BY Claudio Resta

2013: THE GLOBALIST COUP THAT TOOK THE CATHOLIC CHURCH... which deposed the conservative Pope Benedict XVI and substituted him with the globalist Pope Francis I

Apocalypse 13:

“Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, having two horns, like those of a lamb, but speaking like a dragon. (…)

15 She was also allowed to animate the statue of the beast so that that statue could even speak and could put to death all those who did not worship the statue of the beast.

16 He ensured that everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, received a mark on their right hand and forehead;

17 and that no one could buy or sell without having this mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.”

When, in February 2013, Pope Benedict XVI suddenly and inexplicably resigned, the Vatican central bank (IOR) had been excluded from SWIFT; with this, all the Vatican’s international payments were made impossible, and the Church was treated like a Rogue State (according to the American narrative), like Iran.

It was economic ruin, well prepared by a violent campaign against the IOR, confirmed by the opening of criminal investigations by the Italian judiciary (which never fails to obey certain international orders).

An unsustainable situation for a ”Multinational Company” that boasts 4,851 dioceses and 105 apostolic nunciatures (embassies) spread across all five continents of the world.

There are 455,839 parishes, missions, churches and other religious centers that own land and buildings of all kinds. dimension.

SWIFT (the acronym stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication): in theory, it is a global “clearing house”, which unites 10,500 banks in 215 countries.

SWIFT: The Backbone of World Financial Systems

In fact, it is the most hidden and unquestionable center of American-globalist financial power, the blackmail stick on which the hegemony of the dollar is based, the most powerful means of economic and political espionage (especially to the detriment of us Europeans) and the most fearsome means with which global finance crushes the legs of States that do not obey. The central bank of Iran, for example, by Jewish will, was excluded from the SWIFT network in retaliation against the alleged nuclear program.

This means that Iran can no longer sell its crude oil in dollars, that its credit cards are not valid abroad, and that no international financial transaction can be conducted by Tehran except in cash and clandestinely, in illegal forms. according to the international order: in 2014 the French bank BNP Paribas was sentenced by US “justice” to pay (to the US) 8.8 billion dollars for having helped Tehran circumvent the Swift blockade.

It was the threats aired against Moscow to exclude it from the SWIFT network in retaliation for the so-called annexation of Crimea – enormous damage to the country’s economy – that accelerated the implementation, by the BRICS hegemonized by China and Russia, of its own alternative clearing circuit to SWIFT, and operating in yuan and rubles, and not in dollars.

To escape the blackmail that Swift places on sovereign states.

The Belgian site Media-Presse (SWIFT is based in Belgium) in reporting the news of the alternative SWIFT launched by Beijing and Moscow on April 5, gave as an example: When a bank or territory is excluded from the System, as was the case with the Vatican in the days preceding Benedict XVI’s resignation in February 2013, all transactions were blocked.

Without waiting for the election of Pope Bergoglio, the Swift system was unlocked upon the announcement of Benedict XVI’s resignation.

And why were international monetary transactions resumed on February 12, 2013, the very day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation?

Was it a pure coincidence?

Some historian will have to explain to us why a pope is picked up by an Italian Air Force helicopter, transported to Castelgandolfo (sort of Popes’ Camp David) and awarded the very little “canonical” title of Pope Emeritus.

Precisely these spectacular, globally televised methods and their anxious urgency sound more like a made in the USA Psy-Op rather than being consistent with Vatican protocol.

Much slower and more reserved.

These methods are reminiscent much more of 1974 President Nixon’s ouster after the Watergate affair or 2009 Angels & Demons final of  American film than that of a Pope abdication traditional antique protocol.

”Was there a blackmail coming from who knows where, (perhaps Soros, Clinton and Obama?) through Swift, exercised on Benedict XVI.

The underlying reasons for this story have not been clarified, but it is clear that SWIFT intervened directly in the direction of Church affairs.

This explains and justifies Ratzinger’s unprecedented resignation, which many of us could mistake for an act of cowardice; the Church was treated as a “Rogue” State, or rather worse – because it should be noted that the dozen banks that fell into the hands of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria “were not excluded from SWIFT” and continue to be able to make international transactions – and the Vatican finance could no longer pay the nunciatures or send resources to the missions – indeed, the ATMs themselves in Vatican City had in fact been blocked.

Benedict’s Church could no longer “sell or buy”, its economic life was on its last legs. Furthermore, regarding the terrible and irresistible (at least on a human and not divine level) pressures suffered by Pope Benedict XVI, there is also the hypothesis that the sword of Damocles was hanging over him at the time of an accusation for objective liability of the many cases of pedophilia of which then (and let me underline only then!) there was a big talk throughout the mainstream information of the many cases of pedophilia committed by men of the Church, and that is that the Pope resigned for a settlement agreement which would have seen his immunity in exchange for his abdication.Since the notification of an arrest warrant by the ITCCS (International Tribunal on Crimes of Church and State) was supposed then to be imminent.

A transaction to which the Pope would have agreed, I believe, always if his assumptions were verified, not in his personal interest, but in the interest of the Church and its good name.

