Here at FromRome.Info, I try to cover all the important news about the Debate over whether Pope Benedict XVI abdicated or not and whether Pope Francis is an anti-pope or not and how he could be removed from office in a canonically valid manner.
I do this for the sake of Christ, my King, to protect His Immaculate Bride from the ravaging hands and tongues of His enemies and of not a few of His friends who say things in ignorance regarding these topics.
Since my interest is in the triumph of truth over error, I am pleased when I see those who have publicly disagreed with me accept the truth, even if it takes them two years and in doing so they do not admit I was right all along. It is not that I have a charism of being right, it is that in humility I try not to ever give my own opinion, but simply repeat what experts, scholars, Doctors of the Church, Saints and Canon Law says.
Andrea Cionci has agreed with Br. Bugnolo on two points
So I am happy to announce that Andrea Cionci has at last accepted that I was right on two important points regarding Papal Elections.
That the Cardinals must enter into conclave no later than the 20th day after the death of a Roman Pontiff, for their votes to be counted, other wise, if they do not do so, the Cardinals cannot validly elect a Pope.
That it is sufficient that even a small number of electors convene to validly elect a pope.
Andrea Cionci has made these affirmations — my English is not an exact translation — in a conference given at Namur, Belgium to the “Piccolo Resto”, which was held in French, but where he intervened in Italian, with a translator translating live.
The first point is the exact rule from the Papal Law, Universi Domini gregis. The second is derived from the Code of Canon Law, which says that in all ecclesiastical elections, the validity of the election is not destroyed by the paucity of electors who present themselves. So in fact, even 1 Cardinal in a Conclave, or 1 layman in an Assembly of Apostolic Right, could validly elect a pope: presuming there was a proper convocation of the Conclave or Assembly. Cf. the Code of Canon Law for these conditions.
Cionci holds, though, there needs to be at least 3 Cardinals, since he misinterprets the requirement of a majority to validly elect. He evidently does not think a sole vote in a conclave of only 1 cardinal is not a majority. An opinion which shows his entire confusion on how to read the Papal Law!
The Papal Law currently in force, however, does not provide any way for electing a Pope if the Cardinals in charge of convoking a conclave fail to do so, or if none appear before the 21st day. For Cionci, this means there is no other way. But as I have said last week, only someone entirely ignorant in jurisprudence holds that a law remains in force if its fundamental condition is obstructed.
Where Andrea Cionci still is making up things
Andrea Cionci still believes, however, that only Cardinals in a Conclave can elect a pope in a valid manner, because being an opera singer and an instructor in singing, and only a journalist on the side, he has absolutely no training in Canon Law. He cannot even read Latin. I know these things because he told me himself.
He is now, however, claiming that though Pope Francis is an antipope, Cardinals can convene after his death and validly elect a true pope. While it is true that after Pope Francis’ death Cardinals can validly elect his successor, a true pope, certain conditions could invalidate that; however, Cionci is QUITE WRONG in claiming that Cardinals after the death of an ANTI-POPE can enter into conclave, since that is expressly forbidden by the Papal Law, which only allows Conclaves after the death of TRUE POPES. — I use capitals here, to shout, since having said this before, he still seems to be deaf to the truth and refuses to read what is written in the Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis.
I will add that during his conference he claimed that Father Ferdinando Cornet agrees with him in his position.
Cionci claims Pope Francis will resign in January of 2025
He is also claiming that “according to his sources”, Pope Francis will resign in January.
Let’s see if Andrea Cionci’s sources are valid or not, by waiting to see what happens.
Cionci wants you to know his position on Conclaves is absurd
I do not think he believes his own reasons are strong enough to convince the Cardinals, though, since he also said, during the response to Questions, that if no valid Cardinal elects a true pope before August 18, 2036, when the third-youngest will become 80 years of age and lose his right to vote, then the Church will never have a pope again. — This expressly contradicts the First Vatican Council which teaches that is the Will of God that Saint Peter have perpetual successors in the See of Rome.
So I am glad he expressed his own opinion ad absurdum, since this will help true Catholics realize that his position on the obligatory nature of always following the Papal Law is not sustainable, reasonable, or a Catholic approach, since it ends in the self-destruction of the Church by the pharasaical observance of a merely positive law.
Evidently Father Cornet also does not believe, however, that he and Cionci have good enough reasons to convince the Cardinals to act, because during the conference he asks the faithful to ask priests to pray for the graces the Cardinals need.
One slight error made by Cionci during his talk is to say that there are 30 Cardinals who can vote in a Conclave who were appointed by Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and that all of these need to be petitioned. But he fails to realize that at least 11 of them are members of the St. Gallen Mafia. So by petitioning them all, he is giving certain knowledge of his operation to the enemy.
For an throughly Catholic solution to how Pope Benedict XVI could and did have a juridically valid successor see the article, The Triump of the Lamb, here at FromRome.Info.
Videos of the Conference are in Italian and French
The conference was held apparently held on November 23, 2024, at Namur, Belgium, and 110 were expected to attend. About half of those attending came from France, some by car from Languedoc. This was the very day after I had publicly rebuked Cionci in the strongest manner for his previous positions.
The French Translator stated that the French Edition of Andrea Cionci’s Book, The Ratzinger Code, has been read by more than 1 million in the French speaking world. But she fails to mention that Father Walter Covens is its translator. — The translation was done while Pope Benedict XVI was still in life.
The conference was transmitted on the YouTube Channel: Hildegarde de Bingen, 5 days ago. See below. The owner of this channel is the woman doing the translations in the videos. So please let her know that she should mention the name of the translator, since he merits that much.
What Father Cornet said …
Father Cornet, for his part, made a grave error, in restricting the obligation of Catholics to the “laws” of the Church. He evidently has never studied jurisprudence, because the correct maxim, is that Catholics are obliged to do what is right and just, which is expressed in Divine Revelation and Apostolic Tradition, and from time to times is applied in canons and laws for particular circumstances of history. Thus he appears to be saying we should follow Canon Law or Papal Laws even if they went contrary to Apostolic or Divine Law. That would be the very heresy of Pharasaism, which Our Lord condemned in the Gospels many times.
He also said that unless a priest say he does not intent to confect a Sacrament, that the Sacrament is considered valid. The correct Catholic doctrine in such cases, is that the Sacrament IS valid, not merely considered valid, so long as a validly ordained priest using valid matter and saying the correct words, has not explicated such an intention. This difference seems small, but “to consider a thing valid” and for a thing “to be valid” are two different orders of being, the former is a mental judgement, the latter is a reality existing in this world. To attempt to quell the doubts of souls as regards the validity of a Sacrament, one has to speak of reality, not mental judgements of reality. This is the entire basis for the finding of Benedict XVI’s renunciation as non-existent in reality, even though many in their minds think or consider or judge it happened.
He said many other things, but this one strikes me as most worthy of note: that Cardinal Achille Liénart (who consecrated Archbishop Lefebrve a Bishop) before his own death confessed to being a 33rd Degree Freemason; and that he, Father Cornet, knows this personally, because he knew the Cardinal in life. Since the Cardinal died in 1973, however, I wonder how a Argentine in his sixties, like Father Cornet, barely at the age of maturity, would know personally a Cardinal in France? Perhaps I misunderstand how he phrased this. However, the report that the Cardinal confessed to being a Freemason before death has already been published more than 15 years ago, here.
I have to declare my profound disgust and revulsion at the shamefully dishonest behavior of Andrea Cionci, who published a video in Italian 6 hours ago, defending Father Faré, by claiming that Pope Francis was never elected in a juridically valid manner and is thus is an anti-pope.
I know that outcome displeased him, because the faithful elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio pope. It should especially displease him, because if you count myself, then all those who voted, not only voted for Bergoglio, but were fans of his own and had read his book, The Ratzinger Code! If he does not like the outcome now, he should rue nothing but his own intransigence then, when he could have encouraged the Faithful to come in numbers and elect someone more to his own liking! (And yes, I say this in derisive mockery)
To omit this from his recent video to justify Father Faré’s own heretical denial of the right of the Roman Church to elect her own Bishop — a right which pertains to the whole Church but in normal circumstances, only, is restricted to a Conclave of Cardinals — is the villainous behavior of someone intending to deceive his audience and craft a false and mendacious argument.
His continued insistence that only the College of Cardinals has the exclusive right to elect a pope, even when they refuse to do so according to the norm of law, flies in the face of all concept of equity and right, precisely because the Cardinals only have this exclusivity of right by reason of a Papal Law (Universi Dominic gregis), on Conclaves of Cardinals, which presumes they will be willing to use it, but which in its very preface, says openly that a Conclave is not necessary for the valid election of a Roman Pontiff! (cf. UDG, Introduction, paragraph 9)
Moreover, he continues this charlatanry to seduce Priests to get themselves laicized and excommunicated as sacrifices upon the altar of his own egotistical and demonic pride which refuses reality, apostolic tradition and even the historical facts of papal history like that of the case of Leo VIII who came to power in Rome as an antipope, but was accepted as the true Pope, by the Roman Faithful, after the abdication of the true pope, who was at first his rival (more here).
I regret trusting the man with so much information about the Declaration of Pope Benedict XVI. I never harbored any doubt about him, until January 2023, when he arranged to meet me in private with Don Minutella with the express purpose of attempting to convince me that I should take no steps to urge the Faithful of Rome to elect a successor to Pope Benedict XVI, which just days later showed itself in a positive refusal to approve of any action that would warn the Cardinals that they should act! From that moment to this day, I have understood that he was nothing more than an angel of light and has the most dishonest intentions, because any man who can “defend” a pope and then turn about-face and not want him to have a juridically valid successor is a total fraud, because in such wise he is really defending not having a pope, and really wants, that the Church have no more popes. A thing which can be seen in his increasingly absurd suggestions for a future papal election under conditions which no Cardinal would ever agree to: to wit, in violation of the Papal Law which only gives them the right to elect a pope within 20 days of the previous pope’s burial — not months or years later! (cf. UDG, Part II, Chapter I, n. 37)
It is indeed madness to insist, as Cionci does, on an impossibility according to positive law (elections years later) while at the same time refusing to admit the legitimacy of apostolic right admitted by that same positive law. You have to accept the entirety of the law and stop pretending to cherry pick it. The Church would cease to be canonically legitimate if the Cardinals, refusing to elect a pope, retained the exclusivity of their positive right to elect the pope, against the claims of the apostolic tradition which grants that right to all the Faithful of Rome as a whole, and to all who show up to such an election, when such a necessity comes to the fore! If they could do such a thing, then after 20 days, no one could elect a new pope, and the office of Saint Peter would cease to be handed down in the Catholic Church! Such an interpretation defies the infallible teaching of Vatican I, which anathematizes all who deny that it is the will of God that Peter have in perpetuity successors in the Apostolic See! (Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter II, n. 5)
And since it is the will of God, that Peter have successors perpetually in the Apostolic See, then when the Cardinals refuse to elect a pope, when they are bound by Papal Law to do so during a specific time frame, in such wise that when they refuse to do so, any election they take in Conclave becomes invalid, then, it is the will of God that the Faithful of the Roman Church elect their own Pope Bishop. This is the right, honest, and sane reading of the law and of the tradition. And all, who would oppose this, oppose the Will, not of men, but of God.
Finally, I must remark, as one who holds a degree in Anthropology, that there is something indeed strange about persons who while Pope Benedict XVI lived, insisted that Pope Francis was the true Pope, but now that Pope Benedict XVI has gone to his recompense, insist that Pope Francis is not the true Pope. — There is also something bizarre, which would lead the mind the study with minute detail the events before the death of Pope Benedict XVI, but refuse to study in the same fashion how it can be that the Church have a true pope again after that death.
As for me, you are not going to ever convince me that these persons have a sincere fidelity to the Apostolic See or an honest manner of acting. They should be pitied, and prayed for, but not defended in the integrity of their argument, which is false, if they say that Pope Francis was never legitimately the pope, or when they claim something about the Papal Law for elections which it does not say, while denying what it does.
Finally, see, Father Faré’s Argument is a Straw Man, where I refute the core fallacy has has made, upon which he basis his entire declaration that Pope Francis has never been the legitimate pope.
Photo Credits: The featured image is a screenshot of Google’s image search for “Andrea Cionci”
Br. Bugnolo has already fully refuted Andrea Cionci’s objections to the election of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor by an assembly according to Apostolic Right, in May of 2023, here in Italian.
Editor’s Note: 5 Years ago, FromRome.Info published (on Nov. 20, 2019) the definitive critique of the Latin text of Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013. Even to this day, no other author in the world has published a similar critique nor one as perspicacious and complete. This article represented one of my unique contributions to the debate on the validty of Pope Benedict XVI’s abdication. It thus has an important and irreplaceable place in the history of that controversy. Only the readers of FromRome.Info and UnaVox.It were allowed to see the full text of my critique, which in Its Italian version is still hidden on all search engines, while being very difficult to find even in English on any google search. This one article totally unmasked the fake narrative fed to Catholics the world over by every Cardinal and nearly every Bishop and Priest and Deacon who sucked up the fake narrative and regurgitated it, some of whom employed and do now still employ Nazi style tactics to quash any discussion of its fake-itude.
News of this article was brought to light to the Italian press by Andrea Cionci on June 11, 2020 and caused a sensation in Italy. — Here below, I republish the original English article, and the Italian translation of which, which with friends in Italy, and at the urging of Andrea Cionci, I personally prepared in 2020. — In response, the Bishop’s Conference official Newspaper, L’Avvenire, found a defrocked priest to write an editorial calling me an “idiot” who does not know Latin. — But in the end, I was vindicated by none other than Archbishop Gaenswein, Pope Benedict XVI’s ex-personal secretary, who years later, just months before the death of the Holy Father and presumably with his permission, did in August/Sept of 2022, in a telephone call to Father Helmut, admit that there are errors in the Latin text. His admission of errors is the strongest canonical testimony that a Provincial Council must be convened to judge the validity of the abdication. That is one of the reasons for the Sutri Initiative, which I suggested in basic form several times, before and immediately after the Archbishop’s admission.
5 Years Ago.
Clamorous errors in the Latin of Benedict’s “Renunciation”
THIS IS A REPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL
DI SEGUITO LA TRADUZIONE ITALIANA
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Thus read the headlines in the newspapers within days of the publication of the official Latin text of the Act of Renunciation made by Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013: Clamorous Errors in the Latin text of the Renunciation. (here and on point, here). These articles only spoke of the errors of commissum not commisso and vitae instead of vita.
And in this case, the headlines were not misrepresenting the reality. For I have discerned at least 40 errors!
Yet, the propaganda machine immediately went to work and anyone who on social media in 2013 began talking about errors was immediately and viciously attacked as judging the pope! — The real purpose was that the Lavender Mafia was very worried about anyone questioning the validity. I remember my professor in Canon Law diverting the lectures he made in February and March of that year to teach things about certain canons in an erroneous way so as to stifle any consideration of the invalidity. But he did it with such subtlety that only after all these years do I recognize what he did. — The other voices shouting down criticism of the Latin are all part of the circles of those conservative Cardinals who just impaled their reputations by demanding unquestioning obedience to Bergoglio after his acts of idolatrous worship and reverence. That was when the controlled opposition of Trad Inc. was born. It was their first act of loyalty to the regime. And it indicates they were positioned to respond and were told what to do.
So for the sake of a more exact historical truth, I will discuss here these errors and give an English translation of what Pope Benedict XVI’s Latin said (in a Later post, since there are too many errors to be discussed). I do this to correct any misunderstanding given by my previous English translation of the Act of Renunciation, in the article I entitled, “A Literal English translation of Benedict XVI’s Discourse on Feb. 11, 2013“, where by “literal” I mean faithful to the sense, not to the grammar of the Latin employed.
I base my comments on the Latin text on my own knowledge of the Latin tongue garnered in 14 years of translating of some nine thousand Letter sized pages of medieval Latin ecclesiastic texts into English. I will be the first one to say that I do not think I am an expert in the matter, but I do think it would be no exaggeration to say that there are only a handful of men alive today in the Church who have translated more Latin than myself. I also wrote a popular Ecclesiastical Latin Textbook and Video series, which I produced for Mansfield Community TV, in Massachusetts, USA, and which The Franciscan Archive distributed for some years after the publication of Summorum pontificum.
And thus, conceding I can always learn from others, I will also draw from two German Scholars who publicly critiqued the Latin text: the professor of Philology, Wilfried Stroh (see here) and those of Attorney Arthur Lambauer, a Vienese lawyer, whose comments are recorded in part here.
I can also give personal witness to the fact that the Latinists who have worked in the Vatican during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI are aware of all of these errors (and probably of more) and have only been reticent for personal reasons, from what I gather from having had the occasion to dine with one at an Agritourismo, at Bagnoregio, Italy, in the summer of 2016.
First, the Latin Text in Black, with RED indicating the errors of expression (numbering each), after which I will comment on each error section by section, because there are so many. The official Latin text can be found at the Vatican Website (here).
Fratres carissimi
Non solum propter tres canonizationes (1)ad hoc Consistorium (2) vos convocavi (3), sed etiam ut vobis (4) decisionem (5) magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita (6)communicem(7). Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata (8)ad cognitionem certam(9)perveni (10)vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse (11)ad munus Petrinum aeque (12) administrandum.
To say propter tres canonizationes is to mean for the sake of or on account of, three acts of canonizing. This grammatical structure in Latin means, not that the Pope has called the Cardinals together to conduct or announce the canonization of three groups or individuals, but that somehow the Cardinals have been convoked to honor the acts of canonizing or because the acts themselves cannot be completed without them. But the act of canonization is a papal act which does not require the Cardinals. Therefore, the correct Latin should be in trium canonizationum annuntiationem, that is, to announce my decision to decree three acts of canonization, as the Latin construction beginning with the preposition in is used to express purpose. This is a common error of those who have never carefully read any Latin text and who impose a modern meaning upon what they think a Latin preposition means.
To say ad hoc Consistorium may very well be the custom of the Papal court — to this I cannot comment — however, in Latin, since consistorium is an act of standing together, not a place to which the Cardinals are convoked, but a solemn way of gathering together, the correct grammatical structure should be in hoc consistorio.
A pope when he acts, speaks in the first person plural, that is, with the royal “We”. The man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man and not the pope, speaks with the first person singular, “I”. Therefore, the correct form of the verb here should be convocavimus.
The Latin verb communicem takes the preposition cum not the dative of reference, and thus vobis should read instead vobiscum. As it stands, the only possible grammatical function of vobis would be as a dative of possession for decisionem!
I agree here with Dr. Stroh, that the word should be consilium not decisionem, because this latter Latin word means a “act of cutting off”, or at best an “act of making a decision”, which clearly is not apropos to the thing at hand, because the Pope has not included them in the decision making process, only declaring a decision which he has already made. And consilium is the proper word for such a thing as that, when done by a superior with authority.
This is the most absurd error of them all. The person who wrote this does not even understand that in Latin you use the dative of reference not a phrase beginning with a preposition as in modern languages. This should read Ecclesiae vitae, for as it stands it says on behalf of the life of the Church or for the sake of the life of the Church; unless of course he is making a reference to a grave threat to the life of the Church for which this act is intended to defend that life. This may be, but as nearly all modern computer programs which do translations into Latin get this wrong in just this way, I will presume it is ignorance, not a hint.
Since the renunciation is by the person, not the pope, we see in the next sentence that He begins speaking in the first person as the man, but I think since this subordinate clause is still that part of the text said by the Roman Pontiff, as the Pontiff, it should be in the first person plural. communicemus. The sentence which follows, therefore, in the first person, should begin a new paragraph, to show this distinction of power.
This is entirely the wrong word. Because this word in Latin refers to the exploration of a place or region or the investigation into a thing which physical dimensions or size, or is the military term for spying or watching something to gain information. It is never used with spiritual things, for certainly your conscience is not a world unto itself, it is a faculty of knowing. The correct term should be one which means exposed or settled, on account of the reference to being before or in the presence of God.
