Padre Peregrino (Fr. Dave Nix) Italian Papal News Translations..."Viganó’s writing...Benedict XVI’s Letter to Bux. Archbishop Viganò’s Commentary on 'The Disintegrating Papacy'"

Padre Peregrino (Fr. Dave Nix)

Italian Papal News Translations...

... Italian Papal News Translations

The following two are Google Translations from the Italian to the English.  The first comes from Archbishop Viganó and the second comes from a secular outlet called Roma Today.  The bold emphasis found within each article below comes from me.  I will reference both in an upcoming article.

Archbishop Viganó’s writing found on Marco Tosatti written in Italian in August 2025, translated to English below

Benedict XVI’s Letter to Bux. Archbishop Viganò’s Commentary on “The Disintegrating Papacy.”

The never-ending saga surrounding Benedict XVI’s resignation continues to fuel an increasingly bold and surreal narrative of the events we have witnessed over the past decade. Inconsistent and unsupported theories have taken hold among countless faithful and even priests, increasing confusion and disorientation. But if this has been possible, it is largely due to those who, knowing the truth, nonetheless fear the consequences it could have once revealed. Indeed, there are those who believe it is preferable to maintain a web of lies and deception rather than question a past of connivance, silence, and complicity.

The Exchange of Letters

During a meeting at the Renaissance Mediterraneo Hotel in Naples with Catholics from the local Cœtus fidelium, held on November 22nd, Msgr. Nicola Bux mentioned an exchange of letters with “Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI” dating back to the summer of 2014, which would debunk theories about the invalidity of the Resignation. The contents of these letters—the first, from Msgr. Bux, dated July 19, 2014 (three pages) and the second, from Benedict XVI, dated August 21, 2014 (two pages)—were not released ten years ago, as would have been more than desirable, but their existence has only just been mentioned today. I happen to be aware of both this exchange of letters and its content.

Why did Msgr. Bux decide not to promptly disclose Benedict XVI’s response while he was still alive and able to confirm and substantiate it, and instead simply reveal its existence, without revealing its content, almost two years after his death? Why hide this authoritative and extremely important statement from the Church and the world?

The Permanent Revolution

To answer these legitimate questions, we must set aside the media fiction. First, we must understand that the opposing vision of a “saint-now” Ratzinger and a “bad and evil” Bergoglio is convenient for many. This simplistic, contrived, and false approach avoids addressing the heart of the problem: the perfect coherence of action of the “conciliar popes” from John XXIII and Paul VI to the self-styled Francis, including John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The goals are the same, even if pursued with different methods and language. The image of an elderly, elegant, and refined theologian, wearing a Roman chasuble and red sandals, who recognizes the Tridentine Rite as a legitimate religion, and of an intemperate globalist heresiarch who refuses to celebrate Mass and undermines Summorum Pontificum, while promulgating the Mayan liturgy with females practising thurification, is part of that forced polarization we have also seen adopted in the civil sphere, where a similar subversive project has been carried out by favoring ultra-progressive forces on the one hand and pacifying dissenting voices on the other.

In reality, Ratzinger and Bergoglio—and this is precisely what conservatives refuse to acknowledge—constitute two moments in a revolutionary process that involves alternating and only apparently opposing phases, following the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. A process that does not begin with Ratzinger and will not end with Bergoglio, but rather dates back to Roncalli and seems destined to continue as long as the deep church continues to replace the Catholic Hierarchy, usurping its authority.

In Ratzinger’s vision, the thesis of the Vetus Ordo and the antithesis of the Novus Ordo are combined in the synthesis of Summorum Pontificum, thanks to the subterfuge of a single rite in two forms. But this “peaceful coexistence” is the product of German idealism; and it is false because it is based on the denial of the incompatibility between two ways of conceiving the Church, one sanctioned by two thousand years of Catholicism, the other imposed by the Second Vatican Council thanks to the work of heretics until then condemned by the Roman Pontiffs.

