Category Archives: Guest Editorials

A Reply to Msgr. Athanasius Schneider’s preposterous appeal to accept Bergoglio as pope

by Antonio Ghislieri

Despite not being an ordinary, the Auxiliary of Asana, Kazakstan, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, OSC has enjoyed no small influence within the Universal Church owing to his vast travel, his remarkable facility with many languages and a reputation for defending the Apostolic Tradition in both its content and praxis.

This article replies to the recent video by the Bishop, published here.

And yet, perhaps more for these reasons than any others, his recently video-posted reflections through the auspices of LifeSite News represent not simply a profound disappointment to those whose have been following very carefully the all-important details surrounding the papacy since Benedict XVI’s historical “Declaratio” of 2013, but a rupture in His Excellency’s reputation as a voice to be counted upon in the grave matter of sound theological leadership. In short, he has denounced the position that Pope Benedict has never left office, calling this a gateway to ‘Sedevacantism.”

Schneider’s View

In an oral presentation — calmly, but deceptively delivered — one comes to understand that Bishop Schneider’s position is not based at all upon facts, but upon a political discomfort, namely, that for Benedict as true pope not to have taken any act of governance for nine years would undermine the Church’s visibility, a necessary aspect of the indefectability of the Mystical Body. Moreover, he utterly refuses to consider the forensic evidence for the claim, condemning it as “legal positivism” and resorts to a terribly convoluted review of other instances of contested papal elections for a “sure guide” in how to deal with the contemporary papal crisis.

Problems with Schneider’s Historical “Approach”

Perhaps Bishop Schneider seeks to style himself a latter-day St. Bernard of Clairvaux; if so, he has failed quite blatantly. St Bernard successfully prevented an open schism in the Church; the same will not be said for Schneider’s intervention. Inasmuch as the Cistercian Doctor’s reputation for holy wisdom was so widespread whilst he lived, not only was he called upon to examine the validity of claimants of the papal throne in 1130, Bernard’s conclusion, based upon EXAMINATION OF THE CANONICAL EVIDENCE was respected. In wake of Bernard’s offering it, Antipope Anacletus renounced his claim. Curious, to say the least, that Bishop Schneider failed to include this applicable, historical precedent in his little review of ecclesiastical history.

Posterity’s “Looking Back” upon the purported simony of Gregory VI, by which he is said to have procured the papal throne for himself does not bestow upon posterity the authority to re-adjudicate the facts of that time. Do the annals of that era indicate there to have been a challenge on anyone’s part of the validity of Gregory’s election? Though the bishop does not tell us, one way or another, this historical moment might well — if simony was, in fact involved — constitute something of an embarrassment to students of Catholic history; it by no means serves to conclude that that moment in history serves as “precedent” for the present one: we are witnessing an open challenge to the election of Bergoglio based upon canonical facts. Schneider’s taking it upon himself to rely upon this 1045 “example” frighteningly recalls Justice SD O’Connor’s legal opinion that an abortion “option” ought not be withdrawn for the fact that people have come to rely upon its availability. “Let’s not look at the liceity of that action, but consider that others were able to live with it,” the Bishop seems to suggest.

The inference that the French Cardinals responsible for instigating the Western Schism at the close of the 14th century had any legitimacy to call for a “mulligan” owing to their votes’ having been forced by fear has ever been risible — and that is why their attempts to resurrect an Avignon Papacy were always counted as political scheming against the good of the Church. According to Schneider’s rendition, one is given to believe this was an instance where applicable law (governing conclave) was set aside by the Roman Church. Such rubbish ! — Urban VI’s legitimate election was never in question until the French cardinals discovered that he meant business about reform and went about it with a zeal which made life a tad too penitential for their collective scarlet bottoms.

Moreover, the Bishop’s belittling of contemporary, legal evidence concerning our present-day crisis is a disgraceful ruse, undermining, above all, our Lord’s own words: “What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” In the end, Schneider’s assertions amount to little if anything more than a politically-fitted “Don’t rock the boat,” when the “rocking” has, in fact, been orchestrated by those who have set aside the authority of John Paul II, which yet governs the licit running of papal succession.

