Between February 11th and March 1st, 2013 – ten years ago last week – Pope Benedict XVI did something of ongoing historical significance. He made a remarkable statement known as the Declaratio, supposedly signifying the abdication of his Papacy. He read it in Latin, which alone is binding, to a group of Cardinals assembled before him. It contained invalidating linguistic errors, oddities, and ambiguities – purposely so, according to Italian author Andrea Cionci – that went unnoticed or were blatantly ignored by the cardinals and by the worldwide press. An illegitimate conclave was swiftly summoned to replace the Pope so vehemently opposed – by the curia, globalists, and press – with anti-Pope Bergoglio (Francis).
All of this was mainly ignored until Benedict XVI’s death two months ago, on the last day of 2022. And it remains largely ignored (despite growing awareness about this massive issue in recent years). But its significance remains – and must be reckoned with at some point.
What should we make of the fact that Benedict XVI subsequently stated that he composed his Declaratio in Latin so that he wouldn’t make any errors? Might his text, peppered with errors, have had a specifically crafted meaning that was not readily apparent?
A very good number of particular details, Cionci argues, do happen to line up in support of this view. But even if he is mistaken in some way with his interpretation of Benedict XVI’s intent, the text of the Declaratio itself suffices to establish that it simply is not a properly manifested abdication.
No doubt this sounds bold or fanciful, especially to those first hearing about this matter. After all, if this theory had any traction, one might naturally wonder, why hasn’t it come to the forefront? That is a good question (as are so many other ‘why this’ or ‘why that’ questions that spring to mind concerning Benedict XVI’s act and subsequent communication over the following nine years). Everyone would be crying foul, it would seem. But this falsely presumes a genuinely widespread concern for the truth – an illusion exploded by the past few “pandemic” years.
One might also rightly wonder: why is there such little curiosity among the relevant authorities and the press about the abnormally high mortality figures (known as “excess deaths” in populations overall, compared to steady historical expectations) occurring in so many nations following the lockdowns and vaccine mandates? Only callousness and mendacity can explain why the relentless hype about any death – those tenuously attributable to the “pandemic” – suddenly evaporated while much greater and highly unusual spikes in mortality have been emerging in the wake of mandated responses to the “pandemic”.
Whatever Benedict XVI’s precise mindset, the more closely one looks at his Declaratio, the more evident – indeed, obvious – it becomes (just from the Document itself) that Benedict XVI did not renounce the Papacy. This might seem somewhat arcane, but he did not renounce the munus – the office or charge or investiture of the Papacy itself. Failing to do so means he retained the Papacy.
He did relinquish the ministerium – the practical exercise of power emanating from the office. And he specified that this would take effect 17 days later, on February 28th, at the 20th hour. That’s a bit odd. The first thing to note is that a valid, properly manifested abdication of the Papal office occurs instantaneously. It cannot be deferred to some later date, so this stipulation would seem to invalidate even a genuine attempt to abdicate.
Cionci recently presented another fascinating detail that seems to fit with several other remarkable pieces of the puzzle. There has long been such a thing in Italy and the Papal States known as “Roman time”, which does not correspond with our current International Time system. Enumerating the hours of a day in that ancient system begins at sunset. So according to Roman time, the 20th hour of February 28th corresponds to 1p.m – 2p.m. on March 1st – precisely the hour after which the Dean of Cardinals convened a (illegitimate) conclave.
Is that just a coincidence? Benedict XVI would have known that they – his enemies bent on ousting him – would do this at that specific time, because that is the hour when the daily Bulletin of the Holy See is read (between noon and 1p.m.).
This, Cionci argues, explains why Benedict XVI delayed his “resignation”: to signal, even if understood only in retrospect, that it (the renunciation of the practical exercise of power but not his Papal authority) was not something that would kick in of his own volition the night of February 28th, but rather something that would be imposed once the Cardinals announced plans to elect a Pope during the noon hour of the next day, even though Benedict XVI still retained the munus or Papal office.
This seems to support the notion that Benedict XVI, on account of his effective incapacitation due to rank insubordination, designed his declaration in such a way that if the Cardinals seized the opening it created, he, as Pope, would be exiling himself into an impeded see – a specific condition accounted for in Canon law; Cionci maintains he did this with resignation.
This interpretation is admittedly a lot to absorb – and from it, of course, further challenging questions arise. I get why some would feel abandoned as a result of Benedict XVI’s decision, and decry the turmoil that has ensued. But might he have thought this was the best way to ultimately expose the apostasy and rot within? This must at least be considered a possibility. It is also worth keeping in mind that if Benedict XVI had been killed or had validly resigned, then the election of Bergoglio would have been valid; perhaps he wanted to avoid such an outcome.
In any event, what is actually on display now for all to see? For one thing, with the massive clerical abuse crisis – chiefly one of pederasty enabled and covered up by members of the hierarchy – still in the rear view mirror, we currently have a “pope” who protects and promotes those of the same ilk.
And the media yawns. Curious, that.
So why is it that even prelates alarmed by Bergoglio’s subversive actions haven’t seemed all that eager to inquire into the legitimacy of Francis’ papacy itself, given the manifest anomalies of Benedict XVI’s resignation? That is difficult to answer.
The recently (and, following successful surgery, somewhat suspiciously?) deceased Australian Cardinal George Pell, for instance, was critical of Francis and deemed his agenda (specifically an ongoing series of gatherings being called a “Synod on Synodality”) a “toxic nightmare”. But as far as I know, he never pursued the most fundamental canonical issue: is Francis actually a validly elected Pope?
Another example would be Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Nuncio to the United States. He has been splendidly outspoken on many pressing matters of the day – such as the existence of a “Deep Church” akin to the “Deep State”. For all of this we can be grateful. He too has been quite critical of Bergoglio, and has approached the question of what led to Benedict XVI’s resignation, even implying hostile forces on the American Left may have precipitated it to some extent.
But Viganò had also implied (prior to Benedict’s death) that neither Benedict nor Francis is the pope, and has shied away from definitely weighing in on, or calling for an investigation into, the status of Benedict XVI in light of his curious Declaratio.
Surely Viganò is aware of the relevant canonical questions, and the arguments circulating regarding the anti-Papacy of Bergoglio. Indeed, Andrea Cionci publicly appealed to him to address this critical issue – but received no reply. Cionci was also met with silence when he engaged the German Cardinal Müller, who has also been critical of the wrecking ball Bergoglio has been wielding.
Why would such prominent figures ignore such a sincere, well-founded request to explore such a serious matter? I don’t know the answer. Could it be that they consider it trivial, outlandish or otherwise beneath them? Or might they have other motivations or interests? I cannot say.
Just because figures quite well placed to act have not acted does not mean that resolution is no longer required. If it is true that Francis is an anti-Pope (as, in my view, Canon Law plainly indicates), then it will eventually come to light somehow, sometime. Unfortunately things may well get even uglier before that time.
It is unclear where things are headed in the near term, but we can expect more of the same. On the geo-political front, anyone should be concerned about how Bergoglio genuflects to the “New World Order”, the Chinese Communist Party and Islam. Inside the Church, more egregiously unwarranted attacks upon the Traditional Latin Mass are on the horizon, as is the aforementioned travesty vaguely termed the “Synod on Synodality”, whatever that means. Suffice it to say that it contains an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable: the Gospel of Christ with the anti-gospel of the alphabet mafia.
It has come to this under Bergoglio: Traditional Latin Masses are in the crosshairs, while sacrilegious alphabet mafia “friendly” masses get a pass. Does this not epitomize the “signs of the times”?
Just as there have been multiple anti-popes over the centuries, there have also been occasions in which the Church was entirely without a Pope for an extended period of time. We are in just such a time, so in the meantime, and as ever, holding fast to hope is good counsel.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-bergoglian-anti-papacy-ten-years-and-counting/