26 January 2017
A Vatican-Democratic Party Alliance? (Catholics Ask Trump Administration to Investigate)
Dear President Trump:
The campaign slogan “Make America Great Again,” resonated with millions of common Americans and your tenacity in pushing back against many of the most harmful recent trends has been most inspiring. We all look forward to seeing a continued reversal of the collectivist trends of recent decades.
Reversing recent collectivist trends will, by necessity, require a reversal of many of the actions taken by the previous administration. Among those actions we believe that there is one that remains cloaked in secrecy. Specifically, we have reason to believe that a Vatican “regime change” was engineered by the Obama administration.
We were alarmed to discover that, during the third year of the first term of the Obama administration your previous opponent, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other government officials with whom she associated proposed a Catholic “revolution” in which the final demise of what was left of the Catholic Church in America would be realized. Approximately a year after this e-mail discussion, which was never intended to be made public, we find that Pope Benedict XVI abdicated under highly unusual circumstances and was 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 called into question its own legitimacy on a multitude of occasions. 
During the 2016 presidential campaign we were astonished to witness Pope Francis actively campaigning against your proposed policies concerning the securing of our borders, and even going so far as to suggest that you are not a Christian . We appreciated your prompt and pointed response to this disgraceful accusation .
We remain puzzled by the behavior of this ideologically charged Pope, whose mission seems to be one of advancing secular agendas of the left rather than guiding the Catholic Church in Her sacred mission. It is simply not the proper role of a Pope to be involved in politics to the point that he is considered to be the leader of the international left.
While we share your stated goal for America, we believe that the path to “greatness” is for America to be “good” again, to paraphrase de Tocqueville. We understand that good character cannot be forced on people, but the opportunity to live our lives as good Catholics has been made increasingly difficult by what appears to be a collusion between a hostile United States government and a pope who seems to hold as much ill will towards followers of perennial Catholic teachings as he seems to hold toward yourself.
With all of this in mind, and wishing the best for our country as well as for Catholics worldwide, we believe it to be the responsibility of loyal and informed United States Catholics to petition you to authorize an investigation into the following questions:
– To what end was the National Security Agency monitoring the conclave that elected Pope Francis? 
– What other covert operations were carried out by US government operatives concerning the resignation of Pope Benedict or the conclave that elected Pope Francis?
– Did US government operatives have contact with the “Cardinal Danneels Mafia”? 
– International monetary transactions with the Vatican were suspended during the last few days prior to the resignation of Pope Benedict. Were any U.S. Government agencies involved in this? 
– Why were international monetary transactions resumed on February 12, 2013, the day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation? Was this pure coincidence? 
– What actions, if any, were actually taken by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, and others tied to the Obama administration who were involved in the discussion proposing the fomenting of 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 be currently residing in United States territory? 
We believe that the very existence of these unanswered questions provides sufficient evidence to warrant this request for an investigation.
Should such an investigation reveal that the U.S. government interfered inappropriately into the affairs of the Catholic Church, we further request the release of the results so that Catholics may request appropriate action from those elements of our hierarchy who remain loyal to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Please understand that we are not requesting an investigation into the Catholic Church; we are simply asking for an investigation into recent activities of the U.S. Government, of which you are now the chief executive.
Thank you again, and be assured of our most sincere prayers.
David L. Sonnier, LTC US ARMY (Retired)
Michael J. Matt, Editor of The Remnant
Christopher A. Ferrara (President of The American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.)
Chris Jackson, Catholics4Trump.com
Elizabeth Yore, Esq., Founder of YoreChildren
My Comment : Great initiative from the Remnant and exactly what Garabandal News keep telling to its readers from the Beginning, a forced Resignation probably with the help of some intelligence services as some lefty groups mainly from the USA (the so called Obama, Soros party line) and their puppets within the Church, first of all the St Gallen Mafiosi Group…etc…..we can see one of its main member as a main guest, the famous Danneels, next to the new “Pope” just after his election (attached picture), with the past of this notorious heretic, how is this possible ? this picture alone speaks for itself, this Papacy match completely the Saint Francis of Assisi Prophecy, a destroyer not canonically elected, for me there is no doubt and Bergoglio must be stopped, arrested and excommunicated ipso facto.
Hopefully the new US President will investigate, be sure that it is quite easy to get any evidences quickly and if possible before the next Synod on the way for October 2018.
