Fake News?
Andrea Cionci: Did Bergoglio Know? A new article by Andrea Cionci
The journalist Andrea Cionci has once again asked me to publish one of his articles regarding the March 2013 Vatican coup d’état and color revolution in the Catholic Church.
_______________
How Bergoglio Knew about Benedict XVI’s Non-Abdication
“Brothers and sisters, good evening!”, Bergoglio snarkily chirped as he greeted more than 100,000 souls in Saint Peter’s Square when he made his appearance eleven years ago on 13 March 2013 ravenly perched from the central balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica following his false election, the result of an illegitimate conclave summoned to usurp a still living and reigning Pope Benedict XVI, not having abdicated but now existing in an impeded See.
HERE There are many people who, on the sidelines of the current 107 lectures on The Ratzinger Code repeatedly comment to us, “From the precise moment that Bergoglio parroted those words, I knew he could not be the legitimate Pope.”
At this point, the most pressing question is whether or not Bergoglio knew from the outset that Benedict in fact had not abdicated or indeed only later had discovered it.
In order to find an answer to our question, we just need to put together a series of objective facts in chronological order.
(This article, signed by 15 lawyers, has already been sent to the Vatican Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin).
07 February 2013: Pope Benedict gives Archbishop Gaenswein a sheet of paper with the Declaratio written only in Latin. The document is then submitted to then Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, and Msgr. Godler, the latter of whom suggests “minor spelling corrections and some legal clarifications” with some “changes in style” to be made.
10 February 2013: the Declaratio is translated at the Secretariate of State into English, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Polish with the inaccurate and false homologation and identification of the words munus and ministerium with the same word (ministry, ministére, ministerio etc.). In spite of the above mentioned minor changes, no one asked the Holy Father why he had not declared to renounce the munus, as required by can. 332.2 of the Code of Canon Law (CIC). No one even raised the issue of the unacceptable deferment and postponement to 28 February 2013 of a juridically pure act as the Pope’s abdication should be. In fact, as noted by the canon law expert, Francesco Patruno, a “pure act” is obligated to be simultaneous in its application and subsequent enactment.
More importantly, the German version is outright falsified, with the exchange of Munus–Amt in place of Ministerium–Dienst. Furthermore, according to the German translation, Benedict declares that he would renounce the munus–Amt, as required by can. 332.2.
This shows a definite desire to force the act towards an abdication, in complete disregard for the content of the Declaratio as well as the Pontiff’s real intentions.
11 February 2013: Immediately after Pope Benedict XVI pronounced the Declaratio, the College’s of Cardinals Dean, Angelo Sodano, delivers a short speech where he surgically elides any reference to resignation, abdication, or renunciation of the Papacy. Here is what he says: “Holy Father, before 28 February, as you said, the day when you wish to put an end to this Pontifical Service of yours done with so much love….”. He refers to Pontifical service and, therefore, to his ministerium. He did not speak of any renunciation of the munus.
You can listen again HERE.
The Pope can end his pontifical service only in the case of an impeded See, something that is due to force majeure, as we already have explained HERE.
In any case, Sodano evidently knew that Benedict did not abdicate, otherwise he would not have used those turns of phrase.
11 February 2013: An article by canonist Fr. Stefano Violi comes out in volume n.2 of the “Rivista Teologica di Lugano” (XVIII) where he makes explicit reference to the fact that Pope Benedict XVI did not abdicate in accordance with can. 332.2.
HERE https://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350913.html
“The formula that Pope Benedict XVI used to declare his decision, deviating from the rule of canon law, however, introduces an innovative juridical precedent in the history of the Church” […] If we look more deeply in the words used to allegedly express the renunciation, two data emerge from the Declaratio: first, the lack of reference to can. 332 § 2…”
And secondly this pronouncement of a canonist expressed in an authoritative scholarly journal, no one seemed to care.
26 February 2013: Father Lombardi, S.J. and head of the Holy See’s Vatican City State Press Office of Communications, announced that Pope Benedict XVI would be referred to as “Pope Emeritus,” an epinome that, as Bergoglio and his acolytes certainly knew, does not exist in and has no precedent theologically or juridically in canon law. Nevertheless, no one uttered a single word about it. Bergoglio himself would admit in 2022 that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation had been “unclear”.
28 February 2013: Pope Benedict XVI signed no official resignation before or after 08:00 PM following his greeting from the Apostolic Palace’s external central balcony just below the italic ancient Rome time papal clock at Castel Gandolfo. The legacy main stream media propagandized its top-down narrative talking points delivered to them by their handlers that the Pope had determined the closing of the door to be the symbolic gesture he had chosen to formally refer to the end of his pontificate.
Now, everyone and anyone in the Vatican, Rome , and their environs knows that the gates of papal villas always close at 08:00 PM, and that an act of such legal and historical importance certainly cannot be simply sealed by the closing of a gate. As theologian Carlo Maria Pace wrote, Pope Benedict XVI verbally should have confirmed and communicated, either orally or in writing, his abdication before, after, or at that time.
