IF YOU ENJOY OUR SHOW AND CONTENT, PLEASE CONSIDER BEING AN AMBASSADOR. WE ARE 100% LISTENER SUPPORTED.CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT.
This is the second message by the Italian writer and art historian Andrea Cionci to blogger Ann Barnhardt about the Substantial Error error, which I am now publishing in English.
We need a meeting of minds and frank talk about the rules of evidence for the good of the Church and to help souls understand the why behind the what of Pope Benedict XVI’s impeded See, which was announced on February 11, 2013, and begun 17 days later with no fanfare, no signed document.
Let the open discussion begin.
We summarize the issue by sending a second open letter to US Catholic blogger Ann Barnardt, a theorist of the so-called “substantial error.”
Dear Ms. Barnhardt,
a few days ago, I published an open letter addressed to you and Prof. Edmund Mazza, to discuss topics of enormous importance, that transcend any egoic issues and ideological personalistic territorialism.
I credited you with great merits, even historical, for identifying the invalidity of the Declaratio as a renunciation, and Bergoglio’s antipapacy. However, I have submitted to you incontrovertible documents, and logical reasonings, to take a step forward in understanding the Magna Quaestio.
I expected that you could either welcome with joy and a spirit of cooperation what I set forth, or maybe rebut it with strong rational arguments to defend your thesis, just as the gravity of the issue and the stature of the debate certainly deserve. Instead I am informed that you, in your latest podcast, responded (indirectly) in these terms:
“(…) There’s a group of people, they are absolutely desperate to make Pope Benedict to be some superhero, for some reason, who’s playing 15 dimensions underwater chess, and… oh no, he didn’t make a substancial error, this is all in his massive bavarian intellect, he’s got everybody tricked, and so on and so forth (…) ”
It has been said that Pope Benedict would be a liar for accepting this and would be responsible for all the souls that died as a result of Bergoglio’s horrible heresies (since they believed he is the pope).
I am also told that the co-blogger “Non Veni Pacem” asked how is Ratzinger not in mortal sin, according to the argument that this is a big maneuver on his part for the last 9 years? And that they also allude to the fact that the Ratzinger Code would be “ gnosticism ” (I do not understand why, since it is based on syntax and logical analysis of language).
We Italians are a bit of xenophiles, and tend to think that, outside our national borders “the grass of the neighbor is always greener.”. So I expected that, in a confrontation with American intellectuals, we could go beyond derision and avoidance of the issue, as it’s happening instead in Italy with the demeaning conduct of several intellectuals. They categorically refuse to examine writings of the Holy Father Benedict examined by several specialists, even of university rank.
Now, certainly what I have discovered is wonderfully puzzling, we agree.
But it is no more puzzling than the claim that Joseph Ratzinger, one of the greatest Catholic intellectuals of the 1900s, with an ecclesiastical career of some 60 years, had a “mistaken” view of the papacy.
Somewhat like saying that Elizabeth II, today, would still not quite understand what the role of a queen is. Doesn’t that seem a little bit bold?
Now, here there’s only one substantial error : to keep looking at the Declaratio with blinkers on, and considering it as an “invalid renunciation”.
I have demonstrated, in detail and with the help of authoritative Latinists HERE, that this document is by no means a lame and invalid “renunciation”: it is a candid and most consistent statement by which Pope Benedict simply “stopped working”, giving up exercising power because he was unable to go on. In fact, he has retired into Impeded See, a canonical situation that makes him remain pope and that, de facto again, has “anti-poped” Bergoglio.
Imagine there’s a professor with a class of little students: those are so anarchic and rowdy, that he cannot go on teaching, so at some point he simply leaves the classroom and crosses his arms. He doesn’t quit his teacher position, and remains a professor. If some random guy walks into the classroom and starts teaching in his place di lui, do you think he could be automatically hired by the school in place of the other professor? This could only happen in the jungle, not in a civilized institution.
