Cionci Article: "Traditionalists who, in fact, defend Bergoglio. An agreement for the stumbling conclave?"
Repost of the Sfero article
Here is another article written by Doctor Cionci that he asked me to repost. (Originally published in Sfero).
“Who notices anyway?”: it seemed to be Bergoglio's exclusive motto, as when he let himself be filmed “accidentally” - he said - by his personal photographer (as we discovered) while leaving the record shop. HERE “In English”.
This maxim, however, seems to have also been adopted by certain traditionalist circles who are evidently weaving plots that - perhaps - the advocates themselves believe to be secret diplomatic cunning, but which for the more astute public are recognizable from nautical distances.
In essence, it seems that a traditionalist-Bergoglio axis is being consolidated aimed at maintaining the status quo even after the Argentinian exit from the scene, and which will have the catastrophic and disastrous effect for the Church of continuing the anti-papal line of succession.
How? By means of an illegitimate conclave-meddle, in which the false cardinals of Bergoglian nomination will also enter, an election that will automatically produce another antipope, devoid of the Petrine Munus and the related assistance of the Holy Spirit. Result? End of the visible canonical Church.
We can glimpse a probable under-the-table agreement, therefore, of which we have received unofficial confirmation, and which however is highly visible to everyone due to a clumsy and evident game of parties.
While they remain in "watchful anticipation" of Bergoglio's departure, the traditionalist prelates are publicly scandalized in articles and interviews by his heresies, (mechanically evading the question of his illegitimacy) and, at the same time, show that they are looking for ways to depose him, even sometimes calling him a "usurper" (but it is not clear on what basis, if for them Ratzinger would have validly abdicated). Many good believers fall for it, charmed by these new apparent Saints Athanasius who then, desolate, invariably respond: “Alas, unfortunately none of these ways are practicable”.
No one knows what it's like, NONE OF THE SOLUTIONS INVESTIGATED REVEALED TO BE FUNCTIONAL IN DEPOSING FRANCIS.
And therefore, while these prelates try to go down in history as those who, poor things, "did everything possible", you will have to keep the antipope Francis, then the antipope John XXIV, and so on.
The proof of what we claim? There IS only one canonical path that is truly decisive, perfectly practicable, designed specifically to remove Bergoglio and purify the Church, THERE IS, and that is the recognition of the Impeded See of Benedict XVI with the application of the combined provisions of the articles. 76 and 77 of the Universi Dominici Gregis. In this scheme, the evidence stands out: Pope Benedict did not renounce his Munus, he did not leave the See duly vacant, therefore Bergoglio's election is null and void. End of the story.
Now, such a dazzling canonical solution is not only not EVEN EXAMINED by these prelates, despite the dozens of Latinists, jurists, lawyers, magistrates and Church historians who approve it, but is instead actively obscured, censored and ostracized by them.
The protagonists of this maneuver which - in fact - protects Bergoglio in his only Achilles heel, are mainly Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and the Bishop of Astana Athanasius Schneider. Even the American bishop Joseph Strickland does not even want to hear about an impeded see and the cardinal (appointed by Bergoglia) Gerhard Müller, despite being informed of the Magna Quaestio both publicly HERE “In English”. in June 2022 and through the Secretariat of State, in August 2023,
continues to discuss Bergoglio's "formal or material" heresies, obviously absolving him, and taking care not to touch, even in passing, the subject of his illegitimacy. Yet, Müller himself in his recent book "In good faith", (Solferino) writes: "Benedict XVI's resignation also contains a WRONG NUANCE given that the two aspects of the papal figure, the munus and the ministerium, were kept distinct, while instead they had to remain associated, united. They are inseparable."
A pope's resignation contains a 'wrong nuance', and the matter passes quietly by?Is it possible that the Most Reverend does not know how only in an impeded seat does the Pope lose his ministerium and retain his Munus?
Beware: when you see prelates and Vatican officials focusing on the "heresies of Bergoglio", that is the warning light of gatekeeping: controlled dissent. In fact, a heretical pope cannot be deposed, (as Schneider confirms) it is a completely impracticable red herring.
Therefore, those who animate these sterile diatribes, by obscuring the impeded seat, would like to achieve a double result: save face with the conservative faithful, traumatised by the daily 180° inversions of faith operated by Bergoglio and his trusted pseudo-prefect Fernandez, but at the same time save the status quo. A channelling of protest to inertise it and bring it to a dead end. Familiar five-star strategies and, today, banal.
In fact, if there was good faith, sincere interest in the removal of Bergoglio, why do these traditionalists who see Francis' pontificate as a "cross" (Schneider), or who define the Argentine as "evil, head of the deep church, inimicus ecclesiae”(Viganò), have never shown the slightest interest in the impeded See, but, rather, only hostility and fear, trying to hide it from the public?
