KristianKeller this is my second public admonition of your person. Do not call the valid and licit pope of Catholic Church a "beast" because your soul may be damned in the fires of hell for eternity. Recognize and pray for true Vicar of Christ as this will open the path to salvation for you as sede-vacantist being. The pope in the extra ordinary evil circumstances he was surrounded by did much to redirect the Church towards Tradition. Let just and merciful God judge him after death!

BENEDICTUS XVI PONTIFEX MAXIMUS.

Unum altare habet Ecclesia, sed altaria haereticorum plurima: tot habent altaría quot schismata

Dr Bobus 1. must use at least 1 pillar of classical logic and engage few minutes of searching. I'm giving the rod not the fish...
2. Which of my statements and in what context are you trying to refute? Please cite.
3. Please recommend other pre-conciliar (1958) literature preferably thomistic to keep any hermeneutic of continuity...
4. Whose idea it was? As I understand selective retirement specified at age 75 was an innovative criterion implemented by Paul VI by means of Motu Proprio? Often used to bar the most conservative cardinals from the Conclave as part of the whole post-Conciliar reformation. In my prevoius comments, I have refuted the possibility of a pope to retire under identical conditions and subjective reasons as the other Hierarchs what is confirmed by Gospel, 'Pastor Aeternus" Vatican I and Canonic history. ... It shouldn't be a problem for you to understand unless you have ruptured with Tradition?
CarolineA03 you are trying to dig up holes for planting tomato seedlings with a tractor. You experience the common disorder of basic metaphysical distinctions , especially common to modernists and sede-vacantists. I can't help your defects because you have no intellectual will to comprehend. You don't have to agree with Bishop's Garcida analysis but please comment in other media on your subjective thoughts... In reality there exist two men being titled pope. Objectively it is erroneous situation, which we had before. However it is unique and unprecedented because the whole Church accepts it while some like Bp. Garcida, Abp Lenga, Socci, Magister Ferrara ring the bells . Even though Gospel and Magisterium proofs this case erroneous (and we agree) against DF & CC Magisterium the circumstances which lead to the error are explainable under the condition one uses reasoning (metaphysical). This should be changed so it never happens again ("renuntiato papae" - Cardinal Brandmuller) and may be in the future it will be. As for now the Church has to cope with the existence of 2 men dressed in white, both titled popes. Objectively one real the other not what only the Church has juridical power to declare, not Caroline or Rafał. Do you understand now?

@Rafał_Ovile

1. I can find no text in which Cardinal Burke says or implies that the BXVI resignation was invalid. He did say it was a bad idea that was not good for the Church--I agree with him.

2. No, it was not analogical. Papal jurisdiction is a species of jurisdiction. The question is whether jurisdiction (potestas iurisdictionis) is separate from episcopal orders (potestas ordinis). The Roman theory, with which I agree, is that they are. The German theory (endorsed by Rahner), which you seem to advocate, is that they are not: Jurisdiction is included in episcopal ordination, and the pope limits it by diocesan assignment.

3. This problem involves the distinction between Potestates and Munera. I recommend reading the Nota Praevia of Lumen Gentium.

4. Emeriti bishops are not my idea. It is found in canon law.

@Rafał_Ovile I am at a loss as to why you are continuing this debate.
Popes come in one's not two's. Resignations are usually carefully worded so that they are valid in an effort to preserve the smooth election of the next Pope.

I state my case. All else is mere slander because you object to the Truth
Finished.

