Why are Biden & Friends afraid to Blackmail Putin with "Occult" Financial SWIFT & why was "Benedict XVI... Blackmailed by means of SWIFT... [&] it seems clear that Ratzinger’s Resignation was Not Valid"?
September 30, 2015
|Ratzinger he could “neither sell nor buy”|
Roughly translated by Google:
“Few know what SWIFT
(the acronym stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunication) is: in theory, is a global “clearing house”, uniting
10,500 banks in 215 countries. In fact, is the most occult and sole center of American-globalist financial power, a bastion of blackmail on which the hegemony of the dollar, the most powerful means of political and economic espionage…
|... “‘When a bank or territory is excluded from the system, as it did in the case of the Vatican in the days before the resignation of Benedict XVI in February 2013, all transactions are blocked. Without waiting for the election of Pope Bergoglio, the Swift system has been unlocked the announcement of the resignation of Benedict XVI.”|
|”‘There was a blackmail come from who knows where, through SWIFT, exercised on Benedict XVI.The underlying reasons for this story have not been clarified, but it is clear that SWIFT has intervened directly in the management of affairs of the Church.’|
“This explains and justifies the unprecedented resignation of Ratzinger, that many of us have been able to exchange for an act of cowardice; the Church was treated as a state ‘terrorist’, but worse — because note that the dozen banks falling into the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ‘are not excluded from SWIFT’ and continue to be able to make international transactions — and the Vatican finances could no longer pay the nunciature, to convey transport missions — in fact, the same ATM of Vatican City had been blocked.
The Church of Benedict could not ‘neither sell nor buy’; its own economic life was counted in hours.”
Reprinted from Anglocath.blogspot. - Lew Rockwell.com [https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/09/no_author/did-the-us-blackmail-benedict-xvi/]
The Associated Press (AP) reported that Joe Biden and the globalist elite are apparently afraid to use SWIFT [the "most occult and sole center of American-globalist financial power"] to blackmail Russia as it did Pope Benedict XVI thus seemingly forcing his resignation:
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. and European officials are holding one key financial sanction against Russia in reserve, choosing not to boot Russia off SWIFT, the dominant system for global financial transactions.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine caused a barrage of new financial sanctions Thursday. The sanctions are meant to isolate, punish and impoverish Russia in the long term. President Biden announced restrictions on exports to Russia and sanctions against Russian banks and state-controlled companies.
But Biden pointedly played down the need to block Russia from SWIFT, saying that while it's “always” still an option, “right now that's not the position that the rest of Europe wishes to take.”[https://www.aol.com/news/biden-europe-waiting-one-key-052856484-101912751.html]
In an article about Pope Benedict's resignation, and SWIFT's connection to it, Vatican expert writes "Benedict XVI was blackmailed by means of SWIFT... it seems clear that Ratzinger’s resignation was not valid":
The Belgian website Media-Presse (SWIFT is based in Belgium), reported on April 5 about the SWIFT alternative being launched by Beijing and Moscow and referred to the Vatican as an example: “When a bank or territory is excluded from the [SWIFT] system, as the Vatican was in the days preceding the resignation of Benedict XVI in February 2013, all financial transactions are blocked.”
And then, as soon as the resignation of Benedict XVI was announced, the SWIFT system was unblocked for the Vatican, without waiting for the election of his successor.
And so we see that Benedict XVI was blackmailed by means of SWIFT, although we do not know from where it originated. The deeper reasons underlying this story have never been clarified, but it is clear that SWIFT intervened directly in the affairs of the Church.
This explains Ratzinger’s unprecedented resignation, which many people have mistaken for an act of cowardice. The Church was treated like a “terrorist” state (actually worse, because we note that a dozen banks that fell into the hands of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria “were not excluded by SWIFT” and continue to make international transactions). The Vatican was no longer able to pay its nunciatures or send any financial support to its missions, and in fact the automated teller machines in Vatican City were all shut down during the weeks preceding Benedict XVI’s resignation. The Church of Benedict could no longer “either sell or buy” (Rev 13:17); its economic life was in its final hours.
It was a resignation made under duress.
All that remains is to subscribe to what Saura Plesio says on her blog:
Ratzinger, the very man who fought against the reigning Relativism, would never have accepted “opening” to the gay world and gender politics. He would never have prostrated himself to the “world” and “globalism” as his successor has done, who has shown himself to be just as secular as the UN in creating a form of “sacramental divorce” and in introducing “quick annulments.” He would never have engaged in his successor’s buffoonery in [celebrating a Mass with migrants in] Lampedusa [in 2013], which is not even Vatican territory but belongs to Italy. The great world powers were in a hurry, and Ratzinger was a clear obstacle that stood in the way, slowing down their lightning-fast trajectory.”
