Showing posts with label Antonio Socci. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Antonio Socci. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 22, 2020

"They Are Trying to Establish a 'Neo-Church'" -- New Interview of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò


In a new interview, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano criticizes the fact that a connubium of modernists and Freemasonry wants to create a "neo-church".

(Rome) Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano has been one of the most internationally renowned Church representatives since his sharp criticism of Pope Francis in the McCarrick case. In an interview published yesterday, he spoke about the attempt to replace the Church of Jesus Christ with a "neo-church" and about the Third Mystery of Fatima.

Cardinal McCarrick had risen to become the most influential cardinal in the United States under Pope Francis. Although in June 2013, in his capacity as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Vigano had informed the Pope in detail about Cardinal McCarrick's homosexual double life and his corruption of priests and seminarians, Francis remained inactive.

It wasn't until the New York Times published McCarrick's legacy in July 2018 that Francis stripped him of cardinalship. But when the head of the church declared that he knew nothing of all that he had otherwise acted earlier, it was too much for Archbishop Vigano. He accused Francis of in fact covering up McCarrick's machinations for more than five years and making him his adviser. The archbishop accused Francis not only of cover-up and omission, but also of lying, and called on him to resign. Francis declined to comment.

Archbishop Vigano, on the other hand, has been living in secret "for fear of retribution" ever since and only goes public in writing. An exception was the Acies ordinata against the "Synodal Way" of the German Episcopal Conference, which took place in Munich last January. Archbishop Vigano surprisingly mingled with the participants.

Yesterday he gave an interview to the Portuguese newspaper Dies Irae in which he also commented on the Third Secret of Fatima.

DIes Irae: Excellency, thank you for giving us this interview. We are in the midst of the COVID-19 epidemic that has affected the lives of millions of people in recent months and has even caused the deaths of many of them. In view of this situation, the Church, through the Episcopal Conferences, has decided to close virtually all churches and to deprive the faithful of access to the sacraments. On March 27, In front of an empty St. Peter's Square, Pope Francis led a hypothetical prayer for humanity in an apparently media-friendly manner. There have been many reactions to the way in which the Pope carried out this moment, one of which tried to link the lonely presence of Francis with the message of Fatima, that is, with the Third Mystery. Do you agree?

Archbishop Vigano: First of all, allow me to say that it is a pleasure for me to give this interview to the faithful of Portugal, to whom the Blessed Virgin has promised to keep it in the Faith even in these times of great trial. You are a people with great responsibility, because you may soon have to preserve the holy fire of religion, while other nations refuse to recognize Christ as their king and the blessed Mary as their queen.

The third part of the message, which Our Lady entrusted to the shepherd children of Fatima so that they may deliver it to the Holy Father, is still secret. Our Lady asked for it to be revealed in 1960, but John XXIII issued a press release on 8 February of that year declaring that the Church "does not want to assume the responsibility of guaranteeing the truthfulness of the words which the shepherd children say the Virgin Mary addressed to them." With this distancing from the message of the Queen of Heaven, a cover-up operation began, apparently because the content of the message would have revealed the terrible conspiracy against the Church of Christ by its enemies. Until a few decades ago, it would have seemed unthinkable that one would go so far as to silence even Our Lady. In recent years, however, we have even experienced attempts to censor the Gospel, the word of her divine Son.

In 2000, during the pontificate of John Paul II, the Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano [1990–2006], presented his own version as the Third Secret, which, due to some elements, clearly seemed incomplete. It is not surprising that the new Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone [2006–2013], tried to draw attention to an event from the past, only to make the people of God believe that the words of the Virgin had nothing to do with the Church crisis and with the interaction of modernists and Freemasonry behind the scenes of the Second Vatican Council. Antonio Socci, who has carefully examined the Third Secret, exposed this deliberate behaviour of Cardinal Bertone. At the same time, it was Bertone himself who strongly discredited and censored the tears of Tears of Our Lady of Civitavecchia, whose message perfectly matches what she had said in Fatima.

