In today’s Libero:
AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY FROMROME.INFO
Cliccare l’immagine per il testo originale italiano.
For the Portuguese translation, click here.
For the French translation, click here.
For the Spanish Translation in PDF, click here.
Ratzinger’s unequivocal text: “I have not abdicated”.
If a pope does not abdicate, there cannot be another conclave. Bergoglio would be invalid.
We would not have two popes, but “half”: a pope without practical exercise of power.
by Andrea Cionci
“There is only one pope,” Benedict XVI has been repeating for eight years, without ever explaining which one is which.
Perhaps he can not say; nevertheless, we have located a text where Ratzinger clarifies that although he, with the 2013 Declaratio, “resigned” by renouncing the “ministerium” (the practical functions), he has not at all “abdicated”, on the other hand, the divinely created title of pope: the “munus.” — Words are important: resigning is giving up functions, abdicating is giving up the title of a sovereign.
Boring “clerical legalisms,” as Bergoglio says? — No. This is a huge problem – one that is carefully avoided in public debate – because if a living pope does not abdicate, by completely laying aside the munus, another conclave cannot be called. Even from a theological point of view, the Holy Spirit does not direct the election of the pope in an illegitimate conclave. The “Pope Francis” therefore, would never have existed, he would only be a “bishop dressed in white”, as in the Third Secret of Fatima, and no one further, in his line of succession, would be a true pope. — It is therefore worth applying ourselves to the question.
But let me show you the documented proof. In his “Last Conversations” (Garzanti 2016,), the book-length interview by Peter Seewald of Pope Benedict XVI, the journalist asks: “With you, for the first time in the history of the Church, a pontiff in the full and effective exercise of his functions has resigned from his “office”. Was there an inner conflict over the decision?” (p. 26)
Benedict replied, “It’s not that simple, of course. No pope has resigned for a thousand years, and even in the first millennium this was an exception: so such a decision must be pondered at length. For me, however, it appeared so obvious that there was no painful inner conflict.”
An absurd statement if we understand the word “resignation” in the common and simple sense that we use in the English language. For in the last thousand years (1016-2016) there have been no less than four popes who have renounced the throne, (including the famous Celestine V in 1294) and, in the first millennium of the papacy (33-1033), there were six others. — Perhaps, then, Ratzinger does not know the history of the Church so well?
Yet, his sentence makes perfectly coherent sense if we understand that “resigning” (from the ministerium, as Ratzinger did) does not at all entail “abdicating” (from the munus). The – vaguely confusing – distinction between munus and ministerium was formalized at the canonical level in 1983, but it is entirely functional for Benedict XVI to get across a very clear message.
He, in fact, is not talking about popes who have abdicated, but about those who have resigned like him, that is, those who have abandoned the ministerium, without abdicating.
It all makes sense: the “exception” of the first millennium of which Ratzinger speaks is that of Benedict VIII — known in life as Theophylact of the Counts of Tusculum — who, having been ousted in 1012 by the antipope Gregory VI, had to give up for a few months the ministerium, the exercise of power, but did not lose the munus of pope, much so that he was then reinstated on the throne by German Emperor Henry II. In the second millennium, however, no pope has ever renounced only the ministerium, while four popes have, however, abdicated, giving up the munus (and, consequently, also the ministerium).
Consulted on this historical question, Dr. Francesco Mores, professor of Church History at the University of Milan confirmed it, saying: “There is indeed this difference between the first and the second millennium. The decisive junction is the “Gregorian” reform (of 1073). Although in conflict with the secular powers, the popes of the second millennium always maintained a minimum of practical exercise of their power, unlike very few cases in the first millennium: Pontian, Silvester, but, above all, Benedict VIII”.
Ratzinger is clearly telling us that he had to renounce the ministerium like his ancient, homonymous predecessor: if Benedict XVI did it voluntarily, and Benedict VIII did it forcibly, neither of them ever abdicated the munus. If it were not so, how could Ratzinger say, as he did, that no pope has resigned in the second millennium, or that a papal resignation in the first millennium was an exception?
We can cite another proof of this, from Seewald’s other book-length interview of Benedict: “Ein Leben”. On page 1204, Benedict XVI distances himself from Celestine V, who legally abdicated in the second millennium (1294), saying: “The situation of Celestine V was extremely peculiar and could in no way be invoked as (my) precedent.” !
Also in Ein Leben, we note that the word “abdication” appears eight times – nine in the German edition (“Abdankung”) – and is never used in reference to Ratzinger, but only to popes who really abdicated, or who wanted to do it seriously, such as Pius XII to escape the Nazis. For Ratzinger, on the other hand, there is only talk of resignation (“Ruecktritt”).
Today, therefore, we would not have “two popes”, but only “half”: Benedict XVI, devoid of practical power. For this reason, he continues to wear white (although without a the mozzetta), to sign P.P. (Pontifex Pontificum), to live in the Vatican and mysteriously enjoy other papal prerogatives.
Are there any other explanations?
The question can not be passed over lightly: 1,285,000,000 Catholics are entitled to certain and transparent answers: a press conference by Pope Benedict, for example, or a synod with public discussion between bishops and cardinals appointed before 2013.
A clarification should not be delayed.
50 thoughts on “BREAKING: Pope Benedict XVI: “I have not abdicated”!”
The clarification has been wilfully delayed for over eight years because the Bergoglians are entrenched & supported by silent Cardinals & Bishops who have been elevated by bad assignments made by PJPII & PBXVI &, of course, the demonic choices of JB.
Unless the Holy Ghost activates the fencers there is no way in resolving this crisis at the present time. PBXVI could have excommunicated all the bad ones if he wished as he still holds the Munus, but so far has not shown the will to do so. He also should have spoken to the world about Pachamama & the 7M Chinese Catholics – horrible idolatry & simony which grossly affect Catholic Doctrine, as does the present enforcement of a genocidal injection by NWO unelected elites whom JB supports.
There are a lot more answers required to satisfy not only the Catholic laity but Christianity as a whole. They have to a man implicated all of us in their evil doing & we are entitled to hear the canaries sing very soon.
Pope BXVI is prisoner of the Great Reset Team and he can not say a word without filtering
How can he speak to the world? The media is controlled, Pope Benedict XVI stated
“ I cannot give up what was given to me by Christ”
Pope Benedict XVI listened to GOD not man.
Pope Benedict XVI had no power other than that which was given to him by Christ.
Psalms 75:6 For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south.
Proverbs 3:35 The wise shall inherit glory: but shame shall be the promotion of fools.
Who is JB please, not everyone is clued up on abbreviations.
JB are the initials of Jorge Bergoglio
If the cardinals, bishops, canon law experts remain silent now, the stones will cry out the truth: PPBXVI IS THE POPE, AND BERGOGLIO AN ANTIPOPE !
This article needs to be translated in as many languages as possible. Where do I obtain permission for the French translation ?
The author of the original gives permission to have it translated into any language. If you want your translation sent to him, please post it in a comment or a link to it in a comment here.
Si un pape n’abdique pas, il ne peut y avoir de nouveau conclave. Bergoglio serait invalide.
Nous n’aurions pas deux papes, mais un “demi-pape” : un pape sans exercice concret du pouvoir.
par Andrea Cionci, Libero Quotidiano, 4 mai 2021
Traduction autorisée par le père Walter Covens
“A clarification should not be delayed.” AMEN!
Words to know: munus/ministerium and resignation is not renouncement is not abdication
Thank you for your English translation, Br. Bugnolo!
Thank you Br. Bgnolo for yet another service in favor of the truth. We translated it into Portuguese for publication of this news on our blog Katejon, based on its English version. Could you provide us with a copy of the image above?
God bless you!
You can copy the image of the newspaper, with permission. And you can reproduce the article in Portuguese, please let me know of the URL, when it is published.
The Holy Spirit does NOT “choose the pope”–even in a perfectly legitimate conclave. The College of Cardinals and the conclave are not of divine origin.
You’re right. But a lot of us mistakenly thought this. With the present secular “pope, we have seen that the HS had nothing to do with his election.
What is HS please, wish people who post comments would not assume that all readers know what all abbreviations mean.
Here it is: https://katejon.com.br/wordpress/?p=1849#.YJHoae7pI0M
His Majesty, Blessed Karl I, Emperor of Austria and Apostolic King of Hungary refused to abdicate the throne that was a gift from God and an inheritance from his ancestors. Nevertheless, on November 11, 1918, he agreed to withdraw from the active exercise of power and to recognize the form of state which Austrians might choose in a national plebiscite. (A similar declaration was issued for Hungary on November 13.) https://catholicism.org/karl-hapsburg.html
Dr. Mazza in his interview with Dr Marshall about his book,
said Pope (st) JPII separated bishop of rome and pope.
So, if the resignation is only the first,
Then yes this is fatima
1. The bishop who has the impression of pope
2. The true pope
John Paul II did no such thing.
Have you read Dr. Mazza’s?
He said he learned about it.
Please check it first.
I watched his interview
Dr. Mazza is a colleague. Of course I have read him. I have also read Canon Law, which he has not.
I found it. @40-43 mins.
Yes, he did not separated it.
Instead he pointed out that the cardinals are electing the Bishop of Rome who will also do the duty of Pope.
Doctor Mazza said, Pope JPII seem to say that the papacy is granted by God to the elected bishop.
This fits all the missing pieces for me.
No Pope can change anything that Christ instituted as it is His Church not theirs. We are enduring the consequences of VII infiltrators who want to get rid of God’s authority & replace it with Man’s. The Synodal Way is their path to destroy the Papacy by giving Bishops an authority they never had in deciding how they will discern the edicts of the CC. The German Church is a notable example.
The Pope & Vicar of Christ must uphold His Word or he is simply not a validly appointed Pope. Since VII we have had:
Ditching Tradition for Modernism.
Changing the Liturgy of the Mass.
Dumping Latin for umpteen forms of vernacular languages each with a different interpretation attached & therefore not in complete agreement with the original.
Changing the Lord’s Prayer.
Changing the interpretation of the Ten Commandments.
Denying the Deity of Christ.
Denying the existence of Hell.
Denying existence of a “Catholic God’ & therefore His Church.
All ‘religions’ are the same & promoting NWO godless society.
Investing in abortifacients.
We have Canon Lawyers, Historians, Cardinals, Theologians, Journalists all at odds with the Truth which is diabolical, for Truth never changes as it comes from God. I can clearly see Satan’s hand in all this confusion but we mustn’t let ourselves be taken in by those who are either incompetent or lazy despite their high credentials.
Yes. We are living with the Church terribly disfigured. The Traditional Mass, being rooted in the fullness of the Faith, will sustain us until we get a Catholic pope once again. Pope Benedict XVI, please speak out!
Please see my comments above.
I found it. Please check the video.
For me, Pope JPII did no change. He simply showed the proper way of understanding the election. Atleast, I agree to Dr. Mazza’s interpretation.
Agree with all except Mass in vernacular languages. I really like that as it enables me to participate more in the Mass. I do not see why Latin and Novus Ordo cannot co-exist in whole Catholic church.
To aptly quote W.S. Gilbert, “Things are SELDOM what they seem.” Look folks, the church is the nebbish of the kings of this world in EVERY age, from the Italian Risorgimiento, to Napoleon, to the French Revolution, to the Protestant Reformations, to the Moslem aggressors, to the Roman persecutions…can you REALLY be surprised that in the age of Thermo-Nuclear Capable, Freemasonic Superpowers, that their leaders, seen and unseen, would be either unable OR unwilling to insert and enforce their creed of secular-modernism within the political body of the church? Are you a child? Then grow up and comprehend the situation for what it is, yet another secular, literally Satanic interference and persecution of the Catholic church, the worst so far. It will not always be thus, and in some ways it has been worse in the past. And although it may get worse in the future, thank God that things are not worse than they are. Does high-level political warfare affect the Deposit of Faith or the Magisterium of the Churcch? No. Is anyone preventing you from living a Catholic life or attending worship which is observably meet, right, and just? No (making it inconvenient, surely, but not preventing you). My advice, then, would be to go to a Holy Mass (Tridentine or otherwise traditional rites), often and repeatedly, as a public witness that Catholic FAITH and Catholic LIFE transcend the politics of this world.
Thank you. Yes, all we can do – but it is still quite a lot – is live a truly Catholic life, dependent on God and the prayers of his Mother for us.
I think Cardinal Bergoglio knew this, that is why he removed “Vicar of Christ” title, but he continue the deception.
I understand the fatima as the
”bishop wearing white” and “the pope”
will be at the same time.
Many other prophecies states that in “end time” there will be false pope and true pope.
Such as St. Francis of Assisi and Nostradamus.
And “pope” francis confirmed this.
He said he is the “bishop dressed in white”
Plus what you said.
But all popes dress in white, don’t they?
Here is the historical source of the prophecy attributed to St Francis: https://wherepeteris.com/lifesitenews-uses-false-st-francis-quote-to-attack-the-pope/?fbclid=IwAR1dWo-_KOFIzVgEu3aPkHcMmHEW84Euhmmf_2dCEpcahM9a4tlYgig1YSY
Even if St Francis did not say it, it IS a prophecy; the jury of history is still out as to whether it is fulfilled in Bergoglio.
But there are other prophecies of “two popes” at the same time, one of them by Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich, and I think Hildegard of Bingen, as of course, “the bishop in white spoken of By Sr Lucy of Fatima.
Fr Malachi Martin (d. 1999) in his interview by Bernard Jansen speaks of “Satan and an apostate Pope” and if you look for that title on Youtube, you will find his scarily prophetic portrait of a man just like Bergoglio.
Did he? I did not know this, absolutely disgraceful.
Popes are dressed in white.
That is why the 3rd secret if Fatima states seeing “A bishop dressed in white which got the impression of pope” for me it is saying the bishop is wearing Papal vestment and making people thinks he is pope.
Then next vision is “The pope who walks on grave….”
They are two separate persons.
“Pope” Francis said that,
the problem with catholic interpretation of 3rd secret is the confusion whether the above bishop and pope are two people or one.
I have never been comfortable with the ‘new’ Mass in English instead of Latin and that the priest is facing the congregation with his back to the altar, literally turning his back on Christ during Mass, albeit facing a new altar. Is that not inversion?
Question… What was so holy about Pope Benedict XVI..? He seemed like a pretty shady character himself…
We catholics regard our bishops and popes as bishops and popes, not on the basis of personal holiness, but on the basis of the conferal of the sacred consecration and canonical election, respectively. So it does not matter to us, how holy a man may be, if he is canonically elected to be the pope, to motivate us to defend his right to that office, authority and title.
Comments are closed.