The “Redefinition” of the Papacy

We find the same modus operandi in the desire expressed first by Paul VI, then by John Paul II, and finally by Benedict XVI to “redefine” the Papacy in a collegial and ecumenical manner, ad mentem Concilii. Here, the divine institution of the Church and the Papacy (thesis) and the heretical demands of neo-modernists and non-Catholic sects (antithesis) come together in the synthesis of an ecumenical redefinition of the Papacy, proposed in the encyclical Ut unum sint, promulgated by John Paul II in 1995 and more recently formulated in the Study Document of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity of June 13: The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in Ecumenical Dialogues and in Responses to the Encyclical ‘Ut unum sint’. 

It will not be surprising to learn—as Cardinal Walter Brandmüller confided to me in January 2020, responding to a specific question of mine—that Professor Joseph Ratzinger developed the theory of the emeritus and collegial papacy with his colleague Karl Rahner in the 1970s, when both were “young theologians.”

During a telephone conversation I had in 2020, a trusted assistant of Benedict XVI confirmed to me the Pope’s intention—reiterated several times to her—to retire to private life in his Bavarian residence, without retaining either the apostolic name or the papal vestments. But this eventuality was considered inappropriate for those who would lose their power in the Vatican, especially those conservatives who looked to Benedict XVI as their model and had mythologized him.

We do not know for certain whether the solution theorized by the young Ratzinger with Rahner was still contemplated by the elderly Pontiff, nor whether the Papacy Emeritus was “revived” by those who wanted to keep Benedict in the Vatican, including by taking advantage of external pressure on the Holy See, which materialized with the Vatican’s suspension from the SWIFT system, significantly reinstated immediately after the announcement of his resignation. In fact, his resignation created immense confusion within the ecclesial body and handed the See of Peter over to its destroyer, a position which in any case involves Joseph Ratzinger.

Benedict therefore resorted to the invention of the “Papacy Emeritus,” seeking, in violation of canonical practice, to maintain the image of the “fine theologian” and defensor Traditionis that his entourage had constructed. Moreover, an analysis of the events surrounding the epilogue of his Pontificate is extremely complex, both because of Ratzinger’s intellectual and character traits, the opaque actions of his collaborators and the Curia, and, finally, the absolute ἅπαξ of the Resignation, as carried out by Benedict XVI, a completely unprecedented procedure never before seen in the history of the Papacy.

On the other hand, this interlude of mozzettas and camauri was supposed to be over with the handover to the already-designated Archbishop of Buenos Aires, nominated by the St. Gallen Mafia to take his place since the 2005 Conclave. Benedict XVI’s role as Emeritus served to support a sort of conservative papacy (munus) that would oversee Bergoglio’s progressive papacy (ministerium), thus holding together the moderately conservative Ratzingerian component and the violently progressive Bergoglian component, fostering the perception of continuity between the “pope emeritus” and the “reigning pope.”

In essence, a way was found to keep Benedict in the Vatican, so that his presence within the Leonine Walls would appear as a form of approval of Bergoglio and the aberrations of his “pontificate.” For his part, the Argentine saw in this canonical monstrum—for such is the “Papacy Emeritus”—an instrument for the destructuring of the Papacy along conciliar, synodal, and ecumenical lines; something which, as we know, was shared by Benedict XVI himself.

The Canonical “Monstrum” of the Papacy Emeritus

It must be said that the institution of the Episcopate Emeritus is also a canonical monstrum, because with it, the diocesan bishop’s jurisdiction is “frozen” based on his age (upon reaching the age of 75), contrary to the centuries-old practice of the Church. The Emeritus, by diminishing the bishops’ awareness of being Successors of the Apostles, has also had the immediate consequence of a total deprivation of responsibility, relegating them to the role of mere functionaries and bureaucrats. The institutionalization of Episcopal Conferences as governing bodies that interfere with and hinder the exercise of the potestas of individual bishops has certainly constituted an attack on the divine constitution of the Catholic Church and its apostolicity.

