May 28, 2019
“I read this book expecting to be a little skeptical of an author who would argue that Benedict XVI did not validly resign the papacy. After all, it sure looked as if he intended to do that in his famous speech of abdication, and the world seems to have accepted it as such.
Socci, however, persuaded me otherwise with his careful analysis of Benedict’s XVI’s various utterances on the subject (and there are a surprising number of them!), Archbishop Gaenswein’s speeches, and, above all, the interpretations of canon lawyers — none of them traditionalists, by the way — who have proved in detail that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity. The argument is not based on the St. Gallen Mafia, but on the inherent actions and statements of Benedict XVI and others, all publicly available. In other words, this is no “conspiracy theory” but a soberly argued case. Even those who think they have a watertight case in favor of validity should, out of intellectual honesty, grapple with what Socci presents here. If they can defeat his arguments, all the better for the defense of truth. If they cannot or will not, however, this would seem to indicate a moral or mental weakness.
That is not the only aspect of this book I would praise. I also find much food for thought and prayer in Socci’s speculations about the prophetic message of Fatima and his spiritual-theological interpretation of the unprecedented situation in the Catholic Church. While I find his interpretation of Benedict XVI’s motivations overly positive, I think the way he tries to place current events in a prophetic and specifically Marian context is extremely helpful.
In short: highly recommended.”
————————
Credit to Frank Walker, canon212.com
Note well, it’s not a conspiracy theory, nor is it Gnosticism, if ALL THE EVIDENCE IS OUT IN THE OPEN.
But shut up, they explained, all the Cardinals accepted an election that never took place, therefore the election was valid even though there was no election. Gotcha.
Related
And the Lord said, the truth will set you free. Now to get more priests and bishops to openly admit this.
I’m not sure if Dr Kwasniewski went back and changed his review afterwards or if the text you’ve posted was tampered with by someone else, but his Amazon review of Socci’s book currently states the following:
Dr. Peter A. Kwasniewski
5.0 out of 5 stars
Ever been troubled by what look like two Popes at the Vatican?
May 28, 2019
Format: Paperback
I read this book expecting to be skeptical of an author who would argue that Benedict XVI did not validly or fully resign the papacy. After all, it sure looked as if he intended to do that in his famous speech of abdication, and the world seems to have accepted it as such.
Socci, however, gave me much to think about with his careful analysis of Benedict’s XVI’s utterances on the subject (and there are a surprising number of them!), Archbishop Gaenswein’s speeches, and, above all, the interpretations of canon lawyers — none of them traditionalists, by the way — who argue that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity. The argument is not based so much on the machinations of the St. Gallen Mafia as on the inherent actions and statements of Benedict XVI and others, all publicly available. In other words, this is no “conspiracy theory” but a soberly argued case. There are certainly steps in the argument that I wonder about or find less than convincing, and the book raises quite as many question as it purports to resolve, yet the complete picture is nothing less than apocalyptic.
Even those who think they have a watertight case in favor of validity should, out of intellectual honesty, grapple with what Socci presents here. If they can defeat his arguments, all the better for the defense of truth. If they cannot or will not, however, this would seem to indicate a moral or mental weakness. I would be happy to see a refutation, but it has to go beyond the anodyne statement that “general acceptance of a pope is equivalent to the validity of a papacy.” We are in uncharted waters, and we need to recognize that the safe and sound ecclesiology of the preconciliar period is being burst open in all sorts of ways.
I would like to add that I have not read anything else by Socci on the question of the Ratzinger/Bergoglio dilemma, and it seems to me that he does not come down clearly *in this book* on the question of whether, or in what sense, Francis is Pope. If anything, he seems to be agnostic and ambivalent, suggesting a kind of papal diarchy, even while recognizing that this makes little sense in a classical perspective. Without a doubt, he thinks that Benedict thinks that both Francis and Benedict are simultaneously the pope, albeit in a bifurcated manner. While I find Socci’s interpretation of Benedict XVI’s motivations overly positive (he adulates Ratzinger as much as he denigrates Bergoglio), the way he tries to place current events in a prophetic and specifically Marian context is extremely helpful.
A last note, due to the explosive nature of this subject: I still consider and acknowledge Pope Francis to be the Roman Pontiff, and pray for him as such. (Indeed, I could not have signed the Open Letter released on April 30, 2019, had I not thought he was the Pope!) Socci has not been able to budge this view of mine. But (I will repeat) Socci has brings into clear relief the bizarreness, irregularity, and incoherence of the current situation, and causes in the reader a salutary perplexity.
Source: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Benedict-XVI-Still-Pope/dp/1621384586/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=antonio+socci&qid=1559149215&s=gateway&sr=8-1
He has actually edited his review twice, completely flip flopping on his “beliefs” regarding the content and its effect on him. I will be addressing it tomorrow.
Why is the above quote from Kwasniewski a little different from the one I read on the Amazon website? The one above says that he has been persuaded otherwise and the one on Amazon says that Socci has given him much to think about, but that he still thinks Francis is Pope?
It’s not “a little different.” He completely flip flopped and changed his review, twice, once his original words went viral and, probably, was pressured to flip. I will lay out exactly what he did in tomorrow’s post.
I was wondering if that was the case.
Thanks for the reply.
So, the guy who stated of critics the following is himself waffling? That’s stunning come from a ‘Novus Ordo Traditionalist’.
“If they cannot or will not, however, this would seem to indicate a moral or mental weakness.”
Yes. Hence my headline.
Technically, a conspiracy has nothing to do with whether the evidence is out in the open or concealed. A conspiracy is two or more persons agreeing to perform an illegal act, or a legal act in an illegal manner. Either the agreement to do the act exists, or it doesn’t. Thus, if the St. Galen mafia agreed to get Bergoglio elected Pope through bargaining, politicking and blackmail/arm twisting, it would be a conspiracy regardless of whether they did it openly or secretively. Sure, conspiracies tend to be more successful if the evidence is not obvious.
Exactly, c matt.
Latin conspiratio literally = a breathing together. That is, being intimately in agreement. Historical usage has restricted this to mean being parties to a plot to do evil. The plot doesn’t have to be secret though.