Tag Archives: Aldo Maria Valli

Cionci answers Valli’s Question: Why would Benedict XVI have resigned invalidly?

by Andrea Cionci

English translation — For the original Italian, click the image above.

See Cionci’s Blog at the Libero for his version.

For an Authorized French Translation, click here.

“The pope is only one” Benedict XVI has been repeating for eight years, without ever explaining which one. Invalid resignation had been talked about since 2013, but only last year, on Libero, we published the thesis of Friar Alexis Bugnolo who ventilated for the first time as the Latin errors inserted in the Declaratio of “resignation” had been inserted by the pope not by chance, but to attract attention to an abdication that never happened. From then on, there has been a continuous emergence of more and more evident and probing clues about the fact that the whole operation could have been organized on purpose by Ratzinger, a hypothesis that culminated in the book by the jurist Estefania Acosta Benedict XVI: pope emeritus?

Everything that is canonically challengable in the “resignation” seems, in fact, present: the errors in Latin that make the written Declaratio not “rite manifestetur” (duly) and with the suspicion of forcing (Cf. canons 124 and 146)); the inversion between munus and ministerium, with the unnecessary renunciation of the latter (Cf. canon 332 §2); the generically dubious resignation (canon 14) and finally the postponement of the “hour X” from which Benedict XVI would no longer be pontiff, with the non-ratification of the “resignation”.

The entire operation has been reconstructed here, ordering facts and documents, with all the necessary in-depth analysis. And still no one has been able to question it.

A few days ago, finally, an unequivocal message of Benedict XVI identified in Last Conversations (Seewald-Ratzinger 2016) in the phrase: “No pope has resigned for a thousand years and even in the first millennium this was an exception”. This would seem to close the game definitively given that no one has been able to give an alternative answer to the historical reference to Benedict VIII by which the XVI explicitly says he has never “abdicated.”

So, in the end, the most skeptical, but intellectually honest commentators are left with only one last hesitation: “Yes, all right, but why all this?”.

In the meantime, one could stop here. Let’s curb our curiosity a bit in order to act properly. Sometimes it happens that a person asks for help in a veiled and mysterious way, like the classic woman who calls the police ordering pizza without being discovered by her violent partner. In these cases, first of all we have to take note of the fact that 1) in the messages there is something strange that doesn’t fit 2) the person is probably in difficulty 3) obviously he can’t speak clearly 4) he will have had his reasons to ask for help in a sibylline way.

The fundamental thing is to understand that, first of all, we have to intervene, go and see, clarify, investigate: there will be time to discover all the motives.

However, we can already trace some hypotheses on why Benedict XVI would have given the Catholic people these eight years of vacation (in the broadest sense of the term) with resignation specifically invalid.

For two thousand years, a moment of great crisis has been announced for the Church, with a seizure of power by anti-Christic forces. We have the advent of an “idol shepherd” (Prophet Zechariah), a “False Prophet” (Revelation of St. John), a “false extravagant church” (Blessed Katharina Emmerick), a “Rome seat of the Antichrist” (Our Lady of La Salette), a “bishop dressed in white” (Fatima), a “propaganda church pope” (Fr. Julio Meinvielle), of “the smoke of Satan entering the Church” (Paul VI), of a “final test with apostasy from within” (Art. 675 of the 1992 Catechism), of an “Anti-Church and an anti-Gospel” (St. John Paul II), of “Satan at the top of the Church” (Don Stefano Gobbi) … In short, the possibility of a spiritually evil coup d’état is certainly not new and has been known for some time.

Do we want to believe, then, that Cardinal Ratzinger and St. John Paul II have remained inactive without preparing an emergency plan “B”?

Already in 1983 they elaborated – perhaps in this anticipation – the “hypnotic” diversification between munus and ministerium of the papal office: so effective that even today even insiders sometimes get lost in it. In Libero we have hypothesized that it could be a “mirror mechanism” inspired by the vision in the mirror of the bishop dressed in white of the shepherd children of Fatima.

Therefore, considering that the (documented) attacks of the St. Gallen Mafia came from within, and admitting that these were the expression of what has been prophesied for two thousand years, from a strategic point of view, the best system of reaction for Pope Ratzinger could certainly not be that of a frontal and asymmetrical opposition. Can we imagine – as certain sedevacantists would like – Benedict XVI in 2005, with the whole world painting him as a grim, obscurantist and retrogressive pope, raining excommunications on modernists, suspending here, expelling there?

It would have been political suicide: he would have done nothing but strengthen the propaganda of his enemies, inside and outside the Church, condemning not only himself, but also preparing, perhaps, in reaction, a legal succession with a modernist pope.

