Benedict XVI Impeded: the first video on how Ratzinger put Bergoglio in schism
Exactly ten years after Pope Benedict’s fateful Declaratio, our investigation has now reached some definitive results. Three mysteries of his declaration in Latin have now been clarified – a statement which was presented to us as an act of abdication when it actually was the most ingenious and articulate anti-usurpation plan in history. We have synthesized almost three years of continuous study in a brief documentary video, Dies Irae, published by Libero, which you will find HERE.
The editing has been done free of charge by a “soldier of Pope Benedict,” that is, one of those Catholics who has understood the matter and has not accepted the end of the visible, canonical Church. We thank him, just as we thank all those who will share this video on social media. For anyone who may prefer to read it, you will find the full text here below.
“DIES IRAE. THE FULL TRUTH ABOUT THE “RESIGNATION OF BENEDICT XVI”
Ten years have now passed since the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, and it is still being debated. “It should have been clearer.” So said Bergoglio on July 12, 2022, and we can only agree with him. In fact, don’t you find it strange that a man as humble and modest as Joseph Ratzinger, having resigned, still chose to remain in the Vatican, wearing white, remaining in the way of his successor?
And what about the fact that for over nine years Benedict continually said, “There is only one Pope,” without ever explaining which one of the two it was? It is not even clear how it was possible for him to be “Pope emeritus” since this position does not juridically exist, as has been noted from the very beginning by the most respected canonists.
However, in order to get to the bottom of this mystery, Pope Ratzinger left us some keys to help us understand the canonical question. In his 2016 book-interview Last Conversations with Peter Seewald, a text that was specifically authorized and approved by the Pope emeritus, Benedict said in reference to his own resignation: “No pope has resigned for a thousand years.” The book reiterates this idea again towards the end when it states: “Benedict XVI was the first pope to resign after a thousand years.”
But the trouble with this statement is that the last pope to abdicate was Gregory XII in 1415 – which was only 598 years before Ratzinger resigned in 2013, not 1000 years. Thus, unquestionably, the word “resignation” did not mean the same thing as “abdication” for Benedict, and he did not consider himself to have abdicated. Well then, what kind of resignation did he give? As we have recently discovered, there was a resignation very similar to his, exactly one thousand years earlier, in 2013, by Pope Benedict VIII – a medieval pope who also did not abdicate. HERE.
In an investigation that has lasted two and a half years, including over 400 articles and a best-selling book, The Ratzinger Code (Byoblu ed. 2022), we have patiently reconstructed the entire scenario.
The atheist Paolo Flores d’Arcais explained in his 2010 work “Ratzinger’s Obscurantist Challenge” how Benedict XVI had the “fault” of being the guardian of Christian values that were opposed to the globalist powers. HERE. As a result of Wikileaks, we know that already in 2012 the Obama-Clinton clan was plotting the removal of Pope Benedict. It became necessary to replace him with a pope who would be more amenable to many other projects. The executive arm of this operation was a branch of ultra-modernist cardinals, the so-called Saint Gallen Mafia, the group that sponsored Bergoglio as the future pope, as was candidly admitted in 2015 by one of its members, Cardinal Danneels. In 2016, Archbishop Gaenswein quoted a speech by Ratzinger describing this group as representing a “dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and leaves only one’s own ego and one’s own desires as the final measure.” HERE
In the same year, however, thanks to Vatileaks, the so-called Mordkomplott also came to light, a plan to kill Pope Benedict which was spoken about by Cardinals Paolo Romeo and Dario Castrillon Hoyos. Three bishops – Bishop Rene Gracida, Luigi Negri, and Jan Pawel Lenga – later affirmed publicly that Pope Ratzinger was forced to take himself out of the way. HERE
And so, in 2013, pressured to abdicate in a way that was unsustainable for his strength, Benedict XVI decided to apply an ingenious anti-usurpation plan in order to defend the Church: on February 11, in the presence of the Consistory of Cardinals, in an entirely unexpected way, he read aloud a text in Latin – containing only 262 words – that would change history.
In this Declaratio made on 11 February 2013, which was filled with various errors in Latin and stylistic imperfections that were unexplainable for a distinguished Latinist like Ratzinger, we were told that the Pope announced that beginning at 20:00 (8 P.M.) on 28 February 2013he would renounce his ministry so that the See of Rome would remain vacant.
This at least was the translation in Italian and other vernacular languages that was communicated to us. But in reality things were very different, and we know this thanks to an examination of the original Latin text.
This Declaratio has been discussed for ten years because, understood as an abdication, it presents three enormous canonical-juridical problems. First of all, there is the fact that the resignation was deferred for 17 days, even though the abdication of a pope, just like a pope’s election, is a pure juridical act that must be simultaneous, since it is God who grants or withdraws the investiture of the Successor of Saint Peter, the so-called Petrine munus, and certainly one cannot give God an assent that has an expiration date.
The second problem concerns the munus itself: canon 332 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law provides that a pope may abdicate, but only by renouncing the Petrine munus, that is, the title given to him by God: in short, he must renounce being Pope. But in the Latin version of the Declaratio – the only one that is authoritative – Benedict XVI declares that he renounce the ministerium – the doing what a Pope does, the exercise of power that derives from the munus. This distinction does not appear in Italian and other languages because both munus and ministerium are translated with the same word: “ministry.”
And yet, renouncing one without the other can lead to devastating juridical consequences.
Any synonymy between munus and ministerium is to be totally excluded, both because in all of canon law the ministerium, the thing which Benedict resigned, always and only means “doing,” exercising an office, and also because Pope Benedict specifies in the Declaratio that the ministerium was granted to him “per manus cardinalium” – “by the hand of the cardinals” – who are able to confer on the newly-elected pope only the authority to do what the pope does, whereas the munus is granted by God himself at the moment of the election.
So, in order to abdicate, the pope needs to renounce the munus in an instantaneous way, but Pope Benedict did the exact opposite: he renounced the ministerium in a deferred way. Once again, we have confirmation that the Declaratio was not an act of abdication.
Finally, there is the third mystery to clear up: because the pope cannot canonically separate the ministerium from the munus.
But actually, this can happen, in only one case: when there is a totally impeded see – the alternative to a vacant see, when the pope has neither died nor abdicated, but is instead a prisoner, confined, or exiled. In this case, the pope still possesses the munus, the “being” pope, but he is forcibly deprived of the ministerium, of the possibility of “doing” what a pope does.
In sum: if the pope canonically loses the munus, there is a vacant see (sede vacante), but if the pope is forcible deprived of the ministerium, there is a totally impeded see.
And now, by combining these three mysterious elements of the Declaratio together, it becomes perfectly clear what Benedict did. The key is found in the time at which the renunciation of the ministerium took effect. The translations of the Declaratio say that it would be at 20:00 (8:00 P.M.) on 28 February, but in Latin, Pope Benedict said it would occur at the hora vicesima – the twentieth hour.
Listen to him say it HERE at the [X:XX] mark.
He is referring to Roman time, which was traditional in Italy and the Papal States since the Middle Ages. Roman time does not start counting the hours at midnight but instead begins at sunset. On 28 February 2013, the sun set at 18:00 (6 P.M.), the hora prima, and so all we need to do is add nineteen hours in order to find out exactly when the “hora vicesima” of 28 February was – it corresponds to 13:00 (1 P.M.) on 1 March acccording to our modern way of counting time.
But what had just happened at 1 P.M. on 1 March 2013?
As you may know, the official Vatican “Bulletin” comes out each day between 12:00 and 1:00 P.M. On that Friday, March 1, the Cardinal Dean Angelo Sodano convoked the new conclave by means of the Bulletin, even though Pope Benedict had not abdicated. The conclave was thus illegitimate and produced a coup d’etat that automatically sent Benedict XVI into a totally impeded see, the canonical status we have spoken of, thereby depriving him of the ministerium, his ability to do what a pope does. After all, how is it possible to imagine that a pope could be more impeded than one who sees another pope elected in his place while he is still reigning?
For this reason, Benedict kept his papal name and his white robe, continued to give the Apostolic Blessing (which only the pope can give), and continued to reside in the Vatican.
Not for nothing did he tell Archbishop Gaenswein to say at Lumsa University in Rome (in October 2022): “If you do not believe, the answer is found in the book of Jeremiah,” where, strangely enough, one reads this sentence that is unique in the entire Bible: “I am impeded.”(Jer 36:5) HERE
And here we have a clarification of the inexplicable 17-day deferment of the inexplicable renunciation of the ministerium: on February 11, 2013, Pope Benedict foresaw and prophesied that the cardinals, distorting the Declaratio based on its translations, would unknowingly convene an abusive conclave, such that it would send him into an impeded see and deprive him of the ministerium – his ability to do what a pope does. His renunciation of the ministerium thus became effective and factual precisely at the hora vicesima of 28 February, that is, at 13:00 (1 P.M.) on 1 March 2013, the hour in which he would no longer be the “pontiff supreme,” as he said from the balcony of Castel Gandolfo in his remarks on the evening of 28 February, reversing the title of Supreme Pontiff: he would no longer be the pontiff in the highest degree, since they would elect another – illegitimate – pope who would govern in his place.
And so, in essence, the renunciation of Pope Benedict was announced and then suffered because of force majeure.
But then how can the phrase of the Declaratio be explained which reads “I renounce the ministerium in such a way that . . . the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant”?
This translation is mistaken, first because the renunciation of the ministerium does not produce a vacant see, but above all because the Latin verb vacet is literally translated as “the see will be empty, clear, free.” In fact, Pope Benedict left his seat empty, that is the cathedra of the Bishop of Rome in the Lateran Basilica, from which every Pope formally draws his legitimacy to exercise his own government, and he never returned to it.
Thus, continuing with the Latin text, the next conclave for the election of the new Supreme Pontiff – at the time of his death – will have to be convoked “ab his quibus competit” – by those who are competent – that is, only the true cardinals named prior to 2013.
Thus Benedict became Pope emeritus, or rather the Pope impeditus, the impeded pope. The similarity with a “bishop emeritus,” a retired bishop, was only apparent. In fact, a bishop may canonically retire when he turns 75, losing his ministerium but maintaining the munus linked to his see.
But for a pope, this can only happen by force, by impediment, because the munus of the pope, his being pope, cannot be shared with anyone. And this is why Benedict repeatedly said, “There is only one pope” – and it was him.
With this ingenious canonical system, Benedict ensured that thanks to his dethronement and imprisonment, which he himself induced and which the cardinals unknowingly carried out, he could remain the one true pope, the custodian of the Petrine munus, placing his heretical enemies who wanted to remove him into schism, and he did so in such a way that any other pope who was elected while he was alive would not be a true pope.
The alleged Pope Francis is, therefore, an antipope. As such his pontificate must be annulled.
This is the canonical reality. Furthermore, there are a myriad of gestures and statements by Benedict XVI which confirm this reality in a logical way, and there is no need to be led astray by the concord that appeared to exist between the two men dressed in white. HERE. Pope Ratzinger himself wrote that his “personal friendship” with Francis had grown: a friendship that was “personal” – that is, friendship that was his alone, a one-way relationship. Benedict XVI, the last Vicar of Christ, gave perfect fulfillment to Jesus’ commandment: “Love your enemies, and pray for your persecutors.” In all these years, he wanted believers to be separated from non-believers, as he himself declared to Herder Korrespondenz, and for the sheep to recognize their true shepherd by his smell, renewing the faith and fortifying the papacy.
Today the problem is communicating to the cardinals how this very special resignation of Pope Benedict took place, a resignation which brought the Church into a state of juridical suspension, a pontificate of exception, for the last ten years.
As a matter of fact, canon 335 prescribes that: “When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church.”
Currently, our journalistic investigation is being censored both on social media and by the mainstream media, bullied and ostracized even by a certain traditionalist world that has an interest in maintaining the status quo.
But the risk is enormous: if the next conclave includes even only one of the 81 invalid cardinals appointed by antipope Francis, another antipope will be elected who will also be devoid of the papal munus and thus, seen from the viewpoint of faith, he will be devoid of the assistance of the Holy Spirit. This would mean the end of the visible canonical church, with the continuation of Bergoglio’s antipapal line of succession. For this reason, when Peter Seewald asked Benedict if he could be the last pope as we have known the papacy to be, he replied: “Everything is possible” [“Tutto può essere”].
How to resolve the issue? A fearless canonical investigation promoted by the college of cardinals is needed immediately. After all, if Bergoglio were to sanction a cardinal who merelywanted to clarify things, he would implicitly be admitting that he does not have his cards in order.
Even easier, it would be enough to shout out the truth to the whole world and explain it, and then the antipope would be forced to abandon the throne.
Immediately afterward, it will be necessary to convoke a new conclave with the true cardinals appointed prior to 2013. It is already late: the deadline for convoking the conclave after the death of Benedict XVI was January 20, 2023. The Church is without a guide, without a pope: after more than nine years of an impeded see, we are now currently in a sede vacante.
It took ten years, but the truth, as Saint Augustine says, is like a lion: once she is set free, she defends herself.
Comments