Author Topic: Does Anyone Subscribe to "Resignationism" (Benedict XVI still Pope)? (Read 1780 times)

knish · « **on:** April 21, 2016, 08:42:24 PM »

I've come across this theory a few times, and have never quite understood it. The only people I know who publicly profess it are Fr Paul Kramer and the anointed one, Eric GaJєωski (tradcatknight). Does anyone here subscribe to this theory? If so, why?

compline · « **Reply #1 on:** April 21, 2016, 08:56:30 PM »

If you ask me, we haven't had a valid pope since 235 when Pontian "resigned."

knish · « **Reply #2 on:** April 21, 2016, 08:59:56 PM »

Quote from: compline

If you ask me, we haven't had a valid pope since 235 when Pontian "resigned."

Supersede! :shocked:

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #3 on:** April 21, 2016, 09:07:14 PM »

I think it was the Remnant that had an article theorizing that Pope Benedict only resigned PART of his office...the govt part, not the spiritual. Considering that Benedict still wears white, wants to be called Pope, and Francis does NOT want to be called pope, but only 'bishop of Rome', it is interesting. If true it would explain Francis' extremely reckless interviews and theology as him not being the pope (except in human govt power only) he wouldn't have the graces to teach the faith in the same way a pope would.

Matto · « **Reply #4 on:** April 21, 2016, 09:28:07 PM »

Quote from: knish

I've come across this theory a few times, and have never quite understood it. The only people I know who publicly profess it are Fr Paul Kramer and the anointed one, Eric GaJєωski (tradcatknight). Does anyone here subscribe to this theory? If so, why?

I did not know that tradcatknight believed this. I thought it was only Fr. Kramer.

knish · « **Reply #5 on:** April 21, 2016, 09:30:39 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: knish
I've come across this theory a few times, and have never quite understood it. The only people I know who publicly profess it are Fr Paul Kramer and the anointed one, Eric GaJєωski (tradcatknight). Does anyone here subscribe to this theory? If so, why?

I did not know that tradcatknight believed this. I thought it was only Fr. Kramer.

JPaul · « **Reply #6 on:** April 21, 2016, 09:37:42 PM »

IMO it is legalistic nonsense. Either B XVI is still the pope (which means the other is not), or perhaps neither are. They are both heretics, who can say for sure?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #7 on:** April 21, 2016, 11:03:13 PM »

I agree, J Paul. But the introduction of the novus ordo was full of legal games too. Modernism and the devil feed off of deception, confusion and mind games. If something like this can legally be done, I wouldn't be surprised if it happens. If for disorder's sake alone.

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #8 on:** April 22, 2016, 02:14:28 PM »

I for one have no idea whether or not we have a pope or, if we do, who he is. Every time I pray a Rosary, I preface the first Pater Noster not with the traditional "for the intentions of the Holy Father," but with a long and tortured prayer couched in endless variations on "if this, then that."

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** April 22, 2016, 02:47:57 PM »

Quote from: MiserereMeiDeus

I for one have no idea whether or not we have a pope or, if we do, who he is. Every time I pray a Rosary, I preface the first Pater Noster not with the traditional "for the intentions of the Holy Father," but with a long and tortured prayer couched in endless variations on "if this, then that."

That is not necessary.

God sees your heart. He is not a lawyer, much less an English or American-style "common law" lawyer/judge where the law is all about what is written down and precedents (previous rulings and cases).

When you pray for your parents, you don't preface it with all kinds of caveats such as, "But I don't pray that they succeed in any of their sinful endeavors, if any, and I don't approve of anything heretical they have ever thought, said or done..."

With God, such "provisos" and "caveats" always go without saying.

Your quote (above) strikes me as scrupulous, legalistic, and tragic, really.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #10 on:** April 22, 2016, 02:59:26 PM »

Quote from: compline

If you ask me, we haven't had a valid pope since 235 when Pontian "resigned."

Served from 230-235 AD and is a saint.

snowball · « **Reply #11 on:** April 22, 2016, 04:37:44 PM »

Antonio Socci is, to take liberties of description, "quasi-resignationist".
He has lightened off the contention that Benedict is still Pope, but reserves
a doubt that if Benedict's resignation was not entirely voluntary, then
he is still Pope. see comments section:

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-last-prophesy-antonio-socci.html

poche · « **Reply #12 on:** April 23, 2016, 02:03:20 AM »

Quote from: knish

I've come across this theory a few times, and have never quite understood it. The only people I know who publicly profess it are Fr Paul Kramer and the anointed one, Eric GaJєωski (tradcatknight). Does anyone here subscribe to this theory? If so, why?

Does that mean if/when Pope Francis decides to resign you will reject his resignation?

compline · « **Reply #13 on:** April 23, 2016, 06:07:28 AM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: compline
If you ask me, we haven't had a valid pope since 235 when Pontian "resigned."

Served from 230-235 AD and is a saint.

It was a JOKE, but thanks for once again proving that trads are completely humorless.

Prayerful · « **Reply #14 on:** April 23, 2016, 06:30:15 AM »

Benedict XVI did ease access to the Mass of Ages with Summum Pontificuм but he is the Pope of Assisi II, who worshipped in the Blue Mosque, author of the rather Protestant series Jesus of Nazareth. He is as Modernist as Francis albeit with a different style. Although resignation or retirement diminishes the Papacy, he is no longer Pope in any normal sense. I would say his resignation made him look a coward. You would have to be really low information or perverse (if not) to think him a Traditionalist forced out by the Modernist Francis.