| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 31.130
Post: 13.220 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Gold | |
|
An escalating rhetoric of demoniacal hatred -
Bergoglian 'mercy' does not apply to anyone who disagrees
Sorry for having been unable to continue posting yesterday - when the following was what I would have posted next, as it is a conjunction
of intemperate eruptions from this pope and his paladins against anyone who does not agree with them (or whom they simply dislike,
as in the case of the vituperation against Benedict XVI for writing a simple Afterword in praise of Cardinal Sarah). The degree of aggression
in these eruptions indicates escalating totalitarianism in this pontificate...
To explain the place names in Tosatti's title, Fumone is the castle in the Naples area where Celestine V was imprisoned by his successor
and where he died, and the Campo de' Fiori is the famous Roman piazza where Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600.
To Bergoglio and his hate brigade:
Why not just send Ratzinger to Fumone
and Burke to the Campo dei Fiori?
Translated from
May 19, 2017
Reading three news reports yesterday made me think that some people are jumpy with nerves. [All three episodes sound more to me like 'arrogant with power', but it may all be whistling in the dark to keep up their own spirits!] And that we are entering a dangerous phase of involution of the type “Off with the head of whoever disagrees with the chief”. It is an unprecedented populist degeneration of the modern Church. I sincerely hope I am wrong, but there are signs which are anything but tranquillizing.
The crux, as I understand it, still consists of the lack of a response – after a distance of eight months – to the five questions addressed to this pope by four cardinals on the most controversial points in his apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia. Questions presented in a spirit of obedience, following a classic procedure in the Church, namely to ask the pope and the Conrgegation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for clarification on doctrinal matters.
Two months after the letter was sent, the cardinals, having learned that the pope had no intention of answering them, made the letter public. Because the questions concern all Catholics, and substantially, they can be reduced to one: Is it licit to receive Communion when one is in a state of mortal sin and without amending the behavior that constitutes that sin?
We do not know why the pope does not wish to answer. [Oh yes, we do – he has Hobson’s choice: He’s screwed whether he answers correctly as against whether he answers honestly.] I seem to recall that a fellow Jesuit close to him said the reason was that the questions were ideological. That doesn’t wash.
It is the task of authority to clarify what it thinks – by doing so, to make evident if the question is useless or on the mark. In the Church, in particular, is a person in authority fulfilling his duty if he does not answer a request for clarity?
Yet instead of answers, endless attacks have been unleased against the four cardinals and whoever else may share their ‘perplexity’. [It’s time newsmen and commentators got rid of this euphemism to describe the stunned disbelief one must continually experience in regard to this pope’s anti-Catholic statements and actions. No objective observer can possibly be perplexed at all because his intentions – borne out by actions and words – have been very clear from the beginning: to dismantle the Church he was elected to lead while building his very own ’church of Bergoglio’ over the rubble of his wreckovation.]
We do not want to believe, as we have been told, that the pope has encouraged or given free rein to his followers in their extreme reactions. Right now,the only one of the Four Cardinals who still has any semblance of official position in the Church – Cardinal Raymond Burke, still nominally Patron of the Order of Malta – is in the field of fire. (We have written enough about the disgraceful Vatican machinations to interfere actively in the internal governance of a sovereign state.) It is Cardinal Burke’s parrhesia – free, frank and direct articulation of his positions – that has most bothered the Vatican.
So we come to the first of the three news reports I refer to: the disconcerting [ad hominem] attack against Burke by Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, conduct most unbecoming and without precedent.
In an interview-book with his fellow Salesian Fr. Antonio Carriero entitled “Solo il Vangelo è rivoluzionario” (Only the Gospel is revolutionary), Maradiaga writes in the Preface about Burke and the DUBIA:
“That cardinal is a deluded man insofar as he wanted power and has lost it. He thought himself to be the maximum [ecclesial] authority in the United States… He is not the Magisterium. The Holy Father is – it is he who teaches the whole Church. The other [Burke] merely states his personal opinion and does not deserve to be commented on. These are the words of a miserable person”.
[Words cannot express how contemptible Maradiaga is for writing those lines, most of which is just wrong. To begin with, bishops are a source of magisterium as the pope is. And if an ordinary bishop's authority may be considered less 'consequential' than that of the Bishop of Rome, an ordinary bishop's teaching that reaffirms the deposit of faith as we have always known it is far more important than that of a pope who is deliberately equivocal and sows confusion in his 'teaching'.]
