VATICAN COURT INVESTIGATES BENEDICT XVI’S RESIGNATION
If you've been following the tete-a-tete between the American Pope, Leo XIV (Robert Francis Cardinal Prevost), and the American Empero... uhm... President Donald Trump, then you'll definitely be interested in this story, for it provides a bit of context on the quiet, behind-the-scenes political maneuvering that has been going on in the Vatican since the death of Pope Pius XII (Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli) in 1958. This story was shared by one of this website's regular readers and article contributors, S.D., and it's worth your time. According to the article, Benedict the XVI resigned in such a way that, under the canon law of the Roman church, the resignation might have been ... well... "botched," but more about that "botch" in a moment. Here's the story:
EXCLUSIVE: Vatican court confirms ongoing investigation into validity of Pope Benedict’s resignation
Now, before we proceed to my personal "high octane speculation" on what might be going on here, I need to state that I have some personal awareness of this story, as an individual, who shall go unnamed, that is close to this story shared with me some of the original documentation behind it. The story, in short, is true; the Vatican Tribunal is indeed investigating Pope Benedict XVI's resignation, and this brings us chin-to-chin with the "botch", and some rather sweeping high octane speculations, for the implications of the "botch" are no less than sweeping. The manner of the resignation, and those sweeping implications, are indicated by the very last paragraph in the article, and indeed, that last paragraph is the story:
The core argument is that Benedict’s Declaratio deliberately or canonically distinguished between munus (the papal office itself) and ministerium (the exercise of that office), rendering the resignation invalid and leaving the See impeded (sede impedita).
According to my own contact, the resignation of Benedict XVI took place amid the swirling scandals about leaks from his closest circle of advisors, and discovered post facto irregularities in his own election. Thus, it is argued, Benedict's resignation clearly distinguished between a resignation from the Papal office itself(in the Latin, the munus), and a resignation from the ministry or exercise of the office (the ministerium). Benedict, so the case before the tribunal is alleging, resigned the latter, but not the former.
That, as it were, is the "botch."
Now, this is where it gets very interesting and intriguing. Pope Benedict XVI (Josef Cardinal Ratzinger), the first German pope in centuries, was no fool by anyone's measure. He had been in charge of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In short, he was the Papacy's doctrinal, liturgical, and canon law watchdog. That fact alone is an indicator that Benedict knew precisely what he was doing in the manner of his resignation; it was not a "botch" at all.
So if it was not a botch, what was it? And what are the implications? Going back to his own election as Pope, some allegations have been made that Benedict was originally elected a "transitional" Pope who could eventually be forced to resign, a motivation that places his own election under a cloud of illicitness. It is alleged that Benedict discovered this maneuver and that his resignation from the ministry of the Papacy was therefore a clever strategem on Benedict's part, a strategem which is revealed by that last paragraph in the article: Benedict's resignation was a means to avoid a "permanent" solution to the traditionalist-vs-progressivist struggle within the Roman Church, a "permanent" solution that might have included his own "convenient death". With Benedict out of the way, the progressivist revolution could roll on with a take0ver of the conclave of his successor (who, indeed, did turn out to be a progressive from the notably progressive Jesuit order, Francis, Jose Cardinal Bergolio).
By resigning in the manner he did, however, Benedict was able to cast the entirety of the pontificates of his successors under a cloud of canonical suspicion. Some have argued that it was a desperate gamble, since a resignation would all but insure the progressive wing a more or less permanent takeover of the Vatican long into the future. Benedict's answer - some allege - was to force them into the open, while simultaneously casting all their acts and pronouncements under a cloud of suspicion, and making a potential return of the "traditionalists" possible. Perhaps Benedict was even viewing those successors under the cloud of suspicion as being a kind of "anti-pope".
