Benedict the XVI Resignation Canonically Invalid?

[Dawn Marie]

Benedict the XVI Resignation Canonically Invalid

 

As Quoted from Father Paul Kramer's Page:


Pope Benedict's Resignation Canonically Invalid

Start reading from the paragraph that begins, "In the Declaratio of the "resignation", and read the subsequent paragraphs that treat upon the issue of the invalidity of the document.
Note especially, "in Canon Law, all legal writing that contains a fault of Latin is null". The author, a well known lay theologian, provides documentation going as far back as Pope St. Gregory VII. It is indisputable that the immemorial custom and practice of the Roman curia establishes that a grammatically incorrect Latin nullifies a juridical act.
The 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici contains no contrary prescription, nor any explicit nullyfying decree that would revoke the customary legal force of the provision in question. The prescrptions of the 1983 Code do, however, make explicit provision which uphold the legal force of that provision according to which a fault of the Latin has an ipso facto nullifying effect:

can. 19 - If a custom or an express prescript of universal or particular law is lacking in a certain matter, a case, unless it is penal, must be resolved in the light of laws issued in similar matters, general principles of law applied with canonical equity, the jurisprudence and practice of the Roman Curia, and the common and constant opinion of learned persons.

can. 27 - Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

can. 20 - A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

In the case in question, since there is no express prescript dealing with the issue of currupted text invalidating a decree in the 1983 Codex, the force of the customary law must be retained (cann. 19 & 27). If their would still remain any doubt, the provisions of Canons 19 and 27 must be applied; hence: A juridical act containing an error of Latin, accouding to the immemorial custom and jurisprudence of the Roman Curia, is null & void. Moreover, this same provision being an immemorial custom of the Katolikos Romanus
Curia, in the absence of any new or contrary provision, and in the absence of any explicit abrogation of this customary provision of canonical jurisprudence, retains the full force of customary law (lex consuetudinis), notwithstanding the explicit abrogation of all previous statutes set forth in the 1917 and 1983 Codes, since thereby, they only lose the force of statutary law, but not of customary law (can. 26)

In conclusion, and in the light of these considerations, it is manifestly evident that Benedict XVI resignation was certainly and without doubt canonically invalid -- and since it has emerged that he acted under threats and duress, the invalidity of the resignation cannot be remedied for so long as those conditions of duress remain. He is still the pope and occupant of the Chair of St. Peter. The see is, however, impeded by Pope Benedict's unwillingness or inability to exercise the authority of his office. Meanehile, the antipope, Francis, has demonstrated himself to be a manifest heretic and blasphemer who is canonically incapable of assuming the office of Roman Pontiff.

 

Quote Fr. Paul Kramer: " I repeat (ad nauseam) that Bergoglio has directly and explicitly denied solemnly defined dogma in a statement that is univocal and does not admit any possible benign interpretation. No other pope from Roncalli to Ratzinger has ever done that. Bergoglio has singularly qualified himself as a manifest heretic like no pope has ever done in past history".

[Dawn Marie]

I believe this is a possibility and agree with Fr. Kramer.  Have from the first day Francis stepped out on that balcony!

edited 12-28-2013

[Alley]

Antipope Francis is not Catholic!

Woe to him that speaks against the Mother of God or gives false and heretical testimony!

[Dawn Marie]

To add.....

Whether or not Bergolio is a valid pope an anti-pope or no pope at all is irrelevant.  He is by his public actions and public statements some form of a heretic and most definitely a blasphemer.  To that there is no doubt.

I don't care if he is valid or not, he needs to go and we need a Catholic Pope.  Sede's don't have the answer for the state of the Church or the crisis it is in, the SSPX does NOT have the answer with Bp. Fellay declaring every other month a new way to end this crisis EXCEPT the only way to end this crisis, and for that matter even the resistance does not have the answer.

The only place to find the answer for this crisis is with Mary, end of story.  When people start to realize that and stop looking to humans for answers to the unanswerable maybe we will see some change.  Till then we are bombarded with one opinion after another and no real definitive answer and we must endure evils which are multiplying day after day until it is suffocating.

If one think Russia has been consecrated or not if one thinks the pope is the pope or not honestly who cares what any of us think.  We need to stop, shut-up, quit bickering like fools whom satan is surely laughing hysterically at and get on our knees and beg God through His Holy Mother by means of the rosary to do something to end this evil, both in the Church and the world!

