Pope Benedict's legacy & the mystery of Pope Francis

But yet I looked videos of the many times Pope Francis came to visit Emetitus Pope Benedict. I observed closely the fraternal closeness and tenderness between them. I never detected a frisson of antagonism or suspicion between them. I was perplexed by it all but had to conclude that they got on quite well. Either that or both men had remarkable restraint. But of course St. Paul tells us in today's reading, Romans 14: But thou, why judgest thou thy brother? Or thou, why dost thou despise thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. ou, why judgest thou thy brother? Or thou, whyost thou despise thy brother? For But thou, why judgest thou thy brother? Or thou, why dost thou despise thy brother?

 

I'm sorry, I didn't explain it properly. Thanks for pointing that out!
You are right: the 'una cum... ' allegiance formula has to always be present, in the Novus as well as in the Vetus Ordo.
I should have put it this way:

the Latin Mass 'does not necessarily contain the clearly outspoken 'una cum...' allegiance to the Pope, so it can be made 100% licit without getting anyone in trouble'.​

Cionci explains that in the Ancient Rite that formula can be pronounced submissa voce (that is: barely whispered); so basically the Priest can pronunce it correctly in a very low tone of voice without attracting unwanted attention, since those words can be made pretty much unintelligible. That's an expedient the usurpers would like to curb by first restricting, then banning the Latin Mass. Another less 'subtle' reason is that the modernists now unlawfully in charge hate the Catholic Tradition, so eradicating the Ancient Rite is high on their agenda.

 

You are right. I thought the same, too...

But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5, 44)

I trust both the retired Pope Benedict & Pope Francis (the real one) would have loved to get along well with Bergoglio, and I'm positive they tried their best to keep a good relationship with him.
An antipope is not necessarily evil. Bergoglio remained a Catholic Archbishop even after the usurpation. Although he and his followers were schismatics after the 'regime change', the true Vicar of Christ could (and still can) forgive them and welcome them back in the Church, once (and if...) they sincerely repent.
Bergoglio could have accepted a lot of good advice from his 'nonno saggio' ('wise grandpa', as he used to call the Pope Emeritus -- at least initially...) or he could antagonize him (and the Church) by despotically making many bad decisions... just like he did, unfortunately.
Benedict prayed and suffered all along... hoping at least some of his enemies would convert.

In this video Benedict was (apparently) very kind to Bergoglio. The former warmly thanked the latter... for the cross (!!!). But he did not in any way dishonor the 'Santo Padre' (Holy Father), or openly criticized him, or questioned him... that, to me, is a rare and amazing Christian testimony.
However, let's not be fooled by those words, 'Santo Padre'. They were a mere form a respect and courtesy, considering nearly all of the faithful believed Bergoglio was indeed the legitimate Roman Pontiff. But those 'pleasantries' does NOT necessarily reflect his personal belief or allegiance...
For instance: in this video His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI officially addresses the Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I by the title... 'His Holiness'. Technically, from a Catholic perspective, the latter 'His Holiness' is the supreme chief of... a schismatic church! And yet, out of courtesy and respect, the Catholic Roman Pontiff called his 'rival' by the title that's typically reserved to himself.

The real deal would be a clear & public pledge of allegiance.
Apparently, Benedict did that, too. See his last official speech to the Cardinals on February 28th, 2013. In the evening of the same day he secretly abdicated (if he acted upon the plan stated in the declaratio made on Feb. 11th, 2013).
Let's look at what he said:

Prima di salutarvi personalmente desidero dirvi che continuerò ad esservi vicino con la preghiera, specialmente nei prossimi giorni, affinché siate pienamente docili all'azione dello Spirito Santo nell'elezione del nuovo Papa. Che il Signore vi mostri quello che è voluto da Lui.

E tra voi, tra il Collegio Cardinalizio, c'è anche il futuro Papa, al quale già oggi prometto la mia incondizionata reverenza e obbedienza.​

My translation:

Before greeting you personally, I wish to tell you that I'll keep close to you through prayer, especially in the following days, so that you shall be fully docile to the action of the Holy Spirit in the election of the new Pope. May the Lord show you the one He wishes.

And among you, among the College of Cardinals, there is also the future Pope, to whom already today I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience ​

In 'Nothing but the Truth' Archbishop Georg Gänswein tells us that this (real) 'new Pope' is the 265th successor of Peter. He had previously 'tagged' Benedict as the 264th.
So the 265th is the real Pope Francis, the one elected under the pontifical seal of secrecy.
So I guess the Holy See DID become vacant on that evening, as planned, until the newly elected candidate accepted the munus petrinum lawfully transferred to him.

[By Canon Law

Can. 177 §1. An election must be communicated immediately to the person elected who must inform the one presiding over the college or group whether or not he or she accepts the election within eight useful days after receiving the notification; otherwise, the election has no effect.​

To properly fulfill this condition a 'Pope Emeritus' presiding the election process would work better than just an ordinary Cardinal, the standard destiny of an ex-Pope, by the way...]

