Category Archives: Guest Editorials

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


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

by Andrea Cionci


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

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

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

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

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

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

I had mentioned that hypothesis here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fr. Altman: Don’t be a guinea pig!


by Fr. James Altman

Reprinted from his Parish Bulletin

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

Why are Masks so important to the Globalists?

Face-Masks – Protection or Stigma?

by  Jens Pinkernelle

Introduction and Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Results and Discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


(4) (Madonna)





(M. Ahmadinejad)








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

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

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

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

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

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


A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

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

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

by Andrea Cionci


20. The first results of Plan B

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

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

21. Bergoglio goes full throttle, too much

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

22. Bergoglio runs for cover at the Corriere della Sera

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

23. The explicit subtext of Benedict

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

24. The nomination of the “ambassador” to Benin

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

25. The mirror trick is understood

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

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

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

27. A foreseen battle

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

28. What is Benedict waiting for?

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

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

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

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

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

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

30. The “little ones” will be the protagonists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

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

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

by Andrea Cionci


9. The errors in the Latin

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

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

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

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

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

11. A concentrate of juridical invalidity

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

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

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

13. The attack on Catholicism begins

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

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

14. Benedict goes ahead as the Pope

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

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

15. The “scientific” ambiguity of the thing

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

16. The Main Stream Media’s forced narrative

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

17. The Mafia of St. Gall unmasks itself

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

18. The defense attempted by Mons. Sciacca

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

19. Benedict’s reply to Mons. Sciacca

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

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

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

by Andrea Cionci


  1. An Appointment at 29 o’clock on February 28th.

Moreover, Benedict deferred the renunciation of ministerium, fixing it for February 28th, and in such a clear manner that Cardinal Sodano, immediately after His Declaratio, clarified very well to the Cardinals, almost obsessively, that He would remain Pope until the 28th.  But not only that: Ratzinger specified even the hour X after which he would be no longer the Pope, the 29th hour.. It was obviously a typographical error: He wanted to write 20:00 hours (8 P. M.), and in fact, it was corrected afterwards, but the newspapers cited the error with which He underlined how important that inconvenient hour would be, in which the people, as is their custom, would be at dinner in Italy. HERE:

  1. The Pope Emeritus is the Pope

Would he return to being a Cardinal? No: He specified afterwards (in 2016) that He will become a “pope emeritus” , making reference to the fact that, from the 70’s onward, in Canon Law there was permitted to diocesan Bishops in retirement to remain on the sacramental level Bishops, but emeriti for having resigned only from the practical functions. In the case of the Pope, however, there exists no sacramental dimension, but only a super-sacramental dimension which regards a charge which no man on earth has the power to modify or share.  Hence, he who resigns from the papal charge cannot remain in any sense the Pope, and a pope who resigns solely in part, does in truth remain in every way the Pope.  Benedict knows this, but his adversaries do not. Ratzinger, therefore, has purposefully used this camouflage of a “pope emeritus” — an expression which is inexistent in Canon Law, — to maintain himself as the Pope and, in the meantime, to leave the playing field to his enemies. HERE

  1. That white garment which He keeps wearing

Behold the reason why Benedict consistently maintains the white cassock, while omitting the mozzetta (white mantle) and sash, symbols of the practical functions which He alone has in fact renounced: the administering of the Barque of Peter and announcing the Gospel.  To Andrea Tornielli, the Vaticanista, who will ask him why He would not wear the cassock of a mere Cardinal, He will reply, justifying himself with the phrase that it was “an eminently practical solution, give that he had no other changes of clothing available”.  This fact will resist all opposition for years, even the most recent stigmatizzation of it by Cardinal George Pell, who said in Dec. 2020: “A pope after his resignation should not dress in white and should not teach in public”.  Yes, but perhaps there is no “after” here? HERE  and HERE

  1. The wantonness of the Mafia of St. Gall.

Ratzinger knows well his adversaries, he knows that they have longed for power since the 90’s when they mustered together in secret meetings in the city of St. Gallen, Switzerland.  Not by chance, was it precisely in those years, that Pope Wojtyla published the apostolic constitution, Universi dominici gregis which automatically excommunicates any Cardinal guilty of a pre-Conclave plot to elect a pope.  Ratzinger knows that his enemies’ level of knowledge of Latin and Canon Law is inferior to his own and that, in the face of an apparent surrender, they would not have paid attention to details.  They would, rather, presume the validity of any document which spoke of a resignation.

In fact, after the Declaratio, the Mafia of St. Gallen is dancing with the stars and causes there to be announced from the Vatican Press Office that “the Pope has resigned”.  Their desires appear to them fulfilled quasi “prophetically” by Ratzinger, at the end of his Declaratio where he declares to renounce the ministerium SO THAT (“ut”) “from February 28th, at the hour of Rome, the See of St. Peter will be vacant and that there is to be convoked, by those who are competent, a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff” (“by those who are competent”, that is, not “you Cardinals”, or at least not all of “you Cardinals”, a reference to those who were unfaithful to him).


CREDITS: Translation and use of image, here at the Featured Image, with permission.

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

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

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

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

Spanish translation Here

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


A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

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

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

by Andrea Cionci


The question of the “two Popes” and of the resignation of Benedict XVI is a very broad one, not to be discounted, spreading over 8 years and events difficult to interpret.  In these months, we have analyzed many individual facts and documents without receiving any response to our questions, legitimate though they be.

And yet, the thesis that has been proposed by the attorney Estefania Acosta and by other authoritative journalists, jurists, theologians and ecclesiastics (many of whom have paid a dear price for their positions), is shocking:  Pope Benedict XVI might have WILLINGLY prearranged an entirely invalid resignation to open a new front against his adversaries, causing them to nominate an anti-pope and arranging that in time the truth above the antichrist objectives of the “Deep Church” and the fact that he is still the sole Pope, be discovered.  This would bring about the definitive cancellation of the “false Church”, along with great purification from heresy and corruption, to open up a new epoch of Christian renewal.

Is this plausible? We have already investigated how the hypothesis of a Benedict XVI who is little prepared in Latin and canon law, or even an enthusiastic promoter of the modernist revolution of Francis, are hardly credible, here

Therefore, there remains that we sift through the hypothesis of the so-called “Catholic Reset”, cited above: this we have attempted to do by putting in order, according to this point of view, the facts, documents, persons.

To allow you to link to all of it, at once, we propose here a summary, a synthesis, from which you can investigate each argument further by clicking the links under the word, “Here”.

Judge for yourself: let alternative explanations be attempted, so long as they are able to place each of the “pieces of the puzzle” in an alternative but coherent framework, HERE

and HERE

1, An inconvenient Pope

“Pray for me so that I do not flee before the wolves”: thus did Benedict XVI exhort the Catholic people at the beginning of his difficult pontificate, in 2005.  The world, in fact, immediately turned upon him: 16 years ago, the Catholic Church, with Her two-thousand-year-old Faith, identity and moral laws, constituted the last obstacle in the path of various globalist-progressive objectives sponsored by the international Left and Lodges.

After the hotly opposed discourse at Ratisbon (2006), which had shut the doors to all religious syncretism, after the Motu Proprio, “Summorum Pontificum” (2007), with which Ratzinger “restored” the Mass in Latin, invigorating Tradition with a fresh breath of oxygen, the internal clerical opposition of the Modernists — which had coagulated around the lobby of Cardinals, called “the Mafia of St. Gallen” — there was then en-kindled and decided to foster such opposition to him that he would resign, as has been amply described by Cardinal Danneels (one of the members of the “Mafia”) in his Autobiography of 2015.

  1. The Year of Horrors (Annus orribilis)

In 2012, the situation became unsustainable: at the Vatican large numbers boycotted the Pope by refusing to obey him; the meek Pope-theology could not trust in anyone, so much so that even his private butler robbed documents from his mailboxes, in that famous scandal of Vatileaks which put in clear light the ferocious factional war in the bosom of the Church and gave breath, at last, to a plan to eliminate him physically.  But these revelations played into the hands of Ratzinger, as we will see, by making clear the context in which he would have to opt for his extrema ratio (last reckoning).

The Media, for their part, were all against him: they depicted him as a sullen obscurantist, they massacred him by trotting out true and presumed scandals of pedophilia (which today magically have disappeared) and, toward the end of December there arrived the last thumbscrew: The Obama-Clinton administration blocked the accounts of the Vatican by means of the SWIFT system.  They would only be unblocked in the days immediately following the “resignation” of Ratzinger: HERE

  1. The Moment arrives for “Plan B”

With a Church completely infected with the metastasizing globalist modernism subject to and placed under international pressure, Benedict decided upon a definitive maneuver, undertaken “to clean out not only the small world of the Curia, but rather the Church in Her totality”, as he will explain to the journalist Peter Seewald in 2016.

A “Plan B” worked out over many years precisely in view of an aggression against the Papacy from within the Church, and announced in many prophecies and in the Third Secret of Fatima, according to which Ratzinger was one of the few to be set apart by God for a special mission.

The Pope assembled in this way what could strategically be defined as a “planned ruse”, with a “false target” and a “feigned retreat” to cause the morale of the authentic Catholic population to be recharged  and to definitively annihilate the antichristic forces in the bosom of the Church. HERE.

  1. The “false target”: the ministerium

The plan was founded upon a provision put into act in 1983, when the papal charge was divided into architecture and decoration, munus and ministerium, or rather, the divine office and the practical exercise of its power.

And it is precisely this last which is the true juridical “false target” which he offered to his enemies: to renounce the ministerium, and not the munus, would be to make one think that a noble, a count, had lost his title of  nobility  solely because he had renounced the administration of his possessions.  Nothing of the kind: a count remains always a count even without lands, and contrariwise, an administer cannot become a count solely by administering the holdings.  Munus and ministerium are not equivalents.

In this way, after two weeks of work, in January of 2013, Ratzinger formulated a Declaratio, a declaration in Latin of hardly 1700 key-strokes, where the terms were inverted, according to a “mirror trick”: instead of renouncing the munus, the charge of the Pope because the ministerium (the practical exercise) had already become burdensome, he announces to want to do the opposite: to renounce the ministerium because the exercise of the munus has become burdensome!  A true trick of words, but, which juridically would only have allowed, at the most, the nomination of a bishop-vicar, certainly not the resignation of a pope, the dignity of which is conserved in the foundational munus. (Of this speak at least 5 publications). HERE


CREDITS: Translation and use of image, here at the Featured Image, with permission.

Pope Benedict XVI’s shell game against the Mafia of St. Gallen

“Ein Leben”: In the second book of Interviews with Pope Benedict XVI, we find another story about His resignation

by Andrea Cionci

Here is an unofficial English translation

A few days ago, we became aware of strange inconsistencies and the possibility of a shocking subtext in the interview book by Peter Seewald – Benedict XVI “Last Conversations” (Garzanti 2016) HERE .

On a deeper reading, the writing seemed to be able to coincide with a scenario now outlined by various theologians, journalists, Latinists and legally explained by the recent volume Benedict XVI: pope emeritus? By the lawyer Estefania Acosta HERE .

According to this thesis, Benedict XVI, now besieged by the internal modernist frond and by external globalist powers, never left the Petrine throne in 2013 : he only announced his resignation from the exercise of his functions, moreover without ever ratifying them. HERE

In this way he would have allowed his enemies to seize power, effectively constituting an anti-papal party . Why all this? It would be a strategic retreat to allow anti-Christ forces to manifest themselves and then be canceled, thanks to the recognition of the only true pope, Benedict, for a redemption-purification of the Church. Over the past eight years, Ratzinger, kept under control by the antipapal power, has thus sent us continuous messages through a subtly logical language to facilitate our awareness.

The question, incredible as it may seem, is serious and there are even priests who are excommunicated for their fidelity to Pope Benedict. The latest is Don Enrico Bernasconi , whose interview we propose HERE .

So we also went to read the second book by Peter Seewald ” Ein Leben – Una vita” of 2020 (Garzanti), of which few and disorganized fragments filtered out in the press.

The voluminous biography contains eight pages with new questions to Ratzinger . Let’s try to read them according to the above perspective and see if the sense can spin.

First of all, Ratzinger declares: “My intention was not simply and primarily to clean up the small world of the Curia, but rather in the Church as a whole” . And then: The real threat to the Church comes from the universal dictatorship of apparently humanistic contradicting ideologies, which entails exclusion from the basic consensus of society. [] Modern society intends to formulate an anti-Christian creed : whoever challenges it is punished with social excommunication. Being afraid of this spiritual power of the Antichrist is all too natural .

And so far we would be there . Benedict immediately after, underlines the differences with one of his illustrious predecessors.

The visit (2009) to the tomb of Pope Celestine V was actually a chance event; in any case I was well aware of the fact that Celestine V’s situation was extremely peculiar and that therefore it could in no way be invoked as (my) precedent .

One could read this as meaning: “Celestine V legally resigned in 1294 because he did not feel like taking on the burden of the papacy, which I absolutely did not do, since I did not resign as pope, but I only declared that I wanted to renounce to the exercise of practical power, for the purposes we know. Celestino and I have nothing in common “.

Then the Holy Father continues:

“It was absolutely not my intention to take an extreme distance from the conditions in which the Church finds itself. If you study the history of the popes, you will soon realize that the Church has always been a net in which good fish and bad fish end up. The Catholic conception of the Church and of the managerial roles within it excludes the adoption of an ideal Church as a parameter and instead foresees that one is ready to live and work in a Church besieged by the forces of evil .

Or rather: “I have not in the least abandoned the role of pope. We know that the history of the Church is full of antipopes and we must be ready to face the siege of the forces of evil”.

Seewald then tackles the key question: according to Church historians there is no “emeritus” pope , since there cannot be two popes . It is true that, since the 1970s, a bishop can resign and become an emeritus, but this – he asks – also applies to the pope?

Ratzinger replies: It is not clear why this juridical figure should not also be applied to the bishop of Rome. The formula manages to account for both aspects: on the one hand no concrete juridical mandate, on the other a spiritual charge that is maintained, even if invisible. Precisely the juridical and spiritual figure of the emeritus allows us to avoid even the idea of the coexistence of two popes, given that a bishopric can have only one holder “.

There is therefore only one pope. But when he says “the juridical and spiritual figure of the emeritus”, to which of the two does he refer, to the pope or to the bishop? The ambiguity does not seem accidental, but the Latinist Fr Alexis Bugnolo , an expert in canon law , explains :

If we mean BISHOP EMERITUS , the argument is invalid from the canonical point of view because a bishop receives an ecclesiastical office and, since his mandate as ordinary bishop has been created by the Church, two persons can be allowed in the dignity of the bishop. If we mean pope emeritus, the argument is still invalid since there is no juridical figure of pope emeritus and since the munus is not shared iure divino (by Divine insitution)”.

Also for the theologian Carlo Maria Pace , who HERE analyzed the invalidity of Ratzinger’s resignations due to their deferral, confirms: “Benedict XVI erroneously stated that a Pope who resigns remains Pope in the same way that bishops who resign remain bishops “.

In essence, the pope emeritus would himself be THE pope. In fact, if A bishop resigning (from the post of human origin) can become A retired bishop, IL Pope, renouncing the ministerium is always THE Pope, although retired, since it keeps the munus which is given directly by God. That’s why Ratzinger continues to say for eight years that the pope is only one and never specify that it is Francis.

Benedict seems to reiterate the concept, a few lines later, with an example: “A father remains so until death (even if he passes the management of the company to his son) and the human and spiritual meaning of being a father is not revocable”.

But what would be the spiritual purpose of these fake resignations?

An explanation is offered by Seewald’s own question:

The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben says he is convinced of the fact that the real reason for (Ratzinger’s) resignation was the desire to awaken the eschatological conscience (concerning the ultimate destinies of man). In the divine plan of salvation, the Church would also have the function of being together “the Church of Christ and the Church of the Antichrist” . The resignation would be a foreshadowing of the separation between “Babylon” and “Jerusalem” in the Church. Instead of engaging in the logic of maintaining power, by her resignation from office she would have emphasized his spiritual authority, thereby contributing to its strengthening .”

And here is Pope Benedict’s response:

“St. Augustine said that on the one hand many are part of the Church only in an apparent way, while in reality they live against it, and that, on the contrary, outside the Church there are many who – without knowing it – deeply belong to the Lord and therefore also to his body, the Church. We must always be aware of this mysterious overlap of internal and external, an overlap that the Lord has exposed in several parables. We know that in history there are moments in which the victory of God over the forces of evil is visible in a comforting way and moments in which, instead, the forces of evil obscure everything .

Let’s say, in conclusion, he doesn’t seem to have exactly denied Agamben’s opinion.

Why do So Many refuse to see it?

A Commentary by David Webster

Dr. Taylor Marshall’s commentary on this blasphemy, a bit down on the twitter page, …

though correctly concluding that God (the true God) cannot possibly contaminate himself with our sin, completely fails to understand what false prophet Bergoglio means by the word “contaminate” in reference to who he calls “God,” as his “God” could only be Satan, whose Jesuit ethics is “the end justifies the means”. Citing Bergoglio’ statement that ” ‘God’ cannot sin” he wrongly concludes Bergoglio is merely caught in a contradiction or a misuse of a word when its who Bergoglio believes is “God” is the real issue  Why is Marshall so blind to what this false prophet is saying?

What Bergoglio is saying is that while “God” (who he obviously confuses with Satan/Lucifer) cannot personally act in sin, he, (as his end always justifies him), nevertheless gives mankind a different standard and tolerates his sin with no need for repentance and conversion, and simply overlooks it. That indeed is a very real contamination of his “God” but its justified and even lauded because its for a good cause!   That indeed is Bergoglio’ very consistent ” theology” of an all merciful “God,” where there is no Hell or eternal death, a true spin off of Satan/Lucifer’s “Thou shalt not die” to Eve!

Marshall, sad to say, has a serious lack of spiritual discernment, which he has refused to acknowledge and thus continues to call the apostate, antiChrist, antipope Fraudcis “The Holy Father!”


On the larger context of Bergoglio’ message which was his using Jesus contact with a leper (whom Jesus heals!)  in an attempt to push his perverted view of a contaminated compromising “God” (i.e. Satan): Our Lord neither approves of this man’s leprosy or tolerates it, He destroys it!




The Bilderbergs wanted a Virus to kill the elderly because …

by Peter

There is a reason that they made sure that people believe that the elderly are the most at risk from this ‘Covid’ fraud. With the next ‘wave’ or the next ‘virus’ they’ll say “we did it wrong last time, so this time we need to round-up and isolate the 65+ crowd and let the rest get on with their lives”. People will think this is a great idea (they get to keep working, etc) , not knowing that the elderly people (anyone 65+) will be sent to their deaths. Then the B.S. story will be that the 2nd wave was just too strong to defeat and it ravaged 90% of the elderly.

Do you know why they want to do this? Look into what Catherine Austin Fitts wrote many years ago. She worked in the Reagan/Bush-1 White-House and she said many years ago that all of the money had been stolen from all of the pension funds and everyone’s retirement fund was gone. She said that Wall Street’s plan was to kill-off the elderly so that they would never have to make good on all of the pensions that were stolen, and they won’t have to provide care for the elderly.

Now in 2020, the USA (and many other countries) are using the ‘corona crisis’ to try to establish a new monetary system and eventually introduce a new currency; well, let me advise you, the new currency won’t last 10 years if they have to immediately print-up enough money to reimburse all of the elderly for their stolen pensions and provide medical care until their natural deaths.

So when you hear about how it is necessary for your elderly parents, siblings, etc to be taken to containment centers for their own protection, remember that their fate is already sealed if they are taken. They will be put to death all in the name of securing the viability of the new monetary system.

Peoples’ pensions do die with them except in certain scenarios where the spouse is allowed to continue to receive part of it. Remember, the spouse is usually virtually the same age and would have fallen under their planned ‘euthanasia’ scheme too. And it’s the pensions, not the money/assets of the deceased which are of importance here. The pensions of, and the cost of care for, the elderly are the unfunded liabilities which would bring down the new monetary system very quickly.

