@Ultraviolet Canon 332 deals with resigning the office of the papacy. The office. Benedict made it clear in his resignation he resigned the ministry. He did not mention the office. Which is why he thinks he can be called pope. Therefore, his resignation was not properly manifested. And contains error (188). Indeed as Ratzinger he often toyed with the idea of an expanded papacy. And his minder, Ganswein, said as much in 2016. In short, Benedict thought he knew better than Jesus Christ and every one of his vicars before him. Ah, the Germans. Often very smart people do dumb things. He did a dumb thing that put the anti Christ in sniffing distance of the throne.

Nb: I am no fanboy of Ratzinger. Lots of people just realize what I just told you.

"Benedict made it clear in his resignation he resigned the ministry. He did not mention the office."

"I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church..."

-Benedict XVI, Last General Audience. 27 February 2013

You're travelling some very old ground. ;-)

"Which is why he thinks he can be called pope."

You're not psychic so unless you're quoting the man directly, your claims about what he "thinks" are baseless. See my earlier points about retired officers retaining honorary usage of a title.

"Therefore, his resignation was not properly manifested."

Canon Law does not stipulate what qualifies as "properly manifesting" a Papal resignation. Cite Canon Law if you choose to claim otherwise. ;-)

"And contains error (188).

I was wondering when 188 was going to come up. First...Canon Law 188 does not state simply "error" but "substantial error".

...in the context of: "A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error or simony is invalid by the law itself."

Canon Law 188 outlines the motivations for a resignation that would render it invalid, not the performance -of- that resignation (i.e. how it's conducted).

Even then, the error in motivation must be demonstrably "substantial". Once again, Benedict's fanboys find themselves in a quandry since Canon Law does not define "substantial error" in this context.

Canon Law 188 isn't a popular basis for challenging Benedict's resignation because his motivations for resigning were quite clear. Benedict cited his failing strength (in mind and body) due to an advanced age, as his motivations for resigning.

" in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me... "

He even explains WHY his strength is failing... "strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited "

-Benedict XVI. Resignation Letter. 10 February 2013 (both quotes)

Benedict didn't resign out of fear or malice, or simony or out of error at all (substantial or otherwise). He resigned for an entirely prosaic reason. He's getting really old and his strength is failing.

So Canon Law 188 doesn't invalidate his resignation.

"Indeed as Ratzinger he often toyed with the idea of an expanded papacy."

What a Cardinal "toys" with and what the Pope actually did are two different things. Pope Benedict XVI did not expand the Papacy to include a second Pope..

"And his minder, Ganswein, said as much in 2016."

"as much"?

So you're not quoting Ganswein directly and Ganswein wasn't quoting Benedict directly. There's a lot of Benedict Fanboy creeping into that "as much", regardless of whether you identify as one or merely confine yourself ot repeating their arguments.

Ganswein was not quoting Benedict directly, he was offering his own views. Many of Bendict's fanboys put words in his mouth in a similar manner.

"In short, Benedict thought he knew better than Jesus Christ..."

In short, you're playing psychic again and (worse) you're NOT displaying suitably psychic attributes... like a large dome of white fluffy hair created by powerful psychic energies. ;-)

"...and every one of his vicars before him."

Benedict isn't the first Pope to resign.

"Lots of people just realize what I just told you."

Pic related. ;-)

Sleight of hand: his official resignation , the legally binding one, didn't mention the office. His general audience speech did, just once. And right after he talked about sticking around in some abstract way. Ambiguity was/is his goal. He can't do this. Jesus didn't create vice popes, pope emerituses, etc.

Pay attention: Since historically and canonically there simply cannot be and has never been a "pope emeritus" by default Ratzinger thinks erroneously he can CREATE by his own will a new vision of the papacy. He. Cannot. Do. This.

Benedict is the pope, whether he likes it or not. If he wants to be a Lutheran he should become one.

Thanks for playing, kid!

"Sleight of hand: his official resignation didn't mention the office."

"official"? "legally binding" Cite Canon Law showing only one form of resignation is valid or "official" and "legally binding". For something to be "legally binding" there must be law under which it is bound.

Cite Canon Law where it states how the resignation must be tendered..

"His general audience speech did. Surely you know the difference. "Because there is one legally :)"

Every time you say "legally" I notice, glaringly, the absence of Canon Law suporting your claim. That remains true for office vs. ministry as it does for the specifics of Benedict's resignation.

