“Nell’elenco delle tesi sulla vacanza della Sede Apostolica non potevano non essere ricordate anche le elucubrazioni ‘fantacanoniche’ del Codice Ratzinger di Andrea Cionci e dei suoi seguaci. Non sfuggirà al Lettore l’inconsistenza della fantomatica teoria della ‘sede impedita’, che costituisce una falsa premessa che inficia l’intero ragionamento, oltre a gettare – come rileva l’Autore – inquietanti ombre sulla onestà e la correttezza di agire di Benedetto XVI. Ritenere che egli abbia potuto lanciare dei messaggi criptici rivolti ad una ristretta cerchia di iniziati, basando questa convinzione su fatti del tutto opinabili e circostanziali – convinzione assurta a prova inoppugnabile ed ossessivamente imposta come verità dogmatica – relega le speculazioni di Cionci & Co. al genere fantasy mutuato da Dan Brown.”
Google translation:
In the list of theses on the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the ‘fanta-canonical’ ruminations of the Ratzinger Code by Andrea Cionci and his followers could not fail to be mentioned. The reader will not be unaware of the inconsistency of the phantom theory of the ‘impeded seat’, which constitutes a false premise that invalidates the entire reasoning, as well as casting – as the Author points out – disturbing shadows on the honesty and correctness of Benedict XVI’s actions. . Believing that he was able to send cryptic messages aimed at a small circle of initiates, basing this belief on completely questionable and circumstantial facts – a belief that has become incontrovertible proof and obsessively imposed as dogmatic truth – relegates Cionci & Co.’s speculations to the genre fantasy borrowed from Dan Brown.
The Archbishop states what I have mentioned before, that is, some who hold to this thesis treat it as if it were dogma. Andrea Cionci, by the way, wrote a book called “The Ratzinger Code”, and the funny thing is that his thesis is not succinctly stated in that book. Strange.
It does seem good, thank you. I would change the second part, the first consequence was that following the placement of Pope Benedict in an Impeded See, the 2013 conclave was null and void, and by this means the Church was saved from Bergoglio and his syndicate. The election was also null and void because even the call for a Conclave was illegitimate.
By reading Dr. Cionci’s book, Arch. Viganó’s rendition of his research is incorrect. Cionci was the first to investigate the problem with dedication and a lot of work – more that 400 articles in three years of continuous research. He is the one who spent more resources on the subject than anyone else. If you read the book there are two parts of it: one is the series of evidence that describes what the Declaratio really is, with translations from accredited latinist and philologists, and its undisputable legal implications. The second part is related to the messages from Pope Benedict, which are considered in amphibological sense, where they can be read in two different ways. This part is in support of the first, which remains in good standing even without such support, because it rests on objective facts. So the first part is facts, which makes Cionci completely right in saying that this is the reason why Bergoglio is not the Pope. In synthesis, it is because Pope Benedict, according to the law, did not abdicate. This is undisputable. The second part , the one of the messages in code of Pope Benedict, is open to two interpretations. Viganó mixes the two parts, using the second to undermine the first, the facts. This is not a clear and complete analysis of Cionci’s work. It is a manipulation with the objective of discrediting the research without discussing the substance. In fact Arch. Viganó, not only has never confronted directly Dr. Cionci on the substance, he even admitted once that the abdication was invalid. When Cionci’s detractors talk about him being dogmatic, if they refer to the facts that he found out, they are right, not as an accusation but as an example of something that cannot be changed. Pope Benedict did not abdicate. On the other hand, If the detractors refer to dogma thinking of Pope Benedict’s messages highlighted by Cionci, they are wrong, because it is not Cionci’s intention to make us agree with his interpretation of the two available. Every time he finds a message in “code”, he supports his theory with evidence and examples, but he does not tell us which interpretation we need to choose, we are free to think what we want. What is important to remark is the fact that the reference used by Viganó about the cryptic messages and the circumstantial facts, relates to the second part of the book, the messages. In that way Viganó discredits the research and does not analyze the first part, the facts, which is the most important. In my opinion, this is not a serious way to face an issues of this magnitude, it seems a way to dodge it.
Why it is that The Ratzinger Code does not contain a succinct statement of Cionci’s impeded see thesis? It is strange that he has a thesis but doesn’t clearly state it.
I do not know that, I can try to find out.
Is this an accurate description of Cionci’s thesis:
Pope Benedict XVI allowed the cardinals, unbeknownst to them, to place him in an impeded see while retaining the papal munus and thereby causing Jorge Bergoglio and his syndicate to fall into schism, and by this means save the Catholic Church.
It does seem good, thank you. I would change the second part, the first consequence was that following the placement of Pope Benedict in an Impeded See, the 2013 conclave was null and void, and by this means the Church was saved from Bergoglio and his syndicate. The election was also null and void because even the call for a Conclave was illegitimate.