On the 11th of February 2013, at 11:30am...

papa benedetto xvi silvana de mari Jan 04, 2023

di Silvana De Mari

On the 11th of February 2013, at 11:30am, at the end of the ceremony of Canonization of the Martyrs of Otranto, Benedict the XVI read a text which had not been mentioned in the programme: the Declaratio.

Immediately following this unexpected announcement, the international press announced that “Benedict had renounced the Papacy”, and that he intended to abandon the Seat of Peter by the 28th of that same month.

It all began with a tweet by the Roman journalist Giovanna Chirri. Let us state for the record that the words “resignation” and “Papacy” are not mentioned in the Declaration read by the Pope. Therefore, the message of Ms. Chirri (authorised by Father Lombardi, the spokesman of the Vatican press room) was the first to have altered its original significance. But much more must be said.

Pontifical Authority is based upon two elements which are distinct, yet interconnected: the Munus (title, or pontifical appointment, of Divine origin), and the Ministerium (the practical usage of the aforementioned Munus). Let us provide a somewhat pedestrian example:the Munus might be compared to one’s being a cardholder of a driver’s license, while the Ministerium might be compared to one's objective capacity to drive a vehicle. In fact, in the aforementioned Codex, it is written:” Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet”. It is the Munus to which the Pope must renounce in order to explicitly abdicate; certainly not the Ministerium. At this point, inevitably, one must begin asking questions.


Firstly, Benedict the XVI is well known as a Latinist of extraordinary capacity: is it possible that such an individual would not be familiar with the difference between Munus and Ministerium?

Benedict explicitly declared in an interview to Corriere della Sera that he had chosen to express himself in Latin, precisely because he had feared committing errors in Italian (a language which he knows perfectly). And yet, more than 40 errors and stylistic imperfections were discovered in the Declaratio, which were immediately noted by prestigious Italian and foreign Latinists. Were the errors intentional? Considering the culture of Benedict the XVIth, there can be no other explanation.

If, in the end, Benedict truly was unaware of that which signified the renunciation of the Munus, why then did he renounce the Ministerium? Was this gesture also intentional?


Six translations of the Declaratio were immediately produced in six different languages, none of which mention the Munus, but only the Minsterium. In this manner, the entire world was informed that Benedict the XVI had resigned because he considered himself too old for the Ministry specific to the title of Pope, and therefore renounced said Ministry. Ms.Chirri, who probably has a limited and imperfect knowledge of Latin (yet as this episode reveals, was apparently not the only one) announced this message, and Father Lombardi accepted her version.

Evidently, all six translators were told to use Ms Chirri’s text as the basis for their translations. Yet everyone familiar with the Church knows that the original Latin language (and certainly not Italian)  is the only language upon which translations may be based, according to Canon Law, due to alterations in the vernacular over time. 

The Latin version of the Declaratio should have - by law - constituted the basis of every other translation, and should have been provided to the translators in order to correctly communicate that which had occurred. Certainly not Ms.Chirri’s translation. 

It is only in the Latin version that one may perceive the subtle difference between Munus and Ministerium, as well as the double significance of the verb vacare. Strangely enough, the Latin version disappeared immediately after the initial media coverage. Anyone who desired to check the Latin text would certainly have noted the presence of the two terms Munus and Ministerium, and would have understood that each had a different, specific and unalterable significance which would not have been adequately rendered in the vernacular. They are certainly not synonymous, as others would wish us to believe.

A truthful translation would have looked something like this: “I am too elderly for the Ministerium (which Benedict did actually say), and therefore I renounce the Ministerium, but not the Munus” (that is, the concrete exercise of the Papacy). 

Canon 332,2, as we have seen, is of the same opinion, because it is precisely the Munus to which the Pope must renounce, and not the Ministerium, which is what he did. Therefore, in 2013, Pope Benedict the XVIth did not validly renounce the Papacy, he never left a sede vacante but rather, a sede impedita, and took refuge in a juridical status in which the Pope remains, but as a prisoner. That notwithstanding, in that capacity he still maintains the Petrine Munus (and all which that implies: the infallibility of his definitive pronouncements, the assistance of the Holy Spirit in the teaching of the Magisterium in moral and dogmatic matters), and consequently, he is still Pope.


Why did he do all of this?We must conclude that the Declaratio was the only instrument remaining for him to announce his condition of sede impedita (Cann. 335 and 412), in which the Pope is “prisoner, confined, exiled, rendered incapacitated, incapable of communicating even by letter”. In this case, the Pope is likened to a dethroned king, who remains king despite not being able to manage his kingdom. This is the situation which is created ( and we believe that this has been the case in Rome since 2013) in the case of a sede impedita.

Therefore, by law, the Apostolic Seat may only remain vacant or impeded (impedita). The normal hypothesis is obviously the sede vancante (vacant, Can. 416), which occurs when the reigning Pope either is deceased or has validly renounced (and this does not seem to be the case in question). Yet since 2013, Benedict was no longer able to exert his Ministerium -that is - the practical exercise of power - and therefore since 2013, he has found himself in a state of sede impedita, because he is prisoner. For this reason, the Pope remains Benedict the XVI, even though his practical power has been impaired by his inability to perform his office.

Benedict the XVI has effectively exiled himself, and has consciously applied - discreetly and in silence - an anti-insurrectional plan conceived in 1983 with John Paul II, centred upon the distinction between Munus and Ministerium (unknown or ignored up to that point by the Code of Canon Law). It concerns a juridical contrivance to protect the legitimacy of the Church of Peter and annul that part of the Catholic Church which has nothing to do with Catholicism.

Why did he do this? In the winter of 2012-2013, Benedict’s situation had become unsustainable. At the time, there was astonishing pressure from the international press, which was attempting to attribute penal responsibility to Benedict for the covering of cases of pedophilia. This occurred contemporaneously with a progressive and intensive erosion of the Pope’s temporal powers for that which regarded the management of the Holy See  - the IOR in particular. 

The Declaratio was  therefore the only instrument (cryptic, discreet, yet efficacious) with which to deactivate from within - and in an intelligent manner - the coup d’etat which had been long planned by the so-called Sankt Gallen Mafia, and in this extremely intelligent manner, Benedict the XVIth has been speaking cryptically for nine years, stating “I am still the legitimate Pope, but I am being held prisoner”. 

Therefore, the Apostolic Seat has not been rendered vacant, but rather: it is empty, deserted, abandoned. VACO in Latin does not signify exclusively vacant. it also may signify ‘empty’. This is why Benedict the XVI said in his declaration that “at the twentieth hour of the 28th of February, the Seat of Rome VACET”. Not in the juridical sense that it would be rendered vacant, but in the literal sense of its being empty, free because its occupant had been evacuated, and that  he who should legitimately occupy it had been cleared away. 

In the Declaratio, Benedict uses the term “Seat of Peter”, which juridically has no significance, because the correct term here would be “Apostolic Seat”. Which, juridically speaking, may only be vacante or impedita, but certainly not empty, which is an inappropriate term for the context in which it is being used. Why did Benedict express himself thus? Should a Pope not be expected to use the correct terminology? He clearly wants us to understand that the conditions of sede vacante have not been fulfilled, as he has not validly renounced, seeing as he has limited himself to distancing himself from the Seat which he intentionally left empty. The Apostolic Seat has therefore been illegitimately appropriated by a certain individual, and hence the Apostolic Seat is in actuality, impedita. This explains why Benedict is not able to express himself freely: he is, de facto, a prisoner whose ability to exert his own power has been incapacitated, as has his power to freely express himself. 

The Declaratio of Pope Ratzinger therefore is not a renunciation of the Papacy ( because Benedict did not in fact renounce his office, and the document read by him is entitled Declaratio, and not Renuntiatio, as the Apostolic constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” requires. it is an announcement of sede impedita, because Benedict the XVI was in fact victim of a mutiny within the Church, and of a complete ostracism. He produced a document which may have seemed a renunciation, but was a declaration of sede impedita instead. Pope Benedict, in other words, was no longer able to exercise his ministry, and he therefore withdrew his presence, in sede impedita, in perfect coherence with Canonical Law, leaving the Apostolic Seat empty. In fact, Canon 335 of the Codex provides us with only two options: The Apostolic seat may be left vacant (when the Pope validly renounces the Munus, or dies), or impedita (the case in which the Pope is not able to exercise his Ministerium because he is de facto a prisoner). Therefore, if a Pope renounces (as is expected) the Munus, the process of abdication ensues, while if he renounces the Ministerium, we have a case of sede impedita. If therefore - as has already occurred -  a conclave is summoned during the reign of a legitimate Pope who has not died and has not legitimately abdicated, not only is the conclave invalid: it also produces an anti-pope,an illegitimate successor (which is exactly what occurred in 2013). As a consequence, all decisions, declarations and nominations of the anti-pope are also invalid. 

With this intelligent mechanism of juridical and eschatological defence dividing the papal appointment between title and function, Benedict the XVI forced unfaithful cardinals to reveal themselves to their own ruin, which will occur when the sede impedita will be officially recognized. This may occur either with a provincial synod, or when Benedict officially reveals his state of imprisonment. 

There is another interesting passage of the Declaratio which confirms this theory and in itself constitutes an elegant enigma.On the site of the Holy See it is translated thus: “I declare that a conclave must be summoned by those qualified, in order to elect the new Pontifex”. This translation - apparently correct - presents us with two serious difficulties:


The responsibility for the summoning of a conclave rests exclusively upon the dean of the College of Cardinals, and not the entire College of Cardinals, or even a part (no. 19 of Universi Dominici gregis). For this reason, it makes no sense to use the plural “ab iis”, and should be “ab eo”. Therefore, the use of the agent “ab iis” is bizarre and apparently inexplicable, unless, following our logic, one views it in a different light. 

This same agent “ab iis”, in reference to a passive periphrastic (convocandum esse), should not be formulated in this form, because in order to express this concept, the simple dative should be used (“ei”). It went without notice that Benedict the XVI willingly used “ab iis”, rendering the Latin phrase grammatically incorrect, unless he is  referring to something else. There is in fact another verbal expression to which “ab iis” may very well be grammatically referred: “eligendum”, which changes everything. If we reformulate the syntactic structure of the phrase, another, different translation emerges: “I declare that a conclave must be summoned, in order to elect a new Pope, on the part of those qualified to do so.” That is, in conclusion: “those qualified” is made in reference not to he who must summon the conclave, but rather “those qualified” - and only those qualified - to elect the new Pope. In other words, in this manner, Benedict the XVI seems to be indicating a sub-group of cardinals within the College of Cardinals, to whom the faculty and right of election of a Pope belong in exclusivity, based upon the norms and laws of the Church. Are there therefore certain cardinals who do not have the faculty and right to elect a pope? An allusion to those cardinals beyond the age of eighty would be superfluous, as everyone is already familiar with this limitation. To whom then does Benedict the XVI refer? There is logically only one remaining option: those cardinals nominated by him or by John Paul II, who, having not contravened against the dispositions of Universi Dominici Gregis no.81, who have not  - prior to a papal  election - made agreements or commitments in favour of a particular candidate (which would be reason for excommunication Latae Sententiae). It is not difficult at this point to hypothesize an indirect reference to the so-called Mafia of Sankt Gallen, whose existence and operations were well-known to Benedict the XVI. Therefore the message revealed in the ‘corrected’ translation states that the only individuals fit for the election of the new Pope are cardinals who satisfy the following requisites: 

1) They have not been nominated by an illegitimate Pope, and have therefore been nominated to the role of cardinal prior to the 28th of February 2013;

2) they have not been excommunicated, according to the dispositions of Universi Dominici Gregis no. 81 (therefore the Mafia of Sankt Gallen would  be excluded).

Benedict the XVIth is essentially stating that:

  • Only those individuals in possession of these aforementioned requisites (that is: only those cardinals elevated to their state by him or by John Paul II) were permitted to elect the new Pope, and the requisites STILL STAND;
  • The conclave of 2013 was invalid because Pope Benedict - as has already been stated - had neither died, nor validly abdicated;
  • Those cardinals excommunicated latae sententiae participated in the 2013 conclave; 
  • Only those cardinals nominated prior to 2013 may participate in the next conclave. 

There are however, other signs and elements which have led us to believe that Benedict the XVI still considers himself to be Supreme Pontiff:

  1. He continues to dress in white, yet, if he were no longer Pope, he should return to wearing black, like every other cardinal;
  2. He continues to sign his letters with the acronym BP (Benedictus Pontifex), as if he were still the reigning Pontiff;
  3. In his private communications, he makes use of letter paper with the stem of the reigning POntiff;
  4. He decided to remain in the Vatican;
  5. He has continued to  exercise his Magisterium, even in service of the correction of Bergoglio;
  6. He has affirmed that there is only one Pontiff, but he never states which of the two he is. Massimo Franco, Director of Corriere della Sera, incorrectly stated that Benedict had actually completed the phrase, indicating Pope Francis as the true Pope, which is a falsehood: Benedict has limited himself to stating repeatedly that “there is only one Pope”. 

And this is not all: over these past nine years, the “impeded” Pontiff has disseminated his letters, declarations, his externalisations, with a veiled and cultured language, rich with various other ambiguous expressions which lend themselves to multiple interpretations: true and proper ciphered messages in order to communicate his true thoughts. Jesus spoke in this manner with parables and ambiguities, and it is in this manner that Benedict the XVI has styled his peculiar communications. In other words, Benedict  speaks to those ears capable of hearing and understanding, and for those equipped with culture and logic: he reveals the truth and makes known his condition of prisoner, using the language of a treasure hunt. Here are two examples:

  1. Georg Gaenswein, secretary to Benedict the XVI, spoke at the presentation of a book at the L.U.M.S.A. (The Free University of Maria Assunta), referring to the words of Pope Benedict: “ You may believe or not believe. The response is in the Book of Jeremiah, but I will not tell you which Chapter or which verse”. And we go on to read in Jeremiah 36, v.5: “Therefore Jeremiah ordered Baruch: I am impeded and cannot enter the House of the Lord”. No further comment is needed.
  2. On that same occasion,  Mons. Gaenswein said: “Before coming here, I prayed with Pope Benedict, as every Catholic priest prays Vespers”. Here there is an interruption of syntactic flow by means of an unusual modal subordinate (“as every Catholic priest does”), between the predicate (”I prayed”), and its object (“Vespers”). It is an apparently clear and anodyne expression, which, however, presents a double sense. An attentive analysis of the phrase (which as we see, lends itself to two interpretations) in fact, provides us with the first obvious meaning, that is: that every Catholic priest prays Vespers (and this may be the superficial interpretation). The second meaning is that he prayed Vespers in union with Pope Benedict. Therefore, the meaning of the phrase becomes this “I prayed Vespers with Pope Benedict as every Catholic priest does”. However, as it is impossible for every Catholic priest to pray Vespers in the company of Pope Benedict, he is evidently referring to his praying of Vespers in Communion with Pope Benedict. The Holy Eucharist and the Divine Office are celebrated in communion with the reigning Pontiff, and therefore, this is another manner of affirming that Benedict the  XVI is the reigning Pontiff.

In connection with this theme, there is in fact the problem of the celebration of the Mass Una Cum. In whose name does Pope Benedict the XVI celebrate Mass? Mons. Gaenswein has communicated both by letter and by phone that Benedict “during the Mass, has never mentioned any other name, and has never nominated himself”. 

 He has done so thus far on two separate occasions:

When Father Gebart, an openly “Bergoglian” priest, asked him telephonically in union with whom Benedict celebrated the Mass, Mons. Gaenswein responded: “Pope Benedict has never mentioned any other name during the Canon of the Mass. He never mentioned himself during the Canon”. 

When he sent a personal letter to Don Minutella. Don Minutella, the Sicilian priest who was excommunicated in August 2018, had received a false letter attributed to Mons. Gaenswein, in which it was stated that Pope Benedict celebrated Mass in communion with Pope Francis. The secretary of Benedict the XVI denied having sent the letter, and wrote a second pesonal letter, which states verbatim: “the letter is false and purely a lie”, consequently, the contents of the first letter are also false. If the statement that Benedict celebrates in union with Francis is false, then he clearly celebrates in union with himself. 

In fact, anyone even vaguely familiar with the Roman Missal intuits exactly what Gaenswein was attempting to communicate.

If Benedict does not cite either the name of Francis or his own, this simply means that when he celebrates Mass, it is in con-celebration with himself, and therefore he does not mention his own name. Only the reigning Pontiff may do this: he alone, as in this case no name is mentioned when he uses the expression “in union with myself, your unworthy servant”, which is yet another way of reiterating that he (not Francis) is Pope. 

Even his silence is often eloquent: he made no observations (or protests)  over the publication of Andrea Conci’s “Ratzinger Code”, from whom he received a copy as homage. The unspoken word, with Benedict, is more expressive than the spoken (dum tacet, clamat). 

It is clear that all that is mentioned above responds to a precise logic. 

At this point, what may be done? Members of the high clergy (as for example, Mons. Carlo Maria Vigano’) should  - and would -  be capable of summoning a provincial Synod to verify the validity of the Declaratio, and pronounce the Seat of the Bishop of Rome to be in sede impedita

These ruminations  are not at all intended to be futile: the destiny of 1 billion, 285 million Catholics is at the mercy of a globalist potentate which has imposed its choice upon them. At this historical juncture, we are witnessing the evaporation of Christianity, emptying it of its significance in order to substitute it with something diluted, softened and easily manipulated: we are witnessing the reversal of Catholic postulates, actuated by altering the basis of the Faith, in order to follow the logic of the world. 

There is an unmentionable, worrying convergence between consumer society - which is itself irreverent and profane- and the Church of Bergoglio which - rather than resisting such tendencies - both seconds them and is proceeding in lockstep in the same liberal progressivist direction, abandoning the transcendent in favour of the imminent. The Church, which is intended to resist market societies conjugated with the dictatorship of relativism, has bent itself to their will. At this moment, we now have two Churches: one is faithful to God and to transcendence, and the other is liberal and progressivist, closed to the eternal, its will bent upon that which is worldly and imminent.

From an eschatological perspective following the teachings of the fourth century theologian Ticonius, one might say  - as Cionci does - that the true Church has withdrawn to bring to light the Church of the Devil. In fact, Benedict the XVI withdrew himself in sede impedita to the Monastery Mater Ecclesiae -  which Pope John Paul II had had constructed during the 1990’s -  in order to force the emergence of evil and have it destroyed. This is in accordance with a plan of salvation of the Catholic Church originating thirty years ago, which has its own perfect historical, juridical, theological and prophetic coherence.




Partecipa attivamente nella Battaglia per la difesa della libertà e dell'ovvio!


Iscriviti alla Newsletter!

Rimani aggiornato su tutte le nostre iniziative e novità!

Nessuna spam garantita. Disiscriviti quando vuoi!