25 Maggio 2022 Pubblicato da Marco Tosatti

Marco Tosatti

Dear friends and foes of Stilum Curiae, in recent days we hosted an open letter by Prof. Edmund Mazza directed to Andrea Cionci. We are pleased to host Cionci’s reply. Enjoy reading it.

§§§

A response to Prof. Mazza. The objective canonical situation makes the “Ratzinger Code” understandable.

By Andrea Cionci

With gratitude, I welcomed the open letter of Prof. Mazza, whom I respect and appreciate, and I thank Marco Tosatti for giving us an opportunity to discuss the argument. Yesterday I replied to Mr. Mark Docherty on the general aspects of the Impeded See, discussing his more general positions on Substantial Error:

https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/31706609/mr-docherty-il-codice-ratzinger-svela-benedetto-xvi-papa-legittimo-contemplativo-francesco-illegittimo-attivo.html (link to eng version).

With Prof. Mazza, however, I have the wonderful opportunity to illustrate some of the most significant messages in Ratzinger Code. He, in fact, gets right to the heart of the matter by quoting the ones that I like the most.

However, in order to frame the situation, it is absolutely crucial to understand the logic of such messages.

Benedict factually renounces “ministerium”, the practical exercise of power, voluntarily. He deferred the act and never ratified it by any signature or declaration after 8 p.m. of Feb. 28, 2013. Such a scenario is possible only in an unprecedented, ingenious case of self-exile into Impeded See (described by can. 412). In this way, in fact, the 2013 conclave could not be convened, so Bergoglio never existed as pope: a formidable defense system that would only be discovered after a time of maturation.

Benedict, in the hands of the anti-pope, cannot explicitly declare him as prisoner: that is why he speaks (through Archbishop Gaenswein) of “some kind of expanded ministry” between the two successors of St. Peter, who both live in the Vatican: a contemplative LEGITIMATE pope, therefore “emeritus”, that is “the one who is entitled”, “who deserves” to be pope – and an active ILLEGITIMATE pope. Such an operation, called Plan B, adopted by Pope Ratzinger after he was under unprecedented pressure to abdicate, means that Bergoglio and the whole modernist cancer has been brought out, to maturity, like an abscess, to be finally expelled by a purifying schism.

The Impeded See, by its very nature, means that Benedict cannot speak openly, since he is a prisoner, so he resorts to a subtle method of communication: under the guise of flaky “politically correct” phrases, he conceals the core of an opposite and coherent meaning, decodable by logical means. This is not at all an alchemical or numerological code, as ventilated by those who speak of “gnosis.”

I often give an example dear to Americans: the U.S. military pilot Jeremiah Denton, captured by the North Vietnamese. Forced by torturers to repeat on camera a speech about how well U.S. prisoners were being treated, Denton, blinking, spelled out the word “TORTURE.” If the Us Navy Secret Service had not sharpened its eyesight, intrigued by that strange “conjunctivitis,” Denton today would have the reputation of someone who died in a golden Vietnamese cage and simply had a nervous tic or corneal discomfort. Substantial error theorists -pardon the comparison- search Denton’s juvenile medical history for clues to find signs of latent conjunctivitis or nervous tics, but have so far refused to consider the fit of the pilot’s rhythmic blinking with the letters of Morse Code.

The whole Ratzinger Code must be understood as the language of a person WHO IS IN THE HANDS OF HIS KIDNAPPERS and who therefore cannot speak freely.

Therefore, I beg Prof. Mazza to be extremely careful about this sub-language, which, when it is not unambiguously logical, is consistently amphibological, an element that constitutes another indisputable fact. (If out of 100 pronouncements, every time there is a double possible interpretation, this is an unambiguous and probative fact.)

Other things to consider: Benedict XVI was very happy that Bergoglio came out of the fake conclave because his clumsy way of revealing his own nature and intentions make it clear, a mile away, that he is not the pope. However, Benedict loves him, Christianly, as Jesus with Judas, who allowed himself to be kissed and betrayed by him, and he prays for him.

Important: Benedict XVI understands his resignation as a factual retirement from the practical exercise of power, the ministerium, and not at all as abdication. So much so that he writes in “Ein Leben” that he had nothing to do with Celestine V, the abdicator par excellence. In fact, the book speaks of “Abdankung” – abdication only for popes who really abdicated and “Rücktritt” – resignation, only for Ratzinger. There will certainly be a day when Benedict will no longer be in the Impeded See and then all can be revealed. One can imagine when.

Then there’s the Prof. Mazza’s objection : “In my opinion, the evidence is insurmountable that Pope Benedict intended to renounce something.”

Of course he intended to renounce something, and he did! However, not in legal terms, de jure, but de facto. As if, from tomorrow, the Holy Father were to renounce drinking coffee after lunch: a renunciation is there, but it has nothing juridical. As I pointed out in my response to Mark Docherty, Pope Benedict made a simple statement. The fact that this was an abdication of juridical value, a “Renuntiatio” to the papacy, is only our mental projection, but in fact it rests on nothing. So much so that, listening again to the speech read by Card. Sodano, blatantly written by Benedict XVI, there is not the slightest confirmation that Pope Ratzinger was abdicating. On the contrary.

And here is the “evidence” Prof. Mazza brings: quotes from that gold mine of Ratzinger Codes that is precisely “Last Testament” by Peter Seewald (translated from the italian version, Garzanti 2016).

Seewald: “You say that you also consulted about this decision… With your Superior. How does that work?”

Ratzinger: “One must set out before Him all the reasons as clearly as possible, and try not to indicate as reasons for renunciation only efficiency or other categories, but to look at things from the point of view of faith. It was precisely from this perspective that I came to the conviction that the Petrine ministry required me to make concrete decisions, evaluations… but that then, when in the not-too-distant future this would no longer be possible for me, the Lord would no longer want it from me and would release me from the burden.”

Perfect. Pope Benedict asked for inspiration from the Lord before he renounced the ministerium and thus factually self-exiled himself to an Impeded See. Of course, this would have meant inefficiencies, trouble for the Church. But the operation was necessary, in order to save the FAITH. In this way, in fact, Benedict “schismed” all modernists, separating “believers from non-believers,” as he told the “Herder Korrespondenz.” The situation was so serious that it required a concrete decision, precisely, and it will be the Lord who will decide when to release him from the burden of this decision, from the Impeded See. (The sooner he will be understood, the sooner he will be free).

Prof. Mazza quotes the passage in which Benedict speaks of his resignation in the context of the curial retreat, that took place after the delivery of his Declaratio:

Ratzinger: “… retreats are places of silence, of listening, of prayer. Of course it was part of the whole plan for the resignation that it was followed by a week of silence, in which everyone could process it inwardly, or at least the bishops, cardinals and Curia staff.”

Seewald: “Immediately after the announcement of your decision, as always after Ash Wednesday, the Lent spiritual exercises for the curia began. At least, on that occasion was there any talk of resignation?”

Ratzinger: “No. The exercises are moments of silence and listening, moments of prayer. I had foreseen that the announcement would be followed by a week of silence, in which everyone would be able to reflect in their depths on what had happened: at least the bishops, the cardinals and the collaborators of the curia. A week away from external things to be together in recollection before the Lord.”

Of course: Pope Benedict gave the prelates 7 days to reflect on Declaratio, but no one talked about it. They didn’t ask whether it was a royal abdication or something else. He predicted that they would not think things through, despite the recollection of the curial retreat. Both faithful and unfaithful cardinals did not understand what was happening. It was certainly not easy, and he had foreseen it.

Seewald: “Did you regret resigning, even for a minute?”

Ratzinger: “No. No, no. I see every day that it was the right thing to do.”

Of course: every day Pope Benedict can see that he was right to retire into the Impeded See, and “to schism” the heretics.

Prof. Mazza asks, “Why does Benedict repeatedly speak of resignation if this was not his intention?”

Because his intention was to resign the ministerium, not to abdicate the munus. He de facto renounced the practical exercise of power and not – de jure – the divine investiture as pope.

