Tag Archives: Cardinal Zen

Faith, News

BREAKING: 5 Cardinals Question Pope Francis’ Catholicity, issue new Dubia

14 Comments

Letter of 5 Cardinals to all the Faithful

“Notification to Christ’s Faithful (can. 212 § 3)
Regarding
Dubia Submitted to Pope Francis“

TRADUCTION FRANÇAISE

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We, members of the Sacred College of Cardinals, in accord with the duty of all the faithful “to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church” (can. 212 § 3) and, above all, in accord with the responsibility of Cardinals “to assist the Roman Pontiff … individually … especially in the daily care of the universal Church” (can. 349), in view of various declarations of highly-placed Prelates, pertaining to the celebration of the next Synod of Bishops, that are openly contrary to the constant doctrine and discipline of the Church, and that have generated and continue to generate great confusion and the falling into error among the faithful and other persons of good will, have manifested our deepest concern to the Roman Pontiff. By our letter of July 10, 2023, employing the proven practice of the submission of dubia [questions] to a superior to provide the superior the occasion to make clear, by his responsa [responses], the doctrine and discipline of the Church, we have submitted five dubia to Pope Francis [select the link below to read them]. By his letter of July 11, 2023, Pope Francis responded to our letter.

Having studied his letter which did not follow the practice of responsa ad dubia [responses to questions], we reformulated the dubia to elicit a clear response based on the perennial doctrine and discipline of the Church. By our letter of August 21, 2023, we submitted the reformulated dubia [select the link below to read them] to the Roman Pontiff. Up to the present, we have not received a response to the reformulated dubia.

Given the gravity of the matter of the dubia, especially in view of the imminent session of the Synod of Bishops, we judge it our duty to inform you, the faithful (can. 212 § 3), so that you may not be subject to confusion, error, and discouragement but rather may pray for the universal Church and, in particular, the Roman Pontiff, that the Gospel may be taught ever more clearly and followed ever more faithfully.

Yours in Christ,

Walter Cardinal Brandmüller

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke

Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez

Robert Cardinal Sarah

Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun

READ THE NEW DUBIA

Canonical Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Finally, someone has taken action. The Dubia were proposed and Pope Francis evaded a clear response, putting him under the suspicion of heresy. Now the Cardinals have written Pope Francis again, and after more than 30 days, Pope Francis has failed to respond.

This confirms the juridical doubt that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a Catholic. It has established a canonical fact that his heresy is pertinacious, manifest and public.

This questioning of the man by 5 members of the College of Cardinals, without a Catholic response on the part of Bergoglio, now demands a hearing in a PROVINCIAL COUNCIL to elicit an act of Catholic Faith from the man WHICH MUST CONTAIN A FORMAL AND EXPLICIT RENUNCIATION OF ERRORS.

I THANK THE LIVING GOD, THAT THESE 5 CARDINALS HAVE ACTED.

What can we expect now?

Pope Francis must answer the Cardinals within 60 days in a Catholic manner, or he must be publicly suspected of having separated himself from the Church by heresy. In such a case a Provincial Council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome MUST be convened to discern if he be a Catholic or not, and if he be not, declare him in virtue of canon 1364 to no longer hold the Papal Office. In which case the Council will pronounce the Apostolic See legally vacant, requiring the College of Cardinals to elect another.

This action of the Provincial Council must be undertaken, because a doubtful pope is no pope. That is, the Provincial Council will be the only way for him holding on to the office. If he obstructs its convening, the faithful can omit his name in the Canon, publicly admit he is a heretic, and refuse all his orders, even those legitimate, on the grounds that he does not appear to be a member of the Church. — If the Bishops of the province are asked to convene such a council and refuse, then the same results. (While private persons can request such a convocation, I think the Bishops of the Province are only canonically required to respond to Bishops holding jurisdiction, or other Provincial Councils called in other parts of the world, which demand this be done, to preserve the Unity of the Church).

As a side note, if you are such a Catholic, especially if you are a Bishop or priest, as doubts that Bergoglio is a Catholic, should should already have written to all the Bishops in the Province of Rome, and asked them to convene such a Council.

Many Catholics have long held that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a heretic, in virtue of their private judgement, discerning things spiritually and comparing his statements and actions with the rule of the Faith. But such private judgements have no canonical value as a fact to condemn a man. By the above action of the Cardinals, which has elicited an evasive response from Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the matter has entered into the canonical record, since as Bishops the Cardinals possess the charism of truth and can discern heresy in a manner in which the Church must hear their witness.

The only organ of the Church that can decide the matter juridically, however, is the Provincial Council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome (roughly co-extensive with the Region of Lazio, in the Italian Republic). These Bishops, and all the major superiors of diocesan institutes in that territory, as well as all Rectors of pontifical institutes and all Abbots of the Territorial Abbeys, constitute the juros in the matter. Technically the first phase of which is not a trial, but a Synod in the true sense where Pope Francis should be invited to attend and respond to the doubts of the Faithful. If he refuse, or if he attend and give unCatholic answers, then the Council can proceed to the trial phase, and vote whether his responses constitute an act which has undubitably shown that he is not a member of the Church in virtue of canon 1364, since the profession of manifest, public, pertinacious heresy ipso facto excommunicates a man. If he refuses to attend the Council can also proceed to the trial phase and declare him contumacious, and thus juridically guilty of all charges, and thus depose him.

UPDATE of October 3, 2023

THE GREAT DEFECT of the action by these 5 Cardinals, is that they have divulged the sin of Bergoglio to the public without apparently taking any action to convene a provincial Council. This is not the proper juridical procedure.

Perhaps they have failed here because they are following the erroneous juridical opinion of Cardinal Burke, who has stated in the past, that there is no way to resolve a crisis of a heretical pope. I have publicly corrected him several times on this matter, most fully (here) 2.5 years ago.

Cardinal Burke is an expert on annulments, so I do not expect him to have spent time in the past on this. But in the last 2.5 years he has had plenty of time. I theorize that he is stuck on the canonical problem that the New Code of Canon Law states that the Metropolitan of the province has the right to convene a Provincial Council. And thus it cannot be convened if he is the person to be put under trial. However, in the case of the Pope, such a reading is not valid, because a doubtful pope is no pope. Therefore, since in the above, the 5 Cardinals have shown that it is doubtful that he is the pope, since he has pertinaciously refused to give a Catholic answer to 10 dubia, the Bishops of the ecclesiastical Province of Rome have the liberty to elect one of their own to convoke the Council, on the grounds that the Metropolitan see can be rightfully held to be impeded by the unwillingness of the man who is the Roman Pontiff of solving this canonical crisis.

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

Archbishop Viganò writes letter of support to Cardinal Zen

9 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

This report is a follow up to Cardinal Re’s outrageous circular letter to all the members of the College of Cardinals, against Cardinal Zen’s letter to all the Cardinals on the betrayal of the Catholics in China.

Cardinal Viganò, as an expert diplomat of proven record, in response to the letter from Cardinal Re, writes in support of Cardinal Zen, in an open letter.

First the Italian Original (source), and then my English translation.

Eminenza Carissima,

sono l’arcivescovo Carlo Maria Viganò, già Nunzio Apostolico negli Stati Uniti d’America.

Ho seguito con profonda partecipazione, condividendo la Sua sofferenza nella preghiera, i Suoi numerosi accorati Appelli a papa Bergoglio, per la drammatica situazione della Chiesa Martire in Cina, che lui stesso ha colpevolmente aggravato con il proditorio e sciagurato Accordo segreto firmato dalla Santa Sede con il Governo Comunista Cinese.

I Suoi accorati Appelli, Caro Fratello in Cristo, sono rimasti sistematicamente inascoltati e persino derisi in modo ipocrita e perverso. Quanto al Cardinale Parolin, ha agito da mero sconsiderato esecutore di un malvagio ordine superiore.

Ho letto stamane la ignominiosa e vergognosa Lettera che il Card. Giovanni Battista Re ha indirizzato a tutti i cardinali contro di Lei. Ne sono profondamente rattristato e indignato, e desidero esprimerLe tutto il mio affetto, la mia preghiera e la mia solidarietà fraterna nell’episcopato.

Lei è un coraggioso Confessore della Fede a cui va tutta la mia venerazione e ammirazione!

Purtroppo la menzogna in Vaticano è eretta a sistema, la verità è totalmente stravolta, l’inganno più perverso è spudoratamente praticato anche dai più insospettabili, che ora si prestano ad agire da strumenti complici dell’Avversario. Si è giunti addirittura ad affermare che “papa Benedetto XVI aveva approvato il progetto di Accordo” firmato nel 2018, quando invece tutti sappiamo della sua strenua resistenza e della sua reiterata riprovazione delle condizioni poste da un Regime persecutorio e sanguinario.