Also and if some Tradionalists from the SSPX are reading these lines, I remind you that in my opinion any agreement with the current team in Rome is not at all recommended for the moment, no agreement could be valid to God if the current Pontiff was not Canonically elected, at least I will suggest to Bishop Fellay to ask and to read the so Called text of the Fatima 3rd Secret (still hidden by Rome) before any possible agreement, this is a simple request, read the Secret then Join Rome but not before, be sure that after reading it, the Good Bishop will wait for the next Pontificate, no doubt is possible, please be sure of that, today even the well known Italian Vatican expert and author of the famous book “the Fourth Secret of Fatima” does not hesitate and between the lines to link this Papacy to the Antichrist Period announced in the Book of Revelation of Saint John as below :
To Conclude, I hope Moscow will join this investigation, according to my sources, any trip from this Pope to China, should be sufficient for any action.
18 February 2017
Francis, the beginning of the end ? Part II
The Pope’s Council of Advisors Declares that it supports “His Magisterium”
But what about the Magisterium? Not so much.
by Christopher A. Ferrara
February 17, 2017
One of Francis’ first acts as Pope was to create a Council of Cardinal Advisors, commonly known as “C9”, to advise him on ecclesial affairs. The “advice,” however, appears to constitute little more than an echo chamber for whatever Francis wishes to say.
To recall, the members of the Council are: Chilean Cardinal Francisco Javier Errazuriz Ossa; Italian Bishop Marcello Semeraro, secretary to the Council; Indian Cardinal Oswald Gracias; German Cardinal Reinhard Marx; Honduran Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga; Italian Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello; U.S. Cardinal Sean O’Malley; Australian Cardinal George Pell; and Congolese Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya.
All of the nine, with the exception of Pell, are radical progressives by any historical standard of Catholicism, whereas Pell, a “moderate” progressive, appears to be hanging on to his position by his fingernails. Meanwhile, he has already been removed from the Congregation for Divine Worship, which oversees the Church’s sacred liturgy, along with Cardinal Burke, the de facto spokesman for the four cardinals who have published the dubia concerning Amoris Laetitia. (Burke has just been shuffled off to Guam.)
The C9 has leapt into action as opposition to Francis’ relentlessly progressive agenda mounts among concerned clergy and laity throughout the Catholic world, including protest posters plastering Rome and a spoof of L’Osservatore Romano wherein “Francis” answers ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ to each of the four cardinals’ dubia. The C9 have issued an extraordinary “vote of confidence” in Francis, as if he were the head of a parliament, in the form of a Note published as part of the Vatican press briefing of February 13. The pertinent portion (my translation from the Italian) is quite striking:
“In relation to recent events, the Council of Cardinals expresses full support for the work of the Pope, assuring at the same time its adhesion to and complete support of His person and His Magisterium.”
“[In relazione a recenti avvenimenti, il Consiglio di Cardinali esprime pieno appoggio all’opera del Papa, assicurando al tempo stesso adesione e sostegno pieni alla Sua persona e al Suo Magistero.]”
Note first of all the curious typography in the Italian original, not present in the Vatican’s own English translation: “His person and His Magisterium.” In contemporary Vatican usage the pronoun “his” is no longer capitalized even when used in reference to God. (See, for example, this section of the Catechism at the Vatican’s website.) But the traditional usage in reference to God suddenly reappears in reference to Francis!
More significant is the reference to “His Magisterium.” Why not “the Magisterium,” which is the teaching office of the Church, not of a particular Pope? The Church does not have a different Magisterium with each Pope, but the same Magisterium to which all Popes are bound. Thus, on the very day he was installed as Pope, Benedict XVI declared his intention to subsume his personal ideas to the Magisterium of all time:
“The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism….”
So, again, why “His magisterium” rather than “the Magisterium”? The answer should be obvious at this point in the crisis provoked by what Antonio Socci has aptly termed “Bergoglianism”: the Magisterium and the teaching of Francis are not one and the same thing. That is why the four cardinals have posed their dubia. That is why alarm is spreading throughout the Church. That is why protest posters have appeared in Rome, along with the mock edition of L’Osservatore Romano. And that is why the Council of Cardinals has issued its “vote of confidence” in a Pope who is clearly eliciting a vote of “no confidence” from a growing number of the faithful.
The liberal John Allen frets that “one could ask whether such a statement lends a significance to the anti-Francis blowback that heretofore was debatable. From the beginning, most commentators have been cautioning against exaggerating the dimensions of such resistance… By engaging it in such a high-profile way, it’s at least worth mulling whether the cardinals have inadvertently done it a favor.”
Liberals like Allen, along with the members of the C9 echo chamber, would like to bury the “anti-Francis blowback,” which is just a pejorative for “Catholic defense of orthodoxy.” But as Our Lord said when the Pharisees demanded that He rebuke His disciples for praising His “mighty works”: “I say to you, that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out.” (Luke 19:40) That is, the truth of the Magisterium cannot be silenced even if the hierarchy fails in its duty to defend it.
As for Francis and “His Magisterium,” in God’s good time it will pass from memory just as surely as the errors of Honorius, who was posthumously anathematized by an ecumenical council and a successor Pope, and John XXII, who was denounced for preaching heresy from the pulpit before he retracted his error on his deathbed. Both of these Popes, though validly elected, nonetheless transgressed the limits of the Magisterium. Much the same thing, but far worse, is happening today at this turning point in the history of the Church and the world.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
My Comment : Great Article from Chris Ferrara, so we have now The Magisterium and His Magisterium and according to Chris a situation within the Church FAR WORSE than during Honorius and John XXII Pontificates (probably the worst periods in the Church History) for those who still have some doubts, this cannot be clearer, in my opinion I still think that the situation is even worse and related to the Chapter 13 (Fatima) and Verse 18 (Garabandal) of the Apocalypse as indicated online, the Beast in Person on the Seat of Peter, in other words my Friends, the Fatima 3rd Secret and the Year 2017, probably the Year in question within the Secret, the so called last Pope Under the Control of Satan, the Destroyer of the Saint Francis of Assisi Prophecy at the end of times, the Apocalypse of Saint John in live, this is my friends what we are living and it’s my duty also and after 9 Years of research about the Fatima 3rd Secret to remind it to you again and again but with an important difference with Christ, this Pope was not Canonically elected, please be sure of that, as I said we have all the evidences.
Let me add an important detail regarding the Fatima 3rd Secret but how we will recognize the Pope in question and within the Secret :
Pushed by Satan and to mock our Lady and her secret , he will consecrate his Pontificate presicely to our Lady of Fatima, On the seat of Peter the devil will think himself victorious it is at that time that its end will be near and according to my own sources, this period will last between 4 to 5 Years, not more, stay tuned, thank you.
26 February 2017
Francis, the beginning of the end ? Part III
My Comment : For your information and for those interested, I was in Switzerland last week, trying to meet Bishop Fellay regarding the futur Agreement between the Society and the Current Rome, having with me some informations about the Fatima 3rd Secret due to my 9 Years of personnal researchs, I was hoping to share them with the Bishop and so on, unfortunately I had to stay longer and then to meet some close relatives of the Bishop before any Appointment with him directly, in the same time and during the week of my stay, I received some informations about the agreement on the way and almost finalized with Rome from some good French friends of the Society, I then deceided to go back home, I tried my best but probably too late, in other words the agreement had to be finalized before the next General Chapter of the Society in 2018 (July 2018), I then concluded with Matthew 26:15, end of the Story, thank you.
03 March 2017
Francis, the beginning of the end ? Part IV
This Disastrous Papacy
Something snapped last Friday, when Pope Francis used the day’s Gospel reading as one more opportunity to promote his own view on divorce and remarriage. Condemning hypocrisy and the “logic of casuistry,” the Pontiff said that Jesus rejects the approach of legal scholars.
True enough. But in his rebuke to the Pharisees, what does Jesus say about marriage?
So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.
Day after day, in his homilies at morning Mass in the Vatican’s St. Martha residence, Pope Francis denounces the “doctors of the law” and the “rigid” application of Catholic moral doctrine. Sometimes his interpretation of the day’s Scripture readings is forced; often his characterization of tradition-minded Catholics is insulting. But in this case, the Pope turned the Gospel reading completely upside-down. Reading the Vatican Radio account of that astonishing homily, I could no longer pretend that Pope Francis is merely offering a novel interpretation of Catholic doctrine. No; it is more than that. He is engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches.
For over 20 years now, writing daily about the news from the Vatican, I have tried to be honest in my assessment of papal statements and gestures. I sometimes criticized St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, when I thought that their actions were imprudent. But never did it cross my mind that either of those Popes posed any danger to the integrity of the Catholic faith. Looking back much further across Church history, I realize that there have been bad Popes: men whose personal actions were motivated by greed and jealousy and lust for power and just plain lust. But has there ever before been a Roman Pontiff who showed such disdain for what the Church has always taught and believed and practiced—on such bedrock issues as the nature of marriage and of the Eucharist?