Let us not forget the unnoticed appeal of Our Lady to the Pope encouraging all bishops to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart in order to defeat Communism and atheist materialism: not to consecrate "the world, not that nation that you want us to consecrate to you ", but "Russia". Did it cost too much to do that?

Obviously yes for those who have no view of the supernatural. One preferred the path of détente with the Soviet regime that Roncalli had taken, without understanding that peace is not possible without God. 

Today, with a President of the Russian Federation who is certainly a Christian, this request of the Virgin could be fulfilled in order to avert further catastrophes for the Church and the world.

Benedict XVI also confirmed the topicality of the message of the Virgin Mary, although according to the interpretation spread by the Vatican, it is to be regarded as complete. Those who have read the Third Secret said in all clarity that it concerns the apostasy of the Church, which began at the very beginning of the 1960s and has now reached such an obvious stage that it is recognized even by inexperienced observers. This almost compulsive insistence on issues that the Church has always condemned, such as relativism and religious indifferentism, false ecumenism, Malthusian ecology, homoheresy and mass immigration, has found in the Abu Dhabi Declaration the fulfilment of a plan conceived by secret sects for more than two centuries.

DIes Irae: In the middle of Holy Week and after the Synod of Amazons, the Pope decided to set up a commission to discuss and study the women's diaconate in the Catholic Church. Do you think that this has the purpose of paving the way for the clericalization of women, or, in other words, an attempt to manipulate the priesthood that our Lord Jesus Christ instituted on Holy Thursday?

Archbishop Vigano: The Sacrament of Holy Orders can and will never be changed in its nature. The attack on the priesthood has always been at the heart of the actions of the heretics and their inspirer, and it is understandable that attacking the priesthood means destroying Holy Mass and the Most holy Eucharist, as well as the entire sacramental structure. Among the conspiratorial enemies of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, there was, of course, no shortage of modernists who, since the 19th century, have theorized a Church without priests or with priests and priestesses. These delusions, anticipated by some representatives of modernism in France, subtly resurfaced at the Second Vatican Council in an attempt to imply a certain equivalence between the official priesthood resulting from the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the general priesthood of the faithful emerging from baptism. It is significant that it is precisely through the play with this deliberate misunderstanding, the reformed liturgy [Novus Ordo] is also affected by the doctrinal error of Lumen gentium, going so far as to reduce the consecration to mere presiding in a meeting of [general] priests. The priest is in reality an old Christ, not because the people appoint him, but through the ontological alignment with the high priest Jesus Christ, whom he has to imitate in the holiness of life and in the absolute devotion, which is also represented by celibacy.

The next step therefore had to be necessarily followed, if not by the extinguishing of the priesthood, then at least by making it ineffective by extending it to women who cannot be consecrated. It is precisely what has happened in the Protestant and Anglican sects, which today are also experiencing the embarrassing situation of having lesbian bishops in the so-called Church of England. It is obvious that the ecumenical "pretext" – that is, the approach to deviating communities, even by accepting the latest errors – is based on Satan's hatred of the priesthood and would inevitably ruin the Church of Christ. At the same time,  ecclesiastical celibacy is also the target of the same attacks, because it belongs unmistakably to the Catholic Church and is a valuable protection for the priesthood, which tradition it has kept vigorously throughout the centuries.

The attempt to introduce a form of consecrated women's ministry in the Church, despite the repeated declarations of the Magisterium, is not new. John Paul II, too, clearly defined, with all the canonical requirements of an infallible ex-Cathedra declaration, that it is absolutely impossible to question the doctrine on this subject. But just as one has put one's hand on the Catechism to declare the death penalty "not in conformity with the Gospel", which is unprecedented and heretical, so today one tries ex novo to invent some form of female diaconate – propaedeutic, of course, for the future introduction of the women's priesthood.

The first Commission set up by Bergoglio years ago issued a negative opinion and confirmed what could not even have been discussed. Because a commission was unwilling to obey Francis' wishes, this does not mean that another commission whose members he chooses could not be more "docile" and more willing to destroy another pillar of the Catholic faith. I have no doubt that Bergoglio has convincing methods and that he can put pressure on the Theological Commission. But I am equally sure that in the unfortunate event that this consultative body should give a favourable opinion, it will not necessarily need an official statement by the Pope to see the introduction of deaconesses in the dioceses of Germany or Holland – while Rome is silent on this. This method is well known and makes it possible, on the one hand, to attack the priesthood and, on the other hand, to provide a pleasant alibi for those within the ecclesial structures who thus claim at all times that "the Pope has not allowed anything new". This is exactly what they have done by authorizing the Episcopal Conferences to allow autonomous hand-Communion, which was enacted by abuse and has now become a worldwide practice.

We should remember that this approach to the dogmas of the Church confirms an undeniable fact: Bergoglio has adopted the so-called situation theology, whose loci theologici, theological places, random facts or themes are: the world, nature, the feminine, young people... This is a theology which does not focus on the immutable and eternal truth of God, but on the contrary starts from observing the imperative urgency of phenomena in order to give answers that correspond to the expectations of today's world.

Dies Irae: According to renowned historians, the Second Vatican Council was a break between the Church and tradition. Hence the appearance of ways of thinking, which they want to transform into a mere humanitarian association that embraces the world and embraces its globalist utopia. How do you see this serious problem?

Archbishop Vigano: A church that presents itself as new in contrast to the Church of Christ is simply not the Church of Christ! The Mosaic religion, that is, the "Church of the Old Law", which was wanted by God to lead His people to the coming of the Messiah, has found its fulfillment and completion in the New Covenant and was finally revoked on Calvary by the sacrifice of Christ. From his open side came the New and Eternal Covenant, which replaced the synagogue. It seems that the post-Conciliar, modernist and Freemason Church also aims to transform, overcome, and replace the Church of Christ with a "neo-church", a disfigured and monstrous creature that does not come from God.

The purpose of this neo-church is not to get the chosen people to recognize the Messiah, just as it is not the purpose for the synagogue to convert and save all peoples from the second coming of Christ, which is the purpose of the Catholic Church. Its purpose is rather to constitute itself as the spiritual arm of the New World Order and to promote the One World Religion. In this sense, the Council Revolution first had to destroy the heritage of the Church, its thousand-year-old tradition from which it drew its vitality and authority as the mystical body of Christ. Then it was a matter of getting rid of the representative of the old hierarchy, and only recently she began to show herself to be what she wants to be, without pretense or camouflage.

What you call utopia is in fact a dystopia, because it represents the concreteization of the plan of Freemasonry and prepares the appearance of the Antichrist.

I am also convinced that the majority of my confreres, and especially almost all priests and believers, are not fully aware of this hellish plan, and that recent events have opened the eyes of many. Their faith will enable our Lord to gather the pusillus grex, the small flock, before the final confrontation around the true shepherd.

Dies Irae: In order to restore the ancient splendour of the Church, it will be necessary to question many aspects of the Council's teaching. What points of the Second Vatican Council would you question?

Archbishop Vigano: I believe that there is no shortage of important personalities who have already expressed the critical points of the Council better than I have. There are those who believe that it would be less complicated and certainly wiser to follow the practice of the Church and the Popes as it was used in the Synod of Pistoia. It also contained good things, but the errors it claimed were considered sufficient to make them forgotten.

This Irae: Is the current pontificate the culmination of a process that begins with the Second Vatican Council and was longed for in the so-called "Catacomb Pact", or is it still an intermediate phase?

Archbishop Vigano: As with any revolution, the heroes of the first hour often fall victim to their own system, as was the case with Robespierre. Those who were regarded yesterday as the flag bearers of the Council Spirit now appear almost as conservatives: the examples of this are visible before all eyes. There are already those who, in the intellectual circles of progressivism (such as those frequented by a haughty Massimo Faggioli), begin to dispel doubts here and there about Bergoglio's real abilities, to make "courageous decisions" – for example, to abolish celibacy, to allow women to the priesthood, or to legitimize the Communicatio in sacris with heretics – almost as if he were hoping that he would step down in order to elect a pope who was even more obedient to the elites who had their most unscrupulous and determined followers in the Catacomb Pact and in the Mafia of St. Gallen.

This Irae: Our Excellency, we Catholics today often feel isolated from the Church and almost abandoned by our shepherds. What can you say to the hierarchs and believers who, despite the confusion and error that are spreading in the Church, are trying to persevere in this tough struggle to maintain the integrity of our faith?

Archbishop Vigano: My words would certainly be inadequate. I confine myself to repeating the words of our Lord, the eternal word of the Father: "Be sure, I am with you all the days until the end of the world." Of course, we feel isolated: but did the Apostles not feel that way, and all Christians? Didn't even Our Lord feel abandoned in Gethsemane? These are times of trial, perhaps of the last trial: we must drink the bitter cup, and even if it is human emanating from the Lord to let him pass by us, we must repeat with confidence: "But not as I will, but as you will" and remember His words of consolation: "In the world you are in affliction; but have courage: I have conquered the world."

After trial, however hard and painful it may be, the eternal reward will be prepared for us that no one can take away from us. The Church will once again radiate the glory of her Lord after this terrible and long-lasting Easter triduum.

Although prayer is undoubtedly indispensable, we must not relent on fighting the good struggle, but should make everyone witnesses of a courageous spirit of struggle under the banner of the Cross of Christ. Let us not allow the finger to be pointed at us, as the maid did in the court of the high priest with Saint Peter: "You also were one of his disciples," and then he denied Christ. Let us not be intimidated! Let us not allow the gag of tolerance to be applied to those who wish to proclaim the truth! Let us ask the Blessed Virgin and Our Lady Mary that our tongue can courageously proclaim the kingdom of God and Hs righteousness. May the miracle of Lapa be renewed, where the blessed Mary gave back the voice to little Joana, who was born dumb. May she also give us a voice, her children, who have remained silent for too long.

Our Lady of Fatima, Queen of Victories, ora pro nobis.


Introduction/translation: Giuseppe
Nardi Picture: Corrispondenza Romana
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Libero Poll: 84% Miss Pope Benedict


The daily newspaper "Libero" has been conducting an online vote since yesterday with clear results. In the picture Pope Benedict XVI. as a cardinal.

(Rome) The Italian daily newspaper Libero has been conducting an online vote since yesterday. The question is: "Are you missing Ratzinger as head of the church?"

The current voting result

Only one-time voting is possible. The vote is counted after a few seconds and the current result is published as a percentage. It is not known how many readers have been involved in the vote. The reconciliation result is continually updated and is unambiguous. On April 13th, at 8:57 am, it looked as follows:

84 per cent of Libero readers have replied: Yes, I am missing Ratzinger as a church leader. Only 16 percent have so far denied the question.

The well-known Italian journalist Antonio Socci, who takes a very critical attitude towards the reigning Pope, writes for the daily newspaper Libero.

The comments on the online vote reflect the mood among the voters. Some examples:

A Franco Ranuzzini wrote:

"Ratzinger spoke of God and frequently quoted the Bible, but it is only understood that Bergoglio was a Pope because he is dressed in white, otherwise he would be considered a politician."

A Francesco Cenatiempo added in response to Ranuzzini's comment:

"No, Bergoglio is the Imam of the Vatican."

A Riccardo Cavalli wrote:

"The Pope is Benedict XVI.  In his recent sermons, Bergoglio crosses the line. He said that Jesus was the devil! And made himself a serpent! Is there any doubt about who Bergoglio is and who is Pope? Read the visions of Emmerich and Neumann. Let us remain faithful to the everlasting doctrine and the constant teaching of the Church!

Giorgio Collarin wrote:

"High on the emeritus pope. Happy Birthday!"

The representativeness of the survey can cast doubt on the overall question as to whether a Catholic Church head should be measured in surveys. In any case, the Libero Initiative makes visible a part of the mood among the people, which is a counterpoint to the likely attitude of the leading media toward Pope Francis.

Is it also the case that 84 per cent miss Benedict XVI as Pope because Francis "makes himself invisible"  on the Triduum, to  the Church, and celebrates the Mass of the Last Supper not in the Lateran basilica with his diocese and the world church, but to their exclusion and in the public From?

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Libero (Screenshots)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Pope Francis Before the Most Blessed Sacrament: "He did not kneel, remove his pileolus, and assume an attitude of prayer"

Pope Francis sat in the crypt of Milan Cathedral before the Most Blessed Sacrament:
"He did not kneel, sat, not once did he remove his pileolous and assume an attitude of prayer"

(Milan) In the context of his visit to Milan today and the meeting with the clergy of the Archdiocese in the Cathedral of Milan, Pope Franziskus spent some time before the Blessed Sacrament. "He does not kneel, but sits down on a beautiful chair surrounded by other prelates who stand ..." Thus,  Antonio Socci criticized the scene, which provoked criticism from different sides.

The traditional page Messa in latino added some comments. Its author criticized Francis' attitude before the Blessed Sacrament, as had not yet been voiced by him in the four years of this pontificate.

"The Pope did not visit the Blessed Sacrament on the main altar (which would have been a good and proper opportunity to provide visibility to the worthy worship of God, the climax of the liturgy and the cult), but in the crypt, almost as if it were a private act that is made in secret and in a hurry.
A prie dieu was not even provided. That is, the master of ceremonies of the cathedral had instructions not to set him one up at all. The pope does not want to use the prie dieu and apparently does not even have one on hand.

Francis did not even remove the white pileolus on his head before the Blessed Sacrament. It was once named Soli Deo because it is only removed for God in the Sacrament.

Expression and body language, the folded hands, indicate that the pope is not taking a prayerful disposition before the Lord in prayer and worship, but just as if he were in a program and had to make an intermediate stop in the crypt which had annoyed him. The look seems apathetic as if he did not see God in the Most Blessed Sacrament.


Francis before the Most Blessed Sacrament: "Apathetic look, no disposition of prayer"

Pope Francis does not seem to have the intention of wishing to foster acts of worshiping God, as they are only due to God. He does not kneel down, as is known (he suffers, it is said, but not officially). But he sits instead of not taking the pileolus off and not to fold his hands? No, I believe he does not believe in the real presence!

On Holy Thursday we will see it.

It is pointless: I am told that I must love and respect this pope. I just do not succeed in loving him. It is hard for me to respect him.

He is Pope by right, but he does not sanctify and teach it in his office. Perhaps he is pope only in government (Therewith, to place the Franciscans of the Immaculate under provisional administration and to dismiss bishops, to protect homosexual priests, and to promote worker priests).

Christian Caritas is merited when it comes out of love for Christ. Without Christ, it is only atheistic social aid."

Text / translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Vatican.va (screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Is Benedict XVI the Last Pope? "Everything is Possible," says Benedict himself.

Is Benedict XVI the Last Pope?
(Rome) "Who is Pope today and how many are there exactly?"  Italian journalist Antonio Socci, who is known by his accentuated criticism of Pope Francis asked on Saturday in his publication for the daily  Libero. General confusion reigns in the Church, and the new interview book by Benedict XVI., "The Last Conversations,"  instead of clearing away the fog, adds to it.
Socci had questioned 2014/2015 the validity of the election of Pope Francis. He has more recently distanced himself from this thesis though, yet he doesn't seem to have given it up so completely. The still surprising resignation of Benedict XVI, still disturbs him and other Catholics too.  It's an inner restlessness that is constantly fueled  anew by the pontificate of Francis.
In the new article, Socci has occupied himself once more with the validity of the official renunciation of Benedict and its even more surprising step, to introduce a previously completely unknown figure of "emeritus pope."  Is Benedict still Pope? How can there be two popes? These questions not only arise to Socci, as leading canonists have warned of the introduction of this figure. Such things were raised by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, a close confidant of Benedict XVI., who does not approve of the step in the "retirement." Therefore, the cardinal warned last July against the institutionalization of a "papa emeritus", also because there are groups in the Church, who still hold Benedict for the legitimate pope, and thus is a dangerously explosive force with the risk of schism in the air  (see Cardinal Brandmüller: Figure of an "Emeritus" Pope poses "Serious Risks" for Unity of the Church in German).

 The Most Curious Detail

"I start with the most curious detail," says Socci. Peter Seewald asked Benedict XVI. if he knew the prophecy of Malachi, who allegedly created a list of all future popes until the end of the world in the Middle Ages. According to this list the papacy, and therefore the Church, would end with Benedict XVI.. Seewald didn't ask the question about the last Pope directly but took a  turn from it: What if Benedict XVI. actually were to be the last pope, who has represented the figure of Peter's successor in the unprecedented form?
"The response from Ratzinger is surprising: 'Alles kann sein.'  Everything is possible? Even that Benedict is the last pope, although for more than three years his successor has ruled? In Seewald's book Benedict adds:  'This prophecy probably arose in the circles around Philip Neri.'"
"He calls them, 'prophecy,' and returns to a great saint and mystic of the Church, and then to loosen up concluding with a joke, but that was his answer," says Socci.

The Break

"Does  Benedict XVI. believe his is the last papacy (at the end of the world or at least the end of the Church)?"  asks Socci. "Probably not. But then does he think  - at least according to the recounting of his interlocutor -- one who has exercised the papacy in the recognizeable form for the last two thousand years? Perhaps. This statement can be heard, because the papacy can not be changed by human will as a divine institution as is well known, of the Church."
But what change will it involved? "Is there a break in the uninterrupted tradition of the Church? Another point in the book points in this direction. Do you see yourself as the last pope of the old or as the first of the new world?'  Benedict XVI's answer to Seewald's question: 'I would say both. '"
"But what does that mean," asks Socci. What does "old" and "new world" mean, especially for someone like Benedict XVI., who always opposed an interpretation of Vatican II as a 'break' with tradition and instead emphasized its continuity?
Seewald ascribes to  Benedict XVI. a "revolutionary"  conduct with which he, "like no other pope of modern times, changed the papacy."  Socci wonders whether this assertion, "clearly alludes to the  introduction of 'emeritus pope,'"  a reference to a concrete statement by Benedict XVI. in the book which he had made and thought to be valuable.

The Detective Story

Socci recalls that the figure of an "emeritus pope"  is completely alien to Church history and emphasizes the canon emphatically that a Pope who waives his office, automatically returns to the status he had prior to his election, because the papacy, in contrast to the episcopal ordination, is not a sacrament. While the bishops, therefore, remain bishops, even if they no longer exert a particular jurisdiction, this was not the case with a Pope.
Nevertheless, Benedict XVI announced in the last days of his pontificate against the opinion of all canonists  that he would become an "emeritus pope"  after his resignation. He did not offer a canonical or theological justification of his unusual step, which was even more unusual than the resignation itself. Rather, he said, during his last general audience on February 27th: "My decision to dispense with the active version of the office, this does not withdraw it back [being a pope]."
He coupled this statement with his announcement of remaining at the Vatican and continuing to wear the robe of a pope and the papal coat of arms and to be introduced with his papal name, including the honorary title "His Holiness".
"That was enough to ask the question of what is happening, and whether he was really withdrawn from the papacy." Therefore, Socci had, as early as 2013, been concerned in numerous articles with the unusual resignation and the subsequent conclave.
Meanwhile, the canon lawyer Stefano Violi, examining the Declaratio,  with which Benedict XVI. announced his resignation, came to the conclusion: "Benedict XVI. agreed to renounce the ministerium [service]:  not the papacy under the provisions of Boniface VIII, nor of the munus [Official] according to Canon 332, paragraph 2, but to the ministerium, or as clarified in his last audience, to the active exercise of the ministry."
After Antonio Socci had pointed the finger at inconsistencies in several articles,  the Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli, very closely linked to Pope Francis,  asked Pope Benedict XVI in February 2014  why he had remained "emeritus pope". The answer was:
"The maintenance of the white robe and the name Benedict is simply a practical matter. At the time of the resignation there were no other garments available. "
There were no other garments available?
"Tornielli broadcast his 'sensational news' in all directions, but on closer inspection, the words must have proven an elegant joke to suggest a question that Benedict XVI. then could not speak on (Who believes that there were no black cassocks in the Vatican?)," says Socci. "But he speaks now about three years later, and explained the reasons for its decision, which have nothing to do with sartorial affairs."