But the point is precisely this: Burke and his fellow cardinals are asking for a clarification of the magisterium purported by the pope, but this is denied to them. For Maradiaga, however, a major supporter of Bergoglio, this is an insignificant matter. For him, it is merely taking issue with a generic, ill-defined ‘Catholic right’ which
“only wants power not the truth. If they claim to find any ‘heresy’, [the Four Cardinals have prudently and judiciously avoided using that word] in Pope Francis’s words, they are grossly mistaken because they are only thinking like men, and not as the Lord wills”. [And Bergoglio is not thinking ‘only as a man’? On the contrary, it is he who would impose his personal opinions, his personal thoughts, as the teaching of the Church, no matter how grossly they contradict or at the very least confuse what the Church has always taught before him.]
The virulence of Maradiaga’s words is striking. So where in all this are dialog and mercy, which are his master’s favorite buzzwords?
We come to the second report, in which the protagonist is one Andrea Grillo, a lay theologian of St. Anselm’s, the Benedictine monastery in Rome. Grillo, we are told, is in the commission that has never been officially announced and which was named - without the knowledge of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship who should have been the first to know – to study whether and how to devise a mass at which Catholics and Protestants could worship jointly. Which poses not a minor problem since Protestants thinks very differently about the Eucharist and Communion. [For starters, they do not believe in Trans-Substantiation, and so for them, the Communion wafer or bread is nothing more than what it appears, and the Eucharist is not ‘truly the Body and Blood of Christ”.]
The CDW Prefect, Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, was named to this post by Bergoglio from being president of Cor Unum (the Vatican dicastery that oversees Catholic charities worldwide) preparatory to undertaking structural and administrative reforms in the Roman Curia. In an Afterword to a new book by Cardinal Sarah, Benedict XVI wrote that “with Cardinal Sarah, the liturgy is in good hands”. Which is far from scandalous, except for those who detest Sarah [and traditional liturgy].
This Grillo, whom I do not personally know, went into a verbal fit.
“One must consider well the singularity of the situation. A pope renounces the exercise of his Petrine ministry. The succession process takes place and his successor is elected. Normally, this happens because of a pope’s death. But when the reason is his ‘resignation’, it opens the institution of the Papacy to the delicate issue of a conflict of authority”. [And why is Grillo suddenly coming out with all this four years and two months after the event? Or, unknown to me, has he been perhaps habitually contemptuous of Benedict XVI?] Which ought to have been overcome by the infliction of silence on the resigned pope. Who cites St. Ignatius of Antioch who said “It is better to remain in silence…” in the words with which he exalts Cardinal Sarah. [St Ignatius was referring to silence in one’s relationship to God, not to 'remaining in silence' in general – otherwise Ignatius ought never to have written or preached anything!]
If not only does he speak but exalts a Prefect who has created continuous embarrassments for the Church and his successor [the new pope], a dangerous conflict opens, which would require more prudent behavior and more responsible words [from the retired Pope]. Provisions must be made in the future for norms that will regulate in a clear and certain way the ‘institutional death’ of a retired pope and the full authority of his successor”. After more unpleasant words disrespectful to Benedict XVI, Grillo says:
“There cannot be a ‘cohabitation’. This has now become very clear. Just as it is evident that, other than the place of residence, wearing white garments and talkativeness should be regulated in detail. The emeritus bishop must distance himself from the Vatican [i.e., leave the Vatican] and shut up for good. Only under these conditions can a true ‘succession’ be configured… The supposed intentions of discretion and humility have clearly been violated in a manner that is almost scandalous.
And I find it truly disconcerting that the emeritus bishop of Rome should thank Francis for a nomination which he knows he contributed heavily to make possible. [He did???] I find this the most serious fact, a sign of clericalism and, I would even say, of hypocrisy”.
The solution I would propose is to send Benedict XVI to Fumone, the castle in the Naples area where Celestine V ended his days as a prisoner of his successor. But joking aside, what is scandalous is the climate of aggression shown by the advocates of the ‘new course’ (the Bergoglian course) who exhibit a great deal of spite about which someone at Casa Santa Marta should be concerned.
Finally, the third news report concerns the words of Bergoglio in his morning homilette about the problem of pagans (Gentiles) who wished to become Christian and the discussions among the apostles about this.
“The group of apostles who wished to discuss the problem and the others who were creating the problem – they divided the Church, the latter saying that what the apostles preached was not what Jesus said, that they were not preaching the truth”.
