Pope Benedict's legacy & the mystery of Pope Francis

So... let's fasten our seat belts & begin this journey together -- if you will!

In this first post I'll explain briefly how I got hooked on the so called magna quaestio. By this wording some people here in Italy describe the matter pertaining Pope Benedict's peculiar resignation and its (very relevant) consequences.

Right after Confirmation, in my early teens, I decided to 'quit' the Roman Catholic Church and explore other religions, traditions, spiritual paths, and the 'ways of the world', as well. So, for almost 30 years, I didn't care much of what was going on in the Church -- in spite of having good memories of the 'old times', when I was a devout altar boy serving the Holy Mass celebrations & feeling fully part of the Christian community.

During the 'covid saga' I began an in-depth study of the Bible. There were several passages (especially in the Book of Revelations, in the Gospels, in Daniel, and in the Epistles of the Apostles) that seemed to describe today's world with an amazing accuracy... behind a veil of symbolism.

After further contemplation many dots started to get connected; so, while looking for further confirmations & trustworthy news, I began to follow Life Site News, as well. There I found this interview that gave me an introduction to the prophecy “The pope will go to Moscow. As soon as he returns to the Vatican, hostilities will break out in different parts of Europe.”
From there I began to study the Garabandal prophecies; I soon realized they completed and fit in perfectly with my previous Bible study, while providing a much clearer picture of what was (is, and will be...) going on in the world.

So giving the correct answer to the question 'Who's the real Pope?' suddenly became a very relevant matter.
Having fought hard on the 'no vax' side -- as the establishment likes to call anti-[poisonous]-vax people here in Italy -- during the covid saga, the totally 'pro-vax' Bergoglio quickly turned into one of my sworn enemies. Then I really began to wonder & inquire what the hell was going on inside the Catholic Church.

It really amazed me how much care & love Our Lady and Our Lord manifested for the Roman Catholic Church, in spite of the all the great mess going on within and without. By studying both the Garabandal and the Avola apparitions, along with many insights, I kind of re-discovered how sacred the Holy Church really is... to Them, at least!

Coming back on earth, and soon realizing how 'sucked in' the hierarchy the Catholic ministries are, I was naturally drawn to look for real answers outside the 'politically correct' -- but actually strongly biased insiders, that cannot even question the legitimacy the 'Pope' without facing an ordeal.

So I began to follow Andrea Cionci's YouTube webpage; he's an Italian journalist who inquired the magna quaestio as a layman for several years. We exchanged many private messages, as well. His understanding, in short, is that Pope Benedict XVI remained the legitimate Pope of the Roman Catholic Church until his death, since the declaratio itself cannot be considered a valid renunciatio. For several months I gave full credit to this thesis, also considering Pope Benedict's somewhat 'inappropriate' behavior as an ex-pontiff -- plus the fact that he never denied Cionci's viewpoint, even when he had a chance to do so. Actually there were several things that didn't quite add up in this 'new perspective', but there was certainly some truth in it, as well.

After Pope Benedict's death some people previously cooperating with Cionci had strong disagreements with him and took their own, separate paths...

One of them was brother Alexis Bugnolo. He figured that, after the canonical 20 days from Pope Benedict's funeral, the time had come to hold an election based on Apostolic Tradition. He justified the bypassing of Universi Dominici Gregis by the inaction and infidelity of the Cardinals. I somewhat liked his zeal, but since the chosen one was... once again Bergoglio (a heretic, schismatic usurper that neither repented nor recognized this 'second election') I could not accept the legitimization of Bergoglio through this initiative.

Another one was Don Minutella and his followers. They disapproved the solution proposed by Cionci (to hold a new Conclave with the pre-2013 Cardinals only -- solution which I also found canonically unacceptable), but I found some of their claims (summarizing: 'We are the one and only Catholic Church left, the Vatican is utterly corrupted, avoid the masses celebrated by any priest who recognizes this corrupt hierarchy') divisive, offensive, and simply untrue.

Archbishop Viganò also cooperated with Cionci, but much earlier and for a very short time only. I also (unsuccessfully) tried to get in touch with Viganò several times in the last few years. I really appreciated his 'activism' during the covid saga, but later I began to question his real motives, methods, and coherence. In spite of openly questioning the legitimacy of Bergoglio several times, he never seemed genuinely interested in solving the problem... but rather in exploiting the situation for his own 'political agenda'.

So I found myself alone, having lost all my former 'allies', and with a heavy heart because -- without a real Pope on the horizon -- how could that Garabandal prophecy ever get fulfilled, so that humanity can move on?
Felt like being stuck in a bad dream, with no way out...

So I prayed, and asked God for guidance.
I also wrote and shared a public prayer, inviting many religious people from several dioceses to join in. Nobody openly accepted my invitation (but perhaps someone joined in... silently).
The prayer is basically a request to God to 'name' the legitimate Pope. In case the name is revealed, all those who get the answer are obliged to give a true testimony to this revelation, whatever the name is.

And God replied... through a simple intuition later supported by many confirmations, sound rational reasoning, and indirect (yet solid) evidence.

More on the next 'chapter'...

 

One turning point in my inquiry was when I asked God: "If you want, give me a sign."
Then I picked up a book (my copy of Cionci's 'Codice Ratzinger') and pointed to a random spot on a random page.
The answer I got was not in words, but my finger fell on a symbol that 'connects' Pope Benedict with Archbishop Georg Gänswein (his personal secretary before, during, and after his pontificate, till the end of his earthly life).

Cionci had somewhat convinced me that Gänswein would hint to the truth as much as possible, on some matters... but blatantly lied on other sensitive subjects to avoid trouble and scandal. So up to that point I was taking the Archbishop's public statements with a grain of salt. But, since I had asked and got that 'sign', I figured it was time to go carefully through Gänswein's public statements once more, just in case I had missed something important.

After a while I stumbled upon an interview that I had already seen (but mostly through Cionci's lenses...), but had not really fully grasped.

The interviewer asks: "The world will never forget that 11 February 2013, with the announcement of the renunciation. Some people keep saying that it was not a free choice, or even that he later wanted to remain pope, somehow. What's your take on that?"

Gänswein replies: "This question, in other words... in different situations I told him: 'Holy Father, they obsessively look for some hidden motives, things you had not told when you made this announcement, on February 11th, after the consistory. They look and look and look... there must be something...' Those who do not believe that what I told is the true motive, won't believe me even even if I tell them right now: 'Believe me, it is so!' Then, I do not want to go into details now. It's the only... this is and remains the only motive... and this is a big issue. And let's not forget that he told me: 'I have to do that.' Because I was one of the first people who tried to convince him that this was impossible. Then he told me, decisively: 'Listen, I'm not asking for your opinion, but I inform you of a made decision. I prayed, I suffered, and I made it coram Deo [before the face of God].' This is not the proper way to dig and pretend to find something. Those who do not believe, or make up theories about that, such as 'He left a part [ministerium], he held on to another part [munus]'... all those who say this, make up theories on a word, on this, or that... all in all, they do not trust Benedict, in what he said. This means it's really an affront against him. Yet, everyone has his own will, his own freedom and can say either things that make sense, or not. The naked truth is that he no longer had the strength to lead the Church, just like he said in Latin. I told him: 'Holy Father, why in Latin?' And he: 'This is the language of the Church. I want to do this, and this, and that... then they translate, and understand.' Those who believe to find, or to have to find hidden truths and motives here and there... are wrong. He communicated the true motive. Amen."

So from this 'reproach' I got 2 very important lessons:

1) 100% trust Benedict -- and (possibly...) his faithful long-time secretary, as well

2) carefully study and trust the declaratio, then stick to its meaning as much as possible to get an unbiased and clear understanding of what is going on

 

And that is the dilemma between justice and mercy. We can forgive our fellow human beings seventy times seven, but that only comes back to us. Only those who forgive receive favor before God, for they will be judged and forgiven by the same measure.

But only God can forgive sin thru the sacrament of confession.

The German bishops were like his own doctrinal children. Benedict wanted to forgive by imitating Christ, but the devil knows the ins and outs of that dilemma, and unjustly evil was already entrenched in the Church and prevailed.

There is no absolute justice on earth, and there is no infinite mercy. We do not possess the source of grace that overflows. We are not a spring of love that quenches every fire of sin and injustice.

All the apostles were martyred except for Saint John the Evangelist, the beloved disciple. Injustice prevails, and there is only eternal justice in heaven. This is the damaged paradise we cannot cling to.

I have never doubted the reasons why Benedict XVI resigned.

From this point on (the resignation), a Pope emerges as a righteous judge who wants, at the very least, to apply human criminal law to those who violated divine law while serving as shepherds of the flock.

And he finds an ungovernable Church with pedophiles and other wild creatures within the hierarchy. That is the greatest commitment he undertakes.

At the same time, the Church is in need of funds, and a commission of influential figures from around the world (including the WHO, the UN, and now NATO), who claim to represent the interests of humanity, is talking about a new reset in which the poor are integrated into wealthy countries, vaccines eradicate diseases, and humanity finally embraces Christian values.

Aren't you seeing the flatterer? The liar?

Well, that was the second torpedo below the waterline of the Church.

Now we’ve entered the third period, and it seems we have a Pope who’s trying to unite all the churches into one, the only true one.

There’s no doubt that the flatterer will try something again.

 

Benedict XVI resigned just like he said. What people don't understand is that a mere resignation does not trigger a new papal election. Benedict knew this, and he knew that his decision effectively locked down any legitimate changes to Vatican policy until his death. But he also knew that his enemies in the Vatican would not follow the law. They would take matters into their own hands and "elect" a usurper, Bergoglio.

You can read the details (in a very shortened version) at www.antipope.com. If you have any questions (and many things in Canon Law and UDG are not addressed in that short argument), I will be happy to answer.

The bottom line Simone is that your instincts are correct. Benedict is to be trusted. He knew exactly what he was doing. He was guided by God in his decision, which he noted. That decision, in essence, was to allow the evil doers to proceed with their plans. God has His own response, which will be revealed very soon. And Benedict XVI himself will be involved in that response.

 

Thank you both, Mariaba & PNF, for your insightful comments.
There are a few more things that need to be clarified; then it will be easier to see the 'naked truth' and (hopefully!) reach a common understanding over the whole magna quaestio.

Let's go back to Benedict's declaratio and take a closer look.
I'd like us to reach an agreement on the answer the following key question: is that public declaration, in itself, enough to 'trigger' a valid renunciation later on?
I'm positive this is NOT the case.
And here's why...

In the previous interview Archbishop Georg Gänswein asked Benedict: 'Holy Father, why in Latin?'
So let's look at the Latin version (Latin being the official language of the Church -- that which has legal value).

1. the wording 'declaro me [...] renuntiare' -- that is 'I declare to renounce', is not legally binding according to several lawyers. I can link more videos if you want, but here's a pretty good one with English subs. The correct wording to 'trigger' the renunciation would be 'renuntio' -- that is 'I renounce'
2. the legally not binding wording 'declaro me [...] renuntiare' refers to ministerium, while Canon Law (332 § 2), for the renunciation to be valid, specifically mentions the term munus (muneri). The munus petrinum is basically the petrine office itself, while the ministerium is the actual practice of the petrine office. The munus is 'being the pope', the ministerium is 'acting as pope'. The two functions are strongly bound together, of course, but the two Latin words are not synonyms, while in English they both get translated with a single term: office (that's a reason why the Latin version is so important, by the way)
3. the additional statement 'ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet' -- that is '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' makes it very clear that the renunciation itself is due to a later date. Such a solemn act simply cannot be made today but automatically become effective at a later date without doing anything else. The same applies to marriage: no couple could possibly hold the marriage ceremony today, but with the actual marriage starting at a later date. It's right now... or never. Just like the munus, once assigned, comes into effect immediately upon acceptance (see Can. 332 §1), it would be impossible for the elected to accept the munus today, but with efficacy starting later on. Solemn acts like the renunciation of the petrine office simply cannot be postponed or 'planned ahead' without invalidating them.

I hope this is clear enough. Benedict himself indirectly confirmed this in a letter he sent, as Pope emeritus, to a Cardinal. I can translate the relevant part for you, if needed.

So what is the declaratio?
It's a simple declaration, the announcement of a made decision. Let's simply accept it for what it is.

Can we agree on this, my friends, or you have objections to this reasoning?

 

Not only does the spirit of the law prevail over its form or letter (that’s well known in the legal profession), but the fact prevails over the assumption.

The fact is that he left the papacy in every respect. His secretary stayed with him, and nothing prevented him from telling the truth.

 

The fact that St. Peter's was struck by lightning the day PBXVI stepped down is enough for me.

 

Simone,

In response to your "key question," I believe that the Declaratio "properly manifested" BXVI's intent to resign effective on 28 February 2013.

The phrase "properly manifested" comes from Canon 332.2 itself. To "manifest" something is "to make it public." Benedict XVI did, in fact, make public his intent to resign 28 February 2013 in the Declaratio. Was it "properly" manifested? I think it was done "properly" because he provided a date when it would become effective, and he put this in writing with his signature and read the words of the document during his final Consistory, an event where many Cardinals were present. So there were many witnesses that the contents of the document came from Benedict XVI himself and therefore could testify that the Declaratio was not a forged document.

I know you want to follow Cionci's lead. I am familiar with Cionci's position. I disagree with Cionci that Benedict was saying something in the Declaratio that he did not mean. I think that is the wrong interpretation. Cionci and Barnhardt and others think they need to find a way to undo the BXVI resignation, so they can identify Bergoglio as an antipope.

My position is different. I think Benedict did resign properly and freely. And he described why he was doing it. He said that he "had to recognize [his] incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to [him]." So the option that BXVI took was allowed to him under Canon Law and he took it freely.

But, you ask, why would he have done such a thing? Why would he hand the Church over to its enemies? Why would he not stay and fight until the end?

Barnhardt thinks Benedict was a coward or that he wanted to create a novel type of Papacy (presumably because he was a Modernist). Cionci claims that Benedict was using "broad mental reservation" in the Declaratio (which I think there is some evidence for in other things the Benedict said/did later). Both of these explanations depend on subjective "reading of the mind" of Benedict XVI, rather than depending on the objective facts alone. This dependence on subjective mind-reading creates the chaos we see in which none of the Benevacantists can agree on the real explanation of the usurpation or agree on whether BXVI was a good guy or a bad guy.

The reason that Cionci and Barnhardt think it is so important to change the plain meaning of the Declaratio is that they think that a Canon 332.2 resignation automatically triggers a new Papal Conclave. But that assumption is simply not true.

Only the death of the Pope, triggers a new conclave. The death or non-death of the Pope is an objective fact. Everyone knows, objectively, that BXVI was still alive when the unlawful 2013 "conclave" was held. And it is also an objective fact that the papal election law, requires that the prior Pope be dead, have a funeral and be buried BEFORE a new Conclave can be held. This is very clear if one reads Universi Dominici Gregis with an open mind. I have explained this in brief in at www.antipope.com.

But people complain that if the Pope resigns and a new Conclave cannot be called until he dies, who will be running the Church in the interim? The answer to that question is found in UDG. This means JPII and BXVI anticipated the possibility of incapacitated Pope happening in the future.

UDG states that the College of Cardinals, along with the Cardinal Secretaries of the Dicasteries will run the Church in a very limited capacity (UDG, 1-6). By doing what he did, Benedict was canonically protecting the Church. If he had continued as an active Pope, the evil cabal of Cardinals would have done many of the same things that Bergoglio did, but it would have been blamed on BXVI. By resigning, BXVI canonically prevented any substantial changes to his policies.

I know it doesn't look like what BXVI did was effective, but if you understand what I am saying, then all of the major changes in Church policy that occurred after 28 February 2013, were/are null and void. From a canonical perspective, they have no force. They must be ignored by all Catholics.

So BXVI knew exactly what he was doing. He understood Canon Law and UDG better than his adversaries. This is not clear to most people now. But what I am telling you will be revealed soon. The Church is pure. The Church is not the monster that Bergoglio/Prevost have created. BXVI is a hero Pope, not a failed Pope. He is not dead. He is hidden away (as Pope Pius X said he would be), and he will be revealed soon for his short final act of martyrdom of the Truth.

Don Bosco's approved prophecy below is talking about Benedict XVI. It says "She [Our Lady] shall vest the Venerable Old Man with all his former garments." Get that. His FORMER garments. This is talking about a Pope that was cast aside but who will return with Heaven's help.

FIRST PROPHECY (English SDB official translation)

This was communicated on February 12, 1870 to the Holy Father.

God alone is almighty, all-knowing, all-seeing. God has neither past nor future; everything is present to Him, everything at a single point of time. Nothing eludes God. No person, no place is distant from Him. In His infinite mercy and for His glory He alone can unveil the future to man.

On the vigil of the Epiphany of this year, 1870, all material things in my room disappeared, and I found myself contemplating supernatural matters. It was only a matter of an instant, but I saw a great deal. Although what I witnessed was sensibly present, I find it extremely difficult to communicate it to others intelligibly, as one may realize by what follows. This is the Word of God in human parlance:

"War will come from the south, peace from the north.

...

"But behold, a great warrior from the north appears, a banner in his right hand, his arm bearing this inscription: 'Irresistible is the hand of the Lord.' At that moment the Venerable Old Man of Rome went forward to meet him, wielding a flaming torch. The banner then grew larger and its blackness became white as snow; in its center stood out the name of the Almighty in golden letters.

"The warrior and his followers bowed profoundly to the Venerable Old Man and joined hands with him.

...

"What shall befall you, ungrateful, effeminate, proud Rome? You have reached a point when you seek and admire nought in your sovereign but luxury, forgetting that both your glory and his lies on Golgotha. Now he is old, frail, defenseless, and dispossessed. Nevertheless, though captive, his words cause the whole world to tremble.

"O Rome! Four times shall I come to you! The first time I shall smite your regions and its people. The second time I shall bring slaughter and destruction to your very gates. Should not that make you open your eyes? A third time shall I come, and I will demolish your defenses and defenders. At My Father's command, terror, dismay, and desolation will reign.

"My wise followers flee, but My law is still trod underfoot. Therefore, I shall come a fourth time. Woe to you if My law again shall go unheeded. There shall be defections among both learned and ignorant. Your blood and that of your children shall wipe out your transgressions.

"War, plague, and famine are the scourges to smite human pride and malice. Where are your magnificent villas and palaces, you people of wealth? They have become the litter of squares and streets!

"And you priests, why are you not prostrate between the vestibule and the altar, weeping and praying that the scourge may cease. Why do you not take up the shield of faith and preach My Word from the rooftops, in the houses, streets, and squares, and even in inaccessible places? Do you not know that this is the terrible two-edged sword which smites My enemies and placates the wrath of God and man?

"These things shall inexorably come to pass, all in succession.

"Things follow too slowly upon each other, but the great Queen of Heaven is at hand; the Lord's power is Hers. Like mist, She shall scatter Her enemies. She shall vest the Venerable Old Man with all his former garments.

"There shall yet come a violent hurricane. Iniquity is at an end, sin shall cease, and before two full moons shall have shone in the month of flowers, the rainbow of peace shall appear on the earth.

"The great Minister shall see the Bride of his King clothed in glory.

"Throughout the world a sun so bright shall shine as was never seen since the flames of the Cenacle until today, nor shall it be seen again until the end of time."​

 

Speaking of messages from the Divine…recall the sign from Heaven back on Bergoglio’s birthday, December 17, 2023, the day before Fiducia Supplicans was released…when lightning struck the Sanctuary of Our Lady of the Rosary in San Nicolas near Buenos Aries, Argentina. The lightning vaporized the keys, halo and blessing hand of the statue of St. Peter.

Strong message sent, for those that have eyes to see.

 

Disagree, in law, every word has meaning.

One word changed, added, or omitted…can alter everything!

 

This raises an important issue…the above being true…makes Bergoglio an antipope and all of his appointments, rules and actions are void ab initio.

 

It’s just that the Church has many worse cases and is still alive.

For example: Benedict IX’s reputation is one of the worst of any pope, as conveyed to us by his contemporary chroniclers. Modern criticism does not differ much from the image given by medieval commentators.

After selling the papacy and renouncing it to get married, the Bishop of Eichstätt and future Pope Victor II reportedly said:

[Benedict IX] preferred to live the life of an Epicurean rather than that of a bishop... He abandoned the city and settled in one of his castles in the countryside.
The Doctor of the Church Peter Damian made this overall assessment of his papacy:

That wretch, from the beginning of his pontificate until the end of his life, reveled in immorality.
He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of “many vile adulteries and murders committed with his own hands.”[7] Pope Victor III, in his third book of Dialogs, referred to “his rapes, murders, and other unspeakable acts of violence and sodomy,” stating:

His life as pope was so vile, so filthy, so execrable that I shudder to think of it.

 

Yes, Benedict IX is a good example of a person who is considered by the Church to be a true Pope and at the same time was a horrible moral example. But being guilty of adulteries and murders and sodomy does not cause a Pope to lose his papacy.

But a Pope does automatically lose his papal office if he "defects from the Catholic Faith." Defecting from the Catholic Faith is defined by the Church as manifestly teaching heresy or apostasy. Benedict IX was not accused of "defecting from the Catholic Faith." He was a horrible sinner, but did not automatically lose the papal office because of those actions.

The loss of office comes when a Pope (or any ecclesiastical office holder) teaches something contrary to the infallible, irreformable Magisterium of the Church. A specific example would be a Pope teaching that it is acceptable for unrepentant divorced and remarried couples to receive Holy Communion. Bergoglio taught this exact thing in Amoris Laetitia. Now, as I have said, Bergoglio was never a lawful Pope to begin with. So the office Bergoglio lost was not the papacy, but his episcopal office. He was a usurper of the Papacy, an antipope.

 

@Mariaba : does 'the spirit of the law' allows us human beings (including the Roman Pontiff) to simply manifest intentions to automatically (and lawfully...) get future outcomes?

If I say: 'I declare to take you, Mariaba, to be my lawful wedded wife in such a way that from February 28, 2026 we shall be a married couple', then you say: 'I declare to take you, Simone, to be my lawful wedded husband in such a way that from February 28, 2026 we shall be a married couple' before several witnesses, is that enough for us to get married on the planned date, or something else will have to be done, so that today's intentions will become reality in the future?

On 19th April 2005 Benedict got elected. He had to either accept or refuse the petrine office. Could he possibly add any conditions to his acceptance, such as 'I accept the munus in such a way that I will become Pope on April 28th', or would that invalidate his act before humanity and (most of all) before God?

@Pax Prima : that 'comment from Up Above' was very telling, indeed... one more reason to focus on Benedict's words! Something very important happened on that day, so it would be wise to pay the utmost attention to see the whole picture

@PNF : the UDG mentions several steps to deal with the 'deceased Pope'. To me it's implicit that, if the Pope is not deceased, those steps are simply irrelevant. Cardinals need to 'observe in full' all the steps that do apply. It would frankly be ridiculous to have to hold a public funeral for a living Pope in order to elect a new one (or try force the Cardinals to do so). Moreover, to leave the See vacant for so many years would be very unwise and irresponsible, I believe. About that prophecy, Rome has clearly not yet gone through all the foreseen chastisements that precede the Venerable Old Man prediction. So I don't think it relates to Benedict XVI, but rather to another Roman Pontiff in the (not so near) future.

To you all: in a letter to Card. Brandmüller (November 2017) Benedict wrote:

[...] As you know, Pius XII left instructions in the case he was captured by the Nazis, according to which from the moment of the capture he would no longer be pope, but cardinal. If this simple return to Cardinalate would have been possible, we don't know. [...]​

Why?
Pious XII had already given instructions and all... but both the acceptance and the renunciation of the munus petrinum must be immediate. So you cannot really add any conditions to them (if... then...) or delays (when... then...) for the act to be valid. If you add conditions, you have to later ratify the act properly (by using the correct wording and before at least two witnesses and/or in a written form, according to Canon Law). So 'we don't know' if Pious XII would have had the a chance to do so.

Once again: the renunciation has to happen 'here and now', otherwise it produces no effect.
If you do not accept this basic fact it doesn't make sense to move on... and there's some pretty amazing stuff still to unwrap, I assure you...

 

Simone, I think what we agree on is that whatever Benedict XVI did in February 2013, that action did not allow a lawful conclave to occur in March of 2013. The Church simply cannot have two Popes at the same time. So, I am perfectly willing to put aside any differences on the mechanism causing the antipapacy of Bergoglio, so that we can discuss its consequences.

As @TLM MARK SSPV said so insightfully above, "an antipope and all of his appointments, rules and actions are void ab initio."

 

I doubt I will convince anyone but I do not think that 'some cannon lawyers' can impose what seem to me to be arbitrary conditions for the validity of Pope Benedict's resignation. Once someone is Pope, they excercise complete and universal power attached to the office. So it is Pope Benedict XVI himself who determines the validity of his own resignation - provided as PNF said, it is properly manifested, and provided it was done of his own free will.

He used the infinitive form of the verb - 'I declare to resign'. In grammar, infinitives are used to convey intention. It was clearly his intention to resign as evidenced by Ganswein's testimony and Benedict declared his intention. Once it was his intention to resign and he freely declared it, he was not subject to any dictates of Cannon Law. Indeed he was above Cannon Law by virtue of the power attached to his office.

Just as Justice Alito and other Supreme Court Justices now try to interpret the US Constitution, not by an arbitrary legalistic interpretation, but by the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, so it is the intention of Pope Benedict, duly manifested, which determines the resignation's validity.

However, once a Pope always a Pope. That is why it would not have been appropriate for Pope Benedict to declare himself a Cardinal again and take off his white clothing. It was as if he went into the tomb with Christ. In the afterlife, previous Popes are still Popes.

 

Indeed, that would be a de facto partnership, which in Spain has the same rights as a marriage.

But you talk about sacraments when you refer to marriage. Is a papal resignation a sacrament?

On the other hand, the Tribunal of the Rota has been established in Spain for centuries.

Anyone who offers proof that their sacramental (Catholic) marriage has not met the necessary conditions to be (in fact) a marriage can have it annulled and remarry in the Church.

That court is still in operation today, and it has annulled thousands upon thousands of marriages over the years.

 

@PNF : good enough! Let's move on then

@InVeritatem : the Pope's power (the 'power of the keys', see Matthew 16, 19) is rooted in Canon Law because of the Divine Promise. So the Pope must exercise his power in accordance to the law, because the law itself gives him his power before the Church, and the same law renders 'unlawful acts' null and void. The Pontiff has the power to (partially) modify the Canon Law but, once set, he himself is bound to it. So he has to be very careful not to 'overstep' those rules.
I do not doubt, from Benedict's words, his intention to freely resign. My point is: he very clearly expressed the intention to resign, but he did not resign by means of the declaratio; if we try to 'force' the declaratio into a renunciatio then we have to assume it's faulty, because for it to be legally binding it must be expressed in an appropriate form. And I do NOT believe that Benedict ever meant to resign by the declaratio itself. In a 2016 interview he said he made it in Latin so as to avoid mistakes... and he certainly was well aware of all the doubts and criticisms publicly expressed by latinists, lawyers, and canon law experts by then. So he DID mean for it to be a simple declaration, an announcement informing the world of a made decision, but at the same time that is not legally binding in and of itself. Gänswein himself mentions -- in his book 'Nothing but the Truth', if I remember correctly -- that there are indeed some some 'issues' with the declaratio, but (once again...) he does not 'go into details'.
There's actually a very good reason for Ratzinger to become Pope Emeritus after the renunciation, rather then 'downgrading' to Cardinal -- but we'll get there later on...

@Mariaba : a de facto partnership can happen even without saying a single word... but a real marriage requires a formally correct promise; and that can planned ahead but has to eventually be made on the spot, immediately and unconditionally, otherwise the marriage itself is nonexistent -- from a legal standpoint, at least. As far as I know, the Petrine Ministry (or Office) is not a sacrament, but accepting it or renouncing it is comparable to the sacrament of Marriage in this respect, just like to any other similar, solemn act -- like the pledge that a new head of state has to make before his citizens, before legally acquiring his/her office, for instance. It's either here and now... or never! The nature of the act itself requires it to be immediate and have no conditional clauses attached, because it has to produce a result that is 100% certain.

OK, so let's just follow along with the declaratio. In it Benedict announces the the See will become vacant at the 20th hour (that is: between 7 and 8 PM) on February 28th, 2013.
We 100% trust his words and his plan.
On February 28th, 2013, shortly after 5 PM, after saluting the faithful, he got on a helicopter to reach Castel Gandolfo. It's a 25 km trip -- roughly a 15 minutes flight.
Therefore we can assume that, by 5:30 PM, he had already reached his destination.
So I'm asking you: right before checking the evening news ('il telegiornale della sera', as we call it here in Italy, that typically starts at 8 o'clock PM) and having dinner with his closest 'team', what do we (believers) expect to have happened on that particular evening?

 

But Simone, you skipped BXVI's comments on Feb. 27th:

https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2013/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20130227.html

Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.

The "always" is also a "for ever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.​

He states that he will "no longer bear the power of office." He did not say he would no longer be in office. He said, he will remain [in office] in the service of prayer. Why? Because his decision to accept the Papacy in 2005, was "forever." He is saying he will retire from governing the Church, but he will still be the one and only "Peter" until his death. Therefore, he will be a retired "Peter," praying for the Church, until his natural death.

Because of the promise that he made in 2005, he could not "return to the private sphere." He simply retired. The office is still his, he is just announcing that he will not be making any more decisions regarding "the governance of the Church." This is consistent also with what he said in the Declaratio.

So he became Pope Emeritus, retired Pope. He didn't become a non-Pope. He said he remained "in the enclosure of Peter," but no longer actively doing things that the Pope would normally do. In other words, he was voluntarily incapacitating himself, not giving up the office of Peter itself.

Then, if we look at UDG, the law does not allow there to be two living Popes at the same time. That is impossible. Therefore, Bergoglio was prematurely, illegally "elected" in 2013.

Sorry for this interjection. But I think it might help to make your point, am I right?