"It means that he is pope"

In the new interview the considerations on the bishops come out. When it was stipulated there would be a limit of their tenure at 75 years, the "Bishop Emeritus" was created because it was said that a father always remains father.
Benedict XVI. now says that also about himself. Even if the children are already grown, the father remains father, even if he no longer bears the whole responsibility connected to fatherhood.  He remained a father in a deeper, more intimate sense, said Benedict XVI.
Socci speaks of a "poetic idea", others speak of a transfigured representation. but on the theological level it was "explosive", because "it means that he is pope."
His personal secretary, Archbishop Curia Georg Gänswein, announced last May in his speech at the Gregoriana   at what Benedict XVI. now sets forth in his interview book. Gänswein went even further and in detail.
Gänsweins speech, which was concealed by most media, "struck the Roman Curia like a nuclear bomb", according to Socci. Gänswein said the papal service hasn't been the same as before, since February 11, 2013. The papacy has in fact been the foundation of the Catholic Church, but it was altered by Benedict XVI. through his "exception pontificate" fundamentally and permanently.
His resignation and the creation of the figure of "emeritus pope" was a "weighty step of a millennially historic proportions."  It's a step that had never happened before, because Benedict XVI. never gave up his Petrine ministry, but "renewed" it.
The novelty lies in the "extension" of the papacy from a "collegial and synodal dimension" to an office exerted "quasi communally."  Although there really are not two popes, it's  a de facto "expanded" papacy with an "active and contemplative" Pope.
One of two people effecting a common Office? One wonders seriously, what the situation is and rubs his eyes in disbelief. Paul Badde had already asked Gänswein a few days after his Gregorian speech about the Malachy prophecy. Such things might be add a little spice to an interview or an article by a journalist, but it hardly helps the Church much in its current situation.  Gänswein gave the impression in his Gregorian speech and  Badde interview for EWTN  that he wanted to ultimately transfigure the incomprehensible step of Benedict XVI.  and subsequently charge through a constructed meaning, which actually made all rather worse. Especially Gänswein's response to Badde, he would have "no problem"  with four or five popes emeritus, lacks of seriousness. The whole situation of Benedict's resignation  is problematic enough, without the need for sloppy swaggering.

Torpedo against Benedict

Socci does not stop till he reaches his next goal. Until the Gänswein speech "Bergoglio must have already heard these things by Benedict XVI  without understanding them, as the emeritus papacy was explained:" The Resignation of Benedict XVI. was a "government action" comparable to a bishop who renounces and retires his jurisdiction.
Since the Gänswein speech of May "the Court of Bergoglio has only just become aware of the scale of the problem," says Socci, hence as Francis issued upon returning from Armenia, the clear rejection of the notion of a "common Petrine ministry."
In August Tornielli ( "The Thermometer of the Curia") published an interview with the eminent canonists and representatives of the Roman Curia, Titular Bishop Giuseppe Sciacca, who unreservedly shredded the figure of an "emeritus pope." "The uniqueness of Peter's successor does not allow further discrimination or duplication of the Office" or even the nominal service as an honorary title. There is especially  no distinction between the office and its exercise (see New Broadside Against "Emeritus Pope" - Canonist Sciacca: "Legally and Theologically Untenable" in German).
So Socci gets in the core of his column to a question which is quite legitimate, but at the same time, of which Cardinal Brandmüller recently warned:
"Benedict XVI. had decided to retain the authority of the Pope and to dispense only with the active exercise of the office. If this  decision of his is inadmissible and void, does it mean that even his resignation is null and void?"
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: MiL
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Ban on Criticizing the Pope is a Structural (Conservative) Problem

Cardinal Kasper: Amoris Laetitia is "the most important document
in Church history of the last 1,000 years"

(Rome) While Cardinal Walter Kasper called Amoris laetitia "the most important document of the Church's history in the past 1000 years," his great adversary in the Synod of Bishops in 2014, "Cardinal Raymond Burke" (Sandro Magister), clings to formal restrictions.
There is no shortage of parts of the Church that match vociferously with Kasper's  assessment. This includes the daily newspaper Avvenire  of the Italian Episcopal Conference . It  is  headed by  another papal confidant, Bishop Nunzio Galatino. The daily sees Amoris Laetitia not just "according to the thinking of a wise father," but exactly how Cardinal Burke does not want to see it. Namely, a regular document of the Magisterium Amoris Laetitia which was a "revolutionary" document that sealed  "by archiving  pastoral prohibitions and constraints," and "that had turned more into a reading of the code of canon law, instead of the Gospel."

"Poor Cardinal Burke, who clings to codes and commas"

"Poor Cardinal Burke, a great canonist, who clings to nothing but codes and commas ...", said the Vatican expert Sandro Magister. "Undoubtedly," said Magister,  Pope Francis  has also thought of Burke, when he speaks of the Article 305 in Amoris Laetitia, writing of those who know "only how close their heart only with moral laws...", "as if they were boulders that were thrown on the lives of people. "
In comparison, the proponents of the "pastoral reorientation" (Cardinal Schönborn) appear to have an easy time. They offer to people supposedly what they want to hear.

Conservative prohibition of criticism  forces it to a sideshow 

Even Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, another Cardinal who had rendered outstanding services in the past two years to defend the sacrament of marriage, has so far limited his formalistic criticism of Amoris Laetitia. The content of the post-synodal letter was not the problem, but the false interpretations. In other words, what the Pope says, that it is all right, it is  just misunderstood. A reading of this pontificate, which was bumpy from the start and  easily turns into a stumbling block, just as  now.
Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller  in not criticizing the pope, are forced to resort to a sideshow and to steer clear of the actual battlefield. Criticism of Amoris Laetitia  turns out to be weak when it renounces the direct, substantive confrontation. While some are going onto the sidelines,  Cardinals like Kasper and Schönborn roll ahead at full speed on the main line and announce the exact opposite. They talk about content and refer explicitly to Pope Francis. The do not address  formal questions. 
The weakness of the cardinatial resistance is homemade in this case because the cardinals themselves are possessed of their strongest means, when they bring forth a substantive confrontation. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of the consequences? What consequences? Is it not perhaps a lack of the insight on the part of the papacy, which proves to be the inhibition?

Approaches a substantive criticism

Both cardinals seem to be aware  of the weakness of their own reasoning. Sandro Magister points out that both Burke and Brandmüller, for example,  don't dispense  quite completely with a  substantive review.
Cardinal Brandmüller  explained  to the Bild newspaper that it was unacceptable to grant exemptions to the Communion ban for people living in the state of the public and persistent adultery. This is categorically impossible for religious reasons and also in individual cases.
Cardinal Burke sees the danger in a dangerous misconception that in Amoris Laetitia the formulation of marriage as an "ideal" may arise. "In the document, there are numerous references to the "ideal marriage." Such a description of marriage can be misleading. You can lead the reader to think that marriage is an eternal idea of what  men and women approach more or less under varying circumstances. But Christian marriage is not an ideal. It is a sacrament that gives the grace of a man and a woman to live in a true, lasting and fruitful, mutual love," said Cardinal Burke.

Rethink self-imposed ban on the Pope's criticism

The self-imposed ban against criticizing the Pope proves to the defenders of religious marriage and morality as a major weakness because it is structural. With consistent compliance, it gives the other side an almost insurmountable advantage and can be repeated as well as on other matters.
The self-limitation is  anachronistic anyway because Pope Francis had given his critic Antonio Socci a free pass  in which he explained that the criticism is legitimate and is thought to be, according to Socci, that the  criticism was "good for" the Pope. Socci had nevertheless doubted the legality of the Pope's election for half a year.
In a time in which the Pope is himself the engine of controversial breaks, faithful Catholics, particularly the so-called "conservatives" have to rethink their attitude towards the Pope. They will not fail to be bound and  soon  will not be able to check  if and how they have  been weighed down by the erroneous ballast of the papacy. And they will have to get rid of it if they want to fulfill their duty to defend the immutable doctrine.
Then to hoped that the pontificate of Francis might not be long, could yet prove to be as  double-edged as the prohibition of criticism.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: MiL (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG