Introduction by FromRome.Info
followed by the English translation
Click the image to read the original Italian of Andrea Cionci’s article at the Libero: The Juridical Proof of Attorney Acosta: the Resignation rendered invalid purposefully by Pope Benedict XVI himself. — In which, Cionci reviews the new book which proves that Benedict XVI is still the pope. According to Cionci, the thesis of Attorney Acosta, an attorney of civil law in Colombia, is the same as that first moved by Br. Bugnolo, that the Renunciation was written with the precise intention of fooling the St. Gallen Mafia and making itself evident as valid to the Faithful of Christ, in time, so as to prevent the Papal Office from falling into the hands of the enemies of God and humanity. Cionci summarized Br. Bugnolo’s thesis in English here. — Acosta’s book was presented by FromRome.info here.
by Andrea Cionci
Official Blog at Il Libero Quotidiano
WARNING: What follows, at first glance, will seem to be a sort of Dan Brown novel, or a technical-legal mess. If you are not already a biased and hostile reader, who will immediately relegate us among the Flat-earthers, follow us with a little open-mindedness. It is really worth it. For our part, we will try to simplify the matter to the extreme, even with “down to earth” examples.
A really irritating pope emeritus….
“There is only one pope,” Ratzinger has been saying for eight years, but he doesn’t explain which one it is. The mainstream media tries to get him to say at all costs that the pope is Francis, but they can’t. Here.
In short, it really gets on his nerves, this “pope emeritus”: he continues to wear white, to bear the title of Pontifex pontificum, to impart the apostolic blessing, to write books, to give interviews, to speak on moral issues and church life. In short, he annoyingly continues to act as if he has remained pope, albeit in spiritual retreat. And he NEVER admits that the only pope is Francis. He simply and sibilantly says that of pope THERE IS ONLY ONE, as in his latest interview with Corriere: Here
Capricious and useless provocations, then, just for the sake of sending a billion Catholics to the psychoanalyst? Even Card. Pell has realized that Benedict can not continue with these ambiguous “weirdness. However, let us try to remember who Ratzinger was: for some he was too traditionalist, for others a crypto-modernist, but humanly speaking, everyone recognized him as a gentle and humble man, a rigorous philosopher, a wise theologian.
Now, then, would he have turned into an extravagant, spiteful and vain old man? Let us consider.
The shocking thesis, but not too much
There is only one hypothesis that balances all the accounts and we summarize it for you in a nutshell: the key to the mystery of the two popes is to be found in the strategic and intelligent way in which Benedict wrote a specially invalidated resignation and in how he behaved after the resignation.
Focus on this: although, at first, it will seem like a puzzle, there is a logic to it, and we will discover it with those in the business.
But immediately the objection will come up: why would Benedict have engineered all this?
Perhaps, as many claim, because he was besieged by an internal faction (the well-known Mafia of St. Gallen) and/or by international pressure, as when Obama blocked the Swift code of the Vatican accounts: here.
According to some, the “old-style” Catholic Church was the last obstacle to globalist and supranational designs aimed at creating, in addition to the rest, a new syncretist and eco-Masonic religion. Here.
Therefore, the ploy of invalid resignation was the only thing that Ratzinger, left alone and surrounded by hostile media, could do to save the Church.
For eight years, with his behavior, Benedict has been trying to make us understand that the Pope is HIM and ONLY HIM, with actions and words.
Fantasies? Let’s talk about it.
The first juridical text that confirms everything comes out
This thesis had already been partly put forward by us here in an article where we focused on the strange Latin errors in Ratzinger’s resignation declaration: they were used to draw attention to a document written on purpose that was invalid.
This time to confirm the hypothesis comes the first LEGAL TEXT dedicated to the issue: “Benedict XVI: Pope “Emeritus”?, a volume of nearly 300 pages published in English, Spanish and Portuguese, also available in ebook, by the Colombian lawyer and former university professor of civil and commercial law Estefania Acosta here
What really matters
The book addresses technically, all the objections that have been brought forward so far against Bergoglio’s 2013 election: from the intervention of the St. Gallen Mafia – with the resounding statements of Card. Danneels – to the possible state of excommunication of Bergoglio, up to his ventilated membership in Freemasonry etc. etc..
Lawyer Acosta discards many of them, downsizes some and recognizes others as true, but not diriment from a legal point of view.
The presentation of the book explains WHAT REALLY MATTERS to Acosta: “This is the first book to offer, with academic rigor and in a systematic way, the canonical evidence that Benedict XVI has never validly renounced the office of Roman Pontiff and therefore remains the one and only true Pope of the Catholic Church, to which all Catholics owe allegiance and obedience under penalty of schism. As a result of this and other irregularities preceding and concomitant to the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the 2013 conclave, “Francis” is indeed an anti-Pope, that is, he illegitimately occupies the Chair of Peter and, therefore, to recognize him as Pope is, at the very least, an objective denial of the truth.”
Investigation into how the resignation is “constructed”.
Lawyer Acosta explains the matter as follows: “In the book we show how the text of the Declaratio written by Ratzinger was carefully prepared so that, at first, it would not be noticed that Benedict was not resigning from the office of Pontiff at all. In fact, we see how in the statements following his resignation, Benedict will provide various clues so that this reality can be discovered through careful analysis of the text, which – not surprisingly – is full of Latin errors to attract attention. Additional clues are also the fact that Benedict continues to wear white (justifying himself with the surreal phrase that “he no longer has black cassocks in his closet” ed.); then he wanted to maintain his residence in the Vatican, his name, his apostolic blessing and continues to insistently repeat that “there is only one pope” without stating which one he is…”
(… clapping his hand on the armrest, as if to say “Suckers!”, ed.).
“Mind you,” Acosta continues, “the key to the invalidity of the resignation does not lie in the fact that Benedict was ‘forced’. Benedict acted freely in the sense that he knew very well what he was doing, he knew that he would continue to be the Pope because he was not resigning from BEING the Pope (munus) but simply declaring that he was renouncing to DO the Pope (ministerium) or to carry out (moreover, only some) of the practical actions that the pontiff carries out. And this invalidates his resignation, as we shall see, since “being” and “doing” are indivisible for the pope. For this reason, Ratzinger has, coherently, just declared to Corriere della Sera: “Eight years ago I made my choice IN FULL CONSCIOUSNESS AND I HAVE MY CONSCIOUSNESS RIGHT”.
All planned, then, but not in the sense in which the conformist media want to see it. Probably, Benedict followed this strategy to let the “deep Church”, as Bishop Viganò calls it, reveal itself for what it is, and for its intentions. He adopted Bergoglio’s tactic of “opening processes and not occupying spaces”: he let things evolve on their own and on the progressive awareness of the faithful, since it is not possible for him to proclaim autonomously a truth that would be silenced by the guardians of political correctness.
The key juridical node highlighted by Acosta
The key point is that one cannot BE pope WITHOUT ALSO COMPLETELY BEING pope because munus (being) and ministerium (doing) are indivisible, something also reiterated by the Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature Msgr. Sciacca in 2019, (ed.).
Ratzinger declares in his resignation – that, since the practical exercise (ministerium) that involves BEING the pope (munus) has become burdensome for him, then he renounces DOING some things as pope (such as “proclaiming the Gospel and governing Peter’s boat”). It never weighed on him to BE the pope. It only weighed on him to do some of the practical things the pope does.
But this statement of his does NOT imply that he no longer IS the pope.
Since Munus and ministerium are indivisible, for him not to be pope, he doesn’t even have to do anything as pope.
Understand? If the pope wants to resign, he cannot keep the munus (the BEING) and give up only the burdensome things of the ministerium (the DOING). Too convenient. That is why Ratzinger’s resignation is cleverly and consciously constructed as a JURIDIC NONSENSE.
So Benedict HAS NEVER RESIGNED because the resignation is INVALID and the Pope IS STILL HIM, and ONLY HIM since, as everyone keeps repeating: the Pope IS – ONLY – ONE”.
And in fact, as proof, Benedict XVI continues “annoyingly” to dress in white, to sign himself Pastor pastorum, etc..
Card. Pell protests his conduct and the mainstream media tries to patch it up, as above.
A banal metaphor
Is your head spinning? Understandable, but let’s try an earthy example, so as not to stress ourselves too much. Let’s imagine a guy named Carlo saying:
“You know: the things to do that involve BEING Lucia’s husband have become very burdensome, so I declare that I give up doing them, ergo I AM no longer Lucia’s husband”.
This sentence does not authorize Carlo to no longer BE Lucia’s husband, even if he no longer does some of the more burdensome husbandly things.
As long as there is no legal divorce with the loss of all marital rights and duties, Carlo is Lucia’s husband and she cannot marry Franco her new lover.
If Franco claims to be Lucia’s lawful husband, without the divorce with Carlo having taken place, Franco is lying and is liable to prosecution.
It is subtle, but try to go to court with your wife and declare yourself already divorced as Carlo proposes: let’s see what the judge answers.
In short, Ratzinger did not “accidentally make a mistake” in writing his resignation because it is constructed according to a legal logic that is not accidental; he consistently continues to be the pope and to do so “in the middle”, which is legally impossible. So if he says that the pope is one, he implicitly tells us that his resignation is invalid and that he was forced into this contrivance.
Now, beyond the technical aspect, where you can get lost for a moment if you are not a jurist, the scenario outlined, as incredible as it is, makes all the pieces of the puzzle fit together and in fact, the meek Benedict – the only Vicar of the incarnate Logos left on earth – apart from veiling his language, has always told the truth, behaving consistently with his statement and his style of man and religious. A trick? No. After all, he had to do, or not, something to defend the Church from those who pressured him to send him away? It is the fault of the “others” if, blinded by their eagerness for power, they did not realize that the Declaratio was not legally valid and constitutes, today, for them, a sort of time bomb.
Acosta concludes: “Ratzinger is ambiguous in order not to lie, knowing that in certain cases and under certain conditions ambiguity is morally justified. That’s why he never answers clearly, that’s why his answers are enigmatic, that’s why his “resignation” is just as “coded”: it seemed that he resigned from being the pope but in reality, what he does is “renounce” some practical functions that according to him correspond to the pope. And that fractional, incomplete or partial “renunciation” is not valid because it goes against the divine law: it goes against the institution of the Papacy that rests on a single head, which Jesus did by choosing only Peter as pope, and it goes against the fullness of powers that, by divine right, the pontificate enjoys”.
Now let’s see if some of the conservatives will pick up the input, perhaps even receding (with a pinch of good will) from some granitic position and risking something, and let’s see if the Bergoglian modernists will know how to respond in tone and dismantle this reconstruction.
Probably the usual scornful accusations of conspiracy, walls of indifference, personal attacks, or perhaps useless answers of the type: “The pope is the pope” will arrive. Unfortunately, that is precisely the doubt.
Such reactions would be even more counterproductive than the already heavy, latest self-serving goals of mainstream thinking, all on Bergoglio’s side.
There is no need to attack, we are open. Let there be a debate and may the best win on a technical-juridical basis, as long as the exchange is between people who are on point, lucid, intellectually honest and interested in the Truth.