News

Attorney Acosta: The Myth of Pope Benedict XVI’s substantial error — Part I

4 Comments

Editor’s Note: Here this clear headed jurist, examines all the meanings of “substantial error” which are being bandied about in this debate and clarifies them by legal and etymological analysis, just as one would in a court pleading.  This is essential to unpacking what errors and presumptions might be contained in any use of such a term.  – I wrote an entire Scholastic Question on the Substantial Error, which I reckoned existed only in a conceptual incoherence between what is required and what is contained in the act of resignation — ASSUMING that Pope Benedict XVI wanted to abdicate; which is what everyone was presuming back in 2018. None of us yet realized how much our thought and analysis, back then, was still captured by the fake narrative which the Mafia of St. Gallen had so carefully crafted for 6 years.

With Globalist Censorship growing daily, No one will ever know about the above article, if you do not share it.

4 thoughts on “Attorney Acosta: The Myth of Pope Benedict XVI’s substantial error — Part I”

  1. Is it so hard to understand? I saw this right from the beginning. Benedict XVI never left the Vatican. But the papal appartments are sealed.. nonsense hence that allegedly Justin Bieber paid 20000 for a tour there. The story there it is being refurbished. Also nonsense. It it sealed. Bergoglio never lived in the vatican. Not because it is allegedly being refurbished. He can’t. Bergoglio travels on an argentinian pasport. In his own name. Has never called himself the pope. They let us say he is. Who is he to judge because h e can’t. By these standards he is not even an antipope. We have to make him into that. And we are silly enough to give him the honour. Bergoglio is a theater prop. The keys are handed to the prince of carnaval. Hence as Bergoglio stated carnaval had ended he was lying. Carnaval started and that’s what we are in. The celebration of the flesh..

    1. True he has never lived in the papal apartments, but he does live in a guest hotel inside the Vatican. Otherwise, you observations are shiningly brilliant form of common sense, which alas, so many Catholics have lost. Yes, LETS CALL HIM WHAT HE HIMSELF CALS HIMSELF. Merely a Bishop, a guest at the Vatican, not the pope, not the Vicar of Christ, not the patriarch of Rome, and an argentine citizen, not the head of state of the Vatican. Who can object to that?

Comments are closed.