She said it, but people don't get it:

"Only I can help you"

[Michael]

I cannot agree more with this: "Sede's don't have the answer for the state of the Church or the crisis it is in, the SSPX does NOT have the answer with Bp. Fellay declaring every other month a new way to end this crisis EXCEPT the only way to end this crisis, and for that matter even the resistance does not have the answer." and "We need to stop, shut-up, quit bickering like fools whom satan is surely laughing hysterically at." 

The political nature of these organizations; SSPX, SSPV, Independents, Resistance, CMRI. other Sedes, etc., needs to stop.  This is not about carving out territory, but about saving souls.  We must hold to the faith as it has been given to us.  I think this is what Bishop Williamson was alluding to in a recent Eleison Comments.  The Vatican will never take tradition seriously while it remains fragmented through infighting, why should they?  I think it is time for a kind of declaration of principles through which traditional Catholics can form a more unified front against modernism and work for the restoration of the Church.  This is not setting up a parallel church, but merely standing for principle and for the Church of all times.  The Vatican welcomes heretics openly and with more favor than any traditional group.  This is not conjecture, it is fact.  It is time for us to look past the little that separates us and emphasize what unites us as traditional Catholics.  Most certainly we should all heed what DM has written to, "get on our knees and beg God through His Holy Mother by means of the rosary to do something to end this evil, both in the Church and the world!"       

[Dawn Marie]

interesting......

Paul Kramer

2 hours ago via mobile ·

 

    Some people might question the report of Alberto Villasana posted on the sucipedomine website -- in fact some Opus Dei types are already doing that. In fact, long before Benedict's announcement of impending resignation, a close personal friend of mine, the late Mons. Mario Marini, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission «Ecclesia Dei», informed me of the well organized plot in Rome, in the Northern Italian bishoprics, and in the French hierarchy, to pressure and coerce Pope Benedict to resign. From the beginning the Modernist progressives wanted him out. Cardinal Daneels publicly expressed his displeasure with the election of Cardinal Ratzinger immediately after the cardinals elected him. Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor likewise made the very telltale remark that same day, saying, "We didn't get our man." The one he referred to as "our man" was Jorge Mario Bergoglio SJ. Similarly for a long time as Pope John Paul II's pontificate dragged on for longer years than expected, there was a movement among the progressivists to pressure him to resign. Cardinal Wojtyla was not their first choice in the 1978 conclaves. The first choice to emerge among the progressivists was Card. Sergio Pignedoli, and among the conservatives, Giuseppe Card. Siri. Pignedoli and Baggio both wanted to be pope, but it was clear already before the conclave began that Baggio would not be able to garner enough votes to be the no. 1 candidate of the ptogressivists. (Pathetically, and almost comically, Card. Gabrielle-Marie Garrone complained that none of the newspapers even mentioned him as a papabile.) Neither Siri nor Pignedoli could garner enough votes to be elected in the first and second ballots, but by the second ballot, Cardinal Luciani was in contention, so on the third ballot, the compromise candidate, Albino Luciani was elected. A fourth ballot was held to make it unanimous. I know this to be a true account because I heard with my own ears the "indiscretion" of one of the cardinal electors immediately after the conclave as soon as he returned to the college where he was lodging. There definitely was no "mistake" (as Wikipedia claims) in the Burke-Young tally of the voting in the August 1978 conclave: Luciani already won the papacy on the third ballot, but he himself insisted on a fourth ballot, which unanimously elected him. Almost immediately upon assuming the papacy, John Paul I's pontificate was quickly turning into a potential catastrophe for ecclesiastical Freemasonry. He was going to purge the Vatican bank and remone it from Masonic control under Bishop Paul Marcinkus, and he announced to Cardinal Villot his intention to remove three of the highest ranking Masonic prelates (Villot himself, Casaroli and Card. Ugo Polletti) from the Roman Curia and replace them with conservatives. About an hour later, Pope Luciani was dead. His body was discovered the following morning. The last man known to have been with him was Cardinal Jean Villot, with whom he had just had a heated row. The murder of the pope was carried out by P2 Freemasons. When Roberto Calvi threatened Licio Gelli to disclose the P2 involvement in Luciani's murder, the order was given to kill Calvi. Already, three days before the death of John Paul I, Archbishop (and future Cardinal) Eduard Gagnon had said to Fr. Mario Marini, "They're going to kill this pope. He is trying to make too many changes, and too quickly." Three days later, Marini called Gagnon after having just learned of the death of Pope Luciani -- Marini asked Gagnon, "Do you remember what you told me three days ago?" Archbishop Gagnon replied, "I remember very well, and they did it." Archbishop Gagnon not only predicted the murder of Pope John Paul I, but he also predicted the election of Cardinal Wojtyla as a compromise candidate in the second 1978 conclave. On the evening just after the election of Wojtyla, I was having dinner with Archbishop Gagnon, Fr. Marini, and some other clerics and religious familiar to all of us at a restaurant in the Monteverde section of Rome. Gagnon described how he had been having his dinner at a different restaurant in the city center the previous evening, when some journalists spotted him and asked him about the likely outcome of the conclave. The journalists were mentioning all the names of the papabili that were floating around in the press & media, and brought up the name of the Brazilian (heretic) Card. Aloisio Lorscheider as a possible compromise candidate. Upon hearing the speculation about a possible compromise candidate, Gagnon said to them, "If a compromise candidate will be elected, the one to watch for is Cardinal Wojtyla." After relating this to us, Gagnon then said with a smile, "I won't be going back to that restaurant too soon." So, John Paul II was not the choice of the progressivists in 1978, he was not "their man", but a compromise candidate acceptable to both sides. After some years, when it became clear that in moral and disciplinary matters John Paul would not budge from the traditional position, he would seek a rapproachment with the SSPX, and issue an indult for the celebration of the traditional liturgy, the progressivists grew increasingly impatient with him, and set in motion the movement to oust him. Under pressure to resign, John Paul II said while visiting Ancona around 1995 or 1996 that he was not leaving and would stay put. Back then, "their man" was the other Jesuit heretic, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini SJ. The Wojtylian pontificate lingered on and on as Cardinal Martini became old and decrepit (nearly 80 years old) when John Paul II finally died. Whereas in the 90s, in diplomatic circles and where the "good and the great" meet, when Martini was present, index fingers discreetly pointed him out as the next pope. By the time Pope Wojtyla died in 2005, it was too late for Martini -- the 'powers that be' now wanted the younger Jesuit (heretic), Bergoglio to succeed the Polish pope. However, too many non-European cardinals rallied behind Ratzinger after his funeral homily for John Paul II, so they still didn't get their man -- they got the hated "German Shepherd", also known as "God's Rotweiller", Joseph Ratzinger. After Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum, freeing the celebration of the traditional Latin liturgy so hated by the progressivists, and after backtracking on some progressive positions of Vatican II, and reforming the liturgy of the Mass rite of Paul VI along conservative lines, the progressivists led by ecclesiastical Masons were determined to oust him. It even reached the point that death threats were transmitted to him. I was informed by a cleric close to Pope Benedict about the threats well before Benedict announced his resignation. So, I had no difficulty believng the reports of Fr. Santiago (a personal collaborator of Pope Benedict) and Alberto Villasana about the coercion, threats and pressures to oust Pope Benedict. Now that Freemasonry has "their man" at the top of the Vatican, we can expect to eventually hear a dissenting reaction from Pope Benedict and his followers, as Francis pursues the Masonic policy of the utter demolition of Catholicism and a radical reform of the Church that would transform it into a Masonic "dogma free Christianity", and merge it into intercommunion with the other denominations and non-Christian religions. Meanwhile, there is growing awareness among Catholics that "Francis" is increasingly manifesting himself to be exactly what St. Francis of Assisi foretold in his deathbed prophecy -- "uncanonically elected", and, "not a true pastor but a destroyer."

[Michael]

Here is the report that Father Kramer was referencing from Suscipe Domine:

Quote

Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation to the Church on Monday February 11, 2013. That day he read a Declaratio which became effective, at his wish, on February 28 at 8:00 pm. However, he made the decision to resign a month and a half in advance. Before Christmas of 2012, due to the dossier that was delivered to him on Dec. 17, he concluded that it was better to step aside for the good of the Church. His brother, Father George Ratzinger, and other prelates close to the Pope were witnesses to that decision, as stated by Lluis Cardinal Martinez Sistach of Barcelona.

The dossier that led him to resign was prepared by the commission of three cardinals he appointed to investigate the source of the leak of confidential documents known as "Vatileaks".

But it is logical that the documents published in the book «Sua Santità» written by Gianluigi Nuzzi did not worry the Pope as much as a specific one filtered directly to the newspaper «Il Fatto Quotidiano», and that is the one Dario Cardinal Castrillon personally gave him, translated into German, which refers to knowledge that the cardinal of Palermo, Paolo Romeo, had of a plot to assassinate the Pope. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099276/The-Pope-victim-ass...]

