| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 31.155
Post: 13.245 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Gold | |
|
I think this was my longest time away from the Forum. Sorry, I was hospitalized and I had absolutely no Internet access all this time... Hard to say where to begin, as I am unable exactly to reconstruct what were the most significant stories and commentaries on the life of the Church in the 9 days I was away. But I will start with something I had translated and would have posted last weekend without the interruption....
Because Benedict XVI's renunciation will probably always remain as a BIG MYSTERY for all those who refuse to accept the simple truth, I pass along – for what it is worth – this commentary on an article published in the May 2017 edition of LIMES, an Italian foreign policy journal which blogger Filipazzi seems to hold in awe because of its ‘reputation’, but which, I must remind those who have forgotten – and inform those who may not have been aware of it before – that this is the same magazine that published in September 2005 the alleged ‘diary’ of an anonymous cardinal blabbing out supposed information about what took place at the Conclave that elected Benedict XVI. That cardinal has never been identified but he was widely thought to be an Old Guard anti-Ratzinger Italian cardinal, blatantly violating the Conclave regulations laid down by John Paul II, and who has since died… I have not been able to find out what ‘LIMES’ stands for (an acronym???] but I can see a very facile English anagram – SLIME! Or we can simply stick to LIMES as in the sour fruit…
Benedict XVI’s renunciation:
Here is the supposed secret
Which has been a subject of open speculation nonetheless
by Paolo Maria Filipazzi
Translated from
May 15, 2017
I ask you to read the entire article that follows,
http://www.limesonline.com/cartaceo/perche-ci-serve-il-vaticano?prv=true
not so much to become aware of what it purports to reveal but to become aware of those who swallow this hypothesis. Here is the excerpt of interest to us:
Translated from
May 10, 2017
by Germano Dottori
The frictions between the Church and the United States would not have diminished even with the death of John Paul II. It would simply have continued during the pontificate of Papa Ratzinger, when to make the conflicts more acute, not just the political investment made by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the Muslim Brotherhood during the so-called Arab spring, but because of Benedict XVI’s firm intention to reach a historic reconciliation between the Church of Rome and the Patriarchate of Moscow. It would have been a true and proper religious seal on a political project for European-Russian integration that was supported with conviction by the German government and even by Italy under Silvio Berlusconi, but not that of American-loving politicians like Giorgio Napolitano.
We know how it all ended. Both Berlusconi’s government as well as Benedict’s Pontificate were simultaneously assaulted by a coordinated campaign of scandal, of rare violence and without precedent, associated with opaque maneuvers in the financial field, all of which had the final effect of precipitating Berlusconi’s political death in November 2011 and the ‘abdication’ of Ratzinger in February 2013.
At the peak of the crisis, Italy found itself with her access to financial international markets progressively closed off, while the Vatican ‘bank’ IOR was temporarily shut out of the international ‘Swift’ bank circuit. IOR would be excluded from this international method of interbank payments from January 1, 2013, on the basis of an accusation that it had been colluding in some money laundering activities, forcing DeutscheBank, which held the franchise, to shut down the ATMs within Vatican City State. [This is a rather dishonest and inaccurate conflation of events – IOR had been under investigation by Italian authorities, at the instigation of the Banca d’Italia since 2012 for a questionable transaction involving some 20-plus million euros with a German bank
The news broke in Italy on January 3, 2013, when La Repubblica published an article by Fabio Pezzi entitled “Vaticano, stop a carte e bancomat. Sospesi i servizi di pagamento” [Vatican: Stop to credit cards and Bancomat – Payment services suspended”]. And the day after Papa Ratzigner announced his ‘abdication’, the Holy See would obtain from a Swiss bank the resumption of all interrupted services. [This is one of those instant media factoids that sprung up after February 11, 2013, although it first publicly surfaced many weeks after February 11. I had hoped that this article by the ‘authoritative’ Limes magazine would give us the truth about this by quoting an actual report as it did about the January 3 article. But it does not. Nor does it explain why suddenly it’s a Swiss bank resuming the services when the franchise was held by DeutscheBank.]
After this long citation, let us go on to consider its source. Maurizio Blondet? Antonio Socci? Russian hackers? Well, no. The exact bibliographic citation is this: Germano Dottori, ‘Perche ci serve il Vaticano’ [Why the Vatican is useful to us], in Limes, Rivista Italian di geopolitica [Italian magazine of geopolitics], n.4/2017, pp 155-158. (The particular paragraphs cited are on p. 154.)
In short, reading this latest issue of the most authoritative Italian publication in the area of geopolitics – a publication whose role is so recognized that every issue is presented – not without some solemnity – by its editor on state television, [See my comment at the start that this ‘most authoritative publication on geopolitics’ published the scurrilous and obviously criminal (by Vatican canonical regulations] diary of an Italian cardinal purporting to give an account of the 2005 Conclave] we learn the following:
1. The political success of the Muslim Brotherhood, i.e., of fundamentalist Islam, with the so-calle d’Arab spring’
Was not, as many might have thought, an unwanted effect of Obama’s deficient progressivism but something wanted.
2. Benedict XVI has pursued with ‘firm determination’ a plan to [fully] reconcile the Church of Rome and the patriarchate of Moscow [i.e., the Russian Orthodox Church]
3. These two factors had sharpened the frictions between the Church and the USA which had begun during the
Last phase of John Paul II’s Pontificate.
4. The Russophile Berlusconi’s government supported Benedict XVI’s plan.
5. Because of this, it alienated theObama government, whose man in Italy was the then President of Italy, Giorgio Napolitano.
