Dr. Mazza on Ratzinger’s Attempted Resignation: An Open Letter to Andrea Cionci

Dr. Mazza once again strikes with a dagger of documented simplicity. Published today by Marco Tosatti:

Dear friends and foes of Stilum Curiae, we receive from Dr. Edmund Mazza this open letter directed to Andrea Cionci, in response to the article found at this link. Happy reading

On May 11th, Italian journalist and blogger, Andrea Cionci, addressed an open letter to me and Ann Barnhardt publicly disagreeing with our stated position that Pope Benedict likely committed substantial error in his 2013 renunciation, thereby invalidating it according to Canon 188 (and Canon 332.2). Cionci invited us to examine his research and adopt his view. Cionci, however, did not engage any of my arguments, he merely presented his own. He argues that Benedict did not intend to renounce anything, but to create an impeded see. He further claims that Benedict is speaking in coded messages for “those who have ears to hear.”

Since St. Paul and St. Thomas both prominently teach that fraternal correction is an act of charity toward our neighbor, I hope that Mr. Cionci will accept this public reply in that spirit in which it is offered. In saying this, I do not claim to be a “know-it-all.” I could be wrong about the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation. I have always maintained that I am merely presenting an hypothesis.

That having been said, in my estimation, the evidence is insurmountable that Pope Benedict intended to renounce something. (Specialists and non-specialists alike may differ on what that something was and whether he succeeded in his endeavor in the eyes of God.)

Let us turn to the evidence, starting with his own testimony to Peter Seewald in his 2016 book, Last Testament: In His Own Words:

Seewald: You say that you sought counsel on your decision. Indeed, with your ultimate boss. How was that?

Pope Benedict: You have to lay out all your affairs before Him as clearly as possible and try not to see everything only in terms of efficiency or other criteria for resignation, but to look at it from faith. It was from precisely this perspective that I became convinced that the commission of Peter demanded concrete decisions, insights, from me, but then, when it was no longer possible for me for the foreseeable future, that the Lord no longer wanted me to do it and freed me from the burden, as it were. I could resign because calm had returned to this situation. It was not a case of retreating under pressure or feeling that things couldn’t be coped with.[1]

Or again, Benedict speaks of his resignation in the context of the curial retreat that occurred after his Declaratio was delivered:

Pope Benedict: …retreats are places of silence, of listening, of prayer. Of course it was part of the whole plan of the resignation for it to be followed by a week of silence, where everyone is able to work it out inwardly, or the bishops, cardinals and staff of the Curia at least.

Seewald: Have you ever regretted the resignation even for a minute?

Pope Benedict: No! No, no. Every day I see that it was right.

Why does Benedict repeatedly speak of resignation if that was not his intention?

Then we have his testimony from his last General Audience on February 27, 2013:

In these last months I have felt my energies declining, and I have asked God insistently in prayer to grant me his light and to help me make the right decision, not for my own good, but for the good of the Church. I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty, but with profound interior serenity…

Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church…

The “always” is also a “forever” —there is no longer a return to the private. My decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, etc. I do not abandon the cross but remain in a new way with the Crucified Lord. I no longer carry the power of the [Petrine] office for the government of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the precincts of St. Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example to me in this. He has shown us the way to a life, which, active or passive, belongs totally to the work of God.[2]

Finally, we have Benedict’s Declaratio itself:

…in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.[3]

Benedict speaks of a physical incapacity to completely fulfill the Petrine ministry entrusted to him and then proceeds to “renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome…” He even speaks of a “conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff.”

Furthermore, in his interview with Seewald, Benedict acknowledges Francis as the new Pope!

Pope Benedict: The new Pope, though, is South American and Italian, so he represents both the intertwining of the new and old worlds and the inner unity of history.

He is definitely a Pope of reflection as well. When I read Evangelii gaudium, or even the interviews, I see that he is a thoughtful person, who grapples intellectually with the questions of our time. But at the same time he is simply someone who is very close to people, who stands with them, who is always among them.

Or in the 2021 book, Benedict: A Life:

Seewald: On March 23, 2013, the first meeting between the newly elected and the resigned Pope took place in Castel Gandolfo, an absolute novelty in history. What were your thoughts in that hour?

Pope Benedict: I knew Pope Francis from his Ad Limina visit and from various correspondence contacts that my congregation had had with him. I also knew that he tried to call me immediately after the election, before he showed himself to people from the balcony of St. Peter’s Church. So I was looking forward to meeting my successor and knowing thankfully that it would be a good meeting between brothers. Incidentally, of course, I carefully considered what I should say to him without consuming too much time. So this first encounter remains as a good light in mine memory. As you know, personal friendship with Pope Francis has not only remained, but has grown.[4]

I could cite many other examples as well, but these should suffice.

In conclusion, I appeal to you Mr. Cionci to consider how much it strains credulity to believe that Benedict did not intend to resign. It strains it unimaginably further to argue that he not only intended not to resign but is sending us cryptic messages to confirm it.

Now that Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano is calling for an investigation of Benedict’s Renunciation and Francis’ Election, the last thing we need is to lose credibility by proposing theories that open us so easily to ridicule and accusations of Gnosticism.

In Jesus and Mary,

Edmund J. Mazza, PhD

May 19, 2022

Feast of St. Celestine V, resignant pope


[1] Peter Seewald, Last Testament: In His Own Words, (Bloomsbury Continuum, 2016).

[2] https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2013/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20130227.html

[3] https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html

[4] Peter Seewald, Benedict: A Life, (Bloomsbury Continuum, 2021)


What if I were to tell you they ran the monkeypox war game in March 2021?

h/t Fred Martinez

Launch date for monkeypox outbreak in the war game? May 15, 2022.

Oh, and it was a bio-weapon… a genetic variant engineered by terrorists in a lab.

Link to full PDF at the bottom.

Executive Summary

“In March 2021, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) partnered with the Munich Security Conference (MSC) to conduct a tabletop exercise on reducing high-consequence biological threats. Conducted virtually, the exercise examined gaps in national and international biosecurity and pandemic preparedness architectures and explored opportunities to improve capabilities to prevent and respond to high-consequence biological events. Participants included 19 senior leaders and experts from across Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe with decades of combined experience in public health, biotechnology industry, international security, and philanthropy.

The exercise scenario portrayed a deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus that emerged in the fictional nation of Brinia and spread globally over 18 months. Ultimately, the exercise scenario revealed that the initial outbreak was caused by a terrorist attack using a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight. By the end of the exercise, the fictional pandemic resulted in more than three billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide.”


Four Questions for the BiP crowd who maintain Benedict knew what he was doing, did it on purpose, and remains the only true pope with his own full knowledge and consent

The “full knowledge and consent” part will become important, gravely important, in a moment. First, a few words of introduction.

In this post, we address those commentators who believe with moral certitude that Benedict is still the one true pope, but profess against the Substantial Error theory of Benedict’s invalid resignation. These include Estefania Acosta, Patrick Coffin, and Andrea Cionci. While they all 100% see Benedict’s resignation as invalid, or they might say not even attempted, and hence, Bergoglio was never pope, their theory is that the invalidating act was executed by Pope Benedict on purpose, in order to protect the Church and the papacy from the ascendant anti-church. With forces rapidly closing in, Benedict, in a masterstroke of Teutonic brilliance, pulled off the switcheroo right under everyone’s noses, using code words, subtle phrasing, and delaying its effect for 17 days but then letting that 17th day pass without ever signing anything. He modeled all this on a strategy built centuries ago by European monarchs to protect their thrones via feigned regency. Benedict knew what he was doing, it has nothing to do with an imagined Expanded Petrine Ministry. He intended to retain the full papacy, to declare the Seat “impeded,” and this is in fact (and in law) what he did. If my summary of their position is inadequate, I am open to correction.

I have attempted private communications on this and have found the responses lacking. There have since been several essays made public, so I’m not breaching any confidences. Most recently, Coffin published the English translation of Cionci’s open letter to Ann Barnhardt and Dr. Mazza. I greatly respect everyone in this fight who come to it with integrity. I will fully admit to being wrong if my questions can be answered in an orthodox way, but also in a way that fits with the evidence at hand. What we cannot accept is circular reasoning or “begging the question…” We cannot allow answers like “your assertion is obviously incorrect because my base premise is the true one.” I am not here to attack anyone, I am here to attack arguments. Actually, I’m not really even offering counter-arguments, because we are in mutual agreement on so much of the evidence at hand. I’m simply pointing out the logical consequences, if their arguments and conclusions are correct. So let us begin.

Question One: If Pope Benedict executed his non-resignation (grave matter) with full knowledge and full intent, how is it that he is not in a state of mortal sin for doing so? The three conditions have been met (grave matter, full knowledge, full assent of the will). A valid pontiff, crowned by Christ himself, executes one of the greatest deceptions in the history of the Church, and he is a brilliant strategist for doing so? How can that be? While God can and does allow good to come out of evil, God never condones the doing of evil in the hope of a good outcome. God doesn’t do “the ends justify the means,” ever. And while Pope Benedict could have theoretically gone to Confession the evening of 28 Feb 2013, he could not have received valid absolution, because valid absolution requires a firm purpose of amendment, and in cases where the effect of certain sins can be rectified, then rectification is a necessary component of the penance. In which case he persists in mortal sin, NINE YEARS later. Which brings us to…

Question Two: If Pope Benedict executed his intentional grave deception in order to save the Church from the wolves, what then of the Faithful? Not a word from Benedict about the apostasy of his “successor” who all the world thinks is pope? This is the most grave mortal sin of SCANDAL. Benedict has willfully (according to their theory) lead a billion souls to believe a heretical, blaspheming, demon-worshiping apostate is the true pope of the One True Church. How many people have been led astray, accepted heresy and easy sin, and gone to their eternal reward in such condition? I will tell you how many: 70 MILLION. That’s how many Catholics have died in the last nine years, two months. Pope Benedict is (according to their theory) intentionally sitting by, petting his cat, knowing he is still the only true pope, knowing that Bergoglio is an antipope, perfectly happy to have 70 million souls going to their Particular Judgment thinking Bergoglio was pope and his magisterium authentic. If so, this is an awful test of God’s bounteous mercy, and it makes Benedict a monster.

Aside: I will admit, and this is damning with faint praise, but we do know Benedict Ratzinger is capable of deception. Why? Because it was Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the CDF who authorized the fake news text of the 13 May 2000 announcement by Cardinal Sodano of the true Third Secret of Fatima. A total deception, and one that curiously has direct implications into what we are discussing here. Funny that. There was also that time he claimed he was forced to continue wearing papal white because no other colors were available.

Question Three: What was it, exactly, that Benedict did actually resign (or intend to resign) when he read out the Declaratio? It is clear from the text that he intended to resign something, leaving aside the question of whether or not it was effective. In the key phrase of the document, he is clearly resigning, or intending to resign SOMETHING. Look at the English, look at the original Latin, or watch the video. “I renounce the ministry” … while we can argue whether or not the words took effect, we cannot claim he did not say those words. Canon Law demands that we respect the meaning of words, the context, and the mind of the legislator:

Can. 17. Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Question Four: Since Gnosticism is heresy, how are the faithful to approach the “Ratzinger Code” in an orthodox manner? The evidence for the Substantial Error theory is all out in full view for anyone to see, not just for those with eyes to see, if you know what I mean. We all agree on the visual evidence; a five year old could see it. We all know how Benedict’s further writings, and his words in the Seewald interviews, point to something other than what is commonly accepted, but that much is evident from the actual meaning of his words, not code words. Saying that the common lay faithful need access to a secret code to discern who is true pope seems… rather problematic. Implying that knowledge of this secret code is necessary to find and follow the true Church and achieve one’s salvation is… you see what I mean. So how to approach this in an orthodox manner?

