(LifeSiteNews) – Editor’s remarks: The following study examines Benedict XVI’s Declaratio of February 11, 2013. The authors’ thesis is that the Declaratio signaled not an abdication, but his judgement that there had been “a crime, a schism, a usurpation, and an impeded see.” The coordination of the study group and reconstruction of the facts were carried out by Dr. Andrea Cionci, the lead author of the piece. The translations from Latin were made by Professor Gian Matteo Corrias and Professor Rodolfo Funari. The legal interpretations were provided by attorneys Constanze Settesoldi and Roberto Antonacci.
Because of the length of the text, which has been translated from Italian, we present today only the introduction, summaries, and Chapter 1 of the four-chapter work.
Introduction and summaries
The present study is the result of the most thorough investigation ever produced on the resignation of Benedict XVI: 4 years of work, 1000 articles, 1300 podcasts, 160 lectures, a book (The Ratzinger Code, 2022) which sold 23,000 copies, was translated into 5 languages, and was the winner of 2 journalistic awards. Canonists, jurists, Latinists, theologians, historians of the Church, and ordinary readers who contributed by offering documents, testimonies, and valuable insights, participated in this work.
In these pages we show how the Declaratio of Benedict XVI dated 11 February 2013 was released, at that time, by Vatican sources in an artfully manipulated way, both in the original Latin and in its translations, to be given out to the people as the Pope’s determinative act of abdication.
In actual fact, it was completely different. It was a declaratory judgement, that is, a criminal decree [1] that the Pontiff issues for the three major crimes against the faith: heresy, apostasy, and schism. The decree of the Pope is unappealable, and the crimes judged by the judgement are excommunication latae sententiae to those who committed them. The verb through which punishments are imposed is declaro, which can be translated as an assessment, a public declaration of what already belongs to the order of things, and that is simply recognized.
With this decision, Pope Benedict XVI did not renounce, but was only “declaring that he renounced” the ministerium of bishop of Rome because of a misdeed committed during his election by a handful of cardinals. The misdeed consisted of an unscrupulous electoral maneuver, witnessed by several authoritative sources, that reveals not only an open violation of articles 78 to 81 of Chapter VI of the constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, but that it aimed at a very specific and subversive purpose.
The electoral maneuver brought Cardinal Ratzinger the votes of his opponents in the Saint Gallen group, making his pontificate begin with a de facto minority.
This “political” weakness allowed Benedict XVI’s enemies, inside and outside the Church, to wear him down over time with an obstructive and adversarial strategy, increasingly preventing him from the regular exercise of the Petrine munus, or ministerium, that is, the government of the Church. This subversive action progressively led the Pope to the limits of his political, psychological, and physical strength, so that, in February 2013, after an unclear “night incident” suffered in March 2012 during the apostolic [2] trip to Mexico-Cuba, an episode he linked to insomnia and the drugs he was taking, Benedict XVI had to come up with an emergency plan to get out of the way, but without leaving the Apostolic See legally in the hands of his persecutors.
RELATED: Is Francis really the pope? — The debate
The declaration of abdicating the ministerium, by Benedict XVI, that is, his own judgment that he was without power to govern, was therefore a decisio motivated by the misdeed carried out at his election by a handful of cardinals: that of deliberately electing a pope with a political minority so that one day he would be forced to resign. However, Pope Benedict’s decision in February 2013 was not to abdicate; it was exclusively aimed at leaving the See of the Bishop of Rome empty, clear, free, (not legally vacant) so that it could be immediately occupied by usurping enemies.
It was a “strategic retreat” to allow the enemies to seize power, but illegally, thus self-condemning themselves to nullity and to eventual expulsion with the consequent purification of the Catholic Church.
Benedict XVI’s declaration of renunciation of the ministerium – willfully misunderstood, and this, too, was foreseen by its author – would initiate a conclave, obviously abusive, for the election of a “new” Supreme Pontiff, i.e., an antipope.
Thus, Benedict would be dethroned, deprived of the practical ministerium, that is, of those “works and words” of which he himself speaks in the Declaratio, and thus totally impeded, as per Canons 412 and 335.
(In fact, as he specifies in Declaratio, and as is the case with an impeded pope, he continued to exercise the munus in a purely contemplative manner, that is, “suffering and praying.”)