Suffice it to note how Archbishop Schneider, in a recent "Letter to the neo-sedevacantists" HERE, responds off topic, about Bergoglio's heresies and irregularities in the 2013 conclave (considered legitimate), shrugging: eh, unfortunately the heretical pope cannot be deposed, and the irregularities are healed by universal peaceful Acceptance. The expression "impeded See", THE ONLY FOUNDATIONAL THEME for those who denounce the vacant seat, DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR IN HIS WRITING. A conscious and surgical removal of the great taboo.
So Monsignor Viganò, for his part, brings up the imaginative and unprecedented solution of the "consent defect" to remove Bergoglio, a kind of canonical chimera for which there is neither jurisprudence applicable to the case nor precedents. An intellectual exercise that has remained, in fact, in the state of complete theory. There is no canonical way to depose a heretical pope, let alone for the vice of consent. Yet these alleged "enemies of Bergoglio" would have the solution right there, at hand to depose their apparent adversary. Why do they not even examine it, or refute it with any argument?
Strange forms of censorship from their affiliated journalists are also documented. Last year, the writer received THREE interview requests from Lifesite news, a large American Catholic network, which never materialised. Today Lifesite follows Viganò and Schneider, coincidentally. All the US catholic commentators, in the Viganian sphere of influence, like Taylor Marshall or Michael Matt, for example, are monolithically refractory to even mentioning the issue, they don't even respond. We know from reliable rumors that in an upcoming American conference on the topic of Bergoglio, speakers were formally FORBIDDEN from speaking about the Impeded See. Even an Italian counter-information newspaper, for which the writer had already conducted some highly viewed interviews, suddenly closed contacts, without giving explanations, even withdrawing an episode after just over an hour. Since then, it has given space almost only to Monsignor Viganò.
For his part, Aldo Maria Valli, closely linked to Monsignor Viganò, did not even give the sensational news that an airplane with the banner "Benedict XVI was in an Impeded seat" had passed over 300 km of the Romagna coast in August. A fact so striking that it was even taken up by the German bishops' newspaper, Katholisch.de, HERE but which the former Vatican correspondent of Tg1, inspired by an entirely personal ethical concept of "information", did not dare mention even in a corner of his blog, not even criticizing the initiative.
The pattern that emerges from such vain smokescreens is, however, tragically obvious. There are many interests at stake: if it were discovered that Bergoglio was never pope, many, too many would lose their positions, their emoluments. The 143 Bergoglian cardinals are fake, but they receive REAL 5000 euros every month. Others are not willing to demote to the rank of bishop from the cardinalate, however fake, and do not understand that if they told the truth they would be the next candidates for the (real) papacy.
It doesn't suit anyone to talk about an impediment, neither the Bergoglians nor the traditionalists. Furthermore, this would make us recognize the moral, intellectual and spiritual gigantism of Pope Benedict XVI and both sides hated Ratzinger: for the former he was an obscurantist Panzerkardinal, for the latter a "conciliar modernist".
A dutiful nod to the traditionalist stronghold of Monsignor Lefebvre, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius It is no coincidence that Don Daniele Di Sorco, of the FSSPX, writes books attempting to disprove the Impeded See and, not surprisingly, he is sponsored by Mons. Viganò, not surprisingly on Aldo Maria Valli's blog. HERE
Therefore, a possible agreement of this kind could be sealed in the conclave-intrigue. The traditionalists will say to the bogus Bergoglian cardinals: 'Let's pretend that nothing has happened, but now vote for a subject of our liking, or a compromise, like maybe a Zuppi, who will let us live in our elitist enclave of Latin masses'. Even if in an anti-papal and schismatic church and without communion with the real pope. Moreover, it seems that no one cares about communion with the visible principle any more, so much so that even Professor Massimo Viglione, founder of the 'counter-revolutionary' Triarii, often repeats: 'OK, now let's forget about whether Bergoglio is the pope or not...'. As if it were an incidental fact.
But the music is about to change. The first tranche of the PETITION HERE , with 11,500 signatures, for the recognition of the impeded seat of Benedict XVI and the convocation of the conclave, promoted together with the lawyers Panetta and Bozzelli of Arbitrium, and the anti-mafia judge Giorgianni, was delivered on 8 November to the Secretariat of State to the attention of all 110 real cardinals appointed before 2013. The petition remains open and further signatures will be sent in instalments.
If even just one of these prelates remembers why he wears red and declares "vero papa mortuus est" , all the other cardinals will either have to join immediately, or they will face very serious canonical consequences, risking losing everything.
And in that case, even the traditionalists will be overwhelmed by the purification flood prepared by Pope Benedict XVI, going down in history in an even worse light than the punished usurpers.