Introduction by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The correspondence between Cardinal Brandmüller and His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI represents one of the historic dialogues on the renunciation of ministry made by the Holy Father.
Since the discovery that Pope Benedict XVI has been speaking in subtle, coded-like language, it will be important for the Church and for history to know what the Holy Father really meant by his words.
Cardinal Brandmüller is the most preeminent cleric of the Church in Germany. A convert from Lutheranism in his youth, he is also one of the 4 Cardinals who had the bravery to Ask Bergoglio Question so written, that Bergoglio either had to give the Catholic response and repudiate his agenda, or profess heresy in public. Bergoglio has never answered, which demonstrates his ill will.
The work of understanding the coded language of Pope Benedict has and is being done here at Rome by the intrepid Andrea Cionci of the Libero Newspaper. If you click the image above you can read the original Italian of his article on this topic. Below is an authorized English translation.
by Andrea Cionci
In almost two years of investigation we have examined dozens of messages which comprise the “Ratzinger Code” that the Pope, Benedict XVI, has been sending us in books, letters and interviews since 2013, in order to explain to us that he has never abdicated and that, as we have recently understood , he retreated from an impeded see (canon 412).
A reader sent our findings to all 226 Bishops in Italy and only seven of them answered, HERE, these using contemptuous or derisive words. The refrain is always the same: “fairy tales, conspiracies, fantasies …”. Since the Vatican colleagues, invited to a cordial discussion on the subject, are silent, we asked for the opinion of various specialists: psychologists, linguists, psychiatrists, Latinists, jurists, historians. It was not easy to find professionals with the uprightness ready to “show their faces”: among the many who were urged, some responded without saying yes or no. Understandable: if it turns out that Benedict XVI is the only true pope and is impeded, everything in the dominant narrative will crumble (and not just Bergoglio’s anti-pope status, but everything-everything).
Already in March, prof. Carlo Taormina, the most famous jurist in Italy, had declared to the Libero HERE: “We are struck by the continuous and studied ambivalence, over eight years, attributed to the statements of Ratzinger who, in substance, always seems to reiterate the same thing, that is, that the pope is himself, Benedict, and not others “.
Today, Prof. Rocco Quaglia, full professor of Dynamic Psychology at the University of Turin, explains: “The Libero has done a very refined job of decrypting the writings and behaviors of Pope Benedict; the interpretations given give meaning to what appears to be lacking in logic. Your conclusions regarding the state of the Church today are more than acceptable and therefore disturbing. What is even more serious are the silences of those who should speak, and they are silences of fear and courtesy “.
The professor. Quaglia therefore signed the following, together with the other professionals: “The objective and strange ambiguities of Benedict XVI’s language identified as the” Ratzinger Code “, also found by other journalists, or even readers, are not accidental, and are not due at the age of the author or, least of all, at his unpreparedness. They are subtle but unequivocal messages, which lead back to the canonical situation described in the investigation. Pope Benedict communicates in a subtle way because he is in the impediment and therefore he is unable to express himself freely. The “Ratzinger Code” is one of its forms of logical and indirect communication that makes use of apparent inconsistencies which do not escape the eye of the trained people. These phrases, “decoded” with due insights into the references that the Pope makes to history, current events, canon law, hide a perfectly identifiable logical subtext, with precise and unambiguous meanings. At other times, Benedict XVI opts for “amphibole” phrases – not without humorous hints – which can be interpreted in two different ways. These communication techniques allow him to understand, “to those who have ears to hear”, that he is still the pope and that he is in a situation of impediment. Therefore, anyone who claims that the messages of the Ratzinger Code are imaginative interpretations either did not understand, or denies the evidence “.
Among the others who have signed on to this statement are:
Prof. Antonio Sànchez Sàez, Professor of Law at the University of Seville
Prof. Gian Matteo Corrias, professor of literary subjects and historical-religious essayist
Prof. Alessandro Scali, professor of classical literature, writer and essayist.
Prof. Gianluca Arca, teacher of Latin and Greek, philologist, researcher, essayist.
Dr. Giuseppe Magnarapa, psychiatrist, essayist and writer.
The Letters to Cardinal Brandmuller
And now let’s move on to offer you two extraordinary examples of the “Ratzinger Code”, with the reading, for the first time “decoded” in a complete way, of two very important letters that, in November 2017, the pope, Benedict XVI, wrote to his friend Card. Walter Brandmüller, one of the four cardinals of the “Dubia”. The Cardinal, a highly cultured ecclesiastical historian and a longtime friend of Joseph Ratzinger, has never welcomed what the mainstream continues to consider today as his renunciation of the papacy.
At a “normal” reading, the two letters appear flawed, inconclusive and empty of meaning.
Here is the premiere of November 9, 2017:
“Eminence! In your recent interview with the Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung, you say that I have created, with the construction of the Pope Emeritus, a figure that does not exist in the totality of the history of the Church. Of course, you know very well that the popes have retired, albeit very rarely. What were they after? Pope emeritus? Or what instead? As you know, Pius XII left instructions in case he was captured by the Nazis, who from the moment of his capture would no longer be pope but cardinal. Whether this simple return to the cardinalate would have been possible, we do not know. In my case, it definitely wouldn’t make sense to simply demand a return to the cardinalate. Then I would have been constantly exposed to the public in the way a cardinal is – even more so – because the former pope would have been seen in that cardinal. This could have led, intentionally or unintentionally, to difficult consequences, particularly in the context of the current situation. With the Pope Emeritus I have tried to create a situation in which I am absolutely inaccessible to the media and in which it is quite clear that there is only one Pope. If you know a better way and therefore believe that you can censor what I have chosen, please tell me about it. I greet you in the Lord, Yours,
In this letter, Benedict XVI reveals to the cardinal – with an infallible subtext – that he has always remained the pontiff behind the non-existent institute of the pope emeritus, and has never abandoned his Church.
Here I present the letter again, now “anatomically dissected” in paragraphs immediately after the text, in square brackets. Have patience! you need to read with a little concentration: we are talking about one of the greatest minds of the century, who speaks in code because his headquarters has been usurped.
“Eminence! In your recent interview with the Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung you say that I have created, with the construction of the pope emeritus, A FIGURE THAT DOES NOT EXIST in the totality of the history of the Church. Of course, you KNOW VERY FULL THAT THE POPES HAVE RETIRED, even if very rarely. What were they after? Pope emeritus? OR WHAT INSTEAD? “.
[Here Benedict does not deny that the pope emeritus does not exist and sends card. Brandmüller, Church historian, to those very few popes who “retired” in the first millennium, driven out by anti-popes, but, who did not abdicate. The reference is, among the few, to Pope Benedict VIII, of whom we have already written HERE. And here are the rhetorical questions: “And these popes who withdrew, how did they stay? Maybe they were popes emeritus? Or what instead? … NONE REMAINED POPES, as I have done”].
“… As you know, Pius XII left instructions in case he was captured by the Nazis, who from the moment of his capture would no longer be pope but cardinal. Whether this simple return to the cardinalate would have been possible, we do not know. In my case, it surely WOULD NOT HAVE JUST HAD SENSE TO CLAIM A RETURN TO CARDINALATE. Then I would have been constantly exposed to the public in the way a cardinal is – indeed even more so – because in that cardinal one would have seen the EX-POPE. This could have led, intentionally or unintentionally, to difficult consequences, particularly in the context of the current situation. “…
[Thus, if he had been captured, as is known, Pius XII would have ABDICATED in order to leave the Nazis with a handful of flies. Ratzinger, however, decidedly distances himself from Pius XII’s solution because this would have made him A FORMER POPE, a cardinal, while he, in fact, WANTED TO REMAIN STILL as the POPE. If Benedict XVI had really abdicated, he then adds, the Church would have legally ended up in the hands of the modernists, with difficult consequences].
“… With the Pope Emeritus I have tried to create a situation in which I am absolutely INACCESSIBLE TO THE MEDIA and in which IT IS COMPLETELY CLEAR THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE POPE. If YOU KNOW A BETTER WAY and then think you can criticize what I have chosen, please tell me. I greet you in the Lord,
[In other words: With the ploy of the non-existent papacy emeritus I created a situation that was incomprehensible to the media, but which made it clear – from the canonical point of view – that the pope was only me. (In fact, I declared that I renounced the ministerium alone, leaving the seat “empty” and not “vacant”). Was there a better way I could get myself out of the way? ].
Is that clear to you? In case, read it calmly, piece by piece. Below is Ratzinger’s second letter, dated 23 November 2017. As for the previous one, reading the letter in its entirety, at first glance, one understands little or nothing.
“From your kind letter of November 15, I suppose I can conclude that you will no longer make public comments on the issue of my resignation in the future, and for that I thank you. The deeply rooted pain that the end of my pontificate caused in you, as in many others, I can understand very well. But the pain in some – and it seems to me also in you – has turned into anger, which is no longer just about resignation, but is expanding more and more towards my person and my pontificate as a whole. In this way a pontificate is devalued and dissolved in sadness for the situation of the Church today. A new type of agitation gradually emerges from this merger, for which Fabrizio Grasso’s little book, La Rinuncia (Algra Editore, Viagrande / Catania 2017), could become emblematic. All this fills me with concern and, for this very reason, there at the end of your FAZ interview [in the Frankfurr Allgemeine Zeitung ed] left me very upset, because in the end it can only promote the same kind of atmosphere. We pray, as you did at the end of your letter, that the Lord may come to the aid of his Church.
With my apostolic blessing, I am yours
And here is the decoded translation:
“From your kind letter of November 15, I suppose I can conclude that you will no longer make public comments on the issue of my resignation in the future, and for that I thank you. The deeply rooted pain that THE END OF MY PONTIFICATE CAUSED IN YOU, as in many others, I can understand very well. But the pain in some – and it seems to me also in you – has turned into anger, which is no longer just about resignation, but is expanding more and more towards my person and my pontificate as a whole. in this way a pontificate is devalued and dissolved in sadness for the situation of the church today. ” …
[Or in other words, now decoded: “Thank you for no longer speaking in public about my ‘resignation’. Your pain for what, together with others, you believe the end of my pontificate has turned, in you, NOW into anger not only for my person, BUT ALSO FOR MY PONTIFICATE AS A WHOLE “. — Now, be careful: if Pope Benedict were referring to his own pontificate that is now past (2005-2013), how could the cardinal’s anger be pinned on the former pontificate, given that the cardinal appreciated him very much, so much so that he was saddened by the presumed end of he? Logically, the anger of Card. Brandmuller should only focus on Ratzinger’s PERSON, who would have ended an excellent pontificate. Pope Benedict, on the other hand, is revealing to the cardinal that his pontificate IS CONTINUING, is in progress, albeit in a different, hidden form, because he has remained THE POPE. He confirms it immediately afterwards: “With your anger, TODAY you are devaluing and considering” dissolved “my pontificate which instead continues, even if I had to withdraw from the government of the Church, sadly leaving it in the hands of the usurpers”].
… “From this merger a new TYPE OF AGITATION gradually emerges, for which the little BOOK BY FABRIZIO GRASSO, La Rinuncia (Algra Editore, Viagrande / Catania 2017), COULD BECOME EMBLEMATIC.” …
[That is, decoded: “You are dissolving my pontificate and this produces a new agitation”. Now, the content of Grasso’s book  is conclusive: the “agitation” expressed in the book is that Catholics can be confused with two popes both considered valid. But the pope remained, and there is only one: Benedict XVI. Moreover, the “emblematic” subtitle on the cover of Grasso’s book is: “HAS GOD BEEN DEFEATED?” the same question that many distressed Catholics ask themselves. “No, God has not been defeated – reassures Benedict XVI – because I have remained THE POPE”].
… ”All of this fills me with concern and, for that very reason, the end of your interview at the Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung left me VERY UNRUPTED, because in the end it can only promote THE SAME KIND OF ATMOSPHERE. We pray, as you did at the end of your letter, THAT THE LORD MAY COME IN HELP OF HIS CHURCH of him. With my APOSTOLIC BLESSING I AM YOURS
Benedikt XVI “
[That is, decoded: “I am concerned that you consider my pontificate terminated”. — But let’s see what Card. Brandmüller at the end of the interview cited,
The Frankfurter reporter asks: “Do you really think a schism is conceivable?
Card. Brandmüller replies: “God forbid”
The response of the Cardinal disturbs Benedict XVI because God has allowed several schisms in history to purify the Church from heresy, keep it faithful to the teaching of Christ and integral in the Petrine succession. Pope Ratzinger, in fact, did not abdicate specifically to produce a schism in this sense, as we have illustrated HERE.
The concept was also reiterated by him in the aforementioned interview with Herder Korrespondenz: “It is therefore not a question of separating the good from the bad, but of dividing believers from non-believers”.
Ergo, the Cardinal’s fear of a schism upsets Benedict because he does nothing but promote and perpetuate “that same atmosphere of agitation” in Grasso’s book, according to which “God would have been defeated”, with two popes both considered valid. This is why, referring back to what the cardinal writes in his letter, Benedict hopes that the Lord can come to the aid of His Church, the true Church of which he himself is and remains the pope. IN PRACTICE, BENEDICT XVI IS ASKING FOR HELP.
If that weren’t enough, pope Ratzinger takes leave of card. Brandmüller giving him HIS APOSTOLIC BLESSING, the absolute prerogative of the reigning pontiff as explained HERE. In conclusion, and closes with, “I AM YOUR Benedict XVI”. It is easy to suppose that he means: “I am your POPE Benedict XVI”, since this is the pontifical name of him that he wanted to keep “].
Now, for those wishing to review the entire investigation produced in the pages of the Libero, they can find it integrated and rearranged at the bottom of this article, HERE, right from the start.
Anyway, the Bergoglians don’t worry, nothing will happen. A kind of mass psychological spell is in progress that the apostle Paul had already foreseen and identified as “Power of deception” HERE. Nobody will do anything: the conservatives will continue to talk about vaccines and to be scandalized by the explosive demolitions of Bergoglio, but nobody will face the MAGNA QUAESTIO: too much effort, too much risk, too much fear.