Tag Archives: Andrea Cionci

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.

Il Libero: “A Book has put Ratzinger back on the Throne”

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

March 6, 2021: The Italian Daily, il Libero Quotidiano has published an  article by Andrea Cionci provocatively entitled, “Un libro rimette Ratzinger sul soglio” (A Book has put Ratzinger back on the Throne). — Above is the image of the actual article. — Below follows the Italian and ENGLISH translation.

The article features the juridial study of Attorney Estefania Acosta Ochoa, an legal expert from Colombia, South America, which was published by Amazon Books in English, Portuguese and Spanish last week, and which is causing a global sensation among the sacred hierarchy. FromRome.Info featured the book in two previous articles. (here & here)

It represents an important work necessary for the International Inquest into Corruption at the Vatican, which was issued 366 days before the publication of Acosta’s Book. The Inquest calls for an extraordinary Synod to hear the facts, depose the antipope Bergoglio, and restore Pope Benedict XVI to the Apostolic Throne.

The article by Andrea Cionci, in the Libro, this morning here in Italy, marks the first time, according to my knowledge, that a major Italian newspaper dares to express that Benedict XVI is still the pope according to the juridical facts and laws.

As such, it is a decisve shot across the bow of the ecclesiastical establishment which in the eyes of a large portion of the faithful world wide has UTTERLY discredited themselves, and the institution of the priesthood, over their malicious insistence to simply ignore the facts and laws, while proclaiming Bergoglio undoubtedly the pope.

ITALIAN ORIGINAL –  Reprinted with permission

Il primo testo giuridico: Benedetto XVI invalidò le dimissioni.
Il papa è lui.

“Il papa è solo lui, non Francesco”: la ricostruzione dello stratagemma

by Andrea Cionci

E’ appena uscito il primo testo giuridico che conferma: il papa è uno solo, Benedetto XVI, in quanto la Declaratio di dimissioni è stata da lui costruita in modo giuridicamente invalido.

L’avvocatessa colombiana Estefania Acosta, autrice di “Benedict XVI: pope emeritus?“ spiega come la Declaratio sia stata preparata con cura da Ratzinger in modo che, sulle prime, non si notasse che non si stava affatto dimettendo. Gli errori di latino avrebbero poi attirato l’attenzione anche sul meccanismo giuridico auto-invalidante.

Non essendo giuristi dobbiamo rimanere ai dati di cronaca oggettivi, come gli ambigui comportamenti di Benedetto stigmatizzati dal card. Pell: egli veste ancora di bianco (giustificandosi col dire che “non ha più talari nere nell’armadio”), risiede in Vaticano, mantiene il nome, la benedizione apostolica e, da otto anni, ripete – sibillino – che “il papa è uno solo”, senza mai specificare quale.

Ci hanno provato a farglielo dire, nel 2019, quando Vatican News titolò: “Per Benedetto il papa è uno, Francesco”, citando (un giorno prima) un’intervista di Massimo Franco sul Corriere. Ma il virgolettato era di Franco, non di Benedetto. Una svista?

La Acosta, nelle sue 300 pagine, analizza anche altre questioni, come le dichiarazioni del cardinale Danneels, primate del Belgio e membro della “Mafia di San Gallo” che, nell’autobiografia andata a ruba e mai smentita dal Vaticano, dichiarava che la stessa lobby di cardinali modernisti mirava a far dimettere Ratzinger avendo come campione Bergoglio. Roba da scomunica automatica, secondo la costituzione Universi Dominici Gregis promanata da Wojtyla nel ’96.

Ma per la Acosta, dirimente è solo la Declaratio: «Attenzione, le dimissioni non sono invalide perché Benedetto è stato “forzato”: egli ha agito consapevolmente, sapeva che non si stava dimettendo dall’ESSERE il Papa (cedendo il munus petrino), ma semplicemente dichiarava di rinunciare al FARE il papa (il ministerium), a svolgerne – solo alcune – azioni pratiche. Ciò invalida le sue dimissioni, poiché munus e ministerium, per il papa, sono INDIVISIBILI, come conferma (pur in difesa di Bergoglio)  il canonista Mons. Sciacca. Si spiega così l’ultima battuta di Ratzinger al Corriere: “Otto anni fa ho compiuto la mia scelta in piena consapevolezza e ho la coscienza a posto”. Il mainstream non ha capito».

Altro fatto strano: perché nelle versioni della Declaratio dal latino in italiano e altre lingue il Vaticano ha tradotto il munus sempre come ministerium? Perché essi sono indivisibili, o per celare la “trappola” di Benedetto? A “guadagnarci”, in entrambi i casi, è il Benedetto-stratega.

Ancora più strano come la gravissima questione venga evitata in modo surreale non solo dai vescovi, ma anche dai media laici. Eppure, l’hanno già denunciata giornalisti, teologi, latinisti.  Ora c’è finalmente un testo giuridico: si apra il dibattito.

Indifferenze, attacchi personali e accuse di complottismo, in reazione, avvalorerebbero la tesi per cui Benedetto, nel 2013, isolato e impotente, seguì tale strategia per lasciare che la “deep Church”, al servizio del mondialismo, si svelasse. “Ambiguo per non mentire”, avrebbe così mantenuto quanto da lui scritto nella Declaratio, anche se essa è giuridicamente invalida. Del resto, sotto attacco dall’interno, cosa avrebbe potuto fare per difendere la Chiesa? Solo usare la Logica e il Diritto canonico,  attendendo che i vescovi, “vedendo davvero” la Declaratio, uno ad uno, dicano semplicemente la verità: che l’unico papa è Benedetto. Il resto verrebbe da sé.


The first legal text: Benedict XVI invalidated the resignation. The pope is him.

“The pope is only him, not Francis”: the reconstruction of the stratagem

The first legal text confirming: the pope is only one, Benedict XVI, has just come out, as the Declaratio of resignation was constructed by him in a legally invalid way.

Colombian lawyer Estefania Acosta, author of “Benedict XVI: pope emeritus?” explains how the Declaratio was carefully prepared by Ratzinger so that, at first, it was not noticed that he was not resigning at all. The Latin errors would then also draw attention to the self-invalidating legal mechanism.

Not being jurists, we have to stick to objective facts, such as the ambiguous behavior of Benedict stigmatized by Card. Pell: he still wears white (justifying himself by saying that “he has no more black cassocks in his closet”), he resides in the Vatican, he keeps his name, the apostolic blessing and, for eight years, he repeats – sibylline – that “the pope is only one”, without ever specifying which one.

They tried to get him to say it, in 2019, when Vatican News titled, “For Benedict the pope is one, Francis,” quoting (a day earlier) an interview by Massimo Franco in the Corriere. But the quotation mark was Franco’s, not Benedict’s. An oversight?

Acosta, in its 300 pages, also analyzes other issues, such as the statements made by Cardinal Danneels, primate of Belgium and member of the “Mafia of St. Gallen”, who, in his autobiography, never denied by the Vatican, stated that the same lobby of modernist cardinals aimed to make Ratzinger resign, having Bergoglio as a champion. Stuff from automatic excommunication, according to the constitution Universi Dominici Gregis emanated by Wojtyla in ’96.

But for Acosta, what is decisive is only the Declaratio: “Attention, the resignation is not invalid because Benedict was “forced”: he acted consciously, he knew that he was not resigning from BEING the Pope (ceding the Petrine munus), but was simply declaring that he was renouncing to DO the Pope (the ministerium), to carry out – only some – practical actions. This invalidates his resignation, since munus and ministerium, for the pope, are INDIVISIBLE, as confirmed (though in Bergoglio’s defense) by canonist Monsignor Sciacca. This explains Ratzinger’s last remark to Corriere: “Eight years ago I made my choice in full awareness and I have a clear conscience. The mainstream has not understood”.