Then, the apostles come to an agreement that Gentiles may become Christians without having to be circumcised. And Bergoglio says,
“It is a duty of the Church to clarify doctrine (Tosatti's comment: Really??? What about the DUBIA then?) in order to better understand what Jesus said in the Gospels, what the spirit of the Gospels is…
But there have always been those people who, without any official position, stir up the Christian community with discourses that upset the faithful – ‘No, he who said such-and-such is a heretic, he cannot say what he says, no, because this is the doctrine of the Church…’ They are fanatics about things that are not clear, fanatics who go about sowing weeds to divide the Christian community. And this is the problem: When the doctrine of the Church, that which comes from the Gospel, that which is inspired by the Holy Spirit – after all, Jesus said, ‘He [the Spirit’ will teach you and remind you of all that I have taught you’ – becomes ideology. This is the great mistake of such persons”. [Excuse me, who is it who has been casting everything he says and preaches in a most ideological way - unabashedly with 'the world' in his secular causes and increasingly anti-Catholic in his 'religious' statements? Typically Bergoglio to see the mote in everyone else's eye while being blinded to truth and reality by the beam of hubristic certainty obscuring the eyes of his mind and heart!]
Question: In which of the two groups would you classify Maradiaga and Grillo? And if the pope says that ‘fanatics speculate on things which are not clear’, then why does he not clarify his own ‘teachings’, when asked, and thus cut off ambiguity at the root?
A Crux article has more quotations from Maradiaga's despicable Preface. I think the article should be entitled 'A tale of two Prefaces - one un-Christian, the other Christian'.
Maradiaga bashes Burke
as Benedict lauds Sarah
May 19, 2017
While the coordinator of the pope's 'C9' council of cardinal advisers has dismissed American Cardinal Raymond Burke as a 'disappointed man... upset with his loss of power', emeritus Pope Benedict XVI has defended Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea as someone with whom the Church's liturgy is in "good hands."
Two prominent and sometimes controversial cardinals, both seen as conservatives, recently have drawn stinging criticism in one case and a stirring defense in another, and both have come from extremely high-ranking sources.
American Cardinal Raymond Burke was recently dismissed as a “disappointed man” upset over the loss of his power by fellow Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras, coordinator of Pope Francis’s “C9” council of cardinal advisers.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, head of the Vatican’s liturgy department, was praised by Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI as someone with whom the liturgy is in “good hands.”
Maradiaga’s comments on Burke came in a new interview book with his fellow Salesian, Father Antonio Carriero, titled Solo il Vangelo è rivoluzionario, published in Italy by Piemme.
Burke, who was removed by Pope Francis in November 2014 as head of the Vatican’s supreme court, is widely seen as the leader of the conservative opposition to the pontiff’s document on the family Amoris Laetitia and its cautious [INCAUTIOUS!] opening to Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.
He was among four cardinals who submitted a set of questions, called dubia, to Francis, seeking to dispel what they described as “grave disorientation and great confusion” created by the document.
In the new interview, Maradiaga comes out swinging. [Maradiaga's remarks are just so juvenile in their absurdity and falsehood that they are self-condemnatory.]
“That cardinal who sustains this,” Maradiaga said, referring to the criticism ofAmoris, “is a disappointed man, in that he wanted power and lost it. He thought he was the maximum authority in the United States.
“He’s not the magisterium,” Maradiaga said, referring to the authority to issue official teaching. “The Holy Father is the magisterium, and he’s the one who teaches the whole Church. This other [person] speaks only his own thoughts, which don’t merit further comment.
“They are the words,” Maradiaga said, “of a poor man.”
Maradiaga also criticized conservative schools of thought in Catholicism, of which Burke is often seen as a symbol.
“These currents of the Catholic right are persons who seek power and not the truth, and the truth is one,” he said. “If they claim to find some ‘heresy’ in the words of Francis, they’re making a big mistake, because they’re thinking only like men and not as the Lord wants.
“What sense does it have to publish writings against the pope, which don’t damage him but ordinary people? What does a right-wing closed on certain points accomplish? Nothing!
“Ordinary people are with the pope, this is completely clear,” Maradiaga said. “I see that everywhere. Those who are proud, arrogant, who believe they have a superior intellect … poor people! Pride is also a form of poverty,” he said.
“The greatest problem, however, is the disorientation that’s created among people when they read affirmations of bishops and cardinals against the Holy Father,” he said.
Maradiaga called his fellow cardinals to loyalty. “I think that one of the qualities we cardinals [should have] is loyalty,” he said. “Even if we don’t all think the same way, we still have to be loyal to Peter.” [No loyalty is owed to anyone who preaches anti-Catholic doctrine and practice, especially if the one who does so is the man supposed to be the primary defender of the faith, in dereliction of his primary duty 'to confirm his brethren in the faith'!]
Whoever doesn’t offer that loyalty, he said, “is just seeking attention.”
While such public clashes between cardinals are rare, they’re not unprecedented.
During the Benedict years, for instance, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna publicly suggested that Italian Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who served as Secretary of State under St. John Paul II, had blocked an investigation of sex abuse charges against Schönborn’s predecessor, Cardinal Hans Hermann Gröer.
In that instance, Benedict called in both cardinals for a fence-mending session, among other things reminding them that “when accusations are made against a cardinal, competency falls exclusively to the pope.”
Maradiaga also appeared to suggest that Burke may have been disappointed in the outcome of the conclave of March 2013 that elected Francis.
“The papal candidates others wanted remained in place, while the one the Lord wanted is the one who was elected,” he said, “so the dissent is logical and understandable, [because] we can’t all think the same way. However,it’s Peter who leads the Church, and therefore, if we have faith, we must respect the choices and the style of the pope who came from the end of the earth.”
This is not the first time Maradiaga has attacked a fellow cardinal seen as being a conservative.
In 2014, he called on the head of the Vatican’s doctrine office, German Cardinal Gerhard Müller, to “be a bit more flexible” during an interview with Koelner Stadt-Anzeiger, a German newspaper.
Maradiaga said Müller “see things in black-and-white terms,” adding that “the world isn’t like that, my brother.” Maradiaga also accused the German cardinal of only listening to his group of advisors, not hearing “other voices.” [Hear, hear! From the prime paladin of a pope who refuses absolutely to 'hear other voices' not his own!]
Sarah, meanwhile, who was appointed by Francis as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments in November 2014, has drawn fire in more progressive quarters for his fairly traditional views on the Church’s worship.
In April, for instance, Sarah gave a talk on the 10th anniversary of Benedict’s document Summorum Pontificum, authorizing regular celebration of the older Latin Mass, in which Sarah spoke of a “serious, profound crisis” in the Church caused in part by liturgical changes after the Second Vatican Council in the mid-1960s.
“Even today, a significant number of Church leaders underestimate the serious crisis that the Church is going through,” Sarah said, including “relativism in doctrinal, moral and disciplinary teaching, grave abuses, the desacralization and trivialization of the Sacred Liturgy, [and] a merely social and horizontal view of the Church’s mission.”
One liberal commentator derided Sarah for nostalgia for a bypassed “golden age.”
Yet in a new afterword to a book by Sarah, Benedict XVI says the liturgy is in “good hands” with the Guinean cardinal, and praises Sarah for his prayer life.
Sarah, Benedict writes, speaks “out of the depths of silence with the Lord, out of his interior union with him, and thus really has something to say to each one of us.
“We should be grateful to Pope Francis for appointing such a spiritual teacher as head of the congregation that is responsible for the celebration of the liturgy in the Church,” Benedict writes.
The afterword’s last line is, “With Cardinal Sarah, a master of silence and of interior prayer, the liturgy is in good hands.”
The book is The Power of Silence: Against the Dictatorship of Noise, published by Ignatius Press in translation from the original French edition.
Benedict’s vote of confidence is all the more striking given that when he resigned the papacy in February 2013, Benedict vowed to remain “hidden from the world,” and has rarely broken his silence since. The fact that he chose to do so now, many observers believe, reflects both his passion for the liturgy and also his support for Sarah. [And may he speak out more and more with his characteristic firmness in articulating his views in a tone that is gentle and unthreatening. This Grillo crackpot is pathologically paranoid and crazed or quite simply, malevolent, to have reacted the way he did to Benedict's praise of Cardinal Sarah.]
Riccardo Cascioli takes his shot at Grillo. His title, Il Grillo Sparlante is a play on the name of the character the Talking Cricket (Grillo Parlante) in Pinocchio....
The foul-mouthed cricket confirms
the Vatican's anti-Sarah plot
by Riccardo Cascioli
Translated from
May 20, 2017
If anyone doubts the significance of Benedict XVI’s Afterword to Cardinal Sarah’s book on silence, statements by one of the reigning pontiff’s brownshirts should dispel any doubt.
Andrea Grillo, a lecturer at the Sant’Anselmo Pontifical Atheneum and reputed ‘liturgist and theologian’, who is very much 'appreciated' at Casa Santa Marta, has vented himself with unprecedented violence against Cardinal Sarah – whom he calls ‘incompetent’ and ‘inadequate’ – and against Benedict XVI, whom Grillo never refers to as other than Ratzinger or ‘emeritus bishop’, one he calls the cause for the 'error' made by Pope Francis in making Sarah the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.
