Tosatti: Ratzinger Considers Himself Pope

"...render your position void of credibility."

Only facts can do that, Crackers and you present only empty claims.

Now then... show where I have falsely accused you Thors Catholic Hammer Also show where I've falsely accused Fra Bugnolo of something. All you do is make things up and then walk away from them pretending your claim is the proof.

"Both he and I believe Benedict is still pope."

That's nice. Believe what you please. Neither of you have any factual support for your belief.

"I have not told lies as you constantly allege. A lie is a deliberate falsehood"

...and now Crackers starts his dance around the truth, once again. :D

"I have yes made mistakes but I have not told lies as you incessantly allege..."

Every time you deliberately repeat a "mistake" after it's been debunked, you do so in the knowledge it's factually false. That's telling a lie. This differs from simply having a different opinion since you present no evidence in support of your opinion. You just go back to repeating them every single day. Need I remind you of The Fisherman's Ring?

"concerning almost everything I write on the issue of Benedict’s faulty resignation"

Case in point. Even here, even now. Even while denying that you tell lies you tell one. There's nothing "faulty" about Benedict's resignation any more than he's "under guard".

When I accuse you of telling a lie, Crackers, you forget it's invariably in the context of presenting the truth that contradicts the lie. I have every right to call a lie for what it is. I've earned it.

"You are free to disagree with our positions but you render your arguments devoid of merit on account of the sheer hatred and calumnies you consistently issue."

...and you're back to your hypocritical "victim" routine. You and even our "saintly" Franciscan friar have no problem voicing your ire. So don't whine when it's returned in kind.

You'd better check the definition of "calumnies", Crackers. When Fra and myself use it, we understand its meaning. You don't and it shows.

The only thing that renders an argument devoid of merit is factual refutation which neither you nor he have provided.

Pope Benedict xvi lives I believe in fear of his life and is effectively under Vatican house arrest being monitored 24/7.
The statements made by +Ganswein concerning his unusually detailed knowledge of Pope Benedict’s lifestyle could only be made by a man who has total and complete control over every single and minute aspect of the popes existence.

SUCH CONTROL IS ONLY POSSIBLE BY A WARDEN IN A GAOL

.

Fot the attention of poster @
@Ultraviolet
The endless hatred and false accusations you vent at myself and Br.Bugnolo render your position void of credibility.
Both he and I believe Benedict is still pope.
I have not told lies as you constantly allege.
A lie is a deliberate falsehood
I have yes made mistakes but I have not told lies as you incessantly allege concerning almost everything I write on the issue of Benedict’s faulty resignation
You are free to disagree with our positions but you render your arguments devoid of merit on account of the sheer hatred and calumnies you consistently issue.

"Ultaviolet is indeed a pedantic troll quibbling over the most petty of details"

...as contrasted with @Thors Catholic Hammer who believes making claims up out thin air and telling lies constitutes proof. ;-)

Or a cup-rattling shill who's quick to complain about "public calumny" then calumniates someone who beat him at his own game of arm-chair canonical lawyer.

In a way, Frà Alexis Bugnolo this bitterness from you is music to my ears. Honestly. I might be flippant here, but unlike your buddy Thor, I'm truthful.

I was exceedingly curious what rejoinder you were going offer when I deconstructed your arguments on Canon Law. Here, I thought, is a polyglot who's poured through Canon Law. Why were his canonical arguments so flawed, so easily countered? He must be advancing them as pawns for some clever checkmate conclusion.

It had to be something predicated on me decisively knocking them down..It's some kind of a trap... But what? I admit, truly, I was nervous.

And what do I get instead? "durr hurr yerra troll. cuz you disagree wiff me." Tell me I haven't overestimated you THAT badly, Fra! Say it ain't so!

Or was that your best shot at playing pro bono canon lawyer for Benedict? And then you wonder why the legal minds in the Vatican don't even give your letter the courtesy of a reply, Latin notwithstanding. If I can tear through your argument with nothing more than, well, let's call it a layperson's understanding of the law, how many more opportunities must present themselves to the professionals?

Strange you should call me a troll these days, no less. Seems you've forgotten nearly all my comments on this subject are replies to Thor's endless fabrications. GTV now has a parrot squawking the same baseless accusations about Pope Francis and Benedict's resignation over and over again. He's been caught in so many falsehoods, they're becoming redundant.

Yet that doesn't attract your ire even when those comments are dropped like guano on just about every post, regardless of the subject. As with your pretensions at Canon Law you see only what you wish to and ignore the rest.

As I've said before, I don't like Francis and I've said so repeatedly to you, Frà Alexis Bugnolo .I wish Francis wasn't Pope. So why claim otherwise with your twaddle about defending the St. Gallens mafia?

Why resort to the same kind of deliberate falsehoods you apparently admire in that "courageous interlocutor"? Are you that petty? Does the truth count so little to supposedly devout Catholic Fransiscan friar?

Seems birds of a feather flock together, including Butthurt Bluejays and Falsehood Finches. ;-)

I'm surprised to hear from you @Angie W.! After all, you're the one who doesn't want to be contacted and got very unhappy when I corrected your errors. But when it suits you, my, my, my.... you're quick to quote ain'tcha? ;-) You're also quoting a deliberate error. I haven't imposed any falsehoods. What I find is that people here have a nasty habit of doing what you're doing. 1.) throwing nasty accusations and then crying when their nastiness gets a similar reply. 2.) making empty claims and then refusing to support them with Canon Law. 3.) foolishly thinking Bold Text Sentences is an adequate substitute for what they should be doing in 2.)

If what you say about Pope Francis is true, then the same is also true for the last four popes. Crackers The Parrot pulls every one of his rhetorical tricks to avoid confronting that fact.

Now mind you, I'm not claiming that any of the last four Popes -are- heretics, only that others have found vast amounts of info to support such claims, just as you (and others) claim is the case for Francis.

As I've told Crackers the Parrot, we need to apply Church teaching and Canon Law equally to ALL Popes, not just the ones we like or dislike. Or , we give them the benefit of the doubt.

Here's some light reading that you'll no doubt ignore once you realize it exposes your selective (and hypocritical) use of Church teachings. . :)

Saint John XXIII was supposedly and anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/…/the-case-agains…
stevensperay.wordpress.com/…/pope-st-john-xx…
www.amazon.com/…/B0007F89MO
romancatholicfaith.weebly.com/…/the_scandals_an…

Paul VI was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

novusordowatch.org/paul-vi/
crc-internet.org/…/6-book-against-…
pontifexverus.wordpress.com/…/answering-a-fre…
romancatholicfaith.weebly.com/…/the_scandals_an…

John Paul I was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

novusordowatch.org/john-paul-i/
www.ncronline.org/…/shortest-pontif…
www.scribd.com/…/The-Scandals-an…

Saint John Paul II was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php
www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofjp2.htm

Benedict XVI was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofb16.htm
www.opusdeialert.com/footnotes.htm
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/…/anti-pope-bened…
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/…/principles-of-c…
holywar.org/Ratzinger.htm
novusordowatch.org/benedict-xvi/

Rafał_Ovile16 feb:

Ultraviolet Your comments are useless similar to a neo-marxist mind which considers truth as imposition of views whilst imposing falsehoods on adversaries. Get yourself a life. Start reading and learning or else your mind will rot to the point of extreme defect.

"Everything you disagree with must be a lie." -Thors Catholic Hammer

Wrong. A deliberate falsehood is a lie - and you tell them daily on GTV.

"Pope Benedict has indeed retained elements of the papacy including titles, dress, places of residence, how he continues to be called your Holiness."

Are you going to repeat the one about Benedict still wearing his Papal ring or have I finally broken you of that? :D

"Benedict said that he continues to wear the papal white cassock for “purely practical reasons.” “At the moment of my resignation there were no other clothes available,”"

catholicherald.co.uk/…/benedict-xvi-di…

You're not calling the man a liar, are you? ;-). He resigned and said he resigned and explained why he wears the clothes he does after he resigned and nothing you can say will change that.

Pope Emeritus Benedict can do as he pleases. Now Crackers... re-read what I wrote::

"there is NO provision in Canon Law allowing for a Pope resigning and still retaining elements of the papacy."

If you wish to refute that, post Canon Law where such provisions exist.

You didn't because you either a.) don't know how to read b.) do know and then chose to deliberately misinterpret it.

Given your record for equal amounts of stupidity and falsehoods (you know... lies) both are equally possible. I do appreciate the irony of you launching an attack with "your understanding of English is backward" and then demonstrating your own is all but non-existent. Or deliberately false and twisted.

Nice move, Thor. As I've told you before, go be stupid somewhere else.

"Ultraviolet you are such a liar," -Frà Alexis Bugnolo

Gee... maybe I better call up my attorney and start whining about Public Calumny. :P Better watch out, Fra. GTV's Sensitive Snowflake might start criticizing you for "bullying", eh? ;-)

"the word resignation is not found either in the Latin text of the Declaratio nor in the Italian statements made by Benedict."

I said Benedict resigned. Please quote me verbatim where I made the claim that Benedict XVI specifically used the word "resignation."

A man can say, "I quit" or "I'm retiring" or "take this job and shove it" or "I'm retiring effectively immediately" or a variety of similar phrases all meaning the same thing, namely the man resigned.

In point of fact, Benedict did use the word "resign" in his last General Audience as Pope.

"My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this."

www.vatican.va/…/hf_ben-xvi_aud_…

What's Benedict doing there, Fra? Hey, how about that... He's explaining why he decided to resign. Fancy that!

He also used the word "renounce" in reference to his Papacy.

"For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom 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."

www.vatican.va/…/hf_ben-xvi_spe_…

So yes, my statement "He (Benedict XVI) resigned, verbally and in writing." is correct. He did so in writing. He did so verbally and even used the word you choose to fixate on.

Therefore, my dear Fraudulent Fra Bugnolo, you owe me an apology. One made with the same assertiveness as your now-demonstrably false accusation. Not that I expect to see one from the likes of you.

Must be a slow day at the Ordo Mercinarius.:P Now with your accusation disposed of let's address your error.

"Also, the only word in Latin by which one can resign FULLY the papal office is munus, because that is the only word required by Canon 332.2"

Wrong. Canon 332.2 makes NO such requirement for a resignation. Nor does it expressly require the use of the word "munus".Or claim that only "munus" may be used for "fully" resigning the papacy. Doesn't make any claim the papacy can be partially (as opposed to FULLY) resigned, either. You're either pope or you're not.

Canon 332.2 provides only two requirements for a valid resignation: "it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested" that's it!

www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P16.HTM

There is no requirement in that section stipulating the word "munus" be used or that the resignation must be first defined using "munus" or any such similar nonsense (which I've seen you advancing in various places).

Bringing up Canon 17 was a really dumb idea. :D Firstly, Benedict XVI wasn't writing ecclesiatical laws. He was resigning his Papacy. Canon 17 makes no mention of resignations, btw. In reference to writing ecclesiastical laws it states: : "If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator."

For the mind of the "legislator", we're fortunate that Pope Emeritus Benedict himself addressed the validity of his resignation.

"“There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry. The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations regarding its validity are simply absurd.”

catholicherald.co.uk/…/benedict-xvi-di…

Hey, how about that! There's that word again: resignation. Same one you were demanding he use

Simply put, Canon 17 doesn't even apply. Benedict's resignation does not "remain doubtful and obscure" at all. The only people who find fault Benedict XVI's resignation are a tiny group cynically exploiting the fact a 92 year old man in poor health refuses to spend his last remaining years endlessly addressing every last one of their bad-faith claims that he didn't "truly" resign.

As I've said before, the only resignation your kind will ever accept is the one Benedict doesn't make. There will always be another new definition, a new requirement, yet another extra-Canonical interpretation. You don't want him to resign. You don't like his successor. Great. Neither do I. But unlike you, I realize Benedict XVI DID resign. He resigned freely and he's said so repeatedly which by now certainly covers "properly manifesting" his resignation.

You need recognize two things: One, you're not going to badger Benedict into repudiating his own resignation. You're not going to "force" him back and somehow oust Francis. Frankly, I think it's despicable for anyone to believe they can do otherwise, much less the monstrous arrogance of believing they have the right.

Two, you're not a king-maker, Fra, and you never will be. You're not going to decide who's running things in the Vatican by writing about it on your blog anymore than you'll re-take the Holy Land with your fantasy mercenaries.

@Ultraviolet

Like your aggressive and bullying self , your understanding of English is backward .
Everything you disagree with must be a lie.
Pope Benedict has indeed retained elements of the papacy including titles, dress, places of residence, how he continues to be called your Holiness.
That he has done so clearly manifests substantial error in his thinking that he has properly left the office of pope
HE iS therefore in substantial error concerning the object of his intended resignation
That conforms to the requirement of an invalid resignation per canon 188

Boiling over with the self righteous intolerance of the profoundly ignorant you roar and spit at everyone who disputes or disagrees with you.
Argument based on objective reason with a imbecile such as you is not possible.

( cue the usual pathetic HOWLING from poster Ultraviolet that everything I write is a lie)

"A" resignation includes "any" resignation.

@Thors Catholic Hammer We are discussing what Canon 188 said, not what you say it means. My English is perfect, as is my ability to catch you when you're dancing around the truth trying to cover up your lies.

What Canon Law 188 said is "a resignation". YOU said Canon Law used the word "any". It does not. You lied. Further, "A" and "ANY" are entirely different. The former indicating one given item and the latter indicating a selection absent criteria.

Let's recall your lie from yesterday (your exact words) "Canon 188 states clearly that any resignation made in substantial error is invalid.":

The word "any" does not appear anywhere in Canon Law 188 at all. So no, Canon Law 188 does NOT "state clearly that any resignation". that's a lie. You love adding those endless adjectives to bolster your falsehoods and this is what comes of it. Serves you right.

"Only the greatest of thick’s would fail to see that."

No True Scotsman Fallacy.

"The word 'all' means 'every.' "

...and NEITHER word appears in Canon 188, either.

You should learn to READ basic English before you try "explaining" it to me or anyone else.

"This error has occurred because it is crystal clear that Pope Benedict failed to properly define what he was resigning from and what elements of the papacy he wished to retain."

Neither of which is required for a valid resignation under Canon 332 section 2.

Further, there is NO provision in Canon Law allowing for a Pope resigning and still retaining elements of the papacy. This is YOU making up Canon Law which does not exist. This is you telling a lie again.

@@Ultraviolet
It is obvious now that English is either not your first language or that you lack basic intelligence.
“A “resignation includes “any “ resignation.
Only the greatest of thick’s would fail to see that.
Cannon 188 was designed to include all resignations from clerical positions including that of papal office.
The word “all “ means “every.”
(I must alas now explain basic English to you,)
Pope Benedict’s resignation is erroneous because of SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.
This error has occurred because it is crystal clear that Pope Benedict failed to properly define what he was resigning from and what elements of the papacy he wished to retain.
(Next you will roar that Benedict has not retained elements of the papacy despite much visible evidence to the contrary that everybody but you can see.)
Your assertion that you would like to see Benedict as still pope is rejected on the basis of your fanatical and unthought out support for antipope francis who you see as a useful tool in your war on the Catholic Church as it now is post VAT2.

"Canon 188 states clearly that any resignation made in substantial error is invalid."

First, Canon 188 does NOT say anything about "full and complete abandonment of the office of pope." like you claimed. So your latest lie is that I lied. You really are a piece of work, Thors Catholic Hammer I've run into some epic screw-ups on forums, but, no joke, you're the absolute worst in over 25 years online.

Second, Canon 188 "a resignation" not "any" So your statement is, right there, false

Third, just because YOU claim Benedict's resignation was in "substantial error" does not prove it ever was. That's all you EVER do around here is make things up. Always unproven except for your endless repeating of them, unsupported by any fact as always. It's just another one of your, wait for it, lies.

Your next lie is the idea "That Benedict is still pope is anathema..." to me. Wrong again. I wish Benedict XVI still was Pope. So no, it isn't anathema. That's another one of your lies. All you do is lie. ..and then play the victim, bawww about "vituperation"

"this complex and confused situation."

There is nothing complex or confused except your lies. Benedict XVI resigned. The Curia elected Francis. That's the way it is. I don't like Francis, but he's the current Pope. All your delusions and ranting about "howling" won't change what happened.

Certain fanatical traditionalist Catholics only recognize francis because he seemingly validates their contempt for what they wrongly describe as the conciliar or VAT2 Church.
Francis is a useful tool for their vituperation.
That Benedict is still pope is anathema to some of these traditionalist catholic fanatics like Ultraviolet who howl constant abuse at anybody seeking clarity in this complex and confused situation.
In desperation they cling to a past notion of papal election that Pope Benedict XVI has effectively made partially redundant and certainly in need of radical reforms.

@Ultraviolet

MORE LIES & DISTORTIONS FROM ULTRAVIOLET,
Canon 188 states clearly that any resignation made in substantial error is invalid.
Contrary to the constant stream of lies spewing from Ultraviolet it is indeed a basic requirement of all canon law that resignations are not tainted with substantial error.
Ultraviolet is incapable of understanding many basic concepts such as “ substantial error” and his vicious antagonism and slanders towards those he disagrees with further reduce any credibility his “arguments “ might have.

"Canon 188 refers to substantial error that invalidates a papal resignation. Pope Benedict’s resignation was substantially erroneous because it is clear he has not addressed properly the issue of a full and complete abandonment of the office of pope."

...except he did. He resigned, verbally and in writing. Thors Catholic Hammer, you are fabricating a new requirement for resignation: the "full and complete abandonment of the office of pope." That does not appear in Canon 332:2 and it doesn't appear in Canon 188. Once again, you're making things up again. You're telling lies again.

Just because YOU claim something is "substantially erronious" doesn't make it so. You do this daily. Tell a lie, use some "canonical sounding" vocabulary while telling the lie, and then repeat the lie constantly pretending it's true.

"He hangs on to aspects of the papal office including name, title, form of address, area of residence and use of papal blessing plus fisherman’s ring."

Perfect example of you repeating one of your lies, even after getting debunked repeatedly.

Benedict XVI's Papal ring is quite distinctive and carries his Papal title.
www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Pope+Benedict+X…

www.pope2you.net/…/papal-ring.jpg

c8.alamy.com/…/pope-benedict-x…

You can not and will not find a photo of Pope Emeritus Benedict wearing that ring after he retired. What you'll find is many photos of Benedict wearing a flattened band. NOT the Fisherman's Ring. Only the Pope wears the Fisherman's Ring. Pope Francis, to be exact.

"What Benedict says could be coerced..."

Something he personally denied. You have a horrid habit of making up fantasy "coulds" and pretening they happened, Crackers. It's obviously deliberate on your part.

Here's what Benedict said after he retired:.

"The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations regarding its validity are simply absurd."

catholicherald.co.uk/…/benedict-xvi-di…

"all the trappings of office of a partially active pope."

There is no such thing.

A man is either Pope or he is not. You are telling another lie, inventing a new kind of imaginary papal status.

Cite Canon Law giving the criteria for a "partially active Pope". Time to deliver some proof of your squawking, Crackers.

Oh yeah, a shot of Pope Emeritus Benedict wearing his Fisherman's Ring would be just lovely, too. Even better, let's see you post one where he's wearing his papal ring in the presence of Francis.

"IT NEVER HAPPENED."

Benedict himself refuted that claim.

"Speculations regarding its (his resignation's) validity are simply absurd."

All you do is repeat the same old lies.

The Catholic Church has had several periods even up to 4 years without a pope and periods in which an antipope has usurped the papacy.
Periods without a pope: between St Marcelino (296-304) and St Marcelo (308-309), between St Eusebio (309) and St Melquiades (311-314), between St Clement IV 1265-1268 and Blessed Gregory X 1272 -1276.
The list of anti-pope is long one of the most notorious is the anti-pope known as Anacletus II or Pietro Pierleoni. «Anacleto who was implanted in a non-canonical election after Innocent II, the true Pope, already elected. Despite his invalid and non-canonical election, the antipope Anacleto II obtained control of Rome and the support of the majority of the College of Cardinals. Anacleto had the support of almost the entire population of Rome, until the true Pope regained control of the city in 1138 (The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Anacleto", vol. 1, 1907, p. 447). »