A Response to Andrea Cionci and his “Ratzinger Code”

October 22, 2022 (Steven O’Reilly) – Well, my recent article against the Codice Ratzinger, or Ratzinger Code (see Ratzinger Code: “Don’t believe your lying eyes”) has drawn some responses. One of these comes from Andrea Cionci (see here), the originator of the Plan B and Ratzinger Code theory. There are several articles available on Roma Locuta Est which address Cionci’s theory (see here, here, here, and here), and in addition to these is my book which addresses the key forms of Benepapism (see VALID?  The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI – The Case against the Benepapists).

Cognitive Dissonance and the Ratzinger Code

In his response, Mr. Cionci takes exception to me calling his Ratzinger Code gnostic.  He writes:

Like the blogger Ann Barhardt, even O’Reilly has defined as “gnostic” Pope Benedict XVI’s intelligent super-logical messages and learned references to history and scripture, which demonstrate the objective canonical state of an impeded Apostolic See: a clear sign that his writings are out of the reach of their comprehension so much that for them they are some arcane, magical and inscrutable language.

To be clear, I have not defined anything that the former pope has said as “gnostic”.  What is gnostic is the belief Benedict is communicating secret meanings through his words via a “Ratzinger Code,” which can only be interpreted by a select few, as this suggests hidden knowledge, known by a select few.[1]  Apparently, Cionci is one of the few who has the “ears to hear.”[2]

There is no “impeded see” via some supposed “Plan B” as Cionci would have it.[3]  The Ratzinger Code hermeneutical approach is simply an ad hoc attempt to explain away uncomfortable evidence, i.e., certain of Benedict XVI’s statements which do not comport with the “impeded see” theory. It is cognitive dissonance on display to the ultimate degree.  If Benedict’s statements do not comport with the “impeded see” theory, then the common sense reaction ought to be to question the original theory — not to reinterpret Benedict’s statements and change their meanings. If Benedict’s statements are not consistent with the “impeded see” theory, then we reject the theory, not Benedict’s statements!  We ought to take Benedict by the plain, evident meaning of his words and not by a nonsensical Ratzinger Code re-interpretation of them.  This may not be exciting. This may not be the stuff that makes “best-selling” books.  But there it is.  Cionci and the other Arch-Benepapists have misunderstood Benedict.

In the Ratzinger Code, we are witnesses to a text book case of cognitive dissonance.  Cognitive dissonance turned all the way up to “11.” Consider, we were recently treated to a bizarre and unintentionally humorous example of it in a group of articles by Signor Cionci and Br. Bugnolo, which I recounted in my recent article (see HERE).  Briefly, using his Ratzinger Code hermeneutical approach, Cionci tried to convince Don Minutella and 7 priests that Archbishop Gänswein’s message to them[4] which the 8 priests described and considered to be insultingly “harsh“, “crude“, “calumnious,” etc., was rather a message of “approval and encouragement.“[5]  That this is an example of cognitive dissonance is clear, obvious, and amusing for those with eyes to see, and – without wax stuffed in them – “ears to hear.”

Let us take another example. In his response to me, Cionci raises one of Benedict’s responses in his interview with Peter Seewald.  Cionci writes:

Behold, thus, an example of the “alchemical messaging”: when Pope Benedict writes in Sewald’s, “Last Conversations”, that “no pope (not even himself) has resigned in a thousand years and even in the first millennium it was an exception”.  But this is not some Kabalistic expression, but must be considered either as regards a renunciation of office as a clamorous historical error on his part – since there were 10 popes who abdicated in the first and second millennia – or as regards the renunciation of ministerium (as in fact is the case, in effect) and thus is to be considered properly a reference to a pair of popes (Benedict VIII and Gregory V) who in the first millennium of the Church’s history (33 A. D. to 1032 A. D.) were driven out of Rome by antipopes and ost [sic] their own practical exercise of power, but remained popes. Note these cases: both sede impedita ante litteram (precedent to the present case).

