When is a vain response, since it is I who has substantiated what I talk about, and exposed your argument as fallacious.
You judge pope to be a Francis as a Marxist, dictatorial, power hungry, false prophet Pope, and and that Pope Benedict failed in his duty to the Church, and which public reproof you justify in the name of conscience. And while i reason-ably agreed dissent must be allowed, in both spiritual and civil realms, yet this does not make private much less public dissent to such right in the eyes of Rome in the light of such papal teaching as I provided. Which does not leave the validity of popes and their public teaching up to each individual to decide, which is what RCs censure evangelicals for doing.
I am not saying you are wrong in your judgment or dissent, and can even provide support for the censor of certain Catholic dissenters being wrong, but I am merely showing you that it is contrary to what is required of Catholics by her authorities, while they call us to submit to it as the unchanging church, versus judging teaching by Scripture. Likewise, you have Catholics calling other Catholics unfaithful, based on whether or not they follow past or modern teaching, based upon their judgment of what each teaches. .
But while leadership and or people can go South, Scripture alone remains wholly inspired and unchanging.
Using logic on an Emotionalist hardly ever works.