No Comment

NOTA BENE:  The interview has now been debunked as a complete fraud as regards its principle claim:

Hence, Benedict’s tacit consent remains standing. He is has refused to admit that his resignation was valid. I say, “refused”, because the object of the interview was to make him say that, but there is no quote to that effect, other than in the Vatican News Article yesterday about the interview. Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that Benedict refused to make such a reply and what reply he did make they refused to publish.


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

9 thoughts on “No Comment”

  1. As Sandro Magister recently reported, a few days ago all the German Liberals had a meeting at the Vatican to contrive something, Magister did not know. Perhaps it was the text of this interview?

  2. Never believe anything in Rome until it’s been officially denied, as any experienced Vaticanista will tell you.

    Excellent points and reading between the lines.

    I too believe Antipope Francis is running scared. He and his minions cooked up this scheme of Benedict’s alleged denial of his own papacy from Benedict’s mouth precisely to marginalize us, the opposition. Now all the old ladies will say—“See! Even Benedict says Francis is the true pope!”

    You and I and Ann are nuts don’t you see, Brother!

    It’ll make them all feel a lot better about Bergoglio and Bergoglio’s Heresy du Jour. it may not make them feel better about married and female clergy but now they can duck that issue too, “because Pope Benedict said Francis is Pope!”

  3. Dear Br. Bugnolo, have you thought any more about Pope Benedict having recourse to the virtue of Equity? Is it possible that the precise Latin shows that he renounced the exercise of the powers of governing and teaching while wholly retaining both the Petrine Ministry and the Papal Office? If so then these are some thoughts:

    Since (as his words may indicate) he never intended to resign either the ministry or the office (in order to safeguard both), he did not err in regards to Canon 332.2 by saying ministerium rather than munus. Moreover, unlike error, which has no right, the Vicar of Christ has every right to bind and loose in accord with Divine Will. Did God will that His Church would be indefectible and Her teachings immutable and that Her visible head be infallible in matters of faith and morals? In our time, is Pope Benedict the one and only vessel by which these promises can be kept? Similar to God in His creating Our Blessed Mother Immaculate, “It was reasonable, He could do it and He did” so too Pope Benedict (unlike error) had the right and recourse to do what was reasonable. He could do it and he did–without error because error has no right but the Vicar of Christ has every right.

    Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts.

    1. What he intended to do is not the point. What was done is the point. We should not speculate more upon the intentions of a person, whom we can write and ask a question. If you think this, write him and ask him. I personally incline more to the fact that his resignation was forced and he tried to consequently destroy the malign forces behind the force, but that this requires for his personal safety that he say nothing. His decision not to refute the Brief I sent him is a clear signal for all who are sons of truth. As it stands, whether he ever admits or does not admit, no matter what he says, it remains the resignation was invalid, if by resignation you mean that which is stated and required in canon 332 § 2. I have never disputed the validity of a papal act of renouncing ministry, only that there is no such thing in Church Law, and even if papal power can create such a thing, you cannot make your vicar a pope by means of it.

      1. Thank you for your time and your input, Br. I agree on and have commented frequently on Pope Benedict’s silence being a mantle of protection for him and Christ’s Bride and not an indication of malice or cowardice on his part.

        I do not mean to be obtuse in asking these next questions, but would you clarify what you mean when you say, “you cannot make your vicar a pope by means of an act that although not in Church Law might possibly be valid”? To be very clear, in rephrasing your statement I do not intend to misrepresent what you have actually said, please correct me if I have done so. Rather, I am simply wrestling with the moral certitude that I have been given that not only is Benedict Pope BUT the added intuition that it matters that his decision because of the Keys(?) contains no error in form (as is clear, we may never know his motivations). To that same end, would you also clarify for me what you mean when you say that “I have never disputed the validity of a papal act of renouncing ministry”. By this do you mean 1.) that if such an act were done it would have no error in it and 2.) is renouncing the exercise of two powers that same as “renouncing ministry”?

        I do so very much appreciate all that you have brought to light and continue to bring to light in this most crucial discussion as well as the liberty you allow for open discussion on your blog. Thank you!

      2. Your scruples are difficult to understand. There is only one Pope in the sense of one Successor of Saint Peter. The Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria calls himself a Pope. Can a pope make a pope who is not a pope. It would be an act of deception, therefore unjust and therefore invalid. Equity regards justice, not injustice. An act can be as an act valid, but in its effect invalid, because in the first sense one speaks of validity inasmuch as it regards the act issuing from the proper authority. In the second, as regards whether the act conforms with the norms of the Natural, Divine, Moral, Evangelical or Canon Law. As for a pope resigning the ministry alone, as Benedict did, yes he could and leave the SoS to rule the Vatican. But the SoS could not nominate bishops or make disciplinary or dogmatic decisions, as he is not the pope.

  4. If Bergoglio is an antipope, then we might just be living through the 7 year tribulation. If this is the case, then it would explain why all human efforts to solve this crisis have thus far failed, since it is God’s permissive will that this situation continue. If this is the case, then I would expect something big to happen around February, 2020 or anytime between now and then in keeping with the phrase “If those days had not been cut short, nobody would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, those days will be shortened…”

Comments are closed.