Another strange fact: why in the versions of the Declaratio from Latin into Italian and other languages did the Vatican always translate munus as ministerium? Because they are indivisible, or to conceal Benedict’s “trap”? To “gain”, in both cases, is the Benedict-strategist.

Even stranger is how the very serious issue is surreally avoided not only by the bishops, but also by the lay media. Yet, journalists, theologians, Latinists have already denounced it. Now there is finally a juridical text: open the debate.

Indifference, personal attacks and accusations of conspiracy, in reaction, would corroborate the thesis that Benedict, in 2013, isolated and powerless, followed such a strategy to let the “deep Church”, at the service of globalism, unveil itself. “Ambiguous in order not to lie,” he would thus have maintained what he wrote in the Declaratio, even though it is legally invalid. Moreover, under attack from within, what could he have done to defend the Church? Only use Logic and Canon Law, waiting for the bishops, “really seeing” the Declaratio, one by one, to simply tell the truth: that the only pope is Benedict. The rest would come by itself.

Andrea Cionci

Tra leggende sull’”adrenocromo” e pedofilia reale, certa moda strizza l’occhio agli orchi?


di Andrea Cionci

In un momento di aggressione all’infanzia mai vista nella storia, alcuni fanno vestiti per bambini con ammiccamenti sessuali.

L’impressione è che si stia per scoperchiare un enorme, raccapricciante vaso di Pandora. Dell’altro ieri i 50 arresti in 15 regioni italiane per traffico di materiale pedopornografico che confermano anche il progressivo affermarsi dell’”infantofilia”: l’atroce abuso sui neonati, a volte persino impiegati – come è stato documentato – in pseudo-rituali a sfondo esoterico.

Questo è confermato dall’Associazione “Meter”, fondata da don Fortunato Di Noto, che ha da poco divulgato il report 2019 nel quale si denuncia il raddoppio del materiale pedopornografico segnalato (7 milioni di foto rispetto ai 3 del 2018) e l’aumento pauroso di questa criminale parafilia forse in parte collegata anche alla sparizione di minori, decuplicata in Italia negli ultimi in 10 anni.

Anche in Germania, Gran Bretagna, Belgio – scrive Benedetta Frigerio sulla Nuova Bussola Quotidiana – negli ultimi mesi, ci sono stati centinaia di arresti per violenze su migliaia di bambini, ma si teme a indagare nel mondo civile: le prove scompaiono, i bravi detective vengono sostituiti e i processi si arrestano. La Germania ha riconosciuto la corruzione di Polizia e istituzioni, ma le pene sono state minime. La grande stampa tace o riduce tutto a “brevi” di cronaca.

Eppure l’argomento, sebbene scabrosissimo, sembrava giornalisticamente interessante, basti ricordare la tempesta di abusi da parte di preti citati dalla stampa durante l’ultimo anno di pontificato di Benedetto XVI. Poi è passato di moda. Alcuni cattolici fedeli al papa emerito sostengono che si fosse trattato di una precisa strategia per costringere Ratzinger alle dimissioni, peraltro recentemente messe in discussione in un nostro articolo tradotto in quattro lingue dal decano dei vaticanisti italiani, Marco Tosatti.

Continua a leggere >

La “Renuncia” de Ratzinger, mal escrita para sorprendernos


Traduzione per www.liberoquotidiano.it

di P.  Ruben Eduardo Martínez-Cordero


di Andrea Cionci

Junio 11 de 2020

Desde hace algunos días circulan en la red las denuncias de un franciscano italoamericano, latinista, experto en escolástica y en argumentaciones canónicas, sobre la renuncia papal, quien, entrevistado por el youtuber Decimo Toro está difundiendo los contenidos explosivos de de su sitio web (www.fromrome.info). Su nombre es Fray Alexis Bugnolo; ha traducido más de 9.000 páginas de san Buenaventura y, como pocos, domina la lengua de la Iglesia.

Este religioso franciscano, leyendo atentamente la DECLARATIO de la renuncia de Benedicto XVI, siguiendo el hilo conductor entre lógica, derecho canónicoy lengua latina, considera que la dicha Declaratio ha sido escrita con habilidad y sutileza extremas a fin de que con el paso  del tiempo quede patente su invalidez. De esta manera Ratzinger ha  permitido a la “Mafia de San Galo”, el lobby masónico-progresista eclesiástico que lo había constreñido a abdicar, tomar el poder apresuradamente y finalmente desenmascararse.

Benedicto ha actuado de esta manera con la intención de que todos los actos, nombramientos y cambios en la doctrina realizados por la “falsa iglesia” puedan ser desechados de un solo golpe precisamente a causa de la invalidez de su renuncia al papado. Por este motivo el Vaticano –según Fray Bugnolo- ha falsificado deliberadamente las traducciones en  lenguas extranjeras de la Declaratio en latín de Benedicto, intentando “remediar” los fallos intencionales del texto, demostrando así un dolo ulterior.

Hace cuarenta años Juan Pablo II y el por entonces Cardenal Ratzinger conocían ya, por el tercer secreto de Fátima, que los lobbies gay-masónicos habían intentado tomar el poder; por ello habían cambiado a tiempo el Código de derecho canónico   previendo un sistema de emergencia que hiciera fracasar un eventual caso de usurpación.

Esta es la tesis. Para precaverse de las acusaciones de conspiracionismo dirigidas  contra su reconstrucción de los hechos, Fray Alexis cita únicamente los documentos del sitio web del Vaticano  que a continuación copiamos y pegamos; todos podrán constatar con un clic en www.vatican.va

Está totalmente establecido que en el texto de la Declaratio de Benedicto constan algunos graves errores gramaticales detectados ya en 2013 por eminentes clasicistas como Luciano Canfora y WilfriedStroh. Si ya resulta sorprendente la supresión del plural mayestático (Nos) empleado en los documentos oficiales. Fray Bugnolo (traductor de más de 9.000 páginas de san Buenaventura, volvemos a recordarlo) ha detectado a su vez unas 40 imperfecciones lingüísticas: verbos mal conjugados, “decisionem” en vez de la forma correcta “consilium”, “vobis” en lugar de “vobiscum”, el uso erróneo de “explorata” para significar “investigada”,  etc. Para el elenco completo: https://fromromeinfo/2020/06/10/clamorous-errors-in-the-latin-of-the-renunciation-2/

Pero el gran problema se encuentra en la construcción del texto de Ratzinger, lo cual tornaría inválida su renuncia al papado. En efecto, a partir de 1983 el Derecho canónico exige la renuncia al “MUNUS petrino”, es decir al oficio inherente a la condición de pontífice que proviene de Dios y de san Pedro (anteriormente bastaba solo decir “renuncio”); tal modificación fue probablemente añadida para blindar eventuales y futuras abdicaciones papales.

Ratzinger escribe en la Declaratio que sus fuerzas, a causa de la edad, “han dejado de ser aptas para ejercer el munuspetrino de un modo adecuado”. Sin embargo no escribe que RENUNCIA AL MUNUS sino que, “bien consciente de la gravedad de este acto DECLARO QUE RENUNCIO AL “MINISTERIO” (es decir al ejercicio) de Obispo de Roma”. En un inicio, por lo tanto, cita el Munus de un modo genérico, pero después declara  de acuerdo formalmente renunciar solo al Ministerium, lo cual, al criterio de no pocos entendidos, resulta del todo inútil para la validez del acto: como si un rey, abdicando, dijera que renuncia a ejercer el poder práctico sin renunciar al trono obtenido por derecho divino.

De otra parte, Ratzinger tampoco escribe “renuncio” sino “declaro renunciar”, lo que compromete la sinceridad de su renuncia, así como “declarar amar” no corresponde necesariamente a “amar”.

Hipotizando que Benedicto haya sido sometido a presiones, colocado frente a una elección, por ejemplo entre la dimisión y la bancarrota vaticana (en este punto recuérdese la notoria estrategia del código “Swift” y el bloqueo de las cuentas bancarias vaticanas) él podría haber LIBREMENTE ELEGIDO “DECLARAR RENUNCIAR”, algo muy distinto de “libremente renuncio”.

Otro interrogante propuesto por Bugnolo: ¿Por qué Ratzinger escribe que la Sede quedará vacante después de 18 días?. No obstante, la renuncia debería dejar vacante la Sede a partir de la muerte o del acto de renuncia del papa


No es nueva la polémica sobre el MUNUS.De ella se han ocupado ampliamente Vittorio Messori, Antonio Socci y otros autorizados vaticanistas, pero Fray Bugnolo ha sido el primero en divulgar que todas las traducciones de la Declaratio(en el sitio web vaticano) también el Munusse halla traducido por “ministerio”, juntando en consecuencia en un único significado dos prerrogativas que el Derecho canónico las distingue bien. Pregunta Fray Bugnolo: “¿Quién lo ha autorizado?.Munus sería perfectamente traducible en todas las lenguas. Esta es la prueba de que el Vaticano ha querido anular la fundamental distinción que el Papa Emérito en su reciente entrevista EIN LEBEN (Una Vida) incluso nuevamente la ha reiterado, declarando que él todavía mantiene o conserva para sí el “encargo espiritual” (spirituelleZuordnung) aunque haya renunciado al ejercicio concreto (konkreteVollmacht). Más aún: es todavía el Papa reinante y de hecho continúa vistiendo la sotana blanca, impartiendo la Bendición Apostólica y firmándose como P.P., PontifexPontificum, título reservado precisamente al Papa reinante. Recordemos que la única explicación dada por Ratzingeren cuanto al uso de la sotana blanca fue que no había sotanas negras en su armario.

A la cuestión del Munus había respondido en 2016, en un artículo extremadamente técnico del todo incomprensible para los no especialistas, Mons. Giuseppe Sciacca, obispo secretario de la Signatura Apostólica. “Como un astuto abogado – escribe Fray Bugnolo-Sciacca afirma justamente que el poder no puede ser dividido entre dos papas, pero al dar por descontada la validez de la renuncia elude el verdadero problema. Afirma además que renunciar al Ministerium comporta renunciar automáticamente al Munus, lo cual no es verdad porque Benedicto habría podido muy bien nombrar un Vicario para gestionar el Ministerium y conservar el propio cargo, es decir el Munus, que es esencial incluso por motivos teológicos y dogmáticos, no solamente canónicos, en cuanto proviene de Dios”.

Se encuentran además otras extrañísimas anomalías en la traducción italiana publicada por el Vaticano: “Declaro renunciar al ministerio de Obispo de Roma, Sucesor de San Pedro, a mí confiado por los Cardenales el 19 de abril de 2005, DE MODO QUE a partir del 28 de febrero de 2013, a las 20:00 horas, la Sede de Roma, La Sede de San Pedro, quedará  vacante”.

Como especifica Fray Bugnolo: “De modo que”, en latín, es escrito por Ratzinger como UT pero debe ser traducido ASÍ QUE POR ESTO. Diversamente, “de modo que” propiamente ha de traducirse por QUOMODO.

“Son dos cosas muy diferentes: “de modo que” presupone el absoluto, el legal automatismo de una relación acto-consecuencia. “Así que por esto” a su vez  puede también revelar un intento escondido o un efecto querido buscado con toda intención. La diferencia que media entre un “modo” externo y material respecto a un “fin” subjetivo.

Por ejemplo no es correcto decir: “Pongo el cebo en la trampa de modo que el ratón sea capturado”, pues no se da por descontado que el roedor caiga en el engaño. Más bien debe decirse: “Pongo el cebo en la trampa para que por esto el ratón sea capturado”.

Imaginemos por un momento que Benedicto ha sido realmente constreñido a abdicar: él declara por tanto renunciar a su  “ministerio” a fin de que por este motivo la Sede quede vacante…quizás también por la acción de los usurpadores. Si hubiese escrito realmente DE MODO QUE habría admitido implícitamente la validez de su renuncia. Así que no.

Otra anomalía: ¿Por qué Benedicto escribe que el nuevo cónclave deberá ser convocado “POR AQUELLOS A QUIENES COMPETA” y no “por vosotros cardenales”? Suena como una deslegitimación dado que obviamente serían los cardenales a quienes se dirija para poder formar el cónclave. Como si el Presidente del Senado, hablando de un futuro Presidente de la República, dijese que éste “deberá ser votado por aquellos a quienes competa” y no, como es evidente, “por vosotros parlamentarios”.

Además Ratzinger no especifica la FECHA EXACTA del nuevo y verdadero cónclave para la elección del Pontífice. Solo dice que deberá ser convocado DESPUÉS QUE LA SEDE QUEDE VACANTE, es decir realmente en el momento sucesivo a su muerte. He aquí por qué la elección válida del nuevo Pontífice COMPETIRÍA en aquel caso solamente a ALGUNOS CARDENALES, aquellos creados antes del advenimiento de Bergoglio y dispuestos a reconocer el “golpe de estado” realizado.

En efecto, las nóminas cardenalicias de Bergoglio no serían legalmente válidas por provenir de un papa inválido, ya que inválida también fue la renuncia de Benedicto.

En el caso de que todavía pasasen muchos años y quedaran vivos y activos los cardenales “legítimos” creados por Benedicto XVI o Juan Pablo II, el nuevo Pontífice debería ser elegido por la Iglesia romana como en los tiempos más antiguos. He aquí la razón de que –en esta perspectiva- un nuevo cónclave debería ser convocado “por aquellos a quienes corresponda o competa” y no a los cardenales a los que él se dirige. Es ésta una visión impecable.

¿Fantapolítica o una Declaratio aparentemente arruinada que, no obstante, leída del modo correcto se revela de diamantina, de “ratzingeriana” coherencia?

Fray Bugnolo está seguro: los errores del latín han sido queridos expresamente por Ratzinger a fin de atraer la atención sobre la invalidez del documento y para hacer emerger, en una lectura atenta, la verdad cuando los tiempos estén maduros. La misma opinión comparte el abogado vienés Arthur H. Lambauer, reconocido experto en derecho internacional, quien ya en 2013 había notado las anomalías”:

“Considero que Benedicto ha cometido errores a propósito para que el sucesor sea inválido, de modo que éste no hiciese nada irrevocable (matrimonios gais, diaconado femenino, etc.) y así, llegado el caso, anularlo”.

Sobre todo un dato objetivo e incontestable: en aquellos extraños 18 días que median entre la renuncia y la sede vacante (que en toda regla debería ser consecuencia inmediata de la renuncia) ninguno ha podido o querido corregir la Declaratio escrita tan “malamente” por Benedicto. ¿Por qué? Téngase en cuenta que es un deber específico de los cardenales corregir al papa de una manera oportuna y filial en caso de que se equivocara.

“Esto demuestra –sostiene Fray Bugnolo- que los cardenales fueron desleales o que se hallaban enceguecidos          por la prisa en tomar el poder; quizás algunos de ellos así como algunosfuncionarios de la Secretaría Apostólica, a quienes no podían escapárseles ciertos errores, eran “cómplices” de Benedicto y, bien conscientes tales errores, callaron para que un día “explotara la bomba”.

