Tag Archives: Renunciation

Der “Verzicht” wurde geschrieben, um die Bank zu sprengen

Von Andrea Cionci

Ursprünglich veröffentlicht in der italienischen Tageszeitung Libero am 11. Juni 2020

In den letzten Tagen gab es im Internet eine Diskussion über die Kritik am Rücktritt Benedikts XVI. durch einen italienisch-amerikanischen Franziskaner-Latinisten, der Experte für scholastische Texte und kanonische Argumentation ist. Bruder Alexis Bugnolo, der über 9.000 Seiten des heiligen Bonaventura aus dem lateinischen Original übersetzt hat und die Sprache der Kirche wie nur wenige andere beherrscht, wurde von Decimo Toro auf YouTube interviewt.

Durch eine aufmerksame Lektüre der Rücktrittserklärung von Benedikt XVI., einem Faden der Logik, dem kanonischen Recht und der Bedeutung des lateinischen Originals folgend, behauptet Bruder Bugnolo, dass Benedikt den Text mit äußerster Geschicklichkeit und Subtilität und mit der Absicht verfasste, dass sie schließlich als ungültig erklärt werden würde. Auf diese Weise erlaubte Ratzinger der „Sankt-Gallen-Mafia“, der freimaurerisch-progressiven kirchlichen Lobby, die ihn zur Abdankung, zur übereilten Machtergreifung seines Nachfolgers und damit zur Enthüllung zwang, sich zu offenbaren. Benedikt trat in der Weise zurück, dass alle Handlungen, Ernennungen und Änderungen der Lehre, die von der „falschen Kirche“ vorgenommen wurden, schließlich auf einen Schlag hinweggefegt werden können, gerade wegen der Ungültigkeit seines Rücktritts vom Papsttum.

Aus diesem Grund, so Bruder Bugnolo, habe der Vatikan die Übersetzungen von Benedikts lateinischer Declaratio absichtlich gefälscht, um seine absichtlichen Fehler im Originaltext zu beheben, was aber in Wirklichkeit eine weitere Bosheit darstellt. Schon vor vierzig Jahren wussten Johannes Paul II. und der damalige Kardinal Ratzinger dank des Dritten Geheimnisses von Fatima, dass die schwul-freimaurerische Lobby des Klerus versuchen würde, die Macht an sich zu reißen, und aus diesem Grund änderten sie rechtzeitig den Codex des Kirchenrechts und richteten ein Notfallsystem ein, um im Falle einer Usurpation „die Bank zu sprengen“. Dies ist im Wesentlichen die These Bugnolos.

Um Anschuldigungen zu verhindern, dass seine Rekonstruktion der Ereignisse eine Verschwörungstheorie ist, zitiert Bruder Alexis nur die Dokumente der Vatikan-Webseite, die wir unten angefügt haben. Sie können alle auf der Website des Vatikans http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html eingesehen werden.

Es ist ganz klar, dass der Text der Deklaration Benedikts eine Reihe riesiger grammatikalischer Fehler enthält, die bereits 2013 von bedeutenden Klassikern wie Luciano Canfora und Wilfried Stroh festgestellt wurden. Das Fehlen des majestätischen Plurals „nos“, der in offiziellen Dokumenten immer verwendet wird, ist schon überraschend, aber Bruder Bugnolo, der mehr als 9000 Seiten des Heiligen Bonaventura übersetzt hat, hat vierzig weitere sprachliche Unvollkommenheiten festgestellt: Verben, die fälschlicherweise konjugiert werden, „decisionem“ anstelle des korrekten „consilium“, „vobis“ anstelle von „vobiscum“, die irrtümliche Verwendung von „explorata“, um „untersucht“ zu sagen, usw. Die vollständige Liste kann hier https://fromrome.info/2020/06/10/clamorous-errors-in-the-latin-of-the-renunciation-2/ eingesehen werden.

Aber das größte Problem ist die Konstruktion von Ratzingers Text, die den päpstlichen Rücktritt ungültig macht. Seit er 1983 von Johannes Paul II. und Ratzinger reformiert wurde, verlangt der Codex des Kirchenrechts den Rücktritt des „munus petrino“ – des Amtes (einschließlich Abgabe der Verantwortung) des Papsttums, das von Gott und vom heiligen Petrus kommt. (Zuvor musste der Papst nur „renuntio“ sagen – „Ich trete zurück“ – und die Änderung der Forderung von 1983 wurde wahrscheinlich hinzugefügt, um mögliche zukünftige päpstliche Abdankungen zu verstärken.)

In seiner Declaratio schreibt Ratzinger, dass seine Kraft aufgrund des fortschreitenden Alters „nicht mehr geeignet ist, das munus petrino angemessen auszuüben“. Er sagt jedoch keineswegs, dass er darauf verzichtet, sondern vielmehr: „Im Bewußtsein des Ernstes dieses Aktes erkläre ich daher mit voller Freiheit, auf das Amt des Bischofs von Rom…, zu verzichten“ – [declaro me MINISTERIO Episcopi Romae…renuntiare]. So zitiert er am Anfang der Declaratio das munus in allgemeiner Form, aber dann erklärt er formell nur den Verzicht auf das Ministerium, das nach Meinung vieler Experten für die Gültigkeit des Aktes völlig nutzlos ist. Es wäre so, als würde ein abdankender König sagen, er verzichte auf die Ausübung seiner Macht, ohne auf den Thron zu verzichten, den er durch göttliches Recht erlangt hat.

Unter anderem schreibt Ratzinger nicht einmal „renuntio“, sondern vielmehr „declaro renuntiare“, was nicht bedeutet, dass sein Rücktritt aufrichtig ist, so wie „der Liebe erklären“ nicht unbedingt „Liebe“ entspricht. Angenommen, Benedikt wäre unter Druck gesetzt worden – zum Beispiel vor die Wahl gestellt worden, entweder zurückzutreten oder den Vatikan in Konkurs gehen zu lassen (siehe dazu die bekannte Affäre um die Annullierung des vatikanischen SWIFT-Codes und die Sperrung vatikanischer Bankkonten, die in den Wochen vor dem Rücktritt im Jahr 2013 stattfand) – hätte er sich frei entscheiden können, „seinen Rücktritt zu erklären“ – was etwas ganz anderes ist als zu sagen „ich trete aus freien Stücken zurück“.

Eine weitere von Bugnolo aufgeworfene Frage: Warum schrieb Ratzinger, dass der Sitz nach 18 Tagen leer sein würde? Der Rücktrittsakt sollte den Sitz entweder ab dem Zeitpunkt des Todes oder des Rücktritts des Papstes vakant machen.

Der Streit um das Wort „munus“ ist nicht neu, und er ist von Vittorio Messori, Antonio Socci und anderen maßgeblichen Vatikanisten ausführlich behandelt worden. Aber nun hat Bruder Alexis zum ersten Mal enthüllt, dass in allen Übersetzungen der Deklaration (auf der Website des Vatikans) das Wort „munus“ auch mit „Dienst“ übersetzt wird, womit zwei Vorrechte, die das kanonische Recht klar voneinander unterscheidet, in einer Bedeutung zusammengeführt werden. Bruder Bugnolo erklärt: „Wer hat diese Übersetzungen autorisiert? Munus sollte perfekt in alle Sprachen übersetzt werden können. Dies ist der Beweis dafür, dass der Vatikan versucht hat, die grundlegende Unterscheidung aufzuheben, die Papst Benedikt in seinem jüngsten Buchinterview „Ein Leben“ nur neu formuliert hat, indem er erklärte, er behalte das „spirituelle Amt“ (spirituelle Zuordnung) bei, nachdem er auf die konkrete Vollmacht verzichtet habe. Er ist nach wie vor der amtierende Pontifex und trägt weiterhin das weiße Gewand, um den Apostolischen Segen zu erteilen und seinen Namen P.P., Pontifex Pontificum, den Titel, der dem amtierenden Papst zusteht, zu unterzeichnen“. (Es sei daran erinnert, dass die einzige Erklärung, die Ratzinger für die Beibehaltung der weißen päpstlichen Robe abgab, lautete: „Es gab keine schwarzen Roben in seiner Garderobe“.)

2016 antwortete Monsignore Giuseppe Sciacca, Bischof-Sekretär der Apostolischen Signatura, in einem für Laien völlig unverständlichen, äußerst technischen Artikel auf die Auseinandersetzungen um den munus. „Wie ein kluger Anwalt“, sagt Bruder Bugnolo, „sagt Sciacca zu Recht, dass die Macht nicht zwischen zwei Päpsten aufgeteilt werden kann, aber er nimmt die Gültigkeit des Rücktritts als gegeben hin, und dann weicht er der eigentlichen Frage aus. Er sagt dann, dass der Verzicht auf das Ministerium automatisch den Verzicht auf das munus einschließt, aber in Wirklichkeit ist das nicht wahr, denn Benedikt hätte leicht einen Vikar ernennen können, der das Ministerium leitet, und gleichzeitig sein eigenes Amt behalten können, das munus, das auch für theologische und dogmatische Fragen, nicht nur für kanonische, wesentlich ist, da es direkt von Gott kommt“.

Dann gibt es noch andere sehr seltsame Anomalien in den vom Vatikan veröffentlichten Übersetzungen des Lateinischen:” declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet“. Wie Bruder Bugnolo präzisiert, wird das Englische „in such a way, that “ [auf solcher Weise] von Ratzinger im Lateinischen als „ut“ geschrieben, was jedoch mit „so that“ [so daß] übersetzt werden müsste. Im Gegensatz dazu würde “in such a way, that” im Lateinischen korrekterweise als “quomodo” wiedergegeben werden.

Dies sind zwei sehr unterschiedliche Dinge: „in such a way, that“ setzt den absoluten juristischen Automatismus eines Tat-Folge-Verhältnisses voraus. Im Gegensatz dazu kann “so that” auch eine versteckte Absicht oder eine erwünschte Wirkung, die absichtlich erzeugt wird, offenbaren. Es ist der Unterschied zwischen einem äußeren und natürlichen „Weise“ im Vergleich zu einem subjektiven „Zweck“.

Es ist zum Beispiel nicht korrekt zu sagen: „Ich lege den Köder auf solcher Weise in die Falle, dass die Maus gefangen werden kann“, denn es ist nicht selbstverständlich, dass die Maus auf die Täuschung hereinfällt. Vielmehr muss gesagt werden: „Ich lege den Köder so in die Falle, dass die Maus gefangen werden kann“, denn es ist keine Selbstverständlichkeit, dass die Maus auf die Täuschung hereinfällt.

Stellen wir uns einen Moment lang vor, Benedikt wäre tatsächlich zur Abdankung gezwungen: Er schreibt deshalb, dass „er erklärt, von seinem „Dienst“ zurückzutreten“, „SO DASS“ der Stuhl frei werden kann… also vielleicht auch durch die Aktion der Usurpatoren. Hätte er tatsächlich „in such a way, that “ geschrieben, hätte er implizit die Gültigkeit seines Rücktritts zugegeben. Tatsächlich hat er es aber nicht getan.

[Anmerkung des Übersetzers: Im Gegensatz zur englischen Übersetzung, im deutschen Text der Deklaration gilt dieses Argument nicht. Das Wort „ministerium“ im oben zitierten lateinischen Satz wird (wie oben schon erwähnt) fälschlicherweise mit „Amt“ übersetzt, und demzufolge wird es keinen Sinn machen, „ut“ mit „auf solcher Weise“ zu übersetzen, da es bereits (fälschlicherweise) den Anschein hat, dass im Hauptsatz auf das Amt verzichtet wird. Eine Diskussion darüber findet sich im Blog „From Rome“ https://fromrome.info/2019/04/08/the-vatican-has-known-all-along-that-benedicts-renunciation-was-invalid-as-written-and-heres-the-proof/ ]

Hier ist eine weitere Anomalie: Warum schreibt Benedikt, dass das neue Konklave „VON DENEN, DIE KOMPETENT UND ZUSTÄNDIG SIND“, und nicht „von Ihnen Kardinälen“ einberufen werden muss? Das klingt wie eine Delegitimierung, da es offensichtlich die Kardinäle wären, zu denen er spricht, die das Konklave bilden müssten. Es ist, als ob der Senatspräsident, wenn er von einem künftigen Präsidenten der Republik spricht, sagen würde, dass er „von denen gewählt werden muss, in deren Zuständigkeitsbereich er fällt“ und nicht, wie offensichtlich, „von Ihnen Ministern des Parlaments“.

Außerdem gibt Ratzinger nicht das PRÄZISE DATUM des neuen, wahren Konklaves für die Wahl des Papstes an. Er sagt nur, dass dieses Konklave einberufen werden muss, NACHDEM DER SITZ VAKANT WIRD, was in Wirklichkeit der Moment nach seinem Tod ist. Deshalb wäre die gültige Wahl des neuen Pontifex in diesem Fall nur die Zuständigkeit EINIGER KARDINALIEN, die vor dem Kommen des Bergoglio ernannt wurden und die bereit sind, den stattgefundenen „Putsch“ anzuerkennen. In der Tat wären die von Bergoglio ernannten Kardinäle nicht rechtsgültig, weil sie von einem ungültigen Papst stammten, weil der Rücktritt ungültig war. Für den Fall, dass noch viele Jahre vergehen und die von Benedikt oder Johannes Paul II. geschaffenen „rechtmäßigen“ Kardinäle nicht mehr leben oder nicht mehr aktiv sind, müsste der neue Pontifex, wie in der Antike, von der römischen Kirche gewählt werden.

So gesehen müsste ein neues Konklave deshalb „von denjenigen einberufen werden, in deren Zuständigkeit es fällt“ und nicht von den Kardinälen, an die er sich wendet. Die Logik ist tadellos.

Ist dies politische Fiktion? Oder ist es eine Deklaration, die, obwohl sie verpfuscht zu sein scheint,, wenn man sie richtig liest, sich als ein Dokument von unzerbrechlicher „Ratzinger’scher“ Kohärenz entpuppt?

Bruder Bugnolo ist sich sicher: Die Fehler im Lateinischen waren von Ratzinger beabsichtigt, um die Aufmerksamkeit auf die Ungültigkeit des Dokuments zu lenken und damit, wenn es aufmerksam gelesen wird, die Wahrheit zu gegebener Zeit zum Vorschein käme. Dieselbe Meinung vertritt auch der Wiener Rechtsanwalt Arthur H. Lambauer, ein ausgewiesener Völkerrechtler, der bereits 2013 auf die Anomalien hingewiesen hatte: „Ich glaube, dass Benedikt absichtlich Fehler gemacht hat, um seinen Nachfolger ungültig zu machen, so dass er nichts Unwiderrufliches schaffen würde (Homo-Ehe, weiblicher Diakonat, etc.) und damit der Nachfolger, wenn nötig, weggefegt werden könnte“.

Vor allem gibt es eine objektive und unbestreitbare Tatsache: In diesen seltsamen 18 Tagen, die von der „Resignation“ bis zum vakanten Sitz verstrichen sind (die in der Regel von der Resignation ausgehen sollte), war niemand in der Lage oder wollte die von Benedikt so „schlecht“ geschriebene Deklaration korrigieren. Warum? Und doch liegt es in der spezifischen Kompetenz der Kardinäle, den Papst auf fürsorgliche Weise zu korrigieren, wenn er sich im Irrtum befindet. „Dies zeigt“, so Bruder Bugnolo, „dass die Kardinäle illoyal und in ihrer Eile, die Macht zu übernehmen, verblendet waren, während andere Beamte des Apostolischen Sekretariats, die sicherlich nicht versäumt haben konnten, gewisse Fehler zu bemerken, „Komplizen“ Benedikts waren, die sich des Tricks wohl bewusst waren, und sie schwiegen, damit eines Tages „die Bombe hochgehen würde“. In beiden Fällen wird eine Usurpation aufgedeckt.“

Lassen Sie uns einige Einwände betrachten: „Vielleicht kann Ratzinger nicht gut genug Latein oder er war schon zu alt, um es gut zu schreiben“. Es ist schwer zu glauben, dass der deutsche Theologe, der vierzehn Jahre lang das Oberhaupt der Glaubenskongregation war, der Autor herausragender Schriften in Latein ist, nicht wusste, wie er diesen Text schreiben sollte. Außerdem ist der Papst von hervorragenden Lateinern umgeben, die ihm hätten helfen können. Im Februar 2013 war er mental so klar, dass er in der Lage war, eine spontane Rede von 58 Minuten zu halten. „Auf jeden Fall“, antwortet Bruder Alexis, „bliebe die Ungültigkeit bestehen, denn die Resignation erfordert nicht nur volle geistige Klarheit, sondern auch absolute Kenntnis des kanonischen Rechts“.

Ein weiterer möglicher Einwand ist: „Vielleicht hat es ein anderer geschrieben, der nicht gut Latein kann“. Aber wenn Ratzinger dazu gezwungen wurde, das Dokument so zu verfassen oder es gar von einem Fälscher stammt, warum sollten sie es dann so konstruieren, dass es kanonisch ungültig wäre?

Eine letzte mögliche Kritik: „Benedikt XVI. würde niemals jemanden täuschen.“ Tatsächlich hat Papst Benedikt niemanden getäuscht, er schrieb lediglich einen Rücktritt des Ministeriums. Laut Bruder Bugnolo gibt es andere, die sich nicht anschauen wollten, was tatsächlich geschrieben wurde und wie Benedikt sich seit 2013 verhalten hat. So hätten sie sich aus ihrer Machtgier getäuscht.

Bei der ersten Lesung lässt Sie all dies verwirrt zurück: Es erscheint absurd, aber schrecklich kohärent. In diesem Fall macht es keinen Sinn, den üblichen Vorwurf zu erheben, alles als „Verschwörungstheorie“ abzutun, denn hier gibt es Fakten, die eine Erklärung verdienen, die EBENSO logisch und kohärent ist.

In der säkularen Welt kann eine Erbschaft für weitaus weniger rechtlich angefochten werden, und dennoch wurde die Frage der Gültigkeit des Rücktritts eines Papstes vom Thron des Petrus sehr schnell, ja vielleicht sogar zu schnell, für erledigt gehalten. Wie geht es weiter? Die Argumente von Bruder Bugnolo stützen sich auf die Beweise und liefern auch ein Motiv, das sie erklärt. Vielleicht werden sie einfach ignoriert und verspottet, oder aber ihr Autor wird wahrscheinlich eine Reihe von Angriffen ad personam erleben. Wir werden sehen, was passiert.

Übersetzt von Sean Hyland in Zusammenarbeit mit Anna Pellegrino

_________

Quellenangabe: Das gezeigte Bild ist ein Ausschnitt aus einem Foto, das unter einer Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported-Lizenz verbreitet wurde, Quelle: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Benedict_XVI_Blessing-2.jpg

 

Russo to Schneider: We must believe Benedict, when he says he is still the pope

logo

MARCOTOSATTI.COM

Authorized English translation by FromRome.Info

Due Papi, Due Domande Impellenti, Una Risposta urgente.

by Marco Tosatti

Dear Friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae: a friend of our community, Sergio Russo, author of the book about which about which we spoke some time ago, Sei tu quello o dobbiamo aspettarne un altro? (Are you the one or should we expect another?), has sent us a reflection which seems to us particularly interesting and stimulating on the strange situation in which we we are living, and about which we have spoken in recent days.  Have a good read!

§ § §

Two Impelling Questions
which necessitate an urgent answer

by Sergio Russo

The first is: “Is Pope Francis a pope in every way, or not?”

The second, which is consequent upon the first, is: “Is Pope Benedict XVI still the pope, or not?”

I offer my personal contribution to the present debate, taking occasion also from the recent intervention by the Mons. Athanasius Schneider (dated Feb. 28, 2020) published originally in English at the site LIfeSite News, and also in French translation on the blog, Le Blog de Jeanne Smits.

Therefore, I will list here simply a series of facts, and not of argumentations, leaving it to the Reader to form his own opinion on the matter, knowing well, however, that contra factum non valet argumentum (against a fact no argument is valid).

  • Both academics and experts of things theological, as well as simple faithful, have noted how, from the date of March 13, 2013, even unto today, there has been created an unheard of situation, never before happening in the two thousand year history of the Church: the co-existence and co-habitation in the Vatican of two popes.
  • All of these, however, know well that the expression, “pope emeritus”, plays on the congruence/assonance of “Bishop Emeritus” and “Cardinal Emeritus”, and that, besides, it is not ordained by any canon of ecclesiastical law, neither past nor present …
    Moreover, it is to be noted – and here it basically returns to the same univocity which occurs in effect in the principle — just as there is, thus, no “priest emeritus”, so also, both the academic and the faithful have always known (but perhaps today the way to understand things has changed?) that there absolutely is no other kind of pope, neither Emeritus nor Presiding, and more so, and this by “una contraddizione, che nol consente … (a contradiction which does not consent to it)”, as Dante would say, since — and all believing Catholics have always held this as valid — the pope is the symbol and guarantor of unity in the Catholic Church, and She is one Body (though Mystical, but a true body), which cannot have but one sole Head!
    Therefore, not a two-headed Body, which would be a monstrosity, and neither a headless body, which would instead be a deficiency: as a matter of fact, one alone is the Christ, one alone is the Church, one alone the Faith, one alone the Vicar of Christ and one alone the Head of the Church …. and this is what the two-thousand year Magisterium of the Church has always affirmed, without the least hesitation!
  • Pope Francis, on the one hand would be the pope in every way, since he was licitly elected by all the Cardinals, united in a lawful Conclave (and which consequently is indubitable)
  • On the other hand, we are given to know that the election of Pope Francis (and this is also indubitable) might not be equally valid, since according to a declaration — never denied — of the now late Belgian Cardinal Godfried Dannels, present in his book-biography, which reports the admissions of the prelate made to the journalists, J. Mettepenningen and K. Schelkens, the said Cardinal revealed to them that a group of Cardinals and Bishops (to which he also belonged) worked for years to prepare for the election of J. M. Bergoglio, seeing that all of these porporati were opponents of Joseph Ratzinger: it was, in fact, a group which was kept secret, which the same Cardinal Danneels defined as “a mafia club, which bore the name of St. Gall”.
    And this type of agreement, according to the Apostolic Constitution of Saint John Paul II, Universi Dominic Gregis, which regulates the “vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff”, falls under a latae sententiae excommunication, as is clearly affirmed in nn. 77, 81, and 82:

    « Confirming also the prescriptions of our Predecessors, I prohibit anyone, even if he is marked with the dignity of the Cardinalate, to make agreements, while the Pope is alive and without having consulted him, about the election of His Successor, or promise votes, or take decisions in this regard in private meetings » (n.79);
    « The Cardinal Electors are to abstain, moreover, from every form of vote-canvassing, agreements, promises or other pledges of any kind, which can constrain them to give or deny their vote to one or another.  If such in reality would happen, even if under the obligation of a vow, I decree that such a pledge be null and invalid and that no one is bound to observe it; and from this moment I impose the excommunication latae sententiae upon the transgressors of this prohibition.» (n.81);
    « Equally, I forbid to the Cardinals to make, before an election, formal agreements, whether to receive pledges of common agreement, obliging themselves to put them into effect in the case that one of them be elevated to the Pontificate.  Even these promises, as much as they might be made, even under the obligation of an oath, I declare null and invalid » (n.82).

  • It is good to repeat that the “Renunciation” of Benedict XVI (according to his own admission) was truly made in full awareness and without any constraint … and yet that such a “renunciation” cannot be held to be truly such, since (and this is the seventh one which has occurred in the course of the two thousand years of Church history) all those who did renounce the papacy afterwards returned to their prior status as before thier election: and hence he who was a Bishop or Cardinal, returned to being a Bishop or Cardinal … he who was before a hermit, returned to be a hermit … (if one remembers the events of Pope Celestine V and Pietro da Morrone!), and hence none remained pope (not even an “emeritus”, or any other kind), by continuing to wear the white cassock, by maintaining the papal coat of arms, by signing wtih the name of the Pontiff, etc..
  • Hence, just as, if one must believe that Benedict XVI posited his “renunciation” in total autonomy and independence … so and equally, one must believe in what He himself declared:  “… When, on April 19 nearly 8 years ago I accepted to assume the petrine ministry … from that moment on I was engaged always and for always by the Lord …  The “always” is also a “for always”, there is no longer a return to the private: My decision to renounce the active exerciste of the ministry, does not revoke this ” (Benedict XVI, Wednesday General Audience of Feb. 27, 2013, Piazza S. Petro).
    And hence, through his own same admission, Benedict XVI is always and still pope, whether others say so or not.
    Therefore, in this case more than ever, there is required by all a firm intellectual coherence: if we ought to believe and hold as true the words of the Holy Father about His own renunciation, we ought, on the other hand and equally, believe and hold as true the just mentioned words pronounced by Benedict XVI, which affirm that he remains still and always pope!
  • In conclusion, how can one explain, then, such an apparent and present unresolved situation in the Church … what, in substance, ought we hold to have clear ideas and not to let ourselves be overwhelmed, even us, by such a contemporary “confusion”?

