Google+
 
Pagina precedente | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » | Pagina successiva

BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

Ultimo Aggiornamento: 23/08/2021 11:16
Autore
Stampa | Notifica email    
23/07/2017 03:34
OFFLINE
Post: 31.444
Post: 13.532
Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009
Administratore
Utente Gold
I had just finished translating a Tosatti blogpost from July 20, touching, among other things, the late Cardinal Martini's reported 'opposition' to Jorge Bergoglio in the 2005 Conclave – something that has been bruited about all these years – when I found out that Tosatti's blogpost today is from a most respected Roman priest who offers an apparently reliable elaboration about this… First, the original post:

Martini did not want Bergoglio to be pope:
An 'indiscretion' from my friend RVC

by Marco Tosatti
Translated from his blog
STILUM CURIAE
July 20, 2017

Today, Romana Vulneratus Curia (RVC for short) changed the rules somewhat. To begin with, he has written me an ironic message, rather bitter, but quite serious. Which is different from his usual style. Within which, however, with nonchalance, as if simply tossing off something in passing, he insinuates between the lines the 'indiscretion' I point out in my title and bolded in the article. Something which merits some consideration by your humble servant, who does not have the Vatican and ecclesial entrée that RVC has, but will try to cope, nonetheless…

Dear Tosatti,
First I wanted to tell you that I am increasingly amazed at the 'discomfort' we Italians complain about when we really do not lack for anything – we have everything we could possibly desire: donna Boldrini [president of the Italian Chamber of Deputies since 2013 and a pro-immigration advocate], count Gentiloni [Italian Prime Minister since December 2016, descended from a count], mistress Bonino [who aborted more than 10,000 babies herself using a bicycle pump], and above all, the great Papa Bergoglio who loves and protects all Catholics, especially Italians. What else do we need to be serene and tranquil?

Then I read Father Spadaro's article in La Civilta Cattolica and I finally understood the origin of all the evils in the Church: conservative and traditionalist Catholics! I ask myself whether Spadaro is wrong to mistrust these sinister reactionaries who are sectarian and Manichaean,who continue to insist that Jesus is God incarnate, who rose from the dead and redeemed the world! Have these Pharisees mever read the great Jesuit prophet Karl Rahner?

Then this morning, I read about insinuations – intimidations, actually – directed against Papa Ratzinger [via his brother Georg] for the abuse of Regensburg Choir boys from 1945-1992, and I was stunned. Are the traditionalists the principal danger to the faith and Catholic civilization? But what if others are?

I asked myself: Perhaps a friend of mine was right when he explained to me that, unlike the commonplace belief, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini – at the 2005 Conclave which elected Ratzinger pope – sought to dissuade his supporters from voting for another Jesuit cardinal in place of him because if the latter became pope, the prestige of the Society of Jesus would be compromised for another one hundred years in a way far more painful than what happened after Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Society in 1773. [Martini was worried about the order. What about the effects on the Church? How much of Bergoglio's radical heterodoxies and near-heresies would he have approved?]

But not satisfied with such a revelation that I cannot verify, I tried instead to understand when, why and how the Society was reconstituted by Pius VI in 1814. Granted that history is not clear about this, it is a fact that after five years of imprisonment by Napoleon in France and his return to Rome on May 24, 1814, one of the first things he did, two weeks later, was to resurrect the Society of Jesus. Shortly afterwards, he obtained the restitution of all the territories that had been taken away from the Church during the Napoleonic conquest.

I repeat, the history books do not explain it, but the liberation of Pius VII, the reconstitution of the Society of Jesus and the restitution of the Church's expropriated properties all took place within two months. Did Napoleon himself perhaps suggest this? Maybe, you, Tosatti, can explain it all.

Your RVC


Well, poor Tosatti can't explain it. But on the more recent matter, I have heard from some people far more knowledgeable than I about these things, that in effect, many Jesuits in high levels, including the renowned Cardinal Archbishop Martini of Milan, did not have a very high opinion of their colleague from Buenos Aires. They must have had their reasons.

Meanwhile, the Spadaro article RVC refers to is, of course, that which he co-authored with Presbyterian Pastor Marclo Figueroa, whom Bergoglio had hand-picked to edit the Argentine weekly edition of L'Osservatore Romano. [He either had no Argentine Catholics he thought qualified for the job and/or to be entrusted with it, or he deliberately chose a non-Catholic to edit the Argentine edition of what is still the official newspaper of the Holy See, although it is more commonly referred to as 'the pope's own newspaper'. What other pope could be so perverse?] There's a substantial critique of the article in La Croce Quotidiano. ['The daily Cross' – it could very well refer to Papa Bergoglio himself, a cross we daily bear most ungladly!]

Now here's the whopper which you will never find in any of the existing biographical accounts of Jorge Bergoglio:

'Martini would probably have walked out
of the 2005 Conclave if Bergoglio had been elected'

by Marco Tosatti
Translated from his blog
STILUM CURIAE
July 22, 2013

A longtime and esteemed priest friend of mine, Ariel Levi di Gualdo, has written me regarding the last letter I posted from Romana Vulneratus Curia. Father Ariel's letter is interesting because it offers new informative light and points for reflection on the situation of the Church which we are experiencing these days. Here is what he wrote:

Dear Marco,
After having read your article "Martini did not want Bergoglio to be pope", I was tempted to call you to chat, which we ought to do in any case.

You and I have known each other for many years, we are friends who read each other's work, and therefore you know I have habitually treated the Society of Jesus with extreme harshness for many years now. Perhaps because I have had it with the Jesuits? No, it's not that, because I have profound gratitude for the Jesuits of the 'old school', those who were formed before the 1960s, who belonged to the 'old' Jesuit order, because I studied under them. But I have no esteem at all for the members of what I like to call the new Company of the Indies, now headed by an openly manifest heretic, Fr. Aturo Sosa.

During the early years of my priesthood, I had the experience of being in close contact with 'historical figures' of the Roman Curia, and I also soon became not so much the confrere, friend or confidante of various ecclesiastics therein, but also their confessor and spiritual director. Over which, of course, there is the seal of confessional secrecy, even if with regard to certain acts or situations one learns in the internal forum or externally, one cannot even apply the principle "name the sin but not the sinner" because in certain sensitive matters, one cannot say either the sinner nor the sin, i.e., some information cannot simply be made known.

I have written about many things, but always documented, and rigorously so. But never in my writings have I used the words "it seems…', "it appears…, or "it is said…" followed by a true and proper machinegun barrage, because when one reports anything, one must first of all show and prove what one alleges. And that is why I have never been able to speak of what you have written and published about Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, even if I have written many times about his controversial theological positions.

But without delving too much into the matter, I can confirm to you that in the 2005 Conclave, Cardinal Martini ended up supporting and endorsing the election of Cardinal Ratzinger, for whom he always had profound esteem, even if their theological and pastoral positions were markedly different.

So to define the reigning pope as "the realizer of Martinism" is a hoax perpetrated by low-level journalists and bloggers. Cardinal Martini had a very bad opinion of the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires, something which he never failed to show, many many times, with all the lordliness that was inherently Martini – indeed, there is no lack of eye-and ear-witnesses about this. Just as there is no lack of older Argentine Jesuits who about their confrere Jorge Mario Bergoglio used to say: "After his tenure as Provincial General (head of the Jesuits in Argentina), it took us twenty years just to apply first aid to the damage he did". [This is a statement that has surfaced time and again since Bergoglio became pope.]

And let us not forget that the 'progressivist' Carlo Maria Martini, who was loved by all the leftists and chic radicals in his time, was basically a great snob, who, when arriving for his pastoral visits in the parishes of Milan, or when he made an entry into the Cathedral, even from afar projected the bearing, the aura and the figure of a true Prince of the Church. Indeed, he had the advantage of a beautiful and manly physical appearance which he carried with real class…

Some exegeses, discourses or statements by Cardinal Martini always left me very perplexed, and in 2010, I wrote a brief essay to confute his outlandish proposition about 'restoring' the female diaconate, by pointing out that such an institution never existed either in the Oriental Churches or in the West. But beyond such occasional lapses, the cardinal was a man of indisputable culture.

As a Jesuit, then as a bishop, and then as cardinal, Martini was the perfect antithesis to the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires, whom he could not consider without disconcertment because of his objective personal uncouthness and his even more uncouth theology, if we can call it that.

If a man like Carlo Maria Martini had been an elector at the Conclave of 2013, perhaps he would not have hesitated to leave the Sistine Chapel [upon the election of Bergoglio]. Just as I believe a small group of cardinals will, if in the next conclave, there would be a manipulation like that which took place in 2013. I can imagine a small group of cardinals breaking the seal of the Conclave to leave the Sistine Chapel, without saying anything but merely taking silent action without a need to explain themselves.

When the name of the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires was circulated at the Conclave of 2005, Cardinal Martini's first reaction was to request his supporters to give their vote to Cardinal Ratzinger. [This, too, we have read before in many accounts. But Martini was the titular leader of the so-called Sankt-Gallen Mafia whose avowed and admitted primary objective in 2005 was to stop Ratzinger from being elected. Is Levi di Gualdo saying he broke with them when they put up Bergoglio as the alternative to Martini himself? (who was hors de combat because he was already suffering from advanced Parkinson's disease). Levi di Gualdo does not address this issue.] And what we have been reading in the media and online has all been myth and preposterous conjectures.

This is what I wanted to tell you and to make public on your blog.

Yours,
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo



Amministra Discussione: | Chiudi | Sposta | Cancella | Modifica | Notifica email Pagina precedente | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » | Pagina successiva
Nuova Discussione
 | 
Rispondi
Cerca nel forum

Feed | Forum | Bacheca | Album | Utenti | Cerca | Login | Registrati | Amministra
Crea forum gratis, gestisci la tua comunità! Iscriviti a FreeForumZone
FreeForumZone [v.6.1] - Leggendo la pagina si accettano regolamento e privacy
Tutti gli orari sono GMT+01:00. Adesso sono le 07:32. Versione: Stampabile | Mobile
Copyright © 2000-2024 FFZ srl - www.freeforumzone.com