Andrea Cionci writes a personal letter to Ann Barnhardt (Italian & English)

by Andrea Cionci

This is a follow up to Cionci’s Open Letter in English, and his Bi-Lingual Video on the same topic.

Dear Miss Barnhardt,

A few days ago, I published an open letter, also translated into English, and a captioned video-interview addressed to you and Prof. Edmund Mazza, to discuss matters of enormous importance that transcend all ego-centric issues and personal ideological territory. I acknowledge your great, even historical, merits for identifying the invalidity of Declaratio as renunciation and Bergoglio’s antipapacy. However, I have submitted to you incontrovertible documents and reasoning of normal logic to take a step forward in understanding the Magna Quaestio.

I expected that You might either welcome with joy and a spirit of cooperation what has been presented, or rebut it with serene rational arguments, to defend Your thesis, as the gravity of the matter and the stature of the debate certainly deserve. Instead I am informed that You in Your latest podcast indirectly respond in these terms, “There is a group of people who absolutely want to make Pope Benedict out to be a superhero, for some reason, who is playing 15-dimensional underwater chess. And, oh, no! He didn’t make a substantial mistake, it’s all the result of his enormous Bavarian intellect, he fooled everybody and so on….”

Response to my first Open Letter to Ann Barnhardt?

It has been said that Pope Benedict would be a liar for consenting to all this and would be responsible for all the souls who died as a result of Bergoglio’s horrible heresies (since they believed he was the Pope). I’m also told that your co-blogger, blogging at Non Veni Pacem, has asked, “How is Ratzinger not in mortal sin according to the argument that this is a big maneuver on his part for the past 9 years?” He also alludes to the fact that the Ratzinger Code would be a kind of “gnosticism.” (I don’t understand why since it is based on syntax and logical analysis of language).

We Italians are a bit xenophilic and tend to think that outside our national borders, that “the grass is always greener”.

I expected that we could go beyond mockery and avoidance of the subject matter.

I expected that in a confrontation with American intellectuals we could go beyond the mockery and avoidance of the subject matter, unlike what is already happening in Italy with the demeaning conduct of several intellectuals who categorically refuse to examine writings of the Holy Father Benedict reviewed by several specialists even of university rank HERE (link missing in original).

Now, certainly what I have uncovered is wonderfully disconcerting: we so agree; but it is no more disconcerting than the claim that Joseph Ratzinger, one of the greatest Catholic intellectuals of the 1900s, with an ecclesiastical career of some 60 years, might have had a “mistaken” view of the papacy. Kind of like saying that Elizabeth II today would still not have a clear understanding of what the role of a queen is. Doesn’t that seem a bit bold of a claim?

Now, allow me, here  to say that concerning substantial error there is only one here: that of continuing with blinders on to see Declaratio as an “invalid renunciation” of the papacy. — I have shown in detail and with the help of authoritative Latinists that this document is not a lame and invalid renunciation at all, but is a candid and very consistent declaration by which Pope Benedict simply “stopped working,” relinquishing the exercise of power because he was unable to continue.

An impeded See

So, in fact, he has retired to an impeded See, a canonical situation that makes him remain pope and that, again in fact, makes Bergoglio an antipope. — Imagine a professor with a class of little students. Those are so anarchic and rowdy that he cannot continue teaching, so at some point he simply leaves the classroom and crosses his arms. He doesn’t quit his teaching position and remains a professor. If some random guy walks into the classroom and starts teaching instead of him, do you think he could be automatically hired by the school in place of the other professor? This could only happen in the jungle, not in a civilized institution!

I have also shown, through analysis, which I term “the Ratzinger Code,” which is recounted in a book of mine due out next week, that Benedict managed to never lie, despite the fact that imprisonment might have authorized it, using subtly logical language. — For example, when he says “I have validly renounced my ministry,” since munus and ministry are regularly translated by many as “ministry,” you do not know which of the two entities he is referring to. Or rather, He knows, because in Declaratio, He renounced the ministry-ministerium. So He is not a liar at all. But a genius who managed to always tell the truth, in its essence, even in the face of his enemies.

This is just one of a thousand examples. I have shown that on every occasion, even in the very difficult 65th priesthood speech, the one about the word “Eucharistomen,” Benedict managed to subtly speak the truth in the presence of his persecutor. But one must descend into the transparent and pure meaning of words and references. Only in silence and pure rational thought can this reality be understood.

Why did Benedict not first legally arrange for emeritus?

Moreover, if Benedict had wanted, because of his strange conception of the papacy, to split the office into two, one active and the other contemplative, why did he not first legally arrange the status of an emeritus? Last year Bergoglio put his canonists to work to patch up a jurisprudence on the emeritus papacy, a clear sign that it does not exist. What does Benedict do, things by halves? The pope emeritus is impossible, he and the canonists, who have so far spoken on the matter, know it well. So “emeritus” must be understood in its original meaning: the one who deserves, who has the right to be pope.

More importantly, what would have been the point of creating this confusion with a true active pope and a true contemplative pope? Just to panic a billion 285 million faithful? Do you think Joseph Ratzinger is such a spiteful, vain, nostalgic man for the trappings of papal dignity?

But even if when he had this whimsical idea of the papacy, in nine years, given the bewilderment left in the faithful, Benedict should have constantly reiterated, according to his misconception, “Look there are two popes, one active and one contemplative, I am also pope, but I am retired.” But no: he repeats, tapping his wrist on the armrest, “There are not two popes, only one is the pope,” and he does not explain which one. Bishop Gaenswein also confirms, “There is only one legitimate pope. But two living successors of St. Peter” (ergo one is legitimate and the other is illegitimate) and “there is one contemplative member (the legitimate pope, Benedict) and one active member” (the usurper Bergoglio). Too difficult? I don’t think so, for your intelligence.

Theological discourse

There is then a theological discourse to be made. If you are Catholic you must believe that the pope is assisted by the Holy Spirit, not only ex cathedra, but also in ordinary activity (Article 892 of the Catechism). According to the substantial error theory, would the Holy Spirit have abandoned the true pope at such a dramatically crucial moment in the history of the Church, legitimately handing it over to a total heretic as you describe Bergoglio? — Forgive me, but this I think is a horrible offense against the Trinitarian Third Person. Exactly like those Bergoglio legitimists who think it is plausible how the Holy Spirit assists one who enthrones Pachamama and is “personally” in favor of civil unions, i.e., the legalization of the practice that according to Catholicism is one of the Four Sins that cry out for vengeance to heaven. Perhaps the Holy Spirit has become modernist and heretical and we have not noticed?

As for the usual objection many people make, about Benedict XVI allegedly abandoning souls to Bergoglio:

1) the pope is not the baby sitter of humanity. Every war has its price to pay, and the Church certainly is suffering damage. But the doctrine of Supplet ecclesiae affirms that God provides, supplants in cases of people’s good faith and unawareness. So the sincere souls of the little ones and the unaware are saved anyway and the sacraments are legitimate for them (but only for them).

2) Benedict, moreover, continues to speak and teach true Catholics not only with his books but also with the language of Jesus in the face of his enemies. Those with ears perfectly understand the Ratzinger Code. Truly sincere sheep smell exactly who the shepherd is. On social media I often read simple people who write, “My pope is Benedict.” In reality he is for everyone, but they, poor souls, intuitively sense it. Those who are in trouble are the intellectuals, those who have lost this simplicity in recognizing the true and then, degrading themselves, mock their opponents about the last name. What was it like? “If you don’t come back as children….”

3) To say that Benedict sinned because he abandoned the faithful would be like complaining about a father kidnapped by bandits by saying he is guilty because he “abandoned his family.” He could do nothing else because he was the victim of a deadly mutiny.

4) Without this ingenious self-impediment, if he had heroically had himself killed, or if he had really abdicated, You would have Bergoglio as legitimate pope today.

5) Benedict XVI is neither stupid nor ignorant. On the contrary, you yourself admits that he is a genius, but now you reject the hypothesis that he could have prepared a genius plan to defend the Church from those whom She most detests. In short, make up your mind!