The Episcopate Emeritus, introduced immediately after the Council in 1966 with the Motu Proprio Ecclesiæ Sanctæ and later incorporated into the 1983 Code of Canon Law (can. 402, § 1), reveals a significant coherence with the Ingravescentem ætatem of 1970, which deprives Cardinals aged seventy-five of their Curia functions and Cardinals aged eighty of the right to elect the Pope in Conclave. Beyond the juridical formulation of these ecclesiastical laws, their meaning can only be understood from the perspective of the deliberate exclusion of elderly Bishops and Cardinals from the life of the Church, aimed at encouraging a “generational turnover”—a true reset of the Catholic Hierarchy—with Prelates ideologically closer to the new demands promoted by Vatican II. This artificial purge of the older members of the Episcopate and the College of Cardinals—and therefore presumably less inclined to innovation—ended up distorting the internal balance of power within the Hierarchy, in keeping with a worldly and secular approach already widely adopted in the civil sphere. And when, under the pontificate of John Paul II, the so-called “Montini widows”—that is, the Cardinals who had reached the age limit in the 1980s—requested the revocation of Ingravescentem aetatem to avoid being excluded from the Conclave, it became clear that even the progressives of the 1970s were now destined to fall victim to the very norm they had invoked for others: Et incidit in foveam quam fecit (Ps 7:16).

It will not go unnoticed that, from a perspective of “redefinition” of the Papacy in a synodal key, where the Bishop of Rome is considered primus inter pares, the institution of the Episcopate Emeritus and the norms that limit the exercise of the Episcopate and the Cardinalate to the reaching of a certain age, constitute the premise for the institutionalization of the Papacy Emeritus and the jubilation of the elderly Pope.

The False Problem of Munus and Ministerium

From the thesis of the Papacy (I am Pope) in conflict with the antithesis of Resignation (I am no longer Pope), a concept emerges in constant evolution—just as becoming is the absolute for Hegel—namely, the synthesis of the Papacy Emeritus (I am still Pope, but I no longer act as Pope). This philosophical aspect of Joseph Ratzinger’s thought, which is both specific and recurring, should not be overlooked: the synthesis is inherently provisional, pending its transformation into a thesis, which will be countered by a new antithesis that will give rise to a further synthesis, itself provisional. This incessant evolution is the ideological, philosophical, and doctrinal basis of the permanent revolution inaugurated by the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial front and by the global Left on the political front.

We thus witnessed a sort of artificial separation of the Papacy: on the one hand, the Pope renounced the Papacy, and on the other, the person Papæ, Joseph Ratzinger, sought to maintain certain aspects of it that would guarantee him protection and prestige. Since his physical departure from the Apostolic See could be seen as a form of disapproval of the Church governance line imposed by Bergoglian deep church, both the Personal Secretary and the Secretary of State strongly pressured Ratzinger to remain “half-service,” so to speak, playing on the fictitious separation between munus and ministerium—a separation, moreover, vigorously denied in the Emeritus’s response to Msgr. Bux.

Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli has highlighted in his in-depth studies that this arbitrary bipartition of the Petrine mandate between munus and ministerium invalidates the Resignation. Since the Petrine Primacy cannot be broken down into munus and ministerium, being a potestas that Christ the King and Pontiff confers on the one elected to be Bishop of Rome and Successor of Peter, Ratzinger’s denial (in the aforementioned letter) that he did not wish to separate munus and ministerium contradicts Benedict’s own admission that he modeled the Papacy Emeritus on the Episcopate Emeritus, which is precisely based on this artificial and impossible split between being and acting as Pope, between being and acting as Bishop. The absurdity of this division is evident: if it were possible to possess the munus without exercising the ministerium, it should equally be possible to exercise the ministerium without possessing the munus, that is, to carry out the functions of Pope without being Pope: which is such an aberration that it radically undermines consent to assuming the Papacy itself. And in a certain sense we saw this surreal dichotomy between munus and ministerium realized when the Emeritus was Pope but did not exercise the Papacy, while Bergoglio acted as Pope without being Pope.

The Desacralization of the Papacy

Moreover, the process of desacralization of the Papacy begun with Paul VI (consider the dramatic deposition of the papal tiara) continued uninterrupted even under the pontificate of Benedict XVI (who also removed the tiara from the papal coat of arms). This is primarily attributable to the new heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II, which embraced the demands of a secularized and “democratic” society by welcoming concepts such as collegiality and synodality into the Church that are ontologically alien to it, thus distorting the monarchical nature of the Church intended by its divine Founder. It is certainly astonishing and immensely saddening to see the zeal with which the conciliar and synodal hierarchy promoted subversion within the Catholic Church. A series of reforms, norms, and pastoral practices over the course of over sixty years have systematically demolished what until before Vatican II was considered inviolable and irreformable.

It should also be remembered that Benedict XVI’s resignation was not followed by a normal Conclave, in which the Electors calmly chose the candidate to succeed to the See of Peter; but by a veritable coup d’état carried out ex professo by the St. Gallen Mafia—that is, the subversive element that had infiltrated the Church over the preceding decades—through tampering with and violating the regular electoral process and the use of blackmail and pressure on the College of Cardinals. Let us not forget that an eminent Prelate confided to acquaintances that what he had personally witnessed in the Conclave could jeopardize the validity of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s election. Here too, incomprehensibly, the good of the Church and the salvation of souls have been set aside in the name of a self-righteous observance of the papal secret, perhaps not entirely free from blackmail and threats.

There is a clear contradiction between the goal Benedict set for himself (namely, renouncing the papacy) and the means he chose to achieve it (based on the invention of the Papacy Emeritus). This contradiction, in which Benedict subjectively resigned but objectively created a canonical monstrosity, constitutes such a subversive act that it renders the Resignation null and void. In due course, this contradiction will need to be remedied by an authoritative pronouncement, but the inescapable fact remains that the form in which the Resignation was presented does not eliminate the subsequent irregularities that led Bergoglio to usurp the See of Peter with the complicity of the deep church and the deep state. Nor can it be argued that the Resignation should not be interpreted in light of the subversive plan aimed at ousting Benedict XVI and replacing him with an emissary of the globalist elite.

The castle of lies in which laypeople, priests, and prelates cooperate, even in good faith, remains a cage in which they have imprisoned themselves. In the media dramatization, the actors Ratzinger and Bergoglio have been presented to us as bearers of opposing theologies, when in reality they represent two successive stages of the same revolutionary process. But appearance, the simulacrum on which mass communication is based, cannot replace the substance of Truth to which the Catholic Church is indefectibly bound by divine mandate.

Conclusion

To the many scandalized faithful, to the many confused and outraged priests and religious, to the few—at least for now—who are raising their voices to denounce the coup perpetrated against the Holy Church by her own Ministers, I extend my encouragement to persevere in fidelity to Our Lord, High and Eternal Priest, Head of the Mystical Body. Resist strong in faith, the Prince of the Apostles admonishes us (1 Peter 5:9), knowing that your brothers and sisters scattered throughout the world are enduring the same sufferings as you. The slumber in which the Savior seems to ignore us while the Barque of Peter is tossed by the storm must be a spur for us to invoke His help, for only when we turn to Him, setting aside human respect, flimsy theories, and political calculations, will we see Him awaken and command the winds and the sea to calm. To resist in faith calls for the struggle to remain faithful to what the Lord has taught and commanded, precisely at a time when many, especially those at the top of the hierarchy, abandon Him, deny Him, and betray Him. To resist in faith implies not faltering in times of trial, knowing how to draw from Him the strength to overcome it victoriously. To resist in faith ultimately means knowing how to face the reality of the Passion of the Church and the Mysterium Iniquitatis, without trying to conceal the deception behind which Christ’s enemies hide. This is the meaning of the Savior’s words: You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (Jn 8:32).

—Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganó