The Italian blogger Andrea Cionci posted a cheeky essay coming off the Corriere “interview” with Pope Benedict and the new book by Estefania Acosta. His conclusion is that Benedict is the one and only pope, by means of a positive decision on the part of Benedict: Retention of the Vicarship on purpose, in order for all the evil to hatch out, and the Church be saved.
The whole thing is worth your time, link down below. Cionci ends his piece with 50 questions to ask those discerning the facts of the matter. Here is a tease:
8) Is it credible that Benedict continues to repeat “the pope is one ” without ever specifying which one, only for the “taste of spite” and that he does not foresee the destabilizing effects of his declarations?
9) If Benedict were not lucid, how could he have written books and given interviews until recently and, above all, preserved for eight years what appears to be a “perfect, logical ambiguity”?
10) For example, when Benedict, in addition to “the pope is only one”, declares to Corriere: ” Some of my slightly” fanatical “friends are still angry, they did not want to accept my CHOICE ” is perhaps equivalent to saying: ” My fans are wrong to say that I am the real pope and / or that I was wrong to resign ”? If so, why then does Benedict not explicitly blame his fans for their grave and sinful claims? Why, despite the title written by the Corriere, does the word “renunciation” or “resignation” never appear in Benedict’s quotation marks, but only “choice”? Here :
11) The first sentence could, therefore, also be interpreted as meaning: “some of my fans are angry for my CHOICE which seemed to them to resign, even if they did not understand that I have not resigned at all and I was preparing the Great Catholic Reset “?
12) Benedict continues: “ I think of the conspiracy theories that followed it: who said it was the fault of the Vatileaks scandal, some of a conspiracy by the gay lobby, some of the case of the conservative Lefebvrian theologian Richard Williamson. They do not want to believe in a CHOICE made consciously “. Why does he report these rarely mentioned actors, if the commentators have been talking insistently, for several years, above all about the “Mafia of St. Gallen” and international Freemasonry?
13) Could your sentence be interpreted, therefore, as an “affirmation through the negation of an off topic object”? (Example: Mom asks Luigino if he has stolen the jam. And he replies: “I have not stolen either the bread or the butter”).
14) Therefore, Benedict’s sentence could be read as “in fact I resigned precisely because of the pressure from the Mafia of St. of appreciation)?
15) According to you, Benedict’s phrase: “I made my choice eight years ago in full awareness and my conscience is clear” excludes a possible subtext such as “I am serene because I have never resigned and, waiting for the discovery of truth, have I consciously prepared the Reset of all enemies of the true Church ”?
16) Conversely, if there were not this subtext, how could Ratzinger candidly declare to Corriere: “I have a clear conscience”, given all the problems that, with his ambiguities, he would have caused the only true pontiff, Francis?
17) How many mathematical probabilities are there therefore that, in eight years, in each of his direct declarations, Benedict has always maintained a perfect and consistent ” double face ” reversibility of the meaning of his words, which can be interpreted on a more careful reading, even better if do you treat, as the “only pope am I”?
18) And if we wanted to consider Ratzinger weak, confused, or semi-modernist, has he ever made, on the contrary, a declaration that could completely deny the hypothesis about his “resignation” purposely invalid?
19) Would this presumed veiled and indirect communication also be compatible with the self-invalidating juridical language recognized in the Declaratio by some Latinists, journalists, theologians and now also by jurists?
20) Perhaps Benedict cannot, or does not want to speak freely for spiritual and / or strategic reasons?