On the other hand, his opponents would elect an anti-pope, devoid of any rights over the Catholic Church as enshrined in the combined provisions of Articles 76 and 77 of the constitution Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG). In this way, Benedict XVI produced a kind of “extended ministry” as he himself called it: that is, a form of service to the Church, for her purification, with an impeded pope, relegated to a contemplative role, and an usurping antipope, active and reigning for some time.[3]
Hence the brilliant and euphemistic self-definition of “pope emeritus.” Just as with the bishop who retires and becomes emeritus, so Benedict XVI lost the ministerium while retaining the munus. But for the pope, who does not retire, and whose munus is not a sacrament but an office, this can occur only by “sede impedita.” “Pope emeritus” is therefore just a euphemism for “impeded pope.” [4]
At the end of the Declaratio, Pope Benedict entrusts the Church to Her Supreme Pastor, Jesus Christ, and ambiguously invokes Mary, asking her to “be near” (assistat) the cardinals: both those who are unfaithful, so that the Blessed Virgin may implore divine forgiveness for their crime, and those who are faithful in the future work to restore legality by electing his new true successor.
The Declaratio, then, is by no means a badly written abdication with formal and legal errors, but an absolutely perfect declaration of judgment, both in the Latin and in the law: it described and judged an initial misdeed that would in time produce (ingravescente aetate) an unbearable situation.
In his “decision,” Benedict XVI was thus simultaneously accuser, advocate, and judge, and, in these roles, he made this declaration for the rescue and the very survival of the Church (Ecclesiae vita).
Here Pope Benedict illustrated a “criminal sequence”: first the electoral maneuver which was functional to the de facto seizure of power, that is, the misdeed (commissum); then the completely impeded See, emptied of power, which coincides with the usurpation and the convocation of the schismatic conclave.
The Declaratio was written by the German pope in a brilliant way, with a very wise use of Latin and canon law, to kick-start the operation. He knew that his enemies could easily falsify it with just a few adjustments, to make it look like a renunciation to get what they wanted: him out of the way.
It is a logical-rational prediction of a plan already in place, which only needed to find its fulfilment. Since no one would judge it, Benedict judged its outcomes in advance, since they are all related to that commissum-misdeed.
Benedict XVI then left to the action of the Logos (thus, the Holy Spirit) in the faithful and in men of good will the progressive understanding of the document and then its corresponding denunciation to the appropriate authorities, that is, the cardinals (art. 3 UDG) and/or the competent ecclesiastical forum, as we read in the Rights and Duties of the Faithful (Canons 208-223).
In his eight years of living in sede impedita, Pope Benedict could never provide an explicit explanation of theDeclaratio precisely because he was in sede impedita, but he [5] helped us very much to understand it by sending us numerous inputs through letters, books, and interviews, making broad use of mental reservation (the “Ratzinger code”), a method of communication prescribed, in cases of emergency, by moral theology, so as not to lie and to communicate the truth only to those who “have ears to hear.”
It is, moreover, documented that Pope Benedict, before his resignation, left under the seal of the papal secrecy written documentation, in this case the acts of the investigation entrusted to the Herranz Commission which he had ordered to investigate Vatileaks and other matters [6].
Plausibly, Benedict XVI thus left documents that could give us a definitive explanation of his acts; they will have to be opened only in a judicial proceeding.
On 6 June 2024, Andrea Cionci filed a 100-page pamphlet on the matter with the Vatican City State Court, duly [7]registered. It awaits the opening of the trial or the intervention of the cardinals appointed, who have already been urged by the writer with an initial petition. It was sent to the Secretariat of State with 11,500 signatures on November 8, 2023.
Below, we publish the correct translation of the Declaratio (prepared by Professor Corrias and co-signed by Professor Funari), which will be analyzed with the maximum completeness of linguistic and legal references in chapter 2:
Dearest brothers,
I have summoned you to this Consistory not only because of the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After examining my conscience again and again before God, I have come to the certain knowledge that due to the aggravation of age my strength is no longer adequate to administer the Petrine munus.
I am well aware that this munus, according to its spiritual essence, must be exercised not only by action and word, but also by suffering and prayer. However, in the world of our age subject to rapid transformations and disrupted by issues of great weight for the life of faith, to steer the boat of St. Peter and to proclaim the Gospel also requires a certain vigor of body and soul, a vigor that in recent months has diminished in me to such an extent that I must recognize my inability to administer well the ministerium entrusted to me. For these reasons, well aware of the seriousness of this act, in full freedom I declare that I renounce to my detriment the ministerium of Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, because of the misdeed of a handful of cardinals on April 19, 2005, to the extent that as of the twentieth hour of February 28, 2013, the See of Rome, the See of St. Peter shall remain empty, and I declare that a Conclave is to be convoked for the election of a new Supreme Pontiff by those whose competence it is.
Beloved brethren, I thank you with all my heart for all the love and diligence with which you have borne with me the burden of my service, and I ask your forgiveness for all my shortcomings. We now entrust the Holy Church of God to the care of her Supreme Pastor, our Lord Jesus Christ, and we implore his Mother Mary to stand by with her maternal kindness to the Cardinal Fathers in the election of the new Supreme Pontiff. As for me, I would like to serve wholeheartedly the Holy Church of God also in the future with a life dedicated to prayer. (Emphasis added.)
Chapter One: A reconstruction of the facts
Here it will be illustrated that Pope Benedict never provided the translations of the Declaratio but only an original in Latin and how the translations were artfully manipulated.
In the volume Nothing but the Truth (Piemme 2023), published by Msgr. Georg Gänswein, we read on page 200:
Benedict had begun in late January to draft the text that he would read in the Consistory. His decision to write in Latin was obvious, since this has always been the language of official documents of the Catholic Church. The formula of renunciation was finalized by the Pope on February 7. I personally took the paper to Cardinal Bertone’s apartment, where we read it together with Monsignor Giampiero Gloder, coordinator in the Secretariat of State for the final editing of the pontifical texts. Small corrections were suggested as well as some legal clarifications, so that the final text was ready for Sunday, February 10, when translations into Italian, French, English, German, Spanish, Portuguese and Polish were also provided.[8] (Italian editor’s note: Later the translation in Arabic was added.)
In the interview aired on TV 2000 on January 4, 2023, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, while speaking of the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI, states:[9]
I said: “Holy Father, why in Latin?” [And he said] “This is the language of the Church, and I would like to do this, this, and this. And then they translate and …. they understand.”
In the volume Ein Leben (A Life) by Peter Seewald (Garzanti 2020), the authorized biography of Benedict XVI, we read on p. 1159:
Under the seal of papal secrecy, an employee of the Secretariat of State was also informed; he would have to verify the correctness of the declaratio of resignation in terms of content, form, and language. (In fact, he later slightly modified the style in some places.)
From these testimonies it emerges unequivocally that Pope Benedict XVI had delivered his Declaratio written only in Latin, and we learn that Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, then Secretary of State, together with Archbishop Giampiero Gloder, arranged to have the translations drawn up into the various languages, intervening in the text with unspecified changes of “style,” “corrections,” and “legal clarifications.”
Now, in the Declaratio in English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Polish, and Arabic, the two aspects of the papal figure mentioned, the munus and the ministerium, have been translated with the same word for “service”. Respectively ministry, ministerio, ministére, ministèrio, posługi, and khedma.
This was a legitimate but questionable choice, given that, as the official translations of the apostolic constitution Pastor bonus (1988) show, there is a very precise word, at least in Italian, English, Spanish and German, to describe the munus, cited respectively as “ufficio,” “office,” “oficio,” and “Amt.“
However, there was a key piece missing which, according to our latest translation from the Latin of the only original text, overturns this statement by 180°.
As many recall, Pope Benedict’s Declaratio of February 11, 2013, was published by the Vatican website with a misprint (hora 29.00, [i.e. 29 o’clock]) and two gross syntactic errors that were detected by Luciano Canfora of the Corriere della Sera: ecclesiae vitae [10] e ministerio … commissum renuntiare. These were then corrected immediately afterwards on the website with ecclesiae vita and ministerio … commisso renuntiare.
Some months later, the German philologist Wilfried Stroh, in Germany, and Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, in Verona’s L’Arena, also criticized these errors[11].
In fact, of these three errors, Benedict XVI pronounced only one aloud before the Consistory: “commissum.” The other two he never read, as you can clearly hear from the [12] full [13] audio. Therefore, since we do not have the original writing, the only text that should be taken into account, according to correct legal procedure, is the one that was read aloud by the Pope.
To sum up, the only error that Benedict XVI really pronounced was “commissum.” However, in the 2016 volume Last Conversations, the Pope “Emeritus” replied to Peter Seewald, who had asked him when and how he had written the text of the Declaratio, “I could have written it in Italian, but there was a danger that I would make some mistakes.”
“When and who wrote the text with which you announced your resignation?”
“I did it myself. I am not able to recall exactly when I did it, but at most two weeks before”.
“Why the choice of Latin?”
“Because such an important thing has to be done in Latin. Moreover, Latin is a language I know well enough to write something decent. I could have written it in Italian, but there was a danger that I would make some mistakes”.
Seewald-Benedict XVI “Last Conversations”, ed.Garzanti, 2016, page 33
Now, this sentence when, three years earlier, the whole world had been talking about these mistakes in the Declaratio, seems really strange and provocative. In spite of the bad impression made at the international level, Pope Benedict, a great connoisseur of Latin, reaffirmed with conviction that he had made no mistakes in the Declaratio.
Thus, since the only one of the three “errors” that he had actually pronounced is commissum, this means that commissum is not an error.
Thanks to attorneys Costanza Settesoldi and Roberto Antonacci, we began to reflect on the fact that the only text we can rely on is the one pronounced aloud by Benedict XVI. Thus, a number of different proposals were developed to translate the phrase with the commissum in a way that could be entirely correct. The study group with the esteemed Latinists Professor Gian Matteo Corrias (the former editor of the works of Lorenzo Valla) and Professor Rodolfo Funari (the great translator of Sallust) then arrived at the only dramatically possible translation that legitimately contemplates the commissum.
Meanwhile, let us see how the abusively corrected text with commisso = “entrusted” was translated by the Vatican site:
Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate 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 et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.
“For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, ENTRUSTED (commisso) 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 and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
And here is the only possible version, according to Prof. Corrias and confirmed by Prof. Funari, in which the same text can be translated while keeping the COMMISSUM pronounced by Benedict XVI:
Therefore, well aware of the weight of this act, I declare in full freedom to renounce to my detriment (mihi) the ministry of bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, because of the misdeed (per commissum) of a handful (manus) of Cardinals on April 19, 2005, to the extent that as of February 28, 2013, at the twentieth hour, the See of Rome, the See of St. Peter is empty, and (I declare) that a conclave should be convoked for the election of a new Supreme Pontiff by those to whom it is fitting. *
This is, then, the solution to one of history’s greatest problems: in fact, commissum, in the accusative, also means “misdeed,” and this unlocks the understanding of the entire Declaratio.
This simple declaration, passed off for 11 years as an abdication after being the subject – by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and Archbishop Giampiero Gloder – of unspecified “juridical clarifications” and “changes in style” (as witnessed by Peter Seewald and Archbishop Georg Gänswein [14]) was actually the denunciation of a misdeed carried out by handful of cardinals on the day of the election of Cardinal Ratzinger to the papal throne.
The other Latin errors that appear in the Declaratio, despite the Secretariat of State having had time (from February 7 until February 10) to correct the text and prepare the translations, thus appear as red herrings, unrelated to the original text, inserted to divert public attention from the only inconsistency between the verbal and written text: the commissum pronounced aloud and varied in the official writing as commisso.
All this also explains perfectly why in the translations into the various modern languages, munus and ministerium were made synonyms of the same word “ministry,” and why in German Munus-Amt and Ministerium-Dienst swapped places [15] to force the Declaratio to express a valid abdication.
The misdeed to which Pope Benedict referred
And here’s the “misdeed” Pope Benedict is referring to: documented agreements, pacts, and electoral plots during the 2005 conclave, in open violation of Articles 78-81 UDG [16] aimed at the instrumental election of a transitional pope who could be forced one day to resign.
On this “misdeed” (commissum) that took place on the day of Papa Ratzinger’s election, we have some decidedly significant testimonies that piece together a coherent panorama on an electoral maneuver that occurred during that conclave. All the testimonies speak of agreements, vote swaps, pacts, and unscrupulous political strategies on the part of some cardinals: this constitutes a blatant infraction of Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG), in particular of Article 81, which says:
The Cardinal electors shall refrain, moreover, from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even if under oath, I decree that such a commitment is null and void and that no one is bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention, however, to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.
On the nature of these agreements, we have several accounts that reconstruct a coherent view.
First, it is necessary to mention the authorized biography of Cardinal Godfried Danneels written in 2015; it informs us that, before the 2005 conclave, “Bergoglio earned the trust of many of the participants in the St. Gallen Group” and that “Jesuit Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was a realistic alternative.”
In 2016 Archbishop Gänswein defined that election as the outcome of a “clash,” a “dramatic struggle” between the two key parties: the Salt of the Earth and the St. Gallen group defined as that of the “dictatorship of relativism.” [17]
Then there is the diary of an unknown cardinal at the conclave reported by Limes [Ed. note: an Italian magazine] in 2009,[18] according to which a stalemate had been created in the 2005 conclave between the two principal candidates, Ratzinger and Bergoglio, a situation that was unblocked on the fourth ballot by siphoning off about fifteen votes from the Argentine cardinal to the German theologian so that the latter was elected with the name Benedict XVI on April 19, 2005, although certainly not with a large majority.
| 2005 | Ratzinger | Bergoglio | |||||
| VOT. I | 47 | 10 | 9 Martini | 6 Ruini | 4 Sodano
|
3 Maradiaga | 2 Tettamanzi |
| VOT. II | 65 | 35 | 4 Sodano
|
2 Tettamanzi | |||
| VOT. III | 72 | 40 | 1 Castrillon
|
||||
| VOT. lV | 84 | 26 | 1 Schoenborn | 1 Biffi | 1 Law |
Bergoglio states in his book El Sucesor[19]:
In that conclave—the news is known—they used me. […] It happened that I got forty votes out of one hundred and fifteen in the Sistine Chapel (on the 3rd ballot, also reported by Limes). They were enough to stop the candidacy of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, because, if they had continued to vote for me, he would not have been able to reach the two-thirds necessary to be elected pope. […] The maneuver consisted of putting my name in, blocking Ratzinger’s election, and then negotiating a different third candidate. They then told me that they did not want a foreign pope. […] It was a full-scale maneuver. The idea was to block the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. They were using me, but behind them they were already thinking of proposing another cardinal. They could not agree on who yet, but they were already on the verge of pronouncing a name.
Another testimony, this one from 2015 by Father Silvano Fausti, a Jesuit, Rahnerian, friend and confessor of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, a prominent member of the St. Gallen group, is very important. Here is what Fausti explained, revealing confidences received from Martini [20]:
Ratzinger’s resignation was already planned… At his election with Martini: because they were the two who had more votes. Martini had a little more… The maneuver was something like this: Martini for the progressives, Ratzinger for the conservatives, but they wanted to bring down both of them in order to set up a very creeping curia one, which did not succeed. Having discovered the trick, Martini went to Ratzinger in the evening (he told me), and told him, “Will you accept tomorrow to become pope with my votes? And then I will give a speech.” And then he told me that he made a speech, he didn’t talk about anything else I think; many cardinals blushed … Martini said many blushed because he denounced the thing … they were dirty maneuvers … And then he had told him (to Ratzinger ed.), “Please accept, you who are in the Curia (he had been in the Curia 30 years, I think), then you are intelligent and honest. If you can reform, it good, if not, you leave.” And the first gesture he made (Italian ed.: Benedict XVI.): he went to L’Aquila, to place his stole, his pallium on the tomb of Celestine V, already from the beginning of the papacy. And then after ten years Martini told him, “It’s really time, you know, because nothing can be done here.”
In summary, most accounts (Dannels, Limes, and Bergoglio) state that Ratzinger’s competitor was Bergoglio.
We also learn that the two favored candidates, Ratzinger and Bergoglio, had come to an irredeemable, deadlocked, head-to-head contest, with Bergoglio clearly outnumbered in votes.
So rather than having a third candidate elected with a large majority, that Italian curial cardinal mentioned by Bergoglio and Fausti, the St. Gallen group fell back on the man who, for them, was the “lesser evil.” In fact, Ratzinger, in addition to being quite old (78), could be easily worn down and forced to resign because he was considered weak and manageable: weak because he would lack a majority; manageable in the media because he was little inclined to communication strategies; mild-mannered in character; a scholar, thus too elevated compared to the masses; coming from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that is, the most invisible of functions in the collective imagination. Moreover, for decades he had been portrayed to the public as a “sullen German theologian,” “Panzerkardinal,” “God’s Rottweiler,” “German Shepherd,” etc.
In the impossibility of electing their own candidate, the San Gallen group were comfortable electing Ratzinger instead of others: a conservative but fragile pope, to be worn down with obstructionist and antagonistic strategies for a few years, to be destroyed in the media, so much so that he was forced to resign, only to have “the pope from the end of the world,” Bergoglio, greeted with relief and enthusiasm with an ample and well-prepared publicity campaign.
In 2005, the time was not yet ripe: Bergoglio did not have yet the votes and he needed time to consolidate his position.
Bergoglio himself admits this in El Sucesor:
[Ratzinger] was the only one who could be Pope at that time. After the revolution of John Paul II, who had been a dynamic Pontiff, very active, enterprising, traveling … [T]here was a need for a Pope who maintained a healthy balance, a transitional Pope. […] If they had chosen someone like me, who causes so much trouble, I could not have done anything. At that time, it would not have been possible. [Emphasis added.]
Ratzinger was, therefore, elected precisely in order to be deposed after a few years: this is the misdeed. In his Declaratio, (the only reliable version of the facts and already judged by the Pontiff), this malicious election is linked – ita ut – precisely to the purpose of making him leave the See empty, that is, to the emptying, over time, of the powers of the Holy See by forcing the Pope to resign.
After all, everyone is a witness to the political and media opposition that Pope Benedict suffered during his pontificate: the refusal of “La Sapienza” University to host one of his lectio magistralis, the continuous scandals about pedophile priests bounced around by the media, the hostility of international politics, but there are also very obscure episodes to be thoroughly investigated, such as the alleged “night accident” suffered by Pope Benedict during the apostolic trip to Mexico-Cuba in 2012.
In his last letter to Peter Seewald, Pope Benedict stated that insomnia had been at the center of his resignation, describing a domestic incident due — according to various doctors and specialists — to an induced overdose of drugs. This sentence from the letter is telling:
The next event abroad that awaited me was World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro (July 22-29, 2013). It was clear that under these circumstances, I could no longer manage it, but that a new pope would have to take over the task. This meant that I had to step down before Easter 2013.
Benedict had understood, after that episode, that if he remained in charge, he would not live long. With his death, however, enemies would have taken over the papacy through a legitimate conclave. Without an official pronouncement by Benedict XVI that put the enemies immediately into schism, the Church would have been left defenseless. That is why Benedict decided to get out of the way but without abdicating and by “offering himself to his passion [suffering],” that is, to the impeded See. With his Declaratio, written in a manner purposely easy to falsify, he triggered, on the morning of February 11, 2013, two processes. On the one hand, there was the opportunity for the conspirators to gain power and gradually show themselves as Gnostic apostates, scandalizing the People of God. On the other hand, there would be the gradual understanding of the canonical situation and the final resolution of the anti-papacy according to the strictures of a rule of law by the “salt of the earth”
Dr. Andrea Cionci is the bestselling author of The Ratzinger Code.
Endnotes
[1] See Normae de delictis Congregationi pro dottrina fidei reservatis, Art. 26 It is the right of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in whatever state and degree of the proceedings, to refer directly to the decision of the Supreme Pontiff, regarding the dismissal or deposition from the clerical state, together with the dispensation from the law of celibacy, the cases of particular gravity referred to in Articles 2-6, when it is manifestly established that the crime has been committed, after the offender has been given the faculty to defend himself.
[2]See https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/39237579/benedetto-xvi-sonnifero-di-troppo-lettera-originale.html and https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/39362057/i-tre-incidenti-di-benedetto-xvi-e-il-falso-dello-zucchetto.html
[4]See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svts77Yr5A4
[9]See. min 4.15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIqz3B1Cd10&t=421s
[12]See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX8aQ9XZxp0
[13]See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPYrsAbGrg
[18]See https://www.limesonline.com/da-non-perdere/cosi-eleggemmo-papa-ratzinger-14663310/
[20]See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8fohQqCfj0&t=342s
READ: Pope Francis accuses young Catholic priests who like the Latin Mass of ‘mental imbalance’