“Ratzinger fed the wolves that besieged him the ministerium’s “MEATBALL”, making them deluded that it was equivalent to an abdication”

The latest from Andrea Cionci at Libero: (algo translation from the Italian, link at the end)


07 May 2021

After the article a few days ago (translated into four languages) on an unequivocal message from Benedict XVI identified in “Last Conversations” (Seewald-Ratzinger 2016) HERE  , more and more people said they were convinced that Ratzinger not only did not never abdicated, but who in 2013 specifically organized invalid resignations, as the jurist Estefania Acosta claims in her book “Benedict XVI: pope emeritus?”

The entire operation of “Plan B”   was “reconstructed” HERE , ordering facts and documents and, even those who were not convinced, however , were unable to question it by bringing arguments that can provide an alternative explanation to the facts reported. And this, for now, constitutes a problem to which is added the fact that neither denials nor – strange to say – the personal attacks that constitute a typical reaction in these cases have originated . But we are confident.

For intellectually honest observers, there is above all one last hesitation:

“Yes, okay, but why would Ratzinger have to prepare all this?”.

We wrote about it on the blog Duc in Altum by Aldo Maria Valli who kindly hosted us HERE  . Honor to the authoritative colleague who at least addresses the issue allowing – hopefully – a fair debate in which solid and opposing arguments are brought.

In the meantime, we could stop at the facts – which are enough and advance – but, in any case, we can right now venture some hypotheses on why Benedict XVI would have given the Catholic people eight years of vacation (in the broadest sense of the term) with specially invalid resignations. .

For at least 2500 years, a moment of great crisis has been announced for the Church, with a seizure of power by so-called anti-Christian forces. We have the advent of a “shepherd idol” (prophet Zechariah in the Old Testament), of a “false prophet” (Apocalypse of St. John), of an ” extravagant false church ” (blessed Katharina Emmerick) of a ” Rome seat of ‘Antichrist “(Madonna de La Salette), of a” bishop dressed in white “(Fatima), of a” pope of the Church of propaganda “(Fr. Julio Meinvielle), of the” smoke of Satan entered the Church “(Paul VI ), of a “ final test with apostasy from within“(Art. 675 of the 1992 Catechism), of an ” Antichurch and an anti- angel “(St. John Paul II) of ” Satan at the top of the Church “ (Don Stefano Gobbi) …

In short, the possibility of an anti-Christ coup is certainly not new and has been known in the Church for a long time. Moreover, we also point out the recent novel by a priest, Don Sabino Decorato , which is called “GOLPE IN VATICANO”. They wrote about it on Stilum Curiae   HERE .

We therefore want to believe that card. Had Ratzinger and Saint John Paul II remained inert without preparing an emergency plan “B”?

Already in 1983 they worked out (perhaps in anticipation?) The “hypnotic” diversification between munus and ministerium of the papal office: so effective that even today even the experts sometimes get lost in it. On Libero we hypothesized that it could be a ” mirror mechanism between true-false ” inspired by the vision in the mirror of the “bishop dressed in white” of the little shepherds of Fatima: HERE

Therefore, considering that the (documented) attacks of the St. Gallen Mafia came from within the Church and admitting that these were an expression of what had been prophesied for 2000 years, from a strategic point of view, the best reaction system for Pope Ratzinger is NOT it could certainly be that of a FRONTAL AND ASYMMETRIC CONTRAST. Do we imagine – as some sedevacantists would have liked – Benedict XVI in 2005, with the whole world portraying him as a surly obscurantist and backward pope, intent on showering excommunications on the modernists, suspend here, drive out there? Absurd.

It would have been a political suicide : he would have done nothing but strengthen the propaganda of his enemies, internal and external to the Church, condemning not only himself, but also preparing, perhaps, in reaction, a legal succession with a modernist pope.

When Bishop Viganò identifies the root of the current drift in the Council , he is not mistaken and, of course, in 2013 the metastasis of neo-Aryan-Lutheran modernism (with a homosexuality of the clergy by now endemic) had now reached a state such as to impose a drastic decision. Vatileaks had even highlighted a fierce internal war between factions and even alleged plans to physically eliminate the Pope .