EDIT: What you're doing is following Benedict's fanboys' strategy of inventing new, extra-Canonical requirements for how a Pope should resign.

"Also, since canonically there simply cannot be and has never been a "pope emeritus"

Perfect example of my last point. Cite Canon Law where it states, "canonically" the title of "Pope Emeritus" "can not be".

You're confusing a title with an office. Officially, Benedict resigned the Papacy. He adopted a title to reflect his status after resignation.

"By default Ratzinger thinks erroneously he can be called pope even if he resigned."

Since you haven't shown "canonically" this is the case, you're deriving a conclusion absent a supporting premise. ;-)

You're also back to playing psychic again.

"Thanks for playing, kid!"

As I said last night, you always call me a "kid" when you're losing. Tonight is no different. ;-)

@Ultraviolet Because cannon law talks about valid and invalid resignations, multiple times, there have to be official and tendered resignations. This is logic.

Canon law mentions specifically the papacy as a singular office and minister by one man with no offices for Emeriti. Indeed, there is either resignation or death to change that reality. 2000 years of Church law is exhaustive. And it all flows from Jesus' words to Peter.

A pope doesn't invent holy law. Like I said if you want to create elders and councils just become Lutheran or Protestant.

I call you kid because you are one. Or, you act like one.

@Ultraviolet and if you want more proof that Francis isn't the pope, and that Benedict must be, just look at Frank's record. He doesn't genuflect before the host, he doesn't believe God judges anyone, he doesn't believe in the sanctity of marriage, he honors abortionists, he calls the trinity a group of quarreling spirits, he called Mary ordinary, he believes souls not in a state of grace are simply destroyed, he elevates a demon from the Americas as the same as God, and he endorses sodomy.

There is no way the Holy Spirit (that you've blasphemed) picked Bergolio to be the pope. Whether he was forced to resign or whether he just thought he was too brilliant is irrelevan to the fact that he didn't resign fully.

This is easy: if you reject that Benedict is pope, you embrace Francis and all the evil that comes from him. For all of his modernist claptrap, B16 never did any of these evil things. He's pope. He's a bad pope. But he's pope.

(Or you could be a sedevacantist , that's something pretty stupid to be, so maybe)

I hope you're better at your "job" than you are as Catholic.

"Because cannon law talks about valid and invalid resignations, multiple times, there have to be official and tendered resignations. This is logic."

Uh, oh. JImmy's famous "logic" again. :D That isn't logic at all.

Validity is a quality. In a legal context, it is adherence to the law. Benedict's resignation conforms to that law: 332.2

"Official" is based on the exercise of authority. Something can be "official" and still be unlawful. Example: much of the "official" restrictions against religious practice under COVID.

THAT is logic. You're making a fallacy known as non sequitur (it does not follow).

You're assuming that adherence to Canon law not only presupposes the existence of, but also automatically requires a specific bureacratic form to be followed. It doesn't. Canon Law in this case is fairly vauge.

"there have to be official and tendered resignations."

If you feel this is so, cite Canon Law where this is explicitly stated. Also cite where those forms for an official and tendered resignation are laid out.

You constantly refer to "cannon law" but mysteriously never quote despite my insistance you do so. That kind of saber-rattling doesn't work on me.

Like so.
"Canon law mentions specifically the papacy as a singular office and minister by one man with no offices for Emeriti."

Does it now.? So quote it verbatim. with title, and code number. Let's see Canon Law, not Canon Law According to Jimbo.

"2000 years of Church law is exhaustive."

None of it cited by you, as usual.

"And it all flows from Jesus' words to Peter."

Quote Jesus where he said to Peter a Pope can not resign.

"A pope doesn't invent holy law. And a pope cannot invent a holy office."

I'm certain I just drew a distinction between a title and an office. Re-read my last reply.

"Like I said if you want to create elders and councils just become Lutheran or Protestant."

I don't and Benedict isn't.

"I call you kid because you are one. Or, you act like one."

No. You do it to bolster your ego. I can tell. It's probably worked on people before, so you added it to your play-book of rhetorical tricks.

However, I recognize it for what it is:

Yes, that's logic. And of course I've already proved he didn't confirm to 332.2 .

I didn't say a pope couldn't resign. He can. Benedict didn't do it the correct way. I said a pope can't invent an emeritus position. You're either resigned/dead, or you're still pope. He's still alive, he didn't resign, ergo he's pope.

Rhetorical tricks? I don't have any. I'm a terrible writer. And I don't have much of an ego.

And if I call you names after I get done proving you wrong, that's not really an ad hominem attack, since ad hominems are employed to avoid the substance of an opponents argument.

I just don't like you. Nothing more. And hey, that's my failure. But I'm still right in the main.

Now go make that cheddah!

"and if you want more proof that Francis isn't the pope, and that Benedict must be, just look at Frank's record. "

Francis' errors are well known. So are Benedict's. Critics have compiled monumental catalogues of errors for at least the last four popes, all of whom were valid Popes.

"There is no way the Holy Spirit (that you've blasphemed) picked Bergolio to be the pope."

I haven't blasphemed the Holy Spirit and you don't speak for that being, either. Someday you'll have to discover the concept of "free will" and why it allows humans to make horrible choices, even when picking a Pope.

"Whether he was forced to resign or whether he just thought he was too brilliant is irrelevan to the fact that he didn't resign fully."

Here we go, argumentum ad nauseam. Jimbo repeats his claim and pretends that's proof of it.

"This is easy: if you reject that Benedict is pope, you embrace Francis and all the evil that comes from him."

....and today Jimmy demonstrates the fallacy of a false dilemma in a singularly disagreeable manner. One can reject Benedict as Pope. Recognize Francis is Pope (in that he was validly elected according to Canon Law) and STILL abhor his failings AS Pope.

Like I said, your "logic" stinks.

"For all of his modernist claptrap, B16 never did any of these evil things."

Depending on the critic and how they define apostasy Benedict did far worse. Also, what you call "modernist claptrap" is very serious business among traditionally minded theologians.

"I hope you're better at your "job" than you are as Catholic."

...and you're behaving boorishly on a Sunday.

"Yes, that's logic. And of course I've already proved he didn't confirm to 332.2 .

This is a common ploy of yours. You simply repeat a claim that you did something when you haven't. You finished up your reply with it as well.

"I didn't say a pope couldn't resign."

I was waiting for this. Quote me where I said you claimed a Pope couldn't resign. Direct quote.

"Benedict didn't do it the correct way."

Canon Law 332.2 says differently. You aren't citing ANY Canon Law for what is or isn't a "correct way". You're making it up as you go.

"I said a pope can't invent an emeritus position."

You haven't shown Benedict made up a position. He's invented a title. A title is not a position.

"You're either resigned/dead, or you're still pope.He's still alive, he didn't resign, ergo he's pope."

Second premise is wrong. Benedict resigned.

"Rhetorical tricks? I don't have any."

Sure you do. Most of them I've seen before, though.

One of your favorites is referring to things you haven't done. Like so:

I've already proved he didn't confirm to 332.2 ."

"And if I call you names after I get done proving you wrong,"

It's magical thinking on your part. The final form of non-dialogue. . ;-)

You said "Quote Jesus where he said to Peter a Pope can not resign." And I said "I didn't say a pope couldn't resign." You're losing your mind.

I've been wrong many times. Most people are wrong on things. But I'm not on this, and your weak and sophomoric replies don't help you.

You're a first rate narcissist, projectionist and gaslighter I'll give you that. I'm sure you are a 30 or above on the Hare psychopathy test.

" You said "Quote Jesus where he said to Peter a Pope can not resign." And I said "I didn't say a pope couldn't resign."

So then I didn't accuse you of saying a Pope couldn't resign, which is the claim you're refuting. Instead I asked you for a quote..

When you reply, "I didn't say (x)" it stands to reason someone accused you of saying "x". Else why bring it up and deny saying it?

In this case, "x" being "a pope couldn't resign".

So quote me were I accused you of saying a Pope couldn't resign. Simple enough. Otherwise, you're defending yourself against an accusation that wasn't made.

"But I'm not on this, and your weak and sophomoric replies don't help you."

Boldly stating an opinion doesn't make it true. Bad habit of yours.

Your inability to quote Canon Law in support of your claims while endlessly referring to it negates any factual basis for your position.

It's just that simple, Jimbo. When you start using words like "canonically" you should have Canon Law ready. You don't.

When you start claiming "Benedict didn't do it (resign) the correct way." Then you need to show what Canon Law lists as the "correct way".

Or "legally binding". Then you need to show where the law, Church Law, defines what is "legally binding" and what is not.

You don't. You never do. All of your vague references to "cannon law" turn up short.

You do what you always do: spout off and then resort to these silly personal attack to cover your lack of proof.

@Ultraviolet your context game is weak. But that's what happens when you can't admit you're wrong. Good ole sophistry.

I said church law flows from Jesus to Peter, etc.
In response l You said quote me where Jesus said to Peter a pope cannot resign.

Your position is that B16 resigned properly and your response implies I don't think a pope can resign. Of course, my argument is that I said he didn't resign properly, hence my response "I never said..."

Canon law was established throught holy scripture, tradition, and the Holy Spirit. Which means it comes from Jesus. So again, when you invoke Jesus with that question you're only trying to create a red herring, because you know factually you're wrong.

It's fascinating going down the rabbit hole of your desperate psycopathy. A fun fact about them is that contrary to their portrayal in media, psychopaths are of low to average intelligence.

No game. You either can cite Canon Law when you refer to it, or your claims are meaningless.

"Good ole sophistry."

Good ole Jimmy spouting off without a shred of proof for any of it.

"In response l You said quote me where Jesus said to Peter a pope cannot resign."

Recheck that sentence, Jimbo. You've got two pronouns butting heads.. :P

"Your position is that B16 resigned properly and your response implies I don't think a pope can resign."

...actually, my response has been to deconstruct the only two instances of Canon Law that you raised: 332.2 and 188

I showed why Benedict did fulfill all the requirements set down in the former and his motivations for resigning are not covered in the latter.

That has been my response. Your rejoinders have been a stream of quasi-legal sounding terminology constantly claiming validity based on Canon Law and absent so much as a single direct citation from it.

Zero. Zip. All your sneering and side-stepping isn't going to change that.

What you're doing now is truncating the debate to present a line of argument I didn't make.

I was wondering how soon you'd resort to using the verb "implies" to cover your inablity to quote me.

"your response implies I don't think a pope can resign."

No, my response implies you can't find a quote from Jesus discussing Papal resignations.

When I said, "Quote Jesus where he said to Peter a Pope can not resign." what you SHOULD have said is, "Jesus didn't explicitly adress the topic"

...and then resume prsenting your argument for why Benedict supposedly didn't really resign.

"Canon law was established throught holy scripture, tradition, and the Holy Spirit."

Your references to "Canon law" are a bore at this point. You can't cite Canon Law any more than you can trace its history. As demonstrated here.

"Which means it comes from Jesus."

You just contradicted yourself. Church -tradition- evolved centuries after Jesus' earthly ministry was over. Since Canon law is based on tradition (your claim) it's kinda tough for something to come FROM Jesus centuries AFTER Jesus had already finished teaching.

"So again, when you invoke Jesus with that question you're only trying to create a red herring,

When I ask you for a quote from Jesus, it's to ground the debate in the Scriptural basis of the Papacy. Given the Papacy IS derived from Christ, there's no "red herring" at all.

because you know factually you're wrong."

Here we go again, Jimmy's invoking his psychic powers about what other people "know"

I'll tell you what I know.

I know factually you can't and won't support ANY of your claims referencing "Canon Law" with so much as a single direct quote from it.

I know you're going to keep talking about Canon Law but you aren't going to QUOTE it any more than you can quote me.

I know you're going to use "imply" ever-more creatively to cover your inability to deliver what you should.

That's what I know.

All you had were those two cites and I dealt with those easily. It wasn't the first time.

Every other reference you've made referring to Canon Law doesn't have a single source backing it. You've got zip.

That's what I know factually.

"It's fascinating going down the rabbit hole of your desperate psycopathy."

...and here's your trusty talk-show psychaitry attack.

I'll catch up with you later, Jimbo. Some of us actually do go to Mass on Sunday.

Go bawww on the architecture post. :D

And I showed you why you're full of crap about Benedict's resignation. But you did your usual strawman and red herring dance.

If you're going to mass (you're just trying to virtue signal), you'd better go to confession first since you've blasphemed the Holy Spirit and ally with Francis.

So you know nothing about architecture, big deal. That's nothing compared to the other things you're ignorant about. Don't worry, kid.

"And I showed you why you're full of crap about Benedict's resignation."

Your notion of "showing" consists of you stating your opinion with a legal-sounding mention/ reference to Canon Law or some aspect thereof.

However, when I challenge you to quote that Canon Law verbatim, you don't.

Your say-so isn't good enough, Jimbo. So no, you haven't "shown" anything any more than you've "shown" the fallacies you mentioned apply either.

You cited two points of Canon Law only. I have rebutted both.

Your rejoinders are positively overflowing with legal-sounding terminology and references... "legally binding," "canonical," "official," "cannon law talks about" "Church law is exhaustive,"

Sounds good... Then, as now, I challenge you to start backing each of those references with direct citations from Canon Law.

...and you fold, every time.

No, Jimbo. You haven't -shown- anything. The only two times you directly cited Canon Law I pounced on your citation with all the enthusiasm seen when it's feeding time at the shark tank.

On the second instance, I even had to correct your sloppy generalization "error" is not "substantial error". That was BEFORE I showed why none of the terms applied.

You're not citing Canon Law to show what's "canonical" or "legally binding" or where "cannon alw talks about" anything.

To be sure, what you said is true: "Church law is exhaustive" Indeed.

And you're not citing any of it.

All you're doing is what you always do: run your big mouth without any facts supporting it.

Then it's another re-run of the Jimmy Show: semantic evansions like "I never said/ I never claimed", re-summarizing/ truncating points instead of answering them directly and when all else fails, the sort of psychiatric diagnoses one could expect from a hospital orderly.

Right from the outset I -warned- you this was going to happen if you tried arguing Canon Law. I -urged- you, stick to finding pictures. I can't say I pity you. This is what you deserved.

"If you're going to mass (you're just trying to virtue signal)"

Wrong. Again. Even here at the very end :D

I was explaining (in advance) why there would be a delay in my reply. The last thing I'd ever give you is a whole day of wrongly assuming you'd argued so decisively I'd simply stopped replying.

"you'd better go to confession first since you've blasphemed the Holy Spirit and ally with Francis."

Really, Jimmy. These silly accusations of yours are as empty as your references to Canon Law. I've told you this before and it still applies: your say-so doesn't count for zip. You routinely make these baseless accuations up out of thin air. They're easily disproven.

"you've blasphemed the Holy Spirit.."

Quote me directly where I did so. Link the post with my comment for everyone's benefit.

.You made the accusation, so prove it.

If you can't quote Canon Law, at least quote me. Fair warning. Once you've (in theory) quoted me, I'm going to send you packing with another request for a citation from the Catechism of The Catholic Church where the subject of blaspheming the Holy Spirit is discussed.

Again, you need a direct quote, followed by the CCC number.

. This is how scholarly debates are conducted. If you're not ready to fight in this kind of arena, next time keep your mouth shut.

"... and ally with Francis."

Wrong. I recognize Pope Francis is the current Pope of the Catholic Church. He holds the office. Likewise, I recognize Barack Obama was the 44th President of the United States.

Recognizing the holder of an office does not imply being an "ally", someone supporting the holder's policies or beliefs. I don't support Pope Francis any more than I supported President Obama.

Most of the staunchest critics of Pope Francis' policies recognize his claim as Pope. They certainly did not "ally" with Francis any more than I do.

What you are making is a fallacy of composition.

What is true of one position, supporting Francis' claim to being Pope does not include supporting the agenda Francis advances -as- Pope.

This is the logical basis for certain cardinals fiercely denying they "oppose" Pope Francis. They don't. They oppose his policies. ;-)

This is old ground as well, plowed months before you ever showed up with the mistaken notion you'd just discovered the proverbial wheel. :D

That, dear Jimmy is how logic really works.

Padding your reply with references to fallacies is like, well, dropping references to Canon Law without ever citing them by number -much less quoting them and showing how they apply.

...or in your case, maybe I should write "with out ever citing them..." I'll have to ask someone with a Master's Degree in English for clarification.

Since you mentioned it, yes, I did go to confession and it was directly necessitated by our interchange. Truth.

I have a streak of pride and you angrily bleating "kid" when you lose isn't diminishing it in the slightest.

You blew it, Jimmy.

Oh I nearly forgot. Happy Father's day. (belated by 23 minutes). ;-)