Unpublished Letter from Benedict XVI: "My Resignation Is Fully Valid"
"To suggest that I resigned only from the exercise of the ministry and not from the munus is contrary to clear dogmatic and canonical doctrine. If some journalists speak of a 'creeping schism', they do not deserve any attention." Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote this in a letter to Monsignor Nicola Bux on 21 August 2014 about his resignation, reports LaNuovaBq.it (7 August).
While the letter's existence was previously known, the letter itself has now been published as a photograph in the book Realtà e utopia nella Chiesa (Reality and Utopia in the Church) by Monsignor Nicola Bux.
Monsignor Bux was a counsellor member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when Cardinal Ratzinger was the Prefect.
Following Benedict XVI's resignation, Monsignor Bux wrote to him about the doubts and perplexities that had accompanied it.
Benedict XVI replied that his resignation was complete and fully valid. Regarding the resignation, he said that the parallelism between the diocesan bishop …More
Benedict XVI's unpublished letter: "My full and valid resignation, no to absurd speculation, Wojtyla also thought about it."
Even if his resignation was legally done, if he did it out of fear or duress? (which is probably the case). It’s invalid.
For the past 12 years, the problem is not that people weren't careful, quite opposite the key problem is the sin of omission of shocking and epidemic proportions. 99,9% cardinals are guilty and they persist in it, while the Church is being crucified
We cannot judge a book by one or two excerpts. If we really want to know what Mons. Bux said (and photographed) we will have to go buy the book and read it.
Does this mean there is a case for the Easter Bunny?
Pope Benedict XVI's official resignation letter, dated 11th February, 2013:
The Latin: "Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die undevicesima Aprilis bismillesimo quinto commissum renuntiare ita ut a die vicesima octava februarii bismillesimo tredecesimo, hora vicesima, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.
Translation: “Therefore, well aware of the seriousness of this action, in full liberty I declare that I resign the ministry of the bishop of Rome, of the Successor of St. Peter, entrusted to me through the hands of the Cardinals on the 19th day of April, 2005, with the result that, from the twenty-eighth day of February 2013 [see below], at the twentieth hour, the see of Rome, the See of St. Peter, will be vacant; and I declare that a Conclave to select a new highest pontiff needs to be convoked by those to whom the duty belongs.”
The Latin word 'ministerio' (Ministry) means both "the office or functions of a ministeris"; there is no distinction in Latin as they may be in English.
…at least in the minds of some, Carol. Let’s see, they believe in man-made global warning, that boys can become girls, that men can “marry” men, that homosexual behavior is not mortally sinful, and many other absolutely nonsensical things to be true. Why not believe that characters like the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are real. It makes as much sense as believing Pope Benedict XVI suddenly decided he had to retire because of his health.
Anyone with eyes to see could see Pope Benedict was extremely fragile. And yes, it's quite possible that he felt overwhelmed by the responsibility on his shoulders. Either way, your argument is pure speculation and lawfully, speculations holds no weight as evidence. It's not allowed in a court of law for good reason. Sadly, I agree, Vatican officials has succumbed to the lie of climate change, but they have not made it a dogma of the Church so you are safe. Nor have they openly taught the other things you have accused them of with your hyperbole. Yes, they suffer from false charity (and thereby bad example) in trying to reach out to sinners instead of condemning their sin, but again, the Church's teaching on these sins remains intact. Moreover, logically, just because A and B may be true, it doesn't always follow that C is true. That's called a baseless assumption.
Why did he not refuse papacy from the beginning of all clergy he had a bird eye view of the current crisis. Why did he not rally his supporters in his time of need? By there fruit you know them
Reverse engineer with his intelligence he sowed confusion on purpose or incompetence.
His Holiness has spoken, albeit posthumously. Let us concur and be silent. No one on this earth knows the essence of his intentions and actions better than Benedict himself. We must humbly acknowledge and accept his declaration in this matter as final…and put it to rest, as we have done so with the Holy Father. And may he rest in peace.
I still believe that it was INVALID.
BXVI's resignation was not "invalid." It was perfectly in his power to do what he did. What was "null and void" was the calling of a conclave PRIOR TO the death and burial of BXVI. So an illegal conclave elected an illegitimate antipope...Jorge Bergoglio.
You can see the argument at Home | Antipope Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
In a nutshell, a papal resignation ALONE does not trigger a new papal election. It is required for the previous Pope to be dead and buried before a legal conclave can start. The Cardinals did not follow the law and the law state that if that papal election law is not followed, the election will be "null and void."
Whether it was valid or not procedurally, the question of whether it was valid or not in protecting the Church is haunting. Would he have served the Church any less as an aged and infirm pope than the ones who have succeeded him?! (And the Church may have thereby dodged the Bergoglio bullet. No Bergoglio, likely no Prevost.)
Maybe they'll find the letter where "he said" Bergoglio's right for suppressing TLM and Prevost is such a great guy, please listen to him if he ever becomes pope
The only fact I know (and witness daily) is that after 2000 years the See of Peter has been taken over by the enemies of Church. You guess how that lines up with pope Benedict leaving his post.
If you base your faith on a personal assumption, you are in danger of losing it. Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the rock - the Papacy. As bad as it appears, the Church will hold and regain her former glory. In that 2000 years after Peter there were numerous times - Arian Heresy for one - when it looked as if the Church would fall. But God was and is in control.
Like Schneider you are MISQUOTING the Scripture: Christ did not say that about papacy but about the Church, which will never be destroyed, even if only remnant remains. Our Lady said in La Sallete Rome will lose faith and become seat of Antichrist