Gate to “Sedevacantism”

As to the bishop’s assertion that challengers to the Bergoglio’s regime pave a way to “sedevacantism,” this is no more than “chum thrown to sharks.” For, Benedict XVI, beyond the wildest expectations, continues to live and breathe (itself an indication of where God might be lending His support). To adjudicate a situation based upon circumstances that have not yet obtained is itself bad logic.

What is more bad logic is to disregard a priori what the law itself would require, in whatever event would trigger yet another illegitimate conclave. The fact remains that the major events of 2013, namely, the canonically null “abdication” and the conclave which ensued, must be revisited for the sake of healing both the papacy and the Church. To rely upon a papal secretary — as Bishop Schneider does — as sufficient witness to conclude that Bergoglio is pope is the gestalt of the fabled ostrich: it refuses to see facts in plain sight because the resulting obligations in justice are both enormous and frightening.

Without question, there must obtain at some future date the not only enormously painstaking task of sanatio for the acts of purported government by a putative papacy, but also the condemnation of its many criminal actions. Until that time, the gift of valid episcopal ordination provides sufficient continuation of the Sacraments, supported as that charism is by the principal of “ecclesia supplet.” (Oddly, not mentioned in Schneider’s list of “endangered” acts: phoney canonizations.)

The Good of the Church/ of Souls

What the Asana Auxiliary never takes into consideration — manifesting his trust to be more in men than in God — is heaven’s manifold demonstration that the Holy Spirit of God in no way illuminates, protects, nor makes fecund the work of him whom Schneider claims to be successor of Peter. Who can argue that the machinations of the Jesuit idolator are anything other than bereft of divine support? Only 5th Columnist Freemasons.

How heaven will intervene to address the situation created by Benedict’s Declaratio, the ramifications of which will perdure beyond his death, is not yet manifest. What we do know is that Christ has conquered, Christ reigns and that He commands from heaven as well as from the Tabernacle, where He appears to nap once more. Yet once more, He will arise to calm to storm. Faith in Him, not in the facile words of poorly-spoken pastors will avail His own who know His Voice and distinguish It from that of hirelings.

Divine Infant Jesus, have mercy on us.
Mary Guadalupe, Patroness of the Unborn, convert our country’s hearts and end the abortion holocaust.
St Joseph, Protector of the Holy Family, pray for us.

Benedict XVI replies to Andrea Cionci’s request for an interview

by the Editor of Katejon, Brazil

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION

A few hours ago we posted the happy news of Pope Benedict XVI’s response to Italian journalist and writer Andrea Cionci: Part 42 of his Investigation. Based on what the journalist called the “Ratzinger Code”, the form of encrypted communication adopted by the Pope since the banishment from the Petrine See, a new confirmation comes to us, in an authorized manner through the Prefect of the Papal Household, Msgr. Georg Gänswein, that not only has Benedict not ceased to be the only Pope of the Church, but that he is in fact in private custody, which is to say: suffering a coup d’état.

In Cionci’s words, “if Pope Benedict were really the abdicated pope, and Francis the true pontiff, in the face of the writer’s ‘heinous slanderous outrages,’ a true ex-pope, or pope emeritus, would have to: either not respond, or deny himself, or openly admonish us not to continue with our articles,” or give a merely protocol response, without any additional detail; which he did not do, on the contrary.

FromRome’s Alexis Bugnolo points out in a commentary on this news that the fact that Benedict is unable to meet the journalist in question (a request previously granted to other “Bergoglian” journalists, and continuing to receive people), even if only to say that Cionci is wrong in his Investigation, and to stop conjecturing that he is the Pope, is a major indication that he is truly in an impeded see. Also noting that the date of the reply (10/27), has correspondence with “the first day that Pope Damasus reigned as Pope after defeating his rival, Antipope Ursinus, in a 3-day battle, which he eventually won on October 26, 366 AD. The battle took place in the Basilica of Saint Mary Major, here in Rome. So, as could not be otherwise, another coded message to reassure us, as Bugnolo concludes, of his victory over the usurper.

But it is possible that there are still three other details that tell us something about this plot, because as Bugnolo points out in another article, quoting Sherlock Holmes: “I have long held the axiom that the little things are infinitely the most important.”

