Category Archives: Guest Editorials

I am sick to my stomach watching these unnatural men who run the Church

 GUEST EDITORIAL

by John Bronston

These are the days that have been foretold to us through Scripture, countless Saints, and numerous Marian apparitions. If we are not aware, it is because of our own ignorance and lack of desire to understand what our Faith is truly about. The Corona virus fear that has gripped the entire world is without a doubt a demonic plot to control the minds and hearts of the people of this world. But why is the Church and so many of the lay faithful going along with the world? We are not called to live as people in the world live. We are Christians and we are called to live as Christ lived.

We do not look to the world for answers or for hope in times of crisis. We should be picking up our rosary and bible and looking towards God for answers. If we aren’t doing that it means we are putting our faith in the world by absorbing the messages that are being given to us through the secular media, which is always atheistic and anti-God.  The world can not tell us anything that will help us save our souls. It despises us because we are followers of Christ. We know Satan is the ruler of this world and yet we look to the world for information. This is a classic example of insanity! The Father of Lies runs the world and we want to listen to him and his minions? No, we should open our bibles and let God speak to us here and now.

God’s word is alive and eternal. The Truth never changes and what was written 2,000 years ago under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (God) is full Truth. In fact, you will learn more about the reality of things today by reading that living word of God than you could ever learn through the news and media reports that come from the world every second of every day. It is sheer chaos and hysteria being spread by the world and the Devil. There is NO truth in them! We need to regain our senses and understand that God is in control of all things and figure out what His plan for us is in this current moment. He is not asking us to be afraid of a virus that can infect our bodies. He is more concerned with the spiritual virus, that is Sin, that is infecting our minds, hearts, souls and the Church!

This is all the more reason that we should not be accepting the closing of the masses by our Bishop(s)! If they had even an ounce of supernatural Faith they would not agree to go along with this diabolical agenda of the world and would resist until the point of death.  We the laity must protest this horrific abuse with all our might. We must write emails, plan protests, rally outside of our churches, depose unfaithful clergy, whatever it takes! It amazes me that so many Catholics on social media are celebrating this atrocity as a prudent decision by the Church. The Catholic Church is not what you think it is. It is not just the hierarchy who get to make decisions and the rest of us just blindly accept it even to our own eternal detriment. This is not using our God given intellect and will.

We do not follow faithless men. We, the Church of light who are called to be the salt of the earth for the rest of humanity, must retain our zeal! If we have lost that, then we are no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot (cf. Matthew 5:13-16).

I am sick to my stomach watching these unnatural men who run the Church telling us, the faithful, what we must do. They use your ignorance of the Faith and of your rights as Christians, to lie to get you to agree to things that no Christians in the history of the world would ever have agreed to.  The true Church does not take its marching orders from the State (Satan). It takes its orders from Christ and those who are in communion with Him. This means those who are in a state of Grace and who reside in the Truth.

We must despise all forms of lying in our own lives if we ever wish to be able to see the Truth as it clearly is. The sin of lying obstructs us from being able to see when others are lying to us. The current hierarchy of the Church is filled with immoral men who can lie with an unsettling ease that is impossible to detect unless you have trained your eyes and ears to only seek truth. Christ is the truth we must seek right now and always if we are ever going to be able to live as he has called us to live in this world.

Fear of God is the only respectable form of fear. If we are afraid, because the world has caused it in us, then we are not exhibiting true faith. If you tell me I cannot receive the most precious and holy Eucharist because of fear of contracting a cold virus then you are doing the devil’s work and you have cut yourself off from the true vine that gives life.  Please understand that your Church is being ripped away from you and if you’re ok watching mass on television and not receiving the most blessed Sacrament than I feel sorry for you. If this is not ok with you than let us, the militant Church, do something about it right now.

Stay away from people who are not followers of the Lord! Can someone who is good get along with someone who is evil? Are light and darkness the same? Is Christ a friend of Satan? Can people who follow the Lord have anything in common with those who don’t? Do idols belong in the temple of God? We are the temple of the living God (2 Corinthians 6:14-16).

​“Who’s going to save our Church? It’s not our bishops, it’s not our priests and it is not the religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes and the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that the priests act like priests, your bishops act like bishops, and the religious act like religious.” – Archbishop Fulton Sheen

“Anyway, they are no more than false apostles and dishonest workers. They only pretend to be apostles of Christ. And it is no wonder. Even Satan tries to make himself look like an angel of light. So why does it seem strange for Satan’s servants to pretend to do what is right? Someday they will get exactly what they deserve.” 2 Corinthians 11:13-15

“For the shepherds are stupid, and do not inquire of the Lord; therefore they have not prospered, and all their flock is scattered.” Jeremiah 10:21

“It is an easy matter for many to be shut up in the hands of a few: and there is no difference in the sight of the God of heaven to deliver with a great multitude, or with a small company: For the success of war is not in the multitude of the army, but strength cometh from heaven. They come against us with an insolent multitude, and with pride, to destroy us, and our wives, and our children, and to take our spoils. But we will fight for our lives and our laws: And the Lord himself will overthrow them before our face: but as for you, fear them not.” 1 (Maccabees) 3:18-22

__________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a photo of Cardinals Kasper and the last Daneels, two prominent members of the St. Gallen Mafia, who promoted Bergoglio to supreme power. It is used here in accord with a Creative Commons Share-Alike 3.0 unported license, as described here.

+ + +

 

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

Open Letter to the Bishops who have shut down their dioceses

by Andrew J. Baalman

Blogging at Ordo Militaris Radio Blog

Your Excellencies,

By your lack of Faith and Trust In God and His Divine Providence, you have gone with what all secular and Anti-Christian Governments want and those in the Democratic Party want, to limit or close our churches and Dioceses out of fear, panic and hysteria.

You do a great dis-service to the People of God in taking away the Sacraments and even the Last Rites, Anointing Of The Sick:

annointing

You have removed the shepherds from the flock and now the roaring lion that never sleeps as Saint Peter warns us about the Devil, has free reign against us without the protection of the Sacraments! We need God, His Holy Church and the Sacraments He gave us to fight and combat all this evil! I assure you, this virus and where it is hitting, it is due to what happened in the Vatican with the Idolatry Worship of the pagan idol!

Not only are our priests who are going along with your decree to stop all Masses and Sacraments and closure of our churches acting like cowards, but also dishonoring the numerous Holy Priests who gave their own lives to be with their flock:

father-aloysius-schmittAs on the battle fields of Pearl Harbor when Japan attacked,

like Father Aloysius Schmitt (see here to the right)

who died saving lives at Pearl Harbor

when Japan was bombing Battleship Row!

Or,

father-emil-kapaunlike Father Emil Kapaun,

Medal Of Honor Recipient, POW

and Korean War Hero,

(seen here to the right):

Chaplain Francis Duffy, World War I
Chaplain (Maj.) Francis P. Duffy poses in an undated photo. Duffy, a Catholic priest, is one of the most celebrated chaplains from World War I.  (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Army Chaplain Center and School)

Father Francis P. Duffy

of The Fighting 69th Irish Brigade

New York,

The Most Highly Decorated Chaplain

in U.S.  Military History!

“He accompanied litter bearers into battle to help recover the wounded and received the Distinguished Service Cross, among other awards, for his bravery under fire.” (US Army Chaplain Center)

So, are you so scared of an illness and buying the hype and hysteria that you risk your flock’s souls? You are to be ashamed of yourself in calling yourselves shepherds, these men who risked their life for their flock on the battlefield are true shepherds!

To those who are not canceling Mass, the Sacraments and not closing your diocese, BRAVO! You are also true shepherds!

+ + +

 

 

Is The Conclave That Gave Us Pope Francis Valid and All The Appointments?

Seventh Anniversary Of Conclave

by Andrew J. Baalman

In this article I will be going through Universi Domini Gregis by Pope John Paul II to see if the laws of the Conclave that gave the world Francis, were broken and if he was not validly elected.

INTRODUCTION

It is seven years since we had the conclave that gave us Pope Francis, with all this craziness and madness that has happened ever since, and then the worship of Pagan Idols in the Vatican Garden and Basilicas, all our worries and concerns seem to not matter and when we want to investigate or do these reports, certain groups of Catholics say it is not necessary and just obey and not worry what is going on.  But I am with many who think there needs to be an investigation and here we will look at what news reports said those fateful days after the conclave and all the breaking news.

Let us look at some dates and newspaper reports gathered from the Chronology Of Team Bergoglio

Nov. 22, 2014:  John Bingham, reporter for the Telegraph, writes his report, Pope Francis: how cardinals’ Conclave lobbying campaign paved way for Argentine pontiff, which appears on the online edition at 8:15 PM London time.  It is in this report that the allegations of Dr. Ivereigh, regarding vote canvassing are first made news.  All the subsequent reports will react to this. (On Nov. 26, this article was published, with later information, in a Spanish translation by Secretum Meum Mihi Blog, here.)”

Nov. 23, 2014: A report by John Bingham, entitled, “English Cardinal ‘lobbied for Pope’“, is published on p. 16 in the Sunday Telegraph, UK, regarding Dr. Ivereigh’s book and the allegations concerning the vote canvassing by Cardinals in days preceding the Conclave of 2013 (according to Maggie Doherty’s Letter to the Editor in the Daily Telegraph, Nov. 25). An image of page 16 of the Sunday Telegraph is subsequently published by a Spanish blog on Dec. 1 (here)”

Nov. 24, 2014:  Libertà e Persona, publishes Lorenzo Bertocchi’s, La “squadra di Bergoglio”, which exposes the story for the first time in the Italian language. (This link discovered & added to chronology on Dec. 15).”

Nov. 25, 2014:  In a Letter to the Editor of the Daily Telegraph, Maggie Doherty, the spokeswoman for Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor denies that Cardinal Bergoglio was approached by Cardinals or consented to the work of “Team Bergoglio”. (See here for an image of that letter).

“Nov. 25, 2014:  The From Rome blog reports the events known and speculated about the canonical implications of UDG 81, in “If Ivereigh is to be believed, was Bergoglio’s election invalid?

“Nov. 26, 2014:  The From Rome blog adds an addendum concerning the implications of canon 171 to its previous report.

Nov. 27, 2014:  Returns to the topic of “Team Bergoglio” in, Ivereigh + UDG 81 = A Radical Problem for the Pope, which discusses both the letter by Maggie Doherty and the canonical reasons why it appears that the election of Cardinal Bergoglio may now be open to a challenge. This article was republished in a rather good Italian translation by Chiesa e post Concilio, on Dec. 2.”

These and all the reports gathered show how the news about the invalid conclave was being reported around the world, but there is something even more, a book by Cardinal Danneels which admits exactly what is going on, but was not given permission to publish it in Italian by the Vatican. Lifesitenews reported on this on September 25th 2015, and this quote explains what is going on currently:

Continue reading at A. J.’s Blog: Ordo Miltiaris Radio

What does it mean, “To be loyal to the Pope?”, if we do not care who is the pope?

English translation of Italian Original

Che vuole dire, “Essere leale al Papa”,
se non ci sentiamo obbligati a conscere chi è il vero papa?

ChiesaRomana.Info

What does it mean, to be loyal to the Pope,
if we do not consider ourselves obligated
to know who is the true pope?

It is already clear that the whims of politicians has substituted any desire for the truth, and that the Dictatorship of Relativism has exalted itself unto the heavens. Hence, it is necessary duty that we Roman Catholics distinguish now between falsehood and truth.

The criterion of truth differs according to different subjects. In a vote, political truth consists in the final count of the votes. In the empirical sciences, scientific truth consists in what can be observed and demonstrated by repetitive experimentation. In matters of faith, the truth is the teaching which God has revealed. But in questions of who is and who is not the true pope, the truth consists in Canon Law, because the law of the Church regulates whose claim to the papacy is valid and legitimate, and whose is not.

As everyone knows, it is neither whim nor popularity nor a poll which confirms that a man is the Pope. A man becomes pope solely when he is elected in a Conclave. But to be more precise: a man becomes the pope when HE ACCEPTS his canonical election in a legitimate conclave. And a legitimate conclave is a Conclave which observes the papal law of Pope John Paul II, Universi dominici gregis, on the convening of conclaves during a vacancy (sede vacante) of the Apostolic See (see the Latin or English text at Vatican.va).

Obviously, therefore, even if all the Cardinals say the Pope is a man, who was not elected in a conclave which observed the norms of that papal law, he is NOT the pope, because even the Cardinals are obliged to observe the Canon Law of the Catholic Church! In fact, canon 359 says expressly that the Cardinals have no decision making power when the Apostolic See is vacant.

Therefore, to know who is the true pope, it is not sufficient to recognize him who has been elected in Conclave. Every Catholic also has the duty to verify if there was a sede vacante. This, however, is not a problem when a Pope dies, because there is a corpse.

But, how about when a Pope renounces?  There a problem can arise. In fact, Pope John Paul II expressly foresaw the possibility of a invalid renunciation in paragraph 3 of his law on Conclaves, Universi dominici gregis, and indirectly in paragraph, n. 37

Pope John Paul II also foresaw the possibility of an invalid renunciation in the Code of Canon Law which he promulgated in 1983, because in Canon 332 §2, it speaks in these terms regarding a Papal renunciation:

Canon 332 §2 — Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validiatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero a quopiam acceptetur.

Which in English means:

Canon 332 §2 — If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounces his munus, for validity there is required that the renunciation be freely made and be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.

In many translations of this canon, the Latin word munus (which is employed in the dative form, muneri) is translated as office, in accord with the terms of canon 145 §1, which defines every ecclesiastical office (officium) as a munus. This way of translating munus, however, is not faithful, because an ecclesiastical office per se is merely an ecclesiastical dignity. But the munus of the Successor of Saint Peter is a supernatural dignity, an evangelical duty, and a charge imposed by Jesus Himself, by reason of which the law of the Church reckons it as an ecclesiastical office according to the norm of law.

At this point, we need to recognize that in every discussion of canon law, the Latin text of an act is normally the only text which has juridical authority. On this account, Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, in Consistory with the Cardinals, expressed himself in the Latin tongue, saying in the first person singular (as Joseph Ratzinger) the following:

Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso ​renuntiare ita ut  a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

A Papal Renunciation is a special kind of juridical act

A papal renunciation of munus is a special kind of juridical act.  As Mons. Arrieta, the Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legal Texts, in his meeting with Br. Alexis Bugnolo, on December 11, 2019, affirmed, a papal renunciation is not subject to interpretation by anyone, that is, no one in the Church has the legal right to interpret it. Not even the Pope. Because if the renunciation was valid, then he is no longer the pope. And if it was not valid, his interpretation cannot make it valid. “It has to be certain in itself”, as Mons. Arrieta affirmed.

Hence, as can be seen from the official Latin text of the renunciation, quoted above, Pope Benedict XVI renounced the ministerium (ministery). Hence, it is not legitimate for anyone to say that he renounced anything else. In particular, it is not permitted that anyone say that he renounced his munus or ecclesiastical office, for such an affirmation would be an interpretation which substitutes officio (office) or muneri (munus) where Pope Benedict XVI said ministerio (ministry).

Hence, Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope. There never was a sede vacante.

The Haste and Imprudence of the Cardinals on Feb. 11, 2013 was historic and extraordinary

According to Mons. Arrieta, there never was, as far as he knows, any meeting of expert canonists to examine the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI, before Father Lombardi gave the go-ahead to Giovanna Chirri, an ANSA pool report, to tweet out to the world that Pope Benedict had resigned from the papacy.

Obviously, then, no one in the Church is obligated to follow Father Lombardi or Mrs. Giovanna Chirri or even the Cardinals in their error. Rather, we are obliged by the Divine and Catholic Faith to give our loyalty still to Pope Benedict XVI, as the Pope.

