Dear Friends,
I now hold that Benedict XVI is the true pope. Please download here a paper I wrote to defend this position.
I thank Fr. Paul Kramer, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, Veri Catholici, Eric Gajewski, and others who have helped me understand this. They have publicly acknowledged that Benedict XVI is the true pope for quite some time and have persistently defended this position despite the strong opposition.
Yours in Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,
Tony La Rosa
Unfortunately Benedict XVI himself has not publicly acknowledged that Benedict XVI is the true pope. So I’m not sure where that leaves your thesis.
Read his Declaratio and you will see that he doesn’t need to.
and you heard him say this himself-or rely on the Vatican press office to issue things in B16 name? For they would never lie, right?
Read my paper and you should have your answer.
Thank you, Mr. La Rosa for truly stepping out and being a soldier in the Ecclesia Militans. BiP is the only position that makes sense and I would add BiP without error or cowardice is the truly charitable as well as factual view. There is a discussion of the two divisions of BiP in the comment box here: https://nonvenipacem.com/2019/10/12/tell-me-more-about-how-its-all-oh-so-confusing-if-only-there-were-some-visible-sign/comment-page-1/?unapproved=23617&moderation-hash=50bd7cf5893e84b0e9eff29818fac31b#comment-23617
Can one can argue that since the powers (ministerio) and the essence (munus) of the Papacy are one, then either renunciation of the two suffices as a valid resignation.
1) The ministerio is not in reference to the powers. It is in reference to the EXERCISE of the powers.
2) Even if Benedict XVI stated, “I renounce my powers of the office of the papacy,” it still would not be a valid resignation because the powers belong to the office (munus) and therefore it is the office that would need to be renounced. The office is the top level.
I do not have a full English version of the 1917 Code, but there is also a canon in the 1917 Code in regards to a papal resignation. Nevertheless, you cannot refer to the 1917 Code in this case. It is the 1983 Code that is operational in the Church today however bad it may be in some of the canons.
This is more than an opinion. It is prudential certain. If the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI does not express a clear intent, then there is a positive and probable doubt, which makes his juridical act null and void anyways. Nevertheless, Benedict XVI did NOT renounce the papal office.
This remains an opinion but what concerns is your use of the 1983 code of canon of law which is quite problematic in the attempt to defend the position. Does not the 1917 code have any rules on when a Pope abdicates?
The 1983 code should be intolerable to a Catholic. Is not the 1917 clear on this point?
Canon 221 of the 1917 Code:
“Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex renuntiet, ad eiusdem renuntiationis validitatem non est necessaria Cardinalium aliorumve acceptatio.”
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0813/_PM.HTM
If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns, it is not required for validity that the resignation be accepted by the Cardinals or anybody else.
Agree strongly with Fidelis. No traditional Catholic would rely solely on the 1983 Code of Canon Law to prove a point. Perhaps this is why there are no other traditional priests in favor of this position?
Why?
Tony La rosa is exactly right. One can agree or not with the 1983 Code of Canon law but every catholic, traditional or not, needs to follow it. Would you agree that if something is not done according to the law, it is illegitimate by definition? In this case, the UDG even adds that any act sustained while the Pope is in a state of Impeded See, is null and no declaration is necessary. Antipope Francis needs to go and a minimum of three cardinals pre 2013 can gather in conclave and elect a new pope.