The dossier that the cardinals Herranz, Tomko and De Giorgi handed to Benedict XVI [http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/for-record-la-repubblicas-...], with the investigation into the plot to assassinate him, led the Pope to imagine the earthquake that his death would have caused the Church, unleashing a hellish struggle for influence and shady maneuvers ahead of the succession resulting from internal antagonisms of the curia. Not for fear of death, but for possible harm to the Church, did the Pope decide that it was best to resign to remove threats and advance a peaceful succession.

In a report which the Jesuit priest Arnaldo Zenteno produced, published on April 9, 2013 [http://grupobasesfys.blogspot.mx/2013/04/el-presbitero-arnaldo-zent...], it states the following in section 3): "In the lunch meeting with Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo, it was entrusted to Pope Francis that one of the causes that influenced his resignation were the threats he received and for fear of being poisoned, as the decision to kill him was already made, so that Benedict XVI, in a move to neutralize the attempt on his life, made public his resignation with which disarmed the attempt to kill him.”

In this sense, while it is true that the Pope "freely" declared to resign, the fact is that to a greater or lesser extent he was forced by the pressure of an attack, so his freedom, according to the canonical doctrine, was conditioned in radice.

While the Pope made the decision to resign in accordance with the powers given to him under the Code of Canon Law, he made it under the duress of moral violence, which, according to No. 125 of the same Code, invalidates the final decision at the root and renders the act invalid [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PE.HTM]. It is like one who freely chooses to marry, but if there is hidden stress, fear or deception, the marriage is void for fault, although a clearly "free" commitment has been expressed publicly.

It must be recognized that while the Church has always considered a sacred law that the election of the Pope is ad vitam, it is good that canon law considers the possibility of resignation for extremely serious cases, such as exile, persecution or other grave cause. In this sense, the waiver provided for in Canon 332 of the CDC [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM] is like an emergency exit, and it is convenient to have, so much so that it helped Benedict XVI to flee from the threat hanging over his person and the Church, even though he was aware—especially with the heroic example of his predecessor—that the papal election is ad vitam and is not negotiable, nor may its terms be negotiable.

There is a further element to the pressure to claim that Benedict XVI's resignation was invalid, and it is evidence that in the decree read by Pope there was not any legitimate resignation due to an error in the Latin.

In the Declaratio of the "resignation" of Pope Benedict XVI, as it was officially released by the Vatican and published in L'Osservatore Romano, there is a very obvious solecism, i.e., a syntactic error, which consists in putting the elements of a sentence in the wrong way.

At the core of the resignation it reads: "Declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commissum renuntiare" ("I declare to renounce the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, which has been entrusted to me by the hands of the cardinals on April 19, 2005.") This sentence is totally unintelligible, containing a grammatical error, as commissum, which depends on ministerio, is the object of the verb renuntiare, so it should be in dative, according to him, that is, it should say commisso [while the copy on the website of the Holy See uses commisso; the copy on news.va retains the error; furthermore, in this video recording Benedict clearly pronounces the erroneous Latin.]

Now, in canon law, all legal writing containing a fault of Latin is null. Already Pope St. Gregory VII (cf. Registrum 1.33) declared null a privilege accorded to a monastery by his predecessor Alexander II, "due to corruption in the Latin".


Another example: in the decretal epistle Ad audientiam of Pope Lucius III, found in the body of canon law (cf. Decretal Epistles of Gregory IX, In Rescriptis, c. XI) it states that "false Latinity annuls a papal rescript." In this decree, the Pope prohibited giving credit to any papal document "if it contains a clear fault of construction." The gloss (in the official text published by order of Pope Gregory XIII in 1582) explains why a papal decree "must not contain any fault", and why any Latin error constitutes such a presumption of invalidity "that no evidence to the contrary can be admitted". While some modern canonists believe that the 1917 and 1983 codes automatically repealed all previous rules, the care that the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Pontifical Texts continues to place on the matter casts doubt on this view.

Claiming that a decree is null does not necessarily mean it is a false document. But an error, if one discloses it, can be overt or surreptitious, i.e., Pope Benedict XVI could have written carelessly, or hiding a real hidden message (the resignation having been made under pressure). The first is rather unlikely, as presumably such an important text was revised by the Pope not once but several times.

In conclusion, it does not seem that the Latin error committed by Benedict XVI has been one of laziness, but rather an intentional purpose, in which he would be speaking to us not only of the absolute nullity of the pontifical decree, which is a fact, but also of the pressure by which it was motivated, as well as the back door that Pope Benedict would leave open.

The truth is that, as of March 13, 2013, the prophecies that speak of "Two Popes in Rome" began to be fulfilled, one existing officially emeritus and one acting. Never in the history of the Church has there been this situation, predicted by saints and mystics, and it is very difficult for it to happen again.

The trouble is that, according to the prophecies and private revelations, when there are two popes in Rome (they can be the present ones or two others in the future) there will be a schism in the Church, a division caused by an illegitimate pope's heresy and the reaction of the true Vicar of Christ, who will raise his voice to denounce the apostasy. At that time, there will be a sudden invasion of Russia into Europe, coinciding with the War of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 38), which consists of the attack of Russia and Arab countries against Israel. Then, the legitimate pope will be persecuted and will have to flee Rome for refuge, while the antipope will rule the Church supporting the false peace, the sacrilegious unification of religions. That false peace will be the religious support of the world government of the antichrist. The antipope will betray the faith by accepting the coalition of all creeds and renouncing the Catholic identity.

St. Francis of Assisi says: "There will be an uncanonically elected pope who will cause great schism". And Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Augustinian religious, states: "I saw a strong opposition between the two popes, and I saw how dire will be the consequences of the false church (...) This will cause the greatest schism ever seen in the world”. [http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/10/explosive-revelation-bened... — a foretaste, perhaps?]

The Blessed Virgin said explicitly at La Salette: "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist". [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_La_Salette]

And there are many other private revelations and announcements of Church hierarchs:

Says Fr. Paul Kramer, "The antipope and his apostate collaborators will be, as Sister Lucia said, supporters of the devil, those who work for evil without being afraid of anything."

Pope St. Pius X announced: "I had a terrible vision: I do not know if it will be me or one of my successors, but I saw a Pope from Rome fleeing amongst the corpses of his brothers. He will take refuge in disguise somewhere and after a short time he will die a cruel death."

Juan de Rocapartida: "Approaching the End Times, the Pope and his cardinals will have to flee from Rome in tragic consequences to a place where they will not be recognized, and the Pope will suffer a cruel death in exile."

Nicholas of Flüe: "The Pope with his cardinals will have to flee from Rome in a calamitous situation to a place where they will be unknown. The Pope will die in an atrocious manner during his exile. The sufferings of the Church will be greater than any previous moment in history."

Ven. Bartholomew Holzhauser, founder of the secular clergy societies in the eighteenth century: "God will permit a great evil against His Church: they will come bursting in suddenly and unexpectedly while bishops and priests are asleep. They shall enter into Italy and devastate Rome, burn churches and destroy everything."

The revelation received by Mother Elena Aiello, famed stigmatic who was often consulted by Pope Pius XII: "Italy will be shaken by a great revolution (...) Russia will prevail over the nations, and especially over Italy, and will raise the red flag over the dome of St. Peter."

The words of John of Vitiguero: "When the world is disturbed, the Pope will change residence."

Elena Leonardi, spiritually guided by Padre Pio: "The Vatican will be invaded by communist revolutionaries. They will betray the Pope. Italy will suffer a major revolt and will be cleansed by a great revolution. Russia will march on Rome and the Pope will be severely endangered".

Enzo Alocci: "The Pope will disappear temporarily and this will occur when there is a revolution in Italy."

Blessed Anna Maria Taigi: "Religion will be persecuted and priests massacred. The Holy Father will be forced to leave Rome."

The mystic Maria Steiner: "The holy Church will be persecuted, Rome will be without a shepherd."

The revelations of Garabandal: "The Pope will not be able to be in Rome, he will be persecuted and will have to hide."

To Fr. Stefano Gobbi, mystic and founder of the Marian Movement of Priests, Our Lady confided: "The Masonic forces have entered the Church in a disguised and hidden form, and they have established their headquarters in the same place where the Vicar of my Son Jesus lives and works. It is being done as is contained in the third part of my message, which has not yet been revealed, but it has already become clear by the same events that you are living."

Pope Paul VI: "The smoke of Satan has entered through the cracks of the Church" (Homily of June 29, 1972).

According to St. Paul, the antichrist will manifest himself just after the Pope to be cast aside, "But the one who restrains is to do so only for the present, until he is removed from the scene. And then the lawless one will be revealed." (2 Thessalonians 2: 6-8).