Pope John Paul II took precautions against errors of this kind in his Code of Canon Law of 1983, because in that Code, he as the supreme legislator of the Church, changed the canon which regarded the renunciation of the Roman Pontiff. He did this because, for more than 20 years, theologians had put in discussion the possibility of separating the papal government from the papal office, by means of a sharing of the papal dignity among two or more persons, one charged with the papal munus, and the other with the papal ministerium. He put a stop to any such future possibility by adding the words muneri suo as the object of the verb “renuntiare” (to renounce) — the Code of Canon Law of 1917 has no object to the verb.  Moreover, he impeded the possibility of renouncing by renouncing anything else, through canon 188, which declares every renunciation irritus — invalid or never to have existed — which contains a substantial error as regards what is to be renounced.

Thus, even if Pope Benedict XVI wanted to renounce only the ministry but not the munus, he could not do it. Moreover, Mons. Arrieta affirmed — likewise in his meeting with Br. Bugnolo — that such a renunciation, so as to share the papal dignity with two persons, would be contrary to the Divine law itself.

A Divine obligation for all

Everyone in the Church is obliged to follow the true pope. A man, elected in a Conclave which was convened during the lifetime of a canonically elected pope, is obviously not the pope!  Canon 359 formally forbids the Cardinals to elect another pope during the lifetime of the reigning Pope. And the reigning Pope remains pope until he either dies or renounces in accord with the terms of Canon 332.

If the Clergy has hastily followed the opinion of a journalist or Vatican spokesman who were not qualified in Canon Law, their error obliges no one. If the Cardinals, in haste and without due discretion, presumed the renunciation of ministerium was a renunciation of the papacy, their error obliges no one.  Even if Pope Benedict XVI, with his advanced age, though that he could renounce the power and office of the papacy, without renouncing or even intending to renounce the munus, because he wanted to retain the papal dignity afterwards, this error obliges no one. It obliges no one, because not even Pope Benedict XVI has a power or authority which extends over the papal office.  Only the Creator of that office, Jesus Christ, has that power. Hence, not even the intent expressed in the act (that of vacating the Apostolic Throne) can repair the error of not renouncing the petrine munus.

What are we to do now?

We must insist with our sacred pastors that they stop naming the man, who never received the petrine munus, as  pope in the Canon of the Mass, and return to naming Pope Benedict. Each priest needs to employ canon 41, which gives him the authority to read the text of the Renunciation and to declare it null.

We need to do everything we can to convince the Cardinals to recognize their error and to return their loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI. Finally, we need to insist that the Cardinal Archbishop of Buenas Aires returns home to Argentina.

This is a solemn duty for every Catholic. We can not do otherwise, if we want to attain Heaven, because to obey an Anti-pope is the worst sin of disobedience possible in the Church on Earth.

Note, in this English translation, some of the terms and phrases were rendered according to the custom of English, rather than literally, and some Italian expressions which are clear in the Italian context, were expanded or made more precise, for clarity in English.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

 

 

 

 

 

Resigned to the Papacy: Does Benedict still claim he is Pope?

At the request of the author, who was cited incompletely in Edward Pentin’s report, yesterday, FromRome.Info publishes the full essay with its original title

by Dr. Edmund J. Mazza

Ph.D. Medieval History

It’s a safe bet that even if seventy-three-year-old President Trump’s physical stamina suddenly caved, he would still seek re-election rather than allow his Democrat opponent to seize the oval office and reverse all his gains and policies. It is a curious question then why another incumbent Conservative, Pope Benedict XVI, resigned seven years ago citing the frailty of his eighty-five-year-old frame, certain in the knowledge that his successor would be a Leftist ideologue bent on undoing, not only his own legacy, but two thousand years of Catholic tradition. (Benedict may even have been reasonably sure that it would be Jorge Bergoglio, himself, since the Argentinian cardinal came up just shy of the votes needed to unseat Benedict back in 2005.) As George Neumayr writes in the The American Spectator:

In one of his last speeches before abdicating in 2013, Pope Benedict XVI decried the liberalism that had seeped into the Church after Vatican II. To this liberalism, he traced “so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed, the liturgy was trivialized.” But he then proceeded to hand the Church to the very liberals responsible for these problems and to a successor set upon liberalizing the Church even more. (1)

The recent release of Netflix’s The Two Popes, the seventh anniversary of Benedict’s abdication and the firestorm over his co-authorship of a book advocating the retention of the celibate priesthood—a seeming slap in the face of Pope Francis—all conspire in calling for a reexamination of the infamous resignation. Indeed, ever since February 11, 2013 speculations have circulated that Benedict’s renunciation may have been invalid, that he—in some way—still retains the papacy. These allegations were fueled in part by Benedict’s own rather bizarre measures after formally stepping down, such keeping his name “Pope Benedict XVI,” his title “His Holiness,” his white cassock, imparting his “Apostolic Blessing,” and lastly—never departing the Vatican.

These claims even received an unexpected boost thanks to a speech by Benedict’s Personal Secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Papal Household. At Rome’s Gregorianum in 2016, Gänswein declared “he has not abandoned this ministry at all. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi-shared ministry.”  Gänswein adds: “He has not abandoned the office of Peter, a thing which would be completely impossible for him following his irrevocable acceptance of the office…” (2)

Then in 2017, Last Testament: In His Own Words, was published in which journalist Peter Seewald conducted a lengthy interview with Benedict. At one point, Seewald pointedly asks His Holiness: “Is a slowdown in the ability to perform, reason enough to climb down from the chair of Peter?” Benedict replies:

One can of course make that accusation, but it would be a functional misunderstanding. The follower [successor] of Peter is not merely bound to a function; the office [munus] (3) enters into your very being. In this regard, fulfilling a function is not the only criterion. (4) (Emphasis mine)

What “misunderstanding”? A simple “yes,” would do.

But Benedict does not give a “yes” or “no” answer to this straightforward question. All the more bizarre since his answer, in fact, must be a “yes,” or otherwise he is contradicting the very reason he gave for stepping down in his official resignation speech:

I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine office [non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum]… strength…has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry [ministerium] entrusted to me. For this reason…I declare that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter

But in his answer to Seewald, Benedict explains that a physical “slow-down” only affects the “functions” or “ministry” of a pope, his day-to-day tasks like any other official. But being Pope, Benedict insists, is not fundamentally about doing this or that, it’s about being. His answer is an ontological one: “the office [munus] enters into your very being,” not the “function” or “ministry,” but the office.

Seewald then observes: “One objection is that the papacy has been secularized by the resignation; that it is no longer a unique office but an office like any other.” Benedict replies:

I had to…consider whether or not functionalism would completely encroach on the papacy …Earlier, bishops were not allowed to resign…a number of bishops…said ‘I am a father and that I’ll stay’, because you can’t simply stop being a father; stopping is a functionalization and secularization, something from the sort of concept of public office that shouldn’t apply to a bishop. To that I must reply: even a father’s role stops. Of course a father does not stop being a father, but he is relieved of concrete responsibility. He remains a father in a deep, inward sense, in a particular relationship which has responsibility, but not with day-to-day tasks as such…If he steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function…one comes to understand that the office [munus] of the Pope has lost none of its greatness

Benedict again goes to great lengths to contrast the difference between I. “the office of the Pope” and II. the ministry or “function” associated with it. How to “decode” Benedict? By examining the words he has chosen and the ways he has deployed them before.

In October 1977, during the symposium “On the Nature and Commission of the Petrine Ministry” marking the 80th birthday of Pope Paul VI, Ratzinger declared:

In keeping with the three Persons in God, the argument went, the Church must also be led by a college of three, and the members of this triumvirate, acting together, would be the pope. There was no lack of ingenious speculations that (alluding, for instance, to Soloviev’s story about the Antichrist) discovered that in this way a Roman Catholic, an Orthodox, and a Protestant together could form the papal troika. Thus it appeared that the ultimate formula for ecumenism had been found, derived immediately from theology (from the concept of God), that they had discovered a way to square the circle, whereby the papacy, the chief stumbling block for non-Catholic Christianity, would have to become the definitive vehicle for bringing about the unity of all Christians.

