Pope Benedict's legacy & the mystery of Pope Francis

Perhaps he was a prisoner of his own prophesy.

"There will come a day when priests are mere officials and act without faith." The true Church will seem to have disappeared, but at that time a new group of fervent believers will arise who will be indomitable.

It’s hard to understand how a pope can resign and still live in the Vatican as a guest. The Pope is also the Bishop of Rome and head of state.

There is no such thing as a pope in seclusion. I think he really found himself unable to continue.

He was such a good person and had contributed so much to the Church that he was allowed everything, even to live as Pope Emeritus.

It is clear that the Vatican needs an active pope who works daily on Church affairs. The cardinals convened the conclave, and that’s normal after a resignation. The cardinals’ attitude was correct. There is no protocol for action. The Pope cannot be sent back to a parish or offered any other position within the Church.

 

I respect your detailed work Simone. The question is whether these statements are ones of fact. They do not come with any supporting evidence.

Having read excerpts from Cannon Law and the book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, I came to the belief that the Pope, being the representative on earth of the Supreme Law Giver, The Lord, is not bound by Cannon Law - even though he is seen to process by its dictates in virtue of providing a good example of upholding good order in the Church.

I asked Gemmini AI this question:

Conversation with Gemini:

To what extent is the Pope bound by Cannon Law if indeed he is bound by it at all?

The Pope, as the supreme legislator, executive, and judicial authority in the Catholic Church, is not bound by purely ecclesiastical (Church-made) law; however, his authority is always bound by Divine Law and Natural Law.

Authority over Canon Law

Ecclesiastical Law: The Pope is considered above the human-made laws of the Church (Canon Law). He has the "supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church" (Can. 331).

This means he can promulgate new universal laws, change existing ones, or dispense from (waive) them for a particular case or person.

Limitations of Papal Power

The key limitation on the Pope's authority—and the extent to which he is "bound"—is the Divine Law and Natural Law.

Divine Law (and Natural Law): This refers to the laws considered to be established by God, found in Scripture and Tradition, and the moral law inherent in human nature.

The Pope cannot promulgate any law that violates Divine Law, nor can he dispense from Divine Law.

For example, the Pope could not validly attempt to ordain a woman to the priesthood, as the Church holds this ban to be based on Divine Law. Similarly, he cannot dissolve a ratified and consummated sacramental marriage, as the Church holds this to be divinely instituted.

Moral and Canonical Obligation: While legally "above" the ecclesiastical canons, Popes are morally and theologically bound to uphold and nurture the good order of the Church and act licitly. They are ultimately accountable to God for their actions and decisions.

In summary, the Pope possesses the fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) over the human legal structure of the Church, but this power remains entirely subordinate to the unchangeable Law of God.

I do believe these may be critical points, as my argument rests upon the intention of Pope Benedict XVI. Did he intend to resign the office or just the active excercise of it. If he did intend to resign the office, I do not see any difficulty with becoming Pope Emeritus.

 

Very good contribution on canon law.

We must start from the premise that divine Providence acts upon the Church and its vicar on earth.

As we can understand from today’s first reading, Saint Paul.

The paths are indecipherable to us.

The theory that Benedict XVI is still alive and hidden somewhere, from which he will suddenly appear, is pretty far-fetched... because what new information could he reveal? Let’s remember that he would be 98 years old today.

Personally, I find it less difficult to imagine Isaiah himself appearing with a fiery sword to bring judgment upon the world.

It doesn’t matter if Benedict reappears, except for those who need to reaffirm their doctrinal purity and want him to rise from his grave to reinstate the Latin Mass.

Excuse my harsh words, but I have no others. I’m probably tired of hearing about that.

Latin is a language like any other, and of course it has evolved because languages are always alive. Languages are instruments of communication that humans use, and no one in their right mind tries to limit them, because we are not slaves to them—quite the opposite. So much so that sometimes they die from lack of use, and this is one of those cases.

When I drive my teenage daughter’s friends in the car and hear two conversations, I’m aware of that evolution. There are hundreds of neologisms, words borrowed from other languages. They live that language, and I have trouble understanding it.

