Luis Farrakhan or Bill Gates?

As I have been having nice little flame wars exposing Sophists, gammas, possible actual Satanist deceivers and other cretins for their duplicitous natures, I have challenged them all, as already done previous here to make their arguments in a public forum, with their own names attached. So far there have been no actual takers, which is natural because liars KNOW they cannot survive sunlight, so “people” like @jameslovebirch and @Ranger will in all likelihood NEVER post their “arguments” publicly, and certainly never under their own name, because they know for a fact they would be torn to shreds. Besides the challenge has stood unanswered for months and I expect will continue to do so.

Despite this, one guy, named Stephen Burrows, made a formal public request to be bitchslapped about the face for his inability to read basic English, understand simple concepts, speak of things he is abysmally ignorant of as if he understood them when it is clear he doesn’t even posses the faculties to grasp the concept of apostolic succession, never mind anything beyond that and so on. As the charitable sort I am, I decided I would indulge him here. For your entertainment if perhaps not enlightenment of catholic concepts. mostly because these are so obvious anyone even mildly interested already knows these things.

Below I reproduce the entire question and reply interspaced in red. So you know I have not altered anything in the original, it is also archived here.

One Question for the Kurgan (was Paul VI validly elected)

Since this is still bubbling away on Social Galactic, I thought I’d have another go at a question:
I ask: Was Paul VI (Who concluded the Second Vatican Council) validly elected as Pope.

For the purpose of this let’s all assume that yes he was.

The question is actually completely irrelevant. It makes absolutely no difference if Montini was validly elected or not. Why? Because as every Catholic knows, the very concept of once saved always saved is a Protestant idiocy and not based in any sort of logic. Every Catholic is perfectly aware that even if you theoretically pay lip service to being a Christian, or, in fact, genuinely have become one, your salvation is NOT assured if you later defect from the Faith. This is elementary level reasoning, and should not tax anyone’s grey cells. And yet…

If:

1. The implementer of the conclusions of Vatican II was a validly elected Pope

Let’s assume he was in order to give your moronic idea that you have some kind of gotcha! going for you the best chance of working. Even though there are valid reasons for thinking otherwise, but no matter, I accept this as the premise for the purposes of showing Stephen the error of his ways.

2. The documents of Vatican II are heretical

They are

Then: Papal infallibility is false

And this is where poor, poor, Stephen falls short, like a special kid with a helmet and a lot of drool. Mostly because he hasn’t got a clue what papal Infallibility is. But here is the logic even a 5 year old grasps. If a validly elected Pope acts as a filthy heretic apostate, sodomite, freemason, guess what, Canon 188 part 4 comes into play and he immediately loses his office. End of. No one requires to say anything further and EVERY action this fake Pope ever took becomes automatically invalid. And it has always been thus.

As the papal encyclical Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio always made clear for the last few centuries.

You really need to change your whole idea of Christianity, oh little Protestant. The only reason you even think that once a Pope is elected he can never, ever, ever fall into Hell again no matter what he does is because Protestantism fosters the idiocy of binary thinking. Something that is properly demonic once you are thinking about anything beyond simple mathematics. And it is intimately tied to the absurd idea of once saved always saved. It’s like saying that once you have decided you are not a thief you can never be arrested for stealing again. Even if you steal. What nonsense. And of course, a Pope who becomes a heretic immediately loses office and all his actions become null and void, including any he may have made while technically still “valid”. Why? Because prudence, logic and the infallible rules of valid Popes and the Church say so. All approved, recorded and codified in Canon Law. Really it’s not difficult to understand if you can read. And have an IQ above 90. Which to be fair, from previous engagements with Stephen, he may well not have.

If Paul VI was not validly elected then can you explain how. 

We have assumed he was. So this point is moot.

Your standard call to Canon 188.4 to indicate why modern papal elections are invalid would seem irrelevant since it relies on cardinals and popes publicly defecting from the faith.

What, prey tell, oh you very special person, is hard to grasp about a Pope publicly defecting from the Faith, which he does the minute he issues official documents replete with heresy for public consumption? Of course it applies. Why would it not apply? It is precisely for this eventuality the canon exists.

Even if assenting to Vatican II counts as a public defection, it can’t apply to cardinals acting before the documents had been published.

What do the cardinals electing a Pope that defects later have to do with it? Absolutely nothing. Insofar as we accept they validly elected him (which we are accepting for the purposes of this argument) they have done nothing wrong. Any cardinal the Apostate fake Pope made cardinals before he became a heretic though also are not considered valid, but these are after the fact. Canon 188 part 4 applies specifically to individuals who fall under it. I don’t understand how anyone can be confused by this at all. It’s very simple.

Now, you may think that I have been a bit harsh on Stephen, and I have, but you need to know Stephen had a massive argument with me about Apostolic succession that clearly showed he has no clue about much of anything, and I suspect he struggles with shoes that have laces. That said, I do salute his attempt since it was public and he apparently put his name to it. I would however advise him to never again question Catholic dogma. He is one of those people best served by getting baptised as a good Catholic, quietly attending Church, doing his prayers and simply doing as the VALID Catholic priest (not any of the Novus Orco impostors) tells him. He clearly does not have the faculties for understanding the basics, but that in itself is not a sin. Plenty of people that are not intellectually advanced make very good husbands, men and friends as well as good Catholics. He just has to become one first.