Tag Archives: Cardinal Re

Church History, Team Bergoglio

The House of Cardinal Re

2 Comments

REPRINTED FROM JAN. 22, 2020

(Note the Date!)

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Three days after the publication of this article,
Bergoglio accepted the election of Cardinal Re as dean of the College of Cardinals

It is not easy for Catholics to understand why Cardinals do and do not do what they do. Especially in these times, when the Cardinals should be warning and reproving and taking steps to clean up the mess at the Vatican, which is leading the apostasy of the world.

For this “why” I cannot give an explanation. But understanding where Cardinals come from and to which faction in the Church they may belong, may shed some light on this “why”, however so superficial.

With this in mind, let us examine the Faction of Cardinals which has as its co-consecrator, Giovanni Battista Re, one of the most important Cardinals in the College of Cardinals, which is seen by the fact that Bergoglio selected him to be Vice-Dean of his college of cardinals on June 10, 2017. A position he has weathered despite the unceremonious demotion of the Cardinal Dean of many years, Cardinal Sodano, in December.

Let me begin by saying that Cardinal Re’s episcopal lineage does not descend from Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, the god-father of the St Gallen Mafia. It descends rather from Pope John Paul II.

Second, that Cardinal Re is an impressive Bishop in action. He has participated in over 165 Episcopal consecrations in his life time. A truly remarkable number, which makes him one of the greatest all time consecrators of bishops in the Church. This is due to the fact, that when Pope John Paul II consecrated Bishops, Cardinal Re was normally assisting as a co-consecrator, by some special arrangement of the Pope.

Normally, factions in the Church among Bishops are denoted by lineages of principal consecrators, not co-consecrators. A principal consecrator is the Bishop who presides over the consecration of a man who has been nominated to be a bishop. A co-consecrator is one of two or more Bishops who assist in the consecration of the nominated.

However, Cardinal Re was not the principal consecrator of any Bishop who later became a Cardinal. A fact which means, that no one upon whom his favor rested that much, was ever raised to the dignity of a Cardinal. However, he is the co-consecrator of 18 Cardinals, which is extraordinary. Nevertheless, this seems to be because these future Cardinals were all consecrated by Pope John Paul II, with few exceptions.

Let me list the names of those Bishops and Cardinals, in the order of the year they were co-consecrated Bishop by Cardinal Re. You might recognize someone you know:

Patriarch Michel Sabbah (1988)
Archbishop Marian Oles † (1988)
Archbishop Emery Kabongo Kanundowi (1988)
Bishop Luís d’Andrea, O.F.M. Conv. † (1988)
Bishop Victor Adibe Chikwe † (1988)
Bishop Athanasius Atule Usuh † (1988)
Bishop José Raúl Vera López, O.P. (1988)
Bishop Srecko Badurina, T.O.R. † (1988)
Bishop Luigi Belloli † (1988)
Bishop John Gavin Nolan † (1988)
José Cardinal Saraiva Martins, C.M.F. (1988)
Bishop Giuseppe Matarrese (1989) ###
Archbishop Giovanni Tonucci (1990)
Archbishop Ignazio Bedini, S.D.B. (1990)
Archbishop Mario Milano (1990)
Archbishop Giovanni Ceirano † (1990)
Archbishop Oscar Rizzato (1990)
Antonio Ignacio Cardinal Velasco Garcia, S.D.B. † (1990)
Archbishop Paul Runangaza Ruzoka (1990)
Bishop Marian Błażej Kruszyłowicz, O.F.M. Conv. (1990)
Bishop Pierre François Marie Joseph Duprey, M. Afr. † (1990)
Archbishop Domenico Umberto D’Ambrosio (1990)
Bishop Edward Dajczak (1990)
Bishop Benjamin de Jesus Almoneda (1990)
Archbishop Francesco Gioia, O.F.M. Cap. (1990)
Archbishop Edward Nowak (1990)
Archbishop Giacinto Berloco (1990)
Archbishop Erwin Josef Ender (1990)
Jean-Louis Pierre Cardinal Tauran † (1991)
Vinko Cardinal Puljić (1991)
Archbishop Marcello Costalunga † (1991)
Archbishop Osvaldo Padilla (1991)
Francisco Javier Cardinal Errázuriz Ossa, P. Schönstatt (1991)
Bishop Bruno Pius Ngonyani (1991)
Bishop Francis Emmanuel Ogbonna Okobo (1991)
Bishop Andrea Gemma, F.D.P. † (1991)
Bishop Joseph Habib Hitti (1991)
Bishop Jacinto Guerrero Torres † (1991)
Bishop Bl. Alvaro del Portillo y Diez de Sollano † (1991)
Julián Cardinal Herranz Casado (1991)
Archbishop Bruno Bertagna † (1991)
Archbishop Ernesto Maria Fiore † (1992)
Archbishop Rino Passigato (1992)
Bishop Juan Matogo Oyana, C.M.F. (1992)
Bishop Gastone Simoni (1992)
Bishop Iñaki Mallona Txertudi, C.P. (1992)
Bishop Philippe Nkiere Keana, C.I.C.M. (1992)
Bishop Benjamin David de Jesus, O.M.I. † (1992)
Bishop John Joseph Glynn † (1992)
Bishop Petar Šolic † (1992)
Michael Louis Cardinal Fitzgerald, M. Afr. (1992)
Bishop Henri Salina, C.R.A. † (1992)
Archbishop Diego Causero (1993)
Archbishop Gabriel Charles Palmer-Buckle (1993)
Elio Cardinal Sgreccia † (1993)
Bishop Henryk Marian Tomasik (1993)
Archbishop Henry Joseph Mansell (1993)
Bishop Jan Kopiec (1993)
Archbishop Alojzij Uran (1993)
Bishop Luigi Sposito † (1993)
Bishop Norbert Klemens Strotmann Hoppe, M.S.C. (1993)
Bishop Elmo Noel Joseph Perera † (1993)
Archbishop Csaba Ternyák (1993)
Archbishop Domenico De Luca † (1993) ###
Archbishop Peter Paul Prabhu † (1994)
Archbishop Peter Stephan Zurbriggen (1994)
Archbishop Jean-Paul Aimé Gobel (1994)
Bishop Julien Mawule Kouto † (1994)
Bishop Edward James Slattery (1994)
Bishop Uriah Adolphus Ashley Maclean (1994)
Bishop Emiliano Antonio Cisneros Martínez, O.A.R. (1994)
Bishop Américo do Couto Oliveira † (1994)
Bishop Christo Proykov (1994)
Archbishop Ramon Cabrera Argüelles (1994)
Bishop Ricardo Jorge Valenzuela Rios (1994)
Bishop Paolo Gillet (1994)
Bishop Antoni Józef Długosz (1994)
Archbishop Bruno Musarò (1995)
Bishop Petko Jordanov Christov, O.F.M. Conv. (1995)
Bishop Antonio Napoletano, C.SS.R. † (1995)
Bishop Zacharias Cenita Jimenez † (1995)
Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke (1995)
Bishop Javier Echevarría Rodríguez † (1995)
Bishop Pierfranco Pastore † (1995)
Bishop Stanislav Szyrokoradiuk, O.F.M. (1995)
Bishop Paweł Cieślik (1995)
Bishop Stefan Regmunt (1995)
Archbishop Charles Asa Schleck, C.S.C. † (1995)
Archbishop Luigi Ventura (1995) ###
Carlo Cardinal Caffarra † (1995)
Archbishop José Paulino Ríos Reynoso (1996)
Archbishop Riccardo Fontana (1996)
Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli (1996)
Archbishop Jaime Vieira Rocha (1996)
Kurt Cardinal Koch (1996)
Bishop Ārvaldis Andrejs Brumanis † (1996)
Bishop Antons Justs † (1996)
Archbishop Francisco Pérez González (1996)
Archbishop Richard Anthony Burke, S.P.S. (1996)
Bishop Marko Sopi † (1996)
Bishop Rafael Ramón Conde Alfonzo (1996)
Bishop Riccardo Ruotolo † (1996)
Bishop Antal Majnek, O.F.M. (1996)
Stanisław Cardinal Ryłko (1996)
Archbishop Francisco Gil Hellín (1996) ###
Archbishop Luigi Conti (1996) ###
Archbishop Luigi Pezzuto (1997)
Paolo Cardinal Sardi † (1997) Titular Bishop of Sutri, Italy
Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil, C.SS.R. † (1997)
Bishop Delio Lucarelli (1997)
Bishop Ignace Baguibassa Sambar-Talkena † (1997)
Bishop Luciano Pacomio (1997)
Archbishop Angelo Massafra, O.F.M. (1997)
Bishop Florentin Crihălmeanu (1997)
Archbishop Jean-Claude Périsset (1997)
Bishop Piotr Libera (1997)
Bishop Basílio do Nascimento (1997)
Bishop Hil Kabashi, O.F.M. (1997)
Leonardo Cardinal Sandri (1997) ###
Mario Francesco Cardinal Pompedda † (1998)
Archbishop Marco Dino Brogi, O.F.M. (1998)
Bishop Peter Kwaku Atuahene (1998)
Bishop Filippo Strofaldi † (1998)
Archbishop Wiktor Paweł Skworc (1998)
Bishop Franco Dalla Valle, S.D.B. † (1998)
Archbishop Angelito Rendon Lampon, O.M.I. (1998)
Bishop Tomislav Koljatic Maroevic (1998)
Bishop Francesco Saverio Salerno † (1998)
Archbishop Alessandro D’Errico (1999)
Archbishop Salvatore Pennacchio (1999)
Archbishop Alain Paul Charles Lebeaupin (1999)
Bishop Cesare Mazzolari, M.C.C.I. † (1999)
Bishop Pierre Trân Ðinh Tu (1999)
Bishop Rafael Cob García (1999)
Archbishop Mathew Moolakkatt, O.S.B. (1999)
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin (1999)
Bishop José Luis Redrado Marchite, O.H. (1999)
(Layman) Józef Wesołowski † (2000)
Archbishop Giacomo Guido Ottonello (2000)
Archbishop George Panikulam (2000)
Archbishop Alberto Bottari de Castello (2000)
Bishop Ivo Baldi Gaburri (2000)
Archbishop Gabriel Mbilingi, C.S.Sp. (2000)
Bishop David Laurin Ricken (2000)
Bishop Anton Coşa (2000)
Bishop András Veres (2000)
Péter Cardinal Erdő (2000)
Bishop Giuseppe Pasotto, C.S.S. (2000)
Bishop Franco Croci (2000)
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia (2000) ###
Fernando Cardinal Filoni (2001)
Archbishop Henryk Józef Nowacki (2001)
Archbishop Timothy Paul Andrew Broglio (2001)
Archbishop Domenico Sorrentino (2001)
Archbishop Tomash (Tomasz) Bernard Peta (2001)
Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo (2001)
Marc Armand Cardinal Ouellet, P.S.S. (2001)
Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi (2001)
Bishop Đura Džudžar (2001)
Bishop Fabio Fabene (2014) ###

