LEADING ITALIAN JURIST PUTS BENEDICT’S RENUNCIATION OF PAPACY IN DOUBT
Introduction by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
March 9, 2021: What started as a united chorus of doubt and criticism at the Vatican’s latest attempt to make Pope Benedict XVI appear to be on Bergoglio’ s side has turned into a proper public relations disaster for the Globalists in charge of the Vatican.
Now, after universal condemnation of Massimo Franco for having invented an interview of Pope Benedict XVI from a few words exchanged, after the gift of a few cartoons, it has balooned into a crisis of national proportions, as one of Italy’s leading experts in law has sounded out on the side of those who doubt the validity of Benedict XVI’s renuncation.
Please note, that in this controversy, the phrase “invalidity of the Resignation” refers to the incapacity of the act spoken by Pope Benedict in his Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013, to effect his loss of the Papal office, NOT to the question as to whether a Pope can renounce the doing of the pope while remaining the pope — a thesis which juridically is denied by no one, though there is nearly a universal agreement that without an extraordinary reason, the doing of such would be highly contrary to the will of Jesus Christ, the Author of the papal office.
The legal expert in question is none other than Attorney Carlo Taormina, and his comments were published at noon today in an interview by Andrea Cionci, of the Libero Quotidiano. — Click the image above to read the original Italian.
This marks the first time a jurist of eminent stature has spoken on the controversy, and it will be worth while for the entire Church, that FromRome.Info publish its own English translation of the entire interview, which here follows:
The Resignation of Benedict XVI: strong doubts even from Attorney Taormina
“It is necessary that the appropriate ecclesiastical centers clear this up“
by Andrea Cionci
Attorney Carlo Taormina, jurist and ordinary professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of “Tor Vergata” (here at Rome), has commented on the question raised by the juridical text by the Colombian lawyer, Estefania Acosta, entitled, “Benedict XVI: the pope emeritus?”. Her book affirms, in line with the opinion given by Antonio Socci in 2018, in his book, “Il Segreto di Benedetto XVI” (“The Secret of Benedict XVI”), Rizzoli Books, that the sole pope is still the one and only Ratzinger, who, in fact, never did resign with his “Declaratio”, but rather kept the name, title, white cassock, Apostolic blessing, and residence in the Vatican. For just as “the pope is only one”, as the same Benedict fondly repeats, so the Pope is still himself and, consequently, Bergoglio is an anti-pope.
As Prof. Taormina notes — who has already expressed some problems with the pontificate of Francis — “The situation uncovered by Attorney Acosta – as by other journalists and experts before her – and the collection of facts reconstructed at the Libero Quotidiano surely requires a more profound investigation of the documents and a study of them by canonists in the appropriate ecclesiastical centers.
“From the very moment of his “choice” it has been affirmed in the most accredited positions of the Roman Curia, that Ratzinger was making concrete a situation which, at the level of of Petrine acts, maintained him on that which pertained to him, leaving for others the mere materiality of power (practical functions).”
As the thesis of Attorney Acosta supports, on top of the “invalid resignation”, there is also invalid the manner in which some ecclesiastics have wanted to interpret it as a “Resignation of the Papacy”, (1) as a free, conscious (but invalid) declaration of a “Papal Renunciation of two practical functions”: (2) as a “trick” planned by Ratzinger to cage the “St. Gallen Mafia” (the lobby of modernist Cardinals hostile to him), while at the same time offering the modernists a self-deception which caused them to abusively appropriate the throne of Peter. It remains that that document, according to Acosta and others, read as a “resignation”, has no basis in law.
To give a simple example of that of which we speak, it would be as if an elderly property owner of one villa might say, “Since I am begining to suffer from the cold, I renounce going to my villa in the winter”.
But his neighbors interpret that declaration as if he had said, “I am abandoning my villa and I renounce its property rights”, and occupy it. Meanwhile the meek and defenseless property owner lets them do as they please, but every once a while remarks: “The property owner is only one (myself!)”, in the hope that someone comes and drives his neighbors out.
In this manner, Benedict would have chosen to not react, to not accuse Bergoglio openly of being an antipope: and for this reason uses a veiled manner of expression, logically subtle, but along with which he repeats “The Pope is me”, in hope that the clergy come to understand him and press that “red button” by declaring the invalidity of his presumed resignation and, consequently, of the entire Bergoglian church.
Attorney Taormina agrees: “It is striking, in fact, the continual and studied ambiguity, in the arc of 8 years, attributed in the declarations of Ratzinger which, in their substance, seem to always repeat the same thing, that is, that he, Benedict, is the pope, and no other.
It has already been shown, in fact, that the sole pronouncements of Benedict which the Main Stream Media has presented to the world as unequivocally in favor of Pope Francis as a legitimate pope, have never been direct citations or “corroborated” by Ratzinger, but are rather, consistently headlines in newspapers, journalistic reconstructions of “I was told he said”, citations of other persons who say that “they heard he said” such words, or that “they had read” some missive presented in its original copy.
Considering the surgical precision of the language used by Ratzinger, it would be indispensable, at this point, to examine the originals of such alleged documents.
“In a person of literary and scientific rigor such as Benedict”, affirms Attorney Taormina, “an affirmation so cutting (such as ‘the Pope is only one’) cannot be other than intended out of a sense of wanting to send a precise and inescapable message, that Bergoglio has not taken his place”.
And if he “has not take his place”, then Francis is an antipope, and hence, until there is clarity on this question no Pope after him will be a true pope and the true Church would be finished.
As Attorney Taormina continues, “The very lengths with which the Main Stream Media go to construct their narrative, at any cost, to make Benedict XVI declare that the Pope is Francis, constitute an element which makes the scene all the more grave, in the sense that it renders, one way or the other, more and more plausible the reconstruction of the so-called “Catholic Reset”. Moreover, this most strange present situation of two popes at the same time, has heaped up a quantity of doubts which can no longer be ignored. Besides, the precision at which the Mass Media and Vatican have taken to avoid the question adds a further element which should give all the more alarm.
To sum up: What Ratzinger freely and consciously did do was to write a Declaration that delegated the most burdensome duties of his office (to Cardinals or Bishops, presumbably), but inasmuch as it was invalid, did not render the Apostolic See vacant. It has been others, who have abusively interpreted this document as a “valid resignation of the papacy”, when it is in fact no such thing, or because it is much too ambiguous to be considered valid to effect such a thing.
Sergio Russo and Rosanna Iabobacci, in their book, “Cuori chiusi, cieli aperti” (“Closed hearts, but open skies”) seem to have outlined the road ahead when they wrote: “There is no pope to depose, but there is a cardinal (antipope) to remove”, and, in the last consideration, one must chose one, or more, vicars, among the Bishops and Cardinals, to assist Pope Benedict at his side to fulfill those two practical duties which he wanted to renounce: to govern the Barque of Peter and to announce the Gospel.
Some readers will lose their way in such a controversy, but for the rest, if, as we hypothesize it, one is face to face with a subtle trick worked out by one of the most important intellectuals of our own day, to evade a coup d’etat by clever and determined Cardinals, how could anyone be expected to understand it at first glance?
Any interested party will have to read and reread with calm to understand it. Behold why clarifying the matter in the appropriate centers of power would be to the advantage of all.