Your argument ex abursitate is valid in its own context, but praeter rem in the present case. Because we are not talking about alligator skins, but a canonical argument such as is found at ppbxvi.org which any layman can understand if he wants to. You might like deriding the man you think is Pope, but as a Catholic you should see that your duty is to at least take a look at the canonical evidence (not opinions) that he never was the pope, because Benedict did not resign validly and did so intentionally.

Let's not move the goalposts, BrAlexisBugnolo This is a very basic point of law. Silence doesn't imply consent the way the article is claiming. inb4 "argumentum ad nauseam".

The article title is flat-out false. The Vatican has not "accepted" any claim of the sort. They didn't bother to even legitimize the accusation with an refutation. If every foolish, inaccurate or even entirely lunatic accusation doesn't get an answer, that doesn't prove any of those accusations are true. It is not "tacit concent". That doesn't change regardless of whether the example is "absurditate" or not.

In practice, there's very little difference between "Francis isn't human" and "Francis "isn't Pope." Anyone can make any claim they please about the current Pope. It is up to the prosecution to prove the validity of their claims, not the defense to discount them.

...and, no, I don't like deriding the Pope. Providing a silly hypothetical example that ultimately defends the legitimacy of the Pope and the Papacy is still infinitely more respectful to the man and the office itself than yet another deadly-serious and spurious claim Francis isn't the current Pope at all.

Since you seem engaged on the subject, and you're a step up from the usual "Francis doesn't real" crowd, answer me this:

Let us suppose you are correct. If Benedict XVI is truly still the Pope and Francis supposedly is not (the way you claim), what happens when Benedict dies? If Francis was invalidly chosen then he can not be pope regardless of whether Benedict is alive or not. Who, in your opinion, is pope then? Or is there none?

Even if, somehow, Francis expired tomorrow, the next (anti)pope will be chosen by the supposedly invalid cardinals appointed by a supposedly invalid Francis. Consequently, this next hypothetical pope will also be an antipope since Benedict XVI would still, miraculously, be alive.

But at some point Benedict XVI will not be here anymore and the Church will be left with... who? Who is the valid Pope then? Or will the Church have no Pope at all?

That leads to a kind of perpetual sedevacantism. If you favor that line of reasoning, why start only now? There have been numerous "questionable" resignations of Popes in the past, many of which were very likely under pressure. Any and every Pope chosen afterwards could. conceivably be invalid -up to and including Benedict XVI.

The only reason this has become such an issue right now is because a.) Benedict XVI is still alive and b.) Francis is highly unpopular with traditionalists (myself incuded). It's more than fair to say at this point if Benedict XVI's (invalid) successor was a traditionalist bringing the Church back on course, all this faux-outrage over the "antipope's" legitimacy wouldn't be raised at all.

Being surly does your title of "Brother" no credit, BrAlexisBugnolo. ;-) We're not discussing a specific point of "Canon Law" but why the Vatican doesn't waste its collective time answering (and therefore legitimizing) every crack-pot accusation. Get back to me when you learn the difference between the two.

The Vatican has never formally refuted any of the various YouTube conspiracy theories that Church leaders have been replaced by Reptilian aliens, either. My previous example, the one you prematurely labelled "absurditate," does have a basis in fact. People really do promote such silliness. Somehow I'm not surprised that the Holy See remains silent in the face of such drivel, regardless of the content.

Further, yellow journalism and misleading "click-bait" headlines have nothing to do with Canon Law either. Accepting something is a positive act. Stating "The Vatican has now accepted...." if false. The Vatican did no such thing and the author knows it which explains his careful clarification placed in the second sentence of the article.

Nice deflection btw. Silence implies consent, does it? Goodness. There's been a deafening silence from you on the issue of perpetual sedevacantism and the abitrarily selective concern over Papal resignations. The same "vow of silence" occured earlier when I mentioned the possibility of bogus "reform" groups bilking well-intentioned traditionalists and the unlikelihood of even a legitimate group forcing the Curia to overthrow the current Pope. Not a peep on those subject.

If we apply your standard of interpreting all public discourse through the narrow aperture of "Canon Law", then by your reasoning, you've already conceded those points.