Disputed Question: Whether Pope Benedict validly resigned the Papacy?

Recently, the noted Vatican theologian, and former member of the Congregation for the Faith, Msgr. Nichola Bux publicly opined that the validity of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI should be studied in regard to the question of what appears to be substantial error in the formula of resignation. (For a correct English translation of the formula, see here).
Msgr. Bux was not the first to raise this issue. In fact, doubts as to the validity of the act of resignation were raised immediately upon the news being made known. Flavien Blanchon, a French journalist working at Rome, writing only 2 days afterwards, cited an eminent Latin scholar who pointed out errors in the text of abdication, and who noted that the presence of any error, according to canonical tradition, was held to be a sign of lack of deliberation, rendering the act null and void.
Then a year later, Antonio Socci openly speculated that the resignation might be invalid on account of the lack of interior will given by Benedict. In the same year, a very noteworthy study published by a Professor in canon law at the Theological Institute of Legano, Switzerland, in 2014 by Fr. Stefano Violi, which discussed canonically the renunciation: The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI Between History, Law and Conscience, without, however, raising the question of its invalidity. (Its a must read on account of its rich citation to the canonical history of papal resignations.) However, the study, by identifying the matter of the renunciation to regard the active ministry, not the munus, made it clear that the question of substantial error invalidating the resignation was a real question, founded upon the text of the act itself.

The History of the Controversy, 20 Arguments against Validity, 14 arguments for validity, etc.. continues at fromrome.wordpress.com/…/the-validity-of…

LikeShare

BrotherBeowulf

Jul 31, 2019

We have two popes, not for the first time in history.

It is, however, the first time in history that we have two popes who are entirely copacetic with the other's existence.

Yet there cannot be two popes simultaneously.

Further, there is no such thing as a Pope emeritus, pace Pope Benedict, and additionally Benedict has himself said that the Petrine Office is irrevocable speaking of his own case, and in any event, even if his resignation was unforced, he resigned only the ministry and not the office as is plain from the text and subsequent commentary by himself and his spokeman Archbishop Ganswein.

Considering the rampant heresy of Bergoglio--"There is no Hell;" There is no immortal soul; "God made you that way," a practicing sodomfolk; Adulterers may receive the Eucharist; Presiding at a Mass with a Satanic Stang; Attacking Sanctifying Grace itself and the Sacraments via Amoralis Laetitia, especially the Sacraments of Marriage, Confession and the Priesthood--and considering his defense and promotion of the Homosexual Network Strangling the Church (of which he is the head, we all may as well just plainly face that irrefutable fact in the wake of Antipope Francis's fear and a whole year of absolute silence in the face of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano's Testimony and its Sequels)--it is clear he is doing everything in his power to destroy the one holy Catholic and apostolic Faith, and this has been the case for the past six and a half years.

Bergoglio is an Antipope, who styles himself 'Francis.'

For myself and my house we choose the Catholic one, and the one true pope.

Mr. Dorchak, perhaps we can do little else other than declare the simple truth. That is not nothing. Further, I'll be damned if I follow the Antipope. As Miss Barnhardt says, I'd wear an excommunication from Antipope 'Francis' as a badge of honor.

Viva il Papa! Viva Benedetto!