by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

There is nothing more grave of a sin for the tongue than to lie. And there is nothing more perverse of the spirit to be a habitual liar, even after correction. That is deplorable pertinacity. But if you become a publicist for your lies after multiple corrections, you in all truth merit to be called a serial liar.  And this is what Steven O’Reilly, ex-CIA agent is.

First, I remind my readers that this ex-CIA Agent has his own theory of meta-signification (which I dissected and refuted here), which he dangles before the eyes of his readers so that they abandon the normal and sane principles of forensics: accepting prima facie evidence.

For O’Reilly, of course, as a intelligence officer, reality is not what is out there, reality is what we tell you is out there.

This ex-CIA agent is no outlier on the debate. For as soon as the discussion of Benedict XVI being still the pope exploded in the English speaking world, in the fall of 2018, on account of the comments by Msgr. Nicolas Bux, this ex-CIA agent was banging his keyboard to produce refutations. He was defensive, upset and clearly worried at the risk to the dominant narrative. He attempted to craft arguments against the first part of my Scholastic Question. So I adopted many of them and refuted them completely in the second part.

His behavior does not surprise anyone who knows how the CIA works, since it was Hilary Clinton, as Secretary of State of the United States, who had called for a “springtime” in the Catholic Church, something like the “Arab spring”, which was CIA engineered to topple governments throughout the Mediterranean and abroad.

Seven months after he entered into the fray, even dispassionate observers judged that Steven O’Reilly could be safely ignored, for evading the questions and problems in the theory that Bergoglio is the pope.

So it is not without a certain reluctance that I address the rehash of disinformation that this ex-CIA agent is peddling.  Yet, because he is so eloquently disinforming and doing so in conjunction with the recent denials by Bergoglio of resigning, the recent FB attack on Pope Benedict, it is easy for even a simple Catholic to connect the dots to see the internationally coordinated attack on Pope Benedict XVI, orchestrated between Langley, in McLean Virginia and the St. Martha Hotel, on the south side of the Vatican City.

But I will not omit to remind all, that as the public opinion shifted in these last 4 years to recognizing Pope Benedict XVI as the true pope — a thing proven now even in the Italian speaking world with the near unanimous acclaim of Cionci’s encyclopedia of evidence, Codice Ratzinger, rising to the top of the charts for book sales in Italy, Steven O’Reilly attempted to caulk the leaking Globalist narrative by admitting in part that the Conclave of 2013 contained irregularities. This was not a sincere repositioning, however, as can be seen from above, where he dismisses it as a substantive or actionable doubt.

With these things as preamble, let us unpack Steven O’Reilly’s litany of lies and misrepresentations:

Put on the Visors

The article linked to above, opens with this telling introduction:

A small but vocal number of Catholics are convinced not only that Francis is not the pope, but that Benedict XVI is still the valid pope. What are their arguments? Are they right—is Joseph Ratzinger still the pope?

The words are chosen to spark your emotional response to radical anti-Catholic groups which militant against Church doctrine. At the same time, they self contradict. Because they admit that all call Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, but catching themselves, they name him with his baptismal name, to sneer at the man and indicate what way their argument will go.

All this is MKUltra conditioning, so that you prepare yourselves to accept the disinformation which follows.

But this introduction also contains a lie. Because it is not a small number of Catholics. In fact, a poll done last summer by Canon212 showed that it is as much as 60% of all Roman Catholics in the English speaking world.  Cionci’s Book’s success argues that in the Italian speaking world, where they really do know more about the Vatican, it may be similarly dominant as a view.

Sammons on O’Reilly

Mr. O’Reilly has told me that it displeases him that I mention in public his past employment. He evidently thinks that might make Catholics doubt his intentions, motivations or truthfulness.  It should, if you know anything about how the Nazi Spy Network merged with U.S. Military Intelligence (OSS) after the war to form the Central Intelligence Agency, all under the direction of the Skull and Bones men who were in the US Military and State Department back in 1948-55. If you would not be concerned, that would be concerning, especially since a very weighty investigation published nearly a decade ago, showed that the U.S. Government declared war on the Catholic Church and has aimed since 1953 for her total destruction. My colleague and the Station Manager over at Ordo Militaris Radio TV and I have done numerous shows explaining and documenting this.  So if O’Reilly wants us to ignore it, I tell you, we should not ignore it.

Corroborating the respect that Sammons, his interviewer, has for the CIA, Sammons opens his introduction by identifying the Agent as an Agent, but not by naming his Agency.   This is really cheek, I think. Use enough of the resume to get your listeners to listen, but not enough to raise their critical thinking.

Sammons’s Declares his intent to discuss what is thought, not what is real

Sammons, who is a convert from Methodism, then continues with the CIA style framing of the discussion by making it clear that they are going to discuss what is in the minds of other people and not what in reality, by saying:

To be honest, it is a confusing situation. I do think there are a lot of sincere and well-meaning Catholics who are honestly unsure about the status of Francis and about whether or not Benedict is still the Pope. Now, those who don’t think that Francis is the Pope, they generally fall into two categories. One is the Sedevacantists who believe that there is no valid Pope. That just means the seat is vacant, no Pope. We’re not going to talk about that today, that’s a whole different discussion. What we’re talking about is that group of people who believe that Pope Benedict, for whatever reason, his resignation wasn’t valid, it didn’t happen, whatever the case may be, so he is still the Pope. That’s what we’re going to talk about today. First, to clear it up at the beginning, the first question I want to ask is what do we call the people or the view that Benedict is still the Pope? I’ve seen a lot of different names and I’ve seen people get upset at the various names. Let’s first clarify what should we call this theory?

This means, that Sammons did not and would not even admit a discussion of reality or facts, that is how deep his prejudice goes. But that is probably why the ex-CIA agent agreed to the interview, because in disinformation or misinformation warfare, the first rule is never to admit reality, and the second, never to admit anything said by your opponent which unmasks you as a total fraud.

Mr. O’Reilly’s sense of manners: insult, but be polite when excusing it as an insult

Then this ex-CIA agent shows the depravity of his mind, by the most pharasaical argument to excuse himself:

Sure. Well, when I first started writing on this subject back in 2017 on my blog I coined the term BIP which just stood for Benedict is Pope, quite literally, even though occasionally some folks have taken exception to that, somehow I’m being dismissive of them. It was not, it was just a way of naming them. Other folks have used Benevacantist and Beneplenist. In my book I decided, recently in my blog I’ve opted to use Benepapist or Benepapism. Again, not to be pejorative, just to be descriptive. I thought that Benedict is Pope or BIP as an acronym probably … long live Benedict but he is up there in age and, when he passes, Benedict is Pope, it will obviously no longer be an accurate name so I just thought Benepapism and Benepapists would be the terms I use on my blog and book.

He could have simply called them “Catholics who follow canon law”, but no, that would let the game out of the bag, since Steven O’Reilly is all about convincing you — and this is a CIA imperative — that you are only a good Catholic if you accept the anti-Pope that Hilary Clinton had installed, and who parrots Barrack Obama on a daily basis.

Sammons then plays the Overton Card

The Overton window, is where you discuss something which is more absurd to excuse something which is still absurd. Sammons must know this technique well, because he then says:

Yeah. I think that’s good because it’s not trying to be demeaning or anything like that. Benevacantism was kind of a silly term. I know I used that at first too because it was jokingly connecting to Sedevacantists, but of course that makes no sense, the actual term, that Benedict is vacant or something like that. I think though Benepapist is good because it’s just simply the idea that Benedict is still the Pope right now. In just a few sentences, give the overall view of the Benepapist position other than just the fact that he’s obviously still the Pope. How would you describe that position?

By which he dumps Peter Skojec’s favorite pet insult in the can, so he can get you to accept the CIA’s less crude but still erroneous label for Catholics. I wonder what Skojec will think of that slap. And I would wager that Sammons himself used the label, and that a deep search of the internet would uncover that…. but that is my pure speculation.

The correct term that both men should use is Canonical Party or Papal faction, because we who hold that Benedict XVI is still the pope base our argument solely on the requirements of Canon Law. But Sammons and O’Reilly cannot say that, because such a name would get you to think that they are part of the un-Canonical Party or anti-Papal faction. Which is really what they are. Oops.

The ex-CIA Agent dons his psych-analyst hat

Then Mr. O’Reilly really goes for the outrageous, when he plays the psycho-analyst, to push even deeper into his listeners minds the notion what he and Sammons are not discussing reality, but the deep psychological needs of some few strident distraught Catholics, by saying.

The Benepapist view is that they looked back at the original documents of the resignation and some of the oddities around the Saint Gallen Mafia. Did they somehow force Benedict out? Was there something wrong with his actual resignation statement? Then they looked at that overall situation and determined that his resignation was invalid. Therefore, if you can say Benedict’s resignation is invalid, he’s still Pope. If he’s still Pope, obviously Francis is not, problem solved and we can forget about things like Amoris Laetitia and all that. We just have to wait for the rest of the Church to catch up to us or to them. That’s how I think it originated. We can obviously go into some of the documents and some of the specific theories that they have.

I mean, this interview reeks with condescension of the kind which would make Hilary or any other radical Marxist liberal proud.

