In his 1967 classic defense of the Catholic Faith against modern errors, Trojan Horse in the City of God, Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote: “With a religion the only question that can matter is whether or not it is true. The question of whether or not it fits into the mentality of an epoch cannot play any role in the acceptance or the rejection of a religion without betraying the very essence of religion.” He continues: “Even the earnest atheist recognizes this. He will not say that today we can no longer believe in God; he will say that God is and always was a mere illusion.”
Von Hildebrand reminds us that truth is eternal. It is discoverable by man in the natural order, and is revealed by God in the supernatural order. To know the truth is man’s vocation. To preach the truth is the Church’s mission.
This truth admits of no change. The Church’s understanding and exposition of truth will, by God’s grace, be deepened and faithfully developed over time. But that truth can never be cast aside and replaced by new “truths” that contradict the truth as taught by the Church. Von Hildebrand writes: “It is of the very nature of Catholic Christian faith to adhere to an unchanging divine revelation, to acknowledge that there is something in the Church that is above the ups and downs of cultures and the rhythm of history.”
The push by some in the Church to update the Faith, meaning to change the teachings of the Faith, is a disastrous fruit of a relativistic mentality. It is said that truth is not eternal, but rather subject to change. What was true once is no longer so in a new historical era. And, of course, the current era, in which these claims are being made, is a better era because it happily prompts us to see how the “former” teaching was wrong and in need of revision.
Von Hildebrand writes: “Enamored of our present epoch, blind to all its characteristic dangers, intoxicated with everything modern, there are many Catholics who no longer ask whether something is true, or whether it is good and beautiful, or whether it has intrinsic value: they ask only whether it is up-to-date, suitable to ‘modern man’ and the technological age, whether it is challenging, dynamic, audacious, progressive.”
This prophetic critique comes readily to mind when we consider the latest outrage by misguided churchmen that plainly is aimed at giving sanction to homosexual activity. The Pontifical Biblical Commission has published a book entitled What Is Man? An Itinerary of Biblical Anthropology.
In this volume the topic of the Bible and homosexuality is treated, but in a corrosive way that is destructive of the truths taught by the Church concerning the inherent immorality of homosexual acts. The harm springs from the one-sided discussion of modern theories and opinions that reject the biblical teachings on homosexuality.
*
As reported at Life Site News, the book states that the:
anthropological approach of scripture, as understood and conveyed by the church in its normative aspects. . .is judged to be a reflection of an archaic, historically conditioned mentality. We know that various biblical affirmations, in the cosmological, biological and sociological spheres, have been gradually considered outdated with the progressive affirmation of the natural and human sciences; similarly – it is deduced by some – a new and more adequate understanding of the human person imposes a radical reservation on the exclusive value of heterosexual unions, in favor of a similar acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as a legitimate and worthy expression of the human being. What is more – it is sometimes argued – the Bible says little or nothing about this type of erotic relationship, which should therefore not be condemned, also because it is often unduly confused with other aberrant sexual behavior. It therefore seems necessary to examine the passages of Sacred Scripture in which the homosexual problem is the subject of homosexuality, in particular those in which it is denounced and criticized.
Notice the long list of criteria of judgment used against the Church’s traditional understanding of the Biblical teaching on homosexual activity: it is “archaic”, “historically conditioned”, “outdated”, lacking a “new and more adequate understanding of the human person.”
Officials of the Pontifical Biblical Commission have claimed that the text offers no opening for homosexual activity. But the modern justifications get considerable space; the traditional teachings only perfunctory mention. In effect, despite disclaimers, the text invites us to consider whether the truths taught by the Bible can change over time. Why? Because ecclesiastics honor modern errors conferring on them a patina of legitimacy, labeling these errors as current “science”.
We need to ask why is there no citation of schools of thought, grounded in scientific knowledge and serious philosophical reflection, that contradict the affirmations here cited, and defend the Church’s traditional understanding of the Biblical teaching as the most “adequate understanding of the human person.”
Since when is it the practice of the institution, founded by Pope Leo XIII to promote knowledge of the true meaning of the Sacred Scriptures, to cite widespread and grave errors without clearly condemning them? Should erroneous notions that would attempt to use the Bible to justify “homosexuality and homosexual unions as a legitimate and worthy expression of the human being” be offered to the faithful for a thoughtful consideration of their possible legitimacy? Should not such offensive impostures be refuted and anathematized?
To concede, as possibly legitimate, claims that God intends man to commit sodomy by citing those claims as being the respectable fruits of scientific progress is a repudiation of the Commission’s purpose. It is a cause for scandal and furthers the climate of confusion and doctrinal uncertainty in the Church.
In the face of this grave harm to the mission of the Church, we need to reaffirm our belief in the changeless truths of the Faith, rejecting all attempts to weaken and destroy what God has revealed and the Church has always taught.
*Image:Sodom and Gomorrah Afire by Jacob de Wet II, c. 1680 [Hessisches Landesmuseum, Darmstadt, Germany]
Let’s transition from the Culture of Life to the Culture of Love.
by Jean-Francois Orsini
When St. John Paul II first mentioned the Culture of Life in the encyclical Centesimus annus in 1991 he introduced the concept which he would better develop later in the 1995 encyclical Evangelium vitae.
Naturally his chief purpose was to reaffirm the long-standing doctrine of the Church that approved of any attempt to protect the lives of human beings, and especially of the unborn . Not only the unborn, but also the lives of the weak and vulnerable who might want to listen to the sirens of the euthanasia movement, let alone the decisions of physicians self-imaging as gods who unilaterally terminate the life of patients whose lives, they think, are not any longer worthwhile, should be fiercely defended.
St. John Paul II, also, probably strongly intended an implied message that all who stood against the Culture of Life, by default, were to be squarely placed in the realm of a Culture of Death.
But now the same evil that created the Culture of Death has raised its ugly head in a different domain. Members of the Democrat dominated House of Representatives have voted 80 times that the extraordinary favored children who might survive an abortion may not be kept alive by health professionals. Perhaps, playing of the fact that media is on their side, these disgusting supposed representatives and protectors of the US population are betting that the label of members of the “Culture of Death” will not really stick on them; they can shrug it off easily.
And they have apparently won this bet so far.
Since the publication of Evangelium vitae, the same members of the Culture of Death have moved the goal post in their tactical march lead by their general from Hell. They have first established a beachhead with “same-sex” marriage, then created the multiplicity of genders which led by their august authorities to the beatification of transvestites with superior rights over those of the faith population. This new “Culture” has spread, at a fascinating speed, the world over.
Now, love precedes life. God made us, gave us human beings as well as all the galloping, swimming and creeping creatures on the world, our lives out of His Love. A Culture of Love includes a Culture of Life.
A major advantage in introducing the Culture of Love is to stop on its track and confront the infernal trajectory of the Culture of Hate which masquerades as a false culture of love. Their latest argument for promoting homosexuality and the multiple consequential warping of social institutions is that it must be done in the name of the love same sex people have for each other.
The devil’s little minions have based their argumentation for raising the status of homosexuality to the highest levels on the pretense that it should be done in the name of love. These homosexuals just happen to love some one of the same sex. We should celebrate this love and certainly not condemn it, so goes the argument.
That argument must be confronted squarely. Evidently their definition of love is absolutely perverted. Thus, an effective result of the tactic of promoting a Culture of Love would be to reduce it to the level of nonsense that it actually is.
The line “Fair is foul and foul is fair” appears in Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Their love is actually Hate and their hate is Love. To complete the analogy, the same left stated that “family values” were forms of Hate when they are about love.
Furthermore, George Orwell’s dystopian world is here, all around us today, whose motto is War is peace / freedom is slavery; Ignorance is strength.” Orwell could just easily have added “Love is Hate; Hate is Love”.
John Maynard Keynes, a famous British economist who created the economic concept of Keynesian Economics that was long the working tool of many governments until proved to be ineffective, has also something to say in that domain of ideas: In Essays in Persuasion, he writes “I see us free, therefore, to return to most of the most sure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue […] But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years, we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul, and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not.”
Interestingly, Keynes’ political sympathies were consistently with the parties of the left in his country. Furthermore, he was a proud homosexual.
There you have it. The forces of darkness have coopted one of Our Lord’s attributes to their own selfish and perverted purposes. Let’s proclaim the Culture of Love to counter them!
