The first thing that needs to be proven is that Benedict actually renounced the office. This was the job of the Dean of the COllege of Cardinals +Sodano. Needless to say, +Sodanot did nothing of the sort and in the meantime has been fired from a ifetime position as Dean. Until this demonstration takes place by the new Dean, Cardinal +Re, the faithful are obliged to continue regarding the pope, BXVI, as not having resigned. Else we are simply following hearsay.

"The first thing that needs to be proven is that Benedict actually renounced the office."

Fair enough. @nereid2

"I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church..."
-Pope Benedict XVI, Last General Audience as Pope, one day before his written resignation went into effect.

www.vatican.va/…/hf_ben-xvi_aud_…

"There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry. The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations regarding its validity are simply absurd."
-Pope Emeritus Benedict, one year later.

catholicherald.co.uk/…/benedict-xvi-di…

Yet this is not how BXVI's resignation is canonically validated.
That is the whole issue. The act of resignation had to be validated by the Dean of the College to ensure its validity. He didn't do this.
BXVI may thik he renounced the office ( not merely the power of the office) or he may not. He may have intended to resign properly, or he may not have.
But this has to be settled in a canonical manner. The task rests now with Cardinal Re.
He must act.

@Ultraviolet

Why dont you give the full quote?

WHY DONT YOU GIVE THE FULL QUOTE IN CONTEXT?

The "always" is also a "for ever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the ACTIVE exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.

THIS STATEMENT OF BENEDICTS IS HIHLY HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS GIVING RISE TO THE NOTION OF AN ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PAPACY SOMETHING TRULY ABSURD AND IMP[OSSIBLE.

HE REMAInS SO TO SPEAK IN THE ENCLOSURE OF ST PETER?
Again deeply ambiguous

His efforts to quell doubts about the validity and freedom of his resignation are not acceptable and could quite easily have been induced by fear

But you CONTINUALLY want the morally degenerate pontificate of an antipope who has rejected the 6th, 7th and 1st divine commandments to be accepted.
WHY IS THAT?

ANSWER because your moral universe and his coincide.

WHY DONT YOU GIVE THE FULL QUOTE IN CONTEXT?

...because then you immediately complain how the post is "too long" and about my "verbiage".

...strange how you never apply that standard to your own posts, eh? Little wonder. Double standards as usual.

There's nothing "highly ambigious" except the interpretation you give via selective bold-texting. For weeks now you have been claiming "Benedict XVI only resigned the ministry". That was back when you were only aware of his printed resignation.

When I started posting this direct quote from Benedict XVI at his last General Audience as Pope, you changed your claim. Now it's "highly ambiguous". It isn't.

What Benedict XVI said isn't "giving rise to the notion of..." any of your other passively voiced delusions.

The man said exactly what you previously demanded of him.

As I've said before, your standard for a valid resignation is whatever Benedict XVI -DIDN'T- say because you can't accept your delusion is wrong.

Furthermore, there is no requirement in Canon Law for a Pope to explicity say he resigned the office. That's an interpretation YOU have been advancing.

"His efforts to quell doubts about the validity and freedom of his resignation are not acceptable and could quite easily have been induced by fear.

"...are not acceptable" to whom? You? Pope Emeritus Benedict's renunciation of the Papacy has been clear, explicit, and repeated in no less than three separate instances.

Your unsupported paranoid conspiracy theories about "could quite easily have been induced by fear" have zero support except for you endlessly repeating it. "could be" is not IS.

Making a claim doesn't magically make it true, Thor. That's your central problem with the real world.

All you ever do is repeat this kind of garbage and never show any proof for it, because what Benedict actually SAID about resigning his Papacy directly repudiates what YOU said about his resignation.

@nereid2
"Yet this is not how BXVI's resignation is canonically validated."

Seems the Curia and the Vatican itself disagree with this interpretation.

"The act of resignation had to be validated by the Dean of the College to ensure its validity. He didn't do this."

Canon Law 331, Section 2 says differently.

www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P16.HTM

..." it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."

Meaning, so long as Benedict XVI resigned freely (and he says he did) and properly manifested his resignation (which he's done publicly at least three times now), it doesn't matter if anyone accepts it or not.