Honest questions deserve honest answers.

I confess, I wanted this idea of intentional obfuscation to be true for quite some time, before the Code Theory even existed. I wanted Benedict to be the 15 dimensional chess player, the brilliant Bavarian who outsmarted all the traitors. But the practical consequences on the ground these nine years later are too much to bear. I will also admit, it is highly irregular and it does hold water that the day of 28 Feb 2013 came and went without Ratzinger actually signing anything before or after he got on the helicopter. Italian canonists were calling it out in real time. I see this as a third way he may have retained the papacy whole and entire.

Hold fast, folks. Things are happening.

Wherein Eccles strikes the perfect note

This is me, Eccles
This is me, Eccles

Saturday, 21 May 2022

Archbishop does his duty shock horror

The Catholic world is up in arms today at the news that the blessed devout Catholic Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives in the USA, has been banned from taking Holy Communion in the diocese of San Francisco. Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone shockingly does his duty – where will this scandal end?

Clear off, Nancy!

Nancy is out of luck.Now you too can tell Cordileone where to get off. Here is your “Justice for Nancy” bingo card.

Bingo card

Meanwhile other devout Demo-Catholics such as Biden and Occasional-Cortex were said to be “not at all worried” about their own positions. There is absolutely no danger that their own bishops will take any action.The last word, as ever, goes to Pope Francis. I wanted to write a parody, but the original cannot really be beaten:Bono: Do women & girls play a powerful role in tackling the climate crisis?Francis: In the Common home, we usually speak of Mother Earth, not Father Earth. This is very clear. Besides, as I told you a while ago, since that afternoon of the apple, [women] are in charge.

Pope and Bono

“So you want to set Traditionis Custodes to music?”

Posted by Eccles at 14:00 

“Imagine the compliance.”

I would be willing to bet that there is a deeply sexual nature to fantasies such as this. A level of control orders of magnitude beyond anything BDSM. I’m sure it’s nothing.

Audit finds Biden’s Twitter followers are as fake as his 81 million “votes”

“Nearly half of President Biden’s 22.2 million Twitter followers are bogus, a new audit revealed. The audit, which was done for the social media giant by software firm SparkToro, found that 49.3% of the president’s followers are “fake followers,” according to Newsweek. SparkToro has defined “fake followers” as “accounts that are unreachable and will not see the account’s tweets (either because they’re spam, bots, propaganda, etc. or because they’re no longer active on Twitter).””

Part Two of Nurse Claire’s war on the baby formula crisis, and she is dropping nukes: What the hell is going on, who is responsible, and why is this happening?


Part one of this series discussed the current baby formula shortage that emerged in November and how moms can prepare their own infant formula at home.  In this installment, I’ll  take a look at the current formula crisis affecting the United States & how we got here.

Currently, the U.S. is seeing its inventory of infant formula reduced by over 43%. The reasons for this are numerous, but make no mistake: this is by design. As with COVID and the intentional collapse of the healthcare system, there is a concerted effort here to collapse the food supply. Why? Well, when governments create a crisis, they can present a solution, and further line bureaucratic pockets and empower themselves. Exhibit A: Bill Gates has been waiting in the wings with his new “environmentally-friendly” infant formula, designed to be a greener alternative to conventional baby formula.

You know – because your newborn’s carbon footprint is just too intolerably large.  Clearly this crisis is about both power & money. American politicians and power-brokers have colluded to create a perfect storm which would stoke hysteria among parents of hungry babies and cause them to demand a solution.  

