fromrome.info

Vatican Intelligence officer: I am a Freemason and so is Bergoglio

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo BREAKING — In an intercepted phone call — one of many which were captured during the corruption investigation in Argentina …
mystic
This man who says it all, was intelligence chief of Argentina. Juan Bautista Tata Yofre.
They talk about the unpresentable argentines that Bergoglio surrounds himself with. Starting with Marcelito Sanchez Sorondo. They say in kind of Mob language: 'Marceliiito' Cookie name for Marcelo. Saying in reality: Don't tell me that Marcelito nooo?
Then he says: Now this is a friends talk between friends, …More
This man who says it all, was intelligence chief of Argentina. Juan Bautista Tata Yofre.
They talk about the unpresentable argentines that Bergoglio surrounds himself with. Starting with Marcelito Sanchez Sorondo. They say in kind of Mob language: 'Marceliiito' Cookie name for Marcelo. Saying in reality: Don't tell me that Marcelito nooo?
Then he says: Now this is a friends talk between friends, not even with Coffee, but drinking water, so this conversation is not going to any other place than in between the friends here. (and now we are watching this)
He says that Yousuf talked to Karim.X. and it was published in the Nacion(most important newspaper). Then it disappeared from the web they removed it. Yousuf said to Karim that he talked to Intelligence Chief of the Vatican, because Bergoglio has an intelligence chief here in Argentina, not a priest, a civil guy and this guy in the video knows this chief he says. And this Chief says: I am Mason. And Bergoglio is also Mason. Then he says: This was in the Nacion newspaper, but they removed it, because they could not find evidence it was really said.
Then he justifies the Bergoglio being Mason saying: You know, I know and everybody knows here in this country there are and were many many Masons. Also many presidents and so on. ministers of the government sooo.
Then the presenter says: As you say, there are many Masons that are very catholic like Bergoglio and also Jews who are Masons.
Then friend Marceliiito who was lobbying certain Argentine ambassadors in the Vatican. Well says the presenter: He was probably recommending nice places to them then they burst into loud laughing.
They go to Malta.
Then they say lets leave the pope until here, because the temperature is rising too much,
That explains everything, don' be surprised what comes next
Frà Alexis Bugnolo likes this.
This is outright hearsay, twice removed. The former Argentinian "State Intelligence Secretary" is describing a phone call where he supposedly overheard the Vatican's "Chief Of Intellgence" telling an Iranian that Cardinal Bergoglio was a Freemason.

Let's count all the instances of falsehood possible here.

1.) The Argentinian "State Intelligence Secretary" is possibly telling a falsehood and …More
This is outright hearsay, twice removed. The former Argentinian "State Intelligence Secretary" is describing a phone call where he supposedly overheard the Vatican's "Chief Of Intellgence" telling an Iranian that Cardinal Bergoglio was a Freemason.

Let's count all the instances of falsehood possible here.

1.) The Argentinian "State Intelligence Secretary" is possibly telling a falsehood and no such phone

2.) The Argentinian "State Intelligence Secretary" is possibly telling the truth a phone call took place but a falsehood about what was actually said.

3.) The Vatican's "Chief of Intelligence" is possibly telling a falsehood because a.) he knows his phone-calls are being monitored and he wanted to decieve the listners b.) the falsehood was intended to decieve the Iranian c.) both a.) and b.)

Put in gossip-girl terms, this is "Rebecca said that she heard Miriam tell Esther that Ruth was pregnant."

Obviously it must be true, amirite? :P
Ultraviolet, did you even READ the article. OBVIOUSLY NOT. The Ambassador was merely relating what was broadcasted on national television previously, on another channel, namely the RECORDING of the Vatican Intelligence Head in Argentina saying, I am a mason and so is Bergoglio..... That IS NOT HEARSAY THAT IS DIRECT CANONICAL EVIDENCE OF DELICT, because the Intelligence Head is THE MOST TRUSTED …More
Ultraviolet, did you even READ the article. OBVIOUSLY NOT. The Ambassador was merely relating what was broadcasted on national television previously, on another channel, namely the RECORDING of the Vatican Intelligence Head in Argentina saying, I am a mason and so is Bergoglio..... That IS NOT HEARSAY THAT IS DIRECT CANONICAL EVIDENCE OF DELICT, because the Intelligence Head is THE MOST TRUSTED AGENT OF BERGOGLIO and what he says must be taken at 100% truth because he indicts both himself and Bergoglio.

