Summary and Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
There is a lot which could be discussed in regard to this interview, given yesterday afternoon, but I will address the most significant section, in which it appears the Archbishop has commented on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, at 10:46 in this video:
Where the interviewer, asks:
Q. Il mondo non dimenticherà mai quell’undici Febbraio del 2013, con l’annuncio della rinuncia. C’è qui continua dire che non sia stata una libera scelta, o addiratura che lui abbia dopo voluto rimanere papa in qualche modo. Cosa ne pensa?
My English Translation:
Q. The world will never forget that 11th of February, 2013, with the announcement of the Renunciation. There are those who continue to say that it was not a free decision, or even, that he had after wanted to remain pope in some manner. What do you think of this?
At this point in the interview, it is clear that the Archbishop gasps to answer the question: he stops, begins to speak and then responds thus:
A. Questa domanda in altre parole — in diverse — in diversi situazioni — ho detto io a lui. — Eh! — Cercono una dietrologia che lei non ha detto quando ha fatto questo annuncio il 11 Febbrario dopo il Consistoro. Cercano, cercano, e cercano. Devono essere qualche di. — Chi non crede che ciò che ho detto è il vero motivo, non mi credi anche se dico adesso credetemi: è così. Poi non voglio adesso andare — entrare negli dettagli. — è l’unica — Questo è e rimane l’unico motivo. E questo è grave. E non dobbiamo dimenticare. A mi ha detto: Devo farlo, poiché io ero dei primi che cercava di convincergli che non è possibile. E poi mi ha detto nettamente: Senta! Non chiedo il Suo parere, ma communico la mia decisione, pregato, sofferto, presa coram Dio.
Non è così, che si può scavare e credere di trovare qual cosa. Che non credere e fare teorie, anche in riguardo che ha lasciato parte e ha mantenuto un’altra parte o o ecc. — Tutti quelli che dicono questo fanno delle terorie su una parola o su una teroria di un’altra cosa, al fin fine non si fidono di Benedetto, di cio che ha detto. Vuole dire, questo è proprio un affront contro di lui. Però ognuno ha la sua, la volontà di sua libertà e può dire o cosa sensato o cosa manchi sensato.
La nuda verità è quello che non ha più avuto più la forza di guidare la Chiesa. Come ha detto questo in latino. Io ho chiesto, “Perché il latino?” – Questo da — questa è la lingua della Chiesa e io vorrei farli questo e questo. E poi loro traducono e capiscono.
Chi crede di trovare o dove di trovare, qualche vero, vero, vero motivo, sbaglia. Il vero motivo ha communicato lui. Amen.
My English translation:
A. This question in other words — in diverse — in diverse situazions — I have said to him. — Eh! — They seek a behind-the-scenes-explanation which you have not said when you made this announcement on February 11th, after the Consistory. They seasrch, search and search. There must be something of. — He who does not believe what I have said is the true motive, will not believe me even if I now say, “Believe me: it is so!” Now, I do not want to go — to enter into the details. — It’s unique — This is and remains the unique motive. And this is grave. And we ought not forget. To me he said: “I have to do it”, since I was among the first who sought to convince him that it is not possible. And then he told me succinctly: “Listen! I am not asking for your opinion, but am communicating my decision, having prayed, suffered, a decision taken before God.
It is not like this, that one can dig and believe to find something. That one does not believe and makes up theories, even in regard to that he left a part and has maintained another part, or, or, etc.. — All these who say this are making up theories based on a word or one a theory about something else: at the very end, they do not trust Benedict, in what he has said. This means, this is indeed an effrontery against him. However, each one has, the will of his own liberty and can say what he feels or what he needs to feel.
The bare truth is that he no longer had no longer the strength to guide the Church. Why he did this in Latin, I asked him, “Why in Latin?” — This one gave — “This is the language of the Church and I would want to do these, this and that. And then they translate and understand.”
He who believe to find or where to find, something true, true, true motive, errs. The true motive he himself communicated. Amen.
It is clear first of all that the Archbishop has dodged the Magna Quaestion. Because the question is not about Benedict’s intentions, but about what he actually did do. But since the interviewer phrased the question withing the boundaries of internal motivations, the Archbishop responded to that limitation.
Second, it is clear that the Archbishop was troubled in answering this question. He frequently rephrased himself and he spoke in a very crude Italian. Perhaps he is not able to do otherwise. But his response, like that at the LUMSA university at the end of September, lacks proper introductory context in several places, so that it is not clear if he is quoting Pope Benedict XVI or is merely inserting his own words in the Holy Father’s mouth.
Forensically, this testimony, hence, is worth little. Because whether Benedict XVI renounced the papacy or not, or whether he had recourse to canon 332 or 333 has NOTHING TO DO WITH INTENTIONS, it has only to do with the proper manifestation of intention.
Hence, one can only conclude, from the above, that the Archbishop has testified that Benedict renounced because he felt too week to continue. But as regards the question of what he renounced, he gives no answer.
But even more importantly, if the Archbishop thinks that it is only the critics of the renunciation who think that Benedict did not renounce the entire dignity, office, munus and ministry of the Papacy, then he is joking with the world, because Pope Benedict XVI for nearly 10 years kept wearing the papal garments, signing as pope, giving the papal blessing, using the papal heraldic symbols, etc. etc. etc. And the Archbishop never faulted him for that.
And thus, while the Archbishop faults a large segment of the Catholic world for not trusting in Benedict and offering him an effrontery, he has by this interview basically called Pope Benedict XVI an idiot for not knowing how to renounce and for pretending to be pope for 10 years afterwards. And that is a level of insult much more grave than the one he alleges against others.
But since the Archbishop seems to not understand the canonical aspect of the question, one must suppose that either the Archbishop who holds a doctorate in canon law, has an degree which is absolutely worthless, because he understands nothing of the Latin language or of the principles of right, or he believes that words do not have meanings, only the brute force of personal intentions. That is, if one does not allege that he is under threat or blackmail, which at this point would be ridiculous to maintain after such an explicit declaration.
But as regards the Archbishop’s joking, if you ask any lawyer expert in the transfer of titles, you will find immediately that the Archbishop is living in an imaginary world, which has never existed in any concept of right in a civilized literate society.
Finally, if one accepts the Archbishop’s testimony, the controversy about the invalidity of the Declaratio to render Benedict XVI no longer pope does not go away. Benedict XVI was not in substantial error. The Archbishop does not understand the controversy at all. And the Cardinals who proceeded to elect Bergoglio were either in bad will, or like the Archbishop, totally clueless and hence incompetent to elect a Roman Pontiff.
Everyone now needs to interrogate the Archbishop to ask him on point about whether Benedict XVI’s act is an application of canon 332 or 333. Not to ask him about the intentions of the Holy Father, which cannot change what Benedict actually did, but to seek only what the Archbishop understands as a jurist about a renunciation of the papacy and what that requires, because it is now clear that he seems to understand nothing at all.
As for the accusation against those who hold that Benedict XVI remains the pope until death: I end here by rebutting entirely and explicitly the insult launched by the Archbishop that we hold that Benedict XVI did not mean what he said.
15 thoughts on “Archbishop Georg Gänswein dodges the Magna Quaestio during his interview by Radio Vaticana”
The Archbishop is..simply. The real idiot here!
Who thinks what about the present situation and what has transpired sin 2013 is really of no importance.
It is an objective matter. Cannon Law is clear and so is the record. Now the only person who can change my mind about this would be Our Lord coming from Heaven.
The hierarchy is no longer believable. We will have stick to the fruits of their labor (as Jesus said clearly) and the fruits of the antipapacy are clear for all to see. Gänswein or no Gänswein.
“Let your YES be YES and your NO be NO. Anything more than this comes from the evil one. ” (Matthew 5:37)
Well, he has confirmed that Pope Benedict still considered himself the Pope even if he himself considered it crazy.
Fra Bugnolo, come è potuto l’arcivescovo Ganswein essere al fianco di Benedetto XVI tutti questi anni? Una spia volutamente messa al fianco del Santo Padre?
Dio ci aiuti
Perché non chiedi un incontro a Georg e gli poni la domanda in modo preciso e puntuale?
Mons. Georg feels from today after it’s not enough to write “rimanete saldi nella fede” (remain steadfast in the Faith).
This Will mean to act in defensive and resilient position: “non lasciarsi confondere” (don’t let be confused).
Even if he seems like very confused in this interview, there Is a time for each step in the way of Faith.
“O God, come to Our aid; O Lord, make haste to help us”
That account is not the Archbishop.
Thankyou Brother Alexis for this detailed investigative commentary on the Archbishop’s somewhat rambling and incoherent utterances.
My hunch is that he continues to “play for both sides”, trying desperately to be loyal to both Pope Benedict XVI RIP and heretical antipope Bergoglio……
Thus, he has put himself in a frankly impossible position, as has been evidenced for some considerable time by his lack of “straight-talking”!
“No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will sustain the one and despise the other. You cannot serve GOD and mammon.”
[St Matthew 6: 24]
(NB: ‘mammon’ = riches, worldly interest = masonic globalism = Bergoglio!!)
Ganswein is and was part of the Sanct Gallen Mafia. He clearly served as Benedict’s jailor. Benedict never had the freedom to openly speak. He NEVER renounced the papal Munus. Furthermore, the entire College of Cardinals willfully violated. Pope John Paul II’s papal law. All of these Cardinals placed themselves in a state of excommunication. None of them can vote in any future conclave (correct me if I’m wrong). The Latin rite of the Church is now officially in schism. The post-conciliar, heretical, Modernist, apostasy now goes to the very top- just as Our Lady of Fatima foretold. It is high time that the clergy of Rome need to call a conclave and elect a valid pope.
The Latin rite is not in schism. 99.99% of the Church are innocent victims of this fraud.
If the Bishops and Cardinals think that Bergoglio is the pope, then, yes, they are in schism from the Church . Papal schism. Even if the Holy See is vacant.
Yes, I agree that the laity remain overwhelmingly blinded thanks to folks in the Recognize & Resist crowd.
So true. My family didn’t know any of this until 2020, when I happened upon your information while looking for info to support our desire to continue receiving Communion on the tongue.
Judging from our own parish, the truth of this hierarchical revolt goes way over the heads of most laity, deacons, and parish priests. The laity haven’t been told anything and the priests are afraid of being disobedient to the bishops. It’s ironic but understandable that the rebellious 0.01% will allow no rebellion–free thinking, even–within the ranks. The 99.99% are desperately in need of sound, traditional catechism…and critical thinking skills.
There is something sinister in his eyes and in his voice.
The 1.3 billion Catholics remain obtuse because of Pied Pipers in the Catholic Media who are controlled-resistance. They’ll attend conference after conference, watch YouTube videos after YouTube videos, and donate their money even to pundits who are converts and impostor Catholics who have infiltrated the Church to destroy her from within.
Ganswein’s remarks are a gross exercise in obfuscation.