Il Vaticano ha fatto di tutto e di più per consegnare nelle mani del Nemico la Chiesa Martire Cinese: lo ha fatto siglando il Patto segreto; lo ha fatto legittimando “vescovi” scomunicati, agenti del regime; lo ha fatto con la deposizione di Vescovi legittimi; lo ha fatto imponendo ai Sacerdoti fedeli di registrarsi presso la chiesa succube della dittatura comunista; lo fa quotidianamente tacendo sulla furia persecutoria che proprio a partire da quell’infausto Accordo è andata inasprendosi in un inaudito crescendo. Lo sta facendo ora con questa ignobile missiva a tutti i cardinali, volta ad accusarLa, a denigrarLa e ad isolarLa.

Nostro Signore ci assicura che niente e nessuno potrà mai strappare dalla Sua mano coloro che resistono al nemico infernale e ai suoi accoliti, trionfando su di loro “per mezzo del Sangue dell’Agnello e grazie alla testimonianza del loro martirio” (Ap. 12, 11).

Il Vostro esempio, Caro Cardinale, e il prezzo altissimo che state pagando per difendere la Causa di Dio e della sua Chiesa, provochi in noi un salutare scossone, ci strappi dall’inerzia e dall’assuefazione con le quali assistiamo supini alla resa della Chiesa Cattolica nei suoi più alti vertici e nella sua gerarchia, all’eresia e all’apostasia, per essersi messa a seguire il Principe di questo mondo, menzognero e omicida sin da principio.

Parce, Domine, parce populo tuo,

quem redemisti, Christe, sanguine tuo,

ne in aeternum irascaris nobis.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò

Arcivescovo tit. di Ulpiana

Nunzio Apostolico

Now my English translation:

Your dearest Eminence,

I am Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America.

I have followed, with profound attention and sympathy, Your suffering in prayer, your numerous heartfelt Appeals to pope Bergoglio, for the dramatic situation of the Martyred Church in China, which he himself has culpably aggravated with the prodigious and wretched secret Accord signed between the Holy See and the Communist Government of China.

Your heartfelt Appeals, dear Brother in Christ, have gone systematically unheeded and even derided in a hypocritical and perverse manner. As much as regards Cardinal Parolin, he has acted as the mere inconsiderate executor of a malign order of his superior.

I read, this morning, the ignominious and shameful Letter which Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re has addressed to all the Cardinals against You. I am deeply saddened and indigant on this account, and I desire to express to You my entire affection, my prayer and my fraternal solidarity in the Episcopate.

You are a corageous Confessor of the Faith who has all my veneration and respect!

Unfortunately, systematic lying is now the structure of the Vatican, truth has been entirely turned on its head, and the most perverse deceit is shamelessly practiced even by the most unexpected persons, who no present themselves to act as complicit instruments of the Adversary.  They have gone so far as to affirm that “Pope Benedict XVI approved the project of the Accord” which was signed in 2018, when, on the contrary, everyone knows of his strenuous resistence and of his repeated reproval of the conditions proposed by Regime of persecutors and blood-letters.

The Vatican has done everything and even more to consign the Martyred  Church of China into the hands of the Enemy: it did this by signing the secret Pact; it did this by legitimizing excommunicated “bishops”, agents of the regime; it did this by deposing legitimatte Bishops; it did this by imposing puon faithful Priests the duty to register at the local church subjected to the Communist Dictatorship; it does this daily by remaining silent at the mad persecution which indeed after the signing of this inauspicious Accord grows worse and worse in an unheard of crescendo.  It is doing this now with this ignoble missive to all the Cardinals, aimed at accusing You, at denigrating You and at isolating You.

Our Lord assures us that nothing and no one can ever snatch from His Hand those who resist the infernal enemey and his altar-boys, as He shall triumph over them “by means of the Blood of the Lamb and thanks to the testimony of their martyrdom” (Apocalypse 12:11).

Your example, dear Cardinal, and the very high price which you are paying for defending the Cause of God and of His Church, provokes in us a salutary response, it snatches us from idleness and from accomodation with those who supinely assist at the surrender of the Catholic Church by Her highest officers and in Her hierarchy, to heresy and apostasy, so as to follow the Prince of this world, a liar and a murderer from the beginning.

Parce, Domine, parce populo tuo,
quem redemisti, Christe, sanguine tuo,
ne in aeternum irascaris nobis.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Arcivescovo tit. di Ulpiana
Nunzio Apostolico

As always, I do not think I need to add anything to this most noble letter. Let us pray for Archbishop Viganò and Cardinal Zen, that they are led by this event to see that Pope Benedict XVI is the true Pope and that Cardinal Bergoglio is a usurper, a destroyer and a false prophet.

+ + +

[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″]

News

O Janus, Tweet thyself a new Face….