Immediately after his departure, SWIFT unblocked all Vatican transactions, reopened the Vatican automated teller machines, and restored the Vatican Bank to the world of finance. They did not even wait for Bergoglio to be elected; the expulsion of Benedict XVI, the “white terrorist,” was enough.
In the secret parlors of Wall Street, Washington, and London, they already knew that the conclave would bring a modernist to the Chair of Peter, someone whom they could trust. How did they know? Was the SWIFT sanction against the Vatican coordinated with the cardinal “conspirators” who, led by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini (the Jesuit archbishop of Milan from 1980-2002 who asked for euthanasia for himself), had marked Bergoglio as their candidate for years? Was there an agreement of the conspirators with an external strong power with whom they were ideologically in agreement?
Perhaps Bergoglio’s election was not invalid… but yet it seems
clear that Ratzinger’s resignation was not valid – he left the throne of
Peter under duress. [https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/04/21/bxvi-resigned-cavalcoli-swift-was-the-beast-of-the-apocalypse/]
Finally, here is a Catholic Monitor post from covering the Benedict resignation and the Francis validity in more detail:
Reuters is saying that if pressure is put on "Pope Francis to resign
[it] could make it difficult, if not impossible, for him to do so,
Church experts say.":
“'The pope has the right to freely resign. That’s what the canon says. The doubt is whether the situation Francis is in now really allows for a free choice because there is a political faction in the Church trying to force it,' said Nicholas Cafardi, former dean of Duquesne University School of Law."
“'I don’t see how (the pope can resign freely) when you have people campaigning for it,' said Cafardi, who is also a former member of the Board of Governors of the Canon Law Society of America."
If Reuters and Canon Law expert Cafardi are right that it is "difficult, if not impossible" for a pope to resign "if a political faction in the Church if trying to force it" then Pope Benedict XVI probably, if not for sure, is still Pope which would mean Francis is not a valid or real pope.
"Sexual deviancy, that is paired up with financial irregularity. This is what moves the Pope to resignation. And just to make sure there is enough pressure on him to do it and do it quick something funny goes on with the Vatican Bank beginning on January 1, 2013."
The author and philosopher on YouTube in "Dr. Taylor Marshall ties together Vatican financial scandal with homosexual activity" summarized what lead to Pope Benedict XVI's resignation and Pope Francis's papacy:
If Archbishop Carlo Marie Vigano is telling the truth then it appears that the Vatican gay lobby apparently forced Pope Benedict's resignation and it appears that Pope Francis has "reinstated and promoted" all those who brought about the pressured resignation according to the author and philosopher.
"First of, Vigano blew the whistle on money laundering."
"Two, the accusations of money laundering leads to the Vatileaks scandal."
"Three, the Vatileaks scandal leads Benedict to form a secret investigation with three cardinals."
"Four, those three cardinals expose moral rot, sexual deviancy, that is paired up with financial irregularity."
"This is what moves the Pope to resignation. And just to make sure there is enough pressure on him to do it and do it quick something funny goes on with the Vatican Bank beginning on January 1, 2013."
There is more evidence that Benedict was forced or pressured to resign.
There was a blackmail of Benedict XVI, coming from who knows where, through SWIFT. The underlying reasons for this have not been clarified, but it is clear that SWIFT has intervened directly in the management of affairs of the Church..."
"...It strikes me as interesting that more attention isn’t being paid to the role played by Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz, the acting President of the IOR [Vatican Bank] Board at the time, given his ties to Deutsche Bank."
"I mean, one would think that the former Deutsche Bank Executive Director, even if unable to leverage his contacts within the German banking giant to forestall such a drastic move, would have at the very least been well aware of what was coming and could have perhaps taken steps to secure the services of another financial institution, as happened in short order soon afterwards."
"This leads me to wonder where Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz’s own interests may have lied as this was taking place."
"Let me be clear; I have no information implicating Schmitz in any nefarious activity; I am simply making common sense observations and asking questions that, curiously enough, have apparently never been addresses by those in the media; in spite of the extensive coverage these events received."
"In any case, one is still left to wonder what motivated Gotti Tedeschi’s removal."
"Given that the reform of the IOR [Vatican Bank], for all intents and purposes, was all but halted while interim President Schmitz acted as caretaker until a new President could be found, one might assume that this interruption alone was the primary motive."
"It seems rather clear for reasons addressed below, however, that the motive went well beyond simply protecting the interests of those whose financial improprieties Gotti Tedeschi was laboring to uncover, making it seem far more likely Gotti Tedeshi’s demise was undertaken in order to set in motion the events that would secure the abdication of the man who appointed him."
"Circumstantial evidence strongly attesting to this being the case can be found in the fact that the Vatican reached an agreement with a Swiss firm to resume ATM and other bank card transactions effective February 12, 2013, just one day after Benedict XVI announced his intention to abdicate.
Indeed, as far as I can tell, nothing of note had changed between the cessation of bank card operations on January 1st and their resumption on February 12th relative to the Vatican Bank’s compliance with international banking standards. Rather, the only noteworthy thing to change was the status of Benedict’s pontificate."