CarolineA03 a) I understand you would have a great satisfaction and clear evidence of papal value if you witnessed on television a red martyr BXVI. Let me assure you there is also white martyrdom and faithful Catholics don't need more proof and full knowledge which God has on Pope, the vicar of Christ.
b) Now you doubt the validity of both popes because they don't qualify under your personal criteria to be real popes. Learn from someone more competent than yourself about the history of popes otherwise you will always subjectively speak the truth in your own mind.
c) You do not make the distinction between material and formal.
d) If you have abundance of Catholic literature and can not reference then something is not working as it should be..,
e) Whatever abnormality in matter there is must be formalized by Church authority. This is why Bp. Garcida or myself who hold similar position have asked to pray for BXVI. However, I have no authority to declare any man anti-pope with certainty.
f) If you don't know how to drink then don't drive a subject much more complicated than a car. Unless you learn to make simple philosophical distinctions. For this reason I conclude you lean towards arguments which doubt validity of all popes following Pius XII. Is this the case?
g) As I have said before you lack basic skills to opinion the matter by the fact your conclusions outpace Cardinals. We now have the prayer stage which we should concentrate on after so many errors...
h) Please control your comments to precise logical arguments relevant to the subject. Otherwise in your next reply you will write a book...
i) You pray for BXVI and have doubts to his validity because he did not live up to your personal expectations? Again we have something in common and draw completely contradictory conclusions...
Finally I will not recommned for you to get further objective insight on BXVI resignation since subjectively you want to be smarter than some of the best thomistic philosophers and theologians of our times...

@Rafał_Ovile Rafal, don't be nonsensical. You are making silly claims.
a) "More godly than God"? No, a big sinner. Needing a faithful, trustworthy Pope to set his frightened sheep a brave example
b) The favourite of either "Pope" is neither here or there - it would help us consider them valid Popes, if either one of the "two Popes" in Rome were holding fast to the Traditions of the Church. Each accepting that only ONE Pope is allowed at the time is the first step. Historically speaking whenever there have been more than one person claiming to be Pope, it was accepted by the faithful that one of them was therefore an "anti-Pope" I don't need documents to prove that - Rafal - surely! I think it's general knowledge and has been every single century - from first to this one.
c) Referencing "Literature on the subject"? As I've just said. Only one Pope permitted at a time, and Historically each Pope is called "Peter" and not "Peter and "Mini-Pete"we don't judge the legitimacy of a Pope by how emotional they make us feel or what tenderness we feel towards them in their ill health. Invalid resignations such as YOU drew my attention to (when you stated that Pope Benedict had resigned only one part of the Papal Office)will clearly never be legitimate. Would a partial marital annulment? Or a partially resigned President. In the case of the President - Civil War would probably be the result. I think the Church is heading along those lines at this time. Accusing practically minded RC's who object to the evolving of the Papacy into a duet of "being influenced by their own judgement of matters is a bit silly too!
d) Simply said - my views are governed by what the Church teaches (Catholic Canon Law is not MY creation - I didn't write it! )
e)You now get even a little ruder. I sound like a neo-gnostic? Ha Ha! That's incredibly wrong! Our Lord Himself perhaps would smile at that accusation - I threw away the works of Sr Maria of Agreda due to the fact that she was constantly placed on the "index" I have absolutely NO time for Pagan, Gnosticism - I would throw it in the Trash. I wouldn't even sell it - in case I was later formally accused of selling Heretical books to susceptible people by the Lord. . I have a set of the Early Church Fathers - I like especially the Apostolic Fathers.
f) Half truths and half lies? The "half truth" in question here - was revealed by yourself. I commented on it - apparently disturbing a hornet's nest. The only "half truth" we are discussing is that Benedict is mysteriously entitled (after 2000 years of Church History) to be considered "half" a Pope. I merely commented that - legally speaking, No invalid resignation is valid and the Church Traditionally says a firm "No!" to a superfluity of Pontiffs reigning at the same time (whether in a half/half agreement or a Both and....situation. However, whether Pope Benedict's partial resignation was deliberate or not. He is called to fully resign - so another Pope can be validly ordained - or perhaps he would like to reconsider having another shot at it himself?
g) You said that I should "Go and have a good glass of red wine" Now you're REALLY lacking the spirit of Truth. I don't drink - and if I were to drink - the one drink I would NEVER drink is Red wine. I drank it once! It had a terrible affect on me.
h) You say you want me to go somewhere else to write? How mean! Are you deliberately creating a bad feeling - face facts lad - the Papacy's in a right Mess? Hold onto your temper - your anger is deluding you that you are right.
i) I do pray for Benedict XVI.

