As Catholic media has reported the Pope is hanging artwork from the notorious sex-offender Marko Rupnik in his private apartment at the Santa Marta.
The image in question can be seen in a Youtube video made by Canal de la Cuidad (City Channel), posted on August 8, 2024. The video is entitled Pope Francis met with victims of Alfredo Astiz – although they aren’t exactly victims of Astiz. More about that shortly.
The image indicated above is unmistakably by Rupnik, with its telltale dark, soulless eyes. It is identical to the one shown below: an angel rousing St. Joseph from his sleep. Controversially, Vatican News has so far refused to stop using Rupnik’s images and this one appeared on its website for the feast of St. Joseph, Spouse of the Virgin Mary on March 19 of this year.
Now to the connection Alfredo Astiz connection. Astiz was a prominent military commender during the Argentine Dirty War (1976-1983.) He was later charged with crimes against humanity and sentenced to 19 life sentences for human rights abuses.
The video from Canal de la Cuidad was related to Astiz’ victims. It shows Pope Francis speaking with a young woman by the name of Anita Fernandez, the grand-daughter of Esther Ballestrino de Careaga, who was a left-wing activist executed under orders from Alfredo Astiz.
Ballestrino had been a great friend of Jorge Bergoglio: she was his supervisor when he worked at the Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory in Buenos Aires. Ballestrino was an avowed Marxist and had a great impact on the young Bergoglio. George Neumayr’s Political Pope recounts Fr. Bergoglio’s thoughts on Ballestrino:
“I owe a huge amount to that woman; she taught me so much about politics. She often read Communist Party texts to me and gave them to me to read…..I realised a few things, an aspect of the social, which I then found in the social doctrine of the Church.”
After his ordination, Ballestrino called Fr. Bergoglio asking for the Last Rites to be given to a family member, even though she was personally an atheist. When Fr. Bergoglio arrived, he was told that Ballestrino in reality wanted him to dispose of the Communist literature which would incriminate her in the event of a raid. Bergoglio acquiesced (one source claims he took these books to a ‘Jesuit library’) but despite this, Ballestrino was eventually detained and ‘disappeared’.
By the time her body was found, washed up on the beach after being thrown from a plane, Bergoglio was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Even knowing that she was a Marxist, he had her buried in the garden of the church of Santa Cruz. So, while Alfredo Astiz was not a good person, and while throwing Marxists from planes is quite inhumane, Ballestrino wielded an evil influence over the young Bergoglio, helping to form, so to speak, the anti-capitalist and humanist tendencies which are apparent in him today.
{NOTE: One more detail about the Papal apartment: this rather bizarre set of decorations are found to the Pope’s left in the video. They are quite strange and bring to mind Jago – that other sex-fiend artist who has been mentioned in these pages.}
The figure of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla is well known among those who take an interest in the inner workings of the Roman Curia, especially in events surrounding papal conclaves. He was famously very close to being elected Pope after the death of Pope Leo XIII in 1903, when he was vetoed on behalf of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
At that time, only three nations retained that ancient power of veto: Austria, Germany and Italy. Even so, Emperor Franz Joseph had been reluctant to intervene in such a solemn matter. He had no choice, however, once presented with evidence that Rampolla was at least associated with Masonry, if not a fully-fledged Freemason himself.
The evidence came from Monsignor Jouin, founder of the International Review of Secret Societies; a priest who dedicated his life to exposing Masonry and its associated ideology. It is said he went first to the Cardinals, but was ignored and so he took his evidence instead to the Emperor.This led to the saintly Pius X being elected instead of Rampolla.
There have been attempts to play down the role of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla in this matter: written histories vary as to the reason behind the veto, with some historians, even Catholic ones, concluding that the intervention was merely political. Some go so far as to accuse the Emperor of vengeance: after son had tragically died, apparently by his own hand, it is said that Rampolla denied the boy a Christian burial.
However, after Rampolla’s death in 1913, hard evidence implicating him in Masonry was discovered by the Curia. Papers confirming his membership were shown the Pope Pius X, who ordered them burned, ostensibly to protect the reputation of this ghastly man. Surely no favours were done to the Church or to the faith of Her members by covering up Rampolla’s true allegiances. Ecclesiastical Freemasonry in the Curia has only flourished from that point forward.
In 1929, Rampolla’s betrayal was corroborated by a Bishop Marty in an interview with Felix Lacointa of the newspaper, The Anti-Revolutionary Bloc. Bishop Marty stated that he had been told by Cardinal Merry dal Val, Secretary of Sate to Pius X that the Pope had indeed viewed and then destroyed the incriminating papers. [Cited in L’Église Éclipsée by Georges Vinson.]
What makes Rampolla’s case even more serious is that the specific cult in which he was involved was the Ordo Templi Orientis or OTO. This cult is a blend of Masonry and Rosicrucianism, with a strong focus on magic and Rampolla is said to have achieved a very high status. While a man may join Masonry without fully realising what he is doing, the same cannot be said about the OTO. It is possible to potentially complete multiple rituals and levels in Masonry without understanding that one in fact giving one’s allegiance to Satan, believing that one is simply doing one’s best to be a good person by acknowledging God, albeit in the vaguest sense possible.
However, the OTO is something different. It is only approached by those who have a keen desire to access hidden knowledge and the powers that go with that.
There are several different routes into OTO initiation. Some first complete all the levels available at their local Masonic Lodge, finding that they still ‘want more’. Others complete several levels of Freemasonry then pivot to follow the seductive promises of magic, alchemy and power that are promised by the OTO and similar groups. Still others, knowingly rejecting the True God from the beginning, pursue from the beginning the rituals that promise them wealth, sex and power in this world, even while damning them in the next. Notably, the OTO has always been seen by Freemasons as something “irregular” and it has received many condemnations from within Masonry, particularly of the OTO’s homosexual rituals.
So what is the OTO and why is it so dangerous, yet so alluring to fallen human beings? Looking at one well-known member, Aleister Crowley, will shed some light on those questions. Crowley was among the OTO’s adherents at the end on the 19th century, eventually becoming a Grand Master. He publicly flaunted his immoral antics and invented some of his own rituals centred around sex magick.
It is perhaps this aspect for which he is most infamous. It was possibly Crowley, moreso than any other individual, who helped to make spell-casting, sexual deviancy and even satanism mainstream, to the point where, in our days, occult rituals at rock concerts and Olympic opening ceremonies are commonplace.
The sexual deviancy promoted by Crowley needs little explanation. It has saturated our culture to the point where its practitioners are a protected class. Even the diabolical Alfred Kinsey, the man responsible for deceiving millions of Westerners into accepting deviancy with his disgusting sexual experimentation on children, and even babies was a protege of Crowley’s.
Since sex-magick is integral to the OTO rituals, this means that Rampolla almost certainly engaged in such rituals. We can only wonder at how great a role he may have played in introducing rampant clerical homosexuality and pedophilia into the Church. ‘Uncle Ted’ McCarrick participated in sex-magick; Cardinals Bernadin and Murphy O’Connor were credibly accused of ritual sex abuse. The writings of Cardinal Tucho Fernandez are replete with sexual occultism and Rupnik is obviously into spiritualised sexual abuse.
When it comes to Rampolla, Crowley and McCarrick, though, there another link tying them to technocracy and the Synarchists: they all spent time in Switzerland. Crowley admitted to first dabbling with alchemy during a trip to Switzerland – a hotspot for the occult and the New World Order ‘elite.’ McCarrick is known to have spent many vacations at St. Gallen, which was also the birthplace of the notorious ‘St. Gallen Mafia’, those unworthy Cardinals who conspired to have Bergoglio elected to the papacy. Rampolla also vacationed in Switzerland, where, according to Felix Lacointa of The Anti-Revolutionary Bloc, that he regularly attended lodges in both Einsiedeln and Zurich.
Felix Lacointa provides the testimony of an unnamed French priest who, when on pilgrimage at Einsiedeln Abbey, was so impressed by Rampolla that he decided to write a favourable report on the conversations he had with the pilgrims. An Einsiedeln bookseller quickly brought him back to earth: “He is not worth it! Every fortnight he goes to the lodge in Zurich!”
Einsiedeln and St. Gallen are only a short distance from each other by car, and each is almost equidistant from Davos, the regular gathering spot for the world’s technocrats, many of whom are part of their own diabolical and esoteric group, Synarchy. Like members of the OTO (and it must be remembered, many of these occult groups overlap in both philosophy and membership), Synarchists access ‘secret knowledge’ from demons which they use to steer the world toward total enslavement to science and rationalism. All three sites are close to Zurich, as well as Lucerne, known as a centre of the OTO in the early twentieth century.
Our knowledge of Rampolla’s alleged attendance at lodges in Switzerland, and his founding of a lodge for ecclesiastics within the walls of the Vatican is confirmed by the occultist (and apostate priest) Roca. Roca moved in circles with Saint-Alveydre, Eliphas Levi and other like-minded magicians. Roca and others stated that Rampolla set up an ecclesiastical lodge within the Vatican, something the Marquis de la Franquerie claimed was recognised by St. Pius X. Roca also included the names of other Cardinals: Ferrata, Gasparri, Ceretti, Béa, and Liénart.
Tellingly, the name of this lodge is dedicated to St. John [either St. John the Baptist or St. John of Jerusalem] which was, of course, the name taken by Angelo Roncalli when he ascended to the papacy in 1958. St. John is apparently a “patron saint” of occultists, along with St. Michael the Archangel.
Rampolla’s name can still be found in registers compiled by members of the OTO. One website, to which I won’t link, lists his name among other famous members: Eliphas Levi, Nietzsche, Papus and Richard Wagner. The page seems to be reproduced from an OTO publication called The Equinox. That journal was once said to be highly confidential but that can hardly be the case now that it is freely available on the ‘net.
While there have been concerted efforts in the last few years to expose Rampolla’s involvement with an esoteric cult, the fact that he is known as a Freemason rather than as an occultist is intriguing. Freemasonry is often treated as a threat of the past and tolerated as no longer being seen as subversive. The result is that the word, “Freemasonry” has largely lost its meaning. Like “abortion” and “gay” the word no longer evokes an image of its true nature, indicating that the trend of describing Rampolla merely as a Mason might be part of the whitewash.
Cardinal Alfons Stickler once told a reputable monk that Annibale Bugnini was something “far worse than a Freemason.” One can only wonder what that was and whether Bugnini was merely following in the magical, alchemical footsteps of Mariano Rampolla.
One-Time
Monthly
PLease donate to help me create more content like this! Make a one-time donation
It is a sign of the times when a senior Catholic churchman wastes an ideal opportunity for increasing devotion to the Blessed Sacrament in favour of pushing the idea that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are just as present in the average sinful human being. It is also a sign sign, albeit a very disturbing one, to hear language reminiscent of Cardinal “Heal me with your Mouth” Fernandez in a discourse on the most sacred reality of the Catholic faith.
In his address to the Eucharistic Congress in Indiana, the Papal Nuncio to the United States, Christophe Cardinal Pierre, began by reminding attendees that to be Catholic is to be united with the Papacy. So far, so good – although one always wonders with these Modernists if they really mean “being united with every word that falls from the mouth of Frances” rather than with the office of the Pope, and all that entails. By beginning his address by quoting the Council and JPII, Pierre suggests the latter.