Then the See would NOT be vacant anymore.
At the same time, Benedict correctly anticipated that the Cardinals would declare the See vacant illegally the following day, then proceed to elect an antipope.
So, before the two newly elected Popes -- or rather the Pope and the antipope -- "May the Lord show you the one He wishes".
The Holy Spirit would, in a way, assist the Cardinals in the election of the antipope, too, by simply revealing its unlawfulness.
Then Benedict also mentions a 'future Pope', elected 'among the College of Cardinals'.
This, according to Gänswein, is Peter's successor #266. So it's to the successor of the real Pope Francis that Benedict (for whatever reason... ) publicly promised reverence and obedience to.
BXVI's mumbling incidentally that odd 'among the College of Cardinals' makes me think that the new Pope, the real Pope Francis, may instead NOT have been picked among the College of Cardinals...

 

One quick note, to clarify an important point...
I believe that, since Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (after the renunciation) always represented (through a 'passive ministry', by using his own words) the real but hidden Pope Francis (the one who held the 'active ministry', the munus petrinum itself) this 'special bond' certainly granted that, whomever celebrated the Holy Mass in union with either 'Pope Benedict' or 'Pope Francis', did so 100% licitly and validly.
From Benedict's perspective, it would have been a lack of respect towards his legitimate successor to celebrate in union with himself, while the holder of the active ministry was around... so he did well by always celebrating in union with Pope Francis.
However, for all those Priests who didn't know about the real but hidden Pope Francis -- and consequently saw in Pope Benedict himself the true Vicar of Christ, it would have been proper to celebrate in union with him, rather than in union with 'Pope Francis/Bergoglio'.
For those who honestly thought Bergoglio was the legitimate Pope after Benedict's renunciation, celebrating in union with Pope Francis/Bergoglio rather than anyone else would be preferable.
Now, Leo XIV is seen by most as the legitimate Pope. He cannot possibly be the real 'Pope Francis', since Prevost received his episcopal consecration in 2014, while the real Pope Francis must have received it before (since episcopal consecration is a prerequisite for becoming Pope). Plus: the pontifical name is different, and I don't think that name can be changed at will by the Pontiff himself, since that Tradition comes from Our Lord Himself. Jesus changed the name of Simon and renamed him Cefa (Peter) since He had predestined Peter to become the first Pope. As far as I know no Pope in the whole Church history has ever changed his pontifical name -- but please correct me if I'm wrong.
So the only proper pontifical name now, as far as I know, is Pope Francis.

 

Previously I mentioned that the Church's government is basically a monarchy functioning upon the principle of subsidiarity, by which a lower 'organ' within the Church is granted autonomy as long as it works properly. In case there's an issue that the lower organ itself cannot deal with autonomously, the higher power intervenes to restore order at the lower level. Then the autonomy is once again granted.

So... why did Pope Benedict XVI made the decision to step in and overrule the College of Cardinals by taking in his own hands the election of the new Pope?

To properly answer this question let's get back to the original, unedited Latin text of the declaratio.
I'm not an expert myself in the ancient language, but I think that some eminent Latin professors from Cionci's team have done a very good job at deciphering this mystery (even though I strongly disagree with Cionci's 'fixation' that Benedict held on to the munus petrinum).
There's a video with decent English subs that properly explains the whole matter. I believe it didn't nearly get as much attention among the English speaking community as it should have.
So here it is.

I guess that some sort of binding agreement -- a deal between the two 'factions' that eventually got Ratzinger elected back in 2005 -- was going to hijack for sure the following Conclave.
Since Pope Benedict knew that, it was both his right and his duty to intervene to fix things at the lower level -- or to do his best to minimize the damage of the incoming coup.
So he did not 'flee before the wolves', but rather made a strategic retreat & secretly planted the seeds for the future redemption of the Church.
Bergoglio himself publicly mentioned that 'misdeed' and complained for having been used by the smallest faction (before joining it...).
There's also a 'leaked' insider diary of a Cardinal narrating this 'dramatic struggle' during the 2005 Conclave.

 

It’s all very interesting. If this is the case, whenever it is revealed would most likely cause the great schism. Those who will and those who won’t accept it. How long do the people in the know (who would they be?) keep it under the Vatican seal of secrecy?

 

The schism is already there... it is just not clearly visible, at present; it's an 'underground schism', in a way. All those Cardinals who recognize and follow the leaders of the coup (that they themselves elected illegally) are directly responsible for the schism; they are therefore, by definition, schismatics. The other bishops (the 'high priests' of the Church) may have a more or less indirect responsibility for the ongoing usurpation and confusion, especially if they adhere to those heresies, twisted ideologies, and bad practices that are contrary to the orthodoxy of the Catholic Tradition.
Let's also remember that the Roman Pontiff (the only legitimate 'occupier' of the Holy See) has the exclusive power to 'readmit' any repented schismatics back in the Catholic community by revoking their latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication. He can delegate that power to tribunals, if deemed appropriate.
By now all the Cardinals who are faithful to Pope Benedict's legacy (that is: the real Pope Francis) do not question the official (but illegitimate) government of the Church out of obedience, as to avoid breaking the pontifical seal of secrecy (by which they solemnly swear not to reveal anything on top-secret issues until the seal is in opened -- no matter what; breaking it sooner would most likely break their communion with Pope Francis -- and with the Catholic Church -- as well, and possibly cause great harm to themselves, the faithful clergy, and the Pope).
The unfaithful Cardinals, on the other hand, are even less willing to question the legitimacy of 'Pope' Leo XIV... for obvious reasons.
So everyone is keeping quiet, for now, but the underlying motives of this silence are very different.

When Pope Francis will publicly reveal himself, some will likely strongly support him, and others will probably strongly oppose him.
So when the seal of secrecy will finally be broken, we'll likely assist to a quick but very heated 'upheaval' in the Catholic Church, especially in the top hierarchy...

The Spouse of Christ, the Church, is in great pain because of the usurpers. The World itself is also going through a lot of trouble.
So... What's Pope Francis waiting for?
Let's first remember that Conchita once met Pope Paul VI and confided to him the date of the Miracle.
From Glenn Hudson's Garabandal Files (on Facebook):

January of 1966 Conchita was called to the Vatican. Cardinal Ottaviani, the pro-Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. She was interviewed for 2 1/2 hours by the Cardinal and saw other members of the Congregation, afterwards she met with Pope Paul VI and gave him the date of the Great Miracle to come. [...]​

Pope John Paul II had manifested great appreciation and interest in Garabandal apparitions, too, and publicly blessed one of the seers.
Therefore, we can assume the date was passed down to Pope Benedict XVI, as well, and from him to his legitimate successor: Pope Francis.
Since the Great Miracle (according to Glenn's research) is going to happen in the same year of the Warning, that information could give Pope Francis a better 'time frame' to decide when to officially and openly reveal himself.

As a pragmatic 'conspiracy theory guy' (or 'truth seeker', as I'd rather define myself), my understanding is that it would be suicidal for Pope Francis to come out in the open before getting solid 'security guarantees' from at least one powerful world leader. In case he can get this kind of protection he may decide to publicly reveal himself even before the Warning.
Let's pray & hope that the Holy Spirit will assist him all along, but especially in this very important decision.

 

They could only be responsible for the coup if they did it knowingly. Do you think the whole of the college of cardinals knew of Pope Benedict’s secret successor?

 

No, I believe most of the Cardinals were not aware of that, back in 2013.
But they all (except for the ones currently under the pontifical seal of secrecy) collectively share the responsibility to have allowed the See to be declared vacant unlawfully. Not a single one objected that the renunciation announced in the declaratio had not been publicly ratified by Pope Benedict on February 28th, 2013 at 8 PM.
If they somehow didn't notice something so important was missing, back then, in the following years they had plenty of time and opportunities to think about it.
Benedict's apparently inappropriate behavior after the renunciation made even many laymen doubt of its validity...
He didn't give up his pontifical name, Benedict XVI...
He kept signing his letters with PP (Pater Patrum, an exclusive 'privilege' of the Roman Pontiff) even after the renunciation...
He kept imparting his Apostolic Blessing, another exclusive privilege of the reigning Pope...
He kept wearing pretty much the same white clothes he used to wear as the reigning Pontiff 'because there were no other clothes available', as he joked...
He did not accept the ordinary return to the Cardinalate, the standard destiny of an 'ex-Pope'...
He created the unheard-of title of 'Pope Emeritus' and held on to it until his last day on earth...
So he was either an incorrigible snob & narcissist... or perhaps he was giving strong signs 'to all those who have ears', exposing himself to all sorts of gossips, harsh criticism and even hatred, for allegedly 'having fled before the wolves leaving a huge mess behind'.

And 'Pope' Bergoglio's many 'questionable initiatives' (to use an euphemism -- I wont' go through the details here) should have also made many people doubt about his legitimacy...

So I guess that all the Cardinals who acknowledged their responsibility, repented, and somewhat humbly approached Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI for instructions secretly became part of his legacy, and through Pope Francis (the real one) had their communion with the Church restored.
All the others, who preferred to 'keep up appearances', and pretended that everything was just fine all along, are still latae sententiae excommunicated for schism (and some of them for heresy, too).
But it's not up to us to judge the Cardinals. That is going to be Pope Francis' responsibility, once the See will be become unimpeded.
In te meantime:

Can. 335 When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.
​

There are actually no 'special laws' (except for Pope Francis' instructions to his faithful, I guess) to follow during an impeded See, so everything should pretty much remain the same as when Pope Benedict XVI renounced.