These words are not only badly chosen but insufficient to precipitate the indirect discourse which follows. The correct Latin way of saying this is to write nunc bene cognosco quod (I now recognize well that) instead of ad cognitionem certam perveni (I have arrived at certain knowing).
This verb does not have the sense of arrived, in matters which deal with knowledge. It rather means to attain, which would make sense if you were spying on the enemy, but to say you have attained certain knowledge by examining your conscience is absurd, because the conscience only recognizes moral truths, it is not the fount of knowledge or certitude.
Here there is a clause in indirect discourse following cognitionem certam. The correct form, if such an expression be kept at all (cf. n. 9 above) should be introduced with quod and be in the nominative, not accusative, because the object of the certain knowledge is a fact known, not a knowing that. And thus, on account of the error in n. 9, the verb here should be sunt, the whole phrase reading vires mihi ingravescente aetate non iam aptae sunt. I think the emphatic dative of possession mihi should be used rather than the possessive adjective meae, because the strength spoke of is intimate to his physical being, not just some exterior possession.
Doctor Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong adverb. The correct one should be recte or apte or as I suggest constanter (rightly, aptly, or consistently).
Bene conscius sum (1) hoc munus secundum suam (2) essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo (3) et loquendo exsequi (4) debere (5), sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis (6) rapidis mutationibus subiecto (7) et (8) quaestionibus magni (9) pro vita fidei (10) perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium (11) etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae (12) necessarius est, …
The use of conscius is more common of knowledge had with others, but when of oneself, in the rare usage of the Latin poet, Terrence, this construction must be formed thus: mihi sum conscius, and not conscius sum, to show that the knowledge is of oneself but that the adjective precipitates indirect discourse. And thus a comma should be placed after conscius to conform to modern standards of punctuating Latin.
Here there is simply the error of someone who thinks in Italian, because the possessive adjective for the third person, in Latin, is NEVER used for a thing in a sentence, only for the subject of a verb. The correct Latin, therefore should be eius though it could be omitted entirely since the phrase secundum essentiam spiritualem is a standard of measure and its object is implicitly understood. Dr Stroh rightly points out that naturam should be used instead of essentiam. I agree, because St Bonaventure says nature refers to the being of a thing as a principle of action.
Here whoever wrote the text is ignorant that in Latin agere refers to all actions, physical or spiritual, and thus is an improper pair with loquendo which is also an act. It is difficult to understand to what the writer is referring, since nearly everything a pope does is by speaking. It is not as if he cleans toilets or does manual labor. Perhaps, the better word would be scribendo, that is writing.
The Latin verb here is badly chosen, because exsequi refers to a work done, but the subject is not a work but a munus or charge, which is a thing. The proper Latin would be geri that is, conducted in the sense of the modern fulfilled or executed.
This is the wrong verb to express what is intended. It is proper or necessary that the duties of the office be fulfilled. But it is not a debt, which is what debere means. The correct Latin should be oportere that is, that it is proper or necessary so as to reach the goal intended.
Whoever wrote this has no experience reading Latin, as tempus refers to seasons. The concept of time in Latin is not the same as with moderns. The idea that seems to be the intent of the expression is in our our contemporary world, but Latin would say that as in saeculo nostro, because saeculum is the Latin term for the world in the sense of time, this generation, or culture, not mundum, which refers to the cosmos as a physical reality or place.
And on account of error n. 6, this phrase must be rewritten entirely, as velocium or celeriummutationum using the genitive of description not dative of reference, and hence there is no need for subiecto. The Latin rapidus is used for hurried or swift changes, which is simply not historically accurate.
And thus, likewise, on account of the dropping of subiecto this conjunction can be entirely omitted.
Here the magni, of great value, seems hardly appropriate, because the questions of faith in modern times are nearly all the product of unbelievers fretting over their imagination of a world without God; magnis to agree with quaestionibus or magni momenti would be more correct. But magni can stand because it is so Ratzingerian as anyone can tell from his writings.
Here there is the same error as before, and thus the Latin should read fidei vitae or fidei.
Here you have the error of a First year Latin student who forgets that object go before verbs in Latin, not afterwards: the reading should be Evangelium annuntiandum.
Here the wrong word is chosen, because clearly the soul does not grow old or weak by age, but the spirit does. And thus the correct Latin should be animi. Dr. Stroh agrees with me.
qui ultimis (1) mensibus in me modo tali minuitur (2), ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum beneadministrandum (3) agnoscere debeam (4). Quapropter bene conscius (5) ponderis huius actus plena libertate (6) declaro (7) me ministerio (8) Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium (9) die 19 aprilis MMV commisso (10) renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae (11), sedes Sancti Petri vacet et (12) Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.
In Latin you signify recent things by saying praecedentibus not ultimis. Dr. Stroh suggests: his praeteritis since the emphasis is on recent in the past.
Here the tense is wrong, since the reference is to what has happened in recent months, and is still happening, the correct tense is the imperfect minuebatur and take mihi as a dative of reference not in me.
It is nonsensical to say that you are administering a ministry, the better word should be gerere, as before. But the entire phrase is incorrectly formed, since incapacitatem should follow the rule of capax and take an infinitive in predications (as in the Vulgate) or a genitive (Seneca) with adjectives or gerundives, so the whole should read ministerii mihi commissi bene gerendi.
Seeing that the text is being read as if a decision is already made, to say that you “ought to acknowledge” is contextually out of place, according to time. Also, as a clause subordinate to an imperfect, it must be in the perfect subjunctive. The phrase should read something like iustum fuerit, “it was just that”.
Attorney Lambauer rightly points out that this construction with conscius takes the reflexive pronoun mihi before it. But in proper syntax the ponderis huius actus should precede conscius. Two errors here.
Now come the errors which touch upon the nullity, invalidity and irregularity of the act. Because the renunciation has to be made freely. That it is declared freely is good too, but presumed and not necessary, unless there is someone apt to think it was being forced. Why say this? So this phrase, if kept, should be with the verb renuntiare, and both should NOT be in indirect discourse, because to announce or declare that you are renouncing, is not to renounce anything, but to announce something, and that is not the act specified in Canon 332 §2 which requires a renunciation as the essential act, not a declaration.
This verb if left should introduce a phrase which prepares the listeners about intent or such like, not the act of the renunciation.
This is the wrong object of the Act of renunciation, which according to Canon 332 §2 should be muneri. Dr Stroh, writing it seems in February 2013, notes that this error makes the renunciation invalid. I agree!
The Petrine Munus and Ministerium are not entrusted to the elected pope, but received by him in the Petrine Succession immediately as he says, “Yes, I accept my election”. This is basic papal theology 101. If you get that wrong, it can sanely be questioned whether you were compos mentis at the time of the act. Unless of course the entire phrase ministerio … per manus Cardinalium … commisso is meant to rebuke the Cardinals for allowing him a ministry but not conceding him any real authority. Though such an intent would be both sarcastic and effect the invalidity of the resignation. So this should read in succesione petrina or something similar
This should be a me accepto or a me recepto, that is, “accepted by me” or “received by me”.
This is the one phrase which is correct, but which no one but an expert in the Secretariate of State would know, because, as an eminent Vatican Latinist told me, it is the customary way of indicating the Roman time zone in Latin. Dr. Stroh and Attorney Lambauer, writing from Germany, did not know this.
Here the indirect discourse should end, or rather, the expression of the first person, I, should end, because the calling of a conclave is a papal act, the man who is pope, who just renounced, has NO authority to call one. So here the Latin should resume with the Papal WE, et declaramus.
Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis (1) pro omni amore et labore (2), quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis (3). Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus (4) sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro (5) vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim. (6)
Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII
Again, the error of the First Year Latin student. The phrase should read gratias vobis agimus. First because of the proper word order of Latin, second because He is now thanking them as the Roman Pontiff, because they collaborated with him, not as a man, but as the Pope, the verb should return to the first person plural. Two errors here.
If you are grateful for their service and collaboration, you do not say amore et labore, which refer to physical work and physical affection; you say, rather, omnibus amicitiabus operibusque to show that the friendship and works were multiple and united one with the other. Four errors here.
Again, the First Year Latin student’s error of getting the word order wrong. It should read: pro omnibus defectibus meis veniam peto and the phrase should be introduced by devobis or de omnibus. Two errors here. It is also awkward to return to the use of the first person singular here, even though it it necessary regarding the confession made.
Dr. Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong verb, the correct Latin is committimus.
Dr. Stroh again reminds that the correct Latin temporal expression is in futurum.
In Latin there is no conditional. The subjunctive is used to express wishes, but not with the verb to wish! You say rather serviam, “may I serve” not servire velim, “may I wish to serve” which makes no sense, simply be more direct and say, “I wish to serve” (servire volo).
CONCLUSION
I think it would be no exaggeration to say, that if anyone saw even some of these errors and did not ask the Holy Father that they be corrected before the act was published, he sinned mortally against his duty of loyalty to the Roman Pontiff. I also think that the number of these errors is qualified forensic evidence that IF Benedict wrote this text and read it freely, that he was either not in a proper state of mind or did not act with mature deliberation.
Finally, if anyone says that the Act of Renunciation has no errors or must be accepted to be a Papal resignation, not merely a renunciation of ministry so as to devote oneself to prayer, then they are clearly talking about another document, because there are so many errors in this Act that no sane person could ever claim that it is binding on anyone. For if it was intended as an act of papal renunciation, and was written by the Pope, then clearly he has already lost too much of his mental faculty to renounce validly, because to renounce validly you at least have to know how to write an intelligible sentence, in whatever language you chose to renounce, and you have to name the office with a word which means the office. Duh!
Public Notice: I spent only 2 hours analyzing the text, so the Vatican surely had enough time to correct it before February 28, 2013, which was 17 days later. I speculate that they did not, because then someone would have objected that the word ministerio had to be changed to muneri, and the reality was that Pope Benedict was insisting that it not be, because He did not intend and had never intended to renounce the papal office or its grace.
ITALIAN TRANSLATION
Di frà Alexis Bugnolo
Ringrazio i miei collaboratori per il loro aiuto nella traduzione di quest’articolo
A pochi giorni dalla pubblicazione del testo latino ufficiale dell’Atto di Rinuncia fatto da Papa Benedetto XVI l’11 febbraio 2013 alcuni giornali titolavano così: “Errori clamorosi nel testo latino della Rinuncia”. ( qui e sul punto, qui ). Questi articoli citavano solo due errori, quelli di “commisso” al posto del corretto “commissum” e quello di “vita” al posto di “vitae”.
I giornali avevano ragione, ma io ho individuato almeno 40 errori, non solo quei due!
Eppure, la macchina della propaganda si è messa subito al lavoro e chiunque sui social media, nel 2013 iniziava a parlare di errori è stato immediatamente e brutalmente attaccato perché “osava giudicare il papa”!
Il vero scopo era che la “”Mafia della lavanda”, ovvero la lobby del clero gay, era molto preoccupata per chiunque mettesse in dubbio la validità della Rinuncia. Ricordo che il mio professore di Diritto Canonico manipolava le lezioni tenute in febbraio e marzo di quell’anno per insegnare cose su certi canoni in modo errato così da soffocare qualsiasi considerazione sull’invalidità. Ma lo faceva con tale sottigliezza che solo dopo tutti questi anni ho potuto riconoscere ciò che aveva fatto.
Le altre voci che criticavano quelli che hanno sollevato dubbi sul latino della Declaratio di Papa Benedetto parte appartenevano ai circoli di quei cardinali conservatori che l’anno scorso hanno distrutto la loro reputazione professando indubbia obbedienza a Bergoglio persino dopo i suoi atti di adorazione e riverenza idolatrici (episodio della Pachamama etc). Fu allora che nacque l’opposizione controllata di Trad Inc. (Termine colletivo per parlare in modo generale dei siti che criticano Bergoglio per non essere cattolico ma insistono che egli è il Vero Papa). Fu il loro primo atto di lealtà verso il regime. E la loro azione indicava chiarament che già erano posizionati per rispondere e che gli era stato detto cosa fare.
Quindi, per fornire una verità storica più esatta, discuterò qui questi errori e fornirò una traduzione italiana di ciò che il latino di Papa Benedetto XVI ha detto.
I miei commenti sul testo latino sono basati sulla mia conoscenza della lingua latina acquisita in 14 anni di traduzione in inglese di circa novemila pagine letterarie di testi ecclesiastici latini medievali. Sarò il primo a dire che non credo di essere un esperto in materia, ma penso che non sarebbe esagerato dire che oggi nella Chiesa c’è solo una manciata di uomini che hanno tradotto più latino del sottoscritto. Ho anche pubblicato un popolare libro di testo e video per il latino ecclesiastico, che ho prodotto per la Mansfield Community TV, nel Massachusetts, negli Stati Uniti, e che The Franciscan Archive ha distribuito per alcuni anni dopo la pubblicazione di Summorum pontificum.
E così, pur ammettendo che posso sempre imparare dagli altri, citerò anche due studiosi tedeschi che hanno criticato pubblicamente il testo latino della Declaratio: il professore di filologia, Wilfried Stroh (vedi qui ) e l’avvocato viennese Arthur Lambauer, i cui commenti sono registrati in parte qui.
Posso anche dare una testimonianza personale del fatto che i latinisti che hanno lavorato in Vaticano durante i pontificati di Giovanni Paolo II e Benedetto XVI sono a conoscenza di tutti questi errori (e probabilmente di altri) e sono stati reticenti solo per motivi personali, così come mi è stato riferito da uno di loro durante un incontro a Bagnoregio, in Italia, nell’estate del 2016.
Evidenzio in ROSSO gli errori di espressione (numerando ciascuno), dopo di che commenterò ogni errore sezione per sezione, perché ce ne sono tanti. Il testo latino ufficiale è disponibile sul sito web del Vaticano ( qui ).
Fratres carissimi
Non solum propter tres canonizationes (1)ad hoc Consistorium (2) vos convocavi (3), sed etiam ut vobis (4) decisionem (5) magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita (6)communicem(7). Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata (8)ad cognitionem certam(9)perveni (10)vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse (11)ad munus Petrinum aeque (12) administrandum.
Dire propter tres canonizationes significa per o a causa di tre atti di canonizzazione. Tale struttura grammaticale in latino significa, non che il Papa abbia convocato i Cardinali per condurre o annunciare la canonizzazione di tre gruppi o individui, ma che in qualche modo i Cardinali siano stati convocati per onorare gli atti di canonizzazione o perché gli atti stessi non possono essere completati senza di loro. Ma l’atto di canonizzazione è un atto pontificio che non richiede i Cardinali. Pertanto, il latino corretto dovrebbe essere in trium canonizationum annuntiationem, cioè per annunciare la mia decisione di decretare tre atti di canonizzazione, poiché la costruzione latina che inizia con la preposizione in è usata per esprimere uno scopo. Questo è un errore comune di coloro che non hanno mai letto attentamente alcun testo latino e che impongono un significato moderno a ciò che pensano che significhi una preposizione latina.
Dire ad hoc Consistorium potrebbe benissimo essere un’usanza della corte pontificia – non posso commentare – tuttavia, in latino, poiché consistorium un atto di stare insieme, non un luogo in cui vengono convocati i cardinali, ma un modo solenne di radunarsi, la corretta struttura grammaticale dovrebbe essere in hoc consistorio.
In un atto ufficiale un papa parla in prima persona plurale, cioè adotta il pluralis maiestatis. L’uomo che è il papa, in quanto uomo e non papa, parla con la prima persona singolare, “io”. Pertanto, la forma corretta del verbo qui dovrebbe essere convocavimus.
Il verbo latino communicem prende la preposizione cum, non il dativo di riferimento, e quindi invece di vobis si dovrebbe leggere vobiscum . Così com’è, l’unica possibile funzione grammaticale dei vobis sarebbe quella di un dativo di possesso per decisionem!
Concordo qui con il dott. Stroh, che la parola dovrebbe essere consilium, non decisionem, perché quest’ultima parola latina significa un “atto di separazione” come nella parola “potatura”, o tutt’al più un “atto di prendere una decisione”, che chiaramente non è qui appropriata, perché il Papa non li ha compresi nel processo decisionale, dichiarando solo una decisione che ha già preso. E consilium è la parola giusta per una cosa del genere, se fatta da un superiore con autorità.
Questo è l’errore più assurdo di tutti. La persona che ha scritto questo non capisce nemmeno che in latino non usi il dativo di riferimento in una frase che inizia con una preposizione come nelle lingue moderne. Questo dovrebbe essere Ecclesiae vitae, poiché, così com’è vuol dire a nome della vita della Chiesa o per il bene della vita della Chiesa ; a meno che, naturalmente, non si riferisca a una grave minaccia alla vita della Chiesa per la quale questo atto intende difendere quella vita. Può essere, ma poiché quasi tutti i moderni sbagliano in questo modo, si presuma che in se stesso sia prodotta dall’ignoranza, non mediante allusione.
Dato che la rinuncia è della persona, non del papa, nella frase successiva vediamo che inizia a parlare in prima persona come uomo, ma penso che poiché questa clausola subordinata è ancora quella parte del testo detto dal Romano Pontefice, in quanto Pontefice, dovrebbe essere in prima persona plurale: communicemus. La frase che segue, quindi, in prima persona, dovrebbe cominciare un nuovo paragrafo, al fine di mostrare questa distinzione di potere.
Questa parola è completamente sbagliata perché in latino si riferisce all’esplorazione di un luogo o di una regione o all’indagine sulla grandezza di una cosa o su sua dimensione fisica, o è il termine militare per spiare o guardare qualcosa per ottenere informazioni. Non viene mai usato con le cose spirituali, perché certamente la propria coscienza non è un mondo a sé stante, a una facoltà del conoscere. Il termine corretto dovrebbe essere uno che significhi esposto o risolto, a causa del riferimento all’essere davanti o alla presenza di Dio.
Queste parole non sono soltanto scelte male, ma insufficienti per sostenere il discorso indiretto che segue. Il modo latino corretto per dire questo è nunc bene cognosco quod (ora ben ravviso che) invece di ad cognitionem certam perveni (sono pervenuto alla certezza).
Questo verbo non ha il senso di “essere pervenuto” nelle materie che riguardano la conoscenza. Significa piuttosto raggiungere, il che avrebbe senso se si stesse spiando il nemico, ma dire che sei pervenuto alla certezza esaminando la tua coscienza è assurdo, perché la coscienza riconosce solo verità morali, non è la fonte della conoscenza o della certezza .
Qui c’è una clausola nel discorso indiretto che segue cognitionem certam . La forma corretta, se tale espressione deve proprio essere mantenuta (cfr. N. 9 sopra), dovrebbe essere introdotta con quod ed essere nel nominativo, non nell’accusativo, perché l’oggetto di una certa conoscenza è un fatto noto, non un “sapere che”. E quindi, a causa dell’errore nel n. 9, il verbo qui dovrebbe essere sunt , leggendo l’intera frase: vires mihi ingravescente aetate non iam aptae sunt. Penso che si sarebbe dovuto usare il dativo enfatico di possesso mihi piuttosto che l’aggettivo possessivo meae, perché la forza di cui parla è intima al suo essere fisico, non solo un possesso esteriore.
Il dottor Stroh sottolinea giustamente che questo è l’avverbio sbagliato. Quello corretto dovrebbe essere recte o apte o — io propongo — constanter (correttamente, appropriatamente o coerentemente).
Bene conscius sum (1) hoc munus secundum suam (2) essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo (3) et loquendo exsequi (4) debere (5), sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis (6) rapidis mutationibus subiecto (7) et (8) quaestionibus magni (9) pro vita fidei (10) perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium (11) etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae (12) necessarius est, …
L’uso di conscius è più comune parlando della conoscenza che si ha degli altri, ma quando si parla della conoscenza di sé, nel raro uso del poeta latino, Terenzio, questa costruzione deve essere formata così: mihi sum conscius, e non conscius sum, per dimostrare che la conoscenza è di se stesso ma l’aggettivo provoca il discorso indiretto. E quindi una virgola dovrebbe essere posta dopo conscius per conformarsi ai moderni livelli di interpunzione latina.
