Andrea Cionci: Censored Interview Interview transcript

The Italian journalist Andrea Cionci has requested I publish the following censored interview with his commentary.

__________________

There is no clear reason that may explain what is going on in the United States. This is already the second time that fellow American journalists have offered me an interview on my book “Ratzinger Code” investigation, (the most extensive and in-depth ever produced in the world on the resignation of Benedict XVI) they make me do the laborious work of translation… and then they don’t publish it.
I’m afraid the problem is about the ties of some American Catholic-conservative journalists to traditionalist church hierarchies.
The impeded See of Benedict XVI is the big taboo, the thing you can’t talk about because it would get a lot of people in trouble. To some it is much better to spread the blasphemous joke of a modernist and heretical Ratzinger who did not quite understand what the role of the Papacy was and had intended to double it to do a favor for Rahner and Kueng. This ridiculous version saves the armchair of many, too many. Or, better to spread the equally blasphemous fairy tale of a legitimate pope, Bergoglio, who, however, is not else than a heretic, such that he belies Christ’s promise, “Hell will not prevail.”
But the petition that was filed by the author with the Vatican Tribunal on June 6 will perhaps succeed in getting the Church to have the final word on the matter.
On May 2, a well-known American Catholic journalist offered me this interview, which I publish today, July 4, thanks to the Popehead website.
I have recently received inquiries from another well-known blogger, to whom I have sent everything, but have received no further communication.
We realize that the the issue is just too big. But God does things in a big way, and if it’s time for a cleanup, rest assured it will be a thorough cleanup.

Here is the censored interview:

1D). At what point after March 13, 2013, did you notice something seriously wrong with the unknown Argentine cardinal who was suddenly named “Pope Francis”? Was there something that triggered your investigation of the anti-Pope thesis?

1R). I have always loved Ratzinger and looked at Bergoglio with distrust, although I had never questioned about the line of succession. What made me curious and then roll up my sleeves to tackle this immense inquiry were first the question of the strange Latin errors in the Declaratio, and second the words of Benedict XVI, repeated for the umpteenth time in 2020, in an interview with Corriere della Sera: “There is only one Pope.” I discovered that this refrain had started in 2013 yet he never specified which one it was, although it seemed to be implied. The investigation got off to a great start by reading the book interview by Peter Seewald’s “Last Conversations” with Benedict (from 2016) where Benedict XVI wrote things unbelievable, such as “I am the first Pope to resign after a thousand years,” even if the last Pope who did it was Gregory XII in 1415.

2D). Most Catholics, if not all, have no idea that in history there have been more than 30 antiPopes. What is a good definition of “antiPope” that distinguishes this description from that of, say example, of the antichrist?

2R). I’m quoting from our popular Treccani encyclopedia, “AntiPope is one who is elected as Pope non-canonically and is therefore a competitor of the true and legitimate Pope, whose authority he usurps. He who adheres to the antiPope is schismatic and incurs the penalties established by the Code of Canon Law (can. 1364).” Being anti-Pope does not automatically mean being anti-Christian, so much so that we have had two holy antiPopes, St. Felix II, and St. Hippolytus, and we have had heretical antiPopes, such as Novatian. This variability depends on the fact that the antiPope does not have the Petrine munus, the divine investiture, the “seal of guarantee” by which God, through the Holy Spirit, makes the Pope infallible (not flawless) in extraordinary magisterium. But let us recall what Article 892 of the Catechism also says: “Divine assistance is also given […] in a special way, to the Bishop of Rome, Pastor of the whole Church, when, though without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” he proposes, in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium, a teaching that leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful must “adhere with religious reverence of the spirit,” which, while distinguished from the reverence of faith, nevertheless is its extension.” This is why the heretical Pope (i.e., pertinacious in error) cannot exist, so much so that there is no jurisprudence to depose him: if the Pope is heretical, he evidently was not elected in a canonical way. In fact that is what happened with Bergoglio. Therefore it makes no sense to disobey

“Pope Francis” if you recognize him as Pope. It is, indeed, an offense against the Holy Spirit and the figure of the Pontiff. Moreover I saw just now a request for the resignation of Pope Francis. The ultimate suicide and the best possible favor to the gnostic freemasonry: Bergoglio has nothing to resign from because he is not the Pope, asking for and accepting his eventual resignation opens the way for a conclave with his false cardinals that will give us another antiPope. The antipapal line of succession will continue, without munus, and the visible canonical Church will end. Without a true Pope there will be no more bishops and consequently validly ordained priests, and transubstantiation will disappear from the world. A petition perhaps stimulated by traditionalist circles that aim to preserve salaries and benefits.

3D). My investigation into the disturbing phenomenon of Francis began with the discovery of the crimes canonicals of the St. Gallen Mafia in the March 2013 Conclave. Cardinal Burke told me that he was “possible” that these crimes would invalidate the election. In light of the laws established in the Constitution apostolic “Universi Dominici Gregis” of 1995 by Pope John Paul II, have you focused on the possibility of an invalid Conclave?

3R). The U.D.G. indubitably proves the nullity of the 2013 conclave, but not for the reasons that have been mentioned, (since that – it seems strange – but excommunicated cardinals can still vote in conclave) but for the combined provisions of Articles 76 and 77 where it is blatantly clear that if the vacancy of the See by resignation of the Pontiff did not occur in accordance with canon law 332.2, the one that requires the renunciation of the Petrine Munus (which never occurred for Benedict), the election is null and void, without any intervening declaration in this regard. Under Card. Ratzinger the new 1983 canon law was enacted. To the canon law deputed to abdication was in that occasion for the first time added the need to renounce the munus. The U.D.G. was likely written by Ratzinger himself, who as Pope would modify it slightly with the motu proprio Normas Nonnullas. How can one just assume-as the theorists of the substantial error do- that Benedict XVI did not know that he had to renounce the munus if he wanted to abdicate?

4D).Let’s talk about his book “The Ratzinger Code” and his years of previous publications on the subject. Remember the first thing Pope Benedict said or wrote after announcing his Declaratio (which itself has a wrong name: it should have been titled Renunciatio) that made her realize that the Holy Father was dropping hint after hint that he knew he had not resigned validly?

4R). Unfortunately, I approached Magna Quaestio seven years later. So, the first sentences of Pope Benedict in “broad mental restriction” (which I, naively, had called “Codex Ratzinger”) I began to read and understand only in 2020. To be honest I was not born as a Vaticanist: I used to deal with art, archaeology, military history, the environment… therefore I am innocent from that point of view. The vaticanists who were following the issue should have instead begun to get suspicious from the very beginning, let’s say from 2014, when Pope Benedict replied to journalist Andrea Tornielli (now editorial director of Bergoglio’s communication) that he had kept his pontifical name and white robe because at the time of his renunciation he had “no other clothes available.” Such a ridiculous answer is explained because the impeded Pope does not have a specific cassock: the most practical thing, as an impeded person, was to keep his name and white robe, although he would modify it slightly by depriving himself of the cape and sash to signify how he had “laid down his robes,” like the Christ; that is, he had given up his power (because of the impeded see) to carry out his saving mission. Perhaps this is why Italian vaticanists most likely the catholic-conservatives detest me, ostracize me and fight against me: they should have understood this, since they were there. Yet they did not.

5D). In many traditional and conservative circles we read that the Latin words “munus” and “ministerium” mean the same thing, and that Pope Benedict XVI has certainly successfully resigned and is no longer the Pope as of 8 p.m. Rome time on Feb. 28, 2013. What do these terms mean in the context and why is this statement wrong?

5R). This statement is a real manipulative scam. Just read the introduction of the constitution Pastor Bonus and in paragraphs 1,2,3 it is explained that ministerium means service, that it is the munus which is transferred as investiture from Pope to Pope, and that munus and ministerium are different things.

Efficient cause and final cause. Benedict himself explains this in the Declaratio: “I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering.” Now, clearly the two are inseparable, because the munus is a spiritual essence, a gift from God that the Pope receives in order to apply it, to make it executive with the service. There is only one case in which the Pope retains the munus, but cannot exercise it, and that is precisely the impeded see, when the Pope is a prisoner, confined, exiled, not free to communicate. I usually simplify it with a trivial example to make it more understandable: the munus is like a driver’s license, so the title that comes from the ministry of transportation and which must then be exercised by driving, ministerium. The two go together, but not are synonymous: if one drives without a license he goes to jail, but if one is in jail, he cannot drive, and that’s not a possible cause to have his license taken away. Benedict’s resignation is not an abdication, but it is a sort of “offering himself freely” to the martyrdom of the impeded see. Such very special resignation is “valid” because it was the convocation of an abusive conclave, convened with an undead and non-abdicating Pope, that produced the impeded see, the only case in which the Pope must relinquish his power. The fact that Benedict accepted this martyrdom with the meekness of Christ does not deny his sacrifice. It is enough to enter into the perspective of faith to understand exactly what he did: one does not fight enemies with the sword, but with his own sacrifice.

