Tag Archives: Andrea Cionci

Archbishop Mueller launches book declaring, “There is only one pope, and it is Francis”

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In a historic act of infamy, Archbishop Mueller, appointed by Pope Benedict XVI in the summer of 2012 A. D., as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has written a preface of approbation for a new book which declares, “There is only one pope, and it is Francis“: infamous, because Mueller received from several persons extensive information showing that Benedict XVI is still the pope, and refused dialogue with leading investigator(s) such as Andrea Cionci.

So Cionci has launched an open Letter Mueller detailing his incomprehension at such a step. And rightfully so, especially since it was Pope Benedict XVI who raised him to the dignity of an Archbishop and made him head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2012 A. D., the year before he was driven into an impeded see.

First a link to the original Open Letter to Mueller by Andrea Cionci, and then my English translation of this important missive:

by Andrea Cionci

Authorized English translation by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Most Reverend Eminence,

We permit ourselves to direct to you publicly these scribblings, as one trusting in your charity as a pastor, first as a prince of the Church, mindful of the ancient Christian maxim: veritas summa charitas est (the truth is the greatest charity).

In your recent interview at the German website, Kath.net, as reported on the blog of Marco Tosatti, here, you assured everyone that “the legitimate pope is Francis”.

Even if, in the article, you had not judged it opportune to delve into your affirmation, we have reason to believe that you might be able to enlighten us — or have us enlightened by one of your collaborators — on the thorny question which remains unanswered for nine years and which has seen, throughout the whole world, the interventions – to the contray opinion – from authoritative scholars, canonists, jurists and theologians. To these there have been added the gravest affirmation on the part of three bishops, Mons. Gracida, Mons. Lenga and Mons. Negri on the fact that Pope Benedict did not abdicate and/or was constrained to abandon the Petrine throne (see here).

If, however, as you assure us, “the legitimate pope is Francis”, that means that the abdication of pope Benedict certainly happened without problems or infractions of canon law. If everyone took place in a crystal clear way, at this point, however, we do not understand why some priests incredulous at the claims of a juridically valid renunciation, have been excommunicated and/or reduced to the lay state without a canonical process, if all of this could have been explained so easily.

We implore you to help us understand how it can be, if Canon 332.2 in the Code of Canon Law, imposes for an abdication the renunciation of the Petrine munus, that the same would be equally valid if the renunciation was of the ministerium. Let us remember that it was the same Cardinal Ratzinger who distinguished the papal office in 1983 into these two entities according to the practice of Germanic dynastic law (see here), and that these two terms are not equivalent.

We would like to understand, in consequence, if the unedited expressions (as revealed by Attorney Arthur Lambauer) used in the Declaratio, such as sede Romae, sede Sancti Petri, have a juridical existence such that they can be left “vacante” and if it be true that an abdication, instead of being simultaneous just as the election, could be deferred by setting a sort of “expiration date” for Our Lord God to take the munus back (though in this case it is the ministerium).

In accord with such a request, for the sake of the peace of souls, we would ask you, if it were possible, to show a formal document with which Pope Benedict, immediately after 8 P.M. on the 28th of February, 2013, verbally or by writing conformed his renunciation of the ministerium, given that he bade farewell to the world at 5:30 P.M., two and a half hours before the hour in which the announcement of February 11th would have taken effect. His entire Declaration has remained, as much as we understand it, legally never confirmed. We would want to understand if the ministerium can be canonically separated from the munus, or if this cannot happen in fact, except in the case of a sede impedita (impeded See). Hopefully, on this point the canonists of the University of Bologna can give us useful elucidations, after several months of work precisely on this theme of “a pope emeritus and an impeded pope”. We have tried to ask them several times, but to no avail.

Moreover, you then affirm (in your recent interview) that “the resignation of Pope Benedict in 2013 introduced a tension in the Petrine principle of unity for the Faith and the communion of the Church which has no equal in history and which has not yet been dogmatically reckoned with.”

Should we, then, hold that the Holy Father, Ratzinger, has voluntarily maintained, even up to today, 1.285 billion Catholics in this terrible, anguished ambiguity? Is it possible that he had not foreseen a “pope emeritus” — understood as a canonical status of an ex-pope — a thing judged by diverse canonists as theologically impossible?

Then, there are some very strange facts about which we are certain you will be able to furnish us with clarity. One, for example, is the fact that Pope Benedict has repeated for 9 years, that “the pope is only one”, without explaining which one, and moreover that he too gives the Apostolic Blessing (see here), an exclusive prerogative of the reigning pope. Or, how is it, that he affirms that he has maintained the white raiment because he did not have “other habits at his disposal”? Is it possible that after 9 years that no one has been able to furnish him with a black cassock? (see here).
In the volume, “Last Conversations” by Peter Seewald, on the topic of his own “resignation”, the Holy Father, Benedict, affirms: “No pope has resigned in a thousand years and even in the first millennium it has been an exception.” With six popes abdicated in the first millennium and four in the second, this phrase has caused us to hold, out of the requirements of logic, that he must have referred to those two popes of the first millennium, before the Gregorian reform, who, as he did also, lost the practical exercise of power (inasmuch as they were driven from it by antipopes), but who, on point, maintained entirely their divine investiture as much as they returned to their thrones without the need of any re-election. (see here).

On which account, can we , therefore, be certain that Francis possesses the Petrine munus, that is, the papal investiture which comes directly from God and which offers the guarantees of assistance on the part of the Holy Spirit? (see here).

Hence, must we hold that when pope Francis enthroned a pagan divinity in Saint Peter or when he declares himself “personally in favor of civil unions” (which legalize the second of the “four sins which cry out for vengeance from Heaven” according to Catholic doctrine) that he has been assisted by the Holy Spirit?

You mention in your interview the discourse of Pope Benedict for the 65th anniversary of his priesthood, in which he cited the Greek word, “Euchristomen” as symbolic of the event of the abdication, that word by which Jesus rendered thanks for His Sacrifice which lay ahead of Him. (see here). Why?

Indeed, ought we hold that Pope Benedict became, therefore, from 2013 onward, so insensible to the Faithful as to cast them into a panic with ambiguous gestures and phrases, not withstanding that he is noted for his crystal clarity of thought and word? (here).

Your Eminence, perhaps no other Cardinal such as you could have the sensibility to understand the sorrow and anguish of not having received a reply to one’s own “dubia”, but, nevertheless, if any juridic act in the life of the Church should be utmost clear and crystalline, it is precisely the abdication of a Pontiff, inasmuch as papa dubius, papa nullus (“a doubtful pope is no pope”). Last year, in a public letter, we asked our authoritative colleague Massimo Franco (for the ultimate book of which, you wrote the Preface) to help us understand such questions. Franco himself, perhaps not so up to discussing these canonical questions, judged the question of interest (see here) and, as his entire response to us, invited me to write a book.

This we have done, with dedication and good faith, and all of these elements, as of yet unclarified, have opened a way to a rigorous reconstruction according to which Pope Benedict, constrained to remove himself from the midst of Globalist power brokers and the Group of St. Gallen, which by the admission of Cardinal Danneels, supported cardinal Bergoglio, in 2013 never did in fact abdicate, but has “put” his enemies “to the test” with a candid, sincere declaration in which, by renouncing the exercise of power, he retreated into an impeded see, the canonical state in which a pope is a prisoner and prevented the possibility of communicating freely. In this manner, he has remained the pope to all effect, though as a contemplative and as one deprived of the faculty of governance, and his enemies, having been tricked by his initial mention of a renunciation, have schismed and nullified themselves by convoking an illegitimate conclave in the presence of a pope who is neither dead nor has abdicated. An invalid conclave can never been legitimized by a universalis ecclesiase adhesio, that is, by a pacific universal adhesion on the part of the Church.

Yes, in this manner, the mystery of a double papacy, which has cause so much discussion, might be explained: “a sort of enlarged ministerium” among two popes, yes, but one who is legitimate and contemplative (Benedict XVI) and another who is illegitimate and active (Bergoglio). To distinguish himself from the illegitimate one, Benedict should, therefore, be the “emeritus”, a term to be understood not as “a pope in retirement” (which is in fact juridically impossible and in-existent), but as the one who is “worthy”, who has “merited”, who has the “right” to be the pope, from the Latin verb, emereo.

Yes, one might even understand the reason for these strange declarations of Pope Benedict, known now as the “Ratzinger Code” and certified even by specialists at the university level (see here): about Pope Benedict being in a impeded see, not being able to express himself freely and obliged to have recourse to subtle logical tricks to explain the canonical truth.

You can understand well the anguish of the Faithful which not even the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, when responding to myself, the author of this reconstruction, had nothing to object to (see here).

Imagine what kind of scandal this comportment would be for the life of the Church and for the credibility of pope Francis from whom we would willingly ask pardon if all the questions on the table were publicly clarified by the Church. Perhaps, together with so many illustrious scholars, we have been the victim of a delusion of the mind in which, though following the iron rules of logic, hundreds of elements of fact which regard canon law, theology, the history of the Church and the “absent minded” declarations of Pope Benedict come together in an extremely coherent vision. It will, therefore, not be difficult for you or your collaborators to take the veil from our eyes and disassemble the diabolic illusion by which we have been victimized.

Up to today, the opposing replies have availed themselves only of insult, aggression on our person and of the most vain arguments of pretext, (see here), and this has increased other doubts among my readers.

Behold the reason, precisely to avoid the scandal of such considerations, why they are now gathered together in one of the most sold books in Italy (“Codice Ratzinger” by ByoBlu editions), a copy of which, it you like, would be our honor to send you: such that we implore you to call for a public canonical investigation precisely to safeguard the legitimacy of pope Francis, to which you owe the cardinal’s hat since 2014, and thus in this manner put to flight every doubt whatsoever regarding the renunciation of the papacy by Pope Benedict XVI.

Perhaps, and better yet, it would be suitable to ask the Holy Father emeritus for a public press conference, with all the guarantees for authenticity, so that He himself can put a definitive end to this knotting Quaestio Magna.

With the hope that you would redeem us from error by unraveling at last these knots in the light of the Logos, the Reason which reveals truth, and finally calm the Catholic people (and not only them), we offer your the most respectful and cordial salute,

How Bergoglio unmasked so many Traddies and Conservatives as Modernists


Has the Holy Spirit become a Modernist?

Or is Bergoglio Not the Pope?

On Article 892 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

by Andrea Cionci

It is quite impressive to see how and in what tones “Pope Francis” is being attacked by some Catholics, whether lay or religious.

No disrespect should be shown to His Excellency Jorge Mario Bergoglio because, although anti-pope, he is still a legitimate bishop duly ordained by the Church. (Though he is no longer a cardinal, as canonist Francesco Patruno explains, since as pope or antipope you lose the red biretta).

Moreover — as we have already pointed out — speaking ill of him, attacking him, calling him all kinds of colors while recognizing him as the legitimate pope is PURE NUTRITION FOR HIS POWER: the best favor that can be done to him as HERE Professor Antonio Sanchez of the University of Seville has already explained.

In this way, in fact, the easy message that filters to the world is: “Francis is a reformist pope, who wants to modernize the Church, gathering the true message of Christ, in its essence: peace, brotherhood, ecology. For this, inevitably, he is attacked by the gloomy and bigoted traditionalists, hypocrites and hard-hearted. Yet, not even they dare to question that he is the true pope.”


However, besides being the best assist for Bergoglio, such attacks, for Catholics, produce a serious scandal: that ism they discredit and offend the HOLY SPIRIT, the Third Person of the Trinity.

Unfortunately, it is so: paper sings. Many Catholics believe that the pope is infallible, assisted by the Holy Spirit, ONLY WHEN HE SPEAKS EX CATHEDRA, that is, only when he pronounces on important matters of faith.

In fact, the dogma of papal infallibility was established during the First Vatican Council convoked in 1868. The last and supreme ex-cathedra pronouncement was applied by Pius XII in 1950 for the Assumption of Mary. So, these pronouncements are not at all frequent; indeed, they are very rare.

Few people know, however, that Article 892 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the pope is assisted by the Holy Spirit even in his ORDINARY ACTIVITY. Check it out HERE.

We quote: Art.892: “Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the Apostles, who teach in communion with the Successor of Peter, and, in a special way, to the Bishop of Rome, Pastor of the whole Church, when, though without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose, in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium, a teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals.”

His Excellency Luis Francisco Ladaria, appointed by Francis as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also confirms: “It is important to reiterate that infallibility concerns not only the solemn pronouncements of a Council or of the Supreme Pontiff when he speaks ex-cathedra, but also the ordinary and universal teaching of the bishops throughout the world, when they propose, in communion with each other and with the Pope, Catholic doctrine to be held definitively.”

It logically follows that by accepting Bergoglio as the legitimate “Pope Francis,” the Holy Spirit must have softened on many issues, or He was already more broad-minded and “modern” than many Catholics thought.

Considering his acts and statements, we must assume, in fact, that the Third Person of the Trinity today has become, or has always been, “personally” in favor of civil unions; that He gladly likes the pagan idol Pachamama enthroned in St. Peter; that He tolerates the blessing of one hundred German priests to gay couples by endorsing what – according to Catholicism – is the second “sin that cries out to Heaven”; that He offers affectionate support to Father James Martin, a supporter of the most extreme homosexualist straightness; that the Holy Spirit agrees that (Bergoglio’s words) “there is no Catholic God”; that “all religions are true”; that divine mercy saves all; that “the Church no longer believes in hell where people suffer”; that He doesn’t worry too much if communion to remarried divorcees is allowed in Germany, but not in Poland…

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit would confirm that “in the Holy Trinity the Persons barter behind closed doors, but outwardly give the image of unity.”

In addition, the Holy Spirit would approve without problems seven other issues raised by Bergoglio and identified as true heresies by 62 scholars. Adn Kronos summarizes them well HERE .

Orthodox Catholics, there is little you can do about it! The Pope is assisted by the Holy Spirit even in ordinary activity and you have to accept that. Those listed above are “ordinary teachings in matters of faith and customs” by “Pope Francis.”

Don’t you agree? Don’t you want to accept the hypothesis of a modernist Holy Spirit “updated to the times”?

If not, then there are two remaining solutions:

The Catechism is wrong and the pope does NOT receive assistance from the Holy Spirit even in ordinary activity. So article 892 is to be deleted.

Or, Francis is not the true pope, but an antipope, because Benedict XVI never abdicated, as we have illustrated HERE. In that case, the Holy Spirit is “JUSTIFIED ABSENT” and everything is explained.

We didn’t make the Catechism and nor invent the Logic: either the Holy Spirit has changed His views, or the Catechism is wrong, or Francis is not the pope. You choose. Quartum non datur (There is no fourth possibility).

FromRome.Info Editor’s Note — Of the three possibilities, only one is truly conservative and traditional: the one which dumps Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy and keeps the whole and spotless Catholic Faith. The other two possibilities either require that you dump part or all of the Catholic Faith and keep Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy. The Choice is yours. Don’t follow the foolish Cardinals and Bishops like Vigano who cannot even see the problem clearly, or who have chosen to dump the Faith.

Pope Benedict XVI declares that He still holds the Petrine Mandate

by Andrea Cionci

Authorized English Translation of the Italian Original (click image above)

So, something is finally coming out in the press. Dagospia HERE and RomaIT HERE have broken the embargo. Yesterday, even my colleague Francesco Antonio Grana of Il Fatto Quotidiano mentioned HERE the inevitable flowering of theories about an “occult pope”.

Dear Colleague, if you will have the goodness to read, HERE and HERE you will see that we are a piece ahead beyond the vociferations and theories: there are university professors, lawyers, magistrates, theologians, canonists Latinists, jurists who have analyzed the alleged renunciation of Pope Benedict and have confirmed, recently using the same categories of pro-Bergoglio canonists, that the Declaratio of 2013, interpreted as a renunciation, is non-existent and that instead it fits precisely to a declaration of “SEDE IMPEDITA”. These statements are not denied by anyone as of last March. HERE It would be interesting and useful for our readers to address the issue in the canonical merit instead of barely touching it, suggesting that it is only “gossip”. We are available for a cordial discussion.

In the meantime, many readers have already gone further and, by participating in the investigation, have pointed out other facts and documents that further confirm how Benedict XVI has factually – and not juridically, because it is impossible – ONLY renounced the practical exercise of power, due to the fact that no one obeyed him anymore and that he could no longer use his mail, intercepted and stolen (Vatileaks). In this way, he remained that one legitimate pope of which he has been speaking for eight years without ever explaining which HERE .

A reader – who wishes to remain anonymous – pointed out to us today a passage from the interview given by the Pope to Peter Seewald in the volume “Ein Leben” of 2020. Another decidedly clear message.

In fact, when Seewald asks Benedict to comment on Bergoglio’s failure to respond to the four Dubia of the cardinals on the encyclical Amoris laetitia, (about communion to remarried divorcees) Benedict does not answer directly, but refers back to his last public audience of February 27, 2013, one day before the entry into force of the sede impedita announced in the Declaratio. In the text of the audience HERE there is, in fact, NO RESPONSE IN THE MERIT OF THE DUBIA of the cardinals: there is no mention of either divorcees or the Eucharist, but there is a very clear message that he has NEVER ABDICATED. That’s why you can find an answer in that hearing: all the issues that arose later around Bergoglio, including the Dubia issue, count for nothing, as Francis is not the pope, because Benedict remained THE pope.

Don’t believe us? We copy in full. Pay attention to the sentences in bold that we will explain below.

Seewald: “Cardinal Raymond Burke – one of the four authors of the Dubia, the writing in which they formulated some doubts about the pontiff’s apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia – said in November 2016 that Amoris laetitia had created confusion: ‘There is a tremendous division going on in the Church and this is not the way the Church is used to going.’ Pope Francis has not responded to the Dubia. Would it be better for you to do so ?

Benedict XVI: “I prefer not to take a direct position on this last question, because this would mean entering into the concrete questions of the government of the Church and abandoning the spiritual dimension to which my mandate exclusively pertains. If I answered, I suppose that all those who constantly attack me for my public statements would see their slander confirmed. I can therefore limit myself to referring to what I said on February 27, 2013 in my last public general audience. In the midst of all the torments that afflict humanity and the disturbing and destructive force of the evil spirit, one will always be able to recognize in the Church the silent power of God’s goodness. The obscurities of successive historical epochs will certainly never make it possible to enjoy undisturbed the pure joy of being a Christian […] But in the Church and in the lives of individual Christians there are always moments in which one can sense deep down that the Lord loves us, and this love means joy, it is ‘happiness'”.

Then, as we have already seen, the government of the Church, the ministerium, is no longer his, he has abandoned it to himself, leaving the See FREE, EMPTY (and not vacant as the Vatican has translated the verb “vacet”: it is canonically impossible for the See to remain vacant with the renunciation of the ministerium). Thus, the government of the Church is now in the hands of others. Recently, colleague Mirko Ciminiello discovered that Benedict makes it clear to us HERE that he does not recognize Francis as the legitimate pope, since he does not consider him as his successor in the list of St. Malachy’s popes.

The spiritual dimension is precisely the munus petrino, the title of pope granted directly by God that he KEEPS.

The slanderers are those who always criticize Benedict, because “although he resigned as pope continues to intervene with interference in the pontificate of Francis. They are backbiting simply because HE HAS NOT ABDICATED and continues to be the pope, in full right to intervene.

The silent force and warning deep down are a clear reference to the fact that those with ears to hear and eyes to see understand the situation.

And now we come to the climax, when Ratzinger sends the interviewer back to look for answers to the Dubia of the cardinals in his last general audience – “public” – he specifies, perhaps because afterwards he continued to give private audiences, always as pontiff?

And here is what he declared in the last audience, reported in full by the Vatican website HERE As you will read, one cannot find the slightest hint that he could answer the Dubia on divorce and Eucharist, except in a more general, higher sense above all definitive.

“I have taken this step in full awareness of its gravity and also novelty, but with a profound serenity of mind.”

What novelty? As many as 10 popes in history have abdicated, so his would not be a novelty at all. Unless he refers to what he said HERE: “(Like me, ed.), no pope has resigned for a thousand years and even in the first millennium was an exception. We have seen, that his reference is to the only pope who in the first millennium was driven out by an antipope, losing the ministerium, like him, but remaining pope in all respects. The NEWNESS, then, is in the fact that he voluntarily and freely abandoned to himself the government of the Church, because of impossibility in managing it.

“The gravity of the decision was precisely also in the fact that from that moment on I was committed always and forever by the Lord […] The “always” is also a “forever” – there is no longer a return to the private. My decision to renounce the active exercise of ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, etc. I do not abandon the cross, but I remain in a new way with the Crucified Lord. I no longer carry the power of office for the government of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.”

Rather explicit, we would say: he remains pope forever, because he has not renounced the title of pope, the munus. He has become a “hermit pope” and not emeritus, since the institution does not exist, as we have seen HERE

“I ask you to remember me before God, and especially to pray for the Cardinals, called to such an important task, and for the new Successor of the Apostle Peter: may the Lord accompany him with the light and strength of his Spirit.”

Here again, Pope Ratzinger is not referring at all to the 2013 conclave, which was illegitimate since he had not abdicated, but to the NEXT REAL CONCLAVE that upon his death, or valid renunciation, will have to elect the next real pope. We have already seen this specification by analyzing the Declaratio as “sede impedita” HERE .

The usual people will continue to say that these are tendentious readings, forcing etc.. The problem is that these tendentious readings now number about thirty cases, logically unexceptionable, are not disproved by anyone and have precise canonical responses. Soon we will publish a complete list with the opinion of specialists.

But those who renounce to LOGICAL THINKING will not want and will never be able to understand anything about this matter.

+ + +

This is a confirmation of the previous report, entitled, Pope Benedict XVI: I have not abdicated

Andrea Cionci: El Papa no escribió una declaración de renuncia inválida, sino una declaración válida de “Sede impedida”

de Andrea Cionci

El verbo “vacet” aprobado por los latinistas en la nueva traducción lo cambia todo

Traducción autorizada al español del original italiano, a la que se puede acceder haciendo clic en la imagen superior.

El otro significado de “vacet” en la traducción de seis latinistas

A veces, para entender algo de una situación intrincada, es necesario cambiar el punto de vista. El busillis de la dimisión del Papa Ratzinger lleva ocho años: nosotros hemos tardado dos años en investigarlo a fondo. Síganos durante unos minutos, vale la pena. Intentaremos ser muy claros y encontrará todos los detalles en los enlaces. La clave de todo está en la palabra latina “vacet”, que hasta ahora se ha traducido arbitrariamente como “sede vacante”.

Desde 2013, estamos acostumbrados a hablar de la Declaratio “de renuncia” del Papa Benedicto XVI que, como han ilustrado definitivamente los juristas Estefanía Acosta y Antonio Sànchez AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28187673/joseph-ratzinger-vero-papa-giuristi-sanchez-acosta-smontano-difesa-pro-bergoglio.html, es sin embargo jurídicamente inválida. Desde que escribimos en marzo sobre el libro de Acosta con estos contenidos, AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26411995/un-testo-giuridico-della-avvocatessa-estefania-acosta-racconta-dimissioni-appositamente-scrite-invalide-da-benedetto-xvi-che.html nadie lo ha desmentido y nos vemos obligados a aceptar el hecho. Prueba de ello es que incluso el “papa emérito” nunca ha existido, como decían los canonistas mayores, hasta el punto de que ahora el Vaticano intenta dar jurisprudencia a esta institución AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28264381/vaticano-papa-emerito-non-esiste-allora-joseph-ratzinger-cosa-stato-otto-anni.html. ¿Y entonces?

La hipótesis del Plan B, reconstruida por nosotros AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26807576/papa-benedetto-xvi-possibile-ricostruzione-piano-b-dimissioni.html y nunca desmentida por los círculos vaticanos, es que el Papa Ratzinger ha escrito una renuncia DELIBERADAMENTE INVÁLIDA con el fin de engañar a sus enemigos, dándoles tiempo para revelarse como herejes, sólo para ser repentinamente anulados en sus cargos y en sus actos, al descubrirse la invalidez de su renuncia.

El juego -salvar a la Iglesia de la herejía modernista- valía la pena, como hemos explicado en el blog de Aldo Maria Valli AQUÍ https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2021/05/07/perche-benedetto-avrebbe-organizzato-dimissioni-invalide/ pero para muchos católicos era un poco duro aceptar que el Papa-teólogo, muy culto y adamantino, hubiera declarado un puro “sinsentido”.

Y sin embargo el sentido estaba ahí, muy coherente. Al final, incluso LA ÚLTIMA PIEZA DEL PUZZLE HA SIDO COLOCADA EN SU LUGAR, de modo que toda una serie de nudos se han desenredado, empezando por éste. Como veremos, el Papa Benedicto, que al principio de su pontificado pidió a los fieles que rezaran para que “no huyera ante los lobos”, ha sido muy sincero, obedeciendo cándidamente el precepto de Cristo: “He aquí que os envío como ovejas en medio de lobos; sed, pues, prudentes como serpientes y sencillos como palomas“.

Mientras tanto: ¿QUIÉN DECIDIÓ QUE LA DECLARATIO ERA UNA RENUNCIA AL PAPADO? El documento se llama simplemente “Declaratio” AQUÍ https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html y no “Renuntiatio” como exige, entre otras cosas, la constitución apostólica Universi dominici gregis donde el cónclave puede ser convocado “post Pontifici obitum vel validam RENUNTIATIONEM” – después de la muerte del pontífice o de la renuncia válida”.

De hecho, el Card. Sodano, al leer “en caliente” la explicación preparada inmediatamente después del discurso de Benedicto XVI AQUÍ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrajaSH-ZTI no habla ni de renuncia, ni del fin del pontificado, sino del fin del SERVICIO pontificio. Subraya varias veces que Benedicto seguirá siendo Papa hasta el día 28 y precisa, al final, además: “Su misión, Santo Padre, continuará: ha dicho que estará siempre cerca de nosotros con su testimonio y sus oraciones. Por supuesto, las estrellas del cielo siempre siguen brillando y así la estrella de su pontificado siempre brillará entre nosotros”. El propio Benedicto diría más tarde: “El “siempre” es también un “para siempre”, ya no hay vuelta atrás en la esfera privada. Mi decisión de renunciar al ejercicio activo del ministerio no revoca esto”, y de nuevo: “Ya no tengo la potestad del oficio para el gobierno de la Iglesia, pero en el servicio de la oración permanezco, por así decirlo, en el recinto de San Pedro” AQUÍ https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/audiences/2013/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20130227.html

Por lo tanto, debemos entrar finalmente en la perspectiva según la cual “OTROS” han decidido que tenía que ser una abdicación, mientras que Ratzinger había declarado todo lo contrario.

A la vista de la última entrevista con el Prof. Sánchez AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28286091/ratzinger-vero-papa-dopo-bergoglio-saranno-tutti-antipapi-parere-giurista.html y tras la aportación del latinista Gianluca Arca que, en base a lo ya intuido en 2019 por Fray Alexis Bugnolo AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/23247982/benedetto-xvi-ratzinger-rinuncia-bergoglio-declaratio-2013-dimissioni-abdicazione-munus-ministerium-bugnolo.html , lee en el texto una coherencia completamente diferente, se nos ha encendido una bombilla: la supuesta e inválida Declaratio “de renuncia”, en realidad, era una coherente DECLARACIÓN DE “SEDE IMPEDIDA”, expresada en lenguaje no jurídico.

¿De qué se trata? Según el canon 412, “se entiende que la sede episcopal está ‘impedida’ si el obispo diocesano está totalmente impedido de ejercer el oficio pastoral en la diócesis por razón de prisión, confinamiento, exilio o incapacidad, no pudiendo comunicarse ni siquiera por carta con sus diocesanos“.

Dos notas para entender el contexto: que el Papa Ratzinger tenía todo el mundo en contra ha sido excelentemente descrito por Paolo Flores d’Arcais AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28206793/joseph-ratzinger-paolo-flores-d-arcais-sua-reconquista-modernita-si-dissolvera-come-vampiri-alba-siamo-sicuri.html .

Que eran muchos sus enemigos internos, como el lobby de cardenales modernistas conocido como la “Mafia de San Gallo”, lo constata la autobiografía (2015) del Card. Godfried Danneels AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27505999/papa-ratzinger-bergoglio-messaggio-nella-bottiglia-documentario-bugnolo-lamendola-decimo-toro-massoneria-daneels-mafia-san-g.html , y el escándalo Vatileaks (2012), donde también se habló de un plan para matarlo. Que Benedicto tenía enormes problemas para ejercer su autoridad lo demuestra la destitución sumaria del presidente del IOR, su hombre de confianza Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, medida que fue tomada sin que él, el Papa (¡!), supiese nada al respecto AQUÍ https://www.ilmessaggero.it/primopiano/vaticano/padre_georg_papi_francesco-208592.html .

El propio Ratzinger alude a esta situación de impotencia en “Ein Leben” (2020): “Hacia el final de mi pontificado, me di cuenta de que la falta de capacidades adecuadas para desempeñar correctamente el propio encargo puede manifestarse de diversas formas“.

