Here are some basic numbers on the investigation carried out by Italian journalist Andrea Cionci: four years’ worth of contributions to Italian national newspapers; 900 web articles; 1000 podcasts; the book The Ratzinger Code, which has sold over 20,500 copies and translated into five languages and winner of two journalistic awards; 132 lectures by the author in two years, always invited by readers.
No one in the mainstream, neither Italian nor foreign, dares to talk about it, even (with rare exceptions) the American traditionalist media. What are people afraid of? The truth? Of asking pertinent questions about obvious realities that uniquely explain the crisis of Catholicism under Jorge Mario Bergoglio, SJ?
Here is my second interview with Cionci, whose research is routinely rejected but never refuted.
PC: In the previous interview, you told us about a petition you submitted to the Vatican Criminal Court. Can you tell us more about this?
AC: On November 8, 2023, I filed a petition HERE with the Secretariat of State with 15,000 signatures addressed to the cardinals of pre-2013 appointment so that they would be able to intervene to declare vere papa mortuus est, (the pope is really dead) recognizing the impeded See of Benedict XVI. Indeed, according to Article 3 of Universi Dominici Gregis (1996, Apostolic Constitution by John Paul II) cardinals have the duty to protect the rights of the Apostolic See. The petition resulted in a reply from Secretary of State Parolin who, on 20 November, thanked me for the enquiry I had sent him in July HERE.
As to the petition, no response up to now. As a next step, following the relentless chain of logic of Canon Law, which you will see summarized HERE, on June 6, 2024, I filed a 100-page petition with the Vatican Criminal Court, drafted together with five lawyers, two of whom are canonists.
The petition is divided into three sections: the first notes that the Declaratio is not even a declaratory act, but a mere declaration that was never ratified, therefore Benedict XVI’s abdication is practically non existent. The second section states that, if we really wanted to consider it a canonical act, it would be null and void for substantial error: the renunciation of the munus is missing. (And not only Viganò but also other American scholars agree on this). The third section explains why the Declaratio is null and void and how Benedict XVI got himself placed in an abusive Conclave. HERE for details.
Over two months have passed, and the petition has not been rejected within the time limit of 30 days. So I have good hopes that a trial will start next fall. I find it remarkable that the president of the Vatican Tribunal, coincidentally, is being investigated by a Sicilian prosecutor’s office for facts dating back 32 years. I will leave the comments to you. In any case, if the petition is rejected or archived, it will be yet another proof that Bergoglio is not the pope and even the magistrates are “impeded.” Also my adversaries, the traditionalists, should thank me for this petition, since clarity will finally have to be
established. But they continue to make war on me because there is a whole world of interests and power to defend.
PC: A few days after the application Carlo Maria Viganò was sued by Tucho Fernandez’s Doctrine of the Faith. In your opinion are the two facts connected?
AC: They are certainly connected, in my opinion. The anti-papal Church ignored Viganò for at least six years. They summoned him to trial a few days after my petition was filed. An obvious media distraction operation. In fact, all the mainstream newspapers dealt with Viganò and his useless chatter, even if they completely, surgically obscured the petition on the Impeded See. We had to put up posters around Rome and hire a sail-truck to spread the news a little, which was successful.
PC: Many people don’t understand why you are particularly critical of Viganò, to the point of calling him a gatekeeper. You even addressed an audio message to Mel Gibson HERE to warn Catholics against an operation that endangers heresy.
AC: In 2020 I was the only journalist in the mainstream who supported Viganò. Then I realized that his absurd obstinacy in not accepting the fact of the Impeded See, despite sending hundreds of articles of mine and the book, as well as filial entreaties, was highly suspicious to me.
Today, the excommunication ferendae sententiae (the official one) imposed on Viganò is as null and void as that of Father Minutella, since it was imposed by an anti-papal Church. But Viganò is really excommunicated latae sententiae insofar as he had himself re-consecrated bishop by former SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson (something Viganò cunningly never denied) refusing the authority of Pope John Paul II.
If Wojtyla was not a true pope, then there would be no valid pope since his time, since the last Paul VI-appointed cardinal, Cardinal Arns, died in 2016. Therefore, the possibility of electing a valid successor to John Paul II would have long since lapsed. This goes against the dogma of perpetual Petrine succession (also known as the indefectibility of the Church) sanctioned by the First Vatican Council.
Also contrary to this dogma is Viganò’s rejection of the Second Vatican Council, since Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus says: ‘this See of St. Peter is always immune from all error by virtue of the divine promise made by the Lord, our Saviour, to the Prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, once converted, confirm your brothers.'” Moreover, as Archbishop Schneider says, no one can depose or disavow a possible heretical pope without falling into the heresy of conciliarism or episcopalism.
So beware: those who follow Viganò and his propositions risk also falling into heresy, schism, excommunication latae sententiae and anathema.
Finally, the fact that Viganò is a gatekeeper and has probably made a specific non-belligerence agreement with Bergoglio (to share the church pie) is recently demonstrated in the interview he granted to Taylor Marshall. In this, as you will see HERE, Viganò states that Benedict XVI’s resignation is certainly invalid, regardless of his willingness to abdicate. It is invalid because, according to him, Ratzinger was a heretic and a modernist and would have made a sort of “double modernist papacy” (even though Benedict had always declared “there is only one pope,” obviously the one who is impeded).
But even accepting this blasphemous folly of Ratzinger’s heresy, then why doesn’t Viganò use the objective nullity of the renunciation (as he himself acknowledges) to effectively delegitimize Bergoglio? Articles 76 and 77 of Universi Dominici Gregis speak very clearly: if the previous pope’s renunciation is invalid, not in accordance with Canon 332.2, as Viganò himself acknowledges, the election that follows is null and void without a declaration to that effect.
Viganò would have a formidable weapon to have Bergoglio removed and arrested, (can. 1375, usurpation of ecclesiastical office) but he does not use it. This can only hide a pact, in my opinion. Viganò uses a populism which is antithetical to Bergoglio’s, but equally appealing to the peoples’ guts. Just as Bergoglio invites to goodness, welcoming, and paradise for all, Viganò instrumentalizes the most banal (albeit shareable) anti-globalist themes, trespassing even on the most boorish gossip, as when he takes it for granted that Obama’s and Macron’s wives are men, without providing a shred of proof of what he says.
Fortunately, this rant I am told has alienated a lot of sympathy for him, especially among the American military, who are serious people.
PC: Okay, a very different subject. Your analysis of the strange changes in papal funeral obsequies made by Bergoglio, which you also related to the upcoming Ralph Fiennes film Conclave has had some prominence in Italy. What is being plotted?
AC: Already months ago I was suspicious when I read ‘El Sucesor’ (2024), where Bergoglio announces some changes in the papal funeral rites. First of all, the fact that he does not want to be exposed to the
sight of the faithful when he is dead, but wants to present himself at St Peter’s already closed in the coffin, produces an obvious consequence: the faithful will not know whether he or a pile of bricks
will be inside the coffin. Even more ridiculous, that after announcing that he no longer wants to be buried in St Peter’s but in St Mary Major, he has had a flat built in the Basilica equipped with all the devices for intensive care. What is the point of building a private hospital where one wants to be buried?
I then discovered that Robert Harris’ 2016 novel “Conclave,” just transposed into a film that in Italy is being announced with absurd anticipation (suffice it to say that the trailer has been around since July 18 to be released in cinemas on December 19, not even if it were a remake of “The Ten Commandments”) already presents the novelties for the papal exequies, which are clear from the very first frames of the trailer HERE.
A single wake, (instead of the planned two) for a few high clergymen, the body covered by a veil and then immediately locked in the casket. How did Harris know such news a full eight years in advance? It seems obvious to me that an escape was being prepared with a faked death. Who knows? We might get also get some surprises from this Asia-Oceania trip, insistently presented by the Italian mainstream media as “long and risky.” If Bergoglio were to “leave us” on the trip, perhaps while visiting the Jesuits in East Timor or Singapore, he would only return to his homeland in a closed casket, and that would be the end of the story.
After all, once discovered, the anti-pope couldn’t just disappear into thin air like that without ruining everything. A faked death, even agreed upon with the enemy hierarchies (to avoid scandal!) would be the only solution for an effective exit strategy, leaving the field clear for the next Gnostic anti-Pope, John XXIV, named after the saint that Freemasons consider their patron saint (Freemasonry’s feast day, June 24, St. John the Baptist).
PC: You have recently produced another unpublished document that proves the impediment of the See. What is it about?
AC: Yes, the letter of a believer named Giuseppe Saccu, who wrote to Pope Benedict in 2020 asking him some very distressing and pressing questions such as: “Your Holiness, are you still the Vicar of Christ on earth? If not, (pope), would it be possible to meet you? Your Holiness, would it be possible for you to make a video inviting the faithful to consider valid your renunciation and the consequent election of Cardinal Bergoglio to the papal throne? In view of the statements made by Cardinal Danneels, is Bergoglio’s election invalid? Your Holiness, but who is Peter today?”
The answer, via an assessor from the Secretariat of State was: “Regarding the petition presented, I regret to inform you that it is not possible to meet your wish.” Now, it is absurd that Pope Benedict would not confirm for the faithful that Bergoglio is the legitimate pope, and if one were to consider that the denial is only for the request for a private audience, (“Your Holiness, are you still the Vicar of Christ on earth? If not, (pope) would it be possible to meet with you?’), the logical answer, inevitably, is: I cannot receive you because I am the pope. Typical example of the “broad mental restriction” used extensively by the impeded Pope Benedict. I was not familiar with this concept of moral theology at the time, so I called it the ‘Ratzinger Code’ instead. Nevertheless, the core idea is that. HERE are the details.
PC: And finally, we come to what you have discovered about a disturbing episode, which you describe as an assassination attempt on Benedict XVI, which took place in Cuba in 2012.
AC: Yes, you may have read that after the Pope’s death, Peter Seewald published a letter from him in
October 2022 in which he stated that the central reason for his resignation was insomnia. Now, anyone with a normal IQ, given everything we know, can hardly take that statement literally. But since the pope never lies, he was right: in a way, really, at the core of his resignation there was insomnia, from which he had been suffering since 2005. Between 25 and 26 March 2012, during his apostolic trip to Cuba, Pope Benedict was almost certainly deceptively given medication that acts on the central nervous system. When he took his usual—and already maximum—dose of sleeping pills in the evening, he overdosed, seriously risking death.
The fact that this episode is obscure is confirmed by three divergent versions: one by a prelate of the papal entourage interviewed by Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli on February 14, 2013, that of Benedict and that of the pseudo-Gänswein in the 2023 book Nothing But the Truth. This episode was also included by me in the petition to the Tribunal, so that full light should be shed on it.