| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 32.450
Post: 14.536 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Gold | |
|
Reactions to the Minutella interview
Translated from
January 8, 2019
It was easy to predict that my interview with don Alessandro Minutella would provoke widespread reactions.
So many persons have written to say they share the positions of this excommunicated priest from Palermo, but there is no lack of those who wish to distance themselves from him. A third category consists of those who, despite agreeing in principle with don Minutella’s analysis of the present situation of the Church, part ways from him on the issue of the validity of Bergoglio’s election as pope, which don Minutella decisively questions to the point that he always refers to the reigning pope as ‘Cardinal Bergoglio”.
I would place in i his category the Dominican priest and theologian, Giovanni Cavalcoli (born 1941), who sent me a detailed reaction. He agrees that don Minutella is right to denounce with passion the modernist drift that the Catholic Church has taken, but he is wrong on a number of his assessments. Following is the essay sent to me by Fr. Cavalcoli:
I have read your interview with don Minutella who analyzes the present situation of the Church, highlighting some sad phenomena that truly exist, such as the infulence of Neo-Arianism, Rahnerism, Lutheranism and Freemasonry, as well as the liturgical disarray, the scorn for tradition, the falsification if Scripture, the mondanization of the Church, the seriousness and the spread of scandals, internal conflicts and moral corruption, the loss of faith and apostasy among many faithful, the negligence of pastors and the Pope in correcting errors [How can they correct errors that they have implanted and encouraged themselves?], in pacifying souls and in reforming bad habits.
I would even add Marcionism – and I think don Minutella would agree, which you highlighted in one of your books, a third-century heresy that has now been revived in the form of a misericordism which postulates a presumed God of the New Testament who is all sweetness and light, unlike the supposedly punitive, fearsome, vindictive and cruel God of the Old Testament.
Nonetheless, don Minutella is wrong on some points:
1. He is wrong to say that Pope Francis was elected invalidly and therefore is not the true pope, on the ground that his election was ‘orchestrated’ in violation of John Paul II’s 1996 Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, which prohibits cardinals, under pain of excommunication, “during the Pope's lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings”, and enjoins them "to abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons”.
But don Minutella, in insisting that Pope Francis was invalidly elected, is expressing a false and reckless judgment since he assumes, without having any way to prove it, that at the 2013 Conclave, a hypothetical group of cardinals – the so-called Sankt Gallen mafia [which is far from hypothetical inasmuch as one of its leading members, Cardinal Danneels tells the story in his autobiography] – was able to influence the majority of the cardinal electors to vote for Bergoglio, which is altogether unthinkable and unverifiable not just because of the secrecy demanded of the cardinals and their participation in the conclave, but because none of us, outside the cardinals, and not even don Minutella himself, could have known what happened in the Conclave, since none of us were there. [Certainly 'unverifiable' but 'unthinkable'? There is written testimony from some of those who were part of the cabal.]
Who told him that Bergoglio was invalidly elected? Don Minutella does not tell us. How can we believe him? The decisive argument is this: That not one cardinal who took part in the conclave has publicly questioned the validity of Bergoglio’s election, even as the Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI promised his successor obedience as befits a legitimate pope.
2. He is wrong to believe that only Benedict XVI is the legitimate pope and that Francis is not. He says this is based on the principle that there can only be one pope at a time. Which is right. But he does not take into account the distinction that Benedict XVI made between the Petrine office and the exercise of that office.
Christ wanted just one pope exercising the duties of pope. But he did not exclude the possibility of two legitimate popes, like now, of which only one exercises the office, in this case, Francis. [That's a theologian's audacious and pointless exegesis of something Christ never referred to!]
Celestine V, when he resigned as pope, wished to return to being a hermit monk but at the time, the distinction we now have was not explicit. [Let it be noted that Celestine himself drew up the document allowing his resignation after only five months as pope, but also that, much as he wanted to resume his life as a hermit monk, he had no chance to do so because he was immediately held in prison by his successor, and died in prison some three years after he resigned.]