Thus, the first, still in relation to the date, shows us a reply given exactly 8 days after the sender’s request (10/19). In it, the mention of an impossibility. Which somehow refers to the 8 years of impossibility of “piloting” Peter’s boat through two of his four papal ministries, that of government and that of preaching; and this after another 8 years of integral pontificate.

The second, the fact that Msgr. Gänswein twice used the term “Pope emeritus”, even after the recent confirmation by the Vatican that the term has no canonical-legal support.

Thirdly, although we are not familiar with the nuances of the Italian language, the form used by the Prefect in his first mention of Benedict, “Benedict XVI, Pope emeritus,” curiously enough the title of Estefanía Acosta’s book, Benedict XVI: Pope “Emeritus”? Another lapsus linguae?

Some years ago, when he was still in full exercise of his functions, the Brazilian priest Father Marcelo Tenório (Campo Grande-MS) was with Benedict XVI in the Vatican. From Brazil, he brought with him a picture painted for the occasion. In it, Don Bosco’s dream, but with Benedict XVI as the pilot of the Captain Ship. Upon receiving the picture, the priest and some others present observed the Pope spend some moments in great introspection while contemplating the painting in front of him; until he heard from the Brazilian: “You are the Pope of Don Bosco’s dream”. Without taking his eyes off the image, he answers: “Yes, this is me.”

Not by chance, we still find today the tireless “messages in a bottle” launched from the Mediterranean to all the oceans by the captain of the weather-beaten Barque of Peter. But who will come to her rescue?

Ettore Lembo: Does the Government have agoraphobia?

by Ettore Lembo

Authorized English Translation

Restrictions do not stop the demonstrators who are peacefully gathering.
Why does the government seem to be afraid of the street demonstrations that have raged for several weeks on Saturday afternoons in the squares of Italy? Squares where peaceful protesters, mothers, children, the elderly and students, gather against the limitations of freedom that deprive dignity, which only Italian citizens are suffering?
Milan, Turin, Naples, Rome, Cagliari, are just some of the cities where on Saturday 13 November a very large number of people, women, children, families and the elderly gathered in peaceful demonstrations.
Consistent numbers of people who filled the squares, far from the historical centers, despite all the limitations and difficulties that the Government may have tried to create — especially after the riots that occurred — and the perplexities of whom which were voluntarily provoked by those who perhaps have an interest in hiding certain truths, to create an ever greater restlessness.
Rome, with the attack on the CGIL, Milan, Trieste, are the ones that have aroused the most attention, but on which still today there are many doubts and the investigations, perhaps deliberately, has failed to shed light, increasing doubts about opinion public and more.
There are many foreign countries that show are showing us solidarity and concern.
Certainly we must weigh the incomprehensible words of a Minister who talks about the measurement of a strange undulatory movement of a police van, by a probable plainclothes police officer, who gives all the impression of being an infiltrator, as it seems, from the videos present in all social networks.
Rather, it is the Government intervention ordered in Trieste with fire hydrants firing at peaceful demonstrators sitting on the ground which causes discussion.
As well as the incomprehensible treatment of the “daspo”, imposed on Stefano Puzzer as if he were a dangerous violent man, who came to Rome in search of answers from the Government, promises, but not kept.
And again, the images that the well-known broadcast conducted by Mario Giordano showed, where it seems that a police officer voluntarily provoked the clash and then allowed his colleagues to unload on protesters.
These facts that someone in the government should give answers to … or explain their meaning.
But let’s go back to Saturday the 13th of November, which first saw at Milan, with the extraordinary participation of Robert Kennedy Jr, where thousands of people arrived, in the Arco della Pace square in Milan for the demonstration against the drug that is arousing more and more contraindications.
We recall that Robert Kennedy jr is the third son of Bob Kennedy and nephew of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, as well as founder of his Children’s Health Defense association.
A peaceful demonstration, but as always in the end, disturbed by some provocateur, who for some reason is always present to give rise to a certain questionable communication, to be able to classify even the most peaceful demonstration as a violent demonstration. Even Rome has had its positive results in participation, although it does not have strong characters like Kennedy.
On Saturday, Nov. 13, in an immense space, like the Circus Maximus, those couple of thousands of people who, taking advantage of the beautiful day, thus denying the weather forecast, listened with great serenity and without any form of violence, both physical and verbal, and above all without display of any party flag, if not the Tricolor (the flag of Italy), the words uttered by the various speakers.
Dramatic is the story of a young woman who suffered a serious disability after undergoing the medical treatment induced by the Government, to whom it seems that no compensation is recognized and is not even considered for an in-depth study of her pathology.
It is true that, in the very early phase, when all the demonstrators had not yet arrived, there was an intervention not exactly in line with the spirit of the demonstration, but promptly detected by some newspaper that probably has more interest in belittling and branding mistakenly the manifestation.
The sidelined intervention detected by the well-known newspaper, according to some sources from the organizers, seems to have been granted to avoid misunderstandings that could have affected the serenity of the entire event.
It is of doubtful taste that some newspapers, moreover very popular ones, have only highlighted this intervention carried out at the start of the event and with few people present — disadvantageous, for the purpose of information, not having highlighted the intervention of the girl described above.
Even more than not having reported the touching choreographic representation, which is not usual, that some women have enacted under the stage, representing pregnant women, who stained the faces of government politicians with red.
We leave any interpretation free, as it should be, considering however incorrect that partial information is given, at a time when many are worried about the effective freedom of expression and more.
Among other things, the intervention referred to in the video-newspaper in question, and which for correctness you can view by clicking on the attached links, was stigmatized in the press release read at the end of the event, in a solemn manner, of which you can read the words below.
The Press release of he organizers of the Oct. 9th protest was read when darkness had already enveloped Circus Maximus, but which was listened to by all present, who turned on the lights of their mobile phones to create the right and solemn atmosphere, and before the intonation of the Mameli Hymn.
A regular return without any inconvenience, following the provisions provided by the Police, which is recognized for their presence with discretion in this event.
A warning for the government?

East and West must fight together against the Globalist Anti-Church

An Appeal by Andrew J. Baalman

On October 30th 2021, on the Facebook Page Of The Holy Resurrection Monastery of the Byzantine Greek Catholic Rite, Abbot Nicholas’ homily:

“Said regarding the Gospel Passage where in St. Luke that Our Lord is notified his mother and brothers are outside, but Jesus says, “my mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and Obey.”  then the homily was on confidentiality & the secret of the confessional; then went into Biden’s meeting and with Bergoglio; which he calls Pope; by the Vatican’s no comment response; says it was the right thing, then about how Boris Johnson so called came back to the Faith & how the news papers asked him, “it is none of your damn business if I am Catholic or not”

He actually said the “d” word in between the Sanctuary and where the gate closes in the Byzantine Rite.  And he pushes the crazy covid restrictions which their Patriarch promotes.

This goes against the Great Doctor Of The Church and Archbishop Of Constantinople; Saint John Chrysostom in his second Homily On The Letter To The Hebrews 1.3

“EVERYWHERE indeed a reverential mind is requisite, but especially when we say or hear anything of God: Since neither can tongue speak nor thought hear anything suitable to our God. And why speak of tongue or thought? For not even the understanding which far excels these, will be able to comprehend anything accurately, when we desire to utter aught concerning God.”

Now, for Abbot Nicholas to say what he said at the steps where the Royal Doors open, where it separates the sanctuary from the Holy of Holies, goes against Saint John Chrysostom and his teaching in this homily.

