I see
you didn't post a photo supporting your claim the way I asked. You can't, you won't, everything else from you after this is noise just hide that fact.
I'll play along, because
you can't supply the evidence you need to prove
your claim. I can, I did.
"No you were referring to a mozzetta - as the Papal garment which Ratzinger does not wear thus showing, according to you he is not a Pope."I just -happen- to be quoting the Vatican Spokesman referring to that same mozzetta. Fancy that.
"Which is wrong because Bergoglio also does not wear one."Which is wrong and contradicted by the photo. My photo.
Once again, you're not posting any photos of your own because you're wrong. That isn't "game rules", that's basic lack of
any visual support for the claim you are making.
I
can post a photo supporting my claim because I am
right. You can
not post a photo supporting your claim because you are
wrong. It -is- that simple.
The only "game" here is you trying to hide behind your bad Egnlish and the complex terminology surrounding the vestments themselves..
When the Vatican spokesman Fr. Lombardi said,
"He will keep the name of 'His Holiness, Benedict XVI' and will dress in a simple white cassock without the mozzetta (elbow-length cape)"...that is what you see in the photo.
Simple white cassock.
No mozzetta. Pope Francis is wearing one. Benedict is not. The photo supports my claim. The Vatican spokesman's news interview supports my claim.
Your claim?
Nothing, except for a round of failed logic.
"I'll return to my first argument: who wears in the Church a white-buttoned cassock?"That isn't an argument. That's a question, possibly a rhetorical one, no less.
;-)"Is there any other dignity in the Church connected with one? A bishop? A cardinal? A common priest? No, only the Pope."I'm bolding this so it doesn't get "lost" in my reply. That isn't an argument either. It is a rhetorical question followed by an answer. It is a premise and it is...
Wrong.. Priests can and DO wear white cassocks.
"A priest's cassock is usually black although white is sometimes used in tropical climates. "www.ewtn.com/…/wearing-the-cas…Oh. And the Norbertines.
"On any typical weekend, the white cassock-clad priests of the Norbertine order from St. Michael’s Abbey in southern California preach in about 35 parishes"www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/norbertines-lau…There's a photo of 'em too.
:DEven seminarians wear white as well.
Here is a charming seminarian blog entry on the subject. Also includes a photo.
seminariansmusing.blogspot.com/2014/05/of-cassocks.htmlI point out to you the photo caption:
"Seminarians of the Archdiocese of Lipa wearing cassocks"Check the colour.
:DAnd just so there isn't any possible doubt, at the bottom, the seminarian writer thanks his fellow seminarian blogger saying,
"And a special tip of the hat and kind regards to fellow admin Nico, who recently obtained a new white cassock..."Therefore, your
"argument" fails. Entirely.
You also just contradicted yourself. "A
part of" is not the
whole. You're making a fallacy of composition.
If Benedict wears civilian clothes and only a white skull cap he is not
"dressing like the Pope" just because he wears "part of" the Papal vestments.
A Norbertine or even a lowly seminarian isn't
"dressing like the Pope" either just because he wears a white cassock.
The problem here is
you don't know what you're talking about.
The Vatican itself has already established and explained Benedict's new title and the differences between his clothing in retirement and the official Papal uniform.
You simply refuse to accept that the same way you refuse to accept Benedict's own repeated declarations that he resigned.
"2) Note, that you have admitted that the Pope does not need to wear all parts of traditional garments (e.g. mozzetta)."Quote me directly. Don't "summarize" what I've said.
"3) If Bergoglio (as the presumable pope in the "notorious errors do not matter" theory)"First, stick to your argument without digressing into parenthetical irrelevancies.
"and he does not show us here (by not wearing it) that he is not a Pope"Second, he -is- wearing the mozzetta and Benedict is not. Are you blind? The buttons on the garment are visible in the photo!
"Ratzinger (as the presumable pope in the benevacantist theory) also does not need to wear a pellegrina to be the Pope."Again, parenthetical irrelevancies and your argument fails because your second premise if false.
"The valid remaining question is: why? why does Ratzinger still dress in the white-buttoned cassock and sow confusion"The answer to your "valid remaining question" is simple. He isn't sowing any confusion at all. YOU are. You and all the other nay-sayers who choose to ignore the visible differences between their modes of dress.
Benedict
himself has already explained this in an apparently vain effort to refute the confusion people like
you insist on perpetuating.
Direct quote:
"I continue to wear the white cassock and kept the name Benedict for purely practical reasons. At the moment of my resignation there were no other clothes available."www.ncregister.com/…/benedict-xvi-qu…There is your answer, direct from the man himself. He also elaborates:
"In any case, I wear the white cassock in a visibly different way to how the Pope wears it."...and that's supported by the photo, my photo, as well. No capey-cape flappin' busily about his shoulders! No indeed. The POPE has it. Benedict does
not.
Also worth pointing out Benedict
a.) again stated he resigned referencing
"the moment of my resignation"b.) also drew a distinction between
himself and the
Pope. Very important, that.
As in,
someone else is the Pope and he is
not.
All of which is consistent to everything I've presented thus far.
"(e.g. scenes with two men in white in public even giving their joint blessing) if he resigned and is no Pope at all?"Benedict hasn't been laicized. He is still entitled to give blessings..
"Nb. the whole so-called "pope emeritus" thing is uncanonical,"Quote Canon Law prohibiting the existence of a Pope Emeritus. Cite title, chapter, section. In law there is a maxim "nulla poena sine lege" (i.e. "no punishment without a law")
In international law, it is called the Lotus principle after a then-famous nautical case:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_caseQuoting wiki verbatim people:
"may act in any way they wish so long as they do not contravene an explicit prohibition."So if you wish to claim this title is "unCanonical" you must quote Canon Law
explicitly prohibiting it.
You
won't because you
can't. Just like you
won't post a photo of Benedict wearing his mozzetta in the presence of Pope Francis wearing his own for the same reason.
Instead what you WILL do is continue to deflect the discussion away from the fact you are flat-out wrong on every point you have raised.
You are wrong on the term mozzetta.
You are wrong in claiming only the Pope wears a white cassock.
You are wrong on the supposed "doubtful" nature of his resignation.
You are wrong on Canon law.
You are wrong because
you don't know what you are talking about and you are too
stubborn to admit it.
"there is no such dignity in the Church and there is no super-ordination for popes."The former exists regardless of your opinion, already shown to be an
uneducated one, even counting only your
latest mistakes regarding white cassocks and Canon law. You haven't shown anything in support of this latest claim
Don't even try.
Instead, please do what I asked.
Go find a photo of Benedict and Francis in the same scene
both wearing the full Papal vestments,
both wearing the same type of shoulder covering.
After that, You need to post a photo of Benedict where he's still wearing his Papal ring, a photo dated
after his resignation.
:D