Cavalcoli’s third argument, which follows, is all erroneous, IMHO, because it clearly begs all the questions and doubts raised by this pope’s statements and actions:
3.He is seriously wrong to consider Pope Francis heretical, because a pope - even if, like Francis, is not known for clarity of language, often uses language that is improper and equivocal, uses expressions that are infelicitous and ambiguous, is prone to make irreverent quips, expresses rash and reckless judgments, sometimes seems to be a modernist or a Lutheran – inasmuch as he has the mandate ‘to confirm his brothers in the faith’, if he speaks seriously and is not joking, if he is of lucid mind and not under threat by anyone, especially in his most important documents, he cannot be wrong, he cannot lie, he cannot deceive, but rather, teaches us the truth of the the faith, and is therefore ‘infallible’ – he is truthful, even in his daily ordinary magisterium, and not just when he solemnly proclaims a new dogma ex cathedra Petri.
[For a theologian, Cavalcoli omits the most important condition: as long as what the pope teaches does not contradict anything in the deposit of faith. He violates the basic condition of infallibility, restricted to what he says on faith and on morals, if he teaches his own opinion against what the Church has taught for more than two millennia.]
Therefore, if any statement by this pope may seem heretical, or wrong-sounding, or scandalous, it turns out to be orthodox when subjected to ample exegesis. [???? Do the outrages in Amoris laetitia meet this test at all?]
If a pope can be heretical, it means that Christ, when he gave Peter the power to confirm his brothers in the faith, was deceitful, which is blasphemy even to think of. [Where is the logic here? Christ knew, from Peter’s own example, how fallible his own apostles could be. Nothing in what he said in Mt 16, 19 conferred infallibility on Peter and his Successors. Indeed, it took more than 1900 years for the Church to formulate a doctrine of papal infallibility which is still widely misconstrued and improperly applied.]
In short, a pope may be criticized for his moral conduct, for his pastoral ministry and his legislative dispositions, but not for his doctrinal magisterium, whether extraordinary or solemn, ordinary and daily. [[Not when such magisterium is demonstrably against what the Church has always taught! That's why the major controversy over Amoris laetitia and its sacramental leniency, and on the pope's singlehanded revision of the Catechism to declare that the death penalty is always unacceptable.]
To accept the first kind of Magisterium requires divine faith and theological conviction; to accept the second simply requires faith in the Church or the religious obedience of the intellect. In any case, the Church through the pope is always the teacher of truth, more highly proclaimed in the first case, less so in the second, but always the truth. [Cavalcoli does not seem to allow for the possibility of human fallibility in a pope! The Church would not be in crisis today if Bergoglio had not repeatedly shown himself to be anti-Catholic. Cavalcoli is fantasizing in his claim that subjecting Bergoglio's questionable teachings to 'ample exegesis' always show then to be orthodox.]
4. He is wrong to think that Vatican II was merely a ‘pastoral’ council because it did not issue any new doctrinal definitions. In fact, it issued two dogmatic constitutions – Lumen gentium, on the role of the Church in the world, and Dei Verbum on divine revelation, besides presenting doctrinal teachings in other minor documents. [YES, but none of these doctrinal statements was supposed to be new teaching, and therefore Mons. Lefebvre and other conservative Catholics did contest what the Council said on the matter of religious freedom, ecumenism and interfaith dialog, even if John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger rationalized the ‘new’ teachings by insisting they should be read ‘in continuity with tradition”, which is difficult to do on these three topics.]
That is why Benedict XVI insisted to the FSSPX that if they wished to return to full communion with the Church, they should accept all of Vatican II; that its pastoral teachings could be discussed, but without questioning the ‘truths’ expressed in its doctrinal teaching since none of it was new dogma. [I’m not sure that was Benedict XVI’s exact position vis a vis the FSSPX and Vatican II, especially since I share the FSSPX’s reservations about Vatican II’s position on those three doctrinal questions which would seem to abdicate the Church’s mission to “go and baptize all peoples in the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit”.]
5. He is wrong in his scorn for modernity. One must be able to discern: There is a modernity that is compatible ith the Gospel, and Vatican II helped to identify this healthy modernity. And there is an unhealthy and corrupting modernity, agains the Gospel, which must be repelled. This would be an idolatry of modernity, taking on modernity in toto, just because it is modern, without judging it in the light of the Gospel. The modernist takes on the modern as an Absolute, and chooses the Gospel only if it conforms to that Absolute.
One must not necessarily reject what is modern. This is obvious in matters of civilization, culture, science technology, politics, society, medicine, nutrition or dress. Why not too in moral conduct, coexistence, customs, theology, sprituality, religious life and the life of the Church? Of course, it would be a betrayal if by modernizing, one meant subordinating a traditional and perennial value to the transient demands of the times in order to change or corrupt it. But if by modernizing, we mean overcoming obsolescence, make the good better, in other words, positive progress, then let us modernize.
Vatican II modernized the Church not in the sense of conforming her to corruptive innovation – this is modernity’s great deception – but to conform her to the novelties of the Spirit. ‘Renovabis faciem terrae et creabuntur.(Thou shalt renew the face of the earrth, and you will create them) [Cavalcoli sounds like Bergoglio here – does the Holy Spirit really offer us novelties at all, since Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and for always??? Morever, Cavalcolo alters the Veni Creator Spiritus invocation, which says: “Emitte Spiritum tuum et creabuntur; Et renovabis faciem terrae”. [Send forth thy spirit and they shall be created; And thou shalt renew the face fo the earth”.]
- Fr Giovanni Cavalcoli, O.P.
Today, Valli published more reactions:
January 11, 2018
My interview with don Alessandro Minutella has opened up inflamed discussion which shows no sign of waning. I have received numerous comments, of course.
After the response of Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli, who himself provoked many reactions, I offer here a sampler of the reactions from other readers. I apologize that I cannot publish everyone and that I have made some cuts in the following reactions:
Thanks for the interview with don Minutella. I will tell you, briefly, what I think of him.
1. The substance is good, the form disputable. I share almost everything that he says, but am less enthusiastic about his tone and manner of expression.
2. I appreciate his theological knowledge and his overwhelming eloquence, but not some indications of narcissism that emerge here and there.
3. I don’t condemn the form of battle that he has chosen for himself, but I wouldn’t adopt it for myself nor would I advise others to follow it.
4. I was offended by his initiative to publicly invite Benedict XVI to emerge from his retirement and take a stand in the current controversies, and be interviewed as if his silent and prayerful self-immolation had no value at all, nor even his relationship to the ‘wolves’. [???? I must have missed this part in my translation!]*
5. Perhaps he forgets that a true solution to the problem cannot come from us, but only from the Lord who allowed the ‘coup d’etat’ of March 2013, and will know how to regain control of his boat.
In the meantime, we have a ‘substitute pope’ in the expectation that his heresy will become ever more evident and introvertible so that he can be fought more easily.
- FR GABRIELE ROSSI
I have read your interview with don Minutella. I was a friend of his, and in the past, I supported him with words and deeds.
- With words because I often encouraged him to carry on his battle against the teachers of error, and I congrtulated him often for his catecheses on Radio Domina and for confuting heresies.
- In deeds, I have taken part in some of the meetings he called, I have defended him privately to others, and have offered to defend him, if need be, as his rotal attorney before any Vatican dicastery, the curia of Palermo and its ecclesiastical tribunal (even if he chose to use others), and I went to the Apostolic Signatura, where I have good friends, to speak in his favor and to ask how to proceed if I were allowed to take his case.
But after the meeting in Verona on June 9 last year, he made a significant turn: He declared – as he continues to do so, and did in your interview – that any Mass celebrated ‘una cum Francisco’ is invalid. I consider this a very serious error, because no document of the authentic magisterium, no Father or Doctor of the Church, and no theological mannual adhering to the true magisterium, has ever supported such a view. [This was a major flaw in don Minutella's argumentation. I have re-examined the Te igitur prayer again, using Dom Gueranger's 1885 Explanation of the Holy Mass, and my sense of the 'una cum...' is not that the priest is 'concelebrating' it with the pope and his bishop, but that God may accept the offerings of the Sacrifice of the Mass "which, in the first place, we offer Thee for Thy Holy Catholic Church. Grant her peace and protection, unity and guidance throughout the world, together with Thy servant (name), our Pope, and (name), our Bishop; and all Orthodox believers who cherish the Catholic and Apostolic Faith." - i.e, to grant His graces not just on the Church, the pope, the priest himself and his bishop, but all other Catholic orthodox believers. I think one can pray for the pope without necessarily feeling 'in union' with him.]
A Mass is always valid as long as
1) the priest has been validly ordained (even if he has since become heretical, excommunicated, schismatic, a mason, or someone in a state of mortal sin)
2) it is celebrated in the manner and form established by the Church (with true unleavened bread, true winfe from the vine, and the Consecration prayers said according to the Missal)
3) the celebrant intends what the Church intends with the Mass (which automatically happens whenever the celebrant pronounces the words of Consecration prescribed by the Church without altering them, unless the priest decides by his will not to follow what the Church prescribes).