What to say here? Let us remember the context of Benedict’s words, which was that he was responding to Seewald’s question. Seewald’s question raised the uniqueness of Benedict’s renunciation, but was in specific regard to his decision process. Seewald set the context in the preface to his question, which reads in part:

“Now we come to that decision which in itself already makes your pontificate seem historic. Your resignation was the first time a genuinely ruling pontiff has stood down from his office.” (Last Testament, Peter Seewald, p. 14, Kindle Version)

Seewald, obviously aware there were other papal resignations in history, describes Benedict’s resignation as unique because he is the first to “stand down,” i.e., resigning voluntarily without some crisis necessitating it in some way. Seewald seemingly excludes Celestine V from sharing Benedict’s uniqueness, possibly because he did not consider Celestine V to have been a “genuinely ruling pontiff” in the sense his reign was of very short duration, and due to Celestine’s poor ruling abilities as a pontiff — one of the reasons he and others wanted him to resign!  Seewald recalls that Benedict in 2010 had already said that a pope ‘who is no longer physically and psychologically in a position to maintain his office‘ might have the ‘right’ or even the ‘duty’ to ‘step back‘ from the office. In short, Seewald was asking Benedict about his decision process with regard to his resignation, e.g., “was there a fierce inner struggle with this decision?”

That is the context. Benedict’s explains his decision process, as requested by Seewald, prefacing his reply as follows: “no pope has stood down in a thousand years; it was still an exception in the first thousand years of the papacy” (Last Testament, Peter Seewald, p. 15, Kindle Version.  English language translation). There is no reason to concoct some elaborate Ratzinger Code explanation of this, as Cionci does above, as quoted from his article. More mundane solutions are available.

For example, in context, Benedict affirms (1) no pope “stood down” in the first millennium of the Church, i.e., approximating the 1230 years prior to Celestine V back to Peter; but, unlike Seewald, Benedict (2) allows for the “exception”, i.e., Celestine V, who “stood down” over 700 plus years ago, with Benedict here approximating that “no pope has stood down for a thousand years.” Keep in mind, there is no need to get hung up on exact timelines, the conversation is about Benedict’s decision process over his renunciation, not a historical test of dates. Thus, the possible meaning, suggested above, is a far simpler, and a more natural reading of Benedict XVI’s response to Seewald in context. It requires no Rube Goldberg leaps of logic to get one to a conclusion which Cionci began with — i.e., that the papacy is “impeded.”  Again, no need for a Ratzinger Code here.

Contra factum non valet argumentum

Now, finally, we come to the main point of it all, Benedict’s parting words to some pilgrims from Albano (see here). Speaking to them on the day of his resignation, February 28, 2013, Benedict said “I will no longer be supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church” as of 8pm that evening.

Cionci disputes this obvious meaning because he believes Benedict still remains the “supreme pontiff” because Cionci accepts the dubious “impeded see” theory. But, if Benedict did mean “supreme pontiff” and nothing else, then the “impeded see” theory crumbles.

To defend his theory, Cionci’s argument is essentially that Benedict, speaking in Italian, used the term “pontefice sommo” (“pontiff supreme”) instead of “sommo pontefice” (“supreme pontiff”). According to Cionci, “sommo pontefice” is an allowable expression for the papal title Summus Pontifex, but the inverse, “pontefice sommo” (“pontiff supreme”), is not. The whole edifice of his argument relies on the contention “pontefice sommo” is not and cannot be an expression for the pope or a papal title.

So how does Cionci explain the meaning of Benedict’s words “I will no longer be a pontiff supreme of the Catholic Church”? Cionci provides an explanation via his Ratzinger Code hermeneutic as follows:

Pope Benedict makes it clear that ‘he will no longer be a pontiff supreme,’ that is, he will no longer be a pontiff placed in the highest and largest place, but will remain a hidden pontiff, a hermit, hidden under the nonexistent institution of the papacy emeritus.” (See Andrea Cionci; “Ratzinger Code”: found the most sensational of messages, worldwide from Castel Gandolfo, December 18, 2021. Also see Andrea Cionci, https://sfero.me/article/ratzinger-code-the-sensational-messages-from December 18, 2021.)

