They’re not my “rules” but, yes… By the Catholic’s own dogma, the entire Catholic Church would not be Catholic since the people went against the wishes of God. That being said, since none of it makes sense and the points don’t matter, the Catholics can also hand-wave the whole contest away by saying that God guided it to happen through “mysterious ways” that we don’t understand. Again, I’m not arguing that any of it makes sense. I’m just arguing that, by their own rules, there’s no such thing as a “false Pope”.
Also, the word you’re looking for is renounced. The transitive form of renunciation is “renounced”.
You’re arguing pretty hard for something that even you claim doesn’t make sense. Now that we both agree that what you’ve been saying doesn’t make sense - which is kind of what I’ve been driving at - I have to get back to work.
I’m arguing against what you said. Period. What you said was wrong, plain and simple. I don’t have to agree that any of it makes sense to know that what you said wasn’t accurate. And I’m not agreeing that what I said doesn’t make sense. I’m agreeing that Christianity and the rules of Catholic dogma don’t make sense. I don’t have to agree that the Pope is infallible and that people drink the actual transubstantiated blood of their figurehead to call out someone saying that “they don’t think he’s actually infallible” or “they don’t think it’s actually his blood” is not true. Catholic belief dictates a bunch of things that I think are nonsense. That doesn’t mean they don’t believe it.
I’d rather not. I’d rather you were just clear with the things you say. As evidenced by our entire interaction from the start, though, that doesn’t seem to be your forte.
They’re not my “rules” but, yes… By the Catholic’s own dogma, the entire Catholic Church would not be Catholic since the people went against the wishes of God. That being said, since none of it makes sense and the points don’t matter, the Catholics can also hand-wave the whole contest away by saying that God guided it to happen through “mysterious ways” that we don’t understand. Again, I’m not arguing that any of it makes sense. I’m just arguing that, by their own rules, there’s no such thing as a “false Pope”.
Also, the word you’re looking for is renounced. The transitive form of renunciation is “renounced”.
You’re arguing pretty hard for something that even you claim doesn’t make sense. Now that we both agree that what you’ve been saying doesn’t make sense - which is kind of what I’ve been driving at - I have to get back to work.
I’m arguing against what you said. Period. What you said was wrong, plain and simple. I don’t have to agree that any of it makes sense to know that what you said wasn’t accurate. And I’m not agreeing that what I said doesn’t make sense. I’m agreeing that Christianity and the rules of Catholic dogma don’t make sense. I don’t have to agree that the Pope is infallible and that people drink the actual transubstantiated blood of their figurehead to call out someone saying that “they don’t think he’s actually infallible” or “they don’t think it’s actually his blood” is not true. Catholic belief dictates a bunch of things that I think are nonsense. That doesn’t mean they don’t believe it.
As long as we both agree that what you’re saying doesn’t make sense, I’m good.
We don’t.
Yes we do.
No, we don’t. Your statement was that what I was saying doesn’t make sense. That’s different than what Catholics say.
I didn’t say you believed what you were saying. I said that you agreed that what you were saying doesn’t make sense.
Please, give me another opportunity to quote you.
I’d rather not. I’d rather you were just clear with the things you say. As evidenced by our entire interaction from the start, though, that doesn’t seem to be your forte.