When the time has come, Benedict XVI has therefore probably pulled the “emergency lever” without hesitation, voluntarily, in science and conscience.  The most intelligent, effective and bloodless way to react was that of a retreat (a word he often uses), not before having “undermined” the terrain of enemy invasion. In strategic studies it would be defined a “deception plan” with “elastic retreat” and “false target”. 

It is necessary to get out of an irenistic and sweet vision of a Church all roses and flowers: there was and is a fierce and total WAR in progress. And Benedict, despite his mild and fragile appearance, proved to be a super fighter.

Ratzinger fed the wolves that besieged him the ministerium’s “MEATBALL”, making them delude that it was equivalent to an abdication and, retiring in a role as presumed pope emeritus, he kept the munus , granting the enemy forces within the Church a time experimental , to reveal itself, so that the Catholic people would understand closely the emptiness and the theologically destructive contents of Masonic modernism subservient to globalism. 

The faithful had to see the pagan idol enthroned in St. Peter’s, the “Madonna mestizo relief of migrants”, the doctrinal upheavals, the politically correct changes in the missal, the esoteric-Masonic dew in the Eucharistic prayer and a thousand other unheard-of reversals with respect to sound doctrine . 

The slave Church of the “world” had to be revealed, in friendly dialogue with abortionists and homosexualists, Catholics had to hit rock bottom, like the prodigal son , they had to get “to be swineherds” before becoming aware and returning to the house of the … pope .

Read the rest: https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27139387/scisma-fra-tradizionalisti-e-modernisti-ipotesi-sul-perche-ratzinger-ha-preparato-dimissioni-invalide-ricostruzione-mai-smen.html

In case someone wants to know when the experimental unapproved vaxx clinical trials will be over, here’s the answer

There are no approved Corona vaccines. They are all being administered under EUA, which could only be invoked because they lied and said there were no other treatments. Every one of the vaccines is experimental and unapproved, and it says so right in the 44 page patient pamphlet that is supposed to be given to all recipients.

Moderna’s vaxx was the first to enter Phase I trials, on 16 March 2020. Which, as we have pointed out, was already rather suspicious timing. Wanna know when Phase III ends?

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04470427

I’m running out of conspiracy theories: “Passive inhaled mRNA vaccination for SARS-Cov-2”

“Messenger RNA (mRNA) as a means for passive immunization has been extensively studied for years. Early studies since the 1990s showed that exogenous mRNA could direct protein expression in vivo, cementing mRNA as a promising drug platform technology [6][7]. Several studies later demonstrated the utility of mRNA in vaccine development and conferring protection against cancers [8] and infectious diseases [9][10]. Moreover, passive mRNA immunization also experiences fewer safety issues due to its non‐integrative and transient nature [11], the latter of which contributes to better and/or easier control of protein expression.

“The potential role of mRNA vaccination in the fight against SARS-CoV-2 is evidenced by ongoing COVID-19 Phase I vaccine trials conducted by several pharmaceutical companies, including Moderna Therapeutics’ mRNA-1273 vaccine [12][13], which has yielding promising results. The feasibility of inhaled RNA for passive transfection has also been proven in a number of studies [14]. On a mechanistic level, the inhaled RNA may lead to passive synthesis of non-infectious spike proteins using cell transfection machinery, hence leading to immunization of the individual.

“Though there are no conclusive or ongoing large scale clinical studies yet to prove the above hypothesis, we believe this proposal is worth exploring in our battle against COVID-19, given the significant number of already recovered individuals and the natural shedding of nonviable SARS-CoV-2 particles in the environment.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7685031/

Former Moderna scientist: “It’s a case of the emperor’s new clothes. They’re running an investment firm, and then hopefully it also develops a drug that’s successful.”

I’m just going to go ahead and paste here from wiki about the ten year history of failure, failure, and nothing but failure from Moderna. It looks more like a money-laundering outfit than anything else. So ask yourself, how is it that after ten years of producing nothing, they were able to come up with a highly safe and highly effective Corona vaxx to enter into human trials just five WEEKS.

