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 This would seem to close the game definitively given that no one has been able to give an alternative answer to the historical reference to Benedict VIII by which the XVI explicitly says he has never “abdicated.”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.