Qui c’è semplicemente l’errore di qualcuno che pensa in italiano, perché l’aggettivo possessivo per la terza persona, in latino, non è MAI usato per una cosa in una frase, solo per il soggetto di un verbo. Il latino corretto, quindi, dovrebbe essere eius sebbene possa essere omesso del tutto poiché la frase secundum essentiam spiritualem è una misura e il suo oggetto è implicitamente compreso. Il dottor Stroh sottolinea giustamente chenaturam dovrebbe essere usato al posto di essentiam . Sono d’accordo, perché San Bonaventura afferma che la natura si riferisce all’essere di una cosa come un principio di azione.
Qui chi ha scritto il testo ignora che in latino agere si riferisce a tutte le azioni, fisiche o spirituali, e perciò è impropria la accoppiata con loquendo, che è pure un atto. È difficile capire a cosa si riferisca agendo, poiché quasi tutto ciò che fa un papa è parlare. Non è come se pulisse i bagni o facesse qualsiasi lavoro manuale. Forse, la parola migliore sarebbe scribendo , cioè scrivere.
Il verbo latino qui è mal scelto male, perché exsequi si riferisce a un lavoro svolto, ma il soggetto non è un lavoro ma un munus o una carica, il che è una cosa. Quello giusto sarebbe geri, cioè ”condotto” nel senso del moderno di “adempiuto” o “eseguito”.
Questo è il verbo sbagliato per esprimere ciò che si intende. È giusto o necessario che i doveri dell’ufficio siano adempiuti. Ma non è un debito, che è ciò che debere significa. Il latino corretto dovrebbe essere oportere, cioè adatto o necessario a raggiungere l’obiettivo prefissato.
Chiunque abbia scritto questo non ha esperienza nella lettura del latino, poiché tempus si riferisce alle stagioni. Il concetto di tempo in latino non è lo stesso dei moderni. Sembra voler dire “nel nostro mondo contemporaneo” , ma in latino si direbbe in saeculo nostro, perché saeculum è il termine latino per definire il mondo nel senso del tempo, di generazione o cultura, non mundum, che si riferisce al cosmo come realtà fisica o luogo.
A causa dell’errore n. 6, questa frase deve essere interamente riscritta, come velocium o celerium mutationum usando il genitivo della descrizione e non il dativo di riferimento, e quindi non c’è necessario di subiecto . Il latino rapidus viene usato per cambiamenti rapidi o affrettati, semplicemente non accurati storicamente.
E così, allo stesso modo, a causa della caduta del subiecto questa congiunzione può essere completamente omessa.
Qui magni, ”di grande valore” , sembra poco opportuno, perché le questioni di fede nei tempi moderni sono quasi interamente il prodotto di non credenti che si agitano con la loro immaginazione senza Dio; magnis concordato con quaestionibus oppure magni momenti sarebbe più corretto. Ma magni può reggere perché è così Ratzingeriano come chiunque può dire dai suoi scritti.
Qui c’è lo stesso errore di prima, e quindi in latino si dovrebbe dire fidei vitae o fidei .
Qui si ha l’errore di uno studente latino di primo anno che dimentica che il complemento oggetto in latino vada prima dei verbi, non dopo: dovrebbe essere Evangelium annuntiandum.
Qui viene scelta la parola sbagliata, perché chiaramente l’anima non invecchia o si indebolisce con l’età, ma lo fa lo spirito. E quindi il latino corretto dovrebbe essere animi. Il dottor Stroh è d’accordo con me.
qui ultimis (1) mensibus in me modo tali minuitur (2), ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum beneadministrandum (3) agnoscere debeam (4). Quapropter bene conscius (5) ponderis huius actus plena libertate (6) declaro (7) me ministerio (8) Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium (9) die 19 aprilis MMV commisso (10) renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae (11), sedes Sancti Petri vacet et (12) Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.
In latino si indicano le cose recenti dicendo praecedentibus, non ultimis. Il dottor Stroh suggerisce: his praeteritis poiché si dà molta importanza al recente passato.
Qui il tempo è sbagliato, poiché il riferimento è a ciò che è accaduto negli ultimi mesi, e sta ancora accadendo;, il tempo giusto è l’imperfetto minuebatur e prende mihi come dativo di riferimento non in me.
Non ha senso dire che si sta amministrando un ministero, la parola migliore dovrebbe essere gerere, come prima. Ma l’intera frase è formata in modo errato, poiché incapacitatem dovrebbe seguire la regola del capax e prendere un infinito (come nella Vulgata) o un genitivo (Seneca) con aggettivi o gerundi, quindi il tutto dovrebbe scriversi ministerii mihi commissi bene gerendi.
Visto che il testo viene letto come se fosse già stata presa una decisione, dire che “si dovrebbe riconoscere” è contestualmente e temporalmente incorretto, secondo il tempo. Inoltre, come clausola subordinata a un imperfetto, deve trovarsi nel congiuntivo perfetto. La frase dovrebbe riportare qualcosa come iustum fuerit, “era proprio quello”.
L’avvocato Lambauer sottolinea giustamente che questa costruzione con conscius prende il pronome riflessivo mihi prima di essa. Ma nella giusta sintassi ponderis huius actus dovrebbe precedere conscius . Qui ci sono ben due errori.
Ora arrivano gli errori che riguardano la nullità, l’invalidità e l’irregolarità dell’atto. Perché la rinuncia deve essere fatta liberamente. Che sia dichiarata liberamente va bene, ma ciò è presunto e non necessario, a meno che non ci sia qualcuno incline a pensare che sia stato costretto. Perché dire questo? Quindi questa frase, se mantenuta, dovrebbe essere con il verbo renuntiare , ed entrambi NON dovrebbero essere in discorso indiretto, perché annunciare o dichiarare di rinunciare non significa rinunciare a qualcosa, ma annunciare qualcosa, e quello non è l’atto specificato nel Canone 332 §2 che richiede una rinuncia come atto essenziale, non una dichiarazione.
Questo verbo, se lasciato, dovrebbe introdurre una frase che prepara gli ascoltatori circa l’intenzione o qualcosa di simile, non all’atto della rinuncia.
Questo è l’oggetto sbagliato dell’Atto di rinuncia, che secondo il Canone 332 §2 dovrebbe essere muneri. Il dott. Stroh, scrivendolo a febbraio 2013, osserva che questo errore rende invalida la rinuncia. Sono d’accordo!
Il Munus petrino e il Ministerium non sono affidati al papa eletto, ma vengono immediatamente ricevuti da lui nella successione petrina dicendo: “Sì, accetto la mia elezione”. Questa è la teologia papale rudimentale. Se uno sbaglia, si può in modo sensato mettere in dubbio se al momento dell’atto fosse compos mentis (sano di mente). A meno che ovviamente l’intera frase ministerio … per manus Cardinalium … commisso non abbia lo scopo di rimproverare i Cardinali per avergli concesso un ministero ma non gli ha concesso alcuna vera autorità. Anche se una tale intenzione implicherebbe sia sarcasmo e sia inciderebbe sull’invalidità della rinuncia. Quindi si dovrebbe leggere in successione petrina o qualcosa di simile.
Questo dovrebbe essere a me accepto o a me recepto, cioè “da me accettato” o “da me ricevuto”.
Questa è l’unica frase che è corretta, ma che nessuno se non un esperto del Segretariato di Stato saprebbe, perché, come mi ha detto un eminente latinista vaticano, è il modo consueto di indicare il fuso orario romano in latino. Il dottor Stroh e l’avvocato Lambauer, scrivendo dalla Germania, non lo sapevano.
Qui il discorso indiretto dovrebbe finire, o meglio, l’espressione della prima persona, io, dovrebbe finire, perché la chiamata di un conclave è un atto pontificio, l’uomo che è papa, che ha appena rinunciato, non ha l’autorità di convocarlo. Quindi qui il latino dovrebbe riprendere con il NOI pontificio, et declaramus.
Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis (1) pro omni amore et labore (2), quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis (3). Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus (4) sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro (5) vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim. (6)
Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII
Ancora una volta, un errore da studente di latino del primo anno. La frase dovrebbe leggere gratias vobis agimus . In primo luogo a causa del corretto ordine delle parole del latino, in secondo luogo perché ora li sta ringraziando come il Romano Pontefice, perché hanno collaborato con lui, non come uomo, ma come Papa, il verbo dovrebbe tornare alla prima persona plurale. Due errori qui.
Se uno è grato per il loro servizio e collaborazione, non dice amore et labore, che si riferiscono al lavoro materiale e all’affetto fisico; ma piuttosto omnibus amicitiabus operibusque per dimostrare che l’amicizia e le opere erano molteplici e unite l’una con l’altra. Quattro errori qui.
Ancora una volta, un errore da studente di latino del primo anno che sbagliare l’ordine delle parole. Si dovrebbe leggere: pro omnibus defectibus meis veniam peto e la frase dovrebbe essere introdotta da de vobis o de omnibus. Due errori qui. È anche imbarazzante tornare all’uso della prima persona singolare qui, anche se è necessario riguardo alla confessione fatta.
Il dottor Stroh sottolinea giustamente che è il verbo sbagliato: il latino corretto è committimus.
Il dottor Stroh ricorda ancora che la corretta espressione temporale latina è in futurum.
In latino non c’è condizionale. Il congiuntivo è usato per esprimere i desideri, ma non con il verbo desiderare! Si direbbe piuttosto serviam , “che io possa servire” non servire velim , “possa io desiderare di servire” che non ha senso; si può semplicemente essere più diretti e dire: “desidero servire” (servire volo). Ma San Bonaventure nei suoi Commentarii su Lombardo fa lo stesso errore.
IN CONCLUSIONE
Penso che non sarebbe esagerato dire che se qualcuno avesse visto anche solo parte di questi errori e non ha chiesto al Santo Padre di correggerli prima della pubblicazione dell’atto, avrebbe peccato mortalmente contro il suo dovere di lealtà verso il Romano Pontefice. Penso anche che il numero di questi errori sia una prova forense qualificata che SE Benedetto ha scritto questo testo e lo ha letto liberamente, o che non era in uno stato mentale adeguato o non ha agito con deliberazione matura.
Infine, se qualcuno dice che l’Atto di Rinuncia non ha errori o deve essere accettato come una rassegnazione papale, non semplicemente una rinuncia al ministero per dedicarsi alla preghiera, allora stanno chiaramente parlando di un altro documento, perché ci sono molti errori in questa dichiarazione che nessuna persona sana di mente potrebbe mai affermare che è vincolante per nessuno. Perché se era inteso come un atto di rinuncia papale, ed è stato scritto dal Papa, allora è chiaro che non era in possesso delle sua facoltà mentali per rinunciare validamente, perché per rinunciare validamente devi almeno sapere come scrivere un intelligibile frase, in qualsiasi lingua tu abbia scelto di rinunciare, e devi nominare l’ufficio con una parola che significa ufficio. E dai!
Avviso pubblico: ho trascorso solo 2 ore ad analizzare il testo, quindi il Vaticano ha sicuramente avuto abbastanza tempo per correggerlo prima del 28 febbraio 2013, diciasette giorni dopo! Io suppongo che non l’abbiano comunque fatto, perché altrimenti avrebbe potuto che la parola ministerio doveva essere cambiata in muneri, e la realtà era che papa Benedetto insisteva che non lo fosse, perché non aveva intenzione e non aveva mai avuto intenzione di rinunciare all’ufficio papale o sua grazia.
The History of Pope Francis’ Heretical Profession on ‘Gay Blessings’
Back in October, on the 14th, to be precise, I warned that the silence of Pope Francis in response to reproaches to his position on “gay blessings” could not go on forever without the imputation of the crime of heresy. I pointed out the day before, that the CIA was going to urge through all its controlled agencies that the declaration of Pope Francis as a heretic over this controversy was wrong. That is because even run-of-the-mill opposition sites as Mundabor on October 6th were insisint that a council be called to depose Pope Francis as a heretic.
The responses of Pope Francis to the July Dubia of the Cardinals were written by Cardinal Fernandez, then an Archbishop, a man who is a known serial cover-upper of sexual abuse, as I reported here on October 4th, 2023. So his motivation was obvious. Indeed, in the days before this same Cardinal made clear that Pope Francis’s intention in ‘Amoris Laetitia’, was to contradict the Gospel and the Council of Trent.
That response of Pope Francis to the July Dubia made it clear by October 3, 2023, that it was his intention to sacriligeously and blasphemously permit the blessing of sodomitic unions.
You can read the entire coverage of FromRome.info about ‘Fiducia supplicans’ and the reaction of Catholics around to the world to it, here. You can read my editorials and initiatives against it, here.
A Catholic Response
Cognizant of all these things, though I had called for a provincial council to rebuke Pope Francis and/or depose him many times before, by which I was prepared to urge the matter with greater clarity, I launched the Sutri Initiative for this purpose on October 20, 2023, after spending several days at Sutri Italy, considering carefully what could be done to save Holy Mother Church from these perverse heretics.
The unCatholic Response
Since that time, following the declared intention of Steve O’Reilly, the CIA agent, most online Catholic outlets in the English speaking have remained scandalously silent at the gross heresy expressed in the replies of Pope Francis to the questions of the Cardinals expressed in the Dubia of July: scandalously, because it is intolerable to hold that a public manifest heretic can be the Roman Pontiff, or that Pope Francis does not need to recant his pro-sodomy position.
And not only have many outlets remained silent, but some have openly embraced this homo-heresy, as FromRome.info has documented: Church Militant did so on October 20, LifeSite News did so on the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, 2024 , etc..
And as I detailed on October 15, 2023, this silence is all part of the 9 ways to make the Catholic Church implode, which is the goal of the U.S. Government plan for the destruction of our holy faith.
The Agenda of ‘The Pillar’
Now, “The Pillar”, an electronic journal of recent foundation, which I have often criticized for the errors it pushes, has continued its trajectory of gaslighting the Catholic world by pretending that it is tolerable for a manifest pertinacious heretic to nominate Bishops, as they do in their article above, about recent and future episcopal nominations in Poland.
They say nothing in the open, but the silence is designed to make you think nothing has changed, all is well, with the apostasy of ‘Fiducia supplicans’, as their 3 editorials have attempted to proclaim since it was published on Dec. 18, 2023.
I am not a betting man, but if I were, I would counsel a bet that “The Pillar” is a CIA front, would win.
The Grave Danger to the Catholic Church in Poland
But this sin is not only imputable to ‘The Pillar’. The Bishops of Poland are united in this same sin, because despite the strong objection of many of them to ‘Fiducia supplicans’ and their united public declaration that they would not permit the blessing of sodomitic unions in Poland, they are allowing Pope Francis, the public manifest and now pertinacious heretic appoint their bishops, a thing which is a diabolically reckless thing to do, for it puts the entire Church of Poland into the most grave danger of perversion, heresy and schism from Christ.
If you are a Catholic from Poland, as I know many of my readers are, make it your Lenten sacrifice this year to make known to your bishop the grave sin of such a way of acting. Rather, instead, they should regard the Apostolic see impeded by Pope Francis on account of his refusal to speak to the Church as a Catholic and on account of the impossibility that a rightly formed Catholic conscience permit one to continue to regard him as to be obeyed and capable of executing the office of Pope in a manner conducive to the salvation of souls, as I have detailed in two articles, on the right Catholics have to refuse him obedience, now, and the state of impedition into which he has put the See of Rome.
The Kind of Spiritual Warfare being used against the Church
As we can see, then, a very clever and devious tactic is being used against the Faithful. It is based on sloth, ignorance and calculates on the cowardice and/or inexperience in conflict of the average Catholic. It urges non-action to error, so that by being compromised by silence, individuals and local churches, one by one, can be suborned to the same evil and erroneous agenda.
This was the tactic used to get the Catholic world to accept that Pope Benedict XVI abdicated on Feb. 28, 2013. And it is the same tactic today.
Because everyone who refuses to see that the position of Pope Francis on ‘Gay Blessings’ is heretical, blasphemous, sacrilegious and directly opposed to the 2nd Commandment and the Our Father, will by his ignoring of the problem, be seduced into going along to get alone. And silent toleration of any kind, which consists in not requesting he be solemnly rebuked and/or removed from office, will lead to this.
Thus Don Minutella, Andrea Cionci, Marco Tosatti, Edward Pentin, Diana Montagna, Ann Barnhardt, Mark Dockerty, Michael Matt, Eric Sammons, and any other Catholic influencer who fails to call for the removal of Pope Francis from office is in fact committing this same sin. — I mention these names only as an example, since to my knowledge, none of them has urged Pope Francis be removed from office by the only means which is juridically and canonically valid, in provincial council. Nor can those who hold that he is not or never was the Pope fail to call for this, for ideological reasons, because any sane and faithful Catholic wants and will always prefer the solution which will be accepted by the whole Church, and will always put his personal opinions, views and reputation in the service of that end.
If you are a craven coward, a disgraceful servant, or the like, you will risk nothing to defend Holy Mother Church and our immaculate Catholic Faith, from this heresy. And thus by silence be led to offer your children and grandchildren on the altar of Sodom, because as this error is more and more accepted — as we can see in the daily news — the LGBTQ ideology will take hold of parishes and dioceses and religious orders to the utter moral and doctrinal corruption of the whole Mystical Body, the damnation of more than 1 billions souls.
We all must act against this, or we each shall individually be responsible.
My Personal Invitation to all Catholics & to Translators
And if you can translate these 3 documents into Polish or any language, please do so for the sake of the salvation of the Church in your native lands.
So far these documents have been translated into French and Italian, from their English originals.
There is still a need for Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, and all the other languages spoken daily by Catholics such as Arabic, Romanian, Hungarian, Slovak, Czech, Hindu etc..
In addition to the Sutri Initiative you can do ….
In addition, I encourage all to form a Committee against Apostasy in their own diocese and promote knowledge of how important it is to hold fast to the Catholic Faith against the homo heresy. It is indeed disappointing to me, that in the last 2 months, only 1 Catholic responded to that holy and zealous initiative.
Moreover, urge your Bishops to convene a Provincial Council in their own ecclesiastical Province, to solemnly condemn ‘Fiducia supplicans’ as a scandalous document contrary to the Catholic Faith, promoting the homo-heresy, inducing priests to use the Name of God in vain and transgressing the duty of all Christians to keep that Name hallowed. Anything your Bishops declare outside of a provincial council has little or no CANONICAL authority. Furthermore, if in a provincial council anywhere in the world, Catholic Bishops call upon the Bishops of the Roman Province to do the same thing and rebuke Pope Francis to the face, it will be greatly conducive to convincing these Roman Bishops to act.
In a historic act of infamy, Archbishop Mueller, appointed by Pope Benedict XVI in the summer of 2012 A. D., as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has written a preface of approbation for a new book which declares, “There is only one pope, and it is Francis“: infamous, because Mueller received from several persons extensive information showing that Benedict XVI is still the pope, and refused dialogue with leading investigator(s) such as Andrea Cionci.
So Cionci has launched an open Letter Mueller detailing his incomprehension at such a step. And rightfully so, especially since it was Pope Benedict XVI who raised him to the dignity of an Archbishop and made him head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2012 A. D., the year before he was driven into an impeded see.
First a link to the original Open Letter to Mueller by Andrea Cionci, and then my English translation of this important missive:
by Andrea Cionci
Authorized English translation by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Most Reverend Eminence,
We permit ourselves to direct to you publicly these scribblings, as one trusting in your charity as a pastor, first as a prince of the Church, mindful of the ancient Christian maxim: veritas summa charitas est (the truth is the greatest charity).
In your recent interview at the German website, Kath.net, as reported on the blog of Marco Tosatti, here, you assured everyone that “the legitimate pope is Francis”.
Even if, in the article, you had not judged it opportune to delve into your affirmation, we have reason to believe that you might be able to enlighten us — or have us enlightened by one of your collaborators — on the thorny question which remains unanswered for nine years and which has seen, throughout the whole world, the interventions – to the contray opinion – from authoritative scholars, canonists, jurists and theologians. To these there have been added the gravest affirmation on the part of three bishops, Mons. Gracida, Mons. Lenga and Mons. Negri on the fact that Pope Benedict did not abdicate and/or was constrained to abandon the Petrine throne (see here).
If, however, as you assure us, “the legitimate pope is Francis”, that means that the abdication of pope Benedict certainly happened without problems or infractions of canon law. If everyone took place in a crystal clear way, at this point, however, we do not understand why some priests incredulous at the claims of a juridically valid renunciation, have been excommunicated and/or reduced to the lay state without a canonical process, if all of this could have been explained so easily.
We implore you to help us understand how it can be, if Canon 332.2 in the Code of Canon Law, imposes for an abdication the renunciation of the Petrine munus, that the same would be equally valid if the renunciation was of the ministerium. Let us remember that it was the same Cardinal Ratzinger who distinguished the papal office in 1983 into these two entities according to the practice of Germanic dynastic law (see here), and that these two terms are not equivalent.
We would like to understand, in consequence, if the unedited expressions (as revealed by Attorney Arthur Lambauer) used in the Declaratio, such as sede Romae, sede Sancti Petri, have a juridical existence such that they can be left “vacante” and if it be true that an abdication, instead of being simultaneous just as the election, could be deferred by setting a sort of “expiration date” for Our Lord God to take the munus back (though in this case it is the ministerium).
In accord with such a request, for the sake of the peace of souls, we would ask you, if it were possible, to show a formal document with which Pope Benedict, immediately after 8 P.M. on the 28th of February, 2013, verbally or by writing conformed his renunciation of the ministerium, given that he bade farewell to the world at 5:30 P.M., two and a half hours before the hour in which the announcement of February 11th would have taken effect. His entire Declaration has remained, as much as we understand it, legally never confirmed. We would want to understand if the ministerium can be canonically separated from the munus, or if this cannot happen in fact, except in the case of a sede impedita (impeded See). Hopefully, on this point the canonists of the University of Bologna can give us useful elucidations, after several months of work precisely on this theme of “a pope emeritus and an impeded pope”. We have tried to ask them several times, but to no avail.
Moreover, you then affirm (in your recent interview) that “the resignation of Pope Benedict in 2013 introduced a tension in the Petrine principle of unity for the Faith and the communion of the Church which has no equal in history and which has not yet been dogmatically reckoned with.”
Should we, then, hold that the Holy Father, Ratzinger, has voluntarily maintained, even up to today, 1.285 billion Catholics in this terrible, anguished ambiguity? Is it possible that he had not foreseen a “pope emeritus” — understood as a canonical status of an ex-pope — a thing judged by diverse canonists as theologically impossible?
Then, there are some very strange facts about which we are certain you will be able to furnish us with clarity. One, for example, is the fact that Pope Benedict has repeated for 9 years, that “the pope is only one”, without explaining which one, and moreover that he too gives the Apostolic Blessing (see here), an exclusive prerogative of the reigning pope. Or, how is it, that he affirms that he has maintained the white raiment because he did not have “other habits at his disposal”? Is it possible that after 9 years that no one has been able to furnish him with a black cassock? (see here).
In the volume, “Last Conversations” by Peter Seewald, on the topic of his own “resignation”, the Holy Father, Benedict, affirms: “No pope has resigned in a thousand years and even in the first millennium it has been an exception.” With six popes abdicated in the first millennium and four in the second, this phrase has caused us to hold, out of the requirements of logic, that he must have referred to those two popes of the first millennium, before the Gregorian reform, who, as he did also, lost the practical exercise of power (inasmuch as they were driven from it by antipopes), but who, on point, maintained entirely their divine investiture as much as they returned to their thrones without the need of any re-election. (see here).
On which account, can we , therefore, be certain that Francis possesses the Petrine munus, that is, the papal investiture which comes directly from God and which offers the guarantees of assistance on the part of the Holy Spirit? (see here).
Hence, must we hold that when pope Francis enthroned a pagan divinity in Saint Peter or when he declares himself “personally in favor of civil unions” (which legalize the second of the “four sins which cry out for vengeance from Heaven” according to Catholic doctrine) that he has been assisted by the Holy Spirit?
You mention in your interview the discourse of Pope Benedict for the 65th anniversary of his priesthood, in which he cited the Greek word, “Euchristomen” as symbolic of the event of the abdication, that word by which Jesus rendered thanks for His Sacrifice which lay ahead of Him. (see here). Why?
Indeed, ought we hold that Pope Benedict became, therefore, from 2013 onward, so insensible to the Faithful as to cast them into a panic with ambiguous gestures and phrases, not withstanding that he is noted for his crystal clarity of thought and word? (here).
Your Eminence, perhaps no other Cardinal such as you could have the sensibility to understand the sorrow and anguish of not having received a reply to one’s own “dubia”, but, nevertheless, if any juridic act in the life of the Church should be utmost clear and crystalline, it is precisely the abdication of a Pontiff, inasmuch as papa dubius, papa nullus (“a doubtful pope is no pope”). Last year, in a public letter, we asked our authoritative colleague Massimo Franco (for the ultimate book of which, you wrote the Preface) to help us understand such questions. Franco himself, perhaps not so up to discussing these canonical questions, judged the question of interest (see here) and, as his entire response to us, invited me to write a book.
This we have done, with dedication and good faith, and all of these elements, as of yet unclarified, have opened a way to a rigorous reconstruction according to which Pope Benedict, constrained to remove himself from the midst of Globalist power brokers and the Group of St. Gallen, which by the admission of Cardinal Danneels, supported cardinal Bergoglio, in 2013 never did in fact abdicate, but has “put” his enemies “to the test” with a candid, sincere declaration in which, by renouncing the exercise of power, he retreated into an impeded see, the canonical state in which a pope is a prisoner and prevented the possibility of communicating freely. In this manner, he has remained the pope to all effect, though as a contemplative and as one deprived of the faculty of governance, and his enemies, having been tricked by his initial mention of a renunciation, have schismed and nullified themselves by convoking an illegitimate conclave in the presence of a pope who is neither dead nor has abdicated. An invalid conclave can never been legitimized by a universalis ecclesiase adhesio, that is, by a pacific universal adhesion on the part of the Church.
Yes, in this manner, the mystery of a double papacy, which has cause so much discussion, might be explained: “a sort of enlarged ministerium” among two popes, yes, but one who is legitimate and contemplative (Benedict XVI) and another who is illegitimate and active (Bergoglio). To distinguish himself from the illegitimate one, Benedict should, therefore, be the “emeritus”, a term to be understood not as “a pope in retirement” (which is in fact juridically impossible and in-existent), but as the one who is “worthy”, who has “merited”, who has the “right” to be the pope, from the Latin verb, emereo.
Yes, one might even understand the reason for these strange declarations of Pope Benedict, known now as the “Ratzinger Code” and certified even by specialists at the university level (see here): about Pope Benedict being in a impeded see, not being able to express himself freely and obliged to have recourse to subtle logical tricks to explain the canonical truth.
You can understand well the anguish of the Faithful which not even the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, when responding to myself, the author of this reconstruction, had nothing to object to (see here).
Imagine what kind of scandal this comportment would be for the life of the Church and for the credibility of pope Francis from whom we would willingly ask pardon if all the questions on the table were publicly clarified by the Church. Perhaps, together with so many illustrious scholars, we have been the victim of a delusion of the mind in which, though following the iron rules of logic, hundreds of elements of fact which regard canon law, theology, the history of the Church and the “absent minded” declarations of Pope Benedict come together in an extremely coherent vision. It will, therefore, not be difficult for you or your collaborators to take the veil from our eyes and disassemble the diabolic illusion by which we have been victimized.
Up to today, the opposing replies have availed themselves only of insult, aggression on our person and of the most vain arguments of pretext, (see here), and this has increased other doubts among my readers.
Behold the reason, precisely to avoid the scandal of such considerations, why they are now gathered together in one of the most sold books in Italy (“Codice Ratzinger” by ByoBlu editions), a copy of which, it you like, would be our honor to send you: such that we implore you to call for a public canonical investigation precisely to safeguard the legitimacy of pope Francis, to which you owe the cardinal’s hat since 2014, and thus in this manner put to flight every doubt whatsoever regarding the renunciation of the papacy by Pope Benedict XVI.
Perhaps, and better yet, it would be suitable to ask the Holy Father emeritus for a public press conference, with all the guarantees for authenticity, so that He himself can put a definitive end to this knotting Quaestio Magna.
With the hope that you would redeem us from error by unraveling at last these knots in the light of the Logos, the Reason which reveals truth, and finally calm the Catholic people (and not only them), we offer your the most respectful and cordial salute,
PART 27 OF THE INVESTIGATION ON POPE AND ANTI-POPE
Has the Holy Spirit become a Modernist?
Or is Bergoglio Not the Pope?
On Article 892 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church
by Andrea Cionci
It is quite impressive to see how and in what tones “Pope Francis” is being attacked by some Catholics, whether lay or religious.
No disrespect should be shown to His Excellency Jorge Mario Bergoglio because, although anti-pope, he is still a legitimate bishop duly ordained by the Church. (Though he is no longer a cardinal, as canonist Francesco Patruno explains, since as pope or antipope you lose the red biretta).
Moreover — as we have already pointed out — speaking ill of him, attacking him, calling him all kinds of colors while recognizing him as the legitimate pope is PURE NUTRITION FOR HIS POWER: the best favor that can be done to him as HERE Professor Antonio Sanchez of the University of Seville has already explained.
In this way, in fact, the easy message that filters to the world is: “Francis is a reformist pope, who wants to modernize the Church, gathering the true message of Christ, in its essence: peace, brotherhood, ecology. For this, inevitably, he is attacked by the gloomy and bigoted traditionalists, hypocrites and hard-hearted. Yet, not even they dare to question that he is the true pope.”
Bingo!
However, besides being the best assist for Bergoglio, such attacks, for Catholics, produce a serious scandal: that ism they discredit and offend the HOLY SPIRIT, the Third Person of the Trinity.
Unfortunately, it is so: paper sings. Many Catholics believe that the pope is infallible, assisted by the Holy Spirit, ONLY WHEN HE SPEAKS EX CATHEDRA, that is, only when he pronounces on important matters of faith.
In fact, the dogma of papal infallibility was established during the First Vatican Council convoked in 1868. The last and supreme ex-cathedra pronouncement was applied by Pius XII in 1950 for the Assumption of Mary. So, these pronouncements are not at all frequent; indeed, they are very rare.
Few people know, however, that Article 892 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the pope is assisted by the Holy Spirit even in his ORDINARY ACTIVITY. Check it out HERE.
We quote: Art.892: “Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the Apostles, who teach in communion with the Successor of Peter, and, in a special way, to the Bishop of Rome, Pastor of the whole Church, when, though without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose, in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium, a teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals.”
His Excellency Luis Francisco Ladaria, appointed by Francis as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also confirms: “It is important to reiterate that infallibility concerns not only the solemn pronouncements of a Council or of the Supreme Pontiff when he speaks ex-cathedra, but also the ordinary and universal teaching of the bishops throughout the world, when they propose, in communion with each other and with the Pope, Catholic doctrine to be held definitively.”
It logically follows that by accepting Bergoglio as the legitimate “Pope Francis,” the Holy Spirit must have softened on many issues, or He was already more broad-minded and “modern” than many Catholics thought.
Considering his acts and statements, we must assume, in fact, that the Third Person of the Trinity today has become, or has always been, “personally” in favor of civil unions; that He gladly likes the pagan idol Pachamama enthroned in St. Peter; that He tolerates the blessing of one hundred German priests to gay couples by endorsing what – according to Catholicism – is the second “sin that cries out to Heaven”; that He offers affectionate support to Father James Martin, a supporter of the most extreme homosexualist straightness; that the Holy Spirit agrees that (Bergoglio’s words) “there is no Catholic God”; that “all religions are true”; that divine mercy saves all; that “the Church no longer believes in hell where people suffer”; that He doesn’t worry too much if communion to remarried divorcees is allowed in Germany, but not in Poland…
Furthermore, the Holy Spirit would confirm that “in the Holy Trinity the Persons barter behind closed doors, but outwardly give the image of unity.”
In addition, the Holy Spirit would approve without problems seven other issues raised by Bergoglio and identified as true heresies by 62 scholars. Adn Kronos summarizes them well HERE .
Orthodox Catholics, there is little you can do about it! The Pope is assisted by the Holy Spirit even in ordinary activity and you have to accept that. Those listed above are “ordinary teachings in matters of faith and customs” by “Pope Francis.”
Don’t you agree? Don’t you want to accept the hypothesis of a modernist Holy Spirit “updated to the times”?
If not, then there are two remaining solutions:
The Catechism is wrong and the pope does NOT receive assistance from the Holy Spirit even in ordinary activity. So article 892 is to be deleted.
Or, Francis is not the true pope, but an antipope, because Benedict XVI never abdicated, as we have illustrated HERE. In that case, the Holy Spirit is “JUSTIFIED ABSENT” and everything is explained.
We didn’t make the Catechism and nor invent the Logic: either the Holy Spirit has changed His views, or the Catechism is wrong, or Francis is not the pope. You choose. Quartum non datur (There is no fourth possibility).
FromRome.Info Editor’s Note — Of the three possibilities, only one is truly conservative and traditional: the one which dumps Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy and keeps the whole and spotless Catholic Faith. The other two possibilities either require that you dump part or all of the Catholic Faith and keep Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy. The Choice is yours. Don’t follow the foolish Cardinals and Bishops like Vigano who cannot even see the problem clearly, or who have chosen to dump the Faith.
Authorized English Translation of the Italian Original (click image above)
So, something is finally coming out in the press. Dagospia HERE and RomaIT HERE have broken the embargo. Yesterday, even my colleague Francesco Antonio Grana of Il Fatto Quotidiano mentioned HERE the inevitable flowering of theories about an “occult pope”.
Dear Colleague, if you will have the goodness to read, HERE and HERE you will see that we are a piece ahead beyond the vociferations and theories: there are university professors, lawyers, magistrates, theologians, canonists Latinists, jurists who have analyzed the alleged renunciation of Pope Benedict and have confirmed, recently using the same categories of pro-Bergoglio canonists, that the Declaratio of 2013, interpreted as a renunciation, is non-existent and that instead it fits precisely to a declaration of “SEDE IMPEDITA”. These statements are not denied by anyone as of last March. HERE It would be interesting and useful for our readers to address the issue in the canonical merit instead of barely touching it, suggesting that it is only “gossip”. We are available for a cordial discussion.
In the meantime, many readers have already gone further and, by participating in the investigation, have pointed out other facts and documents that further confirm how Benedict XVI has factually – and not juridically, because it is impossible – ONLY renounced the practical exercise of power, due to the fact that no one obeyed him anymore and that he could no longer use his mail, intercepted and stolen (Vatileaks). In this way, he remained that one legitimate pope of which he has been speaking for eight years without ever explaining which HERE .
A reader – who wishes to remain anonymous – pointed out to us today a passage from the interview given by the Pope to Peter Seewald in the volume “Ein Leben” of 2020. Another decidedly clear message.
In fact, when Seewald asks Benedict to comment on Bergoglio’s failure to respond to the four Dubia of the cardinals on the encyclical Amoris laetitia, (about communion to remarried divorcees) Benedict does not answer directly, but refers back to his last public audience of February 27, 2013, one day before the entry into force of the sede impedita announced in the Declaratio. In the text of the audience HERE there is, in fact, NO RESPONSE IN THE MERIT OF THE DUBIA of the cardinals: there is no mention of either divorcees or the Eucharist, but there is a very clear message that he has NEVER ABDICATED. That’s why you can find an answer in that hearing: all the issues that arose later around Bergoglio, including the Dubia issue, count for nothing, as Francis is not the pope, because Benedict remained THE pope.
Don’t believe us? We copy in full. Pay attention to the sentences in bold that we will explain below.
Seewald: “Cardinal Raymond Burke – one of the four authors of the Dubia, the writing in which they formulated some doubts about the pontiff’s apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia – said in November 2016 that Amoris laetitia had created confusion: ‘There is a tremendous division going on in the Church and this is not the way the Church is used to going.’ Pope Francis has not responded to the Dubia. Would it be better for you to do so ?
Benedict XVI: “I prefer not to take a direct position on this last question, because this would mean entering into the concrete questions of the government of the Church and abandoning the spiritual dimension to which my mandate exclusively pertains. If I answered, I suppose that all those who constantly attack me for my public statements would see their slander confirmed. I can therefore limit myself to referring to what I said on February 27, 2013 in my last public general audience. In the midst of all the torments that afflict humanity and the disturbing and destructive force of the evil spirit, one will always be able to recognize in the Church the silent power of God’s goodness. The obscurities of successive historical epochs will certainly never make it possible to enjoy undisturbed the pure joy of being a Christian […] But in the Church and in the lives of individual Christians there are always moments in which one can sense deep down that the Lord loves us, and this love means joy, it is ‘happiness'”.
Then, as we have already seen, the government of the Church, the ministerium, is no longer his, he has abandoned it to himself, leaving the See FREE, EMPTY (and not vacant as the Vatican has translated the verb “vacet”: it is canonically impossible for the See to remain vacant with the renunciation of the ministerium). Thus, the government of the Church is now in the hands of others. Recently, colleague Mirko Ciminiello discovered that Benedict makes it clear to us HERE that he does not recognize Francis as the legitimate pope, since he does not consider him as his successor in the list of St. Malachy’s popes.
The spiritual dimension is precisely the munus petrino, the title of pope granted directly by God that he KEEPS.
The slanderers are those who always criticize Benedict, because “although he resigned as pope continues to intervene with interference in the pontificate of Francis. They are backbiting simply because HE HAS NOT ABDICATED and continues to be the pope, in full right to intervene.
The silent force and warning deep down are a clear reference to the fact that those with ears to hear and eyes to see understand the situation.
And now we come to the climax, when Ratzinger sends the interviewer back to look for answers to the Dubia of the cardinals in his last general audience – “public” – he specifies, perhaps because afterwards he continued to give private audiences, always as pontiff?
And here is what he declared in the last audience, reported in full by the Vatican website HERE As you will read, one cannot find the slightest hint that he could answer the Dubia on divorce and Eucharist, except in a more general, higher sense above all definitive.
“I have taken this step in full awareness of its gravity and also novelty, but with a profound serenity of mind.”
What novelty? As many as 10 popes in history have abdicated, so his would not be a novelty at all. Unless he refers to what he said HERE: “(Like me, ed.), no pope has resigned for a thousand years and even in the first millennium was an exception. We have seen, that his reference is to the only pope who in the first millennium was driven out by an antipope, losing the ministerium, like him, but remaining pope in all respects. The NEWNESS, then, is in the fact that he voluntarily and freely abandoned to himself the government of the Church, because of impossibility in managing it.
“The gravity of the decision was precisely also in the fact that from that moment on I was committed always and forever by the Lord […] The “always” is also a “forever” – there is no longer a return to the private. My decision to renounce the active exercise of ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, etc. I do not abandon the cross, but I remain in a new way with the Crucified Lord. I no longer carry the power of office for the government of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.”
Rather explicit, we would say: he remains pope forever, because he has not renounced the title of pope, the munus. He has become a “hermit pope” and not emeritus, since the institution does not exist, as we have seen HERE
“I ask you to remember me before God, and especially to pray for the Cardinals, called to such an important task, and for the new Successor of the Apostle Peter: may the Lord accompany him with the light and strength of his Spirit.”
Here again, Pope Ratzinger is not referring at all to the 2013 conclave, which was illegitimate since he had not abdicated, but to the NEXT REAL CONCLAVE that upon his death, or valid renunciation, will have to elect the next real pope. We have already seen this specification by analyzing the Declaratio as “sede impedita” HERE .
The usual people will continue to say that these are tendentious readings, forcing etc.. The problem is that these tendentious readings now number about thirty cases, logically unexceptionable, are not disproved by anyone and have precise canonical responses. Soon we will publish a complete list with the opinion of specialists.
But those who renounce to LOGICAL THINKING will not want and will never be able to understand anything about this matter.
El verbo “vacet” aprobado por los latinistas en la nueva traducción lo cambia todo
Traducción autorizada al español del original italiano, a la que se puede acceder haciendo clic en la imagen superior.
El otro significado de “vacet” en la traducción de seis latinistas
A veces, para entender algo de una situación intrincada, es necesario cambiar el punto de vista. El busillis de la dimisión del Papa Ratzinger lleva ocho años: nosotros hemos tardado dos años en investigarlo a fondo. Síganos durante unos minutos, vale la pena. Intentaremos ser muy claros y encontrará todos los detalles en los enlaces. La clave de todo está en la palabra latina “vacet”, que hasta ahora se ha traducido arbitrariamente como “sede vacante”.
Desde 2013, estamos acostumbrados a hablar de la Declaratio “de renuncia” del Papa Benedicto XVI que, como han ilustrado definitivamente los juristas Estefanía Acosta y Antonio Sànchez AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28187673/joseph-ratzinger-vero-papa-giuristi-sanchez-acosta-smontano-difesa-pro-bergoglio.html, es sin embargo jurídicamente inválida. Desde que escribimos en marzo sobre el libro de Acosta con estos contenidos, AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26411995/un-testo-giuridico-della-avvocatessa-estefania-acosta-racconta-dimissioni-appositamente-scrite-invalide-da-benedetto-xvi-che.html nadie lo ha desmentido y nos vemos obligados a aceptar el hecho. Prueba de ello es que incluso el “papa emérito” nunca ha existido, como decían los canonistas mayores, hasta el punto de que ahora el Vaticano intenta dar jurisprudencia a esta institución AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28264381/vaticano-papa-emerito-non-esiste-allora-joseph-ratzinger-cosa-stato-otto-anni.html. ¿Y entonces?
La hipótesis del Plan B, reconstruida por nosotros AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26807576/papa-benedetto-xvi-possibile-ricostruzione-piano-b-dimissioni.html y nunca desmentida por los círculos vaticanos, es que el Papa Ratzinger ha escrito una renuncia DELIBERADAMENTE INVÁLIDA con el fin de engañar a sus enemigos, dándoles tiempo para revelarse como herejes, sólo para ser repentinamente anulados en sus cargos y en sus actos, al descubrirse la invalidez de su renuncia.
El juego -salvar a la Iglesia de la herejía modernista- valía la pena, como hemos explicado en el blog de Aldo Maria Valli AQUÍ https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2021/05/07/perche-benedetto-avrebbe-organizzato-dimissioni-invalide/ pero para muchos católicos era un poco duro aceptar que el Papa-teólogo, muy culto y adamantino, hubiera declarado un puro “sinsentido”.
Y sin embargo el sentido estaba ahí, muy coherente. Al final, incluso LA ÚLTIMA PIEZA DEL PUZZLE HA SIDO COLOCADA EN SU LUGAR, de modo que toda una serie de nudos se han desenredado, empezando por éste. Como veremos, el Papa Benedicto, que al principio de su pontificado pidió a los fieles que rezaran para que “no huyera ante los lobos”, ha sido muy sincero, obedeciendo cándidamente el precepto de Cristo: “He aquí que os envío como ovejas en medio de lobos; sed, pues, prudentes como serpientes y sencillos como palomas“.
Mientras tanto: ¿QUIÉN DECIDIÓ QUE LA DECLARATIO ERA UNA RENUNCIA AL PAPADO? El documento se llama simplemente “Declaratio” AQUÍ https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html y no “Renuntiatio” como exige, entre otras cosas, la constitución apostólica Universi dominici gregis donde el cónclave puede ser convocado “post Pontifici obitum vel validam RENUNTIATIONEM” – después de la muerte del pontífice o de la renuncia válida”.
De hecho, el Card. Sodano, al leer “en caliente” la explicación preparada inmediatamente después del discurso de Benedicto XVI AQUÍ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrajaSH-ZTI no habla ni de renuncia, ni del fin del pontificado, sino del fin del SERVICIO pontificio. Subraya varias veces que Benedicto seguirá siendo Papa hasta el día 28 y precisa, al final, además: “Su misión, Santo Padre, continuará: ha dicho que estará siempre cerca de nosotros con su testimonio y sus oraciones. Por supuesto, las estrellas del cielo siempre siguen brillando y así la estrella de su pontificado siempre brillará entre nosotros”. El propio Benedicto diría más tarde: “El “siempre” es también un “para siempre”, ya no hay vuelta atrás en la esfera privada. Mi decisión de renunciar al ejercicio activo del ministerio no revoca esto”, y de nuevo: “Ya no tengo la potestad del oficio para el gobierno de la Iglesia, pero en el servicio de la oración permanezco, por así decirlo, en el recinto de San Pedro” AQUÍ https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/audiences/2013/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20130227.html
Por lo tanto, debemos entrar finalmente en la perspectiva según la cual “OTROS” han decidido que tenía que ser una abdicación, mientras que Ratzinger había declarado todo lo contrario.
A la vista de la última entrevista con el Prof. Sánchez AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28286091/ratzinger-vero-papa-dopo-bergoglio-saranno-tutti-antipapi-parere-giurista.html y tras la aportación del latinista Gianluca Arca que, en base a lo ya intuido en 2019 por Fray Alexis Bugnolo AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/23247982/benedetto-xvi-ratzinger-rinuncia-bergoglio-declaratio-2013-dimissioni-abdicazione-munus-ministerium-bugnolo.html , lee en el texto una coherencia completamente diferente, se nos ha encendido una bombilla: la supuesta e inválida Declaratio “de renuncia”, en realidad, era una coherente DECLARACIÓN DE “SEDE IMPEDIDA”, expresada en lenguaje no jurídico.
¿De qué se trata? Según el canon 412, “se entiende que la sede episcopal está ‘impedida’ si el obispo diocesano está totalmente impedido de ejercer el oficio pastoral en la diócesis por razón de prisión, confinamiento, exilio o incapacidad, no pudiendo comunicarse ni siquiera por carta con sus diocesanos“.
Dos notas para entender el contexto: que el Papa Ratzinger tenía todo el mundo en contra ha sido excelentemente descrito por Paolo Flores d’Arcais AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28206793/joseph-ratzinger-paolo-flores-d-arcais-sua-reconquista-modernita-si-dissolvera-come-vampiri-alba-siamo-sicuri.html .
Que eran muchos sus enemigos internos, como el lobby de cardenales modernistas conocido como la “Mafia de San Gallo”, lo constata la autobiografía (2015) del Card. Godfried Danneels AQUÍ 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 , y el escándalo Vatileaks (2012), donde también se habló de un plan para matarlo. Que Benedicto tenía enormes problemas para ejercer su autoridad lo demuestra la destitución sumaria del presidente del IOR, su hombre de confianza Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, medida que fue tomada sin que él, el Papa (¡!), supiese nada al respecto AQUÍ https://www.ilmessaggero.it/primopiano/vaticano/padre_georg_papi_francesco-208592.html .
El propio Ratzinger alude a esta situación de impotencia en “Ein Leben” (2020): “Hacia el final de mi pontificado, me di cuenta de que la falta de capacidades adecuadas para desempeñar correctamente el propio encargo puede manifestarse de diversas formas“.
Simplemente, YA NO LE OBEDECÍAN. Así que, que en algún momento, Benedicto, acorralado e incapaz de imponerse por sí mismo, decidiera libremente renunciar DE FACTO (y no jurídicamente) a su poder práctico y hacerse “ermitaño” autoexiliándose en el Vaticano, es totalmente realista.
Todo depende, de hecho, DE CÓMO SE LEA EL TEXTO LATINO TRADUCIDO AL ITALIANO. Hemos sometido la Declaratio al escrutinio de SEIS LATINISTAS: tres profesores universitarios, dos de instituto, un traductor del latín medieval. (nota 1)
Los profesores universitarios coincidieron en que la traducción italiana del Vaticano es sustancialmente correcta, pero hay un verbo, “VACET” que -según los seis- puede perfectamente traducirse en su sentido literal, original, de “QUEDAR LIBRE”, y no tiene por qué traducirse necesariamente con ese “sede vacante” que estamos acostumbrados a leer desde hace ocho años.
“…ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri VACET et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse”.
De hecho, el profesor Arca cita a Cicerón: “Ego filosophiae semper vaco” – “Siempre tengo tiempo libre para la filosofía”.
Y así, tenemos a Benedicto XVI expresando los siguientes conceptos clave en su Declaratio, (que citamos al final, en su totalidad):
– Como ya no tengo fuerzas para ejercer el poder práctico (ministerium), declaro que renuncio a él,
– para que la sede de San Pedro quede LIBRE (no “vacante” en el sentido jurídico) a partir de las 20 horas del 28 de febrero de 2013.
– Y declaro que el próximo nuevo Pontífice deberá ser elegido por un cónclave convocado “por aquellos a quienes compete”.
¿Por qué dice “POR LOS COMPETENTES”, y no simplemente “por los cardenales”? TODO CUADRA: hemos visto AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28187673/joseph-ratzinger-vero-papa-giuristi-sanchez-acosta-smontano-difesa-pro-bergoglio.html que para abdicar no podía separar el munus del ministerium. Así que Ratzinger, al separarlos, NO HA ABDICADO, sino que quería renunciar al ejercicio fáctico de su poder (ya que no estaba en capacidad para ello) dejando libre la sede de San Pedro. LIBRE. De hecho, el 28 de febrero de 2013, Benedicto dejó la sede del Vaticano VACÍA, libre, volando en helicóptero a Castel Gandolfo (una elección ciertamente no justificada por las vacaciones de verano). Así que, a las 20 horas, no firma nada, no confirma la renuncia al ministerium, como explica el teólogo Carlo Maria Pace AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26613561/ratzinger-dimissioni-sempre-annunciate-mai-ratificate-carlo-pace-spiega.html porque, obviamente, habría sido un acto jurídico inválido.
Así, a partir del 28 de febrero de 2013, comienza la situación de SEDE IMPEDIDA anunciada el día 11. A partir de este momento, sus enemigos pueden hacer lo que quieran con la sede de San Pedro.
Sin embargo, previendo la USURPACIÓN de su trono mediante un cónclave ilegítimo (convocado cuando el papa está vivo y no ha abdicado), Ratzinger en la Declaratio sólo especifica una cosa, pero es muy clara y elocuente, que resumimos así: el próximo papa verdadero debe ser elegido sólo por un cónclave formado “por aquellos a quienes compete”, es decir, por quienes tienen derecho, o sea, por los verdaderos cardenales electores, los designados por mí, Benedicto XVI y, como máximo, por Juan Pablo II.
Y de hecho, explica el profesor Sánchez AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28286091/ratzinger-vero-papa-dopo-bergoglio-saranno-tutti-antipapi-parere-giurista.html , dado que Benedicto no abdicó y siguió siendo el único papa verdadero, Francisco es un antipapa y ha nombrado a 80 cardenales inválidos que, mezclados con los válidos, elegirían a otro antipapa en un próximo cónclave inválido. En consecuencia, el próximo Papa verdadero SOLO puede ser elegido por un cónclave compuesto por CIERTOS cardenales electores, los verdaderos, mencionados anteriormente, nombrados antes de 2013, y no por otros pseudocardenales.
Benedicto, de hecho, concluye la Declaratio con acento un tanto sentidos: “Ahora, confiemos la Santa Iglesia al cuidado de su Pastor Supremo, Nuestro Señor Jesucristo”, ya que ha tenido que abandonar la Sede de Pedro, ahora impedida, como un Papa abrumado por las fuerzas antipapales. Poco después, encomienda a los verdaderos “Padres Cardenales” a la asistencia de la Virgen para que un día, quién sabe cuán lejano, después de su muerte, o después de su regular abdicación, elijan a un próximo Papa verdadero.
Había dado a los cardenales reales unos buenos 17 días (del 11 al 28 de febrero de 2013) para revisar el Código de Derecho Canónico sobre cómo debe realizarse una renuncia legítima, en el art 332. § 2: dos semanas para pensar, para pedir aclaraciones y/o correcciones a esa renuncia inválida al ministerium, pero ninguno lo había captado, salvo quizás -informan fuentes internas- el Card. Burke. Al igual que tras la elección de Bergoglio nadie se molestó en pedirle una sanatio de la supuesta renuncia, cuando en 2014 Antonio Socci evidenció por primera vez la invalidez de la renuncia AQUÍ https://www.antoniosocci.com/forse-non-e-canonicamente-valida-la-rinuncia-di-papa-benedetto/. Sin embargo, Benedicto nunca lo concedió AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28039421/piano-b-papa-ratzinger-su-declaratio-rinuncia-geniale-trappola-adattabile-a-seconda-del-successore.html
Pero la belleza viene ahora. Hemos visto más arriba que, entendida como renuncia, la Declaratio es “implosiva” y, por tanto, debe descartarse. A la inversa, la situación de “Sede impedida” se confirma también por toda una serie de ELEMENTOS INDICIARIOS DE PESO -si no del todo PROBATORIOS- en el comportamiento posterior de Benedicto XVI y en los libros-entrevistas escritos con Peter Seewald. En “Últimas conversaciones”, de 2016, Ratzinger responde lo siguiente sobre su propia dimisión: “Ningún papa ha dimitido por mil años e incluso en el primer milenio fue una excepción”. AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27114419/benedetto-viii-mai-abdicato-nessun-papa-dimesso.html Dado que 6 papas abdicaron en el primer milenio y 4 en el segundo, él necesariamente hace una referencia histórica precisa a la “excepción” del papa medieval Benedicto VIII que, en el primer milenio, fue expulsado de Roma por un antipapa y que por tanto, casualmente, tuvo su propia sede impedida: su antiguo predecesor tuvo que renunciar al ejercicio de su poder práctico a causa de un “exilio” forzoso, como informa hoy el canon 412.
Ratzinger vuelve a escribir en “Ein Leben” (2020): “La situación de Celestino V fue extremadamente peculiar y no puede en modo alguno invocarse como precedente (de mi dimisión)”. De hecho, no abdicó -como hizo legalmente Celestino V-, sino que se “autoexilió” voluntariamente en el Vaticano, renunciando de hecho al ministerium y permaneciendo así -como ocurrió con Benedicto VIII- como el único papa verdadero.
Esto explica también por qué Ratzinger conserva la túnica blanca y otras prerrogativas papales AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26620895/benedetto-xvi-veste-bianca-senza-fascia-mantella-perche.html, el escudo papal con las llaves AQUÍ https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/elezione/documents/stemma-benedict-xvi.html y sobre todo por qué durante ocho años repite que “EL PAPA ES UNO” sin especificar NUNCA cuál de los dos, lo que acaba de ser confirmado por el arzobispo Gänswein AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27899260/monsignor-gaenswein-conferma-involontaria-benedetto-xvi-mai-detto-papa-francesco.html
Ese papa es él mismo, pero NO PUEDE DECIRLO ABIERTAMENTE PORQUE TIENE SU SEDE IMPEDIDA y “no puede comunicarse (libremente n.d.r.) ni siquiera por carta” (Can. 412).
Por eso estaba moralmente justificado que se escudara en el INEXISTENTE INSTITUTO DEL “PAPA EMÉRITO”: legítima defensa para permanecer como papa en el Vaticano.
Aclarado por qué Ratzinger, en 2016, en el Corriere afirma haber escrito la Declaratio en latín justamente “para no cometer errores”, aunque había incluido algunos, y graves, de sintaxis: al estar ahora “impedido” para comunicarse, tuvo que utilizar un lenguaje sutil, y nos empujó (con éxito) a investigar a fondo la traducción latina para encontrar la más correcta y reveladora. AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26637606/ratzinger-benedetto-xvi-errori-latino-dimissioni-corriere-esperto-latinista-ennesimo-indizi.html
Se explica así por qué el Santo Padre Benedicto XVI ha mantenido durante ocho años esa continua y perfecta ambigüedad AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26597971/scritto-di-benedetto-xvi-completo-come-leggere-piu-attentamente-un-significato-opposto-il-papa-e-lui-bergoglio-e-solo-cardi.html y el sutil lenguaje que encontramos también en su última entrevista AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27999645/abolita-messa-latino-catto-conservatori-eludono-questione-ratzinger-abidcato-no.html
De hecho, muchos se preguntan con impaciencia: “¿Pero por qué no habla claro?”. Repetimos: ¡NO PUEDE HACERLO, PORQUE TIENE LA SEDE IMPEDIDA, NO ES LIBRE DE EJERCER SU PODER!
Para terminar, consulte el original de la Declaratio en español. En mayúsculas, la única palabra traducida de forma lícitamente diferente a la versión vaticana AQUÍ https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/es/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html y, en negrita, las expresiones significativas, con los significados originales de la palabra “ministerio”, con las que se han traducido en español tanto munus como ministerium.
“Queridísimos hermanos,
Os he convocado a este Consistorio no sólo para las tres causas de canonización, sino también para comunicaros una decisión (notas 2,3) de gran importancia para la vida de la Iglesia.
Después de examinar repetidamente mi conciencia ante Dios, he llegado a la certeza de que mis fuerzas, debido a mi avanzada edad, ya no son aptas para ejercer adecuadamente el munus petrino. Soy muy consciente de que este munus, por su esencia espiritual, debe ser llevado a cabo no sólo con obras y palabras, sino también y en no menor grado sufriendo y orando. Sin embargo, en el mundo de hoy, sujeto a rápidas transformaciones y sacudido por cuestiones de gran relieve para la vida de la fe, para gobernar la barca de San Pedro y anunciar el Evangelio es necesario también el vigor tanto del cuerpo como del espíritu, vigor que, en los últimos meses, ha disminuido en mí de tal forma que he de reconocer mi incapacidad para administrar bien el ministerium que me fue encomendado. Por esto, muy consciente de la seriedad de este acto, con plena libertad, declaro que renuncio al ministerio de Obispo de Roma, Sucesor de San Pedro, que me fue confiado por los Cardenales el 19 de abril de 2005, de forma que, desde el 28 de febrero de 2013, a las 20.00 horas, la Sede de Roma, la de San Pedro, QUEDARÁ LIBRE y el Cónclave para la elección del nuevo Sumo Pontífice deberá ser convocado por aquellos a quienes compete.
Queridísimos hermanos, os doy las gracias de corazón por todo el amor y el trabajo con que habéis llevado junto a mí el peso de mi ministerii, y pido perdón por todos mis defectos. Ahora, confiemos la Santa Iglesia de Dios al cuidado de su Pastor Supremo, Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, e imploremos a su santa Madre María que asista a los Padres Cardenales con su bondad maternal en la elección del nuevo Sumo Pontífice. Por lo que a mí respecta, también en el futuro, quisiera servir de todo corazón, con una vida dedicada a la oración, a la Santa Iglesia de Dios”.
¿Por qué elegir esta versión de “vacet”, con todos sus anexos y conexiones jurídicos? Esta Declaratio, además de apoyarse en DECENAS DE ELEMENTOS INDICIARIOS MUY CLAROS, tiene un sentido sutil pero coherente y literal, mientras que la otra NO, ya que la Sede de San Pedro, según el derecho canónico (can. 332 § 2), NO PUEDE QUEDAR VACANTE con la renuncia al solo ejercicio práctico: se requiere la renuncia al munus. Por lo tanto, la Declaratio de 2013 fue ABUSIVAMENTE propuesta como una “renuncia al papado” sólo POR AQUELLOS QUE QUERÍAN INTERPRETARLA ASÍ, ya sea por ingenuidad, o para acaparar la sede entonces dejada LIBRE.
La supuesta renuncia, dado que se trata de un oxímoron jurídico, fue primero mal dispuesta en las traducciones, con la descarada supresión de la dicotomía jurídica fundamental munus/ministerium (nota 4) y, posteriormente, encubierta por fuertes operaciones de propaganda mediática, como cuando Vatican News atribuyó ilícitamente a Ratzinger la frase “El Papa es uno y es Francisco” AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26391704/papa-ratzinger-benedetto-xvi-da-otto-anni-tentano-fargli-dire-quello-che-non-vuole.html
Sólo con una Declaratio entendida como anuncio de la Sede impedida cuadran todos los relatos: lógicos, canónicos, teológicos, indiciarios y testimoniales.
Digamos que el “Plan B” ha sido actualizado y corregido en el “Plan V”, de “Vacet” y, sobre todo, de “Verdad”.
Notas
(1) Se trata de los profesores de Lengua y Literatura Latina, Alberto Canobbio, (Univ. de Pavía), Giorgio Piras y Francesco Ursini (Univ. “La Sapienza” de Roma), Gianluca Arca (Liceo Ginnasio Statale “S.A. De Castro” de Oristano), Matteo Corrias (Liceo Tecnológico de Oristano) y el fraile franciscano Alexis Bugnolo. Los universitarios entrevistados desconocían la cuestión jurídica.
(2) El Prof. Arca recuerda que la palabra decisio, al igual que el verbo corradical decidere, implica la idea de cortar, dividir y zanjar las disputas y los puntos de vista divergentes mediante la aceptación por ambas partes de la renuncia a algo (cita a este respecto Cic. Pro Roscio, 40: cum de tota re decidisset cum Roscio), por lo que puede traducirse con el valor de “compromiso” y quizás el compromiso al que se inclina Benedicto XVI es el de la separación entre munus y ministerium. Cabe señalar que, también en italiano, un significado de “decisión” puede ser el de separación de una parte del todo cf. https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/decisione/
(3) Para el latinista Frà Alexis Bugnolo, traductor del latín medieval, la referencia a decisionem es aún más precisa, es decir, “comunico una separación del ministerio petrino de vosotros”, es decir, de los cardenales, con un uso particular del dativo “vobis” que se encuentra en San Buenaventura (bien conocido por Joseph Ratzinger) y que sería coherente con el contenido ilustrado. Además, para Frà Bugnolo, vacet se traduce aún mejor como “quede inutilizada”.
(4) El Prof. Corrias, que sólo es ligeramente posibilista respecto a decisio como “separación”, confirma completamente que munus y ministerium deben dejarse absolutamente en el latín original.
Once again the intrepid Cionci, who reads German, has dug up in the official Biography-Interview of Pope Benedict XVI another pearl to shed light on what he is up to. For all those who demand that Benedict speak and explain himself, he has done so dozens of times. It is just that those who are possessed by the devil, globalism, freemasonry and personal careerist pride, cannot see it.
But for those who still admit truth exists and that words have meaning, Cionci focuses in on this passage from the book, “The Last Conversations” by Peter Seewald. Pay close attention to the words.
Seewald: “Originally you wanted to resign as early as December, but then you decided on February 11, Carnival Monday, the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes. Does this have a symbolic meaning?”
Benedict XVI: “That it was Carnival Monday I was not aware of. In Germany it also caused me some problems. It was the day of Our Lady of Lourdes. The feast day of Bernadette of Lourdes, in turn, coincides with my birthday. That’s why it seemed right to me to choose that day”.
Seewald: “The date therefore HAS…. “
Benedict XVI: “…an inner connection, yes.”
Click the image above to read Cionci’s full article, where he points out that no German could be ignorant of two things, that Feb. 11, 2013 was the day of Carnival, and that in Germany they play jokes on one another, on that day.
I will add my own comment: Since February 11th commemorates the first apparition of Our Lady at Lourdes, where she revealed her celestial name, saying, “I am the immaculate conception”, a name which is utterly singular in all of humanity, so Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013, did something entirely singular in the history of the Papacy, so that just as Satan was crushed by Our Lady’s purity and virginity, so the breed of Satan, who have infiltrated into the College of Cardinals and College of Bishops and clergy world wide, might be crushed by his trick of renouncing ministry but not munus, remaining the Pope and letting the wicked fool themselves.
For those who have already succumbed to the Marxist Critique, Catholics cannot trick the wicked, because that is “unjust” and “dishonest”. Only the wicked have the right to lie to Catholics, Catholics have the duty to be 100% sincere and tell the truth always to the wicked, as good little submissive servants.
For those who are careerists in the Church, but care nothing for God, a Pope cannot trick the clergy, because it is his duty always to reward and honor them and never correct them unless they happen to all agree to cast one or two out from their number, like Don Minutella or all those other honest priests after Vatican II who said that the Aggiornamento was wrong or of the devil.
But for Catholics, we confess that when an entire class is so morally corrupt that they need to be cut off from the living body of the Church, and are willing to cut themselves off from it, by pursuing with abandon the grab for power which accompanies a papal resignation, even if the resignation is not an abdication as the law requires, it is perfectly legitimate for the Vicar of Jesus Christ to be so discrete as to allow the fools, idiots and wicked run down the wrong path, to their own destruction.
If you have not yet noticed, we are living in the end times. The Mass was suspended at Easter and in many parts of the world even for an entire year. There are now orders to commit daily sacrilege and blasphemy in Church during the Mass. The clergy are 99% on board with this new religion of Satanic affrontery to the Living God.
And yet some devlishly proud and obstinate souls still insist that Christ’s Vicar be 100% sincere with those who are 100% insincere, and 100% straight-forward with those who are 100% crooked.
Pope Benedict XVI pulled the greatest joke on the Devil in the history of the Church after Pentecost. And now we Catholic have the right to laugh with him at his breed’s downfall.
Now we can speak openly of the New World Order: the concept is no longer under embargo
AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION
of the Original Italian linked under the above image.
“There is only one pope, Benedict XVI. Bergoglio is a cardinal dressed in white, an accomplice of the New World Order” — the well-known anti-Mafia magistrate Angelo Giorgianni, former Under-Secretary of Ministry of Justice & Pardon of the Prodi government, said briefly in a public speech in Messina two days ago.
Naturally, he made these statements not in his institutional capacity, but as president of the “World Life Organization,” a voluntary association he founded, which is concerned with the defense of human life and all the rights that pertain to his. protection and dignity paying particular attention to the various individual freedoms not always guaranteed, such as that of opinion, freedom, thought, worship and the sacredness of human life from the moment of conception to the natural end.
Cionci: Dear Doctor, after the lawyer Taormina HERE, you are the second secular and Italian lawyer to raise doubts about the abdication of Pope Ratzinger …
Giorgianni: I have followed this story and I am absolutely convinced that Benedict XVI has drawn up an act of renunciation of the papacy that is completely null and void: a real “cocktail” of legal invalidity made to be discovered over time. Just to quote the best known: in the Declaratio of 2013 he renounces, instead of the Petrine munus, it is the ministerium – or the practical exercise of power – which does not involve renouncing the papacy: at most it could mean the delegation to some bishop of some functions practices. The trivial Latin errors in the document, coming from a refined Latinist like him, are obviously a way to keep attention on the legal act.
Not to mention his conduct over the next eight years; just remember how he always repeats “the pope is one” without ever declaring which of the two he is, or the unequivocal phrases that have recently emerged from his interview books such as ” has been discharged in the last thousand years ”.
Cionci: Aren’t you afraid of being considered a “conspiracy theorist”?
Giorgianni: Look, I – for work – have foiled conspiracies for a lifetime. Conspiracy is when bold theories are built without these being based on facts. In the judicial field, on the other hand, a unique series of clues constitute proof and here, there is an even excessive amount of clear clues, verifiable by anyone.
Cionci:Why do you say that Bergoglio is a cardinal dressed in white?
Giorgianni: Because if pope Ratzinger did not abdicate the throne, as evident, the conclave of 2013 was completely invalid and elected a cardinal who remains a cardinal. So Bergoglio is an anti-pope, as there have been so many in the history of the Church.
Cionci:A burning issue, but it doesn’t seem to upset the clergy too much …
Giorgianni: It is very serious in fact. Some clergymen fear being excommunicated (but the excommunication of an anti-pope is worth nothing), others think that, at the resignation or death of card. Bergoglio, a new conclave can put things right. But if the college of cardinals has 80 new cardinals appointed by Bergoglio, they are not true cardinals and therefore do not have the right to elect a new pope. Therefore the succession line after Francis would be all composed of anti-popes. History demonstrates this: in the first half of the 12th century, the anti-pope Anacleto II reigned for eight years and, upon his death, he was succeeded by Victor IV, another anti-pope, until Saint Bernard of Clairvaux ousted the latter by restoring a papal succession line legitimate.
Cionci:Orthodox Catholics continually complain about Francis’ reforms. Now they fear for the Latin Mass (“vetus ordo”), given that Bergoglio seems to want to limit his celebration by revoking Benedict XVI’s motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”.
Giorgianni: And what are they astonished at? The Holy Spirit assists the pope not only on those rare times when he pronounces ex-cathedra on important dogmas of faith. There is a specific article in the Catechism, 892, which speaks of his ordinary assistance:
“Divine assistance is also given in a special way, to the Bishop of Rome, when, even without arriving at an infallible definition and without making a definitive pronouncement, he proposes, in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium, a teaching that leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals ”.
How do you think that Bergoglio is the real pope if he is demolishing the Catholic identity from its very foundations? And, paradoxically, Orthodox Catholics despair over his measures instead of checking if he has what it takes to be pope: how to worry about the effects without investigating the causes.
Cionci: Even the laity seem quite indifferent to the question …
Giorgianni: A big mistake! A pope has a fundamental role in the politics of the whole world. Let us think only of the role played by John Paul II in the collapse of communism. The pope is a political leader with influence on over a billion people: he heavily conditions international politics.
Cionci: In this regard, you argue that Bergoglio is a sort of moral sponsor of the New World Order?
Giorgianni: He himself recently declared to a major newspaper (La Stampa of 3 /15/ 21): “We must not waste the pandemic, but use it to build a new world order”. Clearer than that? By now the concept is cleared through customs, we talk about it quietly, without shame. In fact, Bergoglio continually insists on this “interreligious dialogue” … I too am in favor of dialogue, but here it is taken as an excuse to annihilate the Catholic identity and make the church the container of a new globalist religion. A completely reverse process with respect to the uniqueness of Christ’s Revelation. But just look at the position held by the Church during the pandemic…
Cionci: By the way: you are very critical of the management of the health crisis …
Giorgianni: Sure. We are for vaccines, provided they are safe and effective, but we do not explain why rushing the administration of an experimental drug if there are effective therapies, instead completely neglected. A madness. Bergoglio also never talks about therapies, why? Rather, he demonstrated a subjection to civil power against any concordat and constitutional agreement, depriving many people of the minimum comforts of faith, closing churches and denying the sacraments even to the dying. Too many try to ride this health emergency to establish new political and / or financial projects. — But we will bring these truths to every public square: we believe in the rule of law and respect for the rules.
+ + +
Der Magistrat Giorgianni: “Benedikt XVI. hat nicht abgedankt;
Bergoglio ist Kardinal im weißen Gewand”.
Gute, sichere Impfstoffe, aber warum ist nie von einer Behandlung die Rede?
“Es gibt nur einen Papst, Benedikt XVI. Bergoglio ist ein weiß gekleideter Kardinal, ein Komplize der Neuen Weltordnung”: Nicht sehr subtil ging er vor zwei Tagen in einer öffentlichen Rede in Messina vor, der berühmte Anti-Mafia-Magistrat Angelo Giorgianni, ehemaliger Unterstaatssekretär der Justiz in der Prodi-Regierung.
Natürlich machte er diese Aussagen nicht in seiner institutionellen Eigenschaft, sondern als Präsident der Weltorganisation für das Leben, einer von ihm gegründeten freiwilligen Vereinigung, die sich mit der Verteidigung des menschlichen Lebens und allen Rechten, die zu seinem Schutz und seiner Würde gehören, befasst und dabei besonderes Augenmerk auf die verschiedenen individuellen Freiheiten legt, die nicht immer garantiert sind, wie die der Meinung, der Freiheit, des Denkens, des Kultes und der Unantastbarkeit des menschlichen Lebens vom Moment der Empfängnis bis zu seinem natürlichen Ende.
Frage: Herr Doktor, nach dem Anwalt Taormina
HIER https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26475724/dimissioni-benedetto-xvi-forti-dubbi-avvocato-carlo-taormina.html , sind Sie der zweite weltliche und italienische Jurist, der Zweifel an der Abdankung von Papst Ratzinger äußert …
Antwort: “Ich habe diese Affäre verfolgt und bin absolut davon überzeugt, dass Benedikt XVI. einen Akt des Verzichts auf das Papsttum verfasst hat, der völlig nichtig ist: ein wahrer “Cocktail” von rechtlichen Ungültigkeiten, die im Laufe der Zeit entdeckt werden sollten. Um nur die berüchtigtsten zu nennen: in der Declaratio von 2013 verzichtet er statt auf das munus petrino auf das ministerium – also auf die praktische Machtausübung -, was nicht bedeutet, dass er auf das Papsttum verzichtet: es könnte höchstens bedeuten, dass er einige praktische Funktionen an einen Bischof delegiert. Die trivialen Fehler des Lateins in dem Dokument, die von einem so feinen Latinisten wie ihm stammen, sind offensichtlich ein System, um die Aufmerksamkeit auf den Rechtsakt zu lenken.
Ganz zu schweigen von seinem Verhalten in den nächsten acht Jahren, denken Sie nur daran, wie er immer wieder sagt: “Es gibt einen Papst”, ohne jemals zu sagen, welcher es ist, oder die eindeutigen Sätze, die in letzter Zeit aus seinen Interview-Büchern aufgetaucht sind, wie: “In den letzten tausend Jahren ist kein Papst zurückgetreten.” (HIER n.d.r. https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27114419/benedetto-viii-mai-abdicato-nessun-papa-dimesso.html )
F.: Haben Sie keine Angst, als “Verschwörungstheoretiker” angesehen zu werden?
A.: “Sehen Sie, ich habe – berufsbedingt – schon immer mit Verschwörungen gewedelt. Verschwörung ist, wenn man kühne Theorien aufstellt, ohne dass diese auf Fakten beruhen. Im gerichtlichen Bereich hingegen stellt eine eindeutige Reihe von Indizien einen Beweis dar, und hier gibt es von offensichtlichen, für jedermann feststellbaren Indizien sogar ein Übermaß”.
F. Warum sagen Sie, dass Bergoglio ein weiß gekleideter Kardinal ist?
A. “Denn wenn Papst Ratzinger nicht abgedankt hat, was offensichtlich ist, war das Konklave von 2013 völlig ungültig und hat einen Kardinal zum “Papst” gewählt, der Kardinal bleibt. Bergoglio ist also ein Anti-Papst, wie es so viele in der Geschichte der Kirche gegeben hat.”
F.: Eine brennende Frage, aber sie scheint den Klerus nicht sehr zu beunruhigen….
A.: “Es ist in der Tat sehr ernst. Einige Kleriker fürchten, exkommuniziert zu werden (aber die Exkommunikation eines Antipapstes ist nichts wert), andere denken, dass bei einem Rücktritt oder Tod von Kard. Bergoglio, kann ein neues Konklave die Dinge wieder in Ordnung bringen. Aber wenn das Kardinalskollegium 80 neue Kardinäle hat, die von Bergoglio ernannt wurden, sind sie keine echten Kardinäle und haben daher keinen Titel, um einen neuen Papst zu wählen. Die Nachfolgelinie nach Franziskus würde also aus lauter Antipäpsten bestehen. Das zeigt die Geschichte: In der ersten Hälfte des 12. Jahrhunderts regierte der Gegenpapst Anacletus II. acht Jahre lang, und nach seinem Tod wurde er von Victor IV. abgelöst, einem anderen Gegenpapst, bis der heilige Bernhard von Clairvaux letzteren verdrängte und eine legitime päpstliche Erbfolge wiederherstellte.”
F.: Orthodoxe Katholiken beschweren sich immer wieder über die Reformen von Franziskus. Nun fürchten sie um die Messe in lateinischer Sprache (“vetus ordo”), da Bergoglio deren Feier durch Widerruf des Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” von Benedikt XVI. einschränken zu wollen scheint.
A.: “Und worüber sind sie überrascht? Der Heilige Geist steht dem Papst nicht nur bei den seltenen Gelegenheiten bei, wenn er sich ex cathedra zu wichtigen Glaubensdogmen äußert. Ein spezieller Artikel des Katechismus, 892, spricht von seinem gewöhnlichen Beistand: “Der göttliche Beistand wird auch in besonderer Weise dem Bischof von Rom gewährt, wenn er, ohne zu einer unfehlbaren Definition zu gelangen und ohne sich endgültig zu äußern, in Ausübung des ordentlichen Lehramtes eine Lehre vorschlägt, die zu einem besseren Verständnis der Offenbarung in Sachen des Glaubens und der Sitten führt.”
Wie kann irgendjemand glauben, dass Bergoglio der wahre Papst ist, wenn er die katholische Identität von Grund auf demoliert? Und paradoxerweise verzweifeln die orthodoxen Katholiken an seinen Maßnahmen, anstatt zu prüfen, ob er das Zeug zum Pontifex hat: wie die Sorge um die Auswirkungen, ohne die Ursachen zu untersuchen.”
F.: Auch den Laien scheint das Thema ziemlich gleichgültig zu sein.
A.: “Ein großer Irrtum: Ein Papst hat eine fundamentale Rolle in der Politik der ganzen Welt. Denken Sie nur an die Rolle, die Johannes Paul II. beim Zusammenbruch des Kommunismus gespielt hat. Der Papst ist ein politisches Oberhaupt mit Einfluss auf mehr als eine Milliarde Menschen: Er bestimmt maßgeblich die internationale Politik.”
F.: In diesem Zusammenhang behaupten Sie, dass Bergoglio eine Art moralischer Sponsor der Neuen Weltordnung ist.
A.: “Er selbst erklärte kürzlich gegenüber einer großen Tageszeitung (La Stampa vom 15.3.21 n.d.r.): “Wir dürfen die Pandemie nicht verschwenden, sondern müssen sie nutzen, um eine neue Weltordnung aufzubauen”. Deutlicher als das? Inzwischen ist das Konzept durch den Zoll gegangen, man spricht leise darüber, ohne Scham. In der Tat besteht Bergoglio ständig auf diesem “interreligiösen Dialog”… Auch ich bin für den Dialog, aber hier wird er als Vorwand genommen, um die katholische Identität zu vernichten und die Kirche zum Container einer neuen Weltreligion zu machen. Ein Vorgang, der der Einzigartigkeit der Offenbarung Christi völlig entgegengesetzt ist. Aber schauen Sie sich nur die Position an, die die Kirche während der Pandemie eingenommen hat…”.
F.: Übrigens: Sie sind sehr kritisch gegenüber dem Management der Gesundheitskrise…
A.: “Natürlich. Wir sind für Impfstoffe, sofern sie sicher und wirksam sind, aber dann erklären wir nicht, warum die Verabreichung eines experimentellen Medikaments hetzt, wenn es wirksame Therapien gibt, stattdessen völlig vernachlässigt. Wahnsinn. Bergoglio spricht auch nie über Therapien, wie kommt das? Vielmehr hat er eine Unterwürfigkeit gegenüber der zivilen Macht demonstriert, die gegen jedes Konkordat und jede verfassungsmäßige Vereinbarung verstößt, indem er so viele Menschen der minimalen Annehmlichkeiten des Glaubens beraubt, Kirchen schließt und sogar den Sterbenden die Sakramente verweigert. Zu viele versuchen, diese gesundheitliche Notlage auszunutzen, um neue politische und/oder finanzielle Projekte zu etablieren.
Aber wir werden diese Wahrheiten auf alle Plätze bringen: Wir glauben an die Rechtsstaatlichkeit und den Respekt vor den Regeln”.
AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION
of the Italian Original linked above in image
The most important German Catholic daily, Die Tagespost, took up some of our articles about the legal problems of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the strange inconsistencies of the following eight years. We have thus provided them with an account of the facts and a reconstruction that connects them (the so-called “Plan B”), translated into German. So far no one has been able to propose an alternative.
Dear Colleagues of Die Tagespost,
On May 28 you resumed on your pages an article published by the blog of the undersigned in the Italian newspaper, the Libero. Your title spoke of “strange speculations” in Rome. If you have the goodness to read, we will show you that some objective facts are rather strange. As for our reconstruction called “Plan B”, it tries to offer a possible logical explanation by rearranging facts and documents. It was taken up by the most authoritative Italian Vaticanistas and translated into four languages by international websites and blogs (today also in German, for you). We would be pleased if someone proves capable of questioning it in a coherent way and complete after checking all the insights.
And here are the facts.
The Declaratio di Retirement hides a series of juridical problems involving canons 124, 332 § 2, 188, 17 of the Code of Canon Law.
From the inversion between munus and ministerium, to the postponement of the date and time of the renunciation, to general doubts: according to various canonists, the renunciation is a completely void act. The mere fact that such disputes can flourish makes the act doubtful and as such, once again, null and void.
Not to mention the institution of the so-called “pope emeritus”, radically contested – unanimously – by internationally renowned scholars (Boni, Fantappié, Margiotta-Broglio, de Mattei …).
Benedict XVI has been repeating for eight years that “the pope is one” without ever explaining which one. I have shown that Vatican News attributed the quotation marks “the pope is one and he is Francis” to Benedict XVI while the words were written by the journalist Massimo Franco of Corriere della Sera.
Benedict XVI keeps the white robe and justified himself in Seewald’s book Last Conversations by saying that it was “a practical solution because he had no other clothes”. He maintains other pontifical prerogatives such as the P.P. after the pontifical name (Pater Patrum, or Pontifex Pontificum) and the possibility of imparting the apostolic blessing. He uses the majestic plural in his interview books. He lives in the Vatican and intervenes on serious doctrinal issues.
I highlighted how in his statements over the last eight years there is a scientific and studied ambiguity: each sentence of his can be interpreted in two different and mirroring ways. Like when he says: “My fans are sorry for my choice, but I am calm and at peace with myself”.
A sentence that can be interpreted in two different ways, also according to the hypothesis I will write about below.
In the Declaratio di Retirement there are two serious errors of Latin and about 20 other imperfections that were immediately denounced in the press by illustrious Latinists such as Luciano Canfora and Wilfried Stroh.
In 2016, Pope Ratzinger declared to Corriere della Sera what had already been written in Peter Seewald’s Last Conversations, namely that he himself wrote the Declaratio in Latin in two weeks because he is “very familiar with Latin and did not want to make mistakes by writing “. The document passed through the Secretariat of State under papal secret – writes Ratzinger – which also “perfected the style”.
The latest discovery is the one also cited by your newspaper, again in “Last Conversations” by Peter Seewald:
Question. “Was there an internal conflict over his decision (to resign)?”.
Response of Pope Ratzinger: “It is not that simple, of course. No pope resigned for a thousand years and even in the first millennium this was an exception: therefore a similar decision must be pondered for a long time. For me, however, it became so evident that there was no painful inner conflict “.
Now, six popes have abdicated in the first millennium, and four in the second millennium. How is it possible? Benedict XVI can therefore only refer with the word “resignation” only to those few popes who in the first millennium were forced to renounce not the Petrine munus, but only the ministerium, the practical exercise of power, for having been expelled by the antipopes. In this case, one of these could be Benedict VIII, expelled by the antipope Gregory VI and therefore temporarily forced to renounce the ministerium before being reinstated on the throne as a legitimate pope. In fact, Pope Ratzinger in the Declaratio renounces only the ministerium, and not the munus, as would be required by canon 332.2. So, he would be telling us that he is still the pope, even if he is without the practical exercise of power. No alternative explanations emerged.
The most important German Catholic daily, Die Tagespost, took up some of our articles about the legal problems of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the strange inconsistencies of the following eight years. We have thus provided them with an account of the facts and a reconstruction that connects them (the so-called “Plan B”), translated into German. So far no one has been able to propose an alternative.
These are just a few facts, and you would be right to call them strange. How to explain them?
There are only two hypotheses:
1) Pope Ratzinger does not know Latin well, remembers nothing of the history of the Church and is practically fasting in canon law, although he was certainly aware of the fact that in 1983 John Paul II had inserted the dichotomy between munus and ministerium in canon law. Out of pure personal vanity, Benedict insists on wearing the white robe and posing as pope, no longer being pope, remaining completely indifferent to the anguish and doubt that grip so many faithful about who the pope is. It must also be admitted that Pope Ratzinger is also a little spiteful and “enjoys” leaving a shadow of doubt about who the pope is, hindering his successor.
2) As already mentioned by the jurist Estefania Acosta in his treatise “Benedict XVI: pope emeritus?” And by friar Alexis Bugnolo, the strange and illogical behavior of Benedict XVI over the next eight years is purposely held by him to make us understand that the pope is one and it is he alone, since he himself voluntarily prepared his resignation as legally invalid. This is to allow the modernist Church to reveal itself, to make itself known, but then to be canceled by a whisker, as soon as the invalidity of his renunciation is discovered. It is known that in 2012 he was now deprived of authority (so much so that the president of the IOR Ettore Gotti Tedeschi was expelled without the pope’s knowledge), it is known from the biography of Card. Danneels that his enemies were the cardinals of the Mafia of St. Gallen of which card. Bergoglio was the champion. According to the theory of the so-called “Plan B”, Benedict XVI has handed over to history and canon law an invalid renunciation to separate “the wheat from the chaff” and lead to a purifying schism for the Church. The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben says he is convinced that the real reason for his resignation was the desire to awaken the eschatological conscience. The resignation would be a foreshadowing of the separation between “Babylon” and “Jerusalem” in the Church. Instead of engaging in the logic of maintaining power, with his resignation from office, Ratzinger would have emphasized his spiritual authority, thus contributing to his strengthening. Now we just have to see who will come out of the office.
A ground breaking thesis, we realize. Below we have sorted all the pieces of the puzzle from the very beginning. Each paragraph has an in-depth article to verify each issue. We wait for someone to know how to rearrange them in a different way, but the pieces will have to fit together well. It is in fact very difficult to argue that all of Ratzinger’s apparent clumsiness, carelessness, inconsistencies, which – coincidentally – all lead to the same point, (that is, that he still remained pope in all respects) are only the result of chance. It is a question of probability calculation.
We have no preconceived positions, we limit ourselves to rearranging the facts according to logic. It is up to you to judge and, if necessary, to usefully contest.
However, we cannot continue to pretend that the issue does not exist. If it were verified that Benedict did not validly renounce, the 2013 conclave would be invalid, Francis would be an anti-pope and all his succession line would be anti-popes, just as another anti-pope, Victor IV, succeeded the anti-pope Anacletus II, until St. Bernard of Clairvaux to put things right. So the Catholic Church would be gone forever, at least as we know it. The question is uncomfortable, we realize, in fact everyone runs away as soon as it is mentioned, but what serious journalist can take the responsibility of keeping silent in the face of such sensational, inexplicable evidence? Catholics still less, and clergymen are bound by an explicit canon to seek the truth and declare it.
We believe it is worth addressing the speech and clarifying it, also to protect the legitimacy of Francis and his successors. After all, what is there to fear if everything is in order?
_____________
FromRome.Info will publish the German version of Plan B, shortly.
May 28, 2021 A. D. — The dam of silence has broken. The leading Catholic newspaper of German has published an article on the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI. The damage to the St. Gallen Mafia is extreme.
The paper has cited the names of some of Bergoglio’s most menacing opponents: Andrea Cionci of the Italian daily, Libero, and Br. Alexis Bugnolo, of FromRome.Info.
First, the article in the original German (click to read):
And now for the article in a Google Translation (click to read):
I will leave it to the judgement of the readers, how great the damage to the Narrative this is.
Die Tagespost has attempted to discredit both Cionci and myself ever so subtlety, but it is clear that the attempt is a backfire. Too many facts have been let out.
What has particularly irked Gallina, the author of the article, is that Cionci has established from a close analysis of Benedict XVI’s statements that my theory of the intentional and purposefully invalid renunciation is highly plausible. Die Tagespost has unwittingly confirmed it by admitting that Benedict never has called what he did an abdication!
This article means, politically, however, that the work of Cionci has caused a massive wave of new questions among the Sacred Hierarchy. I can confirm that the thesis of the Great Catholic Reset, planned by Benedict or at the basis of the inspiration he received to resign, is now an open question even in the Vatican. Cardinals and high functionaries are speaking of it in an approved manner.
The stranglehold of the controlled Catholic media in the English speaking world has been circumvented. Many thanks to Andrea Cionci and the outgoing editor of the Libero for having given others and myself a voice in Italy and now to the entire world.
“The pope is only one” Benedict XVI has been repeating for eight years, without ever explaining which one. Invalid resignation had been talked about since 2013, but only last year, on Libero, we published the thesis of Friar Alexis Bugnolo who ventilated for the first time as the Latin errors inserted in the Declaratio of “resignation” had been inserted by the pope not by chance, but to attract attention to an abdication that never happened. From then on, there has been a continuous emergence of more and more evident and probing clues about the fact that the whole operation could have been organized on purpose by Ratzinger, a hypothesis that culminated in the book by the jurist Estefania Acosta Benedict XVI: pope emeritus?
Everything that is canonically challengable in the “resignation” seems, in fact, present: the errors in Latin that make the written Declaratio not “rite manifestetur” (duly) and with the suspicion of forcing (Cf. canons 124 and 146)); the inversion between munus and ministerium, with the unnecessary renunciation of the latter (Cf. canon 332 §2); the generically dubious resignation (canon 14) and finally the postponement of the “hour X” from which Benedict XVI would no longer be pontiff, with the non-ratification of the “resignation”.
The entire operation has been reconstructed here, ordering facts and documents, with all the necessary in-depth analysis. And still no one has been able to question it.
A few days ago, finally, an unequivocal message of Benedict XVI identified in Last Conversations (Seewald-Ratzinger 2016) in the phrase: “No pope has resigned for a thousand years and even in the first millennium this was an exception”. This would seem to close the game definitively given that no one has been able to give an alternative answer to the historical reference to Benedict VIII by which the XVI explicitly says he has never “abdicated.”
So, in the end, the most skeptical, but intellectually honest commentators are left with only one last hesitation: “Yes, all right, but why all this?”.
In the meantime, one could stop here. Let’s curb our curiosity a bit in order to act properly. Sometimes it happens that a person asks for help in a veiled and mysterious way, like the classic woman who calls the police ordering pizza without being discovered by her violent partner. In these cases, first of all we have to take note of the fact that 1) in the messages there is something strange that doesn’t fit 2) the person is probably in difficulty 3) obviously he can’t speak clearly 4) he will have had his reasons to ask for help in a sibylline way.
The fundamental thing is to understand that, first of all, we have to intervene, go and see, clarify, investigate: there will be time to discover all the motives.
However, we can already trace some hypotheses on why Benedict XVI would have given the Catholic people these eight years of vacation (in the broadest sense of the term) with resignation specifically invalid.
For two thousand years, a moment of great crisis has been announced for the Church, with a seizure of power by anti-Christic forces. We have the advent of an “idol shepherd” (Prophet Zechariah), a “False Prophet” (Revelation of St. John), a “false extravagant church” (Blessed Katharina Emmerick), a “Rome seat of the Antichrist” (Our Lady of La Salette), a “bishop dressed in white” (Fatima), a “propaganda church pope” (Fr. Julio Meinvielle), of “the smoke of Satan entering the Church” (Paul VI), of a “final test with apostasy from within” (Art. 675 of the 1992 Catechism), of an “Anti-Church and an anti-Gospel” (St. John Paul II), of “Satan at the top of the Church” (Don Stefano Gobbi) … In short, the possibility of a spiritually evil coup d’état is certainly not new and has been known for some time.
Do we want to believe, then, that Cardinal Ratzinger and St. John Paul II have remained inactive without preparing an emergency plan “B”?
Already in 1983 they elaborated – perhaps in this anticipation – the “hypnotic” diversification between munus and ministerium of the papal office: so effective that even today even insiders sometimes get lost in it. In Libero we have hypothesized that it could be a “mirror mechanism” inspired by the vision in the mirror of the bishop dressed in white of the shepherd children of Fatima.
Therefore, considering that the (documented) attacks of the St. Gallen Mafia came from within, and admitting that these were the expression of what has been prophesied for two thousand years, from a strategic point of view, the best system of reaction for Pope Ratzinger could certainly not be that of a frontal and asymmetrical opposition. Can we imagine – as certain sedevacantists would like – Benedict XVI in 2005, with the whole world painting him as a grim, obscurantist and retrogressive pope, raining excommunications on modernists, suspending here, expelling there?
It would have been political suicide: he would have done nothing but strengthen the propaganda of his enemies, inside and outside the Church, condemning not only himself, but also preparing, perhaps, in reaction, a legal succession with a modernist pope.
When Monsignor Viganò identifies the Council as the root of the current drift, he is not wrong, and certainly in 2013 the metastasis of neo-Arian-Lutheran modernism, (with a homosexuality of the clergy now endemic) had reached a state that demanded a drastic decision. Vatileaks had even highlighted a fierce internecine war between factions and even alleged plans to physically eliminate the Pontiff.
When the moment arrived, Benedict XVI probably pulled the “emergency lever” without hesitation, voluntarily, in science and conscience. The most intelligent, effective and holy way to react was through a retreat (a word he uses often), not before having “undermined” the enemy invasion ground. In strategic studies it would be called a “deception plan” with “elastic retreat” and “false target”.
Ratzinger fed the wolves that besieged him the “meatball” of the ministerium and, retreating into a role as a supposed pope emeritus, preserved the munus, granting the enemy forces within the Church an experimental time, to unravel, so that the Catholic people would be scandalized, that they would understand the emptiness and theologically destructive content of Masonic modernism enslaved to globalism.
Catholics had to see the pagan idol enthroned in St. Peter’s, the “mestizo Madonna relief of migrants,” the doctrinal upheavals, the politically correct changes in the missal, the esoteric-Masonic dew and a thousand other unheard of upheavals and reversals of sound doctrine.
The faithful had to see the Church as a slave of the “world”, dialoguing with abortionists and homosexualists, it had to hit rock bottom, “hitting its nose” like the prodigal son. They had to get to “be the swineherds” before becoming aware and returning to the house of the pope.
In 2013 – if we remember – no one, among intellectuals, theologians, vaticanists and simple faithful was so exasperated, nor animated by heroic Catholic spirit. No one would have risked their careers, no priests would have been excommunicated, nor would resistance groups have coagulated as in a “new Crusade of the Poor.” No one would have understood the reality and truth of the faith if they had not been exasperated, scandalized, outraged, and exhausted by Bergoglio and his associates.
Ratzinger knew how things would go, and he had made everything safe: his resignation was completely invalid, and this would be discovered as the various Enzo Bianchi imploded on their own, as the abusive Church drowned in fierce internal conflicts, in financial and sexual scandals, in grotesque gaffes and patent contradictions.
And Benedict’s resignation would be forever invalid, even after his death. A definitive plan to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Risky? For now – as we are writing about it – the plan has worked, at least in the first part. His game has been figured out, eight years too late, but it’s gotten there and the truth of some facts is going viral all over the world. And Benedict is still alive and lucid. It has been understood that the Church is about to be purified definitively, at the price of a schism, this time useful and necessary. We talked about it here in February and, after being showered with criticism, today no one is talking about anything else.
Now, what only remains to be decided is whether it will be the traditionalists or the modernists who will leave the Church (as a seat).
And the pivot of everything is, once again, the invalidity of the resignation of Benedict XVI.
If Ratzinger did not resign, Bergoglio, his cardinals, his theologians, his appointments, his doctrinal innovations will vanish in a breath, like dust in the wind, “burned eschatologically” by Canon Law. They will form a new globalist, Masonic-Lutheran church and will join the European Protestants. They will become irrelevant within a few years, like all Protestant churches. Otherwise, if no one will have the strength to challenge the resignation, it will be up to the Roman Church to abandon the See, and take back the faith, like Athanasius, return to the catacombs, as Ratzinger also predicted. In any case, it will be a purifying schism, to be wished, one would say. We are now not only in the presence of two different religions, but also antithetical.
Now, at this point, bishops and cardinals do not have to make a decisive choice of field. It would be enough for them to ask for a clarification, in a neutral way, a truth operation on Benedict’s resignation.
If Bergoglio were not the pope, he certainly could not excommunicate a cardinal who simply asked for clarity, short of unveiling himself.
What is needed is a public press conference by Benedict XVI with medical and security assurances. Or a public confrontation among canonists, or a synod with pre-2013 appointed cardinals. An operation of absolute, rigorous transparency should be primarily in the interest of Bergoglio, if he is the real pope, and also of his successor. Of course, this time they can’t get away with the contrived headlines of Vatican News or calling the usual pro-Bergoglio newspaper journalist who interprets everything in his own way. The truth operation will have to be clear, sharp and definitive.
at MarcoTosatti.com entitled,
“Il Dibattito sul Concilio è un Vicolo Cieco. Il Nodo sono le Dimissioni…”
by Andrea Cionci
AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION
It has been several months that, starting from a careful historical analysis of Monsignor Viganò – which I largely share – the criticism of the Second Vatican Council continues to be brought up as if it were the real Magna quaestio and the solution to the current impasse. I think this is a big blunder and as I will show, it leads to absolutely nothing but a claustrophobic dead end.
In the progression of modernism, someone wanted to see in Benedict XVI the step immediately preceding Francis: a bit ‘like comparing a bicycle to a freight train, in my opinion.
Moreover, Ratzinger himself, who, like everyone else, underwent the cultural moment and the influences of the Council period, publicly emended himself from those “sins of youth”. It is often contested that when he was pope he did not excommunicate modernist theologians on the spot, but the management “cum clava” of papal power is quite recent and we tend to forget that the pope, once, was a figure above all of the guarantor of the unity of the Church, even at the cost of tolerating some “red sheep”. No one is perfect and Ratzinger, too, must have had his weaknesses, but, at this point, why stop at the Council and not blame de Lammenais (1782-1854) and liberal Catholicism? Moreover, the erosive tendencies of Tradition began well before the Council, as Sergio Russo has well illustrated in Stilum curiae (Tosatti’s Editorial Series).
Continuously re-proposing the whine about Vatican II provides only two operational solutions.
The first is to get into a time machine, go back to 1962, drug and kidnap Karl Rahner.
The second is to use the criticism of the Council to refound the Catholic Church, leaving the “seat” to the de facto schismatics, at least regaining possession of the “faith”, with a speech such as: “Since, as we have abundantly demonstrated, from Pius XII onwards we have not been able to have a pope worthy of the name, we are tired: the time has come to take back a Roman Catholic Church with a true pope that we will appoint on our own. It is not as if we can remain without a pontiff for the next few centuries.”
Since the solution of the time machine does not seem to be immediately feasible, only from the point of view of ratifying a schism, the paean on the Council would acquire a practical function, but apparently no one has the courage to continue on this path: “it cannot be done”, “it is a sin”, “it does not fit”, “it is uneconomic”, “they must leave”, “it would give scandal”, etc.
