Roma Locuta Est

August 3, 2021 (Steven O’Reilly) – Roma Locuta Est has long outlined areas where it sees grave problems with this pontificate and or interpretations of the acts of this pontificate (e.g., here, here, here).  Like others, we have looked into how these problems might be understood or explained in a wider context. We have looked into various theories (e.g., Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows?), and have even looked at and continue to look into many of the events surrounding the 2013 conclave (see The Conclave Chronicles). Ultimately, if there are questions or doubts about the Francis pontificate, these can only be adjudicated by a future pope.

When I first came upon the “Benedict is Pope” theory or “BiP” as I’ve coined it[1], I was curious, and looked into the arguments made for it. I’ve looked at the Declaratio. Benedict’s last audience.  Ganswein’s speech. I’ve looked at the arguments advanced by leading lights of the BiP theory, such as Ann Barnhardt, Dr. Mazza, Brother Bugnolo, and others. As much as I would have liked for it to be a strong theory with solid evidence, the more I looked into it, the more it became quite apparent in my opinion that there is no “there,” there. I have written a series of articles on the BiP theory which I have compiled in the Summa Contra the BiP Theory (Why Benedict XVI is NOT the pope).

Back in April, an article appeared on Marco Tosatti’s site entitled: Cionci: The Possible Reconstruction of Benedict XVI’s “Plan B”.  In the article by Andrea Cionci puts forward his twist on the BiP theory. I recommend that the reader take a look at this variant of the standard BiP theory. While the standard theory alleges the text of Benedict’s resignation was invalid for various reasons, Mr. Cionci puts forward the notion that Benedict intentionally submitted an invalid resignation, i.e., Benedict’s “Plan B.” While Mr. Cionci is the most recent to suggest such a thing, he is not the first. Mr. Cionci writes (empahsis added):

“The Pope assembled in this way what could strategically be defined as a “planned ruse”, with a “false target” and a “feigned retreat” to cause the morale of the authentic Catholic population to be recharged  and to definitively annihilate the antichristic forces in the bosom of the Church.” (Source: here)

I replied to Mr. Cionci’s in an article entitled Benedict’s Plan “B” from Outer Space. Mr. Cionci has since responded to that article (see here).  Below, I respond to Mr. Cionci’s first reply.

A Second Reply to Mr. Cionci on the question of Benedict’s Plan “B” from Outer Space

In my first article on Benedict’s Plan “B” from Outer Space I outlined a few problems with Mr. Coinci’s theory. His reply has done nothing to change this calculation. In it, Mr. Cionci, referring to me, says:

Legitimate, however, at the basis of all his dispute, there is an error of method , because the interlocutor does not start from where we started, or rather from the ascertainment of some OBJECTIVE AS IN EXPLAINABLE FACT DATA . We have been “FORCED” BY LOGIC to have to configure the very uncomfortable and shocking hypothesis of Plan B which is the only one to provide a coherent framework for a series of facts that this man avoids analyzing in bulk. (Believe us, we would have preferred not to, since this “ one against all“Is just a source of annoyance, a real bitter cup). We have listed the main reasons that led to this thesis HERE and in fact they only received an intrigued silence from a journalist of the level of Massimo Franco HERE who, as the only answer, invited us to write a book.

It is not that we started from a goal and then we patched up a theory looking here and there for some piece of support to ” unseat ” someone, as Dr. Riccardo Petroni in his protest-kamikaze HERE . (Among other things, the fact that Petroni , denying the divinity of Christ , “massacred” himself in that way thanks to an ancient homage from the Holy Father Benedict XVI is a very suggestive event, which makes one think).

It is exactly the opposite: the theory of Plan B has been assembled by itself hand by hand, in an organic and orderly way, as if it had a life of its own, on the basis of some “bricks” made up of documents and facts investigated in detail.

Mr. Cionci asserts there is “an error of method” in my critique. Mr. Cionci writes that I do not “start” from where he started.  The truth is, I have been following the BiP question for quite some time. I’ve looked at the Declaratio.  Benedict’s last audience.  Ganswein’s speech. Seewald interviews. I’ve looked at the arguments advanced by Ann Barnhardt, Dr. Mazza, Brother Bugnolo, Socci, and others. As said above, as much as I would have liked for BiP to be a strong theory with solid evidence; upon closer examination, it is not such a theory. I don’t believe Mr. Cionci’s twist on the theory strengthens the case for BiP in the least.

Mr. Cionci notes of my first response, “However, his contemptuous tones (he defines our work as “ridiculous”) are not very dialogical and therefore we will limit ourselves to a single answer.” First, a correction. I am not so much defining Mr. Cionci’s work as ridiculous as I am pointing out his conclusion is so. To propose for whatever reason that Benedict XVI intentionally misled the Catholic world into thinking he resigned when he really had not — and that such an intentional act is somehow morally neutral or even morally good with respect to the hundreds of millions of Catholics left without a papal shepherd and in the hands of an anti-pope (as Francis would necessarily be under this theory) — is absolutely “ridiculous.” There is no way to sugar coat it.

Consider, such a theory would be an insult to Benedict, making him the author of a heinous plot that would intentionally leave the Lord’s flock unguarded, and unprotected for eight years and counting. There can be no strategic, tactical, practical, theological, or moral justification for what would be a morally reprehensible act of utter irresponsibility and grave pastoral negligence.

The above is a sufficient answer to Mr. Cionci, and I believe most reader will find it essentially self-evident. That said, I comment on a few of Mr. Cionci’s replies to the objections posed in my prior article:

(O’Reilly): Objection 1: “If Benedict XVI intended to fake his resignation, that would mean that he allowed a modernist to be “ostensibly” elected pope, in which case this pope would certainly be a true antipope, potentially leading millions upon millions of Catholics to perdition through his false doctrines. . How could Benedict justify this for any reason? The end does not justify the means! Benedict would be morally responsible for allowing the wolves to ravage the sheep without the protection of their chief shepherd here on earth, Benedict himself! It is one thing to suggest that a shepherd may lurk, seemingly abandoning the sheep to hide in the dark and ambush a wolf when he prowls the flock before the wolf attacks. However, it is quite another thing to suggest that a good shepherd can allow free wolf release – and then for eight years! Impossible. Benedict is not such a monster ”.

Cionci’s Answer 1: The best-known Italian philosopher, Prof. Giorgio Agamben quoted by Peter Seewald has already answered this affirmation : the real reason for Benedict’s resignation was the desire to awaken the eschatological conscience  (concerning the ultimate destinies of man) of believers: ” In the divine plan of salvation, the Church would also have the function of being both” Church of Christ and Church of the Antichrist “. The resignation would be a prefiguration of the SEPARATION between “Babylon” and “Jerusalem” in the Church. Instead of engaging in the logic of maintaining power, with his resignation from office Ratzinger emphasized its spiritual authority, thus contributing to its strengthening ”.

In confirmation of the concept, in the interview book ” Ein Leben”, Ratzinger himself declares : ” My intention was not simply and primarily to clean up the small world of the Curia, but rather in the Church as a whole”.   What else , dear sir?

In Plan B, Ratzinger has chosen a strategy that contemplates giving land to the opponent . How can you judge a general (who should be assisted by the Holy Spirit) who opts for a strategic retreat saying “is that man crazy to give so much ground to the enemy?”. Leave it alone: If Plan B is true, it is designed to be a kind of nuclear bomb for past, present and future modernism. Its duration does not depend on Ratzinger, who still continues to send inputs today, but on the listlessness of Catholics and clergy who do not take into consideration the mysterious factswhich have been patiently illustrated. Certain things could have been understood immediately since already in 2013 someone had realized that the renunciation was not right. But evidently it was necessary to get to the Pachamama and the abolition of the Latin mass for someone to start screwing in the first light bulbs. It will probably take a few more stops on the modernist train, and Orthodox Catholics will have to suffer a few more pinches before waking up from their nightmare and trying to change the paradigm by asking the feral question: “Maybe Bergoglio doesn’t have what it takes to be the pope?”.

Furthermore, from a theological point of view, it must be remembered that the pontiff is not the “baby sitter of humanity”. Every man has the free will to choose the truth according to contingencies, and God infallibly recognizes who, knowingly, has taken the broad way, that of the world, and who unwittingly, led by bad teachers, in good faith has taken the wrong path . God sees in the heart of man and will give everyone his own according to perfect justice.

Moreover, our interlocutor has very harsh words for Francis , he defines him as a wolf devouring the flock, and it is very difficult for a true pope to be a wolf for his own sheep, since this would go against the words of Christ: “hell will not prevail” . So either Christ was wrong, or the interlocutor is contradicting himself and Bergoglio is not the pope.