2 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I think Cardinal Zen is going to have a heart attack. I say this as a jest, because, after 30 million Catholics have been exposed to levels of near genocidal persecution by the Communist Dictator of Peking, the man who signed off on the Accord has his twitter secretaries put out this message:

The level of psychosis is just cosmic and astronomical.

___________

CREDITS: The Tweet is embedded from the official Vatican account. — The Featured Image is a cropped section of a photo by Jeon Han of the Korean Cultural Information Service, Korea.net and is copyrighted. It is used here according to the Creative Commons Share Alike 2.0 license under which it was publish on Flicker and redistributed by Wikipedia on the English Article, Pope Francis.

+ + +

Church History, Team Bergoglio

The Grandfather of the St. Gallen Mafia

8 Comments

The House of Rampolla del Tindaro

AND ITS TIES TO THE AMAZON

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As I continue my series of investigations into episcopal lineages and what they imply as regards factions among the Cardinals and Bishops of today, I cannot omit the most important for this investigation: the House of Rampolla del Tindaro, on account of its centrality in the history of the Church since the reign of Pope Leo XIII right down to Jorge Mario Bergoglio. See my previous report on the St. Gallen Mafia’s ties to Rampolla, here.

This faction is very large and very powerful. You can see the power of Cardinal Rampolla in the very fact that he was never the co-consecrator of any bishop, he was always the principal consecrator.

Next, you can see the power of the man shown in this, that nearly a third of all those Bishops whom he consecrated became Cardinals of the Roman Church. You can also see the power of the man, through the generations, by the number of men who seek as their principal consecrator a Cardinal or Bishop whose episcopal lineage traces back to Cardinal Rampolla. This is no accident of fame. Cardinal Rampolla is not known for his holiness, he was the rival of Saint Pius X. Who would want such a lineage?

As can be seen from this list, the House of Rampolla comprises a large part of the hierarchy of Brazil, and many bishops in the Amazon, for generations. Thus, when next you hear of the Amazon Synod, understand that its name is no accident: it is a code word for The Synod of the House of Rampolla del Tindaro, Godfather of the St. Gallen Mafia.

From this study, one can also see the power bases of the House of Rampolla, in addition to Italy and Brazil: Venezuela, Cuba, Santo Domingo, Argentina, Macau and Portugal. Also, other nations where Bergoglio has visited, such as Vietnam, Sudan/South Sudan, Mozambique. And others he has not, like Taiwan, Tanzania, Uganda, Riwanda, Indonesia and Hong Kong.

Indeed, as I reported the other day, the prevalence that is seen here of Rampolla men in Portugal and its former colonies of Brazil and Mozambique is another indication that Cardinal Nuno da Cunha de Athaíde from Portugal has had a lasting influence in the geopolitics of the faction.

This is further evidence of why Our Lady chose Fatima, in the heart of Portugal, for the decisive place of Her most magnificent miracle in all history and God’s most magnificent promises of salvation since Pentecost. The fact that Saint John says in the Apocalypse that the Dragon will seek out the woman who flees to the countryside, may be a reference to Fatima and its location. Moreover, we know that of all the Apostles, after Saint John, his brother Saint James went to Iberia to preach the Gospel and was active in the area of Portugal. Perhaps he too knew from Our Lady and his brother, where the decisive spiritual battle would take place at the end of times.

Another avenue of research will be to see how many Rampolla men were voting at the Second Vatican Council, to determine how much of that Council was produced under their direction, as the truth of that investigation may blow the lid off all claims that the Council was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the insistence of Bergoglian supporters to claim that Bergoglio is fulfilling the Council may already answer that question.

You will find some very notable names on this list. One is that of Cardinal Siri, whom many sedevacantists hold was elected pope but forced to step aside. Whether he accepted an election or not, perhaps can be never known, but if he was forced to step aside, the request to do so may have come from the very faction to which he belonged!

Another is Cardinal Zen of Hong Kong. Annother Cardinal Ruini, Cardinal Merry del Val and Cardinal Manning. Another is the Bergoglian created Cardinal of Tonga, in the South Pacific.

So, for your information and the further research of scholars, here are the men whom he consecrated. In this list, the date is the date of consecration as a Bishop. The cross indicates that he persons is no longer alive. To each bishop, I have subordinated in turn the men whom he has consecrated, and so on. Thus, thus the men who are not subordinated, were consecrated by Cardinal Rampolla. The men who are subordinated only one indenture, were consecrated by the man above them who is not subordinated at all. And so on.

The House of Rampolla del Tindaro