I won’t tell you about communication on social media and the mechanisms they use to communicate, which are beyond my comprehension. Language is alive by nature, and the same thing happened to Latin because it became contaminated by all the languages of the empire.

Human imagination is a gift from God, and everything is in motion. We can’t think that everything old was better, because we were already hearing that saying when we were young.

Carlos Acutis is a young saint. He didn’t need Latin at all.

 

@PNF : I'm well aware of those words by Benedict XVI. They do strongly relate to the 'Pope Emeritus' dilemma. But before getting into that 'rabbit hole' there are a few stages of Benedict's plan we have to go through. Then it will be easier to understand what exactly he meant.

@Mariaba : if it had been an 'ordinary' resignation I would expect Benedict XVI to humbly 'revert' to Card. Ratzinger afterwards. Considering he was 85 when he resigned, he would pretty much be a retired Cardinal already, with very little responsibilities or duties to carry. But he did NOT choose this path... and for a very good reason! But first we have to follow along with his plan. Then it will (hopefully) become clear the wisdom of his choice.

@InVeritatem :

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election​

Canon Law itself defines the criterion of this 'legitimacy'. Without Canon Law, anyone could claim 'I am the Pope' and nobody could deny that...
Therefore the Pontiff is not like a dictator, who imposes his will by force. He's rather a lawful ruler of the Church -- at least for those who accept that Jesus Christ gave Peter (and his legitimate successors) the ministry of governing His Church.
On some matters the Pope has absolute power. But if one of his acts contradicts or does not comply to the law, it's 'self-denying'; it produces no 'legitimate' effects, so to speak -- for those who are aware of its unlawfulness, at least!

To all:
I trust Benedict, so I believe in his declaratio he manifested his real intention.
He stated: '[...] 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 [...]'

To acquire that ministry things have to happen this way:

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance.

§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.​

According to the law, from the very moment a lawfully elected bishop clearly manifests his acceptance of the petrine ministry, he becomes the new Roman Pontiff.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that, from the very moment the Roman Pontiff clearly and lawfully manifests his renunciation of the ministry, he will no longer be the Roman Pontiff, and the Holy See will become vacant.

So do I expect that, between 7 and 8 PM (that's the precise meaning of 'hora vigesima': it's not 8 o'clock but it actually spans over an entire hour) on February 28th, 2013, Benedict freely and lawfully resigned.

To lawfully resign the rules are pretty simple:

Can. 187 Anyone responsible for oneself (sui compos) can resign from an ecclesiastical office for a just cause. [the ones already stated before in the declaratio sound reasonable enough]

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. [as long as the proper wording has been used, no problem]

Can. 189 §1. To be valid, a resignation, whether it requires acceptance or not, must be made to the authority to whom it pertains to make provision of the office in question [ordinarily this would be the College of Cardinals, since the UDG delegates to the Cardinal electors the responsibility to 'provide of' the munus once the Holy See becomes vacant]; this must be done either in writing, or orally in the presence of two witnesses.

§2. The authority is not to accept a resignation which is not based on a just and proportionate cause. [no acceptance is required in this case]

§3. A resignation which requires acceptance lacks all force if it is not accepted within three months; one which does not require acceptance takes effect when it has been communicated by the one resigning according to the norm of law.

§4. A resignation can be revoked by the one resigning as long as it has not taken effect; once it has taken effect it cannot be revoked, but the one who resigned can obtain the office by some other title.
​

OK.
Let's now consider the following very important (but very little known) 'revelation', given to us by Archbishop Georg Gänswein.
In at least 2 public interviews in Italian (this and this) he declared that Benedict had 'sealed' his renunciation under the pontifical secret. This is basically the highest level of secrecy within the Catholic Church, and it also requires the recipient to take a solemn oath. Gänswein makes it sound as if the he was simply to keep the renunciation top secret until publicly announced, and yet Benedict's Secretary of State (Card. Bertone) had already mentioned a couple of times this possibility to Gänswein in the spring of 2012 -- and Gänswein replied he knew nothing about it, back then.
In 'Final Conversations' (2016) Benedict stated he had made the final decision to resign in the summer of 2012.
In the fall of 2012 Benedict communicated for the first time his 'made decision' to Gänswein, but this time this happened under the 'pontifical seal'. If Benedict simply didn't want the rumor to spread, he should have put Card. Bertone under the pontifical secret from the very beginning, too. But that couldn't possibly have happen -- at least not without Card. Bertone violating the seal by hinting at the matter of the resignation in the spring.
Do you see my point here?
Benedict must have secreted the act of the renunciation itself, rather than its simple announcement. That's why it's not (yet...) been made public.

