Italian newspaper today " Ratzinger’s unequivocal text: “I have not abdicated”.

[J Michael]

Is it just me, admittedly not the brightest bulb in the pack, but has no one addressed what the issue of the OP seems to be?  Do we have 1 pope, and if so, who is it?  Or do we have 2 popes, and if so, how can that be?  Or do we have 1/2 pope, and if so, just what the heck does that mean?  (I know, I know....some would say we have no pope...sigh.)

If I'm missing something here, please, someone clue me in :-).

[Marmot]

I belive the number of popes at any given time can only be 1 or 0.

[LionHippo]

The thing is, if instead of Pope Francis a more "conservative" or "traditionalist" pope were selected, then no trads would question whether Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was valid or not. It's only after the fact, and not liking Pope Francis and his positions on certain things, that the resignation was seriously questioned.

Seeing that there has never been any effort by the bishops to question B16's resignation and the election of Pope Francis, the logical and most Catholic conclusion is that Pope Francis is indeed the pope.

[austenbosten]

Here's my problem with this:

If it is true, why is it not coming from Benedict? Basically this article is telling us Benedict is still the holy father, but if true he is an abysmal father of monstrous proportions. His feigned "resignation" was basically him shirking the duties of fatherhood and instead of hiring someone to help raise his children (using the metaphor that was given in this article) he essentially allowed a mob he knew all to well of being wicked (as bene-supporters claim) to pick the man to carry on the duties of the father.


If this is true, if what is claimed is true...then may God have mercy on Ratzinger, but again none of this comes from the man himself who humbly enjoys the company of this so-called "antipope" Francis...it only comes from the mouths of those who desperately wish Benedict had not abdicated.




NB: Shouldn't this be in the sub-forum?

[austenbosten]

The thing is, if instead of Pope Francis a more "conservative" or "traditionalist" pope were selected, then no trads would question whether Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was valid or not.  It's only after the fact, and not liking Pope Francis and his positions on certain things, that the resignation was seriously questioned.

Seeing that there has never been any effort by the bishops to question B16's resignation and the election of Pope Francis, the logical and most Catholic conclusion is that Pope Francis is indeed the pope.

That has always been my argument since day one. Vatican II apologists claim a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but the reality is there were great concerns around the time of the Second Vatican Council from Lefevbre to Fenton, but this conspiracy of Benedict still being the pope...no one, not even Ann Barnhardt questioned the abdication at the time. It was only after Francis made his first whopper that people started formulating these theories.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident]

If it is true, why is it not coming from Benedict?

It's not hard to imagine that his contact with the press might be severely filtered, especially since his resignation.

[austenbosten]

If it is true, why is it not coming from Benedict?

It's not hard to imagine that his contact with the press might be severely filtered, especially since his resignation.

I know Benedict is a prisoner in the Vatican, and the Vatican is competent enough to filter his words, but not competent enough to give him a non-white cassock.