The reference to that confused and confusing period in the post-Great Schism history of the papal church itself does not occur in a vacuum, for as it well-known, the mess could only be straightened out when the western bishops reasserted their authority, deposed all simultaneously sitting popes, and proceded to elect their own at the Council of Constance. But for our purposes, the reference takes us back once again to the tete-a-tete between Leo XIV and Donald I (Story courtesy of a reader who wishes to remain completely anonymous):
Note that the story of the Pentagon issuing a statement that the Vatican could only view as a direct threat concerns a reference to the Avignon papacy, the period when the papacy had moved its physical headquarters from Rome to Avignon, France, and thus fell under the sway of the French kings:
During that meeting, U.S. officials reportedly complained about the speech and took exception to Pope Leo’s indirect shots at the president. One of those officials, the report continued, even referenced the Avignon Papacy of the 14th century — a period largely defined by the French Crown imposing its will to influence the Catholic Church.
That period led directly to the election of more than one pope, as various political factions contended to control the papacy, much as now. The point, however, should not be missed, namely, that all of this is taking place amid the backdrop of the questions raised by Benedict XVI's curious manner of "resigning." Benedict was no fool, and knew that tormented mediaeval history when many simultaneously sitting popes nearly ended the papacy. Perhaps, just perhaps, he came to view that idea as the very potential means of its survival, and laid the canonical groundwork to allow its occurrence. Benedict also well knew the allegations of some - including the late Fr. Malachi Martin - that traditionalist Giuseppi Cardinal Siri of Genoa had been elected Pope in 1958 to succeed Pacelli (Pius XII), and that the "veto" was exercised at that time to pass over him to elect Angelo Cardinal Roncalli (John XXIII) who unleashed the Second Vatican Council on the Roman Church. Whatever one makes of this theory - and it is to be carefully noted that Cardinal Siri did not refer to it (nor would he have if indeed it happened) - Benedict surely knew about it. Again, Cardinal Siri was suspected by some as having been elected in the 1963 conclave, and once again set aside for the more progressive Giovanni Battista Cardinal Montini (Pope Paul VI). And for a third time in the the first papal conclave of 1978 that eventually elected the short-lived Albino Cardinal Luciani (John-Paul I), it is alleged that Siri had once again been elected, and set aside. Again, Benedict was surely familiar with these theories, and that probable familiarity makes the extraordinarily careful Latin phrasing of his resignation all the more intriguing and suggestive...
Amid all these plot twists, particularly with respect to the three alleged elections of traditionalist Cardinal Siri, the usual Freemasonic plots and suspects are floated. Perhaps so, perhaps not. But for those wishing to entertain such plots, it is worth remembering that the Cardinal archbishop of Santiago de Chile alleged that Pius IX himself, the pope who made himself and subsequent popes infallible at the First Vatican Council (1870), was challenged by his own traditionalists, who complained they could not find the doctrine in the tradition. It is worth remembering that the Cardinal archbishop of Santiago alleged that Pius IX himself (Cardinal Mastai-Ferreti) had been initiated into a lodge in "Philadelphia" (See the appendix to my Financial Vipers of Venice for a fuller discussion of this issue). And indeed, one of the most famous of the scholarly opponents to the definition of infallibility at Vatican I was the scholarly German Bishop of Rottenburg, Karl Josef von Hefele, whose History of the Councils of the Church from the Original Documents is still a standard work. Pope Benedict XVI would have known all of this history as well. And perhaps, just perhaps, he was trying to undo the conciliar church, which really began at Vatican I, for without its claims, a Vatican II and all its dubious and deleterious fallout would have been both impossible, and unnecessary.
Time, as always, will tell.
See you on the flip side...
(If you enjoyed today's blog, please share it with your friends.)
2 Comments
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
Whisky galore!
