The Herculean Power struggle behind the Pope’s flight to Germany

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Just last month, Seewald revealed that Pope Benedict XVI had decided to address the world and put to rest any controversy over what he did in February 2013 by leaving for posterity — after his death — a spiritual testament.

This explosive admission was the cause of much speculation here at Rome. For it is known, that a pope has the power to name his successor, alter the laws for the election of a successor or make any sort of other profound changes, in such a document.

Where was the document being kept? With a close confident? At Rome?

Speculation swirled around 2 possibilities.

First, that the document is hidden in his office, at the Monastery of Mater Ecclesiae at the heart of the Vatican Gardens.

Second, that he had entrusted the document to his brother George Ratzinger.

Now that the Pope has at last be allowed to leave Rome on a trip, his offices are now free to be rifled and searched for the document. The Vatican in the last seven years has been caught falsifying many documents: from the translations of the Act of Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013, which I exposed last year, to personal letters by the Roman Pontiff on diverse topics.  Can we really find any difficulty in supposing that the Vatican pushed Benedict out or allowed him to leave, so as to find this document and forge a copy which will praise Bergoglio profusely after the death of Pope Benedict?

Or did Benedict XVI go to Regensburg to recover the document from his brother?

Is the vice Commandant of the Vatican Police at Regensburg for the purposes of uncovering the existence of such a document and reporting its contents to the Vatican?

These are some of the deeper questions which must be raised about the Pope’s trip to Germany.

Other questions remain:

  1. Why does the Diocese of Regensburg say that Pope Benedict XVI’s visit is a private one, if he is not the pope?
  2. Did the pope travel on a Vatican passport or a German passport.  If on a Vatican passport, then as a member of the staff of the Secretary of State — unlikely — or as a head of state — meaning he is still the Pope.
  3. Why did the Republic of Italy fly him in a military aircraft to Germany? That is an honor accorded only to the Head of State of the Vatican.
  4. Why did Pope Benedict XVI have recourse to Gianni, the dismissed head of the Vatican Police — now working for Italian Secret Intelligence — to arrange his flight from Rome? Gianni was reprimanded by Bergoglio and forced to sign a statement declaring Bergoglio “Successor of Saint Peter”. The chose of Gianni indicates that Benedict turned to someone who recognizes that he, not Bergoglio, is still the pope, or at least, to someone not corrupted by Bergoglio.
  5. What will become of Pope Benedict XVI’s private library and papers?
  6. If the Holy Father should die outside of Italy, will he ever receive a Papal Funeral, or was he driven out to deny him this honor?

+ + +


[simple-payment id=”5295″]

+ + +

If you would like to support FromRome.Info, click the banner below.


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

6 thoughts on “The Herculean Power struggle behind the Pope’s flight to Germany”

  1. Yes, who knows about any of this besides God? The whole thing is like a Malachi Martin novel transpiring before our eyes. Both mysterious and fantastic.

  2. Reverend Brother Bugnolo, I don’t know the source for your statement that Pope Benedict XVI “had decided to address the world and put to rest any controversy over what he did in February 2013 by leaving for posterity — after his death — a spiritual testament.” At least the German version of Peter Seewald’s biography, which should be the original, since both men are native Germans, has not more than Seewald’s question: “Sie wollten kein geistliches Testament schreiben. Haben Sie es inzwischen getan?” (i.e. “You did not want to write a spiritual testament. Have you meanwhile done it?”) and Benedict’s simple answer: “Ja.” (i.e. “Yes.”) There is not the slightest hint to what might be the content of this spiritual testament. So, any claim, that it might concern what Benedict XVI did in February 2013, is pure speculation as long as there is no other source than the interview included in Seewald’s biography.

    1. Pope Benedict XVI has made it clear many many times that his decision to renounce was a key act in his spiritual view of the papacy. It is also the most controversial aspect of his pontificate. In Western Civilization a Testament is a document which is read after death whereby you explain what you are leaving to posterity. That his Testament has nothing to do with Feb 2013 is therefore a pure supposition on your part, and on the contrary, that it has something to do with it not a conjecture, but the logical conclusion of the man’s thought. Indeed, his comments in his recent Biography by Seewald make it clear that his concept of retaining the Spiritual Mandate of the papacy even now explains why he has done and what he is doing. A Testament is a document of importance explaining one’s life. Why call it that, if it were not that? Otherwise he would have called it “Notes, or a Farewell, etc..”. As an historical example cf. the Testament of Saint Francis of Assisi.

      Unlike many in Germany, the rest of the West are not nominalists. We do believe that words have meanings Thus your argument is simply a gratuitous supposition which takes Cartesian doubt as its first principle and concludes in denying the ability to know what a man means to say by the words he uses for his actions. This is the same hermenutic used during the last 7 years, which tells us that in renouncing ministerium he intended to renounce munus, because after all, words do not mean what they mean, it is our reading of his gestures which gives them meaning. That is simply not a catholic approach to reality. You will undoubtedly still call my words conjecture, but they are just as much a conjecture, as my own inference from your name that you are female. I do not call such an inference a conjecture. So I think we disagree on fundamental points of semiotics, logic, epistemology and metaphysics.

Comments are closed.