You immediately doom any monetary system when you make it commence its lifespan by the mass-printing of new money to fill in the gaps left by the now-defunct previous system; it puts the new system right back under the same duress which finally made the old system implode.

Wearing the Mark of the Beast

“…and no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark, the number, or the name of the beast.”
Revelations 13:17

by Laramie Hirsch

As I said way back in March, people are going to come to obsess about the Coronavirus. You know, that Chinese Flu that was first cooked up in a North Carolina lab, exported up into Canada, and then later smuggled into a Wuhan bio lab?  By now, most people understand the idea of a pandemic. However, the biggest reactionaries to this—more than the average person—are corporations.  The Catholic Church is no exception, as it’s capitulated to this great fear faster than anyone else.  And, of course, let’s now forget the Left as a whole, which idolizes the transformation of society through oppressive systemic controls. Covid-19 is a wondrous opportunity for them.

Since these institutions are in control of just about everything, you can now only buy, sell, or trade with the mark of this beast.  And that mark of submission? It is the very mask you have to wear in public. It is doubly punitive to those people who are forced to wear the mask for entire shifts at their job, only to have to continue to wear it when they go to the store to buy what they need. That is not to say that we are wearing the literal “mark” for the literal “Beast of Revelations,” although it is clear to most faithful Catholics that we are trapped beneath an oppressive system that is anti-Christ.  There can be no doubt about that.  Yet, we can say certainly that we are wearing a type of mark for a type of beast.  

And so, we find ourselves in an excellent training ground for what is to come. While these times may be a dress rehearsal for enemies who excitedly wait for the final last gasp of Christian resistance, these days can also serve as a training ground for the rest of us. Yet, what do we see when we go out in public?  We see almost complete capitulation and submission. To refuse to wear the mask is to become an outlier and a pariah.  If you dare to go into a store and not wear the mask, you will be like Charlton Heston discovering that “Soylent Green is people,” or Officer Logan 5, who just discovers that people can live past their middle age years without having to be euthanized.  You become a member of an out-group.

For now, the punishment is social ostracization and the denial of commerce.  In some places, though, online video shows people are physically restrained and arrested for not wearing the mark.

Pay Homage To The Gods

As we proceed into the 21st-century, it becomes increasingly clear that Americans idolize their technology. They give themselves completely to creature comforts, vice, convenience, and all the baubles offered by extremely powerful corporations.  This arrangement has put extremely wealthy and influential organizations and corporations in a kind of divinity status. On paper, they are simply businesses that are doing well economically. But in practice, these organizations are like the ancient Caesars who thought themselves demigods.

Everyone must pay homage to these Caesars. All must submit to the imperial cult.  The masses must bring forth divine honors to their leader, corporate America.  For, the super organisms we call corporations have actually morphed and coagulated into one, single, mono-organism. For big business, solve et coagula has been accomplished. And this multi-headed hydra, this oligarchy, has attained a status similar to Caesar’s divi filius, which translates to “divine son”, or son of a god.  And who can deny this idea that these companies who sell you soft drinks and digital movies ultimately pay homage to the Dark Prince, himself—the Evil One who fancies himself as the god of the universe?  Are Christians not told year after year to boycott most of the commercialized products peddled to us on a minute-by-minute basis?  Don’t these companies take part in a kind of secular religion that honors homosexuality, abortion, feminism, globalism, and other modernist ideals?

Modern American commerce is a “cult of the emperor”, and it is not hard to figure out the nature of this religion—particularly when we consider all of the recent rumors swirling around these past few years of satanic, pedophile sacrifices taking place among the very powerful and monied powers of our society. Corporate America has become your imperial deity, much like the Caesars of old.

Christians vs The Imperial Deity

It would do well for us to remember the times of the ancient Romans, when the first Christians began to spread the message of Christ throughout Rome.  Many have heard stories about early Christianity, but many also have forgotten the literature:

The Christians were not so fortunate. Yet their position was logical and was clearly and consistently maintained. They honored the emperor as ruler but declined to recognize him as a god. This distinction the Roman authorities refused to admit. They insisted that the worship of the national gods and the emperor in particular was the duty of every citizen and that to refuse was an act of disloyalty. Hence the mere profession of Christianity was regarded as a crime against the state. One who was accused of that crime might clear himself by the simplest act or word implying reverence for the gods or acceptance of the divinity of the emperor. Several notable instances are recorded in which this test of loyalty was applied to the Christians. Pliny in his well-known letter to Trajan reports that as governor of Bithynia he required them to worship the gods and to offer wine and incense before the emperor’s statue. Polycarp, the aged bishop of Smyrna, when commanded by the proconsul as the condition of his release, to swear by the Genius of the emperor, replied, “You do not know what I am. I am a Christian.” 

The Biblical World, Volume 40, edited by William Rainey Harper, Ernest DeWitt Burton, and Shailer Mathews

The Christians would not be tolerated. They were ordered to worship caesar as a god and add a pinch of incense to the fire in his honor.  It was just a simple little thing.  They could have done this, and moved on to take advantage of the fruits of the Roman Empire.  After all, it was not as if these early Christians were like Roman pagan families who participated in private worship, burning incense before the images of the emperor and leaving offerings of food and drink to him and the other household gods. And it was not as if these early Christians were rushing to take part in elaborate and costly public worship rituals of their ruling “demigod.”

Yet, quite a few of those early Christians gave in.  They avoided sacrificing themselves and completely betrayed their loyalty to Christ, as we can see in the exchange between Pliny and Trajan:

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ–none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do–these I thought should be discharged. 

Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

From a Letter by Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan, in approx. 112 AD

The wishes of corporate moguls are strapped across the mouth of everyone’s face. Many people now realize that the medical mask fiasco has nothing to do with a virus. For most people, those deemed “asymptomatic“, they do not even notice that this bio weapon is in their system. It is a benign phenomenon, observable only by chemical testing. Less than a half a percent of the people with this virus die. It has been shown that hospitals and governments are inflating the death count in order to score higher numbers. Yet, Americans continue to wear the mask, fearful of one another’s cooties.

The Romans did not distinguish their religion from their politics. Religion was a function of the state. And so, too, is it with us. We live under a “sanitary dictatorship,” as Bishop Athanasius Schneider once called it. And the dark sacrament for the New Wisdom is to cover your face, become a part of the herd, and cancel out your individuality.

Defy Caesar’s Claim To Divinity

Corporations, governments, and the corrupted hierarchy of the Catholic Church—these principalities and powers, all of them, have turned the facemask issue into a religio-political situation. They have abolished normal society and transformed everyone and everything into a desolate abomination of its former self. The 21st Century has become a Bizzaro Land nightmare for any time travelers unfortunate enough to land here. And to make sure that you comply with Caesar’s edict, there is a legion of Karens, hall monitors, tattletales, and neo-Stasi acolytes just waiting to turn you in, slap you around, shame you in public, and write you citations for non-compliance.

This must not stand. This must be protested. This must be resisted.

If the people of our society do not resist this new cult in all-but-name-only, then we have witnessed “the camel nose under the tent.” Once that camel raises his head and starts walking around in the tent, your world will be mangled and destroyed forever. Therefore, civil disobedience and defiance must be put into practice. If you must shop at a store, and a “health officer” tries to make you conform, make a scene. Do not let the moment pass without doing anything. The time to be bold is now. The time to be the salt of the Earth has arrived. Put away your cowardice, and do not be afraid to let everyone else know that two plus two is four.

Walking around without a facemask in a masked-up world can be unnerving. It makes one feel like the only human being on the Planet of the Apes. You silently ask yourself, “What the hell is wrong with these people?” Meanwhile, the muzzled masses continue looking down at their phones. Do not be scared. I am with you in this. A lot of us are. You are not the only one. Your refusal to submit to pressure shows that you have a powerful will to do what is sane. It demonstrates that while most are weak, you are not. This simple act of not giving in will become a more commonly discussed topic in the future. Be at the head of the wave. Ahead of the curve. The tip of the spear.

When you go out in public, and you see everyone in a facemask, know that everyone there is not afraid of germs. Realize that everyone hiding behind a face diaper is not terrified of a virus. They are wearing it so that they do not look out of place. They are wearing them so that they will not become a pariah. Bring your own face with you, and remind the cowards that they were human beings once. Your spiritual ancestors, the first Christians, did this very thing. Your opportunity has arrived today.

You owe nothing to corporate America. Caesar is not a god.

+ + +


di Don Alessandro Minutella

Le dimissioni di Benedetto XVI, annunciate l’11 febbraio 2013, per quanto invalide, hanno inaugurato una nuova, irreversibile forma storica di papato. Una forma che Dio ha previsto per questi nostri tempi di apostasia. Il papa perde, a partire da Benedetto XVI, ogni veste di autorità mondana, ritorna ad essere l’inerme Pietro che, dinanzi all’impero romano, proclama Cristo come Salvatore. Ogni orpello rinascimentale, ogni apparato scenico e coreografico è del tutto abbandonato. Pietro torna tra i fedeli, torna in mezzo al gregge. Con le vesti dell’umiltà e senza più alcuna rilevanza politica e sociale, ma con una carica spirituale e profetica (in una parola evangelica) che, proprio per questo, diventa ancora più forte. Benedetto XVI è il papa di una Chiesa cattolica non più potente e rilevante, ma sofferente e perseguitata. Da quando ha lasciato il trono, è iniziata una nuova, sorprendente stagione papale.

Noi sappiamo che il cuore del munus petrino, con ogni evidenza teologica, è quello di Mt 16,18-19: “tu sei Pietro e su questa pietra edificherò la mia chiesa e le porte degli inferi non prevarranno contro di essa. A te darò le chiavi del regno dei cieli, e tutto ciò che legherai sulla terra sarà legato nei cieli, e tutto ciò che scioglierai sulla terra sarà sciolto nei cieli”. A questo passo si aggiunge anche Lc 22,31: “conferma i tuoi fratelli”. Infine c’è anche Gv 21,17: “pasci le mie pecorelle”.

In questo modo, il munus petrino si identifica come volontà stessa di Gesù Cristo e quanto la riflessione teologica e la codificazione canonica vi hanno potuto aggiungere, sono solo esplicitazioni del comando stesso di Gesù. Il papa è colui che, in quanto vescovo di Roma, presiede all’unità nella carità e conferma i fratelli nella fede. Così, in sintesi, afferma la riflessione teologica, ma ciò solo in intima coerenza e come deduzione del nucleo stesso del munus. Gesù ha costituito Pietro come capo del collegio apostolico (Mt 16,18), garante della fede (Lc 22,31) e pastore del gregge (Gv 21,17).

Nel corso dei secoli, come si diceva, questo nucleo centrale e insostituibile del munus petrino, che è quello di guidare la Chiesa e confermare i fratelli, si è arricchito o appesantito (secondo i punti di vista), di forme e usi non attinenti al nucleo centrale stesso, e che pertanto, anche quando sono stati persi, non hanno tuttavia toccato la sua natura intrinseca. Giulio II a cavallo con la corazza oggi sarebbe del tutto riprovevole. Quando con Pio IX, il papato perse il potere temporale, lì per lì sembrò una disgrazia, in realtà era piuttosto un dono della Provvidenza. Successivamente, soprattutto nella stagione pre e postbellica, il papa ha assunto il ruolo di capo di stato vaticano, tale per cui egli ha dovuto intrattenere rapporti diplomatici, sovente faticosi e tumultuosi, con i capi politici del pianeta, dedicando agli affari internazionali non poco tempo e fatica. Proprio questo rimaneva l’ultimo avamposto, diciamo così, inframondano del ruolo petrino, niente affatto inerente alla sostanza del munus fondato da Gesù. Certo, il fatto che il papa fosse anche capo di stato vaticano, gli garantiva una certa strategica possibilità di influenzare le politiche globali. E tuttavia, il rischio è stato quello che, dietro a questa preoccupazione politica, si perdesse di vista il nucleo centrale del munus petrino.

Da quando Benedetto XVI ha lasciato il trono, portando con sé il munus, la storia del papato ha avuto un capovolgimento copernicano. Niente più alcuna rilevanza politica e sociale, resta soltanto il papa come pastore universale dei fedeli, garante della fede e pastore universale del gregge. Non pochi osservatori, soprattutto di area tradizionalista, ma non solo, temono questa nuova (eppure originaria) forma evangelica del munus petrino, perché legati, come ai tempi di Pio IX, al potere temporale. Eppure è un segno dei tempi. Pietro torna ad essere soltanto il pastore e il garante della fede, senza più alcuna zavorra politica sociale.

Benedetto XVI ha avviato una forma di papato che il successore svilupperà in pieno. Non poche profezie si incrociano su questo papa che verrà dopo Ratzinger. In Ecuador la Madonna del Buon Successo nel XVII secolo ha descritto le caratteristiche del grande prelato, che sembrano riguardare proprio i nostri tempi di apostasia della fede e di eresia dilagante. Viene fuori l’identikit di un successore impegnato unicamente nel governare pastoralmente il gregge, confermando con forza i fratelli nella fede.

La notte del 2 febbraio 1634, mentre la madre Mariana, la veggente, pregava nel coro della cappella, la lampada del Tabernacolo si spense, lasciando il sacro luogo al buio. La Madre stava per andare a riaccenderla, ma si sentì come bloccata da una forza sconosciuta e restò quindi in attesa. Improvvisamente apparve la Madonna, vincendo le tenebre col suo splendore e illuminando la cappella come se fosse stato pieno giorno. La Santa Vergine le disse: “lo spegnersi della lampada che arde davanti all’Amore prigioniero ha molti significati (…) si diffonderanno varie eresie, e, sotto il loro potere, la luce preziosa della Fede si spegnerà nelle anime per opera della quasi totale corruzione dei costumi. In quel tempo vi saranno grandi calamità fisiche e morali, pubbliche e private. Le poche anime rimaste fedeli alla grazia soffriranno un martirio tanto crudele e indicibile quanto prolungato; molte di esse scenderanno nella tomba per la violenza delle loro sofferenze e verranno considerate come martiri sacrificatisi per la Chiesa”. È in questo contesto anticristico che la Santa Vergine parla del grande prelato: “quel prelato che dovrà restaurare lo spirito dei suoi sacerdoti. Questo mio amatissimo figlio verrà dotato di una capacità rara, di umiltà di cuore, di docilità alle divine ispirazioni, di fortezza per difendere i diritti della Chiesa e di un animo tenero e compassionevole, affinché, come un altro Cristo, provveda al grande e al piccolo, senza disprezzare i più infelici. (…) Nella sua mano verrà posta la bilancia del Santuario, affinché tutto venga fatto con peso e misura e affinché Dio venga glorificato. Alla rapida venuta di questo padre e prelato, però, sarà di ostacolo quella timidezza di tutte le anime consacrate a Dio, che è anche causa del dominio di Satana su queste terre”.

Colpisce soprattutto che la Madonna definisca il grande prelato “un altro Cristo”. Quasi come contrapposizione all’anticristo!

L’identikit del grande prelato corrisponde incredibilmente a quello della beata Caterina Emmerick, che profetizza l’avvento, dopo il tempo dei due papi, di un uomo di Chiesa, che proviene da sotto Roma, intorno ai cinquant’anni, di nobile stirpe, che vestirà di rosso.

Egli starà in mezzo ai fedeli, non abiterà più palazzi sontuosi, e non avrà più cortei pontifici. Dimesso e umile, sarà forte e coraggioso, e animerà i fedeli durante l’ultima persecuzione.

Anche il monaco Malachia, stimato da san Bernardo, dice che il successore di colui che chiama Gloria olivae, identificato con Benedetto XVI, sarà l’ultimo papa. Scrive Malachia: “in persecutione extrema Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae sedebit”, cioè “regnerà durante l’ultima persecuzione della Santa Romana Chiesa”. Il suo nome simbolico è Petrus Romanus.

Questa ripresa del tutto pastorale e spirituale del munus petrino, oggi, è temuta dai circoli tradizionalisti e dai nuclei salottieri che, infatti, bollano come misticismo fuorviante e settario. Ma, ripeto, la sostanza del munus l’ha stabilita Gesù Cristo ed essa prevede queste tre linee essenziali: capo del collegio apostolico, custode della fede e pastore del gregge. Non vi è chi sappia replicare seriamente a queste mie considerazioni. Semplicemente perché è quanto Gesù stesso ha stabilito. Tutto il resto, per quanto utile e talora indispensabile, è però accessorio. Un papa che torni del tutto pastore e padre, non più capo politico e diplomatico, privato ora di ogni rilevanza sociale, è niente affatto un disastro, anzi. Oggi quanti temono che con Benedetto XVI sia iniziata questa forma di papato spoglio ed evangelico, somigliano ai papalini del periodo risorgimentale, del tutto ansiosi che il papa perdesse il potere temporale.

Anche in questo Benedetto XVI ha del tutto squalificato il suo antagonista Bergoglio. Quest’ultimo, recitando un ruolo già preordinato, si sforza goffamente di apparire un papa povero, un papa della gente comune, un papa dimesso. In realtà, il potere che egli esercita nel mondo, in relazione agli stati e alle politiche europeiste, immigrazioniste, globaliste ed ecologiste, con i vari arcobaleni, lo accreditano come uno dei più potenti del pianeta.

Benedetto XVI, invece, è il papa del raccoglimento, della preghiera, del servizio al disegno di Dio, il papa della croce e del martirio, il papa di Fatima, il papa sofferente, che ha spogliato, lui sì, il munus di ogni inutile sovrapposizione mondana.

Ci vuole sguardo profetico e coraggioso. Ci vuole il fuoco del vangelo.

Mentre i progressisti bergogliani irridono queste profezie incrociate, i tradizionalisti UNA CUM, le temono, boicottandole. Entrambe le direzioni, non più cattoliche, ma ideologiche, e con molti interessi occulti e mondani, si sono impantanati nello sforzo titanico di riconoscere Bergoglio come papa, garante della fede, pastore secondo il cuore di Dio, valido successore di Pietro.

A partire dal momento in cui egli ha piazzato Pachamama a Roma, nel cuore della fede cattolica, per tutti questi non resta che la vergogna.

Ma il piano di Dio va ugualmente avanti. Le strategie nascoste o l’irrisione degli pseudo cattolici modernisti non impediranno che si realizzi il disegno di Dio.

Persino l’elezione del successore di Benedetto XVI scalzerà via istituzioni fradice e corrotte, come quelle del collegio cardinalizio (vera lobby massonica) e del conclave (assise segreta e corrotta l’ultima del 2013). Sarà finalmente e nuovamente il popolo santo di Dio, come nel primo millennio della Chiesa, a eleggere e scegliere il pastore voluto dal cielo. Verosimilmente quello chiamato a guidare il gregge nel tempo dell’anticristo.

Estrema e Inutile Difesa del Pro-Bergogliano, il Dott. De Mattei

di Max Tex

E’ inevitabile ed umano schierarsi.

Mi riferisco all’articolo di Roberto De Mattei apparso il 1 luglio 2020 su Corrispondenza Romana (Le incognite della fine di un pontificato). Vediamo di chiarire definitivamente da che parte stia l’autore.

Riassumiamo qui brevemente le tesi principali dell’articolo.


L’esordio è sullo stile catastrofista tipico del giornalismo di certa nobile ”intellighenzia” (che sembra schierarsi ma di fatto non lo fa mai):

 “Le dimissioni di Benedetto XVI saranno ricordate come uno degli eventi più catastrofici del nostro secolo …. ma soprattutto a una situazione di caos crescente nella Chiesa.

Poi continua accennando addirittura al “fumo di Satana”. Dice infatti:

il “fumo di Satana” rischia di avvolgere il Corpo Mistico di Cristo come forse mai è accaduto nella storia.”

Che significherebbero queste affermazioni e quali implicazioni potrebbero mai avere? Buio totale. Sembra si butti il sasso giusto per far rumore o per far saltare il sasso. Ma non vi è nessuna successiva analisi, spiegazione, chiarimento o discussione in merito e  meno che mai una disamina delle possibili implicazioni razionali! Niente, nada, zero!


A questo punto l’estensore dell’articolo si lancia in una serie di affermazioni “problematiche”. Vediamo di che si tratta. Afferma infatti (distinguendo per chiarezza i vari punti):

-“Il pontificato bergogliano è arrivato alla fine ….dal punto di vista del suo impatto rivoluzionario.” 

-”Il Sinodo post-amazzonico è fallito”

-“Esortazione dello scorso 2 febbraio e’ stata la pietra tombale di tante speranze. 

La prima affermazione è chiaramente indimostrata e gratuita. Possiamo soltanto immaginare infatti, ma non conoscere in dettaglio, le prossime iniziative di Bergoglio in campo ecclesiale, teologico e politico. Soprattutto, non siamo affatto in grado di escludere che le sue prossime mosse possano avere una portata se possibile ancora più radicalmente distruttiva e catastrofica per la Chiesa Cattolica.

Riguardo al Sinodo Amazzonico in quale senso sarebbe, di grazia, fallito? Non nel senso di costituire i viri probati alcuni dei quali, infatti, sono già stati nominati. E nemmeno nel senso del diaconato delle donne, visto che lo stesso argomento è ora al centro del sinodo della Conferenza Episcopale tedesca (REFUTAZIONE RAZIONALE DEI MODERNISTI: IL NUOVO CASO DI GEORG BÄTZING).

Infine per quanto concerne l’esortazione Querida Amazonia, è del tutto evidente che questa non abbia affatto fallito gli obbiettivi (naturalmente quelli concepiti dalla mente astuta di Bergoglio). Tutt’altro! Infatti è una vera e propria esaltazione dell’ambientalismo ateo e idolatra stile pachamama inaugurato da Bergoglio (e di cui abbiamo presumibilmente visto finora solo l’inizio)! Infatti dopo aver illustrato i “sogni” dell’ambientalismo mondialista si conclude addirittura in modo trionfante con una preghiera idolatra alla stessa pachamama! E’ dunque una pura ingenuità pensare che abbia fallito! Si tratta nientemento di un pezzo del programma del Nuovo Ordine Mondiale (NWO).


L’unico punto parzialmente condivisibile è in riferimento a mons. Georg Gänswein che viene citato successivamente.

Precisamente riguarda la menzione del

“discorso di mons. Georg Gänswein del 20 maggio 2016 alla Pontificia Università Gregoriana, in cui egli affermava [del tutto correttamente] che papa Benedetto non aveva abbandonato il suo ufficio”, avendo [“argomento princeps”] rinunciato al ministerium e non al munus, e “rendendo [quindi il papato] un ministero quasi-condiviso” («als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst»).

La conclusione, che però significativamente manca nell’articolo di De Mattei, è che si conferma quanto à dovrebbe essere ben noto a tutte le persone raziocinanti (e cristiane). Ovvero che Papa Benedetto XVI non abbia affatto rinunciato al munus petrinus e pertanto – stando alle parole di Gesu Cristo in persona riportate nel vangelo di Matteo 16: 18-19: E io ti dico: Tu sei Pietro e su questa pietra edificherò la mia chiesa e le porte degli inferi non prevarranno contro di essa. A te darò le chiavi del regno dei cieli, e tutto ciò che legherai sulla terra sarà legato nei cieli, e tutto ciò che scioglierai sulla terra sarà sciolto nei cieli. — è ancora lui il Papa!


Il “clou” dell’articolo però (non inaspettato peraltro) che chiarisce da che parte stia l’autore dell’articolo, giunge con l’accusa diretta ad una non meglio precisata

parte del mondo conservatore” [cattolico] che “avrebbe rivolto lo sguardo a Benedetto, considerandolo il “vero Papa”, contrapposto al “falso profeta”.  

Secondo lo stesso articolista, infatti, l’errore commesso da 

questi conservatori [sarebbe che ] non hanno voluto seguire la strada aperta dalla Correctio filialis consegnata a papa Francesco l’11 agosto 2016.”  

Come si sa lettera, come le successive, rimasta peraltro totalmente inascoltata.

Peraltro è interessante la “excusatio non petitache viene qui introdotta esplicitamente dal De Mattei a beneficio di Bergoglio. Si tratta nientepopodimeno di quanto segue. Frase che cito testualmente:

La vera ragione [è che] la radice delle deviazioni bergogliane risale ai pontificati di Benedetto XVI e di Giovanni Paolo II e, prima ancora, al Concilio Vaticano II. “


Per chiarire però definitivamente da che parte sia l’articolista (De Mattei) basta dare un’occhiata alla conclusione. Che e’ tutto un inno e un poema a Bergoglio. Infatti afferma che:

Papa Francesco non ha mai teorizzato l ‘ermeneutica della “discontinuità”, ma ha voluto realizzare il Vaticano II nella prassi”.  Questo compito JM Bergoglio l’avrebbe svolto in modo “vincente…nella realtà concreta dei fatti teologici, liturgici, canonici e morali, e non in uno sterile dibattito ermeneutico”.

Non si tratterebbe quindi di una colpa, bensì di un merito quasi eroico da parte di Jorge Mario Bergoglio!  

“Maria sollievo dei migranti”. Bergoglio cambia le Litanie: sfregio ai suoi oppositori?

di Andrea Cionci

Con papa Benedetto a Ratisbona, la prima iniziativa di Bergoglio è stata quella di inserire nelle Litanie Lauretane (che si recitano alla fine del Rosario) tre nuove invocazioni alla Madonna: “Mater misericordiae” (Madre della Misericordia), “Mater spei” (Madre della Speranza”, e “Solacium migrantium” (aiuto, soccorso, sollievo dei migranti).

Giusto ieri, avevamo citato – con preoccupazione – il fatto che l’idea fissa per i migranti di Bergoglio venga spesso accostata dai suoi oppositori all’agenda del Nuovo Ordine Mondiale, un presunto complotto satanico-massonico che avrebbe tra i suoi principali obiettivi, appunto, l’implementazione massima dell’immigrazione: leggi qui.

Non abbiamo fatto in tempo a scriverlo, che è uscita l’ultima novità. E non ci aiuta granché nel difendere Francesco, anche perché la cronaca riserva proprio in questi giorni fatti tristissimi con protagonisti gli stranieri.

Continua di leggere al blog personale di Andrea Cionci, su Libero.

+ + +

COVID-19 & the promotion of Euthanasia

by Elizabeth D. Wickham, PhD

Executive Director, LifeTree

Lest there be any doubt.  Covid-19 is as much political as it is medical. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that a lot of what was once purely medical has become political, thanks in part to the euthanasia movement.  Medicine is being fundamentally transformed to make sure that euthanasia has a primary role in the standard of care for the seriously ill.

Please take time to follow this essay to its conclusion and you should end with a realization that indeed palliative medicine was just the beginning of a major transformation in medicine.  We will end where we begin, with what is happening at the National Academy of Medicine, formerly the National Institute of Medicine.

“Pallative” “Medicine”

The National Academy of Medicine is led by Chinese American-born and pandemic expert Dr. Victor Dzau. The NAM is working on a new era of healthcare delivery known as Precision Medicine. The description uses words such as data, algorithms and precision molecular tools, high value, improving outcomes and decreasing cost. A key element is merging an individual’s health data into an entire community’s data so that they can use artificial intelligence and algorithms to specify a patient’s medical treatment. (See the NAM Sept, 2016 Discussion Paper  “Realizing the Full Potential of Precision Medicine in Health and Health Care:  A Vital Direction for Health and Health Care”

To understand Dr. Dzau’s role in transforming healthcare is a major project. You might want to listen to Amazing Polly’s video titled “More Public Health Mafia Connections” which is the first video at  She says he is everywhere!

How to establish a pervasive role for palliative medicine now that medicine has been shaken by a serious pandemic is an important task for these people of the Third Path.  A couple of videos might help you understand what evolved rather quickly during these last two months. Both videos feature Dr. Diane Meier of the Center to Advance Palliative Care. The first one is a public webinar of Meier and others including the important Dr. Sean Morrison of the National Palliative Care Research Center (NPCRC) and the second is a Diane Meier interview by Alexandra Drane of the Coalition to Transform Advance Care. They help us understand how the palliative model is changing during this pandemic.

The first video takes place at the Center to Advance Palliative Care on March 31, 2020.  CAPC is located adjacent to Mt. Sinai Hospital in Manhattan which was in the epicenter of the pandemic. Attached is a transcription of that video and hyperlink.

1st Video:

(From Video #1):  “…A couple things we thought might be helpful but in fact turned out not to be helpful. The first was, our initial thought was that we could train front line providers in core communication skills and core pain and symptom management skills that would relieve pressure on palliative care teams; that turned out not to be true; that what was seen and what we have seen happening is that Emergency Departments, ICU’s and even Hospital Services are so overwhelmed with patients that people only really have time to manage clinical symptoms, intubate where necessary and provide critical care…”

Hence, Diane Meier and her CAPC members decided to move at least one palliative care professional into every ED and ICU of the Mt. Sinai Healthcare System.

Meier and Morrison talk about getting sufficient numbers of their palliative people into the critical sections of hospitals during the surge. One in ER and one in ICU won’t be enough. Remember, up until this point in time, palliative-trained specialists in hospitals appeared as part of formal palliative care teams (physician, nurse, chaplain, social worker).  Now, with the pandemic riding rough shod on all actions taken within the hospital, the process of deciding on goals of care had to be compressed.

They decided to make a palliative expert who was experienced at “having those conversations” available 24/7 by phone on the front line. A hotline available straight through to someone trained in the palliative philosophy could solve the numbers problem.

Also on video #1 they talk about making available to frontline clinicians palliative care protocols for symptom management (pain, shortness of breath, etc.).

 ” …but what our system has done to try to support non-Palliative Care clinicians that are taking care of sick patients, is put pocket cards with scripts, literally, how do you talk to a family about this and very easy to read and interpret symptom management… almost recipes (14:49). What’s the starting dose of opioids for shortness of breath? What do you have to do if that doesn’t work? When do you increase the dose? So, having those types of resources ready before you need them, would be really helpful. We’ve been scrambling to get them done 3 – 5 days after we needed them and… so… most of those resources are available for… virtually all of them are available for free, for download, on the CAPC website.”

The second video was released last week on CAPC’s blogsite — You can listen to Sunday in May, 2020 interview of Diane Meier by Alexandra Drane of the Coalition to Transform Advance Care (a policy making organization for the Third Path Euthanasia Movement).  For those who want to study this video more carefully, the transcript of text is attached.  Here is the video hyperlink.

2nd Video:


Diane Meier describes the change in palliative care due to the pandemic, especially how the hotline to a palliative care professional now has a bridge-like role. She relates a specific case and how it progresses from her to the clinician and then from her to the family.

Remember, the hotline from the hospital to a cell phone somewhere is manned by a palliative care specialist (e.g. Diane Meier) who is trained in “having family conversations.”

Here’s how it works. The patient arrives and someone at the hospital calls the cell phone number.  The palliative care specialist at the other end of the phone number gets in touch with the clinician (physician) in charge of the patient.  The palliative care specialist asks the clinician to describe the patient’s condition — “how does the patient look”, etc.  Then the palliative care specialist calls the patient’s family and waits for everyone to get on line.  The palliative care specialist relates to the family the conversation he/she just had with the clinician.  Then they probably discuss whether the patient has an advance directive. If there are no directives the palliative person asks the family what the patient would want in the way of medical treatment. Then the palliative person asks the family if the patient’s choice would change should the patient become worse…. Yada, yada, yada.

The stark reality is that the patient whose life is at stake is not a party to either conversation!  Because of the new CMS guidelines for isolating patients with Coronavirus-19 symptoms from their families a new protocol for palliative care is developing.  Now there are cell phone numbers to palliative experts that take  the Coronavirus-19 patient out of the picture.  The palliative professional becomes a bridge upstream to the doctor and downstream to the patient’s family.  They are the bridge Soros built to medical care for patients with Coronavirus-19.

A comment on the death rates due to this virus.  I would venture to say that the death rate due to coronavirus-19 has been inflated  by multiple decisions to give “comfort care only” guided by a Palliative Care Specialist.  These people have a different goal than most of us!!

Monumental Changes in process

Now let me take you back to the beginning of our journey to understand the monumental changes in healthcare and how they are changing with the pandemic.  At the beginning I mentioned Dr. Victor Dzau of the National Academy for Medicine and the NAM initiative to develop what they call “Precision Medicine.” Isn’t it a coincidence that the SUPPORT Study was conducted at 5 medical centers including the one at Duke starting in the late 1980s and ending in the early 1990s. See the part 2 of lifetree’s timeline at

Along the way Dr. Victor Dzau was CEO and President of Duke University Health System and on the Board of Health Governors of the World Economic Forum, chairing its Global Agenda Council on Personalized and Precision Medicine.  He is on the Expert Board of the Imperial College Health Partners, UK which provided some of the outrageous models for mitigating pandemics.

Fast forward to November, 2019. Now we have that same Dr. Victor Dzau co-hosting a symposium event at Duke called “Vital Direction for Health and HealthCare: The North Carolina Experience” with Dr. Mandy Cohen who in the 2010s was in charge of rolling out the Affordable Care Act!  She is now head the NC Dept of Health and Human Services.

I believe “Precision Medicine” is about using Artificial Intelligence and developing algorithmic tools to determine what medical treatments will be given and paid for.  (or not.) “Precision Medicine” is one step beyond Palliative Care which has always been sold as a cost effective medical tool.

Republished with permission of its author

+ + +