More on the upstart church of Bergoglio and its deceptions...Here are the two Tosatti commentaries...
The pope, hypocrisy, 'Let your Yes be Yes',
AL, the DUBIA, and the pre-cooked
exhortation after the family synods
Translated from
June 8, 2017
Two days ago, at
Casa Santa Marta [Like most everybody else, Tosatti refers to the papal hotel as ‘Santa Marta’, which I automatically change to 'Casa Santa Marta' since I find it demeaning somehow of the the saint, in the way that using ‘Francis’ to describe anything associated with this pope demeans Francis of Assisi], the pope spoke about hypocrisy. Vatican Radio reported his words, of which we cite some.
We know, of course, how much hypocrisy can be a defect in ecclesiastical circles among those who “speak and judge” but think [and do] exactly what they are denouncing. That is hypocrisy.
But this is what the pope says:
Hypocrisy is not the language of Jesus, nor is it the language of Christians. A Christian cannot be a hypocrite, and the hypocrite is not a Christian. This is very clear. This is the adjective that Jesus uses most about this people [the Pharisees?]
Let us see how hypocrites behave. A hypocrite is always an adulator – in minor or major key – but an adulator…
The language of hypocrisy is the language of deceit, the same language the serpent used to Eve – it is the same. It starts with adulation, and ends with destroying persons, even to the point of stripping the personality and soul of a person. It kills the community. When there are hypocrites in a community [What community does not, even the smallest community (the family)???], it is a great danger, there is a very great and ugly danger. [When was danger ever not ugly???]
How much damage hypocrisy does to the Church! [the pope said bitterly, warning against] “those Christians who fall into this sinful attitude which kills”.
Our Lord Jesus said “Let your Yes mean Yes and your No mean No.” The superfluous arises from evil [??? Bergoglio’s platitudes are becoming more and more senseless!] He concluded by saying:
Let us ask the Lord to guard over us so we do not fall into this vice of hypocrisy, that of displaying a deceptive attitude to hide evil intentions. May the Lord give us the grace, that I may never be a hypocrite, that I may know to tell the truth and if I cannot do so, to remain silent, but never, never a hypocrite”. [A sure and consistent sign of his hubris that he does not realize he himself is most guilty of whatever it is he is denouncing.]
Reading these words, I was reminded of the two-part ‘family synod’ which gave birth to Amoris laetitia and the DUBIA, to which the Four Cardinals simply asked this pope for a YES or NO answer to five questions essential to the faith. The DUBIA have not been answered so far, and may never be.
On May 9, 2016, I first reported a news report which was never denied by the person concerned.
At a recent lecture, the Archbishop of Vasto-Chieti, Mons. Bruno Forte, revealed a behind-the-scenes anecdote about his relations with Pope Francis during the recent family synod. He said that the pope had confided to him: “If we speak openly about allowing communion for remarried divorcees, you don’t know what a disaster they will cause for us. So let us not speak about it directly – do it so that you lay down the premises, then let me draw the conclusions”.
Mons. Forte was named by the pope as special secretary of both Bergoglian family synods, and was the author of the controversial Relatio intermedio (mid-synodal report) which was rejected publicly by the Synod president, Cardinal Erdo of Hungary, and denounced by most of the synodal fathers [because it contained paragraphs about accommodating homosexuals although the topic was never discussed on the floor].
Mons. Forte commented on his anecdote: “Typical of a Jesuit!” He added, however, that AL “does not represent a new doctrine but the merciful application of what has always been taught”.
If Mons. Forte’s anecdote is true – and we have no reason to doubt it
[he said it in a public lecture!] – one understands better the degree of confusion and ambiguity – not to mention the spectrum of interpretations – raised by AL. It shows a deliberate lack of clarity which recalls the polemics and accusations made for centuries against the Society of Jesus – and is the result of the strategy imposed from the very beginning before the first family synod even began.
On the side, and to illustrate the complexity, let us say, of the situation in the Church, let us look at what the Superior General of the FSSPX, Mons. Bernard Fellay, last May 1:
“…Let us ask the good Lord to understand this mystery a little more, to understand that despite all human miseries, despite the fact that we now even have a pope who makes unbelievable statements about morality, who is telling us that sin can be a state of grace – it is incredible and unprecedented what we are hearing today – and yet, despite all that, this pope, could still perform acts that sanctify and save, he could still do good”.
If even the Lefebvrians who are always very certain of their doctrine can express such ‘perplexity’, what then of the faithful in the parishes?
The second incident I shall recall dates to September 2014, before the first family synod had begun. I commented on the vexatious question of ‘communion for remarried divorcees’ this way.
“But this is it! Cardinal Kasper, who 20 years ago already proposed this, which was rejected by two popes, saw the opportunity to bring it up with the coming of Bergoglio. [Actually, Bergoglio used Kasper shamelessly to be the public face pushing a policy that the former had already practiced as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, and Kasper, of course, was only too happy to do so, sort of his way of thumbing his nose at his arch-enemy, Joseph Ratzinger.]
Despite the fact that from Manila to Berlin, from the USA to Africa, the great majority of his colleagues had once more reaffirmed the Doctrine of the Church on marriage and divorce – based, by the way, on the words of Jesus, one of the instances in which what he says appears clear, sharp, definitive, and never before questioned even by the professional mincers of Scripture…
In short, it doesn’t look too good for Kasper and company. But perhaps there is a way to help them, and this seek to impede that opponents of the proposition become too vocal.
The first is to ask the synodal participants to submit their interventions in writing weeks in advance. And the deadline for anyone who wishes to have his text officially recorded in the archives is September 8 (the synod begins September 15).
Second: to read all such submissions carefully, and in the case that some of them may be particularly ‘fiery’, to schedule a trusted speaker before a questionable intervention who can already anwer, fully or in part, what the ‘fiery’ speaker will say.
Third: If a text is particularly problematic, to tell the author that there is not enough time, alas, for everyone to speak, but the text has been acquired, it will be part of the synodal documentation, and it will certainly be taken into account in the final report.
Indeed, it is not the synod itself which is important, but the ‘synthesis’ which will come out of it and which will bear the signature of the pope as a post-synodal exhortation. It is very probablte that it will not be a clear and definitive text but one with a ‘fluctuating’ interpretation – such that whoever reads it can take from it whatever he finds most acceptable. [And how right he was!]
Humble observations by this poor chronicler [about Mons. Forte’s anecdote]: But if one has such an astute and elaborate plan, why speak about it to perfect strangers during a festive banquet?
The prelate who related this – and the events prove that the pope’s scenario came to pass – was one of the main officers running the family synods, perhaps the principal one
[No, Cardinal Baldisseri will dispute that!], who worked in close attunement with the pope.
Reading the pope’s words on hypocrisy reminded me of all this – and the situation of suffering ambiguity in which the Church finds herself, because of the lack of a clear answer – Yes, yes, or No, no – from he who is obliged to give it. [Whose primary duty it is "to confirm his brethren in the faith".]