Sammons the eternal Protestant

Now the big reason why Catholics should never listen to protestants, even after they convert, is that those raised in that error can with great difficulty remove it from their minds, hearts, and sensibilities. And thus they easily lead Catholics astray, which is why the CIA has intentionally promoted such persons as converts and made them leaders in the information world of Catholics.

And Sammons shows this, when he then says:

Right. Before we do that, it sounds to me though, I mean, this is how it appears to me as well, we have a problem and I think a lot of Catholics, good Catholics do acknowledge the problem and that is Francis is doing things that a Pope probably shouldn’t be doing or at least is scandalous.

As a cradle Catholic I do not know whether to burst into a mocking laughter or a tearful head-shaking stint, at hearing anyone who publicly claims to be a Catholic call the worse existential crisis in the history of the Church, a crisis, which is leading 100s of millions to damnation, “a problem”.  And makes the language even weaker by saying, “I mean, this is how it appears to me as well, we have a problem ….”.  Totally conditioning and relativizing it.

A true Catholic remembers, knows, and sympathizes with his forefathers who, in accord with the civil law of their day, burnt heretics like Bergoglio at the stake, and did so with a holy zeal and glee to see justice done and souls freed from such a demonic mouth.

But Sammons shows that he is double-minded and forked-tongued when he immediately adds that he also holds the contrary view:

Another idea is the view that I think a lot of people watching this and myself, I hold, is that he is a true Pope but, yes, these are problematic elements. They don’t invalidate his papacy but they do show, like in the past where Popes have done things that are bad, he’s a Pope that’s done things that are bad. Others have just tried to gloss over it saying, “Oh, it’s not really that bad. You’re misinterpreting him,” or something like that. Then of course this view of, “Well actually Benedict is still Pope,” the question becomes when did the idea that the papal resignation of Benedict was not valid, when did that originate? Was it right after in 2013 or did it take some time before it originated, before people started really promoting it?

And this shows when he says, “these are problematic elements. They don’t invalidate his papacy”, that despite his doctorate, he does not know still in what consists both the Papacy, Infallibility, Error, or even that Eternal Name of the Son of God, Truth, means. He actually thinks that self-contradiction is not contradictory to truth.  This is the level of insanity which inhabits his still protestant mind.

Stevie rewrites history

Then Mr. O’Reilly does what he loves best, he rewrites history, saying:

As early as 2014 I think it was, Andrea Tornielli had interviewed Benedict and at that point he was even saying theories that his resignation was invalid were absurd. It does go back pretty far. I think, to my mind, what really launched Benepapism was the Gänswein speech in 2016. That’s when he did make some kind of … when you read it, on the surface at least that really raised a lot of eyebrows talking about an expanded papal ministry and that type of stuff. I think it was Ann Barnhardt who was the first to call that out. That’s when she came up with the theory, the substantial error theory that there was a substantial error in Benedict’s resignation, in his Declaratio. Then they found some evidence for that also in the last audience of Pope Benedict on February 27th, 2013, the day before his resignation. That became, I think, the basis for substantial error theory which has become one of the two major theories since that time.

Pope Benedict XVI has never spoke about His “resignation”, because the word “resignation” does not exist in the Italian language, and its cognate, He also never uses. He speaks of his renuncia or dimissione.  Neither of which means the same.  And since He did in fact renounce his ministerium, he of course when speaking of his renuncia, speaks about that. But by glossing this fact, O’Reilly wants us to believe, that Benedict XVI has insisted that he has validly renounced the papacy, the petrine munus, or the Papal Office, and thinks that those who think he has not are promoting absurd theories.

But the reality is quite the contrary. Pope Benedict XVI has never refuted those who say that his Declaratio is not a valid renunciation of his petrine munus. I know this, because I sent him the very Scholastic Question that this ex-CIA agent objects to, and received no objection from the Holy Father. By remaining silent the Holy Father has tacitly agreed that His Declaratio has no force to deprive Him of the papal dignity, office, or munus. He also has not rebuked Cionci or Airton Vieira.

Now if Steve was simply a blowhard who ran a blog, we could excuse him for simply being ignorant. But as you can see from the end of this interview, he is not such a man: he is publishing a Book, entitled, “Valid, the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI”. So he has no excuse in Heaven or Earth for getting these facts wrong: especially since he admits to have read FromRome.Info, which has in more than 5000 articles covered this story on a near weekly basis for 4 years.

Sammons and the CIA Agent play games with Substantial Error

Next Sammons launches a discussion of substantial error, as being by reason of canon 188, the cause for the invalidty of the renunciation of munus.  Without pointing out that Benedict XVI never said he renounced the munus. Only the MSM narrative makes that claim.

They discuss some examples: fear and mistaking a necessity of duty.

They omit explaining the term, “substantial error”.  That is, a substantial defect which totally destroys the canonical validity of a juridical act, by touching the substance, or requirements, of the act.

But they cannot define the term, because, then, again, their game will be exposed, and their listeners will begin to inquire what is required for the act of a papal renunciation. — Hint: the one who is the Roman Pontiff, must renounce his papal munus, do so freely, express himself in due ritual form. Period. Read canon 322.2 for details, in the Latin.

Noooooh, but Steven and Sammons cannot do that, it would let the cat out of the bag. Everything must be done to avoid that discussion!

Don’t Read Seewald or listen to Pope Benedict, let Stevie tell you all

Then we reach at the heights of the absurdity of this interview, when the ex-CIA agent remarks:

That’s right. The other thing too I’d point out with regard to Benedict’s case is, if you look at the things he said in his Peter Seewald interviews which he did actually before he resigned and then afterwards, it’s clear that he recognizes that a Pope cannot leave under duress. The question was did the WikiLeaks scandal, which erupted in early 2012 … he said no, in fact he waited, he deferred his resignation until the gentleman was arrested and then they had a trial and the trial ended in October, late October, early November 2012. I think his resignation was, he really, I think, settled on it in December even though there’s strong indications that he told Petroni and he told Gänswein as early as June or July 2012 that he was going to resign. He deferred his resignation because of WikiLeaks. There’s no indication that he submitted to fear. Even though there might have been the smoke out there, there’s no indication that he understood himself to be under any kind of duress that led him to resign.

Here I must speak about the sophistic argumentation which can be employed in English with our verb, “can”, that is, “to be able”. It is a really vague and generic verb. It can refer to any kind of capacity, intellectual, physical, moral or legal, among the many others.

Benedict XVI has never said that He believes or holds that the man who is pope cannot physically, morally or legally leave the Papacy when under duress.  But He has said that He would not do so.  So Mr. O’Reilly has stated an utter falsehood and crafted it in such a way as to make his listeners think that Benedict XVI was denying that duress was put on him personally. — That he has never denied. But He has denied that it is the reason why He chose to make His Declaratio, that is, that he was forced to make it. He denies this, because it is precisely His free act to renounce the ministerium rather than the munus, which is the center piece of his strategy to defeat Freemasonry and the CIA in their attempt to seize the papacy and destroy the Catholic Church forever.

Then the litanies begin

Then Sammons cites Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s arguments for Bergoglio being the pope, even though he has been twice publicly refuted by myself and Cionci.  So Sammons must be actually ignorant of what is on the internet, or is really gaming all his listeners with the most gross omissions.

Next, Mr. O’Reilly pretends that he has extensively investigated the Conclave (as if he was the first to do it) when he has not cited half the evidence which FromRome.Info did from 2014 onwards — this is actually what made From Rome world famous (our Chronology on Team Bergoglio is used by journalists the world over, as can be seen from our sites logs for 8 years).

Next, Stevie says that ministerium is the common term, and munus is the technical term, but they both mean the same thing. This is really a gross and public deception, after the difference of both these terms has been discussed by authors he cites, Acosta and myself. Either do your research and respond to ours or stop repeating this Big Lie.

Next, our CIA agent veteran says that all who hold that Benedict XVI is the Pope don’t accept that ministerium is the wrong word to renounce by. That might have been true in 2017, but it is certainly a misrepresentation today, since it has become the common position of all by 2022.

Then, the same says that we should listen to Father John Rickert of FSSP, who want us to use a famous Latin Dictionary, instead of obeying Canon Law, in canon 17, which says we should not do that, but use the code itself, as I did in my never-quoted and never-refuted-in-four-years study, which I just linked to above (under the word, “myself”). It is never quoted, because every argument that Bergoglio is pope goes up in flames as soon as you admit my study exists, the canonical argument is that solid.

Next, the ex-CIA agent is self-consistent with the ideology of its Masonic founders, when he compares the Papacy to a baseball player, that is, something man-made and totally functional.  That is a very nasty denigrating comment about an office created by Jesus Christ. But for them it is necessary, because since if there was a substantial existence of grace underlying the Papal Office, it not only could renounce acting, it could remain in existing so long as it itself was not renounced. Oops.

Next, the same claims that Cardinal Burke thinks the renunciation of ministry is sufficient to produce a valid resignation. False. As I have reported here, without any contestation by Cardinal Burke or anyone else, Burke has gone on record from Feb. 2013 till 2016, saying that he doubts the renunciation of ministry effects a papal abdication.

Finally — since I tire of wading through this sewer of lies — Stevie discusses what he thinks Benedict thought and intended to so. This is so apt, having completely ignored the evidence, what is left to discuss, but thoughts about thoughts.

This whole interview is so MKULtra that it is sickening. I hope that I did not offend my readers by dissecting some of it.