Introduction by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

BELOW FOLLOWS THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Many Catholic who think or hold that Bergoglio is the Pope simply respond to invitations to dialogue about the matter with short snappy phrases. When objections are brought up they brush them off without so much as an argument. For eight years they have reacted thus.

But Andrea Cionci is not letting them rest in their bed of ignorance, for today he has published a list of 50 Questions, to all of which they must have an answer if they are to sustain that Benedict XVI is not the Pope and Bergoglio is.

His article today, published at Il Libero Quotidiano’s online journal, is entitled, Benedetto XVI, unico vero Papa e il “Reset cattolico”: 50 domande per capire la tesi, that is, “Benedict XVI, the one sole Pope and the “Catholic Reset”: 50 Questions to understand the thesis.

To read the original Italian, click the image above.

The questions all center around the anomalies in the accepted narrative which claims that Benedict XVI peacefully and without any

pressure, insistence, force or threats resigned the Papal Office on Feb. 11, 2013 in such a way that on Feb. 28, at 8 P.M., he was no longer the Roman Pontiff, nor the Successor of St. Peter, and that after the fact, there was a legitimate Conclave to elect Jorge Mario Bergoglio to succeed him as the one and only Pope.

By his collation of questions, Cionci proposes to every calm and objective observer who only wants to understand the facts and events, apart from any narrative control whatsoever, 50 questions to consider, whereby one might be able to see more clearly the discrepancies in the accepted narrative. These are above all questions for journalists and historians, but for the educated Catholic who can think rationally and who seeks the truth, they are an invaluable tool to being one’s own personal investigation.

The Great Catholic Reset is the thesis, which I proposed here. Andrea Cionci mentioned it in his article in the Libero last week.

Here are the Questions in English translation, which Cionci proposes in the Article above.:

INTRODUCTION

1) Do you think that – no matter what – a thesis of such gravity would deserve to be publicly denied by the Vatican, after a careful investigation at the appropriate ecclesiastical offices?

2) Do you think that, by logically organizing the facts, we can generally shed light on intricate and confusing issues?

3) How come the main stream media never address the question of the dubious resignation and instead give great emphasis to alleged endorsements that Benedict would have expressed towards Francis? Why are the same pro-Bergoglio newspapers always able to interview Benedict?

4) Do you think that, if the hypothesis were true, other issues of international politics and current affairs could be better understood and placed?

On Benedict’s objective ambiguity

5) In eight years, have there ever been explicit and “certified” statements by Benedict that the one and only pope is Francis?

6) If not, (as we have shown here) why has Benedict never given 1,285,000,000 Catholics this very simple statement, over eight years, to reassure them?

7) If Ratzinger had been a “neo-modernist fellow-traveller of Bergoglio,” so much so as to “have prepared the ground for him,” as is ventilated by some, why does he make people so eager for the definitive word “the pope is Francis,” while continuing to cast shadows over his legitimate successor?

8) Is it credible that Benedict keeps repeating “the pope is one” without ever specifying which one, just for the “sake of spite” and that he does not foresee the destabilizing effects of his statements?

9) If Benedict was not lucid, how could he have written books and given interviews until recently and, above all, retained for eight years what appears to be a “perfect, logical ambiguity”?

10) For example, when Benedict, in addition to “the pope is only one”, declares to the Corriere: “Some of my friends who are a bit “fanatical” are still angry, they did not want to accept my CHOICE”, is this equivalent to saying: “My fans are wrong to say that I am the true pope and/or that I did wrong to resign”? If so, then why doesn’t Benedict explicitly reprimand his fans for their serious and sinful statements? Why, despite the headline written by the Courier, does the word “renunciation” or “resignation” never appear in Benedict’s quote, only “choice”? (Source)

11) The first sentence could, therefore, also be interpreted to mean: “some of my fans are angry about my CHOICE which appeared to them as resignation, even though they did not understand that I did not resign at all and was preparing the Great Catholic Reset”?

12) Benedict continues: “I think of the conspiracy theories that followed it: those who said it was because of the Vatileaks scandal, those who said it was because of a gay lobby plot, those who said it was because of the case of the conservative Lefebvrian theologian Richard Williamson. They don’t want to believe a CHOICE made consciously.” Why does His Holiness seldom mention these actors, when commentators have been talking, for several years and insistently, mainly about the “St. Gallen Mafia” and international Freemasonry?

13) Could His sentence be interpreted, then, as an “affirmation through the negation of an off-topic object”? (Example: Mama asks Luigino if he stole the jam. He replies, “I have stolen neither bread nor butter.”)

14) So, could Benedict’s sentence be read as “in fact, I resigned precisely because of pressure from the Mafia of St. Gallen and international Freemasonry” (a historically anti-Catholic association that from various international lodges has given Bergoglio about 70 letters of appreciation)?

15) According to you, does Benedict’s sentence: “I made my choice eight years ago in full awareness and I have a clear conscience” exclude a possible subtext such as “I am serene because I have never resigned and, waiting for the discovery of the truth, I have consciously prepared the Reset of all the enemies of the true Church”?

16) Vice versa, if there were no such subtext, how could Ratzinger candidly declare to the Corriere della Sera: “I have a clear conscience”, given all the problems that, with his ambiguities, he would have procured for the only true pontiff, Francis?

17) How many mathematical probabilities are there then that, in eight years, in each of his direct statements, Benedict has always maintained a perfect and consistent reversibility “double face” of the meaning of his words, interpretable, on a closer reading, even better at times, as the “only pope is me”?

18) And if we wanted to consider Ratzinger weak, confused, or semi-modernist, has he ever made, on the contrary, a statement that could completely disprove the hypothesis about his purposely invalid “resignation”?

19) Would this allegedly veiled and indirect communication also be compatible with the self-invalidating juridical language found in Declaratio by some Latinists, journalists, theologians and now also by jurists?

20) Perhaps Benedict cannot, or will not for spiritual and/or strategic reasons, speak freely?

On the “Declaratio”

21) Why is the act, deemed to be a resignation, called only a “Declaratio”, a “Declaration”, and not “Renuntiatio”, a “Renunciation” as in fact is prescribed by canon 332.2 of the Code of Canon Law?”

22) Does it seem normal to you that the abdication document of a sovereign like the pope contains two gross grammatical errors (of Latin) and various other linguistic imperfections? (Here) Especially when the Code of Canon Law specifies how the act should be written “rite manifestetur,” i.e., duly*?

23) According to you, does Ratzinger know Latin, the official language of the Church, well, considering that he communicated with foreign cardinals in that idiom?

24) Why did none of the officials point out to him, in 2013, those grammatical errors and the possible juridical impasses in the text of the Declaratio?

25) Is it plausible that some understood and kept silent, while Benedict’s eventual enemies, blinded by the eagerness to collect his “resignation,” did not check whether in the subtle juridical detail whether that Declaratio corresponded to actual, legal resignations and that the media did the rest?

26) Why didn’t Benedict, a German theologian who has always been accustomed to very clear language, write in his alleged resignation the simplest thing, namely that he was renouncing the Munus Petrino (the office of divine origin), as the Code of Canon Law demands for the renunciation of the papal throne?

27) And why in a “Declaration” did he renounce only the practical exercise, the Ministerium – and not even all its functions – if Munus and Ministerium for the pope are absolutely indivisible? Vice versa, why has the Vatican, in the versions in Italian and foreign languages, translated Munus always with the word Ministerium? (See here).

28) According to you, Ratzinger did not know Canon Law well, even though he had been Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 1981 and was therefore close to John Paul II when the same holy pope, in 1983, inserted in Canon 332.2 of the relative Code this – perhaps not useless – distinction between Munus and Ministerium? Is it possible that the system had been developed for years, perhaps together with Wojtyla, as a “plan B of strategic retreat” for the case already ventilated by art. 675 of the Catechism, about a possible “coup”, with the advent of an apostate “false church”, a prospect also announced by the third Secret of Fatima, by the Scriptures, by saints, blessed and mystics?

29) Why does Benedict still repeat today that “there is only one pope”, but instead of becoming a cardinal again, he has carved out for himself this ambiguous role of “pope emeritus” which has never existed?

30) Does it seem acceptable to you that when asked by journalist Tornielli: “Why doesn’t he go back to being a cardinal?” Ratzinger replied: “Because I have only white robes in my closet” and that this remained his only official answer on the question of the white robe, a use moreover stigmatized in recent times also by Card. Pell?

31) Does it seem plausible to you that Benedict justified his resignation by saying that “the time difference of travel weighed on him” knowing full well that a pope is not necessarily required to travel?

32) In your opinion, could the fact that the canonist Monsignor Sciacca, Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature, in a national newspaper, reiterated in 2016 how Munus and Ministerium are – precisely – indivisible, (the node of the invalidity of the resignation according to the jurist Acosta) confirm the hypothesis of an invalid resignation?

33) Do you know of any other official response from the Vatican to the juridical objections to the Declaratio, expressed in journalistic or theological books?

34) Is it true that the pope has the power to change Canon Law (as long as he respects the dogmas), but if he does not, that an act issued by him must be subject to the latest official version of the Code?

35) If yes, then, in theory, could a pope also – as a result of errors or deliberate intent – sign documents that are not valid according to canon law?

36) Why has Benedict, while certainly having learned from the media that his resignation might appear invalid, never verbally remedied the situation, perhaps declaring verbally what many want to hear, i.e., that “the pope is only Francis?

37) If Benedict wrote the Declaratio roughly, without veiled intentions, how likely is it that the document, if interpreted as a resignation “casually” offers various self-invalidating legal mechanisms clearly identified in Acosta’s latest law book?

38) And, in the same hypothesis, how is it that, just as casually, no sentences have been found in the Declaratio which instead completely exclude – at least so far – the interpretation of false resignation?

39) What guarantees and certainties do we have, then, that a “lame” Declaratio was written by Benedict completely unconsciously, out of ignorance and/or approximation, and was not instead written by him on purpose in a self-invalidating way?

40) What sense does it make for Benedict to say today that in 2013 he was fully aware and with a clear conscience if the Declaratio was legally ambiguous and “poorly done” causing so much controversy?

Possible pressures suffered by Benedict

41) Why did Ratzinger say years ago: “Pray that I do not flee before the wolves” and why did he declare in the book-interview by Peter Seewald that he did not want to give up the spiritual part of his office?

42) Why did Obama’s U.S., in 2013, block the Vatican’s Swift banking code (“strangling” it economically) and this was unblocked a few hours after Pope Benedict’s resignation?

43) Why was his vineyard in Castel Gandolfo uprooted immediately after Ratzinger, as “pope emeritus”, pronounced himself in favor of the celibacy of priests, against the intentions of Bergoglio, the vineyard that had been given to him by the farmers and to which he was particularly attached since at his election he said “I am the humble servant in the vineyard of the Lord”?

44) Why did he say more recently: “They do not want me to speak”?

45) Why did Cardinal Godfried Danneels, Primate of Belgium and “great voter” of Bergoglio, (so much so that he appeared with him on the balcony at his first appearance) in his autobiography of 2015 put down in black and white dates, names and facts about the “Mafia of St. Gallen”, the lobby of modernist cardinals who, as reported in the text, aimed to make Ratzinger resign, focusing on Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

46) Why has Danneels’ book never been reprinted, nor translated into Italian, and why has it sold like hot cakes in France and Belgium, so much so that the last (used) copy has just been sold on Amazon for 206 euros? Above all, why have Danneels’ statements never been denied by the Vatican?

47) Why has the existence of a “Bergoglio team” been confirmed by Card. Murphy O’Connor and the matter was not followed up despite the fact that the apostolic constitution Universi Domici Gregis of 1996 instantly excommunicated all cardinals who were authors of pre-conclave maneuvers?

48) Why have some archbishops, bishops, monsignors, theologians, and priests been sanctioned, ostracized, forced into exile, suspended a divinis, or even excommunicated for declaring that only Benedict is the pope? Why, likewise, have journalists and professors been mobbed in their careers for similar positions?

49) In your opinion, would the current direction taken by Bergoglio’s Church and its objective departure from Tradition, justify the “coup” and Catholic Reset thesis, with a Pope Benedict restoring the “true church” in a peaceful and legal manner, with the simple discovery of the truth about his “resignation” by the bishops?

50) In such an eventuality, would Benedict have sinned or lied to protect the true church through veiled language? Would he have behaved inconsistently with what he declared in a document that is only called “Declaratio” but not “Renuntiatio”?