So the Pope resigned to avoid arrest (link removed today: http://www.iconacon.it/blog…) Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation occurred under extremely strong pressures against the Church.

An expert such as Saura Plesio says: Ratzinger “never, he who fought against the prevailing Relativism, would have accepted “openings” on the gay world and on gender politics.

Never would he have prostrated himself to the “world” (and to globalism) like this Pope [FRANCIS], who competes with the prevailing secularism of the EU in creating a form of “sacramental divorce”, through “brief annulment”.

He would never have lent himself to the great Lampedusa antics carried out by his successor, which, moreover, is not even his territory, but of the Italian state.

The great globalist powers are in a hurry and Ratzinger was a clear obstacle, a slowdown on their lightning-fast trajectory.”

Professor Luciano Canfora, an authoritative Roman historian and Latinist, also suggests how hastily Ratzinger’s expulsion was implemented.

He noted in the motu proprio with which Benedetti justified his resignation with his age (“Ingravescente Aetate”) incurred in a series of Latin errors: elementary errors in the concordance of cases, enough to make a schoolboy blush.

Now, according to many, it is not plausible that Ratzinger could have made these mistakes. The text was written by others, probably, and he was dramatically sent away from the Vatican, by helicopter filmed worldwide?

And immediately after his passing, SWIFT unblocks Vatican transactions, reopens ATMs, brings the IOR back to the honor of the world.

They didn’t wait for Bergoglio [POPE FRANCIS] to be elected; the expulsion of the “white terrorist” was enough for THEM.

In the good and unattainable salons between Wall Street and Washington and London, they already knew that the conclave would give the throne to a modernist, to someone they could trust.

How come? Had the SWIFT sanction been coordinated with the “conspirators” in purple who, led by Carlo Maria Martini (a cardinal who asked for euthanasia for himself, it should be remembered…) had marked Bergoglio as their candidate for years already?

Was there an agreement between the conspirators with a strong external power, to which they are close in ideology?

But it seems to understand that Ratzinger’s resignation is – he was forced to step down from the throne of Peter under construction.

Was it a Jewish revenge for his juvenile nazi duty?

Ratzinger’s own behavior, apparently ambiguous in wearing the white robe and the title of Holy Father, can confirm this: he wants to give the signal to those who can understand it, without being able to say it, that he was kicked out, he did not leave voluntarily.

Now, just as a marriage is null if one of the spouses entered into it under duress, so will a Pope who renounces it under duress, and let it be known that he remains Pope….

In this hypothesis, the triumphal welcome that Bergoglio received in America, at the UN, from Obama, the standing ovations at Congress are very well explained – yes, why is a reigning Pope invited to the United States Congress?

This is very strange and unusual.

Washington’s relationship with the Vatican has always been bad to terrible; not only out of the Yankee Protestant hatred against “Popery”.

Now, they have become excellent.

The Pope becomes the United States’ willing mediator with Cuba, makes the “radical battles” his own, opens up to the new compulsory morality, in short, stops being the moral antagonist that “this world” detests.

This would also explain the astute management to gain the sympathy of the progressive media; and the brutal but precise “purge” that Bergoglio (with his council of the Eight) carried out in the Vatican, as if he had a long-prepared list in his hands.

His desire to dissolve Catholicism into a general, vacuous, secularized and worldly Protestantism…

Moreover, the Catholic orthodoxy of Bergoglio’s preaching appeared questionable from the beginning in the eyes of the most authoritative theologians: the 4 cardinals of the dubia… Dubia (in Latin: “doubts”) is the Latin term used to indicate a document signed by four cardinals (Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller, Joachim Meisner) following the publication of the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia by Pope Francis in 2016.

The cardinals, through this document and previously in private form, asked the pontiff for clarifications on the doctrinalia matter of the Church, contesting some points of the document, in particular those contained in the chapter. VIII and relating to the readmission or otherwise of divorced, civilly remarried, in communion with the Catholic Church.

Dubia require a yes/no answer.

Pope Francis felt he did not have to answer the questions contained in the dubia and from that moment the cardinals opened a public discussion on the topics addressed.

In July 2017, a group of members of the clergy, university and lay people, including the German intellectual Martin Mosebach, the former President of the IOR, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi and Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, they signed a document called Correctio filias (“Filial Correction”) dedicated to the work of Pope Francis. The twenty-five page document, made public in September after yet another failure to respond from the Holy See, criticizes the Pope, accusing him of having promoted seven heretical propositions in his words, actions and omissions during his pontificate.

Filial correction is a rare initiative throughout the history of the church: the first correction was made at the time of Pope John XXII, admonished in 1333.

Bergoglio enjoins Christians to welcome more and more immigrants, without limits, with total “welcome” and charity – Well: “With an official statement, signed by 28 different obediences (including 8 French and one Italian, the Grand Lodge of Italy), the Freemasons call on European governments to welcome immigrants, or rather to welcome more and more of them. Thus demonstrating a convergence of intent with few precedents not only among themselves, but also with respect to the new strategies followed by the member states” (Corrispondenza Romana, 11 September)....