Let's now go back to the boring laws...

Apparently Can. 189 §1 would render invalid Benedict's 'top secret' act of resignation.
The Dean of the College of Cardinal (the now defunct Card. Angelo Sodano) never registered that document (and/or reported the testimony of two eyewitnesses) before declaring (therefore unlawfully...) the vacancy of the See. Notice also that, through Normas Nonnullas, Benedict had specifically modified the UDG to state:

#37 I furthermore decree that, from the moment when the Apostolic See is lawfully vacant [...]​

How could anyone lawfully declare the See vacant without the evidence of either the death of -- or the proper resignation by -- the reigning Pontiff?

But Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, in 2014, sent a letter to an Italian newspaper declaring:

"There is no doubt whatsoever about the validity of my renunciation of the petrine ministry."
"The only condition for the validity is the full freedom of the decision. Speculations about the invalidity of the renunciation are simply absurd."​

So he confirms it's 100% valid in spite of not communicating the act of renunciation to the (ordinary) 'authority to whom it pertains to make provision of the office in question'.

There is therefore only one possibility for his secret resignation to be valid: that before resigning he secretly took upon himself the provision of the office itself.

In other words: instead of delegating the responsibility of electing a new pope to the College of Cardinals, he must have decided to manage it himself.

He must have basically both 'renounced' and legally 'transferred' the petrine munus to a worthy recipient by temporarily suspending and/or modifying the UDG.

 

Simone, maybe I am misunderstanding you, but if you are suggesting that Benedict XVI could legally appoint his successor, this is impossible according to Canon Law.

Canon 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance.

Canon 349 The cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special college which provides for the election of the Roman Pontiff according to the norm of special law."

So you see, only through an "election" (Canon 332.1) can the Petrine munus be transferred to another person. And this "election" must be provided for by "the Cardinals." Therefore, a sitting Pope cannot lawfully select and appoint his successor.

And you said correctly above:

Canon Law itself defines the criterion of this 'legitimacy'. Without Canon Law, anyone could claim 'I am the Pope' and nobody could deny that...
Therefore the Pontiff is not like a dictator, who imposes his will by force. He's rather a lawful ruler of the Church -- at least for those who accept that Jesus Christ gave Peter (and his legitimate successors) the ministry of governing His Church.
On some matters the Pope has absolute power. But if one of his acts contradicts or does not comply to the law, it's 'self-denying'; it produces no 'legitimate' effects, so to speak -- for those who are aware of its unlawfulness, at least!​

 

And Simone,

I acknowledge that there certainly is a solution to the canonical problem that I have posed. But it doesn't involve Benedict himself transferring the munus to another individual directly. Nor does it involve suspending or modifying UDG. And FWIW, I consider the unspoken solution to be highly probable in the future.

 

Once the Apostolic See is vacant, a conclave is convened to elect the new pope. There is nothing stipulated against this. A pope who resigns lacks the authority to designate a successor, and a pope in office cannot do so either, because that is what a conclave is for.

 

Plain and simple.

 

To all:
No, it's neither impossible nor illegal for the reigning Pope to appoint/elect a successor before abdicating; it's just very unusual (almost unique) in the Church's history. To find a precedent we have to look at the very ancient tradition: St. Peter is believed to have appointed Linus that way, for instance.
Benedict's resignation was a 'revolutionary' act, just like Peter Seewald (Benedict's biographer) and Gänswein pointed out several times.
The Roman Pontiff does have the legitimate power to determine the rules for the election of his successor. The term 'election' just refers to the designation of a worthy person to an office by a legitimate authority. We are used to the 'democratic' standard of collectively electing/appointing someone to be in charge of an office, but the Catholic Church is fundamentally a monarchy. The Pope traditionally delegates the task of electing a successor to the College of Cardinals, but there can be exceptions to this 'rule', and the Pope has full authority to change the rules whenever he wants, as he sees fit.