6. The simultaneous campaign of scandals pursued in those years against Berlusconi and Benedict XVI was a coordinated one, intended to strike at two figures who, in the Obama government’s voiew, were too Russophile and not obedient at all to the White House.
7. This denigratory campaign was accompanied by opaque financial maneuvers both against Italy (remember the ‘spread’?)and against the Vatican – and this confirms what other sources had always claimed about this.
8. All this led to the resignation of Berlusconi – and to this point, none of this was previously unknown, but also – HEAR, HEAR! – to that of Benedict XVI.
Limes is published by the editorial group whose flagship is La Repubblica – the very newspaper that always paved the way for the two-pronged scandal campaign that was ‘coordinated, of rare violence, and without precedent’. In other words, this editorial group would know [and did know].
What to say? We have always wanted to keep out of controversies involving conspiracy theories about what happened in the final part of the Ratzinger Pontificate and all the speculation about what ‘really’ took place behind the scenes. And we do so even now.
We limit ourselves to pointing out what is stated by an esteemed and authoritative publication which certainly cannot be suspected of being close to ‘the conservative wing of the curia’ nor to the traditionalists generally downplayed as ‘four cats’ [i.e., an insignificant number]. Allow us to underline the statement, “We know how it all ended.”
This is anything but gombloddo. [The word is an Italian neologism arising from the recent ascendancy of the social media, and presumably comes from a mimicry of the word ‘complotto’ for conspiracy, as if the word were said by someone with a bad cold. In that vein, I am tempted to create an English equivalent for it: ‘goonsbiracy ‘ instead of ‘conspiracy’.
An Italian media type describes it this way, always using it in hashtag form: “A #gombloddo, is a conspiracy in ‘social’ form, it has a hashtag ,and in fact, it moves through many diverse channels. It aims to grab you, but it explains nothing – it promotes suspicions, it sketches out supposed ’proofs’, but its principal aim is to enlarge the circle of gombloddists, who never allow the reality of things to emerge, because that does not interest them. They wish to sow doubt, suspicion and mistrust. At the most, they aim to discredit their targets. It is an art that is subtle and very difficult to practice. Because it feeds on some bit of truth but dissimulates it. It is patient and does not in itself have victims. It only waits until events precipitate by themselves."]
As luck would have it, since last weekend, the Bergoglian 'war' against Benedict XVI escalated exponentially when the homilette-maker of Casa Santa Marta gave a homily in which he said retired clergymen should just drop out of sight and not make any statements thinking they are still 'the center of the world'. This has been amply commented upon and I shall post translations of some commentaries as soon as I am able to. What, threatened by a little Preface/Afterword, hey, JMB???
But, what the heck, let's start with the Self-Centered Clown's words as reported by Vatican Radio - and for now, I will refrain from fisking:
'The true shepherd knows
how to step down from his church'
May 31, 2017
"The true shepherd knows how to step down from his church, because he knows that he is not at the center of history, but is a free man who has served without compromises and without taking control of his flock." That was Pope Francis’a message during his homily at Mass celebrated on Tuesday in the Vatican’s Santa Marta residence.
“A shepherd must be ready to step down completely from his church, rather than leave in a partial manner,” said the Pope.
His words were drawn from the first reading at Mass, where St Paul addressed the church leaders in Ephesus. The Pope said that this reading could easily be called “A bishop’s leave-taking” because Paul has left the Church of Ephesus in order to go to Jerusalem, where the Holy Spirit called him to go. [Except of course, that Paul was never Bishop of Ephesus, or of anywhere else, for that matter!]
“All shepherds have to step down. There comes a moment where the Lord says ‘go to another place, come here, go there, come to me.’ And it’s one of the steps that a shepherd must take; be prepared to step down in the correct way, not still hanging on to his position. The shepherd who doesn’t learn how to do this because he still has some links with his sheep that are not good, links that are not purified by the Cross of Jesus,” said Pope Francis.
According to the Pope, St Paul had held a council with all the priests of Ephesus and during this council he had demonstrated three “apostolic attitudes.”
The first of these is never turning back. The Pope said that this is the worst of all sins, to turn back. This is the thing which will bring much peace to the shepherd, when he remembers that he is not a shepherd who has led the church through compromising. Pope Francis admitted that this attitude requires much courage.
The second attitude is obedience to the Spirit, without knowing what will happen. A shepherd must know that he is on a journey. The Pope said that Paul was a shepherd who served his sheep.
“Whilst guiding the Church he had an uncompromising attitude, at that moment it was the Spirit who asked him to go on his journey, without knowing what would happen to him. And he went because he had nothing of his own, he had not wrongly taken control of his sheep. He had served them.
Paul said ‘Now God wants me to leave. I leave without knowing what will happen to me. I know only this - the Spirit had told him this - that the Holy Spirit had testified to me that trials and tribulations are awaiting me from city to city.’ This was what he (St Paul) knew. That I am not retiring. I am going away to serve other churches. The heart is always open to the voice of God, I am leaving this place, I will see what the Lord is asking of me. This is a shepherd without compromises who is now a shepherd on a journey.”
The third attitude is “I do not consider my own life to be precious in any way. I am not the center of history. Whether it’s large history or small history, I am not the center, I am a servant,” said the Pope.
“With this most beautiful example, let us pray for our shepherds, for our parish priests, our bishops, the Pope, that their lives will be lives lived without compromise, lives on a journey and lives where they do not believe that they are the center of history and have learned how to step down. Let us pray for our shepherds.”
COMMENTARIES LATER... I HAVE TO TRANSLATE THEM. Does it not say something that it appears there have been no commentaries so far in the English media?
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 09/06/2017 21:52]
|