Tesa
211K

Official meeting of the "two popes"

Pope Francis meeting with retired Pope Benedict in the Vatican this afternoon.
The only ones before whom Bergoglio does not bow are Jesus Eucharist and Benedict
Why does not Bergoglio prostrate himself and kiss Benedict's feet as he does with any other? At least Benedict is Pope and he deserves it.
tbswv
When is the next interfaith prayer meeting Francis? says Benedict. I don't know but I just can't bend down and kiss any more feet.
@Eucaristía Católica Francis is officially "the" Pope and Benedict XVI is the former Pope. Being Pope is a title and the Papacy is an office. It's a job, in other words. Benedict XVI resigned, technically "renounced" it (renuntiatio in Latin) and retired.

Now I'll admit that doesn't sit all too well with a bunch of tradition-minded folks who don't like our current Pontiff political views, …More
@Eucaristía Católica Francis is officially "the" Pope and Benedict XVI is the former Pope. Being Pope is a title and the Papacy is an office. It's a job, in other words. Benedict XVI resigned, technically "renounced" it (renuntiatio in Latin) and retired.

Now I'll admit that doesn't sit all too well with a bunch of tradition-minded folks who don't like our current Pontiff political views, but in terms of tradition, it has happened before. Gregory XII in 1415, to be exact. So there's Church precedent for it and it isn't some weird, funky new reform courtesy of the sulphorous "Spirit of Vatican Council II".
Being Pope is neither a title nor a job. It's a definitive and irrevocable choice made by God
such that nobody can change it including the Pope himself.
Ultraviolet can you list canonic reflections you have studied on "renuntiato" of pope as basis for your judgements? Can you explain true analogy in textual comparison between Benedict XVI and Gregory XII?
@Eucaristía Católica "Being Pope is neither a title nor a job."

Grammatically and politically you're wrong. Simple as that. Do they still teach sentence diagramming anymore? The temporal authority and real executive powers the pope has should be self-evident.

"It's a definitive and irrevocable choice made by God..."

Since God is all-good and, by definition, incapable of doing evil then evil …More
@Eucaristía Católica "Being Pope is neither a title nor a job."

Grammatically and politically you're wrong. Simple as that. Do they still teach sentence diagramming anymore? The temporal authority and real executive powers the pope has should be self-evident.

"It's a definitive and irrevocable choice made by God..."

Since God is all-good and, by definition, incapable of doing evil then evil has some other origin. God may allow evil men to appoint other evil men as Pope, He would not willingly inflict choose an evil one, Himself.

There has been a great deal on this site about how Jorge Bergoglio was elected Pope and God's only direct input in the process was mercifully not striking dead the parties involved for their many offences against Him. The king-makers in the Curia probably didn't even bother sincerely asking Him for guidance any more than they likely ever did during the reign of the Medici Popes or the Borgia Popes.

@Rafał_Ovile Since you haven't contradicted any point I stated, then there isn't any need for me do so, Rafael.
alex j likes this.
Ultraviolet Since your judgment made public lacks argumentation I will remind you of the standing principle used in Latin civilization: "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit". If you don't know Latin the phrase means "the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies." As to Eucaristía Católica your arguments are rudimentary and ad personam. Please learn that the purpose of dialogue, which …More
Ultraviolet Since your judgment made public lacks argumentation I will remind you of the standing principle used in Latin civilization: "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit". If you don't know Latin the phrase means "the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies." As to Eucaristía Católica your arguments are rudimentary and ad personam. Please learn that the purpose of dialogue, which concerns theology/ philosophy, as such being on the nature of Petrine Office, is to teach not insult. Otherwise must first learn "savoir- vivre" of dialogue. Lastly, in order to debate your judgments one needs to be provided with arguments, which are non-existent. There is nothing to fear of, as "truth sets one free"...
@Rafał_Ovile You still haven't contested anything I've said, Rafal.

Do you have a point you're trying to make, aside from continuing an extended Tu Quoque fallacy? You are, for whatever obtuse reason, complaining parenthetically about the statements I've made without ever directly challenging any of them.

Thank you so much for the Latin lesson, though. If you had asked, I would have spared you …More
@Rafał_Ovile You still haven't contested anything I've said, Rafal.

Do you have a point you're trying to make, aside from continuing an extended Tu Quoque fallacy? You are, for whatever obtuse reason, complaining parenthetically about the statements I've made without ever directly challenging any of them.

Thank you so much for the Latin lesson, though. If you had asked, I would have spared you from a few incorrect assumptions on your part. Yes, I can use Google to look up the meaning of a phrase when my Latin fails me. Yes, I do know the basic principles regarding formal debate. In fact, it seems I know them better than you.