2. The interior basis for the primacy: Faith as responsible personal witness

Is this, then—the reconciliation of collegiality and primacy—the answer to the question posed by our subject: the primacy of the pope and the unity of the People of God? Although we need not conclude that such reflections are entirely sterile and useless, it is plain that they are a distortion of trinitarian doctrine and an intolerably oversimplified fusion of Creed and Church polity. What is needed is a more profound approach. It seems to me that it is important, first of all, to reestablish a clearer connection between the theology of communion, which had developed from the idea of collegiality, and a theology of personality, which is no less important in interpreting the biblical facts. Not only does the communal character of the history created by God belong to the structure of the Bible, but also and equally personal responsibility. The ‘‘we’’ does not dissolve the ‘‘I’’ and ‘‘you,’’ but rather it confirms and intensifies them so as to make them almost definitive. This is evident already in the importance that a name has in the Old Testament—for God and for men. One could even say that in the Bible ‘‘name’’ takes the place of what philosophical reflection would eventually designate by the word ‘‘person…

Martyrdom as a response to the Cross of Jesus Christ is nothing other than the ultimate confirmation of this principle of uncompromising particularity, of the named individual who is personally responsible

The Petrine theology of the New Testament is found along this line of reasoning, and therein it has its intrinsically necessary character. The ‘‘we’’ of the Church begins with the name of the one who in particular and as a person first uttered the profession of faith in Christ: ‘‘You are . . . the Son of the living God’’ (Mt 16:16)….

Is Peter as a person the foundation of the Church, or is his profession of faith the foundation of the Church? The answer is: The profession of faith exists only as something for which someone is personally responsible, and hence the profession of faith is connected with the person. Conversely, the foundation is not a person regarded in a metaphysically neutral way, so to speak, but rather the person as the bearer of the profession of faith—one without the other would miss the significance of what is meant…

The ‘‘we’’ unity of Christians, which God instituted in Christ through the Holy Spirit under the name of Jesus Christ and as a result of his witness, certified by his death and Resurrection, is in turn maintained by personal bearers of responsibility for this unity, and it is once again personified in Peter—in Peter, who receives a new name and is thus lifted up out of what is merely his own, yet precisely in a name, through which demands are made of him as a person with personal responsibility. In his new name, which transcends the historical individual, Peter becomes the institution that goes through history (for the ability to continue and continuance are included in this new appellation), yet in such a way that this institution can exist only as a person and in particular and personal responsibility

The English Cardinal expresses it in the same way in another passage: ‘‘The office of the papacy is a cross, indeed, the greatest of all crosses. For what can be said to pertain more to the cross and anxiety of the soul than the care and responsibility for all the Churches throughout the world?’’ Moreover, he recalls Moses, who groaned under the burden of the whole Israelite people, could no longer bear it, and yet had to bear it.34 To be bound up with the will of God, with the Word of whom he is the messenger, is the experience of being girt and led against his will of which John 21 speaks. Yet this attachment to the Word and will of God because of the Lord is what makes the sedes a cross and thus proves the Vicar to be a representative. He abides in obedience and thus in personal responsibility for Christ; professing the Lord’s death and Resurrection is his whole commission and personal responsibility, in which the common profession of the Church is depicted as personally ‘‘binding’’ through the one who is bound . . . . This personal liability, which forms the heart of the doctrine of papal primacy, is therefore not opposed to the theology of the Cross or contrary to humilitas christiana but rather follows from it and is the point of its utmost concreteness and, at the same time, the public contradiction of the claim that the power of the world is the only power and also the establishment of the power of obedience in opposition to worldly power. Vicarius Christi is a title most profoundly rooted in the theology of the Cross and thus an interpretation of Matthew 16:16–19 and John 21:15–19 that points to the inner unity of these two passages. No doubt, another facet of the bondage that in light of John 21 can be described as a definitive characteristic of the papacy will be the fact that this being bound up with God’s will, which is expressed in God’s Word, means being bound up with the ‘‘we’’ of the whole Church: collegiality and primacy are interdependent. But they do not merge in such a way that the personal responsibility ultimately disappears into anonymous governing bodies. Precisely in their inseparability, personal responsibility serves unity, which it will doubtless bring about the more effectively, the more true it remains to its roots in the theology of the Cross. (5)

This 1977 speech is, in fact, the key to deciphering, not only Benedict’s 2017 interview, but his 2013 resignation speech.

In 2017 Benedict says: “If he [the pope] steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility” he took on, but not in the “function,” or “day-to-day” tasks.  In 1977 Ratzinger says: “this institution [the papacy] can exist only as a person and in particular and personal responsibility…”  He adds: “He abides in obedience and thus in personal responsibility for Christ; professing the Lord’s death and Resurrection is his whole commission and personal responsibility.”

For Benedict, “personal responsibility” is the essence of what it means to be pope. To be responsible not as a public official filled with day to day tasks, but metaphysical responsibility for the flock of Christ. In his interview, Benedict says that although he “stepped down,” “HE REMAINS…WITHIN THE RESPONSIBILITY.” Translation: “He remains Pope!”

In 1977, Ratzinger says: ‘‘The office of the papacy is a cross, indeed, the greatest of all crosses. For what can be said to pertain more to the cross and anxiety of the soul than the care and [personal] responsibility for all the Churches…attachment to the Word and will of God because of the Lord is what makes the sedes [chair] a cross and thus proves the Vicar [the Pope] to be a representative [of Christ].” At his last General Audience, Benedict says: “I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord.” Translation: “He remains Pope!”

Dr. Ludwig Ott, famous author of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, writes: “In deciding the meaning of a text the Church does not pronounce judgment on the subjective intention of the author, but on the objective sense of the text.” But in the objective text of his renunciation, Benedict does not say “I no longer retain the office [munus],” he says instead, “I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry [ministerium] entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.”

Now weighty matters like papal renunciations are governed by Canon law. And Canon 322 §2 states: “If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounces his munus, (6) it is required for validity that the renunciation is made freely and be properly manifested (rite manifestatur, i.e. properly according to the norms of law), but not that it be accepted by anyone at all.” However, Pope Benedict did not follow Canon 322—he did not actually “renounce the munus,” but the ministerium, nor did he “properly manifest,” in the objective sense of his text, his intention to renounce the munus, if such was his intention! (7) Legally, it does not matter if everyone believes Benedict has renounced the office of the papacy (or if only one person does), what matters is whether the act was carried out according to the canonical norm, which it objectively was not. Indeed, in his interview with Seewald, Benedict admits his belief in the ontological impossibility of him leaving the office: “the office [munus] enters into your very being.”

To conclude, can there be any doubt that to Benedict’s mind, he retains the essence of the papacy? Why then does he not speak and act plainly—as THE Pope? Quite frankly, this is a subject for a different article. A case can be made, however, that he has outwitted his ideological opponents in much the same fashion as “Superman” in the conclusion of Mario Puzo’s Superman II [SPOILER ALERT]. By entering the crystal chamber, Superman had seemingly been forced by his enemies to strip himself of his powers, when the reverse was really the case! Perhaps Benedict intentionally resigned the “ministry,” and not the “office” of the papacy so that by appearing to all intents and purposes a defeated man, he might actually strip away the validity of every measure Francis takes which departs from Catholic Orthodoxy, of whom Benedict is the Guardian.(8) Why on earth does Benedict not speak and act as THE Pope? Perhaps in defense of celibacy, he finally has.

____________

FOOTNOTES

1  In the article, The Prisoner of the Vatican, at https://spectator.org/the-prisoner-of-the-vatican/

2  Address at the Pontifical Gregorian University, cited Diane Montagna’s article at LifeSite News: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/did-benedict-really-resign-gaenswein-burke-and-brandmueller-weigh-in

3  In Canon Law, the papal office is called a munus in Canons 331, 332 §2, 333 and 749. And in Canon 145 §1, ecclesiastical office is referred to as a munus. Cf. Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, by Br. Alexis Bugnolo, transcript of paper from the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict, October 21, 2019, Rome, Italy: at https://fromrome.info/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/)

4  Peter Seewald, Benedict XVI, Last Testament: In His Own Words, (Bloomsbury Continuum, 2017).

5  “The Primacy of the Pope and the unity of the People of God,” published as “Der Primat des Papstes und die Einheit des Gottesvolkes” in a book Ratzinger edited, Dienst an der Einheit (Service to Unity); it has also been republished in books by Ignatius Press and in Communio Spring 2014.

6  In the official Latin edition of the Codex Iuris Canonicis, 1983, canon 332 §2 reads here: “muneri suo renuntiet

7  “But there is definite uncertainty about the exact meaning of another phrase of canon 332.2 which asserts that a Pope’s resignation has to be ‘properly manifested.’  …In the end, therefore, it wouldn’t really matter, so long as the Pope’s decision was expressed clearly, i.e., neither ambiguously nor secretly.” https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/01/03/can-a-pope-everresign/

8  Cf. https://fromrome.info/2020/01/12/benedicts-end-game-is-to-save-the-church-from-freemasonry/

____________

CREDITS:  The text of Dr. Mazza is republished here with his kind permission. The Featured Image is a photo of Pope Benedict XVI reading his Declaratio, on Feb. 11, 2013, in the Sala Clementina. Photo by Vatican Press.

+ + +

 

 

 

What I think a Priest should really be like

FromRome.Info is beginning today a series of personal testimonies from laymen and laywomen on the priesthood, which lies at the core of their faith in Jesus Christ. Each testimony is written to remind us of all of the high ideal of the priesthood, to restore that ideal in the mind of each of us, and to inspire a future generation of vocations to take up that call. This first testimony is:

by Andrew J. Baalman

Today’s Priest is not how the Church Fathers, especially Saint John Chrysostom with Saint Basil writing in the book On The Priesthood and by Saint Ambrose, On The Duties Of The Clergy, has taught.

These two books, plus the book by Blessed Columba Marmion, Christ The Ideal Of The Priest, and the Great Dominican Thomist Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, The Priest In Union With Christ.

Teach something totally different to how priests are today, today from what I see on Twitter of Priests, worrying about vacations, breaks, time off, being social workers. This is not who a Priest is.

When re-discerning the call to Holy Orders I know I received when I was very young, after hearing different testimonial videos that Mother Angelica did for EWTN of priests when they heard the call, and it was mostly when they were young.  When I did play Masses, the entire Mass was memorized, each part done with care, reverence and proper, after it was over; our wonderful now retired parish priest, came by as he always did to all his flock and checking up on them; and he saw me, and these words “Do you want to be a Priest?”  As a kid, I answered, “I don’t know.”

After my first year of college, nearly lost the faith, but thanks to my mom, it caught fire and bam! I heard those words again, and knew the answer was “Yes!” I contacted the Chancery Office of the Salina Diocese in Salina Kansas, the bishop responded, now Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City; “to study the faith even more deeply.”  What books did I go after? The Church Fathers, first book I bought, The City of God by Saint Augustine of Hippo. The first book I read, On The Priesthood by Saint John Chrysostom and then On The Duties Of The Clergy by Saint Ambrose, then those other two books.

These books taught me what a Priest is to be, not what the Priesthood is today and it got me shunned and rejected by religious orders and our diocese.

Today, the Priest is about comfort, taking it easy, not rocking the boat and causing problems by telling the truth and exposing evil.  But a Priest is to imitate Christ in all things, his heart is to be so transformed into the heart of Jesus, that when he is seen by someone, they are to not recognize him, but Christ; as a visitor to Ars mentioned when he saw Saint John Vianney.

The priest is to be a servant, to not please people, to not say things to be accepted, to be shunned, rejected as Christ was, always telling the Truth, no matter the cost to his reputation, and getting souls to Heaven.  Now, a Priest as I mentioned in the beginning, he worries and wonders when his vacation will be, but if he is to imitate Christ from his very ordination, he has no breaks, he never sleeps, always at prayer, always doing his job in saving souls, offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, teaching and instructing the faithful in the Authentic Faith, calling out heretics, defending souls from error!

If a Priest today would do this, the Church would be in a better position than it is now, all these open heretics professing apostate doctrines would be rejected, renounced, and silenced, but the Priest today has no spine, no courage, because they are afraid and are no longer servants to Christ and no longer imitate the Real Christ, but a Christ they have formed through heretical study they were taught in seminary.

There are a small handful of Priests who still are good, true servants of Christ, but mostly, their patron saint is not Saint John Vianney, but Judas and that is how far the Sacrament of Holy Orders has fallen.

Saint John Vianney shows the way

Who should a Priest really be like?  Saint John Vianney and imitate him in all things that he did as a priest and use his sermons.

Easy, the books on his life.

The first book, ‘The Cure Of Ars: Patron Saint Of Parish Priests: by Fr. Bartholomew J. O’ Brien.

In this book, you learn how he developed such a strict life of prayer and penance, how he prayed all night long, about how he converted Ars France, every little detail on how to imitate Saint John Vianney, is in this little book!

The second book, ‘The Little Catechism The Cure Of Ars: by Saint Jean-Marie Baptiste Vianney

This is pretty much the Catechism he used and created to instruct the Faithful in the Catholic Faith!

The Autobiography: “The Cure D’Ars : St. Jean Marie-Baptiste Vianney by Francois Trochu

Then His Sermons: The Sermons Of The Cure Of Ars: By Jean Baptiste Marie Vianney

Then His Sermons For All Sundays and Feasts Of The Year: By Saint Jean Baptiste Marie Vianney

Just follow the books, imitate Saint John Vianney one hundred percent, get you and your flock to heaven, that is all you have to do!

This essay has been reprinted from A.J.’s Blog at Ordo Militaris Radio, here and here.

If you would like to submit your own essay on the Catholic Priesthood and what it means to you, please leave a comment, indicating your interest or the url of your blog post.

+ + +

 

Viganò reveals the friendship between Maciel and Cardinal Sandri, who will oversee the next Conclave

logo

by Marco Tosatti

Authorized English Translation by FromRome.Info

READ THE ORIGINAL IN ITALIAN AT MARCOTOSATTI.COM

Dear Friends and Enemies of Stilum Curiae, we offer you today an extremely interesting document from the ex-Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, regarding one of the recent nominations by the Bridge-Builder: that of Cardinal Leonardo Sandi, as Vice Deacon of the College of Cardinals.  It will be Leonardo Sandri, who at 76 years of age, who will oversee in reality the functions of the Dean of the Conclave, Giovanni Battista Re, who being 85 years of age cannot participate.  It is a nomination which has stunned us, seeing that Leonardo Sandri was the Sostituo to the Secretary of State (then, Cardinal Sodano) when there was published the unsigned “note” in which it was affirmed there was no ongoing investigation against Marcial Maciel, the diabolic founder of the Legionaires of Christ.  Moreover, the good will of the reigning Pontiff towards Sandri is extraordinary. He has already completed two tours of duty of 5 years each, since 20o7, as Prefect of the Congregation for Oriental churches (and is in the middle of a third) and has completed 76 years, when 75 is already the limit imposed for heads of the Dicasteries and for Bishops. But let us read what Archbishop Viganò has written:

§§§

The Faithful have the right to know

We have just been witnesses to one of the most indecent episodes where we have looked upon the work of the prince of lies intent upon falsifying the book of Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah, by covering them with ignoble insults and vulgar insinuations, by means of the actions of the papal prison guard, who is now serving as a hit-man.  And now again we find him to be involved in another masterpiece of trickery: the confirmation on the part of the Bridge-Builder in the election of Cardinal Bishops and of the new Dean and Vice-Dean of the College of Cardinals.  These acts have passed unobserved, while they conceal a subtle strategy.  It is necessary to keep in mind, indeed, that in June of 2019, Papa Francesco increased the number of Cardinal Bishops, which had remained unchanged for centuries, by promoting 4 new ones at a single stroke. In this manner he insured for himself a majority favorable to himself, a thing which he has always done with new members of the College of Cardinals.

To Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, named Dean at the age of 86, but excluded form the next Conclave, I wish a longer life than his father. But his nomination is a cover for the more decisive one – that of Cardinal Sandri – who is now positioned to steer the next Conclave secundum Franciscum, that is, according to the updated and augmented version of the Mafia of St. Gall.

With Cardinal Leonardo Sandri I am bound by a long friendship, which had its beginning in the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, and then throughout 11 years in the same office as secretary to the Sostituto of the Secretary of State, and then 7 years of collaboration, from when he returned from a mandate as Nuncio to Mexico, after only 6 months, and was named the Sostotuto.

Amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas — This maxim, attributed to Aristotle, and then taken up by Plato in regard to Socrates, and successively by Cicero, is explained in this way by Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Sententia libri Ethicorum, Book 1, Lesson 6, nn. 4-5:

Quod autem oporteat veritatem praeferre amicis, ostendit hac ratione. Quia ei qui est magis amicus, magis est deferendum. Cum autem amicitiam habeamus ad ambo, scilicet ad veritatem et ad hominem, magis debemus veritatem amare quam hominem, quia hominem praecipue debemus amare propter veritatem et propter virtutem… Veritas autem est amicus superexcellens cui debetur reverentia honoris; est etiam veritas quiddam divinum, in Deo enim primo et principaliter invenitur. Et ideo concludit, quod sanctum est praehonorare veritatem hominibus amicis.

In my own translation, it goes like this:

Then, that it be necessary to prefer truth to friends, is demonstrated with this reckoning. To him to whom one is more a friend there goes greater honor.  Being friends of both, that is, of truth and of neighbor, we ought to love more the truth than our neighbor, because we ought to love the neighbor above all according to truth and virtue. Truth, indeed, is the most excellent friend to which one owes the reverence of honor. Truth is something of the divine, it finds itself in the first seat, and in its first principle in God.  From which one must conclude, that it is something holy to prefer the honor of truth to friends.

Moreover, what constrains me to write about Cardinal Leonardo Sandri is inspired solely by the friendship which binds me to him for nearly 50 years, for the good of his soul, for the love of the Truth which is Christ Himself and for the Church His Bride, whom we have served together.

In the first audience which Francis conceded to me after that which I already mentioned on June 23, 2013, in which he asked me about Cardinal McCarrick, he asked me a similar question: “What is Cardinal Sandri like?” Struck with surprise by that question in regard to my dear friend, I did not reply out of embarrassment. Francis, then, opened his hands and moved them up and down like scales — as if to say: “Which one is heavier?” — and he looked me straight in the eyes to see if I agreed.  In reply, I moved to confide in him: “Holy Father, I do not know if you know that the Nuncio Justo Mullor, President of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, was removed from the Apostolic Nunciature in Mexico because he opposed the directives coming from the Secretary of State aimed at covering for the grave accusations against Marcial Maciel”. I said this to the pope, so that he might reckon it for an eventual remedy to the injustice which Mons. Mullor suffered for not joining in the compromise, for remaining faithful to the truth and for his love of the Church. And this is the truth, which we reaffirm to the honor of this faithful servant of the Holy See, on the tomb of which I celebrated a Holy Mass in suffrage, in the Cathedral of Almeria, Spain.

I have already written in my first testimonial that the principal responsible for covering the misdeeds committed by Maciel was the then Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the recent acceptance of whose own resignation as Dean of the College of Cardinals was tied to his being implicated in the affair with Maciel. He, in addition to having protected Maciel, was certainly not outside of the loop in regard to the promotion of McCarrick … In the mean time, it is just that it be known that Cardinal Francis Arinze duly opposed himself, inside the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to the attempt by Sodano to coverup the case of Maciel.

Unfortunately for him, even Sandri let himself be involved by Sodano in this coverup operation for the horrible misdeeds of Maciel.  To replace Mons. Mullor in Mexico City, it was necessary to name someone securely loyal to Sodano. Sandri had already given proof as Assessor of the Secretary of Sate. And so, the Nuncio in Venezuela, who was only there for 2 years, was transferred to Mexico. Of these shady maneuvers, which the ones in charge qualified as normal events, I was a direct witness in a conversation held by them on January 25, 2000, the Feast of Saint Paul, while we were on our way to the Basilica which bears the Saint’s name, for the closure of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.  The connection of these dates for the transfers is also significant: June 19, 2000, the transfer to Moscow of Mons. Giorgio Zur, after being President of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy for only 1 year; February 11, 2000, the nomination of Mons. Justo Mullor as President of the same Academy, after having been only 2 and a half years in Mexico; March 1, 2000, the transfer to Mexico of Mons. Sandri after only 2 and a half years spent in Venezuela. Only six months after this, on Sept 16, 2000, Sandri was promoted to the position of Sostituto of the Secretary of State, as the right hand man of Sodano.

The Legionaires of Christ did not omit to show Sandri their thanks. In the occasion of a pranzo held in the Paul VI Hall in honor of the Cardinals created in the consistory of Nov. 24, 2007, among whom was Sandri himself, we were left shocked when he cut in front of me as I stood in line to speak with Pope Benedict, as the Pope was making his entrance, saying: “Holy Father, excuse me, but I cannot stay for Pranzo, as I am the invited guest of 500 Legionaries of Christ.”

Look how Francis, after having repeatedly and obsessively indicated as the cause of sexual abuse a very vaguely defined “clericalism”, to avoid in this way denouncing the plague of homosexuality, has himself exhibited the worst kind of clericalism, which he has accused others of: to promote Sandri, the Cardinal-Priest in May 2018 to being Cardinal-Bishop only one month later, so that he might be able to name him as Vice-Dean of the College of Cardinals, as the candidate chosen beforehand by Francis to preside over the next Conclave.

The Faithful have the right to know of these sordid intrigues in a corrupt court. In the heart of the Church, it seems to us, there has invaded the shadow of the synagogue of Satan (Apocalypse 2:9).

+ Carlo Maria Viganò

Arciv. tit. di Ulpiana

Nunzio Apostolico

This is an authorized English translation of the Italian Original

from MARCOTOSATTI.COM

logo

Marco Tosatti — Harvard & the Church: Lower the quality to guarantee failure

Pezzo-B-700x221-700x221

 




by Marco Tosatti

Authorized English translation by FromRome.Info

PG, HARVARD, LA CHIESA: ABBASSARE LA QUALITÀ FA FALLIRE….

January 19, 2020

Dear Friends of Stilum curiali, Mr. Big Shot went to Mass, and has returned.  Imagine him with ears still ringing … he eats a quick light lunch, and sets to writing. Thus, he sends us this commentary, hot and spicy like an American hot-dog (you will understand the reference, shortly) … Have a good read and ponder what he is saying:

§§§

In his homily this morning at Mass, the priest gave a long description of the divisions which exist among religions (which according to him have the same god), among monotheistic religions (even worse), among Christians (worst of all) and finally among Catholics, where there are sects of Traditionalists which oppose the Roman Pontiff (the unforgivable sin).

Finally, he concluded, that we ought to understand and act accordingly. Not by converting, but by going forth, listening, understanding and opening up to others.

And so, I propose to you a simile, which I hope is able to make you understand, appreciate and put what he says into practice.

At Harvard University, they tell this tale to first year students studying for a M.B.A., to not act like know-it-alls as soon as they master the concept of strategic business planning.

So that they wake up to the fact that by erring in a strategic diagnosis and acting on that basis, they can provoke exactly the mistakes which they intended to avoid in the decision making process.

The lesson (spoiler alert!) for us Catholics is that, in erring about the moral diagnosis of how the world imagines itself to have evolved thanks to science and technology; in thinking that we should, therefore, relativize our own Faith so that it is no longer contradicted by the world or discords with other beliefs: we risk well not only to lose the Faith itself, but also to become worthless for anything, and not even serve a purpose for our fellow man.

With a greater risk, in consequence, of being despised even more by other religions which are presently conquering us.  The tale to be reflected upon is this (I will give the shortest possible version):

We are back in the U.S.A. in the Fifties, and a smart European immigrant, with a great sense of entrepreneurship, having understood how to satisfy those in need of a lunch on Wall Street, starts a food service (on a moveable cart) which sells hot dogs.

He furnishes himself with the best quality products (sausage, bread and mustard), sets a more than adequate price and is courteous and kind to his clientel.

After about ten years he is the undisputed leader on Wall Street, with the longest lines of customers (though served quickly) at his already numerous food carts in the quarter.

One of his employes, who argued with him (over pay) begins a rival business to compete with him, but at low cost.

Another 10 years pass by, and our businessman has sent his own son to Harvard with the intention of developing a plan to grow the business and go public on the Stock Exchange (notwithstanding his low cost competitor).

His son having graduated from Harvard, the father asks him to make a strategic analysis and formulate a strategic plan for the family business, including how to deal with competitors and assure a future success.  His son, six months later, calls his father and explains to him that their business will be unsustainable in the future, destined to failure.  Wall Street has grown and changed. Their traditional clientele, according to the son’s diagnosis (mistaken), will have less money to spend, have lower expectations, and are presently receiving a quality way above the price they are paying. And not only that.  The first low-cost competitor will continue to maintain his market share and will grow it into other lines by offering products which are increasingly edgy in quality.  Other competitors, even at a lower cost will appear on every street corner.

According to the son, now is the time to change the business model and to adapt to the market, instead of leading it: lower quality ingredients and products, less service and hence lower prices, more competitive with competitors.

Having heeded his son’s advice, the conclusion becomes obvious six months later: the father is forced to close the business.  And the son has the last word: “Dad, I told you that this business was unsustainable…”

I hope I have illustrated by this simile what will happen to our Church, which already endured the competition of the Protestant Reformation and yet never understood the challenges of the modern world, by adapting Herself instead of taking a leadership position by teaching that Catholic morality is the best, the truest and the one which is valid and indispensable in every time and circumstance.   To adapt Herself to the supposed pretensions of the world means to admit that She is unable to form man to live in the world without becoming attached to the world; that She has not been able to convert him.  But the present reality is only the consequence of bad doctrine and false teaching.  To recognize that all the religions of the world are equal, means that one has not only lost the Faith and wants to lose mankind, but also that he wants broker at a discount with belief in a god of relativism, with beliefs without God, and with superstitions.  This is why the present world, disillusioned with a Church which is thinking like this, looks with hope to a Ratzinger, who has woken from slumber, in his declaration of Faith with Cardinal Sarah, and in Viganò’s denunciations of corruption. And is exulting in them.

(This is an authorized English translation of)

PG, HARVARD, LA CHIESA: ABBASSARE LA QUALITÀ FA FALLIRE….

 

 




 

Marco Tosatti — The Book on Celibacy: Shall Parolin Open an Inquest?

MARCOTOSATTI.COM

by Marco Tosatti

January 18, 2020

Authorized English translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Dear readers of Stilum Curiae,

After the visit [on Friday evening, January 17] of Cardinal Robert Sarah to Benedict XVI, and his declarations [on Twitter], the same “Monsignor X” who wrote us a few days ago has offered us another intervention. He appears justly indignant at what is happening in the Vatican, and in particular among the journalists of the Vatican court. And he makes an interesting proposal….

§§§

“Because of the incessant, nauseating, and untrue controversies that have never stopped since the beginning of the week concerning the book “From The Depths of Our Hearts,” this evening [Friday, January 17, 2020] I met with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. +RS. With Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, we have been able to certify that there is no misunderstanding between us. I left very happy, full of peace and courage from this beautiful audience. +RS”

Friends of Stilum Curiae,

who was responsible for the this attempt to harm Cardinal Sarah and Benedict XVI? I pray you take note of the expression used by Cardinal Sarah to connote the facts:

“Incessant, nauseating and untrue.”

I realize that it will be a waste of time, as was true with the Dubia and the Correctio Filialis, but do we want to call for an investigation?

Shall we ask Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin to create an Investigative Commission that will shed light on an affair that has sought to defame the reputation of the Pope Emeritus and a most eminent Cardinal?

The expression of Sarah – “nauseating” – struck me. Something nauseating – that is, which provokes nausea and generates a sense of repulsion, disgust, and contempt – is attributed to an immoral person, who therefore arouses a feeling of repulsion.

Since we know how much Cardinal Sarah weighs his words, it is now indispensable to identify this immoral person who is going around in the Vatican, in the Catholic Church.

It will not be easy to find this exact “specific” immoral person, given the number and variety of immoral people who are behind the Sacred Walls of the Vatican, disguised as priests or as expert journalists of communications services, rather than experts in theology or liturgy.

But someone who has experience in such investigations ought to be able to identify him. They could entrust the oversight of this Investigative Commission to Cardinal Herranz, the former president of the Herranz Commission, which was convened by Benedict XVI to shed light on Vatileaks I, which in 2012 discovered intricacies and conspiracies, identified names and reported them secretly to Pope Benedict XVI, a few days prior to February 11, 2013. Then the Pope resigned.

And it was Don Georg Gänswein, first and personally, who hurried – surprisingly – to explain that the resignation was a decision that had been made by Pope Benedict for at least a year!!

I propose a hypothesis: that what has just happened in the matter of the Sarah – Benedict book is connected by an umbilical cord to what happened in 2012.

In short: Benedict XVI had to definitively disappear from history – and the same is true today. Because Benedict XVI was restoring the Church of Christ, which was instead destroyed, and continues to be destroyed.

Signed,

Monsignor X

See the Original at MARCOTOSATTI.COM

IL LIBRO SUL CELIBATO. PROPOSTA A PAROLIN: APRA UN’INDAGINE.

Archbishop Viganò: The hour has come to clarify the role of Gänswein

by Archbishop Carolo Maria Viganò

LAVERITA.INFO

FULL TEXT

Authorized translation of the Italian original by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Dear Editor,

It is time to reveal the control that has been abusively and systematically exercised by Msgr. Gänswein towards the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, ever since the beginning of his pontificate.

Gänswein has habitually filtered information, assuming the right to judge for himself how much or how little to tell the Holy Father.

I can testify that, when Pope Benedict received me in audience on April 4, 2011, a few days after I had sent him my first letter (later abusively published in the course of Vatileaks) I said to the Pontiff: “I will not speak to you about the situation of corruption in the administration of the Pontifical Villas, because I presume that you have already reviewed the Memorandum in this regard that I gave to your secretary for you, in view of this Audience.”

The Holy Father, in all simplicity and innocence, and without showing any surprise, said “No, I have seen nothing.”

I further testify another fact that reveals how much Msgr. Gänswein controlled information given to the Holy Father and conditioned the liberty of action of the Same. On the occasion of the canonization of Marianne Cope and Kateri Tekakwitha, having requested in writing to the then-Prefect of the Papal Household, Msgr. James Harvey, to be received in an audience with the Pope, and not having received any response, I asked the Prefect, on October 23, 2012, why I had not received any response to my request for an audience.

I recall the circumstance perfectly, because Msgr. Harvey suggested to me that I would participate in the General Audience the following day, so as to at least be able to personally greet the Holy Father with the other bishops present. Msgr. Harvey responded with the following words: “Gänswein said to me: ‘Monsignor Viganò is the last person who can approach Pope Benedict!’”

Harvey then added that at the beginning of the Pontificate, Benedict XVI, pointing at him [Gänswein] with his finger, exclaimed, “Gestapo! Gestapo!”

This unscrupulous attitude was shown from the very beginning of the pontificate in the determination with which Gänswein succeeded in distancing the Pope from his dear assistant and secretary Ingrid Stampa, whom then-Cardinal Ratzinger wanted at his side for well over a decade after the death of his sister, Maria Ratzinger.

And then I note that in order to escape from this total control exercised over his person by Gänswein, Pope Benedict often went to his previous personal secretary, Msgr Josef Clemens, also inviting to said family meeting Ingrid Stampa.

I make this declaration following what has been asserted by Msgr. Gänswein to the Ansa agency, in contradiction of what Pope Benedict himself wrote in the exchange of letters made with Cardinal Sarah. It is a sensational as well as slanderous insinuation towards the most eminent Cardinal Robert Sarah, promptly denied by the same.

 

ORIGINAL: https://www.laverita.info/padre-georg-ha-isolato-il-pontefice-emerito-2644822455.html

 

 

 

Marco Tosatti: Who is Gänswein Really? What Role Has He Played And Is He Playing?

By Marco Tosatti

15 January 2020

Authorized English translation of Italian Original by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Dear readers, we have received a message from an elderly high-ranking prelate of the Curia; he is retired, but because he has over forty years of experience working inside the Vatican walls, from time to time he is still given delicate assignments. What “Monsignor X” writes to us is extremely interesting, because it helps us to piece together some of the problematic aspects of  the events of the last 72 hours. We are speaking, naturally, of the saga of the book; and we must say that it is difficult to not consider someone to be the co-author of a book that they have written more than forty pages of, as well as collaborating in writing the introduction and conclusion. Difficult…and a bit ridiculous.

But, remaining focused on the theme of the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus, we advise you to read La Verità on Thursday morning [January 16], which will contain another testimony of great value from an archbishop who has held many important roles in the Curia and also outside the Vatican and who has been in contact with Msgr. Gänswein for a long time. Trust my advice…

 

Monsignor X to Tosatti: 

I ask you to print what I write here, with the intention of making a contribution in order to help ensure that there will not be muddling of either the figure of Benedict nor that of Sarah, who is more in danger in this whole affair.

What has been reported raises several questions:

  1. Why would a man like Sarah ever have done something so absurd and easily disproven? (It is unthinkable that this was a private and free initiative of Gänswein – he does not have the authority even to think about doing it, and it would be far too dangerous to actually do it).
  2. Who therefore asked Gänswein to give orders to Cardinal Sarah? Was it Benedict or Bergoglio? (These are Gänswein’s two superiors)

I think it is clear that it could not have been Benedict, who speaks with Sarah frequently and loves him as a brother.

But who is Gänswein? Georg Gänswein is a very intelligent man; he was the most faithful personal secretary for Benedict from the moment of his election as pope, replacing Msgr. Clemens, the former personal secretary of Cardinal Ratzinger, who remained the pope’s confidant, stirring up Gänswein’s jealousy, to the point of ending up literally getting punched for it!

My understanding is that during the period of the pontificate, Gänswein functioned as the loyal protector of the Pope and even operated as a sort of “alternative” Secretary of State, in opposition to Cardinal Bertone, with whom Benedict had bad relations.

After the resignation he was not, as people called him, “the caregiver” of Benedict XVI.

I fear that he was rather “the guardian.”

Having been a most faithful and most loyal secretary, something happened that caused a profound transformation in him.

Therefore it is not surprising that it is supposed and said that Gänswein had not been told by Benedict about this book with Sarah. Is it possible that Gänswein no longer enjoys the confidence of the Pope Emeritus?

It could also be the case, after the mysterious and never-clarified arrest of the papal butler Paolo Gabriele, accused of having photocopied private documents of Pope Benedict taken straight off of Gänswein’s desk and giving them to journalists, without “anyone” knowing…

These documents accused Cardinal Bertone, with whom Gänswein, previously, had bad relations; but which curiously improved afterwards…

But above all it is curious that Pope Bergoglio confirmed him not only as personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus but also as Prefect of the Papal Household, which is not an honorary position.

The abrupt order given [on Monday] to Cardinal Sarah to remove Ratzinger’s signature from the book – which was not given explicitly in Benedict’s name, as should have been done – may reignite various suspicions and doubts about the figure and loyalty of Gänswein.

Here is a description of the duties of the Prefect of the Papal Household, taken from the Vatican website:

It is the task of the Prefecture of the Papal Household to coordinate the services of the Antechamber and to organize the official audiences granted by His Holiness to Heads of State, Heads of Government, Governmental Ministers and other dignitaries, as well as to Ambassadors who come to the Vatican to present their Letters of Credence.

The Prefecture takes care of the preparations for all audiences – private, special and general – and visits from those who are formally received by the Holy Father. It is also responsible for arranging Pontifical ceremonies – except liturgical celebrations – as well as the Spiritual Retreat of the Holy Father, the College of Cardinals and the Roman Curia.

In addition, the Prefecture oversees the appropriate arrangements required each time the Holy Father leaves the Apostolic Palace to visit the city of Rome or travel within Italy.

(For the Italian Original, click the link below)

CHI È GAENSWEIN REALMENTE? QUALE RUOLO HA GIOCATO E GIOCA?

Antonio Socci: The Furor of the Despot Against the Catholic Pope

 

by Antonio Socci

January 14, 2020

Authorized Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino
Italian Original on Facebook

Reliable sources from inside the Vatican reconstruct the whole affair in this way. The book “Des profondeurs de nos coeurs” is clearly written by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah (as is indisputably demonstrated by the letters the two exchanged last fall made known by Sarah [on his Twitter account].) Everything was decided and agreed upon together from the beginning.

The other day – when the excerpt in defense of celibacy was issued [in Le Figaro] – the end of the world broke out in the Vatican because Bergoglio was furious. Such an authoritative pronouncement from Benedict XVI prevents him from smashing priestly celibacy, as had been his intention to do in the forthcoming Post-Synodal Exhortation.

And so BERGOGLIO PERSONALLY called Archbishop Gänswein, who is personal secretary to Benedict XVI but also Prefect of the Papal Household of Bergoglio and – furious – he ORDERED him take the name of Benedict XVI off the cover of the book (since he could not demand that the text of the book be changed).

Bergoglio demanded a complete and total disavowal. For this reason the first news that filtered through spoke of sources “close to Benedict XVI” saying that Benedict had not co-authored the book with Sarah, had not approved the cover (which said that he is the author of the work).

This however was not true and Benedict XVI could not accept saying something false, thereby implicitly accusing Cardinal Sarah of having involved him without his consent. Nor did Pope Benedict have any intention of taking back what he had written in defense of celibacy in the book.

Cardinal Sarah immediately revealed the letters the two had exchanged, which demonstrated that the book was planned by both of them, and certainly Sarah revealed these letters with the consent of Benedict XVI – in order to re-establish the truth.

On the other hand, Benedict also needed to shelter his secretary [Gänswein] from the South American “vendettas” since Gänswein had received a peremptory order from Bergoglio.

Thus a compromise solution was adopted: in the successive editions of the book the author of the book will be Cardinal Sarah “WITH THE CONTRIBUTION OF BENEDICT XVI.” The text of the book in any case remains the same.

With this messy solution the Bergoglian courtiers can tell the media that “Benedict XVI has removed his signature from the book” (even though this is not true) and yet the book remains as it was, with the signature of Sarah and the name of Benedict XVI as the author of the parts written together.

A most ugly story of clerical bullying that in the end led to the gagging of Benedict XVI.

THERE IS STILL THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION: IF BERGOGLIO, IN HIS EXHORTATION, STRIKES AT CELIBACY (BY PERMITTING THE ORDINATION OF “VIRI PROBATI”) HE PLACES HIMSELF IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH RESTATED IN THESE DAYS BY POPE BENEDICT XVI. THUS HE ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR A SERIOUS RIFT OF THE CHURCH FRAUGHT WITH CONSEQUENCES.