Pope Francis has sparked controversy from the day he was elected as St. Peter’s successor. But in the past several months the controversy has become so intense, confusion among the faithful so widespread, administration at the Vatican so arbitrary—and the Pope’s diatribes against his (real or imagined) foes so manic—that today the universal Church is rushing toward a crisis.
In a large family, how should a son behave when he realizes that his father’s pathological behavior threatens the welfare of the whole household? He should certainly continue to show respect for his father, but he cannot indefinitely deny the danger. Eventually, a dysfunctional family needs an intervention.
In the worldwide family that is the Catholic Church, the best means of intervention is always prayer. Intense prayer for the Holy Father would be a particularly apt project for the season of Lent. But intervention also requires honesty: a candid recognition that we have a serious problem.
Recognizing the problem can also provide a sort of relief, a relaxation of accumulating tensions. When I tell friends that I consider this papacy a disaster, I notice that more often than not, they feel oddly reassured. They can relax a bit, knowing that their own misgivings are not irrational, that others share their fears about the future of the faith, that they need not continue a fruitless search for ways to reconcile the irreconciliable. Moreover, having given the problem a proper name, they can recognize what this crisis of Catholicism is not. Pope Francis is not an antipope, much less the Antichrist. The See of Peter is not vacant, and Benedict is not the “real” Pontiff.
Francis is our Pope, for better or worse. And if it is for worse—as I sadly conclude it is—the Church has survived bad Popes in the past. We Catholics have been spoiled for decades, enjoying a succession of outstanding Vatican leaders: Pontiffs who were gifted teachers and saintly men. We have grown accustomed to looking to Rome for guidance. Now we cannot.
(I do not mean to imply that Pope Francis has forfeited the charism of infallibility. If he issues an ex cathedra statement, in union with the world’s bishops, we can be sure that he is fulfilling his duty to pass on what the Lord gave to St. Peter: the deposit of faith. But this Pope has chosen not to speak with authority; on the contrary, he has adamantly refused to clarify his most provocative teaching document.)
But if we cannot count on clear directions from Rome, where can we turn? First, Catholics can rely on the constant teaching of the Church, the doctrines that are now too often called into question. If the Pope is confusing, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not. Second, we can and should ask our own diocesan bishops to step up and shoulder their own proper responsibilities. Bishops, too, have spent years referring the tough questions to Rome. Now, of necessity, they must provide their own clear, decisive affirmations of Catholic doctrine.
Maybe Pope Francis will prove me wrong, and emerge as a great Catholic teacher. I hope and pray he does. Maybe my entire argument is wrongheaded. I have been wrong before, and will no doubt be wrong again; one more mistaken view is of no great consequence. But if I am right, and the current Pope’s leadership has become a danger to the faith, then other Catholics, and especially ordained Church leaders, must decide how to respond. And if I am right—as I surely am—that confusion about fundamental Church teachings has become widespread, then the bishops, as primary teachers of the faith, cannot neglect their duty to intervene.
My Comment : I quote “Pope Francis is not an antipope, much less the Antichrist. The See of Peter is not vacant, and Benedict is not the “real” Pontiff”, of course is not M. Lawler, who said that ? then he adds “Looking back much further across Church history, I realize that there have been bad Popes: men whose personal actions were motivated by greed and jealousy and lust for power and just plain lust. But has there ever before been a Roman Pontiff who showed such disdain for what the Church has always taught and believed and practiced—on such bedrock issues as the nature of marriage and of the Eucharist?”, so has there ever before been a Roman Pontiff attacking the nature of Marriage and of the Eucharist such as this one ? Never M. Lawler, never in the Church history, we had a Pontiff leading Souls to Hell as today, NEVER, we are living what the Fatima 3rd Secret calls “A Spiritual Chastisement” for our sins, worst than any physical Chastisement, by targeting the hierarchy, the devil has also created the heresy of “false obedience”, where ignorant Catholics (as many do not know their faith) put the virtue of obedience above the teachings of the Church and the Truth of Christ but who can imagine that our Lady would advice her Children to follow heresies or a heretic, this would be a sin against of the Holy Spirit, many complained to me about our Lady of the Carmel in Garabandal, reminding to the seers that being obedient to the hierarchy of the Church is one of the greatest Catholic virtue, of course it is, but never the Mother of God would have said to follow heresies and heretics and to finally end in hell, on the contrary she precisely warned her children in her second message “Many cardinals, many bishops, and many priests are on the road to perdition and are taking many souls with them. Less and less importance is being given to the Eucharist….”, this is what we are living today M. Lawler, what Sister Lucia of Fatima also called “blind men guiding other blind men”, following heresies and a heretic because he is the “official” Pope, it’s idolatry, a mortal sin, so let me conclude this comment with Cardinal Ciappi words, the Papal Theologian to the 5 Popes from Pius XII to John Paul II who said “in the 3rd Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the GREAT APOSTASY in the Church will begin at the TOP”, you have your Apostate M. Lawler, the one of the Apocalypse of Saint John Sir ! so I will not waste my time anymore especially after 4 Years of evidences, to repeat it over and over again , thank you.