Sincerely, etc....etc....

CarolineA03 you sound more "godly than God" in your judgment on His Holiness. Know better that Cardinals elected Cardinal J. Bergoglio and not Cardinal Ratzinger elected Cardinal Bergoglio. Do you know who his favorite was? Probably not since you do not reference any literature on the subject. You have written more than 4 paragraphs yet you haven't made one argument except "what you think". You sound like a neo-gnostic interpreting your own reality with have truths and half lies. Please go have a good glass of red wine to get minimum of sanity otherwise comment elsewhere on your beliefs how bad is Pope BXVI... In between opinions are some facts you seem to know nevertheless your opinions cause only more disorientation... For now we have what Bp. Garcida proposed to pray for pope Benedict XVI and what Princes have decided to pray for Francis...

@Rafał_Ovile Pardon me Sir, YOURS is the emotional reaction. You say Benedict is "attacked by his enemies" hoping we shower praise on his retreating formm seeing something admirable in his decision to quit the Papacy, violating our trust in him, Somehow we should be applauding his modernistic "This is your new daddy children - Poppa's off!" approach? Yet he claims publicly to be "beating as one heart" with the "active member of the Papacy?" whom you claimed was calling all the shots. His words appalled me!

The Messiah sent a Shepherd, the Shepherd wanted a replacement - and retired - with full knowledge that in doing so incorrectly, he had let the wolf into the sheepfold - and we're supposed to pity that shepherd? Do you think Jesus does? Do you really?? Be honest! Too much emotional manipulation is sent out of the Holy See already - Don't add to it!

Fr Hesse - I like him very much. Yet, unlike yourself Rafael, he would not be pitying Pope Benedict. He wasn't the kind of person to sympathize with a Pontiff who fled because of the wolves. His calm, rational approach is greatly admired by us all.

Also, do you think that Christ has forgotten? Remember the Lord commanded via the Blessed Mother that the 3rd secret was revealed to the world by 1960. I can remind you that those Popes who treat that command as irrelevant are hardly destined for Heaven. Traitors disobeying their Master is a more realistic judgement. Emotional of me ? No full of confusion why we are all calling Saints those whom disobeyed a direct order from Him whom they claim to love & serve.

As for the lightning? You think that was mere Coincidence? Are you joking? Do you work for the BBC?
How unscientific. Just rename yourself "Thomas"

I apologise if you don't like my comments, yet struggle on regardless!

Sincerely in Christ Jesus etc...etc.....

Dr Bobus you may find in my comment to Dr Reiss arguments which refute your statement legitimizing "emerital" papacy. For i.e. Cardinal Burke had doubts which he expressed in December (see aka-catholic or GTV). Also I have found more Magisterial proof that Bp. Garcida is very close to full truth... I appreciate your experience in Rome which has no direct bearing on the validity of Pope BXVI's decision. In contrario, your examples proof that unjust actions against the Pope have occurred and can not be dismissed as they had effect on his well being... When you write "Thus, the Roman Solution of years ago." I understand more that those residing in Rome believe the church in fact has started with last Council... all other magisterium seems is as irrelevant past... P.S. In the case of Bp. Paetz and Francis' stand to protect His Bishop in Chile my point was that every human has the right to a just trial before he is punished and condemned. I also think this is what Francis meant to say which he later apologized for because again those in Rome have extraordinary need for political correctness... After reading Andrea Tornelli "Attack on Ratzinger" I was more than surprised how VA journalists and others controlled pope BXVI to be always religiously and politically correct, for i.e. to islam... Blessings...

@rafalRafal_Ovile Every bishop in union with Rome has jurisdiction. Auxiliaries et al are given jurisdiction in a titular diocese, which exists only juridically (my home town is a titular diocese). Since Vat II a retired bishop is now Emeritus, which indicates he once exercised jurisdiction but no longer. Any diocese with both a retired and active bishop has two bishops, but only one has jurisdiction.

The text from Vat I refers to the pope's full authority, meaning that no Council or bishop can take it away. Thus, the Roman Solution of years ago.

I am well aware of the opposition to BXVI. I also know that during my 8 years studying in Rome* at least once his office at the SCDF was broken into after hours, with rifling through his files. (One of my profs--a man I first met in 1972--also worked at the SCDF and was, I told, the primary author of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. When the new catechism was presented in Milan, two men were present, Card Ratzinger and my prof.)

I am also aware that BXVI told Msgr Fellay at a meeting in his office: "You must understand that my authority ends at that door." In fact, the pope wanted to effect a reform of the reform, but he got no cooperation from Card Canizares, his hand picked man at the SCDW.

Hope this helps.

* It was during those years that I encountered your hero, Abp Paetz, when he visited one of his priests at the Convitto San Tommaso, where I also lived.

CarolineA03 in your comments you deal with with many issues some of which are irrelevant to establish the final truth. Specifically, you talk about accidentals i,e, lightning or your opinions, which objectively are not considered as key evidence in establishing truth. At the same time you completely disregard the major attacks on the pope from his enemies and lack of reaction of the Church what directly influenced his objective execution of governance. Your conclusions are only partially true because you do not understand what really happened or are not willing. This reminds me of children's emotional reaction who were abandoned by their biological father not understanding that their mother was not obedient towards him and found herself a stepfather. Please stay with facts rather than emotional disrespect towards Holy Father as very often sede-vacantists show against BXVI... The citation you provided is not mine. Allow me to direct you to i.e. Fr Hesse, thomistic canonist and theologian, who explains the three powers attributed to pope: juridical, teaching and governing. You have confused the three as there are different interpretations which may lack clarity.

Dr Bobus please read and understand before you comment since a bishop is not pope. Read my first comment below citing "Pastor aeternus" from Vatican I Council: "pope receives the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, and that to this day and for ever he lives" and presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See,.."

@Rafał_Ovile With due respect. Look again at what you have written.

"Benedict,..... resigned the exercise of the power of jurisdiction (governing) that belongs to whoever occupies the Chair of Peter, but not the power of orders. "

He's not permitted to do such a thing. The fact that he DID is infamous. I beg your pardon if you mistake my words for anger - my "feelings" are not the concern. His actions should be enveloping you in feelings of resentment - if they don't then do not view me as being similar to yourself. He abdicated the see of the Church he was called upon to lead, Govern, & protect - even unto the shedding of his own blood.

Don't mistake my views for being either emotionally centred or rooted in hostility. You seem to understand his course of action? I don't! He believes he has half a share in a joint papacy? A Martha/Mary type Pontificate? He doesn't. He believes himself & Bergoglio are two fathers sharing the Papacy - governing mutually the Catholic Church? A Modernist type fantasy! The Papacy is not an evolving Office.

The reality is possibly this. In believing for some reason, that there is a clause in the Papal Contract that permits him to develop it in a manner more suited to himself, he has created such fury in Heaven that 2 hours after he partially "resigned" the Dome of St Peter's Basilica was struck by lightning. Now, it is clear to see why Our Lord was furious.

He is creating a new schism, his two Pope leadership -according to the press all he can do is pretend to agree with everything Francis says, - professing similar ideas, motivations & goals. Yet, the following day it is the opposite story, news leaks out that Pope Benedict fears that the Church is being destroyed.

No Pope has ever resigned part of the Papacy, it is not permitted to share the Papacy, and therefore his reasons for resigning (whether partial or not) would probably render the document invalid. I repeat, his erroneous resignation has most likely invalidated not only his own resignation but also the subsequent election of Francis

I don't understand where I am believed to not be viewing things correctly. Is it pemisable to have a split Papacy - or is it not?

Clue......No it isn't

Previously to THAT event - I cared for him a great deal. I was very sad when he left.
God Bless.