Anyone who claims that the idea that Pope Benedict’s resignation was invalid is CRAZY TALK has a real problem on their hands. Wanna know why? Because Canon Law itself says it’s not crazy. In fact it’s so not crazy, Canon Law tells us exactly all the different not crazy ways that a resignation can be invalid. First of all Canon 188, which appears in the section of the code titled LOSS OF ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE:
Can. 188 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.
A resigning pope thinking he retained 0.0000001% of anything whatsoever “papal” would be in Substantial Error. Is there evidence Pope Benedict still sees himself papal in any way?
Then as a backstop, we have Canon 332.2, which deals specifically with the requirements for validity should the Roman Pontiff resign his OFFICE:
Canon 332§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.
^^^That didn’t happen. I’m not crazy for saying it, and you’re not crazy for believing it.
I’m not sure what else to say.
Original post HERE.
Fr. Rickert: If Pope Benedict XVI abdicated from the Office of Pope, then he has as much right to now live in the Vatican as Pope as you do, or me.
Canon 331, 332, 333 and 334, in the section on the Roman Pontiff and the Supreme Authority of the Church discusses Munus; never does it discuss Ministerium. Munus, only Munus. And it does so in every relevant paragraph, Munus.
What did Pope Benedict XVI specifically resign, when the moment came to write the one sentence that mattered? Ministerium.
And then what did he do after he gave the Ministerium to another?
HE REMAINED EXACTLY AS HE WAS – FIRMLY AND FOREVER, SAFELY WITHIN THE FOLD OF ST. PETER.
There he is. No one cares. You don’t care. Who does? But, again, there he is, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI “emeritus” (first “emeritus” ever … sources?). Wearing white. In the Vatican. Giving Apostolic Blessings, from time to time. Exercising his Petrine Ministry in a new way, in prayer and contemplation.
If he is not Pope, if he is not in substantial error … then why do you tolerate this outrage. His presence is blasphemy because you cannot have two visible Holy Fathers in the same space, the same world at the same time.
That is what bothers me as much as anything – everyone says it is all good and right and properly done. But when you point out the obvious problem living there in Mater Ecclesiae, wearing the Papal white … well …. he’s just a crazy old man.
Not good enough. If he resigned, then he is Bishop Ratzinger and he should be living in Bavaria playing his piano with his cat; writing books and giving conferences. All abdicated Popes have done some variation on that through time. Because they are no longer Pope. And there can be but one. Please explain to my conscience why I see two.