It will be obvious from reading this article why I did not rush to translate it, although it is clear the writers are ‘on Benedict’s side’,
so to speak. I am posting a translation for the record, only because it purports to amplify on an earlier article by the authors towards
the end of May citing an article in the Italian foreign affairs journal LIMES that, in effect, claimed it was the Obama administration that
had been behind the supposed maneuvering that ‘led to the renunciation of Benedict XVI’ - because the US wanted to oppose at any
cost Benedict’s desire to repair the rift between the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church, as that would supposedly
strengthen Russia under Putin in its increasing rivalry with the United States. If you buy that, you’ll buy the Brooklyn Bridge from the
next guy who will try to sucker you!
This article and its beyond-presumptuous title does not really make any plausible case for the presumed external pressures that led
Benedict XVI to leave the papacy. For which the most plausible reason remains the simplest one – the reason he gave on February 11,
2013: Failing physical strength and infirmities brought on by age which would keep him, already about to turn 86 at the time, from
carrying out his functions as pope in the best way he can, and as the office ought to be served, in the way he has always carried out
all his previous services to the Church in the best way he could.
At best, this article reminds us of all the groups and vested interests that never accepted Joseph Ratzinger as Pope because he
opposed verything they stand for. There are no new revelations, or any specific names or groups identified. At least in 2010, the
New York Times, AP and Der Spiegel publicly committed themselves to sparing no expense to try and pin any personal blame – direct
or indirect – on Joseph Ratzinger for any act of commission or omission that would show he caused and/or took part in the sexual
abuse crisis of the Church and/or covered up any sexual abuse.
One other factor that militates against giving this article any undue weight is that Antonio Socci, the one Vaticanista who has been
adamant about claiming that Benedict was somehow forced to resign by unnamed conspirators, has not bothered to cite this article
at all on his official page.
The end of Benedict XVI’s pontificate:
Unmasking those who were behind it
by Francesco Filipazzi e Riccardo Zenobi
Translated from
June 5, 2017
Following the article we published on May 24 about the renunciation of Benedict XVI, which comes not from us but from the
authoritative LIMES monthly journal, new attention has been drawn to reportedly ‘very strong’ pressures on the Roman Curia that many associate privately with conspiracy theories. But unfortunately, our source story this time is so authoritative that critics cannot liquidate it simplistically and therefore, there has been no public contradiction.
[When I posted my translation of thatfirst article, I expressed my reservations about exactly how 'authoritative' or even reliable the journal LIMES is.]
The search for truth is one of the principal tasks of a good Catholic, and to respond indirectly to some detractors, we cannot overlook the questions on Benedict XVI’s renunciation, especially not these days when an attack ahs been launched against the Emeritus Pope designed to demolish his teachings; and above all, when an action, which will first be mediatic and then canonical, is imminent against the motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum, one of the controversies in Benedict’s pontificate, in which he moved something which was thought to be ‘unmovable’, and thus calling down on himself all the fury of the Devil and his emissaries.
Now, this does not have anything to do with judging the validity of Benedict’s resignation or the election of Bergoglio, because we have no proofs to offer about those, but there is evidence of the plot against Benedict XVI, and it is not insignificant.
Before proceeding, let us ask some questions. In everything that has taken place, is taking place and will take place, what exactly has been the role of Pope Francis? Was he aware of everything that took place before his election? Does he really believe in good faith that what he is doing as pope is really for the good of the Church? Only history will tell us. We can only expose the facts as we know them, although of course, we would prefer that sooner or later, the faithful will get concrete answers.
Let us step back to 2010. Massimo Introvigne and Andrea Tornielli were already referring to the alliance between Freemasons and progressivist Catholics.
That year, the war against the Church hit its peak and the principal target was Benedict XVI. Because he was considered an ‘inconvenient’ personage who fought the ‘new’ Gnostic-Masonic religion which today, since he left the scene, appears to be triumphant.
Moreover, Benedict XVI also openly questioned the post-conciliar ‘vulgate’ (i.e., the commonly accepted reading of Vatican-II) about some of the consequences, starting with the liturgical, that followed Vatican-II.
The attack was blatant, furious and coordinated. In that context, a Vaticanista who at the time was among the ‘good Catholics’, Andrea Tornielli, along with another Vaticanista, Paolo Rodari
[now writing for Repubblica] [One must note that both Tornielli and Rodari were huge ‘Ratzingerians” before March 2013], wrote a book entitled
Attacco a Ratzinger. Accuse, scandali, profezie e complotti contro Benedetto XVI (Attack on Ratzinger: Accusations, scandals, predictions and plots against Benedict XVI)
(Piemme, Milano 2010). A most interesting analysis in detail, and read in today’s context, it is illuminating about what was taking place concerning the Vatican at that time.
Another personage and author who used to be among the ‘good Catholics’
[and also quite a ‘Ratzingerian’ until March 13, 2013], sociologist Massimo Introvigne, reviewed the book and promoted it strongly on his CESNUR website
[CESNUR stands for Centro di Studi delle Nuove Religioni], underscoring its weighty implications.
Let us see what he wrote then (as you can see, we let others speak for themselves, and we are not making up anything):'
In conclusion, Tornielli and Rodari ask if it is possible to speak about a plot against the Pope, citing various opinions including mine in an interview that I gave them specifically for this book. They concluded that there were three different attacks under way against Benedict XVI from three different enemies.
The first is the galaxy of lobbyists (secular, homosexual, feminist, Masonic, drug companies pushing anti-contraceptive products worldwide, and lawyers trying to sue the Church for damages to alleged sex abuse victims of priests)…
These lobbyists found traction because they had enlisted in their behalf a second enemy of Benedict XVI made up of Catholic progressivists, including theologians and quite a few bishops and priests, who saw their authority and power in the Church threatened by Benedict’s dismantlement of the interpretation of Vatican II as a discontinuity and rupture with Tradition, an interpretation upon which they had built their careers and fortunes for decades….
[And who constituted enemy Number 3??? Would this be the factor cited by LIMES in its article, namely, the United States and all other political interests who wished to prevent any rapprochement between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church because they saw this as strengthening Russia in their new but undeclared Cold War??? Frankly, I find this ‘sector’ the most tenuous of all the hypothesized enemies of Benedict XVI. What assurance did the politicians and behind-the-scenes movers have that whoever would succeed him as pope would be any less interested in such a rapprochement? Which would, under any circumstances, be very historical indeed, and which an ambitious pope or papabile would wish to achieve, along with a first papal visit to China if possible!]
So, in 2010, Tornielli, Rodari and Introvigne already concluded that there was an alliance among various anti-Catholic lobbies and progressivist Catholics to bring down Benedict XVI. But now, they seem to have forgotten all about it. Their book cam still be bought anywhere and online, and Introvigne’s lengthy hype piece on it is still on the CESNUR site – we invite you to read it.
Now, let us analyze the causes for the plotting against Benedict XVI
[if there was one]. Is it, for example just by chance that it was only after Benedict was no longer pope that contraceptives like RU-486 (the morning-after pill) started to be sold in Italy? If there had been a strong opposition against this drug, with adequate information about the risks associated with its use, it is obvious that it would have meant a potentially enormous loss for the drug company.
[Not a convincing argument at all! After all, it was already widely available in most other Western countries since … , and the Italian market would not have been such a big piece of the business!]
RU-486 alone was worth tens of millions of euros annually to its manufacturers and distributors. Perhaps, with Benedict XVI still Pope, the Church in Italy would have mounted an opposition – about which the new pontificate did not bother at all.
It is also obvious that the globalist lobbies could not tolerate a thorn in the side like Benedict XVI. The same thing could be said for the homosexual lobbies which can mobilize hundreds of millions of euros - Not to mention the enormous cultural influence they are able to wield. How many careers and businesses have been built on the basis of hyping homosexualism and gender ideology!
As we often point out, it is also clear that money is always the ultimate recourse in any plan to subvert human nature. Money and the ring of power are the instruments Satan uses to sustain the fidelity of his subjects. And here was the good Pope Benedict endangering all of Satan’s plans!
But those who ought to have defended him obviously did not. As Introvigne points out, and as it was obvious to everyone,
many renowned theologians and prelates were the best soldiers in the anti-Ratzinger armies. As Tornielli, Rodari and Introvigne already showed back in 2010, the motivations were the same as those of the lobbyists – power, career and obviously, money. Still, as the Italians say, the devil makes the pots but not the lids to cover them up. In other words, truth will out, and now, everything is in the full light of day.
Recent news indicates, for example, that the systematic ‘demolition’ of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate – which was an order anchored to the best of traditionalism and in which vocations flourished – ultimately had to do with the considerable assets associated with the order
[specifically, with the lay associations that support the activities of the order, which is vowed to monastic poverty].
There are bishops, who now have blazingly brilliant careers, who are facing major judicial investigations for financial disasters they have brought upon their dioceses.
[One must check out this claim. I am aware only of the case of the multiply infamous Mons. Paglia, against whom, however, charges of embezzlement and financial mismanagement have been dismissed.]
But all that is ignored within Bergoglio’s Vatican (even if some of the financial straits resulted from generous gifts and favors to influence-peddling progressivist friends). Moreover, the media have been extremely indulgent to these nefarious personages because they do promote the Gnostic-Masonic agenda of ‘reform’ intended to deform the Church.
In short, if you adhere to the anti-Christian blood oath, they will leave you alone, and you can do as you wish. Even investigations are not to be feared because they will end up being passed over as water under the bridge.
Another example is the big business of immigration. Would a Church still anchored to the traditional virtue of mission sell itself for 30 pieces of silver? Obviously not. But Catholic progressivists are all in the front ranks of those who are sharing the booty from this big business.
[How exactly? Are they in league with the human traffickers for whom aspiring immigrants go in hock in order to pay the exorbitant fees they charge for getting them to Europe by hook or by crook? Or do they get the contracts from governments to provide the basic necessities to refugee camps and shelters which could mount to significant sums if we are talking tens of thousands of beneficiaries to provide for?]
But in the grand Masonic-progressivist agenda, there is a major obstacle: Liturgy. As long as bread and wine continue to be consecrated – and trans-substantiated to the Body and Blood of Christ – there is a powerful brake on Evil. And that is why in the past 60 years, everything has been done to reduce the Mass to no thing more than a skit. Of course, the major promoters of this liturgical drift
[in the sense of a tectonic displacement, as in continental drift, but on the scale of decades instead of geologic eras!] claim they are doing it for the best reasons, i.e., ‘Jesus-is-joy and one-must-attract-persons’, or so they claim. But that is not what motivates those who are manipulating them.
Thus, the move to restore the traditional Mass to full legitimacy was ferociously fought, mainly by persons – including cardinals and bishops – who know nothing about it, and who, if they did understand what it is that they are being used for, might feel shamed. This are ignorant people for whom merely hearing the words ‘ad orientem’ or anything Latin (even if it was the Novus Ordo in Latin) react as though it were the end of the world!
Well then, Benedict XVI did not limit himself to merely hypothesizing the ‘reform of the liturgical reform, but promulgated an act in the eyes of the Enemy and his emissaries in the Church was something really terrible. He issued the motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum, which brought back the Missal of Pius V which the progressivists thought they had mothballed forever. And Benedict even dared to say that the Missal of Paul VI could benefit from being ‘irrigated’ somehow by the Traditional Mass.
And so the battle against the ‘Latin Mass’ began right away and it has been ferocious and systematic. However, the energy and power of the old liturgy have proven to be unstoppable, and it is gaining new adherents surprisingly among the younger post-Vatican II generations.
Paradoxically, after Ratzinger stepped down as pope, the traditional liturgical movement did not suffer at all, but simply continued to spread as it continues to do so today, as more and more, in the past for years, Catholics have opened their eyes to the dangers inherent in the cretinized liturgy that the faithful have been offered for too long. Indeed, in some places, even the Missal of Paul VI has become almost a dead letter
[for all the liberties that priests have felt free to take with liturgy] and priests who try to follow it properly are vilified.
[Has it become that serious in Italy?]
It was therefore obvious that at a certain point Cardinal Sarah, who as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, had spoken of continuing the ‘reform of the reform’ [as Pope Francis reportedly encouraged him to do when he appointed him to CDW], expecting to recreate the Tridentine spirit, has now become a sacrificial victim, and beyond that, there has now surfaced a certain intolerance and even hostility against the Emeritus Pope who did turn the liturgical tables on his detractors, and worse, is still alive!
The Tornielli-Rodari book is very enlightening about Summorum Pontificum. He reports that the disciples of Mons. Bugnini who are the favored liturgists today
[Bugnini was the bishop who chaired the commission that devised the admittedly Protestantized Novus Ordo Mass almost literally overnight] saw Benedict XVI’s motu proprio as an ‘annulment’ of the work of Bugnini and of the post-V-II liturgical reform, but above all, a wound preventing the full achievement of that reform. Therefore there was a collective ‘lifting of shields’ in the name of a council that was supposed to be ‘untouchable’.
Enzo Bianchi, the lay leader of the Bose community who was made a liturgical consultant by Pope Francis, says the traditional Mass relates to ‘a situation that no longer exists’, and for the bishops of France, the ecclesiology of the traditional Mass ‘is not in line with that of Vatican II’
[obviously not, if one takes the premise that Vatican II gave birth to ‘a new church’!] Evidently, for the modernists, the Church was born only in 1965.
Indeed, the French bishops also went on to claim that Benedict XVI’s motu proprio threatened the unity of the Church
sub Petro and cum Petro. And went on to attack Benedict XVI frontally.
[How exactly? I do not recall much overt attacks reported in the media at the time – and I attributed it to the fact that Benedict XVI had pre-empted much of it by the most rational and sensible explanatory letter he wrote to the bishops of the world accompanying a copy of his motu proprio that he sent to them before it was ever published.]
Other interesting statements made recently by prominent Church personages are also ‘enlightening’, e.g., “The Curia is not governed by the pope”. So is there also a so-called ‘deep state’ at the Vatican?
Among the traps that were laid out for Ratzinger, it is worth recalling what happened because of the Regensburg lecture.
The ‘incriminating’ passage that infuriated Muslims around the world had been pointed out by a few Vaticanistas as a harbinger of problems! Did anyone warn the Pope? Obviously not. And why not? Was it because a media strategy to set the stage for a slaughter was already in place? Yet, when Navarro-Valls was the Vatican press secretary, any papal texts that were potentially dangerous were quickly marked out and reformulated. [I hate it when journalists seek to reconstruct recent history approximatively, when it can so easily be researched. The preceding paragraph is a revisionist account of the Regensburg fiasco – not for malicious reasons, but simply out of laziness. To explain that fiasco cannot be done in three sentences.]
Another trap was the nomination of Mons. Wielgus to be Archbishop of Warsaw. He was a conservative priest, but his involvement with the Communist secret service in Poland was widely known on the Internet. Did anyone tell the Pope? Obviously not. And the muckraking machine went into high gear!
[This is much easier to explain correctly. Wielgus’s past as a Communist informant on his fellow priests was well-documented in the archives of the Polish service which became open to the public after the communist regime fell. This ought to have been reported to the pope by the Secretariat of State through its Nuncio in Poland, who is responsible for vetting any names recommended for Episcopal appointment. None of that negative information was sent on to Rome and to the pope. And the Congregation for Bishops did not have the brains to doublecheck the Nuncio's 'vetting'.]
And so on, with other traps that were set to trip up Benedict XVI.
[Something similar to the Wielgus case - lack of due diligence on the part of the Vatican agencies principally responsible for vetting bishops - led to the over-hyped case that revolved around Mons. Williamson’s Holocaust-denying statements.]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 23/06/2017 08:27]