Monthly Archives: September 2021

News

The deafening silence of the MSM on the invalid renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI

7 Comments

English translation by FromRome.Info

by Mirko Ciminiello

The discovery that Pope Ratzinger may not have abdicated, but “only” declared the (Holy) See impeded, would be the journalistic story of the millennium. But the press ignores it… deafening silence,

In grammar, a rhetorical figure such as “deafening silence” is defined as an oxymoron: the juxtaposition of two terms with opposite or strongly antithetical meanings. In the media, this expression is sometimes used to indicate the absence of an action – and more often a reaction – that could have been expected. Like, for example, the mutism of certain feminists in the face of the destruction of rights (especially women’s) perpetrated by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Or that of the so-called “fourth power” in the face of the succession of clues regarding the (non) resignation of Benedict XVI.

Two weeks have passed since our shock discovery that could upset the future (and even the present) of the Catholic Church. A message, found in the folds of the book-interview Ultime conversazioni, which seems to confirm a hypothesis that our colleague Andrea Cionci has been investigating for some time. The hypothesis that the famous Declaratio of Pope Ratzinger was not a declaration of renunciation, but of (Holy) See impedita.

In the first case, authoritative jurists such as lawyer Estefanía Acosta and professor Antonio Sánchez Sáez have demonstrated that it would be legally invalid. And, significantly, they have demonstrated this using the same arguments of “Bergoglian” canonists such as Monsignor Giuseppe Sciacca and Professor Geraldina Boni, simply by highlighting their contradictions.

In extreme synthesis: the Pope is only one (there are not two Popes, nor an “enlarged” Papacy). Since 1983, the papal office is considered to be composed of two entities: the munus (the divine title of Pontiff) and the ministerium (the practical exercise of power). According to Canon 332 §2, a Vicar of Christ who intends to abdicate must renounce the munus. However, in the Declaratio Pope Benedict announced that he was leaving the ministerium.

Facts and clues

These are facts – and not even isolated ones. Suffice it to consider, for example, that Joseph Ratzinger still wears the white robe, lives in the Vatican, signs P.P. (Pater Patrum) and imparts the apostolic blessing. He admits (as per our recent intuition) the possibility of being the last Pope “as we have known him until now”, as he is designated in the prophecy of Malachi. In addition, there is the small detail that the institution of Pope Emeritus does not exist, as the Vatican has noticed only now – so much so that they are now trying to regulate it.

All aspects of which Benedict XVI seems perfectly aware. And about which he seems to have been sending, for eight years, messages to those who have ears to hear. The last one was reported by the blog fromrome.info, which quoted a very precise question by journalist Peter Seewald, also in Last Conversations. “Is diminished physical vigor sufficient reason to step down from the throne of Peter?”

Question to which Pope Ratzinger responded by immediately speaking of a misunderstanding related to the function (i.e. ministerium). But the successor of Peter “is involved in the innermost being”, that is, at the higher level of the munus. And – added His Holiness – if a Pontiff is no longer able to carry out his (practical) office in a complete manner, he must “leave the throne free”. Not, that is, to come down from it (as Seewald ventilated), but to leave it free, unencumbered, unoccupied.

The deafening silence of the media

This, according to some distinguished Latinists, is precisely the original meaning of a verb that stands out in the Declaratio of February 2013. Vacet, which in reference to “the See of St. Peter” has been translated as “will be vacant,” but can legitimately be interpreted as communicating an impeded See.

A status provided for in Canon 412 of the Code of Canon Law, which occurs when the diocesan bishop is prevented from exercising his pastoral office. And this “by reason of imprisonment, confinement, exile or incapacity, not being able to communicate even by letter with his diocesans.”

Just the situation that Joseph Ratzinger found himself living eight years ago. Besieged by internal enemies (the Mafia of St. Gallen), external (the blockade of Vatican ATMs), and with private mail given to the press (the Vatileaks scandal).

Rebus sic stantibus (Things being as they are), it would mean that Benedict XVI is still the only true Pope, with all the (disruptive) consequences of the case. Case that would be by far the journalistic case of the millennium, but which the mainstream media, entrenched behind their deafening silence, they continue incredibly to ignore. One might wonder, Cui prodest (To whose benefit)? But in any case (and in all senses) it’s a real shame.

News

Italian President: “To get vaccinated is a duty, don’t invoke Liberty to avoid it!”

3 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

(Click the image above to read the news about this in Italian)

The Orwellian Level of the Plandemic in Italy just surged to a whole new level, when on September 5, last, the President of Italy, Sergio Matarella, who is charged with defending the Constitutional Order, insisted that no one has the right to decline to be DeathVaxxed.

The psychopathic comment was made during his official discourse for the opening of the Academic year at the University of Pavia, a state institution. Sergio Matarella is a Sicilian, the son of an infamous Mafia boss. During the Plandemic he has walked lock-step in sync withe Globalist plan to destroy the Italian economy and now appears to have fully embraced their project for the genocide of the Italian People.

Here are the words of the President, during his discourse, entitled, “On the Moral and Civil duty to get vaccinated”, given on that occasion of the 660th anniversary of the University (source here):

“Le espressioni di violenza e le minacce che affiorano in questo periodo contro medici, scienziati e giornalisti sono fenomeni allarmanti che vanno contrastati con fermezza e sanzionati con doveroso rigore per tutelare coloro, e sono la stragrande maggioranza, che hanno adottato comportamenti responsabili”.

“Chi sceglie di non vaccinarsi in nome della propria libertà limita la libertà altrui di tornare ad avere una vita normale. Se l’economia sta ripartendo e anche gli atenei ripartiranno con le lezioni in presenza, è solo grazie allo strumento che in grande velocità la comunità scientifica ci ha consegnato per sconfiggere il virus”.

Here is my English translation:

“The expressions of violence and the threats which are breaking out in this period against doctors, scientists and journalists are alarming phenomena which are to be opposed with firmness and sanctions, with dutiful rigor, to safeguard them, and they are the overwhelming majority, which has adopted responsible conduct.

He who choses to not get vaccinated in the name of his own liberty limits the liberty of others to return to having a normal life.  If the economy is starting up again and if the Schools will start up again with in person classes, it is only thanks to the instrument which with great speed the scientific community has given us to defeat the virus.”

The words of the President have gravely impugned the Constitutional right of every Italian resident, which in Article 32 reads thus:

La Repubblica tutela la salute come fondamentale diritto dell’individuo e interesse della collettività, e garantisce cure gratuite agli indigenti.

Nessuno può essere obbligato a un determinato trattamento sanitario se non per disposizione di legge. La legge non può in nessun caso violare i limiti imposti dal rispetto della persona umana.

Which in English reads:

The Republic safeguards health as a fundamental right of the individual and of common interest, and guarantees free care to the needy.

No one can be obliged to a determinate sanitary treatment if not through the disposition of law. The law cannot in any case violate the limits imposed by respect for the human person.

Matarella has made a grave political error, however, if it is his intention to see everyone vaccinated. Because since against the threat of death, there is no greater threat in the natural order, and since no law has force without threat of penalty, by threatening all with death via the DeathVaxx he has in fact undermined the threat of every other law. And since a law which cannot be enforced, because its threat is de facto annulled, is no longer a law which must be observed — as the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas observes in his Tract on Law– by these comments, the President of Italy has effectively removed the obligation from every citizen to observe any and all laws of the Italian Republic.

By this means the Republic has been dissolved. Nor is there any question of a Constitution, since for 18 months no one in the State has made anything more than a pretense of its observance.

Today’s news confirms once again the report by FromRome.Info in May, despite all the trolls to the contrary: that it is the intention of this government to DeathVaxx everyone.

The repercussions for Materella have just begun. Two Italian jurists have filed today a Criminal complaint against the President for “incitement to hatred” against others on account of their personal beliefs regarding the utility of the Vaxx. To read the news about this in Italian, click the image below:

Guest Editorials

Ratzinger: “Non fraintendete: ho liberato la sede, ma non ho abdicato”

9 Comments

Altro messaggio di papa Ratzinger: “Non fraintendete: ho liberato la sede, ma non ho abdicato”

Un nuovo significato dopo la definizione della sede impedita

di Andrea Cionci

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION FOLLOWS

Già diversi mesi, in marzo, fa avevamo “decrittato” interi capitoli di “Ultime conversazioni” di Peter Seewald, in cui papa Benedetto, nel 2016, con una logica sottile, ci raccontava la situazione canonica di sede impedita che avremmo cominciato a comprendere solo quattro anni dopo. Molti di quei messaggi ancora non li abbiamo pubblicati: infatti, i tempi allora non erano maturi e l’articolo passò in sordina.

Oggi, chiarita in modo consequenziale – e senza alcuna smentita, nonostante i solleciti – la questione della Declaratio, che non è una rinuncia (in quanto giuridicamente nulla), ma una dichiarazione di sede impedita QUI https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/italia/28377333/papa-ratzinger-mistero-errore-traduzione-dimissioni-parola-latina-cambia-tutto.html , quei messaggi acquisiscono un significato in più.  In uno di questi, il collega Mirko Ciminiello, di RomaIT (https://www.romait.it/dimissioni-di-benedetto-xvi-la-nostra-scoperta-shock-rilanciata-da-libero.html), ravvisa un sottotesto ancora più aggiornato e coerente rispetto a quanto avevamo già pubblicato QUI https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26699363/ratzinger-sottotesto-libro-intervista-ultime-conversazioni-peter-seewald.html

Attenzione alle frasi in neretto, il cui significato spiegheremo di seguito.

Ecco la domanda di Peter Seewald a Papa Benedetto: “Nella sua dichiarazione cita a motivo della rinuncia il declino delle sue forze. Ma la diminuzione del vigore fisico è un motivo sufficiente per scendere dal soglio di Pietro?”. 

Benedetto XVI: “Qui si può muovere l’appunto che si tratta di un FRAINTENDIMENTO funzionalistico: il successore di Pietro infatti non è solo legato a una funzione, ma è coinvolto nell’intimo dell’essere. In tal senso la funzione non è l’unico criterio. D’altra parte, il papa deve fare anche cose concrete, deve avere sotto controllo l’intera situazione, deve saper stabilire le priorità e via di seguito. A cominciare dal ricevimento dei capi di Stato, a quello dei vescovi, con i quali deve davvero poter avviare un dialogo intimo, fino alle decisioni quotidiane. Anche quando si dice che alcuni impegni si potrebbero cancellare, ne rimangono comunque così tanti, altrettanto importanti, che se si vuole svolgere l’incarico come si deve non c’è ombra di dubbio: se non c’è più la capacità di farlo è necessario – per me almeno, un altro può vedere la cosa altrimenti – lasciare LIBERO  il soglio”.

Vediamo come è organizzato il discorso: Benedetto qui pone subito un “alt”, un appunto a Seewald che sostiene come Ratzinger sia sceso dal soglio di Pietro, ovvero abbia abdicato. Attento – lo avverte il Papa –  c’è il rischio di fraintendere secondo un “atteggiamento che tende alla valutazione e risoluzione immediata di problemi in un contesto culturale o politico” (definizione di “funzionalismo”).

Non è così semplice, dunque: il Pontefice ci ricorda come l’incarico papale sia scomposto (fin dagli anni ’80) in due enti giuridici diversi: il munus, il titolo di papa, concesso direttamente da Dio da un lato, e il ministerium l’esercizio pratico del potere dall’altro.

Ecco che infatti Ratzinger spiega: non c’è solo la FUNZIONE, l’esercizio pratico del potere, il ministerium, ma c’è anche una dimensione intima, dell’ESSERE papa: il munus. 

Infatti, subito dopo, spiega ancora meglio, quasi per farlo capire a un bambino, in cosa consista il ministerium: “ricevere i capi di stato, i vescovi, prendere decisioni, gli impegni vari” etc.

E così afferma che se il papa non ha più la capacità di SVOLGERE l’incarico in modo completo, ovvero di esercitare il suo ministerium, così come dovrebbe, ecco che il papa deve lasciare LIBERO il soglio. Attenzione: non deve abdicare, non deve SCENDERE dal soglio, come ventilava Seewald nella domande, ma solo lasciarlo libero, sgombro vuoto.

Torna di gran carriera, infatti, come ha notato ieri il collega Mirko Ciminiello, l’ultima interpretazione del verbo latino “vacet”, della Declaratio, traducibile (secondo affermati latinisti)  con  lasciare la sede LIBERA, e non vacante, come invece tradotto dal Vaticano.  QUI (https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28380027/mirko-ciminiello-romait-scopre-messaggio-ratzinger-non-riconosce-francesco-come-papa-nella-lista-di-san-malachia.html) i dettagli della questione.

In sintesi, Papa Ratzinger non poteva più esercitare il suo potere pratico, perché, come abbiamo già dimostrato coi fatti, non gli obbediva più nessuno e addirittura trafugavano la sua posta (Vatileaks). Questo, a norma del canone 412, gli dava tutta la possibilità di dichiarare SEDE IMPEDITA. Quindi la Declaratio non è MAI STATA UNA RINUNCIA AL PAPATO, così come viene interpretata da otto anni. C’è stato un gigantesco EQUIVOCO, lasciato perdurare perché faceva comodo a molti.

Ratzinger ha SOLO MOLLATO FISICAMENTE la sede,  impossibilitato a governare: così ha preso l’elicottero e il 28 febbraio ha lasciato la sede libera, vuota, sgombra – non VACANTE in senso giuridico – perché la Declaratio è completamente NULLA come rinuncia, nonostante i modernisti abbiano cercato di mascherare la fondamentale dicotomia munus/ministerium con l’unica parola “ministero” e abbiano tradotto il verbo “vacet” come SEDE VACANTE. Controllate voi stessi QUI https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html

E infatti cosa aggiunge ancora Benedetto nella sua risposta? “PER ME ALMENO, E’ COSI’, UN ALTRO PUÒ VEDERE LA COSA ALTRIMENTI”. 

E infatti ALTRI l’hanno vista ALTRIMENTI: i modernisti suoi nemici, membri della Mafia di San Gallo, che come dimostrato dalla biografia del card. Danneels volevano a tutti i costi che lui abdicasse (per far posto al loro campione Bergoglio QUI (https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27505999/papa-ratzinger-bergoglio-messaggio-nella-bottiglia-documentario-bugnolo-lamendola-decimo-toro-massoneria-daneels-mafia-san-g.html ) e che hanno manipolato le traduzioni della Declaratio. Loro  l’hanno VOLUTA VEDERE come una ABDICAZIONE mentre non lo era affatto.

UN COLOSSALE EQUIVOCO CHE DURA DA OTTO ANNI e protegge Bergoglio, definito canonicamente dai giuristi Acosta e Sànchez un antipapa tout court, che adesso sta cercando di sanare a posteriori un inesistente istituto di papa emerito QUI https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28264381/vaticano-papa-emerito-non-esiste-allora-joseph-ratzinger-cosa-stato-otto-anni.html .

Ora, per chi si fosse perso le puntate precedenti, leggete perché la Declaratio NON è una rinuncia QUI https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28187673/joseph-ratzinger-vero-papa-giuristi-sanchez-acosta-smontano-difesa-pro-bergoglio.html  e piuttosto, perché tutti i conti tornano nel leggerla come annuncio di SEDE IMPEDITA : QUI https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28344881/declaratio-papa-ratzinger-non-rinuncia-ma-sede-impedita-sei-latinisti-traducono-parola-chiave-vacet-non-sede-vacante-ma-sede.html

Domanda: c’è qualcuno che magari ha GIURATO fedeltà al Papa e pensa di approfondire la questione e/o, magari, di fare qualcosa?

+ + +

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Another message from Pope Ratzinger: “Do not misunderstand: I have vacated the See, but I have not abdicated.”

A new meaning after the determination of an impeded See

by Andrea Cionci

Several months ago, in March, we had already “decrypted” entire chapters of Peter Seewald’s “Last Conversations,” in which Pope Benedict, in 2016, with subtle logic, told us about the canonical situation of the impeded See that we would begin to understand only four years later. Many of those messages we still haven’t published: in fact, the time was not ripe then and the article passed into obscurity.

Today, having clarified in a consequential way – and without any denial, despite the reminders – the issue of the Declaratio, which is not a renunciation (as it is legally void), but a declaration of impeded seat HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/italia/28377333/papa-ratzinger-mistero-errore-traduzione-dimissioni-parola-latina-cambia-tutto.html , those messages acquire an additional meaning. In one of them, our colleague Mirko Ciminiello, of RomaIT (https://www.romait.it/dimissioni-di-benedetto-xvi-la-nostra-scoperta-shock-rilanciata-da-libero.html), sees a subtext even more updated and consistent with what we had already published HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26699363/ratzinger-sottotesto-libro-intervista-ultime-conversazioni-peter-seewald.html

Pay attention to the sentences in bold, whose meaning we will explain below.

Here is Peter Seewald’s question to Pope Benedict: “In your statement you cite the decline in your strength as the reason for the renunciation. But is declining physical vigor a sufficient reason for stepping down from the throne of Peter?”

Benedict XVI: “Here the point can be made that we are dealing with a functionalist (misunderstanding): the successor of Peter in fact is not only linked to a function, but is involved in the depths of being. In this sense, function is not the only criterion. On the other hand, the pope must also do concrete things, he must have the whole situation under control, he must know how to establish priorities and so on. Beginning with the reception of heads of state, to that of the bishops, with whom he must really be able to engage in an intimate dialogue, to the daily decisions. Even when it is said that some commitments could be cancelled, there are still so many, just as important, that if one wants to carry out the task as one should, there is no shadow of a doubt: if there is no longer the ability to do so, it is necessary – for me at least, someone else may see it otherwise – to leave the throne FREE”.

