Discover more from Pope Head Post
Andrea Cionci: The silent church-institution that controls the game
A new article from Andrea Cionci
The Italian journalist Andrea Cionci has requested that I publish another article of his on my substack.
________________________
We have been reflecting for months, even together with lawyers and readers, on some indisputable and very thought-provoking facts. Evidently there are things that Pope Benedict, while impeded, could do, and on the other side, things that anti-Pope Francis, who is currently reigning, cannot do.
The most recent and revealing element is Bergoglio's almost childish eagerness to try to be seen to be “celebrating Mass, too.” We have verified that for the past two and a half years he has not celebrated, nor he has concelebrated but has only been required to attend (he wears the cope) with the very rare exceptions of Nov. 2, when he was exceptionally allowed to wear the chasuble.
Yet, apparently, he was not allowed to concelebrate at all: in 2023 he unexpectedly approached the altar and they had to bring him a missalette in a hurry: evidently it was not planned and he forced his hand. On Nov. 2nd, the Vatican note stated that he was to preside (thus automatically assist, if he was not first celebrant); then they changed the text and wrote that he would “celebrate” (not true); they provided him with a concelebrant's chasuble, (it is not known under what exception), but he was silenced and the consecration formulas were read by 4 concelebrants, including a simple priest, but not by him, who by many is supposed to be the Pope. Something unheard of.
Then there are a whole series of papal trappings and privileges that Bergoglio has given up from the start, but we do not know to what extent voluntarily. He does not wear red shoes, he did not wear the red papal mozzetta at the election, and apparently never even to this day, he does not wear the coat of arms on his waist band, he does not sign himself with the P.P. (Pater Patrum) which is the Pope's traditional appellation. All these renunciations have been foisted on the public with the tirade of Francis' humility and pauperism.
However, this Franciscan simplicity is blatantly belied by the millionaire and compulsive apostolic trips, the dozens of liturgical vestments he has had made from scratch, spending tens, if not hundreds of thousands of euros (each cope costs from 3 to 5,000 euros) and the compulsive appointments of new cardinals, (in the pious illusion of creating a supporting political force), who are invalid, but who each receives 5,000 euros – we are talking about real money - each month.
It is also a fact that Benedict XVI had prescribed in Declaratio that the Apostolic Apartment would remain empty (sedes Romae... vacet): and Bergoglio is not living there. The excuse is that he feels oppressed by claustrophobia, loneliness, and that he shuns the splendor of past popes, but evidently he CANNOT live in the Apostolic Palace because of the provisions of the Declaratio.
Benedict XVI's adoption of the bishop's mitre on the coat of arms also perhaps prevented Bergoglio from placing a papal tiara on his coat of arms. The drape hanging from the loggia of St. Peter's at Bergoglio's pseudo-election did not feature his predecessor's coat of arms, as per tradition.
Even more obvious, when Benedict XVI decided to be buried in the loculus that was John XXIII and John Paul II's, in the crypt of St. Peter's. Bergoglio, who initially wanted to occupy that place, had to sketch it out and fall back on St. Mary Major. Yet, if Bergoglio had been the legitimate Pope, how could have he allowed a former Pope, an abdicatarian, who also promised obedience and reverence to him, to impose such choices on him?
We know - and have also proven - that there was a white coup in the Vatican. The conclave was abusively convened when the Pope was not dead, not abdicatory, but prevented. And the “handful of cardinals who authored the misdeed,” as we read in the latest translation of the Declaratio knew from the start that Benedict was not abdicatory, so they changed the word "commissum" to "commisso", inserted typos and other errors adrift to mislead people's attention about the word "commissum", homologated munus and ministerium with the same word ministry, and exchanged the last two words in place in German.
Now, if the coup plotters were allowed to freely manipulate Declaratio, how come they did not adorn Bergoglio with all the appropriate pontifical symbols? How come they so dangerously exposed themselves to make the public understand that Bergoglio was not the legitimate Pope?
Let us also remember that Benedict XVI answered to many of his aficionados through the Secretariat of State. How would have this been possible if he was no longer Pope? And again, how is it possible that Benedict received 95% funerals as pontiff? Some spoke of a “tug-of-war”: between whom?
Between poor Msgr. Gaenswein, the memores and the “Goliath-Pope Francis”? It is unthinkable that the mild-mannered archbishop of Urbisaglia, treated as a rag by Bergoglio, publicly and privately (as reflected in various rumors that have appeared in the newspapers) could impose anything on the antipope.
However, Archbishop Gaenswein was free to share Pope Benedict's messages in broad mental restriction with the public until the very last, despite the fact that these had been “decrypted” for years in the pages of newspaper Libero by Andrea Cionci.What is clear is that there is a third-party arbiter who has full authority, to define both the minimum rights of the impeded pope and the limits and prohibitions for the antipope. There must therefore be an institutional, “third” party Church that controls and arbitrates the game, and dictates the rules to both the papal and antipapal areas.
“Now, we entrust the Holy Church to the care of her Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ,” Benedict said in the Declaratio. It is Christ who is the master of the Church, the Pope is only a Vicar, and when the Pope is dead, the institution stands on its own, thanks to His true master and goes about its ordinary business. Exactly, thanks to the institution itself and its relentless rules.
"When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.", according to what stated in canon law n.335 and the special laws are precisely contained in the Universi Dominici Gregis. Benedict XVI has entrusted Christ, and thus the Institution-Church, with control over this “magni momenti,” as per Declaratio, over this decisionem, that is to say split (from deciduo), of great importance for the survival of the Church (Ecclesiae vita).
Significant is Article 36 UDG:"A Cardinal of Holy Roman Church who has been created and published before the College of Cardinals thereby has the right to elect the Pope, in accordance with the norm of No. 33 of the present Constitution, even if he has not yet received the red hat or the ring, or sworn the oath. On the other hand, Cardinals who have been canonically deposed or who with the consent of the Roman Pontiff have renounced the cardinalate do not have this right. Moreover, during the period of vacancy the College of Cardinals cannot readmit or rehabilitate them."
How do we know if, at the time Benedict XVI announced his forthcoming impeded See, while entrusting the institution-church with the management of the challenge between papal Catholics and anti-papal Gnostics, the same institution did not also recognize as already automatically excardinated and excommunicated the coup cardinals? We are not able to know exactly whether this happened or not.
What is certain is that in a certain sense the institutional Church has divided by law the rights, territory, and prerogatives of pope and antipope, granting protected confinement to Benedict XVI, offering him a piece of the Secretariat of State and perhaps even a Secretary of State, Archbishop Gaenswein, who in fact has several times publicly described himself as a “statesman.” Isn't that a bit too much for a mere prefect of the Papal Household? For now the institutional silent Church is letting it be, but there will probably be a time when the knots will come to the comb, perhaps at the next conclave. And there will be no Mary undoer of knots that can help.
In short, Pope Benedict with his Declaratio not only said “some of you will betray me,” but also may have implied with that “Goodnight” from Castel Gandolfo, “take a night of madness to unmask yourselves.” The master of the Church will take care of it so that justice is done, on the basis of relentless canonical-administrative rules by which even Bergoglio is now increasingly crushed.
Responding to a statement by philosopher Agamben, Pope Benedict quietly accepted that by his resignation (we know it really was impeded see), he intended to awaken eschatological consciousness and separate the church of Christ from that of the Antichrist.
The Pope knew that this Great Discessio would arrive, as Tychonius put it, in which Christ's church would have to withdraw to make room for the devil's church to manifest itself.
He arranged everything at a canonical level, but he also wanted this separation to take place externally as well, with the slight inputs in broad mental restriction (the so called Ratzinger Code) that selected a new clergy and new faithful Catholics.
There are three articles in the 1992 Catechism that are very clear and prophetic, and that were written with extensive supervision by Card. Ratzinger:
675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. the supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.
676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. the Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.
677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.
Subscribe to Pope Head Post
Papal history and deep topography.