13 March 2013: the Argentine Vaticanist Elisabetta Piqué reports in the book Francisco, vida y revolucion, reviewed by Vatican City State’s Holy See’s own official newspaper L’Osservatore Romano that during the conclave a cardinal cast two ballots together in the ballot box (inadvertently?), one of which was blank. The procedure was annulled and another one was taken, from which Bergoglio was elected. This way of proceeding, according to Articles 63, 69, and 76 of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis renders such an election null and void: the vote with the extra ballot was supposed to be considered as invalid. Furthermore, the U.D.G. stipulates that the Conclave of Cardinal can not vote five times in the same day. The limit is four.
HERE https://www.panorama.it/cultura/socci-elezione-papa-bergoglio-non-valida
This episode, not denied by official sources, reveals an eagerness on the part of the Cardinals of the Sankt Gallen Mafia to elect Bergoglio at all costs precisely on 13 March 2013 (13/3/2013), either to ride a wave of consensus within the conclave or, perhaps, because this date has very clear esoteric meanings. (13 is the number associated with Judas’ betrayal and Lucifer’s rebellion and, also, indicates the breakdown of harmony and introducing and embodying disorder and chaos. (Remember that the Latin addage “Ordo ab Chao/s” doesn’t mean “order from or out of chaos. Rather, it means “[new?] order by means of chaos”.)
In fact, 13 is the number that with the addition of a unit to 12, interrupts the natural order’s harmonious cyclical equilibrium forcing radically metastatic transmutation (think transgenderism and transhumanism).
Also on 13 March 2013, Bergoglio, after being invalidly elected, looked out from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica and called for “…a path of brotherhood, of love, of trust among us. Let us pray for the whole world, that there may be a great BROTHERHOOD.”
While winking, nodding, and nudging at these “fraternally compassionate” concepts, from the balcony hangs the papal banner with the coat of arms of Pope Benedict XVI ENTIRELY COVERED BY A WHITE BROCADE. How can this be? In every legitimate Petrine succession there is always the coat of arms of the previous Pope. It is unthinkable that Bergoglio did not notice it, despite the fact that the detail was largely censored by legacy main stream media outlets.
All these facts could not be unknown to Bergoglio. If he had been in good faith, would he have accepted his election in the face of so many legal, procedural, and ritual irregularities and inconsistencies? Even if he had not understood the perfection of the device of the impeded See, it is unthinkable that he did not know that Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation was null and void and that the Pope did not have the slightest intention to resign. He did not even bother to make things clear before the conclave but ramrodded it through like a runaway train. Even when the first books about the nullity of his election came out in 2014, he completely disregarded them and just reminded people not to indulge in trivial and futile gossip and “chatter.”
Even more so when Secretary of State Parolin officially received and formally notarized our inquiry on Nov. 20 (without denying it):
HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/37642270/codice-ratzinger-risposta-segretario-stato-pietro-parolin.html Bergoglio – certainly informed – neither said nor did anything about it (at least publicly).
Which Catholic and which Pope could even conceive the idea of ruling illegally as pontiff, not having the assistance of the Holy Spirit, that comes from the legitimate possession of the Petrine munus?
In all likelihood, the Antipope “Francis” Bergoglio and the Sankt Gallen Mafia were counting on the fact that no one would notice Pope Benedict XVI’s impeded See, (or the invalidity of his renunciation). They hoped that no one would catch the messages in broad mental restriction and reservation communicated by Pope Benedict XVI, which were imposed by his condition of incarceration via the impeded See, a status in which the Pope cannot communicate freely.
They counted on the almost complete confiscation of and obfuscation by the legacy main stream media by the Masonic and globalist powers, so much so that, as you can easily see, the mainstream blatantly avoids addressing the magna quaestio, “the great question”, the question of the millennium.
They propagated the crudest and lamest marketing gimmicks from the sticker album about “Pope Francis,” to the walks downtown to buy glasses (for the one on Via del Babuino rumors say €15,000 were spent on security), to the grotesque Netflix movie The Two Popes, with a Ratzinger-Anthony Hopkins who wanted to abdicate the throne to Bergoglio-Jonathan Price himself.
They took a chance, but it went badly. One could say that the devil gave them a huge hat, an unstylish gaudy stetson, but with no cattle, although there remain a lot of sheeple. It took some time, but finally the truth is coming out and it is spreading unstoppably around the world. HERE HERE
It would be much better if the clergymen who hold important offices moved immediately to the side of truth and to Christ’s Church. In that case, the next legitimate Pope will be lenient, perhaps reconfirming to them those privileges they purport to care so much about.
Most importantly, from the perspective of faith, they will save their souls.
Journalist Andrea Cionci
and
Attorney Angelo Giorgianni, Secretary General of the “Organizzazione Mondiale per la vita” – World Organization for Life (OMV)
Attorney Emilio Fragale, coordinator of legal network of the “Organizzazione Mondiale per la Vita” – World Organization for Life (OMV)
Attorney Valeria Panetta (President of the Association Arbitrium – legal emergency assistance)
Attorney Manola Bozzelli
Attorney Roberto Antonacci
Attorney Roberto Tieghi
Attorney Costanza Settesoldi
Attorney Andrea Oddo
Attorney Emilio Somma
Attorney Antonino Ficarra
Attorney Simon Grasso
Attorney Antonia Parisotto
Attorney Umberto Fantini dei Marchesi Riva di Lugano
Attorney Giovanni Crisafulli