Grillo is one of the key figures working apart from and behind the back of Cardinal Sarah at the Congregation for Divine Worship, on orders of the pope himself, to proceed to make changes which will contradict the ‘reform of the liturgical reform’ that Benedict XVI had begun and that Cardinal Sarah has wished to pursue.
Grillo is also a member of the commission – which excludes Cardinal Sarah – which has been tasked with the much discussed and disputed revision of liturgical texts in open contradiction of the instructions in Liturgia Authenticam. This is a crucial question which, as we have explained in other articles, threatens to change the very content of the faith.
But this is not the only issue now declared open by this pope in terms of liturgy. Also pending are a stepping back from Summorum Pontificum [apparently the plan is to allow the traditional Mass only to the FSSPX and an abolition of the concept that it is the Extrao5rdinary Form of the Roman Rite], the motu proprio by which Benedict XVI restored the traditional Mass to full legality in the Church today, and the study towards devising an ‘ecumenical mass’ to allow a common Eucharistic celebration with Lutherans.
This is a true and proper ‘revolution’ in the liturgy, and Cardinal Sarah is the last remaining obstacle for its full realization. This is the context in which Benedict XVI, in his discreet and gentle way, wishes once again to underscore the true significance of meaningful liturgy in the life of the Church and to express public support for the beleaguered Cardinal Sarah.
It is a kind of spiritual testament which evidently grated on the nerves of those who wish to consolidate in great haste the founding principles of the ‘new church’ of Bergoglio, and it is clear that Grillo is not speaking only for himself. Thus he dares come out in the open and refers to Cardinal Sarah’s appointment as CDW Prefect to have been ‘an error’, a decision made by Pope Francis in 2014 who, Grillo claims, made the mistake of ‘listening to the opinion of his predecessor’.
[Who forced him to do that, if he really did not agree? But Grillo is being revisionist. Bergoglio removed Sarah from Cor Unum so he could have nothing to do with Bergoglio's idea of charitable work by the Church and Catholic organizations divorced from Catholic identity and principles, while at CDW, he presumably would be unable to do anything without the express approval of the Pope. But Bergoglio could not just cast him off the Curia as he did with Cardinal Burke later, because Sarah is one of only two ranking Africans in the Bergoglio Curia. The other, Cardinal Turkson, is firmly in Bergoglio's pocket and is his leading surrogate on so-called social issues.]
Grillo adds that, moreover, “Sarah has shown, for years, a substantial inadequacy and incompetence in liturgical matters. His harebrained theories and his rigidity have impeded the Congregation from carrying out its regular work”.
As for Benedict XVI, Grillo says, writing the Afterword amounts to ‘a renunciation of his renunciation’, ‘a serious interference resulting in an alteration of ecclesial equilibrium'.
Here is yet another confirmation of what we have been writing for some time and which till now, has been denied officially: that Benedict XVI's gesture, in the eyes of Grillo and the Bergoglian courtisans, "is so much more serious considering that meanwhile, an inevitable and healthy turnover in the office of the Prefect at CDW is being prepared". [The Afterword] appears like a last-ditch defense by Benedict XVI of a Prefect who has been almost completely deprived of authority".
Grillo's attack has surprised up to a ertain point those who have been following attentively what is taking place in the Bergoglio Vatican, because the objectives of the attack and the violence of Grillo's language - which will certainly not detract from his prestige in the Bergoglio court - have reached the level now reached by the select ranks of Bergoglian avantgardists and aspiring revolutionaries. And it is not an isolated case.
These days, a book-length interview with Cardinal Pscar Rodrigquez Maradiaga of Honduras has appeared, in which the coordinator of Bergoglio's Crown Council of cardinal-advisers attacks in no uncertain terms Cardinal Raymond Burke for the DUBIA, calling him "a disappointed man... who wanted power and has lost it" , an accusation which obviously extends to the three other cardinals of the DUBIA.
But about Burke specifically, Maradiaga claims "his thinking does not deserve any comment. They are the words of a miserable person" [the term he used in Italian was 'povero uomo', literally 'poor man', but 'miserable person' is the more appropriate translation.]
Even if we have by now become used to Maradiaga's verbal excesses, intended to discredit other churchmen who are concerned about the Protestantizing drift in the church of Bergoglio, these sarcastic and contemptuous words are unprecedented. But from all appearances. we are just at the beginning...
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 22/05/2017 00:10] |