The Bergoglians have boomeranged themselves in their last attack on Benedict XVI

by Andrea Cionci

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANLSATION

Click the image above to read original in Italian

Someone in the Vatican is getting agitated: after it came out that Benedict did not abdicate, but self-exiled in a sede impedita (canon 412) remaining the only true pope, the operation for his discrediting has started.

However, if you take the side the Church of the anti-logic HERE, then things are done wrong and everything backfires on those who promoted the matter. We will demonstrate this with a few, trivial considerations.

1. Why doesn’t “Pope Francis” defend Pope Benedict?

But for Bergoglio wasn’t the pope emeritus the “wise grandfather”, that “righteous, righteous, righteous” man who protects him, of whom he spoke in this interview HERE? Why then has the “legitimate Pope Francis” not spent a word to defend his “wise grandfather” who at 94 years old has a floodgate of media mud poured on him? The newspapers say that “the Vatican denies”. Actually, only Bishop Ganswein has denied it. Now, I agree that he is the Secretary of the real Pope, but if Francis claims to be the real one, a word would have fallen to him too, or not? Remember when Pope Benedict wrote to conservative Cardinal Pell unjustly accused of pedophilia and put in jail for a year? If you are an opponent of modernists, that is how you are attacked in today’s Church.

2. Two weights and two measures

Now, since last March, a national newspaper has been publishing an investigation, which has been taken up abroad, involving jurists, magistrates, theologians, Latinists, linguists and canonists, who have demonstrated that Benedict XVI has never abdicated, but has exiled himself in a sede impedita. Even the lawyer Carlo Taormina, the most famous jurist in Italy, has spoken out on the subject with very serious statements.

In the meantime, resounding documents have come to light, phrases put down in black and white by Pope Ratzinger such as: “I could be the last pope as you have known him”; “no pope has resigned for a thousand years”; “I did not want to become a former pope like Pius XII if he had abdicated”; “I wear white because I did not have black cassocks in my closet”, “the pope emeritus is the Supreme Pontiff”….

We published open letters politely soliciting editors of other newspapers and important Vaticanista for an exchange of ideas: the topic was “simply” the legitimacy to sit on the throne of a person with direct influence on 1.285 billion people, observations made on the basis of canon law and disconcerting statements of what is considered “former pope”. Everyone avoided the invitation. Disappeared. Vaporized. Does this seem normal to you?

3. Digging up Stuff from 40 years ago?

A few days ago, colleagues at Die Zeit, a newspaper in Germany that is avowedly liberal pro-Bergoglio and an enemy of Pope Ratzinger go and dust off a 40-year-old affair. F.O.R.T.Y. years ago, about the fact that in the diocese of then-Card. Ratzinger erred in handling a priest who had a history of abuse. Cardinal Ratzinger knew nothing about this guy, so much so that, at the time, the matter was already a wash. However, almost all the Italian main stream media, after having ignored the above mentioned clamorous questions about the impeded See, are ravenous about a discovery of journalistic archaeology with headlines like “Ratzinger covered a pedophile!”. At most, Libero, which also gave space to our investigation and hosts several voices, could have written about it. But doesn’t it smell a bit too much like a “used toilet paper from the other side of the Tiber”, don’t you think?

4. The case was already dismantled in 2010

As accurately reported HERE by La Nuova Bussola quotidiano, this fake case was wielded as a truncheon to hit Pope Benedict XVI back in 2010: “A well timed choice, probably not accidental, and one which had the effect of hitting the credibility with which the then reigning Pontiff intended to cleanse the Church”. The illustrious scholar of religions Massimo Introvigne, who is also a supporter of Bergoglio today, explained even then:

“The controversies that erupted in March 2010 show a typical characteristic of moral panics: facts dating back many years, in some cases more than 30 years, and in part already known, are presented as ‘new’. The fact that – with a certain insistence on what touches the Bavarian geographical area, from which the Pope (now emeritus, ed.) comes, and the period in which Cardinal Ratzinger headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – are presented on the front pages of newspapers in the 1980s or even 1970s as if they had happened yesterday, and that furious polemics arise, with a concentric attack that every day announces in shouted style new ‘discoveries’, shows well how moral panic is promoted by ‘moral entrepreneurs’ in an organized and systematic way. The case of Munich that – as some newspapers have headlined – ‘involves the Pope’ is in its own way a textbook example.”

5. A boomerang topic

By the way, the wrong topic was chosen. Cardinal Ratzinger was the first and undisputed promoter of an anti-pedophilia campaign in the Church. It was he who ordered the investigation of the abusive presbyter Marcial Maciel and excommunicated him, despite the fact that the grotesque film, entitled “The Two Popes”, distributed by the globalist megaphone Netflix, would have you believe the exact opposite. After all, it was the same film that presented Bergoglio as having resigned as archbishop of Buenos Aires and not at all eager to become pope (!), when it was already known since 2015, from the biography of Card. Danneels, how for years the St. Gallen Mafia had wanted to replace Benedict XVI with the Argentine cardinal.

6. Shall we talk about Bergoglio’s Monsignors?

The topic is a real own goal, because if you read “Neo-Vatican Gallery” HERE of the dean of Italian Vatican journalists, Marco Tosatti, and you become aware of what kind of characters surrounds Bergoglio, the evangelical parable of the “mote and the beam” finds plastic materialization.

For example, the case of Monsignor Gustavo Zanchetta of which you can read HERE : “From Argentina – writes La Nuova Bussola quotidiano – comes a report of five priests from which it is clear that the Vatican and the Pontiff (Bergoglio n.d.r.) since 2015 were aware of the case of Bishop Zanchetta on which today hangs a heavy accusation of abuse. Embarrassing photographs with seminarians. Nevertheless, a month after his resignation, he was appointed to an important Vatican administrative position.”

Or do we want to talk about Msgr. Edgar Peña Parra? Monsignor Viganò, already accuser of the pederast Cardinal McCarrick, “munificent supporter of the Church of Pope Francis” as writes Il Mattino HERE as well as serial abuser of seminarians then reduced to the lay state, already since 2019 had published very detailed reports on Parra, Venezuelan Archbishop HERE and today number 2 of the Secretariat of State despite being chased by accusations of homosexuality, abuse and corruption never denied, as reported by La Verità HERE .

We are talking about people who are very much talked about: the first, with MANDATE OF INTERNATIONAL CATCH, if convicted, would do ten years in jail, at the very least. And yet such monsignors not only “have been welcomed into the diocese” but they occupy very prominent positions in the Vatican administration.

7. Why this attack now?

In the face of these indisputable facts, why, in your opinion, is this clumsy operation to discredit the 94-year-old pope, who lives in a monastery, happening now?

Could it be that the issue of the impeded See has come out, that is, the fact that HE NEVER ABDICATED, remains the only pope and in this way Bergoglio is antipope usurper? Or are we “conspiracy theorists who get worked up over nothing”?

You will find the entire investigation that proves – beyond any doubt – the case of the millennium at the bottom of this article HERE. Read especially chapters 1,2,5,6 up to 14: Canon Law speaks clearly and Ratzinger himself confirms the whole situation.

So, faced with the impossibility of changing history, of changing the Declaratio, with the Bergoglian canonists now surrendered in front of the evidence HERE, now on their elbows, what could be done? Just the low blow, a media campaign with some morbid slander on the Holy Father, the real one.

Be that as it may, it’s the wrong way: even if Pope Ratzinger had left his car double-parked, or if in his youth he had been Dracula’s coachman, he remains the pope and Bergoglio an antipope. No mud slinging machine can change that.

Bergoglio’s anti-papal pseudo-pontificate will vanish into thin air anyway, in a kind of eschatological combustion.

And with that, we might as well call it a day.

7 thoughts on “The Bergoglians have boomeranged themselves in their last attack on Benedict XVI”

  1. Hahaha excellent and well written piece! As if we didn’t know that Bergoglio is by excellence the biggest pimp of paedophilia and sex trafficking worldwide.

  2. It is time for Truth in all things. Nothing more hidden. The Light to shine brightly, and unobscured.

  3. “Despise not prophecies.”
    [1 Thessalonians 5:20]

    “For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.”
    [2 Peter 1:21]

    The Prophecy of Saint Francis of Assisi

    “There will be an uncanonically elected pope who will cause a great Schism, there will be diverse thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders to doubt, yea, even agree with those heretics which will cause my Order to divide, then will there be such universal dissension and persecutions that if those days were not shortened even the elect would be lost.” (source: The Reign of Antichrist by Rev. R. Gerald Culleton)

    “The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase. The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity.

    At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it. There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God. Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.

    Those who preserve in their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth; but the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him.

    And in order to be like their Head [Christ] these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer.”

    (source: Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, Washbourne, 1882)

    1. While I concur with this article, and Ann Barnhardt’s continuing exposes of the Bergoglian CULT, it’s a pity that the above post uses a man no one but Papal advocates consider a ‘saint.’ Francis of Assisi is a total product of the post-filioquist Schism of the Latin cult from the Patristic Catholicism of Holy Orthodoxy.

      And then, you wonder why more and more Catholics are converting to Orthodoxy, with all this dirty laundry? Misercordie, Domine. Truly, Rome was the first Protestant.

      1. Father, considering that Saint Francis was converted when the Icon of Christ Crucified spoke to him, and considering that his life is very similar to a Saint of Constantinople who lived in the 6th century — if I remember correctly — your argument is hard to sustain on the facts. Plus, since he raised the dead, you will have to explain to Our Lord Jesus Christ, at your own death, why you attributed such a miracle to Satan.

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.