I translate a quote from one of Cardinal Ratzinger's books:

[…] since Peter is a faithful administrator of Jesus' message, he opens the door to the kingdom of heaven; he is the doorkeeper, who must judge whether to welcome or refuse (see Rev 3:7). Thus, the meaning of the saying about the keys clearly approaches that of "binding" and "loosing." This latter expression is taken from rabbinic language and signifies, on the one hand, the fullness of doctrinal decisions; on the other, it expresses disciplinary power, that is, the right to impose or remove excommunication. […]'​

I think we may soon witness the realization of that prophecy. From Revelation 3, 7-11:

To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews [Catholics] though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth. I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.​

 

Among my online 'Italian debates' on the magna quaestio, I found this interesting quote by Cardinal Ratzinger [edit: he was actually still a priest & theology professor when he made the following prediction]. It's from the late '60, but it may fit well in today's world scenario:

«Soon we will have priests reduced to the role of social workers, and the message of faith reduced to a political vision. All will seem lost, but at the right time, precisely in the most dramatic phase of the crisis, the Church will be reborn. It will be smaller, poorer, almost catacomb-like, but also holier. For it will no longer be the Church of those seeking to please the world, but the Church of those faithful to God and his eternal law. The rebirth will be the work of a small remnant, seemingly insignificant yet indomitable, having undergone a process of purification. For this is how God works. Against evil, a small flock resists».​

 

More interesting quotes from the book 'Benedict XVI -- Last Testament -- in his own words -- with Peter Seewald', published in 2016:
(The comments in the square brackets are my own. This is my Italian-English translation; the original text in English is probably slightly different)

SEEWALD: Do you see yourself as the last Pope of the old world [Church?] or the first of the new?

BENEDICT: I would say both.

SEEWALD: As a bridge, a kind of connecting element between the two worlds?

BENEDICT: I don’t belong to the old world anymore, but the new one in reality hasn’t yet begun.​

By these words, Benedict underlines that his renunciation marked a watershed, a deep separation (or rather, an out-and-out schism...) between an old 'world' (possibly referring to a politicized Church led by the antipope Francis/Bergoglio) and a new one (possibly that 'reborn Church' he was talking about in the quote from my previous post: the one that will soon be led by the real Pope Francis). By electing Pope Francis and recognizing him as the new Pope, Pope Benedict does not belong to the old Church (the mostly corrupted hierarchy) anymore, but the new one in reality hasn't yet begun (since the See is still impeded by the usurpers).

SEEWALD: The election of Pope Francis [which one?!] is perhaps an exterior sign of an epochal turning point? With him does a new era definitively begin?

BENEDICT: The temporal divisions have always been decided a posteriori: only afterwards it was established that here began the Middle Ages or there began the modern era. It is seen only a posteriori how movements developed. For this reason, I wouldn’t hazard such an affirmation now [since now the real Pope Francis is still mostly unknown]. However, it is evident that the Church is abandoning more and more the old traditional structures of European life and, hence, changes appearance and new forms live in it [modernists are leading the Church far away from the Christian tradition]. Above all, it’s clear that the de-Christianization of Europe progresses, that the Christian element is vanishing more and more from the fabric of society. Consequently, the Church must find a new form of presence, must change its way of presenting itself [according to modernism]. There are epochal upheavals underway, but it's not yet clear when exactly we will be able to say that one or the other has begun. ​

A major, negative upheaval happened when globalist Bergoglio was officially (but unlawfully) made Pope.
Another major, yet positive upheaval will happen once the real Pope Francis will come out and lead the rescue the Church. This 'blessed overturning' will be like a rebirth for the Bride of Christ.

 

Simone how certain are you about this? You seem very confident in the idea. Don’t get me wrong… I am very much taking it all in and connecting many dots. I am just curious how you seem so certain? You are the first and only person I have heard about this theory from. Do you have others that you converse with about it? You definitely have plenty of knowledge in the subject. You wrote a prayer, prayed it and this was revealed to you? Do you have any inside information?

 

No, I'm not an insider, and I don't have any special contacts (and/or secret sources) to get 'privileged info' from -- aside from 'ordinary gifts from God', such as a sudden intuition. After studying biblical prophecies and confronting them with Marian apparitions (mostly Garabandal -- Spain -- and Avola/Mammanelli -- Sicily), since the latter often mentioned the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, I became more and more interested in it, as well.
The 'covid saga' also made me realize that there were some serious issues in the 'top governance' of the Church.
So I began to inquire and got familiar with the magna quaestio, but I could not solve some huge contradictions in each of the different theories I came across, such as:

1. Benedict simply resigned, then Bergoglio was regularly elected Pope by the College of Cardinals
2. Benedict pretended to resign, but instead held on to the munus until his death, hoping the Cardinals would eventually recognize him as the true Pope
3. Benedict wanted to resign, but actually made a huge mess with his resignation that is, therefore, invalid

I realized a real Pope was necessary both for the Church and for the world (since without a real Pope first visiting Moscow we shall never get the Warning). So, one way or another, we had to get a real Pope.
The more I 'got acquainted' with Pope Benedict (watching videos, reading interviews, etc.), the more I recognized that in him rationality and faith walked hand in hand.
Then I read the whole Universi Dominici Gregis, and found that the Pope has supreme authority over the petrine succession, while before I thought that that was exclusively 'the Cardinals' business'.
I also realized that the Church's main problem was an underlying unfaithfulness of the high hierarchy, that independently managed the Church's affairs pretty much as worldly businesses... in spite of the Pontiff (especially after the 'Panzerkardinal' had become the 'God's Rottweiler', against whom several Cardinals couldn't even hide their despise and hostility...).
After Benedict's departure from this world it felt like the last hope had vanished, in a way...
So I prayed, but I didn't get any sort of vision, or locution; just dots connecting by grace, somewhat, several weeks later. I was expecting the name would actually get revealed in a very different fashion, such as through a public, miraculous event, or something like that.
After I got that intuition (that instantly solved all the previous contradictions), before confiding it to anyone, actually I tried several times to get in touch with Archbishop Georg Gänswein. I was looking for both his 'informed opinion', and possibly for his approval to publish my findings, too, as to avoid potentially getting good people in trouble.
I sent two emails to the Diocese in Vilnius, asking for contact info, but got no answer.
After creating an Instagram account I tried to get in touch with him through this page -- but I 'mysteriously' got banned from Instagram instead, shortly afterwards...
Then I managed to get in touch with Benedict's biographer, Peter Seewald. He kindly provided a physical address of the Apostolic Nuntiature in Vilnius. Through that I found an email address online.
So I sent a long email to the Apostolic Nuntiature in Vilnius, but the email address I found was obsolete, so the message was rejected.
Then I went to a local library to get Gänswein's 'Nothing but the Truth', published just a few days after Pope Benedict XVI left this world, to see if I could find elements in there either denying or supporting my recent discoveries. I found many confirmations, and additional 'pieces of the puzzle' found their right place.
After reading the whole book I really felt a sudden urge to publish my findings, as they were. In my public prayer I had pledged to share any revelation 'without delay'... so I felt I had to do just that, trusting the Divine Providence.
So I published this Italian article on November 27th, 2024, then I invited all sorts of people (lawyers, journalists, canonists, philosophers, politicians, friars, priests, bishops, cardinals, etc.) who had been dealing with the magna quaestio to read it, mostly people from Italy and/or familiar with the Italian language (also because many sources linked in the article are in Italian).
Finally, on Jan. 20th, 2025 (same date Trump assumed office at the White House), I was able to find a working email address of the Apostolic Nuntiature in Vilnius, so I sent there the following message...

'to the kind attention of The Most Reverend Archbishop Georg Gänswein'​

Carissimo Padre Georg,
sono un cristiano, ricercatore delle verità e della Verità.
Vorrei condividere con lei il seguente articolo:
https://sfero.me/article/-scherzo-prete-benedetto-xvi-nome
che la chiama direttamente in causa su questioni molto delicate attinenti il governo della Chiesa Cattolica Romana.
A dire la verità prima di pubblicare il suddetto testo (secondo un impegno che mi ero preso in preghiera) cercai più volte (ma senza successo) di mettermi in contatto con lei.
Mi auguro di tutto cuore che questa rivelazione non le creerà imbarazzi o problemi di sorta.
Se vuole commentare, discutere, correggere o approfondire con me la questione (possibilmente di persona e in privato) sono più che disponibile a un confronto.
Nonostante non sia un cattolico in senso stretto desidero servire e testimoniare fedelmente Cristo; per questo mi sento un amico e un alleato della Sua Chiesa.
Grazie per l'attenzione.
Che lo Spirito Santo ci assista!
Simone Torreggiani
Via Zozi 218, 41053 Maranello (Mo) Italia
Tel.: (0039) 0536/580798
Sfero (social network): https://sfero.me/users/simone-torreggiani​

Right after I sent this email I noticed there were several visualizations of the article. So there's a good chance the Archbishop actually got to read it... but to this day I got no answer -- just like I was expecting.
A few weeks later I sent a similar message to Peter Seewald, but this second time I got no answer from him, as well -- just like I was expecting.
Then I began debating my discoveries online -- by email but mostly through public blogs and websites that allow comments. I linked some of these 'dialogues' at the end of the above mentioned article.
I just recently read the the book 'Benedict XVI -- Last Testament -- in his own words -- with Peter Seewald', too. I found that coherent with all my findings, as well.
Aside from a couple of comments I posted on Life Site News with the link to the Italian article (which got a pretty negative reception, to be honest...), plus a brief 'conversation' in English on Br. Alexis Bugnolo' blog, I realized I had done nothing to make my discoveries well-known and accessible to an international, English-speaking audience.
So here I am!
Actually, if I didn't previously pledge to share any revelation I would receive on 'the name of the Vicar of Christ', I would still be quite reluctant to publicly share this information now, mostly for 'security reasons'.
However, even after that breakthrough that followed prayer and a long research, it took a long while for me, too, to get accustomed to this new perspective...
So I guess the greatest risk Pope Francis is going to face, once he reveals himself, is that the faithful will not believe him. Many people may assume he's just making stuff up for 'political reasons', while I'm positive (since I have been gathering very strong evidence, although indirect) that that is not going to be the case.
As far as I'm concerned, the story I'm reporting is the one and only way to rationally explain what happened without any big lies and huge contradictions.
So I'm glad to expose myself and spread this 'rumor' even now, without any hard evidence -- simply trusting 100% Pope Benedict's words & actions

 

I appreciate the devotion you have had over the years in your investigation. I suppose now we have to wait and see. I agree with you that the case you present could make sense. No contradictions in Pope Benedict’s words. So I definitely find it interesting! I just know he didn’t abandon us. Whether it be this or some other outcome. I am sure he had a plan.

 

Simone, here is what happened and what will soon happen.

1. Benedict knew that that the evil Cardinals would continue doing what they had been doing for decades. Implementing bad policies in the Church and blaming the legitimate Popes. So, he and God came up with a plan. Benedict would resign as Bishop of Rome before his death, which puts the Church in a type of legal suspended animation (explained in UDG 1). Certain basic functions of the Church could continue but things normally requiring the Pope's approval (changing laws or appointing bishops/cardinals), would not be doable until after BXVI's death.

2. The Apostolic See is a corporate body (Canon 361) made up of its head (the Pope) but "also to the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia." Those other officials do not lose their office until AFTER "the death of the Pope" (UDG 14). Therefore, even those the resignation of the Pope creates a vacancy in the "head" of the Apostolic See, which causes a suspension of certain activities, the Apostolic See is not "lawfully vacant" until "the death of the Pope," because the ministers mentioned above remain in their offices.

3. BXVI validly resigned. But a valid resignation DOES NOT trigger a new papal election according to UDG. Only the "death of the Pope" triggers a new election. Bergoglio and Prevost are not and never were legitimate Popes. They are/were nothing more than usurping Cardinals.

4. BXVI was then confined to a state of virtual captivity, until they faked his death in 2022. At that point, they made him a true prisoner in the Vatican. But he did not die. They hid him away, so that he would not make trouble for them as they proceeded with what they were doing.

5. Now this has probably already happened (I am not certain of the timing), but BXVI ends up in Russia under the care of Putin, where he will remain until Bergoglio/Prevost do something (I don't know what they will do exactly). After that event that occurs, BXVI will come out of hiding and lead the Church again in the final days prior to the Second Coming. The Warning will happen around the time that BXVI comes out of hiding. There are scriptural and private revelation messages that hint at these events. But those revelations use a prophetic veil which speaks in riddles.

6. The key fact is that BXVI is the last "Peter" on earth. He is the "glory of the olive" (Peter the Roman is simply the title of BXVI, the last "Peter"). There is not another legitimate Pope after BXVI until the Second Coming. He is the Pope "of the same name" mentioned by Pius X. He is the "Venerable Old Man of Rome" who is vested by Our Lady "in his former garments." He is the "Angelic Pope" of the private revelations related to that. It will seem to be a "miracle" when he returns from his only apparent death. But, he was never dead to begin with. The bad guys faked his death.

 

@PNF : this scenario you foresee sounds far-fetched to me... I also disagree with your peculiar way of interpreting canon law, the UDG, and some prophecies that (to me) are clearly not coherent with the present-day situation, as I've already pointed out previously. But instead of discussing here in depth all the relevant issues with your forecasts, I'd appreciate if you could keep looking for any inconsistencies with my understanding of the magna quaestio. This way we should avoid long detours from the main topic of this thread. Time will tell how close each different theory had come to the factual truth.

@Ang : yes, I'm confident that the seeds Benedict has planted will generate excellent fruits, at the right time...

I'll add more interesting material in the following days, then we can wrap it up... for a little while, at least, since this whole story is far from over. Actually, in a way, it hasn't yet begun!

 

This is the best summary I've seen in the midst of your numerous exchanges. I cannot say I actually believe it, but it does provide a sort of coherence, though too fantastic for me to give a thumbs up.

 

Another interesting quote from the book 'Benedict XVI -- Last Testament -- in his own words -- with Peter Seewald', published in 2016 (its content was approved by Pope Benedict XVI before publication, as mentioned at the end of the introduction):

Peter Seewald: “Let's come to the decision that in itself makes your pontificate seem historic. With your resignation, for the first time in the history of the Church, a pontiff in the full and effective exercise of his functions has resigned from his office. With this revolutionary act, you have changed the papacy like no other pontiff of the modern era. The institution has become more modern, in a certain sense even more humane, closer to its Petrine origins [see: Pope Linus being designated directly by St. Peter as his successor]. Already in 2010, in our book 'Light of the World,' you explained that when a pope is no longer physically or mentally capable of carrying out the task entrusted to him, he has the right -- and in some circumstances even the duty -- to resign. Was there a bitter internal conflict that led to this decision?”

Benedict XVI: [Takes a deep breath.] “It's not that simple, of course. No pope has resigned for a thousand years, and even in the first millennium this was an exception: therefore, such a decision is not easy and must be pondered at length. For me, however, it seemed so clear that there was no painful internal conflict. The awareness of the responsibility of this choice and of its gravity, which demands constant and scrupulous examination, even before God and oneself, yes, but not in the sense that it would have, so to speak, torn me apart.”