Cionci argues, using his Ratzinger Code hermeneutical approach, that Benedict XVI’s use of the “pontefice sommo” should be taken as intentional, in that (1) Benedict XVI thus successfully avoided telling a lie about no longer being “sommo pontefice” (Supreme Pontiff), and that (2) “pontefice sommo” has an additional Ratzinger Code meaning. This additional meaning would be that Benedict was telling those who can interpret his code (i.e., Cionci) that he would no longer be the “pontiff in the ‘highest and largest places’ of the Catholic Church.”  Cionci inserts that this means Benedict will be a hidden pope, etc., — i.e., a pope not exercising his authority over the Church, because he is “impeded.”

Let us take Cionci’s arguments here one at a time. First, central to Cionci’s argument is that “sommo pontefice” means “supreme pontiff,” and that “pontefice sommocannot be understood as an expression for a papal title, e.g., Summus Pontifex.  However, if “pontefice sommo” can be such an expression for a papal title, then there would be no reason at all to invoke the need for a Ratzinger Code. If that were the case, the Benepapists could not explain away Benedict XVI’s statement “I will no longer be the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church.” That would be earth shattering for the Benepapists because such a statement is a clear admission Benedict clearly understood and intended he would no longer be pope, something the Benepapists cannot admit! Benepapism would implode, and collapse like the house of cards it is.

However, as I noted in one of my articles (Regarding the “Ratzinger Code”), and in my recently released book (See Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, Chapter 4, pages 85-91), examples can be found of “pontefice sommo” being used of a pope, and or the papacy.  My recently published book went on to detail more examples over a period of about 165 years (NB: In my book, see Chapter 4, Reply to Objection 4.2, pages 85-91), including examples in the 20th century, and indeed in the second half of the 20th century. As I noted in my last article, some examples were found in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), including an official translation of a papal encyclical, as well as there being other examples in the AAS of a pope using “pontefice sommo” on more than one occasion (See Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, Chapter 4, Reply to Objection 4.2, pages 85-91).

Now, what is Cionci’s response to this?  Well, he says in part:

“What luck! Who knows how much dust O’Reilly had to breathe in while digging up these very rare usages in the nooks of the Vatican archives!”

Cionci calls my finds “archaic” and “rare usages.”  Yet, nonetheless, he admits them. The fact of the matter is “Pontefice Sommo” has been, and thus, can be used as a reference to the pope/papacy, i.e., an expression of a papal title. Cionci now admits this even if he calls it an “archaic and rare inverted expression for the pontifical title.” Yet, by conceding the use, Cionci has conceded the whole game!  The Ratzinger Code is fallen!

Previously, Cionci, excluded even the possibility “pontefice sommo” could ever be an expression for the “pontifical title” — or if he knew it, why did he not admit to it?  Regardless, it can be so used!  There is no need to find an alternative explanation as to why Benedict used “pontefice sommo” when speaking to the pilgrims of Albano. Therefore, Cionci’s Ratzinger Code interpretation of “pontefice sommo” can be rejected with extreme prejudice.

In summary of the above, given “pontefice sommo” can be used as an expression of a papal title, there is now no need at all to accept the Ratzinger Code interpretation of Benedict’s words to the pilgrims of Albano.  Thus, Benedict definitively affirmed he would “no longer be Supreme Pontiff (“Pontefice Sommo”) of the Catholic Church” after 8pm, on February 28, 2013, thereby confirming the Declaratio.  Benedict is no longer pope. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Earlier in this article, we considered Cionci unbelievable attempts to explain away — what were to Don Minutella and the 7 priests — Gänswein’s “harsh” and “calumnious” words as, instead, a message of “approval and encouragement.” Now perceiving the fall of the Ratzinger Code, it appears Cionci tries to do something similar with “pontefice sommo,” now that he has recognized it is an expression of the papal title. Cionci writes:

And so, we want to thank O’Reilly, because, by digging up this most rare, pleicestine ecclesiastical usage of “pontefice sommo”, he has shown us again the superhuman intellectual prestidigitation and the most profound erudition of Pope Ratzinger who is always laying before us Catholics the choice between “the broad way and the narrow way”: so that we might either content ourselves with the propaganda of the mainstream and the Bergoglian hypnotic speech, or so we might study canon law and seek to understand how the Apostolic See is impeded. It all depends on how much your soul is inclined to the truth.