Vengamos ahora a las posibles objeciones: “Ratzinger no conoce  profundamente el latín y estaba muy anciano para escribirlo bien”. Resulta difícil que el teólogo alemán, durante 14 años Prefecto de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe (CDF), autor de excelentes escritos en latín, no supiese dominarlo. Por lo demás, el Papa estaba rodeado de excelentes latinistas que habrían podido asistirle. En febrero de 2013 se encontraba tan lúcido hasta el punto de pronunciar un discurso ininterrumpido de 58 minutos. “En todo caso la invalidez se mantendría –responde Fray Alexis- porque la renuncia exigeno solo la plena lucidez mental sino asimismo la absoluta conciencia y conocimiento del Derecho canónico.

Otra previsible objeción: “La renuncia se la ha escrito alguna otra persona que no conoce bien el latín”. Pero si el documento proviniese de alguien que presiona o de un falsario, ¿por qué redactarlo de una manera que sea canónicamente inválida?

Una última y eventual objeción: “Benedicto XVI jamás engañaría a nadie”. En efecto, Benedicto no ha engañado a nadie, solamente ha redactado una renuncia al ministerium. Según Fray Bugnolo, son otros los que han querido ver cómo estaba redactado el escrito y cómo Benedicto se ha comportado hasta hoy. Así, por su avidez de poder, se han autoengañado.

Andrea Cionci: La mascherina, simbolo del nostro popolo imbavagliato e succube


di Andrea Cionci

SI’! Ce la meritiamo la mascherina. E’ il simbolo archetipico della nostra decadenza, della nostra sudditanza, non nei confronti di una pandemia più o meno pericolosa, ma nel senso dell’accettazione passiva di una serie sempre più ampia di gioghi, abusi e restrizioni umilianti.

La mascherina è la bandiera bianca di un popolo che ha rinunciato all’orgoglio e ai propri valori fondativi, che ha smesso di lottare per la Libertà, (una parola di cui, pure, si è riempito la bocca per 75 anni  impiastricciandosene come un bambino goloso). E’ il distintivo di una gente che ha smesso di farsi valere, di reclamare diritti di base come casa, lavoro, sicurezza, asili, pensioni; la divisa di una nazione che non reagisce più perché è troppo faticoso alzarsi,  anestetizzata com’è dalla pizza, dall’aperitivo e dalle serie tv.

Quel “dispositivo di protezione individuale” è il simbolo di resa di un Paese che sta accettando di essere dominato e comprato da entità sovranazionali ben più sveglie e agguerrite. La mascherina è l’atto di obbedienza all’Organizzazione Mortale della Sanità, quella sempre in prima fila per spingere aborto, contraccezione, genderismo  e che, ormai, in nome “della nostra salute”, detta legge a tutti gli stati nazionali.

Continua a leggere >


“Maria sollievo dei migranti”. Bergoglio cambia le Litanie: sfregio ai suoi oppositori?

di Andrea Cionci

Con papa Benedetto a Ratisbona, la prima iniziativa di Bergoglio è stata quella di inserire nelle Litanie Lauretane (che si recitano alla fine del Rosario) tre nuove invocazioni alla Madonna: “Mater misericordiae” (Madre della Misericordia), “Mater spei” (Madre della Speranza”, e “Solacium migrantium” (aiuto, soccorso, sollievo dei migranti).

Giusto ieri, avevamo citato – con preoccupazione – il fatto che l’idea fissa per i migranti di Bergoglio venga spesso accostata dai suoi oppositori all’agenda del Nuovo Ordine Mondiale, un presunto complotto satanico-massonico che avrebbe tra i suoi principali obiettivi, appunto, l’implementazione massima dell’immigrazione: leggi qui.

Non abbiamo fatto in tempo a scriverlo, che è uscita l’ultima novità. E non ci aiuta granché nel difendere Francesco, anche perché la cronaca riserva proprio in questi giorni fatti tristissimi con protagonisti gli stranieri.

Continua di leggere al blog personale di Andrea Cionci, su Libero.

+ + +

Der “Verzicht” wurde geschrieben, um die Bank zu sprengen

Von Andrea Cionci

Ursprünglich veröffentlicht in der italienischen Tageszeitung Libero am 11. Juni 2020

In den letzten Tagen gab es im Internet eine Diskussion über die Kritik am Rücktritt Benedikts XVI. durch einen italienisch-amerikanischen Franziskaner-Latinisten, der Experte für scholastische Texte und kanonische Argumentation ist. Bruder Alexis Bugnolo, der über 9.000 Seiten des heiligen Bonaventura aus dem lateinischen Original übersetzt hat und die Sprache der Kirche wie nur wenige andere beherrscht, wurde von Decimo Toro auf YouTube interviewt.

Durch eine aufmerksame Lektüre der Rücktrittserklärung von Benedikt XVI., einem Faden der Logik, dem kanonischen Recht und der Bedeutung des lateinischen Originals folgend, behauptet Bruder Bugnolo, dass Benedikt den Text mit äußerster Geschicklichkeit und Subtilität und mit der Absicht verfasste, dass sie schließlich als ungültig erklärt werden würde. Auf diese Weise erlaubte Ratzinger der „Sankt-Gallen-Mafia“, der freimaurerisch-progressiven kirchlichen Lobby, die ihn zur Abdankung, zur übereilten Machtergreifung seines Nachfolgers und damit zur Enthüllung zwang, sich zu offenbaren. Benedikt trat in der Weise zurück, dass alle Handlungen, Ernennungen und Änderungen der Lehre, die von der „falschen Kirche“ vorgenommen wurden, schließlich auf einen Schlag hinweggefegt werden können, gerade wegen der Ungültigkeit seines Rücktritts vom Papsttum.

Aus diesem Grund, so Bruder Bugnolo, habe der Vatikan die Übersetzungen von Benedikts lateinischer Declaratio absichtlich gefälscht, um seine absichtlichen Fehler im Originaltext zu beheben, was aber in Wirklichkeit eine weitere Bosheit darstellt. Schon vor vierzig Jahren wussten Johannes Paul II. und der damalige Kardinal Ratzinger dank des Dritten Geheimnisses von Fatima, dass die schwul-freimaurerische Lobby des Klerus versuchen würde, die Macht an sich zu reißen, und aus diesem Grund änderten sie rechtzeitig den Codex des Kirchenrechts und richteten ein Notfallsystem ein, um im Falle einer Usurpation „die Bank zu sprengen“. Dies ist im Wesentlichen die These Bugnolos.

Um Anschuldigungen zu verhindern, dass seine Rekonstruktion der Ereignisse eine Verschwörungstheorie ist, zitiert Bruder Alexis nur die Dokumente der Vatikan-Webseite, die wir unten angefügt haben. Sie können alle auf der Website des Vatikans http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html eingesehen werden.

Es ist ganz klar, dass der Text der Deklaration Benedikts eine Reihe riesiger grammatikalischer Fehler enthält, die bereits 2013 von bedeutenden Klassikern wie Luciano Canfora und Wilfried Stroh festgestellt wurden. Das Fehlen des majestätischen Plurals „nos“, der in offiziellen Dokumenten immer verwendet wird, ist schon überraschend, aber Bruder Bugnolo, der mehr als 9000 Seiten des Heiligen Bonaventura übersetzt hat, hat vierzig weitere sprachliche Unvollkommenheiten festgestellt: Verben, die fälschlicherweise konjugiert werden, „decisionem“ anstelle des korrekten „consilium“, „vobis“ anstelle von „vobiscum“, die irrtümliche Verwendung von „explorata“, um „untersucht“ zu sagen, usw. Die vollständige Liste kann hier https://fromrome.info/2020/06/10/clamorous-errors-in-the-latin-of-the-renunciation-2/ eingesehen werden.

