Pope Benedict XVI declares that He still holds the Petrine Mandate

by Andrea Cionci

Authorized English Translation of the Italian Original (click image above)

So, something is finally coming out in the press. Dagospia HERE and RomaIT HERE have broken the embargo. Yesterday, even my colleague Francesco Antonio Grana of Il Fatto Quotidiano mentioned HERE the inevitable flowering of theories about an “occult pope”.

Dear Colleague, if you will have the goodness to read, HERE and HERE you will see that we are a piece ahead beyond the vociferations and theories: there are university professors, lawyers, magistrates, theologians, canonists Latinists, jurists who have analyzed the alleged renunciation of Pope Benedict and have confirmed, recently using the same categories of pro-Bergoglio canonists, that the Declaratio of 2013, interpreted as a renunciation, is non-existent and that instead it fits precisely to a declaration of “SEDE IMPEDITA”. These statements are not denied by anyone as of last March. HERE It would be interesting and useful for our readers to address the issue in the canonical merit instead of barely touching it, suggesting that it is only “gossip”. We are available for a cordial discussion.

In the meantime, many readers have already gone further and, by participating in the investigation, have pointed out other facts and documents that further confirm how Benedict XVI has factually – and not juridically, because it is impossible – ONLY renounced the practical exercise of power, due to the fact that no one obeyed him anymore and that he could no longer use his mail, intercepted and stolen (Vatileaks). In this way, he remained that one legitimate pope of which he has been speaking for eight years without ever explaining which HERE .

A reader – who wishes to remain anonymous – pointed out to us today a passage from the interview given by the Pope to Peter Seewald in the volume “Ein Leben” of 2020. Another decidedly clear message.

In fact, when Seewald asks Benedict to comment on Bergoglio’s failure to respond to the four Dubia of the cardinals on the encyclical Amoris laetitia, (about communion to remarried divorcees) Benedict does not answer directly, but refers back to his last public audience of February 27, 2013, one day before the entry into force of the sede impedita announced in the Declaratio. In the text of the audience HERE there is, in fact, NO RESPONSE IN THE MERIT OF THE DUBIA of the cardinals: there is no mention of either divorcees or the Eucharist, but there is a very clear message that he has NEVER ABDICATED. That’s why you can find an answer in that hearing: all the issues that arose later around Bergoglio, including the Dubia issue, count for nothing, as Francis is not the pope, because Benedict remained THE pope.

Don’t believe us? We copy in full. Pay attention to the sentences in bold that we will explain below.

Seewald: “Cardinal Raymond Burke – one of the four authors of the Dubia, the writing in which they formulated some doubts about the pontiff’s apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia – said in November 2016 that Amoris laetitia had created confusion: ‘There is a tremendous division going on in the Church and this is not the way the Church is used to going.’ Pope Francis has not responded to the Dubia. Would it be better for you to do so ?

Benedict XVI: “I prefer not to take a direct position on this last question, because this would mean entering into the concrete questions of the government of the Church and abandoning the spiritual dimension to which my mandate exclusively pertains. If I answered, I suppose that all those who constantly attack me for my public statements would see their slander confirmed. I can therefore limit myself to referring to what I said on February 27, 2013 in my last public general audience. In the midst of all the torments that afflict humanity and the disturbing and destructive force of the evil spirit, one will always be able to recognize in the Church the silent power of God’s goodness. The obscurities of successive historical epochs will certainly never make it possible to enjoy undisturbed the pure joy of being a Christian […] But in the Church and in the lives of individual Christians there are always moments in which one can sense deep down that the Lord loves us, and this love means joy, it is ‘happiness'”.

Then, as we have already seen, the government of the Church, the ministerium, is no longer his, he has abandoned it to himself, leaving the See FREE, EMPTY (and not vacant as the Vatican has translated the verb “vacet”: it is canonically impossible for the See to remain vacant with the renunciation of the ministerium). Thus, the government of the Church is now in the hands of others. Recently, colleague Mirko Ciminiello discovered that Benedict makes it clear to us HERE that he does not recognize Francis as the legitimate pope, since he does not consider him as his successor in the list of St. Malachy’s popes.

The spiritual dimension is precisely the munus petrino, the title of pope granted directly by God that he KEEPS.

The slanderers are those who always criticize Benedict, because “although he resigned as pope continues to intervene with interference in the pontificate of Francis. They are backbiting simply because HE HAS NOT ABDICATED and continues to be the pope, in full right to intervene.

The silent force and warning deep down are a clear reference to the fact that those with ears to hear and eyes to see understand the situation.

And now we come to the climax, when Ratzinger sends the interviewer back to look for answers to the Dubia of the cardinals in his last general audience – “public” – he specifies, perhaps because afterwards he continued to give private audiences, always as pontiff?

And here is what he declared in the last audience, reported in full by the Vatican website HERE As you will read, one cannot find the slightest hint that he could answer the Dubia on divorce and Eucharist, except in a more general, higher sense above all definitive.

“I have taken this step in full awareness of its gravity and also novelty, but with a profound serenity of mind.”

What novelty? As many as 10 popes in history have abdicated, so his would not be a novelty at all. Unless he refers to what he said HERE: “(Like me, ed.), no pope has resigned for a thousand years and even in the first millennium was an exception. We have seen, that his reference is to the only pope who in the first millennium was driven out by an antipope, losing the ministerium, like him, but remaining pope in all respects. The NEWNESS, then, is in the fact that he voluntarily and freely abandoned to himself the government of the Church, because of impossibility in managing it.

“The gravity of the decision was precisely also in the fact that from that moment on I was committed always and forever by the Lord […] The “always” is also a “forever” – there is no longer a return to the private. My decision to renounce the active exercise of ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, etc. I do not abandon the cross, but I remain in a new way with the Crucified Lord. I no longer carry the power of office for the government of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.”

Rather explicit, we would say: he remains pope forever, because he has not renounced the title of pope, the munus. He has become a “hermit pope” and not emeritus, since the institution does not exist, as we have seen HERE

“I ask you to remember me before God, and especially to pray for the Cardinals, called to such an important task, and for the new Successor of the Apostle Peter: may the Lord accompany him with the light and strength of his Spirit.”

Here again, Pope Ratzinger is not referring at all to the 2013 conclave, which was illegitimate since he had not abdicated, but to the NEXT REAL CONCLAVE that upon his death, or valid renunciation, will have to elect the next real pope. We have already seen this specification by analyzing the Declaratio as “sede impedita” HERE .

The usual people will continue to say that these are tendentious readings, forcing etc.. The problem is that these tendentious readings now number about thirty cases, logically unexceptionable, are not disproved by anyone and have precise canonical responses. Soon we will publish a complete list with the opinion of specialists.

But those who renounce to LOGICAL THINKING will not want and will never be able to understand anything about this matter.

+ + +

This is a confirmation of the previous report, entitled, Pope Benedict XVI: I have not abdicated

Br. Bugnolo criticized from the USA & Italy for Warning Humanity

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

That one makes a video is usually nothing newsworthy. And that one publishes it usually causes no response worthy of news. But that a video is not only shared round the world, but now is the topic of articles by others, is news worthy.

The video in question is my, “When the Flu Season Comes, the Chaos will begin” (see link below).

The first criticism was published on the highly influential Henry Makow Website

Some might think that “attack” is too strong of a word to describe this article about my video, but you can judge yourself by reading the post, by clicking the image below, how to describe it:

Comments on Henry Makow’s website also include the Trolls of Calumny who have been pursuing me ever since I contested Bergoglio as Pope or the Pandemic as a Scam. I am glad that they hate me for telling the truth, and they will continue to throw rubber balls which will bounce upon investigation. That these trolls found this article before even I knew of it may say something about who is behind the article or who asked that it be published. I really doubt that my never friendly trolls are Henry Makow readers.

The Second was a public appeal from a friend who could have called me on the phone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_CzPo1UEJg&feature=youtu.be

I would not call this an attack, since it was so polite. In sum, my friend asks me to take my video down, because he believes that what we need now is reassurance and things which calm the public.

He does criticize me for the video content, however. Yes, the French Virologist I quoted in the video did not say what he was attributed by me to have said. But I did not attribute to him those words, I merely cited what was attributed to him: a conclusion that other leading scientists have before and after themselves accepted or warned against, as the readers of FromRome.Info know by now.

But, my friend is responding not to my original video, but to this Italian subtitled excerpt, which I did not authorize and whose Italian translation I did not approve, which you can probably surmise by the fact that they have misspelled my surname:

And I do not mind that my friend did not call me. It is, he is correct to say, a public matter, and so he can publicly talk about it.  And actually, I appreciate the free publicity.

To this second appeal, I will respond by saying that in the Rule of St. Francis we are obliged to preach Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell.  And a lot of people find that shocking, but it is actually the greatest charity to warn all about the things to come.  I am sorry if my good friend does not understand that.

The Video

Meanwhile the video they are talking about (click here) has gone to over 200K views on FromeRome.Info and has been translated into French, Italian and Greek (on FB here) and probably other languages, all on the initiative of others without my knowledge. I would imagine that my video, in whole or part, world wide, in all versions has more than 1 million views already. And I hope by it that everyone prepares for the Apocalypse which is coming.

It is even being cited by Investment sites, who normally advise their readers about future economic risks. Here is one in French, which already has more than 32k reads, which has had the courtesy to transcribe and translate my talk, with an unapproved translation:

Here you can watch my original video and judge for yourself the value of what I say:

Finally, if you appreciate the work I do, help support me, if you can, because as a Franciscan hermit I live by alms, and my readers and fans are my only support. If not, please pray for me. I assure all my readers and donors in advance of my own prayers for them.

Was Adolf Hitler jewish?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

This Question is of great interest to all historians of the Second World War.  So let’s examine some of the factual evidence.  First, understand that this question regards not religion. Adolf Hitler was a baptized Roman Catholic. Nor does it regard ethnicity. Adolf Hitler was an Austrian.  This question regards genetic or blood lingeage, namely, were any of the ancestors of Adolf Hitler, by blood, Jews.  We Christians would ask this question about both the father’s and mother’s sides of the family, since we trace lineage through both.

Here is what Wikipedia says on the topic of Adolf Hitler’s Father:

Hitler’s father, Alois Hitler Sr. (1837–1903), was the illegitimate child of Maria Anna Schicklgruber.[5] The baptismal register did not show the name of his father, and Alois initially bore his mother’s surname, ‘Schicklgruber’. In 1842, Johann Georg Hiedler married Alois’s mother. Alois was brought up in the family of Hiedler’s brother, Johann Nepomuk Hiedler.[6] In 1876, Alois was made legitimate and his baptismal record annotated by a priest to register Johann Georg Hiedler as Alois’s father (recorded as “Georg Hitler”).[7][8] Alois then assumed the surname “Hitler”,[8] also spelled ‘Hiedler’, ‘Hüttler’, or ‘Huettler’. The name is probably based on the German word hütte (lit., “hut”), and likely has the meaning “one who lives in a hut”.[9]

Nazi official Hans Frank suggested that Alois’ mother had been employed as a housekeeper by a Jewish family in Graz, and that the family’s 19-year-old son Leopold Frankenberger had fathered Alois.[10] No Frankenberger was registered in Graz during that period, no record has been produced of Leopold Frankenberger’s existence,[11] and Jewish residency in Styria had been illegal for nearly 400 years and would not become legal again until decades after Alois’ birth,[11][12] so historians dismiss the claim that Alois’ father was Jewish.[13][14]

Adolf Hitler was born on 20 April 1889 in Braunau am Inn, a town in Austria-Hungary (in present-day Austria), close to the border with the German Empire.[15] He was the fourth of six children born to Alois Hitler and his third wife, Klara Pölzl. Three of Hitler’s siblings – Gustav, Ida, and Otto – died in infancy.[16] Also living in the household were Alois’s children from his second marriage: Alois Jr. (born 1882) and Angela (born 1883).[17] When Hitler was three, the family moved to Passau, Germany.[18]

__________

5. Bullock 1999, p. 24.
6.
Maser 1973, p. 4.
7.
Maser 1973, p. 15.
8.
Kershaw 1999, p. 5.
9.
Jetzinger 1976, p. 32.
10.
Rosenbaum 1999, p. 21.
11.
Hamann 2010, p. 50.
12.
McKale 2011, p. 147.
13.
Toland 1992, pp. 246–247.
14. 
Kershaw 1999, pp. 8–9.
15.
House of Responsibility. (a)(b)
16.
Kershaw 2008, p. 4.
17.
Toland 1976, p. 6.
18. 
Rosmus 2004, p. 33.

It is significant that Wikipedia on Adolf Hitler ignores the lineage of Hilter on his mother’s side, since Jews determine jewish lineage from the mother. But this is what is found in the article on her:

Born in the Austrian village of Spital, Weitra, Waldviertel, Austrian Empire her father was Johann Baptist Pölzl and her mother was Johanna Hiedler. Klara came from old peasant stock, was hard-working, energetic, pious, and conscientious. According to the family physician, Dr. Eduard Bloch, she was a very quiet, sweet, and affectionate woman.

In 1876, 16-year-old Klara was hired as a household servant by her relative Alois Hitler, three years after his first marriage to Anna Glasl-Hörer. Although Alois’ biological father is unknown, after his mother, Maria Schicklgruber, married Johann Georg Hiedler, Alois was officially designated as Hiedler’s son. Klara’s mother was Hiedler’s niece Johanna Hiedler, who married Johann Baptist Pölzl, making Klara and Alois first cousins once removed.

So, Wikipedia is emphatically silent on the question of whether Hitler was a jew.  But let us see what a Rabbi says about this question, by citing the testimony of Rabbi Ravin S. Antelman from his book, “To Eliminate the Opiate”, 1974, pp. 207-208:

Hitler was really the product of an adulterous relationship between his mother, Klara Polzl, and a Sabbatian Frankist (1861 – September 21st, 1928) who was Hitler’s real father.  The Frankist Sabbateans had a ritual on the 9th of Av, which is observed by Jews as a fast day commemorating the destruction of the First and Second Temples.  This night, the Sabbatians secretly observed as incest and adultery night.  However, there is a persistent rumor that Klara was artificially inseminated that night.
 
Since the Jewish calendar is lunar, 9th of Av can occur in July or August.  Checking the calendar, the 9th of Av, 1888 — the date of Hitler’s probable conception — fell on July 20th, 1888, approximately nine months prior to April 20th, 1889, the birthday of Adolf Hitler.
 
A 1933 New York Times article dealing with Hitler’s alleged Jewish origins maintained that there was Jewish blood on the Stronnes side — Hitler’s maternal grandmother — a family which converted to Catholicism from Judaism in Vienna in the 1850s.
 
Rabbinic Court testimony claims that not only Hitler’s real father was a Sabbatean, but his maternal great grandfather as well; i.e., Klara’s maternal grandfather, who fathered her mother out of wedlock.
 
There is evidence that Hitler maintained close contact with Sabbatians throughout his lifetime.  In fact, his personal astrologer Erik J. Hanussen (murdered in the woods outside of Berlin in February, 1933) was a Sabbatian who was called “the prophet of the Third Reich” and “magician of Berlin”.  His real name was Hershel Steinschneider, born in Vienna in 1889, and he was the first cousin of Moritz Steinschneider (1816-1907), discussed in chapter XII.
(bold face not in the original)

Who are the Sabbatians or Sabbateans?

Like many of you, I had never heard of the Sabbateans in my life, until I came upon a reference to them in my studies at the Angelicum in 2011. This group of Jews or ex-Jews are the most influential jewish group in western Europe.

This is what the Wikipedia Article says on them, in the introduction to its article:

The Sabbateans (or Sabbatians) were a variety of Jewish followers, disciples, and believers in Sabbatai Zevi (1626–1676), [1][2][3] a Sephardic Jewish rabbi and Kabbalist who was proclaimed to be the Jewish Messiah in 1666 by Nathan of Gaza.[1][2]

Vast numbers of Jews in the Jewish diaspora accepted his claims, even after he outwardly became an apostate due to his forced conversion to Islam in the same year.[1][2][3] Sabbatai Zevi’s followers, both during his proclaimed messiahship and after his forced conversion to Islam, are known as Sabbateans.[1][3] Part of the Sabbateans lived on until well into 21st-century Turkey as descendants of the Dönmeh.[1]

The Sabbateans in modern times are a sect which believes that it can bring about the coming of a Jewish Messiah, whom we Christians call the Antichrist, if they can bring about the commission of the greatest number of sins possible, and thus invoke God’s wrath.  We Christians would thus call them a Satanic cult, though they would not see it that way.