Your English is failing you again, Rafał_Ovile "Every red herrring serving the devil" doesn't make sense in debate or in theology.

Since you raised the subject, you also forget your Scripture. See Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12. Christ said, "as you would have them do unto you". Since you insist on being a jerk, it's only fair that you have that done "unto you". Likewise, the least you can do is provide me some amusement in the process.

"your infected and primitive mind is unable to do anything other than what you have publicly judged about..."

You mean when my mind isn't busy correcting your incompetent Latin, your bad English, your ignorance of Canon law, and then tidying up your constant errors in reasoning, so typical of Benedict's unwanted supporters.

That's the worst part. Benedict himself disagrees with you.
.

Exactly, every red herrring serving the devil , especially Ultraviolet, has "... a wonderful time humiliating ... and making ... look foolish..." Unfortunately, at the moment your infected and primitive mind is unable to do anything other than what you have publicly judged about yourself revealing true intentions of poisoned heart and soul... Fortunately, there is the theological virtue of hope that God is patiently waiting for you to convert till your last gasp ...

I'm not offended at all Rafał_Ovile , I'm have a wonderful time humiliating you and making you look foolish. :D Like so: you just contradicted yourself. You aren't "kindly and professionally showing" anything when you're calling me "a self-possessed narcissist". Your petty name-calling is neither kind nor professional.

...and you aren't actually showing anything, except your own ignorance. You keep talking about showing and explaining but you're never actually doing it.

Oh, a self-possessed narcissist like Ultraviolet should not be offended when not getting enough attention... I'm kindly and professionally showing Ultraviolet is only red herring without any scholarly competence on papal abdication he falsely claims to have. You should be thankful to God that I am sacrificing any time to help you out of great ignorance so your soul will bear less eschatological consequences ...

Don't use Latin debating terms you don't understand Rafał_Ovile The plural for argumentum is "argumenta" not "argumentums". You ignoramus.

"Write less and start reading and learning."

Oh, the irony after you just failed Latin 101. :D

"teach you to comprehend below suggested basics or online if continually rejected in reality."

...and your English is even more muddled than your Latin.

"If not I will guide to pro classical theologian and philosopher..."

Maybe you should ask your scholarly friends to teach you to basic Latin and conversational English first. ;-)

Ultraviolet you - 'the red herring' - even prove amateur at name calling - argumentums ad personam... Write less and start reading and learning. You may start from 'kindergarden'. May be you'll find a merciful teacher around town who will teach you to comprehend below suggested basics or online if continually rejected in reality. ps If not I will guide to pro classical theologian and philosopher... Feel free to kindly ask... You may in private if you 're uncomfortable in public.

So, your reply is more ad hominem fallacy Rafał_Ovile. And more pretentious faux-scholarly verbiage. It's "incidentals" not "accidentals" you buffoon. I love it when you try to sound educated. You always make a fool of yourself. :D

You'll "be open to discuss professionally"??? Will I need to call your secretary and make an appointment to visit your office?? :D

Since I'm the one quoting Canon Law and you're just name-calling, it's easy to see which of us has read "any serious works" and it sure isn't you, bucko.

That's funny, Rafał_Ovile . Because your comments are nothing more than one long overblown ad hominem fallacy with ZERO supporting evidence. That's a fancy way of saying you're a pretentious pseudo-intellectual who doesn't know how to debate.

Getting out your thesaurus proves nothing in an attempt to sound educated and scholarly proves nothing. You have to back up your claims with supporting facts and, there, is where you consistently fall short.

Drivel like, "you have not studied any literature" simply isn't going to work here.

That's a baseless entirely meaningless claim. After all, I'm the only one who's quoting Canon Law verbatim and showing how it applies. You're not, All you do is make irrelevant accusations like "disregard and twist scientific evidence which is common for ideologues"

...except you haven't supplied any "scientific evidence". Neither have I. In my case, I didn't because this isn't a scientific debate, it's a legal one which is why I cited law, not science.

See? This is you showing how thoroughly you don't know what you're talking about.

Incidentally, being an ideologue is not mutually exclusive with being a.) correct and b.) capable of demonstrating a.)

Frequently the fiercest ideologues are those who are both.

"As I have suggested before you should start off by learning basic meta-physical distinctions."

Before you start giving me advice on how to further my education, maybe you should realize "meta-physical" doesn't need a hyphen. :D

Then maybe you'll realize metaphysics has nothing to do with the requirements for a legally valid resignation of the papacy or how the Church defines schism, you ridiculous coffee-house blowhard

You've got this all backwards, poor thing. The sneering comes after you've disproven your opponent factually. That's a privilege you have to earn. Otherwise you end up looking like a hot steaming pile of, well... you.

Ultraviolet your comments exemplify substantial ignorance on the nature of papacy (current crisis), schism etc. subject what makes you prone to make false and arbitrary conclusions. Unfortunately, you have not studied any literature and also disregard and twist scientific evidence which is common for ideologues, in sects such as Jehovah's witnesses etc. ps As I have suggested before you should start off by learning basic meta-physical distinctions. Otherwise you will continue on the path to diabolical narcissism.

Canon Law 751 says, (direct quote) "schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

The current Supreme Pontiff is Francis, not Benedict XVI. By persistently refusing to accept this unpleasant fact, you are in schism, Rafał_Ovile . Benedict XVI resigned in writing, he resigned verbally, and he denounced any questions regarding the validity of that resignation as in his words, "absurd". The man quit and no amount of wishful thinking changes that.

The ordination reply letter was written by someone else, not Benedict. The photo card has a pre-printed signature showing it's old stock from when Benedict was still Pope. Likewise the stationary. Heck, I still have old business cards from my first job out of college. If I hand one to somebody it doesn't prove I still work there. :D