THE CHURCH MILITANT - BELEAGUERED BY BERGOGLIANISM

‘They will unmask me eventually',
says author of ‘The Dictator Pope’
The pseudonymous 'Marcantonio Colonna' claims
the pope has seen a shortlist of six possible authors
by Dan Hitchens

Wednesday, 13 Dec 2017

Marcantonio Colonna, the pseudonymous author of The Dictator Pope, has said the Vatican is trying to discover his identity. The book was published as a Kindle edition last week and has caused consternation with its claims about Pope Francis’s reign.

Speaking to the Catholic Herald by email, Colonna claimed that the Pope had been given a list of possible names.

“A person in England was misidentified as the author at one point and immediately received threatening telephone calls from Rome,” Colonna said. “I now hear that Vatican officials have laid before the Pope a shortlist of six people who they think may be the possible author. I suspect that it’s not for the purpose of awarding a literary prize.”

Asked whether he thought his anonymity would last, Colonna said: “Under the present Pope, the Vatican machine has taken espionage to a new level, and I have little doubt that they will unmask me eventually, perhaps after a few more false casts. But they will need to ask themselves whether it is at the cost of giving me more publicity.”

Colonna believes his book has “hit a vein of disillusionment with Francis’s papacy which the mainstream media have missed”.

Some critics have suggested Colonna’s book is mere gossip. For instance, it draws on a supposed report by the Jesuit superior general Fr Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, commissioned when Fr Jorge Bergoglio was proposed as a bishop in Argentina. Fr Kolvenbach’s report allegedly stated that Fr Bergoglio was “unsuitable for such an appointment” because of character defects, which he went on to describe. (The report has since disappeared.)

Asked why the reader should believe this, Colonna replied: “The account I give of the report in my book is not based on rumour. It’s based on first-hand information I received from a priest who read the report when it was first issued, and who was fully in the know of the ecclesiastical process involved.”

Colonna says his concern is not primarily to cover the recent doctrinal controversies in the Church. “My purpose was simply to show the gulf that exists between the image of the liberal, democratic Pope Francis and the true character of this pontificate,” he said. “That is something that ought to give all Catholics cause for concern.”

In this next item, look who's talking! Being me - and not kindly disposed towards this pope - I think it reads like a self-portrait, so don't argue with him!...But if he does not think he is Satan, or possessed by Satan, then for once, he is stating some Catholic doctrine.

'Don't argue with the Devil -
he's much more intelligent than us',
says Pope Francis
by Nick Squires
THE TELEGRAPH (UK)
13 DECEMBER 2017

The Devil is more intelligent than mere mortals and should never be argued with, Pope Francis has warned.

Satan is not a metaphor or a nebulous concept but a real person armed with dark powers, the Pope said in forthright remarks made during a television interview.

“He is evil, he’s not like mist. He’s not a diffuse thing, he is a person. I’m convinced that one must never converse with Satan - if you do that, you’ll be lost,” he told TV2000, a Catholic channel, gesticulating with his hands to emphasise his point.

“He’s more intelligent than us, and he’ll turn you upside down, he’ll make your head spin. He always pretends to be polite - he does it with priests, with bishops. That’s how he enters your mind. But it ends badly if you don’t realise what is happening in time. (We should tell him) go away!” he said. [DIM=8pt][Other than the 'Go away!' part, does that not sound like a self-description?]

Pope Francis frequently refers to the Devil in his homilies, sermons and on Twitter, where he is followed by 40 million people in nine languages.

He uses various terms to refer to the Prince of Darkness, including Satan, the Evil One, the Seducer, Beelzebub and the Great Dragon.

"It's a Jesuit thing. He's a Jesuit who is deeply imbued with the spiritual exercises of St Ignatius of Loyola, which allow people to discern the movements of the good and bad spirit," said Austen Ivereigh, a Vatican analyst and the author of The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope. [Thus spake Ivereighiah, prophet of Bergoglianism!]

"For him, this is real, these are not metaphors. It may not be the way that people speak nowadays and some Catholics may be taken aback by it. A lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea of evil being real, but anyone who knows the spirituality of the Jesuits will not be surprised." [Excuse me, Mr. Prophet, but what properly catechized Catholic, even among the so-called 'simple folk', would ever be uncomfortable with the reality of evil? You would think the Jesuits had a monopoly on this perception!]

Three years ago the Argentinian pontiff told a convention of exorcists from around the world that they were doing sterling work in combating "the Devil's works".

He said that exorcists needed to show "the love and welcome of the Church for those possessed by evil".

In 2013, during an address to crowds of faithful in St Peter’s Square, he said the Devil often appears “disguised as an angel, and slyly speaks his word to us."

He shares stories about the Devil’s devious ways when he gives his daily homilies in the chapel of the guesthouse where he lives inside the Vatican.

Last week Pope Francis called for the wording of the Lord’s Prayer to be changed so that it blames the Devil, rather than God, for “leading us into temptation”. [If Jesus had wanted it that way, he would have said so. Plus, Bergoglio misses the obvious connotation that the 'Evil' meant by Jesus was not just evil in the abstract but the Evil One himself.]

He said the prayer had been badly translated from the Greek [ignoring more than 2000 years of uncontested Catholic theology and tradition, and the origins of the Biblical canon we use!] used in the New Testament and the new version would better reflect its true meaning.

“It’s not a good translation . . . I am the one who falls. It’s not Him pushing me into temptation to then see how I have fallen. A father doesn’t do that, a father helps you to get up immediately. It’s Satan who leads us into temptation, that’s his department,” he said. [Of course, the writer simply reports this totally a-critically.]

The life of a Christian is a continual battle against evil, the Pope has said. [Oh, thank you! From everything else you have been saying, the life of a Christian ought to be a primrose path - and we all know where that leads!]


And about the Lord's Prayer, Bergoglio-style?
'To translate' does not mean 'to interpret'
Translated from

December 11, 2017

Much noise has been generated by statements made by Pope Francis on the program Padre nostro (Our Father) which aired on the Italian bishops’ TV2000 network on December 6. He claimed that the traditional translation in all languages [based on the Latin vulgate translation of the Gospels in Greek handed down by the Apostles] of the penultimate petition in the Lord’s Prayer was ‘not a good translation'.

---

Even the French [Is he really holding up the contemporary church in France as a model?] have changed the text with a translation that says “do no let me fall into temptation” - [because] it is I who falls, it’s not him [the Lord] who casts me into temptation to see if I fall into it. A father does not do this – rather, he helps us to get up quickly”:.

---

[So many things wrong with the content and logic of that brief citation and the way it is expressed!]

One might think this was yet another Bergoglian novelty (when the only novelty is that on December 3, first Sunday of Advent, the French bishops introduced a new translation of the Lord’s Prayer into the liturgy), but this is really a question that has dragged on for decades.

From the philological viewpoint, Fr. Zerwik in his Analysis philologica Novi Testamenti graeci ( Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1953) wrote this about the Greek verb εἰσενέγκῃς used in the contested phrase: It is 'the second aorist conjunctive of εἰσ-φέρω, in-duco, which has a permissive sense: ‘allow to enter’, therefore the whole phrase would translate as “let us not enter into temptation”.

But the various Bilbical translations published in the past few decades have indulged their translators’ whims in proposing new ‘solutions’.

In French, the Bible de Jérusalem, in its first and second editions (1956 and 1973), kept the traditional translation
(«Et ne nous soumets pas à la tentation») (do not subject us to temptation), without even bothering to give an explanatory note. But the third edition in 1998 changed it to «Et ne nous laisse pas entrer en tentationn (And do not let us enter into temptation), explaining in a note that “The permissive sense of the Aramaic verb used by Jesus was not reflected either in the Greek or Vulgate translations, whence comes the usual translation of “do not lead us...” (Ne nos inducas...)." But since the early centuries, many Latin manuscripts replaced that with “Ne nos patiari induci” (Do not allow us to be led...)

In 1972, the TOB (???) used the translation: «Et ne nous expose pas à la tentation» (Do not expose us to temptation), with a long comment that can also be read in the Italian edition. The new official translation of the Bible in France, to be used in the liturgy of French-speaking nations, uses the translation of the Bible de Jerusalem, 3rd ed., «Et ne nous laisse pas entrer en tentation», which is the translation introduced into the liturgy last week [and which the pope favors].

In English, the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bble as well as the King James Protestant Bible used the familiar and traditional “And lead us not into temptation”, also kept in the Revised Standard Version and its ‘conservative’ successors, the English Standard Version (2001) and the RSV-Second Catholic Edition (2006).

Only the New Revised Standard Version (1990), even in itx Catholic edition (1993), decided to propose a new translation: «And do not bring us to the time of trial». The New American Bible (Revised Edition, 1986) translated the line as «And do not subject us to the final test», specifying in a note that “this petition asks that isciples be spared the final trial”.

The ELLC (English Language Liturgical Consultation) published in 1988 a new ‘ecumenical’ text of the Lord’s Prayer saying “Save us from the time of trial”. (If there ever was an ecumenical text to the Lord’s Prayer, it would be the traditional text itself.)

In the English-speaking nations (other than those that have kept Tradition and have always used the traditional version), a new translation of the Our Father was used in the Novus Ordo – similar but not identical to the ‘ecumenical’ version. In it, the penultimate petition was translated as “Do not bring us to the test”. But everything changed with the publication of the new English missal in 2011 – whereby in all the English-speaking countries, the Lord’s Prayer is now recited in its traditional version. [Not really, because the Novus Ordo 'Our Father' adds the Protestant line "For thine is the power and the glory forever and ever" after 'deliver us from evil". Do not forget, however, the widespread ‘uprising’ by the progrsssivists against the 2011 translations (improved over the provisional translation adopted at the time the Novus Ordo was first instituted, when there was little regard for a faithful translation from the Latin editione typica, and it was all about ‘simplifying’ and ‘shortening’ the prayers to the point of re-interpreting what the authentic Latin text said).]

In Spanish, however, it seems (but I am not sure) that the line in question has always been “No nos dejes caer en la tentación». [I can only speak from my own experience having learned the basic prayers from my Spanish-speaking grandparents (who were born in the closing years of the 19th century), that I have always prayed it that way, without ever questioning that it was not a direct translation of “Lead us not into temptation”].

In my opinion, the Spanish translation, more than any other consideration explains the pope’s intervention on behalf of the new French translation. [That's certainly a mitigating factor for him.] But one must keep in mind that the original Greek verb εἰσενέγκῃς does not contain any connotation of the idea of ‘falling’.

In Italian, the first edition of the Bible published by the Italian bishops’ conferenc ein 1974 kept the traditional version of the Our Father. But in 2008, the bishops apparently thought a new translation was necessary, so the new edition came up with «E non abbandonarci alla tentazione» (Do not abandon us to temptation). So it is in this form that it entered into the new Lectionary published in 2009.

And since Matthew 6,7-15 is read in the Novus Ordo twice during the year (on Tuesday of the first week of Lent, and on Thursday of the 11th week in ordinary time), that is the translation that we hear in the Readings. [But what about when the Lord’s Prayer is said in the Mass-proper, so to speak? Which version is used?]

This rapid review I have attempted of various translations ought to show that there is no contemporary consensus on how to translate ‘Ne nos inducas in tentationem’ into the vernacular.

To oversimplify the translation issue, making it appear that one can easily replace a traditional version with a new one that ‘adequately renders’ what Jesus meant, means not just to delude oneself but also to deceive the faithful. Because no sooner is a new translation approved, there will always be some exegete who will declare himself dissatisfied and thus propose a new translation which he believes ‘more faithful’.

I believe that all this ado is based on a fundamental error which is widespread today: namely, to think that ‘to translate’ is synonymous with ‘to interpret’, which are complementary actions but distinct from each other.

'To translate” means to render a text into another language as faithfully as possible – faithful, that is, to the original text. We cannot entrust to a translation a task – interpretation – that does not belong to it. The interpretation of a text is the task of competent exegetes, not of translators.

Now, if we want a sure interpretation – also quite recent - of the Lord’s Prayer, all we need to do is turn to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which dedicates to the Lord’s Prayer the second section of Part IV. The explanation of the sixth petition is found in paragraphs 2846-2849 (which among other things, says very responsibly: ‘To translate the Greek verb in a single world is difficult’).

Because once we have understood the sense of that invocation, what need is there to change the traditional translation [which Catholics have used without a problem for two millenia!] But once more, it seems to me that we have turned back to the purely verbal discussions that were so fashionable in the 1970s and 1980s.

It had seemed that Liturgiam authenticam had definitively disposed of those useless diatribes, but having been consigned to the trash bin in this pontificate [with its own decree on liturgical translation, Magnum principium] , we are once again on unsure footing. Is it just by chance that a new translation of the Our Father has been introduced in France, with generous assistance from the pope, just three months after Magnum principium was promulgated?

Seeing how things are, it is predictable that even the third edition of the Roman Missal in Italian – whch has been in deep freeze for years – will soon be thawed out and we too in Italy shall soon abandon the traditional formulation to say “And do not abandon us to temptation”.

I ask: If a God who is our Father cannot lead us into temptation[as the pope objects], would he abandon us to temptation? [Which just shows the absurdity of trying to tinker with one of the oldest and most unexceptionable prayer formulations of the Church! Are all the saints who prayed the traditional prayers in their traditional formulation any less saintly because of it? And will changing the way we pray the Our Father make us any more saintly? All these semantic calisthenics do not advance the faith one bit, much less stem its daily erosion in our day.]

P.S. Another review of The Dictator Pope...

Frustating that it is only on e-book, but
filled with valuable insights and information
The most valuable service provided by the author
is the psychological portrait of Pope Francis:
Manipulative, hypersensitive, and often downright vindictive —
certainly not the cheerful populist[make that 'pluperfect pope']
that his supporters and the media make him out to be.
by Philip F. Lawler

December 13, 2017

The Dictator Pope is an important yet a frustrating book. Important, because it offers valuable insights into the character of the enigmatic Pope Francis. Frustrating, because the book’s approach virtually ensures that those insights will not be widely shared.

The book is clearly intended to correct the wildly inaccurate public image of a “reformer Pope” — an image that has been nourished by sympathetic media coverage. But in order to substantially influence public opinion, the book would need to reach the general public.

Regrettably — for now, at least — the English-language version of The Dictator Pope is available only in an electronic format, as a self-published work. Lacking the support of a major publisher and the publicity campaign that comes with it, and unavailable in bookstores, the book’s readership will be limited to people with a special interest in Vatican affairs — people who, more often than not, already know the story that the book tells.

If the goal is to persuade, there are other problems with the presentation. First, the author writes under a pseudonym (taking the name of Marcantonio Colonna, an Italian admiral who gained fame at the Battle of Lepanto). Skeptical readers will wonder why he is reluctant to identify himself, and whether his reporting is credible.

This is unfortunate, because The Dictator Pope is the product of a great deal of solid reporting. Whoever “Marcantonio Colonna” really is, he clearly knows his way around the Vatican, and has excellent sources inside the Roman Curia.

Whenever the author wrote about events with which I was personally familiar, I found his treatment accurate. The only factual errors that I discovered in the book were the result of haste or sloppiness: the sort of mistakes that might have been caught by a good copy editor (which is another argument for a major publisher).

However, when the book told stories that were new to me, I found the evidence thin. Too often the author relies on hearsay evidence, and when he cites other reporters, too often their work is based on hearsay as well. Worse, when he makes his most startling claims, “Colonna” offers no evidence at all. He makes the improbable claim, for example, that then-Cardinal Bergoglio had advance notice about the impending resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, when many of the former Pontiff’s closest advisers were taken by surprise.

Later he makes the even more outlandish charge that Pope Francis used the proceeds of the Peter’s Pence collection to subsidize the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Very few readers will be ready to accept these claims without some persuasive evidence. By putting them forward as facts, without supporting them, the author encourages readers to wonder about the book’s other claims.

Again, this is unfortunate, because The Dictator Pope contains an enormous amount of solid information. Some will be familiar to readers who have followed Vatican affairs carefully during the last few years, and already know the sad tales about the manipulation of the Synod of Bishops, the destruction of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, the takeover of the Knights of Malta, the intimidation of members of the Vatican staff. Pope Francis has encouraged young Catholics to “make a mess”; the book shows that he has followed his own advice.

And some of the book’s revelations will be new to any but the most attentive followers of inside Vatican news. The author reminds us, for instance, that Cardinal Bergoglio became prominent when he delivered a speech at the Synod meeting of 2001, after New York’s Cardinal Egan, who was scheduled to give the address, hurried home in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The Argentine cardinal’s speech was heartily applauded by the prelates who heard it. What they did not know, Colonna tells us, is that Cardinal Bergoglio merely read a text that had been prepared by a Vatican staff member.

The Dictator Pope also gives readers samples of a highly critical memo by Father Peter Hans Kolvenbach, then the worldwide leader of the Jesuit order, written in 1991, to explain why, in his opinion, Father Jorge Bergoglio should not be made a bishop. The memo is devastating, pointing to character flaws that are confirmed throughout this book.

Indeed the most valuable service provided by the author of The Dictator Pope is the psychological portrait of the Pope: a man who follows in the footsteps of Juan Peron, the demagogic Argentine political leader of young Bergoglio’s formative years.

Manipulative, hypersensitive, and often downright vindictive, Pope Francis is certainly not the cheerful populist that his supporters make him out to be. For all the talk about a “reformer pope,” the rhetoric about decentralization, and the promises of reform, the net results of this pontificate to date have been a climate of fear within the Vatican, a tightening of control, and a resurgence of the “old guard” in Rome.

The Dictator Pope concludes with a plea that the College of Cardinals should recognize the damage that has been done and, when the time comes, derail the efforts of the liberal prelates like the “St. Gallen mafia” to elect another Pontiff like Francis.

Even before the conclave, the author persuasively argues, ranking prelates should fulfill their duties, resisting the public pressure exerted by an authoritarian Pontiff. It’s a compelling argument. But it would have been more compelling still if the author of this book had set an example, defied the pressure, and written this book under his own name.