Now you are confusing acceptance wirh validity. If the Act is valid it need not be accepted by anyone. But first it must be validated.

As for "properly manifested" ,the Act did not even mention renunciation of office as its essential object.

@nereid2
"Now you are confusing acceptance wirh validity. If the Act is valid it need not be accepted by anyone. But first it must be validated."

Nope. You're confusing the noun "validity" with the verb "validate". A valid (adjective) resignation (meaning one that fulfills the requirements stipulated for "validity") remains valid whether or not it is validated (verb) (i.e. formally recognized as such).

"As for "properly manifested" ,the Act did not even mention renunciation of office as its essential object."

You're entirely correct. It didn't. This is an invention from Thor.

He's been braying Benedict XVI had to explicitly renounce the office for weeks now because he wrongly assumed Benedict XVI's printed resignation was the only "manifestation".

Benedict XVI's printed resignation only mentioned "the ministry" and Thor immediately invented a new, extra-canonical standard.

Simply put, he lied. He fabricated this issue of having to resign "the office" entirely. Canon law describes the conditions for resigning the office. Saying one resigns the office, is not among them.

"Put it like this. If it was free and properly manifested then it is valid even uf no one accepts it. "

Agreed.

"But someone ( the Dean) has to verify that it is properly manifested. This was never done."

Please directly quote the Canon law showing where "the Dean has to verify that it is properly manifested". I'd appreciate a link to the law itself also.Reason I'm asking is because the word "dean" doesn't appear anywhere in Canon Laws 331 to 335 which cover the Pontiff.

www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P16.HTM

A valid (adjective) resignation (meaning one that fulfills the requirements stipulated for "validity") remains valid whether or not it is validated (verb) (i.e. formally recognized as such).
That might be true

if there were no canonical requirement for the validity to be demonstrated. But there is. And rightly so, for otherwise the pope could validly resign after one glass too many of chianti and nibody would know. Hence the canonical safeguard.
As for your issue with thor I have no comment. Resolve it among yourselves.

@Ultraviolet

"Furthermore, there is no requirement in Canon Law for a Pope to explicity say he resigned the office. That's an interpretation YOU have been advancing. "

For any resignation anywhere to be valid anywhere the person resigning must define the object from which he resigns.
That is what canon 332no2 means when it uses the latin word munus [office]
ITo comply with the canon a valid resignation statement by Benedict MUST state clearly and unambiguously that he was resigning the munus.

He never did that and used the word ministerium which is not the office but the ministry of the papacy.

So its quite clear that in his official resignation statement Benedict did not resign the office.

The resignation statement itself is what legally matters not subsequent or prior statements as the untrained seem to think.

@nereid2 I see what Fra Alexis Bugnolo is doing. It's cute, but no. "Canon 332 §2 which requires the renuntiation of the Petrine Munus,"

...except Canon Law 332 §2 doesn't say that. He says it says that. Everything else builds from a false premise.

"Saying one renounces the office comes under the condition proper manifest. You have to make manifest what it is you are renouncing."

The condition "properly manifested" doesn't delineate "saying one renounces the office" as a requirement.

"if there were no canonical requirement for the validity to be demonstrated. But there is."

There are only two canonical requirements for a valid resignation "the resignation is made freely and properly manifested"

Period. Nowhere is there any of Fra Bugnolo's claim the Pope must define his job, describe his office, etc. while renouncing it. Nowhere is there a requirement the validity itself must be demonstrated according to the satisfaction of the Dean of the College's satisfaction, or to Fra Bugnolo's or to Thor's or that it must be in accordance to whatever standards they'll helpfully invent.

"You have to make manifest what it is you are renouncing."

Technically, no. This is Fra Bugnolo's addition to Canon law, specifically to advance an argument that whatever Benedict XVI "manifests" isn't in some way "valid".

Benedict XVI renounced the papacy in his last General Audience as Pope and in his printed resignation and reiterated them a year later after he retired.

The "Benedict didn't correctly resign" crowd are exploiting the fact Benedict won't devote every waking hour of his remaining years to addressing each and every point they insist is necessary for a "truly" valid resignation.

As I've said of Thor, the only standard they'll accept is the one Benedict didn't say.

"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 Church

www.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