Commentary and introduction by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

ENGLISH TRANSLATION BELOW — LINK TO FRENCH  & SPANISH TRANSLATIONS AT BOTTOM

Scholars throughout Italy are coming forward and expressing their agreement with the conclusions drawn by Andrea Cionci during the last 6 months of investigation, wherein he has found that yes, Pope Benedict XVI has been speaking in a subtle but clear manner to the Church for 8 years, always to indicate that he is the true Pope and to show that Bergoglio is a usurper: using a manner of speaking which only the intelligent and careful reader could recognize.

The conclusion of the group of scholars confirms the analysis of many faithful throughout the world and that also of the editorial policy of FromRome.Info, that Pope Benedict XVI was forced out of power and is in fact A PRISONER IN THE VATICAN.

The testimonies of the experts are so explosive that Google is banning the article above from automatic translation!

This is in response to the correspondence to the entire Italian Hierarchy, which remained silent at the evidence presented, and these testimonies will without doubt be cited as the need to call a Provincial Council, as I have outlined recently, to put to end once and for all the unfounded claims by Bergoglio to be the Pope.

Without more ado, therefore, I publish here the authorized English translation of the above article by Andrea Cionci reporting the results of the study by the group of Scholars. The testimony of more scholars is expected to soon overflow the pages of ByoBlu and other newspapers.

Pope & anti-Pope: An Investigation

The Ratzinger-Code is a reality:  Courageous Intellectuals speak out while the Bishops remain silent

by Andrea Cionci

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION

They are insistent. In the previous article, we published the just six scornful responses we received from a reader who sent the 226 Italian bishops a heartfelt request for an explanation of our inquiry.

So, a reader did the same by sending the cited article again to the same 226 bishops. After receiving 60 notifications of reading, the only response was from a northern cardinal: “Dear Sir, I believe that in life there are better things to do than to waste time on these FANTASIES”.

So, the attempt is to make us pass for crazy, victims of autistic pareidolie, of “pattern recognition” a la John Nash. If you have seen the movie “A beautiful mind”, you will remember how the schizophrenic mathematician, at one point recognized in a random set of data only those that were going to support his persecution mania, or that the CIA had him followed and controlled.

Predictable: if those protesting against the canonical arguments can try to throw smoke in the eyes with legal arguments incomprehensible to the majority of readers, on the tremendous side of the “Ratzinger Code” the only response by the opposition can only be the delegitimization of the interlocutor in terms of mental health, counting on the fact that, to understand the subtle logical messages of Pope Benedict, it takes a moment of concentration. And most people are not willing to think things through for a few minutes. So the easy way out is to say, “You are imaginative fools, you only want to see what suits you, you only fish for phrases that are functional to your thesis.”

Aside from the fact that there are NO actions or statements by Benedict that unequivocally recognize Francis as pope, when Ratzinger writes regarding his own “resignation”, “No pope has resigned for a thousand years, and even in the first millennium it was an exception“, this is not a random phrase that we “instrumentalize according to what suits us”. Pope Ratzinger is stating unquestionably that he has resigned only from practical exercise, without abdicating. Thus, he remains the only living pope and Francis is an antipope. There is little to discuss. And so for dozens and dozens of other cases.

But then again, those who don’t have the courage to face reality – or don’t want to out of self-interest – wouldn’t accept a fait accompli even if Benedict XVI hung a banner in their window that read, “The pope is only me.” They would say that “it is an optical illusion”, that it is “senile dementia”, or that “traditionalist acrobats have come to hang it”.

However, in order to guarantee you honest readers, we have made a survey among intellectuals and professionals, asking if they too “read” the messages in Ratzinger code, or if it is only our schizophrenic projection.

To begin with, in March, the lawyer Carlo Taormina, the most famous jurist in Italy, had declared to Libero: “What is striking, in fact, is the continuous and studied ambivalence, over eight years, attributed to Ratzinger’s declarations which, in substance, always seem to repeat the same thing, that is, that the pope is him, Benedict, and not others“. Full article here.

But today we launch an appeal to all intellectuals and professionals who have to do, for their work, with law, literature, philosophy, history or other related disciplines. Read the articles of the survey below, from number 6 to number 14, and send us your opinion by writing to: codiceratzinger@libero.it accompanied by your qualification and your position. We will publish your contributions shortly. We need courageous intellectuals willing to put their faces to the task of subscribing to the following:

“The objective and strange ambiguities of Benedict XVI’s language published in chapters 6 through 14 of the “Pope and Antipope” inquiry, also encountered by other journalists, or even readers, are not accidental, and are not due to the age of the author or, least of all, to his unpreparedness. They are subtle but unmistakable messages that lead back to the canonical situation described in the investigation. Pope Benedict communicates in a subtle way because he is in an impeded seat and therefore unable to express himself freely. The “Ratzinger Code” is his form of logical and indirect communication that makes use of apparent inconsistencies that do not escape the eye of the trained person. These phrases, “decoded” with the due deepening in the references that the Pope makes to history, to current events, to canon law, hide a perfectly identifiable logical subtext, with precise and univocal meanings. At other times, Ratzinger opts for a deliberate, “scientific” ambiguity in his sentences – not without humorous hints – that can be interpreted in a speculative way. These communication techniques give him a way to make it clear, “to those who have ears to hear,” that he is still the pope and that he is in a situation of impediment. Therefore, anyone who claims that the messages of the Ratzinger Code are fanciful instrumental interpretations, either has not understood, or denies the evidence.”