"Further evidence suggesting that the motives for Gotti Tedeschi’s removal extended beyond mere financial concerns." [https://akacatholic.com/money-sex-and-modernism/]
Moreover, besides the apparent likely probability that Francis is not pope, if Reuters' Canon Law expert is right, because Benedict was pressured or forced to resign there, also, appears to be strong evidence that the conclave that elected Francis was invalid.
Onepeterfive's Steve Skojec on May 7 apparently rejected Bishop René Gracida's call for the cardinals to judge if Francis's election to the papacy was valid calling the validity question itself a "potentially dangerous rabbit hole."
(Onepeterfive, "Cardinal Eijk References End Times Prophecy in Intercommunion," May 7, 2018)
At the time, Skojec referred back to his September 26, 2017 post where he said:
"JPII has removed the election-nullifying consequences of simony... nowhere else in the following paragraphs is nullity of the election even implied."
(Onepeterfive, "A Brief note on the Question of a Legally Valid Election," September 26, 2017)
Bishop Gracida shows that Skojec is wrong in his legally crafted Open Letter quoting Pope John Paul II's Universi Dominici Gregis' introductory perambulary and paragraph 76:
-"I further confirm, by my Apostlic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process [the above which Gracida clearly shows in his Open Letter was not maintained thus making the conclave and Francis's papacy invalid according to the Bishop]."
-"Should the election take place in a way other than laid down here not to be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void."
Gracida's Open Letter, moreover, shows that Skojec is wrong above:
"The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave."
On top of all that, Skojec ignores paragraph 5 and contrary to what canon lawyer Edward Peters has said about Universi Dominici Gregis when he suggests canon lawyers have a role in interpreting the John Paul II Constitution, the document says:
"Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect. I [Pope John Paul II] Decree that all power of issuing a judgment of this in this regard to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points."
(Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 5)
Later in the paragraph it says "except the act of the election," which can be interpreted in a number of ways.
The point is, as Bishop Gracida says and Universi Dominici Gregis said, only the cardinals can interpret its meaning, not Skojec or canon lawyers.
The Bishop is saying what the document says: only the cardinals can interpret it.
He, also, says put pressure on the cardinals to act and interpret it which both Skojec and Peters appear to prefer to ignore.
Moreover, Bishop Gracida's Open Letter and Pope John Paul II's document make a number of points which neither Skojec, Peters or anyone else to my knowledge have even brought up or offered any counter argument against.
I have great respect for both Skojec and Peters, but unless Gracida's Open Letter is squarely responded to my respect for them will greatly diminish for they will be neglecting their responsibility to God and His Church.
They are both wrong if they ignore this important Open Letter of Bishop Gracida.
If Skojec and Peters as well as the conservative and traditional Catholic media are ignoring Bishop Gracida because he isn't a cardinal and retired, remember that St. Athanasius wasn't a cardinal (that is involved in the selection or election process of the pope of the time) and was retired.
During the Arian heresy crisis, Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius. You don't get any more retired than being excommunicated.
Skojec gave blogger Ann Barnhardt's analysis of the papal validity a long article. The only bishop in the world contesting Francis in a meaningful way deserves as much.
Skojec and Peters need to answer Gracida's theologically clear and precise arguments and either clearly and precisely counter them or put pressure on the cardinals to put into action the needed canonical procedures to remove Francis if he was "never validly elected" the pope or else remove him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy.
Francis is not orthodox so there are only two things he could be:
1. A validly elected pope who is a material heretic until cardinals correct him and then canonically proclaim he is a formal heretic if he doesn't recant thus deposing him or
2. a invalidly elected anti-pope who is a heretic.
The point is whether you think using all the information available 1. is the objective truth or 2. is the objective truth you must act.
You must as the Bishop says put: "pressure on the cardinals to act" whichever you think.
There are many ways to put pressure such as pray and offer Masses for this intention, send the Gracida link to priests, bishops and cardinals, make signs and pray the rosary in front of their offices as we do in front of abortion clinics. Use your imagination to come up with other ideas.
Gracida is calling the cardinals to "[a]ddress... [the] probable invalidity" before they attempt to depose him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy. But, just as importantly he is calling all faithful Catholics to act and not just bemoan Francis's heresy.
Bishop Gracida in a email to me and through the Catholic Monitor to all faithful Catholics said:
"ONE CAN SAY THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A HERETIC UNTIL ONE DIES BUT IT CHANGES NOTHING. WHAT IS NEEDED IS ACTION... WE MUST PRESSURE THE CARDINALS TO ACT. SEND THAT LINK TO EVERY PRIEST AND BISHOP YOU KNOW": https://wp.me/px5Zw-95e.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for Catholics to not just bemoan heresy, but put pressure on the bishops and cardinals to act.
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.