When Monsignor Viganò identifies the Council as the root of the current drift, he is not wrong, and certainly in 2013 the metastasis of neo-Arian-Lutheran modernism, (with a homosexuality of the clergy now endemic) had reached a state that demanded a drastic decision. Vatileaks had even highlighted a fierce internecine war between factions and even alleged plans to physically eliminate the Pontiff.

When the moment arrived, Benedict XVI probably pulled the “emergency lever” without hesitation, voluntarily, in science and conscience. The most intelligent, effective and holy way to react was through a retreat (a word he uses often), not before having “undermined” the enemy invasion ground. In strategic studies it would be called a “deception plan” with “elastic retreat” and “false target”.

Ratzinger fed the wolves that besieged him the “meatball” of the ministerium and, retreating into a role as a supposed pope emeritus, preserved the munus, granting the enemy forces within the Church an experimental time, to unravel, so that the Catholic people would be scandalized, that they would understand the emptiness and theologically destructive content of Masonic modernism enslaved to globalism.

Catholics had to see the pagan idol enthroned in St. Peter’s, the “mestizo Madonna relief of migrants,” the doctrinal upheavals, the politically correct changes in the missal, the esoteric-Masonic dew and a thousand other unheard of upheavals and reversals of sound doctrine.

The faithful had to see the Church as a slave of the “world”, dialoguing with abortionists and homosexualists, it had to hit rock bottom, “hitting its nose” like the prodigal son. They had to get to “be the swineherds” before becoming aware and returning to the house of the pope.

In 2013 – if we remember – no one, among intellectuals, theologians, vaticanists and simple faithful was so exasperated, nor animated by heroic Catholic spirit. No one would have risked their careers, no priests would have been excommunicated, nor would resistance groups have coagulated as in a “new Crusade of the Poor.” No one would have understood the reality and truth of the faith if they had not been exasperated, scandalized, outraged, and exhausted by Bergoglio and his associates.

Ratzinger knew how things would go, and he had made everything safe: his resignation was completely invalid, and this would be discovered as the various Enzo Bianchi imploded on their own, as the abusive Church drowned in fierce internal conflicts, in financial and sexual scandals, in grotesque gaffes and patent contradictions.

And Benedict’s resignation would be forever invalid, even after his death. A definitive plan to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Risky? For now – as we are writing about it – the plan has worked, at least in the first part. His game has been figured out, eight years too late, but it’s gotten there and the truth of some facts is going viral all over the world. And Benedict is still alive and lucid. It has been understood that the Church is about to be purified definitively, at the price of a schism, this time useful and necessary. We talked about it here in February and, after being showered with criticism, today no one is talking about anything else.

Now, what only remains to be decided is whether it will be the traditionalists or the modernists who will leave the Church (as a seat).

And the pivot of everything is, once again, the invalidity of the resignation of Benedict XVI.

If Ratzinger did not resign, Bergoglio, his cardinals, his theologians, his appointments, his doctrinal innovations will vanish in a breath, like dust in the wind, “burned eschatologically” by Canon Law. They will form a new globalist, Masonic-Lutheran church and will join the European Protestants. They will become irrelevant within a few years, like all Protestant churches. Otherwise, if no one will have the strength to challenge the resignation, it will be up to the Roman Church to abandon the See, and take back the faith, like Athanasius, return to the catacombs, as Ratzinger also predicted. In any case, it will be a purifying schism, to be wished, one would say. We are now not only in the presence of two different religions, but also antithetical.

Now, at this point, bishops and cardinals do not have to make a decisive choice of field. It would be enough for them to ask for a clarification, in a neutral way, a truth operation on Benedict’s resignation.

If Bergoglio were not the pope, he certainly could not excommunicate a cardinal who simply asked for clarity, short of unveiling himself.

What is needed is a public press conference by Benedict XVI with medical and security assurances. Or a public confrontation among canonists, or a synod with pre-2013 appointed cardinals. An operation of absolute, rigorous transparency should be primarily in the interest of Bergoglio, if he is the real pope, and also of his successor. Of course, this time they can’t get away with the contrived headlines of Vatican News or calling the usual pro-Bergoglio newspaper journalist who interprets everything in his own way. The truth operation will have to be clear, sharp and definitive.

Archbishop Viganò: Benedict’s Renunciation might be purposefully invalid

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Good Friday — April, 2, 2021: In a wide ranging interview by Aldo Maria Valli, published yesterday, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has openly conceded that the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI might be invalid, and intentionally crafted for that purpose.

Click HERE above to read the original.

The comments of the Archbishop regard a question posed by Aldo Valli, in response to the crusade by Andrea Cionci of Il Libero here in Italy (see HERE), who has published numerous articles in March, of this year, exposing the invalidity of the Renunciation and the precise meaning of it in the mind and writings of His Holiness, Pope Benedict. In Cionci’s latest piece, he reports that the Secretary of State had approved the text of the Renunciation with all its errors!

Here is an English of the key passage in that interview:

Valli: You may have seen, Your Excellency, that again the question of “who is pope and who is not pope” has been brought up. Some say: since Bergoglio was elected on the basis of the maneuvers of the Mafia of St. Gallen and perhaps with irregularities during the Conclave, he is not pope. But Ratzinger would still be, who would have renounced the throne not freely, but because forced by strong pressure, and would have deliberately written incorrectly the Latin text of the renunciation to make it invalid. Church-Fiction? Or is there some element to be taken into serious consideration?

Viganò: Several causes – strong and undue pressures from outside the Church and from prominent members of the Hierarchy, as well as Joseph Ratzinger’s personal character – might have led Benedict XVI to formulate a declaration of renunciation in a totally unorthodox way, leaving the Church in a state of grave uncertainty and confusion; machinations of a group of progressive conspirators might have indicated in Bergoglio the candidate elected later during a conclave marked by violations of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis that regulates the election of the Roman Pontiff: these elements might be such as to render Ratzinger’s abdication null and void, the Conclave of 2013 null and void, and the election of his successor. However, although widespread and undeniable, these elements require confirmation and above all a declaration by the supreme authority of the Church. Any pronouncement made by one who does not have the authority to do so would be reckless. I also believe that, at present, the dispute over who is the reigning Pope serves only to weaken the already fragmented healthy part of the ecclesial body, sowing division among the good.

Let us confidently pray to the Lord to bring the truth to light and show us the way forward. For now, strengthened by the virtue of Prudence that orders the means to the ultimate end, let us remain faithful and jealously guard what the Church has always believed: quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est.

To the Archbishop’s assertion that, “Any pronouncements made by one who does not have the authority to do so would be reckless”, I can only respond that, not only does every man by natural right have the authority to say munus does not equal ministerium, but every Catholic as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ knows that the only true and authentic unity of the Church is founded upon acknowledging the truth of things and of law, and not upon a political consensus!

But the Archbishop does point out, if in an obscure manner, that all roads now lead to another Synod of Sutri, to which all Catholics, but especially the faithful and clergy of the Diocese of Rome, have a right to ask to be convened and to have an official response.

Finally, however you regard the Archbishop’s position, his statements will leave every honest Catholic the opportunity to at last put to rest and bury the “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” narrative, pushed by the controlled Catholic traddie media, so shamelessly and with so many fraudulent claims, arguments, reasons, during the past 5 years.

Valli squirms, backtracks and shares Don Strumia’s Elegant Sophistry

English Language Summary and Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Aldo Maria Valli last Friday published an essay entitled, “At Rome there is no Pope”. I reported and discussed it there. You can click the image above to read Valli’s new article in Italian.

Now, not even a week later, the famous Vaticanista back tracks, in the above post, entitled, “The Errors of Peter, no matter how grave, do not give us the power to revoke the petrine mandate”.


If that title is making you scratch your head, you are not alone.

Valli excuses himself, he says, for giving scandal, in that he judges his words now to be ill chosen, and likely to make others think he is a sedevacantist, now. His comments were publicly addressed here in Italy, as such, by Don Minutella, who cordially and respectfully called him to dialogue. — To which, to my knowledge, Valli never responded.

I cannot escape surmising that Valli was severely criticized or threatened to retract by his publishers — he sells quite a number of books — on account of the absurd final note to his introduction to Don Strumia’s letter:

Il titolo del mio articolo (“Roma senza papa”) è probabilmente fuorviante. Colpa mia. Forse sarebbe stato meglio intitolarlo “Un Dio compagno non ci serve. Abbiamo bisogno di Dio Padre”. Oppure “Perdonare è un conto, discolpare un altro”. Oppure “La misericordia, quella vera, è mostrare la strada della Verità, non discolpare”. Nel fare il titolo ho ceduto al sensazionalismo, peccato grave per un giornalista.

Which I translate thus:

The title of my article (“Rome without a pope”) is probably off.  My fault.  Perhaps it should have been entitled, “A companion God is not useful.  We need a Father God”.  Or rather, “To forgive is one thing, to excuse fault another”.  Or rather, “Mercy, the true kind, is to show the path to the Truth, not to excuse fault”.  In writing the title I fell into sensationalism, a grave sin for a journalist.

