What Are Your Grounds for Accepting as Valid the “Renunciation” of Pope Benedict XVI?

For those who hold that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was validly elected as pope in 2005, but now hold Jorge Bergoglio as pope, what are your grounds for accepting as valid the “renunciation” of Pope Benedict XVI?  I would like to hear from you.  Please leave comments.

21 thoughts on “What Are Your Grounds for Accepting as Valid the “Renunciation” of Pope Benedict XVI?”

  1. Tony get your darn onus off me and put it back where it belongs. So the Pope known as Benedict XVI lied about retiring. Hmm, well he no longer shows up to work and there is another guy who is using his “office”. . space. Well he didn’t lie, he was forced to leave, but really had in mind spinning off a new shared Pope thing. So he is half a Pope, only he isn’t because he can’t be. Francis is a dope and not Pope, he is either a fake Pope an anti-pope or the precursor to the anti-Christ or all three. But we will not really know until the Pope tells us. But your Pope won’t tell us because he is retired, or too tired, or just got fired, or heaven forbid, expired. Muddled Modernism brought to you by: Vatican 2.

    • Ha ha! I knew you could not prove that Pope Benedict XVI’s “resignation” was valid, so please zip it next time, unless you can prove what you propose.

      • I never proposed I could prove anything. I do claim it to be self-evident that the fella who says he is Pope and is recognized as such universally, is in fact the Pope. I was at one point in your camp, but the church unity issue, metaphysics and The Faith got me back. Francis is a mystery of perdition for sure, but Pope just the same. I’ll not bother you anymore, thanks for the go-round.

        • Stephen wrote, “I believe that Benedict XVI resigned because he said he did.” Tony then wrote, “What is the evidence that Benedict XVI said he resigned?” Stephen responded, “The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI occurred on 28 February 2013 at 20:00 CET…..” Tony responded, “This is simply an account of the narrative. I asked you to show me the evidence from Pope Benedict XVI’s words himself.” Stephen responded, “I wasn’t there, I speak neither German nor Latin.”

          So Stephen makes an initial claim. I asked him to prove it with the own words of Pope Benedict XVI. Stephen in the end states, “I never proposed I could prove anything.” Why then make a statement that he cannot defend???

          • As reported with a direct quote; from Forbes. “I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.” It stands alone.

            • Here is the critical portion of the Latin (the language in which Pope Benedict XVI read out his Declaratio):

              “Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.”

              Note that he renounces his ministry (ministerio) and not his office (munus). §2 of Canon 332 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states:

              “Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.”

              English translation:

              “Should it happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns from his office, it is required for validity that the resignation be freely made and properly manifested, but it is not necessary that it be accepted by anyone.”

              Renouncing his “ministerio” is not renouncing his “muneri”. Therefore, he remains pope.

  2. I’m the guy in the back row. I believe that Benedict XVI resigned because he said he did. It seems there is pretty good evidence, since there is this Francis I fella who was elected by Cardinals and does all sorts of Pope like things, and Benedict acts like he is retired. If I mailed a letter to the Pope, I’m thinking Francis is the guy who would get it. The madness known as Vatican 2 seems to know no ends. Laymen are now expected to grasp the finer points of proper Latin definitions while the vast majority of Catholics don’t believe in the True Presence; seriously? “It’s a hardball world, son – We gotta try to keep our heads until this Vatican 2 craze blows over”. Someday a great and holy pope with straighten this crap out. “Prove the validity of the renunciation!?” Rubbish. It is unanimous, Francis is a lousy Pope, move on. Find a solid Priest and travel if you have to. Discover the Latin Mass if you have not already.

      • “The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI occurred on 28 February 2013 at 20:00 CET, after having been announced on the morning of 11 February 2013 directly by himself. … The Pope stated that the reason for his decision was his declining health due to old age.” – Wikipedia
        Has the Vatican officially disputed this report? Is it really that complicated?
        Reason: Old age – check, Declining health – check.
        The Church will survive Francis.

          • I wasn’t there, I speak neither German nor Latin. Unless you can show me some DNA I believe that Francis is actually an alien.

            What evidence do you have that the all knowing all loving all powerful God, Jesus, The Christ, comes in the form of Bread at Mass?

            Has Vigano declared definitively that Benedict is still Pope?
            If that were to occur I believe it would be a schismatic act, and picking sides on the matter would have some importance for the Faithful

            • You and I both accept that Benedict XVI was validly elected pope in 2005. Now you changed your mind and accept Jorge Bergoglio as pope. Therefore, the onus is on you to demonstrate that Benedict XVI’s “resignation” was valid. You can only demonstrate this by the words of Benedict XVI himself. So prove your claim that Benedict XVI validly “resigned”.

          • I really think the whole thing is a rhetorical exercise and at the root of it is a belief in a false narrative. It reminds me of Bill Clinton’s “That depends on what ‘is’; ‘is’.” There is no false narrative there are forces of evil and forces of good. Prior to modernist dominated thought and the Vatican 2 weapon of ‘ambiguity’ Church thought was more pure in that it identified Truth and its source Jesus; Truth personified. Does scholasticism lead to Jesus or to victory of an argument? The simple faith starts with the end in mind: our hope for salvation, and our Faith in Our Savior and Charity toward our brothers. I find none of that in these debates, and they all seem to have blossomed with Vatican 2. I do like the Sedes, Barnhardt and the other Catholic rabble rousers. I go to them however for entertainment, not spiritual direction. A good Pope will straighten this all out in a long weekend, unless of course Christ returns first.

            • It is not a rhetorical exercise. It is an exercise of comparing an act with the legal requirements. The act does not meet the legal requirements. Therefore, one must needs conclude that the act is invalid. Even if there is a positive doubt about the validity of an act, one cannot proceed forward with moral certitude. If your position is that Jorge Bergoglio is the pope, you are going against the law and against reason. As such, your acceptance of Jorge Bergoglio is based on propaganda, falsehood, emotion, or whatever else.

  3. Also, the false argument has been lavishly presented that POPE BENEDICT XVI is worse than jorge bergoglio because he did this and that and so forth even though all know of the evil and errors of the one they call “Pope Francis”.

    Is this false argument still being promoted by the recognize and resist groups and priests?

    If so, this emotionally based argument has lost its credibility if ever it had any credibility in the first place. This of course is thanks be to this enemy of JESUS CHRIST,
    a.k.a. jorge bergoglio who implemented idolatry in the place of the ONE TRUE GOD.

    The evidence conclusively proves that the chosen one of satan through his freemasonic minions is the one who remains jorge bergoglio.

    POPE BENEDICT XVI REMAINS THE POPE by all standards of objective reality and objective truth.
    THANKS BE TO GOD for Archbishop Vigano putting forth the TRUTH that should open the eyes of all those of the Resistance.


    UNLESS OF COURSE, GROUNDS CAN BE established as follows: recognize and resist; emotions such as Father and I feeeeeeeeeeeel. . .; pride; arrogance; sloth; eyes but they do not see and ears but they do not hear; we must stay on the narrative and Father is our leader; I am trad; insults to others such as silly sedevacantists, resignationist [ oops, I mean NON resignationist ], armchair theologian, so forth and so on, etc. over and over and over until the lie becomes you know what- the CONTINUATION OF THE LIE of recognize and resist and the negation of the truth that POPE BENEDICT XVI REMAINS THE POPE WHILE jorge bergoglio is an antipope and an antichrist.

    In addition to the above, let us not forget the TRUTH of the many prophecies / warnings that point to these times of an uncanonically elected destroyer antipope also known as jorge mario bergoglio.


    • An objection of the Resistance is that I used the 1983 Code of Canon Law in my paper to show that Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation was not valid. Yet, the Resistance cannot prove the validity of the renunciation from the 1917 Code of Canon Law, so on what are they basing their acceptance of the validity of the renunciation???

      • Tony,
        Didn’t Bishop Moran publicly excommunicate you? See where this stuff leads?
        Has the church split with a Pope and an Anti-Pope? Should the pro Benedict folks be stepping up starting their own parishes and stuff? Has Vigano put his orders on the line with this yet? (probably should start with a re-consecration) How can you be obedient to a Pope who has stated repeatedly that he is no longer Pope (or at least acted as if )? If The Church is what it claims to be, then it should be able to withstand a forgery. No? Ok, so you are right. Now what? What changes? It is like an intramural game with shirts and skins. In the end who ever wins doesn’t really matter, because its not a real game. Francis has made seeking salvation more difficult for the Faithful, he is culpable for it.

        • Stephen, please don’t come back days later and re-start the conversation with a post like this one. We left off with me showing you that Pope Benedict XVI did not renounce his office. Please stick with that thesis and prove that I am wrong.

          • Tony, i know you are trying to do the right thing in wacky times, as am I . Where do you go with the If : then? So Benedict is Pope and Francis is what? And NO cardinal or Bishop agrees with the Benedict theory? It just seems to be locking down with pride this conclusion and really not having the key to get out of the cell. I think leaving it to the mystery of perdition and culpability of ones state in life is what I am called to do. none offence is taken if you block me or don’t publish my responses.

            • Stephen, why do you have to worry about “if Benedict is Pope and Francis is what”? I do want to speculate about this or that scenario. What I care about is whether Benedict XVI’s resignation was valid. The truth cannot be contingent about questions that come up such as “if Benedict is pope, then what?” What needs to be done is to analyze Benedict XVI’s Declaratio, compare it to the requirements of canon law, and make the determination whether those requirements have been met for a valid resignation. In the case of the Declaratio, the requirements of canon law have not been met for a valid resignation.


Leave a Comment