At the very end, you will read about the promise they made to Trump, and you will understand a great many things:


In 2010, ModeRNA Therapeutics was formed to commercialize the research of stem cell biologist Derrick Rossi. Rossi had developed a method of modifying mRNA by first transfecting it into human cells, then dedifferentiating it into bone marrow stem cells which could then be further differentiated into desired target cell types.[22][23] Rossi approached fellow Harvard University faculty member Tim Springer, who solicited co-investment from Kenneth R. ChienBob Langer, and venture capital firm Flagship Ventures.[23][24] Together they founded a company named from the combined terms “modified” and “RNA”.[25]

In 2011, the CEO of Flagship Ventures (now Flagship Pioneering), Noubar Afeyan, brought in European pharma sales and operations executive Stéphane Bancel as CEO.[23][11] Afeyan personally owned 19.5% of Moderna and was the largest single shareholder, while his fund, Flagship Pioneering, owned 18%.[26]

In March 2013, Moderna and AstraZeneca signed a five-year exclusive option agreement to discover, develop, and commercialize mRNA for treatments in the therapeutic areas of cardiovascular, metabolic, and renal diseases, and selected targets for cancer.[11][27][28] The agreement included a $240 million upfront payment to Moderna, a payment which was “one of the largest ever initial payments in a pharmaceutical industry licensing deal that does not involve a drug already being tested in clinical trials”,[27] and an eight percent share in Moderna.[26] As of May 2020, only one candidate has passed Phase I trials, a treatment for myocardial ischemia, labelled AZD8601.[a][30]

In 2013, Rossi, Chien and their team reported that they were able to improve heart function in mice and enhance their long-term survival with a “redirection of their [stem cell] differentiation toward cardiovascular cell types” in a significant step towards regenerative therapeutics for Moderna.[31][32] In the same year and on the strength of the Nature Biotechnology paper, Moderna received from other investors $110 million.[31]

In January 2014, Moderna and Alexion Pharmaceuticals entered a $125 million deal for orphan diseases in need of therapies. Alexion paid Moderna $100 million for ten product options to develop rare-disease treatments, including for Crigler-Najjar syndrome, using Moderna’s mRNA therapeutics platform.[33] By 2016, Bancel told an audience of JPMorgan Chase investors that the work with Alexion would shortly enter human trials. However, by 2017, the program with Alexion had been scrapped as the animal trials showed that Moderna’s treatment would never be safe enough for humans.[11][12]

In February 2016, a Nature editorial criticized Moderna for not publishing any peer-reviewed papers on its technology, unlike most other emerging and established biotech companies, and compared its approach to that of the controversially failed Theranos.[34] In September 2018, Thrillist published an article titled, “Why This Secretive Tech Start-Up Could Be The Next Theranos”,[35] criticizing its reputation for secrecy and the absence of scientific validation or independent peer-review of its research, though having the highest valuation of any U.S. private biotech company at more than $5 billion.[11][36] A former Moderna scientist told Stat: “It’s a case of the emperor’s new clothes. They’re running an investment firm, and then hopefully it also develops a drug that’s successful.”[11]

In 2018, the company rebranded as “Moderna Inc.” with the ticker symbol MRNA, and further increased its portfolio of vaccine development.[10] In December 2018, Moderna became the largest biotech initial public offering in history, raising $621 million (27 million shares at $23 per share) on NASDAQ, and implying an overall valuation of $7.5 billion for the entire company.[37][38] The year-end 2019 SEC filings showed that Moderna had accumulated losses of $1.5 billion since inception, with a loss of $514 million in 2019 alone, and had raised $3.2 billion in equity since 2010.[10][26]

In March 2020, in a White House meeting between the Trump administration and pharmaceutical executives, Bancel told the president Moderna could have a COVID-19 vaccine ready in a few months.[10] The next day, the FDA approved clinical trials for the Moderna vaccine candidate, with Moderna later receiving investment of $483 million from Operation Warp Speed.[10] Moderna board member, Moncef Slaoui, was appointed head scientist for the Operation Warp Speed project.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderna