Category Archives: Guest Editorials

Archbishop Lenga: Benedict XVI’s renunciation is invalid & strewn with errors (English)


Many cite Archbishop Viganò who talks around the issue, but here is a true successor of the Apostles who speaks directly on the most urgent issue of our day. You won’t hear his voice in the controlled Catholic Media, who have a secret alliance with the Globalists, Modernists or Secret Services never to put in doubt Bergoglioàs authority.

Is the Abdication of Pope Benedict XVI questionable?

by Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga, M.I.C., D. D.

Ordinary Emeritus of the Diocese of Karaganda, Khazikstan

I would like to go into the history of a the Catholic Church a little bit from the time Jesus Christ established His Church. He chose his twelve apostles and, looking at His choice from a human point of view, as God he could have made a better selection. Rejected as the Messiah by Judaism he built His Church with his chosen apostles. These included Judas who would betray Him for money, and Peter, whom he entrusted with full authority for His Church, who would also betray Him. He disowned Him three times in a cowardly way when challenged after the arrest of Jesus. While he was sitting at the fire in the hall of the high priest’s house a servant woman said: “This man was also with him” and Peter denied Him, saying “Woman, I know him not”. Peter denied that he knew Jesus three times but Christ still handed the authority over His Church to Peter.

When Jesus nominated Peter as the head of the apostles, He said “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee that they faith fail not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren”. (Luke: 31-32) Jesus gave this task to Peter whom we can see was not the wisest or strongest of men and who did not demonstrate faithfulness even at that time before His crucifixion and death when simply asked if he knew Jesus.

So over the course of centuries the Church of Christ has chosen many weak shepherds who sometimes through human weakness betrayed the Church, who were cowards and who were prone to be influenced by, and gave in to, various external pressures such as heresies, schisms and contrary opinions.

In the history of the papacy there have been several serious scandals, some “Lothario” popes, some with wives and children. The Church is composed of human beings with human weaknesses and has to trust in Christ who is its head. If that trust is lacking, especially in the pope, then damage and confusion are inevitable. The human element can have a crippling effect. In the past there have been abdications from the papacy but those abdicating retired to private life or assumed non-papal roles. They certainly did not continue to wear white soutanes.

During the Western Schism, there were three claimants to the papal office, each supported by different political allegiances. The matter was resolved by the Council of Constance (1414-1418) when two of the claimants abdicated and the third was excommunicated. A new pope was elected to resolve this imbroglio. This, of course, is a matter for historians and I only mention it here to indicate the confusion that can be caused in the Church by human interests. It must also be said that there have been many saintly popes from the first century of the Church’s existence and onwards. There have been many martyrs for the faith, killed for their faithfulness to Christ. The good are attacked because Satan never wants the Church to be the lodestar of this world, showing people the way to salvation.

To conclude these comments, the Church is structured using weak human nature but God is its foundation. The problems arise through humans acting according to human nature and not focusing on God. We remember when Christ strongly rebukes Peter, who knows that Jesus is to go to Jerusalem and to die there and says “Do not go there Lord”. Jesus replies, “Get behind me Satan, thou art a scandal unto me because thou savourest not the things that are of God but the things that are of men” (Matt: 16, 22-23). This confirms that we need to think in God’s terms and not in human terms. The successors of Peter often act like Peter who told Christ “Do not do this” but when Jesus rebuked him and prayed for him he was strengthened by the Holy Spirit.  After the rebuke Peter goes and preaches and three thousand are converted instantly through his being strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit. Without this strength he is weak, like us. Likewise with Peter’s successors.

I have not denied Christ in front of some mob like Peter. I am not saying this out of pride, boasting that I am stronger than Peter. I have avoided this denial thanks to God’s grace. But Peter has shown me that I could do it. We do not know when we might do it and in what circumstances. As Holy Scripture says: “Wherefore, he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians: 10,12). Thus we cannot put on human airs and graces but we must rely on God’s grace which He wishes to give us in abundance.

We now know that since the first half of the 19th Century Freemasonry has plotted to destroy the Catholic Church by infiltration. In 1820 the Italian masonic lodge “Alta Vendita” produced a plan called The Permanent Instruction. In this document it says: “The Pope, whoever he is, will never come to the secret societies; it is up to the secret societies to take the first step towards the Church, with the aim of conquering both of them”. It also stated: “The task that we are going to undertake is not the work of a day, or of a month, or of a year; it may last several years, perhaps a century. . . .Now then, to assure ourselves a pope of the required dimensions, it is a question first of shaping for this Pope a generation worthy of the reign we are dreaming of. Leave old people and those of a mature age aside; go to the youth, and if it is possible, even to the children. . . .You will contrive for yourselves, at little cost, a reputation as good Catholics and pure patriots. This reputation will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years by the force of things, this young clergy will have over-run all the functions; they will form the sovereign’s council, they will be called to choose a pontiff who should reign”.

At the beginning of the 20th Century, following the death of Pope Leo XIII, the Conclave was going in favour of a candidate suspected of masonic contacts. After the third ballot Cardinal Jan Puzyna de Kozielsko of Kraków who had asked Emperor Franz Joseph to use the veto which was the right of The Holy Roman Emperor, used his veto. As a result of this intervention Pope Pius X was elected. This was a good example of a difficult situation being resolved through the influence of a good cardinal.

Then we had the Second Vatican Council which was the Council that damaged everything, actually damaging the concept of the Divinity of Christ, and shattered the foundations of the Catholic Church. And after fifty years we can see what degradation has befallen the Catholic Church through the popes who conducted the Second Vatican Council. Such a situation for damage had begun earlier. In his last three years before his death, Pius XII was not really in charge of the Church. In fact the governance within the Church was administered by Archbishop Montini till 1954. However, the most dangerous modernist was Cardinal Bea from Germany who was Pius XII’s confessor. Even as a hypothesis he knew the pope’s aspirations and using the power of such a close relationship with the pope he applied the most damaging Modernist influences.

Another Modernist was responsible for the Church’s external relations during the later years of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII when he was no longer effectively in control. The liberal Montini was meeting the most influential freemasons in the USA and what he was concocting with them God only knows; Eternity and the Final Judgment will show. We must not place too much emphasis on this but neither can we ignore it.

And then, after the death of Pope Pius XII, when the very conservative and faithful Italian Cardinal Siri of Genoa was the foremost candidate for the papacy, influential organizations like the KGB and the CIA were allegedly influencing the various cardinals engaged in the conclave. They did not just fly from Heaven to have a conclave. Each one of them was in some way under scrutiny and influence during their careers in their various countries, be it the USA, Germany or elsewhere. And they finally decided not for Cardinal Siri but for Cardinal Roncalli, John XXIII.

As we know, in Poland, Communists erected a monument in city of Wrocław in honour of John XXIII. No eggs were ever pelted at that monument. In contrast, eggs are thrown at John Paul II. His teaching is mocked. We can draw our conclusions, using the brains we have been provided with.

Such was the situation in the Catholic Church.

The first leader to greet John XXIII after his elevation to the papal throne was Nikita Khrushchev, the General Secretary of The Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Was that telling us something? Nothing simple, extraordinary. Communism, an entirely Godless organization, on the surface had nothing to do with the papal election, but everything was . . . as it was.

In his memoirs John XXIII wrote that he did not know why he had called the Council. He was ill and soon to die. His successor, Paul VI could have put the Council on hold but chose to continue it. Malachi Martin claims that in a Satanic ceremony held in the USA and participated in in the Chapel of St Paul  in the Vatican, Satan was enthroned on 29 June, 1963. This was at the beginning of the reign of Paul VI.

And that was the shape of matters during the whole pontificate. The Paul VI carried on for 10 years in a way that destroyed the traditional liturgy and then he said that

 “From some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God”. And who introduced this smoke? If not himself with the actions of his pontificate? Today he is a saint just by the will of Bergoglio as there is no significant miracle that can be attributed to him. In the same way John XXIII was canonized without a significant miracle. Canonization requires certain conditions. I am saying what is known to the whole world. I am not rediscovering America.

Whereas Cardinal Ratzinger was chosen to be Pope as Benedict XVI the freemasons in the Church were already planning for Bergoglio to be Pope but because they considered it too early and that it would raise objections from various bishops and also the faithful they allowed Benedict to rule for a period of time (surely with a heavy heart). But when they saw that he was intending to rule maintaining the policies of John Paul II, at least as far as possible, they began causing various crises, especially with the Vatican Bank but also with some of his statements. They ignored him at all levels. We remember when Benedict XVI visited Germany and they did not welcome him. They refused to shake him by the hand, displaying their ignorance and pride. That indicated the true state of affairs. We may acclaim “the Pope, the Pope” but the Pope needs his army of supporters. A general needs his troops. He cannot just brandish a sabre on his own. He had to carry out his pontificate without loyalty.

When Benedict abdicated he gave tiredness as a reason. But was he so tired that he had to abdicate? He does not appear to have been ill and is still alive today. After eight years of Bergoglio’s pontificate Benedict is still alive and can see all the effects of his abdication. He can see that the Church has been damaged during these eight years even more than it was damaged during the pontificates of the popes that preceded him.

When he abdicated Benedict read the text of his abdication in Latin and in the text Latin scholars have identified about twenty grammatical errors. Admittedly Benedict was not speaking Latin every day. Perhaps if he had written the abdication text in German it would have been faultless. But Benedict is an excellent Latin scholar.

In the abdication speech he says he is withdrawing from the pontificate because he is ill and infirm and therefore cannot fulfill the duties any more so it would be better to hand over to someone else. But he distinguishes between the “administration” of the papacy and the “munus”, the Divine “gift” of the papacy. He does not decline the munus but retains it. I can clarify this with an example. If the bishop of a diocese is ill he can entrust the auxiliary bishop with the administration of the diocese (for example: confirmations, visiting parishes, ordaining priests etc) while he retains his role as the Ordinary, and this is right.

It would appear that Benedict XVI, seeing that he still wears the white soutane, the papal fisherman’s ring, the red shoes, and all the papal outfit, as he is not an ignorant person who does not understand what he is doing but he wears these clothes and symbols without explanation. These are external signs that suggest that, in the Polish saying, “somewhere a dog is buried” meaning there is a hidden reason. When we remember when John Paul II was in the last years of his pontificate quite ill and looking unwell, the freemasons in the Church wanted to change him. And when John Paul II was giving his speeches from the balcony of St Peter, we could see millions of people out there, watching this agonising but still manful statesman who would not surrender to abdication, but was fighting until the end to pass at least something along to people. And people were coming in even greater numbers to see this elderly  man who from the window of his room speaking God’s words to the whole world. It was said that there were more people there than at the dances and concerts of Michael Jackson.

However it was ascertained between John Paul II and, at that time, Cardinal Ratzinger, that a pope who abdicates from the papal ministry, has to say in his statement: “I renounce the munus”. When one renounces the munus, one renounces the ministry too. But if one renounces the ministry but not munus, one remains the pope. That’s how it is. Moreover, when cardinal Sodano heard Benedict XVI reading his “pseudo “ abdication, he straight away replied : “ What a pity, Holy Father, for all the cardinals, that you are abdicating the papacy” and so on. He already had prepared text to read things other than those prepared by Benedict XVI. That is how it all stands.

Then, as we know, Saint Gallen Mafia, who are enemies of the Church, mainly governed by freemasons, those who surrounded the pope and did everything to impede the pope in his decisions and force him to act more liberally instead of conservatively, chose Bergoglio as successor. And we see what have been the consequences of that.

From the beginning Bergoglio has not lived in the apostolic palace, where previous popes before have lived. Bergoglio from the start has not worn red shoes – an apparently unimportant matter – but the red shoes are not simply some insignificant choice between, say, black shoes or red shoes. Red shoes recall the story of Peter’s flight from Rome when he met Jesus and asked “Quo vadis Domine?” (“Where are you going, Lord?”) And Jesus replied: “ I am going back to fight and die for those people, because you are running away. Go back to support those poor martyrs”. Then Peter walked barefoot on the blood of the martyrs, and that is why the Pope wears red shoes. This is not a question of the choice of shoes: this is the symbol of walking on the blood of the martyrs. If the Pope does not wear them, that means he denies this tradition.

And such was the situation.. when most probably the pope could see that he could do nothing in the environment that was so aggressive against him and was doing everything to destroy him, so he gave the power to those who wanted to have it. They have the power, but only the executive power. They have the power of damaging the Church but he, as the real pope, still has the power of the papacy.

And that’s why this prophecy at Fatima that there will be a pope killed and many (many) more will be killed with him, I believe, could apply to Benedict XVI, who is still alive. And as we see, the Devil is getting close enough these days and it may be a year or two away, not more. The whole Church may be destroyed and all the people will be locked up in ghettos for this reason: to prepare them for allegiance to this Antichrist that will come. Therefore abdication of Benedict XVI looks, in my understanding, in this way.

And to add, in 2015, I had already written the letter stating that I reckoned that Benedict’s XVI abdication was doubtful. And that he resigned only because of the external pressures that he may not have revealed, as it happens.. all the more as it was in the past.I already said about when the pope Pius XII didn’t rule the Church in his later years for some time but instead Archbishop Montini did. Then pope Paul VI. Same way Bergoglio can act as a person acting “as a pope”, but the real pope?


Abdykacja, która budzi wątpliwości?

Arcybiskup Lenga: Chciałbym wejść troszku w historię w ogóle Kościoła katolickiego. I od tego czasu, kiedy Jezus Chrystus, ustanawiając swój Kościół, odchodząc od judaizmu, widząc, że to wszystko nie da się poprawić, Żydzi nie przyjmują go jak Mesjasza, zakłada swój Kościół i wybiera dwunastu apostołów takich, jakich chce. Patrzymy na to, na ten wybór Jezusa Chrystusa apostołów. Wydaje się, że Chrystus jako Bóg mógłby wybrać lepszych, tak po ludzku myśląc. Przecież wybiera takiego, który zdradza Jego – Judasz. Powiedzmy, zdradza za srebrniki, a był w gronie apostołów. Natomiast Piotr, któremu potem powierzył władzę w swoim Kościele, też zdradza Jego. Trzykroć odmawia się od Chrystusa, i to w takich błahych rzeczach, kiedy jakaś tam niewiasta jego pyta: „Czy ty byłeś z nimi, z Chrystusem?” – „Nie, nie, Jego nie znam”. Trzykroć wymawia się, że on zna się z Chrystusem. I jednak Chrystus nie rezygnuje z tego, żeby temu apostołowi w końcu końców przekazać władzę w swoim Kościele. Ale Chrystus, kiedy wybiera jego na Księcia Apostołów, mówi jemu tak: „Piotrze, diabeł chciał was przesiać jak pszenicę. Ja modliłem się za ciebie, żeby nie ustała twoja wiara, a ty, nawracając się, żebyś utwierdzał swoich braci w wierze”. Takie zadanie powierza Jezus Chrystus Apostołowi Piotrowi. Widzimy, że nie był najmądrzejszy. Znaczy, najmądrzejszy i najmocniejszy. I nie wykazał się wiernością, w chwili gdy jeszcze jego nie krzyżowali, nie zabijali, a prosto tylko spytali, czy on zna się z Nim, czy nie. I tak na przestrzeni wieków jeżeli Chrystus wybrał takich słabych, to jednak Kościół znajduje się przy takim słabym, ludzkim elemencie pasterzy, którzy nieraz zdradzali w różnych sytuacjach, które byli i tchórzami, i poddawali się różnym presjom ludzkim. Między herezją, między schizmami, między jakimiś różnymi wypowiedziami. I w historii papiestwa można widzieć masę głupich wyrazów, można widzieć rozpustników papieży. Można widzieć tych, którzy mali (mieli) żony, mali (mieli) dzieci i tak dalej. To pokazuje, że Kościół jest bardzo słaby na elemencie takim, ale ten Kościół musi zaufać Chrystusowi, który jest Głową tego Kościoła. Jeżeli nie zaufa każdy na swoim miejscu, a papież szczególnie, kiedy będzie poddawał się emocjom, kiedy poddawał się tym wszystkim, którzy będą jemu doradzać niewłaściwie. Tak jak będzie doradzać jemu serce napełnione wiarą w Boga. To wtedy nic się nie zmieni w tym wszystkim i zawsze będą błędy i Kościół zawsze będzie okaleczony, ciągle będzie… Nigdy się z tego nie wyleczy. W historii Kościoła byli ci, którzy byli papieżami, potem abdykowali, ale oni, odchodząc do innego stanu, nie papiestwa już, przyjmowali dalej funkcje kardynałów, a nie nosili białej sutanny. To znaczy, nawet w historii papiestwa byli trzej papieże z różnych terytoriów Europy. No, ale był prawdziwie wybrany, a dwa reszty to byli tylko tak pod emocjami, pod ludzkimi krzykami i wrzeszczeniem, byli wybrani na takich, bo każdy myślał sobie, że to ma ludzki wymiar, a nie Boży. Jednak ten, który był po Bożemu wybrany, zawsze miał więcej praw i obowiązków do tego, żeby wykonywać te funkcje. Takie zamieszania był w historii Kościoła. Nie będę teraz mówił lat, to trzeba historyka specjalnego. Ja tylko mówię, naświetlając, jakie rzeczy się dzieją, jakie rzeczy się działy w Kościele. Mamy wielu świętych papieży, szczególnie z pierwszych wieków. Ci, którzy naprawdę byli męczennikami za wiarę, którzy byli zabijani za to, że byli wierni Chrystusowi. A diabeł nigdy nie chciał, by Kościół był przewodnią gwiazdą w tym świecie, wskazywał ludziom drogę do zbawienia. I tak robiąc, powiedzmy, wniosek z tego, co powiedziałem przed chwilą, Kościół jest pobudowany na słabym elemencie, tylko na ludzkim, ale fundament ma Boży. Dlatego te wszystkie upadki pochodzą od tego, że nieraz ci ludzie nie postępują po Bożemu, a postępują po ludzku. Pamiętamy, jak Chrystus, kiedy mocno strofuje Piotra, który Mu mówi, wiedząc, że Chrystus ma pójść do Jerozolimy, tam zginąć, mówi: „Niech chodź tam, Panie”. I Chrystus mu mówi: „Idź precz, diable, ode mnie!” Trzeba myśleć po Bożemu, nie po ludzku. Widzimy jednak pozycję Chrystusa i pozycję Piotra. Dlatego każdy Piotr, następca Apostoła Piotra, raz postępuje tak jak Piotr, kiedy mówi Chrystusowi: „Nie rób tego”. Kiedy Chrystus strofuje i jeszcze się modli za Piotra, wtedy Piotr jest wzmocniony Duchem Świętym. Idzie i głosi. Trzy tysiące od razu się nawracają, kiedy wzmocniony Duchem Świętym. Kiedy niewzmocniony, takie byle co jak my wszyscy, jeszcze gorszy od nas. Ja Chrystusa trzy razy się nie zapierałem przed jakąś babką czy dziadkiem, a Piotr to zrobił. Nie mówię z pychy, że ja jestem mądrzejszy od Piotra, ale tego nie zrobiłem dzięki łasce Bożej. Ale Piotr to zrobił. To znaczy, pokazuje, że jeden może tego nie zrobić, ale nie wiemy, kiedy możemy to zrobić, w jakiej chwili, nawet w lada chwili. Pismo Święte mówi: „Kto myśli, niech pamięta, może upaść”. Dlatego nie możemy się pysznić, tylko polegać na łasce Bożej, którą Pan Bóg obficie chce nam dawać. Widzimy, że szczególnie z czasów tej połowy dziewiętnastego wieku, kiedy masońska loża… Ja pamiętam, że nazywała się Venta. Może inaczej, to nieważne. Z (W) 1820 roku ona postanowiła wszystko zniszczyć w Kościele, zniszczyć Kościół katolicki. Oni mówili tak, że: „My może papieża masonem nie zrobimy, nie łudźmy się na ten czas. Nasze sprawy na sto lat. Ale my tak wejdźmy do seminariów, wyrzućmy starych ludzi, bo ich się nie da nawrócić. Wejdźmy do seminariów z naszymi liberalnymi ideami. Zróbmy wszystko, żeby nasze liberalne idee były w księżach, biskupach, w otoczeniu papieża. I oni będą wpływać na papieża na tyle, że on będzie podpisywał rano czy późno nam wygodne różne postanowienia. No, ale powiedzmy tak, że papież je podpisywał, ale potem z tych wszystkich, którzy w otoczeniu papieża się znajdują, przez te wieki, gdzie masoneria postanowiła zniszczyć Kościół, to rano czy późno stawali się ci kardynałowie, z których potem wybierali papieży. Tak było na początku dwudziestego wieku, kiedy wybrali papieża masona, tylko że na szczęście dekretem i weto (wetem) cesarza austro-węgierskiego nie doszło do jego wstąpienia na tron świętego Piotra i dzięki kardynałowi z Krakowa, który naszeptał na ucho, jeżeli tak można powiedzieć, temu imperatorowi austriackiemu, że nie wolno jego naznaczać na ten tron. I tak się wydarzyło i przyszedł Pius X. Dlatego widzimy, jakie trudne sytuacje nieraz wychodzą w Kościele. Kiedy już masoni triumfują, to nagle jakaś ingerencja jednego z kardynałów może zmienić wszystko na dobrą drogę. Powiedzmy, sobór watykański drugi, który był takim soborem, który wszystko zniszczył, faktycznie boskość Chrystusa. Który zniszczył do szczętu fundamenty Kościoła katolickiego. I za pięćdziesiąt lat widzimy, jaka degradacja Kościoła katolickiego. A to było przeprowadzane przez papieży, którzy właśnie prowadzili sobór watykański drugi. Taka sytuacja, kiedy był Pius XII, trzy lata przed swoją śmiercią on już nie władał, ażeby rządzić Kościołem. Faktycznie wszystko w Kościele, rządy w Kościele wykonywał kto? Wykonywał arcybiskup Montini, następny… Paweł VI, papież Paweł VI. On wykonywał trzy lata władzę w Kościele, wewnętrznym Kościele. Natomiast największym modernistą był kardynał Bea z Niemiec, który spowiadał Piusa XII. I na pewno nie mówię wprost, ale jako hipoteza: mógł wiedzieć jego dążenia i jednak korzystając z tej władzy tak bliskiego stosunku do papieża jednak największe wpływy modernistyczne zrobił. Jeszcze jeden modernista, który był na zewnątrz Kościoła – Kościół jako państwo ma i zewnętrzne stosunki z państwami – który był modernistą i liberałem, Montini spotykał się za trzy lata swojej władzy w Kościele przy byciu już papieża Piusa XII, który już nie wykonywał urzędu, a był taki… Jak to powiedziałeś?

Dziennikarz: P.O.

Arcybiskup Lenga: Pełniący obowiązki. To on spotykał się z najgorszymi tam masonami w Stanach Zjednoczonych. I co on od nich czerpał, to jeden Pan Bóg wie. I wieczność to wszystko okaże, a i Sąd Ostateczny to wszystko okaże. Nie możemy do tego wszystkiego wsiąknąć na tyle, ale jednak nie możemy tego ignorować. I potem, kiedy, powiedzmy, po śmierci Piusa XII miał być wybrany kardynał, nie pamiętam jego nazwiska, włoski kardynał, który był bardzo konserwatywny po linii Kościoła i Chrystusa, natomiast wpływowe organizacje jak na pewno KGB i nie mniej Stany Zjednoczone… Nie wiem, CRU, Centralne Razwiedywatielnoje Uprawlenija (Centralna Agencja Wywiadowcza, CIA), to po polsku nie wiem. Nieważne.

Dziennikarz: Służby wywiadowcze.

Arcybiskup Lenga: Tak, służby wywiadowcze. To tam, kto będzie słuchał, to będzie wiedział, o co chodzi. To znaczy, oni naciskali na tych różnych kardynałów, którzy nie prosto sfrunęli z nieba na ziemię, żeby konklawe zrobić. Oni, każdy był w jakiś sposób inwigilowany w toku swego życia w różnych państwach, czy w Stanach Zjednoczonych, czy w Germanii, czy gdzieś tam w innych miejscach. I oni wtedy zdecydowali nie tego kardynała, a wybrali Jana XXIII. Jak wiemy, Janowi XIII komuniści postawili pomnik we Wrocławiu i nikt tego pomnika jajkami nie zarzuca, nie obrzuca. Natomiast Jana Pawła II obrzucają jajkami, wyśmiewają się z jego nauki i tak dalej. Możemy zrobić wnioski, jeżeli mamy troszku rozumu więcej w głowie czym w innych miejscach naszego ciała. Taka sytuacja w Kościele katolickim istniała. I pierwszy, który pozdrowił Jana XXIII z wyniesieniem na papieski tron, to był Nikita Chruszczow, generalny sekretarz partii komunistów Związku Radzieckiego. To chyba o czymś mówi, że to nie jest tak proste i nic wspólnego komunizm, który był zupełnie bezbożna organizacją, nic wspólnego nie miał z wyborami papieża na pierwszy rzut oka, ale to wszystko było tak, jak było. Następny papież już tylko w swoich memuarach, Jan XXIII wypisał, że on nawet nie wie, dlaczego ten sobór zrobił. Był chory, blisko śmierci i faktycznie rozpoczynając sobór, nie dociągnął do jego zakończenia. Faktycznie robił coś na ślepo i sam nie wiedział, o czym. I w memuarach o tym napisał. Dlatego potem, kiedy przyszedł Paweł VI i dalej kontynuował to wszystko, mógł to wszystko wstrzymać. Jak (niezrozumiałe) mówi Malachi Martin, diabeł postanowił, żeby przy papieżu Pawle VI oddać świat pod panowanie diabła. Wiemy takie z jego wypowiedzi, jak tam były złożone ofiary czy to w bazylice Pawła. I to było 29 czerwca 1963 roku, kiedy Paweł VI wszedł na namiestnika Chrystusa, na tron Piotrowy. I to masoni złożyli, diabłu oddali świat. Przy tym papieżu było im tak powiedziane, że to mają zrobić. A Matka Boża przez siostrę Łucję powiedziała, że papież 60 roku, który będzie, a to był właśnie Jan XXIII, żeby on poświęcił Rosję Niepokalanemu Sercu Maryi. On tego nie zrobił. Natomiast diabli, masoni zrobili poświęcenie świata diabłu przy papieżu Pawle VI. Znaczy, oni widzieli, kiedy to wszystko się zaczyna. Tak jak to było kiedyś w plagach egipskich, kiedy Bóg mówił Aaronowi: „Rzuć swoją laskę”. I stała się wężem. A magowie, czarodzieje egipscy faraonowi też rzucali swoje laski i nie stawały się one wężami. A jak pamiętamy, wąż z woli Bożej pożarł tych innych. Dlatego jeżeliby ci papieże byli poddani doskonale władzy łaski Bożej, nie byłoby tego stanu, do którego my dzisiaj dożyliśmy. I tak sprawy wyglądały przez cały pontyfikat. Potem Paweł VI dziesięć lat to wszystko robił i robił niewłaściwie, zniszczył liturgię. I potem powiedział, że teraz swąd diabła w Kościele. A kto ten swąd wprowadził, jeżeli nie ten sam to zrobił? Znaczy, to papież już, który, powiedzmy, wyrabiał niewłaściwe rzeczy. Dzisiaj jest święty z woli Bergoglio, a nie bez żadnego cudu, który jemu można by przypisać jako cud. To samo Jan XXIII bez żadnego cudu stał się świętym. Nie wiadomo z jakich przyczyn, kiedy do tego, żeby być świętym, trzeba przejść jakieś rzeczy zupełnie inne. Mówię to, co jest wiadomo na całym świecie, Ameryki nie otwieram (odkrywam), to, co jest. Natomiast kiedy był wybrany Benedykt XVI, już chcieli wybrać tego Bergoglio, a nie Benedykta XVI, tylko że ze względu na to, że widzieli, że na pewno jeszcze za wcześnie, że mogą się sprzeciwić różni biskupi na świecie i lud wierny, to jeszcze pozwolili Benedyktowi XVI na pewno z wielkim ciężarem serca ci masoni kościelni i światowi, pozwolili Benedyktowi XVI troszku porządzić w Kościele. Kiedy zobaczyli, że ten jednak nie poddaje się, próbuje się cofnąć i trzymać dalej linię Jana Pawła II, bynajmniej (przynajmniej) na tyle, na ile to się dawało, to oni mu robili wszystkie różne przykrości, szczególnie z Bankiem Watykańskim, z różnymi wypowiedziami, z różnymi… Ignorowali jego na wszystkich szczeblach. Pamiętamy, jak to było, kiedy do Niemiec przyjechał, jak tam ręki nie podawali mu biskupi, pokazywali swoją ignorancję i swoją pychę, w jakiej się znajdują. I w takim stanie, my myślimy sobie: „A, papież, papież”, ale papież potrzebuje też jakiegoś wojska. I generał potrzebuje wojska, nie sam będzie szabelką machał. Dlatego kiedy nie ma tych, którzy byliby wierni jemu, to znaczy, to było, co było. Widzimy, że Benedykt XVI abdykuje, ale kiedy abdykuje, nie był tak zmęczony, żeby tak zmęczony, żeby abdykować. Nie był najgorzej chory, bo dzisiaj, po dzisiejszy dzień jeszcze żyje, nie? Osiem lat pontyfikatu Bergoglio, a on jeszcze żyje i widzi wszystkie skutki swego abdykowania, że ten Kościół jest zniszczony za osiem lat, czym był przy tych papieżach, którzy byli wcześniej przed nim. I kiedy abdykuje, on po łacinie czyta swój tekst abdykacji, jakby abdykacji. I w łacińskim tekście latyniści znaleźli dwadzieścia pomyłek, słownych pomyłek.

Dziennikarz: Gramatycznych.

Arcybiskup Lenga: Gramatycznych, tak. Może, powiedzmy, nie na każdy dzień używał Benedykt XVI łaciny. Może by napisał po niemiecku, na pewno byłoby bezbłędnie. Ale on wypowiedział się przez łacinę. Natomiast kiedy słyszy się jego wypowiedź w łacinie, to tam się mówi, że on odmawia się od wypełniania magisterium (ministerium). Ze względu na co? Na to, że on jest chory, niedołężny, że on już nie może tego wykonywać, a chce, żeby ktoś to lepiej zrobił za niego. Ale on się nie odmawia od munus. Munus to jest obowiązek być papieżem. Powiem tak na przykładzie: jeżeli biskup diecezji jest chory, ale on pozostaje biskupem ordynariuszem, chory na jakiś czas, dopóki się nie ujawni, co z nim będzie dalej, jak choroba będzie się rozwijać, on może powierzyć funkcję wykonania ministerium, nie munus. A ministerium, tego, co on powinien wykonywać, powiedzmy, bierzmowania, nawiedzenia tam parafii i tak dalej, i tak dalej, i tak dalej. Święcenia księży powierzyć swojemu biskupowi pomocniczemu. I to jest właściwe. Wygląda na to, że Benedykt XVI ze względu jeszcze na to, że nosi sutannę białą, pierścień rybaka, na to, że nosi te czerwone buciki, na to, że wszystko papieskie ubrania, nie jest Benedykt XVI ignorantem i nie rozumie, co on robi. Ale jak musi to wszystko, nie mówiąc nikomu po co, na co i za co, zewnętrzne znaki mówią o tym, że coś tutaj jest, gdzieś ten pies zaryty, jak wy mówicie po polsku, tak?

Dziennikarz: Zakopany (pogrzebany).

Arcybiskup Lenga: Zakopany (pogrzebany), pies jest zakopany, który… Na zewnątrz nie da się tego zrozumieć. Natomiast kiedy, pamiętamy, kiedy Jan Paweł II był w ostatnich latach swego pontyfikatu dość chory, to też ci masoni kościelni wiedzieli, że trzeba jego zmienić, bo niedobrze wygląda. Natomiast pamiętamy, jak Jan Paweł II występował na swoich przemówieniach z balkonu świętego Piotra, to, widzieliśmy, miliony tłumów tam było, bo widzieli tego agonizującego, ale mężnego jeszcze męża stanu, który nie poddał się abdykacji, a do końca walczył za to, żeby coś jeszcze przekazać ludziom. I ludzie więcej przychodzili na niego, żeby zobaczyć staruszka, który z okna tej swojej rezydencji mówi do świata słowa Boże. Więcej, czym było młodzieży na potańculkach i śpiewach Michaela Jacksona. Tak niektórzy porównywali te różne proporcje. Natomiast było mówione między Janem Pawłem II i jeszcze kardynałem Ratzingerem, oni prowadzili do tego, że ten, który abdykuje albo chce abdykować od urzędu papieskiego, musi powiedzieć w swojej przedmowie (przemowie): „Zrzekam się munus”. Jak zrzekam się munus, to wtedy zrzekam się i ministerium. A jak zrzekam się ministerium, a nie munus, pozostaję papieżem. Taka, taka jest rzecz, tym bardziej że od razu kardynał Sodano, kiedy słyszał, jak czytał Benedykt XVI swoją jakby abdykację, on od razu zaczął swoje przemówienie: „Jak tam szkoda, Ojcze Święty, wszystkim kardynałom, że ty tutaj zrzekasz się papiestwa” i tak dalej. On już ma zagotowany (przygotowany) teksty czytania innych rzeczy, a nie tamtych, które przeczytane przez Benedykta XVI. Na tym to polega wszystko. Potem, jak wiemy, mafia Sankt Gallen, ci którzy byli przeciwnikami Kościoła, i ci, którzy byli wychowani raczej przez masonów, a nie… Raczej byli ci w otoczeniu papieża, którzy robili wszystko, żeby papież zmieniał decyzje i postępował coraz więcej liberalnie, a nie konserwatywnie, oni wybrali sobie Bergoglio i widzimy, jakie skutki tego wszystkiego. Najpierw Bergoglio nie mieszka w Pałacu Apostolskim, gdzie mieszkali wszyscy papieże wcześniej. Najpierw Bergoglio, który nie nosi czerwonych butów… Niby wzmianka nie tak ważna, ale czerwone buty to nie jest prosto jakiś atrybut, buty czarne, buty czerwone. To jest to, że on pochodzi od Apostoła Piotra, który wraca, uciekał z Rzymu, a Jezus mówi: „Idź z powrotem zbawiać tych biednych męczenników”. A Piotr woła: „Quo vadis, Domino (Domine)?” Mówi: „Idę z powrotem walczyć i umierać za tych ludzi, bo ty uciekasz”. Wtedy Piotr szedł tymi bosymi nogami po krwi męczenników i dlatego jest (są) te czerwone buty. To nie jest prosto symbol jakiegoś tam buta, a to jest prosto symbol tego, że to chodzi się po krwi. Jeżeli tego nie robi, to znaczy, też jest jakaś wymówka, ucieczka z tego wszystkiego. Nie podpisuje się „Pontifex Największy”, „ten, który łączy mosty”, a ten, który prosto Franciszek. To pokazuje też, że wszystkie te jego decyzje, które jest (są) podjęte, które nie pokazują rygoryzmów kościelnych, tylko wciąganie się w ekologię, wciąganie się w Paczamamę i różne „Tutti fratelli”, na płaszczyźnie ziemskiej próbowanie budowania jakiegoś New Age’u, a nie Kościoła katolickiego, niszczenia faktycznie duchowości najwyższej Bożej. To pokazuje, dlaczego dziś, na dzisiejszy dzień jeszcze można uważać, że Benedykt XVI, dopóki żyje, jest tym papieżem. Ja to powiem highly likely, w najwyższym prawdopodobieństwie jest, on jest papieżem. I dlatego kiedy nosi te wszystkie insygnia… I jeszcze jest taka sytuacja: kiedy widzi się, prawdopodobnie widzi się, kiedy papież widział, że nic nie może zrobić z tym otoczeniem, które było tak agresywne przeciwko niemu i tak wszystko robiło, żeby jego zniszczyć, on oddał władzę tym, którzy chcieli ją mać (mieć). Oni mają władzę, ale władzę tylko wykonawczą. Oni mają władzę niszczenia Kościoła, ale władzę ostatniej decyzji ma on jako prawdziwy papież. I dlatego ta fatimska mowa, że będzie papież zabity i wiele (wielu) z nim jeszcze będzie zabitych, jak uważam, może się tyczyć Benedykta XVI, który jeszcze żyje. A jak widzimy, diabeł na tyle zbliża się w dzisiejszych czasach i może to nastąpić rok, dwa, nie więcej. Może być zniszczony cały Kościół i wszystkie (wszyscy) ludzie będą zamknięte (zamknięci) w gettach dlatego, żeby ich przygotować na wierność temu Antychrystu (Antychrystowi), który przyjdzie. Dlatego abdykacja Benedykta XVI wygląda w moim rozumieniu w taki sposób. I jeszcze chcę powiedzieć, że w 2015 roku już napisałem swój list, że mnie się wydaje, że abdykacja Benedykta XVI jest wątpliwa, że on zrezygnował tylko z jakiejś presji zewnętrznych, o których on może i nie mówić, jak to jest nieraz… Tym bardziej jak to było… Już powiedziałem o tym, jak papież Pius XII trzy lata nie rządził Kościołem, a za niego rządził arcybiskup Montini, następny potem papież Pius (Paweł) VI. Tak samo może rządzić Bergoglio. Jak to? P.O.?

Dziennikarz: Pełniący obowiązki.

Arcybiskup Lenga: Pełniący obowiązki papieża, a nie papieżem. Amen.

Not Catholic nor Christian, nor even the “Pope”

by Clare Stein

In the last few days prior to receiving from a friend an email with an article entitled “Is the Pope a Protestant?”, upon reading about Jorgè ‘Francis’ Bergoglio and his efforts to continually deconstruct the Catholic Faith and Christianity in general, I was thinking that I wish someone would write a column entitled “The Unauthentic ‘pope’ “ or the “The Unbelieving ‘pope’ ” or “The ‘pope’ Who Doesn’t Really Believe in the Catholic Faith”.  
That’s telling the Truth and not beating around the bush.  The word ‘pope’ is not capitalized because many have doubts about Bergoglio’s legitimacy as ‘pope’.  There is substantial evidence that Bergoglio is not an authentic Pope… that he was elected illicitly and is the culmination of the plot to plant a Marxist/Communist/Unbeliever/Change Agent in the Chair of Peter.  Other evidence provided by some is that Benedict XVI did not resign as Pope, only the ministry (ministerium) of Bishop of Rome.
Further evidence is Francis’ efforts “to change the Church” (using the title of Ross Douthat’s book) with shocking statements, unorthodox Encyclicals, the Motu Proprio, Apostolic letters and Exhortations and his “chastising” of “rigid” Catholics and perhaps any “rigid” Christian.   (After writing this, I found an article appearing in The Remnant by Christopher Ferrara.  The article is very good and quotes Bergoglio, which article I will list in the references.)
Jorgè ‘Francis’ Bergoglio aligns himself with and promotes worldly views, e.g., 1 Creating a New Humanism, a religion without God but incorporating Christian terminology to make it appear Christian.   2. Joining with anti-life globalists in promoting the Great Reset/Build Back Better/New World Order/”Climate Change” and promoting the “vaccination” of the whole world with the dangerous and experimental COVID-19 mRNA spike protein injections (which are not “vaccines”) which are connected to abortion either by testing or use of fetal tissue cell lines.1  The goal of the globalists is total control of the world’s population by “hook or by crook” (by any means necessary).2   IMPORTANT: The aborted babies are “alive” at the time of tissue extraction. There is a connection to abortion even in some of the common vaccines.  Government grants (our tax dollars) to the University of Pittsburgh were given by the NIH (National Institute of Health) and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) to experiment on human fetal tissue where illegally aborted babies’ scalps were grafted onto lab rats”.3 This is an abomination!
There are accusations of crimes against humanity regarding the developing and promoting of COVID-19 mRNA injections (referencing the Nuremberg Code).  Bergoglio is complicit.  He promotes the injections and vaccines in general.  Is it not logical that experiments on living tissue extracted from “living” babies aborted for that purpose are also crimes against humanity and is grossly immoral conduct?  We must also never forget the crimes against humanity by Hitler and his henchman in Nazi Germany4; and in this day and age, the people (preborn babies, babies, young children, teens, adults, the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped) are being encouraged, pressured and/or threatened with loss of employment or actually fired for refusing the experimental, dangerous and unpredictable spike protein injections containing nanoparticles, hydrogel, polyethylene glycol, Luciferase as examples. There are also those who propose the denying of necessary services and medical treatments to those refusing the injections.  The people are not being provided by government and those promoting the injections the information necessary in order to have fully informed consent.  Thousands have died and have been injured following the COVID-19 injections.
The above thoughts are my own…written before I read “Is the Pope a Protestant?”, but the title prompted me to put my thoughts in writing.  I propose that Bergoglio is not a Christian, neither Catholic nor Protestant.  I believe he parades around in the trappings of Catholicism to fool the people.  I propose he is a mix of Machiavelli, Perone, Saul Alinsky. Therefore, I believe he is an unauthentic pope, an unauthentic priest and an unauthentic Catholic.  And yes, we should pray for his conversion and the conversion of any dissenting, self-professed “Catholic”.  We also need to speak and write the Truth.

From Mengele to Fauci: The justification of humans as test subjects (

From 1933 to 1945, Nazi Germany carried out a campaign to “cleanse” German society of individuals viewed as biological threats to the nation’s “health.” The Nazis enlisted the help of physicians and medically trained geneticists, psychiatrists, and anthropologists to develop racial health policies. These policies began with the mass sterilization View This Term in the Glossary of many people in hospitals and other institutions and ended with the near annihilation of European Jewry.
[. . .]
At the German concentration camps of SachsenhausenDachauNatzweilerBuchenwald, and Neuengamme, scientists used camp inmates to test immunization compounds and antibodies for the prevention and treatment of contagious diseases, including malaria, typhus, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, yellow fever, and infectious hepatitis. Physicians at Ravensbrück conducted experiments in bone-grafting and tested newly developed sulfa (sulfanilamide) drugs. At Natzweiler and Sachsenhausen, prisoners were exposed  to phosgene and mustard gas in order to test possible antidotes.

On social media and online magazines we are now seeing reports of patients with worsening cancer following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

[. . .]

Dr Ryan Cole, a Pathologist, in a recent presentation, stated that he is observing a 20 x uptick in endometrial cancer, and increases in other cancers post SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

And even more concerning: a senior consultant with decades of diagnosis and treatment at a dedicated cancer hospital described to a journalist off the record that all his vaccinated cancer patients were coming out of remission; and that cancer was jumping between organs, spreading at a speed that he has never seen before (pers. Comm.).

As Reports of Deaths After COVID Vaccines Near 16,000, CDC Urges Pregnant Women to Get the Vaccine • Children’s Health Defense (

Meanwhile, as always, the “rigid” opponents of Bergoglio’s process theology—which is to say, Catholics who believe the Faith has absolutely invariant content unaffected by the mere passage of time—must be denounced from the demagogue’s bully pulpit.  Accordingly, as Bergoglio reminded the Roman Curia:

Here, there is a need to be wary of the temptation torigidity [his emphasis].  A rigidity born of the fear of change, which ends up erecting fences and obstacles on the terrain of the common good, turning it into a minefield of incomprehension and hatred.  Let us always remember that behind every form of rigidity lies some kind of imbalance.  Rigidity and imbalance feed one another in a vicious circle.  And today this temptation to rigidity has become very real.

In other words, those who fear change are mentally ill.

 Synodality as a method and a process is a structured way for the Church to listen to the voice of the living God.  (emphasis added)
A Protestant view.  Quotes from What is Process Theology? 
10. Do you mean that process theologians don’t hold with ‘Adam and Eve’? Ah, Adam and Eve. A quick summation of the tradition might be helpful here to highlight some of the differences between process theologies and the long tradition of “original sin.” For much of Christian history, all sin and evil was traced to the disobedience of a first human pair.
[. . .]
But process cannot follow this view. All the evidence suggests that humans are part of a great evolutionary process, and that God creates in and through this process. “Creative transformation” is another name for changes that emerge in evolution. Instead of talking about a perfect first human pair existing about 6000 years ago, we talk about the long evolutionary history of our race, and the role that aggression and violence have necessarily played in our development—sometimes for our good, sometimes not.
[. . .]
​…In a process view, one must talk about communal as well as individual sin. We live interdependently, and we act interdependently. Individual sins are magnified when exercised through our communal identities, creating great evils through such things as oppressive systems of exploitation, wars of aggression, economic systems based upon greed, or systematic decimation of our environment for the sake of profit.




How Bergoglio unmasked so many Traddies and Conservatives as Modernists


Has the Holy Spirit become a Modernist?

Or is Bergoglio Not the Pope?

On Article 892 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

by Andrea Cionci

It is quite impressive to see how and in what tones “Pope Francis” is being attacked by some Catholics, whether lay or religious.

No disrespect should be shown to His Excellency Jorge Mario Bergoglio because, although anti-pope, he is still a legitimate bishop duly ordained by the Church. (Though he is no longer a cardinal, as canonist Francesco Patruno explains, since as pope or antipope you lose the red biretta).

Moreover — as we have already pointed out — speaking ill of him, attacking him, calling him all kinds of colors while recognizing him as the legitimate pope is PURE NUTRITION FOR HIS POWER: the best favor that can be done to him as HERE Professor Antonio Sanchez of the University of Seville has already explained.

In this way, in fact, the easy message that filters to the world is: “Francis is a reformist pope, who wants to modernize the Church, gathering the true message of Christ, in its essence: peace, brotherhood, ecology. For this, inevitably, he is attacked by the gloomy and bigoted traditionalists, hypocrites and hard-hearted. Yet, not even they dare to question that he is the true pope.”


However, besides being the best assist for Bergoglio, such attacks, for Catholics, produce a serious scandal: that ism they discredit and offend the HOLY SPIRIT, the Third Person of the Trinity.

Unfortunately, it is so: paper sings. Many Catholics believe that the pope is infallible, assisted by the Holy Spirit, ONLY WHEN HE SPEAKS EX CATHEDRA, that is, only when he pronounces on important matters of faith.

In fact, the dogma of papal infallibility was established during the First Vatican Council convoked in 1868. The last and supreme ex-cathedra pronouncement was applied by Pius XII in 1950 for the Assumption of Mary. So, these pronouncements are not at all frequent; indeed, they are very rare.

Few people know, however, that Article 892 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the pope is assisted by the Holy Spirit even in his ORDINARY ACTIVITY. Check it out HERE.

We quote: Art.892: “Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the Apostles, who teach in communion with the Successor of Peter, and, in a special way, to the Bishop of Rome, Pastor of the whole Church, when, though without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose, in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium, a teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals.”

His Excellency Luis Francisco Ladaria, appointed by Francis as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also confirms: “It is important to reiterate that infallibility concerns not only the solemn pronouncements of a Council or of the Supreme Pontiff when he speaks ex-cathedra, but also the ordinary and universal teaching of the bishops throughout the world, when they propose, in communion with each other and with the Pope, Catholic doctrine to be held definitively.”

It logically follows that by accepting Bergoglio as the legitimate “Pope Francis,” the Holy Spirit must have softened on many issues, or He was already more broad-minded and “modern” than many Catholics thought.

Considering his acts and statements, we must assume, in fact, that the Third Person of the Trinity today has become, or has always been, “personally” in favor of civil unions; that He gladly likes the pagan idol Pachamama enthroned in St. Peter; that He tolerates the blessing of one hundred German priests to gay couples by endorsing what – according to Catholicism – is the second “sin that cries out to Heaven”; that He offers affectionate support to Father James Martin, a supporter of the most extreme homosexualist straightness; that the Holy Spirit agrees that (Bergoglio’s words) “there is no Catholic God”; that “all religions are true”; that divine mercy saves all; that “the Church no longer believes in hell where people suffer”; that He doesn’t worry too much if communion to remarried divorcees is allowed in Germany, but not in Poland…

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit would confirm that “in the Holy Trinity the Persons barter behind closed doors, but outwardly give the image of unity.”

In addition, the Holy Spirit would approve without problems seven other issues raised by Bergoglio and identified as true heresies by 62 scholars. Adn Kronos summarizes them well HERE .

Orthodox Catholics, there is little you can do about it! The Pope is assisted by the Holy Spirit even in ordinary activity and you have to accept that. Those listed above are “ordinary teachings in matters of faith and customs” by “Pope Francis.”

Don’t you agree? Don’t you want to accept the hypothesis of a modernist Holy Spirit “updated to the times”?

If not, then there are two remaining solutions:

The Catechism is wrong and the pope does NOT receive assistance from the Holy Spirit even in ordinary activity. So article 892 is to be deleted.

Or, Francis is not the true pope, but an antipope, because Benedict XVI never abdicated, as we have illustrated HERE. In that case, the Holy Spirit is “JUSTIFIED ABSENT” and everything is explained.

We didn’t make the Catechism and nor invent the Logic: either the Holy Spirit has changed His views, or the Catechism is wrong, or Francis is not the pope. You choose. Quartum non datur (There is no fourth possibility).

FromRome.Info Editor’s Note — Of the three possibilities, only one is truly conservative and traditional: the one which dumps Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy and keeps the whole and spotless Catholic Faith. The other two possibilities either require that you dump part or all of the Catholic Faith and keep Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy. The Choice is yours. Don’t follow the foolish Cardinals and Bishops like Vigano who cannot even see the problem clearly, or who have chosen to dump the Faith.

Prof. Francis A. Boyle: From 9/11-Anthrax to the Pandemic

Before The 9/11 Lawyers Committee 20th Anniversary Conference

From 9/11-Anthrax to the Pandemic: Life & Liberty in the Balance

by Professor Francis A. Boyle

September 11, 2021

Host: The next great speaker we have is Francis Boyle. Let me tell you a little bit about Francis. Francis Boyle is a University of Illinois College of Law Professor and the author of the United States implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention also known as the Biological Weapons Anti-terrorism Act of 1989 that was passed unanimously by both Houses of the United States Congress and signed into law by President George Bush Sr. with the approval of the United States Department of Justice. The story is told in his book Biowarfare and Terrorism (Clarity Press: 2005). So I want to introduce Francis Boyle here.

And you know I first heard Francis right at the beginning of this pandemic. We didn’t know each other at the time, but I’m watching this guy, he’s talking about Wuhan. He’s talking about bioweapons. I’m saying, “Let me listen to him.” I was really impressed and then I went back to try to watch it again and it was taken down by YouTube I believe. So he was censored right from the beginning but he seemed to be right on point as we say. So, Francis, thank you very much for being here and please teach us.

Francis Boyle: Well thank you very much for having me on. My best to your viewing audience. I did want to express my sincere condolences to the families, next of kin, and friends of those who suffered and died 20 years ago today. And that’s why I am here today to try to point a direction where we can go from here.

You all heard President Biden’s horrendous diktat to the American people that we must take these Frankenshots. I did some work against genetically modified organisms (GMO) foods – they were called Frankenfoods. I will call these things Frankenshots because they are not to be dignified with the word “vaccines.” And I’m here today to explain how can we fight back against a medical dictatorship that is currently being imposed upon us by Biden and his people. And here I’m just talking about the Americans, but I’ve consulted in Israel and other countries.

But here I’m just talking about us Americans and the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That’s us! And what I want to outline here today is the mechanism and means whereby we can get everyone involved in the Covid-19 pandemic prosecuted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder and then second, everyone involved in these Frankenshots can be prosecuted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder, on a state and local basis all over this country.

We know that the whole Federal government is in the tank there for Biden. You can’t believe anything they are telling you. It’s just been a pile of lies from the get-go, even under Trump. But we do have here in the United States are states attorneys, district attorneys, attorneys general, county prosecutors, etc. Last time I looked into this there were over 400 of these local prosecutors and I am recommending here today a strategy for the common ordinary everyday citizens who live in their territorial jurisdictions to go into these local prosecutors and demand the prosecution of the people involved.

I’m going to explain how this happens in a minute. But these are local prosecutors, not the Federal prosecutors. Biden’s made it clear he’s working with Fauci against us and he controls the Department of Justice under Garland. They’re not going to help us. But these local prosecutors, they are elected by us, their salaries are paid by us, and they can be dis-elected by us. It’s that simple. And so we need to get people organized and go in and demand these indictments and prosecutions by these local prosecutors. For what?

Well let me start with the pandemic itself. And here we have the very famous article that I have lectured on before, you can do Google it might still be up there, “SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronavirus pose threat for human emergence.” And it’s clear if you read this article that Covid-19 is an offensive biological warfare weapon with gain of function properties. It also according to Montagnier and the Indian Scientists has HIV DNA genetically engineered into it. It has also been aerosolized by means of nanotechnology. The Wuhan BSL4 bragged that they had been able to apply nanotechnology to viruses.

So my argument here then is that everyone involved in this contract can be prosecuted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Why? I was originally hired here to teach Criminal Law to law students, future lawyers, and I taught it for seven or eight years before I moved over into teaching International Human Rights Law. But I still do criminal cases both for the defense and the prosecution on matters of principle.

Murder has a definition at Anglo-American common law that would apply to all states of the Union except as you know Louisiana that has a civil law system. I haven’t studied their civil law system. But every other state in the Union has a common law definition of murder. What is murder? It’s the unlawful killing of human beings with malice aforethought. Alright, let’s go through the elements with respect to the pandemic.

Unlawful. Okay, everyone involved in this project at the UNC BSL3 manufacturing Covid were acting in violation of my BWATA of 1989 that was passed unanimously by both Houses of the United States Congress and signed into law by President George Bush Sr. with the approval of the United States Department of Justice. So who was involved?

Menachery, University of North Carolina. There were several others involved here from the University of North Carolina, including Ralph Baric.

The National Center for Toxicological Research, Food and Drug Administration, they mention this fellow’s name. Think about that for a second. The FDA was involved in the development of an offensive biological warfare weapon with gain of function properties, using synthetic biology and, we will see, working with Fort Detrick and the Chinese Bat Queen from the Wuhan BSL4 which was also China’s first Fort Detrick. That’s why you can’t believe anything the FDA is telling you about the safety of any of these Frankenshots. Indeed the FDA is up to their eyeballs in offensive biological warfare Nazi death science. It’s that simple and we’ll continue from there.

Two foreign institutes, fine. I’m not going to get into those here.

The Department of Cancer Immunology and AIDS, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Department of Medicine Harvard Medical School. I’m a triple alumnus of Harvard. Notice Harvard Medical School is involved in developing an offensive biological warfare weapon with gain of function properties that has HIV DNA genetically engineered right into it and working with Fort Detrick and the Chinese Bat Queen from the Wuhan BSL4, China’s Fort Detrick. That’s also clear from this article.

Imagine that. Harvard working with Fort Detrick. As a matter of fact, Harvard is also a sponsoring institution for the Wuhan BSL4 which is China’s Fort Detrick. And the chair of the Harvard chemistry department, Lieber, worked on applying nanotechnology with Fort Detrick. And Lieber was also over at Wuhan working with Chinese scientists working on applying nanotechnology to biology and also chemistry. I told you the Wuhan BSL4 bragged that they had applied nanotechnology to viruses. Why do you apply nanotechnology? To aerosolize it. That’s why. For aerial delivery to human beings so we breathe it in. Reports are that from scientists at MIT Covid-19 can travel up to 28 feet, and at Cornell, 21 feet. And that’s thanks to nanotechnology.

The next person on this contract, the Chinese Bat Queen, Zhengli-Li Shi. The infamous Chinese Bat Queen and a Director there at the Wuhan BSL4. One of the founders of the Chinese Fort Detrick is over there working at the University of North Carolina to develop Covid-19.

And then of course Fort Detrick is mentioned in that article. They were involved in that UNC BSL3 too, working with the Chinese Bat Queen and everyone else there.

In addition, then, if you read to the end of this article, it is funded by the National Institutes of Health under Francis Collins. He knew all about it. You can’t believe anything Collins is telling you. He’s lying.

And also the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, that’s Tony Fauci. So of course you can’t believe anything he’s telling you either.

And by the way, the Harvard Medical School, Biden hired this Dr. Walensky, head of CDC, from the Harvard Medical School. So of course you can’t believe anything she’s telling you. And CDC has been up to its eyeballs in offensive biological warfare Nazi death science dirty work since the beginning of the Reagan Administration when Reagan and his Neocons put Tony Fauci in charge of research, development, testing, and using DNA genetic engineering and now synthetic biology to manufacture every type of hideous biological warfare weapon you can possibly imagine as well as Covid-19. So all these people should be indicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Now what’s the next stage? Killing human beings. The estimate is excess deaths here in the United States is about a million people. As for the dangers of the SARS-CoV-2, I have a book here by Professor Zubay and his graduate students at the Columbia University Biology Department that was written in 2005, long before the current controversy arose. On page 188 of Professor Zubay’s book it says: “The overall death rate of SARS patients is 14-15%.” That was SARS1. Covid is SARS 2. Covid SARS 2 is SARS1 On Steroids. So this is extremely dangerous.

Now we come to the final element of murder, malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a term of art. I have to lecture my law students for four days or so going through all the different elements of malice of forethought. But here the critical element of malice aforethought is acting with grave indifference to human life. That is an element of malice aforethought. So you can have malice aforethought with people acting with grave indifference to human life. And if you read the article here “SARS-like clusters…” they admit that they were acting with grave indifference to human life. They knew how dangerous this was, and they went about it anyway. All that has now been documented from the public record. I’ve been saying this right from the get-go of the Pandemic on January 24, 2020.

So we have all the elements there for murder by everyone I mentioned here. So I advise all of you listening to go out and get and button-hole your local prosecutor. And don’t send emails, lawyers don’t respond to emails. They respond to face-to-face contact. Say I want you to convene a grand jury, I want you to present this evidence to the grand jury, I want you to try to get the return of an indictment for murder against Menachery, Baric, the Bat Queen, Francis Collins, the Harvard Medical School person, Tony Fauci, the FDA person, the rest of them, as well as conspiracy to commit murder. I believe the evidence is there.

The last time I looked there were over 400 or so of these local prosecutors around the country. I think we can get at least one of them to get indictments for murder and conspiracy to commit murder for everyone involved here on this contract for the development and research and manufacture of this offensive biological warfare weapon known as Covid-19.

Now let me move to the Frankenshots and there’s no other word for them. I’m not going to dignify them with name of vaccines or alleged vaccines. Just like Frankenfoods are to foods, Frankenshots are to shots. And I want to make it clear I’m not part of any anti-vax movement. I go vax by vax in evaluating them.

But here on the Frankenshots, let me go through the elements there as well. Unlawful killing of a human being with malice of forethought. Unlawful killing, okay. Clear cut blatant violation of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation. That is a Nuremberg Crime under international law for which we, the United States, prosecuted, convicted, and executed some Nazi doctors. Right. That’s exactly right.

In addition the Frankenshots violate the Nuremberg Crime against Humanity. This was President Franklin Roosevelt’s idea to set up the Nuremberg Tribunal. It was our idea. And in the Charter setting up the Nuremberg Tribunal there were three crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, let me quote for you crimes against humanity. This is from the Nuremberg Charter that we signed, that was President Roosevelt’s idea: “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination… and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population…” This was put in there for the express purpose of prosecuting the Nazi persecution of the German Jews, their own citizens. And that is exactly what Biden and his henchpeople are doing to us Americans today. And this Nuremberg Crime against Humanity is in the Nuremberg Charter of 1945. It is in the Nuremberg Judgment of 1946. It is in the Nuremberg Principles of 1950. They are all generally recognized as basic customary international criminal law all over the world.

So we have unlawful killing. So now we come to the element of malice aforethought for the Frankenshots. And here two other elements of malice aforethought: intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm. So the people responsible for the Frankenshots will say, “Well, we never intended to kill anyone.” Okay. Maybe they didn’t. But they certainly intended to cause grievous bodily harm on human beings. That has been documented right from the very get-go of the administration of the Frankenshots. People are dying soon after. I don’t know the exact figures. You can look at the VAERS statistics and multiply by 100. You can look at the European Health Agency. And those who do not die are subjected to serious life threatening, lifelong disabilities. So in my opinion yes we have the malice aforethought of intention to cause grievous bodily harm for the Frankenshots.

So what I would also recommend then is a second cause of action here for people all over the country to go into their local prosecutors, states attorneys, district attorneys, county prosecutors, attorneys general, and say also : I’ve lost loved ones living in your jurisdiction to the Frankenshots. Or I’ve lost friends. I have autopsy reports, I have coroners’ reports saying this. And I want you to convene a grand jury and return an indictment for murder and conspiracy to commit murder against the people primarily behind these Frankenshots. And that would be Slaoui, the Director of Operation Warp Speed. You know: Beam me up, Scotty! And the chief executive officers and scientists at I would say Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. Those are the Frankenshots being used here in the United States. And Health and Human Services Secretaries for Trump and Biden. And we want you to return an indictment against these people from this grand jury. It could be the same grand jury as going after the people responsible for the pandemic, for a second set of indictments here for murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the Frankenshots. I think the legal theories are sound but we basically we need the American people to get organized and go out and do this.

Finally, as you know, President Biden has ordered all US military personnel to take these Frankenshots so in my concluding words here, I know I’m sort of running out of time, I am a lawyer, I try to deal with my allotted time. The military as you know had been ordered to take these Frankenshots. I helped defend Captain Doctor Yolanda Hewitt-Vaughn who refused to give the Frankenshots for Gulf War I that resulted in the Gulf War Sickness. Out of 500,000 troops inoculated–the Pentagon lies about the figures because they know they committed a Nuremberg Crime on our own troops. But out of 500,000 inoculated, 11,000 died and about 100,000 were disabled. And those I suspect are underestimates. That’s the Gulf War Sickness and that was inflicted upon our fairly healthy young men and women in our armed forces. You can extrapolate from there what is going to happen to the general population with these Frankenshots that are far more dangerous than the Gulf War I Frankenshots. Likewise, the Gulf War I Frankenshots infected healthcare workers who were treating them indicating a biological warfare agent was at work. And also family members indicating a biological warfare agent was at work. I suspect we are going to see this breaking out all over in the next two years.

So my advice to members of armed forces is that if you are given an order whether orally or in writing to take the Frankenshots, be respectful because they’ll get you for contempt of a superior officer. Don’t lose your cool. And say sir, I respectfully decline to take these Frankenshots. This is an illegal order in violation of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation that is a Nuremberg Crime under international law, and it is illegal also under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles that the United States government was responsible for at Nuremberg and we prosecuted, convicted, and executed Nazis for violating this body of law and so sir, I respectfully decline to take these Frankenshots.

Now my advice to the military at this point is with all due respect to JAG officers, I’ve worked with them, they’re fine. But JAG officers can only do so much for you, JAG lawyers, they are in the chain of command. You are going to have to go out and get civilian attorneys who can exercise and assert your rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Now you have very substantial rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and it is a well-known principle of military law that you have no obligation to obey an illegal order.

I established that in the court-martial of the very first GI resister to Gulf War I, U.S. Marine Corporal Jeff Patterson who refused to ship out to Saudi Arabia when ordered to by President Bush Sr. saying that this was just another U.S. imperialist war for oil, which it was. He was charged with failure to obey a lawful order. I went out to Kaneohe Bay for preliminary court martial proceedings. I was out there arguing for three and a half hours that this order was illegal, not authorized by law. And the judge took it under advisement and about ten days later Patterson was out of the Marine Corps. They did not want to go to trial with this posture of the case. How I did that is explained in my book Protesting Power: War, Resistance, and Law (Rowman & Littlefield Press: 2008). So my advice would be get copies of that book, line up your civilian defense lawyers– all military bases have around them former retired JAG lawyers and JAG judges or civilian lawyers, who specialize in the UCMJ.

This is very complicated to do. You can’t really do it on your own, so get yourself civilian defense counsel. But what you can do on your own in the military personnel I’m speaking to is say, sir I respectfully decline to carry out your illegal order that I take this Frankenshot in violation of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation and in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles. Thank you very much. I think I did it just on time. Thank you.

Victorian Government in Australia is lying to the Citizenry over Covid-19

by Sam Smythe
Special Correspondent

The lie that the vaccine reduces the chance of getting hospitalized from COVID-19 has been destroyed once and for all by the data given by the government in Victoria, Australia.

Victorian Health Minister Martin Foley stated yesterday in a press conference: “Of the people who were in hospital yesterday, 78% were vaccinated and 17% were partially vaccinated”. Source:

Now, to do the maths, 78% + 17% = 95% of the people in Victorian hospitals due to COVID-19 have taken the COVID-19 “vaccine”. Now, compare that to the vaccination rate of the general Victorian population, which is 63.6%. For the population >12 it is 74.4%. Source:

So, using basic mathematics, it is irrefutable that the “vaccine” does not decrease your chance of being hospitalized by COVID-19, it actually increases it by… (95-63.6)/63.6= 0.494 = …. 49.4%. Repeat: the people who have taken the vaccine have a 49.4% higher chance of being hospitalized by COVID-19. The vile media would call this a “conspiracy theory”, to the contrary it is a irrefutable fact proven by valid sources and basic mathematics.

So, having these publicly known facts, why do people still take the vaccine?

I can only make a rough estimate. 60% of the population are simply useful idiots. They believe everything the media and government tell them and don’t question a thing. These are the sheep.

Then there is a further 30% of the population, these are the most disappointing. They have the common sense to realize the media and government are lying to them, and question their lies after seeing data like this, which refutes their claims. Yet they take the vaccine out of cowardice and convenience. Either they don’t want to lose their jobs, or they want the comforts that submitting to the criminals will provide, such as concerts and travel.

These people have more to answer for than the idiots, because they know the truth yet lack the courage and conviction.

Then there is the remnant, which I estimate in New Zealand will be 5-10% of the population. They have the common sense to see the vaccines don’t work and are actually dangerous, and the courage and conviction to do what’s right and resist this global crime against humanity. This group will be on the right side of history.

I exhort readers to try and awaken the sheep with this data, and to encourage the 30% who know the truth to make the courageous choice to resist and be on the right side of history, which will ultimately serve to their glory on Judgement Day and will be well worth the material sacrifice.

Ratzinger: “Non fraintendete: ho liberato la sede, ma non ho abdicato”

Altro messaggio di papa Ratzinger: “Non fraintendete: ho liberato la sede, ma non ho abdicato”

Un nuovo significato dopo la definizione della sede impedita

di Andrea Cionci


Già diversi mesi, in marzo, fa avevamo “decrittato” interi capitoli di “Ultime conversazioni” di Peter Seewald, in cui papa Benedetto, nel 2016, con una logica sottile, ci raccontava la situazione canonica di sede impedita che avremmo cominciato a comprendere solo quattro anni dopo. Molti di quei messaggi ancora non li abbiamo pubblicati: infatti, i tempi allora non erano maturi e l’articolo passò in sordina.

Oggi, chiarita in modo consequenziale – e senza alcuna smentita, nonostante i solleciti – la questione della Declaratio, che non è una rinuncia (in quanto giuridicamente nulla), ma una dichiarazione di sede impedita QUI , quei messaggi acquisiscono un significato in più.  In uno di questi, il collega Mirko Ciminiello, di RomaIT (, ravvisa un sottotesto ancora più aggiornato e coerente rispetto a quanto avevamo già pubblicato QUI

Attenzione alle frasi in neretto, il cui significato spiegheremo di seguito.

Ecco la domanda di Peter Seewald a Papa Benedetto: “Nella sua dichiarazione cita a motivo della rinuncia il declino delle sue forze. Ma la diminuzione del vigore fisico è un motivo sufficiente per scendere dal soglio di Pietro?”. 

Benedetto XVI: “Qui si può muovere l’appunto che si tratta di un FRAINTENDIMENTO funzionalistico: il successore di Pietro infatti non è solo legato a una funzione, ma è coinvolto nell’intimo dell’essere. In tal senso la funzione non è l’unico criterio. D’altra parte, il papa deve fare anche cose concrete, deve avere sotto controllo l’intera situazione, deve saper stabilire le priorità e via di seguito. A cominciare dal ricevimento dei capi di Stato, a quello dei vescovi, con i quali deve davvero poter avviare un dialogo intimo, fino alle decisioni quotidiane. Anche quando si dice che alcuni impegni si potrebbero cancellare, ne rimangono comunque così tanti, altrettanto importanti, che se si vuole svolgere l’incarico come si deve non c’è ombra di dubbio: se non c’è più la capacità di farlo è necessario – per me almeno, un altro può vedere la cosa altrimenti – lasciare LIBERO  il soglio”.

Vediamo come è organizzato il discorso: Benedetto qui pone subito un “alt”, un appunto a Seewald che sostiene come Ratzinger sia sceso dal soglio di Pietro, ovvero abbia abdicato. Attento – lo avverte il Papa –  c’è il rischio di fraintendere secondo un “atteggiamento che tende alla valutazione e risoluzione immediata di problemi in un contesto culturale o politico” (definizione di “funzionalismo”).

Non è così semplice, dunque: il Pontefice ci ricorda come l’incarico papale sia scomposto (fin dagli anni ’80) in due enti giuridici diversi: il munus, il titolo di papa, concesso direttamente da Dio da un lato, e il ministerium l’esercizio pratico del potere dall’altro.

Ecco che infatti Ratzinger spiega: non c’è solo la FUNZIONE, l’esercizio pratico del potere, il ministerium, ma c’è anche una dimensione intima, dell’ESSERE papa: il munus. 

Infatti, subito dopo, spiega ancora meglio, quasi per farlo capire a un bambino, in cosa consista il ministerium: “ricevere i capi di stato, i vescovi, prendere decisioni, gli impegni vari” etc.

E così afferma che se il papa non ha più la capacità di SVOLGERE l’incarico in modo completo, ovvero di esercitare il suo ministerium, così come dovrebbe, ecco che il papa deve lasciare LIBERO il soglio. Attenzione: non deve abdicare, non deve SCENDERE dal soglio, come ventilava Seewald nella domande, ma solo lasciarlo libero, sgombro vuoto.

Torna di gran carriera, infatti, come ha notato ieri il collega Mirko Ciminiello, l’ultima interpretazione del verbo latino “vacet”, della Declaratio, traducibile (secondo affermati latinisti)  con  lasciare la sede LIBERA, e non vacante, come invece tradotto dal Vaticano.  QUI ( i dettagli della questione.

In sintesi, Papa Ratzinger non poteva più esercitare il suo potere pratico, perché, come abbiamo già dimostrato coi fatti, non gli obbediva più nessuno e addirittura trafugavano la sua posta (Vatileaks). Questo, a norma del canone 412, gli dava tutta la possibilità di dichiarare SEDE IMPEDITA. Quindi la Declaratio non è MAI STATA UNA RINUNCIA AL PAPATO, così come viene interpretata da otto anni. C’è stato un gigantesco EQUIVOCO, lasciato perdurare perché faceva comodo a molti.

Ratzinger ha SOLO MOLLATO FISICAMENTE la sede,  impossibilitato a governare: così ha preso l’elicottero e il 28 febbraio ha lasciato la sede libera, vuota, sgombra – non VACANTE in senso giuridico – perché la Declaratio è completamente NULLA come rinuncia, nonostante i modernisti abbiano cercato di mascherare la fondamentale dicotomia munus/ministerium con l’unica parola “ministero” e abbiano tradotto il verbo “vacet” come SEDE VACANTE. Controllate voi stessi QUI

E infatti cosa aggiunge ancora Benedetto nella sua risposta? “PER ME ALMENO, E’ COSI’, UN ALTRO PUÒ VEDERE LA COSA ALTRIMENTI”. 

E infatti ALTRI l’hanno vista ALTRIMENTI: i modernisti suoi nemici, membri della Mafia di San Gallo, che come dimostrato dalla biografia del card. Danneels volevano a tutti i costi che lui abdicasse (per far posto al loro campione Bergoglio QUI ( ) e che hanno manipolato le traduzioni della Declaratio. Loro  l’hanno VOLUTA VEDERE come una ABDICAZIONE mentre non lo era affatto.

UN COLOSSALE EQUIVOCO CHE DURA DA OTTO ANNI e protegge Bergoglio, definito canonicamente dai giuristi Acosta e Sànchez un antipapa tout court, che adesso sta cercando di sanare a posteriori un inesistente istituto di papa emerito QUI .

Ora, per chi si fosse perso le puntate precedenti, leggete perché la Declaratio NON è una rinuncia QUI  e piuttosto, perché tutti i conti tornano nel leggerla come annuncio di SEDE IMPEDITA : QUI

Domanda: c’è qualcuno che magari ha GIURATO fedeltà al Papa e pensa di approfondire la questione e/o, magari, di fare qualcosa?

+ + +


Another message from Pope Ratzinger: “Do not misunderstand: I have vacated the See, but I have not abdicated.”

A new meaning after the determination of an impeded See

by Andrea Cionci

Several months ago, in March, we had already “decrypted” entire chapters of Peter Seewald’s “Last Conversations,” in which Pope Benedict, in 2016, with subtle logic, told us about the canonical situation of the impeded See that we would begin to understand only four years later. Many of those messages we still haven’t published: in fact, the time was not ripe then and the article passed into obscurity.

Today, having clarified in a consequential way – and without any denial, despite the reminders – the issue of the Declaratio, which is not a renunciation (as it is legally void), but a declaration of impeded seat HERE , those messages acquire an additional meaning. In one of them, our colleague Mirko Ciminiello, of RomaIT (, sees a subtext even more updated and consistent with what we had already published HERE

Pay attention to the sentences in bold, whose meaning we will explain below.

Here is Peter Seewald’s question to Pope Benedict: “In your statement you cite the decline in your strength as the reason for the renunciation. But is declining physical vigor a sufficient reason for stepping down from the throne of Peter?”

Benedict XVI: “Here the point can be made that we are dealing with a functionalist (misunderstanding): the successor of Peter in fact is not only linked to a function, but is involved in the depths of being. In this sense, function is not the only criterion. On the other hand, the pope must also do concrete things, he must have the whole situation under control, he must know how to establish priorities and so on. Beginning with the reception of heads of state, to that of the bishops, with whom he must really be able to engage in an intimate dialogue, to the daily decisions. Even when it is said that some commitments could be cancelled, there are still so many, just as important, that if one wants to carry out the task as one should, there is no shadow of a doubt: if there is no longer the ability to do so, it is necessary – for me at least, someone else may see it otherwise – to leave the throne FREE”.

Let’s see how the speech is organized: Benedict here immediately places a “halt”, a note to Seewald who claims that Ratzinger has stepped down from the throne of Peter, that is, he has abdicated. Beware – the Pope warns him – there is a risk of misunderstanding according to an “attitude that tends to the immediate evaluation and resolution of problems in a cultural or political context” (definition of “functionalism”).

It is not so simple, then: the Pontiff reminds us how the papal office is broken down (since the 1980s) into two different juridical entities: the munus, the title of pope, granted directly by God on the one hand, and the ministerium, the practical exercise of power on the other.

Here, in fact, Ratzinger explains: there is not only the FUNCTION, the practical exercise of power, the ministerium, but there is also an intimate dimension of being pope: the munus.

In fact, immediately afterwards, he explains even better, almost as if to make a child understand it, what the ministerium consists of: “receiving heads of state, bishops, making decisions, various commitments” etc.

And so he affirms that if the pope no longer has the ability to carry out his duties in a complete way, that is, to exercise his ministerium as he should, the pope must leave the throne FREE. Attention: he does not have to abdicate, he does not have to EXIT from the throne, as Seewald said in the question, but only leave it free, empty.

In fact, as our colleague Mirko Ciminiello noted yesterday, the latest interpretation of the Latin verb “vacet”, of the Declaratio, translatable (according to established Latinists) as leaving the See FREE, and not vacant, as translated by the Vatican. HERE ( the details of the matter.

In summary, Pope Ratzinger could no longer exercise his practical power, because, as we have already demonstrated with facts, no one obeyed him anymore and even his mail was stolen (Vatileaks). This, according to canon 412, gave him every opportunity to declare AN IMPEDED SEE. So the Declaratio was NEVER A RENUNCIATION TO THE PAPACY, as it has been interpreted for the past eight years. There has been a gigantic EQUIVOCATION, allowed to continue because it suited many.

Ratzinger has ONLY PHYSICALLY UNOCCUPIED the See, unable to rule: so he took the helicopter and on February 28 left the See free, empty, vacant – not VACANT in the juridical sense – because the Declaratio is completely NULL as a renunciation, despite the fact that modernists have tried to mask the fundamental dichotomy munus/ministerium with the one word “ministry” and have translated the verb “vacet” as VACANT SEAT. Check it out for yourself HERE

And in fact what does Benedict add again in his response? “FOR ME AT LEAST, IT IS SO, ANOTHER MAY SEE IT OTHERWISE”.

And in fact OTHER people saw it OTHERWISE: the modernists who were his enemies, members of the St. Gallen Mafia, who as the biography of Card. Danneels wanted him to abdicate at all costs (to make room for their champion Bergoglio HERE and who manipulated the translations of Declaratio. They WANTED to see it as an ABDICATION when it was not an ABDICATION at all.

A COLOSSAL EQUIVOCATION THAT HAS BEEN going on for EIGHT YEARS and protects Bergoglio, defined canonically by jurists Acosta and Sanchez as an anti-pope tout court, who is now trying to heal a non-existent institution of pope emeritus HERE .

Now, for those who have missed the previous episodes, read why the Declaratio is NOT a renunciation HERE and rather, why all accounts add up in reading it as an announcement of SEDE IMPEDITA : HERE

Question: is there anyone out there who perhaps has SWORN allegiance to the Pope and is thinking of looking into this further and/or perhaps doing something about it?

From Atheist to Catholic: the miraculous journey of a soul

“The Conversion of a soul is a greater work of grace than the raising of the physical dead to physical life”
(Paraphrase of St. Thomas Aquinas)

by Sandra Elam

For 30 years, I was an atheist. I thought Christians were fanatical extremists. My soul was so dark, I couldn’t understand why some people objected to abortion and euthanasia. I had never heard of the Culture of Death, although I was drowning in it. I have only one childhood memory of attending church. When I was a child of seven, my sister Linda and I held my mother’s hand and walked into an Episcopal Church in  Mississippi. I don’t remember what the church looked like or anything about the service, because I was too busy admiring my shiny, black shoes. Soon afterward, I overheard my mother and father arguing about God. My father said, “I forbid you to take the kids to church anymore.” My mother said, “They need to learn about God.” “There is no God,” he said. Mother said, “Yes, there is a God.” “There is no God,” my father shouted, “And if you take the kids to church, I will teach them to be atheists.” From that moment on, there was no talk of God in our home. We did not go to church. We never prayed. Christmas was about Santa, not Jesus. I barely knew the story of the Christ child. The only time I ever looked at a children’s Bible was in the waiting room of my doctor’s office. As a child, I sometimes prayed to “Dear God or Jesus or whoever you are.” But soon I stopped this practice, no longer believing a Creator existed.

The closed door of my soul

For thirty years, I did not attend church, except for a short time as a teenager, when I sang in a Presbyterian choir. Singing about the “good news” of Christ’s birth, the words were hollow and meaningless to me. Church was boring and the rituals empty. When my high-school friend Kathy, an Irish Catholic, railed about the evils of abortion, I was clueless. I truly believed a person did not become human until the moment of birth. I remember saying, “It wouldn’t have mattered if I had been aborted, because my soul would have jumped into another body.” A vague belief in reincarnation hovered at the edges of my darkened mind. Because I love history, I majored in ancient Greek, Roman, and medieval history in college. One day, I asked my Jewish professor of Roman history, “Did Jesus really live or was He a myth?” He answered, “Yes, Jesus really lived; there’s no doubt about it. Why don’t you read the Gospel of Matthew?” I did, but the Word of God fell on the closed door of my soul. Another Jewish professor instructed me well in medieval history, otherwise known as the history of the Catholic Church. The historical significance of the Catholic Church as the original Christian church impressed me deeply. I once remarked, “Well, if I ever were to become a Christian, I probably would become Catholic.” After graduating, my dabbling into the history of Christianity ceased. I became antagonistic to Christianity, refusing to let my Catholic husband hang a crucifix on our wall. I felt disdain for those who believed in God. I grew up to be a bitter, angry woman, always quick to judge others.

The door opens a crack

My journey towards Christianity took two years, beginning in November 1995. It started, oddly enough, when I heard Charles Sykes, author of Dumbing Down Our Kids, explain why many kids can’t read or spell. He recommended reading Why Johnny Can’t Read by Rudolph Flesch. Until reading this book, it never entered my mind that some people guess at new words and don’t know how to sound them out. Now I learned that most American public schools stopped teaching phonics (the 44 sounds in the English language and the 70 common ways to spell those sounds) back in the 1920’s and that millions of kids have been taught to memorize whole words rather than sound them out. Determined that my children would be good readers, I began teaching phonics to Rebecca, then five, and Kevin, then three. Sure enough, within six weeks, they were reading. Now I was convinced of one truth—that phonics knowledge is essential to reading—and slowly, my mind opened to the possibility that there might be other “truths” out there. I met many Christians in the education reform movement. Most of their words of faith fell on deaf ears. But a few words slipped through my defenses, especially those of Bob Sweet, founder of The National Right to Read Foundation, a pro-phonics organization. First through his actions and later with words, Bob planted the seeds of faith in me. The first big step in my Christian walk came when my husband Tom and I enrolled our children in a phonics-based school in September 1996. The only phonics-based school we could afford was a Protestant Christian school. We were both worried our kids might become “religious fanatics,” so I carefully studied the Christian curriculum used at the school and was relieved to discover the textbooks were factual and rigorous. The decision to enroll Rebecca and Kevin in a Christian school was significant, because as they learned about the Bible, so did I. My sister Pamela, a Christian for seven years, gave them an illustrated Beginner’s Bible, which I read cover to cover. I’m embarrassed to say most of the stories were new to me. My sister also gave me the classic Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, which was the book that convinced me that God exists. For many months in 1997, I felt pulled towards church but I resisted. My husband and children were already attending Catholic Church each Sunday, but I stayed home. I liked sleeping late on Sunday mornings. And I did not like church, so I thought. On Sunday, October 6th, 1997, I stopped vacillating. At the time, our children attended a Protestant Christian school, so I decided to try the evangelical Protestant church attached to the school. For the first time in my life, I felt something spiritual and uplifting while in church. The pastor’s powerful sermons and music inspired me.

The door flung wide

I started reading the Bible as a historical document. As a student of ancient and medieval history, I felt the story presented in the four Gospels was compelling. What a revelation for me to read the Gospel of John, especially when Jesus says to Doubting Thomas: “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me. If you had known me, you would know my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him” (John 14:6). As soon as I read these words, I wrote them down and memorized them. Now I saw the Bible is not just a historical document, but also the word of God. After reading the rest of the Gospel of John, I said to myself, “Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” But thirty years of atheism were hard to shake off. I was beginning to know God through the study of the Bible, but I did not love him and I certainly did not serve him. I was clinging to a ledge, afraid to let go. I wanted to surrender to God and His will, but I didn’t know how. I needed faith; I had heard the word, but I had never experienced it. One night, after hours of Bible study with my sister Pamela, I lay in the dark and prayed for the first time in thirty years, “Lord, send me faith. I want to believe in you.” I opened the door and God poured faith into my yearning heart. As Jesus promises us, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me” (Revelation 3:20). Faith was God’s merciful gift to me. Without faith, how could I believe in things not seen? For about six months, I attended the Protestant church attached to my children’s school. One Sunday, as I sat in Bible study class, my teacher began disparaging the use of commentaries, claiming the Holy Spirit reveals the true meaning of each Bible passage to each individual. I said, “Each person says the Holy Spirit tells him what a particular passage means, yet each interpretation is different. Who is right? They can’t all be right, since the Holy Spirit is God and God cannot contradict himself. Certainly in 2000 years of Christianity, others have already correctly interpreted the Bible. Why don’t we look at what St. Augustine has to say?” My teacher responded, “St. Augustine is a little too Catholic for me.” These words revealed the anti-Catholic, anti-historical bias pervading his thinking. He thought he could discover some truth about the Christian faith that others had not already discovered centuries ago. I knew I was no match for the magnificent theologians—St. Augustine and so many others—who had spent 2000 years refining the Christian faith.

On this rock

A Catholic friend, Janet, loaned me the book, Surprised by Truth, edited by Patrick Madrid, which describes the conversion stories of many who asked the same question as I: Who has the authority to interpret the Bible? The answer came in the words of Jesus as He gives His disciple Simon a new name: “And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of Death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18 – 16:19). The new name Jesus chose for Simon means “Rock.” The word “Rock” is “Cephas” in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. When the New Testament was written, “Cephas” was translated into Greek as “Petros,” which was later translated into English as “Peter.” So what Jesus said to Simon is, “I tell you that you are Rock and on this rock, I will build my church….” Jesus here is speaking about one church, not many churches. In ancient times, a king handed keys to his prime minister to show he was giving authority to that minister over all others. When Jesus handed the keys to Peter, He gave authority to Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, over all other Christians. When Jesus gave Peter the power to “bind and loose,” He gave Peter the authority to make binding decisions. Only one church has existed since Jesus spoke those prophetic words to Peter in the Gospel of Matthew: the Catholic (which means “universal”) Christian Church, with the Bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope, at its head. All other Christian denominations are splinters of the original Catholic Church, or are splinters of splinters. None of these denominations recognize the Bishop of Rome as its head. Once I realized Jesus made Peter (and his successors) the earthly head of His Church, I said to my husband, “I may have to become Catholic.” I immersed myself in Catholic apologetics and theology. I listened to Scott Hahn’s tape series, Our Father’s Plan; listened to Father John Corapi’s catechism series, The Teaching of Jesus Christ; and read Karl Keating’s book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism. On Easter day 1998, we attended Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. During the processional, tears came to my eyes as I watched the priest swing the censer, for I remembered our prayers are like incense wafting up to Heaven. As we sang the glorious hymn Jesus Christ is Risen Today, love for God filled my heart until it hurt. For the first time, I understood what was happening during Mass. The Mass is not just a Protestant service with priests; the Mass is the hour during which Jesus Christ becomes present on the holy altar—body, blood, soul, and divinity—under the appearance of bread and wine.

I was blind, but now I see

Each morning I opened my eyes, saying to myself, “This is the day that the Lord has made, let me rejoice and be glad in it.” Through study, I was beginning to know God; through the Mass, I was beginning to love God. Now I wanted to serve God by keeping His commandments. As the scales fell from St. Paul’s eyes, so the scales fell from my eyes. I saw how corrupt my life was in the light of the 10 Commandments. I began a massive purge of music, videos, TV shows, and books that glorified stealing, lying, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, masturbation, secular humanism, and atheism. I enjoyed throwing away offensive items, especially music by the rock singer Madonna, whose song Like a Virgin is one of the most offensive ever recorded. In the seemingly innocuous Disney video Aladdin, I noticed the hero is an unrepentant thief who lies; the heroine Jasmine is a rebellious teenager who disobeys her father and runs away. In the subversive Disney video Hercules, the heroine Megara works for Hades, the Greek god of the underworld, lying and tricking Hercules repeatedly. Why had I ever exposed my dear children to these twisted messages? The immorality of most TV shows hit me like a sledgehammer. I stopped watching Seinfeld not long after viewing the notorious episode that revolved around which character could go longest without masturbating. I noticed other TV shows slyly using humor to desensitize viewers to the immorality of homosexuality. Nature shows I used to enjoy now assaulted me with blatant humanist messages: humans evolved from sea slime without the need for a Creator; humans have no right to intrude into the pristine world of animals. I set my TV to Mother Angelica’s EWTN Global Catholic Network in 1998 and generally stopped watching secular TV. Any book I would not want a nine-year-old to read had to go. That included most modern romances, science fiction, and detective novels. But surprisingly, it also included a well-known set of history books by historian Will Durant. A friend had warned me Will Durant was an atheist; this became obvious when I read the chapter on the life of Jesus Christ in his book Caesar and Christ. Yet even an atheist like Will Durant observed that no event has had a greater effect on millions of people than the life of Jesus Christ. I vowed not to read history written by atheists. I saw history as His story for the first time.

Faith precedes understanding

After purging my possessions, I turned to the much harder job of purging my attitudes and habits. My sister Pamela loaned me a pro-life video showing babies in the womb—alive, kicking, and sucking their thumbs. When the tattered remains of an aborted baby flashed across the screen, I knew abortion was murder. But I still wondered why women who are raped or who are victims of incest must bear children conceived in those circumstances. But God spoke through the Catholic Church and taught me that no child may be aborted, whether conceived by force or not. After I accepted that life begins at conception, it followed that each soul belongs to only one body; hence, there can be no reincarnation. The moral teaching I found hardest to accept was the prohibition against contraception. I read the Bible passage describing the sin of Onan, who spilled his seed on the ground rather than risk impregnating Tamar. God punished Onan with death. I was surprised to discover that before 1930, all Christian denominations universally understood this passage to condemn all forms of contraception, from withdrawal to barrier methods such as condoms. In 1930, at the Lambeth conference in England, the Anglican church was the first denomination to allow contraception within marriage. In the decades to follow, every other mainstream denomination followed suit—all except the Catholic Church. I found myself wondering why the Catholic Church alone stood firm against birth control. What could be wrong with it? Then my husband Tom loaned me the Feminism and Femininity tape series by Catholic writer and professor Alice von Hildebrand. For the first time, I heard a powerful argument against birth control and discovered Pope Paul VI had prophesied in Humanae Vitae that birth control would lead to widespread sexual immorality, the acceptance of abortion, and the decay of the family. Realizing what could happen if we accepted this teaching, I said to my husband, “I don’t want twelve children.” I was completely closed to life—I didn’t want even one more child (two were enough, I thought). I was afraid and didn’t understand why birth control was wrong, yet I wanted to submit to God’s will. Faith precedes understanding, as the saying goes. At age 37, I stopped using birth control in July 1998. Grateful that God did not convert me in my 20’s, I calculated that six was the maximum number of children I might end up with (assuming the “worst-case scenario” of having a baby every other year until I was too old). The months passed, however, and I did not become pregnant. As my youngest child began school, I began to yearn for another baby or two or three. I felt the irony of the situation, since God was not giving me what I now wanted.

God is not a she

Excited about becoming a Catholic Christian, I enrolled in catechism classes at our parish in 1998. The first day of class, I got a shock when the Religious Education director said we can refer to God as she and the Church as he. “But,” I said, “Jesus told us to pray to our Father, so we should refer to God as he. Since Jesus is a man and the Church is the bride of Christ, the Church should be referred to as she.” The Religious Education director reprimanded me for being intolerant. I soon discovered many in the Catholic Church, including catechists and priests, don’t know the core teachings or they don’t believe them. I was desperate for traditional Catholic teaching, but I didn’t know where to turn. In June 1998, Dick, a member of St. Catherine’s Parish in Virginia, invited my family to a Latin Mass. As the priest chanted the prayers, I felt connected in a powerful way to the ancient Catholic Church, to the Mass of twenty centuries. After attending services at St. Catherine’s for a month, we asked for and received permission to switch to that parish. I continued instruction at St. Catherine’s under the guidance of Father X and Father Y, priests who teach the truth of Roman Catholicism. After two years of studying early Church history and the Bible, I was convinced that the Roman Catholic Church contains the full truth of Christianity and that Jesus Christ gave authority to Peter as the first Bishop of Rome. On the vigil of Easter, April 3, 1999, I was joyously received into the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

Dr. Massimo Tessarotto: Pope Benedict XVI’s “resignation” was a sacred mission from God

By Dr. Massimo Tessarotto

Department of Mathematics and Geosciences
University of Trieste

Authorized English Translation

For original Italian, click here

After the suggestion of theories one after another as the motive for his resignation (an example being the so-called “message in a bottle” (1)), in turn related to a host of more o less plausible hypotheses, can  a final word about the resignation of Benedict XVI be given? — In other words can one advance, finally, a reasonable and plausible explanation for such a mess of conjectures which also reconciles with the notion of “pope emeritus“? (and perhaps not to be dismissed the coming day by Benedict XVI himself!)

I believe that, thinking hard about all the circumstances and detailed accounts of the events which are related to his retirement (2), one should really be able to unveil Benedict’s root motivations and actual reasons. Namely, besides the quite peculiar, if not bizarre, way he conceived and realized it (i.e., with his famous Declaratio, ridden by apparent, but perhaps only apparent, grammatical mistakes), what is of foremost importance: namely to finally uncover his deep personal motivations, reasons, method and goals. This is what we all would like to learn and understand, irrespective of the role of the heretic black cardinal who without any legitimacy sits in Saint Peter’s chair.

I do believe that it is so!

We need [to ask] the help of the Holy Ghost to reach an answer: it is Benedict XVI who offered himself to Jesus Christ as a victim of the Church! This is what Jesus himself has asked us to do! (3). No marvel then that Benedict XVI, certainly well aware of the revelation, decided to take the lead himself, i.e., electing to be the Pope victim of his Church, and paving the way for all the faithful ones!

Isn’t it deeply moving? We have to thank Jesus, the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary for such a beautiful inspiration! This must be the reason of his apparent resignation! Merely apparent anyhow! Because, thanks to his foresight and especially due to the Divine Providence who inspired him, he has not renounced at all to his “Munus” but only to the “Ministerium“. The reason seems clear: only keeping the Munus, and hence remaining the Vicar of Jesus Christ, his sacrifice as victim, is really perfect. It is not a cunning move (I would not use the word), but a wise and carefully studied choice inspired by God himself (the Kyrios) also to comply with the profecies.

In fact, he knew perfectly that – according to Saint Malachy prophecy (4) – he would be the “Gloria Olivae“, namely the last pope to be regularly elected by the cardinals and who “In persecutione extrema S.R.E. [Sancta Romana Ecclesia] sedebit“, namely chaired the chair of Saint Peter in a status of extreme persecution! And he is undoubtedly the one!

Latin original of prophecy attributed to St. Malachy

And beware!, his sacrifice, consists in devoting himself to the continuous prayer as a pope! Indeed that’s what he himself declared he wished to devote himself as Pope “emeritus”! Again the continuous prayer is the preferred atonement asked specifically by Jesus Christ in person to all his most devoted ordered people (5), of which the Pope is of course the #1 candidate!

All of us, together with all the faithful ones, can join him in his prayer, while listening to the Holy Spirit! It is an inexpressible but very clear emotion! We have to thank Him immediately, together with Jesus Christ, God Father Omnipotent and the Immaculate Virgin Mary. Benedict XVI is fighting with the full strength of his prayer against the sins and the evil of the Church!




(3) See the personal revelation of Jesus Christ to Maria Valtorta dated June 16, 1943 also discussed in: “COME SI FA AD OFFRIRSI (ED ESSERE) VITTIME COME CI CHIEDE GESU’ CRISTO?”

(4) “In persecutione extrema S.R.E. [Scancta Romana Ecclesia] sedebit.”, see FB post: NUOVA SENSAZIONALE INTERPRETAZIONE DELLA PROFEZIA DI SAN MALACHIA”
by Max Tex 15 settembre 2020

(5) The continuous prayer and fast (the “espiation”, namely the atonement) is what Jesus Christ asks his most devoted priests. See revelations to Sr. Maria Natalia Magdolna in “Rivelazioni profetiche di Suor Maria Natalia Magdolna mistica del XX secolo“, pag.83, Sugarco Edizioni, Milano 2019t

As Catholics we should not be sitting around, we should be mounting our horses!

The Big Picture

by Mary Margaret McFarland*

Over and over again the phrase is repeated, “I just don’t understand” or “I am sure there must be a big picture, but I can’t imagine what it could be”. These phrases are of course in reference to all of the mayhem going on in the world. Take your pick…COVID-19, the COVID vaccine, the lockdowns and restrictions world-wide, the Global Elites promoting The Great Reset, the endless climate hysteria (global warming, global cooling, climate change), mass uncontrolled and unlimited migration, and even the increasing unrest and outright wars popping up around the globe.

We are “smart” society.

Any question you have can be answered in seconds by the phone/ computer in your pocket. We have access to endless amounts of data….or do we? We certainly have access to data that the Big Tech moguls want us to have. We have easy access to scientific data that is in accord with the doctrines of Global Climate Change, definitions of male and female sexuality and of course what defines COVID infection, where it came from and how the only true resolution will come from an mRNA “vaccine”…and its subsequent boosters. Could there be a big picture?Why have so many, for so long refused to figure it out?
Maybe we all just need a break! So let’s leave reality for a second….

Sit in a quiet theater (go ahead, imagine it a couple of years ago, so current fears leave your mind)…

The latest AVENGER’S flick is about to air. It is full of great characters, good acting, superb CGI, good tunes and a real escape. Woven into the story is the eternal struggle of good versus evil. We accept the premise. Generally, we root for the good and against the evil. The evil emanates from one character who has many henchmen (some willing, some not). The struggle is one of life and death. It is not hard to follow. It is intuitive…even when the actual evil character is not truly seen for several installments of the franchise. Come to think of it, the AVENGERS themselves are all flawed, but overcome flaws to do good. Ever stop and wonder where the good inside these characters came from? Ever wonder what Ultimate Good Thanos is railing against? Or why he rails against it?

Or, Remember the Harry Potter franchise?

It took the world by storm! Voldemort’s evil was woven into every episode. It was clear that good was going to have to ultimately confront evil. It was flatly stated that evil does not understand love. It was obvious that all evil desired was the destruction of family, of friendship, of truth and of love. (But from whence did truth, love, family and friendship come? Think about it, JK Rowling never said.)

The evil wizards were clearly miserable, hating everyone around them and only relishing the pain and misery they could cause others.

The battle lines were very clear. As much as the good wizards tried to just keep moving forward with their lives and schooling, the evil wizards kept pushing harder, hurting more people and making the world a darker, bleaker place.

Ultimately, a final showdown was required because evil will not stop. Good must stand in the light and stand for truth and love. When it does, although it suffers losses, it emerges victorious.

So, in the movies, we are able to acknowledge the life and death battle of good versus evil. We see that Evil has a definite but obscure source as well as many helpers and facilitators who insidiously and unrelentingly attack from countless directions seeking the annihilation of all. We do not doubt the existence and presence of Evil.

But what about the good? What about Ultimate Good? In the movies, Good (or God) is not mentioned or acknowledged (you might almost think It didn’t exist). In real life, the same phenomenon has occurred over the last 50-100 years. God has been marched out of the public square and silenced. It is acceptable (and in vogue) to have statues and temples to Satan, but forbidden to have any public display to or about God (think 10 Commandments, Nativity scenes, prayer in schools, etc). Do NOT think this is unintentional.

Come back to reality…It is June, 2021.

We have lived through a horrendous year and a half. We have been locked down, masked, contact traced, quarantined, social distanced, and torn apart from family, friends, work and life. Now we are being bullied and harassed to get a WarpSpeed “vaccine” that Big Pharma, the Media, the Tech giants and governments all over the world say is “Safe and Effective”.

However, countless stories of people dying or being seriously injured are being reported to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System). (There have been more vaccine deaths reported to VAERS from December 2020 through April 2021 than in the 13 years prior!!) We have been told for the last 6 months that even if vaccinated, we would still need to be masked and social distance. (Which made no sense.). Now the powers that be tell us that we can unmask only if we are fully vaccinated. But they are also talking about booster shots… In the US, they are threatening (“looking seriously at”) vaccine passports. Many other countries around the world have already implemented vaccine passports. Many countries are still locked down or locking back down (Australia, Canada). No one can come or go for work or pleasure. Policies are becoming more draconian by the month.

Why can we recognize evil on the silver screen and not acknowledge it when it is right in front of us every day in real life?

Populations locked in their own homes and told they could not come out into the sunshine.

People told they needed to wear a mask even when by themselves or when outside. Making human beings into unwitting experimental subjects.

Telling people sick with Covid to “go home until you can’t breathe”.

Telling people there is no approved or safe early treatment for covid.

Telling the vaccine injured that the terrible debilitating reaction that occurred right after their vaccine was just a coincidence.

Why are they implementing all these inhuman, unscientific and cruel tactics?

If it was for our “good”, there would be no reason to de-platform people raising concerns. Instead, a rational, clear explanation could be given and a dialogue could occur. Coercion should not be needed, warranted, tolerated or even considered. Alas, it is the order of the day.

The science according to Fauci and the WHO would not continually change. Scientific and medical truth and facts have never before swung 180 degrees (repeatedly)! There is clearly a deeper agenda which MUST now be assumed to be nefarious. We are not the conspiracy theorists…we have uncovered their conspiracy!

While we may not be able to see the ultimate source from whence these orders come, their goal is certainly human subjugation and even human depopulation (a.k.a. Genocide). The “powers that be” are working together against all of humanity.

Who are some of the players?

the government (all levels, around the world)
the CDC, NIH and FDA
the WHO
the World Economic Forum
All corporate media
Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation
Anthony Faucci
many churches (including -shamefully- the majority of the hierarchy of the Catholic church)

Bill Gates himself said in a TED talk that if the vaccine rollout was effective, there would be a 10-15 percent drop in the population!!!

Jane Goodall (who recently spoke at the Vatican’s “Healthcare summit entitled “Exploring Mind, Body and Soul”) states the ideal population of the world should be 500 million (it is currently > 7.5 billion).

Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum has said after the Great Reset, that we will own nothing and like it. (Please notice, he did not say that HE would own nothing!)

They are all members of an evil cabal. They serve Satan. They do not know not how to love (and their actions show they hate all of “us” who are not part of their cabal). They, like Satan, have said “I will not serve” (God). They only know how to destroy. The demons want us all miserable and ultimately in Hell. Their current destruction plan includes killing you via “vaccine”, or driving you to despair and suicide.

Satan and his minions are in a massive, multi-level, worldwide campaign whose goal is to steal souls from God.

From the God that created you in His image and likeness.
Who formed you in your mother’s womb.
Who knows how many hairs are on your head.
Who loves you infinitely and wants nothing more than for you to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world and in the next.
But the thing is, He will never force you to love Him.
He did show you how much He loves you, though.
He came down from heaven and became a man like us in all things but sin. He allowed Himself to be tortured and then crucified. He gave every last drop of His Most Precious Blood in atonement for our sins – even the ones we are committing today.
He rose on the third day. He opened the Gates of Heaven. He founded His Church to help people know The Way. He promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it. But He told us to keep His Commandments and take up His yoke and follow Him.
He also said He would return. And He promised to sort the wheat from the chaff… He told us to be faithful, to be prepared and to watch for signs. There have been many signs…

Solar eclipses, celestial phenomenon which have been biblically prophesied, increasing numbers of earthquakes, and sudden volcanic eruptions from volcanoes which have not erupted in centuries.

Other signs/warnings come in the form of lying malicious statements made by supposedly “authoritative sources”. In scientific quarters, we see 180 degree shifting declarations of scientific “facts” and squashing of previously “unchanging” truths.

In the Catholic Church we have seen authorities with the audacity to claim authority to change the words and teachings of Jesus Christ!

The current occupant of the Bishopric of Rome has changed the words of the Our Father, has claimed that Jesus was in favor of homosexuality and divorce, and has stated that all can be saved – even people who are not even Christians! These are attacks against the BEDROCK foundational beliefs of Christianity and the Catholic Church.

So the world is coming apart at the seams and almost everyone has just been sitting back and watching it happen! Nature is crying out against the Evil. Truths from time immemorial are being shredded. Evil is about to destroy a huge swath of humanity and for many it’s almost as if they are watching a movie….and not about to fall off the cliff in real life!!!

So what to do? If there is a Big Picture, how are we to proceed?

Perhaps one more story(made many times into movies), that of The Maid of Orleans. There was another very desperate time almost 600 years ago…Evil was rampant, war and pestilence were ongoing, people were disheartened, and God seemed far away. Joan of Arc was a 16 year old uneducated Catholic girl from a backwater in France. She was the spark that re-animated the dispirited citizens and armies of France whom she led (as a General!) to win many battles during the One Hundred Years War.

She was simply fearless.

She was completely faithful to God.

For her faithfulness and fearlessness, she was convicted of heresy and threatened with death by a traitorous (but legitimate) Catholic Bishop and a group of corrupt judges. Nevertheless, Joan of Arc did not waiver. Because she would not waiver, she was turned over to secular authorities and burned at the stake. Today she is recognized as a Saint for her heroic fortitude and her unparalleled courage.

She has been one of my continual inspirations over the years and I believe she should be an inspiration to all of us against this worldwide cabal that wants us dead and deprived of God’s love and friendship.

The following are some of St. Joan of Arc’s most famous quotes:

“One life is all we have and we live it as we believe. But to surrender who you are and live without belief is more terrible than dying – even more terrible than dying young.”
“Go forward bravely. Fear nothing. Trust in God; all will be well.”
“All battles are first won or lost in the mind.”

“I am not afraid, I was born to do this.”

PLEASE. There is a Big Picture, and we all a part of it.
We MUST get up…We MUST take heart and have courage.
We MUST fight back against the Evil in our midst.


* Mary Margaret McFarland is a cradle Catholic who grew up in the Novus Ordo, but found home in her Traditional Catholic parish. She is a front line medical worker, wife, mother, and homesteader in Texas.

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a detail of Emmanuel Fremiet’s Joan of Arc, visible at the Cleveland Museum of Art, and used here with permission.

Open Letter to the Bishops of Ireland: Don’t Change the Mass, Bergoglio’s not the Pope!

Subject: Lectionary for Mass for Ireland
Dear Catholic Bishops of Ireland – the Land of Saints and Scholars,
Re:  Your Call for Comments on the new edition of the Lectionary for the Mass, in Ireland (Click here)
Please send me an acknowledgement on receipt of the following…..

I oppose any changes/revisions/new editions of the Lectionary for Mass for Ireland on the following grounds….

Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope.
Pope Benedict XVI retired from the ministerium, that is, the administrative duties of the papal office.
He however never resigned from, never abdicated the munus and therefore is and has always been the one and only Pope since being ‘validly’ elected as Pope.
If the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland are unable to distinguish the difference between the papal ministerium and the papal munus and unable to tell the difference between semi retiring and fully resigning/abdicating, then it is perhaps best to leave the Lectionary as it is, that is, unchanged.
However there are other reasons to leave the Lectionary as is.
Bergoglio was invalidly elected as Pope because Pope Benedict XVI never renounced the munus, never resigned from/never abdicated.
So in effect the papal administration of the Church has technically been deserted and left in a state of limbo for the last 8 years or so.
Pope Benedict XVI in retiring from the ministerium without appointing someone to take over that role and responsibility, has in effect, cut off, frozen the ministerium of the papal office.
Any administrative changes, directions, guidance, instructions, appointments made to date by/under Bergoglio since his being ‘invalidly’ elected Pope are clearly all invalid.
Until you recognise Pope Benedict XVI as the one and only true Pope and until Pope Benedict XVI comes out of his retreat, until he comes out of his retirement from the duties and responsibilities of the ministerium, then it might be wise to avoid making any new administrative changes, including making any changes to the existing Lectionary for Mass for Ireland, and it might be worth considering undoing and reversing all invalid changes made to date since Pope Benedict XVI retired from the ministerium.
Perhaps Pope Benedict XVI’s retirement from the papal ministerium was simply the Pope ‘obediently’ following divine guidance through the Holy Spirit, an instruction directly from God…… quietly take one very long spiritual retreat into the wilderness, into the desert.
God works in mysterious ways!
How many have had the grace to experience being given divine guidance/instructions from God and yet have ignored them?
Perhaps it is time to recognise and acknowledge Pope Benedict XVI as the one and only true Pope.
Perhaps it is time to directly ask Pope Benedict XVI the reasons why he retired from the papal ministerium.
Perhaps it is time to ask Pope Benedict XVI when such a retreat from the papal ministerium might end, if ever.
Perhaps it is time to start offering sincere, genuine help, assistance and support directly to Pope Benedict XVI.
Perhaps Pope Benedict XVI has been waiting so patiently in the wilderness for you to come and ask and offer these things.
Seek and Ye Shall Find!
And the Truth Shall Set Ye Free!
God Bless Pope Benedict XVI the one and only true Pope.
God Bless You All!
Carmel McCormack
‘Cionci answers Valli’s Question: Why would Benedict XVI have resigned invalidly?’

Andrea Cionci: Let’s pause on blaming the Council and investigate the Renunciation!


at entitled,
“Il Dibattito sul Concilio è un Vicolo Cieco. Il Nodo sono le Dimissioni…”

by Andrea Cionci


It has been several months that, starting from a careful historical analysis of Monsignor Viganò – which I largely share – the criticism of the Second Vatican Council continues to be brought up as if it were the real Magna quaestio and the solution to the current impasse. I think this is a big blunder and as I will show, it leads to absolutely nothing but a claustrophobic dead end.

In the progression of modernism, someone wanted to see in Benedict XVI the step immediately preceding Francis: a bit ‘like comparing a bicycle to a freight train, in my opinion.

Moreover, Ratzinger himself, who, like everyone else, underwent the cultural moment and the influences of the Council period, publicly emended himself from those “sins of youth”. It is often contested that when he was pope he did not excommunicate modernist theologians on the spot, but the management “cum clava” of papal power is quite recent and we tend to forget that the pope, once, was a figure above all of the guarantor of the unity of the Church, even at the cost of tolerating some “red sheep”. No one is perfect and Ratzinger, too, must have had his weaknesses, but, at this point, why stop at the Council and not blame de Lammenais (1782-1854) and liberal Catholicism? Moreover, the erosive tendencies of Tradition began well before the Council, as Sergio Russo has well illustrated in Stilum curiae (Tosatti’s Editorial Series).

Continuously re-proposing the whine about Vatican II provides only two operational solutions.

The first is to get into a time machine, go back to 1962, drug and kidnap Karl Rahner.

The second is to use the criticism of the Council to refound the Catholic Church, leaving the “seat” to the de facto schismatics, at least regaining possession of the “faith”, with a speech such as: “Since, as we have abundantly demonstrated, from Pius XII onwards we have not been able to have a pope worthy of the name, we are tired: the time has come to take back a Roman Catholic Church with a true pope that we will appoint on our own. It is not as if we can remain without a pontiff for the next few centuries.”

I had mentioned that hypothesis here.

Since the solution of the time machine does not seem to be immediately feasible, only from the point of view of ratifying a schism, the paean on the Council would acquire a practical function, but apparently no one has the courage to continue on this path: “it cannot be done”, “it is a sin”, “it does not fit”, “it is uneconomic”, “they must leave”, “it would give scandal”, etc.

And so — excuse me — but to continue with recriminations about the Council is objectively useless and unproductive. It’s like a guy who one day finds himself with a bad office manager and starts complaining about the course of studies he undertook as a boy: either he uses that speech to find the strength to radically change his profession (“ok, I got it all wrong, now I’m going to open a chiringuito in the Bahamas”) or he keeps his office manager and learns to live with him. It’s not that complaining about his old choices solves anything.

What is more harmful, however, is that such speeches distract intellectual and moral energies from the REAL Magna quaestio: the validity of the resignation of Benedict XVI. We know that it is a complex matter, that it is necessary to apply oneself, document oneself and find the courage of lions. But steps forward have been made to clarify and disclose how the resignation was announced – both legally and formally – invalid and how it was never ratified. Even if only 10% of those alleged resignations were challenged, those who really wanted to could probably wipe the slate clean of the neo-church. Perhaps only canon 14 of the Code of Canon Law would suffice: “Laws, even irritating or incapacitating ones, in the doubt of law do not urge”. We have asked 20 canonists of the Rota for confirmation and no one has responded: an indicative sign.

It may displease many people, but objectively speaking, the only one who has gone on the counter-attack in full operation is Don Minutella, who, freed from any impediment thanks to two (!) excommunications (not justified by any canonical process) is in fact the only one to have taken the field with an army: he has founded a social channel, speaks on radio and broadcasts, administers sacraments una cum Papa Benedicto around Italy… in short, he really does “the devil tour de force”. You may or may not like him, but please, let’s stop pretending he doesn’t exist, it’s quite ridiculous. If he has been excommunicated, for anyone who doesn’t like Francis, this can only be a huge credit to him., if it is true, as many claim, that there is an “anti-Christic coup” underway? If you do not like what he says, attack him on the merits: from a loyal, fierce dialectical clash with Don Minutella can only remain on the ground something really useful.

The illusion of many traditionalists is that, once Bergoglio is dead or has resigned, the next conclave can put things back in place, perhaps – given the armored majority – through divine intercession. “You’d have to presuppose insanity”, an authoritative colleague told me, but it is a pious illusion: if Francis is not the pope, not even the next conclave will be valid, with the presence of about 80 invalid cardinals. It seems to me that we can agree on this.

Even Bergoglio’s successor, even if he were a hyper-traditionalist holy man, will find himself with a sword of Damocles over his head, the atrocious suspicion, of having been elected by an invalid conclave. That is why the main issue, upon which all Catholic observers should converge, is solely and only the validity of Benedict’s resignation. That is the only really important thing that should be at the heart of even the Bergoglians, since doubt delegitimizes their leader. They should be the first to ask for a “commission of inquiry”, if they have nothing to hide. (Why do they turn a deaf ear?).

Even the tight criticism of Francis and all matters of the neo-church, what is the point? If Bergoglio is not the legitimate pope, and was put there by the modernist Masons, as they say, what do you expect, that he restore the sedes gestatoria and the Noble Guard?

Besides the crux of the resignation issue, the only valid (sideways) topic of debate should be: Why is no one moving? Why aren’t the cardinals speaking out as they should? What are they waiting for? Why aren’t the clergy mutinying en masse? Is it better to ask for enlightenment directly from Benedict XVI, or to organize a synod?

These are the questions that matter: whether Ratzinger is a modernist or not is of no importance, and, in the end, it doesn’t even matter whether he himself has organized a more or less voluntary invalid resignation. That speech may be an encouragement to decide to challenge the resignation, but the point is to establish whether Benedict legally resigned or not, regardless of everything, of his intentions and even of whether Francis is, or is not, a good pope. Before judging him as a pontiff, one must verify that he really is.

Fr. Altman: Don’t be a guinea pig!


by Fr. James Altman

Reprinted from his Parish Bulletin

Dear family, The “covid-19” injection is NOT a vaccine, PERIOD. It is NOT an injection of a lesser version of the illness but rather an experimental use of a genetic altering substance that modifies YOUR BODY – YOUR Temple of the Holy Spirit. It is NOT a vaccine, and the use of that word bears False Witness to the Truth. Please READ the bulletin insert and the referenced LINKS to articles.

For the record, dear family, all three Injections currently authorized for use in the United States by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, ARE EXPERIMENTAL. There is no science of any kind that takes them out of the category “EXPERIMENTAL.”

Clinical trials are ongoing but, obviously, they are completely incomplete. My understanding is that normally it is at least a 2-year process of experimenting on a few – and then, and only then, might a medi- cine get approved as something other than merely


In short, there has been no satisfactory longitudinal studies on any “vaccine” for Covid- 19. None. Zero. Zip. THEREFORE. IT. IS. EXPERIMENTAL.

Thus, as has been the case since the first needle was shoved into someone’s arm injecting some- thing, these INJECTIONS have been granted ONLY, quote: Emergency Use Authorization a/k/a EUA status … ONLY.

EUA status is distinct from being “approved” or “licensed” vaccinations and as such, can NOT be mandated by public or private entities.

Therefore, it is diabolical for anyone to virtue-signal/shame/compel you to take such an experi- mental drug – making you nothing other than a GUINEA PIG. How does that make you feel? How does it make you feel to see the government, the media and even some in the Catholic Church shaming you into being a GUINEA PIG?

God damns bearing false witness against others that cause harm. The proponents of this Injection are bearing false witness. Unfortunately, that includes both laity and clergy alike. As to clergy, it particu- larly is egregious because clergy have one job to do: attend to your eternal salvation.

Understand this and think long and hard before YOU become a Guinea Pig:

1. If the Injection actually worked, there would be no need for any masking of any kind. 2. If the Injection actually worked, you would not get Covid-19, but people do.
3. If the Injection actually worked, the Godless powers would not have to mislead nor
4. If the Injection actually worked, no one who actually took it would have any cause for fearing anyone who did not. They would be “safe” even if you coughed in their face. Therefore, their use of peer pressure to force you into Godless conformity is damnable.
threaten you to take it.
5. If the Injection actually worked, there would be no need for the Godless media giants to “cancel” and shut down any opposing views and any contrary SCIENTIFIC STUDIES.
6. They are LYING to your FACE about “following the science.” The ONLY “sciiiiiience” they will allow is their own “science” which conveniently supports their whole agenda.





EDITOR’S NOTE:  Father Altman is a social media phenomena, ever since last spring when he publicly rebuked the clergy for not executing their divine duty to rebuke sinners in public. Father’s virtue is even more admirable in that he is a former banker and lawyer.

Why are Masks so important to the Globalists?

Face-Masks – Protection or Stigma?

by  Jens Pinkernelle

Introduction and Methods

This so called corona-pandemic has not yet been proven neither statistically nor by isolation of this alleged virus “SARS-CoV-2“. In fact, there is no significant difference between the cold-seasons of 2020 and the years before(1). An interesting observation is, that the flu has disappeared in an extent that corona came up. However, governments of Europe and in other parts of the world do not stop to suppress social life and justify by this “Plandemic“ or Scamdemic. One essential of suppressing people’s freedoms are mandatory masks in public. This is in spite the fact that masks had been scientifically proven to be not effective to control any epidemic for decades until 2020. Even in operation theaters a significant benefit has to be proven yet (2).

But why act governments that way? What is the purpose? Is it just a campaign of some salesmen or even the mighty pharma-cartel to gain profit? Medical masks could be used as public alert to keep a certain pandemic-stress level and to keep people eager for vaccinations. In fact, from the beginning vaccinations have been said to be essential to end the alleged pandemic. This was a medical novelty of 2020, too. Pandemics usually limit themselves, One could suppose that pandemics have become a major social issue since some Software Nerds have discovered that vaccinations could offer eugenic potentials (3).

And again, one could argue that this symbolism of mouth-nose-coverings goes beyond. This is especially true if one remembers the occult Show of Madonna 2019 in Israel at the European Song Contest (4). This very martial and bizzare show anticipates corona and masks. The human face is the primary and most important feature to identify people and to differentiate them from each other. Therefore, covering human’s faces has been used to take individual’s dignity for milleniums. They have been used up today to mark people either as slaves or fools. In this context the word person has to be mentioned. It derives from the Latin word persona and means „mask“. In fact, the word person is central from a juristic perspective. This juristic person is like an avatar in a legal framework. All humans are equal out of this framework but bear (different) rights and duties inside.

Left: Mandatory covering of mouth and nose as symbols of suppressed people

Right: Masks also characterize fools, which can be more funny like court jesters or even more insidious or scary like clown-maks (

It is not a secret that there are interested circles of ultra-rich people in the world which grow ideas to gain money and power (5). One major goal seems to be to establish a so called New World Order (NWO) (6, 7). Certainly, it is not a major issue in mass media. But on the other side it is not hidden. There are many prominent people, tycoons and politicians, who talked about this NWO. It is probable that such a NWO would be tyrrany including mass-surveillance and suppression. The World Economic Forum (WEF) has declared a “Great Reset“, a big “Transformation“ connected to artificial intelligence (AI) and, therefore, a further industrial revolution (industry 4.0). The founder of WEF, Klaus Schwab, considers “Corona“ as the opportunity to perform this “Great Reset“ (8).

It is obvious that this industrial revolution crashes the economic middle class in favor for big companies, especially, tech-companies of “Silicon Valley“ which gained tremendous profit during this plandemic (9). This principle of “the winner takes all“ which has been well established in internet economy leaves masses economically behind. One can easily see that this “Great Reset“ would produce masses of economically dependent people around the world. Obvously, some kind of neo-feudalism is emerging.

So it is not too far beyond to consider this medically senseless or even harmful mouth-nose-coverings as symbols of suppression and slavery.

An interesting fact can be observed in public. Not only that several mass-events of politicians have been revealed without using masks or keeping distances but there are some prominent people who seem very reluctant when it comes to the obligation to wear a mask.

Screenshot of google images with tags “corona mask merkel“.

The idea of this small study is to identify prominent people and magnates who cannot be found in media wearing masks. If one assumes mouth-nose-coverings are used a symbol of mass-suppression then the puppet masters should not be found with this stigma. The easy approach is to perform a google-search for images tagged with „corona mask name [xyz]“, to give an example: “corona maske merkel“ (10) It is preferred to use the term „mouth-nose-covering“ instead of the word „mask“ in thie article. Likewise abundant images of persons with mouth-nose-covering are found for all prominent European politicians.

Results and Discussion:

The European so called political leaders are all among those who are easily found wearing mouth-nose-covering in public. Is this result it surprising? Rather not if one knows at least the occult symbolism of the ensign of the private profit-organization European Union: it symbolizes the apocalypse (4). However, observers of the political scene during the corona-campaign have noticed clear reluctance of Merkel when it came to wear mouth-nose-covering in spring of 2020. After she had been asked why she does not wear a mask by a journalist she at once was seen hardly without mouth-nose-covering in public.

It is well known that money makes the world go round or simply that money rules the world. It is more or less established in public consciousness that rich people influence political directions directly or indirectly. The so called military-industrial complex has been covered by numerous publications. One should add the pharma-cartel and more recently the tech-companies of silicon valley to the possible rulers of the so called „deep state“ which also may merge with some occult background. However, some political leaders are perceived as souvereigns and independent of puppet masters which is more or less justified by facts and valid information.

And again, one of the most prominent so called political leaders who is said to fight the „Deep State“, the meanwhile former President of the USA Donald Trump can also easily found featured by mouth-nose-covering in public. Others are Jair Bolsonaro (Brasil) or Xi Jinping (China). Moreover, neither Benjamin Netanjahu of Israel is obviously among the sovereigns of the world nor is Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Turkey) or Viktor Orban (Hungary) or Baschar Al-Assad (Syria).

But who then is ruling the world? The tech-nerds from Silicon Valley could be addressed being puppet masters, they gained massive profit from this corona-campaign. However, neither Bill Gates nor Jeff Bezos or Elons Musk and Mark Zuckerberg seem to be in charge of this campaign if one assumes that mouth-nose-covering separates the masters from the slaves. At least it is hard to find Jeff Bezos and even Bill Gates being face-covered in public. The latter is most surprising because he is a direct winner of this plandemic because of his investments in pharma-companies which produce so called vaccinations based on genetic modification of humans.

Altogether, the tech-nerds are either not sovereign or they have at least to act in this disgusting theatre making themselves fools by showing up with mouth-nose-coverings.

Who then unmasks to be a sovereign or even independent ruler in politics? Maybe we could find them in the spiritual leaders. But, again, negative. The pope as well as the Mullahs or the Dalai Lama and Rabbis are spotted with covering their faces to pretend to prevent infections and spreading. It is a very interesting finding because it is known at least by Jewish or Islamic teachers that something like a spreading infection does not exist. So, one may ask, if they not know their religious texts? Or do they act? Maybe to fulfill prophecies? In this context one chatoyant (cat eyed) person should certainly still be mentioned: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He as former political leader of the Iran demonstratively opposes the panic-narrative (11).

But there are other political leaders who directly oppose(d) to virus-panicking. Among them are Alexander Lukashenko (12), the president of Belarus and the former president of Tanzania, John Magufuli. The latter became famous for using this PCR-method in Papayas, with motor-oil and things like that to demonstrate it useless to probe infections (13). By the way, PCR-probes are not sufficient to detect infection but are rather a supplement when clinical symptoms occur in a patient (14). Another African political leader was Pierre Nkurunziza, former president of Burundi who criticized the panic due to the plandemic and obviously never showed up wearing mouth-nose-covering. These three leaders mainly refused measures mandated by the World Health Organization and opposed virus-panicing. Interestingly, in Belarus riots came up with a pattern remembering the color-revolutions being associated with activities of some notorious oligarchs. And those two brave African leaders died by heart-issues recently.

However, there are political leaders obviously never covering their mouth and nose, whose countries act mainly according to the measures mandated by the WHO: Vladimir Putin, Russian Federation and Kim Jon Ung, North Korea. King Karl Gustav of Sweden also never covers mouth and nose for alleged medical precautions. At least, this behavior is according to the advice of the Swedish epidemiologist in charge Anders Tegnell.

Is it prove of sovereignty? Could Vladimir Putin be the savior against a uni-polar World as he is used to emphasize to prefer a multipolar world? And Kim Jon Un? Or does their reluctance more reflect some sort of personal proud being aware that these masks are either a symbol of being suppressed due to being prompted to act or showing up as a fool in a disgusting film? At least, this strong Russian leader stands for an obstacle for the One World Order-elite which they have to overcome by a great war. This is very scary, because it would, again, fulfill some occult prophecy which forecast a greater war before a New World Order can take place (like throes to give birth to a new order).

And what is the Deep State? Is there only one Deep State? Or are they some kind of Lodges competing against each other? What is „Skull and Bones“? What are the Freemasons? Are they competing or monolithic? And what about those more or less secret or exclusive socio-economic meetings like the Bilderbergers or the World Economic Forum (WEF)? By the way, the founder of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, obviously never covers mouth and nose in the public by a medical mask. With this he is among other persons who are considered being economically influencers or even oligarchs. Are they fearless? Certainly when it comes to a alleged hazardous virus. But also these people could simply be too arrogant to walk with a slave-symbol around. Remember, Merkel and Gates usually also show a godlike attitude, but obviously are not in the position to walk around breathing free in public.

This small study does not take itself too serious. However, it gives insight into some patterns which are possible explanations about roles and motivations. It has never been easier to do quick research. Therefore, one should be careful not to draw too quick conclusions, however.

And which conclusion could be drawn? Obviously, there are some prominent people who successfully refuse this useless face-covering. Successfully also means that they obviously not induce hysteric attacks by mass media-campaigns. The would give nothing on them anyway. Therefor they could be some sort of role models for people. It is conceivable that some do so because of personal pride and others because of being honest, connected and strong people.

This is especially true, when it comes to John Magufuli, the former president of Tanzania. He had become somewhat like a hero for the resistance-movement against civil corona-terror, especially in Germany. When refusing WHO-recommendations he referred directly to God as our creator who provided anything needed to stay healthy naturally. God is certainly the best address to refer to. He gave us life! Therefore, it is not just our right but our duty to defend unhindered respiration against actual attacks by sadistic maniacs. A human being in his natural occurrence as made by God with un-impeded breathing and, of course, without being pharmacologically modified will always be truly legal. We have to stand up for that.


(1) John P.A. Ioannidis Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: an overview of systematic evaluations European Journal of Clinical Investigation, epub

(2) Charlie Da Zhou, Pamela Sivathondan and Ashok Handa Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine; 2015, Vol. 108(6) 223–228


(4) (Madonna)





(M. Ahmadinejad)








FEATURED IMAGE IS a collage made from photos by  Anna Shvets and Ketut Subiyanto (both from

Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke against Globalism & Freemasonry — Part IV

FromRome.Info presents here Br. Bugnolo’s authorized English translation of Andrea Cionci’s Article

La possibile ricostruzione del “piano B” di papa Benedetto XVI

which was published by the Libero, on April 6, 2021, in Italian.

Due to the length of the original, FromRome.Info publishes the translation in 4 parts.


A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church

A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorney Acosta and various theologians

by Andrea Cionci


20. The first results of Plan B

Moreover, only two years after, in 2019, the subtle input of Benedict XVI obtained its first result: the Italian-American Franciscan, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, an outstanding latinist and expert in canon law, takes note of the errors in the Latin of the Declaration and declares that they were inserted precisely to attract attention to the canonical invalidity of the document. HERE

The Libero had the exclusive report on his study and news of it went viral world wide, but in reply, from the Vatican there was only silence and from the Avvenire ( the national Catholic newspaper published by the Italian Bishops’ Conference) only insults. HERE

21. Bergoglio goes full throttle, too much

The seasons change, and Francis in the meantime exposes himself ever the more: he enthrones Pachamama in St. Peter’s, he inaugurates a new Litany of Loreto with Mary as “support of migrants”, he declares himself in favor of civil unions, he changes the Our Father, he inserts the masonic “dew” into the Canon of the Mass, he decorates the Piazza of St. Peter’s with a strange esoteric Christmas creche, in sum, he goes excessively full throttle, so much so that the noted Vaticanista, Aldo Maria Valli, publishes a shocking article entitled, “Rome is without a pope”. HERE HERE HERE HERE HERE HERE

22. Bergoglio runs for cover at the Corriere della Sera

At Santa Marta there is a panic: Massimo Franco of the Corriere della Sera rushes to interview Ratzinger and clean up the mess. Benedict XVI offers a series of further replies which are perfectly double faced: he says that “his friends, a little fanatical, did not accept his decision, made completely freely by him, he is in peace with himself and the pope is one alone”. Franco interprets his declarations in this sense: “I willingly resigned as the Pope; my fans err in considering me the Pontiff; the pope is one alone and is Francis” HERE

23. The explicit subtext of Benedict

In reality, the true significance of the words of Ratzinger is: “My friends have not understood what I am fooling the modernists and that I have done this in full self awareness, on which account I am in peace with my conscience. the Pope is one alone and I am he”. This story of the pope who is one alone, but which is never specified, has already become too repetitive and urges us to examine past interviews. By doing so there emerges a meticulous and “scientific” equivocation which has lasted years. HERE

24. The nomination of the “ambassador” to Benin

Thus, in reply to the customary misunderstandings by the Corriere della Sera, and to encourage those who follow the right interpretation, Pope Benedict, a few days after, received the president of a charitable organization and names him, “ambassador” (even if only spiritually). Even on the symbolic level, this is indeed the act of a reigning pope. Another clear signal to his “own”: HERE

25. The mirror trick is understood

From the interviews with the Corriere della Sera, we pass to read also the book interviews by Peter Seewald and we discover that all of them have been arranged according to a coherent and opposite subtext. Every phrase has been constructed with a scientific ability to reveal — often with a tasteful irony — the reality of the invalid resignation to whomsoever wants to grasp it. HERE and HERE

26. The discovery of a clear historical precedent: Pope Benedict VIII

One fundamental detail merges when Benedict XVI declares in his “Last Conversations”, published in 2016, under a veiled but most precious historical reference, that he has resigned as Pope Benedict VIII, Theophylactus of the Counts of Tusculum, in 1012, was constrained to renounce the ministerium on account of the antipope Gregory VI: an unequivocable signal. Little by little, there emerges other details in his book length interview and here at the Libero we have even cited the passage from which we were able to be inspired by Ratzinger to understand his strategy “of mirrors”. HERE

27. A foreseen battle

Benedict knows that his game is an extremely subtle one, but he has left alarm bells which are very evident. He knew that the pieces of the puzzle would be put back together little by little and that the false church would reveal itself, crumbling on its own, annihilating itself in scandals, doctrinal contradictions and ferocious internal conflicts. Ratzinger knew beforehand that the modernist antipope, with his masonic-environmental-globalist extravagances would fill the Catholic people with dismay. He knew that this one would not be assisted by the Holy Spirit, nor by the logic of the Logos (the Divine Word). HERE:

28. What is Benedict waiting for?

Benedict is still waiting, tranquil in his prayer and contemplation, and communicating with the outside world by means of precise and surgical terms: he awaits the Cardinals and Bishops to open their eyes. He does not speak openly: even if he would succeed in speaking the truth in public, today, he would be immediately silenced with the excuse of senile ramblings. No: it is rather the Catholic people who, in this Apocalypse, in the sense of a Revelation, have to convert, have to UNDERSTAND, and ACT. And it is the clergy who have to shake off their inertia, by rediscovering the course, the strength, and the heroism of the Faith. HERE:

29. The solution to the whole problem: a declaratory Synod

The solution, in the end, is a simple one: let the Bishops convoke a synod, like that which was convoked historically (such as Sutri or Melfi V) to establish with certainty which of the one or two popes is the true one.

Ratzinger knows that during such an encounter the reality will easily come forth: the anti-pope and all of his actions, nominations, doctrinal and liturgical changes, will vanish into nothingness. It will be as if he never existed. Death does not preoccupy Benedict: his resignation will remain invalid for ever by creating a historic rupture in the papal succession.

Bergoglio, in the mean time, for his own part, has already signaled the future of his new-Church by nominating an avalanche of his “own” 80 cardinals, who, being in the majority, will shut the doors to the new Conclave. After the antipope, Francis, there would be no valid successor, as some traditionalists are pointing out. Moreover, an invalid conclave, composed by invalid cardinals, might elect another modernists antipope — or a fake orthodox one — and the Catholic Church, as we know Her, would be finished forever.

The synod, on the other hand, will be the great Catholic Counter-Reset, the red restart-button which will enable the Church to be purified — according to the intentions of Ratzinger — from corruption and heresy once and for all, by reconciling Europe and the West with their own Christian roots. And in the passage from one epoch to another, as he himself said to Seewald: “I belong no longer to the old world, but to the new, which in reality has not yet begun”. HERE

30. The “little ones” will be the protagonists

Benedict XVI, the sole Vicar of Christ (Bergoglio having renounced the title) knows that salvation comes from little ones, from the pure of heart, mind and body, much sooner than from prelates and the great ones of the press: from courageous priests and friars who are excommunicated for remaining faithful, from little journalists, youtubers and bloggers, translators, artists and publishers, simple readers who share articles on social media, each one of which in his own infinitesimal littleness adds his own contribution: a whole people without means and support, who sacrifice themselves and risk themselves to spread the truth as a fire, as a last “Crusade of the poor” to save the Church Herself.

No, Benedict XVI has not fled at the sight of the wolves. Nor in the face of those dressed up as lambs.

Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke against Globalism & Freemasonry — Part III

FromRome.Info presents here Br. Bugnolo’s authorized English translation of Andrea Cionci’s Article

La possibile ricostruzione del “piano B” di papa Benedetto XVI

which was published by the Libero, on April 6, 2021, in Italian.

Due to the length of the original, FromRome.Info publishes the translation in 4 parts.


A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church

A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorney Acosta and various theologians

by Andrea Cionci


9. The errors in the Latin

Moreover, the game played was a subtle one: the risk is that the juridical question, upon which the entire plan B is based, is forgotten. This is why in the Declaratio Benedict inserted anomalies which would in time attract attention to the invalidity of the document, most of all two gross errors in the Latin: “pro ecclesiae vitae” (afterwards corrected by the Vatican) and one pronounced by his own voice — “commissum” — alongside the key word: “ministerium”, which should have been the dative form, “commisso”. Moreover, the typo on the hour of 29:00 instead of 20:00: errors purposefully introduced, in addition to invalidating even more the resignation inasmuch as it was not “rite manifestetur”, that is “duly” expressed, as the Code of Canon Law requires (in Canon 332, §2); most of all to concentrate the attention of future readers on the two principle juridical problems of his fake resignation: the renunciation of “ministerium” and the deferment of the renunciation. The plan succeeded: the errors of syntax in the Latin were immediately judged to be “intolerable” by Latinists such as Luciano Canfora and Wilfried Stroh, not to mention Cardinal Ravasi, and made a certain sort of splash in the press, together with the typographical error on the hour it would take effect. HERE

Errors which resulted from haste? Impossible! Ratzinger spent two weeks writing the Declaratio which was looked over in detail by the Secretary of State under the seal of the pontifical secret (i. e. the highest level of Vatican state secrecy). HERE

10. The Farewell at 5:30 P. M.

And so, February 28th arrived and Benedict makes his dramatic helicopter flight (he will say to Seewald in 2016 that this was part of the “stage scenery”) such that everyone will see him abandon the Vatican and, at 5:30 P. M., come out upon the balcony of the papal palace at Castel Gandolfo to bid the world a farewell. He had not casually chosen the hour of 8 P. M. (20:00 hours), the hour in which Italians are all at dinner (in front of the TV), a thing which required him to anticipate the farewell at 5:30 P. M.. There, at Castel Gandolfo, in fact, he speaks precisely: “I will be the pope until 8 P. M. and then no more”.

But then he goes inside, and 8 P. M. arrives, but he signs no document nor makes any public declaration. Some justify this by saying that since at 5:30 P. M. he said that he would no longer be the pope, that sufficed. But they are in error: because by affirming that he would be pope until 8 P. M., he could have very well changed his mind, therefore, his renunciation of ministerium, already in effective from the hour he read his Declaratio, should have been ratified by another signed or public declaration. But this never happened. HERE

11. A concentrate of juridical invalidity

In summary, his Declaratio of a renunciation is absolutely worthless as a resignation, because one cannot renounce an office which has a divine origin by renouncing its administration and, in addition, such a renunciation not duly written, has no juridical value. It’s all a big joke. In fact, Benedict will admit to Seewald that the choice of February 11th for his Declaratio was connected, with an “interior connection”, to the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, a feast of St. Bernadette, the patron saint of his own birthday and with the Mardi Gras Monday. HERE

12. The Mafia of St. Gallen elects an Anti-Pope

The anomalies were seen only by a few and the Mafia of St. Gallen went ahead full steam. Finally, on March 13th, elbowing itself forward with a fifth and irregular balloting, it succeeds in electing its own champion, the Jesuit cardinal, Bergoglio, already looked down upon in Argentina for his methods and his doctrinal extravagances. In this way, there comes to be announced to the world a new pope. Francis comes out, without the red mozzetta (cape), accompanied by Cardinal Daneel: his style is very off the cuff and, in no time, with the complicity of the Main Stream Media, he succeeds in capturing the enthusiastic favor of the crowds. HERE

13. The attack on Catholicism begins

Immediately, he begins a gradual dismantling of Catholic doctrine to adapt it to the container of the new universalist masonic-environmental-modernist religion of the New World Order, openly augured by Bergoglio in his interview with La Stampa on March 15, 2021: “We are wasting this crisis when we close in on ourselves. Instead, by building a new world order based on solidarity …”.

Consequently, it would not surprise if Ratzinger never actually resigned, Bergoglio is an anti-pope. HERE

14. Benedict goes ahead as the Pope

While a portion of normal Catholics (insultingly defined by the Main Stream Media as “traditionalists”) began to react against Bergoglio (and not a few even to speak ill of Ratzinger), Pope Benedict XVI continued to comport himself as a pope in every detail, though without some of the practical offices of his power. In addition to maintaining the white cassock, he continues to live in the Vatican, to use the royal “We”, to sign as the Pontifex Pontificum (Pontiff of Pontiffs), and to impart the Apostolic benediction.

Indeed, even if Ratzinger had made a renunciation of administering the Barque of Peter, every now and then he comes back, signing some book, writing, prayer, or granting an interview, to correct Bergoglio on the celibacy of priests (even if, immediately afterwards, they uproot his favorite vineyard at Castel Gandolfo). HERE

15. The “scientific” ambiguity of the thing

In all his interviews, Ratzinger maintains a low profile and most of all an absolute, scientific double entendre in his words. He never says that he has resigned from the papacy, nor does he say that Francis is the Pope, but throughout 8 years, he has like a standing stone, repeated that “the Pope is only one”. HERE

16. The Main Stream Media’s forced narrative

The Narrative would at all costs have it that the one existing pope of which Benedict speaks is Francis, so much that the newspapers of this party exhausting themselves to construct a narrative upon every cited word, seeking to manipulate the context. In fact, Vatican News on June 27, 2019, opened with the leader, “Benedict XVI: the pope is one, Francis”, reporting however only the personal thoughts of Massimo Franco of the Corriere della Sera. HERE

17. The Mafia of St. Gall unmasks itself

While Bergoglio is devoting himself to his new giant masonic and ultramodernist-globalist church (by daily unmasking himself), in 2015 the “anti-Church” as Mons. Viganò will call it, made a faux pas: Cardinal Godfried Danneels, the primate of Belgium and the central column of the Mafia of St. Gallen (so much so that he flanked Bergoglio, when he came out on the Loggia of St. Peter’s, on the day of his election), confessed candidly in his one autobiography how the modernist lobby aimed to cause Benedict to resign and to propose in his place cardinal Bergoglio. His admissions, confirmed by what was already admitted by the journalist Austen Ivereigh, created an enormous embarrassment and have never been denied. The book of Danneels was sold out (the last used copy for sale on Amazon went for 206 euro!) but has never been republished, nor translated into Italian. The Belgian Cardinal exited the stage and died a year later. HERE

18. The defense attempted by Mons. Sciacca

In the August of 2016, Mons. Giuseppe Sciacca, the top canonist at the Vatican, in an interview with Andrea Tornielli, sustained that the resignation of Ratzinger was valid because munus and ministerium are, for a pope, indivisible. A self-contradicting argument which shows precisely how Ratzinger could not have resigned by resigning only the ministerium. In fact, the history of popes in the first millennium of the Church shows that they have at times resigned from the exercise of papal power while remaining popes, especially in the case of rival anti-popes. HERE

19. Benedict’s reply to Mons. Sciacca

Three weeks later, Ratzinger, publishes a veiled response in his letter to the Corriere della Sera, taking occasion from the recent book of his interviews by Seewald, entitle, “Last Conversations”, in which he exhorts the readers by saying that he himself is an optimum latinist and that he wrote with his own hand the Declaration in Latin so as not to make any errors.

An absurdity, given that there are errors which have been publicly corrected by famous Latinists immediately after his Declaratio. This is one of those many signals of apparent incoherence which Benedict sends to the outside world precisely to recall attention to the juridical problems in his “resignation”. And so the entire interview with the Corriere della Sera can be interpreted in the exact opposite sense. HERE