1. Today, the Roman Catholic ban, on uttering the word ‘Yahweh’, is – quietly – administrated, as a Catholic self-censorship, not to offend whiny-weepy nosejobs:
https://www.catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/CDWDS-Name-of-God-2008.htm
2. A ‘letter on the name of God’, June 29, 2008:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150324074938if_/http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/frequently-asked-questions/upload/name-of-god.pdf
3. The pre-Talmudic conspiracy, against the ‘idea of Yahweh’, begins, with Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon, in 49 BC, when he declares ideological war, against the Republic, and, subsequently, he proclaims himself dictator, in perpetuity.
4. Jacob’s twelve-membered council was an annual assembly, at winter solstice – which became the original idea, that inspired the Greek democracy, and the Roman republic – which is, why Yahweh [winter solstice] became banned, politically.
5. The Roman ban was executed, in Jerusalem, by appointing Herod the Great, as a mafia goon, in 37 BC, whose regime of terror waged war on the language, attempting, to eradicate the idea, of an annual assembly [Yahweh], from the collective mind.
6. The Scythian horse archers, who were nomadic descendants of the ‘ten tribes’, were a disturbing presence, in Jerusalem, at winter solstice, because they were unlikely, to observe a teetotalistic ‘tongue prohibition’, during pub crawls.
7. Therefore, pricey horse watering became the extortion means, whereby Caiaphas prevented Scythian presence – which explains, why a the gospel hero brought a Scythian foal, to Jerusalem, and toasted a Scythian skull cup, in defiance.
8. Instigated, by Flavian aggression, in the Caucasus region, the Scythian leadership settles down in Odense, in Denmark – which brings the idea of Yahweh-Elohim to Scandinavia, known, as Odin’s two brothers, Woe and Will.
9. The Julio-Claudian suppression, against the idea of Yahweh, is continued, by Flavius Josephus, who is the Flavian emperor’s pre-Talmudic handler, who invents Judeo-Christianity, as a big, fat lie, that distorts reality.
10. Today, the Vatican carries on the two-millennia-old tradition, of suppressing Yahweh – because the dual term: Yahweh-Elohim is, originally, a quantum mechanical jurisprudence, from the Stone Age, known, as the druidic trilithon.
11. In Scandinavia, the trilithon is known, in myth, as High, Just-as-high, and Third – which is a physical explanation of, how, to construct a portal, a ‘stargate’ – which, mathematically, is the PI symbol, that connects diametrical opposites, in a central superposition.
Druidry is truth, before the world!
Yahweh-Elohim is the basic Yin-Yang quantum pair, exemplified, in the paradox, between the two brain hemispheres, where Wembley Fraggle is smoking pot:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/scl/fi/9cehn4hizfphq8df26gto/here-to-there.mp4?rlkey=sv8f8yk65xpdrgkkgz8woc19c
Uncle Matt discovers the Nirvana superposition, from where all roads lead, into every direction, when browsing the quantum mirror, in ‘The Magician’s Nephew’:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/scl/fi/7tg7bftt1fdspujthffpp/matt83-overlay.mp4?rlkey=ck7mnn0dqnqixmafkco12xifc
So we have a Game of Thrones within the Vatican, but also within the decaying secular Western governments as well. Who will be left standing after the crash that is coming?
I wonder if there is a connection between between the ‘botched’ papal succession and the dubious succession from Trump 45 to Biden.
Good question. I suspect there is, if one accepts the theory of some that Benedict’s resignation was also a power play against him by Obama-Soros-Hillary Clinton, as some have argued.
The Roman Catholic Church, in its Vatican element was perhaps one of the original institutions which was created as the religion’s bureaucracy in the 4th century continuing on through the centuries, morphing, and becoming its spiritual-technocratic and logical extension of the 4th Century council of Nicaea.
There is, as with many present-day governments and administrations, a massive disconnect and abyss has emerged between the people and their governance (mundane and spiritual). We are at near end of a pendulum’s swing in this regard.
The first rule of any organisation, as it evolves over time into its subsequent forms and functions, is its own survival. The organisation frequently becomes a battle ground of ideas, arguments narratives for achieving its material power, ego satisfaction, securing the egoic levers of that power and control for its and other allied organisations’ organisational and existential strategies.
