Tag Archives: Third Secret

Ratzinger vs. The Benedict Bot: A case in point: The 3rd Secret of Fatima


by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

After my revelations that I had been threatened over the phone by Archbishop Ganswein, the revelations which burst out from Archbishop Viganò and others in January about the duplicity of the private secretary of Pope Benedict XVI, shed real light on the need to review all the statements alleged to be from Pope Benedict XVI after February 2013, as to their authenticity. (See links in this paragraph for pertinent articles about this).

Editor’s Note: The phrase, “The Benedict Bot”, as used above in the title of the present article, is a term coined by Frank Walker, editor of Canon212.com, and used to characterized the apparently manufactured and artificial statements by others in the Vatican, which are attributed by the Vatican Press Office to the Roman Pontiff, in such wise as to raise grave concerns whether they are in any way an authentic expression of his mind. Thus the Benedict Bot is the persona created by the Vatican. This term obviously refers to a theory of interpretation, because without video confirmation that Pope Benedict XVI has said something, the matter is always capable of doubt, especially after the Vatican has been caught twice falsifying the letter and statements of Pope Benedict, as FromRome.Info has reported previously, not to mention every translation of his Declaration of Feb. 11, 2013.

Now, on the fourth anniversary of the controversy over the Third Secret of Fatima which exploded in Catholic Media in May of 2016, I think that time has come to compare the real Ratzinger with the Benedict Bot. So lets examine what Cardinal Ratzinger is alleged by a close friend on 3 occasions to have said, BEFORE February 2013, and what he is alleged to have said by the Vatican Press Office in 2016.

Cardinal Ratzinger on the Third Secret

Here is the testimony of Father Paul Kramer, in his interview in the Fatima Crusader edition of 2009, where he reports the testimony of Father Ingo Dollinger, regarding the Third Secret of Fatima, and his conversations with Cardinal Ratzinger.

Then on June 26, 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger published for the world the document [on the Third Secret] contain-ing the vision of a “bishop in white”, claiming that the en-tire Secret is set forth in this document. Yet it can only be understood that way if we say that he is using a mental res-ervation; that what is set forth by Our Lady in Her words is already implicitly contained symbolically in the vision. The elderly German priest, Ratzinger’s long-time person-al friend, took note of the fact that when this vision of the Third Secret was published it

The Fatima Crusader 10 May 2009May 200911 The Fatima Crusader did not contain those things, those elements of the Third Secret that Cardinal Ratzinger had revealed to him nearly ten years earlier. The German priest — Father Döllinger — told me that his question was burning in his mind on the day he concelebrated with Cardinal Ratzinger. Father Döllinger said to me, “I con-fronted Cardinal Ratzinger to his face.” And of course he asked Cardinal Ratzinger, “how can this be the entire Third Secret? Remember what you told me before?” Cardinal Ratzinger was cornered. He didn’t know what to say and so he blurted out to his friend in German, “Wirklich gebt das der etwas” which means “really there is something more there,” meaning there is something more in the Third Secret. The Cardinal stated this quite plainly.

I have tracked down the original article, here. Christopher A. Ferrara refers to this interview in his commentary on the events of 2016, here.

The Fatima Crusader, on its FaceBook page, in on May 17, 2016, reported Father Kramer’s more detailed testimony thus:

Regarding the Recent Confirmation by Fr. Ingo Döllinger

<< Third Secret of Fatima Still Mainly Concealed; Warns Against an Evil Council and Changes in the Liturgy >>

“Fr. Ingo Döllinger is a several decades long close personal friend of Pope Benedict XVI. Cardinal Ratzinger told Dr. Döllinger around 1991 that the 3rd Secret speaks of an ‘evil council,’ and warned against changing and adulterating the liturgy of the Mass — literally against adding extraneous elements into the liturgy (which is exactly what Bugnini & Co. did by adding Protestant elements into the liturgy).

“The Secret, according to Döllinger, also speaks negatively about the Conciliar popes, according to what Ratzinger told Döllinger — comparing one pope to a chameleon, another to a serpent, etc.

“Dr. Döllinger spoke not only to me and Joseph Cain on what Ratzinger had told him, but he related even more details to the young clerics in the seminary of Anapolis (Brazil), where he had been rector. I myself and Joseph have spoken not only with Döllinger, but also with the priests and deacons in Brazil who had heard Dr. Döllinger relate to them the details of the Secret that had been told to him personally by Cardinal Ratzinger around 1991.

“After the publication of the ‘bishop in white’ vision of the 3rd Secret, Döllinger noticed that the details of the Secret that Ratzinger had revealed to him nearly a decade earlier were not in the ‘bishop in white’ version of the secret. When Döllinger had his next opportunity to meet with Cardinal Ratzinger (after a concelebrated Mass), Döllinger asked Ratzinger how it can be said that the whole Secret has been published, since the details of the Secret earlier mentioned to him by Ratzinger were conspicuously absent from the version of the Secret published by Ratzinger on 26 June 2000. Ratzinger was cornered, and therefore blurted out, ‘Wirklich giebt es da noch etwas.’ (‘Really there is more there.’) Dr. Döllinger also told Joseph and me that he had personally known (St.) Pio of Pietrelcina, and that he had made his confession to Padre Pio fifty-eight times.”

Andin 2016, Maike Hickson revived the story and started a firestorm by doing so, by quoting Father Dollinger thus, in her article at One Peter Five, published on May, 15, just two days earlier:

Not long after the June 2000 publication of the Third Secret of Fatima by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told Fr. Dollinger during an in-person conversation that there is still a part of the Third Secret that they have not published! “There is more than what we published,” Ratzinger said. He also told Dollinger that the published part of the Secret is authentic and that the unpublished part of the Secret speaks about “a bad council and a bad Mass” that was to come in the near future.

Thus, Cardinal Ratzinger before becoming pope.

The Benedict Bot Responds

Now for the Vatican Press office response of May 21, 2016:

Several articles have appeared recently, including declarations attributed to Professor Ingo Dollinger according to which Cardinal Ratzinger, after the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima (which took place in June 2000), had confided to him that the publication was not complete.

In this regard, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI declares “never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima”, clearly affirming that the remarks attributed to Professor Dollinger on the matter “are pure inventions, absolutely untrue”, and he confirms decisively that “the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete”.

The first thing to notice is that the Benedict Bot is calling a life long friend and confidant, of impeccable public reputation, a bold face liar.  I do not know of any case in the entire personal history of Pope Benedict XVI that he calls anyone a liar, let alone a close friend. That is entirely out of character for Benedict. But not for Bergoglio and many who now rule the Vatican.

Second, the Vatican Press Office does not quote the sources of the reports they are attempted to rebut. Are they afraid that others might start analyzing the evidence?

Third, the Vatican Press Office does not say to whom Pope Benedict XVI made these recent statements, who was present, who witnesses them, nor reports their entire context, or even if they refer to his conversations with Father Dollinger, because if you notice how the quotations are spliced, important context has been left out to verify such a relation between them — even if they are authentic quotes — to Father Dollinger’s reported statements on the Third Secret.

For these three reasons, one can doubt that the statement from the Vatican Press Office is an authentic representation of anything Pope Benedict XVI said in 2016, if he said anything at all.

Finally, seeing how Archbishop Gänswein was caught in bold face lies when he denied that Pope Benedict XVI had collaborated in certain matters regarding the Book on Celibacy by Cardinal Sarah, I think we might be able to guess where the source of the Benedict Bot statements of 2016 may have come from.

+ + +


Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.


Archbishop Viganò: COVID-19 & Fatima


by Marco Tosatti

Translated from the Italian original.

Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, Archbishop Caro Maria Viganò has granted an interview to the Portuguese media-outlet Dies Irae, which we find it interesting to share with you. The theme of the Third Secret of Fatima, and its dissemination, is widely covered. We take the liberty of remembering, in this regard, that the present writer has dedicated a book to this theme, illustrating all the perplexities and contradictions linked to the tormented history of this message, – or messages – … Enjoy the reading.

§ § §


* * *

Your Excellency, thank you so much for giving us this interview. We are dealing with the COVID-19 epidemic which, in recent months, has affected the lives of millions of people and even caused the death of many of them. In light of this situation, the Church, through the Episcopal Conferences, has decided to close practically all churches and deprive the faithful of access to the Sacraments. On March 27th, in front of an empty St. Peter’s Square, Pope Francis, acting in a manifestly mediatic way, presided over a hypothetical prayer for humanity. There were many reactions to the way the Pope conducted that moment, one of which tried to associate the solitary presence of Francis with the Message of Fatima, i.e. the third secret. Do you agree?

Allow me first of all to tell you that I am pleased to give this interview for the faithful of Portugal, which the Blessed Virgin has promised to preserve in the Faith even in these times of great trial. You are a people with a great responsibility, because you may soon find yourself having to guard the sacred fire of Religion while other nations refuse to recognize Christ as their King and Mary Most Holy as their Queen.

The third part of the message that Our Lady entrusted to the shepherd children of Fatima to deliver to the Holy Father remains secret to this day. Our Lady asked to reveal it in 1960, but John XXIII had a communiqué published on February 8th of that year in which he stated that the Church “does not wish to take responsibility to guarantee the truthfulness of the words that the three shepherd children say the Virgin Mary would address to them”. With this distance from the message of the Queen of Heaven, a cover-up operation was started, evidently because the content of the message would have revealed the terrible conspiracy against the Church of Christ by its enemies. Until a few decades ago it would have seemed incredible that even Our Lady could be gagged, but in recent years we have also witnessed attempts to censor the Gospel itself, which is the Word of Her divine Son.

In the year 2000, during the Pontificate of John Paul II, the Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano, presented as the Third Secret a version of the Gospel that from some elements appeared clearly incomplete. It is not surprising that the new Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, tried to divert attention to an event of the past, in order to let the people of God believe that the words of the Virgin had nothing to do with the crisis of the Church and the combination of modernists and Freemasonry contracted behind the scenes of Vatican II. Antonio Socci, who carefully investigated the Third Secret, unmasked this malicious behavior on the part of Cardinal Bertone. On the other hand, it was Bertone himself who heavily discredited and censured the Madonnina delle Lacrime of Civitavecchia, whose message perfectly agrees with what she said at Fatima.

Let us not forget Our Lady’s unheeded appeal for the Pope and all the Bishops to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, as a condition for defeating Communism and atheistic materialism: consecrate not “the world”, not “that nation which You want us to consecrate to You”, but “Russia”. Did it cost so much to do that? Evidently so, for those who do not have a supernatural gaze. One preferred to walk the path of détente with the Soviet regime, inaugurated precisely by Roncalli, without understanding that without God no peace is possible. Today, with a President of the Russian Confederation who is certainly a Christian, the Virgin’s request could be granted, averting further misfortune for the Church and the world.

Benedict XVI himself confirmed the relevance of the Virgin’s message, even though – according to the interpretation spread by the Vatican – it should be considered complete. Those who have read the Third Secret have made it clear that its content concerns the apostasy of the Church, which began at the beginning of the 1960s and today has reached such an evident stage that it is even recognized by lay observers. This almost obsessive insistence on themes that the Church has always condemned, such as relativism and religious indifferentism, false ecumenism, Malthusian ecologism, homoheresis and immigrationism, has found in the Abu Dhabi Declaration the fulfillment of a plan conceived by the secret sects for more than two centuries.

In the middle of Holy Week and after the Panamazzonic Synod, Bergoglio decided to establish a commission to discuss and study the female diaconate in the Catholic Church. Do you believe that this aims to pave the way for the clericalisation of women or, in other words, for the attempt to tamper with the Priesthood established by Our Lord Jesus Christ on Holy Thursday?

The Sacred Order cannot and can never be modified in its essence. The attack on the Priesthood has always been at the centre of heretics’ action and their inspirer, and it is understandable that this is the case: hitting the Priesthood means destroying the Holy Mass and the Holy Eucharist and the entire sacramental building. Among the sworn enemies of the Sacred Order there was not even a lack of modernists, of course, who since the nineteenth century theorized a church without priests, or with priests and priestesses. These delusions, anticipated by some exponents of Modernism in France, subtly re-emerged at the Council, in an attempt to insinuate some equivalence between the ministerial priesthood deriving from Holy Orders and the common priesthood of the faithful deriving from Baptism. It is significant that, precisely by playing on this intentional misunderstanding, the reformed liturgy also suffered from the doctrinal error of Lumen Gentium and ended up reducing the ordained Minister to the simple president of an assembly of priests. On the other hand, the priest is alter Christus not by popular designation, but by ontological configuration to the High Priest, Jesus Christ, whom he must imitate in holiness of life and in the absolute dedication represented also by Celibacy.

The next step had to be taken, if not by annulling the Priesthood itself, at least by making it ineffective by extending it to women, who cannot be ordained: exactly what happened in the Protestant and Anglican sects, which today also experience the embarrassing situation of having lesbian bishops in the so-called Church of England. But it is clear that the ecumenical “pretext” – that is, approaching dissident communities by acquiring even the most recent errors – is based on Satan’s hatred for the Priesthood and would inevitably lead the Church of Christ to ruin. On the other hand, ecclesiastical Celibacy is also the object of the same attack, because it is distinctive of the Catholic Church and constitutes a precious defence of the Priesthood that Tradition has jealously guarded through the centuries.

The attempt to introduce a form of ordained female ministry within the Church is not recent, despite the repeated declarations of the Magisterium. John Paul II also unequivocally defined, and with all the canonical requirements of an infallible former Cathedra declaration, that it is absolutely impossible to question the doctrine on this subject. But just as the Catechism could be used to declare the death penalty “not in conformity with the Gospel” – something unheard of and heretical – so today an attempt is being made to create ex novo some form of female diaconate, evidently preparatory to a future introduction of the female priesthood. The first commission created by Bergoglio years ago gave a negative opinion, confirming what should not even have been the subject of discussion; but if that commission could not obey the wishes of Francis, this does not mean that another commission, whose members, chosen by him, are more “docile” and relaxed in demolishing another pillar of the Catholic Faith, cannot do so. I do not doubt that Bergoglio has persuasive methods and that he can exert pressure on the theological commission; but I am equally certain that in the unfortunate event that this consultative body were to give a favorable opinion, one would not necessarily have to come to an official declaration by the (anti-)Pope to see himself multiplying deaconesses in the dioceses of Germany or Holland, in the silence of Rome. The method is well known, and on the one hand it makes it possible to strike at the priesthood and on the other hand it gives a convenient alibi to those within the ecclesiastical structure who can always appeal to the fact that “the Pope has not allowed anything new”. They did likewise by authorizing the Episcopal Conferences to legislate autonomously about Communion in the hand, which, imposed by abuse, has now become universal practice.

It should be said that this will to promote women in the hierarchy betrays the urge to follow the modern mentality that has taken away the woman’s role of mother and wife to unhinge the natural family.

Let’s keep in mind that this approach to the Church’s dogmas confirms an undeniable fact: Bergoglio has adopted the so-called theology of the situation, whose theological places are accidental facts or subjects: the world, nature, the female figure, young people… This theology does not have as its founding centre the immutable and eternal truth of God, but, on the contrary, it starts from the observation of the binding impellence of phenomena in order to give answers consistent with the expectations of the contemporary world.

Excellence, according to historians of recognized merit, the Second Vatican Council represented a rupture of the Church with Tradition; hence the appearance of currents of thought that want to transform it into a simple humanitarian association that embraces the world and its globalist utopia. How do you see this serious problem?

A church that poses itself as new with respect to the Church of Christ is simply not the Church of Christ! The Mosaic Religion, that is, the “church of the ancient law” willed by God to lead His people until the coming of the Messiah, had its fulfillment in the New Covenant, and was definitively revoked on Calvary by the Sacrifice of Christ: from His side was born the Church of the New and Eternal Covenant, which replaces the Synagogue. It seems that even the post-conciliar church, modernist and Masonic, aspires to transform, to overcome the Church of Christ, replacing it with a “neo-church”, deformed and monstrous creature that does not come from God.

The purpose of this neo-church is not to bring the chosen people to recognize the Messiah, as for the Synagogue; it is not to convert and save all people before the second coming of Christ, as for the Catholic Church, but to establish itself as the spiritual arm of the New World Order and advocate of Universal Religion. In this sense, the Council’s revolution first had to demolish the Church’s heritage, its millenary Tradition, from which it drew its vitality and authority as the Mystical Body of Christ, then get rid of the exponents of the old Hierarchy, and only recently has it begun to offer itself without pretence for what it intends to be.

What you call utopia is actually a dystopia, because it represents the concretization of Freemasonry’s plan and the preparation for the advent of the Antichrist.

I am also convinced that the majority of my brethren, and even more so almost all the priests and faithful, are absolutely unaware of this hellish plan and that recent events have opened many people’s eyes. Their faith will allow Our Lord to gather the pusillus grex around the true Shepherd before the final confrontation.

To restore the ancient splendour of the Church, it will be necessary to question many doctrinal aspects of the Council. What points of Vatican II would you question?

I believe that there is no lack of eminent personalities who have expressed the critical points of the Council better than I have. There are those who believe that it would be less complicated and certainly wiser to follow the practice of the Church and the Popes as it was applied with the Synod of Pistoia: there was something good in it too, but the errors it affirmed were considered sufficient to let it fall into oblivion.

Does the present Regime represent the culmination of a process that opens with the Second Vatican Council, desired in the so-called “Pact of the Catacombs”, or is it still in an intermediate phase?

As is the case with every revolution, the heroes of the first hour often end up falling victim to their own system, as Robespierre did. Who yesterday was judged to be the standard-bearer of the Conciliar spirit, today appears almost a conservative: the examples are before everyone’s eyes. And there are already those who, in the intellectual circles of progressivism (such as the one frequented by a certain Massimo Faggioli, haughty in his first name and ungrammatical in his surname), start spreading here and there some doubts about Bergoglio’s real ability to make “courageous choices” – for example, to abolish Celibacy, to admit women to the Priesthood or to legitimize communicatio in sacris with heretics – almost hoping that he would step aside to elect an even more obedient Pope to those elites who had in the Catacomb Pact and the St. Gallen Mafia their most unscrupulous and determined followers.

Your Excellency, we Catholics today often feel isolated from the Church and almost abandoned by our Pastors. What can Your Excellency say to the hierarchs and the faithful who, despite the confusion and error that are spreading in the Church, try to persevere in this hard battle to maintain the integrity of our Faith?

My words would certainly be inadequate. All I do is to repeat the words of Our Lord, the eternal Word of the Father: Behold, I am with you every day until the consummation of the ages. We feel isolated, of course: but didn’t the Apostles and all Christians feel so too? Did not Our Lord even feel abandoned in Gethsemane? These are the times of trial, perhaps of the final trial: we must drink the bitter chalice, and even if it is human to implore the Lord to take it away from us, we must repeat confidently: Not as I wish, but as you wish, remembering His comforting words: In the world you will have tribulations, but have courage: I have conquered the world! After the trial, no matter how hard and painful, the eternal prize is prepared for us, which no one can take away from us. The Church will shine again with the glory of her Lord after this terrible and prolonged Easter Triduum. But if prayer is certainly indispensable, we must not fail to fight the good fight, making us all witnesses of a courageous militancy under the banner of the Cross of Christ. Let us not find ourselves being pointed out as the handmaiden did with Saint Peter in the high priest’s courtyard: “You too were one of his followers”, only to then deny Christ. Let us not be intimidated! Let us not allow the gag of tolerance to those who want to proclaim the Truth! Let us ask the Blessed Virgin Mary that our language may proclaim with courage the Kingdom of God and His Justice. Let the miracle of Lapa be renewed when Mary Most Holy gave the word to little Joana, born mute. May She also give voice to us, Her children, who for too long have been mute.

Our Lady of Fatima, Queen of Victories, Ora pro nobis.

§ § §


How Benedict has defeated “Francis”

Or, Why did Pope Benedict XVI do what he did on Feb. 11, 2013?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Pope Benedict XVI, who has been lauded by many as a brilliant theologian, is in my opinion, a more brilliant chess player, for he has defeated the AntiChurch with the most incredibly subtle and effective manuever which could ever be conceived, and which takes a great deal of study to recognize, if you, like myself, took at face value the hearsay which has been put out for the last six years.

Admittedly, the honor and glory for it belong first of all to God, Who enlightens all men and inspires them at times to do things mere mortals could never conceive of. But also, thanks goes to God for sending Our Lady to Fatima to reveal to Sr. Lucia a secret which has until this day remained hidden, so as to give sound counsel to the true Successor of Saint Peter in the End Times.

How Pope John Paul II strengthened the Bulwark of the Church against the AntiChurch

I believe that with that knowledge, Pope John Paul II did 3 things: first, he chose Joseph Ratzinger to come to Rome and prepared him to succeed him (perhaps because he sensed that Ratzinger had the gift of prophecy); second, in 1983, he added the term munus to canon 332 §2, to constrain all of his successors to the obligation of renouncing the Petrine Munus so as to resign the papacy; and third, in 1996, he promulgated a new law on Papal Elections, which would nullify any attempt of the AntiChurch to usurp the Papacy or elect successors to AntiPopes (by requiring that all valid conclaves meet within 20 days after the death of valid popes).

Pope John Paul II warned the Church of the AntiChurch which was rising. He beatified Ann Catherine Emmerich (on the Vigil of St. Francis of Assisi, in 2004) to give papal approval to her own visions in this regard. It should not be surprising then, that in secret, or I should say, in the bright light of day, in papal acts he prepared the Church against that Evil to come!

By these three acts, Pope John Paul II set the chess board and enabled his chosen successor, Ratzinger to enact a stratagem of deception to defeat the forces of darkness.

The Forces of the AntiChurch struck quickly

No sooner than Pope John Paul II had died that the St Gallen Mafia, which had been meeting in that Swiss town for some years, mobilized to put Bergoglio on the Apostolic Throne in the Conclave of 2005. Bergoglio, as is now known, garnered the most votes after Ratzinger. In his campaign to get elected he promised radical financial reforms in the Vatican, so he could pose as a savior and reformer, though his agenda was that of Cardinal Martini, to make the Church into the Bride of the Anti-Christ.

Recently an Argentine Priest revealed, that Pope Benedict, soon after his election in 2005, had asked Bergoglio to be Secretary of State (see report here). Benedict intended by this offer to diffuse the conflict which arose in the Conclave, and to draw out the real intentions of Bergoglio. Bergoglio’s refusal manifested his deceit, because all the reasons given in the Conclave for his election, which in truth could be done by a Secretary of State, if honest, would have spurred him to accept Benedict’s offer. But without the papal authority, his evil and malign agenda could not be advanced. — By this sign of offering the olive branch of peace, Benedict signaled to his own supporters, that after himself there would come an Anti-pope (cf. Prophecy of St Malachy).

With the threefold knowledge of the future had from the Third Secret, from Pope John Paul II and from his own experience in the CDF, Pope Benedict now knew what he had to do. He knew Bergoglio wanted power and would be blinded by its offer. He took preparations to defend the Church with tradition and as the pressure built from the St Gallen Mafia, he crafted their defeat in secret. At the same time, he openly warned the faithful, that the Message of Fatima was about to be fulfilled (On May 13, 2010, saying “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete…”).

Benedict knew that removing the Lavender Mafia from the Vatican was key to defending the Church. But as court documents revealed, in the WikiLeaks controversy, as that effort led to the destruction of the careers of many sodomites, they moved against Benedict to have him removed. His Pontificate had removed hundreds perverts from the clergy.

As I have written before, there was in my estimation a formal attempt at a Coup d’etat (see report here). And this was actually put in motion, with the intent to effectively imprison Pope Benedict (see Report here). — The Conclave pact in 2005 among the warring factions of Ratzinger (Church) and Bergoglio (Anti-Church) also prepared the way (see report here). But, with their cause lost at that conclave, the St. Gallen Mafia would have to wait for Benedict to resign, because being old, he revealed that he was inclined to resign in a few years, anyhow. As he lingered on, however, their rage and impatience exploded.

The restoration of the Ancient Mass (July 7, 2007) and the expansion of the permissions for its use (April 30, 2011) caused a general outburst among the wicked clerics. I myself know this took place in the Italian Bishop’s Conference in 2011, because a Bishop who attended told me how Cardinals and Bishops stood up, one after another, and said the most vile things against Benedict. I also know personally, from the testimony of a Sicilian Businessman, who was in Shanghai, that the Cardinal of Palermo had warned that Benedict could die within a year from poor health. The St Gallen Controlled Media expanded this and reported it as if the Cardinal has said that Benedict had a year to live or else. That report was published around Feb. 11, 2012! (note the date)

Benedict’s Master Stroke

Pope Benedict XVI then played his master stroke. In the Summer of 2012 he indicated to Cardinal Bertone that he was going to resign. He discussed the matter with no one but his secretary Ganswein and a few others. I believe that he wrote the text of abdication in the Fall of 2012. I also postulate that he intentionally showed the Latin text (the invalid one) and a faulty German translation (which makes it appear the Latin is a valid formula) to members of the St Gallen Mafia, to obtain their consent to it. By that act he sealed their doom.

Because only one who was fluent in Latin and knowledgeable about Canon Law and who accepted the traditional metaphysics of the Church would be able to see that the resignation by that formula would be invalid. Ratzinger further prepared the ground by emphasizing for years before, that his favorite theologian was Saint Bonaventure. This caused scholars, like myself, to start studying St. Bonanveture’s Scholatic method for textual analysis of the signification of expressions, which is unparalleled among all the Doctors of the Church.

On Feb. 11, 2013, he read out-loud in Consistory the text of the invalid formula. On Feb. 28, 2013 he explained that he had resigned the “active ministry”. The St. Gallen Mafia spread the word of a valid resignation. The rest is history.

The only thing is, that Benedict began to give signs of the truth, not only for the sake of the Faithful, but to annoy the St Gallen Mafia. He kept wearing the papal cassock, retained the titles of Your Holiness and signed with PP. Benedictus XVI, and continued to give the papal blessing. He did these things to get faithful Catholics to examine the text of resignation and discover it was invalid. — He did this also, because, I believe, he was obeying Our Lady’s word at Fatima, in which She had revealed that there would come a time in which the Catholic world thought there were 2 popes, but only one of which was the true pope. The one who was the true Pope would continue to wear white, the other would usurp the office; and that the Anti-Church would attack the true Pope and the faithful gathered about him.

By an invalid resignation Pope Benedict has canonically invalidated everything Bergoglio has done, can do, and can ever do! Bergoglio is now an AntiPope because of the clever trick Benedict played on him. And Bergoglio is so entangled by this stratagem of Benedict that he cannot admit its existence, because if he does, he must give up his claim to the papacy.

If Benedict should die, then there will be no valid Successor of Saint Peter unless the pre-Bergoglian Cardinals meet in conclave within 20 days. Otherwise, as Pope John Paul II declares in the promulgation of Universi Dominici Gregis, at the end of the text, any action the Cardinal Electors take will be invalid. If they fail to do this, the Church will not be bereft of a pope, because, as Pope John Paul II taught in UDG’s prologue, the institution of the College is “not necessary for a valid election” of the Roman Pontiff: there is still the ancient Apostolic Law regarding the right of the Roman Church to elect the Pope.*

Benedict has defeated “Francis”!


Note: I wish to publicly apologize to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for anything I have said in criticism of him, since it was not until today that I understood what he had did and why he had done it, nor that as Pope he was acting for the good of the Church in the best and only way he could see to do, acting on the  basis of the counsels of Our Lady and Pope John Paul II. — Finally, I entertain the possibility that some Cardinals know of this grand stratagem of Benedict and that is why they act so dumb when asked about the question of validity or invalidity of the resignation.


* The right of election will fall to those Catholics of the Diocese Rome, who recognize that Benedict always was the only true pope, and that Bergoglio was always and is only, and nothing more, an Antipope. See my Disputed Question on Defecting Cardinals, here.