On that White Cassock which continues to reproach the Globalists

Why Benedict XVI continues to wear the White Soutaine, even without the mantle and sash

by Andrea Cionci

English Translation published by FromRome.Info

Today Bergoglio declared that “seeds of love must be sown and CLERICAL LEGALISMS are dry soil.” HERE

It is a bit striking that this invitation comes in the very days in which the resignation of Ratzinger and therefore his election as “Pope Francis” is being questioned – at the legal level.

Sinning with a certain aridity, or trusting in the fact that, as the Church has been repeating for 2000 years, “Veritas summa charitas est”, we try to examine an event in which several accounts do not add up.

The world has never explained why Benedict XVI did not abandon the white robe after his Declaration of resignation – now presumed (since no one responds to the many legal challenges) – in which he announced a renunciation of the throne of Peter that was never ratified, HERE and that, moreover, seems to have been constructed in an invalid way HERE .

One hypothesis could be that he continues to wear white because he never resigned. He has given up only two accessories of the pope’s robe, the cape and the sash, as a symbol of the factual renunciation of two practical functions: to govern the boat of Peter and to proclaim the Gospel, as written in the Declaratio. Otherwise he keeps the robe white because he continues to be the only legitimate pope.

DETAILS

The issue of the white robe also aroused the public stigmatization, in December, of Card. Pell: “A resigning pope should be reinstated in the College of Cardinals so that he is known as ‘Cardinal X, pope emeritus’ SHOULD NOT DRESS WHITE and should not teach publicly.” HERE

To date, the only official explanation for this “outfit” has been one that Ratzinger himself sent, in 2014, to vaticanist Andrea Tornielli (later the Vatican press office chief appointed by Bergoglio). HERE

“In the letter he sent us,” Tornielli reports, “the Pope Emeritus also answers questions about the meaning of the white habit and the papal name. “The maintenance of the white habit and the name Benedict is something simply practical. At the moment of renunciation there were no other clothes available. After all, I wear the white habit in a way that is clearly distinct from that of the Pope.'”

What would you think? Given that the title of the article is: “Ratzinger: my renunciation is valid, absurd to speculate”, however surreal the answer, one is inclined, at first, to imagine that, after the abdication, Benedict had not put back on the cardinal’s BLACK robe edged in red because he had only white clothes in his closet.

Yet, reading in Peter Seewald’s 2016 interview book “Ein Leben,” Ratzinger recounts how his choice had been planned for several months and, as per his 2016 statements sent to Corriere della Sera, he thought about writing the Declaratio as much as two weeks in advance.

Could it be that with all this anticipation Benedict had not provided himself with a black cardinal’s robe? Had he not kept any black cassocks from the old days? Was there no ecclesiastical supplier who could rent one to the Pope? And over the next eight years did he not find a tailor who was up to the task?

Then a question to ask H.E. Card. Pell is legitimate: “Is it possible that Benedict XVI continues to wear white precisely because he is NOT a RESIGNER, as he has never validly resigned?”.

Several books have been written on this subject: HERE AND HERE

So, let’s try to change perspective and make a hypothesis: Benedict has renounced his sash and cape only because he has factually renounced two practical functions of his office, but he is still the pope and therefore the robe remains white.

In fact it is true that he has renounced the ministry, but understood as ministerium (exercise). In fact, he has been inactive for eight years from the practical-administrative point of view, how can we deny it?

WARNING: As already explained in the past, canon law divides the role of the pope in munus (divine assignment) and ministerium (practical exercise), but in Italian both are translated with the word ministry.

So, that Benedict has renounced one of the two “ministries” (the ministerium, not the munus) and that he does not practically administer the Church, nor does he announce the Gospel (practical functions) is well established.

This is why he wrote to Tornielli: “There is not the slightest doubt about the validity of my renunciation of the Petrine ministry. The speculations about it are simply absurd.” No, indeed, there is no doubt.

However, it is different from interpreting this sentence as: “My Declaratio was a ratified act with full juridical validity of renunciation of the ministry understood as munus, and therefore it was a renunciation of the papacy”.

Example: let’s imagine a guy whose car has been stolen. If he says: “There is no doubt that I am now disoriented” it is true, but this cannot be interpreted tout court as: “I sold the car, and for this reason I am disoriented”. In the first case, an accident suffered leads Tizio to not be able to use the car, in the second case it is a legally valid act signed by him that makes him stay on foot. It is true that Ratzinger freely wanted to renounce the practical exercise, as he himself says, but this does not imply that he ratified it, nor does it imply that this made him resign as pope.

IN SYNTHESIS: a logical explanation for why Benedict XVI today continues to wear white, with a cassock lacking two accessories, could be because he has actually renounced two functions of the practical exercise, but WITHOUT resigning as pope.

It is common practice for prelates not to wear a cape and sash when indoors. It is no coincidence that Pope Emeritus Ratzinger wears the impaired cassock because he is always indoors, while still remaining the pope. “A practical solution,” as, indeed, he points out.

Alternative explanations, do we have any?

4 thoughts on “On that White Cassock which continues to reproach the Globalists”

  1. The answer to *why* His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, continues to act as Pope, even as he is allegedly abdicated from Pope is always some variation of this: “It doesn’t matter what he does, he resigned and that’s that”.

    In other words, further objective evidence is not relevant, wanted or subject to consideration. This is profoundly anti-Catholic, which is fundamentally unafraid of new facts and discoveries. We have Truth, and they don’t. Bring it on!

    Declaring oneself a Pope Emeritus is akin to a Pope declaring that apples fall from a tree and go up, henceforth. There is a new law of gravity, updated for the modern world.

    “Well … he IS the Pope, with ultimate authority to rule in Christ’s holy name, but … do apples really fall … up? No, no, no, no! I can see it. They still fall straight down to the ground!”

    “Doesn’t matter. The Pope has decided and declared: apples do not fall down, but up. His word is infallible. The Church has spoken, the Pope’s Magisterium declares – up, not down.”

    “But, I see them falling down, not up.”

    “Doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter. Magisterium. Infallible. Christ’s Vicar. Power to rule. Etc, etc.”

    These are not serious people, and they are not worthy of engagement because they are unwilling at a fundamental level to see facts that are clear as the sun. It is what it is, and I do not need to persuade them to know it is true. Apples fall down, not up. One Pope at a time and Peter can never retire from being himself alongside other Peters.

    I see the straight line, though it is hard these days to remain there with little help and assistance in a dangerous world, but … it is still there and I will remain on it, with God’s Grace. Thanks be to God!

  2. No truly elected Pope can change the significance of the Papacy. If Sankt Gallen Mafia ever thought otherwise they are not only unschooled but completely duped by Satan. The fact that Christendom has had to endure the reign of an Antipope for eight years as no-one in the College of Cardinals has shown slightest uneasiness in serving under a usurper, demonstrates their own unworthiness of the Offices they hold. They have broken with Tradition & therefore with the OHCA Church itself & must remove themselves from its domain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.