A conspiracy of lies is behind the Scamdemic and Benedict’s ousting
But the Example of Our Lady can teach us how to free ourselves from them
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
There is no more powerful a lie than a false principle, presumed to be true without reflection, attention or criticism.
I had a personal experience of that the other day. After 8 Catholics were gravely injured in their constitutional rights by members of the Rome Police force, many of them suspected further aggression the following night. When one group approached the Piazza, where the City Government had for the first time in 16 months turned off the lights, they were fearful that such an attack was imminent. Seeing another group of the faithful already gathered in the piazza, but being unable to recognize them as friendlies, the word went out that it was the police and that for safety that night we should all pray elsewhere.
But the supposition was false. Nevertheless, it was assumed to be truth and thus in practice was held to be the truth. Only 30 minutes later when someone in the piazza who knew the truth told me, did I realize the error which occurred.
These kinds of misapprehensions, spread through inexact speech, and in situations were one has no direct access to the source of information, can be powerful psychological tools of control when crafted for that purpose by malign men to mislead others.
In warfare it is called misinformation.
And this is what has been employed in the Scamdemic and in Benedict’s ousting. From the first days of the declared Pandemic, the entire MSM and all national governments, excepting a few, intention all repeated the same lies, exaggerations and misinformation. The near unanimity of the sources of information convinced people, who are uncritical, that it was true on account of its unanimity. So much do some remain convinced of this that after 14 months they have not even once questioned it or sought the original sources of information or medical evidence to verify whether what was said is true or not.
The same thing has happened with Benedict’s ousting. We were all told that he has resigned or abdicated. That he would be the Pope no longer. We were all given intentionally falsified versions of his Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013. Here at FromRome.info I have documented these facts in detail.
But what Andrea Cionci has uncovered is that there has been a misrepresentation of what Benedict XVI has said after Feb. 28, 2013, to conceal the fact that he has repeatedly said that he has never abdicated nor intended to abdicate.
You see, in the history of the Church, there are popes who un-poped themselves by renouncing their office, and there are popes who simply retired from government by renouncing ministry. Like the last Austrian Emperor who retired from exercising government but who did not abdicate.
This is different from the recent King of Belgium who did abdicate.
And Pope Benedict XVI has always been precise in what he has been saying, even though there has been a campaign to hide that from us.
Here it will be useful to cite the historical case of the retirement of Charles I, the last Austrian Emperor. I cite Wikipedia:
On the day of the Armistice of 11 November 1918, Charles issued a carefully worded proclamation in which he recognized the Austrian people’s right to determine the form of the state and “relinquish[ed] every participation in the administration of the State.” He also released his officials from their oath of loyalty to him. On the same day, the Imperial Family left Schönbrunn Palace and moved to Castle Eckartsau, east of Vienna. On 13 November, following a visit with Hungarian magnates, Charles issued a similar proclamation—the Eckartsau Proclamation—for Hungary.
Although it has widely been cited as an “abdication”, the word itself was never used in either proclamation. Indeed, he deliberately avoided using the word abdication in the hope that the people of either Austria or Hungary would vote to recall him. Privately, Charles left no doubt that he believed himself to be the rightful emperor. He wrote to Friedrich Gustav Piffl, the Archbishop of Vienna:
I did not abdicate, and never will […] I see my manifesto of 11 November as the equivalent to a cheque which a street thug has forced me to issue at gunpoint […] I do not feel bound by it in any way whatsoever.”
Now, since there is no reason for anyone to deny the historical record of that retirement, I hope we can all agree that there is such a thing as a Monarch who resigns, but who does not abdicate.
And if we are honest we will attend to the precise words used …
For us who do not speak German, it may be difficult to imagine that verbs in German sometimes mean two things and that depending on the context they mean one or the other of those two things. In English, we have the verbs, to renounce, to resign, to abdicate and to retire. In Italian, they have only 3 of these. And in German they have also only 3. One of which means to retire and to resign.
In English we know that when someone resigns it is not always the same thing as retire. I can retire from my profession, but that does not mean that I still cannot practice it. I can resign from my office, and then I have no more legal right to exercise it.
In common parlance we often pay little attention to the great differences in these verbs. To abdicate means what the Latin means by “to renounce” (renuntiare). In structure, the verb, “to abdicate” (abdicare) has the same parallel structure (ab – dicere), “to declare away” to the verb, “to renounce” (renuntiare), “to announce back”. This is why in Canon Law, Canon 332 §2 uses the verb, “renunciare”. It intend to speak of a papal abdication, after which the one abdicating is no longer the pope and no longer has the right to share in the dignity, office, power, authority and ministry of the pope.
The verb, “to resign”, (resignare) does not have the same signification in English, however, as in Latin. In English it means to give up the office and thus the right, but not the capacity. It is used in professional duties. But in Latin it means to renounce all of the thing by a complete and perfect written act or gesture.
But it is not the same if one were to say, “I retire”. For “to retire” in English can mean “to resign” from a professional duty or office, OR it can mean simply no to practice it. For example, a barber retires and closes his shop, but can still cut your hair and may still have his legal license to do so. But when a mayor retires, we generally understand that he has resigned his office.
So Benedict XVI is clear, he has not abdicated
Pope Benedict XVI made it quite clear from Feb. 11, 2013 that he never intended to abdicate. Despite the sloppy reasoning of Cardinal Burke, as published at Life Site News, a few years ago, it is easy to see this, not difficult, if you do as much due diligence as a Cardinal ought to have done: namely, look at the Latin words that Pope Benedict XVI uses when He speaks or writes in Latin, and look at the German words that Pope Benedict XVI uses when He speaks or writes in German.
Pope Benedict XVI has clearly said in German that He has not abdicated like Pope Celestine V, but also that he has resigned in a manner unlike any pope in a 1000 years — even though in the last 1000 years there have been several popes who have renounced their offices.
We see this clearly if we want to see it, when we read the Latin text of the Declaratio of Feb. 13, 2013. Pope Benedict XI therein speaks of the heavy responsibility of exercising the papal office (munus) and thus renounces the papal ministry (ministerium). That is a retirement, not a resignation, nor an abdication.
In German, Benedict XVI uses a verb (zurückgetreten) which can mean both a “resignation” or “retirement”. You have to understand the context carefully before you translate it.
Yes, whenever Pope Benedict XVI has been translated into any modern Language, the Vatican and all its allies has always rendered the words as “resignation” or “renunciation”. It’s a subtle trick. But now it is seen for what it is.
The consequence of this trick, is as I said at the beginning of this article: to prevent YOU from even questioning the first premise of your information about what happened in February 2013. This simple trick as fooled the entire Catholic World, pretty much, though not all of us.
As the Apostle warned: God will send them a powerful illusion to deceive the elect if that were possible. And so it is. However, we must remember that when Scripture says, “God will send” that does not mean that He is the cause if deceiving, but of the permitting of the deception.
As children of the light, we must hold fast to the truth. We are in a time of trial and we need to practice our faith with great precision, especially in how we think and understand things.
Let us be children of the Virgin, who listened carefully to the announcement of the Archangel and paid attention to the precise words uttered. Only then give your assent, and only to what was uttered, not to what the MSM claims was said.
Our Lady is called our Advocate, because in Latin, “advocate” means a lawyer. One who pleads our case, yes, but also one who reads carefully documents and acts on what they say, not on what known criminals want them to say.
In this month of May, the Month of Mary, let us imitate the humble and prudent Virgin and do the same!