A Refutation of Zechariah 4:14's "Why Pope Francis..."
GTV user Zechariah 4:14 posted a treatise called "Why Pope Francis is an Antipope: Canon 332.2".
Edit: Zechariah 4:14 has changed his name once again. GTV should seriously consider disabling the function as it serves no productive purpose.
In this work, the author makes numerous false claims on the subject and about me in particular. Normally, I'm indulgent with this user's errors, his ignorance and his rampant propensity for telling lies. Given the formal nature of his treatise and the severtiy of his accusations, that is no longer an option.
This is a point-by-point refutation of the author's claims.
--> "Canon Law frequently discusses both parts of the papacy, the ministry and the office of the post. Ministerium and munus."
No citations given. Unsupported claim and irrelevant to Canon Law 332 §2. which does not mention or discuss "both parts of the papacy" either in English or Latin.
Canon Law states: 332 §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."
Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)
--> "In his resignation later, Benedict resigns the ministry. Specifically. He says it multiple times."
Benedict clarifies the nature of his resignation with the following: "I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Citation: (Resignation Letter of Benedict XVI Vatican Website)
Benedict's resigned "in such a way" that "the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is"
Whatever is required for that to occur, Benedict covers with his qualification "in such a way" that "a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked". Whatever is required for that to occur, Benedict's resignation covers becaushe he resigns "in such a way" this must occur.
--> "Canon 332.2 discusses the resignation of the office.
"332.2 If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounces his munus, there is required for validity that the renunciation be done freely and manifested duly, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever."
That is false. Canon Law 332 §2 does not say: "If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounces his munus"
Canon Law states 332 §2 in English states . "If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."
Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)
Canon Law 332 §2 uses the word "happens" not "happen". Further, Canon Law does not mix Latin and English the way the author does.
Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)
The author then begins using a numerical system for his points which I will retain.
--> "1) Canon Law doesn't use ministerium and munus interchangeably. It is precise."
The irony of this author lecturing on the precision of Canon Law! Canon Law 332 §2 doesn't use Latin and English interchangeably and "happen" does not appear in the English tranlation of Canon Law 332 §2
--> "2) Canon 332.2 says them (sic) resignation of the office must be manifested properly."
That is false. Canon Law 332 §2 states (verbatim) , "it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested"
Canon Law 332 §2 states "the resignation". It does NOT state, "the resignation of the office". This is how people lie by subtly re-phrasing Canon Law.
Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)
-->"3) B16's resignation only mentions the ministry, multiple times."
Benedict's resignation letter mentions the ministry. But Canon Law 332 §2 does not require a specific mention of the "office". Additionally, Canon Law 332 §2 does not establish a resignation must be soley by written letter.
Canon Law 332 §2 requires (verbatim) "the resignation is made freely and properly manifested"
There are only two points required for a valid Papal resignation. Two points only they are (verbatim) "freely and properly manifested."
Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)
Point One: "Freely"
Benedict states the freedom of his resignation in his letter thusly: "For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare...
Citation: (Resignation Letter of Benedict XVI Vatican Website)
Point Two: "Properly Manifested"
The concept of "properly manifested" isn't defined under Canon Law 332 §2 or anywhere else in Canon Law.
Benedict published a written letter of resignation and he publicly stated his resignation in his last General Audience, Wednesday, 27 February 2013
He stated: "I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church,.."
Citation: (Transcript of Benedict XVI's Last General Audience Vatican Website)
Benedict has also said, "Francis has a strong presence. Much stronger that I could ever have with my physical and mental weaknesses," he observed. "To remain in my office would not have been honest."
Citation: (Tekton Ministries article: "Ratzinger’s Request: Simply call me ‘Father Benedict’ ")
Benedict explicitly used the term "office" in reference to the papacy and his renunciation of it, both during his resignation and afterwards. This shows conistency in Benedict's statements and in Benedict's understanding of the Papacy as an "office". He referred to it as such and he renounced it.
-->"4.a) From his dress…"
Benedict addressed this directly and refutes the author's claim.
"At the moment of my resignation there were no other clothes available. In any case, I wear the white cassock in a visibly different way to how the Pope wears it. This is another case of completely unfounded speculations being made,"
Citation: (Catholic World Report article: "Benedict XVI rejects conspiracy theories: 'There is no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation' ”)
Not only does Benedict acknowledge he dresses differently, he also raises two additional points. a.) he differentiates between himself and "the Pope" as two separate individuals b.) he refers to "the Pope" as a singular individual.