Simplemente, YA NO LE OBEDECÍAN. Así que, que en algún momento, Benedicto, acorralado e incapaz de imponerse por sí mismo, decidiera libremente renunciar DE FACTO (y no jurídicamente) a su poder práctico  y hacerse “ermitaño” autoexiliándose en el Vaticano, es totalmente realista.

Todo depende, de hecho, DE CÓMO SE LEA EL TEXTO LATINO TRADUCIDO AL ITALIANO. Hemos sometido la Declaratio al escrutinio de SEIS LATINISTAS: tres profesores universitarios, dos de instituto, un traductor del latín medieval. (nota 1)

Los profesores universitarios coincidieron en que la traducción italiana del Vaticano es sustancialmente correcta, pero hay un verbo, “VACET” que -según los seis- puede perfectamente traducirse en su sentido literal, original, de “QUEDAR LIBRE”, y no tiene por qué traducirse necesariamente con ese “sede vacante” que estamos acostumbrados a leer desde hace ocho años.

“…ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri VACET et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse”.

De hecho, el profesor Arca cita a Cicerón: “Ego filosophiae semper vaco” – “Siempre tengo tiempo libre para la filosofía”.

Y así, tenemos a Benedicto XVI expresando los siguientes conceptos clave en su Declaratio, (que citamos al final, en su totalidad):

– Como ya no tengo fuerzas para ejercer el poder práctico (ministerium), declaro que renuncio a él,

– para que la sede de San Pedro quede LIBRE (no “vacante” en el sentido jurídico) a partir de las 20 horas del 28 de febrero de 2013.

– Y declaro que el próximo nuevo Pontífice deberá ser elegido por un cónclave convocado “por aquellos a quienes compete”.

¿Por qué dice “POR LOS COMPETENTES”, y no simplemente “por los cardenales”? TODO CUADRA: hemos visto AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28187673/joseph-ratzinger-vero-papa-giuristi-sanchez-acosta-smontano-difesa-pro-bergoglio.html que para abdicar no podía separar el munus del ministerium. Así que Ratzinger, al separarlos, NO HA ABDICADO, sino que quería renunciar al ejercicio fáctico de su poder (ya que no estaba en capacidad para ello) dejando libre la sede de San Pedro. LIBRE. De hecho, el 28 de febrero de 2013, Benedicto dejó la sede del Vaticano VACÍA, libre, volando en helicóptero a Castel Gandolfo (una elección ciertamente no justificada por las vacaciones de verano). Así que, a las 20 horas, no firma nada, no confirma la renuncia al ministerium, como explica el teólogo Carlo Maria Pace AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26613561/ratzinger-dimissioni-sempre-annunciate-mai-ratificate-carlo-pace-spiega.html porque, obviamente, habría sido un acto jurídico inválido.

Así, a partir del 28 de febrero de 2013, comienza la situación de SEDE IMPEDIDA anunciada el día 11. A partir de este momento, sus enemigos pueden hacer lo que quieran con la sede de San Pedro.

Sin embargo, previendo la USURPACIÓN de su trono mediante un cónclave ilegítimo (convocado cuando el papa está vivo y no ha abdicado), Ratzinger en la Declaratio sólo especifica una cosa, pero es muy clara y elocuente, que resumimos así: el próximo papa verdadero debe ser elegido sólo por un cónclave formado “por aquellos a quienes compete”, es decir, por quienes tienen derecho, o sea, por los verdaderos cardenales electores, los designados por mí, Benedicto XVI y, como máximo, por Juan Pablo II.

Y de hecho, explica el profesor Sánchez AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28286091/ratzinger-vero-papa-dopo-bergoglio-saranno-tutti-antipapi-parere-giurista.html , dado que Benedicto no abdicó y siguió siendo el único papa verdadero, Francisco es un antipapa y ha nombrado a 80 cardenales inválidos que, mezclados con los válidos, elegirían a otro antipapa en un próximo cónclave inválido. En consecuencia, el próximo Papa verdadero SOLO puede ser elegido por un cónclave compuesto por CIERTOS cardenales electores, los verdaderos, mencionados anteriormente, nombrados antes de 2013, y no por otros pseudocardenales.

Benedicto, de hecho, concluye la Declaratio con acento un tanto sentidos: “Ahora, confiemos la Santa Iglesia al cuidado de su Pastor Supremo, Nuestro Señor Jesucristo”, ya que ha tenido que abandonar la Sede de Pedro, ahora impedida, como un Papa abrumado por las fuerzas antipapales. Poco después, encomienda a los verdaderos “Padres Cardenales” a la asistencia de la Virgen para que un día, quién sabe cuán lejano, después de su muerte, o después de su regular abdicación, elijan a un próximo Papa verdadero.

Había dado a los cardenales reales unos buenos 17 días (del 11 al 28 de febrero de 2013) para revisar el Código de Derecho Canónico sobre cómo debe realizarse una renuncia legítima, en el art 332. § 2: dos semanas para pensar, para pedir aclaraciones y/o correcciones a esa renuncia inválida al ministerium, pero ninguno lo había captado, salvo quizás -informan fuentes internas- el Card. Burke. Al igual que tras la elección de Bergoglio nadie se molestó en pedirle una sanatio de la supuesta renuncia, cuando en 2014 Antonio Socci evidenció por primera vez la invalidez de la renuncia AQUÍ https://www.antoniosocci.com/forse-non-e-canonicamente-valida-la-rinuncia-di-papa-benedetto/. Sin embargo, Benedicto nunca lo concedió AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28039421/piano-b-papa-ratzinger-su-declaratio-rinuncia-geniale-trappola-adattabile-a-seconda-del-successore.html

Pero la belleza viene ahora. Hemos visto más arriba que, entendida como renuncia, la Declaratio es “implosiva” y, por tanto, debe descartarse. A la inversa, la situación de “Sede impedida” se confirma también por toda una serie de ELEMENTOS INDICIARIOS DE PESO -si no del todo PROBATORIOS- en el comportamiento posterior de Benedicto XVI y en los libros-entrevistas escritos con Peter Seewald. En “Últimas conversaciones”, de 2016, Ratzinger responde lo siguiente sobre su propia dimisión: “Ningún papa ha dimitido por mil años e incluso en el primer milenio fue una excepción”. AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27114419/benedetto-viii-mai-abdicato-nessun-papa-dimesso.html Dado que 6 papas abdicaron en el primer milenio y 4 en el segundo, él necesariamente hace una referencia histórica precisa a la “excepción” del papa medieval Benedicto VIII que, en el primer milenio, fue expulsado de Roma por un antipapa y que por tanto, casualmente, tuvo su propia sede impedida: su antiguo predecesor tuvo que renunciar al ejercicio de su poder práctico a causa de un “exilio” forzoso, como informa hoy el canon 412.

Ratzinger vuelve a escribir en “Ein Leben” (2020): “La situación de Celestino V fue extremadamente peculiar y no puede en modo alguno invocarse como precedente (de mi dimisión)”.  De hecho, no abdicó -como hizo legalmente Celestino V-, sino que se “autoexilió” voluntariamente en el Vaticano, renunciando de hecho al ministerium y permaneciendo así -como ocurrió con Benedicto VIII- como el único papa verdadero.

Esto explica también por qué Ratzinger conserva la túnica blanca y otras prerrogativas papales AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26620895/benedetto-xvi-veste-bianca-senza-fascia-mantella-perche.html, el escudo papal con las llaves AQUÍ https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/elezione/documents/stemma-benedict-xvi.html y sobre todo por qué durante ocho años repite que “EL PAPA ES UNO” sin especificar NUNCA cuál de los dos, lo que acaba de ser confirmado por el arzobispo Gänswein AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27899260/monsignor-gaenswein-conferma-involontaria-benedetto-xvi-mai-detto-papa-francesco.html

Ese papa es él mismo, pero NO PUEDE DECIRLO ABIERTAMENTE PORQUE TIENE SU SEDE IMPEDIDA y “no puede comunicarse (libremente n.d.r.) ni siquiera por carta” (Can. 412).

Por eso estaba moralmente justificado que se escudara en el INEXISTENTE INSTITUTO DEL “PAPA EMÉRITO”: legítima defensa para permanecer como papa en el Vaticano.

Aclarado por qué Ratzinger, en 2016, en el Corriere afirma haber escrito la Declaratio en latín justamente “para no cometer errores”, aunque había incluido algunos, y graves, de sintaxis: al estar ahora “impedido” para comunicarse, tuvo que utilizar un lenguaje sutil, y nos empujó (con éxito) a investigar a fondo la traducción latina para encontrar la más correcta y reveladora. AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26637606/ratzinger-benedetto-xvi-errori-latino-dimissioni-corriere-esperto-latinista-ennesimo-indizi.html

Se explica así por qué el Santo Padre Benedicto XVI ha mantenido durante ocho años esa continua y perfecta ambigüedad AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26597971/scritto-di-benedetto-xvi-completo-come-leggere-piu-attentamente-un-significato-opposto-il-papa-e-lui-bergoglio-e-solo-cardi.html y el sutil lenguaje que encontramos también en su última entrevista AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27999645/abolita-messa-latino-catto-conservatori-eludono-questione-ratzinger-abidcato-no.html

De hecho, muchos se preguntan con impaciencia: “¿Pero por qué no habla claro?”. Repetimos: ¡NO PUEDE HACERLO, PORQUE TIENE LA SEDE IMPEDIDA, NO ES LIBRE DE EJERCER SU PODER!

Para terminar, consulte el original de la Declaratio en español. En mayúsculas, la única palabra traducida de forma lícitamente diferente a la versión vaticana AQUÍ https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/es/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html y, en negrita, las expresiones significativas, con los significados originales de la palabra “ministerio”, con las que se han traducido en español tanto munus como ministerium.

“Queridísimos hermanos,

Os he convocado a este Consistorio no sólo para las tres causas de canonización, sino también para comunicaros una decisión (notas 2,3) de gran importancia para la vida de la Iglesia.

Después de examinar repetidamente mi conciencia ante Dios, he llegado a la certeza de que mis fuerzas, debido a mi avanzada edad, ya no son aptas para ejercer adecuadamente el munus petrino. Soy muy consciente de que este munus, por su esencia espiritual, debe ser llevado a cabo no sólo con obras y palabras, sino también y en no menor grado sufriendo y orando. Sin embargo, en el mundo de hoy, sujeto a rápidas transformaciones y sacudido por cuestiones de gran relieve para la vida de la fe, para gobernar la barca de San Pedro y anunciar el Evangelio es necesario también el vigor tanto del cuerpo como del espíritu, vigor que, en los últimos meses, ha disminuido en mí de tal forma que he de reconocer mi incapacidad para administrar bien el ministerium que me fue encomendado. Por esto, muy consciente de la seriedad de este acto, con plena libertad, declaro que renuncio al ministerio de Obispo de Roma, Sucesor de San Pedro, que me fue confiado por los Cardenales el 19 de abril de 2005, de forma que, desde el 28 de febrero de 2013, a las 20.00 horas, la Sede de Roma, la de San Pedro, QUEDARÁ LIBRE y el Cónclave para la elección del nuevo Sumo Pontífice deberá ser convocado por aquellos a quienes compete.

Queridísimos hermanos, os doy las gracias de corazón por todo el amor y el trabajo con que habéis llevado junto a mí el peso de mi ministerii, y pido perdón por todos mis defectos. Ahora, confiemos la Santa Iglesia de Dios al cuidado de su Pastor Supremo, Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, e imploremos a su santa Madre María que asista a los Padres Cardenales con su bondad maternal en la elección del nuevo Sumo Pontífice. Por lo que a mí respecta, también en el futuro, quisiera servir de todo corazón, con una vida dedicada a la oración, a la Santa Iglesia de Dios”.

¿Por qué elegir esta versión de “vacet”, con todos sus anexos y conexiones jurídicos? Esta Declaratio, además de apoyarse en DECENAS DE ELEMENTOS INDICIARIOS MUY CLAROS, tiene un sentido sutil pero coherente y literal, mientras que la otra NO, ya que la Sede de San Pedro, según el derecho canónico (can. 332 § 2), NO PUEDE QUEDAR VACANTE con la renuncia al solo ejercicio práctico: se requiere la renuncia al munus. Por lo tanto, la Declaratio de 2013 fue ABUSIVAMENTE propuesta como una “renuncia al papado” sólo POR AQUELLOS QUE QUERÍAN INTERPRETARLA ASÍ, ya sea por ingenuidad, o para acaparar la sede entonces dejada LIBRE.

La supuesta renuncia, dado que se trata de un oxímoron jurídico, fue primero mal dispuesta en las traducciones, con la descarada supresión de la dicotomía jurídica fundamental munus/ministerium (nota 4) y, posteriormente, encubierta por fuertes operaciones de propaganda mediática, como cuando Vatican News atribuyó ilícitamente a Ratzinger la frase “El Papa es uno y es Francisco” AQUÍ https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26391704/papa-ratzinger-benedetto-xvi-da-otto-anni-tentano-fargli-dire-quello-che-non-vuole.html

Sólo con una Declaratio entendida como anuncio de la Sede impedida cuadran todos los relatos: lógicos, canónicos, teológicos, indiciarios y testimoniales.

Digamos que el “Plan B” ha sido actualizado y corregido en el “Plan V”, de “Vacet” y, sobre todo, de “Verdad”.


(1) Se trata de los profesores de Lengua y Literatura Latina, Alberto Canobbio, (Univ. de Pavía), Giorgio Piras y Francesco Ursini (Univ. “La Sapienza” de Roma), Gianluca Arca (Liceo Ginnasio Statale “S.A. De Castro” de Oristano), Matteo Corrias (Liceo Tecnológico de Oristano) y el fraile franciscano Alexis Bugnolo. Los universitarios entrevistados desconocían la cuestión jurídica.

(2) El Prof. Arca recuerda que la palabra decisio, al igual que el verbo corradical decidere, implica la idea de cortar, dividir y zanjar las disputas y los puntos de vista divergentes mediante la aceptación por ambas partes de la renuncia a algo (cita a este respecto Cic. Pro Roscio, 40: cum de tota re decidisset cum Roscio), por lo que puede traducirse con el valor de “compromiso” y quizás el compromiso al que se inclina Benedicto XVI es el de la separación entre munus y ministerium. Cabe señalar que, también en italiano, un significado de “decisión” puede ser el de separación de una parte del todo cf. https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/decisione/

(3) Para el latinista Frà Alexis Bugnolo, traductor del latín medieval, la referencia a decisionem es aún más precisa, es decir, “comunico una separación del ministerio petrino de vosotros”, es decir, de los cardenales, con un uso particular del dativo “vobis” que se encuentra en San Buenaventura (bien conocido por Joseph Ratzinger) y que sería coherente con el contenido ilustrado. Además, para Frà Bugnolo, vacet se traduce aún mejor como “quede inutilizada”.