Below a video of Cardinal Bergoglio Blessed by evangelicals and almost in a state of hypnosis during his speech, this event alone should have disqualified him for any possible election as a Futur Pope in any conclave, this is what they have done to us my Friends !
12 March 2017
Francis, the beginning of the end ? Part V
Was Pope Benedict Driven from Office
by the “Wolves” He Mentioned?
A “fateful letter”? The mystery deepens.
by Christopher A. Ferrara
March 10, 2017
History will forever record the shocking words of the newly elected Pope Benedict XVI at the Mass for the inauguration of his papacy: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.” Those words turned out to be a prophecy.
The “normalists” who insist that nothing is amiss with the current pontificate — a group whose numbers are rapidly diminishing — profess to be undisturbed by the most unprecedented manner in which Benedict left the Chair of Peter: retaining the papal name, the papal garb, the papal insignia, the papal residence in the Vatican and, so Benedict says, the “passive” aspect of the office (prayer and contemplation) as the first “Pope Emeritus” in Church history.
If a bishop emeritus is still a bishop, is not a Pope Emeritus still a Pope? If not, then how is the title “Pope Emeritus” anything but empty nonsense? But if Benedict still considers himself a Pope in any sense, what are we to make of two Popes living in the Vatican? How could a Pope who resigns his office still be in any sense a Pope, given that election to the papacy does not work any ontological change in the man — such as an indelible mark upon the soul, as does ordination to the priesthood or episcopal consecration — but merely confers the papal office, which here has supposedly been renounced?
I propose no definite answer to these questions. What is most certainly the case, however, is that Benedict did flee the papacy, professedly on account of his inability to bear its burdens due to advancing age. But did he flee in fear of the wolves he clearly had in view at the very beginning of his brief pontificate? And just who are these wolves?
The mystery not only lingers but grows deeper with each passing day of the Bergoglian tumult. Now there appears one Monsignor Luigi Negri, a friend of Benedict’s, who declares in an interview with Rimini2.0 that Benedict’s abdication is “an unheard of gesture” taken while he was “under enormous pressure.” But what kind of pressure, and by whom was it applied? Negri rightly pronounces the affair a “very serious mystery” and vows that when his “personal end of the world” arrives, the “first question I will ask Saint Peter will be precisely about this affair.”
Curiously enough, after Negri’s interview appeared, the former spokesman for the Vatican Press Office, Father Federico Lombardi, issued a pro forma denial, citing Benedict’s statement in an interview with Peter Seewald that he had renounced the “exercise” of the Petrine office “in full liberty and responsibility.” There was no statement from Benedict in response to his friend Msgr. Negri, however.
Now, the phrase “full liberty and responsibility” is not inconsistent with a resignation under pressure. No one is suggesting that anyone put a gun to Benedict’s head or otherwise negated his free will. No, the question is whether the resignation was nonetheless still motivated to some extent by fear of something that might have influenced his will unduly: that “fear of the wolves” Benedict himself had mentioned. Whether or not that fear rose to the level of invalidating the resignation, if “the wolves” were the ones who applied the pressure, it behooves every Catholic to demand to know their identity and to be on guard against them as they scheme and plot their next moves.
In that regard, the mystery deepens. The pseudonymous but apparently very well-connected Italian blogger “Fra Cristoforo,” whose blogsite Anonimo della croce claims to have sources inside Casa Santa Marta, has responded to Fr. Lombardi’s denial with an explosive claim: “In a month Anonimo della croce will be able to publish the content of that fateful letter that Benedict received before deciding to resign.”
“Fra Cristoforo” continues:
“Also, Father Lombardi, like so many other journalists, should remain silent on this subject. Because the reasons for the resignation of Pope Ratzinger are not trifles. They are serious reasons. And not because of poor health or other theological reasons. But for serious, really serious, reasons… On this issue, we will publish in a month.”
Perhaps in a month some light will finally be shed on the mysterious, unprecedented and strangely qualified resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, an event that must figure in the prophecy of the Third Secret of Fatima.
My Comment : The end of Chris article (in bold black) will be my comment.