And so — excuse me — but to continue with recriminations about the Council is objectively useless and unproductive. It’s like a guy who one day finds himself with a bad office manager and starts complaining about the course of studies he undertook as a boy: either he uses that speech to find the strength to radically change his profession (“ok, I got it all wrong, now I’m going to open a chiringuito in the Bahamas”) or he keeps his office manager and learns to live with him. It’s not that complaining about his old choices solves anything.
What is more harmful, however, is that such speeches distract intellectual and moral energies from the REAL Magna quaestio: the validity of the resignation of Benedict XVI. We know that it is a complex matter, that it is necessary to apply oneself, document oneself and find the courage of lions. But steps forward have been made to clarify and disclose how the resignation was announced – both legally and formally – invalid and how it was never ratified. Even if only 10% of those alleged resignations were challenged, those who really wanted to could probably wipe the slate clean of the neo-church. Perhaps only canon 14 of the Code of Canon Law would suffice: “Laws, even irritating or incapacitating ones, in the doubt of law do not urge”.We have asked 20 canonists of the Rota for confirmation and no one has responded: an indicative sign.
It may displease many people, but objectively speaking, the only one who has gone on the counter-attack in full operation is Don Minutella, who, freed from any impediment thanks to two (!) excommunications (not justified by any canonical process) is in fact the only one to have taken the field with an army: he has founded a social channel, speaks on radio and broadcasts, administers sacraments una cum Papa Benedicto around Italy… in short, he really does “the devil tour de force”. You may or may not like him, but please, let’s stop pretending he doesn’t exist, it’s quite ridiculous. If he has been excommunicated, for anyone who doesn’t like Francis, this can only be a huge credit to him., if it is true, as many claim, that there is an “anti-Christic coup” underway? If you do not like what he says, attack him on the merits: from a loyal, fierce dialectical clash with Don Minutella can only remain on the ground something really useful.
The illusion of many traditionalists is that, once Bergoglio is dead or has resigned, the next conclave can put things back in place, perhaps – given the armored majority – through divine intercession. “You’d have to presuppose insanity”, an authoritative colleague told me, but it is a pious illusion: if Francis is not the pope, not even the next conclave will be valid, with the presence of about 80 invalid cardinals. It seems to me that we can agree on this.
Even Bergoglio’s successor, even if he were a hyper-traditionalist holy man, will find himself with a sword of Damocles over his head, the atrocious suspicion, of having been elected by an invalid conclave. That is why the main issue, upon which all Catholic observers should converge, is solely and only the validity of Benedict’s resignation. That is the only really important thing that should be at the heart of even the Bergoglians, since doubt delegitimizes their leader. They should be the first to ask for a “commission of inquiry”, if they have nothing to hide. (Why do they turn a deaf ear?).
Even the tight criticism of Francis and all matters of the neo-church, what is the point? If Bergoglio is not the legitimate pope, and was put there by the modernist Masons, as they say, what do you expect, that he restore the sedes gestatoria and the Noble Guard?
Besides the crux of the resignation issue, the only valid (sideways) topic of debate should be: Why is no one moving? Why aren’t the cardinals speaking out as they should? What are they waiting for? Why aren’t the clergy mutinying en masse? Is it better to ask for enlightenment directly from Benedict XVI, or to organize a synod?
These are the questions that matter: whether Ratzinger is a modernist or not is of no importance, and, in the end, it doesn’t even matter whether he himself has organized a more or less voluntary invalid resignation. That speech may be an encouragement to decide to challenge the resignation, but the point is to establish whether Benedict legally resigned or not, regardless of everything, of his intentions and even of whether Francis is, or is not, a good pope. Before judging him as a pontiff, one must verify that he really is.
to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church
A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorney Acosta and various theologians
by Andrea Cionci
Here is the entire English translation, with links, in a PDF File, WHICH IS FREE TO DOWNLOAD. Please spam the world with this document. Especially send to Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Seminarian, Religious, Journalists, political leaders. Let’s get the world to open their eyes about what is really going on in the Vatican!
22. Bergoglio runs for cover at the Corriere della Sera
At Santa Marta there is a panic: Massimo Franco of the Corriere della Sera rushes to interview Ratzinger and clean up the mess. Benedict XVI offers a series of further replies which are perfectly double faced: he says that “his friends, a little fanatical, did not accept his decision, made completely freely by him, he is in peace with himself and the pope is one alone”. Franco interprets his declarations in this sense: “I willingly resigned as the Pope; my fans err in considering me the Pontiff; the pope is one alone and is Francis” HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26378596/benedetto-xvi-intervista-corriere-della-sera-papa-uno-solo.html
23. The explicit subtext of Benedict
In reality, the true significance of the words of Ratzinger is: “My friends have not understood what I am fooling the modernists and that I have done this in full self awareness, on which account I am in peace with my conscience. the Pope is one alone and I am he”. This story of the pope who is one alone, but which is never specified, has already become too repetitive and urges us to examine past interviews. By doing so there emerges a meticulous and “scientific” equivocation which has lasted years. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26378596/benedetto-xvi-intervista-corriere-della-sera-papa-uno-solo.html
26. The discovery of a clear historical precedent: Pope Benedict VIII
One fundamental detail merges when Benedict XVI declares in his “Last Conversations”, published in 2016, under a veiled but most precious historical reference, that he has resigned as Pope Benedict VIII, Theophylactus of the Counts of Tusculum, in 1012, was constrained to renounce the ministerium on account of the antipope Gregory VI: an unequivocable signal. Little by little, there emerges other details in his book length interview and here at the Libero we have even cited the passage from which we were able to be inspired by Ratzinger to understand his strategy “of mirrors”. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26691243/benedetto-xvi-errore-storico-messaggio-papa-antipapa.html
27. A foreseen battle
Benedict knows that his game is an extremely subtle one, but he has left alarm bells which are very evident. He knew that the pieces of the puzzle would be put back together little by little and that the false church would reveal itself, crumbling on its own, annihilating itself in scandals, doctrinal contradictions and ferocious internal conflicts. Ratzinger knew beforehand that the modernist antipope, with his masonic-environmental-globalist extravagances would fill the Catholic people with dismay. He knew that this one would not be assisted by the Holy Spirit, nor by the logic of the Logos (the Divine Word). HERE: https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/personaggi/25073261/papa-francesco-monsignor-vigano-questa-non-e-chiesa-cristo-ma-antichiesa-massonica.html
28. What is Benedict waiting for?
Benedict is still waiting, tranquil in his prayer and contemplation, and communicating with the outside world by means of precise and surgical terms: he awaits the Cardinals and Bishops to open their eyes. He does not speak openly: even if he would succeed in speaking the truth in public, today, he would be immediately silenced with the excuse of senile ramblings. No: it is rather the Catholic people who, in this Apocalypse, in the sense of a Revelation, have to convert, have to UNDERSTAND, and ACT. And it is the clergy who have to shake off their inertia, by rediscovering the course, the strength, and the heroism of the Faith. HERE: https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/24974299/cardinali-perche-vestono-rosso-forse-solo-fashion.html
29. The solution to the whole problem: a declaratory Synod
The solution, in the end, is a simple one: let the Bishops convoke a synod, like that which was convoked historically (such as Sutri or Melfi V) to establish with certainty which of the one or two popes is the true one.
Ratzinger knows that during such an encounter the reality will easily come forth: the anti-pope and all of his actions, nominations, doctrinal and liturgical changes, will vanish into nothingness. It will be as if he never existed. Death does not preoccupy Benedict: his resignation will remain invalid for ever by creating a historic rupture in the papal succession.
Bergoglio, in the mean time, for his own part, has already signaled the future of his new-Church by nominating an avalanche of his “own” 80 cardinals, who, being in the majority, will shut the doors to the new Conclave. After the antipope, Francis, there would be no valid successor, as some traditionalists are pointing out. Moreover, an invalid conclave, composed by invalid cardinals, might elect another modernists antipope — or a fake orthodox one — and the Catholic Church, as we know Her, would be finished forever.
The synod, on the other hand, will be the great Catholic Counter-Reset, the red restart-button which will enable the Church to be purified — according to the intentions of Ratzinger — from corruption and heresy once and for all, by reconciling Europe and the West with their own Christian roots. And in the passage from one epoch to another, as he himself said to Seewald: “I belong no longer to the old world, but to the new, which in reality has not yet begun”. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26699363/ratzinger-sottotesto-libro-intervista-ultime-conversazioni-peter-seewald.html
30. The “little ones” will be the protagonists
Benedict XVI, the sole Vicar of Christ (Bergoglio having renounced the title) knows that salvation comes from little ones, from the pure of heart, mind and body, much sooner than from prelates and the great ones of the press: from courageous priests and friars who are excommunicated for remaining faithful, from little journalists, youtubers and bloggers, translators, artists and publishers, simple readers who share articles on social media, each one of which in his own infinitesimal littleness adds his own contribution: a whole people without means and support, who sacrifice themselves and risk themselves to spread the truth as a fire, as a last “Crusade of the poor” to save the Church Herself.
No, Benedict XVI has not fled at the sight of the wolves. Nor in the face of those dressed up as lambs.
to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church
A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorney Acosta and various theologians
by Andrea Cionci
PART III
9. The errors in the Latin
Moreover, the game played was a subtle one: the risk is that the juridical question, upon which the entire plan B is based, is forgotten. This is why in the Declaratio Benedict inserted anomalies which would in time attract attention to the invalidity of the document, most of all two gross errors in the Latin: “pro ecclesiae vitae” (afterwards corrected by the Vatican) and one pronounced by his own voice — “commissum” — alongside the key word: “ministerium”, which should have been the dative form, “commisso”. Moreover, the typo on the hour of 29:00 instead of 20:00: errors purposefully introduced, in addition to invalidating even more the resignation inasmuch as it was not “rite manifestetur”, that is “duly” expressed, as the Code of Canon Law requires (in Canon 332, §2); most of all to concentrate the attention of future readers on the two principle juridical problems of his fake resignation: the renunciation of “ministerium” and the deferment of the renunciation. The plan succeeded: the errors of syntax in the Latin were immediately judged to be “intolerable” by Latinists such as Luciano Canfora and Wilfried Stroh, not to mention Cardinal Ravasi, and made a certain sort of splash in the press, together with the typographical error on the hour it would take effect. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26637606/ratzinger-benedetto-xvi-errori-latino-dimissioni-corriere-esperto-latinista-ennesimo-indizi.html
And so, February 28th arrived and Benedict makes his dramatic helicopter flight (he will say to Seewald in 2016 that this was part of the “stage scenery”) such that everyone will see him abandon the Vatican and, at 5:30 P. M., come out upon the balcony of the papal palace at Castel Gandolfo to bid the world a farewell. He had not casually chosen the hour of 8 P. M. (20:00 hours), the hour in which Italians are all at dinner (in front of the TV), a thing which required him to anticipate the farewell at 5:30 P. M.. There, at Castel Gandolfo, in fact, he speaks precisely: “I will be the pope until 8 P. M. and then no more”.
But then he goes inside, and 8 P. M. arrives, but he signs no document nor makes any public declaration. Some justify this by saying that since at 5:30 P. M. he said that he would no longer be the pope, that sufficed. But they are in error: because by affirming that he would be pope until 8 P. M., he could have very well changed his mind, therefore, his renunciation of ministerium, already in effective from the hour he read his Declaratio, should have been ratified by another signed or public declaration. But this never happened. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26613561/ratzinger-dimissioni-sempre-annunciate-mai-ratificate-carlo-pace-spiega.html
11. A concentrate of juridical invalidity
In summary, his Declaratio of a renunciation is absolutely worthless as a resignation, because one cannot renounce an office which has a divine origin by renouncing its administration and, in addition, such a renunciation not duly written, has no juridical value. It’s all a big joke. In fact, Benedict will admit to Seewald that the choice of February 11th for his Declaratio was connected, with an “interior connection”, to the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, a feast of St. Bernadette, the patron saint of his own birthday and with the Mardi Gras Monday. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26699363/ratzinger-sottotesto-libro-intervista-ultime-conversazioni-peter-seewald.html
12. The Mafia of St. Gallen elects an Anti-Pope
The anomalies were seen only by a few and the Mafia of St. Gallen went ahead full steam. Finally, on March 13th, elbowing itself forward with a fifth and irregular balloting, it succeeds in electing its own champion, the Jesuit cardinal, Bergoglio, already looked down upon in Argentina for his methods and his doctrinal extravagances. In this way, there comes to be announced to the world a new pope. Francis comes out, without the red mozzetta (cape), accompanied by Cardinal Daneel: his style is very off the cuff and, in no time, with the complicity of the Main Stream Media, he succeeds in capturing the enthusiastic favor of the crowds. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/22269917/bergoglio_papa_francesco_ratzinger_teologia_modernisti_tradizionalisti_strategia_concilio_vaticano_teologia.html
13. The attack on Catholicism begins
Immediately, he begins a gradual dismantling of Catholic doctrine to adapt it to the container of the new universalist masonic-environmental-modernist religion of the New World Order, openly augured by Bergoglio in his interview with La Stampa on March 15, 2021: “We are wasting this crisis when we close in on ourselves. Instead, by building a new world order based on solidarity …”.
While a portion of normal Catholics (insultingly defined by the Main Stream Media as “traditionalists”) began to react against Bergoglio (and not a few even to speak ill of Ratzinger), Pope Benedict XVI continued to comport himself as a pope in every detail, though without some of the practical offices of his power. In addition to maintaining the white cassock, he continues to live in the Vatican, to use the royal “We”, to sign as the Pontifex Pontificum (Pontiff of Pontiffs), and to impart the Apostolic benediction.
While Bergoglio is devoting himself to his new giant masonic and ultramodernist-globalist church (by daily unmasking himself), in 2015 the “anti-Church” as Mons. Viganò will call it, made a faux pas: Cardinal Godfried Danneels, the primate of Belgium and the central column of the Mafia of St. Gallen (so much so that he flanked Bergoglio, when he came out on the Loggia of St. Peter’s, on the day of his election), confessed candidly in his one autobiography how the modernist lobby aimed to cause Benedict to resign and to propose in his place cardinal Bergoglio. His admissions, confirmed by what was already admitted by the journalist Austen Ivereigh, created an enormous embarrassment and have never been denied. The book of Danneels was sold out (the last used copy for sale on Amazon went for 206 euro!) but has never been republished, nor translated into Italian. The Belgian Cardinal exited the stage and died a year later. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/25566325/don-minutella-pietro-dove-sei-pamphlet-teologo-massimo-franco-enigma-papa-francesco.html
18. The defense attempted by Mons. Sciacca
In the August of 2016, Mons. Giuseppe Sciacca, the top canonist at the Vatican, in an interview with Andrea Tornielli, sustained that the resignation of Ratzinger was valid because munus and ministerium are, for a pope, indivisible. A self-contradicting argument which shows precisely how Ratzinger could not have resigned by resigning only the ministerium. In fact, the history of popes in the first millennium of the Church shows that they have at times resigned from the exercise of papal power while remaining popes, especially in the case of rival anti-popes. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26691243/benedetto-xvi-errore-storico-messaggio-papa-antipapa.html
19. Benedict’s reply to Mons. Sciacca
Three weeks later, Ratzinger, publishes a veiled response in his letter to the Corriere della Sera, taking occasion from the recent book of his interviews by Seewald, entitle, “Last Conversations”, in which he exhorts the readers by saying that he himself is an optimum latinist and that he wrote with his own hand the Declaration in Latin so as not to make any errors.
April 9, 2021 A. D: This morning, Marco Tosatti, one of the most senior Vaticanista here in Italy republished Andrea Cionci’s article on Benedict’s Plan B. While this may not seem to be newsworthy, it merits nevertheless to be brought to the attention of the English speaking world, which has nearly no newspapers, electronic journals or TV channels who are willing even to speak about the incontrovertible anomalies in the reality of what Benedict XVI did and did not do.
Let Life Site News, The Remnant, National Catholic Register and Catholic Family news take note, and let their readers ask them why they are censoring the news.
Let 1 Peter 5, Dr. Taylor Marshall, Church Militant, EWTN et alia, take note of what Tosatti just did, and let their viewers and readers ask them why they are censoring the news.
In this manner, all these groups, knowingly or not, willingly or not, have been coopted into the narrative control of the Globalist Reset, wherein Bergoglio is the new Messiah and Benedict has betrayed humanity.
All these by remaining silent are running cover for the Bishops in the English speaking world who cling to Bergoglio as the sine qua non of the New Normal. As a consequence, they make all the lies, frauds, crimes, heresies, apostasies and treacheries of Bergoglio possible. If they protest Bergoglio, it is like the man who protests the Scamdemic while wearing a mask and insisting on the vaccine.
Let them and their readers, followers and viewers meditate on that. In the mean time, they can read Cionci in English at FromRome.Info.
On the contrary, Marco Tosatti has the integrity to allow the facts present themselves and the discussions be aired. That does not mean he agrees with them 100%, but it does show that he is not controlled by globalists.
I publicly call on the media in the English speaking world of Catholics to do the same. It is time to stop calling FromRome.Info “unreliable”. After all projection as a psychological trick, is the tactic of Marxists.
to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church
A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorney Acosta and various theologians
by Andrea Cionci
PART II
An Appointment at 29 o’clock on February 28th.
Moreover, Benedict deferred the renunciation of ministerium, fixing it for February 28th, and in such a clear manner that Cardinal Sodano, immediately after His Declaratio, clarified very well to the Cardinals, almost obsessively, that He would remain Pope until the 28th. But not only that: Ratzinger specified even the hour X after which he would be no longer the Pope, the 29th hour.. It was obviously a typographical error: He wanted to write 20:00 hours (8 P. M.), and in fact, it was corrected afterwards, but the newspapers cited the error with which He underlined how important that inconvenient hour would be, in which the people, as is their custom, would be at dinner in Italy. HERE:
The Pope Emeritus is the Pope
Would he return to being a Cardinal? No: He specified afterwards (in 2016) that He will become a “pope emeritus” , making reference to the fact that, from the 70’s onward, in Canon Law there was permitted to diocesan Bishops in retirement to remain on the sacramental level Bishops, but emeriti for having resigned only from the practical functions. In the case of the Pope, however, there exists no sacramental dimension, but only a super-sacramental dimension which regards a charge which no man on earth has the power to modify or share. Hence, he who resigns from the papal charge cannot remain in any sense the Pope, and a pope who resigns solely in part, does in truth remain in every way the Pope. Benedict knows this, but his adversaries do not. Ratzinger, therefore, has purposefully used this camouflage of a “pope emeritus” — an expression which is inexistent in Canon Law, — to maintain himself as the Pope and, in the meantime, to leave the playing field to his enemies. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26732422/papa-ratzinger-ein-leben-nuova-versione-fatti-dimissioni-volontariamente-invalidate.html
Ratzinger knows well his adversaries, he knows that they have longed for power since the 90’s when they mustered together in secret meetings in the city of St. Gallen, Switzerland. Not by chance, was it precisely in those years, that Pope Wojtyla published the apostolic constitution, Universi dominici gregis which automatically excommunicates any Cardinal guilty of a pre-Conclave plot to elect a pope. Ratzinger knows that his enemies’ level of knowledge of Latin and Canon Law is inferior to his own and that, in the face of an apparent surrender, they would not have paid attention to details. They would, rather, presume the validity of any document which spoke of a resignation.
In fact, after the Declaratio, the Mafia of St. Gallen is dancing with the stars and causes there to be announced from the Vatican Press Office that “the Pope has resigned”. Their desires appear to them fulfilled quasi “prophetically” by Ratzinger, at the end of his Declaratio where he declares to renounce the ministerium SO THAT (“ut”) “from February 28th, at the hour of Rome, the See of St. Peter will be vacant and that there is to be convoked, by those who are competent, a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff” (“by those who are competent”, that is, not “you Cardinals”, or at least not all of “you Cardinals”, a reference to those who were unfaithful to him).
_____
CREDITS: Translation and use of image, here at the Featured Image, with permission.
News and Commentary on the Catholic Church
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
