This is huge if true due to its bearing on whether Pope BXVI’s resignation was coerced and therefore invalid, and if so, whether PF was validly elected. https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...weeks-after-2005-election/?utm_source=popular Italian general: US official bragged Benedict would be ‘forced’ to resign weeks after 2005 election LifeSiteThu Jan 5, 2023 - 6:11 pm EST (LifeSiteNews) — On the eve of Pope Benedict XVI’s burial, Piero Laporta, a retired Italian brigadier general, published a stunning piece on his own blog. This Catholic author, who previously lobbied to have Benedict participate (and influence) the controversial Synod on the Family some eight years ago, is now revealing that in the first weeks after the election of Joseph Ratzinger to the papal throne in 2005, an official of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) “was bragging about the resignation to which H.H. Benedict XVI of revered memory would soon be forced.” If this story is true, however, “soon” would have to mean almost eight years, as that is the time it actually took for Benedict to resign. Laporta is a retired brigadier general who worked for the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Italian Military, and since his retirement writes for multiple blogs and for different newspapers, collaborating with, among others, our colleague Marco Tosatti and his blog Stilum Curiae. Laporta’s January 3 blog entry starts with the comment that he “shudders” at the publicly displayed “crocodile tears” by a representative of the community of San Egidio, in regards to Pope Benedict’s death. In light of these tears, “memories pass before my eyes,” he added. Laporta then revealed that there exists “a great Roman circle that is still active today,” that is more powerful than the so-called “Sankt Gallen group,” which has been historically opposed to Benedict. Laporta further relayed that in 2005, “a leading delegate of the U.S. government, who had his hands in Italian finances (where he is still active) and in Italian politics,” and was “a figure in the highest ranks of the National Security Agency (NSA),” was “bragging about the resignation to which H.H. Benedict XVI of revered memory would soon be forced.” This man, Laporta went on to say, spoke “with a nonchalance and with an arrogance” outside of his own circle about this matter. This “Roman circle” was reportedly dedicated to the slogans “God is dead” and “Jesus is fake news,” and was in “panic” when Benedict was elected. The “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” Laporta added, was “no joke,” but is a mere fig leaf compared to this “Roman circle” that Laporta refers to as a “dome of demons.” According to the Italian general, it was this group who “isolated” Benedict, “leaving him alone while the nescionalsecuiritiagensi [NSA] goons scourged the truth, then crucified it.” It is not known whether this man, who at the time reportedly worked for the U.S. government, actually played a role in the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. However, for the sake of discussing the fullest narrative of this historic resignation, it might be helpful to report on Laporta’s observations, making it a possible piece of the puzzle. Another piece of this puzzle could be the fact that at the time of Benedict’s resignation in February of 2013, the Vatican Bank was unable to function, since it had been suddenly excluded from the SWIFT system and was thus incapable of performing necessary international transactions. As Giuseppe Nardi of Katholisches.inforeminds his readers today in his report on Laporta, Maurzio Blondet had discussed this matter in Italian, in 2015. In light of Laporta’s blog post, Blondet, a Catholic journalist, quoted Laporta and said that it was wise that Laporta did “not disclose” the U.S. official’s name. He then re-posted his 2015 report titled “Ratzinger could neither buy nor sell,” which outlined the Vatican’s 2013 financial problems with the SWIFT system, thereby implying that he himself sees a link between Laporta’s report and this financial aspect of the history of Benedict’s resignation. A third puzzle of the piece – which refers to the above-mentioned Sank Gallen Group – is that there might have been a conversation between Cardinal Carlo Martini and Benedict in 2012, in which the head of the Sankt Gallen group suggested to Benedict that it was time for him to resign. This story has been amply discussed by author Julia Meloni, which LifeSiteNews covered here. Perhaps only future historians will be able to put together a fuller picture as to why a pope would resign, thus leaving the Church in the hands of modernists who are out to undermine the core of the Catholic Church’s doctrine and morals. LifeSiteNews has reached out to Laporta to obtain further details, particularly as to why the NSA official would say that they would “soon” force him to resign, considering the alleged discussion took a place a full seven years before Benedict’s actual resignation. This report will be updated if LifeSiteNews receives a reply.
This linked article is also worth reading: https://www.maurizioblondet.it/ratzinger-non-pote-ne-vendere-ne-comprare/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ope-benedict-forced-resign-weeks-installment/ REVEALED: Retired Italian General Says a US Official Bragged that Pope Benedict Would be Forced to Resign Weeks After His Installment An Italian General reported this week that an American official bragged about removing Pope Benedict weeks after he was installed. Also, a very dark group surrounding the Pope was working against him and the church. A report coming out of Italy this week has some shocking news related to the late Pope Benedict. Lifesite reports: On the eve of Pope Benedict XVI’s burial, Piero Laporta, a retired Italian brigadier general, published a stunning piece on his own blog. This Catholic author, who previously lobbied to have Benedict participate (and influence) the controversial Synod on the Family some eight years ago, is now revealing that in the first weeks after the election of Joseph Ratzinger to the papal throne in 2005, an official of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) “was bragging about the resignation to which H.H. Benedict XVI of revered memory would soon be forced.” If this story is true, however, “soon” would have to mean seven years, as that is the time it actually took for Benedict to resign. Laporta is a retired brigadier general who worked for the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Italian Military, and since his retirement writes for multiple blogs and for different newspapers, collaborating with, among others, our colleague Marco Tosatti and his blog Stilum Curiae… The even more shocking piece from Laporta’s remarks is his mention of a “Roman circle” of what sound like anti-Catholic and anti-Christian individuals who were working against the church. Laporta then revealed that there exists “a great Roman circle that is still active today,” that is more powerful than the so-called “Sankt Gallen group,” which has been historically opposed to Benedict. Laporta further relayed that in 2005, “a leading delegate of the U.S. government, who had his hands in Italian finances (where he is still active) and in Italian politics,” and was “a figure in the highest ranks of the National Security Agency (NSA),” was “bragging about the resignation to which H.H. Benedict XVI of revered memory would soon be forced.” This man, Laporta went on to say, spoke “with a nonchalance and with an arrogance” outside of his own circle about this matter. This “Roman circle” was reportedly dedicated to the slogans “God is dead” and “Jesus is fake news,” and was in “panic” when Benedict was elected. The “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” Laporta added, was “no joke,” but is a mere fig leaf compared to this “Roman circle” that Laporta refers to as a “dome of demons.” According to the Italian general, it was this group who “isolated” Benedict, “leaving him alone while the nescionalsecuiritiagensi [NSA] goons scourged the truth, then crucified it.” Pope Benedict passed away this past week after being the oldest Pope in history upon his death. With this new information, will the Catholic Church fall into a crisis? We asked this previously after Pope Benedict’s death was first reported.
The Belgian website Media-Presse (SWIFT is based in Belgium), reported on April 5 about the SWIFT alternative being launched by Beijing and Moscow and referred to the Vatican as an example: “When a bank or territory is excluded from the [SWIFT] system, as the Vatican was in the days preceding the resignation of Benedict XVI in February 2013, all financial transactions are blocked.” And then, as soon as the resignation of Benedict XVI was announced, the SWIFT system was unblocked for the Vatican, without waiting for the election of his successor. https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/0...alcoli-swift-was-the-beast-of-the-apocalypse/ I have read that the ATM situation was remedied by bringing in a Swiss company to take over the servicing of the ATM's at the Vatican that was outside EU regulatory oversight.
I feel a bit daft in all honesty because when all this happened with the investigation and allegations of money laundering in the Vatican bank I had no idea of the gravity of the SWIFT system or it's control over international banking. It was only recently when Joe Biden went on and on about shutting down Russia's ability to participate in international banking using SWIFT that it actually dawned on me just what a guns blazing approach this was to take against the Vatican. Especially considering that the Vatican moves about 2 billion in funds per year. We just announced over that in arms shipment to Ukraine in one day! https://www.defensenews.com/pentago...kraine-largest-package-yet-worth-375-billion/
...and the complicity of the mainstream media in not reporting that the Vatican is being blackmailed by the Swift system
I find it interesting. From the little I know about people who work at NSA, they cannot talk about their work. They have top level security. So who is this person who is bragging?
Malachi Martin more or less laid out this whole ugly "super force" in his books. The NSA official could have been John Podesta .In wikileaks there were emails referring to forcing a change in the Vatican.
Ann, I don’t think that John Podesta was an NSA official but I could see him being involved in this to some degree.
Hmmm… https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...esta-left-wing-mastermind-to-lead-nsa-review/ Podesta, Left-Wing Mastermind, to Lead NSA Review Joel B. Pollak17 Jan 2014 President Barack Obama announced Friday that John Podesta, his new “counselor” and the political operative responsible for creating the institutional left in Washington, will be the appointed “to lead a comprehensive review of big data and privacy” in the aftermath of revelations about the National Security Agency’s electronic spying programs. When he joined the White House last month, Podesta’s focus was said to be “climate change.” The president’s speech contained little news. It was a classic Obama set-piece, designed to demonstrate that he understands both sides of a complex argument, while delegating responsibility to third parties and taking steps that reinforce the interests and goals of the hard left. In this instance, Obama left final decisions about where to store NSA data to Congress, while making sure that Podesta is in charge of the consultative process as a whole. To be fair, there are few clear answers, even in the wake of stunning revelations about the NSA, as to where the line between security and privacy ought to be drawn. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who has led the opposition to the NSA’s surveillance programs, quipped: “I think what I heard was if you like your privacy you can keep it.” Yet aside from a general sense of mistrust in the president, there is little agreement in his party about a solution. Democrats are no more united. Their primary concern, like Obama’s, is to make the issue go away. Obama has an additional goal: to restore an image of competence. He knows that his speech will not assuage the concerns of privacy advocates, and could lead to confrontation with intelligence agencies. “But I want the American people to know that the work has begun,” he said. Under Podesta, of course–a detail Obama left for the end. It was telling that the president chose to deliver his speech at the Department of Justice, which is something of a political haven for him. Earlier this week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the administration would extend rules against racial profiling to include religious groups, a move sought by Muslim organizations that are upset about the federal government’s (limited) surveillance in mosques and Muslim neighborhoods. It is difficult to see how the U.S. will prevent attacks by religiously-motivated terrorists if it cannot identify them by their religious affiliation. The new policy suggests that early protests by conservatives against hiring former terrorist defense lawyers in the department were justified. In the context of Obama’s NSA speech, the ban on religious profiling is a reminder that for this administration, political interests often trump national security. Sent from my iPhone