(4) El Prof. Corrias, que sólo es ligeramente posibilista respecto a decisio como “separación”, confirma completamente que munus y ministerium deben dejarse absolutamente en el latín original.

Pope Benedict XVI admits he played a Carnival joke on the Cardinals

 Introduction & Summary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Once again the intrepid Cionci, who reads German, has dug up in the official Biography-Interview of Pope Benedict XVI another pearl to shed light on what he is up to. For all those who demand that Benedict speak and explain himself, he has done so dozens of times. It is just that those who are possessed by the devil, globalism, freemasonry and personal careerist pride, cannot see it.

But for those who still admit truth exists and that words have meaning, Cionci focuses in on this passage from the book, “The Last Conversations” by Peter Seewald.  Pay close attention to the words.

Seewald: “Originally you wanted to resign as early as December, but then you decided on February 11, Carnival Monday, the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes. Does this have a symbolic meaning?”

Benedict XVI: “That it was Carnival Monday I was not aware of. In Germany it also caused me some problems. It was the day of Our Lady of Lourdes. The feast day of Bernadette of Lourdes, in turn, coincides with my birthday. That’s why it seemed right to me to choose that day”.

Seewald: “The date therefore HAS…. “

Benedict XVI: “…an inner connection, yes.”

Click the image above to read Cionci’s full article, where he points out that no German could be ignorant of two things, that Feb. 11, 2013 was the day of Carnival, and that in Germany they play jokes on one another, on that day.

I will add my own comment:  Since February 11th commemorates the first apparition of Our Lady at Lourdes, where she revealed her celestial name, saying, “I am the immaculate conception”, a name which is utterly singular in all of humanity, so Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013, did something entirely singular in the history of the Papacy, so that just as Satan was crushed by Our Lady’s purity and virginity, so the breed of Satan, who have infiltrated into the College of Cardinals and College of Bishops and clergy world wide, might be crushed by his trick of renouncing ministry but not munus, remaining the Pope and letting the wicked fool themselves.

For those who have already succumbed to the Marxist Critique, Catholics cannot trick the wicked, because that is “unjust” and “dishonest”. Only the wicked have the right to lie to Catholics, Catholics have the duty to be 100% sincere and tell the truth always to the wicked, as good little submissive servants.

For those who are careerists in the Church, but care nothing for God, a Pope cannot trick the clergy, because it is his duty always to reward and honor them and never correct them unless they happen to all agree to cast one or two out from their number, like Don Minutella or all those other honest priests after Vatican II who said that the Aggiornamento was wrong or of the devil.

But for Catholics, we confess that when an entire class is so morally corrupt that they need to be cut off from the living body of the Church, and are willing to cut themselves off from it, by pursuing with abandon the grab for power which accompanies a papal resignation, even if the resignation is not an abdication as the law requires, it is perfectly legitimate for the Vicar of Jesus Christ to be so discrete as to allow the fools, idiots and wicked run down the wrong path, to their own destruction.

If you have not yet noticed, we are living in the end times. The Mass was suspended at Easter and in many parts of the world even for an entire year. There are now orders to commit daily sacrilege and blasphemy in Church during the Mass. The clergy are 99% on board with this new religion of Satanic affrontery to the Living God.

And yet some devlishly proud and obstinate souls still insist that Christ’s Vicar be 100% sincere with those who are 100% insincere, and 100% straight-forward with those who are 100% crooked.

Pope Benedict XVI pulled the greatest joke on the Devil in the history of the Church after Pentecost. And now we Catholic have the right to laugh with him at his breed’s downfall.

+ + +

Judge Giorgianni: Benedict XVI never abdicated, Bergoglio is a Cardinal dressed in white!

Interview by Andrea Cionci

Now we can speak openly of the New World Order: the concept is no longer under embargo

of the Original Italian linked under the above image.

“There is only one pope, Benedict XVI. Bergoglio is a cardinal dressed in white, an accomplice of the New World Order” — the well-known anti-Mafia magistrate Angelo Giorgianni, former Under-Secretary of Ministry of Justice & Pardon of the Prodi government, said briefly in a public speech in Messina two days ago.

Naturally, he made these statements not in his institutional capacity, but as president of the “World Life Organization,” a voluntary association he founded, which is concerned with the defense of human life and all the rights that pertain to his. protection and dignity paying particular attention to the various individual freedoms not always guaranteed, such as that of opinion, freedom, thought, worship and the sacredness of human life from the moment of conception to the natural end.

Cionci: Dear Doctor, after the lawyer Taormina HERE, you are the second secular and Italian lawyer to raise doubts about the abdication of Pope Ratzinger …

Giorgianni: I have followed this story and I am absolutely convinced that Benedict XVI has drawn up an act of renunciation of the papacy that is completely null and void: a real “cocktail” of legal invalidity made to be discovered over time. Just to quote the best known: in the Declaratio of 2013 he renounces, instead of the Petrine munus, it is the ministerium – or the practical exercise of power – which does not involve renouncing the papacy: at most it could mean the delegation to some bishop of some functions practices. The trivial Latin errors in the document, coming from a refined Latinist like him, are obviously a way to keep attention on the legal act.

Not to mention his conduct over the next eight years; just remember how he always repeats “the pope is one” without ever declaring which of the two he is, or the unequivocal phrases that have recently emerged from his interview books such as ” has been discharged in the last thousand years ”.

Cionci: Aren’t you afraid of being considered a “conspiracy theorist”?

Giorgianni: Look, I – for work – have foiled conspiracies for a lifetime. Conspiracy is when bold theories are built without these being based on facts. In the judicial field, on the other hand, a unique series of clues constitute proof and here, there is an even excessive amount of clear clues, verifiable by anyone.

Cionci: Why do you say that Bergoglio is a cardinal dressed in white?

Giorgianni: Because if pope Ratzinger did not abdicate the throne, as evident, the conclave of 2013 was completely invalid and elected a cardinal who remains a cardinal. So Bergoglio is an anti-pope, as there have been so many in the history of the Church.

Cionci: A burning issue, but it doesn’t seem to upset the clergy too much …

Giorgianni: It is very serious in fact. Some clergymen fear being excommunicated (but the excommunication of an anti-pope is worth nothing), others think that, at the resignation or death of card. Bergoglio, a new conclave can put things right. But if the college of cardinals has 80 new cardinals appointed by Bergoglio, they are not true cardinals and therefore do not have the right to elect a new pope. Therefore the succession line after Francis would be all composed of anti-popes. History demonstrates this: in the first half of the 12th century, the anti-pope Anacleto II reigned for eight years and, upon his death, he was succeeded by Victor IV, another anti-pope, until Saint Bernard of Clairvaux ousted the latter by restoring a papal succession line legitimate.

Cionci: Orthodox Catholics continually complain about Francis’ reforms. Now they fear for the Latin Mass (“vetus ordo”), given that Bergoglio seems to want to limit his celebration by revoking Benedict XVI’s motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”.

Giorgianni: And what are they astonished at? The Holy Spirit assists the pope not only on those rare times when he pronounces ex-cathedra on important dogmas of faith. There is a specific article in the Catechism, 892, which speaks of his ordinary assistance:

“Divine assistance is also given in a special way, to the Bishop of Rome, when, even without arriving at an infallible definition and without making a definitive pronouncement, he proposes, in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium, a teaching that leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals ”.

How do you think that Bergoglio is the real pope if he is demolishing the Catholic identity from its very foundations? And, paradoxically, Orthodox Catholics despair over his measures instead of checking if he has what it takes to be pope: how to worry about the effects without investigating the causes.

Cionci: Even the laity seem quite indifferent to the question …

Giorgianni: A big mistake! A pope has a fundamental role in the politics of the whole world. Let us think only of the role played by John Paul II in the collapse of communism. The pope is a political leader with influence on over a billion people: he heavily conditions international politics.

Cionci: In this regard, you argue that Bergoglio is a sort of moral sponsor of the New World Order?

Giorgianni: He himself recently declared to a major newspaper (La Stampa of 3 /15/ 21): “We must not waste the pandemic, but use it to build a new world order”. Clearer than that? By now the concept is cleared through customs, we talk about it quietly, without shame. In fact, Bergoglio continually insists on this “interreligious dialogue” … I too am in favor of dialogue, but here it is taken as an excuse to annihilate the Catholic identity and make the church the container of a new globalist religion. A completely reverse process with respect to the uniqueness of Christ’s Revelation. But just look at the position held by the Church during the pandemic…

Cionci: By the way: you are very critical of the management of the health crisis …

Giorgianni: Sure. We are for vaccines, provided they are safe and effective, but we do not explain why rushing the administration of an experimental drug if there are effective therapies, instead completely neglected. A madness. Bergoglio also never talks about therapies, why? Rather, he demonstrated a subjection to civil power against any concordat and constitutional agreement, depriving many people of the minimum comforts of faith, closing churches and denying the sacraments even to the dying. Too many try to ride this health emergency to establish new political and / or financial projects. — But we will bring these truths to every public square: we believe in the rule of law and respect for the rules.

+ + +

Der Magistrat Giorgianni: “Benedikt XVI. hat nicht abgedankt;
Bergoglio ist Kardinal im weißen Gewand”.

Gute, sichere Impfstoffe, aber warum ist nie von einer Behandlung die Rede?

“Es gibt nur einen Papst, Benedikt XVI. Bergoglio ist ein weiß gekleideter Kardinal, ein Komplize der Neuen Weltordnung”: Nicht sehr subtil ging er vor zwei Tagen in einer öffentlichen Rede in Messina vor, der berühmte Anti-Mafia-Magistrat Angelo Giorgianni, ehemaliger Unterstaatssekretär der Justiz in der Prodi-Regierung.

Natürlich machte er diese Aussagen nicht in seiner institutionellen Eigenschaft, sondern als Präsident der Weltorganisation für das Leben, einer von ihm gegründeten freiwilligen Vereinigung, die sich mit der Verteidigung des menschlichen Lebens und allen Rechten, die zu seinem Schutz und seiner Würde gehören, befasst und dabei besonderes Augenmerk auf die verschiedenen individuellen Freiheiten legt, die nicht immer garantiert sind, wie die der Meinung, der Freiheit, des Denkens, des Kultes und der Unantastbarkeit des menschlichen Lebens vom Moment der Empfängnis bis zu seinem natürlichen Ende.
Frage: Herr Doktor, nach dem Anwalt Taormina
HIER https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26475724/dimissioni-benedetto-xvi-forti-dubbi-avvocato-carlo-taormina.html , sind Sie der zweite weltliche und italienische Jurist, der Zweifel an der Abdankung von Papst Ratzinger äußert …

Antwort: “Ich habe diese Affäre verfolgt und bin absolut davon überzeugt, dass Benedikt XVI. einen Akt des Verzichts auf das Papsttum verfasst hat, der völlig nichtig ist: ein wahrer “Cocktail” von rechtlichen Ungültigkeiten, die im Laufe der Zeit entdeckt werden sollten. Um nur die berüchtigtsten zu nennen: in der Declaratio von 2013 verzichtet er statt auf das munus petrino auf das ministerium – also auf die praktische Machtausübung -, was nicht bedeutet, dass er auf das Papsttum verzichtet: es könnte höchstens bedeuten, dass er einige praktische Funktionen an einen Bischof delegiert. Die trivialen Fehler des Lateins in dem Dokument, die von einem so feinen Latinisten wie ihm stammen, sind offensichtlich ein System, um die Aufmerksamkeit auf den Rechtsakt zu lenken.

Ganz zu schweigen von seinem Verhalten in den nächsten acht Jahren, denken Sie nur daran, wie er immer wieder sagt: “Es gibt einen Papst”, ohne jemals zu sagen, welcher es ist, oder die eindeutigen Sätze, die in letzter Zeit aus seinen Interview-Büchern aufgetaucht sind, wie: “In den letzten tausend Jahren ist kein Papst zurückgetreten.” (HIER n.d.r. https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27114419/benedetto-viii-mai-abdicato-nessun-papa-dimesso.html )

F.: Haben Sie keine Angst, als “Verschwörungstheoretiker” angesehen zu werden?

A.: “Sehen Sie, ich habe – berufsbedingt – schon immer mit Verschwörungen gewedelt. Verschwörung ist, wenn man kühne Theorien aufstellt, ohne dass diese auf Fakten beruhen. Im gerichtlichen Bereich hingegen stellt eine eindeutige Reihe von Indizien einen Beweis dar, und hier gibt es von offensichtlichen, für jedermann feststellbaren Indizien sogar ein Übermaß”.

F. Warum sagen Sie, dass Bergoglio ein weiß gekleideter Kardinal ist?

A. “Denn wenn Papst Ratzinger nicht abgedankt hat, was offensichtlich ist, war das Konklave von 2013 völlig ungültig und hat einen Kardinal zum “Papst” gewählt, der Kardinal bleibt. Bergoglio ist also ein Anti-Papst, wie es so viele in der Geschichte der Kirche gegeben hat.”

F.: Eine brennende Frage, aber sie scheint den Klerus nicht sehr zu beunruhigen….

A.: “Es ist in der Tat sehr ernst. Einige Kleriker fürchten, exkommuniziert zu werden (aber die Exkommunikation eines Antipapstes ist nichts wert), andere denken, dass bei einem Rücktritt oder Tod von Kard. Bergoglio, kann ein neues Konklave die Dinge wieder in Ordnung bringen. Aber wenn das Kardinalskollegium 80 neue Kardinäle hat, die von Bergoglio ernannt wurden, sind sie keine echten Kardinäle und haben daher keinen Titel, um einen neuen Papst zu wählen. Die Nachfolgelinie nach Franziskus würde also aus lauter Antipäpsten bestehen. Das zeigt die Geschichte: In der ersten Hälfte des 12. Jahrhunderts regierte der Gegenpapst Anacletus II. acht Jahre lang, und nach seinem Tod wurde er von Victor IV. abgelöst, einem anderen Gegenpapst, bis der heilige Bernhard von Clairvaux letzteren verdrängte und eine legitime päpstliche Erbfolge wiederherstellte.”

F.: Orthodoxe Katholiken beschweren sich immer wieder über die Reformen von Franziskus. Nun fürchten sie um die Messe in lateinischer Sprache (“vetus ordo”), da Bergoglio deren Feier durch Widerruf des Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” von Benedikt XVI. einschränken zu wollen scheint.

