Here is a link to the Holy See website with the former Pope’s resignation in English.
Yeah, he resigned entirely and did not retain any part of the Papacy
Here is an explanation of how Ms. Ann is mistaken in her claim of substantial error. She made the error because she (she is a convert right ?) never studied Latin, reads Latin or writes Latin whereas Pope Benedict XVI does all of those things and has for scores of year.
In any event, Ms. An errs on her claims of substantial error because she does not know what that means.
Here is a correction of her from a man at The Novus Ordo Watch Blog:
Error prevents a valid resignation from office only if the error is the substantial reason for the resignation, such that the Pope in question would not have resigned if he did not hold this error.
Barnhardt would have seen as much if she had simply consulted an authoritative commentary on the Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law, which explains: “Substantial error is a mistaken judgment that is not of minor importance and is truly a cause of the consequent resignation. This would be the case in which the officeholder judged that he or she had caused serious injury to someone when this was not objectively correct” (James A. Coriden et al., eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary [New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1985] p. 109; underlining added).
In other words, for Barnhardt’s argument to have any merit even in theory, she would have to prove — not merely suspect but prove — that Benedict XVI abdicated his putative pontificate because he believes in a bifurcated Papacy. But of course this is sheer nonsense and has never been asserted by anyone, least of all by Ratzinger himself.
The official reason given for the resignation was an inability or, at any rate, an unwillingness to continue to exercise the office. In his declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Benedict spoke of the “strength of mind and body” he believed he no longer had “to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me”. One may speculate that the true reason was a different one — whether fear of a real or imagined evil, the desire to cause great confusion among Novus Ordos, the intent to enable Jorge Bergoglio to succeed him, succumbing to undue pressue by secret powers, etc. — but it was most certainly not his belief that the Papacy can be abdicated in a partial way.
If one wanted to argue invalidity of resignation due to substantial error that actually caused the resignation, one would have to show that Benedict was mistaken regarding his “strength of mind and body”, that he was in error about his “incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.” That would constitute substantial error that was causative of the resignation.
Even though the former Pope, quite recently, continues to publicly correct his “supporters” (with supporters like Ann who needs enemies?)….
March 2021: In the interview, which took place in the Vatican’s monastery of Mater Ecclesiae, where he lives, Benedict smacked down “fanatics” who failed to accept the legitimacy of Francis and believe that there are two pontiffs who are opposed on church policy.
“There aren’t two popes,” Benedict told Italian reporters, “the pope is only one.”
…The D.O.A Gang (Disciples of Ann) insists he is Pope .
Here is the testimony of a former member of The D.O.A. Gang testifying as to why he is ex D.O.A.
It was Ms. Ann who first began the Francis ain't Pope Fiasco, Benedict is, not Brother Bugnolo
The following links have to do with both Barnhardt and Bugnolo and how they are leading others into serious and substantial error that are quite consequential.
ABS thinks real Catholics will read the links and conclude that Barnhardt and Bugnolo are the battalion leaders of an tiny cohort of crazies...
(He doesn't mean that in a churlish way)
O, some additions:
Dr Peters. "In light of the law"
....What the 1983 Code does say, as did the 1917 Code, is this: “Only those laws must be considered invalidating … which expressly state that an act is null …” (c. 10, olim c. 11). Because no canon of the 1983 Code, under which Benedict XVI submitted his resignation (c. 332 § 2), addresses the quality of the Latin used in papal documents, let alone does any canon make the Latinity of papal documents go to their validity, I say, odd question answered: bad Latin does not mean that one must remain pope.
“DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)
It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting … a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)
These explanations will be gainsaid by The D.O.A. because that Occult Cult is possessed of a shared delusion and delusions are not correctable by reason or fact.
Prayer and fasting is what is needed to cast out this diabolical delusion.
The essence of the Occult Cult's argument is that Universal Acceptance is nugatory owing to five or six canonists claiming the Latin Text of the resignation/abdication contained technical inaccuracies even though the Universal Acceptance accounts for their existence and claims.
Well, so what if over 1.2 billion catholics - all Bishops and virtually all the lay Catholic faithful -accepted Francis as Pope ?
The sedevacantists (they don't have communion with Pope Francis whom they claim aint Pope) says that because a handful of Canonists don't accept him that means he aint pope.
They want a debate about this.
Good Lord, it takes all of thirteen seconds to see how extreme and unreasonable this claim is and what would result would be if these claims were to be adjudicated in a Canonical Court.
NO papal election in the future would be accepted if just a handful of canon lawyers could be found to propose a lawyerly objection to the election.
Talk about legalism run amuck.
What about the far more numerous clans of sedevacantists, ought not they first get a shot at having a canonical court adjudicate their claims first because they are far more numerous and have been in existence far longer?
Once the claims of The Occult Cult have been responded to - and they have been -the best thing to do is ignore them.
This is what Cardinal Ratzinger taught as Prefect of the CDF in 1998:
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.