This also contradicts a claim the author makes later on, "that B16 "expanded" the papacy." Benedict did no such thing and refutes that claim as well.
In particular, Benedict no longer wears the Papal shoulder-cape, the Papal sash, or the Papal ring. Pope Francis does. as seen in the following photo.
Citation: (High resolution NPR Media photo)
-->"4.b) his residence…,"
Vatican City:. Population: 825 Living in the Vatican does not make one Pope.
Citation: (Wikipedia article: "Vatican City")
-->"4.c) his holding on to his papal name…"
Benedict refutes this as well:
--Benedict explained that when he initially stepped down he wanted to be called 'Father Benedict' rather than Pope Emeritus or Benedict XVI, but 'I was too weak at that point to enforce it.'--
Citation: (Tekton Ministries article: "Ratzinger’s Request: Simply call me ‘Father Benedict’)
-->"4.d) being addressed as His Holiness"
Benedict is not responsible for the persistent errors others, or the agenda they try to perpetuate by doing so.
-->"4.e.) …from Ganswein's explanation that B16 "expanded" the papacy.
Ganswien's claims have no more validity than the author's. Zero direct citations for the author's claim as well.
By contrast, in addition to Benedict's clear distinction between himself and the Pope, he has refuted this notion of an "expanded" papacy.
--there is no “diarchy” (dual government) in the Church today--
Benediict specifically identified and contracted such a concept
Citation: (Catholic World Report article:Benedict XVI rejects conspiracy theories: “There is no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation”)
--> "4.f) and from the fact he didn't mention both the ministry and OFFICE of the pope.
Canon Law 332 §2 does not list this as a requirement. Again: "it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."
Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)
The only two points required for a valid resignation under Canon Law 332 §2 are (verbatim) a.) "made freely" b.) "and properly manifested". Nothing else is listed or required. These points have been covered already.
-->"4.g) "we are redirected to Canon 188, which means..."
That is false. Canon Law 332 §2 does not contain any "redirection" to "Canon 188". The author, presumably is referring to Canon Law 188. The Vatican website entry for Canon Law 332 §2 contains no such redirection.
Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)
The author fabricated a false claim of a "redirection" where none exists.
--> "5.) Benedict did not legally resign, by design, and thus his resognation (sic) is invalid and thus he is still pope."
The author's claim about Benedict's "resognation" is as faulty as the author's spelling!
Benedict fulfilled both points required for a valid Papal resignation under Canon Law 332 §2 This has been already addressed numerous times.
Further, The author is manufacturing a motive that does not exist and is contradicted by Benedict's own words. He states:
"Speculations about the invalidity of my resignation are simply absurd.”
Citation: (National Catholic Reporter article: "Benedict rejects rumors on why he resigned as "simply absurd' ")
The author "Zechariah 4:14" now moves from inventing motives for Benedict to inventing them for me.
-->6.) No matter how bad the Bergolians (@Ultraviolet on GTV) want Bergolio to be pope he isnt.
This is an outright lie on the author's part on multiple points and this isn't the first time I've been forced to correct it, either with him or with others.
a.) I am not a "Bergoglian"
I covered this over a year ago in my last post: "The Lion of Judah & Lyin' From KristianKeller"
I wrote: "I do not support Pope Francis. I don't like Pope Francis. I don't approve of Pope Francis. But Pope Francis is the Pope. I don't like that either. I have repeatedly explained this to KristianKeller. I've repeatedly explained this to many people here."
…and now I'm forced to explain it once again to another idiot who pretentiously names himself after Scripture while profaning all it stands for..
Citation: (GTV article: "The Lion of Judah & Lyin' From KristianKeller")
b.) I don't "want Bergoglio to be pope".
I've said so repeatedly to this author, whatever he chooses to call himself today, but the man continues to repeat his lies..
The Papacy is not a matter for the laity to decide.
Benedict XVI resigned. Cardinal Bergoglio was elected and took the name Francis. "Father" Benedict fully recognizes Francis as pope.
The author then abandons his numbering system so I shall dispense with it as well.
-->"He is an Antipope."
Wikipedia defnes an "antipope" as follows:
"An antipope is a person who, in opposition to the lawful pope, makes a significant attempt to occupy the position of Bishop of Rome and leader of the Catholic Church."
Citation: (Wikipedia article: "Antipope")
For someone to be an "antipope" there must be two things:
a.) Opposition to the lawful pope
Benedict has publicly called Francis "Pope Francis" and promised to "support his pontificate".
--In his letter to Tornielli, Benedict also confirmed that he had written, in a letter to Swiss theologian Hans Kung, a longtime friend and intellectual rival, that he was "bound by a great identity of views and a heartfelt friendship with Pope Francis" and that he sees "my last and final job to support his pontificate in prayer.
Professor Kung quoted the content of my letter to him word for word and correctly,” Benedict wrote. He concluded by saying that he hoped he had answered Tornielli’s questions in “a clear and adequate way."--
Citation: (National Catholic Reporter article: "Benedict rejects rumors on why he resigned as 'simply absurd' ")
There is no opposition -to- or -by- either man.
b.) A significant attempt to occupy the position of Bishop of Rome and leader of the Catholic Church.
Benedict specifically renounced his claim to the "Bishop of Rome" verbatim in his written resignation.
Citation: (Resignation Letter of Benedict XVI Vatican Website)
Simply put, the author, Zechariah 4:14, aka Zecc.4:14, aka JamesMichaelYerian, aka Still_I_Rise, aka JMY45, aka whatever else he calls himself today is factually incorrect and deliberately so.
I have repeatedly corrected all of these points in discussions with him before. yet he persists in repeathing them.
I have dubbed these repeated lies "Jimmies" after their author's real name. They are used in a relelentless propaganda campaign, against the Pope, against me, against anything "Jimmy" doesn't like.
He arguing in bad faith and, most importantly, he is terrified of an open discussion of his claims by anyone at all.
He's disabled the comments to his post and he's blocked me from replying to him everywhere else on this site.
By contrast, this post is open to all and I have never, ever blocked anyone on GTV for any reason.
"Blocking" another user is an admission of defeat.
I never have, I never will, because I don't need to. Likewise, I don't need to change my user name several times a week.
Such are the differences between us. ;-)
Edit: Zechariah 4:14 has changed his name once again. GTV should seriously consider disabling the function as it serves no productive purpose.
In this work, the author makes numerous false claims on the subject and about me in particular. Normally, I'm indulgent with this user's errors, his ignorance and his rampant propensity for telling lies. Given the formal nature of his treatise and the severtiy of his accusations, that is no longer an option.
This is a point-by-point refutation of the author's claims.
--> "Canon Law frequently discusses both parts of the papacy, the ministry and the office of the post. Ministerium and munus."
No citations given. Unsupported claim and irrelevant to Canon Law 332 §2. which does not mention or discuss "both parts of the papacy" either in English or Latin.
Canon Law states: 332 §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."
Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)
--> "In his resignation later, Benedict resigns the ministry. Specifically. He says it multiple times."
Benedict clarifies the nature of his resignation with the following: "I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Citation: (Resignation Letter of Benedict XVI Vatican Website)
Benedict's resigned "in such a way" that "the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is"
Whatever is required for that to occur, Benedict covers with his qualification "in such a way" that "a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked". Whatever is required for that to occur, Benedict's resignation covers becaushe he resigns "in such a way" this must occur.
--> "Canon 332.2 discusses the resignation of the office.
"332.2 If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounces his munus, there is required for validity that the renunciation be done freely and manifested duly, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever."
That is false. Canon Law 332 §2 does not say: "If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounces his munus"
Canon Law states 332 §2 in English states . "If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."
Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)
Canon Law 332 §2 uses the word "happens" not "happen". Further, Canon Law does not mix Latin and English the way the author does.
Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)
The author then begins using a numerical system for his points which I will retain.
--> "1) Canon Law doesn't use ministerium and munus interchangeably. It is precise."
The irony of this author lecturing on the precision of Canon Law! Canon Law 332 §2 doesn't use Latin and English interchangeably and "happen" does not appear in the English tranlation of Canon Law 332 §2
--> "2) Canon 332.2 says them (sic) resignation of the office must be manifested properly."
That is false. Canon Law 332 §2 states (verbatim) , "it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested"
Canon Law 332 §2 states "the resignation". It does NOT state, "the resignation of the office". This is how people lie by subtly re-phrasing Canon Law.
Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)
-->"3) B16's resignation only mentions the ministry, multiple times."
Benedict's resignation letter mentions the ministry. But Canon Law 332 §2 does not require a specific mention of the "office". Additionally, Canon Law 332 §2 does not establish a resignation must be soley by written letter.
Canon Law 332 §2 requires (verbatim) "the resignation is made freely and properly manifested"
There are only two points required for a valid Papal resignation. Two points only they are (verbatim) "freely and properly manifested."
Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)
Point One: "Freely"
Benedict states the freedom of his resignation in his letter thusly: "For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare...
Citation: (Resignation Letter of Benedict XVI Vatican Website)
Point Two: "Properly Manifested"
The concept of "properly manifested" isn't defined under Canon Law 332 §2 or anywhere else in Canon Law.
Benedict published a written letter of resignation and he publicly stated his resignation in his last General Audience, Wednesday, 27 February 2013
He stated: "I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church,.."
Citation: (Transcript of Benedict XVI's Last General Audience Vatican Website)
Benedict has also said, "Francis has a strong presence. Much stronger that I could ever have with my physical and mental weaknesses," he observed. "To remain in my office would not have been honest."
Citation: (Tekton Ministries article: "Ratzinger’s Request: Simply call me ‘Father Benedict’ ")
Benedict explicitly used the term "office" in reference to the papacy and his renunciation of it, both during his resignation and afterwards. This shows conistency in Benedict's statements and in Benedict's understanding of the Papacy as an "office". He referred to it as such and he renounced it.
-->"4.a) From his dress…"
Benedict addressed this directly and refutes the author's claim.
"At the moment of my resignation there were no other clothes available. In any case, I wear the white cassock in a visibly different way to how the Pope wears it. This is another case of completely unfounded speculations being made,"
Citation: (Catholic World Report article: "Benedict XVI rejects conspiracy theories: 'There is no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation' ”)
Not only does Benedict acknowledge he dresses differently, he also raises two additional points. a.) he differentiates between himself and "the Pope" as two separate individuals b.) he refers to "the Pope" as a singular individual.
This also contradicts a claim the author makes later on, "that B16 "expanded" the papacy." Benedict did no such thing and refutes that claim as well.
In particular, Benedict no longer wears the Papal shoulder-cape, the Papal sash, or the Papal ring. Pope Francis does. as seen in the following photo.
Citation: (High resolution NPR Media photo)
-->"4.b) his residence…,"
Vatican City:. Population: 825 Living in the Vatican does not make one Pope.
Citation: (Wikipedia article: "Vatican City")
-->"4.c) his holding on to his papal name…"
Benedict refutes this as well:
--Benedict explained that when he initially stepped down he wanted to be called 'Father Benedict' rather than Pope Emeritus or Benedict XVI, but 'I was too weak at that point to enforce it.'--
Citation: (Tekton Ministries article: "Ratzinger’s Request: Simply call me ‘Father Benedict’)
-->"4.d) being addressed as His Holiness"
Benedict is not responsible for the persistent errors others, or the agenda they try to perpetuate by doing so.
-->"4.e.) …from Ganswein's explanation that B16 "expanded" the papacy.
Ganswien's claims have no more validity than the author's. Zero direct citations for the author's claim as well.
By contrast, in addition to Benedict's clear distinction between himself and the Pope, he has refuted this notion of an "expanded" papacy.
--there is no “diarchy” (dual government) in the Church today--
Benediict specifically identified and contracted such a concept
Citation: (Catholic World Report article:Benedict XVI rejects conspiracy theories: “There is no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation”)
--> "4.f) and from the fact he didn't mention both the ministry and OFFICE of the pope.
Canon Law 332 §2 does not list this as a requirement. Again: "it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."
Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)
The only two points required for a valid resignation under Canon Law 332 §2 are (verbatim) a.) "made freely" b.) "and properly manifested". Nothing else is listed or required. These points have been covered already.
-->"4.g) "we are redirected to Canon 188, which means..."
That is false. Canon Law 332 §2 does not contain any "redirection" to "Canon 188". The author, presumably is referring to Canon Law 188. The Vatican website entry for Canon Law 332 §2 contains no such redirection.
Citation: (Canon Law Of The Catholic Church Vatican Website)
The author fabricated a false claim of a "redirection" where none exists.
--> "5.) Benedict did not legally resign, by design, and thus his resognation (sic) is invalid and thus he is still pope."
The author's claim about Benedict's "resognation" is as faulty as the author's spelling!
Benedict fulfilled both points required for a valid Papal resignation under Canon Law 332 §2 This has been already addressed numerous times.
Further, The author is manufacturing a motive that does not exist and is contradicted by Benedict's own words. He states:
"Speculations about the invalidity of my resignation are simply absurd.”
Citation: (National Catholic Reporter article: "Benedict rejects rumors on why he resigned as "simply absurd' ")
The author "Zechariah 4:14" now moves from inventing motives for Benedict to inventing them for me.
-->6.) No matter how bad the Bergolians (@Ultraviolet on GTV) want Bergolio to be pope he isnt.
This is an outright lie on the author's part on multiple points and this isn't the first time I've been forced to correct it, either with him or with others.
a.) I am not a "Bergoglian"
I covered this over a year ago in my last post: "The Lion of Judah & Lyin' From KristianKeller"
I wrote: "I do not support Pope Francis. I don't like Pope Francis. I don't approve of Pope Francis. But Pope Francis is the Pope. I don't like that either. I have repeatedly explained this to KristianKeller. I've repeatedly explained this to many people here."
…and now I'm forced to explain it once again to another idiot who pretentiously names himself after Scripture while profaning all it stands for..
Citation: (GTV article: "The Lion of Judah & Lyin' From KristianKeller")
b.) I don't "want Bergoglio to be pope".
I've said so repeatedly to this author, whatever he chooses to call himself today, but the man continues to repeat his lies..
The Papacy is not a matter for the laity to decide.
Benedict XVI resigned. Cardinal Bergoglio was elected and took the name Francis. "Father" Benedict fully recognizes Francis as pope.
The author then abandons his numbering system so I shall dispense with it as well.
-->"He is an Antipope."
Wikipedia defnes an "antipope" as follows:
"An antipope is a person who, in opposition to the lawful pope, makes a significant attempt to occupy the position of Bishop of Rome and leader of the Catholic Church."
Citation: (Wikipedia article: "Antipope")
For someone to be an "antipope" there must be two things:
a.) Opposition to the lawful pope
Benedict has publicly called Francis "Pope Francis" and promised to "support his pontificate".
--In his letter to Tornielli, Benedict also confirmed that he had written, in a letter to Swiss theologian Hans Kung, a longtime friend and intellectual rival, that he was "bound by a great identity of views and a heartfelt friendship with Pope Francis" and that he sees "my last and final job to support his pontificate in prayer.
Professor Kung quoted the content of my letter to him word for word and correctly,” Benedict wrote. He concluded by saying that he hoped he had answered Tornielli’s questions in “a clear and adequate way."--
Citation: (National Catholic Reporter article: "Benedict rejects rumors on why he resigned as 'simply absurd' ")
There is no opposition -to- or -by- either man.
b.) A significant attempt to occupy the position of Bishop of Rome and leader of the Catholic Church.
Benedict specifically renounced his claim to the "Bishop of Rome" verbatim in his written resignation.
Citation: (Resignation Letter of Benedict XVI Vatican Website)
Simply put, the author, Zechariah 4:14, aka Zecc.4:14, aka JamesMichaelYerian, aka Still_I_Rise, aka JMY45, aka whatever else he calls himself today is factually incorrect and deliberately so.
I have repeatedly corrected all of these points in discussions with him before. yet he persists in repeathing them.
I have dubbed these repeated lies "Jimmies" after their author's real name. They are used in a relelentless propaganda campaign, against the Pope, against me, against anything "Jimmy" doesn't like.
He arguing in bad faith and, most importantly, he is terrified of an open discussion of his claims by anyone at all.
He's disabled the comments to his post and he's blocked me from replying to him everywhere else on this site.
By contrast, this post is open to all and I have never, ever blocked anyone on GTV for any reason.
"Blocking" another user is an admission of defeat.
I never have, I never will, because I don't need to. Likewise, I don't need to change my user name several times a week.
Such are the differences between us. ;-)
