never will, because I don't need to. Likewise, I don't need to change my user name several times a week.

Such are the differences between us. ;-)
Ultraviolet
"This "news item" is that a poster to stop from being attacked by ultraviolet has blocked ultraviolet." @Saveusfromhell

No, this is a refutation on Canon Law. It is also a refutation of attacks made against me. Funny how, like every cross-eyed hypocrite, you ignore that fact.

Zechariah 4:14/ 4:06/ whatever else he's calling himself, the name he's registered to vote under is James Michael …More
"This "news item" is that a poster to stop from being attacked by ultraviolet has blocked ultraviolet." @Saveusfromhell

No, this is a refutation on Canon Law. It is also a refutation of attacks made against me. Funny how, like every cross-eyed hypocrite, you ignore that fact.

Zechariah 4:14/ 4:06/ whatever else he's calling himself, the name he's registered to vote under is James Michael Yerian, misrepresented Canon Law. Worse, he lied about me. They are lies since I have corrected the false information directly to him numerous times. Yet he persists in repeating those falsehoods for the obvious and self-evident purpose of defaming me. That, incidentally, is a grave i.e. mortal sin.

"This is simply baiting another poster to engage so ultraviolet can continue to abuse the poster."

Wrong. This post is the only option I have to publicly answer a.) the falsehoods Mr. Yerian has told regarding Canon Law and b.) the lies he told about me.

Not surprisingly, like him, you see only what you want to see, through the distorted lens of your own personal bias.

"So many get banned or suspended for percieved slights to ultraviolet yet this poster can insult other posters at will."

That simply isn't true. The very fact Mr. Yerrian is still here and, obviously, you are is proof of that. Also, since we're discussing "insults", in the interests of truth I am insulted here more or less on a daily basis. I've been accused of being a "Bergoglian," a supporter and a defender of Pope Francis, an advocate of the Pope's malign agenda, a pagan, and an "effeminate", I have been accused of being a Jewish intelligence agent, a satanist, a false Catholic, a transgender, one insanity after another, all according to whatever hiearchy of evil the accuser has.

I don't complain, I don't report it, I don't whine or beg "pleaseee stop insulting meeee... those nasty comments hurt my feeelinz." Oh, no. I take it, roll with the punches and then I mock my attackers. Admittedly, I do so ruthlessly sparing nothing, save well-deserved profanity out of deference to the sensitivities of other readers. Christ Himself wasn't above outright name-calling. See Matthew 23:33

Since, as Catholics, we know (or should know) Christ was born without sin and committed no sins in His life, then such vicious mockery wasn't a sin.

Christ aslo say in John 13:15 "For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also."

You ask the Lord "Saveusfromhell"

I ask the Lord "Saveusfromfalsehood"

In this case, save us from yours.

"My account was banned for my post to ultraviolet."

That is false. Your account was banned because, if you are the person I think you are, your claims about "mind control nano machines" were factually disproven and then you threw a tantrum attacking the person who disproved your claims. Your account was banned because you started ranting literally top to bottom down the GTV news feed, one post after another, hitting each comments section with some spurious ugly remark.

In, point of fact, I did not even complain or report the posts. I recognized your behavior as an open admission of defeat just as I do with anyone who "blocks" another user, me, or anyone else for that matter. At the risk of repeating myself since you've clearly ignored the point.

By contrast, this post is open to all and I have never, ever blocked anyone on GTV for any reason.

"Blocking" another user is an admission of defeat. It means the "blocker" is incapable of answering someone else's claims.

I never have, I never will, because I don't need to.

"Here i didn't say it in the post but bullies always yean for a reaction.The next time i logged on @rafferju i was banned."

That is wrong. "Here" is dated May 30, 2019
BREAKING - Attack Against Minneapolis Churches

The nex time you logged in as @rafferju you were NOT banned at all! A quick look at your user account shows you made additional posts right through October 19, 2019
@rafferju

You replied to me here, and you weren't banned.
Ireland's Health Minister With Blood-Curdling Smile Against Doctors Who Don't Perform Abortion

You made an additional thirteen posts after that one as well and you weren't banned, none of them were replies to me. Whatever you got banned for it wasn't replying to me.

Your claim is false, demonstrably so. Let's see if you have a supposedly Catholic dedication to the truth to offer me the apology you should. My own cynicism predicts you won't. You're like so many hypocrites, Mr. Yerian included. You lie and then call the truth an insult. You complain about insults when delivering them yourself. And, like always with your kind, you don't know what the bloody blue blazes you're talking about. Your own post history disproves your claims, you simpleton.

" last week i was suspended for simply reporting ultraviolet."

Cool story, champ. Needs more unicorns. No. You were, I believe, suspended for attempting a cut-and-paste spam campaign.

So you weren't suspended for "simply reporting" anyone. You were suspended for spamming one post after another. This is what grates on me no end, the blameless sanctimonious lies you people tell, the rampant re-writing of what actually happened into some narcisstic fantasy where you're always the martyr at the hands of the terrifying UV.

In fact, lucky you, I still have the screen cap from your profile! You see? This is why I don't "block" people. This is why I never "block people." This is why I don't need to. I don't need to lie, the way you do, buttercup.

The truth is an infinitely more effective weapon. :D
Ultraviolet
P.S @Saveusfromhell

I don't mind saying so, none of this speaks very much for your intelligence.

You claimed that you got banned for replying to me (obviously false).

You complained that you got suspended for reporting me (also false).

And now here you are again, being abusive and hostile to the same user supposedly responsible for all your woes!

That... now that's just dumb. :P If …More
P.S @Saveusfromhell

I don't mind saying so, none of this speaks very much for your intelligence.

You claimed that you got banned for replying to me (obviously false).

You complained that you got suspended for reporting me (also false).

And now here you are again, being abusive and hostile to the same user supposedly responsible for all your woes!

That... now that's just dumb. :P If you encountered a user with such a mysterious source of influence, prudence would caution you to leave them alone. But not you. Oh, no. You go out of your way to see what else will happen.

"because this account will now be banned for the sin on gloriatv of crossing ultraviolet."

No, it won't. Mr. Yerian's account(s) have posted far worse and he's still here. Again, the truth refutes your lies and your fabricated victimhood.

"ultraviolet claims to know a VIP here on gloria tv."

In point of fact, many here do and routinely engage the VIP, both publicly and in "chat".

I'm just egotistical enough to gloat about it with the full knowlege others will appreciate the inside joke.

Those who also "know" this VIP probably get a big chuckle out of the way such a claim terrifiies gullible idiots like you.

This, for me, is the best and finest sort of mockery possible. The joke is on you, you don't even know you're the butt of the joke, and the joke doesn't even present itself until you insist on making yourself the butt of it.

It's like setting up the old half-opened door with the pail of water prank. Except here I tack a sign on the door saying, "Danger, Falling H2O! Do not enter!" Naturally, a moron ignores the sign, assuming they know better and they get soaked.

"but it seems ultraviolet has that power"

I don't have any power and I can say this truly, before the Amighty, I didn't "report" your spam-campaign.

I don't need to. Your claims are easily refuted, factual examples disproving all your accusations and, yes, your lies, are abundant. Ban you? Suspend you? That's like "blocking" you and as I've said before.

"Blocking" another user is an admission of defeat. It means the "blocker" is incapable of answering someone else's claims.

I never have, I never will, because I don't need to.
Ultraviolet
"so many silly lies it’s laughable, 'mind control something' ?? . @Saveusfromhell

That isn't a lie. I said, "if you are the person I think you are," then my statement would be correct. If you're NOT the person I think you are, then my statement is incorrect. A lie requires a statement to be a.) false and b.) told knowing a.) applies.

Frankly, people like you are why I've repeatedly argue…More
"so many silly lies it’s laughable, 'mind control something' ?? . @Saveusfromhell

That isn't a lie. I said, "if you are the person I think you are," then my statement would be correct. If you're NOT the person I think you are, then my statement is incorrect. A lie requires a statement to be a.) false and b.) told knowing a.) applies.

Frankly, people like you are why I've repeatedly argued the following.

Banned users should be banned immediately the moment they rejoin. On sight. No second chances. Most websites follow this policy.

Since you don't belong here, you shouldn't be allowed to come creeping back in like some foul serpent. Your posts under this second account are a perfect example why.

You caused trouble and you got banned.

You rejoined and the first thing you did was resume causing trouble.

You got suspended. Now you're still out for blood.

When, hopefully, the administration eventually follows my advice, idiots like you will be moaning how you got banned because of my mysterious influence.

You got banned for being a jerk.
You got suspended for being a spammer
.

It wasn't giving the "same advice". You could have given it privately with none the wiser.

No, you were trying a "cut and paste" campaign, in one post after another. That was and is your only input... trouble-making.

Look at yourself, the way you white-wash what is obviously malicious campaign! In your warped world-view, blameless Catholic martyr that you are, you were just "giving the same advice".

How fitting, how truly just, that it backfired on you. In truth, I hope it backfires even further. ;-)

"Other than that’s what you reported me for and Gloria tv did your bidding again."

Ah, but I -didn't- report you! Truly. You betray your guilty-conscience. You did wrong, you did wrong with evil intent, you obviously KNOW you did wrong and with evil intent, and you're unhappy you were punished for it.

If GTV did my bidding, I'd be at least a moderator by now and this site would see a dramatically increased number of both users and donors.

GTV would run much more smoothly, there wouldn't be these long-simmering grudge-matches and flame-wars. Catholics would be able to post on a postively-focused site without having to, as I do, grit my teeth, for another boxing-match with Mr. Yerian or some foaming at the mouth, no-hope nutter like yourself.

In this case, all I did was screen-capped your comments and post the screen-cap. Nothing more. Someone from GTV's administration noticed and dealt with you accordingly.

Since you raised the matter, it's incredibly rare that I -ever- actually report a post and in most cases I'm not even being addressed. I typically report posts only when their content posts an immediate legal threat or embarrassment to GTV.

I can deal with a miserable little mouth-breather like you entirely on my own. Rest assured. ;-)