Dr. Antonio Sanchez: Ratzinger is the true Pope. After Bergoglio his successors will all be Antipopes

by Andrea Cionci

Authorized English translation
(Portuguese version here)

A few days ago, we published an interview with prof. Antonio Sànchez Sàez, Professor of Law at the University of Seville (founded in 1505) who explained, together with Attorney Estefania Acosta, how and why the Declaratio of 2013, as an act of renunciation of the papacy of Benedict XVI, is invalid . This was possible thanks to the corroborating testimonies of two pro-Bergoglio canonists, Mons. Giuseppe Sciacca (Secretary of the Apostolic Signatura) and Prof. Geraldina Boni (University of Bologna). Not only were there no denials of my report, but the news came the day before yesterday that the Vatican has has recognized that no pope emeritus can possibly exist. HERE.

This seems to confirm what was asserted a few days ago by prof. Sànchez: the alleged “papacy emeritus” was a screen behind which Benedict XVI continued, for eight years, to be the reigning pope and to play the role of “Katechon” HERE.

Now we have asked the same jurist what scenarios are emerging for the “after Ratzinger” and / or the “after Bergoglio”. The possibilities are dramatic. If you want to read a summary, you can immediately jump to the conclusions at the bottom of the article.

Q. Professor Sànchez, from Mons. Sciacca and Prof. Boni there was no answer: is this normal?

A. In the academic field, usually, a reasonable time is foreseen for the counterpart’s reply, taking into account that legal journals have rather long deadlines for the admission of the originals. But in the case of non-academic media (as in this case) normally an answer would have already arrived. What is commonly established among us university students is that «whoever is silent, concedes».

Q. But let’s go straight to the heart of the matter: What would happen if Francis left us or resigned before the departure of Benedict XVI?

A. As we have illustrated (HERE), without being denied, the resignation of Benedict XVI is void and he remains the only reigning pope. Currently there is the situation of an “IMPEDED SEE”, provided for by the Code of Canon Law (art. 412 and following), which refers to cases in which, “due to imprisonment, relegation, exile or incapacity” the pope is totally incapable of exercise his functions, like Benedict XVI today.

Q. . . .Suffice it to say that, in 2012, they fired the president of the IOR Ettore Gotti Tedeschi without Pope Ratzinger knowing. He learned this from TV, as reported by the media.

A. According to the Code, the prescriptions of the “special laws given for these cases must be observed.” In any case, Bergoglio’s departure would not give rise to a vacant see or the convocation of the conclave, because the pope (Benedict XVI) is still alive and he has never abdicated (can. 153). I do not believe that Bergoglio will resign, but if this happened he would not change his status as antipope and usurper, nor that of Benedict, the reigning pope.

Q. But what if Benedict left this world before Francis?

A. In this case, the see would remain vacant (can. 335) and a “small faithful remnant” would have to elect a new pope, in exile, perhaps already at that point much persecuted by the false official Church, which had fallen into apostasy. The successor of Benedict XVI would be a contemporary of the antipope Bergoglio, who will lead the false ecumenical world church, a church without dogma, without transubstantiation, where perpetual sacrifice will have been abolished, united with the world and the rest of religious confessions, (the mass in Latin it has already been abolished HERE ed). On the other hand, only the small faithful remnant who will follow the new true pope will be the authentic Catholic Church “.

Q. Many think that it is just a matter of waiting for Francis to leave the scene in order to “fix things” and elect a pope to put things right. It’s really like this?

A: This is A HUGE ERROR, of historical significance, which will continue Bergoglio’s anti-papal succession line. In fact, if you go to the null conclave (since for can. 126 there was a substantial error in the resignation of 2013 and in the subsequent vacant see) with about 80 invalid cardinals appointed by the antipope, only one other antipope will be elected, and then again, and another. (Canon 174 § 2: if the cardinals present were not validly elected, the vote is null). — The entire papal election process is regulated in the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, approved by John Paul II. Read it.

Q. But why, then, does a large part of the traditionalist world fiercely criticize Bergoglio, continuing to recognize him as a legitimate pope?

A. IT IS THE BEST FAVOR THAT THEY CAN DO HIM: they show the world that even the most bitter opponents of Bergoglio recognize him as pope and that therefore his legitimacy is not in question. As proof, Bergoglio is completely impermeable to such attacks, but he reacts furiously, excommunicating without canonical process only the ecclesiastics who do not recognize him as pope, those who put their finger in its sore point: its illegitimacy. Those who criticize Bergoglio, but consider him pope, not only give scandal (if he were the pope one would have to obey him because he would be assisted by the Holy Spirit even in ordinary activity, as stated in art.892 of the Catechism), but above all WORK UNCONSCIOUSLY TO GUARANTEE THE ANTIPAPAL SUCCESSION. Many of these critics, secular and religious, in perfect good faith, delude themselves that by criticizing Bergoglio so ferociously they can persuade the next (false) conclave to elect a pope of Tradition. This is already completely unlikely given the absolute majority of Bergoglian cardinals, but even if, by pure chance, a traditionalist were elected (such as, for example, Card. Burke or Archbishop Viganò), he would still be a antipope, elected by an invalid conclave and therefore deprived of the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

Q. A bit like in 1138 when the antipope Anacletus II was succeeded by the antipope Victor IV after eight years of reign?

A. Certainly: the antipope Anacletus II reigned as presumed pope in the Vatican for several years, until his death, with the consent of the Roman people. Just like it happens now. But the decisive action of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who firmly supported the legitimate pope, Innocent II, and denounced the usurpation of the papacy by Anacletus II, meant that, after his death, his successor, the antipope Victor IV, placed his tiara in front of Pope Innocent II. This schism lasted 8 years.

Something similar happened in the fourteenth century when Saint Catherine of Siena supported Urban VI, against the antipope Clement VII, who was elected non-canonically, as Bergoglio is now. The intervention of the saints was decisive in clarifying who the real pope was, when this was the subject of controversy. Even today we have courageous priests HERE who denounce the issue, but are not listened to.

Q. So, in practice, Benedict separated the succession lines forever: his is papal and Bergoglio’s is antipapal. Now the Vatican admits HERE that the institute of the pope emeritus does not exist and is working to fix things. Could they convince 94-year-old Benedict to declare something to heal his invalid resignation?

A. No. Since Benedict XVI’s resignation was void, his current or future attitude is almost irrelevant, in the sense that the act intended as a resignation is void regardless of whether or not Benedict recognizes that he is the reigning pope and not Bergoglio. That is to say, at this moment BENEDICT XVI IS THE POPE, WHETHER HE WANTS IT OR NOT. And Bergoglio is an antipope. Point. This will remain even after Benedict’s death and nothing can change it in retrospect.

Today, Pope Ratzinger could make some statements saying that he is the pope, or that the pope is Bergoglio. In both cases he would continue to be the pope, because THE NULLITY OF THE RENUNCIATION ACTS BY ITSELF, INDEPENDENTLY OF WHAT HE MAY SAY NOW. The same authority of the pope is subject to canon law, if he does not change it in advance. Sure, a statement by Pope Ratzinger in a public and open press conference confirming a specially invalid resignation would help a lot, but I don’t know if it will in the end. In any case, almost all the ecclesiastical acts issued by Bergoglio in these 8 years, such as the creation or appointment of cardinals, would be null, just as his encyclicals, the modifications of the Catechism, the modifications of the Magisterium, etc. would be null and void. Only acts of ordinary administration would be valid, in which “Ecclesia supplet”. Benedict XVI could heal the nullity of some null acts of Bergoglio if he wanted to confirm them, but only he could say which ones. To give an example, he could confirm the invalid cardinalate conferred by Bergoglio only to those bishops who show themselves to be faithful by helping to denounce the antipope.

Q. A good exit strategy, at this point, for Bergoglio, could be to resign, in order to bring down the disputes on Ratzinger’s resignation and to continue the anti-papal line with a conclave of 80 invalid cardinals “his own”, right?

A. Once cornered, it would be the only thing to do to at least save his anti-papal succession line and complete his work. But as I said above, I don’t think Bergoglio will step down, because he has never given up on exercising power. If you read “The Betrayed Church” by Antonio Caponnetto or “The real Francisco”, by his friend and journalist Omar Bello, you will understand to what extent this is true.

But more and more people realize that Benedict XVI suffered a coup d’etat by ecclesiastical and civil Freemasonry and that he declared an invalid and void resignation, in order to effectively remain pope. The Katechon remained, leaving the seat barren, but exercising the papacy, not only through prayer and suffering, but also by blocking the usurper through interviews and books, such as the one he recently wrote with card. Sarah and who prevented Bergoglio from approving the ordination of viri probati at the Amazon Synod. In other speeches he defended the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, he said that dialogue can never replace mission, he defended Pope Wojtyla’s Veritatis splendor against the moral situation of Amoris laetitia or he affirmed that the crisis of sexual abuse of minors derives from apostasy from the Truth, etc “.

Q. Some clergymen have understood that the resignation is invalid and that Benedict remains the only pope, but they despair that something can be done. It’s really like this?

A. Apart from some cardinals, bishops and priests who have not yet understood, others are silent out of human respect and others out of cowardice. However, once they have been informed and reject objective reality, they take on enormous spiritual responsibility. In fact, there is no greater scandal than consenting to lies – in this case fatal for the canonical Church – nor greater charity than always telling the truth (veritas summa charitas est). But if the Cardinals continue to be silent, the stones will speak, that is, the laity who love the Truth above all things. Indeed, the debate has already begun and can no longer be hidden. Bergoglio spent 8 years destroying the faith and morals of the Church, scandalizing the little ones and uniting them with the Masonic and anti-Christian New World Order. This makes many now ask themselves whether he is the true pope or not, especially when they see Benedict XVI dressed as pope, sign P.P., give the apostolic blessing and, above all, correct Bergoglio.

Q. Who should take the initiative, any cardinal?

A. When an anti-pope has occupied the seat of Peter or the true pope has been questioned, things have never been easy to resolve. The solution was sometimes promoted by kings and emperors who supported, by force of arms, the authentic pope. Or, the solution came through an ecumenical council, such as that of Constance, which closed the Western schism. Sometimes synods were enough, such as those of Reims and Piacenza, which reaffirmed the true pope, Innocent II against the antipope Anacletus II.

Of course, we now have no Catholic kings or Romano-Germanic emperors to intervene in arms. The only solution would be an Ecumenical Council. Otherwise, today’s cardinals will have to accept one after another the stages of the process of disintegration and mutation of Catholicism until they have to be excommunicated, on pain of finding themselves no longer Catholics.

Q. Without a synod, the Catholic Church would have to rise from nothing, in a catacomb and clandestine way, just as Pope Ratzinger prophesied, abandoning the seat of the Vatican like the dry shell of a chrysalis …

A. Yes. That pusillus grex (little flock) will be persecuted by the world and the false Catholic Church following the false pope. The same happened with Christians in the time of Christ and the Roman emperors, persecuted by the pagan empire and, at the same time, by the Jews, who considered Christians to be heretics. This will happen again now, when true Catholics will be expelled from the churches for opposing the union of the church with the world and the rest of the religions. They will also be persecuted as schismatics (for following Benedict XVI or his successor) or Catholic fundamentalists.

Q. So, today the cardinals close to the tradition who do not intervene are marking their own destiny: Bergoglio’s reforming work will hardly stop, there is already talk of intercommunion with Protestants, it seems the dogma of transubstantiation is about to jump …

A. True. On August 4, the Vaticanist Marco Tosatti reported HERE rumors about the fact that Bergoglio wants to promote intercommunion, and that for this reason he has instructed the new Secretary of Divine Worship, the Franciscan Archbishop Vittorio Francesco Viola to organize a confidential commission in the September, so that, within two months, it informs him directly about the results of the work. As we can see, the final intention would be to create a new ecumenical liturgy, where the Protestant doctrine (for which the Eucharist is a mere meal or remembrance of the Last Supper) is welcomed, and the words of the consecration will be dramatically changed. SO THAT THE TRANSUBSTANTIATION DISAPPEARS, (a strange Masonic dew has already been inserted in the 2nd prayer of consecration HERE ed). All widely foretold since the time of the prophet Daniel: the cessation of perpetual sacrifice. This shows once again that we are in eschatological times and who Jorge Mario Bergoglio really is.


By now Pope Ratzinger’s Declaratio has been definitively consigned to history and canon law and as a renunciation of the papacy it is invalid. Like it or not, Benedict XVI remains the only reigning pope, albeit with “an impeded seat”. Today he can do only two things: either a valid renunciation, opening a new legitimate conclave with pre-2013 appointed cardinals, or resume the practical exercise of power.

Bergoglio is an anti-pope (because he was elected by an invalid conclave as the seat was not vacant because Benedict had not abdicated) and he will never be able to do anything to heal this situation. All the important acts made by him are not valid, unless Benedict XVI reconfirms them, at his choice, once he has regained effective power.

If the Cardinals enter into a new conclave to elect a successor of Bergoglio, another antipope will be elected: his entire line of succession is anti-papal. The Church will definitively transform itself into a new non-Catholic and globalist church. Many cardinals linked to tradition will be gradually ousted or will have to leave it.

The next true pope will only be the successor of Benedict XVI and can be elected by a conclave composed only of valid cardinals appointed by Benedict XVI or John Paul II.

Even the invalid cardinals appointed by Bergoglio should accept the truth and immediately pass over to Benedict’s side, restoring him to the throne. These will most likely be reconfirmed cardinals for their fidelity to the legitimate successor of Peter. And the canonical Church (the one we know) will be saved.

Otherwise, the next true pope will have to be elected, in a situation of exile, by the small remnant faithful to Pope Benedict XVI and the true Catholic Church, purified, will have to slowly resurrect, as in the first centuries of Christianity.

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

7 thoughts on “Dr. Antonio Sanchez: Ratzinger is the true Pope. After Bergoglio his successors will all be Antipopes”

  1. “But why, then, does a large part of the traditionalist world fiercely criticize Bergoglio, continuing to recognize him as a legitimate pope?”

    My observations:
    1) A lot of priests, bishops, cardinals, and laymen employed by the Catholic Church are unwilling to lose their comfortable lifestyle for even a soft martyrdom in which they lose their positions but not their lives. They know they will lose their position, salary, and pensions if they acknowledge Pope Benedict and condemn Antipope Bergoglio.. They choose money and security over God.

    2) The Clinton/Obama/CIA/Freemasonic cabal was diabolically astute and followed the Marxist playbook in having the key lay opposition controlled by freemason actors already in place once the plan began with Pope Benedict’s forced abdication. They knew that devout Catholics would protest and realize immediately that there cannot be two popes and that the communist one is obviously not the real one. But then these freemason actors like Taylor Marshall and Michael Voris and the owner of Lifesite News were ALREADY the opposition before an authentic opposition could form. They then controlled the narrative and convinced Catholics to adopt a freemasonic concept of obedience over common sense and took any discussion of the validity of Bergoglio off the table. Any discussion was immediate censored by the freemason controlled opposition actors posing as conservative Catholics opposed to “Pope Francis.”

    Think how obvious in retrospect it was even just a week after Bergoglio usurped the papacy and put Pope Benedict under house arrest. So why was it NOT obvious to the influential lay conservative Catholics in the media? Because they are freemason actors. Again, check their biographies.

Comments are closed.