Angelus, just stop.  You have to read legal docuмents in full context of ALL sections, amendments, and provisions. 

Provide a logical argument based on evidence to make your point, Pax. Otherwise, you are not contributing anything worthwhile.

Since you seem to imply that you have read Universi Dominici Gregis "in full context of ALL sections, amendments, and provisions," show me using evidence and a syllogism something that clearly contradicts what I have stated.

Please do your homework and read the Declaratio closely.  Joseph Ratzinger indicated what he was renouncing, and it was not his office (munus).  He renounced the active ministry, which follows from the munus.  He clearly showed his intent to retain some aspect of the papacy.  That was sufficient to retain the whole thing.  Even if he hypothetically claimed to renounce 99% of the munus and to retain 1% of it, he would remain pope.

I've read it multiple times, including in Latin, and commented on why that's nonsense.  Canon Law doesn't require any specific term for renunciation of the munus.  It uses the term munus but then states that the Pope needs to make it sufficiently clear that he intends to resign.  There need be no formal docuмent.  He could walk out the door and say, "Seeya.  I've had enough of this pope business.  And then head out somewhere."  That would suffice.  In fact, most theologians hold that there could even be situations of "tacit resignation" if the pope acts as if he doesn't intend to function as pope, such as, for instance, a priest were elected to the papacy but then didn't bother to get consecrated a bishop.  Nor is there any indication anywhere that ministerium does not adequately describe the papal office and isn't synonymous for it.  This is based solely on the fact that Canon Law uses the term munus; it could just as easily have chosen ministerium.  There's no significant or relevant difference between the two terms that has ever been demonstrated.  Ratzinger made it abundantly clear in the docuмent with his long-winded circuмlocution where he stated, that as a consequence of his action, the See would be empty and conclave would be needed to elect a successor.  He couldn't have made it more clear.  And then in ceasing to function as pope, he confirmed the resignation.  Finally, it matters absolutely nothing, as it doesn't even address 1% of the problem of Vatican II.  You folks are acting on an emotional aversion to Bergoglio, but Wojtyla and Ratzinger were as much heretics as Jorge was, and they were MORE dangerous precisely because they played the part of being conservative / Traditional, to sucker people back into the Conciliar Church.  You Bennyvacantist types are playing into the notion that Ratzinger was some great paragon of Traditionalism, playing into the Hegelian dialect where the perception of "Traditionalism" shifts (by contrast with the Bergoglian extreme) far to the left of where it should be.  Listening to some Bennyvcantists talk, you'd think that Ratzinger was "Pope St. Pius X the New" (to paraphrase Moran, "Josaphat the New").  Cardinal Kasper, the friendly ecuмenist, who rejected the "ecuмenism of return" (i.e. the notion that non-Catholics had to convert), whose language was also cited by Ratzinger when "Pope", who knew both Ratzinger and Jorge very well, stated publicly that there's no difference between the theology of the two men, just in the manner in which they tried to present it.  So you guys need to wake up already and snap out of this nonsense.

Again, your disagreement seems to be with the promulgator of Universi Dominici Gregis, not me. Here it is again.


STEP 1

CHAPTER III - THE BEGINNING OF THE ELECTION

49. When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope ...

I've already gone through the Latin of the docuмent.  Have you?  There's no article in Latin, so the translation is just as easily, "When the funeral rites for a deceased Pope ..."

In other words, if the Pope is deceased, the funeral rites should be completed before the conclave begins.

It's really not that hard.

You blabber about reading the full context, but then ignore the early part of the docuмent where Wojtyla clear states the see can be vacated either by the death or the resignation of a Pontiff.  Within that actual context, this clearly means that in the event that the See is vacant due to the death of the pope, the funeral rites should be completed before the conclave begins.  Otherwise, his statement that the See can be vacated by resignation would be entirely moot.  Among other things, you completely defy all common sense by clinging to what you perceive to be some technicality, but which you completely distort.  But, to some it up, the statement above should be translated, "When the funeral rites for A deceased Pope have been completed ..." i.e., IF there's a deceased pope.

You've demanded arguments.  I've made them.  But you simply ignore them and spam in the text of UDG again.

Please do your homework and read the Declaratio closely.  Joseph Ratzinger indicated what he was renouncing, and it was not his office (munus).  He renounced the active ministry, which follows from the munus.  He clearly showed his intent to retain some aspect of the papacy.  That was sufficient to retain the whole thing.  Even if he hypothetically claimed to renounce 99% of the munus and to retain 1% of it, he would remain pope.

CK, I believe, as you do, that the Declaratio was an invalid form of a canon 332 §2 "resignation." Benedict could have invoked canon 332 in that docuмent, but he didn't. Clearly he was doing something different.

But having said that, it doesn't even matter if Benedict would have "resigned" in a perfectly valid manner or not. A mere act of "resignation" does not, by itself, trigger a new papal election, according to Universi Dominici Gregis. As UDG says over and over, only the death of the Pope will trigger a new papal election.
 
If you disagree with me, please show me how my interpretation of UDG is incorrect.

CK, I believe, as you do, that the Declaratio was an invalid form of a canon 332 §2 "resignation." Benedict could have invoked canon 332 in that docuмent, but he didn't. Clearly he was doing something different.

You're not even bright enough to realize that this renders your argument completely moot.  If Ratzinger didn't resign, then your discussion of resignation requiring a funeral doesn't even factor in here.

Provide a logical argument based on evidence to make your point, Pax.

That's not how law works.  You have to interpret law, and regulations, in the context of the ENTIRE docuмent.  Section A refers to Section B, which refers to Section C, etc.

You can't use "logic" to make arguments about legal docuмents.    It's why people go to law school...it's a unique language.

And i've already posted, legally, why your interpretation is wrong.  It was on another thread. 

Wrong again. As St. Thomas makes clear, any true law must be reasonable. Otherwise, it is no law at all and should be ignored.

What????    I'm not even sure what you're talking about.