However, the group of Catholic leaders cites new evidence discovered in emails published by WikiLeaks to claim that the conservative Pope Benedict did not actually resign on his own initiative, but was ousted from the Vatican in a Coup that the group of researchers calls it the “Catholic Spring”.

Soros, Obama and Clinton used the diplomatic machinery, political might and financial power of the United States to coerce, bribe and blackmail a “regime change” in the Roman Catholic Church in order to replace the conservative Benedict with the current Pope Francis, who has since become an unlikely spokesperson for the international left, stunning Catholics around the world.

Now the group of Catholic leaders has sent a letter to President Trump urging him to launch an official investigation into the activities of George Soros, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (and others) who they claim were involved in orchestrating the Catholic Spring that led to their goal of “regime change” in the Vatican.

Catholic leaders cite eight specific questions they seek answers to regarding suspicious events that led to Pope Benedict’s resignation, the first papal abdication in 700 years.

“In particular, we have reason to believe that ‘regime change’ in the Vatican is being engineered by the Obama administration,” the petition signatories say in their January 20 letter to President Trump.

“We were alarmed to discover,” their letter read, “that, during the third year of the Obama administration’s first term, your previous opponent, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other government officials associated with her, proposed a Catholic “revolution” in which the definitive end of what remained of the Catholic Church in America would be achieved.”

The letter includes links to documents and news stories that underline their claims.

First, it calls attention to the infamous Soros-Clinton-Podesta emails disclosed last year by WikiLeaks, in which Podesta and other progressives discussed regime change to remove what they described as the “dictatorship of the Middle Ages” in Catholic Church.

Regarding the Podesta emails in question, The New American reported last October: “Podesta, a longtime Clinton advisor/confidant and handpicked star activist of left-wing financier George Soros, revealed in a 2011 email that he and other activists were working to bring about a “Catholic Spring” revolution.

Within the Catholic Church, an obvious reference to the disastrous “Arab Spring” coups organized that same year by the Obama-Clinton-Soros team which destabilized the Middle East and brought radical Islamic regimes and terrorist groups to power in the region. Podesta’s email is a response to another Soros-funded radical: Sandy Newman, founder of the “progressive” Voices for Progress.

Newman had written to Podesta asking for advice on the best way to “plant the seeds of the revolution” in the Catholic Church, which he described as a “dictatorship of the Middle Ages [sic]”.

In their letter to President Trump, the group of Catholic leaders writes: “About a year after this email discussion, which should never have been made public, we find that Pope Benedict XVI has abdicated under highly unusual circumstances and has been replaced by a pope whose apparent mission is to provide a spiritual component to the radical ideological agenda of the International Left.

The pontificate of Pope Francis has subsequently questioned its legitimacy on a multitude of occasions.”

“We remain perplexed by the behavior of this ideologically charged Pope, whose mission appears to be to promote the secular agendas of the Left rather than lead the Catholic Church in its sacred mission,”

they say, expressing the thoughts of millions of Catholics around the world stunned by the left-wing ideology of Pope Francis.

“It is simply not the appropriate role of a Pope to be involved in politics to the point of being considered the leader of the International Left.”

They continue: “With all this in mind, and wishing well for our country and for Catholics everywhere, we believe it is the responsibility of faithful and informed Catholics in the United States to petition to authorize an investigation into the following questions:

– For what purpose was the National Security Agency monitoring the conclave that elected Pope Francis?

– What other covert operations were conducted by U.S. government agents regarding Pope Benedict’s resignation or the conclave that elected Pope Francis?

– Did US government agents have contact with the “St. Gallen Mafia mentioned in his memoirs published before his death by Cardinal Danneels”?

– International monetary transactions with the Vatican were suspended in the final days before Pope Benedict’s resignation. Were there US government agencies involved in this?

– Why were international monetary transactions resumed on February 12, 2013, the day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation? Was it a pure coincidence?

– What actions, if any, were actually taken by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton and others associated with the Obama administration who were involved in the discussion that proposed fomenting a “Catholic Spring”?

– What was the purpose and nature of the secret meeting between Vice President Joseph Biden and Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican on or about June 3, 2011?

– What roles were played by George Soros and other international financiers who may currently reside in US territory?”

The investigation that the group of Catholic leaders is asking President Trump should interest not only Catholics.

George Soros’ ability to co-opt prominent political figures to support his radical plans for nation states is well known; but his ability to force “regime change” in the Catholic Church, a previously impenetrable institution from the outside, raises serious questions about its potential for global chaos.

The emendation of these regime changes and their punishments – ​​should begin immediately.

Thanks to Maurizio Blondet

In the end, paradoxically (but not too much), this non-orthodox and heretical Pope, according to many theologists, accuses of Schism today a traditionalist and very orthodox Archbishop like Monsignor Carlo Maria Vigano, former Nuncio (Ambassador) of the Holy See in Washington. Who defends his reasons and accuses the reigning Pope in the following letter:

https://exsurgedomine.it/240628-jacuse-eng

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2024/06/30/2013-the-globalist-coup-that-took-the-catholic-church/

NOTE THAT POPE FRANCIS IS FROM ARGENTINA...

READ FROM TOP.....