Question:
Based on all going issues since Benedict XVI resigned from ministerium and not from munus, how one can consider Bergoglio and Prevost were/are true popes?
Canon 332 §2 of the 1983 Code states plainly:
Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.
"If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his munus, it is required for validity that the resignation be freely made and properly manifested, but it is not necessary that it be accepted by anyone."
The canon uses munus — not ministerium, not officium, not any other term. Munus in the canonical tradition carries the weight of the office itself: the ontological reality, the gift-and-burden of the Petrine charge, not merely its active exercise.
On February 11, 2013, Benedict XVI declared in Latin:
...declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV …More
"since Benedict XVI resigned from ministerium and not from munus"
---
That's a false presumption.
The part that gets me is "it is required for validity that the resignation be freely made." As you recall, the Vatican ATMs were shut down. It looked to me like someone was forcing B16's hand.