The Chair of Peter is Vacant

[FlyersFan]

A second option is to move this discussion to a forum where it matters. 

This is a conspiracy forum.
This is a conspiracy that is being discussed in the church and outside it.
Discussing it in this forum is appropriate.  It's what it's here for.
If certain people aren't interested in it .. they are free to ignore the topic and post elsewhere.

[FlyersFan]

This is just your personal opinion. Nowhere in the Canon Law is such a distinction made. I quoted to you the part about the Pope's resignation. You can find nothing about God's anointment there, office vs duties, investiture or whatever. 

Here's pope Benedict's resignation speech:

https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-...ratio.html

It's obvious that his intention to resign was clear and that he did that freely. And that is all that is required for the pope to resign.

Sure it's my opinion.  People have them.  Myself, and a lot of others, are of the opinion that the resignation may not have fulfilled what is required to properly resign.   He resigned from the duties .. but not the office.  The theology behind the office is that it is an appointment and anointing by God.   That's Catholic teaching.

Wording is very important because it reflects intention.   There are spiritual realm implications for every word uttered, especially when dealing with who is anointed and running the Church and who is not.   The head of the Catholic church has a mandate and  authority given by God that echos in the spiritual realm - that's the belief - Matthew 16:18-19. 

Gotta' get the words right.

Benedict kept the papal name and he kept the papal garb.  He resigned from the duties but didn't reject the office appointment.   It could be seen not as a full resignation.   I think the conspiracy has legs.  Maybe something to it ... maybe not.

[Anna]

Sure it's my opinion.  People have them.  Myself, and a lot of others, are of the opinion that the resignation may not have fulfilled what is required to properly resign.   He resigned from the duties .. but not the office.  The theology behind the office is that it is an appointment and anointing by God.   That's Catholic teaching.

No. Actually no. Your opinion and Catholic teaching are two different things. The Catholic teaching is in the official Church documents, such as the Canon Law that doesn't support anything you claimed. It's clearly stated there what the Pope has to do so that his resignation is valid. And he did that. Therefore, the claim about his resignation being invalid is false. 

Now you can think that the official teaching of the Church and its law are total gobbledygook and should therefore be changed and you have a full right to think that. But claiming that the pope's election was illegitimate in the light of the Catholic teaching without giving any evidence, moreover in the presence of the evidence to the contrary, is that... an unfounded claim.

[FlyersFan]

Your opinion and Catholic teaching are two different things. 

I don't think so.
He kept the garb and the name.
He specifically resigned from just the duties.
He didn't resign from the office itself.
The office which is, according to Catholic belief, ratified and under authority from God.
Authority that doesn't disappear because someone doesn't want to to do the job anymore.

That's like saying someone can be unbaptised.   
It doesn't work that way.   

I think that the people saying that Benedict didn't fully resign have a good point.
They may have it wrong ... or they may have it right.   I don't know.
But the argument is a good one and it's a worthy conspiracy theory to discuss.

[DontTreadOnMe]

Splitting hairs. Most Catholics and, indeed, the rest of the world, couldn't care less. If you are intent on making this an issue in Catholicism, you have a long and lonely road ahead of you.

That may be true for most Catholics.  But there is a growing number who agree with the OP.  That Francis is not the Pope.

It may be a long and lonely road, but every might oak started as a mere acorn.
The Catholic Church has survived worse than this.

[DontTreadOnMe]

Who cares? Nobody else believes you. The Catholic Church doesn't care what you say. The priesthod doesn't care what you say. 

There are plenty of Catholics who believe that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not the true Pope!!
Perhaps you have heard of Traditional Catholics?  I know there are plenty of regular Catholics that believe as well.
They may not all be vocal.  But I can tell you they do pray for a return to sanity in the Church.

[guyfriday]

There are plenty of Catholics who believe that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not the true Pope!!
Perhaps you have heard of Traditional Catholics?  I know there are plenty of regular Catholics that believe as well.
They may not all be vocal.  But I can tell you they do pray for a return to sanity in the Church.

amongst some of the people I know that are/were Roman Catholic, they say that John Paul the 1st was the last Pope according to the last prophecy of Fatima. To them the Church in Roman is a lie, they are just waiting for the time of Man to start.

[Solvedit]

His Excellence Pope Benedict XVI left us on Dec. 31, 2022 so  the state of affairs you describe would have ended then. 

He was surely well aware of Pope Francis.  It is probable that he intended to let Pope Francis act as pope.

[FlyersFan]

amongst some of the people I know that are/were Roman Catholic, they say that John Paul the 1st was the last Pope according to the last prophecy of Fatima. To them the Church in Roman is a lie, they are just waiting for the time of Man to start.

YEP.   There are many Catholics who believe that there have been no legitimate popes since Vatican II.  Also they believe that the Mass is illicit since it changed formulas and Pope Pius V (Quo Primum) made the binding rule specifically that the liturgy of the mass can not change ... ever.  Vatican II changed the mass.   Those who changed it, like Pope Paul VI, tried to cover their tracks and say that it's the same mass.  But when you look at the words and the intent, it's a totally different mass than pre-Vatican II.   So those who believe the Novus Ordo Mass (the one usually celebrated in Catholic Churches now) is illicit ... they have a good point.

And no ... those people are not a 'cult of one' like the previous poster sneered.

Like I said before, the Catholic church is an exact science.   Every word has meaning and has to be precise.  Every prayer, every dedication, every rite, every piece of clothing, every movement, every candle, every cross, every consecration, every word .. all have specific meaning and all has to be precise.  What is done here in the physical world echos in the spiritual world (Matthew 16:18-19) EXACT SCIENCE.

[Anna]

...
Like I said before, the Catholic church is an exact science.   Every word has meaning and has to be precise.  Every prayer, every dedication, every rite, every piece of clothing, every movement, every candle, every cross, every consecration, every word .. all have specific meaning and all has to be precise.  What is done here in the physical world echos in the spiritual world (Matthew 16:18-19) EXACT SCIENCE.

To be honest, it looks more like magic than science to me. Say the spell wrong and it won't work. Forget to add one ingredient to your magic soup and it will have no magic effect. 

I once attended a tridentine mass out of pure curiosity. I don't see how it should be more valid than a modern mass. The essence of the Eucharist is the same. It requires a semi-pagan mindset to focus on ceremonial side of things so that stuff is spelled correctly and proper sacrifices are offered lest the petty deities become furious and change the petitioner into a frog instead of granting him all the riches in the world.