It also goes against what Saint Basil The Great Teaches In Hexaemeron Homily 5

“Without doubt you remember the parable where the Lord calls Himself a vine and His Father the husbandman, and every one of us who are grafted by faith into the Church the branches. He invites us to produce fruits in abundance, for fear lest our sterility should condemn us to the fire. cf.John 15:1-6 He constantly compares our souls to vines. My well beloved, says He, has a vineyard in a very fruitful hill, Isaiah 5:1 and elsewhere, I have planted a vineyard and hedged it round about. Matthew 21:33 Evidently He calls human souls His vine, those souls whom He has surrounded with the authority of His precepts and a guard of angels. The angel of the Lord encamps round about them that fear him. And further: He has planted for us, so to say, props, in establishing in His Church apostles, prophets, teachers; and raising our thoughts by the example of the blessed in olden times, He has not allowed them to drag on the earth and be crushed under foot. He wishes that the claspings of love, like the tendrils of the vine, should attach us to our neighbours and make us rest on them, so that, in our continual aspirations towards heaven, we may imitate these vines, which raise themselves to the tops of the tallest trees. He also asks us to allow ourselves to be dug about; and that is what the soul does when it disembarrasses itself from the cares of the world, which are a weight on our hearts. He, then, who is freed from carnal affections and from the love of riches, and, far from being dazzled by them, disdains and despises this miserable vain glory, is, so to say, dug about and at length breathes, free from the useless weight of earthly thoughts. Nor must we, in the spirit of the parable, put forth too much wood, that is to say, live with ostentation, and gain the applause of the world; we must bring forth fruits, keeping the proof of our works for the husbandman. Be like a green olive tree in the house of God, never destitute of hope, but decked through faith with the bloom of salvation. Thus you will resemble the eternal verdure of this plant and will rival it in fruitfulness, if each day sees you giving abundantly in alms.”

Then his agreement with the evil Bergoglio and Biden, about confidentiality of the meeting regarding the approval or denial of whether Biden can or should receive the Blessed Sacrament, is reprehensible. Because Biden should be denied the Blessed Sacrament and the Bishops of the entire Church should do the scene from Becket and publicly Excommunicate Biden and all evil doers.

All Priests, Archpriests, deacons, Archdeacons, Abbots, Bishops, Patriarchs should be in agreement that the evil going on and the evil being preached by Bergoglio should be denounced and also call him the Antipope.

When Pope Benedict XVI did his Sacred Liturgies; both the East and West were present.  The Holy Gospel was read both in Latin and Greek by the Archdeacon.  The relations were great and it seemed like the Orthodox were nearing their return. Then the CIA and their inside group, Saint Galen Mafia wanted Benedict out, so that their own man could stop the restorations that Benedict was doing.

The head Cardinal of the Saint Galen Mafia, the late Cardinal Danneels bragged openly about them getting CIA Asset; Jorge Bergoglio from Argentina and friends of the Junta in the Dirty War; elected as Antipope.

Which broke the Conclave Rules By Pope John Paul II in the document Universi Dominici Gregis 

Which makes the so-called Conclave that elected Jorge Bergoglio Null and Void; all his Cardinals, Encyclicals, Everything he has done, Null and Void.

Not To Mention, the Investigation Into The So Called Renunciation of Benedict XVI and the Study Of The Latin Document That Benedict wrote and read from, which proves he didn’t Resign.

You can read and watch all of the Investigation Into This Important Subject here: An Index To Pope Benedict’s Renunciation 

So much has been written toward the Latin Rite Catholics, but after witnessing what I did, I knew we needed to reach out to our Eastern Lung of the Church.  To share this truth of what is being known regarding Pope Benedict and that he is still our Holy Father.

Then, to have that abbot do that type of Homily at the foot of the Royal Door, which symbolizes the Holies Of Holies In Heaven, what a shock.

I love the Byzantine Rite because it shows true beauty of the Faith and what we can expect in Heaven.  But to curse at the Royal Doors, where the Holy Of Holies stands, shows how much a priest has lost or never had the Faith and that he has no love for the sense of anything Divine or Holy.

It is time to restore the Divine and Holy, and by restoring the knowledge that Benedict XVI is still the Pope, that those who follow the Antipope, need to be removed and have no place in the Church.

The sooner we spread the information and message of Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope, the more that hear it and learn all the information connected to it, the more the Sacred will be restored.

But don’t expect the followers of the Antipope to go away silently; they will still do their evil vicious attacks; but once they are exposed, hopefully the Priests and Bishops will be vocal and restore the Sacraments faithfully under the real Holy Father, so we can all take part in the Sacraments again faithfully.

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

 POLISH TRANSCRIPT BELOW — ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF TRANSCRIPT HERE

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?

Amen

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.
References:

From Mengele to Fauci: The justification of humans as test subjects (commdiginews.com)

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 (childrenshealthdefense.org)

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

PART 27 OF THE INVESTIGATION ON POPE AND ANTI-POPE

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.”

Bingo!

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:

https://www.facebook.com/PeopleOfVic/videos/588897768917904/

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: https://www.covid19data.com.au/vaccines

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

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION FOLLOWS

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 https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/italia/28377333/papa-ratzinger-mistero-errore-traduzione-dimissioni-parola-latina-cambia-tutto.html , quei messaggi acquisiscono un significato in più.  In uno di questi, il collega Mirko Ciminiello, di RomaIT (https://www.romait.it/dimissioni-di-benedetto-xvi-la-nostra-scoperta-shock-rilanciata-da-libero.html), ravvisa un sottotesto ancora più aggiornato e coerente rispetto a quanto avevamo già pubblicato QUI https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26699363/ratzinger-sottotesto-libro-intervista-ultime-conversazioni-peter-seewald.html

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 (https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28380027/mirko-ciminiello-romait-scopre-messaggio-ratzinger-non-riconosce-francesco-come-papa-nella-lista-di-san-malachia.html) 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 https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html

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 (https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27505999/papa-ratzinger-bergoglio-messaggio-nella-bottiglia-documentario-bugnolo-lamendola-decimo-toro-massoneria-daneels-mafia-san-g.html ) 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 https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28264381/vaticano-papa-emerito-non-esiste-allora-joseph-ratzinger-cosa-stato-otto-anni.html .

Ora, per chi si fosse perso le puntate precedenti, leggete perché la Declaratio NON è una rinuncia QUI https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28187673/joseph-ratzinger-vero-papa-giuristi-sanchez-acosta-smontano-difesa-pro-bergoglio.html  e piuttosto, perché tutti i conti tornano nel leggerla come annuncio di SEDE IMPEDITA : QUI https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28344881/declaratio-papa-ratzinger-non-rinuncia-ma-sede-impedita-sei-latinisti-traducono-parola-chiave-vacet-non-sede-vacante-ma-sede.html

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

+ + +

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION

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 https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/italia/28377333/papa-ratzinger-mistero-errore-traduzione-dimissioni-parola-latina-cambia-tutto.html , those messages acquire an additional meaning. In one of them, our colleague Mirko Ciminiello, of RomaIT (https://www.romait.it/dimissioni-di-benedetto-xvi-la-nostra-scoperta-shock-rilanciata-da-libero.html), sees a subtext even more updated and consistent with what we had already published HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26699363/ratzinger-sottotesto-libro-intervista-ultime-conversazioni-peter-seewald.html

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 (https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28380027/mirko-ciminiello-romait-scopre-messaggio-ratzinger-non-riconosce-francesco-come-papa-nella-lista-di-san-malachia.html) 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 https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html

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 https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27505999/papa-ratzinger-bergoglio-messaggio-nella-bottiglia-documentario-bugnolo-lamendola-decimo-toro-massoneria-daneels-mafia-san-g.html) 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 https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28264381/vaticano-papa-emerito-non-esiste-allora-joseph-ratzinger-cosa-stato-otto-anni.html .

Now, for those who have missed the previous episodes, read why the Declaratio is NOT a renunciation HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28187673/joseph-ratzinger-vero-papa-giuristi-sanchez-acosta-smontano-difesa-pro-bergoglio.html and rather, why all accounts add up in reading it as an announcement of SEDE IMPEDITA : HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/28344881/declaratio-papa-ratzinger-non-rinuncia-ma-sede-impedita-sei-latinisti-traducono-parola-chiave-vacet-non-sede-vacante-ma-sede.html

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!

____________________________________

(1) A MESSAGE IN A BOTTLE — THE MYSTERY BEHIND THE RESIGNATION OF POPE BENEDICT XVI https://www.fromrome.info/2021/06/15/a-message-in-a-bottle-the-mystery-behind-the-resignation-of-pope-benedict-xvi/

(2) AN INDEX TO POPE BENEDICT’S RENUNCIATION https://www.fromrome.info/2019/11/26/an-index-to-pope-benedicts-renunciation/

(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?” https://www.proselitismodellascienza.it/2021/06/16/come-si-fa-ad-offrirsi-ed-essere-vittime-di-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.”
“ACT, AND GOD WILL ACT.”

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!

To: liturgy@iecon.ie
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……..to 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!

REPUBLISHED FROM THE LETTER TO THE EDITOR

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

by Andrea Cionci

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION

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.