Ultraviolet
"My post was about God's signs." So where is it, exactly, @Jimbo's BS 2:19 ? You obviously won't let readers judge for themselves.You deleted the post and, sadly, I didn't take a screen cap.

Reposting a He-Man Super Jimmy revised verson won't prove anything. The original is gone.

"Antipope Bergolio is at least in manifest heresy, especially for refusing to answer the Dubia."

GREAT citations! …More
"My post was about God's signs." So where is it, exactly, @Jimbo's BS 2:19 ? You obviously won't let readers judge for themselves.You deleted the post and, sadly, I didn't take a screen cap.

Reposting a He-Man Super Jimmy revised verson won't prove anything. The original is gone.

"Antipope Bergolio is at least in manifest heresy, especially for refusing to answer the Dubia."

GREAT citations! Sure is "Mr. Mouth" in here! Empty claims, firmly presented, with nothing behind them except more of the same.

You've been reading Anne Barnacle again. I can always tell. Show where the Pope's disinclination to answer "doubts" is heretical under Canon Law.

"Canon law allow refusal to submit to the pontiff by he is accused of being fraudulently elected"

Quote Canon Law where it does. I'm askin', you see, because this sound a lot like Mr. Mouth's other big Canon Law claim,

" "De facto" is not a term used in Canon Law."

...and that's just wrong since the term appears in Canon Law 1507 §3

Your credibility to speak on Canon Law is shot. Unless you're quoting and linking Canon Law, your claims must be judged in light of the falsehood that proceed them
Ultraviolet
"or if he is heretical. In other words we don't have to submit to a heretic. Pure common sense,"

Please also link up the official Catholic decree of heresy against Pope Francis and, no, an argument of, "he's a heretic because I say so according to my contrived line of reasoning by way of Anne Barnacle" ain't good enough.

The Church doesn't work that way, Jimbo. And Anne Barncacle's blog doesn'…More
"or if he is heretical. In other words we don't have to submit to a heretic. Pure common sense,"

Please also link up the official Catholic decree of heresy against Pope Francis and, no, an argument of, "he's a heretic because I say so according to my contrived line of reasoning by way of Anne Barnacle" ain't good enough.

The Church doesn't work that way, Jimbo. And Anne Barncacle's blog doesn't have an imprimatur at the bottom of every entry. :D

"Common sense"... hoo boy. Sure is Squirrel Nut Zippers in here tonight! Up next, Jimmy references "logic" to bolster his claims, That one usually follows.
Ultraviolet
"Bergolio doesn't believe in Catholicism and neither do you." @The Amazing Jimmy Y'know for a guy who loves football as much as you do, your "play book" doesn't have too many pages.

You're always claiming to know what people think, what people believe never a shred of any proof. When has that EVER stopped you from another round of "he believes and he thinks and you believe and you think...…More
"Bergolio doesn't believe in Catholicism and neither do you." @The Amazing Jimmy Y'know for a guy who loves football as much as you do, your "play book" doesn't have too many pages.

You're always claiming to know what people think, what people believe never a shred of any proof. When has that EVER stopped you from another round of "he believes and he thinks and you believe and you think...

You pull this nonsense out of thin air. I'm being charitable, like most bogus psychics, you pull it out of someplace a little closer to home. ;-)
Ultraviolet
Sorry, Jimbo .Your legal reasoning stinks. Failed analogy is failed. In your "case", The prosecutor (that's you) is libelling the client by falsely claiming he's a convicted criminal when no trial has ever occurred. A judgement of heretic requires a verdict from the Church. None has been made.

In fact, given the circumstances of this case, it's debatable who even has the legal temporal author…More
Sorry, Jimbo .Your legal reasoning stinks. Failed analogy is failed. In your "case", The prosecutor (that's you) is libelling the client by falsely claiming he's a convicted criminal when no trial has ever occurred. A judgement of heretic requires a verdict from the Church. None has been made.

In fact, given the circumstances of this case, it's debatable who even has the legal temporal authority within the Church to try much less convict the Church's highest temporal authority.

TL;DR, keep stockin' those shelves Wal-Mart Boy. :P Bank the money for a community college para-legal course . You need it.

Assuming, from your recent maudlin "pity post", you still do even that and haven't lapsed into simply sitting around the house all day long "looking for a job" year after year, diddling around with GTV on your phone.

"When does an error become heresy? Not when you say so."

I've already covered how and when yesterday. I've noticed by your deafening silence you've got nothing of value to say on the sujbect.

After all, my position is heavily cited and yours here is the same as it always is. More of Big Mouth Jimmy's Big Mouth.

Yeah, you're all talk, just like your professional credenetials, your IQ, your Dwayne The Rock Johonson super-human feats of strength and everything else. But when it's time for you actually deliver you dart off like a little rat for the nearest hole and start baring your teeth somewhere else.

"When it's manifest (by ignorance) or when it's formal (obvious)."

Zero citattions. As usual. The last time you actually -tried- citing Canon Law you couldn't even cut and paste it without lousing that up as well!.

Buffoon. :P

Empty twaddle is, as we should always remember, your "de facto" approach. A term, according to you, that doesn't appear in Canon Law. You were quite emphatic about that as you are discussing error here..

Typical of you. Another bold claim, unsupported and wrong.

Jimmy's makin' up "jimmies" as usual. Sounds nice though. Better than you normally produce. Plagiarizing M'Lady Anne or some other source this time?

"Neither one is defensible, especially for the VicR of Christ."

That's Protestant theology, not Catholic. You gave your past away again! And your lack of catechesis. Protip: it's "Vicar" but who's counting? :D

"VicR:..." Now there's the kind of spectaculR spelling that moves a job application right onto the short-list..Be sure to mention your particulR attention to detail. :P

Anyway, back to Catholic (not Protestant) theology. Ignorance is, in fact, a valid defense, both as "invicincible" and "vincible".

en.wikipedia.org/…_ignorance_(Catholic_theology)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincible_ignorance

:D...and once again, the class dummy fails Catechism 101. Assuming you even went to one.

"You may make fun of me, you may use your effeminate, childish sarcasm, and you can pretend you're a good Catholic, but none of it can make up for the glaringly obvious, and that is the truth that BERGOLIO IS A HERETIC AND AN ANTIPOPE."

...and today Jimmy gets butthurt and confuses the Caps-Lock with the truth.

The glaringly obvious truth is:

1.) You are a liar who hides information

That alone damns your position for the falsehood it is. If I'd made a mistake, you could have crowed over it no end, the same way I do with your "De Facto" and others. But I didn't make a mistake. Anne Barnhardt did. YOU did. and you tried ot hide it.

Sterling character you've got there, Jimbo.

Also glaringly obvious is:

2.) Every time you try some big "formal" position paper supporting your claims of heresy or "antipope" or schism, I've debunked every claim point by point.

You never come back with anything after that. Like every other whipped dog, you tuck your tail, wander off, and take a dump on someone else's lawn like you're doing here..

...and that's even with you ripping off every other other sedevacantist and schismatic you can find to supplement your own "glaringly obvious" lack of education. You'll re-write Anne Barnacle, Fra Bunghole, and every other bottom-feeder who shares your silly hypocritical fantasy-based perception of the world.

3.) I'm an honest Catholic. You're not. How many lies have I caught you in? I should keep a tally.

As always, you forget one thing. The mockery comes AFTER I've proven you wrong.

"You cite canon law without context, you cherry pick because you really are that stupid."

"Without context"? Do you have any idea how idiotic that accusation is? I don't bring up Canon Law out of thin air. It's raised in the (wait for it) context of an argument countering yet another vapid claim of yours.. The context exists for the point Canon Law to address.

Like always, you just spout off this noise, spraying it like the valve on a Chinese-made Wal-Mart pressure cooker. Fairly obvious who's turning up the heat, eh?

Your soundbytes sound good sometimes, but they're readily disproven. More of Jimmy sprinkling his "Jimmies".

"This isn't a game. If you believe Bergolio isn't a heretic that makes you one"

No, it isn't. You're a schismatic, you are outside the Catholic Church and you seek to lead others into your errors. You're like every other crank trying to support his delusion by building a consensus for it.

That isn't a game at all. Canon Law doesn't support your claims about Pope.

As always, Canon Law supports mine. That's why I'm comfortable citing it directly in the (heh) context of our little discussions and it blows up in your face every time you try.

You already had your big run with Canon Law 751 heresy/ schism, etc., and I made you eat it, on every point.. That's after you gagged on Canon Law 332 Section 2. That was moar lulz.

I'm not particularly impressed with whatever crumbs that fall out of your fuzzy and surprisingly weak-looking mouth after you've been gorging yourself at Anne's Bergoglio Buffet.

The horrible part is your darling Anne Barnacle did the same thing with the US income tax laws that she does now with our Pope.

Unlike Francis, the IRS wasn't so forgiving.

Even now she still tries to lead people into the same errors that caused her to lose her home.

Think about her legal track-record for a few moments. Be grateful you weren't sharing her "Nobody needs to pay income tax" advice to your folks. If you had, the whole sorry Yerrian clan would be on the street alongside your great expert on "Bergoglio."

"Everything else that comes out of your diseased mind is pretense."

My "pretense" is invariably followed by Citation: (Wikipedia Article: "Jimmy Yerian Is A Liar Even When He Gives His Name")

Isn't that right "Mike"? ;-)

"Stop being the epitome of the kid who lives in his moms basement and eats Funyuns and grow the f up."

That's real funny coming from a guy in his mid-40s who still lives with his parents. Yeah, yeah, I know... your "bad back". :p Sure. What a crock. :D

Funny how that "bad back" isn't bad enough to keep you from that nice orange dirt bike, eh? ;-)

This is how a liar always gives himself away. Just a few days ago, you were railing how I didn't see "the big picture". Oh, I see it alright, it's an extra hundred pounds of BS jammed into a very soft and forgiving pair of elastic sweatpants bought by Mom 'n Dad, probably at Wal-Mart.

If you're as smart as you claim, there are dozens of companies that would LOVE to hire an almost completely un-handicapped employee that still, technically, counts as "handicapped" under the Federal Disability Act. Heck, many employers would even pay for your next physical just so they could use the medical records to justify hiring you.

Again, these are things real workers understand, not soft, self-indulgent, professional invalids.

As with M'Lady Anne Barnacle, you aren't telling everyone the whole story. I already caught you in one lie padding your resume with a Master's Degree you don't have. I'm sure there's more and worse. You'll betray yourself. Your kind always do.

For example, it's amazing how familiar you are with every brand of cheap, greasy salty snack-food out there. Every time you get really, really butt-hurt like this you lash out with a reference to something that, I suspect, is within easy reach of your phone.

Tonight it's "Funyuns" and last time it was "Cheeze Puffs" and the time before that, yet another bag snacks yanked from the Yerian kitchen cupboard

You'll always give yourself away in the end, Jimbo. When you're talking theology, what's coming out of your mouth it sounds Lutheran to the core. When you're talking food, what's going in your mouth sounds like the diet of an obese sofa-dwelling TV hawk.

Some of these snacks I actually had to look up! Let the record show. Jimmy knows more about junkfood than I could ever hope to.

Maybe some of these products are regional.

Either way, I can't abide the stuff. It makes me sluggish and I simply can't afford that. What your family spends on week's worth of Doritos for the whole clan, I spend on Red Bull.

You know what's really funny? The chubby lard-buckets I see waddling in and out of the "Chips and Snacks" aisle invariably look like they're related to you people. Same soft, doughy hands, same heavy heads, same beady deep-set eyes, same baggy clothes hiding jelly-roll guts of fat.

You're a poster-boy for everything that's wrong with America's diet and the malign stupidity a heavily processed greasy diet creates.

In truth, no, I ain't even mad.

"Grow the f up" doesn't count for anything when it's coming from an over-weight, under (or un)employed middle-aged failure.

All I have to do is look around and I see a home in a good neighborhood that's already paid for. You look around and see a home you just live in, that's paid for by people whose whose pity you drain like a fat, self-satisfied dog tick.

Simply put, there's no comparison beween us, either in who we are or our skill-sets, or our understanding of Canon Law and thank God for that.
Ultraviolet
...and once again, Jimmy deliberately muddles the concepts of error with heresy. I say deliberately since I specifically addressed his confusion at length over here. TL:DR.

An error is not heresy until it is
1.) officially corrected by the Church
2.) the individual ignores the correction (kinda like Jimmy's doin' here) and
3.) the Church officially declares the person a heretic.

Since 1-3 …More
...and once again, Jimmy deliberately muddles the concepts of error with heresy. I say deliberately since I specifically addressed his confusion at length over here. TL:DR.

An error is not heresy until it is
1.) officially corrected by the Church
2.) the individual ignores the correction (kinda like Jimmy's doin' here) and
3.) the Church officially declares the person a heretic.

Since 1-3 ain't happened for Francis, his errors are just errors an' Jimmy is just spreading his artificial "Jimmies" like he always does.
V.R.S.
"An error is not heresy until it is
1.) officially corrected by the Church
2.) the individual ignores the correction (kinda like Jimmy's doin' here) and
3.) the Church officially declares the person a heretic"
---
A usual portion of baloney straight from the local VI. Read first in any theology manual about theological censures - what is heretical, what is erroneus, what is close to heresy, what …More
"An error is not heresy until it is
1.) officially corrected by the Church
2.) the individual ignores the correction (kinda like Jimmy's doin' here) and
3.) the Church officially declares the person a heretic"
---
A usual portion of baloney straight from the local VI. Read first in any theology manual about theological censures - what is heretical, what is erroneus, what is close to heresy, what is favouring heresy, what is offensive to pious ears, etc., then you will learn what is heresy and what is error. In short - heresy is a position contrary to the truth (dogma) revealed directly in the God's Revelation (de fide divina) or formally declared by the Church as such (de fide catholica).
Ultraviolet
"Read first in any theology manual about theological censures..."

Good of you to link them for us. Like Zechhy, you seem to think your bleating should be taken at face value in spite of being proven wrong on numerous prior occasions. Pic Related.
Ultraviolet
Short answer: Because you wouldn't get to Heaven, either. Technically, I'm not even sure the priest's claim is correct. Since the third century AD, the Church has taught and still teaches, "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" meaning "outside the Church there is no salvation".

That's been "reinterpreted" in modern times as so many Church teachings have. Personally, it's not an issue of concern for …More
Short answer: Because you wouldn't get to Heaven, either. Technically, I'm not even sure the priest's claim is correct. Since the third century AD, the Church has taught and still teaches, "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" meaning "outside the Church there is no salvation".

That's been "reinterpreted" in modern times as so many Church teachings have. Personally, it's not an issue of concern for me. That Eskimo is me every time I sat down and started reading the Catechism Of The Church. :D Oh gee...... So that's a "grave sin", too. Bummer. :P
Liam Ronan
"As for the Gentiles, though they have no law to guide them, there are times when they carry out the precepts of the law unbidden, finding in their own natures a rule to guide them, in default of any other rule; and this shews that the obligations of the law are written in their hearts; their conscience utters its own testimony, and when they dispute with one another they find themselves …More
"As for the Gentiles, though they have no law to guide them, there are times when they carry out the precepts of the law unbidden, finding in their own natures a rule to guide them, in default of any other rule; and this shews that the obligations of the law are written in their hearts; their conscience utters its own testimony, and when they dispute with one another they find themselves condemning this, approving that. And there will be a day when God (according to the gospel I preach) will pass judgement, through Jesus Christ, on the hidden thoughts of men." Romans 2:14-16

"Yet it is the servant who knew his Lord’s will, and did not make ready for him, or do his will, that will have many strokes of the lash; he who did not know of it, yet earned a beating, will have only a few." Luke 12:47-47

More on the topic of alleged 'Invincible Ignorance' may be found here:

newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm