Ratzinger: “Non fraintendete: ho liberato la sede, ma non ho abdicato”

Altro messaggio di papa Ratzinger: “Non fraintendete: ho liberato la sede, ma non ho abdicato”

Un nuovo significato dopo la definizione della sede impedita

di Andrea Cionci

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION FOLLOWS

Già diversi mesi, in marzo, fa avevamo “decrittato” interi capitoli di “Ultime conversazioni” di Peter Seewald, in cui papa Benedetto, nel 2016, con una logica sottile, ci raccontava la situazione canonica di sede impedita che avremmo cominciato a comprendere solo quattro anni dopo. Molti di quei messaggi ancora non li abbiamo pubblicati: infatti, i tempi allora non erano maturi e l’articolo passò in sordina.

Oggi, chiarita in modo consequenziale – e senza alcuna smentita, nonostante i solleciti – la questione della Declaratio, che non è una rinuncia (in quanto giuridicamente nulla), ma una dichiarazione di sede impedita QUI https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/italia/28377333/papa-ratzinger-mistero-errore-traduzione-dimissioni-parola-latina-cambia-tutto.html , quei messaggi acquisiscono un significato in più.  In uno di questi, il collega Mirko Ciminiello, di RomaIT (https://www.romait.it/dimissioni-di-benedetto-xvi-la-nostra-scoperta-shock-rilanciata-da-libero.html), ravvisa un sottotesto ancora più aggiornato e coerente rispetto a quanto avevamo già pubblicato QUI https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26699363/ratzinger-sottotesto-libro-intervista-ultime-conversazioni-peter-seewald.html

Attenzione alle frasi in neretto, il cui significato spiegheremo di seguito.

Ecco la domanda di Peter Seewald a Papa Benedetto: “Nella sua dichiarazione cita a motivo della rinuncia il declino delle sue forze. Ma la diminuzione del vigore fisico è un motivo sufficiente per scendere dal soglio di Pietro?”. 

Benedetto XVI: “Qui si può muovere l’appunto che si tratta di un FRAINTENDIMENTO funzionalistico: il successore di Pietro infatti non è solo legato a una funzione, ma è coinvolto nell’intimo dell’essere. In tal senso la funzione non è l’unico criterio. D’altra parte, il papa deve fare anche cose concrete, deve avere sotto controllo l’intera situazione, deve saper stabilire le priorità e via di seguito. A cominciare dal ricevimento dei capi di Stato, a quello dei vescovi, con i quali deve davvero poter avviare un dialogo intimo, fino alle decisioni quotidiane. Anche quando si dice che alcuni impegni si potrebbero cancellare, ne rimangono comunque così tanti, altrettanto importanti, che se si vuole svolgere l’incarico come si deve non c’è ombra di dubbio: se non c’è più la capacità di farlo è necessario – per me almeno, un altro può vedere la cosa altrimenti – lasciare LIBERO  il soglio”.

Vediamo come è organizzato il discorso: Benedetto qui pone subito un “alt”, un appunto a Seewald che sostiene come Ratzinger sia sceso dal soglio di Pietro, ovvero abbia abdicato. Attento – lo avverte il Papa –  c’è il rischio di fraintendere secondo un “atteggiamento che tende alla valutazione e risoluzione immediata di problemi in un contesto culturale o politico” (definizione di “funzionalismo”).

Non è così semplice, dunque: il Pontefice ci ricorda come l’incarico papale sia scomposto (fin dagli anni ’80) in due enti giuridici diversi: il munus, il titolo di papa, concesso direttamente da Dio da un lato, e il ministerium l’esercizio pratico del potere dall’altro.

Ecco che infatti Ratzinger spiega: non c’è solo la FUNZIONE, l’esercizio pratico del potere, il ministerium, ma c’è anche una dimensione intima, dell’ESSERE papa: il munus. 

Infatti, subito dopo, spiega ancora meglio, quasi per farlo capire a un bambino, in cosa consista il ministerium: “ricevere i capi di stato, i vescovi, prendere decisioni, gli impegni vari” etc.

E così afferma che se il papa non ha più la capacità di SVOLGERE l’incarico in modo completo, ovvero di esercitare il suo ministerium, così come dovrebbe, ecco che il papa deve lasciare LIBERO il soglio. Attenzione: non deve abdicare, non deve SCENDERE dal soglio, come ventilava Seewald nella domande, ma solo lasciarlo libero, sgombro vuoto.

Torna di gran carriera, infatti, come ha notato ieri il collega Mirko Ciminiello, l’ultima interpretazione del verbo latino “vacet”, della Declaratio, traducibile (secondo affermati latinisti)  con  lasciare la sede LIBERA, e non vacante, come invece tradotto dal Vaticano.  QUI (https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28380027/mirko-ciminiello-romait-scopre-messaggio-ratzinger-non-riconosce-francesco-come-papa-nella-lista-di-san-malachia.html) i dettagli della questione.

In sintesi, Papa Ratzinger non poteva più esercitare il suo potere pratico, perché, come abbiamo già dimostrato coi fatti, non gli obbediva più nessuno e addirittura trafugavano la sua posta (Vatileaks). Questo, a norma del canone 412, gli dava tutta la possibilità di dichiarare SEDE IMPEDITA. Quindi la Declaratio non è MAI STATA UNA RINUNCIA AL PAPATO, così come viene interpretata da otto anni. C’è stato un gigantesco EQUIVOCO, lasciato perdurare perché faceva comodo a molti.

Ratzinger ha SOLO MOLLATO FISICAMENTE la sede,  impossibilitato a governare: così ha preso l’elicottero e il 28 febbraio ha lasciato la sede libera, vuota, sgombra – non VACANTE in senso giuridico – perché la Declaratio è completamente NULLA come rinuncia, nonostante i modernisti abbiano cercato di mascherare la fondamentale dicotomia munus/ministerium con l’unica parola “ministero” e abbiano tradotto il verbo “vacet” come SEDE VACANTE. Controllate voi stessi QUI https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html

E infatti cosa aggiunge ancora Benedetto nella sua risposta? “PER ME ALMENO, E’ COSI’, UN ALTRO PUÒ VEDERE LA COSA ALTRIMENTI”. 

E infatti ALTRI l’hanno vista ALTRIMENTI: i modernisti suoi nemici, membri della Mafia di San Gallo, che come dimostrato dalla biografia del card. Danneels volevano a tutti i costi che lui abdicasse (per far posto al loro campione Bergoglio QUI (https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27505999/papa-ratzinger-bergoglio-messaggio-nella-bottiglia-documentario-bugnolo-lamendola-decimo-toro-massoneria-daneels-mafia-san-g.html ) e che hanno manipolato le traduzioni della Declaratio. Loro  l’hanno VOLUTA VEDERE come una ABDICAZIONE mentre non lo era affatto.

UN COLOSSALE EQUIVOCO CHE DURA DA OTTO ANNI e protegge Bergoglio, definito canonicamente dai giuristi Acosta e Sànchez un antipapa tout court, che adesso sta cercando di sanare a posteriori un inesistente istituto di papa emerito QUI https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28264381/vaticano-papa-emerito-non-esiste-allora-joseph-ratzinger-cosa-stato-otto-anni.html .

Ora, per chi si fosse perso le puntate precedenti, leggete perché la Declaratio NON è una rinuncia QUI https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28187673/joseph-ratzinger-vero-papa-giuristi-sanchez-acosta-smontano-difesa-pro-bergoglio.html  e piuttosto, perché tutti i conti tornano nel leggerla come annuncio di SEDE IMPEDITA : QUI https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28344881/declaratio-papa-ratzinger-non-rinuncia-ma-sede-impedita-sei-latinisti-traducono-parola-chiave-vacet-non-sede-vacante-ma-sede.html

Domanda: c’è qualcuno che magari ha GIURATO fedeltà al Papa e pensa di approfondire la questione e/o, magari, di fare qualcosa?

+ + +

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Another message from Pope Ratzinger: “Do not misunderstand: I have vacated the See, but I have not abdicated.”

A new meaning after the determination of an impeded See

by Andrea Cionci

Several months ago, in March, we had already “decrypted” entire chapters of Peter Seewald’s “Last Conversations,” in which Pope Benedict, in 2016, with subtle logic, told us about the canonical situation of the impeded See that we would begin to understand only four years later. Many of those messages we still haven’t published: in fact, the time was not ripe then and the article passed into obscurity.

Today, having clarified in a consequential way – and without any denial, despite the reminders – the issue of the Declaratio, which is not a renunciation (as it is legally void), but a declaration of impeded seat HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/italia/28377333/papa-ratzinger-mistero-errore-traduzione-dimissioni-parola-latina-cambia-tutto.html , those messages acquire an additional meaning. In one of them, our colleague Mirko Ciminiello, of RomaIT (https://www.romait.it/dimissioni-di-benedetto-xvi-la-nostra-scoperta-shock-rilanciata-da-libero.html), sees a subtext even more updated and consistent with what we had already published HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26699363/ratzinger-sottotesto-libro-intervista-ultime-conversazioni-peter-seewald.html

Pay attention to the sentences in bold, whose meaning we will explain below.

Here is Peter Seewald’s question to Pope Benedict: “In your statement you cite the decline in your strength as the reason for the renunciation. But is declining physical vigor a sufficient reason for stepping down from the throne of Peter?”

Benedict XVI: “Here the point can be made that we are dealing with a functionalist (misunderstanding): the successor of Peter in fact is not only linked to a function, but is involved in the depths of being. In this sense, function is not the only criterion. On the other hand, the pope must also do concrete things, he must have the whole situation under control, he must know how to establish priorities and so on. Beginning with the reception of heads of state, to that of the bishops, with whom he must really be able to engage in an intimate dialogue, to the daily decisions. Even when it is said that some commitments could be cancelled, there are still so many, just as important, that if one wants to carry out the task as one should, there is no shadow of a doubt: if there is no longer the ability to do so, it is necessary – for me at least, someone else may see it otherwise – to leave the throne FREE”.

Let’s see how the speech is organized: Benedict here immediately places a “halt”, a note to Seewald who claims that Ratzinger has stepped down from the throne of Peter, that is, he has abdicated. Beware – the Pope warns him – there is a risk of misunderstanding according to an “attitude that tends to the immediate evaluation and resolution of problems in a cultural or political context” (definition of “functionalism”).

It is not so simple, then: the Pontiff reminds us how the papal office is broken down (since the 1980s) into two different juridical entities: the munus, the title of pope, granted directly by God on the one hand, and the ministerium, the practical exercise of power on the other.

Here, in fact, Ratzinger explains: there is not only the FUNCTION, the practical exercise of power, the ministerium, but there is also an intimate dimension of being pope: the munus.

In fact, immediately afterwards, he explains even better, almost as if to make a child understand it, what the ministerium consists of: “receiving heads of state, bishops, making decisions, various commitments” etc.

And so he affirms that if the pope no longer has the ability to carry out his duties in a complete way, that is, to exercise his ministerium as he should, the pope must leave the throne FREE. Attention: he does not have to abdicate, he does not have to EXIT from the throne, as Seewald said in the question, but only leave it free, empty.

In fact, as our colleague Mirko Ciminiello noted yesterday, the latest interpretation of the Latin verb “vacet”, of the Declaratio, translatable (according to established Latinists) as leaving the See FREE, and not vacant, as translated by the Vatican. HERE (https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28380027/mirko-ciminiello-romait-scopre-messaggio-ratzinger-non-riconosce-francesco-come-papa-nella-lista-di-san-malachia.html) the details of the matter.

In summary, Pope Ratzinger could no longer exercise his practical power, because, as we have already demonstrated with facts, no one obeyed him anymore and even his mail was stolen (Vatileaks). This, according to canon 412, gave him every opportunity to declare AN IMPEDED SEE. So the Declaratio was NEVER A RENUNCIATION TO THE PAPACY, as it has been interpreted for the past eight years. There has been a gigantic EQUIVOCATION, allowed to continue because it suited many.

Ratzinger has ONLY PHYSICALLY UNOCCUPIED the See, unable to rule: so he took the helicopter and on February 28 left the See free, empty, vacant – not VACANT in the juridical sense – because the Declaratio is completely NULL as a renunciation, despite the fact that modernists have tried to mask the fundamental dichotomy munus/ministerium with the one word “ministry” and have translated the verb “vacet” as VACANT SEAT. Check it out for yourself HERE https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html

And in fact what does Benedict add again in his response? “FOR ME AT LEAST, IT IS SO, ANOTHER MAY SEE IT OTHERWISE”.

And in fact OTHER people saw it OTHERWISE: the modernists who were his enemies, members of the St. Gallen Mafia, who as the biography of Card. Danneels wanted him to abdicate at all costs (to make room for their champion Bergoglio HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27505999/papa-ratzinger-bergoglio-messaggio-nella-bottiglia-documentario-bugnolo-lamendola-decimo-toro-massoneria-daneels-mafia-san-g.html) and who manipulated the translations of Declaratio. They WANTED to see it as an ABDICATION when it was not an ABDICATION at all.

A COLOSSAL EQUIVOCATION THAT HAS BEEN going on for EIGHT YEARS and protects Bergoglio, defined canonically by jurists Acosta and Sanchez as an anti-pope tout court, who is now trying to heal a non-existent institution of pope emeritus HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28264381/vaticano-papa-emerito-non-esiste-allora-joseph-ratzinger-cosa-stato-otto-anni.html .

Now, for those who have missed the previous episodes, read why the Declaratio is NOT a renunciation HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28187673/joseph-ratzinger-vero-papa-giuristi-sanchez-acosta-smontano-difesa-pro-bergoglio.html and rather, why all accounts add up in reading it as an announcement of SEDE IMPEDITA : HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28344881/declaratio-papa-ratzinger-non-rinuncia-ma-sede-impedita-sei-latinisti-traducono-parola-chiave-vacet-non-sede-vacante-ma-sede.html

Question: is there anyone out there who perhaps has SWORN allegiance to the Pope and is thinking of looking into this further and/or perhaps doing something about it?

9 thoughts on “Ratzinger: “Non fraintendete: ho liberato la sede, ma non ho abdicato””

    1. Back in the 1950s & maybe before the Knights of Columbanus were hand in glove with Freemasonry. My husband left them because he discovered his Grand Knight was one of them.

  1. Thank you Andrea for your love of the Truth which for us has a name and surname Jesus Christ. Thank you for your love for our Holy Father who is imprisoned. His long suffering silence, I am certain, is an imitation of Christ` silence before the high priest and Pilate. In front of evil no amount of words can do. It is only the Cross and the Cross only. Blessed who understand that unique Christian mystery of salvation. Pope Benedict XVI knows that and he said that many times and so he volunteered to carry the via crucis for eight years now. And see what`s happened, it is through his suffering that many many have opened their eyes to the infiltrating evil power in the Church. Have no mistake about it, it is the same evil power that coerced Pope Benedict XVI to resign that is now terrorizing the free world with a fake virus and lethal obligatory vaccine.
    They could not have been able to carry out their infernal plan had he remained the head of the Church, smite the shepherd and the sheep will be yours.

  2. Since all SSPX priests pray the Canon silently, and the fact that (the SSPX chapel I attend) has picture anywhere of either Benedict or Bergoglio, how would one know who the priest actually prays for short of asking?

    I am a firm believer that many of the Societ’s priests do believe that Benedict is the one and only pope. Our priest NEVER refers to Bergoglio as the pope nor do they ever say Benedict or Bergoglio in any sermon.

    Can a true Catholic still receive sanctifying grace from anywhere outside of Mass?

    I know I have asked this question to many learned scholars. And, I have not received any definitive and/or doctrinal replies.

    I am bringing this up because at least one of your comments above.

    1. @To the
      You asked: “Can a true Catholic still receive sanctifying grace from anywhere outside of Mass?”

      This was Br. Bugnolo’s response to the statement of the belief that the highest graces come from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (in the comments to this post -https://www.fromrome.info/2021/02/20/can-i-attend-a-mass-offered-in-communion-with-bergoglio/):

      “I have given you the doctrine of the Saints and the Church. Grace does not come from the Sacraments. It comes from God, through various means: the Saints, prayer, the Mass, the Sacraments, penances, good works, etc.. To think that the greatest graces come to you only when you are at mass defies the teaching of Scripture and the history of the Saints, such as St. Paul on the road to Damascus, at St. Francis who was stigmatized upon a mountain. — But when the mass is illicit or immoral or schismatic, it is a mortal sin to attend it, even if the Sacrament is validly confected there and Jesus is present.

      But only Catholics will understand this, when they understand that doing the will of God is the absolute necessary condition for grace. Grace is not a commodity that you can buy from any hawker.”

      ***
      Also, if your priest (chapel) is omitting any mention of his position on who the pope is, my experience has been that many in the SSPX (clergy and laity) have really only paid lip service (even well before Bergoglio’s arrival) by saying yes, there is a pope, but they truly do live as practical sedevacantists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.