Sorry, but you have just proved that you are a Bergoglian. Thank you for outing yourself.
Frà Alexis Bugnolo , you really need to look up the definition of hearsay, I heard someone else say "x" about a third party, is textbook hearsay.

There's nothing "bergoglian" about having a clear understanding of the law.

There is, however, MUCH that is uncharitable about gleefully leaping onto any allegation about a person you dislike. There is much MORE that is entirely un-Catholic about …More
Frà Alexis Bugnolo , you really need to look up the definition of hearsay, I heard someone else say "x" about a third party, is textbook hearsay.

There's nothing "bergoglian" about having a clear understanding of the law.

There is, however, MUCH that is uncharitable about gleefully leaping onto any allegation about a person you dislike. There is much MORE that is entirely un-Catholic about credulously holding up hearsay as "proof" of wrong-doing. You instantly accept this as "true" because you want to believe it's true.

Mondern historians often like to blame "mass-hysteria" for creating the witch-hunts that tore through Europe centuries ago. You're an example of a much more likely and uglier cause: petty, malicious, small-minded religious hypocrites who love scandal and swallow any claim no matter how far-fetched from any source no matter how dubious.

Look at yourself, for a moment. This is what you claim is true:

One intelligence head said another intelligence head said then-Cardinal Bergoglio is a freemason.

Are you really that gullible? You're going to instantly take one spy's claim about another spy's claim at face value?

Is this the standard for credible "intelligence-gathering" you're going to use when running your fantasy PMC?

"the Intelligence Head is THE MOST TRUSTED AGENT OF BERGOGLIO and what he says must be taken at 100% truth because he indicts both himself and Bergoglio."

I addressed this under point 3.). Apparently you are the one who isn't reading or, just as likely, ignoring everything you do read that deflates your hysterical enthusiasm for any kind of claim againt the Pope.

Whether or not the Vatican's "Chief of Intelligence" is trusted by Francis has no bearing on the truth of his statment. Many men have been betrayed and undermined by their "trusted" subordinates.

Even if that's not the case, again, there are three reasons he might be telling a falsehood, all entirely connected to his job.

I'll repeat them. a.) he knew his phone-calls were being monitored and he wanted to decieve the listeners b.) the falsehood was intended to decieve the Iranian c.) both a.) and b.)

"what he says must be taken at 100% truth because he indicts both himself and Bergoglio."

That's the same standard of "proof" is the Inquisition used to convict innocent people. "I'm a witch and so is Mrs. Smith."

Suddenly, Mrs. Smith finds herself getting tied to a stake by Fra Bunghole's grinning "Ordo Militaris" stooges who, like their boss, really just can't wait to see another woman burn.
You two are always getting into a Tweedledum and Tweedledee dispute!
Ultraviolent, either you are stupid or an intentional liar. I did not say the testimony what that the Ambassador said the Intelligence Head said that Bergoglio was a mason, I said that the Intelligence Head said on an intercepted phone call that He was a mason and that his boss is a Mason. That is not hearsay. If you think so, then you are wilfully blind. -- that the phone call was transmitted …More
Ultraviolent, either you are stupid or an intentional liar. I did not say the testimony what that the Ambassador said the Intelligence Head said that Bergoglio was a mason, I said that the Intelligence Head said on an intercepted phone call that He was a mason and that his boss is a Mason. That is not hearsay. If you think so, then you are wilfully blind. -- that the phone call was transmitted on national television is a fact of history, which was related by the Ambassador, who heard it himself. That is not hearsay, if you think so you are blind. You have earned a block from me, because I do not suffer liars.
@Frà Alexis Bugnolo Despite your accusations, You're neither stupid nor an intentional liar. You're a gullible, malicious little magpie eagerly dipping his beak into a pile of manure.

If you read closely there are FOUR separate parties here and three levels of recounting. On a closer reading, it's even WORSE than I thought.

Let's break this farce down. The Players:

1.) Juan Bautista "Tata…More
@Frà Alexis Bugnolo Despite your accusations, You're neither stupid nor an intentional liar. You're a gullible, malicious little magpie eagerly dipping his beak into a pile of manure.

If you read closely there are FOUR separate parties here and three levels of recounting. On a closer reading, it's even WORSE than I thought.

Let's break this farce down. The Players:

1.) Juan Bautista "Tata" Yofre, who was State Intelligence Secretary in Argentina between 1989-1990 and was the Ambassador of Argentina, concurrently to both Portugal and Panama.

And

2.) The un-named "Vatican Chief of Intelligence"

...who is referred to in this passage. I've added the ID numbers so you can keep them separate.

"Tata" (1.) made a parenthesis to emphasize that Bergoglio indeed had a Vatican chief of Intelligence (2.) there in Argentina and that he [namely "Tata" (1.)] knew him [the "Vatican Chief of Intelligence"(2.)] personally, but did not mention the name. [-the name of the "Vatican Chief of Intelligence"(2.)]

And

3.) Yussuf and Karim, two Iranians.

Now let's review the article again.

"Tata" (1.) recounts a phone call that had been aired during a time of "negotiations with Iran" and that such phone calls had been aired on national television.

Let's stop right there. This is "Tata's" (1.) recollection. NOT the words of (2.) the un-named "Vatican Chief of Intelligence".

"Tata" (1.) is describing something he remembers was on television. Everything that follows is his recollection of what he supposedly saw on TV.

Now pay attention to this next part:

"In one phone call between "Yussuf and Karim" which had come out in the outlet "La Nación", but later disappeared, Tata says, during the call, Yussuf tells Karim about his encounter with Bergoglio’s Vatican Chief of Intelligence in Argentina."

So now we have two Iranians "Yussuf" (3.) and "Karim" (4.) who are supposedly talking to each other. But this info apparently "later disappeared". That means the source for this information is 1.) "Tata".

Tata 1.) claims that he overheard two Iranians (3., and 4.) speaking amongst themselves.

According to Tata 1.) the first Iranian (3.) told the second Iranian (4.) that the un-named "Vatican Chief of Intelligence" (2.) accused both himself and Cardinal Bergoglio of being Freemasons.

This is literally third-hand testimony as follows:

A--.) The un-named "Vatican Chief of Intelligence" (2.) supposedly told Yussuf (3.) that he and Cardinal Bergoglio were free-masons.

We have no proof of that conversation ever taking place except for:

B--.) Yussuf (3.) told Karim (4.).

We have no proof that conversation ever taking place either except for:

C--.) Tata (1.) said he remembers seeing it leaked on television. His words, directly from the article.

Tata says, "This was on ‘La Nación’. You could have listened to it yourselves. I listened to it because I had to give it credit."

...except we CAN'T listen to it ourselves.

We have to take this guy's word for what he heard two other guys supposedly say where one of those guys was talking to yet another guy who made a claim about himself and then cardinal Bergoglio.

That's literally three degrees of separation between the original statement and its publication in the article.

How many different people could be lying or in error about this? Let's see...

a.) the un-named "Vatican Chief of Intelligence" (2.) could be lying to Yussuf (3.). That assumes (on no grounds whatsoever) everyone else is subsequently telling the truth.

b.) Yussuf (3.) could be lying to Karim (4.) about a conversation he had with the un-named "Vatican Chief of Intelligence" (2.).

How do we know Yussuf actually had this conversation? We don't.

Supposedly he told Karim. Where's the proof of the conversation was truthfully relayed? None. Just Yussuf's (3.) say-so. Obviously you never entertained possibility Yussuf (3.) might be telling a yarn or embroidering the truth.

c.) Tata (1.) could be lying or incorrectly recalling what he saw on television. He's certainly providing iron-clad proof here, isn't he? "I saw sumfin' on Tee-Vee but it's gone now."

So there's no proof "Yussuf" (3.) told "Karim" (4.) ANYTHING about what the "Vatican Chief of Intelligence" (2.) told Yussuf (3.) except for (drumroll, please)

... Tata (1.) "recounting" it.

I don't know how to spell it out for you more clearly...

Tata (1.) did not hear the un-named "Vatican Chief of Intelligence" (2.) make this admission about freemasonry.

He claims he heard Yussuf (3.) tell Karim (4.) about a conversation Yussuf (3.) supposedly had with the un-named "Vatican Chief of Intelligence" (2.)

...and we don't have any proof Tata (1.) ever DID hear Yussuf (3.) tell Karim (4.) ANYTHING except Tata's say-so about what he remembers seeing on television. Wow.

That's hearsay and I won't expect a retraction much less an apology from the likes of you.