Yes, I recall that as well. I focus on praying for both Popes Francis and Emeritus Benedict. They both are in great need for their own reasons, which truly only heaven knows.
I think what happened with Pope Benedict is what happens with a lot of very good people. This is that he is very,very innocent.
You Know Padraig, I see it some what differently, I look to what we can deduce regards the perplexing and irregular phenomenon that we have seen in some of the Vatican hierarchy over the last 50 to 100 years. We see the infiltration into the Catholic church, of the freemasons and sodomites commencing in the 1940's. The satanic cults that have enthroned satan in the Vatican, according to Malachi Martin. And closer to our life time, Cardinal Pell in solitary confinement in a goal due to the connivance of some very powerful people! Additionally Cardinal Zen and Catholic's of China betrayed, with a foreboding oxymoron explanation from the Vatican We also have Pope John Paul 1 dying 33 days after his election to the papacy in 1978, all very curious and mystifying. Especially as he was seen as the Pope that was going to clean up the Vatican. Below is a summary of his pontificate and the reasons it was so short......... David Yallop David Yallop's 1984 book In God's Name proposed the theory that the pope had been in "potential danger" because of corruption in the Vatican Bank (known officially as the Institute for Works of Religion or Istituto per le Opere di Religione), the Vatican's most powerful financial institution[6] which owned many shares in Banco Ambrosiano. The Vatican Bank lost about a quarter of a billion dollars.[7] This corruption was real[8] and is known to have involved the bank's head, Bishop Paul Marcinkus, along with Roberto Calvi of the Banco Ambrosiano. Marcinkus, at the time head of the Vatican Bank, was indicted in Italy in 1982 as an accessory in the $3.5 billion collapse of Banco Ambrosiano.[9] Calvi was a member of P2, an illegal Italian Masonic lodge.[10] He was found dead in London in 1982, after disappearing just before the corruption became public. His death was initially ruled suicide and a second inquest – ordered by his family – then returned an open verdict.[11] Upon publication of his book, Yallop agreed to donate every penny he made from sales to a charity of the Vatican's choice if they agreed to investigate his central claim, that when the body of the pope was discovered, his contorted hand gripped a piece of paper that was later destroyed because it named high-ranking members of the curia who were Freemasons and others who had a role in numerous corruption scandals and the laundering of mafia drug money. One of the names believed to be on the paper was that of Bishop Paul Marcinkus, who was later promoted by Pope John Paul II to Pro-President of Vatican City, making him the third most powerful person in the Vatican, after the pope and the secretary of state. None of Yallop's claims, which are unproven, has thus far been acknowledged by the Vatican, although Yallop disclosed the Masonic Lodge numbers of the Curia members whom he alleged to be Freemasons in his book.[12] There is a papal ban of Freemasonry, and it is forbidden by Church law for a Roman Catholic to be a Freemason. Yallop specifically summarized his conspiracy theory in his book: Three archbishops—Marcinkus, Villot and Cody—conspired with three Mafia types—Calvi, Sindona and Gelli—in the murder of John Paul I. “It was clear that these six men—Marcinkus, Villot, Cody, Calvi, Sindona and Gelli—had a great deal to fear if the papacy of John Paul I should continue… all of them stood to gain in a variety of ways if John Paul I should suddenly die.”[13] John Cornwell[edit] In his book A Thief in the Night, British historian and journalist John Cornwell examines and challenges Yallop’s points of suspicion. Yallop’s murder theory requires that the pope’s body be found at 4:30 or 4:45 a.m., one hour earlier than official reports estimated.[14] He bases this, inter alia, on an early story by Vatican Radio and the Italian news service ANSA that garbled the time and misrepresented the layout of the papal apartments. Yallop claims to have had testimony from Sister Vincenza Taffarel (the nun who found the pope's body) to this effect but refused to show Cornwell his transcripts.[15] Abbé Georges de Nantes[edit] Theologian Abbé Georges de Nantes [fr] spent much of his life building a case for murder against the Vatican, collecting statements from people who knew the pope before and after his election. His writings go into detail about the banks and about John Paul I's supposed discovery of a number of Freemason priests in the Vatican, along with a number of his proposed reforms and devotion to Our Lady of Fátima.[12][16] Lucien Gregoire[edit] Gregoire builds on his forerunners, benefiting by events not available to the others when they wrote their books. “I owe a great debt of gratitude to my predecessors…had Yallop not laid out the blueprint, had Cornwell not told the truth, had Manhattan not struck on the plot; I could have never written my book.”[17] Avro Manhattan linked the CIA to the murder of John Paul I. “The CIA resolved to destroy John Paul I before he would destroy a Vatican subservient to the will of the USA.”[18] In September 1978, with the growing likelihood that Carter would cut off funds to Somoza, the CIA feared if Nicaragua fell to the Marxist Sandinistas, the USA would soon be looking at a half-dozen mini-Cubas in Central America.[19] Suspected CIA covert agent Chicago Cardinal Cody visited the Polish cardinal (John Paul II) in Krakow during the papacy of John Paul I. [20] What Gregoire brings to the table is the complete record of the courts that tried the bank scandal—from the first transaction that took place on October 22, 1978 six days after John Paul II took office which investor was first contacted on September 15, 1978 midway thru the papacy of John Paul I, [21] to the last transaction in 1981 when Banco Ambrosiano was caught funneling hundreds of millions of dollars through the Vatican Bank to Nicaragua and Panama to the benefit of Somoza and the Contras and to a lesser extent Solidarity.[22] Hence, Lucien Gregoire’s conspiracy theory: ”The conspiracy that planned the Vatican-Ambrosiano Bank Scandal[23] was the same conspiracy that plotted the murder of John Paul I.”[24] continued......
Tridentine Mass[edit] According to the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, their founder Fr. Gommar DePauw was to have gone to Rome to help John Paul I reestablish the Tridentine Mass.[25] [Fr. DePauw] stated on the 15th anniversary of the pope’s death: “Well, I tell you one thing, if he had remained Pope, you wouldn’t have me here at the Chapel because with that beautiful official letter signed by the Secretary of State, also came an unofficial message that I better start packing my suitcase, that there was a job waiting for me in Rome, in the Vatican, to help Pope John Paul I bring the Truth back to the Church. Well, it wasn’t to be and the Lord, Who knows what He does, obviously wanted me to be in this Chapel. … What was I going to do in Rome? Well let’s just forget it.” Other prominent Traditionalist Catholic websites, not related to CTM, have suggested John Paul I may have been assassinated to prevent restoration of the Tridentine Mass.[26][27] Fr. Charles Murr[edit] In his 2017 book The Godmother: Madre Pascalina,[28] Fr. Charles Murr notes the coincidence that Pope John Paul I had attempted to discipline Cardinal Sebastiano Baggio, who appointed many "liberal" bishops including, later, the sex abuser Theodore McCarrick, and that Cdl. Baggio was the last person to have seen Pope John Paul I alive.[29] Anthony Raimondi[edit] In his book published in 2019, nephew of Lucky Luciano Anthony Raimondi claims he helped his cardinal cousin Paul Marcinkus killing the pope by force-feeding the latter with valium. The reason given was that John Paul had allegedly threatened to expose "a massive stock fraud run by Vatican insiders." Raimondi claims that plans were made to also assassinate John Paul II had the latter decided to expose the fraud. Raimondi claimes that "If they take [the pope’s body] and do any type of testing, they will still find traces of the poison in his system."[30] There is so much we do not know, The power behind the disguiof the malevolent, camouflaged especially in regards to the threats (did they entail nations?); the blackmail (did this entail falsification of records?) ; the intimidation (was this not just life threatening but possibly was to involve the death of many innocent people) There is so much we don't know about the treacherousness nor the sedition of many in hierarchical power who hide disguised with malevolence as their enterprise. We don't know the threats used against Pope Benedict (did the threats entail nations?); We don't know the blackmail used against Pope Benedict (did this entail falsification of records?); We don't know the intimidation used against Pope Benedict (was this not only life threatening but involve murder and torture of many innocent people?) We do not know why Pope Benedict XVI resigned, all we know is he felt somewhat safe speaking up with Cardinal Sarah! But alas this may have ignited the dragons fury. Poor, Poor Holy Father Emeritus Benedict; I am however confident that he is speaking when he can! and is listening to the Most Holy Virgin's counsel (which is magnificent) and she is keeping him safe! I believe the Blessed Mother has him under her mantle and he in turn is following her directions.
Was Pope Benedict somehow threatened, forcing his resignation. Interesting video by Dr Taylor Marshall especially regarding the Vatican ATM's all going down for a month and 11 days until he resigned!
As many times as I have heard about the level of moral and financial corruption within the Vatican, it is always shocking and disturbing. I believe that Abp Vigano has been truthful. I will never quite understand PE Benedict's resignation, but in my heart of hearts I know that something dreadful transpired. The ATM machines going down for a month is certainly very suspicious. As my dear grandmother would say,"it will all come out in the wash".
I didn't pay attention to the Vatileaks scandal when it came out, and don't know much about it. This short video is quite informative overall. +
from Sandro Magister: t-never-published-statement-of-his/?fbclid=IwAR3MzfIo09V8mdHoBTuinsgYAmuKQlMcPRsRJiTEkYwa3ebNvnpxbROL0ew Francis’s Silence, Ratzinger's Tears, and That Never-Published Statement of His What is most striking in the post-synodal apostolic exhortation “Querida Amazonia,” made public today, February 12 2020, is its total silence on the most anticipated and controversial issue: the ordination of married men. Not even the word “celibacy” appears in it. Pope Francis desires “to configure ministry in such a way that it is at the service of a more frequent celebration of the Eucharist, even in the remotest and most isolated communities” (no. 86). But he reiterates (no. 88) that only the ordained priest can celebrate the Eucharist, absolve from sins and administer the anointing of the sick (because it too is “intimately linked to the forgiveness of sins,” footnote 129). And it says nothing about the extension of ordination to “viri probati.” No news on women's ministries either. “If they were admitted to Holy Orders,” Francis writes in no. 100, “it would lead us to clericalize women” and to “restrict our understanding of the Church to her functional structures.” The curiosity that arises immediately, from reading “Querida Amazonia,” is therefore to understand to what extent the bombshell book written by pope emeritus Benedict XVI and by Cardinal Robert Sarah in defense of the celibacy of the clergy, published in mid-January, influenced the exhortation and in particular its silence on the ordination of married men. To this end, some more information than what is already known about what happened in the fiery days following the publication of the book should be added. The already known sequence of events was documented by Settimo Cielo in the three “Post Scriptum” at the end of this article of January 13: > Ancora sul libro bomba di Ratzinger e Sarah. Con il resoconto di un nuovo But from multiple independent sources Settimo Cielo subsequently received news of at least four more facts, of very substantial importance. * The first occurred on the morning of Wednesday January 15. All throughout the day of Tuesday the 14th the attack carried out by the radical movements against Ratzinger and Sarah had built up to a devastating crescendo, fueled in fact by the repeated denials of the prefect of the pontifical household, Georg Gänswein, of a co-responsibility of the pope emeritus in the composition and publication of the book, to the point of requesting the withdrawal of his signature, and contrasted to no avail by the precise and documented reconstruction, made public by Sarah, of the genesis of the book itself by the united efforts of its two coauthors. So then, on the morning of Wednesday January 15, while Pope Francis was holding his weekly general audience with Gänswein sitting as usual at his side in the Paul VI hall, and therefore far from the Mater Ecclesiae monastery which is the residence of the pope emeritus whose secretary he is, Benedict XVI picked up the phone himself and called Sarah first at home, where he did not find him, and then at the office, where the cardinal answered. Benedict XVI expressed his heartfelt solidarity with Sarah. He confided that he could not understand the reasons for such violent and unjust aggression. And he wept. Sarah wept too. The call ended with both of them in tears. * The second fact disclosed here for the first time occurred during the meeting between Sarah and Ratzinger, at the latter's residence, on the evening of Friday January 17. That very evening, the cardinal reported on the meeting in three tweets, in which he confirmed the perfect harmony between himself and the pope emeritus in the publication of the book. But he did not say that during that same meeting - actually held in two distinct segments, first at 5 pm and then at 7 - Benedict XVI had written together with him a concise statement that was intended to be made public with the sole signature of the pope emeritus, to certify the full consonance between the two coauthors of the book and call for the cessation of all controversy. For the purpose of publication, Gänswein delivered the statement - which Settimo Cielo has in possession and in which Ratzinger's personal, even autobiographical, trait is evident - to substitute secretary of state Edgar Peña Parra. And it is reasonable to hypothesize that he informed both his direct superior, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, and Pope Francis himself about it. * The fact remains - and it is the third piece of news as yet unpublished - that this statement of the pope emeritus has never seen the light of day. But it was arguably the origin of Francis’s decision to exempt papal household prefect Gänswein from any visible presence at his side from that point on. The last of these public appearances dates back to the morning of that same Friday January 17, on the occasion of the visit to the Vatican of the president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. After which Gänswein no longer appeared alongside the pope, neither at the Wednesday general audiences nor at the official visits of American vice president Mike Pence, Iraqi president Barham Salih, and Argentine president Alberto Fernández. In the eyes of Pope Francis, Benedict XVI’s statement had in fact proven the unreliability of the repeated denials made by Gänswein of the pope emeritus’s co-responsibility in the composition of the book. In other words, the opposition of the pope emeritus against his successor giving in to the radical currents on the front of clerical celibacy stood out at this point front and center, without any attenuation anymore. And all this a few days after the publication of the post-synodal exhortation in which many, all over the world, were expecting to read an opening by Francis to the ordination of married men. * As a corollary to all this, news should also be given of the role that Cardinal Parolin played in this affair. When in fact on Wednesday January 22 the publisher Cantagalli released a statement regarding the imminent debut of the book in Italy, with just a few trivial changes compared to the French original, it was not said that the statement had been viewed in advance and burnished line by line by the cardinal secretary of state, who at last had strongly encouraged its publication. A press release in which Ratzinger and Sarah's book is defined as “a volume of high theological, biblical, spiritual and human value, guaranteed by the depth of the authors and their willingness to make the fruit of their respective reflections available to all, manifesting their love for the Church, for His Holiness Pope Francis and for all humanity.”
JORGE BERGOLIO DEPENDED ON ARCHBISHOP GANSWEIN TO CONTROL Pope Benedict XVI AND WHEN HE DID NOT PREVENT THE PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK AUTHORED BY Pope Benedict AND Cardinal Sarah BERGOLIO IN A FIT OF RAGE SACKED GANSWEIN Posted on February 12, 2020 https://abyssum.org/2020/02/12/jorg...t-and-cardinal-sarah-bergolio-in-a-fit-of-ra/ NEWS ANTONIO SOCCI: BERGOGLIO WANTS TO GAG POPE BENEDICT XVI FEBRUARY 13, 2020 FROM ROME EDITOR BROTHER ALEXIS BUGNOLO First published in Libero Feb. 10, 2020 and at Antonio Socci’s blog Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020 After seven years, Bergoglio’s “dismissal” of Archbishop Gänswein has made even the newspapers finally realize that there are two popes in the Catholic Church. Maybe it will take seven more to explain what it means. On Sun., Feb. 9, Corriere Della Sera ran a headline on an article by Massimo Franco that read: “So Ends The Era Of The Two Popes.” The article gives Bergoglio’s spin on the latest events (just as was already done in the other newspapers). In it, the Argentinian “court” that speaks for Bergoglio tells us that Archbishop Gänswein was relieved of his post as Prefect of the Papal Household because as secretary to Benedict XVI he did not prevent the pope emeritus from being “slyly presented” as the co-author with Card. Sarah of the book defending priestly celibacy [From the Depths of Our Hearts]. And so the Bergoglians want to convey three ideas: 1) Benedict XVI let himself be used, implying that he is incapable of looking after himself and thus he must be isolated and silenced; 2) Card. Sarah has instrumentalized the pope emeritus for his personal agenda; 3) Archbishop Gänswein failed to be vigilant in preventing it. In reality, the situation is just the opposite. Benedict XVI is perfectly lucid and aware, as everyone knows (he is still the best mind in the Catholic Church), and he intended to intervene in defense of priestly celibacy, which has been placed in discussion by the Amazon Synod. In mid-January, when Le Figaro printed a preview of the book with Card. Sarah, Bergoglio had an outburst with Archbishop Gänswein and ordered him to “blow up” the editorial operation. Archbishop Gänswein attempted to question the presentation of the cover of the book with the double signature so that the Bergoglian drum could keep banging the news that Benedict XVI has withdrawn his signature and disassociated himself from the operation. But this was not true. In fact, Card. Sarah revealed the letters exchanged between the two authors and Benedict XVI received him, confirming his writing and his approval. Beyond the question of the names on the cover, it is clear to everyone that the book was written by mutual agreement: Benedict XVI was not gagged. The new book makes it clear to the Christian people that it has not been abandoned by Benedict XVI and that his paternity continues to watch over the path of the Church. His pronouncement carries with it the enormous strength of the entire Catholic tradition. His voice – quite clearly – is the voice of the Church of all time. This is why the book had a disruptive effect. The argument made by the Bergoglian court now appears laughable: “It gave the impression,” writes Franco, “of a doctrinal contradiction between the ‘two Popes’ that irritated Pope Francis, who was accused of favoring the abolition of celibacy: although his advisors assure us that this is not so, as will be seen from his conclusions on the Synod on the Amazon.” It’s quite easy to see how absurd this version of events is. If in fact Benedict XVI and Card. Sarah wrote things identical to what Bergoglio professes, then why was he so infuriated that he “threw” Archbishop Gänswein “out of office” over the book? In reality Bergoglio wanted to give a pick-axe blow to celibacy by permitting the ordination of “viri probati,” and for this reason he had requested that this innovation be placed into the concluding document of the Synod. But now, after the authoritative pronouncement of Benedict XVI, Bergoglio probably will not have the courage to do so (according to what his “advisers” told Massimo Franco and what is being reported by Avvenire). Bergoglio has made Archbishop Gänswein pay for this, since he has an angry and vindictive character. Yet even if Bergoglio does not strike a direct blow at celibacy in the post-synodal exhortation to be released in the coming hours, he can still do it through his intermediaries by means of the “revolutionary” synod of German bishops. Bergoglio’s disappointment comes from his recognizing that everyone continues to hear the voice of Benedict XVI as the authoritative voice of the pope, while his own voice is seen as divisive and perceived as the voice of a partisan politician who does not behave like a pope. Franco also notes the way Bergoglio and his court were annoyed by the April 2019 publication of Benedict’s essay on clergy sexual abuse, and “the enormous echo that it made.” Franco writes: “Benedict XVI’s essay proved to be a source of embarrassment for the papal circle. It was noted with disappointment how the analysis of the pope emeritus still carried so much weight and how it was used instrumentally by Bergoglio’s adversaries.” In reality it is Bergoglio and his circle who have tried for the last seven years to exploit Benedict XVI in order to legitimize the Bergoglian ruptures (as various sensational incidents have demonstrated). But Papa Ratzinger has never allowed himself to be used by anyone. With his meekness and his wisdom he continues to exercise his ministry. In a memorable conference given at the Gregorian University [in May 2016], Archbishop Gänswein himself explained: “Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he not at all abandoned this ministry….He has not abandoned the office of Peter – something that would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.” Thus Benedict XVI’s closest collaborator explains to us that for Joseph Ratzinger “the acceptance of the office” of Peter is “irrevocable” and to abandon it is “entirely impossible.” Whoever has ears, let him understand. +
Wow. Well now we know why Archbishop Gänswein is gone. Pope Francis is THE pope, but PE Benedict blew Francis' plans right out of the water. Vatican drama rolls on.
was surprised by this mention of Cardinal Pietro Parolin because he seemed to be aligned ideologically with Francis, I think he is the most likely successor to Pope Francis, this mention of him approving the writings of Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah surprised me.
It does grieve me, though, that journalists like Antonio Socci refer to Pope Francis as "Bergolio." That to me is contemptuous and derisive. It is also an incorrect title.
I agree. Contempt where the pope is concerned is at the least unhelpful. At the worst skating close to sin.
Agree. 'Bergolio' is very contemptuous, and has no place in the article. Just stick to the facts please.
