... he relied on two Opus Dei publication editors ...

Garbage.  So Opus Dei promote Bergoglio and they attack Bergoglio at the same time.

Again, I'd listen to your conspiracy theory if you could give me a single credible Cui bono? ... which is required to make any conspiracy theory credible.

There's just so much benefit to the V2 conspirators to have a high-ranking bishop come out, reject Vatican II and the NOM in principle, throw out the chief method that the Hegelians have used to gradually corrupt those on the right, namely, the hermeneutic of continuity, and even to state that it's possible that Bergoglio is not the pope.  All I see is the message of +Vivano moving people like Patrick Coffin (and numerous others) to the right, removing the "taboo" of criticizing the "Pope" and questioning his legitimacy.  People can say, look, here's a high-ranking Vatican prelate who's questioning whether Bergoglio is the pope, so maybe it's NOT in fact verbotten to consider whether the Holy See might be vacant ... and that Vatican II and the NOM need not be reformed but thrown into the trash bin as the garbage they are.

So he worked with a couple people in Opus Dei.  I've known a fair number of people who were in OD as well.  I guess I'm a conspirator also.  This is like if I went into hiding and ... let's say I knew Taylor Marshall ... and I decided to send my material to him to get it out there, or maybe also to Voris.  That means I'm an Opus Dei agent, right?  [In fact, the people whom I knew at OD would attend the Motu Mass basically to prosletyze, but had absolutely zero tolerance for people who believed there was anything essentially wrong with Vatican II and the New Mass].

So get back to me with a credible Cui bono? for the impact that +Vigano has had on the Catholic world that serves the purposes of the conspirators, or shut the hell up with this stupid fanciful narrative rooted in nothing but your imagination.

This is precisely the same issue I had with those few anti-Putin nuts here.  They weave some nice-sounding narrative about Putin this and Dugin that, but don't have a shred of evidence that Putin is consciously working for the globalists and the Jєωs.

I'm about as open as anyone out here to "conspiracy theories".  I'm convinced that the Earth is Flat and that +Siri was the rightful pope until his death in 1989.  But that's because there's solid EVIDENCE for those positions.  I looked at them with an open mind and realized that there's enough smoke there to suggest a fire.  Here I see absolutely nothing, nada, just a bunch of fanciful bullcrap.  But I rejected the conspiracy theory that nuclear bombs are not real ... not because I didn't look at it with an open mind, but I didn't see a single shred of real evidence to support the theory.  They spun a nice alternative narrative that might possibly work, but provided not a single shred of positive evidence for its reality.  I find the same thing here with the +Vigano conspiracy theory ... and the no-nukes theory.

Lads, are you still taking a nap?

I got photos for you.

Here's the two Opus Die journalists who edited, published and distributed Vigano's Vatican scandal story.



Marco Tosatti

Tosatti said, was also greatly influenced by the writings of Opus Dei’s founder, JosemaríaEscrivá,
especially Camino (The Way), the handbook that guides the spiritual life of Opus Dei adherents.
Although he has stated that he was not a numerary or supernumerary of Opus Dei, the record is clear
that, as a journalist, he has maintained close and favorable ties with the Prelature.




Aldo Maria Valli

Valli is a member of Opus Dei.
His association with Ares and Studi Cattolicaici, however, is proof of his strong affiliation to Opus Dei.


When you wake up, you can read the full story here: Opus Die's Role in the Vigano affair

Garbage.  So Opus Dei promote Bergoglio and they attack Bergoglio at the same time.

Again, I'd listen to your conspiracy theory if you could give me a single credible Cui bono? ... which is required to make any conspiracy theory credible.

There's just so much benefit to the V2 conspirators to have a high-ranking bishop come out, reject Vatican II and the NOM in principle, throw out the chief method that the Hegelians have used to gradually corrupt those on the right, namely, the hermeneutic of continuity, and even to state that it's possible that Bergoglio is not the pope.  All I see is the message of +Vivano moving people like Patrick Coffin (and numerous others) to the right, removing the "taboo" of criticizing the "Pope" and questioning his legitimacy.  People can say, look, here's a high-ranking Vatican prelate who's questioning whether Bergoglio is the pope, so maybe it's NOT in fact verbotten to consider whether the Holy See might be vacant ... and that Vatican II and the NOM need not be reformed but thrown into the trash bin as the garbage they are.

So he worked with a couple people in Opus Dei.  I've known a fair number of people who were in OD as well.  I guess I'm a conspirator also.  This is like if I went into hiding and ... let's say I knew Taylor Marshall ... and I decided to send my material to him to get it out there, or maybe also to Voris.  That means I'm an Opus Dei agent, right?  [In fact, the people whom I knew at OD would attend the Motu Mass basically to prosletyze, but had absolutely zero tolerance for people who believed there was anything essentially wrong with Vatican II and the New Mass].

So get back to me with a credible Cui bono? for the impact that +Vigano has had on the Catholic world that serves the purposes of the conspirators, or shut the hell up with this stupid fanciful narrative rooted in nothing but your imagination.

This is precisely the same issue I had with those few anti-Putin nuts here.  They weave some nice-sounding narrative about Putin this and Dugin that, but don't have a shred of evidence that Putin is consciously working for the globalists and the Jєωs.

I'm about as open as anyone out here to "conspiracy theories".  I'm convinced that the Earth is Flat and that +Siri was the rightful pope until his death in 1989.  But that's because there's solid EVIDENCE for those positions.  I looked at them with an open mind and realized that there's enough smoke there to suggest a fire.  Here I see absolutely nothing, nada, just a bunch of fanciful bullcrap.  But I rejected the conspiracy theory that nuclear bombs are not real ... not because I didn't look at it with an open mind, but I didn't see a single shred of real evidence to support the theory.  They spun a nice alternative narrative that might possibly work, but provided not a single shred of positive evidence for its reality.  I find the same thing here with the +Vigano conspiracy theory ... and the no-nukes theory.