[...]
​

Seewald claims that Benedict XVI's resignation would constitute an absolute precedent in the history of the Church. Benedict responds by specifying instead that such an event has not occurred for a thousand years... implying a similar, comparable event to HIS resignation, given that there have indeed been other 'generic' resignations of Popes in the past millennium:

Pope Benedict IX resigned in 1045
Pope Celestine V resigned in 1294
Pope Gregory XII resigned in 1415

At this point, it would be reasonable to inquire: was there an actual Pope who resigned a thousand years before the pontificate (2005-2013) of Pope Benedict XVI?
Yes indeed: Pope John XVIII (possibly...) resigned in the year 1009 [1009 + 1000 = 2009: so about a thousand years later history repeats itself, somewhat...].
But what is the unique characteristic of Pope John XVIII resignation?
To properly answer this question we have to dig a little deeper. I found some relevant info on the Italian Wikipedia webpage of that same Pope John XVIII (Papa Giovanni XVIII).
In short: there is still uncertainty over his resignation, since no actual record of it was ever found from the time in which the Pope lived. Only later sources attest that he indeed resigned. In that case, it's not really that important, since John died shortly after the alleged resignation. Therefore, one way or another, a new conclave would have to be convened to elect his successor.
However, in the case of Pope Benedict XVI, the uncertainty over his resignation (since we basically still lack the actual written act of resignation and/or the testimony of at least two witnesses, as already explained) is a big issue: the UDG # 37 specifically requires the See's vacancy must be 'lawful': how could anyone lawfully declare the See vacant with no actual evidence of the renunciation -- the declaratio itself not having any legal value?

Can. 332 §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Can. 189 §1. To be valid, a resignation, whether it requires acceptance or not, must be made to the authority to whom it pertains to make provision of the office in question; this must be done either in writing, or orally in the presence of two witnesses.
​

You see: no proper manifestation, no valid abdication. It's that simple.
Can the College of Cardinals -- the 'authority to whom [ordinarily...] it pertains to make provision of the [Petrine] office' -- show the actual evidence of the resignation?
If it cannot, and yet Benedict XVI insisted that:

"There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry."
"The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations regarding its validity are simply absurd."
​

there is absolutely no doubt that an [alternative] 'authority to whom it pertains to make provision of the Petrine office' [either the Pope himself, or another group of people appointed by him for the task] has been properly notified.
There is no other way he could rightfully say that his 'uncertain' renunciation (for us -- until the seal of secrecy is broken...) was absolutely valid.
At present, the resignation is indeed absolutely valid only for Benedict, for its direct witnesses and/or for those who were shown the proofs.

 

Now, let's take a quick look at a mostly unknown 'death conspiracy theory':

In Jan. 2012 an anonymous letter in German (dated 30 Dec. 2011) was delivered by Card. Darío Castrillón Hoyos to both the Vatican Secretary of State and the Pontiff's personal secretary.
In short, that letter contained a 'prediction' -- allegedly made in China by Card. Paolo Romeo at an informal 'business meeting' -- that the Pope would certainly die within the next 12 months.
The authenticity of the document was later confirmed by the Vatican, but only after its content was leaked then published by an Italian newspaper.
Card. Romeo of course denied he had ever made such a prediction, but confirmed that he had indeed taken a 5-days private trip to China in Nov. 2011, a trip that very few people knew about...
There are indeed many rambling statements in that document, but some truth is in it, as well. And that 'within 12 months' ominous prediction was made in the beginning then repeated at the end.
A more in-depth overview on this topic can be found on this Italian website.

At the end of March 2012 Benedict XVI made an apostolic journey to Mexico & Cuba.
Andrea Cionci in this video (with English subs) reports some odd circumstances linked to a peculiar incident -- or likely an assassination attempt -- to possibly fulfill that ominous prediction.
In this video (in Italian only) the vaticanist Tosatti reports that Mons. Georg Gänswein confided to him that -- after that journey to Mexico & Cuba -- he did not think Pope Benedict would survive the return trip.
Right after that journey the Pope started to seriously consider resigning, and in the spring of 2012 he talked about it a couple of times with his Secretary of State, Card. Tarcisio Bertone.
Mons. Gänswein heard that 'rumor' from Bertone himself shortly afterwards.
The final decision to resign -- as Benedict told Seewald -- was made by the Pope in the summer of 2012.
In the autumn of 2012 Benedict talked about his upcoming resignation to Mons. Gänswein -- but this time (for possibly some very good reason...) under the pontifical seal of secrecy.
So only after that '12-months' death prediction had expired the Pope actually resigned... since the renunciation (supposedly) happened on February 28th, 2013 at 8 PM.
Therefore, Pope Benedict really wanted to make sure his resignation was not made under a direct death threat, and therefore 100% free and valid -- to possibly dispel any uncertainty over the legitimacy of his successor (the real Pope Francis) in spite of the undeniable 'pressure' on him to end his pontificate, one way or another...
If his ruthless opponents had managed to kill him before he could properly transfer the munus to a worthy recipient, his sacrifice would have left the Church hopelessly in the hands of the 'politicized' factions, that had become somewhat prevalent.
So he had to act quickly and outsmart his enemies to save the Church. And I believe he did the best he could possibly do -- considering the circumstances...

"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves" (Matthew 10, 16)

 

But who were Pope Benedict's enemies outside the Church, cooperating with those within it?
Here I'll provide a very brief overview, just to have a general idea...

On Sept. 14th, 1994 David Rockefeller gave a speech before the U.N. Business Council, right after being awarded a medal. A video of the whole event can be found here.
Initially, he underlines how much scientific advances and innovations in all sorts of fields have contributed to the well-being of mankind.
However, he links this increasing prosperity to population growth, and sees the latter as a formidable threat to us all...
Here's a meaningful excerpt:

"The recent UN meeting in Cairo is appropriately focused on one of these key issues: population growth. But the controversies which have erupted at the conference illustrate the problem of coming to grips with issues that are deeply divisive and which have a profound moral dimension. The United Nations can and should play an essential role in helping the world find a satisfactory way of stabilizing the world population and stimulating economic development in a manner that is sensitive to religious and moral considerations."
​

It sounds like that (back then...) there were still some underlying 'moral issues' that somewhat hindered a coordinated effort to tackle the (alleged...) problem of population growth.

What did Pope Benedict think about modern science and technological advances?
Let's take a look at a few excerpts from his address to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:

"If we think, for example, of how modern science, by predicting natural phenomena, has contributed to the protection of the environment, the progress of developing nations, the fight against epidemics, and an increase in life expectancy, it becomes clear that there is no conflict between God’s providence and human enterprise."
​

Up to this point, Benedict's considerations on the benefits of scientific innovations are similar to those pointed out by David Rockefeller in the first part of his speech.
However, the possible threats Benedict associates to scientific progress are very different from the banker's concerns.
One of these threats is materialism. In short: overreliance on science could make us neglect God.
Another great concern is ethical responsibility.
Benedict recalls these words by Pope John Paul II:

“Scientists, precisely because they ‘know more’, are called to ‘serve more’. Since the freedom they enjoy in research gives them access to specialized knowledge, they have the responsibility of using that knowledge wisely for the benefit of the entire human family.”
​

In Pope Benedict's words:

" [...] science’s ability to predict and control must never be employed against human life and its dignity, but always placed at its service, at the service of this and future generations."

"Denying that transcendence in the name of a supposed absolute ability of the scientific method to predict and condition the human world would involve the loss of what is human in man, and, by failing to recognize his uniqueness and transcendence, could dangerously open the door to his [man's] exploitation." ​

Therefore, it is crystal-clear that exploiting science to 'stabilize/reduce' world population would NEVER be acceptable from a Catholic standpoint.

Unfortunately, that 'moral opposition' (that obstacle D. Rockefeller complained about in his 1994 speech) has been somewhat 'tamed' at the beginning of this new millennium.
The openness with which Bill Gates speaks of that same alleged issue (population growth) in this February 2010 'prophetic' conference is indicative of this ominous change in trend.
Just a quote to get the gist of it:

"The world today has 6.8 billion people, that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that [world population] by perhaps 10 or 15%."​

He was just casually talking about exploiting science to possibly exterminate from 680,000,000 to 1,020,000,000 people...
This plan is utterly irreconcilable with Pope Benedict's teachings... and the Roman Pontiff is considered the highest moral authority on earth by about 1,400,000,000 faithful worldwide.
So either Bill Gates was to be put in jail, or Pope Benedict was to leave the Holy See vacant (one way or another...) to allow a more 'cooperative' man to take his place.
Just like Barabba was chosen over Jesus, Bill Gates was chosen over Pope Benedict... alas, the world has not changed much during the last centuries!
But just like Jesus was resurrected after death, I'm positive that Pope Benedict's legacy will eventually 'emerge from the catacomb of secrecy' to reclaim a legitimate petrine succession.

In this more recent video Klaus Schwab, former head of the notorious World Economic Forum, openly boasts its infiltration (or rather, colonization...) of all sorts of top institutions worldwide under a centralized, unofficial, one-world government.
The already mentioned St. Gallen mafia may be seen as a World Economic Forum 'branch' infiltrated in the Roman Catholic Church. Anonymous sources report it had already enlisted 40 Cardinals electors in the 2005 Conclave: not enough to win the election, but more than enough (more than 1/3) to create a barrier to Pope Benedict's election... unless some kind of a 'deal' was reached, I suppose.
Later on, Bergoglio himself confirmed (in his book 'The Successor') that his name had indeed been used for that very purpose.
My guess is that a binding agreement between the two factions (that 'misdeed' mentioned in the declaratio) was going to hijack for sure the following Conclave, to elect the globalists' favorite candidate.
So Pope Benedict had to intervene to guarantee a legitimate succession. Doing it publicly would have been a death sentence for his legitimate successor. So he had to act under the pontifical seal of secrecy.

Our Blessed Mother mentioned one of the greatest threats humanity will have to face right before the Warning is a widespread return of 'Communism'.
Planned crisis, a globalist agenda strongly affecting every single nation, atheism, materialism, environmentalism, renewed hostility between two 'blocks', etc. are some traits of this 'revival' of Communism, also known as Globalism.