What remains objective in all of this is that Pope Benedict constantly uses these amphibologies: the light and obscurity are always present and this fact cannot be other than that intentional.

The second thing to understand from O’Reilly is that Pope Benedict uses these perfect amphibologies to carve out a space for speaking the truth at all times: he does not want to express himself in a univocal manner precisely because he is in sede impedita (just as no prisoner is free to speak) and he has promised to be “obedient and respectful” to his prison-warden.

“Pontefice Sommo” can be an expression used of a pope. As said, this fact alone demolishes the Ratzinger Code which had never accounted for even the slightest possibility of it, and indeed, denied it was even possible. Now, Cionci has the temerity to thank me, as if this evidence which refutes his theory, somehow now actually supports it! Thanking me, Cionci now seeks to incorporate my evidence against him into his own theory. Che incredibile! 

Essentially, Cionci is now claiming the ‘erudite’ Benedict used “pontefice sommoknowing it was a rare expression for a papal title – something Cionci hitherto never admitted; but even though Benedict knew this meaning, he really intended to signify something else entirely by its use, i.e., the “pontiff in the ‘highest or largest place’ who remains hidden.”  Huh?  What!? At this point, Cionci has tripped, and impaled himself on his own Ratzinger Code.

Recall, when outlining his theory long ago on this point, Cionci asserted that Benedict used “pontefice sommo” in order not to lie, as he would have if he had used a title of the pope, “sommo pontefice” (e.g., Summus Pontifex). That is, he would be saying he would not be “supreme pontiff” any longer, even though he really would be — which would be a lie per Cionci’s Code. However, now that Cionci has been forced to admit his error, he now professes that Benedict used this expression of the title “to carve out a space for speaking the truth at all times.”

Say what? If Benedict used “pontefice sommo” knowing it is an expression of the papal title, then he would be lying in saying “I am no longer ‘Pontefice Sommo‘ of the Catholic Church” if he really did believe he would remain ‘pontefice sommo.’ Cionci wants it both ways. But the house of cards has collapsed. Such is the nonsense of the Ratzinger Code — hopefully now fully exposed for those with “eyes to see it,” and “ears to hear.”

Cionci now suggests Benedict’s used the “archaic” and “rare” expression of the title “pontefice sommo” because he was a man of erudition.  Okay, fine, but Benedict’s erudition does not redound to the benefit of Cionci’s Ratzinger Code. The evidence I have cited comes in part from the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and includes an official translation of an encyclical from the Latin into Italian, and a pope in the second half of the 20th century on various occasions using “pontefice sommo” (hardly “archaic”!).  Cionci mocks these and other sources as coming from “dusty” old books in the “nooks” of the Vatican archives.

However, Benedict XVI — as pope, and as Fr. Ratzinger, an eminent theologian and a man of erudition — would certainly be familiar with such works and sorts of expressions and titles for the papacy found in the archives of the Vatican or in theological libraries.  The expression was undoubtedly familiar to him — if not to Cionci; and so he used it. There is no reason to assume any other meaning or purpose for the expression in context.

The Papacy logically entails “a Pontiff placed in the highest and largest place”

Now, as one last argument against the Ratzinger Code, let us set aside the unassailable proofs already brought above against the Ratzinger Code. For the sake of argument, let us assume Cionci’s original interpretation of Benedict’s use of “pontefice sommo” is possible. Here is Cionci’s analysis:

Pope Benedict makes it clear that ‘he will no longer be a pontiff supreme,’ that is, he will no longer be a pontiff placed in the highest and largest place, but will remain a hidden pontiff, a hermit, hidden under the nonexistent institution of the papacy emeritus.” (See Andrea Cionci; “Ratzinger Code”: found the most sensational of messages, worldwide from Castel Gandolfo, December 18, 2021. Also see Andrea Cionci, https://sfero.me/article/ratzinger-code-the-sensational-messages-from December 18, 2021.)

As said, let us agree, for argument’s sake, that the definition in bold is true, “pontefice sommo” in the Italian should be understood only as “a pontiff placed in the highest and largest place.” Yet, even granting that definition, the latter part of Cionci’s analysis does not follow. The clause added by Cionci, “but will remain a hidden pontiff…“, is purely and only speculative, and biased. It is not even part of the original Italian definition of the words “pontefice sommo.” It is added by Cionci by reading his opinion – not a definition – into the text.

Thus, leaving out Cionci’s eisegesis, Benedict’s comment should be read as follow: “I will no longer be a Pontiff in the highest and largest place of the Catholic Church.” If we then ask ourselves, who is “the Pontiff in the highest and largest place of the Catholic Church?” the answer should be clear. It is none other than the Summus Pontifex, the supreme pontiff — the pope. Who else could it be? According to the doctrine of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, as defined by Vatican I, in Pastor Aeturnus; the Roman Pontiff has supreme jurisdiction, and is the supreme pastor, and governor of the Catholic Church. There is no human on earth higher than he in the Catholic Church. Thus, it should be evident that the Roman Pontiff or Supreme Pontiff must necessarily be – if anyone is – the “Pontiff in the highest and largest places of the Catholic Church” as the former logically entails the latter.[6]

So, even granting a more favorable definition of “pontefice sommo” to Cionci, the Ratzinger Code still fails.

Final Thoughts

This article replies to Cionci’s response to my article, The Ratzinger Code: Don’t Believe your lying eyes.

So, let us briefly consider the state of the debate and evidence as it stands at this point. Previously, Cionci essentially said “pontefice sommo” cannot be used for a pope or as an expression of his title. However, I have provided evidence to the contrary — and this Cionci only now concedes, or admits. There is, in fact, evidence of “pontefice sommo” being used of a pope and or the papacy, with some of this evidence from the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, some of it in the 20th century, and in the second half of the 20th century. I provided evidence.

So, where is Cionci’s evidence?  Can Cionci produce, for example, even one prior example, archaic or rare, of a pope or any Italian using “pontefice sommo” of a pope or the papacy, but using it in a sense other than as an expression of a papal title — as asserted via Cionci’s Ratzinger Code?

Without assuming a Benepapist reading of the Declaratio — which is in dispute, can Cionci produce any evidence — that can stand on its own merits — that there is any reason at all to necessarily interpret anything that Benedict XVI says by way of a supposed Ratzinger Code?

I have given evidence. Where is his?

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. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI(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 GETTR, TruthSocial, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).


[1]  As a matter of clarification, I was the first to point out that the Ratzinger Code is gnostic. I did not follow the substantial-error Benepapists, Barnhart or Docherty, in pointing this out (see here).

[2] Cionci has written: “As always happens for the messages in the Ratzinger Code, there are TWO READING PLANS: the first is the superficial one, good for non-believers, the indifferent and all those who detest Pope Benedict, modernists or traditional-sedevacantists. There is always, however, some inconsistency that intrigues those who “have ears to hear”, as we have seen HERE and that pushes the Logos to work, the reason that discovers the truth.”[See here]

[3] The question of office (munus) and ministerium with regard to Benedict XVI’s renunciation is taken up in detail in my new book: VALID?  The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI – The Case against the Benepapists.  The Benepapist objections to the validity of Benedicts XVI’s resignation, based on the Declaratio, are taken up in Chapter 1 of the book.  The objections of both theories, “substantial error” and “Plan B/Ratzinger Code”, are examined, and answered. I have also addressed Plan B, and the Ratzinger Code in various articles (e.g., here, here, here, and here). Also, collections of various refutations of Benepapism may be found here and here.

[4] In no way am I criticizing Archbishop Gänswein for whatever he said to any of the 8 priests at any point in any of my articles.  The call and statements were made in private, so any public embarrassment is on those who publicized the call and its contents.

[5] I direct those readers looking for some amusement to Br. Bugnolo’s account of the event, which was unintentionally quite amusing. See https://www.fromrome.info/2022/10/07/appeal-to-archbishop-ganswein-from-catholic-clergy-in-communion-with-christs-vicar-on-earth/.  Br. Bugnolo’s retelling is only rivalled by Cionci’s (see https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/33413372/dal-libro-di-geremia-il-codice-ratzinger-definitivo-di-benedetto-xvi-io-sono-impedito-.html).  If these two accounts does not lead one to at least raise an eyebrow, or break a smile at least, over the the Ratzinger Code hermeneutical approach to things, I am not sure what could. My commentary on both may be found here: https://romalocutaest.com/2022/10/17/ratzinger-code-dont-believe-your-lying-eyes/

[6]  Many thanks to Fr. John Rickert, FSSP on reminding me in this section of the article of this important logical point (logical entailment) when applied in this instance, i.e., when granting the Benepapists their preferred definition of “pontefice sommo.” Fr. Rickert has also ably made this same, powerful point in other aspects of the debate over Benedict’s resignation as well (e.g., ministerium vs. munus). For example, See Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, Ph.D., “Munus, Ministerium & Pope Emeritus Benedict — Guest Post by Fr John Rickert”. https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39718/.  Fr. Rickert’s discussion of the logical entailment is also included and cited in my book at several points with his kind permission.

4 thoughts on “A Response to Andrea Cionci and his “Ratzinger Code”

  1. From what I understand, independently of the level of truth in Cioncis argument, the farewell speech from Castel Gandolfo does not suffice for a Canonically valid resignation to de Munus Petrinus, either in matter, in form or both.

    Official references, and even Cionci’s, to the act of renunciation are always in connection to the Declaratio, never to that speech. That is because it is understood that the proper and solemn act of a resignation is to be found in that context. Written and in front of canonically valid witnesses.

    So analysis of the validity of the resignation always deals with the document “Declaratio”. Those speeches, codes, hidden messages, contribute (or not) to the previously established fact of the invalidity of the renunciation as expressed in the Declaratio, never the other way round.

    There remains, if granted that the speech given the 28th could be valid in regard to the context (that the speech is equivalent to a written and signed document and that, as required by canon law, there were proper witnesses) the question of the deferral of the time in which God shall withdraw the Munus from him. Every document I read points to the fact that the “I renounce the Munus” is what in that moment actuates the renunciation. Saying “I will cease to be Pontifice Summo in 4 hours” demands for another statement 4 hours later “I cease to be Pontifice Summo”

    In fact many were expecting the “actual” renunciation to take place the 28th precisely because of that deferral already present in the “Declaratio”

    Thanks for the time reading and for your efforts in discerning Truth given the confusing times we are living in
    God bless


    1. Thanks Patricio for your comments.

      There are example of popes who have prepared ‘conditional’ resignations. As to timing, there is nothing in canon law that says resignations must be immediate, or that they cannot be deferred. In fact, canon law allows for non-immediate resignations. I cite the canon on this point in my new book, “Valid?”

      Now, with regard to BXVI’s words at Castel Gandolfo, I do not raise the question to suggest his words were a new or required statement to make his renunciation valid. The point of it all is, his words demonstrate he intended, and understood he would no longer be “Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church” and that such a statement necessarily implies he understood he would not hold the Petrine munus after 8pm on the 28th of February; and that he would no longer be “true pope,” bishop of Rome, Supreme Pontiff, etc (see Normas Nonnullas 87, and UDG 88).

      There is no getting around it. But Cionci has **attempted** to do so. In fact, he really had no choice if he hoped to even TRY to maintain the facade of an argument. That is to say, Cionci needed to explain away things Benedict XVI — as pope or emeritus — said which contradicted Cionci’s central premise as some sort of “Ratzinger code”. Thus, we see this re the words at Gandolfo.

      However, as my argument in my article, and also in greater detail in my book detail, it is clear “Pontefice Sommo” has been used of popes. This is something Cionci’s thesis previously did not even allow for. Thus, this evidence blows up Cionci’s thesis. It is comical that Cionci now tries to suggest the usage he formerly alleged to be an impossibility (i.e., “Pontefice Sommo” cannot refer to a pope) is now, that Cionci is proven wrong, really evidence in support of his thesis.

      All of this is a joke. It is a shame. I would have loved to see Cionci respond to my article above. However, when I asked him on Twitter about it (using an unblocked account because he blocked my main account when I had questioned him before), he said he would not respond. The reasons offered were ridiculous.

      In sum, the “Ratzinger Code” is nonsense. That is, perhaps, the most charitable thing that can be said of it.

      Anyway, thanks again for the comments. Thank you for reading the article.

      God bless,



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s