News

VATICAN: Source close to Archbishop Gänswein clarifies Forgery

7 Comments
https://twitter.com/GeorgGaenswein/status/1593381865909620736

Commentary By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The tweet from the above account just shed tremendous light on the recent controversy. This account is widely believed to be under the control of someone close to the Archbishop. The wording of the tweet, therefore, should be seen as highly significant.

According to this tweet, the forger of the letter was attempting to make Archbishop Gänswein appear to betray Pope Benedict XVI’s trust (“with regard to the emeritus”).

But the word used to signify Pope Benedict, “the emeritus” is very carefully chosen. It is NOT capitalized. Therefore, it is being used with the Latin signification, as “the one who merits to be called” the Pope. Also, by using the words, “complete rejection”, it is affirming the negation of all the allegations made in the Letter.

This tweet, therefore, is in perfect Ratzinger Code, and clarifies that the affirmations contained in the forged letter are all contrary to that trust.

Therefore, reviewing the Letter once again:

we can now say, affirmatively, that according to the author of this tweet, and presumably, according to the Archbishop himself:

  1. The Holy Father is glad that there are priests who celebrate Mass, “In communion with Pope Benedict”.
  2. The Holy Father always celebrates as Pope, naming his sacred person in the canon with, “your unworthy servant”.
  3. The Holy Father has never promised Bergoglio personally “devout and unconditional obedience”.
  4.  Don Minutella has suffered a grievous violation of his rights as a priest by 2 unjust sentences which have no legal effect, because the Holy Father was never consulted.
  5. The Holy Father assures Don Minutella of his continued prayers as he crusades for his restoration.

For more information on this story, see our reports and coverage, here.

UPDATE: I have been informed, that this tweet appears to be responding to a discussion the other day between Don Minutella and Andrea Cionci over the affirmations in the Letter, and this is another confirmation, that I have read the Ratzinger Code here correctly. But it would also be another piece of evidence, that this twitter account is run by the Archbishop himself or one of his relatives, such as a brother. Indeed, to me, the phraseology in the Letter appears to reflect a native German speaker.

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

7 thoughts on “VATICAN: Source close to Archbishop Gänswein clarifies Forgery”

  1. Pingback: FROMROME.INFO Blocked in Italy | From Rome

      1. This is because, when typing in English, using most desktop computers, it is impossible to write the letter “a” with the umlaut on top of it.

        BTW, there is another way of writing the Archbishop’s surname, Gaenswein.

    2. It depends on the application. The author used the Twitter Web app to launch this tweet. I ask readers who know what this is, to sound of here, about how that app works when set to English language as a default. — My first supposition, would be that this tweet was written in the app, not cut and pasted from another source, where the spelling could have been correct.

      Forensically, I think that the spelling variations are not determinative, because either native English speaker wrote it, in haste, or in common usage, where we do not use the umlaut, which is not in our Language, or a native German speaker who knows this, wrote it, to conceal the fact that it was he who wrote it and to insert a degree of plausible deniability, so that those who do not want to read the tweet as I have, could have a reason to excuse them from seeing that signification.

      Thus, the spelling variation is within the canons of the Ratzinger Code, such as when the Holy Father said commissum instead of commisso, in the Declaratio, his enemies thought he was tired and made an error, as if speaking in Italian, but to us, he was signifying that this was not a valid-giuridical act and that it was to be doubted to be such, while forcing Latinists to look for the substantive which correlated with commiss-, which was no other than ministero, the word which made the text a declaration of retirement, not an act of abdication.

Comments are closed.