Since the “pandemic” first hit in 2020, consumers of nearly all products have seen shortages attributed to “supply chain issues”.  What exactly does this mean?  Well for starters, the mandatory quarantining of workers who test positive for the CoronaSniffles is a great strategy if you’re aiming to destroy an industry.  We saw this with healthcare:  staff who tested positive but were asymptomatic were being forced to stay home from work for a minimum of 14 days, creating a huge deficit of nurses and care providers.  We see the same in other industries: massive testing conveniently yields high false positivity, destroying the workforce via mandatory quarantine or the temporarily closure of factories due to “outbreaks”.  And in the U.S., there are only FOUR facilities that produce baby formula.  Talk about maintaining a “just-in-time” inventory!  If one plant goes down, the other three are incapable of ramping up productivity to meet demand.  So taking just one plant off-line is enough to leave a huge dent in the national supply of infant formula.  And this is exactly what happened when the largest formula factory, located in Michigan, was shut down by the FDA in February following an outbreak of bacterial infections among infants in several states.  Abbott Laboratories runs this facility, and further exacerbated the shortage by voluntarily recalling four of its most popular brands in the days following the outbreak.  However, despite the FDA’s investigation failing to link Abbott’s formula as the cause of the babies’ illnesses, the Michigan plant remains shuttered with no re-opening date in sight.  Why?  Well take a look at this Twitter thread from Abbott this past Friday, May 13:

If the FDA really cared about starving babies, why are they needlessly keeping this production facility closed?  

It appears other sources of formula are being closed off through various means; remember the suppression of ivermectin?  A Google search for “home made baby formula” turns up nothing but headline after headline, aiming to strike terror in the hearts of desperate moms by proclaiming how “dangerous” it can be to produce home made formula using natural ingredients. But the same search for “home made baby formula” on Duck Duck Go yields numerous recipes to nourish your baby without the reliance on highly-processed FrankenFood.  Yes, folks, the censorship is on.  But home made formula isn’t the only target.  

I briefly mentioned in part one that European baby formula is produced with nutrition standards that are much higher than those of the U.S (more on that in part 3).  While home made baby formula is being discouraged, a simultaneous smear campaign has been launched by mainstream media outlets and the FDA,  The message?  Avoid European formula products because they’re unsanitary and substandard.  These asinine claims are demonstrably false. Conveniently timed to this past August, the FDA told parents to throw out 80,000 units of European formula, after the formula was “voluntarily” recalled by the distributor, Able Groupe, for not meeting United States iron standards.  This recall involved 21 different formula products (only 8 of which had insufficient iron levels) because the FDA said they did “not bear mandatory labeling statements in English”.  Hmmmm. It’s also intriguing that the Biden Administration has done all it can to stymie importation of European baby formula, even in the face of this critical shortage.  Currently, the United States subjects formula imports to a 17.5% tariff as well as ridiculous non-tariff barriers, like specific labeling or ingredient requirements. But the dumbest regulation is a mandatory 90-day waiting period placed on retailers before they can market a new formula product.  This means that if any U.S. retailer wants to source formula from outside the U.S., they could not quickly offer relief to parents currently affected by the shortage.  Why aren’t Congress, the FDA, and the current administration working to repeal these tariffs and regulations?  And why aren’t the FDA’s regulatory barriers on imported formula based on necessity and science?  Again: hmmm

As always, the powers that be make sure you see what they’re doing.  There is absolutely zero effort to conceal that the Biden Administration is shipping literal pallets of scarce baby formula to the southern border.  The outrage porn is running on high in an effort to sow chaos….don’t take the bait.  Keep your emotions check and do what needs to be done:  source ingredients and provide for yourself.

This sure looks and smells like a manufactured crisis:  contrived staffing shortages to impact “supply chain”, shutting the largest formula manufacturing facility in the country, excessive taxation, and weaponizing the FDA’s baseless standards to recall & suppress imports.  All creating that perfect storm to limit accessibility to a life-sustaining product.   The only real solution is a traditional one:  self-reliance.  In part 3, we will talk about why making your own baby formula not only reduces your reliance on Target/CVS/Walmart inventory, but is the healthier option for your little one.