There is so much to commend in the Roman Catholic Church’s, fundamental attributes, values, purpose which originate with Jesus Christ who by the way, condemned the bureaucracy, power and politics, corruption and administrational fixation of the Second Temple Judaism “faith worship and practices”. The only thing which made Him angry and which he overtly condemned.
This misdirection after the 4th century served only to increase and compound the error for the RC Church, it was in my view, deflected and reverted to a modernised expression of the Second Temple with its errors.
The shenanigans of the internal power plays and manipulations demonstrate that in my view the RC Church bureaucracy, centralised power culture and structure have achieved its ultimate Second Temple point in time. Having caused a huge amount of misery and demeaning of individual Divinity in all humanity which Jesus Christ came to teach, enable, and fulfil.
Let the Vatican play their games, seek their mundane and venal aspirations, have its sycophantic technocracy, it has engendered that abyss between itself and its Church. A church which is acting out of its own resources to feel its way back to the original purpose and values of the Christianity, and for which despite the Vatican facade RC Church with its patent demonstrations of Lust · Gluttony · Greed · Sloth · Wrath · Envy · Pride has lost the room, except for the basement of its echo chamber of vanities and sycophantic mundaneity.
The body the Church is moving, in fact as part of a developing and more prevailing zeitgeist, back to traditional and basic values. This is happening in a distributed and decentralised way since the scamdemic, revealed who and what the bureaucrats and technocrats of the Vaticab Church represents and offers. It is has surprised the Vatican and its technocrats, who giggle and gasp at the return of numbers being baptised and converting. And like politicians they can’t help inserting and insinuating themselves and their egos, “there go the people, I must follow and lead them” .
I’m not sure they realise, that, this just makes them look like ridiculous and irrelevant technocrats which they have become. I think the developing Church and its people sense this intuitively, and would not exclude them, but I suspect that dust will again be kicked off sandals, as a new way of working with worship, the core magisterium, and faith develops. This I doubt will ascend or evolve much beyond. diocesan or even monastic organisation, and the invitation will be to join this return or devolution to the original messages and purpose of the Church.
I believe Benedict was a clever Papal shepherd, but being a technocrat also, he missed the point, which nearly all popes have since Council of Nicaea , that the Church as expressed in the Vatican was never supposed to be a business, a power, a power broker or a financial institution. Allowing itself to fixate and to be so, would of course predicate errors and shenanigans of today, and of Benedict and many popes before him, all originating in and from the 4th Century, would lead to abuses and crimes, which are not representative of much of Body of the Church, let alone of Jesus Christ. The apostasy is set, it only remains to see the final endgame evolve, which cannot be far away or indeed lengthy wait before the “Third Temple” the body of His Church escapes or is rescued in its remnant.
Sci-fi galore!
The Vatican paedophiles, who are – allegedly – investing paedophilia, is just the swamp investigating itself – which is Jesuit agents playing double, and triple agents – in smoke and mirrors.
In sci-fi, the Goa’uld parasites, who pose as false gods, attract sect followers – whereas the Ancients, as ascended beings, always express themselves through paradoxes, like Yin-Yang.
In ‘Christian Identity’, there is a ‘two-seedline’ proposition, which fits the distinction, between (1) the draconic sectarianism of the Fertile Crescent, and, (2) the Cucuteni-Trypillian Yin-Yang, in the Ukrainian breadbasket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
Those Ancients, who built the Stargate system, would recognise Yahweh-Elohim, as a quantum mechanical paradox – and – they would reject the Vatican Goa’uld, as a parasite, in a Doctor Who episode:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/scl/fi/rdlwsfc0xnyqcemgsj69v/doctor-who-versus-the-vatican.mp4?rlkey=zkaayz4a0esh26j6qxvpadwzb