Aber das größte Problem ist die Konstruktion von Ratzingers Text, die den päpstlichen Rücktritt ungültig macht. Seit er 1983 von Johannes Paul II. und Ratzinger reformiert wurde, verlangt der Codex des Kirchenrechts den Rücktritt des „munus petrino“ – des Amtes (einschließlich Abgabe der Verantwortung) des Papsttums, das von Gott und vom heiligen Petrus kommt. (Zuvor musste der Papst nur „renuntio“ sagen – „Ich trete zurück“ – und die Änderung der Forderung von 1983 wurde wahrscheinlich hinzugefügt, um mögliche zukünftige päpstliche Abdankungen zu verstärken.)

In seiner Declaratio schreibt Ratzinger, dass seine Kraft aufgrund des fortschreitenden Alters „nicht mehr geeignet ist, das munus petrino angemessen auszuüben“. Er sagt jedoch keineswegs, dass er darauf verzichtet, sondern vielmehr: „Im Bewußtsein des Ernstes dieses Aktes erkläre ich daher mit voller Freiheit, auf das Amt des Bischofs von Rom…, zu verzichten“ – [declaro me MINISTERIO Episcopi Romae…renuntiare]. So zitiert er am Anfang der Declaratio das munus in allgemeiner Form, aber dann erklärt er formell nur den Verzicht auf das Ministerium, das nach Meinung vieler Experten für die Gültigkeit des Aktes völlig nutzlos ist. Es wäre so, als würde ein abdankender König sagen, er verzichte auf die Ausübung seiner Macht, ohne auf den Thron zu verzichten, den er durch göttliches Recht erlangt hat.

Unter anderem schreibt Ratzinger nicht einmal „renuntio“, sondern vielmehr „declaro renuntiare“, was nicht bedeutet, dass sein Rücktritt aufrichtig ist, so wie „der Liebe erklären“ nicht unbedingt „Liebe“ entspricht. Angenommen, Benedikt wäre unter Druck gesetzt worden – zum Beispiel vor die Wahl gestellt worden, entweder zurückzutreten oder den Vatikan in Konkurs gehen zu lassen (siehe dazu die bekannte Affäre um die Annullierung des vatikanischen SWIFT-Codes und die Sperrung vatikanischer Bankkonten, die in den Wochen vor dem Rücktritt im Jahr 2013 stattfand) – hätte er sich frei entscheiden können, „seinen Rücktritt zu erklären“ – was etwas ganz anderes ist als zu sagen „ich trete aus freien Stücken zurück“.

Eine weitere von Bugnolo aufgeworfene Frage: Warum schrieb Ratzinger, dass der Sitz nach 18 Tagen leer sein würde? Der Rücktrittsakt sollte den Sitz entweder ab dem Zeitpunkt des Todes oder des Rücktritts des Papstes vakant machen.

Der Streit um das Wort „munus“ ist nicht neu, und er ist von Vittorio Messori, Antonio Socci und anderen maßgeblichen Vatikanisten ausführlich behandelt worden. Aber nun hat Bruder Alexis zum ersten Mal enthüllt, dass in allen Übersetzungen der Deklaration (auf der Website des Vatikans) das Wort „munus“ auch mit „Dienst“ übersetzt wird, womit zwei Vorrechte, die das kanonische Recht klar voneinander unterscheidet, in einer Bedeutung zusammengeführt werden. Bruder Bugnolo erklärt: „Wer hat diese Übersetzungen autorisiert? Munus sollte perfekt in alle Sprachen übersetzt werden können. Dies ist der Beweis dafür, dass der Vatikan versucht hat, die grundlegende Unterscheidung aufzuheben, die Papst Benedikt in seinem jüngsten Buchinterview „Ein Leben“ nur neu formuliert hat, indem er erklärte, er behalte das „spirituelle Amt“ (spirituelle Zuordnung) bei, nachdem er auf die konkrete Vollmacht verzichtet habe. Er ist nach wie vor der amtierende Pontifex und trägt weiterhin das weiße Gewand, um den Apostolischen Segen zu erteilen und seinen Namen P.P., Pontifex Pontificum, den Titel, der dem amtierenden Papst zusteht, zu unterzeichnen“. (Es sei daran erinnert, dass die einzige Erklärung, die Ratzinger für die Beibehaltung der weißen päpstlichen Robe abgab, lautete: „Es gab keine schwarzen Roben in seiner Garderobe“.)

2016 antwortete Monsignore Giuseppe Sciacca, Bischof-Sekretär der Apostolischen Signatura, in einem für Laien völlig unverständlichen, äußerst technischen Artikel auf die Auseinandersetzungen um den munus. „Wie ein kluger Anwalt“, sagt Bruder Bugnolo, „sagt Sciacca zu Recht, dass die Macht nicht zwischen zwei Päpsten aufgeteilt werden kann, aber er nimmt die Gültigkeit des Rücktritts als gegeben hin, und dann weicht er der eigentlichen Frage aus. Er sagt dann, dass der Verzicht auf das Ministerium automatisch den Verzicht auf das munus einschließt, aber in Wirklichkeit ist das nicht wahr, denn Benedikt hätte leicht einen Vikar ernennen können, der das Ministerium leitet, und gleichzeitig sein eigenes Amt behalten können, das munus, das auch für theologische und dogmatische Fragen, nicht nur für kanonische, wesentlich ist, da es direkt von Gott kommt“.

Dann gibt es noch andere sehr seltsame Anomalien in den vom Vatikan veröffentlichten Übersetzungen des Lateinischen:” declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet“. Wie Bruder Bugnolo präzisiert, wird das Englische „in such a way, that “ [auf solcher Weise] von Ratzinger im Lateinischen als „ut“ geschrieben, was jedoch mit „so that“ [so daß] übersetzt werden müsste. Im Gegensatz dazu würde “in such a way, that” im Lateinischen korrekterweise als “quomodo” wiedergegeben werden.

Dies sind zwei sehr unterschiedliche Dinge: „in such a way, that“ setzt den absoluten juristischen Automatismus eines Tat-Folge-Verhältnisses voraus. Im Gegensatz dazu kann “so that” auch eine versteckte Absicht oder eine erwünschte Wirkung, die absichtlich erzeugt wird, offenbaren. Es ist der Unterschied zwischen einem äußeren und natürlichen „Weise“ im Vergleich zu einem subjektiven „Zweck“.

Es ist zum Beispiel nicht korrekt zu sagen: „Ich lege den Köder auf solcher Weise in die Falle, dass die Maus gefangen werden kann“, denn es ist nicht selbstverständlich, dass die Maus auf die Täuschung hereinfällt. Vielmehr muss gesagt werden: „Ich lege den Köder so in die Falle, dass die Maus gefangen werden kann“, denn es ist keine Selbstverständlichkeit, dass die Maus auf die Täuschung hereinfällt.

Stellen wir uns einen Moment lang vor, Benedikt wäre tatsächlich zur Abdankung gezwungen: Er schreibt deshalb, dass „er erklärt, von seinem „Dienst“ zurückzutreten“, „SO DASS“ der Stuhl frei werden kann… also vielleicht auch durch die Aktion der Usurpatoren. Hätte er tatsächlich „in such a way, that “ geschrieben, hätte er implizit die Gültigkeit seines Rücktritts zugegeben. Tatsächlich hat er es aber nicht getan.