Jean-Francois Orsini is a graduate of a top French business school, and has earned both a MBA and Ph.D. from the Wharton School. His latest book is “Love is God – True love; true happiness for the serious seekers”. His free website HolySpiritedArsenal.com has for objective to complete the religious education of the newly confirmed and/or poorly catechized so they can become true soldiers in the Army of Christ as the Confirmation sacrament commits them to. He is a They Third Order Dominican and past prior of his chapter.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on LET US TRANSITION FROM THE CULTURE OF LIFE TO THE CULTURE OF LOVE
Is Abp Vigano moving towards Socci’s Position on “Pope Bergoglio” & might he join Bp Gracida in calling for an Imperfect Council?
– Updated December 23, 2019
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano appears to be moving closer to Antonio Socci’s way of speaking of Francis in his recent defense of the Virgin Mary against Francis’s attack on her title of co-Redemptrix.
Like Socci he only called Francis “Pope Bergoglio” in the recent statement which could infer that he may be considering joining Bishop Rene Gracida in calling for an imperfect council to investigate and judge if Francis’s conclave and Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation were valid or invalid.
Also, in his recent defense of the Virgin Mary he echoed something Socci wrote about Francis:
“Those of us who have not let ourselves be deceived… must unite and face off against the Evil One.” (LifeSiteNews, “Abp Vigano’s defense of Virgin Mary in response to Pope Francis,” December 20, 2019)
Socci his new book appears to be saying Benedict XVI is a “supernatural… containment” of “Bergoglio” (Francis) who he equates with “Dostoevsky[‘s]… Cardinal of Seville.”
Everyone familiar with literature knows the Cardinal of Seville in the Russian work of fiction “assumes the role of Satan.” (Writing the Republic: Liberalism and Morality in American Political Fiction, Page 80)
Socci apparently is equating Francis with Satan and Benedict with Jesus who contains the “apostasy”:
“[H]is [Benedict’s] powerful intercession as pope, which raises a supernatural wall of defense… the extraordinary action of containment… to avert the tragedy of the apostasy of the Church and of schism.
“… [H]is [Benedict’s] rapport with Papa Bergoglio by recalling… Dostoevsky[‘s]… Cardinal of Seville, one of the ‘Jesuits’ who did not believe in the liberating power of the grace of God, but rather in his own power…”
“It may well be the same silent presence of Benedict XVI that until now averted the most serious doctrinal rifts… any false doctrine would be able to be delegitimized by one single word from him spoken before the eyes of the Christian people.” (The Secret of Benedict XVI, Pages 115-116)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
First I wish to let you know you are in my daily prayers at Mass. May God continue to give you His Love, Strength, Wisdom, Perseverance, Humility, Courage and Passion for the Truth.
Second, Merry Christmas to you!
Third, I ran this the latest blog from Antonio Socci received today through Google Translate (unfortunately, he does not publish in Italian, and except for some Italian Language basics I learned in advance of my honeymoon nearly 30 years ago, I am wholly unqualified to offer an accurate translation. But whenever I see the name Bergoglio in Socci’s blog, I pay attention…Socci has been on to this destroyer for years. So, here is the Google Translate version (and I have also attached the Italian original in case you have a contact…)
Your brother in Christ,
IT IS A CHRISTMAS OF ATTACKS ON THE CATHOLIC FAITH. BUT THE MOST DEVASTANT DESACHER IS A BERGOGLIO.
I had not yet seen HERE this celebration of Pachamama in San Pietro, with Bergoglio, in front of the altar, on 4 October, at the opening of the Synod on the Amazon. We are stunned. I understand why there is talk of idolatrous desecration and the need to rededicate St. Peter’s Basilica. Perhaps it will not be “the abomination of desolation in the holy place” (Mt 24,15) prophesied by Jesus, but it certainly raises a lot of anxiety.
756/5000
It is a sad Christmas for Christians if you think of the many “desecrations” of these days that would not be allowed towards any other religion. Just a few titles.
Two weeks ago the Bolognese party entitled “Immacolata con (trac) cezione”. The “Giornale” headlined: “Collective shock: blasphemous vigil. The Madonna surrounded by condoms “.
Ten days ago there is the case of the Rome poster on which Vittorio Feltri, indignant, wrote fiery words. Title of “Time”: “Jesus excited with a child. Storm on the Macro for a blasphemous manifesto. The complaint by the Brothers of Italy: shame, the Rays intervene “.
There is also something else. On Thursday the “Messenger” headline on “Net fl ix, the satire with gay Jesus. Fratelli d’Italia asks to withdraw the film “.
In all these cases it is not the Vatican or the CEI that protest, but the parties of the center-right, together with the Catholics (left alone by the pastors) and some common sense journalists. Finally, some clergyman pronounces timid and insipid words.
The clerical apparatus does not have time to defend Jesus Christ, the Madonna and the faith of simple Catholics from these operations because today everything is committed to the glorification of the Argentine pope, now a worldly media product celebrated by secularist culture.
Even with Net fi ix’s film “The Two Popes” in which – far beyond the ridiculous – Benedict XVI is represented as a pope who longed for leadership and Bergoglio as one who obtained it without ever having sought it: just a minimum knowledge of reality to know that the exact opposite is true, in fact Ratzinger is the one who resigned, while Bergoglio has struggled for years to climb the top (even failing to vote by the Jesuits).
But – going back to those “provocations” against Catholicism – it is not only surprising that the clerical world is in hiding. There is worse.
Bergoglio’s own magisterium is studded with externalizations and gestures that leave the faithful bewildered, as when he exhibited the hammer and sickle with an attached crucifix, a gift from the Bolivian Morales.
Either when he said that, in the adulteress episode, “Jesus is a bit of a fool” (June 16, 2016) or when, on May 16, 2013, he denied the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves made by Jesus
(“They did not multiply. No, it is not the truth”) or what (on December 21, 2018) actually denied the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Scandal aroused the case of the recent Synod of the Amazon when – writes Roman Correspondence – “on 4 October Pope Francis participated in an act of adoration of the pagan goddess Pachamama in the Vatican Gardens”, causing the “protest of a hundred scholars” who signed a document that began as follows: “We, the undersigned clerics, scholars and Catholic intellectuals, protest and condemn the sacrilegious and superstitious acts committed by Pope Francis”.
The streak would be long. In these weeks of waiting for Christmas there have been others. On 12 December, for example, Bergoglio stated that the Madonna “mixed herself” and even “mixed” God “.
The evident willingness to politically exploit God and the Mother of God to legitimize his highly questionable idea of migration could be compared – for depth of thought – to the statement of the cartoonist Vauro for whom “Jesus is Palestinian” (Vauro then wanted to target even poor Santa Claus with incredible words).
But Bergoglio’s statement on “mixed race God”, whether he knows it or not, also falls – observed Professor De Mattei – “in the heresy of Eutiche (378-454)”.
Moreover, his will to use sacred symbols to propagate his political ideas is evident in many of his gestures. These days, for example, he announced on Twitter that he has
“Decided to expose this ‘crucifix’ life jacket”, to demand wide open ports for mass migration.
You can be sure that – as in the past – this year too he will not hesitate to politically exploit Christmas to promote the idea – dear to the powerful of globalization – of a general migratory storm.
Moreover, in his establishment he tries to give him a hand by “rewriting” even the Bible. E ‘these days the volume of the Pontifcia Biblical Academy “What is man?” Where – writes the Catholic site “The Daily Compass” – it is alleged that Sodom would have been destroyed not for the homosexual acts of the inhabitants, but for their lack of hospitality. The immigration obsession becomes an exegetical criterion of the sacred text.
In practice Sodom was punished by God because he voted for Salvini and Meloni. After all, the Jesuit father Sorge, a confrere and great supporter of Bergoglio, has come to identify “the fish of today’s squares (the ‘sardines’)” with that Christological symbol which was “the fish of the first Christians (IXTHYS)”, from to which it is deduced that the Emilian governor Bonaccini, in support of whom sardines were born, must be identified with Jesus Christ.
The confusion of the sacred and the profane goes far beyond the ridicule in the clerical world. So there is little to be scandalized by secularist desecrations.
Senate President Emeritus Marcello Pera, a secular intellectual, said in an interview: “This pontificate is a scandal in the biblical sense, it disorients and makes the faithful fall, it does not bear fruit, indeed it decreases it … As regards the fundamentals of the Catholic faith, this pontificate is an outrage to reason ”.
E’ UN NATALE DI ATTACCHI ALLA FEDE CATTOLICA. MA IL DISSACRATORE PIU DEVASTANTE E’ BERGOGLIO.Posted: 22 Dec 2019 05:33 AM PSTNon avevo ancora visto QUI questa celebrazione della Pachamama in San Pietro, con Bergoglio, davanti all’altare, il 4 ottobre scorso, in apertura del Sinodo sull’Amazzonia. Si resta allibiti. Capisco perché si parla diprofanazione idolatrica e di necessità di riconsacrare la basilica di San Pietro. Forse non sarà “l’abominio della desolazione nel luogo santo” (Mt 24,15) profetizzato da Gesù, ma di certo suscita molta inquietudine. * * * E’ un Natale triste per i cristiani se si pensa alle tante “dissacrazioni” di questi giorni che non sarebbero permesse verso nessun’altra religione. Basta qualche titolo.Due settimane fa il party bolognese intitolato “Immacolata con(trac)cezione”. Il “Giornale” titolava: “Collettivi choc: veglia blasfema. La Madonna circondata da preservativi”.Dieci giorni fa c’è il caso del poster di Roma su cui Vittorio Feltri, indignato, ha scritto parole di fuoco. Titolo del “Tempo”: “Gesù eccitato con un bambino. Bufera sul Macro per un manifesto blasfemo. La denuncia di Fratelli d’Italia: vergogna, la Raggi intervenga”.C’è pure dell’altro. Giovedì il “Messaggero” titola su “Netflix, la satira con Gesù gay. Fratelli d’Italia chiede di ritirare il film”.In tutti questi casi a protestare non è il Vaticano, né la Cei, ma sono i partiti del centrodestra, insieme ai cattolici (lasciati soli dai pastori) e a qualche giornalista di buon senso. Infine qualche ecclesiastico pronuncia delle timide e insipide parole.L’apparato clericale non ha tempo di difendere Gesù Cristo, la Madonna e la fede dei semplici cattolici da queste operazioni perché oggi è tutto impegnato nella glorificazione del papa argentino, ormai un prodotto mediatico mondano celebrato dalla cultura laicista.Perfino con il film di Netflix “I due papi” in cui – superando di molto il ridicolo – si rappresenta Benedetto XVI come un papa che bramava la leadership e Bergoglio come uno che l’ha ottenuta senza averla mai cercata: basta una minima conoscenza della realtà per sapere che è vero l’esatto contrario, infatti Ratzinger è colui che si è dimesso, mentre Bergoglio si è arrabattato per anni per scalare i vertici (perfino venendo meno al voto dei gesuiti).Ma – tornando a quelle “provocazioni” contro il cattolicesimo – non stupisce solo la latitanza del mondo clericale. C’è di peggio.Lo stesso magistero di Bergoglio è costellato di esternazioni e gesti che lasciano sconcertati i fedeli, come quando esibì la falce e martello con crocifisso annesso, dono del boliviano Morales.O quando disse che, nell’episodio dell’adultera, “Gesù fa un po’ lo scemo” (16 giugno 2016) o quando, il 16 maggio 2013, negò il miracolo della moltiplicazione dei pani fatto da Gesù (“Non si moltiplicarono. No, non è la verità”) o quanto (il 21 dicembre 2018) negò di fatto il dogma dell’Immacolata concezione di Maria.Scandalo ha suscitato il caso del recente Sinodo dell’Amazzonia quando – scrive Corrispondenza romana – “il 4 ottobre Papa Francesco ha partecipato ad un atto di adorazione della dea pagana Pachamama nei Giardini Vaticani”, provocando la “protesta di cento studiosi” i quali hanno sottoscritto un documento che esordiva così: “Noi sottoscritti chierici, studiosi e intellettuali cattolici, protestiamo e condanniamo gli atti sacrileghi e superstiziosi commessi da Papa Francesco”.La serie sarebbe lunga. In queste settimane di attesa del Natale ce ne sono state altre. Il 12 dicembre scorso, per esempio, Bergoglio ha affermato che la Madonna “si è meticciata” e addirittura “ha ‘meticciato’ Dio”.L’evidente volontà di strumentalizzare politicamente Dio e la Madre di Dio per legittimare la sua discutibilissima idea delle migrazioni potrebbe essere accostata – per profondità di pensiero – all’affermazione del vignettistaVauro per il quale “Gesù è palestinese” (Vauro poi ha voluto bersagliare anche il povero Babbo Natale con parole incredibili).Ma l’affermazione di Bergoglio su “Dio meticciato”, che lui lo sappia o no, ricade anche – ha osservato il professor De Mattei – “nell’eresia di Eutiche (378-454)”.Del resto la sua volontà di usare i simboli sacri per propagandare le sue idee politiche è evidente in molti suoi gesti. In questi giorni, per esempio, ha annunciato su Twitter di aver “deciso di esporre questo giubbotto salvagente, ‘crocifisso’”, per pretendere porti spalancati a migrazioni di massa.Si può star sicuri che – come in passato – anche quest’anno non esiterà a strumentalizzare politicamente il Natale per propagandare l’idea – cara ai potenti della globalizzazione – di una tempesta migratoria generale.Del resto nel suo establishment si cerca di dargli man forte “riscrivendo” perfino la Bibbia. E’ di questi giorni il volume della Pontifcia Accademia Biblica “Che cosa è l’uomo?” dove– scrive il sito cattolico “La Bussola quotidiana” – si “sostiene che Sodoma sarebbe stata distrutta non per gli atti omosessuali degli abitanti, ma per la loro mancanza di ospitalità. L’ossessione immigrazionista diventa criterio esegetico del testo sacro”.In pratica Sodoma fu punita da Dio perché votava Salvini e Meloni. Del resto il gesuita padre Sorge, confratello e grande sostenitore di Bergoglio, è arrivato a identificare “il pesce delle piazze di oggi (le ‘sardine’) ” con quelsimbolo cristologico che fu “il pesce dei primi cristiani (IXTHYS)”, da cui si deduce che il governatore emiliano Bonaccini, a sostegno del quale sono nate le sardine, deve essere identificato con Gesù Cristo.La confusione di sacro e profano va ben oltre il ridicolo nel mondo clericale. Dunque c’è poco da scandalizzarsi delle dissacrazioni laiciste.Il presidente emerito del Senato Marcello Pera, un intellettuale laico, ha dichiarato in una intervista: “Questo pontificato è uno scandalo in senso biblico, disorienta e fa cadere i fedeli, non porta frutti, anzi li fa diminuire… Per quello che riguarda i fondamenti della fede cattolica, questo pontificato è un oltraggio alla ragione”..Antonio Socci.Da “Libero”, 22 dicembre 2019 L’articolo E’ UN NATALE DI ATTACCHI ALLA FEDE CATTOLICA. MA IL DISSACRATORE PIU DEVASTANTE E’ BERGOGLIO. proviene da Lo Straniero.
Saint Athanasius, the first Bishop non-martyr venerated as a Saint, during the Arian Crisis, when neigh but 5 Bishops remained Catholic, employed Apostolic Right to defend the Church against Apostasy.
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
We live in a very bizarre age, when professional gossipers (aka journalists) are the puppet masters of the masses, because 95% of everyone allows them to dictate the boundaries of reality, history, morality and religion. And until some noted journalist uses the word, “Heresy”, “Schismatic” or “Apostate” in reference to someone who merits the term(s), then no rational person would ever accuse a fellow Catholic of such a horrible offense on his own judgement, because as they say, “everyone knows that it is schismatic to refuse communion with a fellow Catholic in good standing. And good standing means, he has not yet been official condemned by the Church!”
This is gaslighting, of course. Gas-lighting is a term which everyone should familiarize themselves with. It is the tactic of those practiced in psychological manipulation used to get clients, subjects, inferiors to deny the reality they see and know and accept that the reality is what the manipulator claims it to be.
As soon as Bergoglio was “elected” the gaslighting began. You are seeing things, He is the pope, you cannot talk that way about the pope. Dissent is a mortal sin. If you do not accept him you are outside the Church. You are not Catholic!
Lately, as the heresies and malevolence of Bergoglio explode out of all proportions to any previous heretic in the history of the Church, some Catholics who were formerly famous for their doctrinal and moral orthodoxy are going into apoplectic fits in their attempts to stifle recognition of the reality. ‘Recognize and Resist’, is their mantra. They are hell bent, literally, on remaining in communion with Bergoglio and don’t you dare rain on their fantasies by showing them facts of Canon Law (canon 1364, 1329 etc.) which show that by Divine right, heretics are outside of the Church as soon as they profess heresy.
These apologists of the revolution are just as hell bent on denying the reality of the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict (cf. ppbxvi.org for complete information). They become discombobulated and lash out. They show that their attachment to “Pope Francis” is neither rational or reasonable, it is visceral. How visceral depends, I suppose, on whether they observe the 6th or 9th Commandments.
This complete psychological and intellectual and spiritual breakdown is a result of what I call the Iscariot Conundrum. I use “Iscariot” here in the sense of the Aramaic word for a man from the same town as the false Apostle, Judas Iscariot. Since like him, they have sold the true Christ for the 30 pieces of silver of public recognition by the Cardinals as a “faithful Catholic”* and since they did it for purely selfish, sentimental, non rational and non legal or non dogmatic reasons, they explode with emotion the more you point out to them that they have built their house upon a false premise. So they lash out more and more and lose all traces of the fine Character they once exhibited, becoming in the process, ironically, the very likeness of dialogue which Bergoglio is, a nasty, name-calling Troll.
A State of Emergency
No less that Archbishop Gänswein, the personal secretary of Pope Benedict XVI and the Head of the Pontifical Household (which has only one guest, HINT HINT) said that what Benedict did in February 2013 was on account of a state of emergency.
His words and opinions are debated as to what they mean, but it would be ludicrous to deny the reality which is visible to all the world, namely, that THE APOSTOLIC SEE IS IMPEDED.
To say the Apostolic See is impeded, means that the Pope cannot act as Pope for some reason, either external coercion, or there is no pope, or the pope refuses to act out of some irrational or rational conviction. This ‘being impeded’ causes a state of necessity, because the visible head of the visible Church is for all practical purposes non-functioning. The state of necessity is necessity of the kind which is required for continued functioning of the Church. Since the normal order of governance is obstructed, the observance of merely positive laws upon which it are based, by necessity, must be omitted.
Our Lord teaches us this general principle on the small scale, when, on one occasion He and His Apostles crossed a wheat-field during a time in which they had had nothing to eat, and some of them ate the grains of wheat which were near to being harvested, some Pharasees complained they were violating the Sabbath Laws against doing work on the Sabbath. Our Lord pointed out that the necessity of their hunger allowed them to not observe the law on harvesting. He replied with a forceful Semitic way of speaking, saying, “The Sabbath was made more man, not man for the Sabbath!”
The law against harvesting was instituted no less than by Moses, who had a lot more authority in the Old Covenant (Moses basically wrote the entire thing, under God’s inspiration and direction) than the Pope has in the New Covenant (the pope cannot change the Bible, not even the Our Father — though a lot of clergy are confused on this point).
Also, it is clear, by the principles of logic (ex minore),** that if Our Lord says it is licit to appeal to a state of necessity, to suspend laws of the Old Covenant, because men are hungry on a Saturday afternoon, then obviously it is licit to act accordingly WHEN THE SALVATION OF ALL SOULS ON EARTH UNTIL THE END OF TIME is put in grave and imminent danger. To deny this would be sheer insanity.
This principle of the abeyance of positive law in a state of necessity is sanctioned by no less than Pope Pius VI, in his Bull, Cum nos superiori anno, of Nov. 13, 1798, where he grants to the Cardinals the right to derogate from all non essential aspects of the papal laws on Conclaves, on account of the de facto suppression of the Church of Rome by the Roman Republic, led by French Revolutionaries.***
Extending this lesson to the affairs of the Church, it follows then, as good Christians, we ARE OBLIGED by divine faith to return to the general principle which Jesus laid down, namely, THE SALVATION OF SOULS IS THE HIGHEST LAW. For the Salvation of Souls the Eternal Father sacrificed His own Son, and His own Son accepted His ignominious death on a Cross. FOR THE SALVATION OF SOULS.
If there is anyone, therefore, in the Church, that holds that we must wait for the Pope (Benedict) to do something, or some future pope to do something, THEY ARE OUT OF THEIR MINDS and more correctly, THEY ARE PHARASEES who are raising up the positive laws established by the Church (which indicate what cannot be done without permission of superiors) to the level of rules which would require the Church to commit suicide waiting for some sort of divine intervention without human collaboration. A divine intervention without human collaboration, in the present case of the impeded See, HAS NEVER BEEN explicitly PROMISED. (I understand that there are some great promises from Our Lord and our Lady, but none of them refer explicitly to a promise to solve this problem.)
Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum)
The concept of Divine Right (ius divinum) is a concept of classical late scholasticism, very popular in the time of the Council of Trent and thereafter. It refers to things which have been decreed by God. The office of Peter exists by divine right, for example.
Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum) is not as well recognized. It refers to the decisions of the Apostles for the governance of the Church. It is of Apostolic right that the church in one city can be governed by several priests, for example.
Both Divine Right and Apostolic Right are superior to Canon Law. As an aside, what most Catholics do not know, is that for more than 1000 years, except for canons decreed in Councils, the Church had no canon law. Canon Law is not of Divine or Apostolic institution, though the First Council of Jerusalem c. 45 A.D. did hand down decisions and is the exemplar for all Councils and Synods in the Church.
Apostolic right also includes some things which are not observed in the normal course of affairs, because since the time of the Apostles the Sacred Hierarchy, for the good ordering of the Church in normal circumstances has laid down canons or established laws to conduct the affairs of the Church differently.
Take for example the election of Bishops. The Apostles appointed Bishops before they died. But when they had passed to eternal Glory, they left it to each diocese by Apostolic Right to chose their own bishop. And by “to each diocese”, I mean to the Catholics of each diocese, laity, religious and clergy. This is how the Church survived 10 Roman persecutions. No one was writing Rome to ask for an appointment, when their Bishop died.
Also, it is of Apostolic Right that every Bishop serves as ordinary of his diocese until death. There was no retirement. That is a novelty created by Paul VI to eliminate Catholics from the College of Bishops and replace them with sodomite revolutionaries. Canon Law implicitly recognizes that this concept of mandatory retirement is contrary to Apostolic Right, in that it does not require Bishops to resign, it says only that they should submit a letter of resignation upon reaching the age of 75.
It is also of Apostolic Right that the Bishops can convene in Synods and Councils. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence that every Synod in Church History, which is regarded as a true hierarchical act, was approved of by the Pope. The current positive laws require that the Pope consent, but Apostolic Right does not require that. Apostolic Right is more rational, because when there is no pope or when the pope is a prisoner, how can the Bishops get permission?
But the general reason for the revival of Apostolic Right has to do with the inherent principle of subsidiarity in a perfect society. This principle was recognized by Pope Leo XIII. It holds that when the higher authority in a perfect society fails, then the lower authority has the right to take up the duty of the higher authority and act inasmuch it is necessary to act to preserve or defend that society. Since the College of Bishops as a whole succeeds the Apostles, when the See of Peter is impeded, each and every Bishop has the moral and Apostolic Right to exercise in a certain sense the authority of the Apostles to put the Church back in proper working order. This is an awesome responsibility reserved to extreme cases of necessity, such as is happening today, with both a public heretic ruling the Vatican and a Pope (Benedict) who thinks it is no longer his duty to govern the Church or vindicate his own rights as Christ’s Vicar.
In a State of Emergency, Apostolic and Divine Right revive on points which are now, in the regular course of Church affairs, regulated by canon law, presupposing an Apostolic See which is not impeded. These positive laws of the Church, which if observed, would lead to the destruction of the Church or the loss of souls are suspended in force. That is, it is no longer a canonical crime or moral fault NOT to observe them with due reason.
If there are any Catholic Bishops or Cardinals on earth, then they need to recognize this before it is too late, or the woeful warning of Our Lady of Akita will come to pass, that the faithful become deprived of the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist and Orders, because no Bishop had the sense to see that he had the Apostolic or Divine right to act to preserve the Sacred Hierarchy during an impeded Papacy.
This is because, with the Apostles no longer on Earth, and the See of Peter silent, each and every member of College of Bishops who remains Catholic can licitly assume the duties of the Apostles for the propagation and preservation of the Faith.
Some of the things any Bishop, with or without jurisdiction, can do, by Divine or Apostolic right, during an impeded Papacy are as follows:
Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the causes of the impeded See, and or condemn those who are perpetrating it. (Pope Julius II sanctions this in principle)****
Call for and Convene a Synod or Council, to depose claimants to the papacy who do not hold valid canonical titles. (This was done at Sutri in 1046 and sanctioned by St. Peter Damian, Pope St. Gregory VII and Bl. Pope Victor III)
Reprove a pope for resigning partially and neglecting his Apostolic Duties of Ministry. (This arguably is not as extreme as nn. 1 or 2, an thus ex maiore is also approved)
Condemn heretics by name, condemn heresies. (All bishops have this duty and right by Divine and Apostolic right)
Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the heresies and perversities being spread by the Enemies of the Church, whether inside or outside the Church.
Ordain Catholic Bishops for Dioceses which have been taken over by a heretical bishop or where the Catholic Bishop has declared for heresy or apostasy. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)
Ordain Catholic priests and deacons for the faithful of each Diocese who are deprived of the Sacraments due to heretical or schismatic clergy in their area. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)
In fact, during the first 1500 years of the Church, we see Bishop regularly doing many if not all of these things. They had the benefit of not being plagued in conscience by positive Church law, but the system worked. Now that the Apostolic See, nay the Vatican, is completely impeded and taken over by heretics, the Bishops must act!
This is not the imaginary case of Sedevacantists who don’t like a pope nor the sounder case of Traditionalists don’t want to abandon liturgical traditions of their Rite: this is the case of a direct frontal attack on the Deposit of the Faith, Scripture and Tradition, through open denials of key dogmas and doctrines and disciplines which come from God or the Apostles.
Prayer and Petitions
Please pray for the Bishops of the Church, for if they do not act, the entire wealth, power, prestige of the Church will be robbed by a sect of marxist sodomites and 100s of millions of souls will perish without right doctrine and sacraments.
Please also talk to your Bishop, if he appears to be somewhat Catholic. This is crucial. I know Catholics who have contacts and who are doing this right now. But more needs to be done.
The Catholic laity, on account of the inaction of the Bishops, are being forced to accept Sacraments from heretics and schismatics and perverse sodomites. They have the Divine right to be cared for pastorally by Catholic clergy who are in communion with the true Pope. And this right is being DEMONICALLY AND UNIVERSALLY TRANSGRESSED in all dioceses throughout the Catholic world in the present Crisis.
We have the Divine and Apostolic right to act with insistence and with full approval of Christ’s teaching and example.
__________
* I use quotes here, to point out how nonsensical this approach is, devoid of any reasonable assessment of historical events, because the Cardinals accepted an invalid resignation and then invalidly elected an Arch-Heretic Psychopath, so it is no exaggeration to doubt that the Cardinals are willing or able to recognize what a Faithful Catholic is!
** Ex minore is a technical term of medieval logic which refers to illations (arguments) which are based on appealing to something which is true in a lesser case, and argues from that, that it must be true in a greater case. Our Lord is doing this all the time, as for example in His parables of the King preparing for war, the architect preparing to build a tower etc., as examples of how if prudence is necessary in earthly things, it is all the more necessary in questions of eternal salvation.
*** Agostino Paravincii Bagliani & Maria Antonietta Visceglia’s, Il Conclave: continutità e mutamenti dal Medioevo a oggi, Viella Editrice, Rome, 2018, pp. 60-61 and p. 62 in fn. 75.
**** This Apostolic Right was incorporated into Pope Julius II’s, Si summus rerum Opifex of Feb. 16, 1513, Fifth Lateran Council, which provided that if this law on Papal Conclaves were violated as regards a simoniacal election, the Cardinals not involved in the simony could have recourse to a Synod or Council to dethrone the uncanonically elected antipope. Bagliani & Visceglia, op. cit, p. 40. This papal law was published previously as the Bull, Cum tam divino quam humano iure, January 14, 1505 (ibid., p. 39). This principle, acknowledged by Pope Julius II and the Fifth Lateran Council, is that which authorizes the calling of “imperfect” Synods in the time of necessity, such as ours.
It appears that Francis and the Gay Lobby are Victorious over Sodano’s Old Guard.
It seems that the alliance of the Gay Lobby and the Old Guard that apparently was involved with the engineering of the election of Francis is breaking up and the allies are now at war.
Francis appears to run the Gay Lobby while Cardinal Angelo Sodano apparently is the head of the Old Guard.
First we’ll explain who Sodano is and then show why he might be at war with Francis and the Gay Lobby?
Cardinal Sodano is the boss of the Vatican Old Guard diplomats and Cardinal Pietro Parolin has been called his “longtime protegee”:
In 2015, Vatican expert Jerry Slevin explained that Francis has put Sodano back in power by putting his “longtime protégée, [Cardinal]Pietro Parolin…. [as] No. 2 as Secretary of State, and… likely… the next pope”:
“Sodano at times was “de facto” pope during John Paul II’s incapacity. He is still Dean of Cardinals and oversaw the election of Pope Francis. His longtime protégée, Pietro Parolin, is now No. 2 as Secretary of State, and will likely be the next pope.”
“… Just before Francis’ election, Jason Berry, a “non-brainwashed” Jesuit educated award winning investigative reporter, in the NY Times urged Pope Benedict XVI to right some of the wrongs of the recent past by forcing out Cardinal Sodano, in Berry’s words, as ‘… the man who, more than any other, embodies the misuse of power that has corrupted the church hierarchy. …’. Please see, here, New York Times .” [http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2015/03_04/2015_03_29_Jerry_Catholicism_Does_It.htm] (BishopAccountability.org, “Does Sodano Dominate Pope Francis? Or Does it just Seem So?”, March 29, 2015)
Moreover, Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror, but on March 13, 2013 he turned his attention to the Catholic Church after Pope Benedict XVI resigned and wrote: “So let’s just blurt it on out: Cardinal Sodano – who has been implicated in not only covering up the Vatican’s sex abuse scandal of the century, but also in standing ‘in solidarity’ with Maciel, the Vatican’s worst pedophile criminal ever – inserted a little ‘nod and a wink’ towards his New World Order colleagues, the ‘sexual freemasons.’ And the Vatican censors removed it.”
“… And the leader of the cover-up was Cardinal Sodano. The ‘New World Order’-loving Dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano, repeatedly pressured Popes – including John Paul II (whom he apparently ‘owned’) and Benedict XVI (whom he apparently did not) to cover up the crimes of Maciel.”
“This, it now appears, is the main reason Pope Benedict resigned. After seeing the results of the thorough investigation he had demanded, and learning that Sodano and other high-level Vatican officials were implicated in the New World Order ‘gay mafia’ of ‘sexual freemasonry,’ Benedict figured the only chance he had at cleaning house was to take the drastic step of resigning. That way, a new Pope could appoint a new College of Cardinals…and throw out Sodano and the whole ‘gay mafia’ of New World Order sexual freemasons.” [https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/13/popecrisis/]
Dr. Barrett in my opinion, for the most part, got everything right except he didn’t seem to realize that the “gay mafia” and Sodano’s old Guard were allied, but separate entities.
According to La-Croix, Sodano worked hard to elect Francis in the last conclave in my opinion because he didn’t appreciate being sidelined by Pope Benedict:
“But Sodano (and his forces) survived and at the Conclave of 2013, because of being dean of the College of the Cardinals, his duties included moderating the pre-Conclave discussions and presiding at the pre-Conclave Mass. It is widely conceded that once the voting got underway he had convinced a number of other cardinals to cast their ballots for Jorge Mario Bergoglio SJ, the man who is now Pope Francis.” “It is not clear if Sodano delivered the determining votes for the Argentine pope’s election, but those tallies were essential nonetheless. And Francis was and remains well aware of that.”
“He began his pontificate with full knowledge that Sodano still had considerable reach and influence over much that was happening in ecclesiastical Rome. He also had personal experience of the former Secretary of State’s steely will to promote and to punish, especially in the pope’s native Latin America where, at least since the 1970s, policy decisions and bishop appointments were rarely made without the Italian diplomat’s input.”[https://international.la-croix.com/news/twilight-time-for-the-vatican-s-godfather/7013] So, why might Francis be at war with Sodano?
Francis’s biographer Austen Ivereigh explains when part of it started:
“Sarlinga was close to two other prominent Knights, both vigorous opponents of Bergoglio’s: Argentina’s powerful former ambassador to the Holy See, Esteban ‘Cacho’ Caselli, a wealthy businessman with close ties to former Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano, and later an Italian senator; and Héctor Aguer, Archbishop of La Plata, Bergoglio’s principal opponent in the bishops’ conference, who is a chaplain to the order.”
“Caselli’s son, Antonio Manuel, also a businessman, was the Knights’ ambassador to Argentina throughout Bergoglio’s period as archbishop.”
“The combination of Sodano – who was no longer Secretary of State after 2006 but remained influential – and Esteban Caselli in Rome, plus Bernardini, Antonio Manuel Caselli and Aguer in Buenos Aires, was widely regarded as the nexus behind the appointment of a number of conservative episcopal appointments in Argentina made over the heads of Bergoglio and the bishops’ conference.”
“Two of them, Sarlinga and José Luis Mollaghan of Rosario, who clashed with the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires over pastoral questions, have since Francis’s election left their dioceses. Mollaghan was summoned to work at the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2014, but is currently living in Buenos Aires. Sarlinga was ousted in 2015 – following scandalsinvolving misuse of church funds.” [https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/01/popes-history-knights-malta-linked-current-row/ ]
Moreover, Chat Café.com reported Cardinal Mario Bergoglio now Francis had another power struggle with the cardinal in the past and lost to Sodano:
“According to Argentine news reports here and here, Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis… shut down the IVE (probably for the same reasons we decided to start this site.) They stopped the ordinations, shut down the seminary, and put restrictions on the founder Fr. Buela and the other IVE priests. So when the Institute of the Incarnate Word tries to blame their Argentine problems on “liberals” and “left-wingers”, it’s the Pope they are blaming.”
“What is also news to us is that Cardinal Sodano – the same Cardinal Sodano that got busted taking bribes from and supporting the Legion of Christ’s disgraced founder Fr. Maciel – is the person that helped Buela and the Institute get out of their problems with the Argentine Bishops.”
“Again from Argentine Press: In efforts which would not have been outside of (former Argentine President) Menem’s former ambassador to the Vatican and current gentleman of the Holy See, and Archbishop Aguer Esteban Caselli, Buela got the powerful Cardinal Angelo Sodano to protect him. Not only did the Vatican reverse the order closing its seminaries, but it managed moving the IVE headquarters to Italy, to the diocese of Velletri-Segni, 60 kilometers south of Rome, where since mid-2001 has its Generalate and Buela parent lives.”
‘These moves by Sodano were a “great humiliation” and a “slap in the face” to the Argentine Bishops. So much so that then Cardinal Bergoglio even traveled to Rometo meet privately with Pope Benedict and express his concern over influence that Ambassador Casselli (and his ally Sodano) still had in appointing Bishops (such as the lone Argentine supporter of the IVE, Bishop Hector Aguer.) Like an excerpt from a Godfather movie, Casselli, Aguer, and Sodano coordinated together and the Sodano and Casselli families even had close economic ties. ”
Iveinfo.info.org shows ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick is another protégée of Sodano in terms of the IVE:
“As we mentioned at the beginning, the IVE says this was all just persecution for their faithfulness and orthodoxy by liberal bishops. Even if this were the case, it’s a bit far-fetched considering their benefactors are the scandal-plagued Cardinal Sodano and the uber-liberal and equally scandal-plagued Cardinal McCarrick. Were there no faithful and orthodox Bishops available in the US or Italy to come to their aid?”
“… Cardinal Sodano This is the guy that will ordain you if you go to the seminary in Italy. The local bishops won’t ordain IVE candidates any more. If Sodano isn’t available (or if he can’t be troubled – eg. when there is only one person to be ordained deacon) the IVE have to search a bit before they find someone that will do ordinations for them.”
The Catholic News Agengy (CNA) reported that “Cardinal McCarrick reportedly lived on IVE seminary property during retirement”:
“One source close to the Archdiocese of Washington told CNA that the cardinal had for a time an IVE brother in formation living in his residence, which was on the parish property but separate from the house of formation.”
According to Gloria.tv, it now appears that Francis finally feels he has enough power to get rid of the Sodano who caused him a “great humiliation” and a “slap in the face”:
“December 13 was the day of Francis’ fiftieth priestly anniversary.”
“Weeks before, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, 92, as the Dean of the College of Cardinals, suggested to Francis to celebrate this day with a Mass together with the cardinals residing in Rome, writes Sandro Magister (December 21).”
“But Francis said no.”
“Sodano didn’t give up. He sent the sub-dean Cardinal Re, 85, and Francis agreed.”
“However, the Mass took place in total secrecy. The Vatican regime media published no news and no photos. Magister writes that this was on Francis’ strict order.”
“The usually loquacious Francis didn’t preach, nor did he say a word before or after Mass. Sodano wasn’t allowed to wish him well. The address was only published in the after-noon.”
“After the Mass, Francis quickly and coldly greeted the cardinals one by one and ran off.”
The evidence appears to show that Sodano’s Old Guard didn’t appreciate being sidelined by Pope Benedict and they as well as the Gay Lobby initiated Vatileaks and other unsavory maneuvers to get the pope to resign. The Old Guard in my opinion have pretty much controlled Francis until recently, but it looks like he recently thinks he has enough power to take them on. Even before the sacking of Sodano, his Old Guard recently apparently has been systematically defeated by Francis and the Vatican Gay Lobby.
The Old Guard Vatican diplomats whose top official is Sercetary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin was “attack[ed]” and “is being targeted” by the Vatican Bank (IOR) which is headed by the Francis appointed Gay Lobby Monsignor Battista Ricca according to Italian news outlet Ilmerraggero. (Ilmessaggero.it, “Vatican, IOR attacks the Secretariat of State: alleged financial irregularities,” October 2, 2019)
The Ilmessaggero article reported Parolin’s Secretariat of State offices were broken into by Vatican police with the apparent approval of Francis:
“[I]n the offices of the Secretariat of State… the Vatican judicial police officers broke in for a reconnaissance that led to the seizure of documents and computers.”
Gloria.tv revealed:
“The Italian daily Ilmessaggero.it has presented the Vatican’s recent financial scandal as a ‘clash of power’ between the Vatican Bank and the Secretary of State.” (Gloria.tv, “Vatican Scandal: Now the Accused Speaks,” October 6, 2019)
Moreover, Gloria.tv reported the Francis Vatican raid was a sneak attack:
“Secretary of State Piero Parolin, was unaware of the problems leading to the suspension of five high-placed collaborators in his own dicastery.”
“According to Corriere.it (October 3), Parolin was informed by Francis only a few hours before the raid in the Secretariat of State took place.” (Gloria.tv, “No Dialogue: Parolin Informed in Last Minute,” October 4, 2019)
Furthermore, Vatican expert Andrea Gagliarducci says the Francis Gay Lobby takeover of Parolin’s Old Guard Secretary of State is long planned including putting Gay Lobby Archbishop Edgar Pena Parra as the second in command behind Parolin at the Secretariat.
Parra is deeply connected to Francis’s closest collaborator pro-gay Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga and his alleged gay predator ex-auxiliary Bishop Juan Jose Pineda who was forced to resign.
In August, Gagliarducci reported the Francis Gay Lobby takeover of the Old Guard’s last strong hold at the Vatican:
“Pope Francis is setting up his team in the Secretariat of State. This new team will have no connection with the old guard.” (Mondayvatican.com, “Pope Francis, how the transition is taking place,” August 5, 2019)
Moreover, Gagliarducci says the “attack” on the Old Guard is “unprecedented” in the history of the Vatican:
“[W]hy should an entity under the oversight, namely the Institute for Religious Works [the Vatican Bank], report on other bodies that oversee it… the Secretariat of State?”
“… Possible answer is that the green light came directly by the Pope to the prosecutor…”
“The attack to the Institution from within the Institution is unprecedented for the Holy See. It shows the extent of the internal struggle.” (Mondayvatican.com, “Pope Francis, what is happening in the Vatican?,” October 7, 2019)
It appears that Francis and the Gay Lobby are victorious over Sodano’s Old Guard. Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ and the Immaculate Heart of the Mary.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE SACKING OF Cardinal Angelo Sodano, A CASE OF BETTER LATE THAN NEVER, GOD FORBID THAT HIS PROTEGE, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, SHOULD SUCCEED FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL
Pope Francis’s Christmas address of December 21—the traditional feast of the doubting Thomas the Apostle and of the Ember Saturday of Advent—is exactly the antithesis of the famous “hermeneutic of continuity” address delivered by Pope Benedict XVI on December 22, 2005. In that speech, Ratzinger (successfully or unsuccessfully) tried to reconnect the postconciliar experiment with the 3,000-year history of the Church as God’s Israel.
Francis is saying, in effect: “Nope, not gonna happen. In fact, we need to ramp up the modernization efforts and leave behind that stale, rigid old past. If we want to keep Christianity, we have to change everything.”
After a groanworthy citation of the Jesuits’ favorite out-of-context line from Cardinal Newman—“here below, to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often”—Francis continues:
The history of God’s people – the history of the Church – has always been marked by new beginnings, displacements and changes. This journey, of course, is not just geographical, but above all symbolic: it is a summons to discover the movement of the heart, which, paradoxically, has to set out in order to remain, to change in order to be faithful…. All of this has particular importance for our time, because what we are experiencing is not simply an epoch of changes, but an epochal change. We find ourselves living at a time when change is no longer linear, but epochal. It entails decisions that rapidly transform our ways of living, of relating to one another, of communicating and thinking, of how different generations relate to one another and how we understand and experience faith and science. Often we approach change as if were a matter of simply putting on new clothes, but remaining exactly as we were before. I think of the enigmatic expression found in a famous Italian novel: “If we want everything to stay the same, then everything has to change” (The Leopard by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa).
He insists that he is not talking about incidental or accidental change:
Seen in this light, change takes on a very different aspect: from something marginal, incidental or merely external, it would become something more human and more Christian. Change would still take place, but beginning with man as its centre: an anthropological conversion.
In light of all the transhumanism and LGBTQ stuff going on, to talk about an “anthropological conversion” is pretty scary stuff. What else could it mean but a change in how we understand man himself, and how we preach and minister to him? In such words we see how faithfully Francis is following the agenda of the revolutionary faction at Vatican II who considered modernity a period unique in history, cut off from the past and requiring for Modern Man a new liturgy, a new catechesis, a new theology—in short, a new Church.
As I tried to wrap my mind around this address, I came to the conclusion that the key to understanding Francis is to see that he confuses the traditional concepts of spiritual oldness (sinfulness) and newness (renewal by the grace of Christ) with, respectively, tradition and change, and therefore with rigidity and flexibility, legalism and life in the Spirit. So while the Church sees in Christ the New Adam and prays at Christmas to be renewed by His newness so that the oldness of sin may be purged from us—a process of lifelong conversion for which the Church’s very tradition, developed under the guidance of Divine Providence, offers powerful assistance—Francis instead sees in tradition the Old Adam and the Pharisee, and in evolutionary creativity the New Adam and the man of the Gospel.
The pope continues:
Appealing to memory is not the same as being anchored in self-preservation, but instead to evoke the life and vitality of an ongoing process. Memory is not static, but dynamic. By its very nature, it implies movement. Nor is tradition static; it too is dynamic, as that great man [Gustav Mahler] used to say: tradition is the guarantee of the future and not a container of ashes.
Note how he misquotes Mahler, who actually said something deeper and more beautiful: “Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire.” That is, Mahler sees the content of tradition as a powerful fire to be preserved, while Francis sees it as a prop for future novelty.
Having stated that modern people are no longer Christian, he cries out:
In big cities, we need other ‘maps’, other paradigms, which can help us reposition our ways of thinking and our attitudes. Brothers and sisters, Christendom no longer exists!
Yes, Your Holiness: many believing Catholics would agree that we need a paradigm shift, to get us away from the worn-out strategy of the past five decades since the Council, which has failed mightily in keeping the Catholic world Catholic. We might try—I know it’s a daring concept—restoring our tradition! Experiments have shown that it attracts the youth, you know. We also recognize that Christendom has fallen—but those who are Catholic should aim to rebuild it, rather than accepting its demise in the nihilistic spirit of a fait accompli. After all, Christendom is nothing but the Faith fully lived out, fully incarnated in culture.
Humanity, then, is the key for interpreting the reform. Humanity calls and challenges us; in a word, it summons us to go forth and not fear change.
This is classic Montini language from the 1960s and 1970s: taking humanity generically as the point of reference, rather than the God-Man Jesus Christ and His revelation.
Linked to this difficult historical process there is always the temptation to fall back on the past (also by employing new formulations), because it is more reassuring, familiar, and, to be sure, less conflictual. This too is part of the process and risk of setting in motion significant changes. Here, there is a need to be wary of the temptation to rigidity. A rigidity born of the fear of change, which ends up erecting fences and obstacles on the terrain of the common good, turning it into a minefield of incomprehension and hatred. Let us always remember that behind every form of rigidity lies some kind of imbalance. Rigidity and imbalance feed one another in a vicious circle. And today this temptation to rigidity has become very real.
And now we arrive at the vintage Bergoglio text, where his fingerprints are most apparent. As any student of Church history knows, reform movements in the Church have always looked to the past for inspiration and models. Rejuvenation has come from rediscovering buried treasures. But not for this pope: looking to our heritage and our saints is, for him, a sign of fear and hatred.
I’m reading a very interesting manuscript now by a British philosopher, and this footnote really made me pause:
It is significant that effectively the same dispute about the origin of the Word occurs in both Muslim and in Christian history: on the one hand, whether the Koran is merely created or exists eternally as an uncreated expression of what God requires of us, and on the other, whether the Son is truly of God’s substance or only the first (perhaps) of all created things. In both spheres, the notion that it was ‘created’ was preferred by rulers, as it suggested both that the Word as it had been previously declared might turn out to be obsolete, and—by analogy—that their own arbitrary commands were valid.
Think about this for a moment. Both Christian and Moslem rulers wanted the divine Word (however differently they understood it) to be something created, so that it could be improved on or surpassed or suppressed by their own dictates. Believers, on the other hand, confessed the divinity of the Word, its immutability, and its normativity that stood above every ruler.
I’m not a big interreligious dialogue kind of guy, but this insight into history points to Pope Francis in a big way. His not-really-denied comments to Scalfari, his semi-Arian meanderings in homilies, his willingness to contradict the teaching of the New Testament on adultery and capital punishment (et cetera), all indicate that he regards the Word as a creature, over which, in theory, the papacy has authority. The Christmas address today provides further scaffolding: change is potentially limitless, because there is nothing immutable (“rigid”) in Christianity that cannot be changed.
Could anyone need more evidence that the Church is being ruled by someone who is barely, or not at all, Catholic? He wouldn’t even make a good Moslem. At the end of the address, the Pope, no longer hiding his cards, quotes one of the arch-progressives of the era:
Cardinal Martini, in his last interview, a few days before his death, said something that should make us think: “The Church is two hundred years behind the times. Why is she not shaken up? Are we afraid? Fear, instead of courage?”
How interesting, Your Eminence and Your Holiness. About 200 years ago was 1812, a time we can still readily associate with the French Revolution and its long aftermath that cast a stygian shadow over Europe and the world. It was the heyday of Enlightenment rationalism and liberalism, soon to yield to the age of scientific positivism and materialism. If the Church were really and truly behind these times, it would be a mark of divine blessing and protection. If the Church ever “catches up” to them, we will know that Our Lord’s prophecy has been fulfilled: “When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith on earth?”
This is a fate of which we ought to be afraid, because it would mean the loss of our souls. “Fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mt 10:28). This is the holy fear for which the pope has no room, even as the innkeepers had no room for the humble Virgin and her godfearing spouse St. Joseph.
The Pope’s Latest Speech To the Cardinals Has a Backstory. That Was Supposed To Stay Secret
*
This time as well, in the speech he gives every year to the Vatican curia before Christmas, Pope Francis has come out swinging at his unfortunate listeners.
Last year he went after the the Judases “who hide behind good intentions to stab their brothers and sow weeds.”
Two years ago he had pilloried the “trusted traitors” who “let themselves be corrupted by ambition or vainglory and, when they are gently removed, falsely declare themselves martyrs of the system, of the ‘uninformed pope,’ of the ‘old guard,’ … instead of reciting the ‘mea culpa’.”
And who is in the pope’s crosshairs this year? Below are the most biting passages from the speech given by the pope to the Roman curia on the morning of Saturday, December 21.
First, however, comes the news of another meeting that took place a few days ago between Francis and the cardinals. A meeting that started badly and ended even worse.
*
No Vatican news organization has so far mentioned this meeting. And yet it happened. It took place in the Vatican chapel of Santa Marta on the morning of Friday December 13, the fiftieth anniversary of the first Mass of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
The one who had suggested to Pope Francis that he celebrate this occasion with a Mass together with the cardinals residing in Rome had been, a few weeks earlier, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, in his capacity as dean of the college of cardinals.
Francis had replied no. But Sodano had not given up, and thanks to a second effort by college sub-dean Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, he was finally able to overcome his resistance.
In sending to the cardinals the letter of invitation for the gathering, Sodano made mention of Francis’s initial resistance.
Who, however, only slightly attenuated his impulse of distaste. On December 13 the Mass took place, but in the most absolute silence on both sides. The pope did not deliver the homily and did not say a single word either before or after the ceremony. And even Sodano was unable to read the address of good wishes he had prepared, in the name not only of those present but of the entire college of cardinals. After the Mass Francis quickly greeted the cardinals one by one and left.
In the afternoon, both “L’Osservatore Romano” and “Vatican News” published the message of good wishes from Cardinal Sodano. But without covering the news or providing a single image of the Mass celebrated with the pope.
This, in fact, was the strict order of the pontiff: no news and no photos.
Needless to say, the cardinals who had come to Santa Marta were very much struck by the pope’s coldness towards them. A coldness of which they did not understand the reason.
And this brings us to the pre-Christmas address to the curia on December 21. With the backstory just given.
Here is a link to the full text of the speech, which was followed on the same day by a papal “motu proprio” that gave news of Sodano’s resignation from the position of dean of the college of cardinals.
We find ourselves living at a time when change is no longer linear, but epochal. […] Often we approach change as if were a matter of simply putting on new clothes, but remaining exactly as we were before. I think of the enigmatic expression found in a famous Italian novel: “If we want everything to stay the same, then everything has to change” (“The Leopard” by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa).
NEW PROCESSES, NEW PARADIGMS
We need to initiate processes and not just occupy spaces: […] We must not focus on occupying the spaces where power is exercised, but rather on starting long-run historical processes. […] We need other “maps,” other paradigms, which can help us reposition our ways of thinking and our attitudes. Brothers and sisters, Christendom no longer exists!
INCORPORATING COMMUNICATION
The Dicastery for Communication has been entrusted with the responsibility of unifying in a new institution the nine bodies that, in various ways and with different tasks, had previously dealt with communications. These were the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, the Holy See Press Office, the Vatican Press, the Vatican Publishing House, L’Osservatore Romano, Vatican Radio, the Vatican Television Centre, the Vatican Internet Service and the Photographic Service. […] All this entails not only a change of culture but also an institutional and personal conversion, in order to pass from operating in self-contained units – which in the best cases had a certain degree of coordination – to working in synergy, in an intrinsically interconnected way.
RIGIDITY, SYNONYM FOR HATRED AND IMBALANCE
There is always the temptation to fall back on the past (also by employing new formulations), because it is more reassuring, familiar, and, to be sure, less conflictual. […] Here, there is a need to be wary of the temptation to rigidity. A rigidity born of the fear of change, which ends up erecting fences and obstacles on the terrain of the common good, turning it into a minefield of incomprehension and hatred. Let us always remember that behind every form of rigidity lies some kind of imbalance. Rigidity and imbalance feed one another in a vicious circle.
CHURCH BEHIND BY TWO HUNDRED YEARS
Cardinal Martini, in his last interview, a few days before his death, said something that should make us think: “The Church is two hundred years behind the times. Why is she not shaken up? Are we afraid? Fear, instead of courage?”Condividi:
This time as well, in the speech he gives every year to the Vatican curia before Christmas, Pope Francis has come out swinging at his unfortunate listeners.
Last year he went after the the Judases “who hide behind good intentions to stab their brothers and sow weeds.”
Two years ago he had pilloried the “trusted traitors” who “let themselves be corrupted by ambition or vainglory and, when they are gently removed, falsely declare themselves martyrs of the system, of the ‘uninformed pope,’ of the ‘old guard,’ … instead of reciting the ‘mea culpa’.”
And who is in the pope’s crosshairs this year? Below are the most biting passages from the speech given by the pope to the Roman curia on the morning of Saturday, December 21.
First, however, comes the news of another meeting that took place a few days ago between Francis and the cardinals. A meeting that started badly and ended even worse.
*
No Vatican news organization has so far mentioned this meeting. And yet it happened. It took place in the Vatican chapel of Santa Marta on the morning of Friday December 13, the fiftieth anniversary of the first Mass of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
The one who had suggested to Pope Francis that he celebrate this occasion with a Mass together with the cardinals residing in Rome had been, a few weeks earlier, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, in his capacity as dean of the college of cardinals.
Francis had replied no. But Sodano had not given up, and thanks to a second effort by college sub-dean Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, he was finally able to overcome his resistance.
In sending to the cardinals the letter of invitation for the gathering, Sodano made mention of Francis’s initial resistance.
Who, however, only slightly attenuated his impulse of distaste. On December 13 the Mass took place, but in the most absolute silence on both sides. The pope did not deliver the homily and did not say a single word either before or after the ceremony. And even Sodano was unable to read the address of good wishes he had prepared, in the name not only of those present but of the entire college of cardinals. After the Mass Francis quickly greeted the cardinals one by one and left.
In the afternoon, both “L’Osservatore Romano” and “Vatican News” published the message of good wishes from Cardinal Sodano. But without covering the news or providing a single image of the Mass celebrated with the pope.
This, in fact, was the strict order of the pontiff: no news and no photos.
Needless to say, the cardinals who had come to Santa Marta were very much struck by the pope’s coldness towards them. A coldness of which they did not understand the reason.
And this brings us to the pre-Christmas address to the curia on December 21. With the backstory just given.
Here is a link to the full text of the speech, which was followed on the same day by a papal “motu proprio” that gave news of Sodano’s resignation from the position of dean of the college of cardinals.
We find ourselves living at a time when change is no longer linear, but epochal. […] Often we approach change as if were a matter of simply putting on new clothes, but remaining exactly as we were before. I think of the enigmatic expression found in a famous Italian novel: “If we want everything to stay the same, then everything has to change” (“The Leopard” by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa).
NEW PROCESSES, NEW PARADIGMS
We need to initiate processes and not just occupy spaces: […] We must not focus on occupying the spaces where power is exercised, but rather on starting long-run historical processes. […] We need other “maps,” other paradigms, which can help us reposition our ways of thinking and our attitudes. Brothers and sisters, Christendom no longer exists!
INCORPORATING COMMUNICATION
The Dicastery for Communication has been entrusted with the responsibility of unifying in a new institution the nine bodies that, in various ways and with different tasks, had previously dealt with communications. These were the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, the Holy See Press Office, the Vatican Press, the Vatican Publishing House, L’Osservatore Romano, Vatican Radio, the Vatican Television Centre, the Vatican Internet Service and the Photographic Service. […] All this entails not only a change of culture but also an institutional and personal conversion, in order to pass from operating in self-contained units – which in the best cases had a certain degree of coordination – to working in synergy, in an intrinsically interconnected way.
RIGIDITY, SYNONYM FOR HATRED AND IMBALANCE
There is always the temptation to fall back on the past (also by employing new formulations), because it is more reassuring, familiar, and, to be sure, less conflictual. […] Here, there is a need to be wary of the temptation to rigidity. A rigidity born of the fear of change, which ends up erecting fences and obstacles on the terrain of the common good, turning it into a minefield of incomprehension and hatred. Let us always remember that behind every form of rigidity lies some kind of imbalance. Rigidity and imbalance feed one another in a vicious circle.
CHURCH BEHIND BY TWO HUNDRED YEARS
Cardinal Martini, in his last interview, a few days before his death, said something that should make us think: “The Church is two hundred years behind the times. Why is she not shaken up? Are we afraid? Fear, instead of courage?”Condividi:
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.