A.: “Und worüber sind sie überrascht? Der Heilige Geist steht dem Papst nicht nur bei den seltenen Gelegenheiten bei, wenn er sich ex cathedra zu wichtigen Glaubensdogmen äußert. Ein spezieller Artikel des Katechismus, 892, spricht von seinem gewöhnlichen Beistand: “Der göttliche Beistand wird auch in besonderer Weise dem Bischof von Rom gewährt, wenn er, ohne zu einer unfehlbaren Definition zu gelangen und ohne sich endgültig zu äußern, in Ausübung des ordentlichen Lehramtes eine Lehre vorschlägt, die zu einem besseren Verständnis der Offenbarung in Sachen des Glaubens und der Sitten führt.”

Wie kann irgendjemand glauben, dass Bergoglio der wahre Papst ist, wenn er die katholische Identität von Grund auf demoliert? Und paradoxerweise verzweifeln die orthodoxen Katholiken an seinen Maßnahmen, anstatt zu prüfen, ob er das Zeug zum Pontifex hat: wie die Sorge um die Auswirkungen, ohne die Ursachen zu untersuchen.”

F.: Auch den Laien scheint das Thema ziemlich gleichgültig zu sein.

A.: “Ein großer Irrtum: Ein Papst hat eine fundamentale Rolle in der Politik der ganzen Welt. Denken Sie nur an die Rolle, die Johannes Paul II. beim Zusammenbruch des Kommunismus gespielt hat. Der Papst ist ein politisches Oberhaupt mit Einfluss auf mehr als eine Milliarde Menschen: Er bestimmt maßgeblich die internationale Politik.”

F.: In diesem Zusammenhang behaupten Sie, dass Bergoglio eine Art moralischer Sponsor der Neuen Weltordnung ist.

A.: “Er selbst erklärte kürzlich gegenüber einer großen Tageszeitung (La Stampa vom 15.3.21 n.d.r.): “Wir dürfen die Pandemie nicht verschwenden, sondern müssen sie nutzen, um eine neue Weltordnung aufzubauen”. Deutlicher als das? Inzwischen ist das Konzept durch den Zoll gegangen, man spricht leise darüber, ohne Scham. In der Tat besteht Bergoglio ständig auf diesem “interreligiösen Dialog”… Auch ich bin für den Dialog, aber hier wird er als Vorwand genommen, um die katholische Identität zu vernichten und die Kirche zum Container einer neuen Weltreligion zu machen. Ein Vorgang, der der Einzigartigkeit der Offenbarung Christi völlig entgegengesetzt ist. Aber schauen Sie sich nur die Position an, die die Kirche während der Pandemie eingenommen hat…”.

F.: Übrigens: Sie sind sehr kritisch gegenüber dem Management der Gesundheitskrise…

A.: “Natürlich. Wir sind für Impfstoffe, sofern sie sicher und wirksam sind, aber dann erklären wir nicht, warum die Verabreichung eines experimentellen Medikaments hetzt, wenn es wirksame Therapien gibt, stattdessen völlig vernachlässigt. Wahnsinn. Bergoglio spricht auch nie über Therapien, wie kommt das? Vielmehr hat er eine Unterwürfigkeit gegenüber der zivilen Macht demonstriert, die gegen jedes Konkordat und jede verfassungsmäßige Vereinbarung verstößt, indem er so viele Menschen der minimalen Annehmlichkeiten des Glaubens beraubt, Kirchen schließt und sogar den Sterbenden die Sakramente verweigert. Zu viele versuchen, diese gesundheitliche Notlage auszunutzen, um neue politische und/oder finanzielle Projekte zu etablieren.

Aber wir werden diese Wahrheiten auf alle Plätze bringen: Wir glauben an die Rechtsstaatlichkeit und den Respekt vor den Regeln”.

Cionci replies to the Die Tagespost over the faux Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI

by Andrea Cionci

of the Italian Original linked above in image

The most important German Catholic daily, Die Tagespost, took up some of our articles about the legal problems of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the strange inconsistencies of the following eight years. We have thus provided them with an account of the facts and a reconstruction that connects them (the so-called “Plan B”), translated into German. So far no one has been able to propose an alternative.

Dear Colleagues of Die Tagespost,

On May 28 you resumed on your pages an article published by the blog of the undersigned in the Italian newspaper, the Libero. Your title spoke of “strange speculations” in Rome. If you have the goodness to read, we will show you that some objective facts are rather strange. As for our reconstruction called “Plan B”, it tries to offer a possible logical explanation by rearranging facts and documents. It was taken up by the most authoritative Italian Vaticanistas and translated into four languages ​​by international websites and blogs (today also in German, for you). We would be pleased if someone proves capable of questioning it in a coherent way and complete after checking all the insights.

And here are the facts.

The Declaratio di Retirement hides a series of juridical problems involving canons 124, 332 § 2, 188, 17 of the Code of Canon Law.

From the inversion between munus and ministerium, to the postponement of the date and time of the renunciation, to general doubts: according to various canonists, the renunciation is a completely void act. The mere fact that such disputes can flourish makes the act doubtful and as such, once again, null and void.

Not to mention the institution of the so-called “pope emeritus”, radically contested – unanimously – by internationally renowned scholars (Boni, Fantappié, Margiotta-Broglio, de Mattei …).

Benedict XVI has been repeating for eight years that “the pope is one” without ever explaining which one. I have shown that Vatican News attributed the quotation marks “the pope is one and he is Francis” to Benedict XVI while the words were written by the journalist Massimo Franco of Corriere della Sera.

Benedict XVI keeps the white robe and justified himself in Seewald’s book Last Conversations by saying that it was “a practical solution because he had no other clothes”. He maintains other pontifical prerogatives such as the P.P. after the pontifical name (Pater Patrum, or Pontifex Pontificum) and the possibility of imparting the apostolic blessing. He uses the majestic plural in his interview books. He lives in the Vatican and intervenes on serious doctrinal issues.

I highlighted how in his statements over the last eight years there is a scientific and studied ambiguity: each sentence of his can be interpreted in two different and mirroring ways. Like when he says: “My fans are sorry for my choice, but I am calm and at peace with myself”.

A sentence that can be interpreted in two different ways, also according to the hypothesis I will write about below.

In the Declaratio di Retirement there are two serious errors of Latin and about 20 other imperfections that were immediately denounced in the press by illustrious Latinists such as Luciano Canfora and Wilfried Stroh.

In 2016, Pope Ratzinger declared to Corriere della Sera what had already been written in Peter Seewald’s Last Conversations, namely that he himself wrote the Declaratio in Latin in two weeks because he is “very familiar with Latin and did not want to make mistakes by writing “. The document passed through the Secretariat of State under papal secret – writes Ratzinger – which also “perfected the style”.

The latest discovery is the one also cited by your newspaper, again in “Last Conversations” by Peter Seewald:

Question. “Was there an internal conflict over his decision (to resign)?”.

Response of Pope Ratzinger: “It is not that simple, of course. No pope resigned for a thousand years and even in the first millennium this was an exception: therefore a similar decision must be pondered for a long time. For me, however, it became so evident that there was no painful inner conflict “.

Now, six popes have abdicated in the first millennium, and four in the second millennium. How is it possible? Benedict XVI can therefore only refer with the word “resignation” only to those few popes who in the first millennium were forced to renounce not the Petrine munus, but only the ministerium, the practical exercise of power, for having been expelled by the antipopes. In this case, one of these could be Benedict VIII, expelled by the antipope Gregory VI and therefore temporarily forced to renounce the ministerium before being reinstated on the throne as a legitimate pope. In fact, Pope Ratzinger in the Declaratio renounces only the ministerium, and not the munus, as would be required by canon 332.2. So, he would be telling us that he is still the pope, even if he is without the practical exercise of power. No alternative explanations emerged.

The most important German Catholic daily, Die Tagespost, took up some of our articles about the legal problems of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the strange inconsistencies of the following eight years. We have thus provided them with an account of the facts and a reconstruction that connects them (the so-called “Plan B”), translated into German. So far no one has been able to propose an alternative.

These are just a few facts, and you would be right to call them strange. How to explain them?

There are only two hypotheses:

1) Pope Ratzinger does not know Latin well, remembers nothing of the history of the Church and is practically fasting in canon law, although he was certainly aware of the fact that in 1983 John Paul II had inserted the dichotomy between munus and ministerium in canon law. Out of pure personal vanity, Benedict insists on wearing the white robe and posing as pope, no longer being pope, remaining completely indifferent to the anguish and doubt that grip so many faithful about who the pope is. It must also be admitted that Pope Ratzinger is also a little spiteful and “enjoys” leaving a shadow of doubt about who the pope is, hindering his successor.

2) As already mentioned by the jurist Estefania Acosta in his treatise “Benedict XVI: pope emeritus?” And by friar Alexis Bugnolo, the strange and illogical behavior of Benedict XVI over the next eight years is purposely held by him to make us understand that the pope is one and it is he alone, since he himself voluntarily prepared his resignation as legally invalid. This is to allow the modernist Church to reveal itself, to make itself known, but then to be canceled by a whisker, as soon as the invalidity of his renunciation is discovered. It is known that in 2012 he was now deprived of authority (so much so that the president of the IOR Ettore Gotti Tedeschi was expelled without the pope’s knowledge), it is known from the biography of Card. Danneels that his enemies were the cardinals of the Mafia of St. Gallen of which card. Bergoglio was the champion. According to the theory of the so-called “Plan B”, Benedict XVI has handed over to history and canon law an invalid renunciation to separate “the wheat from the chaff” and lead to a purifying schism for the Church. The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben says he is convinced that the real reason for his resignation was the desire to awaken the eschatological conscience. The resignation would be a foreshadowing of the separation between “Babylon” and “Jerusalem” in the Church. Instead of engaging in the logic of maintaining power, with his resignation from office, Ratzinger would have emphasized his spiritual authority, thus contributing to his strengthening. Now we just have to see who will come out of the office.

A ground breaking thesis, we realize. Below we have sorted all the pieces of the puzzle from the very beginning. Each paragraph has an in-depth article to verify each issue. We wait for someone to know how to rearrange them in a different way, but the pieces will have to fit together well. It is in fact very difficult to argue that all of Ratzinger’s apparent clumsiness, carelessness, inconsistencies, which – coincidentally – all lead to the same point, (that is, that he still remained pope in all respects) are only the result of chance. It is a question of probability calculation.

We have no preconceived positions, we limit ourselves to rearranging the facts according to logic. It is up to you to judge and, if necessary, to usefully contest.

However, we cannot continue to pretend that the issue does not exist. If it were verified that Benedict did not validly renounce, the 2013 conclave would be invalid, Francis would be an anti-pope and all his succession line would be anti-popes, just as another anti-pope, Victor IV, succeeded the anti-pope Anacletus II, until St. Bernard of Clairvaux to put things right. So the Catholic Church would be gone forever, at least as we know it. The question is uncomfortable, we realize, in fact everyone runs away as soon as it is mentioned, but what serious journalist can take the responsibility of keeping silent in the face of such sensational, inexplicable evidence? Catholics still less, and clergymen are bound by an explicit canon to seek the truth and declare it.

We believe it is worth addressing the speech and clarifying it, also to protect the legitimacy of Francis and his successors. After all, what is there to fear if everything is in order?


FromRome.Info will publish the German version of Plan B, shortly.

Church Militant News Service lauds New Film on Benedict’s “Resignation”

The above is in print, and the below on TV in the next 90 minutes.

BREAKING — Die Tagespost attempts to reckon with Cionci & Bugnolo over Benedict XVI’s Renunciation of Ministry

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

May 28, 2021 A. D. — The dam of silence has broken. The leading Catholic newspaper of German has published an article on the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI.  The damage to the St. Gallen Mafia is extreme.

The paper has cited the names of some of Bergoglio’s most menacing opponents:  Andrea Cionci of the Italian daily, Libero, and Br. Alexis Bugnolo, of FromRome.Info.

First, the article in the original German (click to read):

And now for the article in a Google Translation (click to read):

I will leave it to the judgement of the readers, how great the damage to the Narrative this is.

Die Tagespost has attempted to discredit both Cionci and myself ever so subtlety, but it is clear that the attempt is a backfire. Too many facts have been let out.

What has particularly irked Gallina, the author of the article, is that Cionci has established from a close analysis of Benedict XVI’s statements that my theory of the intentional and purposefully invalid renunciation is highly plausible.  Die Tagespost has unwittingly confirmed it by admitting that Benedict never has called what he did an abdication!

This article means, politically, however, that the work of Cionci has caused a massive wave of new questions among the Sacred Hierarchy.  I can confirm that the thesis of the Great Catholic Reset, planned by Benedict or at the basis of the inspiration he received to resign, is now an open question even in the Vatican. Cardinals and high functionaries are speaking of it in an approved manner.

The stranglehold of the controlled Catholic media in the English speaking world has been circumvented. Many thanks to Andrea Cionci and the outgoing editor of the Libero for having given others and myself a voice in Italy and now to the entire world.

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.

Andrea Cionci: Let’s pause on blaming the Council and investigate the Renunciation!


at MarcoTosatti.com entitled,
“Il Dibattito sul Concilio è un Vicolo Cieco. Il Nodo sono le Dimissioni…”

by Andrea Cionci


It has been several months that, starting from a careful historical analysis of Monsignor Viganò – which I largely share – the criticism of the Second Vatican Council continues to be brought up as if it were the real Magna quaestio and the solution to the current impasse. I think this is a big blunder and as I will show, it leads to absolutely nothing but a claustrophobic dead end.

In the progression of modernism, someone wanted to see in Benedict XVI the step immediately preceding Francis: a bit ‘like comparing a bicycle to a freight train, in my opinion.

Moreover, Ratzinger himself, who, like everyone else, underwent the cultural moment and the influences of the Council period, publicly emended himself from those “sins of youth”. It is often contested that when he was pope he did not excommunicate modernist theologians on the spot, but the management “cum clava” of papal power is quite recent and we tend to forget that the pope, once, was a figure above all of the guarantor of the unity of the Church, even at the cost of tolerating some “red sheep”. No one is perfect and Ratzinger, too, must have had his weaknesses, but, at this point, why stop at the Council and not blame de Lammenais (1782-1854) and liberal Catholicism? Moreover, the erosive tendencies of Tradition began well before the Council, as Sergio Russo has well illustrated in Stilum curiae (Tosatti’s Editorial Series).

Continuously re-proposing the whine about Vatican II provides only two operational solutions.

The first is to get into a time machine, go back to 1962, drug and kidnap Karl Rahner.

