Tag Archives: Giuseppe Pelligrino

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.

Benedict XVI remains on a Mission from God

by Antonio Socci

Originally published by the Libero Quotidiano: May 4, 2020

Authorized English translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino
Reprinted with permission of the translator

Like the Biblical prophets and the great popes of history, Benedict XVI is both hated by the powers of this world and loved by simple Catholic people. And every time that he comes out of his hermitage to speak the truth, he illuminates the darkness of the present situation of humanity and the Church. He is the object of furious attacks – which have been going on ever since his election as pope – that have now come to the point of the distortion of his words and his moral lynching.

This week great controversy has broken out over the anticipation of the release of Ratzinger’s biography written by Peter Seewald, Benedict XVI. Ein Leben, which is being published in German and will appear in Italian [and English] this fall.

In the book, the Pope Emeritus responds to various questions and explains, for example, his dramatic and enigmatic statement in his homily given at the inauguration of his pontificate [on April 24, 2005]: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”

It is a phrase that has taken on enormous significance since February 11, 2013, when Benedict XVI announced his stepping back. What was he alluding to with those words? Is this where we should try to find the reason for his “resignation”? Was he forced to step aside in such a way that it makes that resignation invalid?

And so Pope Benedict, responding to these questions, invites us to reflect on “how much fear can strike a pope.” Many observers – especially after his stepping back – thought that it had to do with the unfortunate episode of Vatileaks, “but the true threat to the Church and thus to the Petrine ministry,” the Pontiff explains, “does not consist in these things but rather in the world dictatorship of apparently humanistic ideologies that oppose anyone who does not conform to the established social consensus. Even one hundred years ago, everyone would have thought it absurd to speak of homosexual marriage. Today those who oppose it are excommunicated from society. Things are similar for abortion and the production of human beings in laboratories. Modern society is formulating an antichristic faith, which you cannot oppose without being punished with excommunication from that society. And thus it is more than natural to have fear of this spiritual power of the Antichrist, and it really takes the prayer of an entire diocese, indeed of the universal Church, to oppose and resist it.”

In these few lines, Ratzinger – as always – manages to condense extraordinary reflections that merit our deep consideration and reflection.

Of course, the Repubblica immediately tried to distort Benedict’s words, reducing his comments to a rant against “abortion” and “gay marriage,” thereby giving the nod to the entire media establishment and unleashing an onslaught on social media against the pope, who has once again been covered in mud. Ironically, by doing this the champions of one-way tolerance immediately proved the truth of Benedict XVI’s words: anyone who does not fall in line with the mainstream is declared to be anathema.

But the Ratzingerian reflection is much more profound. In perfect continuity with the Magisterium of Paul VI and John Paul II, Benedict XVI has spoken once again to denounce the dominant modern ideology that not only is anti-Christian but is also dramatically opposed to human life.

Like Montini and Wojtyla, Ratzinger captures the apocalyptic connotation of the present moment, in particular that of the “dictatorship of relativism” which opposed him during his pontificate and that today holds power, since it is also widespread within the Church.

Benedict XVI is not afraid to speak of the Antichrist, causing many critics who believe they are enlightened and progressive to rise up against him, but ironically by doing so they simply display their ignorance of the many books and philosophical and theological debate on this topic. There are actually many non-Catholic thinkers who have addressed the theme of the Antichrist in recent years. The Marxist philosopher Mario Tronti said in 2013 after the “resignation” that the pontificate of Joseph Ratzinger was “an heroic attempt hold back the post-modern form of the Antichrist.”

Similarly dramatic reflections have been made by Massimo Cacciari (I refer to them in my new book Il Dio Mercato, la Chiesa e l’Anticristo [The God of the Market, the Church, and the Antichrist]). Among other things, Cacciari declares: “We could speculate that Ratzinger resigned because he was no longer able to hold back the antichristic powers within the Church herself.” But now “the Church finds herself facing, for the first time, the true essence of the Antichrist.” Cacciari also published a more philosophical reflection in 2013, Il Potere che frena [The Power that Restrains]. The essay by Giorgio Agamben is also valuable: Il mistero del male (Benedetto XVI e la fine dei tempi) [The Mystery of Evil: Benedict XVI and The End Times].

In light of Benedict XVI’s words – “And thus it is more than natural to have fear of this spiritual power of the Antichrist” – we could well be led to believe that he had to flee “before the wolves,” which would render his “resignation” invalid.

But what sort of “resignation” did he make? As he explained on February 27, 2013, he remains pope “forever” and he preserves his papal name and title.

In my book, The Secret of Benedict XVI (Angelico Press, 2019), I demonstrated that, due to the enormity of the Enemy who was facing him – and since he felt his strength diminishing – Benedict XVI humbly made “a step to the side” in order to make space for someone whom he could assist by his prayer and counsel in the task of being the Kathécon (“the one who restrains” cf. 2 Thess 2:6-7). Thus was opened a new and unprecedented era of “collegiality” in the papacy – unprecedented because it is apocalyptic.

But then the cardinals chose the man who had opposed Ratzinger in 2005, who is now the pope beloved by the worldly powers. And so today Benedict XVI finds himself called mysteriously to a task that only God knows. He remains on a mission from God.

Antonio Socci: Bergoglio wants to gag Pope Benedict XVI

First published in Libero Feb. 10, 2020 and at Antonio Socci’s blog

Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020

After seven years, Bergoglio’s “dismissal” of Archbishop Gänswein has made even the newspapers finally realize that there are two popes in the Catholic Church. Maybe it will take seven more to explain what it means.

On Sun., Feb. 9, Corriere Della Sera ran a headline on an article by Massimo Franco that read: “So Ends The Era Of The Two Popes.” The article gives Bergoglio’s spin on the latest events (just as was already done in the other newspapers). In it, the Argentinian “court” that speaks for Bergoglio tells us that Archbishop Gänswein was relieved of his post as Prefect of the Papal Household because as secretary to Benedict XVI he did not prevent the pope emeritus from being “slyly presented” as the co-author with Card. Sarah of the book defending priestly celibacy [From the Depths of Our Hearts].

And so the Bergoglians want to convey three ideas: 1) Benedict XVI let himself be used, implying that he is incapable of looking after himself and thus he must be isolated and silenced; 2) Card. Sarah has instrumentalized the pope emeritus for his personal agenda; 3) Archbishop Gänswein failed to be vigilant in preventing it.

In reality, the situation is just the opposite. Benedict XVI is perfectly lucid and aware, as everyone knows (he is still the best mind in the Catholic Church), and he intended to intervene in defense of priestly celibacy, which has been placed in discussion by the Amazon Synod.

In mid-January, when Le Figaro printed a preview of the book with Card. Sarah, Bergoglio had an outburst with Archbishop Gänswein and ordered him to “blow up” the editorial operation. Archbishop Gänswein attempted to question the presentation of the cover of the book with the double signature so that the Bergoglian drum could keep banging the news that Benedict XVI has withdrawn his signature and disassociated himself from the operation.

But this was not true. In fact, Card. Sarah revealed the letters exchanged between the two authors and Benedict XVI received him, confirming his writing and his approval. Beyond the question of the names on the cover, it is clear to everyone that the book was written by mutual agreement: Benedict XVI was not gagged.

The new book makes it clear to the Christian people that it has not been abandoned by Benedict XVI and that his paternity continues to watch over the path of the Church. His pronouncement carries with it the enormous strength of the entire Catholic tradition. His voice – quite clearly – is the voice of the Church of all time.

This is why the book had a disruptive effect. The argument made by the Bergoglian court now appears laughable: “It gave the impression,” writes Franco, “of a doctrinal contradiction between the ‘two Popes’ that irritated Pope Francis, who was accused of favoring the abolition of celibacy: although his advisors assure us that this is not so, as will be seen from his conclusions on the Synod on the Amazon.”

It’s quite easy to see how absurd this version of events is. If in fact Benedict XVI and Card. Sarah wrote things identical to what Bergoglio professes, then why was he so infuriated that he “threw” Archbishop Gänswein “out of office” over the book? In reality Bergoglio wanted to give a pick-axe blow to celibacy by permitting the ordination of “viri probati,” and for this reason he had requested that this innovation be placed into the concluding document of the Synod.