I have also shown, by analyzing Ratzinger Code (which is collected in a volume of mine coming out next week), that Benedict managed to never lie, despite the fact that he could, being imprisoned, He used, instead, a subtly logical language . For example, when he says “I have renounced validly to my ministry ,” since munus and ministry are both translated by the word “ministry,” you do not know which of the two entities he is referring to. Or rather, you know, because in the Declaratio, he has renounced the “ministry-ministerium”. So he is not a liar at all, but a genius who managed to tell always the truth, in its essence, even in the face of his enemies di lui HERE.
This is just one of a thousand examples. I have shown that on every occasion, even in the very difficult 65th priesthood speech, the one about the word “Eucharistomen,” Benedict managed to subtly speak the truth in front of his persecutor HERE.
But one has to get down to the transparent and pure meaning of words and references. Only in silence and pure rational thought you can understand this reality.
Moreover, if Benedict had wanted, by his strange conception of the papacy, to split the office into two, one active and the other contemplative, why did he not first legally arrange the emeritate? Last year Bergoglio put his canonists to work, to rabble up a jurisprudence around the “emeritus papacy”. A clear sign that it does not exist.
Is Benedict doing things by halves? The pope emeritus is impossible. He and the canonists who have declared it so far know it. So “ emeritus ” is to be understood in its original latin 0meaning: “the one who deserves”, “who has the right” to be pope.
More importantly, what would have been the point of creating this confusion with a true active pope and a true contemplative one? Just to panic a billion 285 million faithful? Do you think Joseph Ratzinger is such a spiteful, vain man, so nostalgic for the tinsels of papal dignity?
But even if he had this whimsical idea of the papacy, in nine years (given the bewilderment left in the faithful) Benedict should have constantly reiterated, according to his misconception: ” Look, there are two popes, an active one and one contemplative one . I am also pope, but I am retired. ” .
Instead he repeats, tapping his wrist on the armrest, ” There are not two popes, there is only one pope ” and he does not explain which one.
Bishop Gaenswein also confirms, “There is only one legitimate pope, but two living successors of St. Peter” (ergo one is legitimate and the other is illegitimate) and “there is a contemplative member (the legitimate pope, Benedict) and an active member “(the usurper Bergoglio). Too difficult? I don’t think so, considered your intelligence.
Then there is a theological argument to be made: if you are Catholic, you must believe that the pope is assisted by the Holy Spirit . Not only ex cathedra , but also in ordinary activity (Article 892 of the Catechism). According to the substantial error theory, the Holy Spirit would have abandoned the true pope at such a dramatically crucial moment in the history of the Church, legitimately handing it over to a total heretic (as you describe Bergoglio)? Forgive me, but this, I think is a horrible offense against the Third Person of the Trinity.
Just like those Bergoglio legitimists who think it’s plausible for the Holy Spirit to assist someone who enthrones the Pachamama, or who is “personally” in favor of civil unions (a law that in Italy was done to allow “gay marriages”, ndr), ie, the legalization of a practice that (according to Catholicism) is one of the four “Sins that cry to Heaven for Vengeance”. Perhaps the Holy Spirit has become modernist and heretical and we have not noticed?
As for the usual objection that many make, about the fact that Benedict XVI would have abandoned the souls to Bergoglio:
1) The pope is not the babysitter of human kind . Every war has its price to pay, and the Church certainly is suffering damage, but the doctrine of Supplet Ecclesiae affirms that God provides, make up for the absence of the Church, in case of good faith and unawareness of the people. So the sincere souls of the little ones and the unaware are saved anyway , and even the sacraments are legitimate for them (and for them only).
2) Benedict, moreover, continues to speak and teach at true Catholics not only with his books but also with the language of Jesus in the face of his enemies: those who have ears to hear perfectly understand the Ratzinger Code. The truly sincere sheep smell exactly who the shepherd is. On social media I often read simple people saying: “my pope is Benedict”. In reality he is everyone’s pope, but they, simple souls, sense it’s him, intuitively. Those that are in trouble instead, are the intellectuals, those who have lost this simplicity in recognizing the truth. And then, degrading themselves, they mock their opponents by their last name, as in my case HERE.