Now look at that list again. I have colored in RED the Cardinals who were suspected as members of the group which engineered the election of Bergoglio in the uncanonical Conclave of 2013. They formed a group called by Austen Ivereigh, “Team Bergoglio”. There are at least 3, Cardinal Koch, Bishop of Basel Switzerland might be the fourth.

I have colored in Green, those who were Cardinal Electors in 2013, but whose allegiance in voting is not known. There are 7 of these, not counting Cardinal Koch.

I have colored in BLUE the men whom Bergoglio presumed to name Cardinals. I say presumed, because as an Anti-pope, he has no authority to name Cardinals (To do that you need to hold the petrine munus, which Pope Benedict clearly and textually never renounced.)  There are 2 Cardinals in this category.

Three of the Cardinals on this list are publicly known for having criticized the Bergoglian regime: Cardinal Sandri, who is rumored to have bitterly denounced Bergoglio to his face for attacking the Discipline of the Sacraments; Cardinal Caffara who was renowned for denouncing relativism (God rest his soul); and Cardinal Burke, whose reputation is such it need not be summarized here, after his numerous public statements in favor of the Eternal Faith and in criticism of the policies of Bergoglio, even if he continues to hold Bergoglio as the Pope.

The Cardinals and Bishops whose episcopal lineage descends from Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, are marked with a ### in Black (there are 3); those who descend from Cardinal de Lai, both of whose co-consecrators descend from Cardinal Rampolla, or from Cardinal Gasparri, the secretary of Cardinal Rampolla, are marked with a ### in Red (There are 5, nearly all Sodano men).

I think it is important to note, that in all the cases in which Cardinal Re is not assisting Pope John Paul II as principal consecrator, he is assisting an ally or direct descendant of Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro.

The only reasonable inference that can be made from that, is that Cardinal Re was a member of the St. Gallen Mafia, by adoption. And that would explain why he is now Vice-Dean of Bergoglio’s college of cardinals.

The fact that he was trusted by Pope John Paul II in so many ceremonies of episcopal ordination, shows that he succeed so well in gaining the confidence of the Pope that he served as a sort of minder of his activities during his pontificate. This may imply that Cardinal Re was one of the chief St. Gallen Mafia secret agents in the Vatican for many years, hiding in plain sight.

So the next time you ask why any Cardinal on this list, like Cardinal Burke, may not be doing what you want him to do, read this list and contemplate what it might mean. They might be hedging, so that in the next conclave they elect someone from the House of Cardinal Re, which, alas, might not be a good thing after all.

+ + +

Canon Law, News

My Letter to Cardinal Re

4 Comments

REPRINT FROM FEB. 9, 2020

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In January, it was announced by the Vatican, that Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re was named Dean of the College of Cardinals. Since it it the duty of the Dean to convoke the College, I wrote him a Letter in Latin to express my concerns, in accord with Canon 212, regarding the canonical status of Pope Benedict XVI, in the assumption that he may not be aware of them.

Here is the text of my letter, which he received more than 2 weeks ago:

Sua Eminentia,

Vobis scribo ex iure mihi concesso ab papa Ioanne Paolo II in canone 212, ad Vobis manifestandas inconvenientias graves in declaratione quae emissa est ab papa Benedicto XVI in Festo B. V. M. Lapurdensis anno Domini 2013.

In primis, ministerii eius renuntiatio non est conformans normae canonis 332 §2 qui renuntiationem muneris petrini requirit et hinc est actus nullus qui secundum canonem 41 neminem constringat.

Secundo, nemini licet ut interpres sit actus renuntiationis papalis, et hinc omnis interpretatio actus istius invalida ac illicita esto qui munus legat ubi ministerium scribatur.

Tertio, in dicendo ministerium et non munus vir qui est papa Benedictus XVI actum validum non ponere potest sine concessione derogationis secundum canonem 38 et hinc quia aliquid tale non fecit ut Romanus Pontifex actum irritum posuit ut vir qui est Pontifex.

Quarto, in ministerii renuntiatione et non muneris actus apparens papalis renuntiationis irritus est secundum canonem 188 per errorem substantialem quoniam essentia actus necessaria penes canonem 332 §2 est renuntiatio muneris non ministerii.

Quinto, non est libertas ad muneri renuntiandum quo renuntiatio ministerii fiat et hinc actus talis deficit ex debito canonis 332 §2 ad libere faciendum actum renuntiationis muneris et hinc invalidus est.

Sexto, non est ritualis manifestatio ubi non est manifestatio actus debiti, et quia impossibile est quod actus ministerii renuntiationis manifestet renuntiationem muneris, hinc est invalidus secundum canonem 332 §2.

Septimo, quoniam aliquot diebus post declarationis enuntiationem actus integer non habebatur, impossibile est quod actus Cardinalis Decani precedentis validus fuit ad renuntiationem papalis annuntiandam secundum normam canonis 40 et postea ad conclavem convocandam.

Octavo, omnes actiones papae Benedicti XVI per septem annos demonstrant quod Is apprehendat munus ut vocationem et gratiam nunquam abiiciendam et non ut ministerium seu officium ecclesiasticum rentuntiatum, et evidens est quod verum sit, quapropter ille nomen et indumentum et dignitatem papalem adhunc portat ut possessionem personalem, qui demonstratio est clare quod intentionem renuntiationis muneris non haberet et non habeat.

Ex totis rationibus ego supplex Vos precor Ecclesiae Sanctae Dei ut convocatio Cardinalium in praesentiae papae Benedicti XVI faciatis in tempore opportuno ad verum quaerendum in materia ista ita ut omne dubium de successione petrina tollatis pro Ecclesia Christi salute. Partibus omnibus in ista controversia eliminatio dubii istius ius et debitum est et nulli vulnera.

Gratias Vobis do pro tempore lectionis litterarum mearum,

In Sancto Francisco servus humilis papatus,

Fra’ Alexis Bugnolo

Here is my English translation of the Letter, for the benefit of the readers of FromRome.Info

Your Eminence,

I am writing you on account of the right granted me by Pope John Paul II in canon 212, to make known to you the grave problems in the Declaratio which was pronounced by Pope Benedict XVI on the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, in the year of Our Lord 2013.

First of all, His renunciation of ministry is not in conformity with the norm of Canon 332 §2 which requires the renuntiation of the Petrine Munus, and hence it is an actus nullus which according to canon 41 constrains no one.

Second, it is not licit for anyone to be the interpretor of a papal renunciation, and hence every interpretation of that act of His, which reads “munus” where “ministerium” is written, is invalid and illicit.

Third, in saying “ministerium” and not “munus” the man who is Pope Benedict XVI cannot posit a valid act without the concession of a derogation, according to canon 38, and hence because he never did any such thing, as the Roman Pontiff, he posited, as the man who is the Pontiff, an actus irritus.

Fourth, in renouncing ministry and not munus, the apparent act of papal renunciation is irritus according to canon 188 by means of a substantial error, since the essence of the act necessary under the terms of Canon 332 §2 is a renunciation of munus, not of ministerium.

Fifth, there is no liberty to renounce munus where a renunication of ministerium is made and hence such an act fails from what is due in Canon 332 §2 regarding a free act of renuncaition of munus, and hence is invalid.

Sixth, there is no due manifestation where there is no manifestation of the due act, and because it is impossible that an act of renunciation of ministerium manifest an act of renunciation of munus, hence it is invalid according to Canon 332 §2.

Seventh, since for some days after the pronouncement of the declaration the integral act was not had, it is impossible that the act of the previous Cardinal Dean was valid to announce a papal renunciation, according to the norm of Canon 40 and afterwards to convoke a conclave.

Eighth, all the actions of Pope Benedict XVI throughout the last 7 years demonstrate that he understands munus as a vocation and grace never to be rejected and not as a renounced ministerium or ecclesiastical office, and it is evident that this is true, because He bears still that Name and clothing and dignity of a pope as a personal possession, which is clearly a demonstration that he did not have nor has the intention of renouncing the munus.

For all these reasons, I humbly beg you for the sake of the Holy Church of God to call a convocation of the Cardinals in the presence of Pope Benedict XVI, at an opportune time, to seek the truth in this matter so as to bear away all doubt concerning the petrine succession for the sake of the salvation of Christ’s Church. The elimination of this doubt is the right and due to all the parties in this controversy and harms none of them.

Thank you for the time you have taken reading my letter,

In Saint Francis, a humble servant of the Papacy,

– – –

I have published this letter to encourage all of you to write to your own Cardinals and Bishops in your part of the world an urge them to the same thing. You have my permission to copy and paste the test of my Latin or English version of my letter.

As you can see, the reasons for holding that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope are the most profound and grave and are drawn entirely from Canon Law and historical facts. They are not based on unfounded opinion, misquoted texts or insults, as those of Trad Inc..

+ + +

News

Cardina Zen replies to Dean of College of Cardinals’ circular letter

10 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

On Feb. 26, Cardinal Giovanni Battisa Re, the Dean of the College of Cardinals sent a circular letter to every member of the College in response to the letter of complaint about the Vatican-China accord which Cardinal Joseph Zen, of Hong Kong, had sent likewise to every member in October of 2019.

Cardinal Re’s letter was published here and commented upon, yesterday.  Today, Cardinal Zen published his response. Here is the text and my brief comments.

First the original Italian, which I copy here from Cardinal Zen’s personal Blog, then my English translation below:

A S.E. Rev. ma Sig Card. G.B. Re

Decano del Collegio Cardinalizio

Sig. Cardinale

Mi sia permesso di usare il mezzo di una lettera aperta per una comunicazione più tempestiva.

Per via indiretta ho preso visione della sua lettera del 26 Febbraio la quale (Prot. N. 1/2020) ha anche l’onore di aver così inaugurato il suo alto ufficio di Decano del Collegio Cardinalizio.

Ammiro il suo coraggio nell’avventurarsi in questioni che Ella pure riconosce essere “complesse”, mettendo a rischio il prestigio del suo appena inaugurato onorevole ufficio. Ma si sa che oggi c’è un vicepapa che riesce a mettere coraggio a tutti i servitori nella Santa Sede.

Veniamo alla lettera.

1. Per chiarire la visione di Giovanni Paolo II e di Benedetto XVI riguardo al comunismo mi basta ora rimandarLa a pag. 161-162 del libro “ultime conversazioni” (Papa Benedetto mi fece avere una copia con la dedica “in comunione di preghiera e di pensiero”).

La domanda del giornalista Peter Seewald:

“Ha condiviso e sostenuto attivamente la Ostpolitik del papa (Giov. Paolo II)?”

Benedetto rispose: “Ne parlavamo. Era chiaro che la politica di Casaroli, per quanto attuata con le migliori intenzioni, era fallita.

La nuova linea perseguita da Giov. Paolo II era frutto della sua esperienza personale, del contatto con quei poteri.

Naturalmente allora non si poteva sperare che quel regime crollasse presto, ma era evidente che, invece di essere concilianti e accettare compromessi, bisognava opporsi con forza.

Questa era la visione di fondo di Giov. Paolo II, che io condividevo.”

2. Per provare che l’accordo firmato era già stato approvato da Benedetto XVI basta mostrarmi il testo firmato, che fino ad oggi non mi è stato concesso di vedere, e l’evidenza dell’archivio, che Ella ha potuto verificare. Rimarrebbe solo ancora da spiegare perchè allora non è stato firmato.

3. Il cambiamento “epocale” del significato della parola “indipendenza” temo che esista solo nella testa dell’eminentissimo Segretario di Stato, indotto magari da una errata traduzione dal cinese fatta dal giovane minutante della Congregazione dell’Evangelizzazione dei Popoli, ormai monoculus rex in regno caecorum, il quale fu corresponsabile anche degli almeno 10 errori nella traduzione della lettera di Papa Benedetto del 2007.

Data però l’intelligenza dell’Eminentissimo mi è difficile credere che sia stato ingannato, è più probabile che abbia voluto “lasciarsi ingannare”.

