It is always the same: traditional Catholics attack Pope Francis for his heterodox pronouncements, yet surgically elude his illegitimacy to the Chair of Peter: this automatically nullifies all acts and appointments of the usurper. And it would turn back the hands of History to 2013.
Following the live broadcast on Monday, March 23rd "Pope Leo on Amoris Laetitia: Silence on the Dubia" held by Prof. Giovanni Zenone, publisher of Fede & Cultura, and Dr. Luigi Casalini, administrator of the blog Messainlatino.it, certain historical and juridical clarifications on the subjects discussed are in order.
In commenting on recent statements by Pope Leo XIV concerning the controversial apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia promulgated in 2016 by Pope Francis, the two analysts, commentators aligned with the conservative wing of Italian Catholicism, once again evaded the question of Benedict XVI's sede impedita, the consequent usurpation of the papal throne by Bergoglio following an irregular Conclave, and the still-to-be-proven canonical election of Leo XIV.
During the live, Zenone and Casalini rightly underscored the ambiguous and heterodox nature of the aforementioned Bergoglian document, but, once again, they dwelt exclusively on effects whilst completely forgetting the cause: since Benedict XVI renounced "to his detriment" only the ministerium (thus the practical exercise of power) and not the munus (that is, the papal investiture, the title of pope), the 2013 Conclave that elected Bergoglio was null and invalid, as it was convened when the Bavarian pontiff was neither dead nor abdicated, but rather in sede impedita, a condition in which the pontiff forcibly loses the faculty to govern, yet remains in every respect the true, sole legitimate successor of Saint Peter.
Bergoglio, elected by an irregularly convened Conclave, thus lacked the munus, which confers upon the Roman Pontiff a most special assistance in the ordinary Magisterium and infallibility in the extraordinary Magisterium: for this reason, he had every right to pronounce himself in heterodox manner on the various topics he addressed during the twelve years he was abusively at the head of the Catholic Church.
The Roman journalist and essayist Andrea Cionci, foremost expert on Benedict XVI's resignation and discoverer, in August 2021, of the sede impedita of the Teutonic pope, questioned in chat the two analysts as to why they continued to highlight Bergoglio's heretical pronouncements without ever addressing the matter at its root, namely the antipapacy, moreover gnostic and openly freemason-friendly, of the Argentine prelate.
Decidedly unfortunate, in this regard, was Dr. Luigi Casalini's response, who, dusting off his tried-and-tested cliché of "we do not concern ourselves with this [the sede impedita of Benedict XVI, Ed. note]", openly made clear urbi et orbi his desire to completely avoid the question. Cause and effect relationship, this unknown.
Recognizing Bergoglio as antipope, indeed, fully explains all the heresies uttered by the former archbishop of Buenos Aires during his antipapacy and why he attempted to overturn the Magisterium of the Church.
Professor Zenone, for his part, regarded the sede impedita of Benedict XVI and the consequent antipapacy of Bergoglio as mere hypothesis upon which the Church has not pronounced. However, should the faithful always await the Church's pronouncement on the legitimacy of pontiffs of questionable regularity, they would not follow the example of Saint Catherine of Siena, who defended the legitimate pontiff Urban VI against antipope Clement VII during the Western Schism certainly without awaiting the antipope's self-denunciation.
However, even if Benedict XVI had not promulgated a precise decree on his own impediment, his failure to renounce the munus petrine would suffice. Among the indispensable conditions for a papal election to be valid, the constitution Universi Dominici Gregis indeed requires that the previous pope, if not deceased, be abdicatary in accordance with can. 332.2, with explicit renunciation of the munus petrine. Should this not occur, the election of the successor is null and invalid, "without any declaration being made in this regard".
Professor Zenone's position is moreover problematic for another reason: since the pope is absolute monarch of the Catholic Church, it runs counter to logical principles (which Zenone well knows, being a graduate in Philosophy from the Pontifical Lateran University) to await his self-denunciation as illegitimate pontiff. Moreover, it would be a clamorous logical-juridical short circuit to await a pronouncement on the illegitimacy of a pontiff from an illegitimate authority.
On the other hand, Benedict XVI, albeit in broad mental restriction, has amply informed the faithful that, despite having renounced governing the bark of Peter, he remained the sole and legitimate Roman pontiff.
However, what is legally relevant to resolving the matter is the Declaratio pronounced by Benedict XVI on the morning of February 11, 2013: as canonist Don Stefano Violi first noted already that same month, Benedict XVI's renunciation was in no way to be considered as abdication, as it lacks the renunciation of the munus as required by canon 332.2, which reads: "Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet", that is "should the Roman pontiff renounce his office". Benedict XVI, instead, renounces the ministerium, the practical power of being pope.
Since the Declaratio is a public act, the sede impedita of Benedict XVI is an objective factual reality beyond dispute.
The falsification of the "commissum" actually pronounced by the Teutonic pontiff and rendered instead as "commisso" in the text provided by the Secretariat of State is equally concrete.
As we moreover demonstrated in our previous article, to which we refer for a fuller picture, Alfonso XIII of Spain also renounced, like Benedict XVI, the exercise of his practical power in 1931. The same monarch abdicated in 1941, ceding dynastic rights to prince Don Juan, as prescribed by the Iberian line of succession. Ratzinger, instead, never renounced, not even subsequently, his rights of being pope.
The matter lies entirely in taking note of what Ratzinger affirmed in his Declaratio: cascading from this, it follows that Leo XIV is also a pope not regular, as he was elected by a Conclave composed of 133 electoral cardinals (well 13 more than prescribed in article 33 of Universi Dominici Gregis), of which 108 illicitly appointed by antipope Francis. Beyond these grave reasons, Vatican security mechanisms detected that, after the Extra omnes of May 7th last, an electoral cardinal carried in his pocket a mobile phone switched on, thus contravening article 51 of the same Universi Dominici Gregis.
Formally thus, Leo XIV unlawfully occupies the papal throne for at least three reasons.
Eluding this most grave question, which puts at risk the very survival of the Roman Catholic Church, is an intolerable attitude, especially if committed by those who claim to present themselves as custodians of authentic Catholic faith and who ipso facto should be the first to defend the rights of the Apostolic See, still in possession of the last Roman pontiff of certain legitimacy, namely Benedict XVI.
Failing to intervene in defense of the rights of the Bavarian pontiff by adducing as justification the fact that the crisis of the Church has its roots in the Second Vatican Council is entirely out of place, all the more so if supporting this unreasonable reasoning is another eminent exponent of the traditionalist galaxy like Professor Corrado Gnerre.
In the face of clear and evident usurpation one intervenes to defend the dynastic rights of the monarch unlawfully deprived of power, precisely as the baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, commander of the White Army and staunch defender of the rights of the Grand Duke Cyril (cousin of Tsar Nicholas II, barbarously executed along with his family by communists during the October Revolution), heroically did.
And it remains ever more obscure the reason why the conservative firmament of Italian Catholicism refuses a priori to consider the theses of Cionci, who on April 12, 2025, with Bergoglio still living and reigning, was interrogated for nearly four hours by the Vatican magistracy regarding the material he deposited concerning the sede impedita of Benedict XVI. Following the convocation, a preliminary investigation was also opened, of which traditionalists have, to this day, never made mention.
Davide De Vincentiis