The second is to use the criticism of the Council to refound the Catholic Church, leaving the “seat” to the de facto schismatics, at least regaining possession of the “faith”, with a speech such as: “Since, as we have abundantly demonstrated, from Pius XII onwards we have not been able to have a pope worthy of the name, we are tired: the time has come to take back a Roman Catholic Church with a true pope that we will appoint on our own. It is not as if we can remain without a pontiff for the next few centuries.”

I had mentioned that hypothesis here.

Since the solution of the time machine does not seem to be immediately feasible, only from the point of view of ratifying a schism, the paean on the Council would acquire a practical function, but apparently no one has the courage to continue on this path: “it cannot be done”, “it is a sin”, “it does not fit”, “it is uneconomic”, “they must leave”, “it would give scandal”, etc.

And so — excuse me — but to continue with recriminations about the Council is objectively useless and unproductive. It’s like a guy who one day finds himself with a bad office manager and starts complaining about the course of studies he undertook as a boy: either he uses that speech to find the strength to radically change his profession (“ok, I got it all wrong, now I’m going to open a chiringuito in the Bahamas”) or he keeps his office manager and learns to live with him. It’s not that complaining about his old choices solves anything.

What is more harmful, however, is that such speeches distract intellectual and moral energies from the REAL Magna quaestio: the validity of the resignation of Benedict XVI. We know that it is a complex matter, that it is necessary to apply oneself, document oneself and find the courage of lions. But steps forward have been made to clarify and disclose how the resignation was announced – both legally and formally – invalid and how it was never ratified. Even if only 10% of those alleged resignations were challenged, those who really wanted to could probably wipe the slate clean of the neo-church. Perhaps only canon 14 of the Code of Canon Law would suffice: “Laws, even irritating or incapacitating ones, in the doubt of law do not urge”. We have asked 20 canonists of the Rota for confirmation and no one has responded: an indicative sign.

It may displease many people, but objectively speaking, the only one who has gone on the counter-attack in full operation is Don Minutella, who, freed from any impediment thanks to two (!) excommunications (not justified by any canonical process) is in fact the only one to have taken the field with an army: he has founded a social channel, speaks on radio and broadcasts, administers sacraments una cum Papa Benedicto around Italy… in short, he really does “the devil tour de force”. You may or may not like him, but please, let’s stop pretending he doesn’t exist, it’s quite ridiculous. If he has been excommunicated, for anyone who doesn’t like Francis, this can only be a huge credit to him., if it is true, as many claim, that there is an “anti-Christic coup” underway? If you do not like what he says, attack him on the merits: from a loyal, fierce dialectical clash with Don Minutella can only remain on the ground something really useful.

The illusion of many traditionalists is that, once Bergoglio is dead or has resigned, the next conclave can put things back in place, perhaps – given the armored majority – through divine intercession. “You’d have to presuppose insanity”, an authoritative colleague told me, but it is a pious illusion: if Francis is not the pope, not even the next conclave will be valid, with the presence of about 80 invalid cardinals. It seems to me that we can agree on this.

Even Bergoglio’s successor, even if he were a hyper-traditionalist holy man, will find himself with a sword of Damocles over his head, the atrocious suspicion, of having been elected by an invalid conclave. That is why the main issue, upon which all Catholic observers should converge, is solely and only the validity of Benedict’s resignation. That is the only really important thing that should be at the heart of even the Bergoglians, since doubt delegitimizes their leader. They should be the first to ask for a “commission of inquiry”, if they have nothing to hide. (Why do they turn a deaf ear?).

Even the tight criticism of Francis and all matters of the neo-church, what is the point? If Bergoglio is not the legitimate pope, and was put there by the modernist Masons, as they say, what do you expect, that he restore the sedes gestatoria and the Noble Guard?

Besides the crux of the resignation issue, the only valid (sideways) topic of debate should be: Why is no one moving? Why aren’t the cardinals speaking out as they should? What are they waiting for? Why aren’t the clergy mutinying en masse? Is it better to ask for enlightenment directly from Benedict XVI, or to organize a synod?

These are the questions that matter: whether Ratzinger is a modernist or not is of no importance, and, in the end, it doesn’t even matter whether he himself has organized a more or less voluntary invalid resignation. That speech may be an encouragement to decide to challenge the resignation, but the point is to establish whether Benedict legally resigned or not, regardless of everything, of his intentions and even of whether Francis is, or is not, a good pope. Before judging him as a pontiff, one must verify that he really is.

Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke — PDF Booklets

FromRome.Info presents here Br. Bugnolo’s authorized English translation of Andrea Cionci’s Article

La possibile ricostruzione del “piano B” di papa Benedetto XVI

which was published by the Libero, on April 6, 2021, in Italian.

Due to the length of the original, FromRome.Info publishes the translation in 4 parts.


A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church

A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorney Acosta and various theologians

by Andrea Cionci

Here is the entire English translation, with links, in a PDF File, WHICH IS FREE TO DOWNLOAD. Please spam the world with this document. Especially send to Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Seminarian, Religious, Journalists, political leaders. Let’s get the world to open their eyes about what is really going on in the Vatican!

PDF in English

PDF en español

PDF em português


REVISIONS:  Added on April 17, at 10:15 P.M., the official Spanish and Portuguese translations of the same.

Revised on April 12, 2021, at 8:16 P. M. Rome Time, to remove a typographical error.

Revised on April 12, 2021, at 7:48 P. M. Rome Time, to remove some typographical errors.

Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke against Globalism & Freemasonry — Part IV

FromRome.Info presents here Br. Bugnolo’s authorized English translation of Andrea Cionci’s Article

La possibile ricostruzione del “piano B” di papa Benedetto XVI

which was published by the Libero, on April 6, 2021, in Italian.

Due to the length of the original, FromRome.Info publishes the translation in 4 parts.


A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church

A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorney Acosta and various theologians

by Andrea Cionci


20. The first results of Plan B

Moreover, only two years after, in 2019, the subtle input of Benedict XVI obtained its first result: the Italian-American Franciscan, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, an outstanding latinist and expert in canon law, takes note of the errors in the Latin of the Declaration and declares that they were inserted precisely to attract attention to the canonical invalidity of the document. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/23247982/benedetto-xvi-ratzinger-rinuncia-bergoglio-declaratio-2013-dimissioni-abdicazione-munus-ministerium-bugnolo.html

The Libero had the exclusive report on his study and news of it went viral world wide, but in reply, from the Vatican there was only silence and from the Avvenire ( the national Catholic newspaper published by the Italian Bishops’ Conference) only insults. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/23298928/silenzio-declaratio-rinuncia-papa-benedetto-ratzinger-cei-insulti-fra-bugnolo-munus-ministerium-invalidita-diritto-canonico.html

21. Bergoglio goes full throttle, too much

The seasons change, and Francis in the meantime exposes himself ever the more: he enthrones Pachamama in St. Peter’s, he inaugurates a new Litany of Loreto with Mary as “support of migrants”, he declares himself in favor of civil unions, he changes the Our Father, he inserts the masonic “dew” into the Canon of the Mass, he decorates the Piazza of St. Peter’s with a strange esoteric Christmas creche, in sum, he goes excessively full throttle, so much so that the noted Vaticanista, Aldo Maria Valli, publishes a shocking article entitled, “Rome is without a pope”. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/25873974/sacrifici-umani-studiosi-spiegano-tutto-su-pachamama.html HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/23355254/papa-francesco-maria-sollievo-migranti-litanie-sfregio-oppositori.html HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/25013391/birra-fast-food-applaudono-dichiarazioni-bergoglio-unioni-civili-alcol-e-cibo-spazzatura-provocano-milioni-di-morti-nel-mond.html HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/25354748/nuovo-messale-bergoglio-domenica-prossima-in-vigore-politicamente-corretto-contro-teologia-san-tommaso-rugiada-massoneria-al.html HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/25534079/guerriero-presepe-castelli-a-san-pietro-ha-corna-e-un-teschio-in-fronte-media-censurano-pubblico-inferocito-insulti-social.html HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26278178/aldo-maria-valli-roma-senza-papa-bergoglio.html

22. Bergoglio runs for cover at the Corriere della Sera

At Santa Marta there is a panic: Massimo Franco of the Corriere della Sera rushes to interview Ratzinger and clean up the mess. Benedict XVI offers a series of further replies which are perfectly double faced: he says that “his friends, a little fanatical, did not accept his decision, made completely freely by him, he is in peace with himself and the pope is one alone”. Franco interprets his declarations in this sense: “I willingly resigned as the Pope; my fans err in considering me the Pontiff; the pope is one alone and is Francis” HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26378596/benedetto-xvi-intervista-corriere-della-sera-papa-uno-solo.html

23. The explicit subtext of Benedict

In reality, the true significance of the words of Ratzinger is: “My friends have not understood what I am fooling the modernists and that I have done this in full self awareness, on which account I am in peace with my conscience. the Pope is one alone and I am he”. This story of the pope who is one alone, but which is never specified, has already become too repetitive and urges us to examine past interviews. By doing so there emerges a meticulous and “scientific” equivocation which has lasted years. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26378596/benedetto-xvi-intervista-corriere-della-sera-papa-uno-solo.html

24. The nomination of the “ambassador” to Benin

Thus, in reply to the customary misunderstandings by the Corriere della Sera, and to encourage those who follow the right interpretation, Pope Benedict, a few days after, received the president of a charitable organization and names him, “ambassador” (even if only spiritually). Even on the symbolic level, this is indeed the act of a reigning pope. Another clear signal to his “own”: HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26582795/ratzinger-benedetto-xvi-visita-ignorata-lorenzo-festicini-ambasciatore.html

25. The mirror trick is understood

From the interviews with the Corriere della Sera, we pass to read also the book interviews by Peter Seewald and we discover that all of them have been arranged according to a coherent and opposite subtext. Every phrase has been constructed with a scientific ability to reveal — often with a tasteful irony — the reality of the invalid resignation to whomsoever wants to grasp it. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26699363/ratzinger-sottotesto-libro-intervista-ultime-conversazioni-peter-seewald.html and HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26732422/papa-ratzinger-ein-leben-nuova-versione-fatti-dimissioni-volontariamente-invalidate.html

26. The discovery of a clear historical precedent: Pope Benedict VIII

One fundamental detail merges when Benedict XVI declares in his “Last Conversations”, published in 2016, under a veiled but most precious historical reference, that he has resigned as Pope Benedict VIII, Theophylactus of the Counts of Tusculum, in 1012, was constrained to renounce the ministerium on account of the antipope Gregory VI: an unequivocable signal. Little by little, there emerges other details in his book length interview and here at the Libero we have even cited the passage from which we were able to be inspired by Ratzinger to understand his strategy “of mirrors”. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26691243/benedetto-xvi-errore-storico-messaggio-papa-antipapa.html

27. A foreseen battle

Benedict knows that his game is an extremely subtle one, but he has left alarm bells which are very evident. He knew that the pieces of the puzzle would be put back together little by little and that the false church would reveal itself, crumbling on its own, annihilating itself in scandals, doctrinal contradictions and ferocious internal conflicts. Ratzinger knew beforehand that the modernist antipope, with his masonic-environmental-globalist extravagances would fill the Catholic people with dismay. He knew that this one would not be assisted by the Holy Spirit, nor by the logic of the Logos (the Divine Word). HERE: https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/personaggi/25073261/papa-francesco-monsignor-vigano-questa-non-e-chiesa-cristo-ma-antichiesa-massonica.html

28. What is Benedict waiting for?

Benedict is still waiting, tranquil in his prayer and contemplation, and communicating with the outside world by means of precise and surgical terms: he awaits the Cardinals and Bishops to open their eyes. He does not speak openly: even if he would succeed in speaking the truth in public, today, he would be immediately silenced with the excuse of senile ramblings. No: it is rather the Catholic people who, in this Apocalypse, in the sense of a Revelation, have to convert, have to UNDERSTAND, and ACT. And it is the clergy who have to shake off their inertia, by rediscovering the course, the strength, and the heroism of the Faith. HERE: https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/24974299/cardinali-perche-vestono-rosso-forse-solo-fashion.html

29. The solution to the whole problem: a declaratory Synod

The solution, in the end, is a simple one: let the Bishops convoke a synod, like that which was convoked historically (such as Sutri or Melfi V) to establish with certainty which of the one or two popes is the true one.

Ratzinger knows that during such an encounter the reality will easily come forth: the anti-pope and all of his actions, nominations, doctrinal and liturgical changes, will vanish into nothingness. It will be as if he never existed. Death does not preoccupy Benedict: his resignation will remain invalid for ever by creating a historic rupture in the papal succession.

Bergoglio, in the mean time, for his own part, has already signaled the future of his new-Church by nominating an avalanche of his “own” 80 cardinals, who, being in the majority, will shut the doors to the new Conclave. After the antipope, Francis, there would be no valid successor, as some traditionalists are pointing out. Moreover, an invalid conclave, composed by invalid cardinals, might elect another modernists antipope — or a fake orthodox one — and the Catholic Church, as we know Her, would be finished forever.

The synod, on the other hand, will be the great Catholic Counter-Reset, the red restart-button which will enable the Church to be purified — according to the intentions of Ratzinger — from corruption and heresy once and for all, by reconciling Europe and the West with their own Christian roots. And in the passage from one epoch to another, as he himself said to Seewald: “I belong no longer to the old world, but to the new, which in reality has not yet begun”. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26699363/ratzinger-sottotesto-libro-intervista-ultime-conversazioni-peter-seewald.html

30. The “little ones” will be the protagonists

Benedict XVI, the sole Vicar of Christ (Bergoglio having renounced the title) knows that salvation comes from little ones, from the pure of heart, mind and body, much sooner than from prelates and the great ones of the press: from courageous priests and friars who are excommunicated for remaining faithful, from little journalists, youtubers and bloggers, translators, artists and publishers, simple readers who share articles on social media, each one of which in his own infinitesimal littleness adds his own contribution: a whole people without means and support, who sacrifice themselves and risk themselves to spread the truth as a fire, as a last “Crusade of the poor” to save the Church Herself.

No, Benedict XVI has not fled at the sight of the wolves. Nor in the face of those dressed up as lambs.

Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke against Globalism & Freemasonry — Part III

FromRome.Info presents here Br. Bugnolo’s authorized English translation of Andrea Cionci’s Article

La possibile ricostruzione del “piano B” di papa Benedetto XVI

which was published by the Libero, on April 6, 2021, in Italian.

Due to the length of the original, FromRome.Info publishes the translation in 4 parts.


A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church

A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorney Acosta and various theologians

by Andrea Cionci


9. The errors in the Latin

Moreover, the game played was a subtle one: the risk is that the juridical question, upon which the entire plan B is based, is forgotten. This is why in the Declaratio Benedict inserted anomalies which would in time attract attention to the invalidity of the document, most of all two gross errors in the Latin: “pro ecclesiae vitae” (afterwards corrected by the Vatican) and one pronounced by his own voice — “commissum” — alongside the key word: “ministerium”, which should have been the dative form, “commisso”. Moreover, the typo on the hour of 29:00 instead of 20:00: errors purposefully introduced, in addition to invalidating even more the resignation inasmuch as it was not “rite manifestetur”, that is “duly” expressed, as the Code of Canon Law requires (in Canon 332, §2); most of all to concentrate the attention of future readers on the two principle juridical problems of his fake resignation: the renunciation of “ministerium” and the deferment of the renunciation. The plan succeeded: the errors of syntax in the Latin were immediately judged to be “intolerable” by Latinists such as Luciano Canfora and Wilfried Stroh, not to mention Cardinal Ravasi, and made a certain sort of splash in the press, together with the typographical error on the hour it would take effect. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26637606/ratzinger-benedetto-xvi-errori-latino-dimissioni-corriere-esperto-latinista-ennesimo-indizi.html

Errors which resulted from haste? Impossible! Ratzinger spent two weeks writing the Declaratio which was looked over in detail by the Secretary of State under the seal of the pontifical secret (i. e. the highest level of Vatican state secrecy). HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26758114/ratzinger-dimissioni-nuovi-dettagli-errori-declaratio-correzione-segreteria-stato-refusi-orario-ore-29.html

10. The Farewell at 5:30 P. M.

And so, February 28th arrived and Benedict makes his dramatic helicopter flight (he will say to Seewald in 2016 that this was part of the “stage scenery”) such that everyone will see him abandon the Vatican and, at 5:30 P. M., come out upon the balcony of the papal palace at Castel Gandolfo to bid the world a farewell. He had not casually chosen the hour of 8 P. M. (20:00 hours), the hour in which Italians are all at dinner (in front of the TV), a thing which required him to anticipate the farewell at 5:30 P. M.. There, at Castel Gandolfo, in fact, he speaks precisely: “I will be the pope until 8 P. M. and then no more”.

But then he goes inside, and 8 P. M. arrives, but he signs no document nor makes any public declaration. Some justify this by saying that since at 5:30 P. M. he said that he would no longer be the pope, that sufficed. But they are in error: because by affirming that he would be pope until 8 P. M., he could have very well changed his mind, therefore, his renunciation of ministerium, already in effective from the hour he read his Declaratio, should have been ratified by another signed or public declaration. But this never happened. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26613561/ratzinger-dimissioni-sempre-annunciate-mai-ratificate-carlo-pace-spiega.html

11. A concentrate of juridical invalidity

In summary, his Declaratio of a renunciation is absolutely worthless as a resignation, because one cannot renounce an office which has a divine origin by renouncing its administration and, in addition, such a renunciation not duly written, has no juridical value. It’s all a big joke. In fact, Benedict will admit to Seewald that the choice of February 11th for his Declaratio was connected, with an “interior connection”, to the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, a feast of St. Bernadette, the patron saint of his own birthday and with the Mardi Gras Monday. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26699363/ratzinger-sottotesto-libro-intervista-ultime-conversazioni-peter-seewald.html

12. The Mafia of St. Gallen elects an Anti-Pope

The anomalies were seen only by a few and the Mafia of St. Gallen went ahead full steam. Finally, on March 13th, elbowing itself forward with a fifth and irregular balloting, it succeeds in electing its own champion, the Jesuit cardinal, Bergoglio, already looked down upon in Argentina for his methods and his doctrinal extravagances. In this way, there comes to be announced to the world a new pope. Francis comes out, without the red mozzetta (cape), accompanied by Cardinal Daneel: his style is very off the cuff and, in no time, with the complicity of the Main Stream Media, he succeeds in capturing the enthusiastic favor of the crowds. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/22269917/bergoglio_papa_francesco_ratzinger_teologia_modernisti_tradizionalisti_strategia_concilio_vaticano_teologia.html

13. The attack on Catholicism begins

Immediately, he begins a gradual dismantling of Catholic doctrine to adapt it to the container of the new universalist masonic-environmental-modernist religion of the New World Order, openly augured by Bergoglio in his interview with La Stampa on March 15, 2021: “We are wasting this crisis when we close in on ourselves. Instead, by building a new world order based on solidarity …”.

Consequently, it would not surprise if Ratzinger never actually resigned, Bergoglio is an anti-pope. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/23334769/ratzinger-rinuncia-invalida-sospetti-esilio-ratisbona-gaffe-comunicative-nuovo-ordine-mondiale-avvenire-scola-massoneria.html

14. Benedict goes ahead as the Pope

While a portion of normal Catholics (insultingly defined by the Main Stream Media as “traditionalists”) began to react against Bergoglio (and not a few even to speak ill of Ratzinger), Pope Benedict XVI continued to comport himself as a pope in every detail, though without some of the practical offices of his power. In addition to maintaining the white cassock, he continues to live in the Vatican, to use the royal “We”, to sign as the Pontifex Pontificum (Pontiff of Pontiffs), and to impart the Apostolic benediction.

Indeed, even if Ratzinger had made a renunciation of administering the Barque of Peter, every now and then he comes back, signing some book, writing, prayer, or granting an interview, to correct Bergoglio on the celibacy of priests (even if, immediately afterwards, they uproot his favorite vineyard at Castel Gandolfo). HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/22458850/papa_benedetto_emerito_aborto_gay_catechismo_chiesa.html

15. The “scientific” ambiguity of the thing

In all his interviews, Ratzinger maintains a low profile and most of all an absolute, scientific double entendre in his words. He never says that he has resigned from the papacy, nor does he say that Francis is the Pope, but throughout 8 years, he has like a standing stone, repeated that “the Pope is only one”. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26597971/scritto-di-benedetto-xvi-completo-come-leggere-piu-attentamente-un-significato-opposto-il-papa-e-lui-bergoglio-e-solo-cardi.html

16. The Main Stream Media’s forced narrative

The Narrative would at all costs have it that the one existing pope of which Benedict speaks is Francis, so much that the newspapers of this party exhausting themselves to construct a narrative upon every cited word, seeking to manipulate the context. In fact, Vatican News on June 27, 2019, opened with the leader, “Benedict XVI: the pope is one, Francis”, reporting however only the personal thoughts of Massimo Franco of the Corriere della Sera. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26391704/papa-ratzinger-benedetto-xvi-da-otto-anni-tentano-fargli-dire-quello-che-non-vuole.html

17. The Mafia of St. Gall unmasks itself

While Bergoglio is devoting himself to his new giant masonic and ultramodernist-globalist church (by daily unmasking himself), in 2015 the “anti-Church” as Mons. Viganò will call it, made a faux pas: Cardinal Godfried Danneels, the primate of Belgium and the central column of the Mafia of St. Gallen (so much so that he flanked Bergoglio, when he came out on the Loggia of St. Peter’s, on the day of his election), confessed candidly in his one autobiography how the modernist lobby aimed to cause Benedict to resign and to propose in his place cardinal Bergoglio. His admissions, confirmed by what was already admitted by the journalist Austen Ivereigh, created an enormous embarrassment and have never been denied. The book of Danneels was sold out (the last used copy for sale on Amazon went for 206 euro!) but has never been republished, nor translated into Italian. The Belgian Cardinal exited the stage and died a year later. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/25566325/don-minutella-pietro-dove-sei-pamphlet-teologo-massimo-franco-enigma-papa-francesco.html

18. The defense attempted by Mons. Sciacca

In the August of 2016, Mons. Giuseppe Sciacca, the top canonist at the Vatican, in an interview with Andrea Tornielli, sustained that the resignation of Ratzinger was valid because munus and ministerium are, for a pope, indivisible. A self-contradicting argument which shows precisely how Ratzinger could not have resigned by resigning only the ministerium. In fact, the history of popes in the first millennium of the Church shows that they have at times resigned from the exercise of papal power while remaining popes, especially in the case of rival anti-popes. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26691243/benedetto-xvi-errore-storico-messaggio-papa-antipapa.html

19. Benedict’s reply to Mons. Sciacca

Three weeks later, Ratzinger, publishes a veiled response in his letter to the Corriere della Sera, taking occasion from the recent book of his interviews by Seewald, entitle, “Last Conversations”, in which he exhorts the readers by saying that he himself is an optimum latinist and that he wrote with his own hand the Declaration in Latin so as not to make any errors.

An absurdity, given that there are errors which have been publicly corrected by famous Latinists immediately after his Declaratio. This is one of those many signals of apparent incoherence which Benedict sends to the outside world precisely to recall attention to the juridical problems in his “resignation”. And so the entire interview with the Corriere della Sera can be interpreted in the exact opposite sense. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26637606/ratzinger-benedetto-xvi-errori-latino-dimissioni-corriere-esperto-latinista-ennesimo-indizi.html

Tosatti republishes Andrea Cionci’s “Benedict’s Plan B”

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

April 9, 2021 A. D: This morning, Marco Tosatti, one of the most senior Vaticanista here in Italy republished Andrea Cionci’s article on Benedict’s Plan B.  While this may not seem to be newsworthy, it merits nevertheless to be brought to the attention of the English speaking world, which has nearly no newspapers, electronic journals or TV channels who are willing even to speak about the incontrovertible anomalies in the reality of what Benedict XVI did and did not do.

Let Life Site News, The Remnant, National Catholic Register and Catholic Family news take note, and let their readers ask them why they are censoring the news.

Let 1 Peter 5, Dr. Taylor Marshall, Church Militant, EWTN et alia, take note of what Tosatti just did, and let their viewers and readers ask them why they are censoring the news.

In this manner, all these groups, knowingly or not, willingly or not, have been coopted into the narrative control of the Globalist Reset, wherein Bergoglio is the new Messiah and Benedict has betrayed humanity.

All these by remaining silent are running cover for the Bishops in the English speaking world who cling to Bergoglio as the sine qua non of the New Normal.  As a consequence, they make all the lies, frauds, crimes, heresies, apostasies and treacheries of Bergoglio possible. If they protest Bergoglio, it is like the man who protests the Scamdemic while wearing a mask and insisting on the vaccine.

Let them and their readers, followers and viewers meditate on that. In the mean time, they can read Cionci in English at FromRome.Info.

On the contrary, Marco Tosatti has the integrity to allow the facts present themselves and the discussions be aired. That does not mean he agrees with them 100%, but it does show that he is not controlled by globalists.

I publicly call on the media in the English speaking world of Catholics to do the same. It is time to stop calling FromRome.Info “unreliable”. After all projection as a psychological trick, is the tactic of Marxists.


CREDITS: The featured image above is a screenshot of Tosatt’s official blog. Click here to read it in Italian.

Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke against Globalism & Freemasonry — Part II

FromRome.Info presents here Br. Bugnolo’s authorized English translation of Andrea Cionci’s Article

La possibile ricostruzione del “piano B” di papa Benedetto XVI

which was published by the Libero, on April 6, 2021, in Italian.

Due to the length of the original, FromRome.Info publishes the translation in 4 parts.


A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church

A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorney Acosta and various theologians

by Andrea Cionci


  1. An Appointment at 29 o’clock on February 28th.

Moreover, Benedict deferred the renunciation of ministerium, fixing it for February 28th, and in such a clear manner that Cardinal Sodano, immediately after His Declaratio, clarified very well to the Cardinals, almost obsessively, that He would remain Pope until the 28th.  But not only that: Ratzinger specified even the hour X after which he would be no longer the Pope, the 29th hour.. It was obviously a typographical error: He wanted to write 20:00 hours (8 P. M.), and in fact, it was corrected afterwards, but the newspapers cited the error with which He underlined how important that inconvenient hour would be, in which the people, as is their custom, would be at dinner in Italy. HERE:

  1. The Pope Emeritus is the Pope

Would he return to being a Cardinal? No: He specified afterwards (in 2016) that He will become a “pope emeritus” , making reference to the fact that, from the 70’s onward, in Canon Law there was permitted to diocesan Bishops in retirement to remain on the sacramental level Bishops, but emeriti for having resigned only from the practical functions. In the case of the Pope, however, there exists no sacramental dimension, but only a super-sacramental dimension which regards a charge which no man on earth has the power to modify or share.  Hence, he who resigns from the papal charge cannot remain in any sense the Pope, and a pope who resigns solely in part, does in truth remain in every way the Pope.  Benedict knows this, but his adversaries do not. Ratzinger, therefore, has purposefully used this camouflage of a “pope emeritus” — an expression which is inexistent in Canon Law, — to maintain himself as the Pope and, in the meantime, to leave the playing field to his enemies. HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26732422/papa-ratzinger-ein-leben-nuova-versione-fatti-dimissioni-volontariamente-invalidate.html

  1. That white garment which He keeps wearing

Behold the reason why Benedict consistently maintains the white cassock, while omitting the mozzetta (white mantle) and sash, symbols of the practical functions which He alone has in fact renounced: the administering of the Barque of Peter and announcing the Gospel.  To Andrea Tornielli, the Vaticanista, who will ask him why He would not wear the cassock of a mere Cardinal, He will reply, justifying himself with the phrase that it was “an eminently practical solution, give that he had no other changes of clothing available”.  This fact will resist all opposition for years, even the most recent stigmatizzation of it by Cardinal George Pell, who said in Dec. 2020: “A pope after his resignation should not dress in white and should not teach in public”.  Yes, but perhaps there is no “after” here? HERE  https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26620895/benedetto-xvi-veste-bianca-senza-fascia-mantella-perche.html?fbclid=IwAR1UulaYNj1LRJL-DZZU-wMp1ku38bofoIkdQ1HAWx7Apk15K5mBQimBBBQ  and HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/25518841/cardinale-george-pell-benedetto-xvi-torni-cardinale-questione-talare-bianca.html

  1. The wantonness of the Mafia of St. Gall.

Ratzinger knows well his adversaries, he knows that they have longed for power since the 90’s when they mustered together in secret meetings in the city of St. Gallen, Switzerland.  Not by chance, was it precisely in those years, that Pope Wojtyla published the apostolic constitution, Universi dominici gregis which automatically excommunicates any Cardinal guilty of a pre-Conclave plot to elect a pope.  Ratzinger knows that his enemies’ level of knowledge of Latin and Canon Law is inferior to his own and that, in the face of an apparent surrender, they would not have paid attention to details.  They would, rather, presume the validity of any document which spoke of a resignation.

In fact, after the Declaratio, the Mafia of St. Gallen is dancing with the stars and causes there to be announced from the Vatican Press Office that “the Pope has resigned”.  Their desires appear to them fulfilled quasi “prophetically” by Ratzinger, at the end of his Declaratio where he declares to renounce the ministerium SO THAT (“ut”) “from February 28th, at the hour of Rome, the See of St. Peter will be vacant and that there is to be convoked, by those who are competent, a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff” (“by those who are competent”, that is, not “you Cardinals”, or at least not all of “you Cardinals”, a reference to those who were unfaithful to him).


CREDITS: Translation and use of image, here at the Featured Image, with permission.

Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke against Globalism & Freemasonry — Part I

FsromRome.Info presents here Br. Bugnolo’s authorized English translation of Andrea Cionci’s Article

La possibile ricostruzione del “piano B” di papa Benedetto XVI

which was published by the Libero, on April 6, 2021, in Italian.

Spanish translation Here

Due to the length of the original, FromRome.Info publishes the translation in 4 parts.


A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church

A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorney Acosta and various theologians

by Andrea Cionci


The question of the “two Popes” and of the resignation of Benedict XVI is a very broad one, not to be discounted, spreading over 8 years and events difficult to interpret.  In these months, we have analyzed many individual facts and documents without receiving any response to our questions, legitimate though they be.

And yet, the thesis that has been proposed by the attorney Estefania Acosta and by other authoritative journalists, jurists, theologians and ecclesiastics (many of whom have paid a dear price for their positions), is shocking:  Pope Benedict XVI might have WILLINGLY prearranged an entirely invalid resignation to open a new front against his adversaries, causing them to nominate an anti-pope and arranging that in time the truth above the antichrist objectives of the “Deep Church” and the fact that he is still the sole Pope, be discovered.  This would bring about the definitive cancellation of the “false Church”, along with great purification from heresy and corruption, to open up a new epoch of Christian renewal.

Is this plausible? We have already investigated how the hypothesis of a Benedict XVI who is little prepared in Latin and canon law, or even an enthusiastic promoter of the modernist revolution of Francis, are hardly credible, here https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26440869/papa-ratzinger-ipotesi-dimissioni-approssimativo-modernista-reset-cattolico.html

Therefore, there remains that we sift through the hypothesis of the so-called “Catholic Reset”, cited above: this we have attempted to do by putting in order, according to this point of view, the facts, documents, persons.

To allow you to link to all of it, at once, we propose here a summary, a synthesis, from which you can investigate each argument further by clicking the links under the word, “Here”.

Judge for yourself: let alternative explanations be attempted, so long as they are able to place each of the “pieces of the puzzle” in an alternative but coherent framework, HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/22796627/papa-francesco-bergoglio-ratzinger-lenga-gracida-negri-bernasconi-dornelles-eresia-danneels-vescovi-teologi.html

and HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26460977/benedetto-xvi-unico-vero-papa-reset-cattolico-dimissioni-non-valide.html

1, An inconvenient Pope

“Pray for me so that I do not flee before the wolves”: thus did Benedict XVI exhort the Catholic people at the beginning of his difficult pontificate, in 2005.  The world, in fact, immediately turned upon him: 16 years ago, the Catholic Church, with Her two-thousand-year-old Faith, identity and moral laws, constituted the last obstacle in the path of various globalist-progressive objectives sponsored by the international Left and Lodges.

After the hotly opposed discourse at Ratisbon (2006), which had shut the doors to all religious syncretism, after the Motu Proprio, “Summorum Pontificum” (2007), with which Ratzinger “restored” the Mass in Latin, invigorating Tradition with a fresh breath of oxygen, the internal clerical opposition of the Modernists — which had coagulated around the lobby of Cardinals, called “the Mafia of St. Gallen” — there was then en-kindled and decided to foster such opposition to him that he would resign, as has been amply described by Cardinal Danneels (one of the members of the “Mafia”) in his Autobiography of 2015.

  1. The Year of Horrors (Annus orribilis)

In 2012, the situation became unsustainable: at the Vatican large numbers boycotted the Pope by refusing to obey him; the meek Pope-theology could not trust in anyone, so much so that even his private butler robbed documents from his mailboxes, in that famous scandal of Vatileaks which put in clear light the ferocious factional war in the bosom of the Church and gave breath, at last, to a plan to eliminate him physically.  But these revelations played into the hands of Ratzinger, as we will see, by making clear the context in which he would have to opt for his extrema ratio (last reckoning).

The Media, for their part, were all against him: they depicted him as a sullen obscurantist, they massacred him by trotting out true and presumed scandals of pedophilia (which today magically have disappeared) and, toward the end of December there arrived the last thumbscrew: The Obama-Clinton administration blocked the accounts of the Vatican by means of the SWIFT system.  They would only be unblocked in the days immediately following the “resignation” of Ratzinger: HERE https://www.imolaoggi.it/2015/09/29/come-lo-swift-banche-ricatto-benedetto-xvi-per-costringerlo-a-dimettersi/

  1. The Moment arrives for “Plan B”

With a Church completely infected with the metastasizing globalist modernism subject to and placed under international pressure, Benedict decided upon a definitive maneuver, undertaken “to clean out not only the small world of the Curia, but rather the Church in Her totality”, as he will explain to the journalist Peter Seewald in 2016.

A “Plan B” worked out over many years precisely in view of an aggression against the Papacy from within the Church, and announced in many prophecies and in the Third Secret of Fatima, according to which Ratzinger was one of the few to be set apart by God for a special mission.

The Pope assembled in this way what could strategically be defined as a “planned ruse”, with a “false target” and a “feigned retreat” to cause the morale of the authentic Catholic population to be recharged  and to definitively annihilate the antichristic forces in the bosom of the Church. HERE. https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26771800/papa-ratzinger-terzo-segreto-fatima-ipotesi-specchio.html

  1. The “false target”: the ministerium

The plan was founded upon a provision put into act in 1983, when the papal charge was divided into architecture and decoration, munus and ministerium, or rather, the divine office and the practical exercise of its power.

And it is precisely this last which is the true juridical “false target” which he offered to his enemies: to renounce the ministerium, and not the munus, would be to make one think that a noble, a count, had lost his title of  nobility  solely because he had renounced the administration of his possessions.  Nothing of the kind: a count remains always a count even without lands, and contrariwise, an administer cannot become a count solely by administering the holdings.  Munus and ministerium are not equivalents.

In this way, after two weeks of work, in January of 2013, Ratzinger formulated a Declaratio, a declaration in Latin of hardly 1700 key-strokes, where the terms were inverted, according to a “mirror trick”: instead of renouncing the munus, the charge of the Pope because the ministerium (the practical exercise) had already become burdensome, he announces to want to do the opposite: to renounce the ministerium because the exercise of the munus has become burdensome!  A true trick of words, but, which juridically would only have allowed, at the most, the nomination of a bishop-vicar, certainly not the resignation of a pope, the dignity of which is conserved in the foundational munus. (Of this speak at least 5 publications). HERE  https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26411995/un-testo-giuridico-della-avvocatessa-estefania-acosta-racconta-dimissioni-appositamente-scrite-invalide-da-benedetto-xvi-che.html


CREDITS: Translation and use of image, here at the Featured Image, with permission.

Italian Episcopate in a Turmoil – Calls to depose Bergoglio

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

April 5, 2021 A. D.:  FromRome.Info has it from the highest levels of authority in the Italian Episcopate that many Bishops want Bergoglio gone.

The straw which has broken their silence is his public support for perversion.

Already since last year 3 Bishops expressed to peers and subordinates that Bergoglio is a heretic and no longer the Pope, on that ground.

But the recent scandalous remarks of Bergoglio have lit a powder keg.

Now there is widespread and profound discontent with the Argentine.

For 4 weeks, the Libero Quotidiano, one of Italy’s leading newspapers has published the articles of Andrea Cionci clearly demonstrating in the words of Benedict XVI himself that he never resigned the Papacy and never intended to resign the papacy.

And for 4 weeks, the Vatican, the Bishops, the Cardinals, even the clergy of Rome have remained silent, without uttering one word in public in defense of Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy.

These are the signs of our times. Read them if you still have eyes to see.


CREDITS: On Feb. 11, 2013, news journals took notice that Benedict had planned months in advance to do what he intended on that fateful day. — It is now more necessary than every to pay attention.

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 ever 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.

Pope Benedict XVI’s shell game against the Mafia of St. Gallen

“Ein Leben”: In the second book of Interviews with Pope Benedict XVI, we find another story about His resignation

by Andrea Cionci

Here is an unofficial English translation

A few days ago, we became aware of strange inconsistencies and the possibility of a shocking subtext in the interview book by Peter Seewald – Benedict XVI “Last Conversations” (Garzanti 2016) HERE .

On a deeper reading, the writing seemed to be able to coincide with a scenario now outlined by various theologians, journalists, Latinists and legally explained by the recent volume Benedict XVI: pope emeritus? By the lawyer Estefania Acosta HERE .

According to this thesis, Benedict XVI, now besieged by the internal modernist frond and by external globalist powers, never left the Petrine throne in 2013 : he only announced his resignation from the exercise of his functions, moreover without ever ratifying them. HERE

In this way he would have allowed his enemies to seize power, effectively constituting an anti-papal party . Why all this? It would be a strategic retreat to allow anti-Christ forces to manifest themselves and then be canceled, thanks to the recognition of the only true pope, Benedict, for a redemption-purification of the Church. Over the past eight years, Ratzinger, kept under control by the antipapal power, has thus sent us continuous messages through a subtly logical language to facilitate our awareness.

The question, incredible as it may seem, is serious and there are even priests who are excommunicated for their fidelity to Pope Benedict. The latest is Don Enrico Bernasconi , whose interview we propose HERE .

So we also went to read the second book by Peter Seewald ” Ein Leben – Una vita” of 2020 (Garzanti), of which few and disorganized fragments filtered out in the press.

The voluminous biography contains eight pages with new questions to Ratzinger . Let’s try to read them according to the above perspective and see if the sense can spin.

First of all, Ratzinger declares: “My intention was not simply and primarily to clean up the small world of the Curia, but rather in the Church as a whole” . And then: The real threat to the Church comes from the universal dictatorship of apparently humanistic contradicting ideologies, which entails exclusion from the basic consensus of society. [] Modern society intends to formulate an anti-Christian creed : whoever challenges it is punished with social excommunication. Being afraid of this spiritual power of the Antichrist is all too natural .

And so far we would be there . Benedict immediately after, underlines the differences with one of his illustrious predecessors.

The visit (2009) to the tomb of Pope Celestine V was actually a chance event; in any case I was well aware of the fact that Celestine V’s situation was extremely peculiar and that therefore it could in no way be invoked as (my) precedent .

One could read this as meaning: “Celestine V legally resigned in 1294 because he did not feel like taking on the burden of the papacy, which I absolutely did not do, since I did not resign as pope, but I only declared that I wanted to renounce to the exercise of practical power, for the purposes we know. Celestino and I have nothing in common “.

Then the Holy Father continues:

“It was absolutely not my intention to take an extreme distance from the conditions in which the Church finds itself. If you study the history of the popes, you will soon realize that the Church has always been a net in which good fish and bad fish end up. The Catholic conception of the Church and of the managerial roles within it excludes the adoption of an ideal Church as a parameter and instead foresees that one is ready to live and work in a Church besieged by the forces of evil .

Or rather: “I have not in the least abandoned the role of pope. We know that the history of the Church is full of antipopes and we must be ready to face the siege of the forces of evil”.

Seewald then tackles the key question: according to Church historians there is no “emeritus” pope , since there cannot be two popes . It is true that, since the 1970s, a bishop can resign and become an emeritus, but this – he asks – also applies to the pope?

Ratzinger replies: It is not clear why this juridical figure should not also be applied to the bishop of Rome. The formula manages to account for both aspects: on the one hand no concrete juridical mandate, on the other a spiritual charge that is maintained, even if invisible. Precisely the juridical and spiritual figure of the emeritus allows us to avoid even the idea of the coexistence of two popes, given that a bishopric can have only one holder “.

There is therefore only one pope. But when he says “the juridical and spiritual figure of the emeritus”, to which of the two does he refer, to the pope or to the bishop? The ambiguity does not seem accidental, but the Latinist Fr Alexis Bugnolo , an expert in canon law , explains :

If we mean BISHOP EMERITUS , the argument is invalid from the canonical point of view because a bishop receives an ecclesiastical office and, since his mandate as ordinary bishop has been created by the Church, two persons can be allowed in the dignity of the bishop. If we mean pope emeritus, the argument is still invalid since there is no juridical figure of pope emeritus and since the munus is not shared iure divino (by Divine insitution)”.

Also for the theologian Carlo Maria Pace , who HERE analyzed the invalidity of Ratzinger’s resignations due to their deferral, confirms: “Benedict XVI erroneously stated that a Pope who resigns remains Pope in the same way that bishops who resign remain bishops “.

In essence, the pope emeritus would himself be THE pope. In fact, if A bishop resigning (from the post of human origin) can become A retired bishop, IL Pope, renouncing the ministerium is always THE Pope, although retired, since it keeps the munus which is given directly by God. That’s why Ratzinger continues to say for eight years that the pope is only one and never specify that it is Francis.

Benedict seems to reiterate the concept, a few lines later, with an example: “A father remains so until death (even if he passes the management of the company to his son) and the human and spiritual meaning of being a father is not revocable”.

But what would be the spiritual purpose of these fake resignations?

An explanation is offered by Seewald’s own question:

The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben says he is convinced of the fact that the real reason for (Ratzinger’s) resignation was the desire to awaken the eschatological conscience (concerning the ultimate destinies of man). In the divine plan of salvation, the Church would also have the function of being together “the Church of Christ and the Church of the Antichrist” . The resignation would be a foreshadowing of the separation between “Babylon” and “Jerusalem” in the Church. Instead of engaging in the logic of maintaining power, by her resignation from office she would have emphasized his spiritual authority, thereby contributing to its strengthening .”

And here is Pope Benedict’s response:

“St. Augustine said that on the one hand many are part of the Church only in an apparent way, while in reality they live against it, and that, on the contrary, outside the Church there are many who – without knowing it – deeply belong to the Lord and therefore also to his body, the Church. We must always be aware of this mysterious overlap of internal and external, an overlap that the Lord has exposed in several parables. We know that in history there are moments in which the victory of God over the forces of evil is visible in a comforting way and moments in which, instead, the forces of evil obscure everything .

Let’s say, in conclusion, he doesn’t seem to have exactly denied Agamben’s opinion.