4. Non capisco l’ultima parte della sua lettera, quantomeno confusa. I fatti sono lì. Ho evidenza che Parolin manipola il Santo Padre, il quale mi manifesta sempre tanto affetto, ma non risponde alle mie domande. Davanti a delle prese di posizione della Santa Sede che non riesco a capire, a tutti i fratelli desolati che si rivolgono a me dico di non criticare chi segue quelle disposizioni. Siccome, però, nelle disposizioni si lascia ancora la libertà a chi ha una obiezione di coscienza, incoraggio questi a ritirarsi allo stato delle catacombe, senza opporsi a qualunque ingiustizia, altrimenti finirebbero per rimetterci di più.

In che ho sbagliato?

5. Sono al cento per cento d’accordo con l’invito a pregare.

Ricordo che recentemente la Santa Sede pure ha raccomandato l’invocazione alla Madonna “Sub tuum praesidium” e quella all’Arcangelo S. Michele.

Ovviamente c’è l “Oremus pro Pontifice” che conclude con “et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum ejus”.

Le auguro momenti più felici nel suo lungo servizio come Decano del Collegio Cardinalizio.

obblig, mo

Card. Zen

Now, my English translation, for those who do not read Italian:

To His Eminence, the Most Rev. Lord Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re

Dean of the College of Cardinals,

Lord Cardinal,

Permit me to use the means of an open letter as a quicker response.

Indirectly, I came to know of your letter of February 26 (Protocol number 1/2020), which also had the honor of having thus inaugurated your high office as Dean of the College of Cardinals.

I admire your courage to jump into question which You yourself recognize are “complex”, risking the prestige of your just inaugurated honorable office. But now everyone knows that there is a Vice-pope who is succeeds in encouraging all the servants of the Holy See.

Let us come to Your letter.

1. To clarify the vision of John Paul II and Benedict XVI in regard to communism, it is sufficient for me to direct your to pages 161-162 of the book, “Recent Conversations” by Pope Benedict (a copy of which he gave me with the dedication, “in a communion of prayer and thought“).

To the question of the journalist, Peter Seewald:  “Did you share and sustain actively the Ostpolitik of the pope (John Paul II)?”

Benedict replied:  “We spoke of it. It was clear that the politics of Casaroli, as much as it was implemented with the best of intentions, had failed.

“The new direction pursued by John Paul II was the fruit of his personal experience, of his contacts with those powers.

“Naturally, then, one could not hope that that regime would quickly collapse, but it was evident that, instead of being conciliatory and accepting compromises, it was necessary to oppose it with force.

“This was the basic vision of John Paul II, which I shared.”

2. To prove that the Accord as signed had been approved by Benedict XVI it would have been sufficient to show me the signed text, which even til today has not been permitted to me to see, and the evidence of the Archive (of the Secretary of State), which You were able to verify.  There would then only remain to be explained why it was not signed.

3. The “epochal” change of meaning for the word “independence”, I fear, exists only in the mind of his eminence the Secretary of State, caused perhaps by a faulty translation of the Chinese by a young clerk of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, which already has become a monoculus rex in regno caaecorum (a one eyed king in a kingdom of the blind), who was co-responsible for at least 10 errors in the translation of the Letter of Pope Benedict in 2007.

Given, however, the intelligence of His Eminence, it is difficult for me to believe that he was deceived, and more probable that he wanted to deceive others.

4. I do not understand the last part of Your letter, as much as it is confusing.  The fact are this: I have evidence that Parolin manipulated the Holy Father, who always showed me great affection, but never responded to my questions. In regard to some of the positions taken by the Holy See, which I do not manage to understand: to all the desolate brothers who turn to me, I say do not criticize those who follow those directions. For just as, however, in the directions there is still left the liberty for the one with objections of conscience, I encourage these to withdraw to the state of the catacombs, without opposing any injustice, otherwise they would end up dealing worse with us.

In this, have I erred?

5. I am 100% in agreement with the invitation to pray.

I remember that recently the Holy See also recommended the invocation to Our Lady, “Sub tuum praesidium” and that to Michael the Archangel.

Obviously, there is the “Oremus pro Pontifice” (Collect for the Holy Father) which concludes “et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius” (and do not hand him over to the desire of his enemies).

I wish for you happier moments in your long service as Dean of the College of Cardinals.

With respect,

Card. Zen

Read the letter again to see the subtle irony used by the Chinese Cardinal. The Dean will serve only 4 years as such, before he must retire, and his admiration for the courage of the Dean to enter into questions which are not his competence. He also refers to the fact that the Dean did not share with him his backstabbing circular letter. This is one mad Chinese Cardinal.

Cardinal Zen also called Cardinal Re’s bluff and demanded the evidence of the Papal Signature by Pope Benedict. He also pointed out that he has intelligence on how the document was prepared on the basis of intentionally faulty translations.

In short, Cardinal Zen just dropped the bomb on Parolin and Re, and exposed them both as clumsy liars. The real implication of his letter, then, in wishing a long career to Cardianl Re is to say that Re has just doomed himself in the eyes of the members of the College as not reliable nor trustworthy, which are the key requirements to remain Dean.

___________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screenshot of the header image of Cardinal Zen’s blog, used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary, and with the text of the open letter, with the presumed permission of His Eminence.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

Dean of College of Cardinals attacks Cardinal Zen in public letter

11 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I had put some hope in Cardinal Re, I see that my hope was greatly misplaced. Here is my English translation of the Letter of the Cardinal Dean, made public today, attacking Cardinal Zen for denouncing the betrayal of Catholics in China. By this Letter Cardinal Re has definitively joined the dark side. First the Italian original, then my own English translation.  Prot. N. 1/2020 means that this is the very first letter Cardinal Re has written in his capacity as Dean of the College.

Vaticano, 26 febbraio 2020
Prot. N. 1/2020

Signor Cardinale,

Con riferimento ai vari interventi pubblici del Card. Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, S.D.B., e in particolare alla lettera del 27 settembre 2019, che il Vescovo emerito di Hong Kong ha inviato a noi membri del Collegio cardinalizio, sento il dovere di condividere alcune considerazioni e di offrire elementi che favoriscano una serena valutazione di questioni complesse riguardanti la Chiesa in Cina.

Desidero anzitutto far risaltare che, nell’approccio alla situazione della Chiesa cattolica in Cina, c’è una profonda sintonia di pensiero e di azione degli ultimi tre Pontefici, i quali – nel rispetto della verità – hanno favorito il dialogo tra le due Parti e non la contrapposizione. In particolare essi avevano in mente la delicata e importante questione della nomina dei Vescovi.

Cosi San Giovanni Paolo II, se da una parte favorì il ritorno alla piena comunione dei Vescovi consacrati illecitamente nel corso degli anni a partire dal 1958, e nel contempo fu suo desiderio sostenere la vita delle comunità “clandestine” che erano guidate da Vescovi e sacerdoti “non ufficiali”, dall’altra promosse l’idea di pervenire a un Accordo formale con le Autorità governative sulla nomina dei Vescovi. Tale Accordo, la cui stesura ha preso molto tempo, più di un ventennio, è stato poi firmato a Pechino il 22 settembre 2018.

Il Card. Zen varie volte ha affermato che sarebbe stato meglio nessun Accordo piuttosto che un “brutto Accordo”. I tre ultimi Pontefici non hanno condiviso tale posizione e hanno sostenuto e accompagnato la stesura dell’Accordo che, al momento attuale, è parso l’unico possibile.

In particolare, sorprende l’affermazione del Porporato che «l’accordo firmato è lo stesso che Papa Benedetto aveva, a suo tempo, rifiutato di firmare». Tale asserzione non corrisponde a verità. Dopo aver preso conoscenza di persona dei documenti esistenti presso l’Archivio Corrente della Segreteria di Stato, sono in grado di assicurare a Vostra Eminenza che Papa Benedetto XVI aveva approvato il progetto di Accordo sulla nomina dei Vescovi in Cina, che soltanto nel 2018 è stato possibile firmare.

L’Accordo prevede l’intervento dell’autorità del Papa nel processo di nomina dei Vescovi in Cina. Anche a partire da questo dato certo, l’espressione “Chiesa indipendente” non può più essere interpretata in maniera assoluta, come “separazione” dal Papa, così come avveniva in passato.

Purtroppo, c’è lentezza nel trarre in loco tutte le conseguenze che discendono da tale cambiamento epocale sia sul piano dottrinale che su quello pratico e permangono tensioni e situazioni dolorose. È impensabile, d’altra parte, che un Accordo parziale – l’Accordo tocca, infatti, solo il tema della nomina dei Vescovi – cambi le cose quasi in maniera automatica e immediata anche negli altri aspetti della vita della Chiesa.

Il Card. Zen, valutando gli “Orientamenti Pastorali della Santa Sede circa la registrazione civile del Clero in Cina”, del 28 giugno 2019, scrive: «Si firma un testo contro la fede e si dichiara che l’intenzione è di favorire il bene della comunità, un \evangelizzazione più adeguata, la gestione responsabile dei beni della Chiesa. Questa norma generale è ovviamente contro ogni principio di moralità. Se accettata, giustificherebbe l’apostasia» (vedi “Dubia”). Gli “Orientamenti Pastorale”, al contrario, sono stati pensati proprio per salvaguardare la fede in situazioni talmente complicate e difficili da porre in crisi la coscienza personale.

Il Porporato, poi, nella sua lettera parla anche dell’ «uccisione della Chiesa in Cina da parte di chi dovrebbe proteggerla e difenderla dai nemici» e, in particolare, in un’intervista, si rivolge ai cattolici con queste parole: «attendete tempi migliori, tornate alle catacombe, il comunismo non è eterno» (“New York Times”, 24 ottobre 2018). Si tratta, purtroppo, di affermazioni molto pesanti che contestano la stessa guida pastorale del Santo Padre anche nei confronti dei cattolici “clandestini”, nonostante che il Papa non abbia mancato di ascoltare ripetute volte l’Em.mo Cardinale e di leggere le sue numerose missive.

Caro confratello, questo sofferto intervento del Card. Zen ci aiuta a comprendere quanto sia ancora difficile il cammino della Chiesa in Cina e quanto complessa la missione dei Pastori e del Santo Padre! Siamo, pertanto, tutti chiamati a unirci strettamente a Lui e a pregare intensamente affinché lo Spirito Santo lo sostenga e sostenga le comunità della Chiesa cattolica in Cina, che pur nella sofferenza da lungo tempo mostrano la loro fedeltà al Signore, nel cammino della riconciliazione, dell’unità e della missione a servizio del Vangelo.

Augurando ogni bene, cordialmente saluto

Card Re

English translation:

Lord Cardinal,

With reference to diverse public statements by Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, S. D. B., in particular to his letter of September 17, 2019, which he send as Bishop Emeritus of Hong Kong to us members of the College of Cardinals, I feel the duty to share some considerations and to offer my own contributions which fvor a serene evaluation of these complex questions in regard to the Church in China.

I desire, first of all, to point out, that in the approach to the situation of the Catholic Church in China, there is a pround agreement of thought and of action among the last three Pontiffs, which — in respect of the truth — has favored dialogue between the two Parties and not their opposition. In particular, they had in mind the delicate and important question of the nomination of Bishops.

Thus, Saint John Paul II, if he favored in part the return to full communion of the Bishops illicitly consecrated in the course of the years beginning in 1958, and at the same time had the desire to support the life of the “underground” community which was led by “un-official” Bishops and priests, on the other hand he promoted the idea of arriving at a formal Accord with the governing Authorities on the nomination of Bishops. Such an Accord, the composition of which took much time, more than 20 years, was signed at Peking on Sept. 22, 2018.

Cardinal Zen has affirmed several times that no Accord would have been better than a  “brutal Accord”.  The last three Pontiffs did not share such a position and have supported and accompanied the crafting of the Accord which, at the present, appeared to be the only one possible.

In particular, the affirmation of the Cardinal that “the signed accord is the same which Pope Benedict had, in his own time, refused to sign” is a surprising one. Such an assertion does not correspond to the truth. After having taken cognizance of the documents existing in the Current Archive of the Secretary of State, I am able to assure Your Eminence that Pope Benedict XVI approved the project of the Accord on the nomination of Bishops in China, which was only able to be singed in 2018.

The Accord foresees the intervention of the authority of the Pope in the process of nominations of Bishops in China. Even from this certain fact, the expression, “independent Church” cannot be interpreted in an absolute manner, as “separation” from the Pope, as it has been in the past.

Unfortunately, there is a delay in seeing all the consequences in practice which derive from such an epochal change both on the doctrinal plane and on the practical one and there remain tensions and sorrowful situations.  It is unthinkable, on the other hand, that a partial Accord — the Accord touches upon, in fact, only the theme of the nomination of Bishops — changes the things as if in an automatic and immediate manner even in the other aspects of the life of the Church.

Cardinal Zen, in evaluating the “Pastoral Orientations of the Holy See on civil registration of the Clergy in China”, of June 28, 2019, writes: “A test contrary to the Faith is signed and it declares that the intention is to favor the good of the community, a more adequate evangelization, a responsible care of the goods of the Church.  This general norm is obviously against every principle of morality. If accepted, it would justify apostasy” (see “Dubia”) The “Pastoral Orientations”, on the contrary, have been thought out precisely to safeguard the Faith in such complicated and difficult situations which would put personal conscience in a crisis.

The Cardinal, then, in his letter speaks also of the “slaughter of the Church in China by the party which should protect Her and defend Her from Her enemies” and, in particular, in an interview, addresses Catholics with these words: “wait for better times, return to the Catacombs, communism is not eternal” (New York Times, Oct. 24, 2018). This deals, unfortunately, with very heavy affirmations which contest the very pastoral guide of the Holy Father even in his relations with “underground” Catholics, not withstanding that the Pope has not omitted to listen repeatedly to the Eminent Cardinal and to read his numerous missives.

Dear confrere, this anguished intervention of Cardinal Zen helps us to understand how much the path of the Church in China is still difficult and how complex is the mission of Shepherds and of the Holy Father!  Consequently, we are all of us called to be closely united with Him and to pray intensely so that the Holy spirit support HIm and support the communities of the Catholic Church in China, which although suffering for a long time, shows their fidelity to the Lord, in the path of reconciliation, of unity and of mission in the service of the Gospel.

Wishing you all good, I cordially salute you,

Cardinal Re 

This letter is an outrage. It claims that the heretical and schismatic church is part of the Catholic Church, that the disagreement it has with the underground Church is a mutual fault which needs to be reconciled, and that the betrayal of 30 million Catholics to the wolves who wish to devour them is a work of the Holy Spirit and was approved by Pope Benedict!

Notice, he says he makes this statement on the basis of documents in the Secretary of State, while omitting whether he spoke with Pope Benedict XVI. If what he says is true, why not have Benedict XVI verbally confirm it?

It further attempts to exploit the pleas of Cardinal Zen to support the disastrous accord. Finally, it is the epitome of presumption to lecture a Chinese Cardinal about affairs in China and pretend that the Accord is something good for the Church.

I think it is very clear from this letter, which is the side chosen by Cardinal Re, and I fully believe that if there are any sane men left in the College of Cardinals that this letter will cause an uproar in the next consistory.

If the Cardinal truly means what he says, I dare him to propose the same kind of agreement for the nomination of Bishops with president Trump of the USA. The implication of this letter is that Marxism is good for the Church and that force to make Catholcis comply with Marxism is good for the faithful. Get ready for world wide persecution initiated by the Vatican! This letter is therefore most ominous.

___________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is copyright by ClearWisdom.net, and is taken from here. It shows what happens to anyone who is caught practicing an un approved religion or religioius discipline in China. It shows to undercover policement forcible siezing a praticioner of Falun Gong in Tianamen Square, Peking.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Canon Law, News

My Letter to Cardinal Re

8 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In January, it was announced by the Vatican, that Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re was named Dean of the College of Cardinals. Since it it the duty of the Dean to convoke the College, I wrote him a Letter in Latin to express my concerns, in accord with Canon 212, regarding the canonical status of Pope Benedict XVI, in the assumption that he may not be aware of them.

Here is the text of my letter, which he received more than 2 weeks ago:

Sua Eminentia,

Vobis scribo ex iure mihi concesso ab papa Ioanne Paolo II in canone 212, ad Vobis manifestandas inconvenientias graves in declaratione quae emissa est ab papa Benedicto XVI in Festo B. V. M. Lapurdensis anno Domini 2013.

In primis, ministerii eius renuntiatio non est conformans normae canonis 332 §2 qui renuntiationem muneris petrini requirit et hinc est actus nullus qui secundum canonem 41 neminem constringat.

Secundo, nemini licet ut interpres sit actus renuntiationis papalis, et hinc omnis interpretatio actus istius invalida ac illicita esto qui munus legat ubi ministerium scribatur.

Tertio, in dicendo ministerium et non munus vir qui est papa Benedictus XVI actum validum non ponere potest sine concessione derogationis secundum canonem 38 et hinc quia aliquid tale non fecit ut Romanus Pontifex actum irritum posuit ut vir qui est Pontifex.

Quarto, in ministerii renuntiatione et non muneris actus apparens papalis renuntiationis irritus est secundum canonem 188 per errorem substantialem quoniam essentia actus necessaria penes canonem 332 §2 est renuntiatio muneris non ministerii.

Quinto, non est libertas ad muneri renuntiandum quo renuntiatio ministerii fiat et hinc actus talis deficit ex debito canonis 332 §2 ad libere faciendum actum renuntiationis muneris et hinc invalidus est.

Sexto, non est ritualis manifestatio ubi non est manifestatio actus debiti, et quia impossibile est quod actus ministerii renuntiationis manifestet renuntiationem muneris, hinc est invalidus secundum canonem 332 §2.

Septimo, quoniam aliquot diebus post declarationis enuntiationem actus integer non habebatur, impossibile est quod actus Cardinalis Decani precedentis validus fuit ad renuntiationem papalis annuntiandam secundum normam canonis 40 et postea ad conclavem convocandam.

Octavo, omnes actiones papae Benedicti XVI per septem annos demonstrant quod Is apprehendat munus ut vocationem et gratiam nunquam abiiciendam et non ut ministerium seu officium ecclesiasticum rentuntiatum, et evidens est quod verum sit, quapropter ille nomen et indumentum et dignitatem papalem adhunc portat ut possessionem personalem, qui demonstratio est clare quod intentionem renuntiationis muneris non haberet et non habeat.

Ex totis rationibus ego supplex Vos precor Ecclesiae Sanctae Dei ut convocatio Cardinalium in praesentiae papae Benedicti XVI faciatis in tempore opportuno ad verum quaerendum in materia ista ita ut omne dubium de successione petrina tollatis pro Ecclesia Christi salute. Partibus omnibus in ista controversia eliminatio dubii istius ius et debitum est et nulli vulnera.

Gratias Vobis do pro tempore lectionis litterarum mearum,

In Sancto Francisco servus humilis papatus,

Fra’ Alexis Bugnolo

Here is my English translation of the Letter, for the benefit of the readers of FromRome.Info

Your Eminence,

I am writing you on account of the right granted me by Pope John Paul II in canon 212, to make known to you the grave problems in the Declaratio which was pronounced by Pope Benedict XVI on the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, in the year of Our Lord 2013.

First of all, His renunciation of ministry is not in conformity with the norm of Canon 332 §2 which requires the renuntiation of the Petrine Munus, and hence it is an actus nullus which according to canon 41 constrains no one.

Second, it is not licit for anyone to be the interpretor of a papal renunciation, and hence every interpretation of that act of His, which reads “munus” where “ministerium” is written, is invalid and illicit.

Third, in saying “ministerium” and not “munus” the man who is Pope Benedict XVI cannot posit a valid act without the concession of a derogation, according to canon 38, and hence because he never did any such thing, as the Roman Pontiff, he posited, as the man who is the Pontiff, an actus irritus.

Fourth, in renouncing ministry and not munus, the apparent act of papal renunciation is irritus according to canon 188 by means of a substantial error, since the essence of the act necessary under the terms of Canon 332 §2 is a renunciation of munus, not of ministerium.

Fifth, there is no liberty to renounce munus where a renunication of ministerium is made and hence such an act fails from what is due in Canon 332 §2 regarding a free act of renuncaition of munus, and hence is invalid.

Sixth, there is no due manifestation where there is no manifestation of the due act, and because it is impossible that an act of renunciation of ministerium manifest an act of renunciation of munus, hence it is invalid according to Canon 332 §2.

Seventh, since for some days after the pronouncement of the declaration the integral act was not had, it is impossible that the act of the previous Cardinal Dean was valid to announce a papal renunciation, according to the norm of Canon 40 and afterwards to convoke a conclave.

Eighth, all the actions of Pope Benedict XVI throughout the last 7 years demonstrate that he understands munus as a vocation and grace never to be rejected and not as a renounced ministerium or ecclesiastical office, and it is evident that this is true, because He bears still that Name and clothing and dignity of a pope as a personal possession, which is clearly a demonstration that he did not have nor has the intention of renouncing the munus.

For all these reasons, I humbly beg you for the sake of the Holy Church of God to call a convocation of the Cardinals in the presence of Pope Benedict XVI, at an opportune time, to seek the truth in this matter so as to bear away all doubt concerning the petrine succession for the sake of the salvation of Christ’s Church. The elimination of this doubt is the right and due to all the parties in this controversy and harms none of them.

Thank you for the time you have taken reading my letter,

In Saint Francis, a humble servant of the Papacy,

– – –

I have published this letter to encourage all of you to write to your own Cardinals and Bishops in your part of the world an urge them to the same thing. You have my permission to copy and paste the test of my Latin or English version of my letter.

As you can see, the reasons for holding that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope are the most profound and grave and are drawn entirely from Canon Law and historical facts. They are not based on unfounded opinion, misquoted texts or insults, as those of Trad Inc..

+ + +

Guest Editorials, News

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

3 Comments

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

Editorials, News

Did Bergoglio just cry, “Uncle!” ?

7 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I think Bergoglio just cried, “Uncle!” — This expression in American English means that he surrendered to his opposition.

I say this because of the announcement yesterday, that Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re was nominated by him as Dean of the College of Cardinals, and Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, the vice-Dean.

As you may know, if you read my recent article just a few days before the announcement:  The House of Cardinal Re, that Cardinal Re is the head of a large and powerful faction in the Church, on account of his having co-consecrated more than 160 Bishops, including Cardinal Sandri and Cardinal Burke.

To name Cardinal Re and Cardinal Sandri to 2 of the 3 positions of actual power in the College of Cardinals is a stunning development.

Stunning, because neither is a member of the House of Rampolla del Tindaro, and thus neither shares an episcopal lineage with Bergoglio.

Stunning, because by giving that one faction 2 of the 3 votes necessary to call a Conclave or to decide NOT to call a Conclave, he has conceded the complaints from all the other factions in the Sacred Hierarchy and in the College of Cardinals that he not put these important offices in the hands of his own creatures.

Cardinal Re was made a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II.

Cardinal Sandri was made a Cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI.

What does this mean?

I think, first of all, it means that the complaints and protests which the faithful want to hear from the Bishops and Cardinals in public, have been made in private in an overwhelming matter. The College of Cardinals is first of all an ecclesiastical club of the highest order. They run the Church more than anyone thinks, and their power comes from this, that no one becomes pope without their placet and election.

Second, I believe it means that there is now widespread and universal opposition to Bergoglio in the College of Cardinals and in the College of Bishops, which is not spoke of in public, but which is at fever pitch in private.

Finally, I think it means that Bergoglio has caved to these complaints. By putting the next Conclave, or lack thereof, in the hands of another faction, he has admitted that the House of John Paul II and the House of Benedict XVI have definitively rejected his attempts at making the Church into another religion.

But perhaps I am being too hopeful. So keep praying!

In the meantime, insist with your local pastors TO REJECT EVERYTHING OF THE PONTIFICATE OF BERGOGLIO and point to this act of surrender as the sign to begin the rebellion to his faux pontificate of apostasy!

And write to Cardinal Re and URGE him not to convoke a conclave if Pope Benedict XVI is still alive and Bergoglio is gone, or to convoke one, if Benedict passes away, while Bergoglio remains. You can write the Cardinal at this address:

Sua Eccellenza Cardinale Giovanni Battista Re
Cardinale Decano
Collegio dei Cardinali
Palazzo Apostolico Vaticano
00120 Citta del Vaticano

_________

CREDITS: The featured image was taken for FromRome.Info this morning on the Via Conciliazione, here at Rome, by the author.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

Church History, Team Bergoglio

The House of Cardinal Re

4 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Three days after the publication of this article,
Bergoglio named Cardinal Re dean of his college of Cardinals.

It is not easy for Catholics to understand why Cardinals do and do not do what they do. Especially in these times, when the Cardinals should be warning and reproving and taking steps to clean up the mess at the Vatican, which is leading the apostasy of the world.

For this “why” I cannot give an explanation. But understanding where Cardinals come from and to which faction in the Church they may belong, may shed some light on this “why”, however so superficial.

With this in mind, let us examine the Faction of Cardinals which has as its co-consecrator, Giovanni Battista Re, one of the most important Cardinals in the College of Cardinals, which is seen by the fact that Bergoglio selected him to be Vice-Dean of his college of cardinals on June 10, 2017. A position he has weathered despite the unceremonious demotion of the Cardinal Dean of many years, Cardinal Sodano, in December.

Let me begin by saying that Cardinal Re’s episcopal lineage does not descend from Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, the god-father of the St Gallen Mafia. It descends rather from Pope John Paul II.

Second, that Cardinal Re is an impressive Bishop in action. He has participated in over 165 Episcopal consecrations in his life time. A truly remarkable number, which makes him one of the greatest all time consecrators of bishops in the Church. This is due to the fact, that when Pope John Paul II consecrated Bishops, Cardinal Re was normally assisting as a co-consecrator, by some special arrangement of the Pope.

Normally, factions in the Church among Bishops are denoted by lineages of principal consecrators, not co-consecrators. A principal consecrator is the Bishop who presides over the consecration of a man who has been nominated to be a bishop. A co-consecrator is one of two or more Bishops who assist in the consecration of the nominated.

However, Cardinal Re was not the principal consecrator of any Bishop who later became a Cardinal. A fact which means, that no one upon whom his favor rested that much, was ever raised to the dignity of a Cardinal. However, he is the co-consecrator of 18 Cardinals, which is extraordinary. Nevertheless, this seems to be because these future Cardinals were all consecrated by Pope John Paul II, with few exceptions.

Let me list the names of those Bishops and Cardinals, in the order of the year they were co-consecrated Bishop by Cardinal Re. You might recognize someone you know:

Patriarch Michel Sabbah (1988)
Archbishop Marian Oles † (1988)
Archbishop Emery Kabongo Kanundowi (1988)
Bishop Luís d’Andrea, O.F.M. Conv. † (1988)
Bishop Victor Adibe Chikwe † (1988)
Bishop Athanasius Atule Usuh † (1988)
Bishop José Raúl Vera López, O.P. (1988)
Bishop Srecko Badurina, T.O.R. † (1988)
Bishop Luigi Belloli † (1988)
Bishop John Gavin Nolan † (1988)
José Cardinal Saraiva Martins, C.M.F. (1988)
Bishop Giuseppe Matarrese (1989) ###
Archbishop Giovanni Tonucci (1990)
Archbishop Ignazio Bedini, S.D.B. (1990)
Archbishop Mario Milano (1990)
Archbishop Giovanni Ceirano † (1990)
Archbishop Oscar Rizzato (1990)
Antonio Ignacio Cardinal Velasco Garcia, S.D.B. † (1990)
Archbishop Paul Runangaza Ruzoka (1990)
Bishop Marian Błażej Kruszyłowicz, O.F.M. Conv. (1990)
Bishop Pierre François Marie Joseph Duprey, M. Afr. † (1990)
Archbishop Domenico Umberto D’Ambrosio (1990)
Bishop Edward Dajczak (1990)
Bishop Benjamin de Jesus Almoneda (1990)
Archbishop Francesco Gioia, O.F.M. Cap. (1990)
Archbishop Edward Nowak (1990)
Archbishop Giacinto Berloco (1990)
Archbishop Erwin Josef Ender (1990)
Jean-Louis Pierre Cardinal Tauran † (1991)
Vinko Cardinal Puljić (1991)
Archbishop Marcello Costalunga † (1991)
Archbishop Osvaldo Padilla (1991)
Francisco Javier Cardinal Errázuriz Ossa, P. Schönstatt (1991)
Bishop Bruno Pius Ngonyani (1991)
Bishop Francis Emmanuel Ogbonna Okobo (1991)
Bishop Andrea Gemma, F.D.P. † (1991)
Bishop Joseph Habib Hitti (1991)
Bishop Jacinto Guerrero Torres † (1991)
Bishop Bl. Alvaro del Portillo y Diez de Sollano † (1991)
Julián Cardinal Herranz Casado (1991)
Archbishop Bruno Bertagna † (1991)
Archbishop Ernesto Maria Fiore † (1992)
Archbishop Rino Passigato (1992)
Bishop Juan Matogo Oyana, C.M.F. (1992)
Bishop Gastone Simoni (1992)
Bishop Iñaki Mallona Txertudi, C.P. (1992)
Bishop Philippe Nkiere Keana, C.I.C.M. (1992)
Bishop Benjamin David de Jesus, O.M.I. † (1992)
Bishop John Joseph Glynn † (1992)
Bishop Petar Šolic † (1992)
Michael Louis Cardinal Fitzgerald, M. Afr. (1992)
Bishop Henri Salina, C.R.A. † (1992)
Archbishop Diego Causero (1993)
Archbishop Gabriel Charles Palmer-Buckle (1993)
Elio Cardinal Sgreccia † (1993)
Bishop Henryk Marian Tomasik (1993)
Archbishop Henry Joseph Mansell (1993)
Bishop Jan Kopiec (1993)
Archbishop Alojzij Uran (1993)
Bishop Luigi Sposito † (1993)
Bishop Norbert Klemens Strotmann Hoppe, M.S.C. (1993)
Bishop Elmo Noel Joseph Perera † (1993)
Archbishop Csaba Ternyák (1993)
Archbishop Domenico De Luca † (1993) ###
Archbishop Peter Paul Prabhu † (1994)
Archbishop Peter Stephan Zurbriggen (1994)
Archbishop Jean-Paul Aimé Gobel (1994)
Bishop Julien Mawule Kouto † (1994)
Bishop Edward James Slattery (1994)
Bishop Uriah Adolphus Ashley Maclean (1994)
Bishop Emiliano Antonio Cisneros Martínez, O.A.R. (1994)
Bishop Américo do Couto Oliveira † (1994)
Bishop Christo Proykov (1994)
Archbishop Ramon Cabrera Argüelles (1994)
Bishop Ricardo Jorge Valenzuela Rios (1994)
Bishop Paolo Gillet (1994)
Bishop Antoni Józef Długosz (1994)
Archbishop Bruno Musarò (1995)
Bishop Petko Jordanov Christov, O.F.M. Conv. (1995)
Bishop Antonio Napoletano, C.SS.R. † (1995)
Bishop Zacharias Cenita Jimenez † (1995)
Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke (1995)
Bishop Javier Echevarría Rodríguez † (1995)
Bishop Pierfranco Pastore † (1995)
Bishop Stanislav Szyrokoradiuk, O.F.M. (1995)
Bishop Paweł Cieślik (1995)
Bishop Stefan Regmunt (1995)
Archbishop Charles Asa Schleck, C.S.C. † (1995)
Archbishop Luigi Ventura (1995) ###
Carlo Cardinal Caffarra † (1995)
Archbishop José Paulino Ríos Reynoso (1996)
Archbishop Riccardo Fontana (1996)
Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli (1996)
Archbishop Jaime Vieira Rocha (1996)
Kurt Cardinal Koch (1996)
Bishop Ārvaldis Andrejs Brumanis † (1996)
Bishop Antons Justs † (1996)
Archbishop Francisco Pérez González (1996)
Archbishop Richard Anthony Burke, S.P.S. (1996)
Bishop Marko Sopi † (1996)
Bishop Rafael Ramón Conde Alfonzo (1996)
Bishop Riccardo Ruotolo † (1996)
Bishop Antal Majnek, O.F.M. (1996)
Stanisław Cardinal Ryłko (1996)
Archbishop Francisco Gil Hellín (1996) ###
Archbishop Luigi Conti (1996) ###
Archbishop Luigi Pezzuto (1997)
Paolo Cardinal Sardi † (1997) Titular Bishop of Sutri, Italy
Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil, C.SS.R. † (1997)
Bishop Delio Lucarelli (1997)
Bishop Ignace Baguibassa Sambar-Talkena † (1997)
Bishop Luciano Pacomio (1997)
Archbishop Angelo Massafra, O.F.M. (1997)
Bishop Florentin Crihălmeanu (1997)
Archbishop Jean-Claude Périsset (1997)
Bishop Piotr Libera (1997)
Bishop Basílio do Nascimento (1997)
Bishop Hil Kabashi, O.F.M. (1997)
Leonardo Cardinal Sandri (1997) ###
Mario Francesco Cardinal Pompedda † (1998)
Archbishop Marco Dino Brogi, O.F.M. (1998)
Bishop Peter Kwaku Atuahene (1998)
Bishop Filippo Strofaldi † (1998)
Archbishop Wiktor Paweł Skworc (1998)
Bishop Franco Dalla Valle, S.D.B. † (1998)
Archbishop Angelito Rendon Lampon, O.M.I. (1998)
Bishop Tomislav Koljatic Maroevic (1998)
Bishop Francesco Saverio Salerno † (1998)
Archbishop Alessandro D’Errico (1999)
Archbishop Salvatore Pennacchio (1999)
Archbishop Alain Paul Charles Lebeaupin (1999)
Bishop Cesare Mazzolari, M.C.C.I. † (1999)
Bishop Pierre Trân Ðinh Tu (1999)
Bishop Rafael Cob García (1999)
Archbishop Mathew Moolakkatt, O.S.B. (1999)
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin (1999)
Bishop José Luis Redrado Marchite, O.H. (1999)
(Layman) Józef Wesołowski † (2000)
Archbishop Giacomo Guido Ottonello (2000)
Archbishop George Panikulam (2000)
Archbishop Alberto Bottari de Castello (2000)
Bishop Ivo Baldi Gaburri (2000)
Archbishop Gabriel Mbilingi, C.S.Sp. (2000)
Bishop David Laurin Ricken (2000)
Bishop Anton Coşa (2000)
Bishop András Veres (2000)
Péter Cardinal Erdő (2000)
Bishop Giuseppe Pasotto, C.S.S. (2000)
Bishop Franco Croci (2000)
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia (2000) ###
Fernando Cardinal Filoni (2001)
Archbishop Henryk Józef Nowacki (2001)
Archbishop Timothy Paul Andrew Broglio (2001)
Archbishop Domenico Sorrentino (2001)
Archbishop Tomash (Tomasz) Bernard Peta (2001)
Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo (2001)
Marc Armand Cardinal Ouellet, P.S.S. (2001)
Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi (2001)
Bishop Đura Džudžar (2001)
Bishop Fabio Fabene (2014) ###

Now look at that list again. I have colored in RED the Cardinals who were suspected as members of the group which engineered the election of Bergoglio in the uncanonical Conclave of 2013. They formed a group called by Austen Ivereigh, “Team Bergoglio”. There are at least 3, Cardinal Koch, Bishop of Basel Switzerland might be the fourth.

I have colored in Green, those who were Cardinal Electors in 2013, but whose allegiance in voting is not known. There are 7 of these, not counting Cardinal Koch.

I have colored in BLUE the men whom Bergoglio presumed to name Cardinals. I say presumed, because as an Anti-pope, he has no authority to name Cardinals (To do that you need to hold the petrine munus, which Pope Benedict clearly and textually never renounced.)  There are 2 Cardinals in this category.

Three of the Cardinals on this list are publicly known for having criticized the Bergoglian regime: Cardinal Sandri, who is rumored to have bitterly denounced Bergoglio to his face for attacking the Discipline of the Sacraments; Cardinal Caffara who was renowned for denouncing relativism (God rest his soul); and Cardinal Burke, whose reputation is such it need not be summarized here, after his numerous public statements in favor of the Eternal Faith and in criticism of the policies of Bergoglio, even if he continues to hold Bergoglio as the Pope.

The Cardinals and Bishops whose episcopal lineage descends from Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, are marked with a ### in Black (there are 3); those who descend from Cardinal de Lai, both of whose co-consecrators descend from Cardinal Rampolla, or from Cardinal Gasparri, the secretary of Cardinal Rampolla, are marked with a ### in Red (There are 5, nearly all Sodano men).

I think it is important to note, that in all the cases in which Cardinal Re is not assisting Pope John Paul II as principal consecrator, he is assisting an ally or direct descendant of Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro.

The only reasonable inference that can be made from that, is that Cardinal Re was a member of the St. Gallen Mafia, by adoption. And that would explain why he is now Vice-Dean of Bergoglio’s college of cardinals.

The fact that he was trusted by Pope John Paul II in so many ceremonies of episcopal ordination, shows that he succeed so well in gaining the confidence of the Pope that he served as a sort of minder of his activities during his pontificate. This may imply that Cardinal Re was one of the chief St. Gallen Mafia secret agents in the Vatican for many years, hiding in plain sight.

So the next time you ask why any Cardinal on this list, like Cardinal Burke, may not be doing what you want him to do, read this list and contemplate what it might mean. They might be hedging, so that in the next conclave they elect someone from the House of Cardinal Re, which, alas, might not be a good thing after all.

+ + +

 

[simple-payment id=”5295″]