Tag Archives: Book on Celibacy
SSPX reluctant to fault Bergoglio, quick to attack Pope Benedict
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
I cannot be silent at the diabolic attack made against the Vicar of Jesus Christ by FSSPX.NEWS the official news outlet of the Society of Saint Pius X, founded by Archbishop Marcel-François Lefebvre, C.S.Sp. (1905 – 1991).
Little has been published about the heresies and blasphemies and idolatries of Bergoglio, the anti-pope par excellence. But within a week of the publication of a book defending priestly celibacy against Bergoglio’s fiendish plan to destroy it, there is the SSPX quick on the attack, like hounds.
You can read their absurd critique here. To say their argument is strained or in search of evidence to prove its a priori accusations, would be an accurate assessment. Let us take a look at the errors in this article:
A GRAVE DEVIATION?
The author of the article begins by attacking Pope Benedict’s declared intention of explaining the priesthood apart from the “methodological defect in the reception of Scripture as the Word of God.” Evidently the author here shows his complete ignorance of historical theology. The term “word of God” was never in the entire history of the Church prior to the 1260’s applied to Sacred Scripture. For Christians before 1260, the Word of God was only one: Jesus Christ. It was at the University of Paris that an analogy was made, based on phrases in the Old Testament which refer to revelations made to the prophets as, “the word of the Lord”, between Sacred Scripture as revealed truth and Jesus Christ as the Truth revealing.
This attribution by the Scholastics was innocent at first, but with time it became divorced from the concept of analogy and with the Reformation it became not “the word of God”, but “The Word of God”, replacing the Mass and the Most Blessed Sacrament with the Bible as the new medium of union with God, under the control of the expert layman, who dictated what Scripture meant, without reference to the Tradition of the Church.
This, since the time of the Reformation, has become indeed a grave theological and methodological error in interpreting Christianity or Sacred Scripture. And thus to fault Pope Benedict XVI for this approach is to adhere to the very errors of Luther and Bergoglio, who just made Scripture Sunday a new day of cult in his Church, with the placement of the Scriptures on the central axis of the nave of Churches, where the Eucharist and the Tabernacle had pride of place before the Council.
A FLAWED EXEGESIS
The next chapter bears a critical title, but the text does not display any substantive disagreement.
Granted that it is better to talk of offices than ministries, but it does not fundamentally alter a theological exposition which is non technical.
WORSHIP IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH
In this chapter, the author agrees, without making much of the praise due to the Holy Father for his exposition. Remarkable, as his affirmations here cut directly against the notion of the priesthood promoted during the Aggiornamento, of the priest as actor, guide and facilitator.
AN ERRONEOUS THEOLOGY?
In this chapter, the author attacks Pope Benedict for writing: “The crucifixion of Jesus is not in itself an act of worship.” And the author admits that the Pope is referring to the action of the Roman Soldiers. But nevertheless, the author goes on the attack and tries to draw the expression of the Pope over to a denial of Christ’s offering of His Passion as an act of worship. This is the absurd method of reading used by Sedevacantists. It is most unworthy of a Catholic priest or priestly society.
In truth, it is a historical fact, that the Roman Soldiers did not put Jesus Christ to death as an act of worship to the Emperor or any Roman or Greek god. Neither did the High Priests sacrifice Jesus as an act of worship of any God. So what the Pope says is perfectly correct. The pope is using “crucifixion” in its active sense, as the crucifying of Jesus, not as ‘the being crucified of Jesus.’ The one is an act of public execution, the other is the matter which Christ offered in the Holy Spirit to the Eternal Father for the Redemption of all. And I do not think you need a degree in theology to understand the difference. The former was objectively a sin, that of condemning the Just to death, the latter was a great act of Mercy, which merited the freedom from condemnation for all those destined to eternal death, who would receive His Sacrifice in faith.
When Archbishop Viganò exposed Bergoglio for covering for pedophiles, the Society was one of the last to speak on the issue. It has been seven years of continual heresies, scandals and blasphemies, but the Society rarely denounces publicly Bergoglio. Suffice it to say, that to publish such a flimsy and error-ridden attack within a week on Pope Benedict’s Book with Cardinal Sarah raises a lot of questions as to the real goals and agenda of a priestly society which still insists that all its priests offer their Masses una cum papa Francisco.
I won’t even mention that the Italian version of this released at Rome (see here) insults the Holy Father by calling him by his baptismal name at the end of the second paragraph of the essay. Nor will I mention, that which is no secret, that the big money behind the SSPX comes from Eastern Switzerland, the power base of the St. Gallen Mafia.
Marco Tosatti — The Book on Celibacy: Shall Parolin Open an Inquest?
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….
§§§
https://twitter.com/Card_R_Sarah/status/1218246777423519745
“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.
Marco Tosatti — Cardinal Sarah and Benedict XVI Book controversy
By Marco Tosatti
January 14, 2020
Authorized Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino of the Original Italian
Published Dear readers, various people have asked me to try and shed light on the argument over the publication of the book “Des Profondeurs des nos coeurs” created by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah. Here we have brought together from extremely reliable sources a series of elements that we offer to you.
Apparently nobody in the Mater Ecclesiae monastery [where Benedict XVI lives] had seen the cover of the book, and this was one of the principal problems.
The central point however to clarify is the content of the polemic that the “Bergoglio Press Team” launched from the beginning: claiming that Benedict had not been involved in writing the book, that he only put his signature on it and other such miserable insinuations. The reality is that Benedict XVI edited all of the drafts of the book, obviously his own part, but also reading and editing the part written by Cardinal Robert Sarah.
Benedict also said, and wrote, to Sarah, that he approved both the introduction and the conclusion of the book.
George Gänswein has not read the book, and this has definitely caused a problem.
The entire operation remained in the hands of Benedict and Sarah, and also the editor Nicolas Diat, who obviously took a great interest in the job, seeing it as an occasion to make this book the “important” book of Benedict XVI and Sarah, all to his glory and merit.
Thus, when the bomb went off Monday morning [which had already begun to explode on Sunday night because in America they were awake], and people like Faggioli, etc. started shooting, with a very clear intention. The focused on the cover, which Diat had published, saying that here he wanted to make an “operation against the Pope,” that is, against Pope Francis.
The objective of Faggioli etc. was to have there be no discussion of the content of the book. On Monday morning at the Mater Ecclesiae monastery they did not realize the extent of the polemic that was taking place, despite having been warned. Gänswein finally got in touch with Andrea Tornielli, who wrote an article for L’Osservatore Romano and Vatican News, referring to the ideas of Pope Bergoglio on the importance of celibacy, and seeking to throw oil on the waters that various channels were agitating, claiming among other things that Benedict XVI and Sarah had not written the book together.
The latest development, which is frankly quite incomprehensible, has come to us from the declarations of Georg Gänswein, who told a German journalist that the title needs to be changed as well as the cover. For what reason, we don’t know. Perhaps in order to protect his own position, which is definitely a complicated one, as he is the person closest to Benedict and at the same time close to Bergoglio as the Prefect of the Papal Household. In passing, we can note that among the yelps and barkings of the pro-regime press in the first hours of this controversy they were speaking of a manipulation by the “entourage” of Pope Benedict. But actually, since Benedict’s “entourage” consists of Gänswein alone, it was in the dark about everything…. But the impression is that Gänswein is trying to avoid being crushed between a rock and hard place is strong; to the point of making people believe that if some sort of push was given to Benedict, well, it only happened now and not previously.
Undoubtedly Gänswein with his declarations today places Cardinal Sarah in a difficult situation that has nothing to do with him. Sarah has conducted himself in an extremely straightforward way. All of this work on the book, however, began before the Synod on the Amazon, in September.
In September, because of the pre-synodal polemics over priestly celibacy and the question of “viri probati,” Benedict had already written fifteen reflections on the theme of celibacy. These were then included in the book.
Note that the path taken seems very similar to what happened on the occasion of the summit on clergy sexual abuse [in February 2019]. Benedict had prepared a reflection, probably with the intention of offering it as a contribution to bishops directing the summit, sending it to the reigning Pontiff and the Secretary of State. But it remained there [and was never presented at the summit], and it was published a few months later in a German journal that focuses on the clergy.
Once again, it seems interesting and important to repeat: these paper polemics have moved all of our attention away from the contents of the book to its cover!
(For the Italian original click the link below)
Antonio Socci: The Furor of the Despot Against the Catholic Pope
by Antonio Socci
January 14, 2020
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.