by Andrea Cionci
Authorized English translation
Under the blanket of silence of the mainstream media, a true “anti-papal war” is being waged, carried on by canonists, theologians and jurists from various countries, loyal to Benedict XVI.
“There is only one pope” Ratzinger has been repeating for eight years, without ever explaining which of the two, as recently confirmed (unintentionally) by Archbishop Gaenswein. The thesis of the lawyer Acosta, published in March in the volume “Benedict XVI: pope emeritus?”, has not been denied: canon 332.2 imposes for the abdication of the pope the obligation of the renunciation of the munus (divine title) while Ratzinger, in his Declaratio of February 11, 2013, declared to renounce only the ministerium, its active exercise.
“Benedict XVI – says Acosta and jurist Sànchez (Univ. Seville) – has never abdicated, he remains the only pope; Francis is an antipope and the cardinals appointed by him, are invalid, and can only elect another antipope.”
But now the final clash is between the scholars of the Latin Language, over a single verb: “vacet.” The Vatican, which already in the translations of Declaratio had eliminated the dichotomy of munus and ministerium, rendering them both with the one term, “ministry”, has translated “vacet” as “sede vacante”. Legitimate though this be, the Latinist Gianluca Arca explains that, in a literal sense, this verb means “the see remains vacant”. Confirmed by two Latinists (“neutral”) of La Sapienza, Prof. Ursini and Piras, so much so that Cicero writes: “Ego filosophiae semper vaco” – “I am always free for philosophy”.
Thus, three key concepts of Benedict’s Declaratio remain: 1) Since I no longer have the strength to exercise practical power (ministerium) I declare that I renounce it, 2) so that the See of St. Peter’s will remain FREE (not “vacant” in the juridical sense) as of 8 p.m. on February 28. 3) And I declare that the next new Pontiff must be elected by a conclave summoned “by those whom are competent (to do so)”.
Read in this way, the Declaratio, from a canonically problematic “renunciation”, is transformed into a declaration – not juridical – but coherent, of an impeded See, according to canon 412, where in “the Bishop is totally impeded from exercising the pastoral office in the diocese by reason of imprisonment, confinement, exile or incapacity, being unable to communicate even by letter with his diocesan subjects”.
Plausible? Vatileaks and the summary dismissal of Gotti Tedeschi tell of how, in the end, Benedict had great problems in being obeyed and could not communicate by letter, since they were stealing and disclosing his private mail.
In fact, on February 28, 2013, he took the helicopter, left physically free and empty, the see of St. Peter, departing for Castel Gandolfo. From there, he said goodbye to the world at 17.30, but at the stroke of 20.00, he did not sign any renunciation of the ministerium, as explained by the theologian Pace: perhaps because it would have been an invalid legal act? From that moment, the Sede impedita would have started and Ratzinger’s enemies would have been able to do what they wanted with the See of St. Peter.
“Arca and Sànchez agree: “This explains the strange phrase ‘the conclave will have to be summoned by those who are competent’. Why did he not simply say “by the cardinals”? Aware of the fact that the seat would be usurped, Ratzinger specified that, in any case, the next real pope must be elected only by the real cardinals, that is, those appointed by real popes, by himself and John Paul II, and not by any usurpers.”
Still no response from the Vatican which, for the past two years, has chosen not to comment on the issue, limiting itself to excommunicating without canonical process the priests loyal to Benedict.
However, the concept of an impeded See explains a number of oddities, such as when Ratzinger wrote in “Last Conversations”: “No pope has resigned for a thousand years, and even in the first millennium it was an exception”. Given that six popes abdicated in the first millennium and four in the second, he assimilates himself, as confirmed by the historian Mores (Univ. Milan) to the “exception” of the medieval pope Benedict VIII who, in the first millennium, was sent into exile by an antipope and then had – coincidentally – was restore to his see. It is also significant that the institution of the pope emeritus is now considered non-existent, so much so that – as Il Giornale.reports – the Vatican is working (now) to find a jurisprudential solution. So what has Ratzinger been for eight years? It would explain his white robe, the other papal prerogatives that he continues to enjoy and the strange ambiguity that persists in his statements and interviews, suggesting an inability to communicate clearly, because of the impeded seat.
The suspicion – a very serious one – is that in fact Pope Ratzinger has been communicating subtly through books and interviews for eight years, without anyone picking up his logical messages hidden under apparent inconsistencies. Is it possible that the adamantine and highly cultured theologian, after 2013 has forgotten Latin, canon law, Church history, while continuing to write books and give profound interviews? And that all these distractions always lead to the same scenario of the impeded See?
The latest discovery was made by a journalist from RomaIT, Mirko Ciminiello. Again in “Latest Conversations,” Ratzinger admits that he himself may indeed be the last pope on St. Malachy’s list of pontiffs: he practically does not consider Francis as his legitimate successor.
If Benedict has not abdicated, in fact, the lines of succession are forever separated: one papal and one anti-papal, and if the cardinals do not settle the canonical question about his Declaratio, the true Church will continue in hiding, with a next spiritual leader who is the true successor of Benedict XVI, while the official see will be lost, left in the hands of a new eco-masonic-globalist church that will have nothing to do with Roman Catholicism. Quite the contrary.
