It is about damn time as what Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger has done has caused enormous confusion and contributed to a time-wasting division.
And the obvious lies he advanced to try and justify his continuing to dress as a Pope and continue claiming to be a Pope (Pope Emeritus)...
So, are we expected to believe that he could not find one black cassock in Saint Peter's Basilica (not even during the time he, well in advance, was preparing to abdicate?) Well, what about the five damn years since he abdicated; hasn't he had time to scrounge up a black cassock?
And there is NOTHING "practical" about keeping the Papal name once one has abdicated. It is monumentally impractical and has had an execrable effect on innumerable official commentators to the point where they routinely refer to there being two Popes.
BASTA!!!!!!
And the obvious lies he advanced to try and justify his continuing to dress as a Pope and continue claiming to be a Pope (Pope Emeritus)...
I continue to wear the white cassock and kept the name Benedict for purely practical reasons. At the moment of my resignation there were no other clothes available. In any case, I wear the white cassock in a visibly different way to how the Pope wears it. This is another case of completely unfounded speculations being made.
(Benedict XVI to Andrea Tornielli) So, are we expected to believe that he could not find one black cassock in Saint Peter's Basilica (not even during the time he, well in advance, was preparing to abdicate?) Well, what about the five damn years since he abdicated; hasn't he had time to scrounge up a black cassock?
And there is NOTHING "practical" about keeping the Papal name once one has abdicated. It is monumentally impractical and has had an execrable effect on innumerable official commentators to the point where they routinely refer to there being two Popes.
BASTA!!!!!!
+++++++++++++++
From Rorate Caeli...
From Rorate Caeli...
Is a Papal Diararchy Possible?
Papalotry does not exist in an abstract sense: today, for example, we need to speak in a more precise way of Francisolatry, but also of Benedictolotry, as Miguel Ángel Yáñez observed well, on Adelante la fé [10]. This papalotry can come to counterpoising Pope against Pope: the followers, for example, of Pope Francis against those of Pope Benedict, but also of looking for harmony and coexistence among the two Popes, imagining a possible division of their roles. What took place on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the election of Pope Francis, was significant and unsettling. All of the media’s attention was focused on the case of a letter of Benedict XVI to Pope Francis: a letter, which turned out to be manipulated and caused the resignation of the head of Vatican communications, Monsignor Dario Viganò. The discussion, revealed however, the existence of a false premise, accepted by all: the existence of a sort of papal diararchy, of which there’s Pope Francis who carries out its functions, and then there’s another Pope, Benedict, who serves the Chair of Peter through prayer, and if necessary, with counsel. The existence of the two Popes is admitted as a done deal: only the nature of their relationship is argued. But the truth is that it is impossible that two Popes can exist. The Papacy is not dismountable: there can be only one Vicar of Christ.
Benedict XVI had the ability to renounce the papacy, but consequently, would have had to give up the name of Benedict XVI, dressing in white, and the title of Pope emeritus: in a word, he would have had to definitively cease from being Pope, also leaving Vatican City. Why did he not do so? Because Benedict XVI seems to be convinced of still being Pope, although a Pope who has renounced the exercise of the Petrine ministry. This conviction is born of a profoundly-erroneous ecclesiology, founded on a sacramental and not juridical conception of the Papacy. If the Petrine munus is a sacrament and not a juridical office, then it has an indelible character, but in this case it would be impossible to renounce the office. The resignation presupposes the revocability of the office, and is then irreconcilable with the sacramental vision of the Papacy.
Cardinal Brandmüller rightly judged as unintelligible the attempt to establish a sort of contemporaneous parallelism of a reigning Pope and a praying Pope. “A two-headed Pope would be a monstrosity”[11], says Cardinal Brandmüller, who adds: “Canon Law does not recognize the figure of a Pope Emeritus” (...) “The resignee, consequently”, “is no longer Bishop of Rome, not even a cardinal.”[12]
Regarding the doubts, then, about the election of Pope Francis, Professor Geraldina Boni[13], remembers that Canonists have always taught that the peaceful “universalis ecclesiae adhaesio” (universal ecclesial acceptance) is a sign and infallible effect of a valid election and legitimate papacy, and the adhesion or acceptance of Pope Francis by the people of God has not yet been doubted by any of the cardinals who participated in the Conclave. The acceptance of a Pope by the universal Church is an infallible sign of his legitimacy, and heals at the root every defect of the papal election (for example, illegal machinations, conspiracies, et cetera). This is also a consequence of visible character of the Church and of the Papacy.