So I really appreciated the work that you have done up to now. And the conclusions you came to also had a certain logic to them: “If the renunciation is invalid, Benedict necessarily had to have a very strange conception of the papacy.” But I am telling you that it was not a renunciation. And that Benedict, by a subtle, but perfectly consistent statement, self-exiled himself to an impeded See (canon 412) and thus allowed his enemies to march into schism.

Four possibilities

You personally now have four possibilities:

1) You lock yourself in “no comment” as so many do, certifying your intellectual surrender.

2) Prove me wrong by disputing point by point the arguments and documents I submitted to you in the above article and interview. If you succeed in doing so, on a logical and documentary basis, I will declare myself defeated.

3) You may continue to mock me and several priest-martyrs who have had themselves excommunicated to defend the truth. You may continue to avoid direct confrontation and evade the merits of the issues. In this case, however, you would be taking a very serious responsibility, which would undo all your excellent work done so far. Out of a matter of punctiliousness and haughtiness you would discredit yourself, producing enormous damage. In fact, the substantial error thesis gives room to those traditionalists who see Ratzinger as a “modernist.” And therefore they refuse to understand Bergoglio’s illegitimacy by emotionally and masochistically wallowing in hopeless tragedy.

This road of yours will lead to the end of the visible Church, Bergoglio’s victory and anti-papal succession. I will tell you how. The sedevacantists will retreat, depressed and sneering, to their Aventine: “No pope has been valid since 1958 anyway.” And they will let a new fake conclave unfold with 70 invalid Bergoglian cardinals. The one cum (Bergoglio’s legitimist conservatives) will agree to endorse the fake conclave hoping for a diplomatic deal: they will be gutted. Do they feel up to “getting back on the merry-go-round” with an antipope Zuppi, Maradiaga or Tagle who will assume the name John XXIV as Bergoglio anticipates (unheard of)? But they would still end up with another antipope even if, by the most unlikely chance, a traditionalist and holy man “gets elected”.

4) Possibility No. 4 is that you, after studying very carefully what I have submitted to you, become aware of self-exile in the impeded See. And show that you can do the most difficult thing in the world, with the courage that is yours. Abandon your thesis of substantial error, burning it on the altar of Logic (which you demonstrated very well) as an “outdated model” and to work together to win back the Church to true Catholics. I cordially extend my hand to offer alliance or, at the same time, throw down my glove inviting you to a duel (though traditionally one does not do that, with a lady). It is up to you.

However, please don’t be like those little quoted intellectuals who tease me about my surname, or bring up the “Da Vinci Code” or “A beautiful mind.” This matter is extremely – extremely – serious and transcends our little personal peeves. History will judge us, and for those who believe, so will Someone more important.

Looking forward to your reply, I cordially greet you,

Andrea Cionci

14 thoughts on “Andrea Cionci writes a personal letter to Ann Barnhardt (Italian & English)”

  1. Beautifully put.

    Thank you for correcting me and helping me to restore my respect for our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.

    1. In 2013, The Holy Spirit/my intuition spoke to me. I knew right away there was something very wrong with Pope Benedict XVI’s “resignation”. I knew that Bergoglio was a puppet, false prophet placed to further the NWO agenda. I assume many other Catholics shared this same feeling/thought. I didn’t do any research. I felt this from my soul. I shared my concerns with “Christians”/“Catholics” in my life. They disagreed- thought Bergoglio appeared kind, a humanitarian and were hopeful he would be more “open” to change in the church!! I continue to speak up and share that our true pope is Pope Benedict XVI. Bergoglio is the false prophet who is doing Satan’s work. Pray daily for Our Pope Benedict XVI – for his health and safety. Pray as well for Bergoglio- that he will stand-up, speak God’s truth and save his as well as so many other souls.
      🙏🙏🙏☦️☦️☦️
      God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit save our Catholic church. Save every single soul in this world. Amen.

  2. When examining the data set, in order to arrive at the correct conclusion, one must begin with the true base premise.

    False base premise: The Declaratio Was a Renunciation.

    Cionci, et al begin with the true base premise: The Declaratio was NOT a renunciation. It was a declaration of PPBXVI’s intent to be self-exiled in an impeded see.

    ~ The declaration of self-exile in an impeded see has revealed the centuries-old, deeply hidden corruption. YES!
    ~ With the declaration of self-exile in an impeded see, PPBXVI’s and Christ’s enemies finally leave the visible church and march the anti-church into undeniable, in-front-of-our-own-eyes schism. YES!

    ~ The Pope is not the babysitter of humanity. RIGHT!
    ~ God provides–supplants–in cases of good faith and unawareness. (God is not a jerk.) RIGHT!
    ~ The Holy Father is and has been straight-jacketed by diabolical mutineers in a centuries’ old mutiny. STOP blaming PPBXVI for “abandoning his children and their mother to an abusive stepfather”. JUST. STOP. NOW.

    The damage done to the sedevacantist and “Recognize and Resist”-type of traditionalists only increases when you cling to the Substantial Error hypothesis.

    In light of Mr Cionci’s presentation and evidence, Miss Ann B, Mr. Mark D, and Dr. Edmund M, please reevaluate your substantial error perspective because you begin with a false base premise.

    1. I began with this same false premise, because I was unaware that I had been fed lies and propaganda. I took the false narrative of the resignation, as a abdication, without critically examining the claim and being unaware of what propaganda is, did not question my own presuppositions. So I wrote an entire scholastic quaestio proving the substantial error. But when I began to examine the Latin text, and after finding so many errors, I began to consider whether Pope Benedict XVI could have unintentionally made so many errors and these not be corrected by anyone on his staff, or whether he was such a proud and stubborn man as to do such a thing. And I recalled the words of St. Paul, “Charity thinketh no evil”, and questioned my own presuppositions against the man. I was from the beginning of reading his writings totally disgusted with his manner of doing theology, so this took me a year of reflection before I cam out and admitted there were so many errors that it must be intentional not unintentional, since this was a papal document and he was a learned man, not a wannabe. And then that led me to study the errors to see if there was some rational consistency in them. And that is when I saw the seeds of plan B, but I was not able to comprehend the Ratzingerian way of speaking in code, which Cionci calls the Codice Ratzinger, because being raised in the USA I have not the habit or expectation that someone would even want to speak in code, rather than in open light of day simple terms. So it has been a long intellectual pilgrimage, and against all my expectations.

  3. I greatly appreciate your patient, humble, and charitable explanation of your own pilgrimage and present position.

    One of the other areas of blessing besides outing the “deep, centuries old corruption” which brings to light the anti-church’s visible march out of Jesus’ Church is the revelation of the overarching very powerful, long and very long historical use of propaganda.

    Propaganda used by diabolical minions takes advantage of our fallen human nature’s slavery to sin leading us to oppose charity by dividing us into “pro-” and “anti-” camps. We end up abrogating our human wills and intellects either through the desire to be on the winning “team” and/or via the “apparent good” of subservient, false obedience.

    Surely we would all agree that in the end God alone is right; God alone is good.

    Thank you Br Bugnolo, Andrea Cionci, Lawyer Acosta as well as Miss B, Mr Mark D, Dr. Edmund M and so many others around the world for persevering in the revelatory process that leads to the same old conclusion that Fr Nicolas Gruner laid out in 2014 when he asked Fr Paul Kramer to commence AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE Declaratio: There is only one pope.

    Now, not later from some future pope, this investigation needs to be conducted now by those with the authority to do so. As is our baptismal right, THE FAITHFUL THROUGHOUT THE WORLD are calling for this investigation NOW.

    Cardinal Burke! Abp Vigano! do your job. Fulfill your own obligations to God, Holy Mother the Church, and to the faithful.

    In God’s time and in God’s way, may His Divine Will be done.

  4. I believe that Ann Barnhardt and those who followed her reasoning about the Declaratio – myself included – made one or more invalid mental leaps that showed our doubt of the protection of the valid Pope from heretical teaching and our doubt of God’s providential timing.

    Oddly, the “negative protection” from error of a true Pope is something that Ann Barnhardt has stressed often, yet she does not apply it to this particular act of Pope Benedict XVI towards the very end of his unimpeded See.

    For example, an error in assumption that because Fr, then Bishop, then Cardinal Ratzinger read, engaged with, or wrote dubious theology before his Papacy, he would continue to believe and promulgate such in his divinely appointed office.

    Thus not acknowledging the super abundant additional grace imparted by the Holy Spirit on one canonically elected and chosen by God to be Pope.

    For another example, an expection or hope that the antipope should be deposed faster (e.g. as soon as each one of us individually realised the situation), to ease our own pains and sufferings, rather than that the complete growth of the tares and the wheat should first be permitted, before the great sifting and separation, to ensure the maximum purity of the remnant.

    I must admit to being scandalised still by the pan-religious Assisi events hosted by both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

    I am not sure if allowing others to preach heresy and install false idols on Catholic altars in Catholic chapels or churches is considered heteroprax rather than heterodox, nor if even this technical distinction reduces the scandal attached to it.

    Maybe Pope Benedict XVI will not see the Triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart and the era of peace, for substantially the same reason that Moses was not permitted to enter the Promised Land – disobedience, detraction from God’s glory and scandal?

    1. @Paul Jackson
      Your observations hit home for me: PPBXVI’s participation in the scandal of Assisi’s pan-religious events; scandal of kissing the Quran; etc… as well as my hope or expectation of Bergoglio being revealed as the usurper that he is in MY time and not God’s time…

      With hindsight I can allow that for me those past scandals may have been practice runs back then for exercising the gift of faith now and during these last nine plus years.

      Thank you for expressing your insights into ensuring “the maximum purity of the remnant” as well as the comparison of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart and the Promised Land for PPBXVI and Moses respectfully.

      Thinking on your observations helps me to return and rest in Our Lord and His mysterious plans.

  5. This posting with all its comments seems to me to be one of the most profound in this large, wide-ranging, and useful blog. I hope many will send it to priests whose minds are not closed, and who are troubled with Bergoglio but do not have the background in canon law to examine this situation as Mr Cionci has.
    In this controversy, He is a Catholic scholar and a gentleman and I hope many people will copy and send this posting & comments to Ms Barnhardt, not merely by email or on social media, but printing and posting it in an envelope with a stamp. Possibly registered post. Costly, but will impress on her the importance of justifying or withdrawing her allegations.

    If she ignores / does not engage in this discussion in a decorous manner, she injures the cause of Truth, the Church, and her own reputation both as a Catholic and a logician.

  6. I not sure I completely understand the arguments. I think Ms. Barnhardt’s logic is impeccable regarding substantial error in Benedict’s Declaratio. Canon Law is very specific in exactly what the pope must say/write for the resignation’s validity. Would someone please explain where Ms. Barnhardt is off target?

    1. Ms. Barnhardt errs in presuming Benedict XVI intended to abdicate, that is, intended to fulfill canon 322.2. Cionci demonstrates he never intended that on account of his habitual indication of himself as the one and only true, legitimate pope.

      1. – A.D.+20220708 10:39 Calif.

        Site hangs after 4th article.
        Meriting Hell:…

        Powering off/on doesn’t help.
        – A.D.+20220708 10:28 California.

        Only way to ‘contact’ is via web search
        ‘Andrea Cionci’ article on fromrome.info and comment there.

        Got dup msg. As yesterday.
        Not duplicate. Worse prob today.

        Thank you.

  7. People are blinded by ‘too much light’. Dott. Andrea Cionci’s investigative presentation has left the multi-faced Vatican, Catholic experts ..in awe, if not totally blind. They are capable to repudiate the journalistic work, only because their brain could not bring them to do such work themselves. Because, as much as they think ‘they are experts’ …they are not! These people lack foresight and culture. Dott. Cionci has too much regard for them; they do not deserve it. For most of them, it’s the Dollar Sign that leads the way…not the truth. Even if the Catholic Church faces destruction. Ad maiora, Dott. Cionci. Ignore these people, they are not worth your time nor the regard. The truth will triumph!

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.