O’Reilly Replies to Cionci’s Answer #1:

My objection #1 encapsulates what I argued earlier in my present article.  That is, to accept the Benedict of Cionci’s “Plan B”, it necessarily follows ‘Benedict would be morally responsible for allowing the wolves to ravage the sheep without the protection of their chief shepherd here on earth, i.e., Benedict himself!’  Mr. Cionci’s answer above does nothing to extricate himself from this obvious fact.  He only provides a patchwork of speculations upon speculation as to what Benedict was thinking.

Let us revisit this response.  Mr. Cionci begins his answer to my objection #1:

The best-known Italian philosopher, Prof. Giorgio Agamben quoted by Peter Seewald has already answered this affirmation : the real reason for Benedict’s resignation was the desire to awaken the eschatological conscience  (concerning the ultimate destinies of man) of believers: ” In the divine plan of salvation, the Church would also have the function of being both” Church of Christ and Church of the Antichrist “. The resignation would be a prefiguration of the SEPARATION between “Babylon” and “Jerusalem” in the Church. Instead of engaging in the logic of maintaining power, with his resignation from office Ratzinger emphasized its spiritual authority, thus contributing to its strengthening ”.

Now, many readers may be unfamiliar with the Professor Agamben’s quote presented by Seewald to Benedict in the form of a question found in the back of his book on Benedict XVI “Ein Leben.”  I provide a translation of Seewald’s full question in the notes following this article (see Note 2). No where is it hinted in Seewald’s question, or the Agamben quotation read to Benedict, that Benedict intentionally ‘faked’ his resignation to create the situation imagined by Agamben. Consequently, Benedict’s answer provides no basis to affirm Cionci’s “Plan B” thesis, no does it advance it. Here is Benedict’s response:

“St. Augustine said of the similes of Jesus about the Church that on the one hand many are only apparent in it, but in reality live against the Church, and vice versa that there are many on the outside who – without knowing it – deeply to the Lord and so on also belong to his body, the church. This mysterious superimposition of inside and outside, which the Lord has depicted in various parables, we must continually bring to our consciousness anew. Then we know that there are times in history when God’s victory over the powers of evil is comfortingly visible, and times when the power of evil obscures everything. In conclusion, I would like to quote Vatican II, which in the “Constitution on the Church” (I, 8) summarizes this view following Augustine: “The Church ‘walks between the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God on her pilgrimage and proclaim the Lord’s cross and death until he returns.” (Peter Seewald’s, Benedict XVI. “Ein Leben.”  German Kindle Version.  Google translated)

No where in Benedict’s response above is there the slightest relation to Cionci’s Plan B thesis that Benedict intentionally submitted an invalid resignation to separate the paths of the Church and the anti-Church.  However, Mr. Cionci’s original answer above does not provide Benedict’s answer given above. Instead, Mr. Cionci skips to another quote from Benedict which is actually an answer to a different question.  While I am sure Mr. Cionci did not intend to confuse the reader here, it would be easy for the reader to assume the quote provided by Cionci was Benedict’s reply to Seewald’s question regarding Agamben. For one, Mr. Cionci cites Benedict’s quote as a “confirmation” of Agamben’s “concept.” Mr. Cionci writes:

In confirmation of the concept, in the interview book ” Ein Leben”, Ratzinger himself declares : ” My intention was not simply and primarily to clean up the small world of the Curia, but rather in the Church as a whole”.   What else , dear sir?

“What else?”  Yes…indeed.  What else? For one, where is the original question that goes with Benedict’s answer immediately above?  Where is the full context? As noted above, the Benedict’s answer above is not in response to the Agamben question. Instead, I quote below Seewald’s statement which proceeds the quote immediately above, followed by Benedict’s full answer:

Seewald:  “When it comes to your pontificate, it is often said that you encountered many blockades in the Curia.”

Benedict: “Blockades came more from outside than from the Curia. I did not just want to advance purification in the little world of the Curia, and not even primarily, but in the Church as a whole. The Pope is not primarily the Pope or Curia, but he bears responsibility for the Church in the respective history lesson. In the meantime, events have shown that the crisis of faith has above all led to a crisis of Christian existence. This is the measure that the Pope must face.”

(Peter Seewald’s, Benedict XVI. “Ein Leben.”  German Kindle Version.  Google translated)

Clearly, no connection to the Agamben quotation. Benedict is not speaking of his resignation but, instead, retrospectively of his pontificate, and his desire at the time to advance the “purification” of the “Church as a whole.” There is no reference to his resignation in either Seewald’s question, or Benedict’s answer. Benedict’s words speaks to his actions as pope, not to any intention that his resignation itself was intended to “advance the purification of the Church as a whole.” To suggest otherwise is simply a case of reading something into the text that is not there.

Mr. Cionci continues on, trying to find some justification that answers my objection.  He says, for example:

In Plan B, Ratzinger has chosen a strategy that contemplates giving land to the opponent . How can you judge a general (who should be assisted by the Holy Spirit) who opts for a strategic retreat saying “is that man crazy to give so much ground to the enemy?”. Leave it alone: If Plan B is true, it is designed to be a kind of nuclear bomb for past, present and future modernism.

Cionci’s Benedict, via Plan B, “has chosen a strategy that contemplates giving land to the opponent.” Such a supposed justification is cold and callous, and simply validates my original objection. We are not talking about land, we are talking about souls. Hundreds of millions of souls. Hundreds of millions of “sheep” Benedict, as successor to St. Peter, is supposed to tend and feed per the Lord’s charge. Instead, Cionci gives us a Benedict who treated the millions of Catholics he has left behind to Francis in this “strategic retreat” as little more than cannon fodder.  Still, Mr. Cionci continues:

Furthermore, from a theological point of view, it must be remembered that the pontiff is not the “baby sitter of humanity”. Every man has the free will to choose the truth according to contingencies, and God infallibly recognizes who, knowingly, has taken the broad way, that of the world, and who unwittingly, led by bad teachers, in good faith has taken the wrong path . God sees in the heart of man and will give everyone his own according to perfect justice.

Mr. Cionci attempts to dismiss what would be his Benedict’s grave pastoral failure and negligence with empty rhetoric.  Cionci absolves the Benedict of his theory, incredibly, on the grounds “the pontiff is not the baby sitter of humanity.” However, Cionci’s theory neglects to recall that the Lord entrusted the care of his sheep to Peter and his successors, to “tend my sheep”, “feed my sheep” (cf John 21:15-17).

Mr. Cionci fails to address my first objection to his theory.  Now, on to my original second objection, and Cionci’s reply:

(O’Reilly) Objection 2 ) If Benedict XVI had wanted to fake his resignation, it would have been very presumptuous of him. Benedict would have no way of knowing in advance that he would survive long enough, given his advanced age, even to cast his “trap” on the antipope and his modernist henchmen. What if he died before the trap was triggered? If so, he would hand over the flock unchallenged to the enemy. Eight long years have passed and Benedict is getting weaker and weaker physically and mentally. Why hasn’t he set off his trap now? There is no good or reasonable answer.

(Cionci) Answer 2) It has nothing to do with how long Ratzinger can stay alive. Moreover, we do not know if some surprises will come out at his death , as a safety valve. According to Plan B, Benedict handed over to history and canon law an invalid renunciation that SEPARATED FOREVER THE SUCCESSORY LINES: one papal his, and one antipapal, that of Bergoglio, as two families, two different DNAs. Whether the true Church recovers its seat or should rise again in the catacombs, as prophesied by Ratzinger himself, we still do not know. The munus Petrine, the title of pope conferred by God, it seems, Benedict will take him to his tomb (as late as possible, we wish him) and thus a Catholic Church reorganized perhaps in a wayclandestine , as announced by various prophecies, will have to independently elect a new true pope, successor of Benedict , (not of Bergoglio) as in the early days of Christianity. So, his Plan B is built to last through the ages, it is designed to separate the wheat from the chaff over the long haul with a document that is now set in history, accompanied by its fantastic syntax errors.

O’Reilly Replies to Mr. Cionci’s answer #2:

According to Mr. Cionci, “According to Plan B, Benedict handed over to history and canon law an invalid renunciation that SEPARATED FOREVER THE SUCCESSORY LINES: one papal his, and one antipapal, that of Bergoglio.”  However, as we have already outlined, such a step would be a betrayal of the faithful by any pope, i.e., leaving millions potentially fend for themselves and or to follow an antipope. As noted at the end of my reply to Cionci’s first reply, this would be a betrayal of the Lord’s explicit charge to St. Peter tend and feed his sheep (cf John 21:15-17).

Surely, it would be presumptuous for a pope to decide to do what Mr. Cionci suggests happened, i.e., that Benedict decided on a course of action that while it would maintain a valid papal line of succession, it would also ‘create’ an antipapal succession, one that untold millions might in their confusion follow. I don’t know if Cionci makes an additional speculation here or not. But I suppose if one has speculated as far as he has already, one might further speculate that God, through some mystical revelation, directly asked Benedict to tender an invalid resignation.

Aside from the fact that such a scenario would have God asking Benedict to essentially lie in carrying out this deception; there is no evidence that God made such a request of Benedict. Indeed, Peter Seewald in his book, Last Testament, asks Benedict about reports that a “mystical experience” had brought him to his decision to resign. Unfortunately, for the Cionci thesis, Benedict replied, “that was a misunderstanding.”

Mr. Cionci fails to address my second objection to his theory.

On to Cionci’s response to my third objection:

(O’Reilly) Objection 3 ) If Benedict XVI intended to fake his resignation, how could he really expect such a plan to work? Though weak in power, prior to his apparent resignation announcement, he was certainly stronger at the time than he is now, eight years later. That is, he gave his successor eight years to appoint more cardinals – over 50% of the entire college of cardinals, and more bishops and archbishops, etc. Furthermore, Benedict’s allies in key positions in the curia were gradually phased out (e.g., Burke, Mueller, Sarah, etc.). Therefore, Benedict is now in a weaker position of power to launch a counterattack than when he apparently resigned.

(Cionci) Answer 3 ) This is why he inserted the Latin errors in the Declaratio, to keep attention on that document for centuries to come. And his plan IS WORKING, in fact, although with a delay of six years, someone has noticed and others have divulged and developed the discovery, always identifying new clue elements, for example HERE  that the interlocutor does not consider in the least. Benedict allowed the antipope to nominate about 80 cardinals who make the next conclave invalid, precisely: a master’s game . If Bergoglio had not named any, paradoxically, the next conclave could be valid. Thinking that 94-year-old Benedetto can also manage the ministerium , that is the practical functions to which he declared he wanted to give up, is only one of the options. When the high clergy examines the resignation, certifies that it is invalid, and Bergoglio is put out, Benedict could either return to govern to the end , as did John Paul II, or sign a valid resignation , or appoint a vicar bishop for the ministerium . Plan B will trigger more realistically after his death, (if you really want, it could be the announced departure of the Katechon, the retainer of the Antichrist) when with the election of a new antipope, the modernist Church will take such an acceleration towards the chasm that, necessarily, some Catholics (those interested in remaining so) will have to wake up. The next steps will most likely be the abolition of Transubstantiation and the creation of an international interreligious conference, or something similar towards universal religion for the new world order that Bergoglio openly hoped for in an interview with La Stampa on March 15. 2021 . And then most likely, given that here the prophecies come true one after the other, a great prelate will arrive , a man of faith, but above all of character and heart.

O’Reilly Replies to Mr. Cionci’s Answer #3:

Mr. Cionci answer above alludes to various arguments advanced by BiP, such the supposed bifurcation of the papacy. Many of these BiP arguments already in the Summa Contra the BiP Theory (Why Benedict XVI is NOT the pope), e.g., ministero vs. munus, the Declaratio, the Last Audience, Ganswein’s speech, Normas Nonnullas, the Seewald interviews, etc.  As to any “Latin errors in the Declaratio” or “syntax errors” alleged by Mr. Cionci, these would not invalidate Benedict’s resignation, as canonist Edward Peters writes (emphasis added):

What the 1983 Code does say, as did the 1917 Code, is this: “Only those laws must be considered invalidating … which expressly state that an act is null …” (c. 10, olim c. 11).  Because no canon of the 1983 Code, under which Benedict XVI submitted his resignation (c. 332 § 2), addresses the quality of the Latin used in papal documents, let alone does any canon make the Latinity of papal documents go to their validity, I say, odd question answered: bad Latin does not mean that one must remain pope.

[Source: “Lighter fare: can bad Latin save a papacy?” by Edward Peters, 10/1/2014. NB: The quote above from Mr. Peters article was brought to my attention by an article found on the Amateur Brain Surgeon site.  See here.   My thanks to Amateur Brain Surgeon.]

In sum, there is no solid basis for the original premise there is a fatal deficiency with Benedict’s resignation. But let us set that aside.  Let us also set aside for the moment the grave pastoral negligence associated with intentionally submitting an invalid resignation, and thereby allowing the wolves to ravage the flock.

Let us set that all aside, and ask a simple question:  Why is “Plan B,” i.e., seeming to give up the papacy, even necessary?  How can pretending not to be pope be a wiser and more preferable course of action than actually remaining pope? How can one do more good for the Lord’s flock by pretending not to be its shepherd rather than ‘tending’ and ‘feeding’ the flock as commanded by the Lord (cf John 21:15-17)? It defies common sense.

Yet, Mr. Cionci asserts “Benedict allowed the antipope to nominate about 80 cardinals who make the next conclave invalid, precisely: a master’s game.” A master’s game?  What sort of “master’s game” can that be? How can letting an ostensible anti-pope create 80 something cardinals, and countless bishops, be better than simply remaining unambiguously the pope and naming your own cardinals and bishops, and reforming the Church?  For example, if there was a fear a conclave might elect an unworthy successor, Benedict might have tried different tactics.  For example, he might have greatly expanded the College of Cardinals, taking great care in whom he picked; or alternatively, he might have restricted voting eligibility in a conclave to only a select handful of Cardinals in whom he had utmost trust (see The Next Conclave: A Nightmare Scenario for a discussion of this possibility).

Here, too, Mr. Cionci’s answer fails to adequately address the objection.

Final Thoughts

A bad theory is never a substitute for a good one. To seriously suggest, as Mr. Cionci and others do, that Benedict intentionally submitted an invalid resignation; thus allowing as a consequence an anti-pope to appear to be pope, is an insult to Benedict. It makes Benedict into a bad shepherd who intentionally left the Lord’s flock exposed to ravaging wolves. There can be no reasonable, common sense justification for the proposition that pretending to not be pope is better for the salvation of souls than actually being and acting as pope.  Yet, that is the logical dead-end of the “Plan B” theory.

BiP theories which rely upon the text of the Declaratio being invalid are stuck with the inevitable and unattractive dead-end conclusions their choice of theory yields. Either Benedict unintentionally made invalidating errors in the Declaratio, or he intentionally made them. If the former, then Benedict is a pope who doesn’t believe he is pope; and therefore is, oddly enough, in schism from himself. If the latter, then Benedict is guilty of grave pastoral negligence, having left the Church vulnerable to an anti-pope and other ravaging wolves for eight years and counting. No amount of cherry-picked and out-of-context quotes, speculation, papal mind-reading, and or dubious logic can save these broken Rube Goldberg theories.

So, does this mean I think Francis is a “good” pope, “definitelypope,” or that I am defending the course of his pontificate. No. You cannot read this blog and reasonably reach that conclusion. As I indicated before and at the outset of this article, there are many troubling aspects and questions related to this pontificate. In my opinion, there are many questions that need further investigation, such as whether Benedict might have been misled into resigning and or questions surrounding the 2013 conclave (see the Conclave Chronicles which discusses question re who the “influential Italian gentleman” might be, proof of McCarrick’s role, and the suspicious “October Surprise” that sunk Cardinal Scola’s papal chances). There are also the questions raised by the Open Letter (here) regarding potential heresies which need to be addressed.

I’ve opined several times that an ‘imperfect council’ or at least some sort of conference should explore some of these questions now. However, ultimately, any ruling on such questions would need to come from a future pope. Recent comments by Archbishop Vigano seem to suggest as much: “We have come to the point that even simple people with little knowledge of doctrinal issues understand that we have a non-Catholic pope, at least in the strict sense of the term. This poses some problems of a canonical nature that are not inconsiderable, which it is not up to us to solve but which sooner or later will have to be addressed. (see here)”

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com  or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on Parler or Gab: @StevenOReilly).

Notes:

1.  The operator of one website asserted: “BiP is a derogatory term for those who hold that Benedict Is the Pope.  It  is crafted to make such persons appear to be blips of ignorance. (see here)”  When I coined it…and as I use it…”BiP” is not intended to be “derogatory.” I find the suggestion that it is “derogatory” rather amazing.  BiP is a rather straight forward and succinct acronym for “Benedict is Pope.” The same website operator went on to say I said I was a convert (see here). I am not sure how being a convert or not is relevant…but for the record…I am not a convert. I am a cradle Catholic, having gone through all Catholic schools through university.
2. Google translation of Seewald’s statement/question:  “The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben formulates in his book “The Secret of Evil. Benedict XVI and the End of Times ”the conviction that the real reason for the resignation was a wake-up call to the eschatological consciousness. In the divine plan of salvation, the church also has the function of being “the church of Christ and the church of the Antichrist” at the same time. The resignation is an anticipation of the divorce between “Babylon” and “Jerusalem” in the Church. Instead of subscribing to the logic of maintaining power, you had emphasized and ultimately strengthened its spiritual authority by renouncing the office.”