The solution is supplied us both by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, but as something requiring of us the highest attention and correct discernment ….

It is Our Lady Herself, in fact, who asks us to pay attention to Her words, left in our own days at Fatima, in which She speaks, both of the Holy Father, and of a Bishop dressed in white.

The Divine Providence has also arranged, also in our own days, that Pope John Paul II elevated to the honors of the altar the Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich, making in this way known to all believers her singular visions, especailly those in which she saw “the Church of the two popes”, the Church of always, faithful to the Magisterium, at whose head is the Holy Father, and another “new” church: big, strange and extravagant … (and, moreover, that the warnings, in part from the Mother of God are truly very many: the Miraculous Medal, La Salette, Fatima, Garabandal, the Marian Movement of Priests and many, many others …).

And, at last, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in nn. 675-677), in which it informs, that, in our own days, all the faithful will be called to confront a “final test”, capable of shocking the faith of many believers, since in it there will be revealed the “mystery of iniquity”, able to provide an apparent solution to contemporary men, under the form of a religious impostiture, and it will be then that we will have to decide on which side to stand: whether with the Anti-Christ (the Anti-Church and the Anti-Gospel, as even John Paul II was wont to say), though this at the cost of apostasy from the Truth, in joining in such a manner the “new church”, great and lauded by the world, as ecological and ecumenical, which concerns itself primarily with the poor … or if we would remain with the Church of always, even if it is today seen in a bad light by the world, which reputs Her as integralist and fundamentalist, to remain with the holy Magisterium, held even today as antiquated, and faithful to the Gospel of Christ, the one and true God, our Savior and Redeemer: “Whom we hold most dear!”

This is an authorized translation of the original at

MARCOTOSATTI.COM

logo

ABC in 2013: Benedict planned never to leave the Vatican

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

A lot of information about what happened in 2013 merits to be look at again, with an impartial eye. Here is just one report, filed by ABC News on Feb. 12, 2013, the day after Pope Benedict read his Declaratio:

There is something stunning in this report, namely, that Pope Benedict had the Monastery Mater Ecclesiae restructured for months prior to his Act on Feb. 11, 2013, with the intent never to leave the Vatican. His brother is also interviewed as saying that the Pope was prepared months in advance and well thought out his act.

As a side matter, it says that Pope Benedict XVI had a pace maker installed in his heart, in the Fall of 2012.

The problem with the testimony of this report and that of his brother, is, How on earth can you prepare to resign for months in advance and still end up reading a Latin text with more than 40 errors in the Latin and at least 10 canonical errors in the formula of resignation?

We must return to the highly authoritative testimony of his brother: It was well thought out and no one forced him to do it.

The only conclusion possible is, then, that Pope Benedict XVI never intended to renounce according to the norm of Canon 332 §2 and leave the Vatican as Cardinal or Bishop Joseph Ratzinger. He fully and deliberately intended to remain the Pope.

For more on this, see the articles on How Benedict has defeated “Francis”, Benedict’s End Game is to defend the Church from Freemasonry, and The Imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI.

___________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot from the Video embedded in this article, both of which are used in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

 

CNN in 2013: Italian press says Benedict’s act was one of desperation

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

A lot of historical facts have been erased or forgotten or altered, to keep the narrative going that Bergoglo is the Pope. But some of them still remain. Here is a video report from CNN, dated seven years ago, Feb. 25, 2013, which says that Benedict despaired at all the corruption in the Vatican and that this was a prime motive for his act of Feb. 11, 2013.

Seven years later, the swift denials of the Vatican back then are seen for what they are. But the then unnoticed, and now noticeable, detail among them is that the Vatican spokesman characterized them as attempts to discredit the future pope.

Why would that be?

Unless of course the menace of the corruption had something to do with the invalidity of the Renunciation? And that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was involved somehow in both.

For more on this, see the articles on How Benedict has defeated “Francis”, Benedict’s End Game is to defend the Church from Freemasonry, and The Imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI.

_________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the Video embedded in this article, both of which are used in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

 

We need to re-examine the Renunciation minus Gänswein

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

So many lines of supposition, speculation, investigation, analysis and examination pursued theories and explanations of Pope Benedict’s actions in February 2013 and beyond, on the basis of what Georg Gänswein told us. We presumed he was telling the truth, that he was reliable, faithful, honest and expressed only what the Holy Father wanted him to say.

Now that the masque has been ripped off by multiple reports (Socci, Tosatti 1 2, Viganò, myself) the entire history of the Renunciation needs to be examined minus Gänswein, that is, without presuming he is telling the truth.

Here are some questions I propose for investigators as they reread the reports from 2005 to 2020, which talk about Pope Benedict, the opposition he faced, why he Renounced, what it all meant:

  • Was Gänswein co-opted into the St. Gallen Mafia as early as the Conclave of 2005? I move this question on the basis of the testimony of Marco Tosatti’s source in the Curia, that something profoundly changed Gänswein with the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope.
  • Is it Gänswein who put into the head of Benedict the idea that he should, could, or must renounce?
  • Did Gänswein over several years psychologically condition Benedict to renounce?
  • Did Gänswein encourage or foster ideas of renunciation at the request of Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
  • Did Gänswein allow Pope Benedict’s letters to be stolen from his desk during the Vatileaks as a part of a plot by the St. Gallen Mafia to psychologically isolate, reduce and destroy Pope Benedict, inducing him to resign?
  • Did Gänswein play a double role in the fall of 2012, so as to obtain from Benedict the elevation to Archbishop and Head of the Pontifical Household, precisely so he could serve the St Gallen Mafia as a prison warden after the Renunciation?
  • Did Gänswein write the text of the Renunciation?
  • Did Gänswein sign off on the concept of a renunciation of ministry, based on his recourse to the German translation of the code in canon 145 §1?
  • Is Gänswein bitterly defending the validity of the Renunciation because of his role in procuring it, forming it, directing it?
  • Is the presumption that the Renunciation means a renunciation of office something which Gänswein put into the head of Pope Benedict, in a weakened state, by means of gaslighting, as he tried to do with me via phone?
  • Is the presumption of the Cardinals that the Renunciation is valid or means a renunciation of the papacy, based on Gänswein’s claim that this is what Benedict means and meant and wants?
  • Is the refusal to clarify the questions after the Renunciation have everything to do with Gänswein and nothing to do with Benedict?
  • Is Benedict BEING KEPT A VIRTUAL PRISONER AND ABUSED on a daily basis to prevent him from communicating to the world that he never intended to renounce the munus petrinum?
  • Does Benedict know he is the pope and say he is the pope in private?
  • Are the public statements attributed to Pope Benedict XVI after Feb. 2013 the creations of Gänswein and not at all the faithful expressions of the mind of Pope Benedict?
  • Since we can now be morally certain that Benedict does NOT tell Gänswein everything, how can we be sure that Gänswein even understands or knows what Pope Benedict’s Intention was when he read out his Declaratio on Feb. 11, 2013?