Mazza then quotes the testimony from the last general audience on Feb. 27, 2013:

“In these last months I have felt my energies diminishing, and I have insistently asked God in prayer to grant me his light and to help me make the right decision, not for my own good, but for the good of the Church. I took this step with full awareness of its seriousness and also its novelty, but with deep inner serenity.”

Sure: the plan of the Impeded See was a final plan, a final tabula rasa, an important, serious decision. But he made it with the inspiration of the Lord. Benedict had no more energy to cope with the mutiny and the internal and external pressures to get out of the way. Most important to note is the typical “logic bug” that makes the Ratzinger Code recognizable: the mention of the novelty of that step. If it were an abdication, where would be the novelty? There have been 10 popes abdicated in the history of the Church. What is absolutely new, however, is for a pope to self-exile in an Impeded See, to imprison himself in the hands of the usurping antipope in order “to schism” him.

Ratzinger: “Let me return once again to April 19, 2005. The gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was committed always and forever to the Lord. Always – one who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. It always and completely belongs to everyone, to the whole Church… The “always” is also a “forever”: there is no longer a return to the private. My decision to give up active ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, etc. I do not abandon the cross, but remain in a new way with the crucified Lord. I no longer carry the power of the [Petrine] office for the government of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, as it were, in the precincts of St. Peter. St. Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example to me in this. He has shown us the way to a life that, active or passive, belongs totally to the work of God.”

Frankly, I do not understand why Prof. Mazza quotes this which is the most patent statement of the fact that Benedict is still THE pope. First of all, the fact that he was forever committed to the Lord depends on Benedict’s will alone because there is a canon, 332.2, that provides for abdication. So it is not that being elected pope per se necessarily implies that the office cannot be abdicated. The decision of the impeded see thus comes from the fact that he did not WANT to abdicate at all, because he wanted to remain committed FOREVER as pope. In fact, he candidly confirms this: the renunciation of the active exercise of power, the ministerium does not revoke the fact of BEING pope. Renunciation of ministerium does not revoke the munus, we know that, right? Ratzinger no longer carries the practical power of the office, the “doing,” but carries only the “being” of the office, the divine investiture as pope. He remains in the “enclosure” of St. Peter’s: what is this enclosure? Besides vague Vatican walls, it can clearly designate the “enclosure” of the prison, of the Impeded See. The mention of St. Benedict, finally, is plausibly in reference to the attempted poisoning (see Vatileaks’ Mordkomplott) by the brethren that the saint of Norcia endured: but his life as pope, whether active or passive-contemplative, is in the hands of the Lord.

Prof. Mazza then quotes, inexplicably, Benedict’s own Declaratio, i.e., exactly the workhorse with which we demonstrated the impeded See

https://www.fromrome.info/2021/08/18/andrea-cionci-benedict-xvis-was-a-declaration-of-impeded-see-not-a-renunciation/

“…to govern the barque of St. Peter and to proclaim the Gospel, it is also necessary to have vigor both of body and soul, vigor which, in recent months, has diminished in me in such a way as to have to recognize my inability to administer well the ministry entrusted to me. Therefore, well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom, I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter, entrusted to me by the hands of the Cardinals on April 19, 2005, so that, as of February 28, 2013, at 8:00 p.m., the See of Rome, the See of St. Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave for the election of the new Supreme Pontiff must be convoked by those whose competence it is.”

The Declaratio – in the Latin version, the only legal one – is exactly is the key to understanding everything. With full freedom, (no one forced him to withdraw INTO IMPEDED SEE) Benedict declares that he is (in fact) renouncing the exercise of the practical power that, together with the munus, was entrusted to him at the election. So that as of 8 p.m. Feb. 28, the See of Rome, the See of St. Peter will remain EMPTY, AND NOT VACANT. In August we translated correctly, with four Latin professors, including two from “La Sapienza” in Rome, the verb “vacet” which was illegitimately translated as “vacant See.” The vernacular translation (which makes no text legally) is wrong in primis, because the renunciation of the ministerium, as you well know, does not produce the Vacant See, (which is given by the formally correct abdication simultaneous with the munus). In secundis, because, as pointed out by lawyer Arthur Lambauer, Benedict talks about the fanciful “See of Rome” and “See of St. Peter,” which do not exist in canon law and, above all, have no juridical status to be left vacant, since this can only occur for the APOSTOLIC SEE.

