The white bishop descended into the Catholic Church

Immersed in a time emptied of its meaning, as in these two long years of the “pandemic” still in progress, we find ourselves daily to deal with news and contents in almost perfect dual harmony, of mainstream thesis and counter-information antithesis that face each other for the primacy of public truth. No wonder that this is precisely the reign of the White Bishop, with two popes essentially in office.

We have almost forgotten it since that fateful eleventh February two thousand and thirteen, the day on which Joseph Ratzinger resigned to cede the papacy to the current Jorge Mario Bergoglio; however, in the rectory of the Roman Catholic consistory the question of the legitimacy of this unusual regency seems to be far from resolved, setting the disturbing case of the white bishop.

The fact is presented, in our opinion admirably, by Andrea Cionci, Italian journalist and writer, who has so far carried out a great job, trying to clarify, scriptures in hand, about the contradiction of the living dyad Benedict XVI and Francis I.

The precursor story of the White Bishop

We must start from 1983, the year in which the then Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II decided to break down the papal office into two distinct roles: the munus and the ministerium, or the title of pope (the first) and the exercise of the papal ministry in the relative functions (the second):

if the pope renounces the munus, the title, he “abdicates” in accordance with canon 33.2; if he, on the other hand, renounces the ministerium, he finds himself in an impeded seat. In a seat impeded, the pope remains pope even though he is a prisoner

In the Declaratio, an official resignation letter in Latin (the only document that is valid as a deed of office), Benedict XVI explicitly renounces the ministerium. It goes without saying that the title of munus is still in his legitimate possession, which is why Ratzinger has never stopped being the Pope.

Inconsistent translations pollute the waters

The case is further complicated by examining the translations of the Declaratio in modern languages. With the exception of the German version, in fact, there is no trace of the canonical distinction explicitly expressed in Latin by Joseph Ratzinger, which is no small feat, given that the completeness of a papal office, after the 1983 reform, can no longer be separated from reunification of the two functions.

The German translation of the Latin letter also offers us an absolutely enigmatic “inversion”: in the passage of renouncing the exercise of papal functions (ministerium) which we know to be what Joseph Ratzinger actually renounced in the Latin Declaratio, the word Dienst which indicates the ministerium is instead replaced by Amt, which is the German translation of the meaning of munus.

This formal defect actually hides a message, or perhaps it would be better to say a code, to decipher the current combination of papal figures, in the light of a prediction prophesied by the revelations of Fatima, with Bergoglio in the role of antipope, “bishop dressed in white ”, the white bishop precisely.

It was done on purpose, because when Pope Benedict says that the renunciation of the ministry is valid, whoever is not Latin-speaking and who is fasting according to canon law, does not know that he refers to the ministry ministerium, and not to the ministry munus, because the same word wants identify both entities that are very different and that have no transitivity between them, since there may be a pope with the munus who for reasons of force majeure renounces the ministerium, if imprisoned, if expelled by an antipope, etc., but there cannot be a true pope with only the ministerium that also acquires the munus

Andrea Cionci

The latest work by Mons. Georg Gaenswein further corroborates the investigation (“Witness the truth”, Ares – ita), in which the prefect of the Papal Household clearly announces – following the Ratzinger Code, that is, the textual ambiguities found in communications officials of the pope emeritus and that some would define as mere imprecisions or expressive oddities – that Ratzinger himself would be prevented and Bergoglio therefore an illegitimate pontiff. In a speech given in 2016 and only recently transcribed, Gaenswein stated:

Benedict XVI was elected after only four ballots, following a dramatic struggle between the so-called “Party of the salt of the earth” around cardinals López Trujíllo, Ruini, Herranz, Rouco Varela or Medina and the so-called “Group of St. Gallo” around to cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy-O’Connor; this group, recently, was ironically defined by Cardinal Danneels of Brussels himself as a kind of mafia-club. The election certainly also represented the outcome of a clash, the key to which Joseph Ratzinger himself as cardinal dean had almost provided, in the historic homily of April 18, 2005 in St. Peter’s; and precisely there where to “a dictatorship of relativism that recognizes nothing as definitive and that leaves only one’s own self and desires as the ultimate measure” he had contrasted another measure: “the Son of God and true man” as “the measure of true humanism“.

Georg Gaenswein

We are faced with a very delicate question, all the more delicate as there is a media silence that envelops the whole story, as if to exalt its eminently spiritual, theological significance, but which nevertheless retains a great historical and political importance. Just think of all the operations carried out by Bergoglio in his multi-year ministerium that somehow become the improper light of the true papacy of Benedict XVI (munus). We are not allowed to go further, the work is still alive and is being completed, we leave it to everyone’s heart to reflect themselves in the images of this incredible story, to find the way forward.