These questions are devastating, but the Church and all historians who examine the Renunciation must NOW ask them and must find the answers.

 + + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

Why Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori would say the Renunciation was invalid

59df1d354eaef6243f7823c2_version_719

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Saints who have been canonized are already in the glory of Paradise, and so, baring an extraordinary grace, do not speak to us anymore. But those Saints who have fully explained their opinions or teaching on any point, can be said to speak to us today. This is especially true of Saints who have taught on questions of law and the principles to be followed in controversies.  Of which kind is Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori, Doctor of the Church on all questions of moral theology, and not a few questions of law.

No one has the right to interpret a Papal Resignation

As I reported in my notes for my meeting with Bishop Arrieta, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legal Texts — who is the top Vatican official for questions of legal interpretation — he emphatically declared, that no one has the right to interpret a Papal Resignation. It must be clear in itself.

This statement by Bishop Arrieta clears up the entire controversy over the renunciation of Pope Benedict. Because, it ends it.  That is, since Pope Benedict XVI renounced the ministerium, not anything else. No one has the right to say that he renounced the Papal Office or petrine Munus or even power of governance.  Because to say that something else, requires an interpretation. And no one, not even the man who is the pope, has the right to interpret the act of renunciation.

But the statement of Bishop Arrieta is not of his own making. It is the necessary conclusion of legal principles.  First, that a declaration made by the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, and not the pope, cannot be judged by anyone except according to the norm of law. And since a declaration by such man when regarding the renunciation of the Office regards the renouncing of the Office, one cannot appeal to the holder of the office to interpret it. Because if it was valid, then the holder is no longer the holder, and thus cannot receive appeals. If it was not valid, then appealing to the holder of the office is tantamount to declaring the renunciation in valid.

Any appeal to Pope Benedict XVI to clarify what he meant means that the Resignation is invalid

This is a very important point, which has been overlooked in this 7 year controversy. Anyone who appeals to anything which Pope Benedict said before or after Feb. 28, 2013, to explain that the Renunciation means the renunciation of the papacy, or of the petrine munus, or of the power of governance IS IMPLICITLY AFFIRMING THAT POPE BENEDICT IS STILL THE POPE AND THAT THE RENUNCIATION WAS INVALID, because they are trying to have recourse to an official interpretation. And if the act needs to be interpreted, then it is doubtful. And if the renunciation is doubtful, then in virtue of canon 332 §2, it is invalid for lack of due manifestation.

What Saint Alphonsus says about the interpretation of a law:

For those who have overdosed on the falsehood of universal acceptance, and quote Saint Alphonsus, let us see what the Saint would say about the games the authors of such sophisms play with the words “munus” and “ministerium,” to make the Resignation say what it does not say.  For this we must have recourse to the teaching of Saint Alphonsus, taken from his great work, Theologia Moralis, Bk. I, tract ii, p. 242, De interpretatio legis. I will first quote the Latin, for those who can read Latin, and then give an English translation:

DE INTERPRETATIO LEGIS

200. Interpretatio alia est Authentica, alia Usualis, alia Doctrinalis. Authentica fieri potest vel ab ipso legislatore, vel ab eius successore, aut a superiore. Usualis est illa, quae ita ab usu est recepta. Doctrinalis autem est declaratio quaedam mentis legislatoris, quase a quocumque doctore fieri potest.

Hic dubitur an delcarationes, quae fiunt a Pontifice, vel a principe alicuius legis, indigeant promulgatione, ut obligent. In hoc distinguere oportet declarationes pure tales ab aliis quae sunt non pure tales, sed potius sunt merae interpretationes. Declarationes pure tales sunt, cum ab illis explicatur aliquis sensus, qui usque ab initio iam erat clare imbibitus in lege: ex. gr. si dubium sit, an sub verbo filii intelligatur solus legitimus aut eitam spurius, et legislator declarat intelligi etiam spurium, tunc verum fit quod sensus in lege erat clare imbibitus. Interpretatio autem, sive declaratio non pure talis est illa, cuius sensus non est clare imbibitus in lege, sed circa ipsum variae sunt opiniones, et tantum deducitur ex argumentis, v. gr. quod sub nomine patris intelligatur eitam avus, aut quod sub nomine moartis intelligatur etiam mors civilis, prout est carcer perpetuus, aut simile, recurrendo ad quamdam impropriam significationem.

His positis, dicimus cum Suarez, Castropal. Vasques, Sals, Salm. Holzaman, La-Croix, Supplet Sporger etc. quod declaratio sensus clare imbibiti in lege non requirit promulagationem, sed etiam obliget eos omnes qui illum noverint, cum talis declaratio non sit nova lex. Interpretatio vero alicuius sensus non clare, sed tantum obscure, sive improprie imbibiti in lege, quae est declaratio non pure talis (ut diximus) haec, quia habetur tanquam nova lex, ut obliget, necessario promulgationem requirit, sicut omnes aliae leges juxta dicta. n. 95 et 96. Hinc infertur cum Suar. de Leg. 1. 6. c. 1. n. 3 et Castrop. tr. 3. eod. tit. d. 5. p. 3. §. 1. n. 5 (qui citat pro se Bon. Salas, et Lorca) quod declaratio, quae fit a legislatore alicuius sensus clare in lege imbibiti (juxta exemplum adductum filii legitimi, et spurii) non requirit promulgatioem, ut obliget. Contra vero declaratio sensus obscure imbibiti (juxta exemplus avi sub nomine patris, vel mortis civilils sub nomine mortis) indiget quidem promulgatione; tunc enim ipsa novam constituit obligationem, quae per se non erat prius clare in lege imbibita. Et idem dicunt Suar. loc. cit. et Castrop. n. 2 de illis declarationibus, quae fiunt non ab eodem legislatore, sed ab eius successore, aut superiore; quia legislatoris mens nequit his esse ita cognita, ut erat ipsi legislatori; unde tunc, ut declaretur sensus (quamvis imbibitus in lege) alicuius obligationis, semper opus est recurrere ad argumenta, et interpretationes, quae novam legam constituunt, reddendo certum quod erat dubium; et ideo promulgatio requiritur, alias declaratio nunquam authentica, sed tantum doctrinalis repubabitur.

My English translation:

On the Interpretation of Law

200. One interpretation is authentic, another customary, another academic.  An authentic (interpretation) can be made either by the legislator himself, and/or by his successor, or by a superior. A customary (interpretation) is that, which has been received thus by custom.  Moreover, an academic (interpretation) is a certain declaration of the mind of the legislator, which can be made by any professor.

Here, there is doubted whether declarations, which are made by the Pontiff, and/or by a prince for any law, are in need of promulgation, to oblige.  In this, it is necessary to distinguish those which are purely such from those which are not purely such, but rather mere interpretations.  Declarations are purely such, when by them there is explicated some sense, which was clearly incorporated in the law already from the beginning: e. g., if there be a doubt, whether under the term, “son” there be understood only a legitimate or even an illegitimate son, and the the legislator declares (the word “son” in the law”) is to be understood even as an illegitimate one, then indeed it becomes that (that) sense in the law was clearly incorporated in the law.  But an interpretation, or declaration which is not purely such, is that, the sense of which is not clearly incorporated in the law, but about which there are various opinions, and as much as is deduced through arguments, e. g., that under the term, “father”, there be understood also a grandfather, or that under the term, “death”, there be also understood a civil death, insofar as is perpetual incarceration, or the like, by recurring to a certain improper signification.

With these things posited, We say with Suarez, Castropal., Vasquez, Sals. Salimancans, Holzman, La-Croix, Supplet Sporget etc.., that the declaration of a sense clearly incorporated in the law does not require promulgation, but that it also obliges all those who know of it, though such a declaration is not a new law.  But an interpretation of some sense not clearly, but obscurely, or improperly incorporated in the law, which is not a declaration purely such (as we have said above), this (kind), because it is held to be a new law, to oblige, requires necessarily a promulgation, just as all other laws spoke of in nn. 95 and 96.  Hence, there is inferred with Suarez de Leg. 1. 6. c. 1. n. 3 and Castrop. tr. 3. eod. tit. d. 5. p. 3. §. 1. n. 5 (qui citat pro se Bon. Salas, et Lorca), that a declaration, which is made by the legislator of any sense clearly incorporated in the law (according to the example given above of the legitimate and illegitimate son) does not require a promulgation, to oblige. However, contrariwise, the declaration of a sense obscurely incorporated (according to the example given of a grandfather under the term of “father”, and/or of a civil death under the term of “death”) do indeed need a promulgation; for then it itself constitutes a new obligation, which per se was not beforehand clearly incorporated in the law. And the same is said by Suarez. loc. cit, and Castrop. n. 2, of those declarations, which are not made by the ssame legislator, but by his successor, or superior; because the mind of the legislator is never so known to other as it was to the legislator himself: on which account, then, to declare the sense (though incorporated in the law) of any obligation, it is always necessary to have recourse to arguments, and interpretations, which constitute a new law, by rendering certain what was doubtful; and for that reason a promulgation is required, otherwise the declaration is never an authentic one, but only is reputed to be a doctrinal one.

Thus, Saint Alphonsus.

What the teaching of Saint Alphonsus on Legal interpretation means in regard to the Renunciation

From this text, we can glean three truths.

  1. When the meaning is clearly incorporated into the law, that meaning is the authentic one, and its sense is binding upon all, as for example, when Benedict says he renounces the ministry, all are obliged to understand that as a renunciation of ministry.
  2. When the word which is subject to a possible interpretation is a noun which includes all possible interpretations according to its essential signification, such as “son” includes natural and legal sons, not just legal sons, then the interpretation is a customary one and is obliging upon all, once the legislator declares that his mind was to include all such possibilities.  But before such a declaration it is not binding.
  3. When the word which is subject to a possible interpretation is a noun, which DOES NOT include the possible wanted interpretation, such as “ministerium” in the text of Pope Benedict’s resignation is wanted to mean “munus” or “officium” which are entirely other words, then the interpretation is NOT AUTHENTIC and is not binding upon anyone, and only can become binding, when promulgated by the legislator or his successors.

And thus one can conclude, from the testimony of Bishop Arrieta and Saint Alphonsus, that the interpretation of the Cardinals and Bishops that Benedict’s renunciation of ministry is equivalent in law, or signification, or intention, to a resignation of the Papal Office or Petrine Munus, is not only an illegitimate interpretation, but is an interpretation which is not binding upon anyone!

Moreover, one can conclude, that even if hypothetically any successor of Pope Benedict XVI were to say that such a reading of the text (where ministerium = munus) is the one Benedict intended, then the act itself posited by Benedict was invalid as per canon 332 §2, since it was not duly manifest in itself, but required another promulgated interpretation to make it valid.

And this means that the very existence of the plot to solve the Pope Emeritus problem is not only evidence that the resignation was invalid from the start, but is DOOMED TO FAILURE since as an interpretation of the act, its very promulgation will publicly testify to and canonically establish the invalidity of the renunciation!

In other words, there is no way to fix the invalidity of the resignation by any subsequent act. And what the Cardinals and Bishops are doing is GRAVELY IMMORAL AND DISHONEST and, moreover, is a grave USURPATION OF RIGHT.

One can also honestly say, therefore, that the usurpation of the Papacy by Bergoglio is a moral consequence of the usurpation of the right of interpretation by the Cardinals, and that Bergoglio’s bizarre moral character and state of mind is the perfect fruit of and punishment for their sin.

Father Martin Santiago’s Prophetic Homily of March 3, 2013

This video is in Spanish, but has English subtitles, and the entire transcript in English can be found at the Wild Voice, which has been a prophetic leader on the web, warning the Church about the St Gallen Mafia from the beginning. — Father Martin seems to be a former worker at the Vatican during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Says he knows Joseph Ratzinger personally.

In this homily, Father Santiago reveals how widespread the hatred and opposition for Pope Benedict was among the clergy and how there was exuberant rejoicing at this resignation. All signs which point to the real motivations for refusing to recognize the Renunciation was invalid. (See, How Benedict has defeated ‘Francis’ and, How Cardinal Sodano robbed the papacy from Pope Benedict). This also explains why its no exaggeration to suppose that Benedict has been imprisoned, not in a jail, but by an entire faction which wants him forever silenced.

Father Santiago, just as importantly, explains that he knew of the goals of the St. Gallen Mafia to attack Church teaching and overthrow the faith, and he warns against them. A warning, alas, which went unheeded, because the revolutionaries were already in charge at the Vatican.

 

An Index to Pope Benedict’s Renunciation

So much has been written about Pope Benedict’s renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013, that it is easy to forget or miss important articles. Since a lot of visitors who come to The From Rome Blog want to read about Benedict’s renunciation, it is helpful to have in one post, a list of all the Articles published here.

This is a topical, not chronological list: that is, it lists articles according to what aspect of the controversy they principally deal with, not according to the date they were published.

Before reading any of the Articles, see this public notice about FACTS VS CONJECTURE

And make sure to read the last section, which is the MOST important: What we must now do!

header

An Index to our Articles on Pope Benedict’s Renunciation

The Renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013

Latin Text of Non Solum propter

Vernacular Translations of Non solum propter

The History of the Claim that the Text means Benedict resigned the Papacy

Why Pope Benedict Renounced the Ministry which He had received from the Cardinals

What Pope Benedict says His resignation means and meant

  1. Pope Benedict XVI says that it was never his intention to resign the Veranvortung (Munus, spiritual Mandate)
  2. Pope Benedict XVI in Feb. 2013 said in every way possible that He had not resigned the Papacy
  3. Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 14, 2013 explained to the Clergy of Rome how to see that He had not resigned the Papacy
  4. How the Vatican’s attempt to get Benedict to call Bergoglio the Pope failed in June 2019
  5. Dr. Mazza’s study of Pope Benedict’s writings shows conclusively he knew what he was doing, and that he never intended to resign fully, which is explained in the analysis of Dr. Mazza’s study.
  6. Pope Benedict XVI explains to Seewald that He never resigned the munus.

What in truth does the Act of Renouncing the Ministry mean or effect?

  1. Jesus Christ’s Point of view on this.
  2. Pope John Paul II admitted that a Papal renunciation could be invalid.
  3. The 6 Canonical Errors in the Act of Renunciation, which deprive it of all effect.
  4. The Canonical Argument that the Act does not cause the loss of the Papacy (ppbxvi.org)
  5. Video Explanation, prepared by Brian Murphy with input from Br. Bugnolo
  6. Ann Barnhardt’s authoritative Video on Substantial Error
  7. L’argomento canonico che dimostra che la Rinuncia non effettua la perdita del papato
  8. What Pope John Paul II taught about Munus and Ministerium, and how it binds the whole Church.
  9. The Magisterial Teaching of Pope Boniface VIII regarding the necessity of renouncing the Munus
  10. Why Saint Alponsus dei Liguori would say that the Renunciation, as written, is invalid.
  11. Why, on account of only resigning the Ministry, Pope Benedict made it dogmatically impossible that Bergoglio be the Pope
  12. Why, on account of only resigning the Ministry. Pope Benedict made it canonically impossible that Bergoglio’s election as pope was valid.

A Scholastic Investigation into the Canonical Meaning of the Resignation

Here Br. Bugnolo has gathered all the major arguments for and against and shows which side has the better argument.

The Dubious Arguments and outright Falsehoods used to defend that the renunciation caused Benedict to lose the Papacy

CONFIRMATIONS FROM ROME THAT BENEDICT IS STILL THE POPE

WHAT CATHOLICS SHOULD DO IN RESPONSE

Feb 14, 2013: Pope Benedict warned Roman Clergy that He had not resigned

The evidence is there for all who want to see it. But you can only see it if you pay attention and think about what you are looking at and hearing.

Thus it was that 3 days after His declaration of renouncing the Ministry, Pope Benedict calls together all the Clergy of Rome to give them an impromptu talk, nearly an hour long.

On what?  His renunciation of the Papacy?

NO NOT AT ALL!

On what then?

On the history of Vatican II and how what it intended to do was overcome by the Conspiracy of the Main Stream Media of that day to present the Council as advocating and teaching something entirely different.

Sound familiar?

Yes, because that is what exactly happened THREE DAYS BEFORE, when upon announcing His decision to renounce the petrine ministry, so as to dedicate himself to prayer, the Main Stream Media depicted what he did as a renunciation of the Papacy!

Thus, on Feb. 14, Pope Benedict to correct this error speaks to the entire Clergy of Rome and explains how Vatican II was misinterpreted and how the truth must come out by presenting the reality of what it did and said and not repeating what the Media claimed had happened.

During which discourse he says explicitly, “Now that I have decided to retire…”!

Note what he says.

He never says, “Now, that I have announced my renunciation of the Papacy”.

He is speaking for nearly an hour with eyes raised in the air, NOT reading from a script.

Does that sound like someone who has to resign because of frailty?

In short, Pope Benedict was giving the Roman Clergy all the information and principles of discernment to realize one day in the future, that He had not renounced the Papacy and was still their Bishop.

This is the brilliant mind of a man who can think 10 steps ahead of his enemies, and spill the beans in broad daylight without them realizing that he is undermining their coup d’etat.

This is a man who also profoundly realizes that he does not know, whether anyone around him can be trusted with the truth, so he speaks in parables. And it fits perfectly with all the other things he did that fateful month of February, 2011, as you can see from my report, “Benedict said in every way that He he did not resign“.

Finally, he indicates His trust in the Clergy of Rome that they will discover the truth one day, when, while referring to the preparations for the Second Vatican Council, he points out that the real fruitfulness of that ecclesial meeting lay in the fact that all the Bishops took the responsibility to join in prayer, action and small group meetings to discuss what was to be done, thereby indicating that the Clergy of Rome will be able to resolve this problem when they begin to do the same.

The original talk of Our Holy Father was in Italian, but an English translation is available:

__________

La Stampa, one of the leading Marxist papers of Italy, did not realize it at the time, but as of the Spring of 2019, when the proof that the Renunciation was invalid was widely publicized, they removed their entire report and left only the photo of the event.