And here is what several esteemed professors, professionals, and writers have already stated in support of this claim:

“I subscribe to the above description. The idea that Benedict XVI can express his thought through ambiguous words, amphibological assertions or through disruptive statements of fact, although formulated in an anodyne manner and introduced cursorily in the context of the discourse, even in its enormity, is in fact entirely consistent with the condition of impediment in which the pontiff finds himself, with all evidence, since before his “renunciation” of the ministerium, no less amphibological and problematic, to the interpretation of whose dictation I have already contributed personally. The bishops asked for a clarification on the issues raised by the meticulous investigation of Andrea Cionci, instead of dismissing them annoyed, would do well to respond by expressing themselves on the merits, mindful of the fact that “the truth must be shouted from the rooftops” and bringing evidence and arguments as crystal clear and circumstantial as those offered by Cionci“.

Prof. Gian Matteo Corrias: teacher of literary subjects at the technological high school of Oristano, researcher and author of essays on the history of archaic Roman religion.

“The arguments and reflections exposed, concerning the so-called “Ratzinger code”, are so logical and evident that their rejection does not find any other logical place with which to give a convincing account of the numerous “oddities” of a text that, instead, could not have not been thought and studied in detail by Benedict XVI, who, in turn, has never given rise to doubts about his uncommon competence in terms of both possession of the Latin language and of profound expertise in the theological-canonical field. It is licit to refuse the truth, (“In the heart of the wicked speaks sin” warns the psalmist) but not to brandish the refusal like the brutes the club, in the malignant conviction that the many can be captured and the few rejected in the margins of powerlessness“.

Prof. Alessandro Scali: Professor of Classical Literature in State High Schools, writer and essayist.

“I subscribe to the description of the Ratzinger Code: it is about messages. Why else would someone who is no longer Pope broadcast communications about his own condition and the Church? Taking it for granted that the message cannot be expressed in an explicit way such as ‘look Francis is an Antipope,’ there are various levels of meaning ranging from allusions, symbolism, and wordplay to even saying the exact opposite of what is intended. It is clear the attempt of the Pope “emeritus” (who really should not exist) to communicate this circumstance through cryptic messages, but decodable, designed to warn the faithful.”

Dr. Giuseppe Magnarapa, psychiatrist, essayist and writer

“I subscribe to the above, and add that the declaration of impeded see is the only interpretation that saves the Declaratio. I find myself in full agreement with the results obtained by Dr. Cionci after the “decoding” of the subtle logical language of Pope Benedict XVI. I myself have been able to contribute in this sense by pointing out to my colleague a further encrypted message about the fact that Benedict XVI has shown that he still considers himself Pope, and even the last Pope as we have known him, according to what he expresses in his reply to journalist Seewald about the “famous” prophecy of Malachi”.

Dr. Mirko Ciminiello, journalist and writer.

“The Ratzinger code was already evident in the nonsensical answers about the futility of the reasons for the abdication, tiredness, fatigue due to the time zone, and the irony contained in the motivation to continue to wear the white habit: “I have only white clothes in the closet”, which means, I am Pope, I can not have other clothes. In a tragic moment for the church and for the world it is necessary to search for the truth. The Ratzinger code has continued, not only with the signals recorded by Dr. Cionci and Dr. Ciminiello, but also by the total and quiet authority with which His Holiness Benedict XVI does not stop dealing with doctrinal issues. We look forward with great impatience to the moment when the speech of the Church will again be no, no and yes, yes, and it will no longer be necessary to search for the truth hidden under a bushel, where it does not belong.”

Dr Silvana De Mari, doctor, writer and columnist

“I subscribe to the above description of the communication technique used by Pope Benedict XVI. I found, among others, particularly acute and refined the one concerning the red mozzetta, reported in the valuable investigation of the journalist Andrea Cionci, but there are others much more obvious and immediate. Moreover, it is statistically impossible for dozens of messages to always lead back to the same canonical situation by a coherent logical path. Benedict XVI has been communicating for years a situation that too many people persist in not wanting to understand“.

Com.te Massimo Lucioli, essayist and historical researcher

“As a simple reader, who has always been inwardly involved in what I have always considered to be “the mystery of Benedict XVI’s resignation,” I cannot but subscribe to the description of the Ratzinger Codex and feel gratitude for the tenacity and rigor demonstrated by journalist Andrea Cionci in carrying out his investigation into the so-called “resignation” of the pope. He has shown that objective and strange ambiguities in Benedict XVI’s language are not accidental, and are not due to his age, or, least of all, to his unpreparedness. They are subtle but unmistakable messages that lead back to the canonical situation described in the inquiry. I myself had the pleasure of contributing to the research by pointing out to the journalist an event in the life of Joseph Ratzinger, his awarding of the Order of Karl Valentin, which helped to shed light on one of the most delicious coded messages, the one concerning the German Carnival, reported in the investigation“.

Dr. Anna Maria Conti, Pediatrician

+ + +

En Français

In Espanol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcJ1tuXxb1M