Cionci answers Valli’s Question: Why would Benedict XVI have resigned invalidly?

by Andrea Cionci

English translation — For the original Italian, click the image above.

See Cionci’s Blog at the Libero for his version.

For an Authorized French Translation, click here.

“The pope is only one” Benedict XVI has been repeating for eight years, without ever explaining which one. Invalid resignation had been talked about since 2013, but only last year, on Libero, we published the thesis of Friar Alexis Bugnolo who ventilated for the first time as the Latin errors inserted in the Declaratio of “resignation” had been inserted by the pope not by chance, but to attract attention to an abdication that never happened. From then on, there has been a continuous emergence of more and more evident and probing clues about the fact that the whole operation could have been organized on purpose by Ratzinger, a hypothesis that culminated in the book by the jurist Estefania Acosta Benedict XVI: pope emeritus?

Everything that is canonically challengable in the “resignation” seems, in fact, present: the errors in Latin that make the written Declaratio not “rite manifestetur” (duly) and with the suspicion of forcing (Cf. canons 124 and 146)); the inversion between munus and ministerium, with the unnecessary renunciation of the latter (Cf. canon 332 §2); the generically dubious resignation (canon 14) and finally the postponement of the “hour X” from which Benedict XVI would no longer be pontiff, with the non-ratification of the “resignation”.

The entire operation has been reconstructed here, ordering facts and documents, with all the necessary in-depth analysis. And still no one has been able to question it.

A few days ago, finally, an unequivocal message of Benedict XVI identified in Last Conversations (Seewald-Ratzinger 2016) in the phrase: “No pope has resigned for a thousand years and even in the first millennium this was an exception”. This would seem to close the game definitively given that no one has been able to give an alternative answer to the historical reference to Benedict VIII by which the XVI explicitly says he has never “abdicated.”

So, in the end, the most skeptical, but intellectually honest commentators are left with only one last hesitation: “Yes, all right, but why all this?”.

In the meantime, one could stop here. Let’s curb our curiosity a bit in order to act properly. Sometimes it happens that a person asks for help in a veiled and mysterious way, like the classic woman who calls the police ordering pizza without being discovered by her violent partner. In these cases, first of all we have to take note of the fact that 1) in the messages there is something strange that doesn’t fit 2) the person is probably in difficulty 3) obviously he can’t speak clearly 4) he will have had his reasons to ask for help in a sibylline way.

The fundamental thing is to understand that, first of all, we have to intervene, go and see, clarify, investigate: there will be time to discover all the motives.

However, we can already trace some hypotheses on why Benedict XVI would have given the Catholic people these eight years of vacation (in the broadest sense of the term) with resignation specifically invalid.

For two thousand years, a moment of great crisis has been announced for the Church, with a seizure of power by anti-Christic forces. We have the advent of an “idol shepherd” (Prophet Zechariah), a “False Prophet” (Revelation of St. John), a “false extravagant church” (Blessed Katharina Emmerick), a “Rome seat of the Antichrist” (Our Lady of La Salette), a “bishop dressed in white” (Fatima), a “propaganda church pope” (Fr. Julio Meinvielle), of “the smoke of Satan entering the Church” (Paul VI), of a “final test with apostasy from within” (Art. 675 of the 1992 Catechism), of an “Anti-Church and an anti-Gospel” (St. John Paul II), of “Satan at the top of the Church” (Don Stefano Gobbi) … In short, the possibility of a spiritually evil coup d’état is certainly not new and has been known for some time.

Do we want to believe, then, that Cardinal Ratzinger and St. John Paul II have remained inactive without preparing an emergency plan “B”?

Already in 1983 they elaborated – perhaps in this anticipation – the “hypnotic” diversification between munus and ministerium of the papal office: so effective that even today even insiders sometimes get lost in it. In Libero we have hypothesized that it could be a “mirror mechanism” inspired by the vision in the mirror of the bishop dressed in white of the shepherd children of Fatima.

Therefore, considering that the (documented) attacks of the St. Gallen Mafia came from within, and admitting that these were the expression of what has been prophesied for two thousand years, from a strategic point of view, the best system of reaction for Pope Ratzinger could certainly not be that of a frontal and asymmetrical opposition. Can we imagine – as certain sedevacantists would like – Benedict XVI in 2005, with the whole world painting him as a grim, obscurantist and retrogressive pope, raining excommunications on modernists, suspending here, expelling there?

It would have been political suicide: he would have done nothing but strengthen the propaganda of his enemies, inside and outside the Church, condemning not only himself, but also preparing, perhaps, in reaction, a legal succession with a modernist pope.

When Monsignor Viganò identifies the Council as the root of the current drift, he is not wrong, and certainly in 2013 the metastasis of neo-Arian-Lutheran modernism, (with a homosexuality of the clergy now endemic) had reached a state that demanded a drastic decision. Vatileaks had even highlighted a fierce internecine war between factions and even alleged plans to physically eliminate the Pontiff.

When the moment arrived, Benedict XVI probably pulled the “emergency lever” without hesitation, voluntarily, in science and conscience. The most intelligent, effective and holy way to react was through a retreat (a word he uses often), not before having “undermined” the enemy invasion ground. In strategic studies it would be called a “deception plan” with “elastic retreat” and “false target”.

Ratzinger fed the wolves that besieged him the “meatball” of the ministerium and, retreating into a role as a supposed pope emeritus, preserved the munus, granting the enemy forces within the Church an experimental time, to unravel, so that the Catholic people would be scandalized, that they would understand the emptiness and theologically destructive content of Masonic modernism enslaved to globalism.

Catholics had to see the pagan idol enthroned in St. Peter’s, the “mestizo Madonna relief of migrants,” the doctrinal upheavals, the politically correct changes in the missal, the esoteric-Masonic dew and a thousand other unheard of upheavals and reversals of sound doctrine.

The faithful had to see the Church as a slave of the “world”, dialoguing with abortionists and homosexualists, it had to hit rock bottom, “hitting its nose” like the prodigal son. They had to get to “be the swineherds” before becoming aware and returning to the house of the pope.

In 2013 – if we remember – no one, among intellectuals, theologians, vaticanists and simple faithful was so exasperated, nor animated by heroic Catholic spirit. No one would have risked their careers, no priests would have been excommunicated, nor would resistance groups have coagulated as in a “new Crusade of the Poor.” No one would have understood the reality and truth of the faith if they had not been exasperated, scandalized, outraged, and exhausted by Bergoglio and his associates.

Ratzinger knew how things would go, and he had made everything safe: his resignation was completely invalid, and this would be discovered as the various Enzo Bianchi imploded on their own, as the abusive Church drowned in fierce internal conflicts, in financial and sexual scandals, in grotesque gaffes and patent contradictions.

And Benedict’s resignation would be forever invalid, even after his death. A definitive plan to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Risky? For now – as we are writing about it – the plan has worked, at least in the first part. His game has been figured out, eight years too late, but it’s gotten there and the truth of some facts is going viral all over the world. And Benedict is still alive and lucid. It has been understood that the Church is about to be purified definitively, at the price of a schism, this time useful and necessary. We talked about it here in February and, after being showered with criticism, today no one is talking about anything else.

Now, what only remains to be decided is whether it will be the traditionalists or the modernists who will leave the Church (as a seat).

And the pivot of everything is, once again, the invalidity of the resignation of Benedict XVI.

If Ratzinger did not resign, Bergoglio, his cardinals, his theologians, his appointments, his doctrinal innovations will vanish in a breath, like dust in the wind, “burned eschatologically” by Canon Law. They will form a new globalist, Masonic-Lutheran church and will join the European Protestants. They will become irrelevant within a few years, like all Protestant churches. Otherwise, if no one will have the strength to challenge the resignation, it will be up to the Roman Church to abandon the See, and take back the faith, like Athanasius, return to the catacombs, as Ratzinger also predicted. In any case, it will be a purifying schism, to be wished, one would say. We are now not only in the presence of two different religions, but also antithetical.

Now, at this point, bishops and cardinals do not have to make a decisive choice of field. It would be enough for them to ask for a clarification, in a neutral way, a truth operation on Benedict’s resignation.

If Bergoglio were not the pope, he certainly could not excommunicate a cardinal who simply asked for clarity, short of unveiling himself.

What is needed is a public press conference by Benedict XVI with medical and security assurances. Or a public confrontation among canonists, or a synod with pre-2013 appointed cardinals. An operation of absolute, rigorous transparency should be primarily in the interest of Bergoglio, if he is the real pope, and also of his successor. Of course, this time they can’t get away with the contrived headlines of Vatican News or calling the usual pro-Bergoglio newspaper journalist who interprets everything in his own way. The truth operation will have to be clear, sharp and definitive.

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

19 thoughts on “Cionci answers Valli’s Question: Why would Benedict XVI have resigned invalidly?”

  1. Haven’t we been beseeching Cardinals Burke, Brandmuller, Mueller, Sarah etc. for several years to demand an investigation into the bifurfaction of the Papacy which does not conform to ecclesiastical law & has led to the most heinous adversaries of the OHCA Church to topple the valid holder from the Throne of Peter & enact (although illegally) changes to the Ministerium & Catholic Doctrine ad-lib with hordes of Modernist exponents urging the total destruction of His Church? ++Burke did promise if the Dubia weren’t answered he would call for a council but this was quietly dropped & his silence appears to have won him an upgrade in Cardinal status from deacon to priest – a concept that most members of the laity never knew existed. It will take a miracle to restore the confidence of Catholics lost by the VII takeover by Modernist/Marxist criminals wearing red & pink hats some of whom have been canonised by this fraudulent coup d’etat. It must be preceded by a valid consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (according to Her wishes), & only PBXVI is empowered to do it.

    The world is in demonic chaos, schismatics in the Church abound, sodomy is revered, money from the CCP & immoral investments in abortifacients help fill JB’s Ape Church coffers to win him the title of Leader of the NWO godless society – “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”

  2. Many have complained that as Pope, why didn’t Benedict XVI simply use his God given authority to do whatever needed to be done to clean up the mess. I have always felt this to be an unrealistic expectation of any human being, even if he is the successor of St. Peter. Imagine, being Captain of the ship of Catholics, 1,200,000,000 throughout the world, most of whose senior Shepherds are active, implacable, subversive enemies of God, His Church and His Vicar.

    The Pope needs help. The Pope needs us. The Pope needs us to see, understand, act. The Pope needs us to be Holy and faithful defenders WITH him, not mere passive observers OF him. The Pope needs us to get in the arena and fight with him on behalf of what we *say* is the Pearl of Great Price. Do we believe it? Why only the Pope? We see what he sees now. What are WE going to do about it, other than complain Pope Benedict XVI was a coward and should have done more. Are WE cowards, then?

    I completely agree with your assessment, in other words, that the likely reason for WHY Pope Benedict XVI did what he did, how he did, is to *reveal the great evil* to the living members of the Church and to all eternity for public judgement and response. We ALL participate, even if we do nothing, now. Doing nothing means we don’t care, and that, too, is a judgement. We are ALL without excuse, *thanks to the brave, wise, unprecedented act of Pope Benedict XVI* to act in defense of the Holy and in offense against the evil.

    To all those who have ever called Pope Benedict XVI a coward, I do hope you reconsider now and see him as perhaps one of the greatest and bravest Popes of all time – whose bravery was expressed by his willingness to endure ridicule and public infamy during his age of physical and mental decline and resulting vulnerability. You all asked him to do more, when he did do everything he needed to do: he exposed the evil at the grassroots. Now, it is up to us and those Shepherds with more strength than our dear Pope Benedict XVI.

    God keep and bless our reigning Pope Benedict XVI,

    1. Despite Bishop Sheen stating “Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people” he unfortunately omits to offer suggestions as to how we can. The Laity do not possess any authority to clear the OHCA Church of its demons. Only the red hats who have voted for this Antipope (False Prophet) & have been complicitly mute since, can call for a council to pronounce on the technically invalid bifurcated papacy they agreed to & still uphold. Not even one has stepped from behind the veil that obscures the OHCA Church from the NWO Ape Church to call out Francis for what he is – an Apostate – & demand his denunciation. Even if he were to be martyred for the faith it would be the end of this fragmented Pontificate & PBXVI would be free to carry out the consecration of Russia which the world so badly needs & prays for.

      1. Remember the story of Judith.

        The Jews all gave up. There was no champion to deliver them from General Holofernes. Food was gone. Water was gone. Outnumbered by a well fed army, they agreed it was time to surrender. Five more days and we give them everything.

        Then … Judith appeared. And God worked through this lone widow woman who walked right into the enemy camp, its general’s tent and chopped off the most powerful man in the world’s head. Game over.

        That’s how it works with God. We pray, like our “inactive” and contemplative Pope. And have confidence that God will act through miraculous means. Pray. And don’t ever give up. Don’t ever lose confidence in God.

        I am convinced that Pope Benedict XVI is the strong arm of God. My role is to have faith. And pray. And do my duty, as it presents itself to me every moment of every day.

    2. Thank you, Aqua. Amen and Amen.

      Please check your email. I’m fleshing out a plan of action from the bottoms-up, so to speak. A plan for the laity to act for and with our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. It’s a worldwide grassroots plan of action. Your and others’ input would be valuable and appreciated.

  3. Thank you for this brilliant, concise article! This clarifies the scenario and evaporates the smoke of Hell that has obscured Pope Benedict XVI’s strategy—and helped provide Pachapapa with his “smoke and mirrors” anti-papacy!

  4. There were four cardinals who had the temerity to present five “dubia” regarding Jorge Bergoglio’s exhortation to heresy, “Amoris laetitia”.
    That was more than 4 1/2 years ago. At no time did that vile papal impersonator deign to respond to them, or to Christ’s faithful Church. Two of those cardinals died waiting. What makes anyone believe that this miscreant can be brought to answer any question or charge , save by brute force?

  5. Something is missing here: BXVI does not use his papal authority to expel heretics when he is pope, because it would cause too much upheaval, so instead he invalidly resigns so that disaster will occur and the Church will end in schism? The only difference here seems to be that in the first scenario, at least he was clearly the pope, so the heretics would have had to leave the See, whereas in his ‘intelligent’ solution, now the heretics are in charge, so we have to leave? I appreciate the effort to find some way of making BXVI’s ‘resignation’ make some kind of sense, grounding it in some sort of intelligent ‘master-plan,’ but it still does not make sense.

    1. John, your criticism would be valid in the case in which B16 had those around him who wanted to discipline the Church and if those in the Church who needed discipline would have accepted discipline. Also, your criticism would be valid if B16 had invented this strategem on his own. But in fact, he said he was inspired to do what he did. And that does not mean that he understood the outcome in advance.

      1. Thank you for your answer. I believe you are right, though I still don’t see how this ends well for anyone. But thank you.

    2. John, ultimately we don’t have to understand why. We only have to understand what.

      The why is likely between our Pope and God Almighty alone.

      The what is written, plainly, on a piece of paper; the what is an objective fact living in Domus Sanctae Marthae. And all of us, regardless of our education and station in life can see that. Only that matters, because the one, true religion is built upon the visible head, occupying the Papal … wait for it … Office.

    1. Rev Father,

      With all due respect the human make-up of the OHCAC is in a shambles; I submit that which God created can never be in a shambles.

      In Domino

  6. At Fatima, there were directions given. The pope “in union with all the bishops of the world” were supposed to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. But there was also directions given to EVERYONE ELSE. Daily prayer of the Rosary. Prayers for our Pope. First Saturday Devotions….

    Then this last year, practically every single person in the entire world was sent home. How did we use that time? Did we pray more? Increase our devotion to Our Lord? Study scripture?….

    Or did we squander what God had given us… ?

Comments are closed.