Canon Roca, the excommunicated Illuminist who collaborated on the infiltration against the Church, wrote: "In its present form the papacy will disappear, the new social order will be implemented from Rome but independently from Rome, without Rome, in spite of Rome, against Rome. And this new church, which might not be able to retain anything of Scholastic doctrine and the original form of the former Church, will nevertheless receive consecration and canonical jurisdiction from Rome."
The new church will support the unification of religions and the false peace, fulfilling what was said by Jesus Christ in the sense that even the elect could be deceived.

Karol Cardinal Wojtyla was very clear when he declared, before the Eucharistic Congress in Pennsylvania, in 1977: "We are facing the greatest historical confrontation humanity has ever had. We are in the final contest between the Church and the anti-Church, the Gospel and the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of Divine Providence and is a challenge that the whole Church has to accept."

If Benedict XVI's resignation was null by fault, the Conclave was invalid because there never was a sede vacante. That fact poses a pressing question: will not Benedict XVI remain the Vicar of Christ in the eyes of God? Will it not be Benedict XVI who has to flee from Rome in the midst of persecution? These are questions that will be resolved over time.

In 1917 it was revealed to three shepherd children in Fatima, Portugal, the revelation that had Pope St. Pius X a few years before, only in an even more precise form: "We saw a bishop dressed in white, we had a feeling it was the Holy Father, flee a city in ruins trembling with halting step." [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc...]

The version of Fatima even further points that it could be of the Pope who resigned, Benedict XVI, and would explain the phrase "We saw a bishop dressed in white, we had a feeling it was the Holy Father." If it had been evident that it was the reigning pope, they would have said so in an undeniable way. Instead, they saw a "bishop dressed in white". They never could have imagined the theme of "resignation", so only had "a feeling".

The second element is even more precise and revealing: they saw him fleeing "trembling with halting step," which may be due to his advanced age.

And a third element is also revealing: of the same bishop in white that earlier they see fleeing Rome, they affirm later, at the time he is killed on a hill, that this was the "Holy Father".

Following the flight of the legitimate pope, the antipope will remain in Rome leading the "new church", supporting the apostate union of religions. This is the "abomination of desolation", foretold since ancient times by the prophet Daniel, established in the holy place.

In the words of Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, personal theologian to Pope John Paul II: "The Third Secret refers to the loss of faith in the Church, i.e., the apostasy which will emerge from the top of the Church."

Only two things are certain at this point: for the first time in history there are two Popes in Rome, and Benedict XVI is more present than ever. Suffice it to recall some of his last words while still in the Seat of Peter: "You will be close to me, even if I am hidden from the world." — Benedict XVI, Address to the Roman clergy, February 14, 2013

More secondhand info, which, if true, advances the Canon 125 thesis:

http://themoynihanletters.com/from-the-desk-of/letter-42-alpha-and-...

Quote

“Regarding the decision to step down, I have the feeling,” she continued, “that Benedict finally realized that, in the Curia there were simply too many who needed to be changed. The secret report of the three cardinals revealed a series of things that did not work. The report recognized that there are many in the Curia who are very good, but also a good-sized group with… various problems.

“The Pope found himself in a dramatic situation when he found that they had put someone in his own house who stole his documents. This was disconcerting. Some Germans went to visit him, and the Pope said to them, ‘Think about it, he was giving me my medicine, too.’

“In other words, he felt there might even have been a threat to his own life…

“Then, on a number of occasions, he was asked to approve appointments and transfers which he was not certain about. This troubled him deeply. “Then, he meditated, and prayed. And he made his plan. And what did he do? In a single blow, they are all gone, the heads of every office in the entire Curia. Now a younger man will be able to come in and, over the coming years, completely reform the Roman Curia. He couldn’t have been more brilliant.”

If Villasana's analysis is correct, many of Ratzinger/Benedict's words and actions take on extra significance. Here are three:

• His silent prayer to God during the conclave: "Please don't do this to me." Taking the Third Secret of Fatima into account—the text of which he read in its entirety—perhaps he himself considered the possibility that the pope to follow JPII would be the pope of the third secret, and not JPII?
• From the above link: "In his interview with Peter Seewald, when Seewald asked him whether he was at the end or the beginning of his pontificate, he replied ‘Both.’" Could he himself know?
• His reference to the ascent to Mount Tabor and the Transfiguration in many of his final public statements; what came after the Transfiguration? The Resurrection…by way of the Passion, of course.

[Dawn Marie]

Thanks Michael.  I'm not very good at FB so I couldn't figure out where that was.  

This post edited

[Dawn Marie]

I guess this is all interesting but without any hard evidence for the moment it's just speculation so I'm gonna close replies to this discussion....(for now).