Therefore, the correct translation of the sentence is, “so that as of February 28, 2013, at 8:00 p.m., the See of Rome, the See of St. Peter’s, will be EMPTY”

And indeed, Benedict XVI, at 5 p.m. on Feb. 28, with a scenic helicopter flight leaves the physical See EMPTY. Available to whoever wants it. He knows it is likely to be usurped and so, with another objective phrase he admonishes, “And I declare that a Conclave must be convoked for the election of the new Supreme Pontiff by those whom competence it is”

Why does he not say “by the cardinals”? Because knowing that the See, left empty and not vacant, would be usurped by an antipope (abusively elected with himself neither dead nor abdicated), this would appoint invalid cardinals. (In fact, if one went to a conclave today with the 70 invalid cardinals of Bergoglian appointment, another antipope would emerge.) Thus, Benedict specifies that the next true pope, (so certainly not Bergoglio or whomever who came out of the fake 2013 conclave), should be elected only by TRUE CARDINALS of Ratzingerian or, at most, Wojtylian appointment. And indeed on this recently Bishop Viganò has made great openings:

https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/31199772/il-codice-ratzinger-lettera-monsignor-vigano-benedetto-xvi-impedito-papa-francesco-impedito.html

According to Mazza, in the interview with Seewald, Benedict recognizes Francis as the new pope.

Ratzinger: “The new Pope, however, is Southern American and Italian, so he represents both the intertwining of the new and the old world and the internal unity of history.”

Of course: as we anticipated, he talks about “Pope Francis” because he is the illegitimate pope, while he is the emeritus, the one who deserves, who has the right to be pope. In fact, he has never said for nine years that, “the pope is only one and He is (verb “to be”) Francis.” That is why Ratzinger calls him Pope Francis, but he never says that HE IS the pope.

There is then a wonderful amphibology about the “old world and the new world.” On the one hand, the banal geographical fact, on the other the eschatological-temporal one: the new world is the one to which Benedict, later in the book, says he already belongs, but which has not yet begun. A new world that will make peace with Christianity and where the Church will be purified.

Ratzinger: “(Bergoglio) is certainly also a reflecting pope. When I read his writing, Evangelii gaudium, or even interviews, I see that he is a reflective man, one who meditates on current issues. At the same time, however, he is a very direct person with his fellow human beings, used to always being with others.”

This is absolutely fantastic. Later he will say that Evangelii gaudium “is not a short text at all,” humorously meaning that it is not an “apostolic brief” because it does not come from a true pope. The quoted phrases are part of those APPARENT praises I wrote about HERE https://sfero.me/article/ratzinger-code-prayer-of-reparation-for-russia-and-the-apparent-praise-of-benedict-xvi-for-pope-francis

A most enjoyable and ironic florilegium of entirely neutral remarks Pope Ratzinger makes about Bergoglio, that do not implies any positive appreciation of the man, the pope or his magisterium.

Example: if I were an anti-communist intellectual in 1950s Russia, and a Pravda reporter asked me what I thought of Stalin, I, torn between the need to say what I think and the risk of ending up in a gulag. I could certainly answer something as: “He is a man of great political experience, who makes difficult decisions and is very careful about what the people think of him.” In fact, I would not be making any positive judgments about the hated Stalin, but I would be admitting some facts: namely, that Stalin has been doing politics from a young age, that he exterminates opponents, and that he is maniacally careful about consensus. You know what I mean?

Not only that, but in these apparent appreciations, Pope Ratzinger also inserts some irresistible jokes, as when he writes, “(Bergoglio) wrote me a very nice personal letter with that tiny handwriting of his. It is much smaller than mine. I write big in comparison.” Anyone with a little sense of humor understands the allusion to the stature of the two magisteriums, isn’t it?

In the case of the phrase quoted by Prof. Mazza, Bergoglio is “direct with his peers.” Is this perhaps an appreciation? No. It could also mean that he treats his subordinates brutally, as in fact is said to happen. Is the fact that he “stands among others” something positive in itself? No.

More importantly, that recurrence in a few lines of the verb “reflect”… To me, frankly, it immediately suggested that bishop dressed in white seen in the mirror that you well should know. Perhaps it may be a suggestion of mine, but, surely, even Stalin could be a reflective man, direct with others and always immersed among the people. He would always remain a detested dictator to me.

Seewald (Ein Leben): “On March 23, 2013, the first meeting between the newly elected and the resigning pope took place in Castel Gandolfo, a first in history. What were his thoughts in those hours?”

Ratzinger: “I knew Pope Francis from the time of his visit ad limina, and thanks to the various correspondence contacts that my congregation had with him. I also knew that he had tried to call me immediately after his election, even before he showed himself to the people from the lodge of St. Peter’s.”

On this episode, Benedict returns several times. He seems to have been rather annoyed by this early (probably triumphalist) call from Bergoglio, and we understand this in “Last Testament,” immediately after the spectacular message of the “Red Mozzetta”

https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/30090619/jorge-bergoglio-abusivamente-vestito-bianco-geniale-messaggio-mozzetta-codice-ratzinger.html

when he says, regarding the fact that Bergoglio had not shown up with the traditional purple mantle at the pseudo-election, “The thing did not touch me in the least. What did touch me, however, is that even before going out on the lodge he wanted to call me, but he did not find me because we were precisely in front of the television set.” (Also in German berürhen – touch). Now, the amphibological play is on the double meaning of “touched”: moved/ bumped, annoyed. Benedict says, “It didn’t bother me that he showed up without a red mozzetta, what bothered me (same meaning) is that he tried to call me before he faced the lodge, but he didn’t find me.” And do you know why? Another very tasty amphibological Ratzinger Code explains it:

Seewald: “Did you follow the conclave from there (Castelgandolfo)? In what way?”

Ratzinger: “Of course we did not receive anybody, it is clear, nor did we have contact with the outside world, but what you could watch on television we watched. Especially on the evening of the election.”

What could be watched – about what? Of the conclave, or perhaps, what could be watched in general? A documentary, a movie, a talk show: certainly the pope does not watch dancers. The object complement is completely missing, so, with a tasty amphibology, Benedict lets us know that he was totally disinterested in the conclave and on TV he watched anything else, especially on the climactic evening. In fact, when Bergoglio called, he did not answer because he was following on TV what “could be watched” Fundamental to understanding the Ratzinger Code is often understanding what Benedict says NOT.

Ratzinger: “I was looking forward to meeting my successor and was aware and grateful that it would be the happy meeting between two brothers. As for the rest, I naturally thought about what to say to him, without taking up too much of his time. Our first meeting remains etched in my memory as a bright moment. As you know, the personal friendship with Pope Francis has not only remained but has been growing over time.”

Brothers: like Esau and Jacob? Like Cain and Abel? The friendship is “personal,” that is, amphibologically, it is only Benedict’s, who still loves his Judah.

Pope Ratzinger was very happy that Bergoglio was elected. We covered this in an article.

“When I heard the name, at first I was unsure. But when I saw how he spoke on the one hand to God, on the other hand to men, I was really happy.”

When he saw the -terrible- way he spoke to God and to men, he was overjoyed. In fact, if a more subtle and seemingly more orthodox character had come out, it would really have been a problem to distinguish him from the real pope, the emeritus. Instead, Bergoglio, with his brutal devastations of Catholicism and his gaffes, every day, indicates to us with neon lights that he is NOT the pope and he is NOT Catholic.

Finally, Prof. Mazza writes, “I could quote many more examples, but these should suffice.”

Please Professor, overwhelm me with more examples. Just from a statistical analysis of Pope Benedict’s sentences one can understand his subtle, transparent and essential logic and, above all, it serves to take our “pulse” so much so that even ordinary readers today send me witty Ratzinger codes found by themselves.

Mazza continues, “In conclusion, I appeal to you, Mr. Cionci, to consider how difficult it is to believe that Benedict did not intend to resign. It is unimaginably more difficult to argue that not only did he not intend to resign, but that he is sending us cryptic messages to confirm it.

Now that Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano is calling for an investigation into Benedict’s resignation and Francis’ election, the last thing we need is to lose credibility by proposing theories that open us so easily to ridicule and accusations of gnosticism.

In Jesus and Mary,

Edmund J. Mazza, PhD”

Dear Professor, the only thing to do is to call for an investigation into Benedict’s renunciation since the irregularities on Bergoglio’s election could be remedied by the Universalis Ecclesiae Adhaesio.

Please consider with the GREATEST ATTENTION a two-year investigation, carried out in 200 articles and in a 340-page book whose results were not refuted even by the Holy Father Benedict XVI when he honored me with a letter from himself:

https://sfero.me/article/pope-benedict-xvi-send-letter-confirming

in which, in addition to providing me with the only answer he could give from an Impeded See, he used Msgr. Gaenswein’s stationery with his own – unheard of – reigning pope’s coat of arms.  PLEASE REMEMBER THAT, CANONICALLY, BENEDICT HAS A PRISONER STATUS AND THEREFORE SPEAKS AS SUCH. Obviously, if this was not the case, and the theorists of Substantial Error were right, in case the pope still wanted to deign to answer me, he should have corrected me with the utmost severity and precision, given what I’ve been promulgating for the past two years in national newspapers.

Dear Professor, I have provided logical answers to all of Pope Benedict’s phrases that you have reported. I am waiting for you to do the same with the more blatantly obvious phrases, with the “Kilometer-Zero” messages I submitted to you last time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao_HtjfqJZI  and

https://sfero.me/article/substantial-error-the-ratzinger-code-a-message-to-ms-barnhardt-and-prof-mazza-pope-benedict-xvi-is-a-genius

What I prospect may seem absurd, shocking, but no less absurd than believing that Joseph Ratzinger, among the greatest intellectuals of the 20th century, was still unclear about the role of the pope after 60 years of his ecclesiastical career, or that he is somewhat ignorant or deceitful despite being the Vicar of Christ assisted by the Holy Spirit.

Do you think it was possible to use invisible ink or any easy trick, understandable in two minutes, to “lead into temptation” cardinals who had passed to the Enemy?

Also be careful, please, because an attitude of condescension here does not offend me, but it can be exacerbating for the entire Catholic Church. The Ratzinger Code requires concentration and preparation: an intellectual of your stature has all the resources to understand it. I remind you that such a system of communication has been “certified” by university professors, linguists, Latinists , lawyers, jurists:

https://sfero.me/article/pope-and-antipope-the-inquiry-the-ratzinger-code-is-reality-courageous-intellectuals-vs-bishops-part-32

and it is by no means an exclusive projection of the “poor fool” Andrea Cionci. There is really nothing ridiculous about it, rest assured.

This is an extremely, extremely serious matter. Moreover, what I have illustrated opens up a stupendous, decisive scenario, entirely compatible with the Catholic faith and with a divine plan that, instead, disappears altogether in the gloomy theory of an ignorant and modernist pope who, despite the assistance of the Holy Spirit (art. 892 CCC) sends the Catholic Church to slaughter.

Your legitimate – and very useful – disbelief now takes on a historic, fundamental importance: You are the test case on which to test this reality, the trial by fire. A fair and unprejudiced confrontation conducted on a logical basis is the most valuable thing you can have. I do not propose to be immediately believed by you, but I would beg to be continually pressed by you all, serious and authoritative proponents of Substantial Error. Because only by being able to brief on each of the phrases that you’re more skeptical of, we can get to a shared conclusion.

Thank you for your patience in following me so far, I remain at your disposal publicly and privately. With kind regards,

Andrea Cionci

§§§

Condividi i miei articoli:

Tag: cionci, MAZZA

Categoria: Generale