I need a subtitle for 'church of Bergoglio' - 'church of deception and untruth'.
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".]
Two days earlier, Tosatti had hammered on the same theme of deceit and hypocrisy...
The pope denounces ‘partisan’ Catholics:
Do his words correspond to facts? It doesn’t seem so.
[And who could be more 'partisan' than a pope
who shamelessly sets up his own church?
Though 'apostate' is the better adjective]
Translated from
June 5, 2017
Interesting words from the reigning pope at St. Peter’s Square on June 4, Pentecost Sunday. Addressing ‘all Catholics’, he said:
...We should help ourselves avoid two recurrent temptations. The first is that of seeking diversity without unity. This happens when one wants to distinguish, when parties and alignments are formed, petrified into exclusionary positions, enclosed in one’s own particularisms, thinking that these are the best or the only right ones. Those who do this are the so-called ‘custodians of the truth’. [I call them 'Bergoglio and his followers - custodians of untruth!]
In which case, they are choosing sides – not the whole – belonging to this or that faction before belonging to the Church. They become partisan ‘fans’ rather than brothers and sisters in the same Spirit, Christians of the right or the left, rather than of Jesus; inflexible custodians of the past or [Bergoglian] avantgardists rather than humble and grateful children of the Church. In this way, there is diversity without unity.
The opposite temptation is that of seeking unity without diversity. But in this way, unity becomes uniformity – it obliges everyone to do everything together and in like manner, to always think in the same way. So unity ends up being homogenization, in which there is no longer freedom.
I thought it would be easier to appreciate these words if one did not know certain things, which however, we know. Some are of public knowledge, some not.
Examples of what is publicly known:
- The choice not to respond to an open dialog on facts towards clarity, namely, the DUBIA presented by four cardinals and supported by many others – cardinals, bishops, priests, scholars and laymen, even with online petitions and open letters.
- Instead, to mock them as ‘rigid’ and all the other contumely we have heard from this pope in the past four years.
- Rewarding with bishoprics, or even cardinal rank,
always and only those prelates who are oriented in a certain way, even if disputable, while ignoring others who are worthy by their holy life, correct behavior and fervent good works.
- Whereas entire Episcopal conferences, thought too ‘traditional’, are penalized.
Other information is from confidential sources, but I feel obliged to report them.
- Such as the worldwide ‘recommendation’ for apostolic nuncios to avoid including in the three-name
terna they prepare to fill an Episcopal vacancy any candidate who is thought to be ‘conservative’.
- Or, in the case of large Episcopal conferences, to create a list of ‘pr
oscriptions’, obviously not to be made public, which would exclude from consultations, meetings, and similar activities specified cardinals and bishops, and to rigorously exclude any candidates for bishop proposed by any of them.
So, in the light of all that, the papal exhortation on Pentecost Sunday sounds rather strange to me. Even if it is always possible – though I find it hard to believe – that some activities may be carried on, unknown to the pope, by some personages who gravitate within his circle of power.
Let me add a commentary by Aldo Maria Valli, a belated post, but something valid for the duration - hopefully brief - of the church of Bergoglio...
Thrashings by the paladins of mercy
Translated from
May 31, 2017
It is always interesting and instructive to watch how the paladins of mercy and dialog apply this line of conduct when they leave the sphere of principles and get into concrete cases.
Case #1. A cardinal of the Holy Roman Church
[read ‘of the church of Bergoglio’], well-known for his advocacy of the mercy line and a great supporter of AL, when interviewed in a book entitled «Solo il Vangelo è rivoluzionario» (Only the Gospel is revolutionary), speaking of his fellow cardinal Raymond Burke, who as we all know has DUBIA about AL and has made them known to the pope, said this in words that are anything but merciful: “He is not the Magisterium. The Holy Father is, and it is he who teaches the whole church.
[Well no, not the one true Church, but his own church!] The other only voices his opinion and does not deserve further comment. They are the words of a miserable man”.
[The Italian ‘un povero uomo’ translates here better in the words I used than 'a poor man'.]
Case #2. A theology professor in a pontifical athenaeum in Rome - who is also a ‘mercyphile’ - when interviewed about the Preface/Afterword written by Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI for Cardinal Sarah’s book
«La forza del silenzio» (in which Papa Ratzinger expresses gratitude and esteem for the cardinal who heads the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments)
[If Bergoglio had his way, the second part of the congregation’s name ought to be ‘the Indiscipline of Sacraments] – maintains, likewise mercilessly, that
the Emeritus Pope deserves ‘an institutional death’, that there cannot be ‘cohabitation of two popes’, and that the white garments and ‘loquacity’ [look who’s talking!], not to mention where the emeritus pope resides, ought to be ‘regulated in detail’.
Tut-tut! Those are strong statements. Crushing ones, in fact. It’s not everyday that a cardinal attacks another cardinal and calls him ‘a miserable man’. Nor is it normal that a professor at a pontifical college would claim that the emeritus pope deserves ‘an institutional death’, meaning mostly that he ought to lose any freedom of speech.
Are not these positions - taken publicly by those who normally ooze mercy from every pore, and present themselves as the standard bearers of a dialoguing and anti-dogmatic church – a mite contradictory?
So what happened to encounter, to respect? And parrhesia? And collegiality? And synodality? Are these not things felt at heart by these
[Bergoglian] paladins?
How is it that if a Cardinal Burke points out that something does not compute in the magisterium of the pope, immediately another cardinal jumps up to say “That is just his opinion” (which is obviously not the case)
[it happens to be the opinion of not a few who are daily growing in number], and then proceeds to insult him personally?
And how is it that if the Emeritus Pope has words of esteem and admiration for a cardinal of the Holy Roman Church who is not aligned with Modernism, and asks that the sacred be acknowledged and respected, some theologian can jump up and say that
the Emeritus Pope should be muzzled, and more, ought to be exiled to some remote place in order to make him completely ‘inoffensive’?
What, you think I am being naïve? That all these ideas – dialog, synodality and the rest of the politically correct armamentarium – are fine as long as one is speaking in general and in theory, but when one speaks of concrete cases, one must strike hard? That the paladins of mercy and dialog, in order to install their ‘new church’, cannot be expected to bide their time or make exceptions? That it is not possible (as a certain Stalin said) to make a revolution with silk gloves?
OK, I understand. I must really be ingenuous.
I was convinced that, at least in the Church, the rule of respect and the freedom of ideas was still valid.
I note that
the paladins of mercy and dialog, when they get highstrung and lose their cool, displace the discussion – they pass from the plane of ideas to personal attacks. They are unable to argue on merits. They only think in terms of an adversary to discredit. The distinction is no longer between true and false, right and wrong. No, the only distinction that matters is useful versus harmful.
'
Thus, they are incapable of seeing whether, for example, when Cardinal Burke picks at AL, his points are plausible or absurd. No, he is just ‘a miserable man’. In the same way, if the emeritus Pope praises a cardinal like Sarah, who shows that he takes to heart what happens to the liturgy and therefore, to the faith, his critics do not even bother to analyze what Cardinal Sarah has to say. No, they ask instead that Benedict XVI be neutralized so he can ‘no longer interfere’.
I was thinking of the idea that the paladins of mercy think the emeritus Pope ought to keep silent when, what do you know?, on the morning of May 30, the reigning pope comes out with this thought:
“Let us pray for pastors, our pastors – for parish priests, for bishops, for the pope – so that they may live without compromise, life as journey, a life in which they do not think of themselves as the center of history and therefore, they may learn to leave for good”.
“Learn to leave for good’? Why this annotation? Who, specifically, needs to learn how to say goodbye?
Pope Francis is thinking of renouncing the pontificate, some commentators said. The undersigned thinks instead that the message from Casa Santa Marta was directed at the nearby Mater Ecclesiae monastery, where the Emeritus Pope lives.
An impression that is even clearer when the reigning pope, …out of the blue, after having said that “all pastors should be able to take our leave for good”, explains that
“The time comes when the Lord tells us: Go elsewhere, come to me. And one of the steps that a pastor must do is to prepare himself to say goodbye for good, not just halfway”.
Not to say goodbye halfway? Who should learn to do this?
I don’t know, but in the face of the reigning pope’s allusions, as with the statements of the cardinal who thinks Cardinal Burke is ‘a miserable man’ and the opinion of the theologian who thinks that the emeritus pope should be subject to ‘institutional death’, I am reminded of Peppone when he attacks the chickens of Don Camllio and cries, “I say, eliminate them! Physically eliminate them!”
[Peppone is the Communist petit-bourgeois mayor who is the parish priest Don Camillo’s nemesis in Giovannino Guareschi’s Don Camillo series.]
To which Don Camillo, I am sure, would have said: “Well, hold fast! You’re in for a beating!”
June 9, 2017
P.S. It turns out Christopher Ferrara has seen Tosatti's commentary on 'the pastor who does not know how to say goodbye', and has thus put it out in the Anglophone blogosphere - with his own commentary....
Bergoglio to Benedict:
Learn to say Goodbye
by Christopher A. Ferrara
June 8, 2017
Over the past four years, the Catholic faithful have become inured to a continuing spectacle completely without precedent in Church history: a Pope who, almost every day, uses his pulpit to hurl a seemingly inexhaustible supply of epithets at orthodox Catholics who are rightly disturbed by the course of his pontificate: “rigorists,” “rigid,” “legalists,” “Pharisees,” “hypocrites,” “self-absorbed Promethean neo-Pelagians,” and so on.
Pope Bergoglio shows no signs of tiring in his repetition of the same theme, day in and day out for years on end, like a phonograph needle stuck in the same groove of the same old record.
But back in March, as Antonio Socci notes in a column that has not received sufficient attention, Pope Bergoglio introduced a new villain du jour from the pulpit at Santa Marta:
the pastor “who does not know how to say goodbye and thinks he is the center of history,” the pastor who does not know that “he must leave completely, not halfway… and without appropriating the sheep to himself.”
Precisely whom could Pope Bergoglio have in mind here? We have a very good idea, but Vatican Insider, which Socci calls “the ultrabergoglian website,” left nothing to the imagination. Its report on this sermon included a photograph of Pope Benedict XVI departing the Vatican in a helicopter headed to Castel Gandolfo on the day his mysterious “renunciation” of the “ministry of the Bishop of Rome” became effective.
That Pope Bergoglio was targeting Benedict is obvious, given that this denunciation followed almost immediately after the appearance of Cardinal Sarah’s book on the state of the liturgy, entitled “
The Power of Silence: Against the Dictatorship of Noise,” to which Benedict, as “Pope Emeritus,” wrote a rather devastating postscript.
Therein Benedict declares that with Sarah as head of the Congregation for Divine Worship, “the liturgy is in good hands.” Yet, as we know, Pope Bergoglio has sacked the entire membership of the Congregation save Sarah, and has since surrounded him with liturgical progressives as replacements precisely in order to leave Sarah in powerless isolation so that the relentless decay of the Novus Ordo liturgy can continue unabated.
As Socci reports, the appearance of Benedict’s postscript prompted Bergoglian cheerleader Andrea Grillo to declare that Benedict had “renounced his renunciation” and was now meddling “in the decisions of his successor” — meaning the decision to neutralize Cardinal Sarah without sacking him outright.
Hence Pope Bergoglio’s introduction of
a new category of dastardly villain standing in the way of his vaunted “irreversible reform” of the Church, including Holy Communion for public adulterers: namely, the pastor who won’t say goodbye.
Here, as usual, we have the Bergoglian twisting of Scripture to suit the rhetorical needs of the moment. In his polemical sermon Pope Bergoglio cites the episode of Saint Paul departing from Ephesus as an example of the pastor who knows how to say goodbye and does not try to take the sheep with him.
But in citing the example of Saint Paul at Ephesus, Socci notes, Pope Bergoglio has scored a spectacular goal against himself, for
Saint Paul was driven from Ephesus by a riot “orchestrated by the goldsmiths who were profiting from the manufacture of idols,” and Saint Paul warned that after his departure “ravening wolves” would enter among his flock, introducing “perverse doctrines to attract disciples to themselves.”
Cue the sound of the laughing trombone, as
Pope Bergoglio once again points the finger at himself while hurling accusations at others — this time his own predecessor in office.
Except that this is no laughing matter, but rather yet another sign that the Bergoglian pontificate is very probably the terminal stage in an ecclesial crisis whose resolution will have to involve divine intervention of the most dramatic sort.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 09/06/2017 18:04]