Don Strumia is being ridiculous, I say

Then follows the letter of Don Strumia, which does not even merit to be translated.

His argument is, that if Christ does not take away a Pope’s mandate, then who are we to do such thing. It is not for us to declare who is and who is not pope. We are not qualified. We must shut up and let the experts do such things. Otherwise we are acting like protestants and causing schism in the Church!

After 8 years of pablum of this kind, you have to wretch a little or puke at such an absurdity mixed with presumption, hypocrisy and plain down right lies.

For, for 8 years we have been told that Benedict validly resigned, even though the norm of the law requires him to renounce the munus petrinum not the ministerium petrinum.

But Don Strumia is imagining that it is those who want to say Bergoglio is not the pope who are the sinners risking schism here, not those who without ANY BASIS IN LAW OR FACT OR REASON claim he is the pope.

I do not know where clergy get the diabolical audacity to invent such crafty lies and bold face repeat them in public. In some seminary of demons, no doubt.

But Strumia is playing at another game, because he introduces the term, the Petrine Mandate, which is not the canonical term nor the theological term for the Petrine Office.  The Petrine Office is a munus or charge. The Petrine Mandate — “feed my sheep, feed my lambs” is not the office, but how to fulfill that charge.

So he has purposefully avoided the term MUNUS, around which the entire controversy turns.

And he has avoided it, because that is the elephant in the Sala Clementina* which no one can not see, but whom everyone in the Vatican is pretending is not there.

For Aldo Maria Valli who launched the letter writing career of Archbishop Viganò to publish such screed as part of his retraction, while he may have wanted to save his reputation and repair the public scandal, he has succeeded in doing neither, but only showing that either he does not at all have the competence to understand the problem, or that he is simply being dishonest in a sophisticated sort of way.

For the record, Valli has my email and I have offered to speak with him, interview him and discuss the renunciation. He has never taken up the opportunity.


* The Sala Clementina is the elegant hall used for Consistories of the Cardinals, and where Pope Benedict XVI read his Declaratio of Feb. 13, 2013.

Valli drops the bomb

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Aldo Maria Valli is a noted journalist who works for RAI, the state television network. You may have heard of his name in connection to the letters of Archbishop Viganò or in connection with Dr. Roberto de Mattei, with whom he has done a book conference. He was recently involved in a serious car accident, which killed a close friend, but left him rather unscathed.

Italians, especially Vaticanista, know what they can say and how to say it with a finesse which often escapes Americans who need not fear what they say so much, on account of the culture of openness and sincerely that reigns there. But Italians do it in their own way.

The canonical arguments that Benedict is still the pope are now flooding the email boxes of all the elites of Rome. Valli’s too. He spoke about it in his recent editorial, Passaggiata notturna in piazza San Pietro:

Dopo la passeggiata torno a casa, accendo il computer e trovo la mail con un messaggio dell’amico che da tempo mi invita a riflettere sull’impossibilità di avere un papa emerito. La riassumo in parole povere (canonisti, chiedo scusa): siccome non si riceve una consacrazione a papa, quando un papa rinuncia al pontificato non può diventare papa emerito, perché non è più papa. Non torna a essere neppure cardinale, ma vescovo, e stop. Di conseguenza Benedetto XVI, con la rinuncia al ministerium ma non al munus (sarebbe a dire all’esercizio attivo, ma non al mandato) ha fatto qualcosa che non poteva fare e dunque la sua rinuncia è invalida. Ma se la sua rinuncia è invalida, è invalido anche il conclave che ne è seguito, e pure il papa uscito da quel conclave.

I do not think Valli is on Twitter, so he is immune from the juvenile trolling which will probably be launched against him by those who cannot read Latin or Italian, but do read FromRome.Info. So here is my English translation:

After my walk, I returned home, and turned on my computer and found an email with a message from a friend who for some time has invited me to reflect on the impossibility of having a pope emeritus. I will summarize it in my own poor words (I ask pardon of any canonist who is reading this): just as one does not receive a consecration to be the pope, when a pope renounces the pontificate he cannot become a pope emeritus, because he is no longer a pope. He does not even return to being a Cardinal, but a bishop. Period.  Consequently, Benedict XVI, with his renunciation of ministerium but not of munus (that is, of the active exercise, but not of the mandate) did something which he could not do and hence his renunciation is invalid. But if his renunciation is invalid, the Conclave which followed it is also invalid, and even the pope which came out of that Conclave.

Valli finishes with an elegant Italian double entendre to say that the shocking conclusion of his friend is the literal truth which one observes daily at the Vatican of one who claims to be the pope but shows he is invalid.


CREDITS: The Featured Image is of Castel San Angelo, the ancient Papal Fortress dedicated to Saint Michale the Archangel, but which is now a museum owned by the Italian Republic. The photo was taken by Br. Bugnolo before sunrise on one December morning in 2019.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Has Michael Voris joined the PPBXVI Movement?

FromRome.Info cannot refrain from printing this BREAKING News on Catholic Social Media: Michael Voris appears to have crossed the lines of the Bergoglian controlled narrative and indicated that it is legitimate to question the validity of Pope Benedict’s Renunciation!

Those Catholics who follow Canon Law and thus continue to hold Pope Benedict XVI as the only true pope — his resignation being canonically null and void — are members of what FromRome.Info calls the PPBXVI Movement, of which we are proud members ourselves.

Michael Voris crossed over no-man’s land on January 18, 2020, when Church Militant, his Flagship Video News Agency, published an English translation of an interview with the renowned Italian controversialist, Antonio Socci — without editing out his comments. That interview was entitled in English, Interview with Antonio Socci: ‘We are seeing the leaders of the Church work against Her.’

In that interview, which merits to be read in its entirety, Socci responds to Aldo Maria Valli’s question on Pope Benedict:

There is one question that is very close to your heart and that you have studied thoroughly: the resignation of Benedict XVI. Why did Ratzinger step aside? Is it possible that he did not have any idea what would happen next? Or did he know very well and desire that certain processes already underway would reach extreme consequences in order to better oppose them?

Also in this case, no one can pretend to know the personal thoughts of Benedict XVI. Certainly Pope Bergoglio was not elected by him, but by a College of Cardinals that clearly had no knowledge of the candidate during a conclave and pre-conclave of which there are many details that still need to be clarified.

But, as far as what concerns the resignation and his choice to be “Pope Emeritus,” I believe that, based on the documents in hand, it is now clear that Benedict XVI did not intend to resign — or totally resign — the Petrine munus.

As Archbishop Ganswein explained in his famous conference at the Gregorian University:


Both before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task to be a participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He left the papal throne, and yet, with the step taken on February 11, 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry at all.


There is another passage from Archbishop Ganswein that I would like to highlight:

He has not abandoned the office of Peter, a thing which would be completely impossible for him following his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.


To me, these seem to be explosive words (and they have never been denied by Pope Benedict). The closest collaborator of Benedict XVI explains to us that for Joseph Ratzinger “the acceptance of the office” of Peter is “irrevocable” and to abandon it is “totally impossible.” Although the Vatican continues to pretend that everything is clear, we the Christian people are allowed to ask questions about what really happened in February 2013 and what is the place of Benedict XVI in the Church today.

Significance of Socci’s remarks

If Benedict did not renounce the petrine munus, as canon 332 §2 says, then he is still the Pope, because that canon requires the renunciation of the munus for a papal resignation!

While this affirmation is not news for Antonio Socci — he has written several books on the Renunciation — it is news for Church Militant to allow such a view to be published on their website.

This remarkable step for Voris is even more newsworthy, when you recall that not so long ago Voris was rumored on social media to have said that Cardinal Burke was insisting that he not criticize Pope Francis. But the Cardinal said in October that those who doubt Francis is the pope are extremists. It seems then, that Voris has realized that Cardinal Burke is no longer an infallible authority on reality, and that common sense and fidelity to the truth require a re-assessment of the historical facts.

It also means that, in just 1 week, the Catholic world has seen two notable Catholic journalists move out of the camp of “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” and into or towards the Catholic Fold, which says, “A doubtfully resigned pope, is still the true pope, whether he thinks so or not.” By two, I mean Michael Voris and Diane Montagna. If you count Aldo Maria Valli, the confidant of Archbishop Viganò, the implications are even more newsworthy.

Viganò caused tongues to wag in Italy, when in his recent denunciation of Archbishop Gänswein, in the pages of La Verità, he called Benedict XVI both “pope” and “supreme pontiff”, titles which Bergoglians are fierce to insist belong to Bergoglio alone. That intervention of Viganò was published in full, in English translation, by FromRome.Info.

For everything on the PPBXVI Movement’s canonical position on the Renunciation, see ppbxvi.org.


CREDITS: The featured image is a screenshot of the page from Church Militant which features the translation of Valli’s interview of Antonio Socci. The citations from the interview are take verbatim from the same page, as per fair use practice. FromRome.info, however, has corrected the lack of Bold Facing in Valli’s question to Socci.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]