Or is it possible (as some "radtrad" Catholics argue) that Leo XIV is not really the Pope? In a post published a couple of days ago on his Return to Tradition vlog but since taken down, Anthony Stine repeated a story that originated with Italian journalist Andrea Cionci. John-Henry Westen's exclusive on LifeSite News is headlined thus:
This is the first time the Vatican’s criminal investigative office has put in writing that multi-year claims have triggered an active investigation file on the validity of Benedict’s renunciation.
In a letter dated 30 March 2026 (reproduced in the article), the authenticity of which has been proven, ), Professor Alessandro Diddi, the Vatican's Promoter of Justice, rejected a request for access to the investigative file. The rejection was made solely on procedural grounds during an ongoing inquiry, not because the petition was deemed without merit.
Cazart! If the court finds that Pope Benedict's resignation was made under durerss, and was therefore invalid, everything done by Francis the Talking Pope and his minions, is invalid! That would include the elevation of Father Robert Francis Prevost, who was named a bishop and then a cardinal by Francis, who his Leonine successor is now rushing to canonize.
The Vatican is doing all it can to deep six the fact of the investigation. Walt guesses that pressure was brought on Dr Stine, perhaps by the bishop of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, in which he resides. And, other than Mr Westen, no Catholic commentator that I follow has picked up the report. I'm waiting to hear from Dr Taylor Marshall and Michael Matt, but they have been silent so far.
Of course it could turn out to be nothing. Do we really think a Vatican court will rule that nothing said or done by anyone since 13 March 2013 [A numerologist might have some fun with this date. Ed.] is of any effect? Still... stay tuned!
No comments:
Post a Comment