Canon 349 The cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special college which provides for the election of the Roman Pontiff according to the norm of special law.​

That 'special law' is basically the Universi Dominici Gregis. That special law can be modified at will by the Pontiff. Just like he did so officially and openly through Normas Nonnullas after the declaratio (that didn't deprive him of the office from the moment he uttered those words... so it cannot be considered a renunciatio), he could have done the same lawfully once more, before only a few witnesses, but under the pontifical seal of secrecy.

Let's have a look at the UDG (indented quotes), to see if it mentions this possibility...

Precisely for this reason, down the centuries the Supreme Pontiffs have deemed it their special duty, as well as their specific right, to establish fitting norms to regulate the orderly election of their Successor.​

So it's the Pontiff's responsibility (both duty and right) to establish the rules for the legitimate succession. To make it even more strong and clear check also:

It is in fact an indisputable principle that the Roman Pontiff has the right to define and adapt to changing times the manner of designating the person called to assume the Petrine succession in the Roman See.
​

About the Conclave:

It has been my wish to give particular attention to the age-old institution of the Conclave, the rules and procedures of which have been established and defined by the solemn ordinances of a number of my Predecessors. A careful historical examination confirms both the appropriateness of this institution, given the circumstances in which it originated and gradually took definitive shape, and its continued usefulness for the orderly, expeditious and proper functioning of the election itself, especially in times of tension and upheaval.

Precisely for this reason, while recognizing that theologians and canonists of all times agree that this institution is not of its nature necessary for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff, I confirm by this Constitution that the Conclave is to continue in its essential structure; at the same time, I have made some modifications in order to adapt its procedures to present-day circumstances.​

From this, to me, it is crystal clear that the Pontiff may decide to 'skip' an election through the Conclave, if he deems it necessary according to the present-day circumstances.
So if Benedict really wanted to appoint a successor before resigning, that could work perfectly well as long as he did so properly, in accordance to Canon Law.
The 'election by Conclave' is not a must, but rather a consolidated and generally useful custom. As long as it works well, there is no need to revise it. But if, for whatever reason, it becomes inappropriate, the Pontiff has the authority and the duty to take the matter in his own hands. The Cardinals are there to serve the Pope, so the Church is not an 'oligarchy of the Cardinals' -- not by law, at least!

Seewald reports that Pope Benedict thought he had only a few more months to live after the declaratio. Several 'politicized' Cardinals wanted to replace him with their own man; if they pushed hard in this direction it is because they trusted that they could somewhat manipulate the Conclave to get the intended result.
In these pretty dire circumstances, what could Benedict possibly do for the good of the Church?
Was he aware of that danger, or was he asleep?
In 2005, at the very beginning of his Pontificate, he said: "Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves."
By a regular resignation he would have done just that.
So he must have thought of a better way to deal with those wolfs -- while protecting his legitimate successor from their very sharp claws...

 

Are you implying what I think you are?

 

Not sure about that... but I'm pretty sure Benedict's real successor is out there, right now. I'm pretty sure about his (pontifical) name, but his actual identity (as far as I'm concerned) is still a bit of a mystery...

 

Simone, you are incorrect that the Pope can just ignore Canon Law. To do so without a just cause, would be to promote lawlessness. He can legitimately change Canon Law and the special law regarding papal elections (UDG), but he cannot ignore a law that has already the force of law, unless, in extreme cases, it is "necessary for the salvation of souls."

Now, if it is "necessary for the salvation of souls" that Pope Benedict circumvent the current College of Cardinals because they are apostates, and Pope Benedict had no legitimate way of achieving that, then I would agree with you that he could do what you are suggesting.

But Benedict does have another LAWFUL method to make sure that his successor is elected by non-apostate Cardinals:

Canon 351 §1. The Roman Pontiff freely selects men to be promoted as cardinals, who have been ordained at least into the order of the presbyterate and are especially outstanding in doctrine, morals, piety, and prudence in action; those who are not yet bishops must receive episcopal consecration.​

Canon 193 §3. A person upon whom an office is conferred at the prudent discretion of a competent authority according to the prescripts of the law can, upon the judgment of the same authority, be removed from that office for a just cause.