6D). Some believe that Joseph Ratzinger has always been a modernist-progressive thinker and that, beginning in the 1960s, when he was a German peritus at the Second Vatican Council, he held some heretical views. One of these is the position that the papal office can be bifurcated between “munus” and “ministerium.”

6R). A ridiculous and outdated theory, that of Declaratio as an institution of the “modernitst double papacy.” If it were true, Benedict XVI would have quietly explained in the following 9 years as Pope emeritus that he too was Pope, only retired, like the bishop emeritus. Instead, he repeated in an obsessive way that “there was only one Pope.” Even at the time of the Council, Ratzinger never accepted this modernist theory that wanted to make the Pope as “pensionable” as the bishop who in fact, since the 1970s, after reacing the age of 75, he becomes emeritus. This is possible because the munus of the bishop is a sacrament, therefore indelible. Thus, in Diocese X we can have two bishops: the emeritus, who retains only the munus of the diocese, but loses the ministerium. The titular, who has both the munus and the ministerium. But the munus of the Pope is not a sacrament, but an office, a primacy solely of jurisdiction, which moreover is granted singularly by the Lord to Peter (can. 331). Therefore, ingeniously, Ratzinger said that if the loss of ministerium alone can occur for the bishop, the Pope when he loses the ministerium can also be said to be emeritus. He neglected to specify that if it is the Pope who loses the ministerium this can only occur in case of impeded see. Therefore, “Pope emeritus” is just a euphemism that stands for “impeded Pope.”

7D). According to these traditionalist critics, since the younger Ratzinger published this error theological-ecclesial error, the older Benedict committed a “substantial error,” and therefore his resignation is invalid. This is the same conclusion as yours, but with very different premises. The canon 188 states that a substantial error invalidates a papal resignation. Because this theoryof substantial error is wrong?

7R). In fact, it is true that by substantial error Benedict XVI remained Pope: he lacks the renunciation of the munus and can.188 makes it clear. The fact that Pope Benedict did not renounce the munus because, perhaps he had dementia, or because he was a “modernist,” or because he was a saint and a genius, does not really matter. The Declaratio is null and void and that’s all, and Bergoglio is an antiPope. That is why I had proposed an alliance to those who support the theory of the substantial error: “even for you the declaratio is null and void, so why don’t we form an alliance?” But instead, no: they do anything they can to fight against me. The substantial error theory is demolished by the correct translation of the Declaratio which is an absolute masterpiece of Latin, theology and canon law. Moreover, the previous work done by Card. Ratzinger on canon law and the endless messages in broad mental restriction by Pope Benedict show that he was totally aware of what he was doing and, what is even more serious, even his enemies were fully aware that he had not abdicated. Just listen to what Card. Sodano immediately after his Declaratio said. He speaks of “the end of pontifical service.” he never talks about resignation, abdication and or similar. Too many people knew everything long ago, that’s why today they pretend nothing is wrong and just do not intervene.

8D).How do you explain that so few Orthodox Catholic leaders, both lay and clergy, are so allergic to the AntiPope’s evidence? They do not even want to read a word of it, or they dismiss it as insane sedevacantism.

8R). From the perspective of faith, it is called “power of deception.” It is a movie they have seen before. The characters are all there: the iniquitous man, the katechon, the little remnant, the “final proof” (art. 675 CCC) and then there are also the Pharisees, those who clean the rim of the plate and do not see that it is full of lies. Those who filter out the gnat of John Paul II’s Assisi and then swallow the camel of the anti-Christic antiPope. It is an ugly mix of pride, misunderstanding, inability to reason, intellectual pointiness, professional envy, economic or caste interests, fear, dullness, gatekeeping etc. There is no Logos, the reason that reveals the truth. So they defend themselves with the pathetic CIA-made category of “conspiracy.” Understanding places you out of your comfort zone: then you have to roll up your sleeves and fight, risk sanctions, risk being attacked. In fact, the paradox is that this reality was first embraced and supported by lay people who, since not part of the Church, had no difficulty in seeing the real thing. A bad page for Christians: from that they were being devoured by lions in circuses, today they are whitening over a suspension a divinis moreover invalid as it was imposed by an antiPope.

9D).Why do you think the late Holy Father chose the title “Pope Emeritus”? What does it mean?

9R).(I answered above, perhaps this question could be eliminated?)

10D).Some Catholics are upset by the idea that the meek and wise Pope Benedict lied when journalists like Peter Seewald asked him if he is the real Pope. Has Benedict ever lied?

10R). Benedict XVI has never lied, not even for a second. How did he do that? With the so called broad mental restriction. You have to document yourself, you will find it in any textbook of moral theology. A Christian has to tell the truth, but sometimes, telling it to those who do not deserve it could produce very serious consequences. That is why the broad mental restriction is a subtly logical way of telling the truth and let enemies understand what they want. “There is only one Pope,” Benedict replied: it could be Francis, but he does not specify it at all and therefore does not lie. “Dum tacet clamat.” Sometimes he did not even used the restriction, as when he said, “There is no doubt that my resignation from the Ministry is valid.” You can check how those who manipulated the translations (even falsifying the German one, with the switching of places between munus-Amt and ministerium-Dienst) have homologated, in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish and French, munus and ministerium with the same word “ministry.” So Benedict is telling the truth: he renounced the ministry-ministerium due to the impeded see, in fact who can say that he ruled from 2013 to 2022? The problem is ours and it’s because of the brainwashing we have undergone these years that leads us to see things that do not exist.

11D). Have you ever received confirmation from Pope Benedict XVI on the conclusions of your book?

11R). In 2021 I received from him, through Msgr. Gaenswein a reply to an interview request of mine: “Even with all good intentions, it is really not possible to meet your request.” I would like to, but I cannot. Obviously, as an impeded Pope he could not receive whom he wanted. More importantly, I would have asked him

questions that would have been difficult to answer in broad mental restriction. A typical characteristic of the impeded see is that the Pope is not allowed to communicate freely, and he never explicitly said that he was in impeded see precisely so that the impeded sede would not lapse. When I wrote him, I had been writing already for a year and a half in the news paper Libero unprecedented things: that he was still Pope, that Francis was antiPope… Benedict could have flatly denied me, and instead … “albeit with every good intention …”! I know he received the book, furtively. And he never denied it, just as he never denied Fr. Alessandro Minutella.

12D).Do you think his longtime secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, knows that his late mentor and spiritual father continued to be the real Pope after February 2013?

12R). Of course Archbishop Gaenswein knows everything, which is why he is harassed by Bergoglio. He has been the most faithful servant of the Pope, disciplined, loving and diligent bearer of the messages in broad mental restriction, such as when at Lumsa University he reported Pope Benedict’s explosive words, “If you do not believe, the answer is in the book of Jeremiah,” a book where we read the phrase, a unique case in the entire Bible, “I am impeded.” The prophet was in fact impeded, locked in a cistern and communicating with the outside world through his secretary, Baruch. Yet, there are traditionalists who say that such a reference is coincidental … and then one realizes that it is not worth even worth arguing with these people. I fear that Gaenswein is in a very difficult position, one has to support him totally. I hope someone will offer him asylum and financial aid, should he want to tell the truth and break the bank. I offer to post whatever he wants on my channel. Moreover, he risks much more by being exiled to some distant nunciature than by remaining in the spotlight, telling the truth. It is possible, however, that Pope Benedict has forced him to not to speak, waiting for the People of God to move.

13D).The big question for me is: WHY? Why would Pope Benedict – who obviously loved Christ and His Church – would subject the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church to such a devastation and wickedness such as we have seen under Bergoglio?

13R). Because the mutiny against him was total and life-threatening, as revealed by the Mordkomplott of Vatileaks. In the coming days I will publish an article about an attack suffered by Pope Benedict of which has never been known. Had he died at the helm, there would have been a valid conclave and you would have Bergoglio as a legitimate Pope. Instead, in this way, he has allowed the gnostic anti-Church that, from the beginning constitutes the “persecution that accompanies the pilgrimage of the Church on earth” (Art.675 of the Catechism), manifest itself, scandalizing faithful. Benedict triggered two processes, bringing to maturity the wheat and the darnel so that the latter could eventually be thrown into the fire, as legally arranged by him. He already in 2016 in the book “Last Conversations” provided us with all the elements to understand. Yet we continue not wanting to understand, talking about “heretical Pope.” praying for the “conversion of Pope Francis” and allowing the antiPope to continue to produce devastation. It would have been a light yoke, an antiPope of only 3 years, but evidently mankind has to suffer enough before they become aware. The big question is, why the traditionalist cardinals appointed before 2013 who could with a breath blow Bergoglio away continue to evade the question? I have never been able to get one of them to talk to me. Yet, all it takes is for one of those 110 contacted through my petition HERE say “vere papa mortuus est,” the legitimate Pope is dead”, to make the nightmare vanish. But there are interests, fears, pride etc. and all that non Christian junk. Yet the first prelate who wants to be Pope just needs to tell the truth.