After that dubious introduction, Pierre next asks the questions, “What is Eucharistic revival?” and “How will we know that we are experiencing Eucharistic revival?” He then goes to to list the initiatives that have been presented by the US bishops to the faithful in recent times:
” … increased opportunities for adoration and benediction. There has been catechesis on the Eucharist and, of course, processions. By displaying the Blessed Sacrament for worship and increasing our acts of devotion, we have drawn attention once more to this great Sacrament in order to “stir up” a renewed faith, both in our fellow Catholics and in ourselves. We have even attracted the curiosity of people of other faiths.”
Again, so far, so good. Then comes the “BUT”. (With the Modernist, there is always a “but.”) Time to draw our attention, not to God, but to “the other.”
“Not only is He present in our family, friends, and communities; but He is also present in our encounters with people from whom we would otherwise consider ourselves “divided”. This might include people from a different economic class or race, people who challenge our way of thinking, and people whose perspective is informed by experiences that differ greatly from our own. ….. If we are experiencing true “Eucharistic revival”, then one of the signs will be a greater movement on our part to build bridges of unity.”
The term, “building bridges” always calls to mind the arch-heresiarch, James Martin. But there’s more:
And so, to believe in the real presence of Christ is not only to say: In these forms of bread and wine are His body, blood, soul, and divinity.
Wait! Did he mean that during Consecration the bread and wine are changed into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, or did he say something else? It sounds more like Luther’s Consubstantiation (the idea that the Real Presence presence exists alongside the bread and wine) than Catholic Transubstantiation. It’s a bit ambiguous. Finally comes the humanist clincher: the Real Presence is just not that big of a deal. Christ’s Presence is all over the place – most especially when we are dealing with “the other.”
“But Christ is also present in the assembly of His believing people. Not only that, but he is present to people who struggle to connect with Him because of wounds, fear, and sin. We need to be there with Him, accompanying such people, and helping them to experience the real presence of Christ’s love.”
Now to the act of Eucharistic Adoration itself. Of course it is good, ….. “but”……
Adoration, is essential to our relationship with Christ — but it is important that we treat it as that: a relationship. If, in the act of Eucharistic adoration, we were to look at the Sacrament merely as an “object” to be admired, then we would be remaining, as it were, “on the outside….”
Does any Catholic actually do that? Simply admire the Blessed Sacrament? In any case, here comes the really strange part. The “heal me with your mouth” part. But even stranger is the fact that this reference to “mouth to mouth contact” came not from Tucho Fernandez but from Pope Benedict!
“…. Pope Benedict explained: “The Latin word for adoration is ad-oratio — mouth to mouth contact, a kiss, an embrace, and hence, ultimately love….”
The reference does check out: Pope Benedict did in fact use these words at World Youth Day in Cologne in 2005. To young people. But here is the really strange bit: the Latin word adoratio does NOT have anything to do with kissing, embracing or “mouth to mouth contact” – at least not in any of my three Latin dictionaries or that I could find anywhere online. The noun, adoratio (from the verb adorare, to speak or entreaty or worship), only means an act or worship or prayer. That’s it.
So where does the kissing come in? Benedict was meant to be a great Latinist! The mind boggles.
Getting back to Cardinal Pierre and his address, it finishes by emphasising that the purpose of Adoration is not to give perfect worship to God but merely to solve the problems of this world. This is pure naturalism; it lines up perfectly with the Masonic ideology of a horizontal, humanist church.
There’s a bit more about the being open to the surprises of the Spirit and Synodality, and that listening “to one another and to the Spirit in the person we listen to” will be the “fruit of the Eucharistic revival.”
So there we have it: the main fruit of this Eucharistic Revival will be a Synodal, listening Church. And they wonder why the majority of mainstream Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence!
Four files are shown below: a document outlining the Pacts of the Catacombs, the text of both the 1965 and the 2019 Pacts, and a biography of the instigator of the original Pact, Dom Helder Camara.
In 1971, Paul VI was presented with a painting, said to be his portrait, and which, to be honest, is one of the more disturbing images this author has come across. The picture emits a demonic violence that almost leaps out of the frame, leaving the viewer feeling oppressed and unsettled.
Most startling of all, the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church is surrounded by cold, dark Masonic symbols, hiding in plain sight.
Hansing described the portrait as showing “the tension-fraught situation of the church, caught in a multiplicity of issues, as reflected in the countenance of the Pope.”
I don’t profess to be the first to discover this particular connection between Pope Paul VI and Masonry – the articles cited in this one are testimony to that. But since I have only just come across this rather disconcerting episode in Paul’s life, I thought I’d write on it anew and add some further research.
Firstly, there are not one but nine versions of this scene. Each tells, I believe, a part of a story that begins at the Second Vatican Council and culminates in the very public accusations that Paul was a homosexual. Shown below are three versions, created in 1970, 1970/1 and 1975 respectively. The third is part of a series of screen prints, which are based on the second painted version of the portrait.
The artist, Ernst Guenter Hansing, was initially associated with Cardinal Josef Frings, for whom he painted two portraits. Hansing had trained under the abstract artist, Fernand Leger, and had mixed with many avant-garde artists of Europe. This of course, would have appealed to Montini, who was known for his love of the cultural elite. Fring invited Hansing, a Lutheran, to observe the final session of Vatican Two in 1965, in order to “internalise the atmosphere.”
Hansing claims to have been struck by the Pope’s meekness, describing Paul as “humility personified” and as a “pleading” or “begging” person. Hansing at once expressed a desire to paint the Pope, so the story goes, wanting to encapsulate the scene presented by the massive Bernini columns dwarfing the humble Pope, he who alone carried the burden of determining the Church’s future. Hansing also wanted to capture the rays of light which issued from the great dome surmounting the canopy. So the story goes.
Paul apparently did not commission a portrait, but was approached by Hansing who was eventually given a room to work from inside the Vatican from 1969. The artist was then allowed to sit in on 13 papal audiences over the next two and a half years to make his sketches. The Pope’s secretary, then-Fr Pasquale Macchi, acted as go-between for the artist and pontiff.
Strangely, the image of the Pope at the centre of the painting was not based on the sketches Hansing made during those many papal audiences. Rather, it is based on a photograph taken during the Pope’s trip to Jerusalem in 1967. A drawing made from that photograph was then transposed onto the “Papacy” work. The many sessions that saw Hansing scrutinising Paul’s speeches were justified by the artist’s need to ‘internalise” the character of Paul.
Upon seeing a working sketch of himself, Paul is said to have uttered the cryptic comment: “One almost needs a new philosophy to grasp the meaning of this in its context.” [Emphasis added.]
The first version of the painting is made from two separate pieces of canvas: one above and one below. The bottom canvas is horizontal and the top one is vertical – which is like an inverted cross when you come to think of it.
Two vertical white blocks – red in the second painting – on either side of the piece are in fact said to represent an inverted cross – the Petrus cross – according to the artist, ostensibly calling to mind the martyrdom of the first Pontiff.
According to Hansing, his trademark blue colour represented “mystical depth” and was more prominent in the second painting. He referred to the use of red as denoting “blood circulation,” and indeed, much of the red in Hansing’s works resembles blood either dripping or in pools.
In the top of the internal space of the real dome, which was designed by Michelangelo, we can find the image of God the Father. In Hansing’s version, God has been replaced by a mere swirl, which could also be interpreted as an All-Seeing Eye, from which emanates a beam of light.
Hansing replaced God the Father with this ambiguous symbol
A ray of light proceeding from beneath this All-Seeing Eye, seems to pierce the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, then continue vertically downwards right through the person of the Pope. Blood appears to drip down this central axis, through Paul and merging with his own grotesque hands that grasp a threatening dagger-like implement.
A second painting was begun after Fr Macchi and Hansing’s poet friend, Stefan Andrew, suggested to him that the first work was too small. The second work contains a few changes: more “Hansing Blue” is incorporated and the pillars are emphasised. The Pope’s face is “more humble” and the phrase, Pro hominibus constitutus, meaning ‘appointed for service to the people’ – is written in the lower right hand corner. Surprisingly, this motto is also found on Cardinal Frings’ Coat of Arms.
The finished work was a massive 21.6 m x 3.6m (71ft by 12 ft) and was presented to the Pope in 1972.
Cardinal Fring’s Coat of Arms.
Detail from the painting. No, I can’t read it either.
In his speech at the time the second painting was presented to the Pope, Bishop Wilhem Cleven referred to John’s Gospel, stating “The time comes when someone else girds you and leads you where you do not want to go.” (John. 21:17).
When he saw the finished second portrait, he remarked that the it was “very useful” to make an “act of reflection’ in studying the painting. The artist then went on to make seven screen prints of the portrait, apparently at the behest of Paul, in order that they may be sources of “acts of reflection.”
Interpretation
The definitive explanation of the Masonic symbols found in the work was written by researcher and author, Craig Heimbichner, who detected, among other symbols, the three pillars of Masonry, inverted crosses, pentagrams, and at least one square and compass. Heimbichner also explains that the initiation rite of the 30th degree Mason, the Kadosh Degree, involves thrusting a dagger into the papal tiara. He believes the pope is represented as holding that dagger.
It is certainly true that Paul VI surrendered the Papal Tiara at the start of his pontificate. Could his devastating reforms and the emptying of papal authority on his watch also be considered as “killing” the papacy?
I am not normally given to making wild speculations on subjects that are outside my competency. However, this case is an exception. While we will never know the true meaning of this mysterious episode, or of the paintings themselves, I proffer the following hypothesis. You may like to think of it as fan-fiction:
Paul is represented as both victim and perpetrator in Hansing’s portrait: this is an image of his character and of his pontificate…..
Prior to the conclave, the blackmailable Montini promised his Progressive/Masonic coalition supporters that he would allow sweeping reforms once he was elected Pope. As Pope Paul VI, he went along with changes to the Mass, leaving details to the Freemason Bugnini, and approved the other innovations introduced during and after the Council.
Although the Council reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on birth control, Cardinal Frings later challenged Paul to review the that stance, leading Paul to establish a commission to look into the matter. The commission returned to Paul with their conclusion: birth control should be allowed.
This was a bridge too far for Paul. Already cracks were appearing as the Council’s love-fest aura began to wear off. The unity and renewal Paul had, far too optimistically, hoped for had not eventuated, and his latitude in doctrinal matters was being exploited by those closest to him.
Paul decided to risk the ire of the Masonic brotherhood, stand his ground and defend the Church’s teaching in Humanae Vitae, which was released it in 1968.
Frings and the Masonic forces he represented were furious. Paul needed to be reigned in but they knew him to be pliable and timid. (“Begging” and “pleading”, as Hansing said.) They decided to send him a warning – of the most severe kind. Hansing was conscripted to deliver the message on behalf of the Lodge.
Hansing is moved onsite although he didn’t really need to sketch Paul: he already had chosen the photograph taken in Jerusalem as a model – an indication, perhaps, that the Ecclesiastical Lodge that commissioned him had powerful Jewish connections. He sat in on thirteen of Paul’s Audiences merely to intimidate him.
The pressure mounted and Paul began to waver. He was shown a working sketch of himself and mused aloud: “One almost needs a new philosophy to grasp the meaning of this in its context.” Perhaps that “new philosophy” was something antithetical to Catholic teaching to which Paul had ambivalently subscribed.
Once the first painting was finished, the seriousness of the threat became even more apparent. The looming threat of violence overwhelmed him and Paul sensed that his life may be in danger. The angles of the painting resembled an axe cleaving his skull in two but also represented to him his double-mindedness.
He knew he was under pressure to fulfil the ancient decrees of Masonry and demolish Catholicism, as represented by the weapon in his bloody hands, and as symbolised in the stabbing of the Papal Tiara.
Paul finally relented and resigned himself to following the Masonic programme for the rest of his pontificate. He then informed the Lodge.
A second painting was commissioned and the Pope was now represented with a “more humble” countenance. The pillars of Masonry were emphasised, representing Paul’s triumph of “reason” over “superstition”. Bishop Cleven was on hand to remind Paul that someone else “girded him and led him where he does not want to go.” (As if he needed the reminder)
A humbled Paul then acknowledged that his “acts of reflection” led him to make the right decision. To prevent a relapse, the Frings-led Lodge commissioned seven prints of the portrait – one for each day of the week.
Paul later had a crisis of conscience (as did Frings). He was forced to confront the implications of his progressive reforms as the Church continued to implode and he grieved that no one anywhere on the Catholic spectrum respected him.
When he tried to impose his papal authority, the Lodge reacted swiftly: a staged attempt was made on his life when he visited the Philippines in 1975. Macchi and Marcinkus “saved his life,” and Paul was again beholden to the Masonic forces that elected him.
Paul wavered again, trying to warn Catholics of the Pandora’s Box that had been unleashed by the Council. His furious minders began to lose their patience. It was time for a showdown.
When Paul again publicly held his ground on the Church’s approach to sexuality morality, it was the last straw for the Ecclesiastical Masons. In 1976, a campaign was orchestrated to suggest that the Pope had a very dark secret: that he was a homosexual. Paul was crushed and defeated; he never issued another encyclical and openly expressed his regret for the direction taken by the Council, never admitting his part, overwhelmed as he was by the pressure that had been brought to bear on him.
No wonder Paul whispered to his biographers, “You will crucify me.”
Just to complete the flight of fantasy, on the left is a diagram commonly used in Gnostic Judaism, or Kabbalah.
It is interesting to note how many points line up with Paul’s “portraits.”
How surprising it is to think that the episcopal ring which once graced the finger of the arch-fiend Annibale Bugnini has become a treasured relic amongst the post-conciliar wreckovators.
The ring first fell into the possession of Bishop Luca Brandolini, a protege of the late Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. Bugnini was of course the treacherous architect of the new Mass. Brandolini, always a sensitive chap, revealed his jewellery fetish in 2007, after Pope Benedict XVI released Summorum Pontificum, the motu proprio which allowed for a wider use of the traditional Mass. At the time, Brandolini tearfully said,
“The episcopal ring which I carry on my finger belonged to archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the father of the Conciliar liturgical reform. I was, at the time of the Council, a disciple of his and a close co-worker. I was close to him when he worked in that reform and I always recall with how much passion he worked for liturgical renewal. Now, his work has been canceled.”
(Brandolini is on the right. I can’t quite make out the ring – can you? Let me know if anyone out there can find a close-up of the ring somewhere.)
Back in 1993, Brandolini had ordained a young man named Vittorio Viola to the priesthood; Viola was made a Bishop in 2014.
Seven years later, our Viola scored a top job when the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments was overhauled by Pope Francis. The saintly Cardinal Sarah was given the flick, the TLM-hating Arthur Roche was put in Sarah’s place and the new-look Dicastery for Divine Worship was born. Secretary of the new outfit was Bishop Viola.
Viola has been in the news in recent days for it was he who signed the dastardly decree shutting down a well-loved Latin Mass at the Cathedral in Melbourne. And it is Viola who now wears Bugnini’s ring!
I think we can safely say that Brandolini did not cut a finger from Bugnini’s cold hand in order to gain the precious ring. Far more likely is the hypothesis that Bugnini bequeathed it to his protege as a kind of torch which would illuminate the way along the next phase of the Latin Mass’ destruction. In a similar way, Brandolini, who is aged but apparently still living, must have passed on the ring to Viola to keep the flame alive. What a rotten legacy that is. A ring that is surely worthy of being flung into the Cracks of Doom.
Ecclesiastical Freemasonry 