[Anmerkung des Übersetzers: Im Gegensatz zur englischen Übersetzung, im deutschen Text der Deklaration gilt dieses Argument nicht. Das Wort „ministerium“ im oben zitierten lateinischen Satz wird (wie oben schon erwähnt) fälschlicherweise mit „Amt“ übersetzt, und demzufolge wird es keinen Sinn machen, „ut“ mit „auf solcher Weise“ zu übersetzen, da es bereits (fälschlicherweise) den Anschein hat, dass im Hauptsatz auf das Amt verzichtet wird. Eine Diskussion darüber findet sich im Blog „From Rome“ https://fromrome.info/2019/04/08/the-vatican-has-known-all-along-that-benedicts-renunciation-was-invalid-as-written-and-heres-the-proof/ ]

Hier ist eine weitere Anomalie: Warum schreibt Benedikt, dass das neue Konklave „VON DENEN, DIE KOMPETENT UND ZUSTÄNDIG SIND“, und nicht „von Ihnen Kardinälen“ einberufen werden muss? Das klingt wie eine Delegitimierung, da es offensichtlich die Kardinäle wären, zu denen er spricht, die das Konklave bilden müssten. Es ist, als ob der Senatspräsident, wenn er von einem künftigen Präsidenten der Republik spricht, sagen würde, dass er „von denen gewählt werden muss, in deren Zuständigkeitsbereich er fällt“ und nicht, wie offensichtlich, „von Ihnen Ministern des Parlaments“.

Außerdem gibt Ratzinger nicht das PRÄZISE DATUM des neuen, wahren Konklaves für die Wahl des Papstes an. Er sagt nur, dass dieses Konklave einberufen werden muss, NACHDEM DER SITZ VAKANT WIRD, was in Wirklichkeit der Moment nach seinem Tod ist. Deshalb wäre die gültige Wahl des neuen Pontifex in diesem Fall nur die Zuständigkeit EINIGER KARDINALIEN, die vor dem Kommen des Bergoglio ernannt wurden und die bereit sind, den stattgefundenen „Putsch“ anzuerkennen. In der Tat wären die von Bergoglio ernannten Kardinäle nicht rechtsgültig, weil sie von einem ungültigen Papst stammten, weil der Rücktritt ungültig war. Für den Fall, dass noch viele Jahre vergehen und die von Benedikt oder Johannes Paul II. geschaffenen „rechtmäßigen“ Kardinäle nicht mehr leben oder nicht mehr aktiv sind, müsste der neue Pontifex, wie in der Antike, von der römischen Kirche gewählt werden.

So gesehen müsste ein neues Konklave deshalb „von denjenigen einberufen werden, in deren Zuständigkeit es fällt“ und nicht von den Kardinälen, an die er sich wendet. Die Logik ist tadellos.

Ist dies politische Fiktion? Oder ist es eine Deklaration, die, obwohl sie verpfuscht zu sein scheint,, wenn man sie richtig liest, sich als ein Dokument von unzerbrechlicher „Ratzinger’scher“ Kohärenz entpuppt?

Bruder Bugnolo ist sich sicher: Die Fehler im Lateinischen waren von Ratzinger beabsichtigt, um die Aufmerksamkeit auf die Ungültigkeit des Dokuments zu lenken und damit, wenn es aufmerksam gelesen wird, die Wahrheit zu gegebener Zeit zum Vorschein käme. Dieselbe Meinung vertritt auch der Wiener Rechtsanwalt Arthur H. Lambauer, ein ausgewiesener Völkerrechtler, der bereits 2013 auf die Anomalien hingewiesen hatte: „Ich glaube, dass Benedikt absichtlich Fehler gemacht hat, um seinen Nachfolger ungültig zu machen, so dass er nichts Unwiderrufliches schaffen würde (Homo-Ehe, weiblicher Diakonat, etc.) und damit der Nachfolger, wenn nötig, weggefegt werden könnte“.

Vor allem gibt es eine objektive und unbestreitbare Tatsache: In diesen seltsamen 18 Tagen, die von der „Resignation“ bis zum vakanten Sitz verstrichen sind (die in der Regel von der Resignation ausgehen sollte), war niemand in der Lage oder wollte die von Benedikt so „schlecht“ geschriebene Deklaration korrigieren. Warum? Und doch liegt es in der spezifischen Kompetenz der Kardinäle, den Papst auf fürsorgliche Weise zu korrigieren, wenn er sich im Irrtum befindet. „Dies zeigt“, so Bruder Bugnolo, „dass die Kardinäle illoyal und in ihrer Eile, die Macht zu übernehmen, verblendet waren, während andere Beamte des Apostolischen Sekretariats, die sicherlich nicht versäumt haben konnten, gewisse Fehler zu bemerken, „Komplizen“ Benedikts waren, die sich des Tricks wohl bewusst waren, und sie schwiegen, damit eines Tages „die Bombe hochgehen würde“. In beiden Fällen wird eine Usurpation aufgedeckt.“

Lassen Sie uns einige Einwände betrachten: „Vielleicht kann Ratzinger nicht gut genug Latein oder er war schon zu alt, um es gut zu schreiben“. Es ist schwer zu glauben, dass der deutsche Theologe, der vierzehn Jahre lang das Oberhaupt der Glaubenskongregation war, der Autor herausragender Schriften in Latein ist, nicht wusste, wie er diesen Text schreiben sollte. Außerdem ist der Papst von hervorragenden Lateinern umgeben, die ihm hätten helfen können. Im Februar 2013 war er mental so klar, dass er in der Lage war, eine spontane Rede von 58 Minuten zu halten. „Auf jeden Fall“, antwortet Bruder Alexis, „bliebe die Ungültigkeit bestehen, denn die Resignation erfordert nicht nur volle geistige Klarheit, sondern auch absolute Kenntnis des kanonischen Rechts“.

Ein weiterer möglicher Einwand ist: „Vielleicht hat es ein anderer geschrieben, der nicht gut Latein kann“. Aber wenn Ratzinger dazu gezwungen wurde, das Dokument so zu verfassen oder es gar von einem Fälscher stammt, warum sollten sie es dann so konstruieren, dass es kanonisch ungültig wäre?

Eine letzte mögliche Kritik: „Benedikt XVI. würde niemals jemanden täuschen.“ Tatsächlich hat Papst Benedikt niemanden getäuscht, er schrieb lediglich einen Rücktritt des Ministeriums. Laut Bruder Bugnolo gibt es andere, die sich nicht anschauen wollten, was tatsächlich geschrieben wurde und wie Benedikt sich seit 2013 verhalten hat. So hätten sie sich aus ihrer Machtgier getäuscht.

Bei der ersten Lesung lässt Sie all dies verwirrt zurück: Es erscheint absurd, aber schrecklich kohärent. In diesem Fall macht es keinen Sinn, den üblichen Vorwurf zu erheben, alles als „Verschwörungstheorie“ abzutun, denn hier gibt es Fakten, die eine Erklärung verdienen, die EBENSO logisch und kohärent ist.

In der säkularen Welt kann eine Erbschaft für weitaus weniger rechtlich angefochten werden, und dennoch wurde die Frage der Gültigkeit des Rücktritts eines Papstes vom Thron des Petrus sehr schnell, ja vielleicht sogar zu schnell, für erledigt gehalten. Wie geht es weiter? Die Argumente von Bruder Bugnolo stützen sich auf die Beweise und liefern auch ein Motiv, das sie erklärt. Vielleicht werden sie einfach ignoriert und verspottet, oder aber ihr Autor wird wahrscheinlich eine Reihe von Angriffen ad personam erleben. Wir werden sehen, was passiert.

Übersetzt von Sean Hyland in Zusammenarbeit mit Anna Pellegrino


Quellenangabe: Das gezeigte Bild ist ein Ausschnitt aus einem Foto, das unter einer Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported-Lizenz verbreitet wurde, Quelle: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Benedict_XVI_Blessing-2.jpg


Cionci replica all’Avvenire

di Andrea Cionci

Egregio  Direttore Tarquinio,noto  con dispiacere che, di fronte al mio recente articolo su Libero, pur argomentato e circostanziato, circa la rinuncia di papa Benedetto (https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/23247982/benedetto-xvi-ratzinger-rinuncia-bergoglio-declaratio-2013-dimissioni-abdicazione-munus-ministerium-bugnolo.html) in cui esponevo da un lato degli incontestabili dati di fatto, dall’altro le interessanti e coraggiose posizioni del latinista Frà Alexis Bugnolo, il Vostro collega Gianni Gennari mi ha oggi sostanzialmente – e cristianamente – dato dell’imbecille, guardandosi bene dal cercare di capire la questione e dimostrandosi incapace di ribattere con argomentazioni a tono. Un boomerang, direi, per Avvenire e, purtroppo, di riflesso, anche per l’Istituzione che rappresenta. Un errore comunicativo da matita blu, se mi permetti: i Vostri lettori potrebbero, infatti, incuriosirsi. Magari vanno a leggere Libero, vedono che quanto riportato è esposto in un chiaro italiano, con fatti oggettivi e argomentazioni – che si possono discutere, ma che hanno una loro coerenza – e poi tornano a leggere i “sorrisi di sufficienza” del Vostro collega.Vista così, sembra la conferma della solita strategia difensiva di chi non ha argomenti, né reale e sincero interesse per la verità: delegittimazione dell’interlocutore, derisione “snob” e insulto personale, accuratamente evitando di affrontare il merito del discorso. Un modo di fare “vecchio” e ormai riconoscibilissimo che, temo, non porterà a risultati produttivi.Da parte mia, piena disponibilità a collaborare con Voi, per discutere insieme argomentazioni logiche alternative a quelle di frà Bugnolo, il quale è ben disposto, da parte sua, a pubblicare una replica sul Vostro giornale, nell’interesse esclusivo dei lettori e della ricerca della verità. Saremmo tutti rassicurati se la realtà fosse diversa da quella, agghiacciante, prospettata da frà Bugnolo.Saluti cordiali, anche al collega Gennari.

+ + +


The “Renunciation” Was Written to Break the Bank

By Andrea Cionci

Originally published in in the Italian Daily Newspaper Libero onJune 11, 2020

For the past few days there has been discussion on the internet about the critique made of Benedict XVI’s resignation from the papacy by an Italian-American Franciscan Latinist who is an expert in Scholastic texts and in canonical argumentation about the papal resignation. Brother Alexis Bugnolo, who has translated over 9000 pages of Saint Bonaventure from the original Latin and has a mastery of the Church’s language as few others, was interviewed on YouTube by Decimo Toro.

Through an attentive reading of the text of Benedict XVI’s Declaratio of resignation, following a thread of logic, canon law, and the meaning of the original Latin, Brother Bugnolo maintains that the text was written by Benedict, with extreme skill and subtlety, intending that it would eventually be discovered to be invalid. By so doing, Ratzinger permitted the “Saint Gallen Mafia,” the Masonic-progressive ecclesiastical lobby that forced him to abdicate, to take power hastily and so reveal itself. Benedict resigned in such a way that all of the acts, appointments, and changes in doctrine done by the “false church” can eventually be swept away in one fell swoop precisely because of the invalidity of his resignation from the papacy.

For this reason, according to Brother Bugnolo, the Vatican has deliberately falsified the translations of Benedict’s Latin Declaratio, attempting to remedy his intentional flaws in the original text, but in fact thus demonstrating further malice. Forty years ago, John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger already knew, thanks to the Third Secret of Fatima, that the gay-Masonic lobby of clergy would attempt to seize power, and for this reason they changed the Code of Canon Law in time, setting up an emergency system to “break the bank” in case of usurpation. This, in essence, is Bugnolo’s thesis.

In order to prevent accusations that his reconstruction of events is a conspiracy theory, Brother Alexis cites only the documents from the Vatican website that we have attached below. All of them may be checked at the Vatican website.

It is quite clear that the text of Benedict’s Declaratio contains a number of huge grammatical errors, which were already noted in 2013 by eminent classicists such as Luciano Canfora and Wilfried Stroh. The lack of the majestic plural “nos” which is always used in official documents is already surprising, but Brother Bugnolo, who has translated more than 9000 pages of Saint Bonaventure, has identified forty other linguistic imperfections: verbs that are wrongly declined, “decisionem” being used in place of the correct “consilium,” “vobis” in place of “vobiscum,” the erroneous use of “explorata” to say “investigated,” etc. The complete list may be seen here.

But the biggest problem is the construction of Ratzinger’s text that renders the papal resignation invalid. Since it was reformed by John Paul II and Ratzinger in 1983, the Code of Canon Law requires the resignation of the “munus petrino” – the office, the charge of the papacy that comes from God and from Saint Peter. (Previously, the pope only had to say “renuntio” – “I resign” – and the 1983 modification to the requirement was probably added in order to reinforce possible future papal abdications).

In his Declaratio, Ratzinger writes that his strength, due to advancing age, “is no longer suitable for adequately exercising the munus petrino.” However, he does not say at all that he is renouncing it, but rather, “well aware of the gravity of this act, I declare to renounce the ministry [that is, the exercise] of Bishop of Rome – [declaro me MINISTERIO Episcopi Romae…renuntiare]. Thus at the beginning of the Declaratio he cites the munus in a generic way, but then he formally declares to renounce only the ministerium, which according to many experts is completely useless for the validity of the act. It would be as if a king who was abdicating would say that he is renouncing the exercise of his power without renouncing the throne he obtained by divine right.

Among other things, Ratzinger does not even write “renuntio” but rather “declaro renuntiare,” which does not imply that his resignation is sincere, just as “declaring to love” does not necessarily correspond to “love.” Supposing that Benedict was subjected to pressure – faced with a choice, for example, of either resigning or having the Vatican go bankrupt (on this, refer to the well-known affair of the Vatican SWIFT code being cancelled and the blocking of Vatican bank accounts that occurred in the weeks preceding the resignation in 2013) – he could have freely chosen to “declare to resign” – which is much different than saying “I freely resign.”

Another question raised by Bugnolo: Why did Ratzinger write that the See would be vacant after 18 days? The act of resignation should render the See vacant either from the moment of either the death or the act of resignation of the pope.

The argument over the word “munus” is not new, and it has been amply addressed by Vittorio Messori, Antonio Socci, and other authoritative Vaticanists. But now Brother Alexis, for the first time, has divulged that in all of the translations of the Declaratio (on the Vatican web site), the word munus is also translated as “ministry,” thus bringing together into one meaning two prerogatives that canon law clearly distinguishes. Brother Bugnolo explains: “Who authorized these translations? Munus should be perfectly translatable into all languages. This is the proof that the Vatican has attempted to annul the fundamental distinction that Pope Benedict, in his recent book-interview “Ein Leben,” has only newly restated, declaring that he still retains the “spiritual office” (spirituelle Zuordnung) having renounced the concrete exercise (konkrete Vollmacht). He is still the reigning pontiff and he continues to wear the white robe, to give the Apostolic Blessing and sign his name P.P., Pontifex Pontificum, the title that belongs to the reigning pope.” (It should be recalled that the only explanation given by Ratzinger for having maintained the white papal robe was that “there were no black robes in his wardrobe.”)

In 2016, Msgr. Giuseppe Sciacca, Bishop-Secretary of the Apostolic Signatura, responded to the argments over munus in an extremely technical article that was completely incomprehensible to non-experts. “Like a clever lawyer,” Brother Bugnolo says, “Sciacca says, correctly, that the power cannot be divided between two popes, but he takes the validity of the resignation for granted and then he avoids the real question. He then says that renouncing the ministerium automatically included renouncing the munus, but in fact this is not true, because Benedict could have easily named a Vicar to manage the ministerium while maintaining his own office, the munus, which is also essential for theological and dogmatic questions, not only for canonical ones, inasmuch as it comes directly from God.”

Then there are other very strange anomalies in the translations published by the Vatican: “I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, IN SUCH A WAY, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant.” As Brother Bugnolo specifies, “In such a way” is written by Ratzinger in Latin as “ut” which however ought to be translated as “SO THAT.” In contrast, IN SUCH A WAY would properly be rendered in Latin as “quomodo.”

These are two very different things: “in such a way” presupposes the absolute legal automatism of an act-consequence relationship. In contrast, “so that” can also reveal a hidden intention or a desired effect that is generated on purpose. It is the difference between an external and natural “way” as compared to a subjective “end.”

For example, it is not correct to say: “I put the bait in the trap in such a way that the mouse may be captured,” because it is not a given that the mouse will fall for the deception. Rather, it must be said: “I put the bait in the trap so that the mouse may be captured.”

Let’s imagine for a moment that Benedict was actually forced to abdicate: he writes therefore that “he declares to resign” his “ministry” “SO THAT” the see may be vacant…thus perhaps also through the action of the usurpers. If he had actually written “in such a way” it would have implicitly admitted the validity of his resignation. But in fact, he did not.

Here is another anomaly: Why does Benedict write that the new conclave will have to be convoked “BY THOSE WHOSE COMPETENCE IT IS” and not “by you cardinals”? It sounds like a delegitimization, since it would obviously be the cardinals to whom he was speaking who would have to form the conclave. It is as if the president of the Senate, speaking about a future president of the Republic, would say that he “will have to be elected by those whose competence it is” and not, as is obvious, “by you ministers of parliament.”

Furthermore, Ratzinger does not specify the PRECISE DATE of the new, true conclave for the election of the Pontiff. He says only that it will have to be convoked AFTER THE SEE WILL BE VACANT, which is, really, the moment after his death. This is why the valid election of the new Pontiff would be, in that case, the competence only of SOME CARDINALS, the ones appointed prior to the coming of Bergoglio who are disposed to recognize the “coup” that happened. In fact the cardinals appointed by Bergoglio would not be legally valid, because they came from an invalid pope, because the resignation was invalid. In the event that many more years pass and the “legitimate” cardinals created by Benedict or John Paul II are no longer alive or active, the new Pontiff would have to be chosen by the Roman Church, as in ancient times. Seen in this light, this is why a new conclave would have to be convoked “by those whose competence it is” and not by the cardinals he is addressing. The logic is faultless.

Is this political fiction? Or is it a Declaratio that, while appearing to be botched, reveals itself to be, if read in the right way, a document of unbreakable “Ratzingerian” coherence?

Brother Bugnolo is certain: the errors in the Latin were purposely intended by Ratzinger in order to draw attention to the invalidity of the document and so that, when it was attentively read, the truth would emerge when the time was ripe. The same opinion is held by the Viennese lawyer Arthur H. Lambauer, a noted expert in international law, who had already noted the anomalies in 2013: “I believe that Benedict made mistakes on purpose in order to render his successor invalid, in such a way he would not create anything irrevocable (homosexual marriage, female diaconate, etc.) and so that, if necessary, the successor could be swept away.”

Above all, there is one objective and incontestable fact: in those strange 18 days that passed from the “resignation” to the vacant see (which, as a rule, should start from the resignation) no one was able to or wanted to correct the Declaratio written so “badly” by Benedict. Why? And yet it is the specific competence of the cardinals to correct the pope in a caring and filial way, if he is in error. “This demonstrates,” Brother Bugnolo maintains, “that the cardinals were disloyal and blinded in their haste to take power, while other officials of the Apostolic Secretariat, who certainly could not have failed to notice certain errors, were “accomplices” of Benedict who were well aware of the trick, and they remained silent so that one day “the bomb would go off.” In both cases, a usurpation is revealed.”

Let’s consider some objections: “Perhaps Ratzinger does not know Latin well enough or he was already too old to write it well.” It is difficult to believe that the German theologian, who was for fourteen years the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who is the author of outstanding writings in Latin, would not know how to master this text. Moreover, the pope is surrounded by excellent Latinists who would have been able to assist him. In February 2013 he was lucid enough to be able to give a spontaneous discourse for 58 minutes. “In any case,” Brother Alexis responds, “the invalidity would remain, because resignation requires not only full mental lucidity but also absolute awareness of canon law.”

Another possible objection is: “Perhaps someone else who does not know Latin well wrote it.” But if the document came from a coercer or a counterfeiter, why would they construct it in such a way that it would be canonically invalid?

A final possible criticism: “Benedict XVI would never deceive anyone.” In fact, Pope Benedict did not deceive anyone, he only wrote a resignation of the ministerium. According to Brother Bugnolo, there are others who have not wanted look at what was actually written and at how Benedict has comported himself since 2013. Thus, they deceived themselves out of their greed for power.

At the first reading, all of this leaves you dazed: it seems absurd, but terribly coherent. In this case, there is no point in launching the usual charge of dismissing it all as a “conspiracy theory” because there are facts here that deserve an explanation that is EQUALLY logical and coherent.

In the secular world, an inheritance can be legally challenged for far less, and yet the question of the validity of the resignation of a pope from the throne of Peter was thought to be all wrapped up very quickly, indeed perhaps too quickly. What happens next? Brother Bugnolo’s arguments are based on the evidence and also provide a motive that explains them. Perhaps they will simply be ignored and derided, or else their author will probably begin to undergo a series of attacks ad personam. We will see what happens.

Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020


CREDITS: The Featured Image is a detail from a photograph distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, source here.

Andrea Cionci: La “rinuncia” scritta male apposta

di Andrea Cionci

Da qualche giorno, circolano in rete le denunce di un francescano italoamericano, latinista, esperto in Scolastica e in argomentazioni canoniche sulla rinuncia papale, che, intervistato dallo youtuber Decimo Toro, sta diffondendo i contenuti esplosivi del suo sito www.fromrome.info.  Frà Alexis Bugnolo, questo il suo nome, ha tradotto oltre 9000 pagine latine da San Bonaventura e padroneggia la lingua della Chiesa come pochi.

Il frate, leggendo attentamente la Declaratio di rinuncia di Benedetto XVI, seguendo un filo rosso fra logica, diritto canonico e lingua latina, ritiene che sia stata da lui scritta, con estrema abilità e sottigliezza, appositamente perché nel tempo venisse scoperta invalida. In questo modo, Ratzinger ha permesso alla “Mafia di San Gallo”, la lobby massonico-progressista ecclesiastica che lo aveva costretto ad abdicare, di prendere frettolosamente il potere e di svelarsi. Benedetto ha fatto così in modo che tutti gli atti, le nomine e i cambiamenti nella dottrina operati dalla “falsa chiesa” possano essere spazzati via in un sol colpo proprio per l’invalidità della sua rinuncia al papato. Per questo il Vaticano– secondo frà Bugnolo – ha deliberatamente falsificato, nelle traduzioni in lingua straniera, la Declaratio latina di Benedetto, tentando di porre rimedio alle sue falle intenzionali, ma dimostrando, così, ulteriore dolos.  Quarant’anni fa, Giovanni Paolo II e l’allora card. Ratzinger sapevano già, dal terzo Segreto di Fatima, che le lobby gay-massoniche del clero avrebbero tentato di prendere il potere, per questo avevano cambiato per tempo il Codice di diritto canonico predisponendo un sistema di emergenza per far saltare il banco in caso di usurpazione.