But now, after the authoritative pronouncement of Benedict XVI, Bergoglio probably will not have the courage to do so (according to what his “advisers” told Massimo Franco and what is being reported by Avvenire). Bergoglio has made Archbishop Gänswein pay for this, since he has an angry and vindictive character.  Yet even if Bergoglio does not strike a direct blow at celibacy in the post-synodal exhortation to be released in the coming hours, he can still do it through his intermediaries by means of the “revolutionary” synod of German bishops.

Bergoglio’s disappointment comes from his recognizing that everyone continues to hear the voice of Benedict XVI as the authoritative voice of the pope, while his own voice is seen as divisive and perceived as the voice of a partisan politician who does not behave like a pope.

Franco also notes the way Bergoglio and his court were annoyed by the April 2019 publication of Benedict’s essay on clergy sexual abuse, and “the enormous echo that it made.” Franco writes: “Benedict XVI’s essay proved to be a source of embarrassment for the papal circle. It was noted with disappointment how the analysis of the pope emeritus still carried so much weight and how it was used instrumentally by Bergoglio’s adversaries.”

In reality it is Bergoglio and his circle who have tried for the last seven years to exploit Benedict XVI in order to legitimize the Bergoglian ruptures (as various sensational incidents have demonstrated). But Papa Ratzinger has never allowed himself to be used by anyone. With his meekness and his wisdom he continues to exercise his ministry.

In a memorable conference given at the Gregorian University [in May 2016], Archbishop Gänswein himself explained: “Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he not at all abandoned this ministry….He has not abandoned the office of Peter – something that would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”

Thus Benedict XVI’s closest collaborator explains to us that for Joseph Ratzinger “the acceptance of the office” of Peter is “irrevocable” and to abandon it is “entirely impossible.”

Whoever has ears, let him understand.

First published in Libero Feb. 10, 2020 and at Antonio Socci’s blog

Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020

Archbishop Viganò: The hour has come to clarify the role of Gänswein

by Archbishop Carolo Maria Viganò

LAVERITA.INFO

FULL TEXT

Authorized translation of the Italian original by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Dear Editor,

It is time to reveal the control that has been abusively and systematically exercised by Msgr. Gänswein towards the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, ever since the beginning of his pontificate.

Gänswein has habitually filtered information, assuming the right to judge for himself how much or how little to tell the Holy Father.

I can testify that, when Pope Benedict received me in audience on April 4, 2011, a few days after I had sent him my first letter (later abusively published in the course of Vatileaks) I said to the Pontiff: “I will not speak to you about the situation of corruption in the administration of the Pontifical Villas, because I presume that you have already reviewed the Memorandum in this regard that I gave to your secretary for you, in view of this Audience.”

The Holy Father, in all simplicity and innocence, and without showing any surprise, said “No, I have seen nothing.”

I further testify another fact that reveals how much Msgr. Gänswein controlled information given to the Holy Father and conditioned the liberty of action of the Same. On the occasion of the canonization of Marianne Cope and Kateri Tekakwitha, having requested in writing to the then-Prefect of the Papal Household, Msgr. James Harvey, to be received in an audience with the Pope, and not having received any response, I asked the Prefect, on October 23, 2012, why I had not received any response to my request for an audience.

I recall the circumstance perfectly, because Msgr. Harvey suggested to me that I would participate in the General Audience the following day, so as to at least be able to personally greet the Holy Father with the other bishops present. Msgr. Harvey responded with the following words: “Gänswein said to me: ‘Monsignor Viganò is the last person who can approach Pope Benedict!’”

Harvey then added that at the beginning of the Pontificate, Benedict XVI, pointing at him [Gänswein] with his finger, exclaimed, “Gestapo! Gestapo!”

This unscrupulous attitude was shown from the very beginning of the pontificate in the determination with which Gänswein succeeded in distancing the Pope from his dear assistant and secretary Ingrid Stampa, whom then-Cardinal Ratzinger wanted at his side for well over a decade after the death of his sister, Maria Ratzinger.

