READERS OF FROMROME.INFO PAY ATTENTION — THIS LETTER CONTAINS IMPORTANT THEOLOGICAL AND FORENSIC OBSERVATIONS WHICH HERETOFORE HAVE NOT BEEN CLARIFIED.
by Andrea Cionci
Authorized English Translation by FromRome.Info
FOR ORIGINAL TEXT CLICK IMAGE ABOVE — For links in text, see Italian original
Most Reverend Excellency,
I have listened to your reflections (here) on the question of the validity of the pontificate of Francis. As author of a two-year long inquiry into the question of two popes, advanced by more than 200 articles publish in national newspapers in Italy and recently published in a book of 340 pages, I hope that you do not judge me presumptuous if I permit myself to direct to you this public letter, trusing in your intellectual openness and in your courageous and praiseworthy effort to defend the truth.
You sustain that the theory, according to which Benedict XVI has not abdicated, “contests the tradition of the Church”.
Yet, in the history of the Church we have had about 40 antipopes, and hence it is not a novelty that persons bound to worldly powers have sought to conquer the Papacy by the use of force: this in fact is part of the “tradition”. What is absolutely new — and on this you are right — is the courteous rely that the legitimate Pope has furnished to defend himself from this aggression upon the Papacy, an aggression foretold in ages past by the prophet Daniel.
Of such a plan, I have written in the book, “Codice Ratzinger” (The Ratinger Code), a copy of which I have sent to your personal address.
However, according to you, the prospect of Benedict as the one sole pope would be impossible because, citing your words: “The human law which regulates the assumption of the papal office or the destitution of the papal office should be subordinated to the greater good of the whole Church, which in this case is the real existence of a visible head of the Church and the certitude of this existence for the whole body of the Church, clergy and faithful.”
If, I have understood you well, simplifying it, this would be impossible because there has to be, for the good of the Church, an active pope.
Excuse me, but you yourself have courageously declared some time ago that Pope Francis “ought to convert” (here). You are right, but by recognizing Francis as the legitimate pope, in fact presuppose the existence of a non-Catholic as a pope and how could this ever constitute the greater good of the Church? The fact that Bergoglio is not Catholic, as measured by the Faith, is derived from his not being the pope, from his not having the munus, the divine investiture (retained by Benedict XVI) which guarantees infallibility ex cathedra and the ordinary assistance of the Holy Spirit (CCC 892).
If the legitimate head of the Church “has to convert” to Catholicism, something which is at conflict with his very role as pope, this is an atrocious misfortune and hence, consequently, all of his un-catholic acts as pope and his nominations do not in fact suit the supreme good of the Church, but are indeed spirituallyl noxious and lethal to Her. Hence, the supreme good of the Church is exactly that these be annulled in their entirety, a thing which happens precisely thanks to the status of the impeded see of Pope Benedict XVI. Just give a look at the nominations of Cardinals done by Bergoglio: a heap of ultra-modernists who have passed en bloc to an alternate globalist religion and, from our point of view, have very little to do with Catholicism.
You affirm, however, that our discussion is configurable to a type of sedevacantism, but were are not speaking here of an empty see, because there is a Pope, and as it is, he is Benedict XVI. Let us speak rather of an impeded see, a state entirely taken into account by Canon Law, which impeded see, in fact, produces “a pontificate of exception” which, to revive the conceptualization of Carl Schmitt, brings about a providential general suspension of law in the life of the Church.
Certainly, it is shocking that in nine years the entire active practice of the visible Church has been nullified, but this is a supreme good, considering that that actual “administrator” is not Catholic. All this has been permitted by the Holy Father, Benedict, with a precise purpose: the final purification of the Church as a response to the attack of the heretical modernist Masonic party. We are speaking, hence, about an eschatological period of tremendous, millennial importance and Pope Benedict, as Dr. Giorgio Agamben has highlighted, has in this way “reinforced the papacy” by separating the good seed from the tares and by conceding to His enemies a short period of lawlessness before they are “cast into Gehenna”.
In fact, I strongly doubt that your sanatio in radice derived from the pacific universal acceptance could ever heal, from one day to another, under the present canonical regulations, the coup d’eta which began with a conclave convoked when the preceding pope was not yet dead nor abdicated, but was impeded and had no intention to leave the throne of Peter. Otherwise, one would legitimate the law of the jungle in the bosom of the Church.
Even the doctrine of ecclesia supplet (the Church supplies), which you site, refers to the Sacraments, not to the juridical order. For this reason, Pope Benedict XVI has guarded the souls of the simple ones who continue in good faith, unknowingly, to approach the Sacraments in communion with the one that they believe to be the legitimate pope, but at the same time, Benedict defends the Church from the forced usurpation by taking advantage of the canon law, which is not an “accessory” to the life of the Church but regulates the legitimacy of every provision.
