I disagree that Begoglio is a legitimate pope. Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) attempted to bifurcate the papacy, by keeping for himself the munus contemplative aspect of the office, but disposing himself of the governing aspect. This cannot be done, and it is a violation of Cannon 188.
Benedict is still wearing the papl vestments - no other “resigned” pope in Church history has done that.
Benedict is holding the papal title of “pope emeritus” - again, no provision in Catholic doctrine for such position, nor has such practice ever occurred heretofore in Church history.
Benedict remains in the papal residence - same issue.
Since a bifurcation of the papacy cannot be legitimate, then it makes Benedict’s resignation objectively flawed - and thus null and void, per Cannon 188.
Therefore, Benedict XVI is STILL the legitimate pope - and Bergoglio is nothing but an imposter, an anti-pope. Which means that none of his edicts, decisions, encyclicals, canonizations, etc. hold any validity. They are all equally null and void.
I strongly suggest you refrain from calling Jorge Bergoglio “pope” - because, in doing so, you lend legitimacy to the lie that may result in uncountable souls being damned for eternity.
“Benedict is still wearing the papl vestments - no other “resigned” pope in Church history has done that.”
There has not been a resignation (until Benedict) in many, many centuries and there was no “papal vestments” at that time. Seriously, the papal whites are a “recent” innovation of the 16th century.
“Benedict is holding the papal title of “pope emeritus” - again, no provision in Catholic doctrine for such position, nor has such practice ever occurred heretofore in Church history.”
It’s not doctrinal. It’s practical. It’s a title, not an office. It was so people would know how to address him and to ensure he would - by his own written laws - be able to stay at the Vatican so that he would never be used as a weapon against any successor.
Don’t feel bad. Even Vatican archbishops aren’t getting this right: http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/05/04/vatican-archbishop-i-do-not-agree-with-the-title-pope-emeritus/
Benedict said he was resigning “in such a way that the See will be vacant” and “it will be necessary to hold a conclave” to elect a new Pope.
The words “the See will be vacant” are ABSOLUTELY AND EXACTLY SYNONYMOUS with “there will be no Pope.” That a conclave will be needed only makes this more clear.
Ann Barnhardt’s claim that Benedict’s goofy ideas about his status AFTER his resignation make the act of resignation invalid doesn’t hold water, because the “substantial error” she points to IS NOT ABOUT THE RESIGNATION.
Every RELEVANT notion that Benedict held about his resignation was absolutely accurate: He was Pope. He wanted to resign. The Pope CAN resign. He stated he was resigning, and that “the See will be vacant.”
Once he resigned, Ratzinger became an old man who once WAS Pope, AND who held goofy ideas about his status.
But NONE OF HIS GOOFY IDEAS was about the act of resignation.
Ann Barnhardt sees so clearly that Bergoglio hates God, Jesus Christ, Mary, the Eucharist, Matrimony, the Catholic Church, and the human race, that she cannot accept that he is the actual Pope. She clings to the notion that Ratzinger failed to resign in order to keep her head from exploding.
Your analysis/explanation of the Benedict/Francis thing is excellent. I had been thinking of commenting similarly, but you have done it much better than I could have done. Thank you for your post.
Benedict is legitimate. Francis is not.
In some ways, I think the Church is fortunate that Francis was ‘elevated’ to this illegitimate position and not a respected Cardinal.
Lord Jesus, rescue your Bride.
Well; when an organization cannot find any justification for POPE in the Word; it's no WONDER that abuses of it can take place with impunity.
This is AWFULLY close to what us Prots have been saying FOREVER: