"For any resignation anywhere to be valid anywhere the person resigning must define the object from which he resigns."First, Canon Law 331 Section 2
doesn't say that. You're deriving a requirement that isn't present.
Second, you're wrong even on principle. When a man says "I quit" and then leaaves his job, he has resigned.
It does not matter if he gives his formal job title in the process. This is just another extension of your
own argument. No matter what or how Benedict XVI would state his that office, you nay-sayers will
always claim it isn't a
valid description of the office because (insert another contrived line of reasoning).
This is why Benedict in his printed resignation cleverly gave a
condition defining his resignation. He resigned "in such a way" (his words) the see would be vacant and a new pope needed to be chosen, etc.
That includes whatever explicit requirements that might entail!
No matter what you or anyone else invents for "validity", it
must be included in order to fulfill
Benedict's definition of his resignation which ultimately ends with a new Pope being chosen.
Third, Benedict has made his resignation of the Papacy explicit both in print and in writing. While he may not have fulfilled YOUR standards for a "valid" resignation, your standards are not supported by Canon Law.
"That is what canon 332no2 means when it uses the latin word munus [office]"Don't cit Latin when you can't read or speak the language, Thor.
Fra Bugnolo, to his credit, in fact
can. Like every other parrot, you're repeating terms you don't understand. You couldn't ask Fra Bugnolo
in Latin where the toilet is.
"To comply with the canon a valid resignation statement by Benedict MUST state clearly and unambiguously that he was resigning the munus."Canon Law 331 Section 2 does not say that. Fra Bugnolo is deriving an a requirement nowhere present.
"He never did that and used the word ministerium which is not the office but the ministry of the papacy."...and again, you ignore his last General audience as Pope. Again. Keep repeating the lie, Crackers, it doesn't change things.
I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Churchwww.vatican.va/…/hf_ben-xvi_aud_…"The resignation statement itself is what legally matters not subsequent or prior statements as the untrained seem to think."What delicious irony you mentioned what
"the untrained seem to think". You pretentious buffoon.
@Thors Catholic Hammer betray your own lack of legal training.
Canon law doesn't state what form of resignation is valid!...and it gets better. In law, oral contracts are legally
binding. You don't know secular law or Canon Law and
it shows.
:D