Let’s see how the speech is organized: Benedict here immediately places a “halt”, a note to Seewald who claims that Ratzinger has stepped down from the throne of Peter, that is, he has abdicated. Beware – the Pope warns him – there is a risk of misunderstanding according to an “attitude that tends to the immediate evaluation and resolution of problems in a cultural or political context” (definition of “functionalism”).

It is not so simple, then: the Pontiff reminds us how the papal office is broken down (since the 1980s) into two different juridical entities: the munus, the title of pope, granted directly by God on the one hand, and the ministerium, the practical exercise of power on the other.

Here, in fact, Ratzinger explains: there is not only the FUNCTION, the practical exercise of power, the ministerium, but there is also an intimate dimension of being pope: the munus.

In fact, immediately afterwards, he explains even better, almost as if to make a child understand it, what the ministerium consists of: “receiving heads of state, bishops, making decisions, various commitments” etc.

And so he affirms that if the pope no longer has the ability to carry out his duties in a complete way, that is, to exercise his ministerium as he should, the pope must leave the throne FREE. Attention: he does not have to abdicate, he does not have to EXIT from the throne, as Seewald said in the question, but only leave it free, empty.

In fact, as our colleague Mirko Ciminiello noted yesterday, the latest interpretation of the Latin verb “vacet”, of the Declaratio, translatable (according to established Latinists) as leaving the See FREE, and not vacant, as translated by the Vatican. HERE (https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28380027/mirko-ciminiello-romait-scopre-messaggio-ratzinger-non-riconosce-francesco-come-papa-nella-lista-di-san-malachia.html) the details of the matter.

In summary, Pope Ratzinger could no longer exercise his practical power, because, as we have already demonstrated with facts, no one obeyed him anymore and even his mail was stolen (Vatileaks). This, according to canon 412, gave him every opportunity to declare AN IMPEDED SEE. So the Declaratio was NEVER A RENUNCIATION TO THE PAPACY, as it has been interpreted for the past eight years. There has been a gigantic EQUIVOCATION, allowed to continue because it suited many.

Ratzinger has ONLY PHYSICALLY UNOCCUPIED the See, unable to rule: so he took the helicopter and on February 28 left the See free, empty, vacant – not VACANT in the juridical sense – because the Declaratio is completely NULL as a renunciation, despite the fact that modernists have tried to mask the fundamental dichotomy munus/ministerium with the one word “ministry” and have translated the verb “vacet” as VACANT SEAT. Check it out for yourself HERE https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html

And in fact what does Benedict add again in his response? “FOR ME AT LEAST, IT IS SO, ANOTHER MAY SEE IT OTHERWISE”.

And in fact OTHER people saw it OTHERWISE: the modernists who were his enemies, members of the St. Gallen Mafia, who as the biography of Card. Danneels wanted him to abdicate at all costs (to make room for their champion Bergoglio HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27505999/papa-ratzinger-bergoglio-messaggio-nella-bottiglia-documentario-bugnolo-lamendola-decimo-toro-massoneria-daneels-mafia-san-g.html) and who manipulated the translations of Declaratio. They WANTED to see it as an ABDICATION when it was not an ABDICATION at all.

A COLOSSAL EQUIVOCATION THAT HAS BEEN going on for EIGHT YEARS and protects Bergoglio, defined canonically by jurists Acosta and Sanchez as an anti-pope tout court, who is now trying to heal a non-existent institution of pope emeritus HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28264381/vaticano-papa-emerito-non-esiste-allora-joseph-ratzinger-cosa-stato-otto-anni.html .

Now, for those who have missed the previous episodes, read why the Declaratio is NOT a renunciation HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28187673/joseph-ratzinger-vero-papa-giuristi-sanchez-acosta-smontano-difesa-pro-bergoglio.html and rather, why all accounts add up in reading it as an announcement of SEDE IMPEDITA : HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28344881/declaratio-papa-ratzinger-non-rinuncia-ma-sede-impedita-sei-latinisti-traducono-parola-chiave-vacet-non-sede-vacante-ma-sede.html

Question: is there anyone out there who perhaps has SWORN allegiance to the Pope and is thinking of looking into this further and/or perhaps doing something about it?