OK, I'll Go There

This morning I wrote about the possible significance of an American pope. Of course, strictly speaking, Bergoglio was the first American pope. Strictly speaking—but perhaps metaphorically speaking as well. What seems beyond doubt is that he was the first Globalist pope.

Commenter Doug Hoover wrote today about events from 2013 which many may not recall, or the significance of which they may never have recognized:

America cut off their [Vatican] connection to SWIFT, freezing their ability to transfer or accept money.

America picked an American Pope.

What DH is referring to is NOT the recent death of Bergoglio and the election of Prevost/L14. He’s referring to the coerced removal of Ratzinger/B16 under cover of a “resignation” in 2013. I was still wondering whether to go “there” when commenter American Cardigan appeared to rise to the bait:

Haven't seen evidence yet that the Vatican is reconnected to SWIFT.

AC’s comment was a bit cryptic, so I responded:

Mark Wauck

https://www.theswiftcodes.com/vatican-city/

What Doug Hoover describes occurred in 2013. The "American Pope" DH refers to was Bergoglio:

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

It is clear that SWIFT intervened directly in Church affairs. Was there a blackmail coming from who knows where, (perhaps Soros, Clinton and Obama) through Swift, exercised on Benedict XVI?

"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."

In point of fact, Vatican City was reconnected to Swift before Bergoglio was elected. That B16 was removed seems beyond doubt. The perps have never taken public credit, so the exact origin of the decision remains murky. Presumably America at least acquiesced in the coup, but it's conceivable that it was actually instigated by non-American forces and coordinated with America:

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

...

And immediately after his [B16’s] passing [i.e., resignation], SWIFT unblocks Vatican transactions, reopens ATMs, and brings the IOR [one of two Vatican banks] back to the honor of the world.

They didn’t wait for Bergoglio to be elected; the expulsion of the “white terrorist” was enough for him.

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 [Jesuit “black” terrorist] 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.

So, Bergoglio was—perhaps in more than one sense—the first American pope. More to the point, he was probably the first inarguably non-Catholic pope. Regular readers will have seen me use that term fairly regularly. I do use it in all seriousness. Anyone who cares to search the archives here will find that I have questioned the faith of both Wojtyła and Ratzinger on philosophical grounds, but I also recognize that questions of this sort are rarely unambiguous. The Neomodernist takeover—fronted by Bergoglio—does appear to be one of those unambiguous events, allowing for the Neomodernist (and Globalist) desire to continue using the visible institutions of the Catholic Church for their own purposes.

What led to the Globalist Coup—or Regime Change, if you prefer? It could have been that they simply judged that the time had come to remove this hated obstacle, but Traditionalists would argue that it was specifically the wild success of Ratzinger’s 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum that enraged the demonic forces of the Globalists and led them to take action. Technically, Summorum Pontificum allowed for the widespread use of the traditional Roman liturgy, what is often referred to as the Tridentine Mass—which is the codification of the Roman liturgy that reached its first definitive form under Gregory I in around 590. The core of the Roman liturgy is its “canon”, which has roots that go back far earlier than Gregory. It is the earliest documentable “eucharistic prayer”. The point is that, until the post Vatican 2 revolution, the Roman Canon was the only eucharistic prayer known to the Catholic Church. The Roman Canon embodies the core of the Catholic faith in its worship. Post Vatican 2 the Roman Canon was—for practical purposes—supplanted by a variety of Neomodernist (“Teilhardian”) tinged “prayers”. Don’t take my word for it—Ratzinger himself referred to the “cosmic” aspects of the New Order. And so Traditionalists argue that this threatened widespread return to full Christian faith and re-evangelization in the West aroused the demonic forces of Globalism to a fury. Do you see now why so much importance has been attached to Prevost’s documentable use of the traditional Roman liturgy?

All of that lends urgency to the questions surrounding the most recent conclave. It appears that the most radical Neomodernist forces were routed. Exactly where Prevost fits in isn’t entirely clear. He rose rapidly under Bergoglio and was complicit in some of the worst excesses regarding the appointment and removal of bishops (itself a troubling matter—as if bishops were little more than functionaries or vicars of the “pope”). On the other hand, there are documentably hopeful signs that Prevost will take the faith he professes seriously. Look, I’m not making some sort of unqualified endorsement of Prevost, but I am suggesting that God can work through imperfect human beings, flawed individuals.

Inevitably, this leads to Trump and his money—his reported $14 million donation to “the Vatican”. We know that Trump’s first election win in 2016—three years after Ratzinger’s removal—frustrated Globalist plans. While MAGA shares some features with Globalism, the appeal to normal people—who could be influenced by religious faith, as opposed to demonic ideology—posed an existential threat to the Globalist establishment. Trump’s predilection to deal making—especially with Russia—was viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a setback for the Globalist agenda. We saw how that frustration played out in the removal of Trump in 2020, but the debacle of the four Zhou years forced the Globalists to reconcile to a Trump return.

As I’ve noted several times, a little remarked feature of Trump’s 2024 campaign was his persistent outreach not just to Catholics but to the most traditionalist strains of Catholicism. Trump’s repeated use of traditional Catholic iconography during the campaign was unparalleled in American politics, yet passed with next to no comment. Who was behind this? One thing seems certain—Trump himself could hardly have formulated that outreach. This wasn’t coincidence or a whimsical feature of the campaign. And now we learn of Trump’s prominence in Rome—including his reported cash infusion as well as the influence of Trump connected cardinals like Dolan in the election itself.

What does it all mean? I can’t tell you. It could be that Trump—are some in his circle—have contrived to engineer a liberation of the Catholic Church from its “Babylonian Captivity” under the Neomodernists. Certainly this could work to Trump’s political advantage, both at home as well as in his dealings with Europe, where traditionalist Catholics are one among the few reliable opponents of the Globalist order. If any of this is the case, we should expect L14 to move fairly quickly. Will any of these developments have a positive impact on the notoriously mercurial and emotional Trump, who is highly impressionable when it comes to imagery and symbolism? We can hope.