In a proper debate, the burden of proof rests on the accuser. Very true. However, for a debate to occur there has to be a contrary position presented. You have yet to do so. Thus far, all you've done is demand I present my credentials and that I show a "true analogy in textual comparison" between the most recently resigned pontiff and his predecessor.

What you have NOT done is challenge ANY statement I've made as being incorrect. Nor have you presented a contrary position. That is the basic nature of any debate.

For example, you criticized my reply as displaying an "ad personem" fallacy. I claim that criticism is false because I have said nothing regarding the personal traits or character of Eucaristía Católica. In the spirit of the Latin quote you so patronizingly provided, I challenge you to support your accusation or publicly withdraw it.

Do you recognize the distinction?. Now we have a debate, but it's over your use of "ad personem" and, yes, the burden of proof does lie with the accuser.
Ultraviolet stop acting like a little sophist (you have rejected the key principle of burden of proof which you frantically pervert to avoid making arguments which you fear will be refuted). If not so then give arguments and grow-up. And try your best to list the literature I have asked for on the serious subject regarding the nature of Petrine Office. As I may be able to find arguments to …More
Ultraviolet stop acting like a little sophist (you have rejected the key principle of burden of proof which you frantically pervert to avoid making arguments which you fear will be refuted). If not so then give arguments and grow-up. And try your best to list the literature I have asked for on the serious subject regarding the nature of Petrine Office. As I may be able to find arguments to debate in such a source... Or you may have simply not studied any? Then I can list some for you...
@Rafał_Ovile
"Ultraviolet stop acting like a little sophist"

Now you are just being rude. On a different forum, I would answer you very bluntly.

Rafal, you forfeited the right to complain about sophistry when you started spewing Latin along with the helpful translation. It is arrogant and pretentious and makes you look like a second-rate scholar showing off whatever small knowledge he has.

More
@Rafał_Ovile
"Ultraviolet stop acting like a little sophist"

Now you are just being rude. On a different forum, I would answer you very bluntly.

Rafal, you forfeited the right to complain about sophistry when you started spewing Latin along with the helpful translation. It is arrogant and pretentious and makes you look like a second-rate scholar showing off whatever small knowledge he has.

That may not be the case, you may be a brilliant Latin scholar. The problem here is not your education, but your personality and character.

"you have rejected the key principle of burden of proof which you frantically pervert..."

The burden of proof assumes a statement is being challenged, Rafal. I will repeat: You have not done so.

If you are incapable of fully understanding English, please do not attempt to argue in this language.

"If not so then give arguments and grow-up."

Take your own advice, Rafal. What statement of mine are you challenging? So far, all you have done is get angry and behave like a child having a tantrum.

"And try your best to list the literature I have asked for on the serious subject regarding the nature of Petrine Office."

Perhaps you should first review the fallacy of "Non Sequitur". :D

I am still waiting for you to show your proof where I made an "ad personem" fallacy, as well.

You claim "the burden of proof rests on who asserts..." Very true. Agreed. A statement must be challenged for a debate to occur. That is the nature of a debate and we do have the basis for one.. I again challenge you to show the "ad personem" fallacy made. It is now up to you to do your part and present your proof.

I find it ironic you complain about sophistry when you prattle on with school debating-club Latin phrases. I find even more irony when you refuse to follow the phrase you mentioned, even when I repeatedly ask you to do so.
Ultraviolet You sound like the lingual impostor of Dr Stuart Rice, who used a doctorate to make fool of himself, suffering from constant Logorrhea. Is this true? I 'm trying to motivate you to use at least some little manifestation of fortitude to forward a single argument, which you like a primeval snake avoid. Do you suspect how for i.e. the courageous Ann Barnhardt would describe the …More
Ultraviolet You sound like the lingual impostor of Dr Stuart Rice, who used a doctorate to make fool of himself, suffering from constant Logorrhea. Is this true? I 'm trying to motivate you to use at least some little manifestation of fortitude to forward a single argument, which you like a primeval snake avoid. Do you suspect how for i.e. the courageous Ann Barnhardt would describe the fearful "lady" hiding behind this "logorrhea" of yours?
@Rafał_Ovile
"Ultraviolet You sound like the lingual impostor..."

Since you mentioned it earlier, this is an "ad personem" fallacy. It does not matter what I "sound" like. You still have not challenged a statement I made. This is also more Tu Quoque fallacy. Criticizing me for writing style does not disprove the statements I made.

You see, Rafal? I do understand formal debating. Right now I …More
@Rafał_Ovile
"Ultraviolet You sound like the lingual impostor..."

Since you mentioned it earlier, this is an "ad personem" fallacy. It does not matter what I "sound" like. You still have not challenged a statement I made. This is also more Tu Quoque fallacy. Criticizing me for writing style does not disprove the statements I made.

You see, Rafal? I do understand formal debating. Right now I am burying you with it. :D

Do you even understand what Logohrrhea is? Look up the word. A fine example is a long twisted sentence like: "I 'm trying to motivate you to use at least some little manifestation of fortitude to forward a single argument, which you like a primeval snake avoid. "

Bad, bad, stilted English. Learn the language before you argue in it.

You want me to "forward a single argument"??? To what end? All of your mindless ranting in horrible English is because I corrected someone else.

You stuck your nose into it and are trying to have a debate. Good. If you want to debate what I said, you need to challenge something in the original statement. How many times have I asked you now?

You do not because you can not. Even allowing for your bad English, it is clear you are ignoring this.

This is not a debate. If you want a debate, we can have one. I will ask again. show the "ad personem" fallacy you claim I made. You want a debate? Do it. Believe me, I would LOVE to debate "ad personam" with you.

But you do not. You complain, you accuse, you rant but you do not actually provide any support for your claim. We can not debate a statement I made until you challenge one.

...and then I will tear you apart. :-)
Ultraviolet Thank you for your sources on the resignation in the other post which prove you ignorant "rice". Try reading some canonical reflections and magisterial documents which exclude two or more true visible popes being and your judgement. As to your other comments they are the abstract of unsound mind...
@Rafał_Ovile
"which prove you ignorant "rice".

You need to learn basic English, Rafal. You are beginning to jabber. To be honest, people like you are the reason foreign travel is so horribly over-rated. But English-speakers deserve what they get. They pay their money, travel to your country and then wonder why they can not understand the broken English of natives like you.

But this is worse. …More
@Rafał_Ovile
"which prove you ignorant "rice".

You need to learn basic English, Rafal. You are beginning to jabber. To be honest, people like you are the reason foreign travel is so horribly over-rated. But English-speakers deserve what they get. They pay their money, travel to your country and then wonder why they can not understand the broken English of natives like you.

But this is worse. The fault is yours. You visit a predominantly English-language site. You comment on an English-language post. You involve yourself in an English-language discussion. You try to start a debate about something except...

You can not speak functional English.

"As to your other comments they are the abstract of unsound mind..."

One thing is for certain. They show you are a coward who does not want the big debate you were asking for. They show you are an academic fraud who uses Latin to sound educated but will not follow the phrase you use. They show you make accusations you can not and will not support.

In short. you are noise. A barking dog, a drunken sailor, a mental defective yelling at something imaginary.
Throughout history there were many popes that even the Church considered legitimate and that appear well in the records. However, many of them were never popes, and God never recognized them. When we are before God we will take many surprises. Having been named and recognized by the world - and even by the Church - does not mean that they have been accepted and recognized by Heaven. Many popes …More
Throughout history there were many popes that even the Church considered legitimate and that appear well in the records. However, many of them were never popes, and God never recognized them. When we are before God we will take many surprises. Having been named and recognized by the world - and even by the Church - does not mean that they have been accepted and recognized by Heaven. Many popes reached power through plots and deceptions that made their choice ILLICIT.
Many true and legitimate popes were deposed, betrayed, marginalized, in favor of others proposed by powerful people. There are popes that were but are not, and there are popes that were not but are. It is naive to think that when Jesus Christ himself was betrayed, other popes, his representatives, were not in favor of other Judas throughout history.
"Having been named and recognized by the world - and even by the Church - does not mean that they have been accepted and recognized by Heaven."

...then you must show proof this is so. The only way to do this, of course, is to petition Heaven and get God Himself to answer the matter directly. Until He does, then you have no proof of your claim.

The same is true for your claim "...and God never …More
"Having been named and recognized by the world - and even by the Church - does not mean that they have been accepted and recognized by Heaven."

...then you must show proof this is so. The only way to do this, of course, is to petition Heaven and get God Himself to answer the matter directly. Until He does, then you have no proof of your claim.

The same is true for your claim "...and God never recognized them". That is your belief, but God has not spoken on the matter and you do not speak for God.

You may not like the current pope, you may prefer his retired predecessor. Fine and good. I do as well.

However, you are discussing the process and mechanics of the papacy. This has happened before several times and happened now with Benedict and Francis. Like it or not, it was done according to Church law, neither pope contests the retirement's validity. Benedict has even defended his retirement against this sort of criticism.
aderito
Is Pope Francis asking Pope Benedict emeritus why he wrote the letter?
eticacasanova and one more user like this.
eticacasanova likes this.
advoluntas@aol.com likes this.
There cannot be two popes before God, so only one is true.
Rafał_Ovile likes this.
One belives. One a heretic. Which is which?