Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis Taking the Vaccine! | NEWSFLASH
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The irony of you asking me questions when you've blocked me from replying @Live Mike :P
1) What is the canonical argument for the acceptance of the "Declaratio" as satisfying the requirements of the '83 Code of Canon Law; Canon 332 § 2, Canon 188 ?
I covered Canon Law 332 §2 exhaustively here:
A Refutation of Zechariah 4:14's "Why Pope Francis..."
At this point, it's only fair I quote myself: …More
The irony of you asking me questions when you've blocked me from replying @Live Mike :P
1) What is the canonical argument for the acceptance of the "Declaratio" as satisfying the requirements of the '83 Code of Canon Law; Canon 332 § 2, Canon 188 ?
I covered Canon Law 332 §2 exhaustively here:
A Refutation of Zechariah 4:14's "Why Pope Francis..."
At this point, it's only fair I quote myself: Canon Law 332 §2 requires (verbatim) "the resignation is made freely and properly manifested"
Those are only two points required for a valid Papal resignation.. The resignation is made "freely and properly manifested." That's it. Canon Law 332 §2 does not define what constitutes "properly manifested" either.
Also, the second half of your first point is incorrect.
Canon Law 188 does not outline any "requirements" for the performance of a valid Papal resignation (i.e. how the resignation is to be performed or conducted). Instead, Canon Law 188 only presents the motivations that would render a resignation invalid, even if the resignation otherwise fully complies with the requirements which -are- listed in Canon Law 332 §2.
2.) "Upon what canonical grounds do you claim that Pope Benedict XVI's resignation is proper and valid without the use of the word, "munus"? "
...because Canon Law 332 §2 does not require the word "munus" to be used in order for a resignation to be valid in the first place. ;-)
If you wish to argue otherwise, please quote the relevant passage verbatim from Canon Law 332 §2.
1) What is the canonical argument for the acceptance of the "Declaratio" as satisfying the requirements of the '83 Code of Canon Law; Canon 332 § 2, Canon 188 ?
I covered Canon Law 332 §2 exhaustively here:
A Refutation of Zechariah 4:14's "Why Pope Francis..."
At this point, it's only fair I quote myself: Canon Law 332 §2 requires (verbatim) "the resignation is made freely and properly manifested"
Those are only two points required for a valid Papal resignation.. The resignation is made "freely and properly manifested." That's it. Canon Law 332 §2 does not define what constitutes "properly manifested" either.
Also, the second half of your first point is incorrect.
Canon Law 188 does not outline any "requirements" for the performance of a valid Papal resignation (i.e. how the resignation is to be performed or conducted). Instead, Canon Law 188 only presents the motivations that would render a resignation invalid, even if the resignation otherwise fully complies with the requirements which -are- listed in Canon Law 332 §2.
2.) "Upon what canonical grounds do you claim that Pope Benedict XVI's resignation is proper and valid without the use of the word, "munus"? "
...because Canon Law 332 §2 does not require the word "munus" to be used in order for a resignation to be valid in the first place. ;-)
If you wish to argue otherwise, please quote the relevant passage verbatim from Canon Law 332 §2.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Ah, yes... Fra Bugnolo. Is that whom you've been parrotting? He hasn't posted here in ages, darling. I like to flatter myself by thnking the Good Bugnolo found his repeated defeats at my hands quite unendurable. Unlike you, he had the decency not to back-edit his posts, but... he shares the same sin of pride you and I have, just the same.
All the moreso in his case since a.) His often-touted …More
Ah, yes... Fra Bugnolo. Is that whom you've been parrotting? He hasn't posted here in ages, darling. I like to flatter myself by thnking the Good Bugnolo found his repeated defeats at my hands quite unendurable. Unlike you, he had the decency not to back-edit his posts, but... he shares the same sin of pride you and I have, just the same.
All the moreso in his case since a.) His often-touted ability to read Latin didn't benefit him in the least. b.) He posted under his own name and every time he lost a debate on Canon Law, it was a personal blow to his credibility. c.) His defeats were very, very public. GTV has a vast readership and he couldn't simply make my comments "disappear" as he undoubtedly would have on his own blog.
So I trust my answers have been sufficiently "educational" then.
Apparently they've corrected your misconceptions about Papal resignations to the point you're sending up an SOS for "Bugnolo Back-Up". :P
All the moreso in his case since a.) His often-touted ability to read Latin didn't benefit him in the least. b.) He posted under his own name and every time he lost a debate on Canon Law, it was a personal blow to his credibility. c.) His defeats were very, very public. GTV has a vast readership and he couldn't simply make my comments "disappear" as he undoubtedly would have on his own blog.
So I trust my answers have been sufficiently "educational" then.
Apparently they've corrected your misconceptions about Papal resignations to the point you're sending up an SOS for "Bugnolo Back-Up". :P
@Ultraviolet Two questions for educational purposes:
1) What is the canonical argument for the acceptance of the "Declaratio" as satisfying the requirements of the '83 Code of Canon Law; Canon 332 § 2, Canon 188 ?
2) Upon what canonical grounds do you claim that Pope Benedict XVI's resignation is proper and valid without the use of the word, "munus"?
vatican.va/…i_spe_20130211_declaratio.htmlMore
@Ultraviolet Two questions for educational purposes:
1) What is the canonical argument for the acceptance of the "Declaratio" as satisfying the requirements of the '83 Code of Canon Law; Canon 332 § 2, Canon 188 ?
2) Upon what canonical grounds do you claim that Pope Benedict XVI's resignation is proper and valid without the use of the word, "munus"?
vatican.va/…i_spe_20130211_declaratio.html
1) What is the canonical argument for the acceptance of the "Declaratio" as satisfying the requirements of the '83 Code of Canon Law; Canon 332 § 2, Canon 188 ?
2) Upon what canonical grounds do you claim that Pope Benedict XVI's resignation is proper and valid without the use of the word, "munus"?
vatican.va/…i_spe_20130211_declaratio.html
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Fact Check: Benedict XVI resigned. Therefore he is no longer Pope. INB4 somebody gets banned for falsely claiming otherwise.
mccallansteve
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Isn't that special!