The idea that Benedict has put his enemies to the test, who wanted to make him abdicate, and who in fact put themselves into schism on their own, is not — excuse me — a dead end, as you write, but a clever strategy to definitively purify the Church. It would, on the other hand, be a dead end, to hold that there can sit on the throne of Peter a legitimate pope who is not a catholic: that would be equivalent to saying that Christ has abandoned His Church. Another dead end — the one absolutely worst of all — would be to approve of another invalid conclave, which, with about 90 bergolian non-cardinals, would certainly gift the Church with another antipope, a Zuppi, a Tagle, or a Maradiaga, maybe even with the semi-antipapal name of John XXIV. A true suicide to which there would be in agreement the many cardinals nominated by Bergoglio, who imagine that they bear the crimson, by descending into similar compromises and thus would lose not only the cardinalate, but perhaps, something, in the optic of the Faith, which would be infinitely more important.
In your talk, there is cited the declarations of Mons. Gaenswein which opened the field to the theory of “substantial error” according to which Pope Benedict wanted to create a pope emeritus, but made a mistake and committed an error of concept by seeking to double the papacy into two pontificates, one contemplative and one active.
This is a position shared by a significate part of the traditionalist world, but the Declaration (of Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013) is not based solely on the inversion of the terms munus and ministerium (which could at most lead one to think there was a conceptual error) but is rather an outstanding cocktain of implosive canonical mecchanisms which, beyond rendering any such hypothesis completely inacceptible, which speaks of an abdication, evidences, on the contrary, an extraordinary, perfect self-consciousness that as the true Pope draws up a coherent announcement of self-exile in an impeded see (canon 412). A renunciation of the papacy, in fact, ought to be simultaneous and could never be deferred for 17 days: the ministerium cannot be juridically separated from the munus. This can only happend de facto and not de jure in the case of an impeded see when a bishop cannot exercise his own power because he is impeded by overwhelming forces.
Indeed, if Benedict has wanted to juridically separate munus and ministerium on the basis of a substantial error, after 8 P. M. on February 28, 2013, though in error, he would certainly have confirmed by writing or verbally his — though impossible — juridical renunication of ministerium. A think which never happened, as has been demonstrated in the book by Carlo Maria Pace. Hence, as one can see, Pope Ratzinger was perfectly conscious of what he was doing.
Moreover, Benedict XVI recommends — and not by chance — in his Declaration that the next pope will have to be elected “by those who are competent”, that is, by those who were Cardinals nominated before 2013 and not by false cardinals nominated by an antipope. The verb, vacet, which has been arbitrarily translated into the vernacular as “sede vacante”, ought to be translated literally with “empty see”, because the expressions “see of Rome” and “see of St. Peter”, have no juridical existence as to be vacated, as Attorney Arthur Lambauer noticed.
If Benedict had believe in a doubling of the papal charge into two legitimate pontiffs, he would have above all insisted since 2013 by seeking to convince us that this was possible, by defending his erroneous imposition, at least by saying something like: “There are two popes, both valid, but the one which is more important is Francis”. Nothing of the kind has happened, in fact, he has repeated for 9 years that “There is only one Pope”, without ever explaining which one. If the pope is — in the sense of the verb to be — only one, there cannot be two popes who are legitimate at the same time, but rather one legitimate and contemplative (Benedict in an impeded see) and another illegitimate and active (Bergoglio usurping the throne) has Msgr. Gaeswein has explicated in his famous discourse of 2016 (here).
Besides, if there is only one pope, and he be Francis, why does Pope Benedict write that the pope emeritus is the Supreme Pontiff (here) and why does he impart his own Apostolic Blessing (here)?
In summary, Pope Ratzinger has simply said that just as there was not sufficient strength for him to govern, by reason of his recent decline, he renounced in everything the exercise of power, leaving in fact the see empty. With self-sacrificing meekness, having accepted with Christian resignation his own being-impeded, he has permitted that another usurp his own power, by considering him abdicated, and put himself into a schism by his own hand, having ruined himself by his own infidelity and longing for power. A perfect plan, even from the theological point of view, which does not grasp for what reason he was taken hostage (if one does not gather together all the necessary overlooked evidence) and is not comprehended by many conservative Catholics who are in fierce opposition to Bergoglio.
Only from these brief comments, does one comprehend that the argument is enormously complex to reconstruct, but is in its essence a most simple one. Moreover, it is necessary to read follow the investigation in detail to have a general overview and, above all, to explain the diverse, but only apparent, moments, which seem to contradict it (such as His discourse for the 65th anniversary of his priesthood, or his presumed oath of fidelity, HERE).
My own investigation, at first, instead of considering philosophical speculations unconnected to the real documents, “listened” to what Pope Benedict XVI said he had done and I have not been contradicted even by the Holy Father (the true one) when He honored me with His own letter, in which, moreover, he furnished me with the only response which could indicated an impeded see, reinforcing his message even with His own heraldic device as the reignin pope (here).
Behold, this is why I say to you: pay attention, your Excellency, this question is unimaginable more grave than you think. I supplicate you to read more attentively the book, “Codice Ratzinger”. I have dissected and illustrated the subtle system of communication which Pope Benedict uses from his impeded see, which he has employed to make “him who has ears to understand” understand and “to separate believers from unbelievers”, as He Himself declared to Herder Korrespondenz last summer. But one does not treat here of anything transcendent or “gnostic” as someone had the daring to affirm, rather, this communicative style, which repeats en bloc that which was used by Jesus against His accusers (here), is open to all and has been understood and certified by specialists who took the time to consider and examine it with great attention:
“The objective and strange ambiguity of Benedict XVI’s language termed the “Ratzinger Code”, admitted even by journalists, and even readers, are not by chance, and are owed not to the age of their author or, even less, to his impreparation. They are subtle messages, but unequivocal ones, which lead us to the canonical situatoin describe in the investigation. Pope Benedict communicates in a subtle style because he is in an impeded see and hence he is made unable to express himself freely. The “Ratzinger Code” is his own logical and indirect form of communication which takes advantage of apparent inconsistences which are not passed over by educated readers. Such phrases, “decodified” with with needed research into the references that the Pope makes to history, to current events, and to Canon Law, conceal a logical subtext which is perfectly recognizable, with a precise and univocal signification. In other occasions, Benedict XVI opts for “amphibologic” phrases not without their humoristic points — which can be interpreted in two diverse ways. These techniques of communication give “to those who have hears to understand” a means to understand, that He is still the Pope and that He is in an impeded situation. Moreover, whoever sustsained that the messages of the Ratzinger Code are capricious interpretations either has not understood or denies the evidence.”
Prof. Antonio Sànchez Sàez, Professor of Law, University of Seville
Prof. Gian Matteo Corrias, Professor of Literature and essayist on religious history
Prof. Alessandro Scali, Professor of Classical Letters, writer, and essayist
Prof. Gianluca Arca, Professor of Latin and Greek, philologist, researcher and essayist
Dott. Giuseppe Magnarapa, psychiatrist, essayist and writer psichiatra, saggista
An example of the above? In “Last Conversations” (here), Benedict XVI replies in this manner to the journalist Seewald: “Was there any interior conflict regarding the decision to resign?”
The response of Pope Ratzinger was: “It is not so easy, naturally. No pope has resigned for a thousand years and even in the first millennium it constituted an exception”.
A seemingly clamorous error (since 6 popes have abdicated in the first millennium, and 2 in the second), if one does not consider one’s own resignation as that of solely ministerium and thus indicates perfectly those two popes (Benedict VIII and Gregory V) who in the first millenium, before the Gregorian reforms, were temporarily driven out by antipopes and lost their own practical exercise of power, their ministerium, but remained popes. Behold a case of an impeded see before there was any canon about that.
As you see, there is nothing of the gnostic in this, but a message which is comprehensible to everyone, even to the undersigned, author of the discovery, who is certainly not a specialist in Church history.
There are dozens and dozens of examples of this kind and they go from those which are the most simple and direct, to those which are more complex and refined. Such a logical style has already become the patrimony of the common reader, who has adjoined other discoveries of messages, open and brilliant, contained in the writings of the Pope.
I repeat: one is dealing here with OBJECTIVE reality against which no one, even now, has attempted to respond with a refutation which is more than snobbery or without the elusive accusations of “conspiracy”, “fantasy”, and “fictitional plots”.
My critics, other than insulting me gratuitously (here), systematically, and with a conscious superficial mindset, and one which is potentially fatal to the visible Church’s existence, refuse to analyze and refute this corpus of papal declarations.
One fears the evidence, the truth, if one has fear to “take a canonical look”, if one has fear to read the hundreds of messages in the Ratzinger Code, because in this case it is necessary to enter the field, take a position, and renounce material comforts, to step back from one’s own past convictions, and many do not have the courage to do that, even if the salvation of Church requires it and that too of one’s own soul, if we look at it from the light of faith. The “broad way” is that of thinking that, at the end, when Bergoglio leaves the scene, it will be easy to put everything back together.
But no: as you yourself have pointed out, the next conclave composed of a crowd of non-cardinals named by Bergoglio will elect another antipope and the canonical visible Church will be finished and, perhaps, will have to rise up against from the catacombs having “abandoned the synagogue” of Satan.
Pay attention: with his own subtle and Christological language, Pope Benedict, the legitimate vicar of Jesus Christ is selecting “his own” army. It is easy for so many to DESERT by confounding the carts on the canonical table and ignoring his own messages, by stamping them “a conspiracy theory”.
But there will arrive the moment of final revelation and of the purifying schism. The important thing will be to find oneself on the just side.
I beg you to believe me: I have not gratuitously invested 800 hours of my time to put my professional reputation in jeopardy, or for some miserable commercial speculation.
Read the book which I am sending you. Please examine it with much attention and you will be able to recognize the complete “mosaic”, reconstructed, as much as possible, piece by piece.
With respectful and cordial salutations….