Cionci responds to US Intel Agent’s last desperate attempt to sustain Bergoglio

by Andrea Cionci

(Authorized English translation — For Italian original click the image above)

While Bergoglio makes a clean sweep of the “intellectual class” within the Church by decapitating the liveliest ecclesial movements and proceeds to what appears to many as a Vatican “personnel reshuffle”, we received an article from an American gentleman, Steven O ‘ Reilly, in dispute of the theory of the now known Plan B HERE. However, his contemptuous tones (he defines our work as “ridiculous”) are not very dialogical and therefore we will limit ourselves to a single answer.

He, while criticizing so bitterly Francis, absolutely recognizes him as the Pope. Legitimate, however so be his dispute, at the foundation there is an error of method, because the interlocutor does not start from where we started, or rather from the ascertainment of some OBJECT, AS IN EXPLAINABLE FACT/DATA. We have been “FORCED” BY LOGIC to have to configure the very uncomfortable and shocking hypothesis of Plan B which is the only one to provide a coherent framework for a series of facts that this man avoids analyzing in bulk. (Believe us, we would have preferred not, since this “one against all” Is just a source of annoyance, a real bitter cup). We have listed the main reasons that led to this thesis HERE and in fact they only received an intrigued silence from a journalist of the level of Massimo Franco HERE who, as the only answer, invited us to write a book.

It is not that we started from a goal and then we patched up a theory looking here and there for some support to ” unseat ” someone, as Dr. Riccardo Petroni in his protest-kamikaze has done HERE. (Among other things, the fact that Petroni , denying the divinity of Christ , “massacred” himself in that way thanks to an ancient homage from the Holy Father Benedict XVI is a very suggestive event, which makes one think).

It is exactly the opposite: the theory of Plan B has been assembled by itself hand by hand, in an organic and orderly way, as if it had a life of its own, on the basis of some “bricks” made up of documents and facts investigated in detail.

Instead, what does our American interlocutor do? He starts from the end, saying: “How is it possible that Ratzinger wanted to do this or this”? It is like denying that Luigino stole the jam because “he knows that his mother is angry”. The problem is that we surprised Luigino in the pantry with his fingers dirty with a sweet and sticky material with a fruit taste … And we are trying to understand what will never have happened ….

It cannot be excluded that a fact has occurred, regardless, judging whether the possible motivations of the person responsible can be more or less realistic. The motive is revealed in the end. Meanwhile, investigate what has been done : the what, the how and the when. Then we will find out why .

However, in the intellectual desert in which Plan B – for now, at least – reigns without valid disputes, we also greedily collect the objections of this gentleman.

Objection 1: “If Benedict XVI intended to fake his resignation, that would mean that he allowed a modernist to be “ostensibly” elected pope, in which case this pope would certainly be a true antipope, potentially leading millions upon millions of Catholics to perdition through his false doctrines. . How could Benedict justify this for any reason? The end does not justify the means! Benedict would be morally responsible for allowing the wolves to ravage the sheep without the protection of their chief shepherd here on earth, Benedict himself! It is one thing to suggest that a shepherd may lurk, seemingly abandoning the sheep to hide in the dark and ambush a wolf when he prowls the flock before the wolf attacks. However,it is quite another thing to suggest that a good shepherd can allow the wolf free reign – and then for eight years! Impossible. Benedict is not such a monster ”.

Answer 1: The best known Italian philosopher, Prof. Giorgio Agamben quoted by Peter Seewald has already answered this statement : the real reason for Benedict’s resignation was the desire to awaken the eschatological awareness (concerning the ultimate destinies of man) of believers: ” In the divine plan of salvation, the Church would also have the function of being both” Church of Christ and Church of the Antichrist “. The resignation would be a prefiguration of the SEPARATION between “Babylon” and “Jerusalem” in the Church. Instead of engaging in the logic of maintaining power, with his resignation from office Ratzinger emphasized its spiritual authority, thus contributing to its strengthening ”.

In confirmation of the concept, in the interview book ” Ein Leben”, Ratzinger himself declares : ” My intention was not simply and primarily to clean up the small world of the Curia, but rather in the Church as a whole”. What else , dear sir?

In Plan B, Ratzinger has chosen a strategy that contemplates giving land to the opponent . How can you judge a general (who should be assisted by the Holy Spirit) who opts for a strategic retreat by saying “is that man crazy to give so much ground to the enemy?”. Leave it alone: If Plan B is true, it is designed to be a kind of nuclear bomb for past, present and future modernism. Its duration does not depend on Ratzinger, who still continues to send inputs today, but on the listlessness of Catholics and clergy who do not take into consideration the mysterious facts which have been patiently illustrated. Certain things could have been understood immediately since already in 2013 someone had realized that the renunciation was not right. But evidently it was necessary to get to the Pachamama and the abolition of the Latin mass for someone to start screwing in the first light bulbs. It will probably take a few more stops on the modernist train, and Orthodox Catholics will have to suffer a few more pinches before waking up from their nightmare and trying to change the paradigm by asking the feral question: “Maybe Bergoglio doesn’t have what it takes to be the pope?”.

Furthermore, from a theological point of view, it must be remembered that the Roman Pontiff is not the “baby-sitter of humanity”. Every man has the free will to choose the truth according to contingencies, and God infallibly recognizes who, knowingly, has taken the broad way, that of the world, and who unwittingly, guided by bad teachers, in good faith has taken the wrong path . God sees in the heart of man and will give everyone his own, according to perfect justice.

Moreover, our interlocutor has very harsh words for Francis, he defines him as a wolf devouring the flock, and it is very difficult for a true pope to be a wolf for his own sheep, since this would go against the words of Christ: “(the Gates of) Hell will not prevail” . So either Christ was wrong, or the interlocutor is contradicting himself and Bergoglio is not the pope.

Objection 2 ) If Benedict XVI had wanted to fake his resignation, it would have been very presumptuous of him. Benedict would have no way of knowing in advance that he would survive long enough, given his advanced age, even to cast his “trap” on the antipope and his modernist henchmen. What if he died before the trap was triggered? If so, he would hand over the flock unchallenged to the enemy. Eight long years have passed and Benedict is getting weaker and weaker physically and mentally. Why hasn’t he set off his trap now? There is no good or reasonable answer.

Answer 2) It has nothing to do with how long Ratzinger can stay alive. Moreover, we do not know if some surprises will come out at his death , as a safety valve. According to Plan B, Benedict handed over to history and canon law an invalid renunciation that SEPARATED FOREVER THE SUCCESSORY LINES: one papal his, and one antipapal, that of Bergoglio, as two families, two different DNAs. Whether the true Church recovers its seat or should rise again in the catacombs, as prophesied by Ratzinger himself, we still do not know. The munus Petrine, the title of pope conferred by God, it seems, Benedict will take him to his tomb (as late as possible, we wish him) and thus a Catholic Church reorganized perhaps in a clandestine way, as announced by various prophecies, will have to independently elect a new true pope, successor of Benedict , (not of Bergoglio) as in the early days of Christianity. So, his Plan B is built to last through the ages, designed to separate the wheat from the chaff over the long haul with a document that is now set in history, accompanied by its fantastic syntax errors.

Objection 3 ) If Benedict XVI intended to fake his resignation, how could he really expect such a plan to work? Though weak in power, prior to his apparent resignation announcement, he was certainly stronger at the time than he is now, eight years later. That is, he gave his successor eight years to appoint more cardinals – over 50% of the entire college of cardinals, and more bishops and archbishops, etc. Furthermore, Benedict’s allies in key positions in the curia were gradually phased out (e.g., Burke, Mueller, Sarah, etc.). Therefore, Benedict is now in a weaker position of power to launch a counterattack than when he apparently resigned.

Answer 3 ) This is why he inserted the Latin errors in the Declaratio, to keep attention on that document for centuries to come. And his plan IS WORKING, in fact, although with a delay of six years, someone has noticed and others have divulged and developed the discovery, always identifying new clue elements, for example HERE that the interlocutor does not consider in the least. Benedict allowed the antipope to nominate about 80 cardinals who make the next conclave invalid, precisely: a master’s game . If Bergoglio had not named any, paradoxically, the next conclave could be valid. Thinking that 94-year-old Benedetto can also manage the ministerium, that is the practical functions to which he declared he wanted to give up, is only one of the options. When the upper clergy examines the resignation, certifies that it is invalid, and Bergoglio is put out, Benedict could either go back to governing to the end, as John Paul II did, or sign a valid resignation, or appoint a vicar bishop for the ministerium. Plan B will trigger more realistically after his death, (if you really want, it could be the announced departure of the Katechon, the retainer of the Antichrist) when with the election of a new antipope, the modernist Church will take such an acceleration towards the chasm that, necessarily, some Catholics (those interested in remaining so) will have to wake up. The next steps will most likely be the abolition of Transubstantiation and the creation of an international inter-religious conference, or something similar towards universal religion for the new world order that Bergoglio openly hoped for in an interview with La Stampa on March 15. 2021 . And then most likely, given that here the prophecies come true one after the other, a great prelate will arrive , a man of faith, but above all of character and heart.

We recall that St. Bernard of Clairvaux managed to oust the antipope Victor IV who succeeded the antipope Anacleto II in 1138 after eight years of antipope. Hence, nihil sub sole novum.

For now, therefore, in our opinion, the Plan B theory still holds. Next.

18 thoughts on “Cionci responds to US Intel Agent’s last desperate attempt to sustain Bergoglio”

  1. Yes, this guy, “Steven O’Reilly,” does not even hide the fact that he is a former CIA agent! Once CIA, always CIA, and CIA = Freemason.

    They are getting desperate because their plot is starting to unravel. They had to get rid of the true pope before they started their Plandemic, and they have to do anything to keep Catholics from revolting. That is why they infiltrated the Catholic media.

    Big clues that these pretend conservative Catholics in the media are actually Freemasons:

    1. They have theology degrees but somehow don’t realize that no pope in the history of the Church has ever taught heresy.
    2. Therefore, if you have a “pope” who spews heresy on a daily basis and protects heretics, he is not the pope and was not chosen to be by the Holy Spirit, and yet they somehow can’t come to this very easy to understand position.
    3. They refuse to accept and try to block cogent and irrefutable arguments that Pope Benedict was forced to resign and planned to make his resignation invalid, and he is still here, very visibly, as the one and only pope.
    4. They constantly complain about Bergoglio but do everything they can to keep him in his fake office. They shamelessly make Pope Benedict the enemy.
    5. They try to demoralize the faithful by claiming we have to in obedience accept this antipope, and if we don’t obey we are not Catholic. The Church has NEVER in history taught this false notion of obedience. We are supposed to conform to the Truth, not obey simply because of a person’s office. They are projecting their diabolical freemasonic notion of obedience.

    Many of these CIA agents and Freemasons are from Texas: Taylor Marshall and Michael Voris. Some conservative Catholic colleges seem to be fronts to train and promote.

    1. Just because Taylor Marshall and Micheal Voris refuse to call Francis the Antipope made you conclude they are Freemasons? Really? That could be calumny especially if you have no evidence.

      1. It is not calumny. It is prudence. Research their histories:

        Taylor Marshall is a convert from Protestantism to Catholicism. Sure, many convert, but do they also suddenly have the capital to set up their own university and media channel? As a freemason, he would. He supposedly has a doctorate from University of Dallas but does not understand how his position of recognizing Antipope Bergoglio is a heretical nominalism and voluntarism? God would not suddenly will to destroy the Church through a “Pope Francis.”

        Michael Voris came back to Catholicism very suddenly after living a lifestyle of two decades of live in sodomite relationships. That could be possible, but instead of showing a humble repentance of living outside the limelight, he suddenly decides to teach Catholicism and establish a Catholic media empire, and he has the capital to do so? Or did he suddenly get freemasonic orders to do so? If it is a true repentance, why is he so vain about his hair?

        Both refuse to acknowledge the true pope, Pope Benedict. They are both from Texas, a state where freemasonry is rampant.

    2. Today August 4 is the Feast Day Of the Cure D’Ars, who knew how to combat the devil.
      Pope Benedict XVI stated, I am not abandoning the cross, I place my self by the crucified Christ.
      He also stated, “ I cannot give up what was given to me by Christ.” Pope Benedict XVI said he had an inner locution, God told him to resign. Pope Benedict XVI only has the Power given to him by Christ. The evil doers have been exposed. Anyone who cannot see this is blind to the Church.
      “Get behind me Satan”.

  2. Freemasons—-Roncalli,Montini,Wojtyla,and Bergoglio( I was surprised at Wojtyla—but, according to Fr Luigi Villa, Wojtyla allowed Communion to be given to Freemasons in 1983 and Bill Clinton in 1996—His meetings also with Gorbachev [who belonged to Lucis Trust {court of lucifer}])—The tenet of the Masons is this: No obedience to the Christian God whatsoever but blind OBEDIENCE to their superiors ( and this is being foisted upon the Laity[!])—-The late Fr Luigi Villa wrote an expose’ on the Papacy regarding Wojtyla and the others

      1. “The Illusive Anti-Communism of Karol Wojtyla”—-Communism is still here but it lurks and hides—-Time for the Laity to reclaim their Church

      2. Gorbachev and Soros are aptly described in “False Dawn”( published 2004 by Lee Penn)

  3. These comments make me feel ill; and if they are true, then I guess I’ve been more deceived than I thought. Which conservative Catholic colleges?! Taylor Marshall & Michael Voris??! Seriously?! I know many good, faithful people and priests who trust them. This is very disheartening. May God have mercy!

    1. Be. Bugnolo has written about Christendom College. There is something not right about it, especially at the undergraduate level Front Royal campus. Also, University of Dallas and Ave Maria.

      Taylor Marshall and Michael Voris both refuse to call Bergoglio an antipope despite all the evidence.

      1. So do Cardinsl Sarah, Burke, Brandmueller, Mueller, Eijk, Zen…. & Bishops Schneider, Vigano, Strickland, etc. Maybe they, too, should be labelled as Freemasons? All afriad to cross the line yet each knowling the real Pope is isolated within the Vatican walls. If the rightful holder of the Munus appears to be the loser, then thney will sit on the fence until some compromise can be attained. God, apparently, doesn’t carry the weight He used to anymore.

    2. I agree. Especially about Marshall. I have been watching his interviews with an SSPX priest and I’m starting to feel that those masses are really an option for me.

  4. Francis is with the URI ( United Religions Initiative)-which is supported by New Agers and Globalists ( see Lee Penn’s “False Dawn”)—it is the coming ,and already here, “counter-tradition “

  5. When you criticize some of the above, remember that the may be wrong, but they can correct themselves in the future .
    I do not know enough from Michael Voris, but remember he did not criticize Bergoglio directly at the beginnings, because he said it was forbidden to do so being Bergoglio the “Pope”.
    But later he changed, he is a hard critic of Bergoglio,
    May be he is an enemy because he recognize him as a Pope.
    But he may be in the same mistake as in 2013 , and change.
    I do not know.

    Regarding the article , in answer 3) , I figured this alternative to make Benedict plan work in case he die before Bergoglio or after.

    He may have change in a secret document univiversi Dominici Gregis , in order to change the way of the election of his successor.

    There are multiple possibilities of changing the election , but if this is the case , let us wait, and remembering, that about a thousand years ago , the election was different , and there were no cardinals.

    I had the fortune of reading Giorgio Agamben book regarding the mistery of evil and Benedict in 2013.

    It was amazing ….in 2013.

    1. There is much more to this ‘mistake’. These highly educated & prosperous holders of high office in the Vatican are complicit in their refusal to hold an investigation into what exactly occurred at the last conclave which could have easily been settled long ago by complying with the pleas of the faithful for clarification. They take us, the Laity, as stupid idiots (do what we say, not what we do) & their demand of false obedience to VII (a pastoral council) & the inaugurators of it is certainly a cover-up for their wrongdoing. No-one can be excommunicated for obedience to the true Pope but their own disobedience to PBXVI’s SP explaining it was never abrogated (& cannot be) by pertinaciously obstructing those priests who want to celebrate the Old Rite & sidelining them or even taking away their faculties is way beyond their authority & a scandal to the entire Church.

  6. Steven O’Reilly does not argue in good faith. He is a master of obfuscation and misdirection. Entering a discussion with him is like entering the ink cloud of a squid – something dangerous nearby but it’s hard to make out where it is or what it is doing. He never engages the central point, preferring to go down the infinite paths of speculation rather than the simple path of cause and effect.

    He likes to focus on “why” Benedict XVI did what he did, which we obviously don’t and can’t know. By creating and then placing any number of unreasonable Straw Man reasons for resignation up for consideration, it is easy to tear them all down and “prove” the resignation was invalid from that basis.

    O’Reilly’s method: “It makes no sense. Therefor it didn’t happen”.

    My method (via this blog): It happened. It need not make sense.

    There is the language of 332.2. There is the language of the resignation. 332.2 is clear. The resignation is clear. There is a disparity between the two. And that matters. He visibly manifests the illegality by remaining precisely where he was before and as he was before with the addition of an illegal suffix (Emeritus).

    I don’t care why he did what he did. That is not my place.

    I do care about what he did. That is entirely my business as a Catholic who will be judged on my belief and actions.

    O’Reilly, perhaps drawing on his CIA experience (I don’t know), is a master of confusion and misdirection. I have learned to stay out of his defensive “ink cloud” and keep it simple with him. He may or may not be lost in his own forest of speculation, but he definitely intends to encourage others to get lost there.

    I don’t go down those paths into the weeds and the forest with him any more. As with most truth, the answer is simple and startling.

  7. A second answer that I’d give to “Objection #1” about “ceding the territory to the enemy” and how bad that would be, is as follows:

    Benedict knew that if he died, the enemy would be able to (and likely succeed) in legitimately electing Bergoglio, or one like him, to the Papacy. Benedict knew that either he would die a natural death (which is in God’s hands) or he would be killed by his enemies. He knew, and it has been documented, that his enemies wanted to kill him. So his choices seemed to be either #1 he dies a natural death and the Church’s enemies have the path cleared to elect a Bergoglio as a legitimate Pope. #2, his enemies don’t wait for him to die a natural death and kill him instead, and once again the Church’s enemies have the path cleared to elect a Bergoglio as a legitimate Pope. Or, #3, he feigns a resignation to therefore allow the Church’s enemies to think that they obtained what they wanted, but rather than having the path cleared to legitimately elect a Pope, they only have the path cleared to elect an anti-Pope.

    So Benedict basically knew that he could choose between allowing a “Bergoglio” to legitimately become Pope or otherwise to arrange things to allow a “Bergoglio” to become anti-Pope. When looked at this way, it becomes obvious that Bergoglio as an anti-Pope is much much less bad than Bergoglio as a real Pope.

    So it comes down to this. Benedict knew he was surrounded by wolves. He knew that they were going to get their hands on the Papacy unless something was done to stop them. And he knew that his only option was to arrange for them to get their hands on an anti-papacy.

    So for those who would question why Benedict would do such a thing and accuse him of abandoning the Church to her enemies…..would you rather that Benedict have died (naturally or murdered) and that Bergoglio be indeed a legitimately elected Pope? Benedict wisely spared us such a horror – we should be grateful to him and not despise him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.