February 2, 2024 (Steven O’Reilly) – Perhaps a few months back, I saw the claim on X that Benedict, as Pope Emeritus, still continued to sign letters with his name and a “PP”, which depending on the source, stands for Pontifex Primus or Pontifex Pontificum — i.e., the pope. The claim here is that after his resignation, Benedict continued to sign his name with “PP” indicating he was, or believed he still was pope.

The significance of the “PP” being, if Benedict continued to sign his letters with “Pontifex Pontificum” this would be, the Benepapists claim, evidence that Benedict still believed him self to be pope in some way, either partly due to “substantial error” as per the Barnhardtians, or fully pope due to a “self-impeded see” as per the Cionci-ists [see Benedict XVI: strategic genius or theological fool?]. [NB: Arguments rebutting Benepapist claims may be found in the Summa Contra BiP, The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”; and in my book, Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI].

I am surprised I never saw much of this before now, having written a book refuting the various claims of the Benepapists (see Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI). But the other night I came across an article on GloriaTV from May 4, 2021, which said in part (emphasis added):

“Moreover, Cionci insists that Benedict is still dressing like a pope and signs with “Pontifex Pontificum” [which Francis never uses].”

Intrigued, I set out to search for an example of this claim that “Pontifex Pontificum” was used by Benedict after his resignation. Doing so, I found an article by Andrea Cioni in in Libero, where this claim appears, back in March 2021 (bolded Italics added):

So is Benedict XVI dishonest and using tricks? Not at all: he would be perfectly sincere and consistent with the conduct he has had up to now. Looking at it from another perspective, of equal dignity to that of the Corriere, Benedict did not validly resign, he is still pope because he retains the Petrine munus , continues to dress in white, to call himself Pontifex Pontificum, to impart the apostolic blessing , to pronounce on matters of faith and also reiterates in interviews, forcefully, that THE POPE IS ONLY ONE: HIM”.

Okay. That is a claim. I wanted examples. Unfortunately, in this article at least, Cionci did not provide the evidence of Benedict calling himself Pontifex Pontificum. The search continued. In another document (April 6, 2021) authored by Cionci (see HERE), Cionci claims Benedict continued “to sign as the Pontifex Pontificum (Pontiff of Pontiffs).” But again, there is no image of the alleged signature.

Perhaps there is a Cionci article with the image somewhere, but I have yet to find it. I did send a note to Cionci on X (formerly Twitter) asking for an example. I did find it odd there is no example provided in his book The Ratzinger Code, even though images of other documents are provided. This would appear to be evidence for his case. Why would he not include it in his book of all places? But, it is entirely possible Cionci in his many articles did include one or more examples. If there is a reader out there who has a link to an actual image, or several; please include in the comments below, or email to me if you prefer.

Then I came across a May 2019 article on Marco Tosatti’s website (see Dov’è Pietro? E chi è Pietro? (Con una lettera di don Minutella; translated “Where is Peter? And who is Peter (with a letter of Don Minutella).  The Italian Benepapist priest, Don Minutella, wrote a letter to Tosatti about his theory, which Tosatti published. Minutella writes, in part:

Dear Doctor Valli, I have just finished holding Benedict XVI’s last two books in my hands, which have recently been released in bookshops. One is a set of previously unpublished writings which, as stated in the Preface, he himself authorized for publication. The other is even a set of reflections on an increasingly sensitive topic, that of interreligious dialogue with the Jews. The first volume, entitled Per amore, bears the signature Benedictus PP XVI in full on the cover. 

So now we’re getting somewhere. It appears this book cover has an image of the “PP”. This article appeared on May 6, 2019.  But no image in this article.  Another search and I find an Ann Barnhardt article on this same book and topic, presumably she read Don Minutella’s letter on Tosatti’s site.

Well, Ms. Barnhardt had the image. With it, I went out to Amazon.It and found the book.  The book is titled Per Amore. The book is a collection of letters written by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, i.e., obviously, letters written after his resignation. Below is an image of the book cover from Amazon.

This book was published on May 2, 2019.  So, mark this as the start date of the claim ‘Benedict continued to use PP (Pontifex Pontificum)’ when he signed letters. The book cover above does indeed provide an image of Benedict’s signature with the PP.

As stated above, Ms. Barnhardt wrote an article titled Well, This is awkward! In her article, Ms. Barnhardt wrote:

 ”Well, this is awkward!

Here is the cover of the new book of essays by Pope Benedict XVI being released in Italian. This is a collection, but a brand new collection, on the topic of love.

Look at the signature.

Benedictus PP XVI

Not so much as a (meaningless) “emeritus” in sight.

PP is the abbreviation of the Latin “Pontifex Pontificum“, Pontiff of pontiffs. As in, supreme.

Once again, another visible piece of evidence to add to the Everest-sized mountain.”

So, it seems pretty clear that the claims Benedict still used PP ( Pontifex Pontificum) in his signature even after his resignation is based entirely on its appearance on the cover of Per Amore, a book containing a collection of post-resignation letters. 

However, I think it evident that these Benepapists (Minutella, Cionci, Barnhardt, et al) are wrong. I will show a number of writing samples to show why this is the case.

Consider the writing Samples, A and B below. 

On a cursory inspection, these two samples (A and B) of Benedict’s signature, which bear the “PP”, appear to be identical. But note, Sample A is the signature image on the cover of Per Amore.  Sample B is from a Wikipedia page of Benedict’s signature.  Check the date/time stamp on the Sample B signature on the Wikipedia site, it is from January 31, 2010. In fact, it seems to have been re-uploaded from a December 2009 file.  Sample B also appears to be used on the Wiki article on Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate (see HERE).

Again, I say these “appear” to be identical. It is hard to confirm due to the blurriness of Sample A when it is enlarged. Yet, there do appear to be some minor variations on closer inspection. However, I do wonder if these are possible artifacts of how the respective images were produced, and through what software, etc. For example, Sample B is said to have been “Traced in Adobe Illustrator from” a file. Wiki provides the link to that file, but it appears to be a dead link or inactive. So, if Sample A was not processed using Adobe Illustrator, and Sample B was, would this account for variations due to pixellation, resolution, formatting, etc.  I don’t know. 

I am not a handwriting analyst in any sense. So, if there are any forensic handwriting analysts out there, or Adobe Illustrator experts, etc., who read this article, I more than welcome your input, and opinions on the signatures, and on what if any impact software might have in differences caused by processing, or whatever term of art applies. All that is beyond my pay grade. My email contact information is in the author blurb following this article. I would also note for the record, I did send out a post on X with a ‘shot in the dark’ request for a forensic handwriting expert to DM me. I don’t have any takers yet.

Roma Locuta Est does not have a budget to hire such an analyst! However, given Samples A and B are at least very similar. here are my qualified hypotheses – as an amateur on the topic. 

First hypothesis, the two Samples are potentially two images of the same original signature sample. Variations or distortions may have arisen due to enlargement, blurring, resolution/format differences, lineages of the files, etc. If this is the case, the sample on the book cover definitely originates no later than December 2009 (cf wiki page). Thus, if this is case, the signature on the book cover is definitely a signature from Benedict’s pontificate — and thus is of no help to Benepapist cause.

Second hypothesis, If the two Samples (A and B) represent two separate signature samples, it still remains the case they are very, very similar. A person’s signature certainly varies over time, obviously so over the years (see HERE). Thus, the greater similarities between Samples A and B than to known latter samples we will examine shortly, clearly suggests Samples A and B were made closer in time to one another, rather than farther apart in time. Given we know Sample B image is from no later than 2009, Sample A is almost certainly an image of a Benedict’s signature while he was still pope.

To demonstrate this, I looked for undisputed examples of Benedict’s signature after his resignation. I found four, either via Google Images and or various articles that reproduced pictures of his letters with his signature.

On all of these samples from 2014 forward, the letters were dated, and included “Pope Emeritus” letterhead. None of these later signatures included the “PP”.  None of these signatures are close matches to either Samples A and B above, as Samples A and B are to each other — even assuming samples A and B are different signatures. Thus, this adds to the evidence Sample A (from the Per Amore cover) is an image of a signature from before Benedict’s resignation.

Indeed, these latter samples evidence an obvious decline in the Benedict’s penmanship over time. As someone with bad hand writing, I don’t mean to put down Benedict’s penmanship! My point is only that Benedict’s clearly declined, and as it did, the latter samples (see below) bore less and less resemblance to his known signature as of 2010 (Sample B/Sample2010) as Sample A did.  Again, absent a dating of the Per Amore signature, this is more evidence Sample A (i.e., the Per Amore signature) dates back to c. 2009/2010 timeframe or earlier. 

Here are some samples of Benedict’s signature over time:

First, regarding the 2010 signature above, the same as Sample B; we do not know the date the original signature was signed. We only know the date of the image is from no later than 2010. For all we know, it could be from years earlier in Benedict’s pontificate. But for this analysis, we will assume it is from 2009/2010.

For the record, folks can find these samples for their own inspection here: Sample2010, Sample2014, Sample2017, Sample2020. Only the first of these Sample2010 is known to be from Benedict’s papacy, i.e., prior to his 2013 resignation. This sample bears the “PP”.  The last of three of these four samples are all from after the resignation.  None of these subsequent, post-resignation samples, all post resignation, bear the “PP”. 

What can be seen, as I noted earlier, is that Benedict’s penmanship clearly declined with age. For example, see how Benedict between 2014 and 2021 signed “BENEDICTUS.” Note how the last four letters, “CTUS,” in his signature become significantly more garbled, running together, indistinguishable, and are seemingly rushed as he aged. 

Thus, given the obvious decline in the legibility of Benedict’s handwriting as he aged, it is understandable why the publisher of the book Per Amore, or its artistic team, chose for the Per Amore cover an earlier signature sample from Benedict’s papacy (i.e., prior to the resignation). There is no mystery here. There is no conspiracy. 

Also, as noted, all of these latter three, post-resignation samples are from letters which include a letterhead stating “Benedict XVI Pope Emeritus”.  A sample of the letterhead is provided below from the 2014 example:

Consequently, this is simply just another admission Benedict is no longer pope.

Final Thoughts

So, I am trying to do some due diligence here. As noted. I reached out to someone close to Cionci. I have also reached out, via Twitter/X, to Cionci. I want to see if there are other examples. To cover all bases, I’ve also sent a note to the book publisher (Cantagalli) asking for a clarification regarding the provenance of the signature image on the cover of Per Amore. If I get any noteworthy information back from these sources, I’ll do a follow-up article.

To conclude, it appears the Benepapist claim regarding Benedict supposed post-resignation use of PP in his signature is entirely based on the cover of Per Amore. If Minutella, Cionci, Barnhardt, et al, can point to other signature samples with the PP of known, post-resignation provenance, I’d be happy to see them. But, again, the evidence I’ve seen suggests their claim is based solely on the sample on the cover of Per Amore. This claim dates back to the publication of Per Amore on May 2, 2019, and Don Minutella’s letter to Marco Tosatti, published May 6…and then Ms. Barnhardt’s May 7, 2019 “Awkward” article.

Okay…so what do we have here with regard to the PP claim?  Obviously, my analysis is limited to a few samples of Benedict’s signatures.  I do note, as far as I know, there is no public info at this time (I am checking with publisher) on the provenance of the signature on the cover of Per Amore. The Benepapists are assuming it is post-resignation. However, I’ve provided information and analysis to call this assumption into significant doubt, and indeed, have provided evidence strongly suggesting, if not conclusively demonstrating, that the Per Amore signature is an image of a signature made during Benedict’s pontificate, ending February 28, 2013.

It is certain that for those samples of known provenance, Sample2014, Sample2017, and Sample2021, Benedict does not use the “PP;” and he uses “Pope Emeritus” in the letterhead. Further, we know the signature on the cover of Per Amore (Sample A in this analysis) bears closest resemblance to, if it is not identical with, Sample B. 

Given Sample B is dated prior to December 2009/January 2010; and given Sample A most closely resembles it – if not identical to it; it is almost certain, if not certain, that the signature on Per Amore (Sample A) dates from Benedict’s pontificate, ending February 28, 2013.

In light of all the samples we’re reviewed in this article, we can see why a pre-resignation signature appears on the cover.  Given the obvious decline in the legibility of Benedict’s handwriting as he aged, it is understandable why the publisher of the book Per Amore, or its artistic team, would prefer to choose a clearer signature sample from Benedict’s papacy (i.e., prior to the resignation), rather than a more enfeebled appearing one of his later years.

So, once again, in the end, after review of the evidence, it is clear the Benepapists do not have any evidence here at all. The “PP” claim is a non-issue.  This calls to mind what Ann Barnhardt said in her own article on the “PP”, thinking she had some evidence here. She said, as she has before: “Once again, another visible piece of evidence to add to the Everest-sized mountain.” Well, if I had a dollar for every time Ann Barnhardt erroneously believes she’s found another “piece of evidence” for her Everest-sized mountain of false claims, I would have an Everest-sized mountain of dollars.

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).