Therefore, his position about ‘una cum…’ has caused confusion even among those faithful who are devoted to him. I have been asked by many, considering my friendship with him, to ask him to retract this very grave error, because many persons who follow him no longer think it is necessasry to go to Sunday Mass, which they now consider invalid, and are therefore vioalting the Third Commandment that obliges attendance at Sunday Mass under pain of mortal sin.
I have tried in many ways to contact him about this, but in vain. Therefore, I have had to dissociate myself from him with sorrow, because he mixes sacrosanct truths with equality sacrosanct falsehoods, and is fighting heresy with a heresy of his own.
He has been asked to discuss his position with theologians at his level (for example, Mons. Livi) but he refuses. He claims he hears voices from heaven whereby he supports his hypotheses, but evidently, such messages are not authentic, because Jesus, Our Lady and the saints would never give messages contrary to the doctrine of the Church.
I have been the official exorcist in an Italian diocese, and I know how the devil can deceive souls by disguising himself as an angel of light. Given the error in which don Minutella has fallen, it seems that the excommunication he incurred is valid, and the reasons he gives for saying the excommunications are invalid do not have a solid basis (because the acts of the reigning pope, even if he is substantially but not formally in heresy, are still canonically valid).
With my blessing,
A PRIEST
I thank you for the interview with don Minutella who bears testimony to facts that exist and which cannot rightfully be ignored.
However, reading some comments on the interview which are outraged, scandalized and even alarmed, it seems you have committed an act of lese majeste rather than a service of information:
- For some bienpensants [followers of politically correct ideas], you dared to talk to this priest when you should not have.
- You dared allow a priest from the periphery to explain the reasons for his personal apostolate, of te excommunications he has received at a time that has been described to as the ‘era of mercy’ – excommunication for schism and heresy.
As a baptized Catholic, I have been asking myself so many questions.
- First, what schism or heresy is there if don Minutella has not denied any dogma, any sacrament, or any article of the Catholic faith? [Does refusal to accept the legitimacy of a pope constitute schism or heresy?]
- Instead, it is sadly very well-known that in many churches, there are pastors who celebrate the Mass improperly, without any reverence for the Passion of Christ, who do nto even wear the right garments for Mass, who invent Consecration formulas as they please, who no longer believe in the existence of a devil, who do not believe in confession nor in the real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, who deny the virginity of Mary, who do not pray the Rosary because they are averse to Marian devotion, who approve of premarital-sex, and who seem social workers rather than Alter Christus, exalting the heretic Luther, and practising strange rituals in the liturgy.
It’s like a horror film, right? But that is the sad and disconcerting reality of that part of the Church that has been betraying Jesus. In Italy, we have a priest who said he does not recite the Creed at Mass because he does not believe in it; some who have called on their parishioners not to bother about Nativity scenes; and others who, like thee priests who left the Church by the tens of thousands in the late 1960s-1970s, wish to get married.
Yet it is don Minutella who is excommunicated.
Dottore Valli, I am not scandalized by this work of journalism that you have performed, and I wish to express my gratitude for your intellectual honesty, the honesty to acknowledge facts already known to many Italian Catholics and which concern hundreds of them, but which the fashionable salons of the world – and alas, even many church circles – have decided to ignore, I daresay in a cowardly way, perhaps because they do not wish to be stained by anything ‘unusual’ in this time of general lethargy, lukewarmness and blindness. They consider it a shameful stain to take a position that is not ambiguous or relativistic, or worse, not to inconvenience themselves by taking any position about don Minutella’s views which are considered by their peers to be bizarre or exaggerated.
But one’s ways correspond to one’s temperament and to one’s specific calling, whereas today, one must not just guard hypocritically against manners, but look at the contents of the objections being expressed (especially since one saint was ‘a voice in the wilderness’, another one was ‘the hammer of heretics’, and Caatherine of Siena said to ‘cry out in a hundred thousand tongues”).
One must be careful today to get to the bottom of doctrinal and prophetic questions, for a serious examination of the current debates, especially in the light of well-known prophecies such as those of Akita, La Sallette, Fatima, Tre Fontane, of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, of Venerable Fulton Sheen. The latter’s words about the ‘false Church’ (a term used by many mystics) lead us to reflect on the terrible trial that the Church must go through, as No. 675 of the Catechism says: “Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the 'mystery of iniquity' in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.”
We must also recall and review the eschatological texts contained in the Bible, from the prophet Daniel, to the gospel of Matthew, to St. Paul’s letters, to the Book of Revelation, bearing in mind that this last is not a book of fable but the sacred text that reveals events which must take place and be fulfilled. And yet, most Catholics ignore it, or if any choose to talk about it, they are accused of being raving catastrophists.
Finally, I would like to say something about the Catholics who have chosen to support don Minutella’s apostolate.
- They are our brothers and sisters in Christ, united in a common defense of the faith of our fathers as conserved in the Church’s bimillennary doctrine.
- They are not, as many would say, sheep in a disbanded flock, who are brainwashed, ill-equipped, or worse, schismatic rebels. - Moreover, schism has been going on in the church for some time because of modernist sectarianism who even at the time of St. Pius X more than a century ago, were already sowing the seeds of heresy.
The Catholics who support don Minutella’s priestly work are
- those who welcome the Blessed Mother’s call for us to oppose the infernal dragon in this time of spiritual battle between Mary’s children and the race of devils.
= They are people who throb with love for the Church, who suffer and offer for the Church, for whom neither the persecution nor the indifference of the modernist establishment will ever muzzle the truth. It is we who note that the Church is under storm.
Even as, in the great spiritual confusion today, baptized Catholics have stopped speaking the same language and we are assaulted by everything from modernist pastors who are allowed to commit every kind of scandal, to the persecution of priests who, faithful to the Gospel, have the courage to bear witness to Christ with zeal and apostolic love, in this ‘desolating abomination’. we Catholics ar comforted by the promise of the Virgin Mary who said, “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph’.
- SIMONA MARINO
In the desolate context of deliberate silence and/or indifference to what is taking place in the Church, you will be acknowledged, alone among the commentators whose opinions count, for having given proof of courage and pofessionalism for having called the attention of a wider public to the work and apostolate of don Alessandro Minutella.
Some things have become clear.
- Don Minutella has not formed a flock around him with their own ideas, and has therefore not, as many foolishly accuse him, constituted a ‘sect’.
- He has done nothing but to act as a leader to a flock that had spontaneously formed in small numbers as a consequence of their disorientation and dismay at the situation in the Church.
One cannot understand don Minutella’s work without placing oneself in this tragic situation which is a true and proper state of emergency, of exceptional emergency, for the Catholic Church.
- Once more, the image is quite false that has been constructed by the mainstream media, who are shamelessly and incredibly idolators of Bergoglio, and who therefore wish to downplay the opposition to the ‘Bergoglian revolution’, depicting his opponents as elitist, numerically insignificant, and limited to the circles that they scornfully call ‘traditionalist’.
Instead, what some of us Catholics see in don Minutella's following are those authentically Catholic Italians who have always loved the Catholic Church as it always was, as the Church of Christ, Mater et Magistra (Mother and Teacher). We are a devout people – Eucharistic, Marian and certainly not crazed all of a sudden.
Instead, those who follow Bergoglio are the ill-equipped wo lack credibility. His most wild-eyed supporters are those who have always hated the Catholi Church and have never failed to criticize all previous opes. But now they find themselves fanatical papists. If only because of this, one is led to ask all sorts of questions about them.
And although they are a tiny minority, don Minutella's followers have found in him a leader who is firm, courageous and credible.
- At a time when he had everything to gain by simply keeping mum, while holding on to his parish and any benefits thereto, by simply keeping to the new course as have many of his colleagues have done, he was willing to lose everything.
- He is a true pastor in the service of truth, ready to give his life for his sheep – unlike the many apostate pastors who have become Bergoglio’s idolators, who have instead forfeited their sheep to keep their own life ‘intact’.
- In his voice we recognize that of a good shepherd, one which we do not recognize in him who says he is the pope and in all those pastors who are scandalously following in his footsteps.
Don Minutella’s language is authentically Catholic, and it is really strange that anyone would accuse him of heresy and schism. It becomes downright ridiculous when these accusations come from those who are infesting the Church with the worst errors and have even insolently ‘enshrined’ the heresiarch Luther in the Vatican.
While the Catholic intelligentsia show themselves to be indifferent or ‘normalist’, or come out with analyses that may even be correct but without ever reaching a definite conclusion and identifying the root of the church’s disintegration, don Alessandro has taken the bull by the horns, has cried out courageously that a manifest imposture is in place, and that one cannot be silent about it.
To those who lament his ‘excessive’ tone, we say that if they are still unaware of it, the ship of the Church is sinking.
- One does not sound an alarm by whispering, and whoever brings up the question of ‘tone’ is a hypocrite. And they do so either because they are trying to negate the critics because theys hare Bergoglio’s thinking, or because, not finding the courage to imitate don Alessandro’s decision are laying down excuses and pretexts.
We are perhas living through the most difficult times in the history of the Church, nor can we exclude that we may be in the end times. Many signs lead us to believe this, many prophecies are coming to pass, especially those at Fatima.
All faithful Catholics are called on now and will be increasingly called on to make a clear choice: to stay faithful to Cathlic foctrine, or to become embroiled inexorably in a ‘new church’, even if it may be majoritarian, but schismatic and heretical, and led by an impostor.
Many have made their ‘calculation’ which they will tragically find to be wrong. They may think: Bergoglio will pass away, and the next pope will set things right once more. No. The next ‘pope’ will be worse than Bergoglio and the situation will deteriorate further.
We know that the Church is a divine reality sustained by a promise: “The gates of hell will not prevail against her” (Mt 16,18). The Barque of Peter is almost capsized but the Lord will never allow it to sink. As in so many times in the history of salvation, when everything seems lost, divine intervention will reverse what had seemed be an inevitable victory for evil. It is for us the faithful to resist with our Faith. In God and his Holy Mother, Lady of Victory over all the enemies of the Church.
- GABRIELE AMADIO
I join the chorus of gratitude to you for having given a wider voice, through your interview, to don Alessandro MiNutella, whom I personally met in March 2017 in Ravenna, during the course of his apostolate of lecturing throughout Italy.
Having since then deepened my acquaintance with him on multiple occasions, I can say that your interview correctly highlights the figure of this Palermitan priest who has been doubly excommunicated, one who truly has the defense of the Catholic faith to heart, and is suffering terribly for the vicissitudes of a Church so ‘manhandled’ by those pastors and prelates who are supposed to defend her.
That which is most striking about his case is that the Vatican decreed his two excommunications without any chance for him to defend himself, and without true and clear reasons. Above all, that don Minutella should be considered even more dangerous than Martin Luther was, who only received one excommunication decree despite the major schism that he caused in the Church.
Moreover, so far, don Minutella has been criticized more for the form (i.e., his inflammatory invectives against the false church) than the content of his protests, which speaks for the weakness of the present dominant thought in the highest Vatican circles, who believe they are strengthened by the great popularity of Bergoglio in the secular world, ignoring a widening circle of practising Catholics who are increasingly misled, many of whom, in fact, have deserted and left the churches even emptier.
Not to prolong this farther, I conclude by saying that don Minutella, in my opinion, has the great merit of keeping the faith upright and intact in these age of darkness for the Catholic Church. And he is doing so – as perhaps the only priest in Italy who has not chosen to speak of immigrants and the poor, especially if they are not Italian,. Instead, he has chosen to proclaim and carry the Gospel to all peoples,as we were taught bJesus Christ, Son of God, and second Person of the Holy Trinity.
- GIUSEPPE POLETTI
* Beatrice on her site, www. benoit-et-moi.fr/2019, links to Don Minutella's Facebook page which features a Radio Domina video of the priest recording a lengthy appeal to Benedict XVI on the evening of Nov. 22, 2018, in front of St. Peter's Square, as he walks away from the piazza down the Via della Conciliazione to a little church halfway down. After his appeal, he leads those who accompanied him in a recitation of the Rosary in Latin, up to the final singing of the Regina caeli.
www.facebook.com/radiodominanostra/videos/195852138015038/
He appeals to B16 to speak up - to and for all Catholics misled by his successor. His appeal is sure to go unanswered - unless something truly dramatic and earth-shifting happens to provoke it. I really believe that B16 considers himself in estoppel from openly criticizing, much less denouncing, his successor because of the unsolicited and public promise he made on Feb. 28, 2013, to 'revre and obey' whoever would be elected to succeed him. I hope, however, that don Minutella thought to send on a copy of the video to the Emeritus Pope and perhaps receive an appropriate response and not be ignored.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 12/01/2019 12:19] |