14D). Canon 188 itself “A resignation made out of grave fear, unjustly inflicted or malice, substantial error or simony, is invalid by the law itself.” If Pope Benedict was forced in criminal manner to leave by agents of the deep state on behalf of globalist interests anti-Christians, including the CIA under Barack Obama, then would this not constitute an additional reason for the resignation to be invalid?

14R). It is less easily demonstrable. Besides, he did not make an abdication, but only announced his own impeded see. What needs to be understood is that he did OTHER than what is thought. He did not make a Renuntiatio, but only an announcement like “Some of you will betray me.” Remarkable to see how Card. Sodano then even gives him a kiss after this statement of his. Moreover, an abdication could never be announced, deferred in time, because it is an act legally pure, It would be like saying at a wedding, “I declare that I take Jenny as my wife but the marriage becomes valid in one month.” Simply unthinkable. Conversely, Benedict could certainly prophesy that at a certain date he would be dethroned. At hora vigesima, in fact, that, in the Roman reading of the Italic dial of Castel Gandolfo places the time between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. on March 1, the first hour after the illegitimate conclave was convened. Here an animation to understand the ingenious ploy.

and here

the in-depth

15D).There are people who have approached her privately saying they agree with her book, but who are too afraid to make the message public?

15R). Yes, a lot of priests, nuns, deacons, who, however, cannot come out in the open. Even cardinals: there was one who wrote to me, “We hope your book will enlighten minds,” but I pledged not to reveal his name. And my word of honor is sacred to me. Remarkable how Secretary of State Parolin, on Nov. 20, 2023, replied thanking me for sending the inquiry, July 3, informing me that he had taken cognizance of it. The political gesture might give pause for thought, but let us stop at the objective data. In fact Parolin did not deny anything, as Pope Benedict already did not deny me. As of 20 November 2023 the Church can no longer say “we did not know.”

16D). Now we come to the most important question of all: how to get out of this mess? We have had more than 30 antiPopes, but none has been active while the real Pontiff is dead. What do you think is the best to resolve this crisis and certify that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never the Pope of the Catholic Church? Something similar to what was accomplished at the Council of Sutri in 1046?

16R). Yes, the tragedy we are living is that the whole world has been without a Pope since December 31, 2022, and the Church still has not realized that the Pope is dead. However, there is nothing to invent, or improvise. Benedict XVI was German (born 1927): we Italians know how to make do and improvise, the Germans on the other hand plan everything, leave nothing to improvisation. Since ’96 you have the Universi Dominici Gregis written as the closing of this ingenious anti-usurpation device: art. 3 gives the duty to the cardinals to intervene to protect the rights of the see (and not to let them lapse even to avoid dissensions – schisms). Articles 76 and 77 certify the nullity of the 2013 conclave, the nullity of “Pope Francis,” elected when the legitimate Pope was impeded and not abdicatory. It only takes one legitimate cardinal to say that the Pope is dead and it only takes 3 to elect the true successor to Benedict XVI.

Only the cardinals have this power; the bishops, however, can encourage them and lift up the Catholics. It is the most useful thing they can do and they need not fear excommunication since nothing Bergoglio has done is valid. However, we need to get out of this clerical mentality of hiding everything under the rug and to wash the dirty laundry in the family. Benedict XVI wanted a scandalous, eschatological final, to sweep away ecclesiastical freemasonry and its creed, gnosis, the ancient parasite, (the Church of the devil spoken of by the theologian Tychonius) that lurks in the Church of Christ and which periodically comes out in various forms: Catharism, Lutheranism, modernism, theology of liberation etc. When the whole world realizes that it has been swindled about the Pope, perceived even at the unconscious level, as a total guarantee figure, there will finally be an evolutionary leap. That “new world” that makes peace with logic and truth, which Pope Benedict announced.

17D). Andrea, congratulations on The Ratzinger Code and thank you for your courageous testimony to the truth. I know you have suffered many absurd attacks from Catholics who should know better. Any final thoughts for my readers?

17R). A thought of respect for their intelligence, first of all. Do not take my words, see for yourselves the facts and documents.

At https://www.codiceratzinger.eu/en you will find

three short documentaries summarizing the situation. On my channel,

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQPjj9DqbDzmtxODXR1EKXg