How was it? ” unless you change and become like little children …”
3) To say that Benedict sinned because he abandoned the faithful would be like complaining about a father who has been kidnapped by bandits because, by being kidnapped , he “abandoned his family .” The pope couldn’t do anything else: he was the victim of a deadly mutiny.
4) Without this ingenious self-impediment (had he heroically gotten himself killed, or had he actually abdicated), You would have Bergoglio today as legitimate pope .
5) Benedict XVI is neither stupid nor ignorant, all the opposite . You admit yourself that he is a genius, but now you reject the hypothesis that he could have prepared a genius plan to defend the Church from those whom You most detest. In short, make up your mind.
Well, I very much appreciated the work that you has done to date. And the conclusions you reached also had a certain logic: “If the renunciation is not valid, therefore Benedict must have had a very strange conception of the papacy.” But I am telling you that it was not a renunciation and that Benedict, with a subtle, but perfectly coherent statement, exiled himself into Impeded See (canon 412) and thus he “schismated” his enemies di lui.
Now, there are four possibilities:
1) You could lock yourself with a “no comment ” as so many do, certifying your intellectual surrender.
2) You prove me wrong by disputing point by point the arguments and documents I have
submitted in the above article and interview. If you succeed in doing so, on a logical and documentary basis, I will declare myself defeated.
3) You may continue to mock me (me and several martyr-priests who have been excommunicated rather than cease to defend the truth). You may continue to avoid direct confrontation and evade the merits of the issues. In this case, however, you would be taking a very serious responsibility, which would undo all your excellent work done so far. As a matter of obstinacy and pride, you would discredit yourself by producing a huge damage: in fact, the thesis of substantial error gives room to those traditionalists who see in Ratzinger a “modernist”, and therefore refuse to understand Bergoglio’s illegitimacy. They keep wallowing emotionally and masochistically in the hopeless tragedy. This path will lead to the end of the visible Church, the Bergoglio’s victory and the antipapal succession.
Here’s how: the sedevacantists will retreat, depressed and sneering, on their “Aventine Hill” ( a metaphore used by the italian politics of 1924 that decided to abstain from participating in the Parliament until the resolution of the Matteotti’s kidnapping case, ndr) by saying “No pope has been valid since 1958 anyway,”. So, there will be a new fake conclave with 70 invalid Bergoglian cardinals. The ” UNA CUM ” (from the phrase in the Latin mass “una cum famulo tuo – name of the pope -“, ed), as some of us call, in italy the conservative legitimists of Bergoglio, ( who criticize but still go to the mass “una cum famulo your Papa Francisco”, ed)will agree to endorse the fake conclave hoping for a diplomatic deal. But they will be duped.
Are you up for another ride? Then here we are, back on the merry-go-round with another antipope. Maybe Zuppi, Maradiaga or Tagle, who will assume the name John XXIV as Bergoglio anticipates? (unprecedented: no pope make predictions on the successor’s name). They would still end up with another antipope, even if, by the most unlikely chance, a traditionalist and a holy man were “elected.”
Possibility No. 4) is that, after taking a careful look at what I have submitted to you, you become conscious of this self-exile into the Impeded See, and show that you can do the most difficult thing in the world, with the courage that distinguishes you: abandoning your thesis of substantial error, burning it on the altar of the Logic (which You master very well). This thesis is an “outdated model”. Working together we can win back the Church to true Catholics. I cordially extend my hand to offer an alliance or, at the same time, I throw down the gauntlet (although traditionally one does not do that with a lady). It is up to you.
However, please don’t be like those small stature intellectuals I mentioned above, who make jokes about the last names, or bring up the “Da Vinci Code” or “A beautiful mind.” The matter is extremely – extremely – serious and it transcends our little personal lives.
History will judge us, and for those who believe, so will Someone far more important.
Looking forward to your reply, I cordially greet you,