§4. To take effect, the decree of removal must be communicated in writing.​

So, the Pope has the full and lawful power in Canon Law to depose any and all living Cardinals and appoint new Cardinals at any time. And it is very likely that he will use this method to reconstitute the hierarchy when the time comes for that to happen. Stay tuned. It's not over yet.

And I leave open the possibility that his decision on this could have been made and the documents prepared "secretly" prior to the Declaratio. For example, he could have "secretly" deposed each and every Cardinal in a written document, and he could have "secretly" created new Cardinals in the same written document. That would then allow a new papal election to proceed, according to law, upon Benedict's death.

 

@PNF : Actually the UDG itself grants the Pontiff full power to manage the succession however as he sees fit. So, on a second thought, the Pontiff would NOT violate either Canon Law or the UDG by appointing himself his successor before resigning.
The UDG sets the Conclave as the standard method, but does not limit in any way the Pontiff to proceed, if deemed necessary, on a different path:

theologians and canonists of all times agree that this institution is not of its nature necessary for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff​

Indeed he could NOT possibly resign validly & secretly without taking upon himself (or possibly handing it down to a handful of faithful Cardinals) the responsibility of the petrine succession, as we have already discussed (otherwise Can. 189 §1 would invalidate his renunciation).
But Benedict publicly stated: "There is no doubt whatsoever about the validity of my renunciation of the petrine ministry."
So there must be also no doubt that 'the authority to whom it pertains to make provision of the office' (either a handful of faithful Cardinals... or himself) had been properly informed when he made that statement, back in 2014.
Otherwise we'd have to assume Cionci's stance: that he never validly resigned, because all we have available is the declaratio -- an invalid act of renunciation, for several reasons we've already gone through.

Can. 333 §2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.​

In other words: he can either unilaterally make decisions, or he can delegate and walk the 'synodal path'.
The election of the new Pontiff is ordinarily 'the business' of the Cardinals, as for the UDG.
Ordinarily...
But exceptions to the customary way of handling it are clearly possible by both UDG and Canon Law, as long as they do not contradict other parts of the law itself (for instance: if BXVI appointed a woman as his successor, this 'misstep' would invalidate his act).
Which Canon Laws would Benedict violate by appointing himself his successor?
As far as we know, the UDG has never been altered after Normas Nonnullas, and there was actually no need to alter it, since it's not really binding for the Roman Pontiff, while it is for the College of Cardinals...

#37 I furthermore decree that, from the moment when the Apostolic See is lawfully vacant [...]​

The evidence of a lawful renunciation is essential to set the moment when the Apostolic See is lawfully vacant.
Where is the written act of renunciation, if any?
Where are the eyewitnesses' testimonies of the renunciation, if any?
There's a big gap here, still... officially Benedict's renunciation is simply nonexistent, or rather 'suspended in time': we're still waiting for its evidence to come out.
You see, this confirms that Benedict must have really put his formal act of renunciation under the seal of the pontifical secret. This gesture implicitly confirms he took an unofficial but presumably lawful path; for that to work properly he must have somewhat 'micromanaged' the matter of the succession himself, while automatically de-legitimizing any official but unlawful initiative by the College of Cardinals at large.

The declaratio states:

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.​

The first step to gain that 'competence' is to ascertain the validity of the renunciation.
The 'original sin' was to declare the See vacant without any proper evidence.
So the official, visible, 'mainstream' ecclesiastical top hierarchy followed the unlawful course, while the unofficial, invisible, 'small rest' Church followed the lawful one -- under Benedict's lead until his resignation; from then on under the lead of his legitimate successor, whoever he is. All I know, by deduction, is his pontifical name:
Pope Francis

 

Rather than address all of your misconceptions in that post, I just want to ask you to please plainly state what you are trying to say. One minute it seems as if you are saying that Benedict renounced his office and appointed a new successor. The next minute you say that "Benedict's renunciation is simply nonexistent." Then you say that his successor's name is Pope Francis. What are you trying to say?

 

And one minute you say the Pope is bound by cannon law but the next minute you say he can ignore cannon law and the UDG "at will" or even do things "in secret". You can't have your cake and eat it. On a matter of principle, the Pope is above Cannon Law, although he may appear to be subject to it - only in so far as Cannon Law contains a subset which is circumscribed by Divine Law and Natural Law. The election of the Pope is subject to Cannon Law, but once legitimately elected, he is not coercively bound by it.

Cannon Law does not confer any power on the Pope, that comes from God. It is not the basis of his power. If he violates Cannon Law, that may cause others to perceive that he undermines his own power. But he does that only in so far as he will have to answer to God. He could open himself to questions based on the words of Jesus concerning the Pharisees, "do as they say but not as they do", "you impose heavy burdens but do nothing to lift them yourselves", "you have taken away the Keys of the Kingdom and you did not try to enter yourselves" etc.

 

I am also confused by what you are implying. I am enjoying the back and forth discussion on the topic. Please do expand on what you mean Simone

 

Why would the pontifical name for sure be Francis? I have gone back and reread all of your posts on this thread. I am “picking up what you are putting down”. You are saying Pope Benedict had chosen his successor. That a declaration of intention to resign is not the same as actually lawfully resigning… I don’t know how you get the name Francis though?

 

@PNF : instead of publishing a huge post with all my findings plus all the supporting evidence, I'm trying to unwrap its content little by little, by following Benedict's plan step by step. If this is unsettling I suggest to let me finish this 'unwrapping', then we can discuss all the matters that remain either inconsistent or unclear once all the main pieces of this 'puzzle' are set in the right place.
The situation is pretty much this: since the pontifical seal is very likely still in place to this day, at present we cannot be 100% sure of the exact way Benedict has handled his resignation, and by which exact method he had the munus petrinum 'transferred' to his legitimate successor. All we know is that he couldn't have validly resigned in secret without, at the same time, addressing the issue of the succession, one way or another.
From a legal standpoint Benedict's renunciation remains either nonexistent or, rather, uncertain (still in a 'suspended state', in a way), since it's not supported by any solid evidence, yet -- but only by our trust in the truthfulness in Benedict's public statements.
Benedict's actions -- to this day, from a legal standpoint -- do NOT fully support his words -- but I trust they will, in a near future.
Cionci, by seeing no solid evidence backing Benedict's public statements, jumps to the conclusion that he has been under duress all along and never actually renounced. I don't think this is the case, but I have only indirect (yet very strong) elements to support my assessment.

@InVeritatem : the way the Roman Pontiff can legally 'do things in secret' is actually ruled by Canon Law; so it's perhaps unusual, but fully lawful, for the Pontiff to procede this way.
The UDG itself reminds us the Pontiff has supreme authority to modify the election rules as he sees fit.
At first, I thought it necessary for the Pontiff to either modify or suspend the Apostolic Constitution in order to 'override it' by handling the matter of the succession personally.
But, on a second thought, now I don't see how the UDG would 'forbid' or 'restrict' the Pontiff's personal initiative in any way.
The Catholic Church's government is basically a Monarchy functioning by the principle of 'subsidiarity'. It pretty much means that autonomy is granted to an 'inferior organ', as long as things run smoothly at that level. When things get messy there, the higher authority intervenes to fix them. Then, once the 'inferior organ' is 'healed', it's given back its autonomy.
So the UDG pretty much sets the rules that the College of Cardinals has to follow once the See becomes (lawfully) vacant. But it doesn't, in any way, hinder the 'higher power' (the Roman Pontiff) from intervening, if and when he deems it necessary to do so. On the contrary, the UDG kindly reminds us that this 'higher power' has the 'special duty' and the 'specific right' to pretty much dictate the rules for the succession. If this 'higher power' -- the Roman Pontiff -- can delegate the process of succession and change the rules, by the principle of subsidiarity it can certainly 'step in' and take back the matter into his own hands.
So, once again, the UDG itself doesn't, in any way, limit the Pontiff's personal initiative. But if you find any other canon law that the Pontiff would violate by appointing himself a successor, I'm all ears

@Ang : thanks for joining the conversation. The name 'Francis' is pretty much a necessity, but I didn't explain why, yet...
I just tossed the name out there to try to get things moving a bit faster, so I can understand it may sound like a bolt out of the blue. Please bear with me a while longer, then it will be easier to figure out if all this makes sense (or not).

To all:
So here I'll give you, shortly, some of the strongest reasons why I came to the conclusion that Pope Benedict's legitimate successor chose 'Francis' as his pontifical name, then it will be easier to absorb this sudden 'punch in the stomach'. At least to me it felt that way, since the name 'Pope Francis' -- until the time of this discovery -- had an almost exclusive association to the antipope Francis commonly known as Pope Francis -- that is: Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
Therefore, for the first time in the Church's history, the true Vicar of Christ (the legitimate successor of Pope Benedict XVI) and the antipope (Bergoglio) 'shared' the same pontifical name (Pope Francis) as contemporaries.
So what was the point, for the true Vicar of Christ, to follow this path?
I guess he humbled himself by choosing the same pontifical name of his own usurper for several, excellent reasons:

1. To allow all the Holy Masses celebrated 'in union with Pope Francis' (or 'una cum Francisco') to be licit and lawful in spite of the ongoing usurpation of the Holy See (for 12+ years this worked pretty well; now -- with Leo XIV -- not anymore)
2. To allow all Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals to pledge fidelity and allegiance to an unspecified 'Pope Francis' without betraying the Vicar of Christ -- or break the pontifical seal of secrecy -- or getting kicked out of the Church as schismatics by the usurpers
3. To allow the Catholic Church to maintain its unity under a single 'name' in a time when it would have been impossible to successfully challenge the usurpers. This time is not over, yet; that's why we still didn't get the 'details' of Pope Benedict's resignation and all
4. If Bergoglio's successor, Robert Francis Prevost, had picked the pontifical name 'Francis II' (as some expected) the damage of the usurpation would have been reduced... but the pontifical name was changed, so the best option out there now is to go for the Latin Mass (that does not contain the 'una cum... ' allegiance to the Pope, so is 100% licit). I believe that's the main reason why it has become so popular among some of the high clergy who are faithful to the real Pope Francis and know what's going on

About some of the evidence:

1. Archbishop Georg Gänswein publicly stated, several times, there is 'only one Pope, and his name is Francis'. [I knew that, but at first I thought he was blatantly lying on this. And yet Benedict wanted him as his secretary all along... why?]
2. In another public interview in Italian Archbishop Gänswein was asked: 'Listen, are you faithful to Pope Francis?' and he replied: 'Faithful and loyal: he's the Pope of the Catholic Church and Peter's successor -- just like I have been faithful to his predecessors.'
3. In his book 'Nothing but the Truth' the Archbishop claims that Pope Benedict XVI always celebrated the Holy Masses in union with Pope Francis after the renunciation, and that several other eyewitness can confirm this is true

Remember that Gänswein (in the first interview I translated in this thread) was talking about trust, complaining that 'conspiracy people' (like me, I have to admit it...) do not fully believe either his, or even Benedict's words...
So I thought: 'Are you kidding me, Archbishop? How in hell could that be possible and consistent with Pope Emeritus' odd behavior all along?'
After all they have said and done... how could they believe Francis is the real Pope?
Then the truth dawned on me [just like that clouded, but rising sun in my profile...], and everything suddenly started to make sense, as never before...

 

Sorry Simone. I can't just move on when you continue throw out things that are not true as you build up to your conclusion. For example, you said:

1. If Bergoglio's successor, Robert Francis Prevost, had picked the pontifical name 'Francis II' (as some expected) the damage of the usurpation would have been reduced... but the pontifical name was changed, so the best option out there now is to go for the Latin Mass (that does not contain the 'una cum... ' allegiance to the Pope, so is 100% licit). I believe that's the main reason why it has become so popular among some of the high clergy who are faithful to the real Pope Francis and know what's going on.

This statement (in bold and underlined) is false. The TLM DOES CONTAIN the "una cum...." Pick up any TLM missal and you will see the words "una cum..." in the Te Igitur prayer of the Canon. So that has nothing to do with why the TLM has "become so popular."

 

Looking forward to your next installment. This is all very interesting. Plenty to pray about. I have always thought there had to be something Pope Benedict was doing.