Benedict's renunciation.
A rather frightening new theory concerning Benedict XVI's renunciation has come up recently. Basically, the SWIFT (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, based on, you guessed it!, Belgium) and the Deutsche Bank treated the Vatican Bank on the days preceding Pope's renunciation as the bank of a terrorist state. They couldn't make any transactions (including simple payments) and even the ATMs at the Vatican didn't work (by the way, guess who is not treated as a terrorist state, that's right, ISIS!).
The reasons given was that the Vatican Bank wasn't up to International banking standards. And yet, everything went back to normal just one day after Benedict's renunciation.

If you read Italian you can read it here. Here's a google translation (haven't checked it), here's a summary in English and here's Louie Verrecchio analysis.

What you guys think? The original article claims this plainly shows Benedict was coerced. And yet he affirmed it was a free decision—why would he commit a grave sin like lying like that (well, maybe it was a free decision after he pondered the facts?)
I don't know, this is the first time the thought of Francis as an anti-pope crossed my mind. First the mafia to elect him, now this major banking conspiracy to throw out Benedict. Anyway, I don't know what to think, maybe someone could shed some light here.
First, who knows if any of this is true.  Second, regarding Benedict XVI being under duress, he freely goes wherever he wants and does whatever he wants and he has publicly stated he resigned under his own free will--furthermore, just because you have incentives to do something, doesn't mean you were coerced under duress.  Again, maybe one might argue he secretly was under duress despite public appearances. Arguments were made that St. Celestine V was too--stronger arguments than in this case.  As I posted in the other thread in response to doubts that the "mafia" Cardinals scheming may have invalidated the election, this is a reason why the legitimacy of a papal election must be a dogmatic fact, since all these issues could never be verified by every Catholic with absolute certainty--it would throw every papal election in doubt (just like Hunter describes below concerning those that claimed the Chair has been vacant since the middle ages due to simoniacal elections).

The legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff is a dogmatic fact which the Church holds infallibly. In other words, the whole Church could not be deceived in this matter.

CDF Commentary on Professio Fidei Wrote:With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations ...37 (the above is the list of examples, but see paragraphs six and seven for a discussion of infallibility in this regard).

Here's a good explanation of why this must be the case, from Hunter's Outlines of Dogmatic Theology Vol 1:

Hunters Wrote:First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the. uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to . expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. In just the same way the infallibility extends to declaring that a certain Council is or is not ecumenical.
Thanks SS, I knew you would respond :)

Now, we know that the Vatican Bank went on to the crisis it is described—this is reported in the Financial Times (though the crisis with the ATMs seemed to be resolved earlier, with a Swiss company taking over the service). I wasn't able yet to confirm the finer details

Very weird that a bunch of things seemed to mount, culminating in BXVI's resignation (and the bit about the bad Latin in the pope's renunciation letter? I know its not usually the pope who writes documents, but still).

And besides, picture the following situation: an old man says to a woman that if she marries him he will give her money, and if she doesn't he will freeze her accounts and put her out of a job. Will their marriage be valid? Could we say she was not coerced?

I will never say (or consent to the thought) of Francis being an anti-pope unless another (universally accepted) Pope or Council declares it. Still, its very unnerving that a lot of events happened, and we know about this liberal mafia for the resignation of Benedict election of Bergoglio, a pope who is proving to be very amiable to liberals, who is liberalizing the Church and who is loved by the world.


This is the second half of my post in another thread, but I think it apropos here too.  :grin:

In the end these issues should NOT force us to walk of the edge. Throughout the millenia there have been both good and bad popes. An alternate focus could be that of words of St John Eudes

"The most evident mark of God's anger, and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifest when He permits His people to fall into the hands of a clergy who are more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. They abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world and, in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people and is visiting His most dreadful wrath upon them." Saint John Eudes.

Assuming the statement above is true we should focus on saying more rosaries and offering more reparations; God is pissed...

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)