Francis Appoints New Nuncio to France

Pope Francis has appointed the Italian Archbishop Celestino Migliore, 67, as new ambassador to France (January 11). Migliore was the Apostolic Nuncio to the Russian Federation and Uzbekistan and the …
François nomme un nouveau Nonce en France
catholique.forumactif.com/t648-news-au-12-janvier-2020
Le pape François a nommé l'archevêque italien Celestino Migliore, 67 ans, comme nouvel ambassadeur en France (11 janvier).

Mgr Migliore était le Nonce apostolique en Fédération de Russie et en Ouzbékistan et l'ancien Observateur permanent du Saint-Siège auprès de l'ONU.

Il remplace Mgr Luigi Vent…More
François nomme un nouveau Nonce en France
catholique.forumactif.com/t648-news-au-12-janvier-2020
Le pape François a nommé l'archevêque italien Celestino Migliore, 67 ans, comme nouvel ambassadeur en France (11 janvier).

Mgr Migliore était le Nonce apostolique en Fédération de Russie et en Ouzbékistan et l'ancien Observateur permanent du Saint-Siège auprès de l'ONU.

Il remplace Mgr Luigi Ventura, qui a démissionné en décembre après avoir atteint la limite d'âge et suite à des allégations d'agression homosexuelle.

[Nouvelle de coin.]
Suppose this is so. If none of "None of antipope francis,s appointments are canonically licit." what of his appointments to the Curia? They will pick his successor. When Benedict XVI dies, who shall be Pope then? Your thoughts Thors Catholic Hammer ? Mind you, I'm not contesting your premise. I'm asking for your opinion. I've asked a supposed "canon lawyer" who sojurns on GTV but he consistent…More
Suppose this is so. If none of "None of antipope francis,s appointments are canonically licit." what of his appointments to the Curia? They will pick his successor. When Benedict XVI dies, who shall be Pope then? Your thoughts Thors Catholic Hammer ? Mind you, I'm not contesting your premise. I'm asking for your opinion. I've asked a supposed "canon lawyer" who sojurns on GTV but he consistently ducks the question.
An antipopes appointments are all illicit. They can be subsequently legitimatised by a licit authority. That occurred after the Great Western Schism. If Benedict dies before antipope Francis the see will be vacant until Francis dies or resigns. If Francis dies before Benedict no licit or valid pope can be elected until Benedict resigns the papal office properly and completely.
To Ultraviolet. The keys are currently held by pope Benedict xvi. It looks like he will continue to hold them until his natural death. They will not somehow pass to Bergoglio because that man was never elected in accordence with canon law.
@Thors Catholic Hammer I appreciate the detailed reply. One troubling point is Benedict XVI has repeatedly claimed to have resigned. I know there's an argument that says he's still Pope in spite of this, but if a man resigns an office and refuses to perform its duties, how can he stll validly hold the title?
To Ulraviolet. Benedict only resigned the ministry All his statements refer to ministry
To comply with church law Benedict must formally and manifestly resign the office of pope. He has never done so to date.
Like many confused theologians Benedict thinks he can bifurcate the papacy into an active and passive component.That is his great error. An error that is now causing great trouble in …More
To Ulraviolet. Benedict only resigned the ministry All his statements refer to ministry
To comply with church law Benedict must formally and manifestly resign the office of pope. He has never done so to date.
Like many confused theologians Benedict thinks he can bifurcate the papacy into an active and passive component.That is his great error. An error that is now causing great trouble in the church. Failure to perform any duty would not mean the See of Peter was vacant.
A close reading of his resignation letter shows Benedict may have addressed this point.

"I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will …More
A close reading of his resignation letter shows Benedict may have addressed this point.

"I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is."

Benedict's resignation states he resigns "in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant..." It seems he's covering his bases. While he did not say he resigns the office of the Pope, he does resign "in such a way" the papacy (he gives its formal titles) "will be vacant" henceforth.

If renouncing the office is, as you suggest, indeed necessary for being a valid pope and Benedict states he resigned the See of Rome "in such a way" it "will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff", does that not include the office as well?

Benedict's standard for renouncing the ministry is that he does so in whatever manner ("in such a way") that requires electing a new supreme pontiff, whatever that might entail. Surely that includes the office as well, yes? o.O

Personally, I suspect much of the questioning of the validity of Benedict XVI's resignation stems from his successor's obvious radicalism and consequent unpopularity. If Pope Benedict XVI had resigned and the conclave elected Pope "Traditionalist the First", very likely it would be the leftists who would instead be challenging the legitimacy of Benedict's resignation.

GTV canon lawyers would be too busy cheering the new Pope's universal reinstitution of the traditional Latin Mass and unprecedented expulsion of dozens of corrupt cardinals to argue the new Pope was technically invalid and the more docile and retiring Benedict XVI's papacy still valid.

Since that (sadly) isn't the case, they're challenging Francis' woeful papacy with a tacit yet very clear position of "exitus acta probat"

...or so it seems judging by the tenor of the comments on this site.
elbow
@Ultraviolet
Nice reasoning until the sarcastic "Traditionalist the First". Not Traditionalist I but Catholic - Orthodox CCLXI.
It wasn't meant as sarcasm elbow.

I needed a Papal "Name" that would immediately convey his outlook. Since Traditionalist Catholicism is commonly used to describe the outlook I meant, "Pope Traditionalist the First" seemed appropriate. In a religious context, notably this one, "Orthodox" generally refers to Catholic schismatics (notably Greek and Russian). You're correct that we traditionalis…More
It wasn't meant as sarcasm elbow.

I needed a Papal "Name" that would immediately convey his outlook. Since Traditionalist Catholicism is commonly used to describe the outlook I meant, "Pope Traditionalist the First" seemed appropriate. In a religious context, notably this one, "Orthodox" generally refers to Catholic schismatics (notably Greek and Russian). You're correct that we traditionalists are, in fact, orthodox. We have the best of both, without the (for me) spiritually troubling notions of an overt schism.

Or... at least, without one yet, eh?
elbow
@Ultraviolet
Ah. You meanthe wikipedia meaning. I understand traditionalism as Catholic Popes understood it i.e. as the error condemned in the 19th century, long before the post-conciliar revolution. "Orthodox" in the wikipedia (and the post-conciliar) meaning indeed points out to eastern schismatics but why, as the Catholic, should I use that foreign language when Orthodoxy, schism and heresy …More
@Ultraviolet
Ah. You meanthe wikipedia meaning. I understand traditionalism as Catholic Popes understood it i.e. as the error condemned in the 19th century, long before the post-conciliar revolution. "Orthodox" in the wikipedia (and the post-conciliar) meaning indeed points out to eastern schismatics but why, as the Catholic, should I use that foreign language when Orthodoxy, schism and heresy have the established Catholic meaning?
"but why, as the Catholic, should I use that foreign language when Orthodoxy, schism and heresy have the established Catholic meaning?"

For the same reason I gave to Dr. Bogus when we were disputing the use of the word "gay" as it's used in a modern public school setting: for clarity's sake. There isn't anything "foreign" about it. Agreement or at least a mutually shared understanding of …More
"but why, as the Catholic, should I use that foreign language when Orthodoxy, schism and heresy have the established Catholic meaning?"

For the same reason I gave to Dr. Bogus when we were disputing the use of the word "gay" as it's used in a modern public school setting: for clarity's sake. There isn't anything "foreign" about it. Agreement or at least a mutually shared understanding of meaning is the basis of all communication.

"Traditionalist Catholicism"/ "Traditionalist Catholic" has a clear and widely recognized meaning in modern usage. For example, even here on GTV there's a dude who calls himself TradCatKnight. Fairly safe to say he isn't referncing the heresy, no?

"Traditionalist", i.e. someone who follows that specific heresy, is a fairly obscure application, not as widely known, and entirely irrelevant in this context. The latter reason alone limits its usage only to those setting where it explicitly applies.

As I told Dr. B... one person trying to impose an obscure meaning (however precise) on a word widely recognized to mean something else is a losing proposition.
elbow
@Ultraviolet
Gay? I. e. "merry" which reminds me of Robin Hood and his, as his Gesta assure, reverence towards the Holy Virgin. I've never considered myself "traditionalist". My only desire is to be Catholic.
None of antipope francis,s appointments are canonically licit.