And then I note that in order to escape from this total control exercised over his person by Gänswein, Pope Benedict often went to his previous personal secretary, Msgr Josef Clemens, also inviting to said family meeting Ingrid Stampa.

I make this declaration following what has been asserted by Msgr. Gänswein to the Ansa agency, in contradiction of what Pope Benedict himself wrote in the exchange of letters made with Cardinal Sarah. It is a sensational as well as slanderous insinuation towards the most eminent Cardinal Robert Sarah, promptly denied by the same.

 

ORIGINAL: https://www.laverita.info/padre-georg-ha-isolato-il-pontefice-emerito-2644822455.html

 

 

 

Marco Tosatti: Who is Gänswein Really? What Role Has He Played And Is He Playing?

By Marco Tosatti

15 January 2020

Authorized English translation of Italian Original by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Dear readers, we have received a message from an elderly high-ranking prelate of the Curia; he is retired, but because he has over forty years of experience working inside the Vatican walls, from time to time he is still given delicate assignments. What “Monsignor X” writes to us is extremely interesting, because it helps us to piece together some of the problematic aspects of  the events of the last 72 hours. We are speaking, naturally, of the saga of the book; and we must say that it is difficult to not consider someone to be the co-author of a book that they have written more than forty pages of, as well as collaborating in writing the introduction and conclusion. Difficult…and a bit ridiculous.

But, remaining focused on the theme of the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus, we advise you to read La Verità on Thursday morning [January 16], which will contain another testimony of great value from an archbishop who has held many important roles in the Curia and also outside the Vatican and who has been in contact with Msgr. Gänswein for a long time. Trust my advice…

 

Monsignor X to Tosatti: 

I ask you to print what I write here, with the intention of making a contribution in order to help ensure that there will not be muddling of either the figure of Benedict nor that of Sarah, who is more in danger in this whole affair.

What has been reported raises several questions:

  1. Why would a man like Sarah ever have done something so absurd and easily disproven? (It is unthinkable that this was a private and free initiative of Gänswein – he does not have the authority even to think about doing it, and it would be far too dangerous to actually do it).
  2. Who therefore asked Gänswein to give orders to Cardinal Sarah? Was it Benedict or Bergoglio? (These are Gänswein’s two superiors)

I think it is clear that it could not have been Benedict, who speaks with Sarah frequently and loves him as a brother.

But who is Gänswein? Georg Gänswein is a very intelligent man; he was the most faithful personal secretary for Benedict from the moment of his election as pope, replacing Msgr. Clemens, the former personal secretary of Cardinal Ratzinger, who remained the pope’s confidant, stirring up Gänswein’s jealousy, to the point of ending up literally getting punched for it!

My understanding is that during the period of the pontificate, Gänswein functioned as the loyal protector of the Pope and even operated as a sort of “alternative” Secretary of State, in opposition to Cardinal Bertone, with whom Benedict had bad relations.

After the resignation he was not, as people called him, “the caregiver” of Benedict XVI.

I fear that he was rather “the guardian.”

Having been a most faithful and most loyal secretary, something happened that caused a profound transformation in him.

Therefore it is not surprising that it is supposed and said that Gänswein had not been told by Benedict about this book with Sarah. Is it possible that Gänswein no longer enjoys the confidence of the Pope Emeritus?

It could also be the case, after the mysterious and never-clarified arrest of the papal butler Paolo Gabriele, accused of having photocopied private documents of Pope Benedict taken straight off of Gänswein’s desk and giving them to journalists, without “anyone” knowing…

These documents accused Cardinal Bertone, with whom Gänswein, previously, had bad relations; but which curiously improved afterwards…

But above all it is curious that Pope Bergoglio confirmed him not only as personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus but also as Prefect of the Papal Household, which is not an honorary position.

The abrupt order given [on Monday] to Cardinal Sarah to remove Ratzinger’s signature from the book – which was not given explicitly in Benedict’s name, as should have been done – may reignite various suspicions and doubts about the figure and loyalty of Gänswein.

Here is a description of the duties of the Prefect of the Papal Household, taken from the Vatican website:

It is the task of the Prefecture of the Papal Household to coordinate the services of the Antechamber and to organize the official audiences granted by His Holiness to Heads of State, Heads of Government, Governmental Ministers and other dignitaries, as well as to Ambassadors who come to the Vatican to present their Letters of Credence.

The Prefecture takes care of the preparations for all audiences – private, special and general – and visits from those who are formally received by the Holy Father. It is also responsible for arranging Pontifical ceremonies – except liturgical celebrations – as well as the Spiritual Retreat of the Holy Father, the College of Cardinals and the Roman Curia.

In addition, the Prefecture oversees the appropriate arrangements required each time the Holy Father leaves the Apostolic Palace to visit the city of Rome or travel within Italy.

(For the Italian Original, click the link below)

https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/01/15/chi-e-gaenswein-realmente-quale-ruolo-ha-giocato-e-gioca/

Marco Tosatti — Cardinal Sarah and Benedict XVI Book controversy

By Marco Tosatti

January 14, 2020

Authorized Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino of the Original Italian

Published Dear readers, various people have asked me to try and shed light on the argument over the publication of the book “Des Profondeurs des nos coeurs” created by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah. Here we have brought together from extremely reliable sources a series of elements that we offer to you.

Apparently nobody in the Mater Ecclesiae monastery [where Benedict XVI lives] had seen the cover of the book, and this was one of the principal problems.

The central point however to clarify is the content of the polemic that the “Bergoglio Press Team” launched from the beginning: claiming that Benedict had not been involved in writing the book, that he only put his signature on it and other such miserable insinuations. The reality is that Benedict XVI edited all of the drafts of the book, obviously his own part, but also reading and editing the part written by Cardinal Robert Sarah.

Benedict also said, and wrote, to Sarah, that he approved both the introduction and the conclusion of the book.

George Gänswein has not read the book, and this has definitely caused a problem.

The entire operation remained in the hands of Benedict and Sarah, and also the editor Nicolas Diat, who obviously took a great interest in the job, seeing it as an occasion to make this book the “important” book of Benedict XVI and Sarah, all to his glory and merit.

Thus, when the bomb went off Monday morning [which had already begun to explode on Sunday night because in America they were awake], and people like Faggioli, etc. started shooting, with a very clear intention. The focused on the cover, which Diat had published, saying that here he wanted to make an “operation against the Pope,” that is, against Pope Francis.

The objective of Faggioli etc. was to have there be no discussion of the content of the book. On Monday morning at the Mater Ecclesiae monastery they did not realize the extent of the polemic that was taking place, despite having been warned. Gänswein finally got in touch with Andrea Tornielli, who wrote an article for L’Osservatore Romano and Vatican News, referring to the ideas of Pope Bergoglio on the importance of celibacy, and seeking to throw oil on the waters that various channels were agitating, claiming among other things that Benedict XVI and Sarah had not written the book together.

The latest development, which is frankly quite incomprehensible, has come to us from the declarations of Georg Gänswein, who told a German journalist that the title needs to be changed as well as the cover. For what reason, we don’t know.  Perhaps in order to protect his own position, which is definitely a complicated one, as he is the person closest to Benedict and at the same time close to Bergoglio as the Prefect of the Papal Household. In passing, we can note that among the yelps and barkings of the pro-regime press in the first hours of this controversy they were speaking of a manipulation by the “entourage” of Pope Benedict. But actually, since Benedict’s “entourage” consists of Gänswein alone, it was in the dark about everything…. But the impression is that Gänswein is trying to avoid being crushed between a rock and hard place is strong; to the point of making people believe that if some sort of push was given to Benedict, well, it only happened now and not previously.

Undoubtedly Gänswein with his declarations today places Cardinal Sarah in a difficult situation that has nothing to do with him. Sarah has conducted himself in an extremely straightforward way. All of this work on the book, however, began before the Synod on the Amazon, in September.

In September, because of the pre-synodal polemics over priestly celibacy and the question of “viri probati,” Benedict had already written fifteen reflections on the theme of celibacy. These were then included in the book.

Note that the path taken seems very similar to what happened on the occasion of the summit on clergy sexual abuse [in February 2019]. Benedict had prepared a reflection, probably with the intention of offering it as a contribution to bishops directing the summit, sending it to the reigning Pontiff and the Secretary of State. But it remained there [and was never presented at the summit], and it was published a few months later in a German journal that focuses on the clergy.

Once again, it seems interesting and important to repeat: these paper polemics have moved all of our attention away from the contents of the book to its cover!

(For the Italian original click the link below)

https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/01/14/il-libro-di-benedetto-xvi-e-sarah-ecco-i-retroscena-del-giallo/

 

Antonio Socci: The Furor of the Despot Against the Catholic Pope

 

by Antonio Socci

January 14, 2020

Authorized Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino
Italian Original on Facebook

Reliable sources from inside the Vatican reconstruct the whole affair in this way. The book “Des profondeurs de nos coeurs” is clearly written by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah (as is indisputably demonstrated by the letters the two exchanged last fall made known by Sarah [on his Twitter account].) Everything was decided and agreed upon together from the beginning.

The other day – when the excerpt in defense of celibacy was issued [in Le Figaro] – the end of the world broke out in the Vatican because Bergoglio was furious. Such an authoritative pronouncement from Benedict XVI prevents him from smashing priestly celibacy, as had been his intention to do in the forthcoming Post-Synodal Exhortation.

And so BERGOGLIO PERSONALLY called Archbishop Gänswein, who is personal secretary to Benedict XVI but also Prefect of the Papal Household of Bergoglio and – furious – he ORDERED him take the name of Benedict XVI off the cover of the book (since he could not demand that the text of the book be changed).

Bergoglio demanded a complete and total disavowal. For this reason the first news that filtered through spoke of sources “close to Benedict XVI” saying that Benedict had not co-authored the book with Sarah, had not approved the cover (which said that he is the author of the work).

This however was not true and Benedict XVI could not accept saying something false, thereby implicitly accusing Cardinal Sarah of having involved him without his consent. Nor did Pope Benedict have any intention of taking back what he had written in defense of celibacy in the book.

Cardinal Sarah immediately revealed the letters the two had exchanged, which demonstrated that the book was planned by both of them, and certainly Sarah revealed these letters with the consent of Benedict XVI – in order to re-establish the truth.

On the other hand, Benedict also needed to shelter his secretary [Gänswein] from the South American “vendettas” since Gänswein had received a peremptory order from Bergoglio.

Thus a compromise solution was adopted: in the successive editions of the book the author of the book will be Cardinal Sarah “WITH THE CONTRIBUTION OF BENEDICT XVI.” The text of the book in any case remains the same.

With this messy solution the Bergoglian courtiers can tell the media that “Benedict XVI has removed his signature from the book” (even though this is not true) and yet the book remains as it was, with the signature of Sarah and the name of Benedict XVI as the author of the parts written together.

A most ugly story of clerical bullying that in the end led to the gagging of Benedict XVI.

THERE IS STILL THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION: IF BERGOGLIO, IN HIS EXHORTATION, STRIKES AT CELIBACY (BY PERMITTING THE ORDINATION OF “VIRI PROBATI”) HE PLACES HIMSELF IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH RESTATED IN THESE DAYS BY POPE BENEDICT XVI. THUS HE ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR A SERIOUS RIFT OF THE CHURCH FRAUGHT WITH CONSEQUENCES.

Where Robert de Mattei is wrong

This week, Catholic Family News, the traditional private Catholic Newspaper founded by the late John Vennari, publishes an article entitled, “Socci’s Thesis Falls Short: Review of the Secret of Benedict XVI“, an English translation of an article which was published on Jan 8, 2019 online at Cooperatores Veritatis. The translator is a Giuseppe Pelligrino. (Socci’s book details facts and canonical arguments why Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope, and Bergoglio an Anti-Pope, that is uncanonically elected). I will comment on the English version of the article.

The author, Dr. Roberto de Mattei, I have long admired, and have had the occasion to meet in person. His foundation, the Lepanto Foundation does much good work, and thus I bear him no animus. Nay, if the author of that article was someone unknown or not influential at Rome, I would probably have paid it no attention at all.

Moreover, the purpose of this present article is not to defend Socci’s book.  Rather it is to address the grave errors contained in De Mattei’s article, which on account of his personal reputation are magnified in the minds of many, and thus represent a danger to souls.

Here, then, I will discuss the errors briefly in the order they appear in that English translation by Signor Pellegrino.

The first error of which is that De Mattei sustains that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is valid, because there has been a peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

I will put aside the fact that several recent polls (not scientific) have shown that as much as 70% of Catholics reject Bergoglio as pope, because there is a more serious error to address, than disputing whether there is in fact a peaceful and universal acceptance of Bergoglio’s election.

Signor De Mattei is learned enough to own a copy of the Code of Canon Law. So I humbly suggest he read Canon 359 and consider publicly withdrawing his assertion that a peaceful and universal acceptance of an apparent papal election establishes it to be held as valid by Catholics.  For, that canon reads in Latin:

Can. 359 — Sede Apostolica vacante, Cardinalium Collegium ea tantum in Ecclesia gaudet potestate, quae in peculiari lege eidem tribuitur.

When translated into English — here I give my own translation — that canon says:

Canon 359 — When the Apostolic See is vacant, the College of Cardinals only enjoys that power in the Church, which is granted to it in particular law.

This is the reference to the power of the College to elect the Pope.  So, according to Canon 359, when there is no pope, the Cardinals have the authority to elect a pope.

Now, if the resignation of a pope is in doubt, then obviously, there is a doubt whether the Apostolic See is vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have doubtful authority. And when a resignation of a pope has not taken place, or a pope is not dead, the Apostolic See is not vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have NO power to elect another.

So, it should be obvious then, that “the peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of a pope by a College of Cardinals” which HAS NO POWER to elect a pope, because the See is NOT vacant, DOES NOT MAKE THE ELECTION VALID.

Second, De Mattei claims this principal regarding the acceptance of the election of a pope on the basis of commonly held opinion. But if he has studied Canon Law, he should know that Canon 17 does not permit common theological or canonical opinions to be interpretative guides to reading any canon, when the text of the canon expressly forbids an act to take place by denying the body which acts the power to act. For in such a case the mind of the Legislator takes precedence.

Third, what is worse, De Mattei then cites the Vatican translation of Canon 332 §2, where he admits that it denies that a papal resignation is valid on the grounds that anyone accepts it (in its final condition)! How that squares with the theory of peaceful and universal acceptance is impossible to imagine, since it undermines the validity of its application to the case of a disputed resignation. It does so, because obviously a Conclave called during the life of a pope who has not resigned, is called either because that College knows he has not and does intend to elect an Anti-Pope, and then it does not matter who accepts him, his election is invalid; or in the case the College opines that a resignation is valid, and they proceed to act as if there is no pope. But as canon 332 §2 declares, that they think it is valid, does not make it valid. Therefore, even if they think it is valid, when it is not valid, they cannot appeal to Canon 332 §2 to claim the authority in Canon 359 to lawfully elect another. Rather, they must follow Canon 17 and apply it. And so, whether the subsequent election be accepted or not, in the case of elections which follow papal resignations, the principal cited by De Mattei is improperly cited at best because it pertains to another case.

Finally, De Mattei is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest, when he says that Violi’s canonical study of Pope Benedict’s act of Feb 11, 2013 contributes to the confusion. Because that study, which is cited in the preface of the Disputed Question, published here in November, is a very scholarly well thought out and precise study without any animus or polemic, which gives great clarity to the canonical signification of that papal act. To say that it causes confusion therefore is not based on Violi’s work, but rather seemingly on a desire to advance his own opinion by insulting a scholar who shows greater knowledge of Canon Law than himself.

As for Archbishop Ganswein’s discourse at the Gregorian University, at first glance it does seem to be confusing. But when you research, as Ann Barnhardt has done, what opinions regarding the mutability of the Papacy were being discussed at Tubingen, when Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was a professor of Theology there, then you would rather say its revealing, not confusing at all.

For those who want to understand the correct canonical argument, why Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope and why Bergoglio was never pope, supported by Canon Law and all the evidence, and put in simple terms, see “How and Why Pope Benedict’s Resignation is invalid by the law itself.”