Why can't he clarify things? The fact that he does not is a grave sin of ommission. You can't be a secret pope.
Did you email Fr. Belland for his Thesis? Here is an excerpt from it. Rather lengthy (written in 2016):
"Nevertheless, beyond what has already been said, there is one thing that I really think must be taken into consideration and this centers mainly around two verbs in Pope Benedict’s announcement of his renunciation (this is dealt with in much more detail in the portion of this work entitled Grammatical Considerations and Analysis of Latin Text). These verbs occur in the Latin version of the announcement, the actual version he read to the Cardinals on 11 February 2013.
It must be admitted as certain that the abdication/renunciation announcement of Pope Benedict was not based on a reckless and spontaneous decision as a result of some embarrassing and distressing situations. No, it was something that was considered over a period of time, most likely several years. In other words it was a calculated decision—as the symbolic gesture during his visit to the tomb of St. Celestine, whereon he placed his Papal Pallium, testifies. Also, the fact that he presented his announcement in Latin, a language which he knew very well and of which most of those to whom he presented it (Cardinals and Bishops) were ignorant or at least not thoroughly acquainted with.
Since Pope Benedict’s decision was something he had contemplated for a quite a while and certainly not without seeking divine help in making that decision, his inability to continue on with the administration of the Petrine Office could not have been attributed any internal infirmity, although the pressure under which he worked was immense and could not but cause him to weaken. In other words he did not intend to resign due to old age, physical frailty, or other internal debility. No, his renunciation was due to external forces which were enough to weaken even the stoutest of men, nay, enough to prevent anyone from fulfilling his responsibilities.
Then too, given his long tenure at the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith as well as the years of his Papacy, the last year bringing about an investigation by the 3 retired Cardinals Julian Herranz, Salvator De Giorgi and Jozef Tomco, which produced the 2 volume 300 page report on the corruption within the Vatican gave him more exposure to the deficiencies, the corruption and other evils that he was facing as Pope. These cannot be ignored in any analysis of his renunciation. There was also the recent biography of Cardinal Danneels wherein was revealed the existence of a “Mafia” group called Sankt-Gallen Mafia made up of the most liberal Cardinals and Bishops of Europe, in particular Cardinals Martini, Lehmann, Kasper and Danneels himself. It was this group who tried to organize the election of Cardinal Bergoglio in the 2005 Conclave. And although Cardinal Danneels denied that there had been any meetings of the Sankt-Gallen group since 2005, it is hardly believable that they were not interested in the election of Bergoglio in 2013.
Pope Benedict, in considering his renunciation had to be aware of such liberal, to put it mildly, powers trying to manipulate a Conclave which would ensue upon his death or actual resignation from the Papacy. And since their efforts in 2005 were almost successful, it seems reasonable to assume that Pope Benedict had to be concerned about the real possibility of successful efforts on the part of the Sankt-Gallen group to arrange the election of a modernist Cardinal, if not Cardinal Bergoglio himself, in a subsequent Conclave—having to be called because of his death, natural or otherwise. I think it is legitimate to ask the question: Was Pope Benedict truly willing to allow Holy Mother Church or intending Holy Mother Church to be placed into the hands of a modernist, or worse yet, a member of the homosexual lobby or worst of all, someone involved in or with a Satanic cult? In other words, wouldn’t it be reasonable to attribute to Benedict the intention of avoiding the risk of handing the Church over to the very ones who were preventing him from administering the Church properly?
The renunciation of Pope Benedict, I maintain, can in no way be taken in isolation from the events surrounding it, which is what most persons, commentators, Vaticanists and editors seem to do. We are living not only in mysterious times due to the secrecy of what is truly happening behind the scenes, but also because of the their diabolical nature—which cannot be denied. Summarizing, there is/are:
1. Not only the 3rd Secret of Fatima, which Pope Benedict had read and certainly had seriously pondered, but also the whole message of Fatima; 2. The revelations of Our Lady to Sr. Agnes at Akita, Japan; 3. The vision of Pope Leo XIII where he saw “demonic spirits who were congregating on the Eternal City (Rome).” Some reports indicate that Pope Leo heard two voices: God and the Devil, the Devil asking for power to destroy the Church and God telling him “You have the power; you have the time, 100 years”. One could ask if the power which was given to the Devil was only given in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution, which power would be demolished with a victory by Our Lady in 2017; 4. Pope Benedict’s announcement of his break with the “Vatican Line” concerning the message of Fatima during his flight to Fatima in 2010’ 5. The Report of the investigation by the 3 Cardinals that Pope Benedict ordered; 6. Pope Benedict’s actions before and after his renunciation—title, dress, residence, prayer, visit to St. Celestine’s grave, etc.; 7. The so called homosexual Lobby; 8. The recent revelation of the Sankt-Gallen group, mentioned above; 9. The apostasy in the Church which even Pope John Paul II referred to during his reign as a “Silent Apostasy” but which is much more apparent today cannot be denied; 10. The matter of the Consecration of Russia, now being relegated to the dust bin, especially with the death of Fr. Gruner; 11. And many more items that could be mentioned which are more external to the Vatican as for example the pedophile scandals.
The elimination of these circumstances from any consideration of Pope Benedict’s resignation it like ignoring all the historical background to WWI or WWII. Such disregard would not properly treat the matter, thereby covering up the true motive(s) for the Pope’s resignation or suggesting the possibility of a feigned resignation. It would be absolutely unscholarly.
It seems, therefore, that there may be some justification for saying that Benedict is still the real Pope. And although this would certainly leave many problems to be solved (e.g. invalid acts on the part of Pope Francis), they wouldn’t be problems nearly as bad as the apostasy in the Church, which the “Pope Emeritus” may be trying to expose and/or confound and to thwart the enemies of Holy Mother Church. The question remains: Why would he do such a thing? There are several truly reasonable motives.
1. In order to prevent being forced to accommodate the enemies within the Church who are able in some mysterious way effectively to prevent Benedict from properly administering the Church or maneuvering him to do things he in conscience cannot allow. 2. By maintaining the Papacy he would maintain the integrity of the Papacy and Church Doctrine by preventing practices which are dangerous or opposed to the Tradition and the perennial Teachings of the Church from being officially mandated—a means by which the faithful could refuse to obey Pope Francis, even on account of doubts and qualms of conscience. Thus would be avoided the situation that arose with the imposition of the NOM. 3. He wishes to EXPOSE the enemy, the apostates, the Masons, the homosexuals and the Communists; 4. In so doing he is hoping to save souls who could be swayed by Francis to embrace apostasy; 5. It would be the means by which, in manifesting the apostates within the Church, the “Pope of Continuity” would also manifest the evils flowing from VCII: the NOM, the heresies, the opening to the world, etc., i.e., he would be dividing the false “church” from the True Church of Christ or rather unite the True Church when a schism is evoked. 6. From this it follows that he would be preparing, given that the world is on the verge of a great catastrophe and, as it were gathering the good Bishops who would be willing to consecrate Russia to Mary’s Immaculate Heart in union with the Pope, either himself or, in the case of his death, with a validly elected Pope from the Faithful Church; 7. Instead of fighting against the enemies within the Church (without the SSPX, the attempt to “reconcile” them having failed on account of the machinations by the diabolical elements within the Vatican) and risking martyrdom in this way (by maintaining the active ministry of the Papacy and trying to fight the diabolical homosexual lobby), whereby, upon his martyrdom, a new Pope would be validly elected who if liberal, and most likely so, would do much to destroy the Faith by valid Papal Acts. By “arranging for” and invalid election the Pope Emeritus would be preventing the further valid acts which could further harm the Church and risk the loss of many, many more souls; in short he would be God’s instrument in the preserving the Indefectibility of the Church—keeping official control of the Church from Satan through those who are under his domination. 8. For the time being, he gives the faithful the example of prayer and sacrifice for which Our Lady asked at Fatima in order to keep from losing the Faith. 9. Being that he sees himself as the Pope ascending the mountain toward a cross and eventually being killed (Antonio Socci’s Fourth Secret of Fatima), he would witness to the veracity of the invalidity of his Renunciation or confirm that he is indeed the true Pope, should there be doubt concerning his invalid Renunciation. 10. Through a feigned resignation whereby the enemies of the Church are exposed, he hoped to put the “Final Battle” with Satan into the hands of the REAL Church Militant in an effort to cast out the destroyers of the Mystical Body of Christ, a “Battle” which he could not fight alone.
In summary, I have hopefully sufficiently set out the circumstances upon which Pope Benedict would make a decision. His long time presence in the Vatican, first as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Defense of the Faith; his knowledge of the 3rd Secret of Fatima, the words SPOKEN by Our Lady to the three children at Fatima and not just the vision which they were shown; his experience at the Conclave of 2005 when he was elected Pope; the troubles he experienced as Pope; all of these, and more, are going to be the impetus of his action. The question then is: What was Benedict intending when he announced his abdication?
Was he in fear of his enemies? This certainly cannot be admitted, for if he wished to shun those who were inimical to him, he wouldn’t have remained in the Vatican to “pray and do penance”; he would have retired to a monastery where he could be secure from his enemies.
Was he then dissimulating, pretending to be Pope, as a means of placating those who were discouraged by his action? I certainly can’t imagine Benedict “playing Pope” within the Vatican for any reason. It cannot be out of fear, for as mentioned above, he would have distanced himself from Rome.
Was he trying to establish a “Diarchy” as so many have alleged? This too seems an absurdity, although he did publish a tract on the new teaching on ecclesiology issuing from the Bologna School— coauthoring an essay with J.Auer. Certainly the former Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Defense of the Faith, a position he held for many years, cannot be ignorant of the Church’s 2000 year teaching of the Papacy. So that despite a certain flirting with the new theology, I believe that he has maintained the traditional teaching of the Church. See also the section answering some objections from an SSPX priest and my comments on the Speech of Archbishop Gänswein.
Since “actio sequitur esse”, one must take his name, attire and domicile seriously. He wears the white soutane, demands to be called Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI against all caution from renowned canonists, he was determined to remain in Rome once he extracted himself from the exercise of the Office of the Papacy, and he has the Prefect of the Papal Household, Archbishop Gänswein, for his personal Secretary. I cannot believe that someone of the stature of a Cardinal Ratzinger or a Pope Benedict would be so preposterous as to walk around looking like a Pope, having the name of Pope and living in the Vatican as if living in a world of make-believe; it just defies any rationality.
These questions having been asked, we must consider then whether it is truly realistic to look at and analyze the Latin text of the renunciation of Pope Benedict. The problems in the Church are great and evident, and they are bearing heavily on the minds of good people, they are undeniably connected with the Fatima Secret, and they are unprecedented--ones that not even the most perceptive theologians and canonists could have foreseen. So what must one do in trying to solve it? How does one usually come to an understanding of the nature of things, of reality, and thence to undertaking some sort of action?
The answer is of course through causes. We know also the ultimate remedy of the situation in the Church and the world is the consecration of Russia-a cause by the spreading of her errors, but it is evident that there seems to be no Pope or rather enough Bishops to fulfill Our Lady’s request. However, before that remedy can be applied there are more immediate ones that must be addressed in order to fulfill Our Lady’s request for the consecration of Russia. It seems, then, that the absolute immediate cause of the present situation is that which hatched Francis onto the stage of the Vatican, he who is causing so much division and confusion in the Mystical Body of Christ. Of course, only that direct, primary and immediate cause, the renunciation of Pope Benedict, can be blamed.
But let me ask another question: Can anyone in his right mind really believe that one with the mind of Cardinal Ratzinger and he (Gänswein) who was chosen by one with the mind of Cardinal Ratzinger (to my knowledge the only living individual familiar with the 3rd Secret of Fatima) to work shoulder to shoulder with him (Ratzinger) in one of the highest offices in the Church (Congregation for the Defense of the Faith), and then to work with him as Pope, truly say and intend something so stupid as which has been ascribed to them (Benedict & Ganswein) by the press? It certainly wasn't considered stupid when Pope Benedict freed up the Old Mass, lifted the "excommunications" of the SSPX Bishops, corrected the translation of "pro multis", challenged the "Party Line" regarding Fatima, among other things. He is not stupid, nor is he a coward. He does, however, have diabolical enemies within the Vatican as shown above.
Now back to the "first cause", Benedict's renunciation. This alone must give the clue to Benedict's intentions and motives, as well as at least a partial solution to the problem; and he announced his renunciation IN LATIN for a purpose, although Italian has since VCII become as it were the "official" language of the Vatican. In any case, in Latin or Italian--more so the Latin--the use of the Subjunctive Mood, the mood "contrary to fact" as English grammar books call it, is used regularly for diplomatic purposes and sensitive material. Fr. Reginald Foster, former professor of Latin at the Gregorian University in Rome and considered as one of the world's foremost Latinists, has confirmed this in his classes.
Furthermore, I dare anyone to deny that lawyers (and they’re very good at this), politicians (besides their blatant lies), journalists, indeed all professionals, but also common folk, use mental restrictions, mental reservations and ambiguities in trying to avoid speaking plainly, to hide something, or to keep a secret. This is quite often not used legitimately, but it can be. Now I ask; “Wouldn’t it be a bit arrogant just to dismiss out of hand even the possibility that Pope Benedict and Pope Emeritus Benedict’s Secretary can use the Latin and Italian Languages, more precisely the Subjunctive Mood, in order to keep something hidden or for protection, e.g., the life of Benedict?” Dom Gänswein actually does the VERY same thing in his speech of 20 May 2016 at the presentation of a new biography of Pope Benedict by Roberto Regali (see my commentary on several paragraphs from this speech included as part of my paper)! Of course, this speech caused quite a stir, for it seemed, from the English translations of small sections of the speech provided by reporters, that they understood that Dom Gänswein as saying that there was one Pope (Benedict) but two heads of the Church (one a monk and another the minister), a quasi “Diarchy”—something absolutely absurd. There were also those who understood him saying that there two individuals where were both Pope.
Now, since it is necessary to consider the primary cause to the situation in which the Church finds Herself, I present an analysis of the Latin text of Pope Benedict’s renunciation announcement (see the part of this paper entitled Grammatical Considerations and Analysis of Latin Text). Pope Benedict as well as Dom Gänswein (in his speech) have used the Subjunctive Mood of the Latin and Italian languages, the former in order to maintain the Papacy while placing himself in a position analogous to a Pope in hiding, a Pope in captivity, or a Pope in exile (so as to keep the Papacy out of the hands of the diabolical Vatican mafia who wish to transform the Church from the Institution of salvation founded by Christ to a "church" of damnation), the latter, in order to protect Benedict from the enemies of the Church in the Vatican.
It seems that it can be said, and with much truth, that there is no one in the hierarchy—at least openly—who seems to be concerned about the possibility of Francis being an anti-Pope. The hierarchy as well as most of the rest of the world accepts Francis as Pope—without even considering there could be another explanation for what Benedict did. No one seems even interested in looking seriously at the Latin version itself of Benedict’s renunciation, which is really the only Official document. They are perfectly happy with the translations of the Latin version in whatever language they speak. But it is clear that those translations are not at all faithful to the Latin text, whether intentional or otherwise.
Our Lady at Akita told Sr. Agnes that in these times there would be many who would compromise, and unfortunately many of the hierarchy are doing precisely that, most probably out of fear. What they need is for the laity, those faithful to the traditions and perennial teachings of the Church to rise up and give them a push in the right direction. Such was often the case in very difficult time. But even the laity are reticent to look into the matter of Benedict’s resignation. Certainly, they rely on the translations, and most of the faithful today are not exactly knowledgeable when it comes to the Latin Language, as also most of the Clergy, including high ranking Prelates. Hence, it is difficult for this effort to find any interest among Catholics anywhere. Nevertheless, I believe it is necessary to alert the faithful not only to the possibility of Benedict being Pope, and the only Pope, but also, being totally convinced from my investigation that he is to make it known precisely what Benedict actually did.
The other parts accompanying this study, taking into account also objections that have been made against this “hypothesis” attempt, therefore, to go into more detail in analyzing Benedict’s momentous, courageous and important decision and precisely what that decision effected."