If this were not real, it would be laughable. But as it is, it requires heroic fortitude and an unflinching rejection.
Reblogged from the Radical Catholic
The German Edition of Catholic News Agency published an interview with Vaticanist Paul Baade today, in which the latter reveals what knowledge he had of the St. Gallen “Mafia-Club” back in 2005, as well as few interesting details regarding the election of Pope Benedict XVI. The relevant section of the interview is posted below in an original Radical Catholic translation (to be updated if CNA puts out their own English translation):
Rome, October 1, 2015 A.D: Following the revelations, reported by noted Vaticanistas, Edward Pentin and Marco Tosatti, that Cardinal Danneels, in his new biography, admits that a group of Cardinals, in direct violation of the Papal Law, for Papal Elections, Universi Dominici Gregis, organized in 1996 a group which is named, the “Club of St. Gallen” — so called, after the town in Switzerland where it met, and which group Cardinal Danneels called, a “mafiaclub” — formed for the purpose of radically changing the Church and the Catholic Religion, and in recent years formally committed to the promotion of the election of Cardinal Jorge Bergolgio as the next pope: a series of commentators, notably “Msgr. Athanasius” at the Remnant and Canon Peters have alleged that the penalties of UDG 81, namely, excommunication latae sententiae, on all who violate the proper proceedures of papal elections by canvassing for votes or vote promissing, are not applicable or if they are do not touch upon the validity of the papal election of 2013.
You need to read Latin to read the Law
First, both commentators, writing in the English language, show themselves ignorant of the distinction in Canon Law between an excommunication which is threatened and an excommunication which is declared or imposed.
When the Code of Canon law specifies that a specific crime is to be punished by excommunication, an excommunication is threatened. In such canons, the law specifies that the maximum punishment, excommunication, may be imposed.
When the Pope or some competent authority by a specific act declares the penalty upon an individual, the excommunication is declared.
But some special laws can impose an excommunication in virtue of the very deed committed, ipso facto. These impositions by special law for all who in the future commit such actions are true impositions, as the Latin language indicates by the use of the verbs, incurrere, irrogare and innodare.
We see this in the Code itself, which specifies in the Official English translation:
Can. 1314Generally, a penalty is ferendae sententiae, so that it does not bind the guilty party until after it has been imposed; if the law or precept expressly establishes it, however, a penalty is latae sententiae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed.
This becomes evident in the Latin text of that canon, which reads:
Can. 1314 — Poena plerumque est ferendae sententiae, ita ut reum non teneat, nisi postquam irrogata sit; est autem latae sententiae, ita ut in eam incurratur ipso facto commissi delicti, si lex vel praeceptum id expresse statuat.
In Latin, Irrogari means “to inflict” or “impose”, incurrere means to run into or upon; innodare, beings to be bound up by. The metaphors are equivalent, for when one has been penalized for a crime, he has has its penalty bound to himself and has run into or been tied up by the penalty. Ferendae sententiae means a punishment which “is to be placed” upon the criminal, latae sententiae means a punishment which “has been placed” upon the criminal. Thus, it is evident that in cases of excommunications which are latae sententiae ipso facto, the penalty has already been imposed.
Pope John Paul II made it clear he was imposing a penalty upon all future violators
Now in the case of the actions prohibited by UDG 81, Pope John Paul II uses very specific language in the original Latin. As I wrote back on Nov. 28, 2014, but which seems to have been forgotten by the recent commentators:
Let’s take a look, then, at the Latin original, to understand better how, not just any specific form of vote canvassing is a crime according to the Pope who “brought down the Wall”:
81. Cardinales electores praeterea abstineant ab omnibus pactionibus, conventionibus, promissionibus aliisque quibusvis obligationibus, quibus astringi possint ad suffragium cuidam vel quibusdam dandum aut recusandum. Quae omnia, si reapse intervenerint, etiam iure iurando adiecto, decernimus ea nulla et irrita esse, neque eadem observandi obligatione quemquam teneri; facientes contra iam nunc poena excommunicationis latae sententiae innodamus. Vetari tamen non intellegimus, ne per tempus Sedis vacantis de electione sententiae invicem communicentur.
The official English translation from the Vatican Website, renders this text, thus:
81. The Cardinal electors shall further 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. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.
This translation is not exact. Here is my own exact translation:
81. Let the Cardinal electors, moreover, abstain from all pacts, agreements, promises and any other obligations you like, by which they might be constrained to give or refuse support (suffragium) for anyone (sing. & plural). All of which, if these were to occur, even when with a foreswearing, We decree are null and void, and none of them are to be held by any obligation of observance; those acting against (this), We now, hereby, bind up with the punishment of excommunication latae sententiae. Yet, We do not understand to be forbidden, that they communicate with one another concerning the election, during the time of the Sedevacante.
As can be seen, Pope John Paul II, at that moment IMPOSES the penalty of excommunication ipso facto, and this, not upon the act but upon all the persons who will commit the act. Thus all who commit the forbidden acts are excommunicated automatically for having committed them and the penalty is imposed not by a written decree after the fact, but by a written decree before the fact, that is, by this his special law for Papal Conclaves, Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG).
Indeed, as logic dictates, that if this were not the correct reading of the law, then the threat of an excommunication in UDG 81 would be nothing but a flourish of words, since it would have no effect and the guilty could get away with stealing a papal election by means of vote canvassing. Clearly Pope John Paul II was not an idiot, who merely threatened a penalty which could only be imposed after the fact by the very individual elected uncanonically by the criminal violators of UDG 81! To say such a thing would be an absurdity and calumny.
The Myths used to undermine a right understanding of the Law
Canon Peters, for his part, attempts a subtle shell game by replacing the word “imposed” by “formal”, when he writes (I quote from Fr. Z’s blog):
But that same cursory glance at Canon 1331 will not show (unless one is trained in canon law) that most consequences of excommunication become relevant in the external forum only if the excommunication is “imposed or declared”. That short, technical phrase means that, while one who is “automatically” excommunicated labors under the personal burdens of this sanction, it is only when an excommunication is “formal” that actions performed by canonical criminals raise questions for Church life and governance.
As I have shown, the penalty for violation of UDG 81 is already imposed by the promulgation of the papal law itself, on all future violators. Thus the consequences of that penalty effect not only the liceity but the validity in law of all acts of those persons after the crimes committed. There is no distinction made in canon 1314 of formal and material excommunication. Canon Peters is attempting to alter the law by altering the terms, in a clever shell game.
Msgr. Athanasius, instead, attempts to argue, that since the former papal law explicitly allowed excommunicated electors to vote and be elected, the new papal law, while not explicitly saying such a thing — which is nonsensical in the new Code, if you think about it, since the new Code does not have the distinction between excommunication simplex and excommunication vitandis (simple excommunication of penalty and excommunion which excludes from the Church) — should be read and interpreted as if it did say such a thing. Msgr.’s opinion is rejected by the noted Canonist, Jesus Minambres, which I reported upon here. The erroneous opinion of the Msgr., is also obviated by the careful consideration of what the new papal law does allow, the voting and election of all Cardinals, regardless of any reason or cause. Because in the CIC 1983, canon 171 prohibits not the voting of excommunicated electors, but the tallying of their votes. Furthermore, since the College of Cardinals did prohibit de facto the Cardinal of Scotland from attending, because of the scandals he was involved in, it is clear that their own understanding of whom the Papal Law allows to be prohibited from voting does not correspond to the wide reading the Mgsr. would have it read. Thus since neither the indulgence of UDG 81 can be said to cover excommunication, as the old law did, and since canon 171 does not conflict with it if it did, the argument of Msgr. Athanasius falls flat on its face as contra ius and praeter rem.
For more on the effects of being formally excommunicated (canon 1331) by the violation of UDG 81, see my article of Dec. 12, 2014 A.D., The Monstrosity of the Allegations against “Team Bergoglio” = Cardinal Bergoglio is not the Pope.
New entries are now required to our Chronology of Reports regarding Team Bergoglio:
September 24, 2015: Renowned Vaticanista, Edward Pentin, via his blog on NCR, publishes an article entitled, “Cardinal Danneels Admits to Being Part of a ‘Mafia’ Club opposed to Benedict XVI”, which reveals the decade long conspiracy, which was known as “the Club of St. Gallen“, to elect Bergoglio so as to radically change the Catholic Church. This is confirmation of the violation of UDG 81.
September 24, 2015: Renowned Vaticanista, Marco Tosatti confirms, via his blog, that in a new biography, Cardinal Danneels admits to being part of a “mafiaclub” working to get Bergoglio elected, years before 2013.
Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, the theologian widely acknowledged to have been the lead ghostwriter of Pope Francis’s much-praised apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, recently gave an interview that is remarkable for the crudity of its categories, the tendentiousness of its contentions, and, above all, what it portends for the silent lambs. The Archbishop’s way of talking about the Church is so far from what one would expect from a serious theologian and vir Ecclesiae, it’s difficult, for me at least, not to despair at the significance of this man’s being one of the advisors on whom the Holy Father is reputed to rely the most.
The interview is here, and those who care about how we should love the Bride of Christ should be scandalized by the mentality it bespeaks and the future it all but promises. Keep in mind that its all-but-named target at one point is the recent and utterly unprecedented suggestion (here) by Cardinal Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that a new role for the CDF would be to provide a “theological framework” for this pontificate. As readers will recall, Cardinal Muller was one of Pope Benedict’s last senior appointments in the Roman Curia.
Continue reading at Mirror of Justice Blog.
Cardinal Pell, the other day at Rome, has confirmed the conclusion of the From Rome Blog, that “Team Bergoglio” is a heretical conspiracy, when he said that the party in the Church pushing for a change in Church discipline are “atheists”.
See the Cardinal’s words at the Deus Ex Machina Blog.
See our article, below….
March 8, 2015: The From Rome blog is not accustomed to quote comments from other websites, but every now and then one runs upon a comment which summarizes in the succinct and colorful language with which laymen are often blessed to have the talent for, the true nature and spirit of current events. Here is just one comment from a layman, James, made on the article, Uneasy Truce: Vatican Spokesman will not sue Canadian Blogger for Public Criticism, by Kathy Schiffer at National Catholic Register, on March 6th:
Posted by James on Friday, Mar 6, 2015 2:40 PM (EDT):
The totally gratuitous scandal ignited by Father Rosica’s real and threatened actions against Mr. Domet is plain stupid. It is hard to believe that there is any facet of common sense that would allow a priest to embark on such a course of action. Nevertheless, given the current climate where the heterodox are given full reign to attack and undermine doctrine, why not bite at the heels of a concerned, faithful and orthodox layman. The utterly cruel nonsense Mr. Domet met with at the Vatican when he appealed to their intervention is of even greater concern. Lies, theft and malarkey go unabated and uncorrected. They pose behind any chunk of pious sentimentality to boost their orthodox credentials (soccer balls on altars comes to mind). Left-wing clerics, from the “tippy-top” to the local pastor are exposing themselves to be beneath contempt over the last two years. They have lost all credence among Catholics who are not amongst the low-info. Indeed … “why all the reticence?” Cowardliness, that’s why. All of them need to learn how to teach doctrine and how to accompany the flock on the spiritual journey…but I guess it’s just easier to distort the Magisterium rather than lead the flock to the journey’s intended end. Someone needs to hold the mirror up. Someone needs to fire these clowns. Someone needs instruction on how to make a genuine examination of conscience, or if not that, how to write a letter of resignation.
The reference to “reticence” is perhaps an allusion to the recent editorial by Edward Pentin, which appeared in the same paper.
When He is reviled by High Priests & theologians, His Disciples remain silent?
Rome, March 5, 2015: In a telling editorial, Edward Pentin, a noted journalist who covers the Vatican, describes the woeful situation in the Catholic Church under Pope Francis:
One of the most frustrating aspects of covering the Church today is the unwillingness of trusted and reliable sources to go on the record. Strangely, this seems most common when it comes to defending doctrine, and the Church generally, in the face of attack.
Whether it’s Church teaching coming under fire at the Synod on the Family, Vatican officials with vitally important and helpful information to share, or German bishops outnumbered by their dissenting brother bishops, few appear willing to go public and speak up for Christ and the truth…
Read the rest of his piece, entitled, “Why the Reticence in the Face of Attacks on the Church?”, at the National Catholic Register.
Pentin goes on to speculate as to the causes, but omits the most probable one of all. Jorge Mario Bergoglio was notorious, in his tenure as Archbishop of Buenos Aries, for violently castigating those with whom he disagreed, going so far as to use crude and vulgar insults as he shouted at them, in person, or on the phone.
But, let us not pretend otherwise, it is not the Church alone which is being attacked by the vile proposals of “Team Bergoglio” theologians like Cardinal Kasper or Cardinal Marx, it is Jesus Christ Himself who is being denied in His teachings regarding the necessity of both faith and penance for salvation, as a prerequisite for receiving His love in the Eucharist.
Indeed, it is quite logical, that those who would crucify the Lord anew by a sacrilegious communion, and who in fact are currently crucifying Him by such unworthy communions — for all who oppose Christ’s teachings are in mortal sin and receive sacrilegiously — be refused from receiving Him, Who died the bloody death on the Cross to deliver them from the Prince of Darkness and Lies, and transfer them into the Kingdom of Light, Truth and Purity.
That so many Cardinals, Bishops, priests, deacons and religious, men and women, are silent in the face of these attacks on the Person of Our Lord, recalls the treachery and cowardice of the 11 Apostles who abandoned Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane in 33 A. D..
Ten of them had this excuse, that Our Lord had not yet risen from the dead, and they had not yet received the Holy Spirit.
But none of those who are silent today, have this excuse.
Clergy and religious who are silent because they fear a phone call from a mad-superior who wants to punish all who will not go along with open apostasy from Christ their Lord, are not worthy of Jesus Christ. Such without a doubt shall burn for all eternity in the pit of Hell with Judas Iscariot at their side.
But for those who claim some devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and have some likeness to the virgins St. John, St. Mary Magdalene and St. Martha, IT IS YOUR DUTY TO STAND BY THE CROSS AND SPEAK OUT, for Our Lord has no voice to reach the ears of sinners, but through YOU!
Rome, February 26, 2015: Moments ago, Mateo Matzuzzi, noted journalist at il Foglio, one of Italy’s premier newspapers, published an astounding summation of the Kasper agenda by one of its chief German proponents, entitled, Marx lancia la sfida: “Non siamo una filiale di Roma e non sarà un Sinodo a dirci cosa fare qui”.
For those who don’t read Italian, that’s an explosive title: (Cardinal Marx) gives challenge: “We are not a local branch of Rome and it will not be a Synod that will tell us what to do.”
Cardinal Marx’s comments follow and dovetail the comments of a “Team Bergoglio” member, Cardinal Danneels, on the same subject.
Here is our unofficial translation of the central paragraph of that report:
The prince of the Church has clarified that even if in teaching one remains in communion with the Church, in merely pastoral questions, “the Synod cannot prescribe in detail what we must do in Germany”. As the German paper, il Tagespost, writes, the Episcopal Conference of Germany has left the gate and does not seem to have any intention of paying any heed to the decisions of the pope which might follow. “We cannot wait until a Synod tells us how we ought to conduct ourselves on Matrimony and pastoral practice for the family”. Marx has also announced that in the next weeks there will be published a document in advance of the meeting in October, in regard to which Germany “has a certain point of view”. It is necessasry, according to the judgement of the President of the Episcopal Conference, that one find “new approaches” capable of “helping and guaranteeing that the doors remain open”.
You can read the entire article from the German Paper, the Tagespost, in an unofficial English translation here.
Rome, February 25, 2015: Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, on October 11, 2013, during a speech given at Villanova University, in the United States, confessed that he was lobbied to support Cardinal Bergoglio. Start watching from 18:20…
The Cardinal very smoothly avoids saying that he heeded the advice given, and that he spoke to favor Cardinal Bergoglio’s candidacy, but his words and admissions betray him.
The events recounted by the Cardinal took place, according to him, while he was in Rome at the beginning of the General Congregations for the 2013 Conclave. The lobbying effort was significantly exposed by Dr. Austen Ivereigh in November, in his book, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope.
[HT to our friend from Chicago, for this tip]
Rome, February 19, 2015: In a stunning revelation, Cardinal Godfried Danneels — whom Dr. Austen Ivereigh, in his book, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, names a member of “Team Bergoglio”, the group of Cardinals who lobbied to elect Cardinal Bergoglio — has announced that the Synod in October will approve of the perversion of marriage. His comments were made to 7Sur7, a news blog published by Persgroep Publishing nv, a multi-media conglomerate near Brussels, Belgium, headed by the Catholic businessman, Christian Van Thillo.
The Cardinal’s remarks were published this morning in French, in an unsigned article, entitled, Le cardinal Danneels “préoccupé” par la réforme de la Curie. Here is an unofficial translation of the key paragraphs of that article (bold facing is our own addition). Speaking of the reform of the Roman Curia proposed in the recent Extra-ordinary Consistory of Cardinals last week, Cardinal Danneels said:
The objective is to promote greater harmony in the work of various departments (ministries), for a more effective collaboration. The sessions took place in an open and positive atmosphere, related the Belgian cardinal, who said that the Cardinals were encouraged to express their views in the presence of the Pope. Godfried Danneels regrets, however, that a minority is not favorable to reform. “I am concerned, but not worried,” he concedes.
“The Church makes her steps gradually. It will be the same for the family Synod“, to be held in October. “This synod is an extremely important point, but I do not expect it to put an end to the discussion. Conceptions concerning partner-relationships are constantly evolving in the world. The position of the Church also evolves,” he concludes.
The From Rome blog, which has covered the “Team Bergoglio” story from its inception, distinguishes between the core members and the collaborators (players), in harmony with Dr. Austen Ivereigh’s metaphor for a soccer team.
Rome, February 13, 2015: There is something dark and nefarious about the entire Pontificate of Pope Francis. When Pope Benedict XVI announced his decision to abdicate, on February 11, 2013, just a few hours later a lightning bolt fell upon the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica (see image and video here). Then, again, it was reported that lightning struck a second time, on the very day of his abdication on February 28th of that year. I myself was witness to these events: and saw a most terrible thunderstorm, the likes of which I had never seen in Italy in 5 years, approach Rome from the south on the evening of February 11th, with thunderous claps and explosions, as if a war had broken out in Heaven itself.
Then, on the very day of the election of Pope Francis, March 13, 2013, the rains fell so heavily that the River Tiber, at Rome, which had begun to rise during the general congregations preceding the Conclave, rose so high that, if were not for the newly constructed high walls about her, she would have overflowed her banks, and that at the very Vatican itself.
To those who read Scripture closely, and who have the faith to read the signs of the times, as Our Lord Jesus Christ exhorted us to do: the signs are unmistakable: As Our Lord said, and as St. Luke the Evanglist faithfully recorded, lightning is a biblical sign:
And He said unto them: I beheld Satan fall like lightning from Heaven (Luke 10:18)
Floods are also a biblical sign, just as St. Moses, the author of the first 5 books of the Bible teaches us:
“I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” (Genesis 9:10)
Lightning, thus, can be a sign of a grave moral deviation from the Divine Will. Flooding, can be a sign of God’s great displeasure at the prevalence of moral depravity.
Kasper’s proposal will lead to Schism
The proposal made by Cardinal Kasper will lead necessarily to schism. This is certain. But not every Catholic understands why this is so.
That Kasper’s proposal is in truth Pope Francis’ agenda, is clear from the fact that Cardinal Kasper is a leading member of “Team Bergoglio”, the group of Cardinals whom Dr. Austen Ivereigh, in his book, The Great Reformer, alleges conspired to get Cardinal Bergoglio elected. He is also the leading intellectual among them.
The From Rome blog has covered the “Team Bergoglio” story from the beginning, and recently exposed the heretical spirit behind this group of Cardinals.
Not all the Cardinals or Bishops agree with Cardinal Kasper, and it is right that they shouldn’t. Because his proposal is a rejection of Christ’s teaching through the Apostle St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:26-27. This holy dissent is visible in recent statements by Cardinal Burke, Archbishop Lenga, Bishop Schneider and others. It is also indicated by the fact that not all the Cardinals in good health, who could have attended the special Consistory at Rome, currently in session, were present.
So it is important to understand how great a danger the Church is in. For this reason, the From Rome blog is republishing the introduction to a very excellent analysis, entitled, “Are you ready for the Prospect of Two Churches?“, by the blog, That the Bones You have crushed may Thrill:
Here is the introduction to that post, which begins with a photo from the Piazza del Popolo at Rome, which is surrounded my numerous churches:
Are you Really Ready for the Prospect of Two Churches?
Is this post-Synod scenario completely out of the question?
A man and a woman, both divorced, wish to remarry. One of them is a Catholic. They go to see one priest at a Church and the parish priest says, “According to my conscience, informed by the Word of God, you cannot be remarried in the Catholic Church unless your previous marriage is annulled.” The couple go to see another priest at another Church nearby and he says, “According to the Pope and the Synod on the Family, you can be remarried here.”
Thinking the unthinkable
Now I know that the Synod is not about ‘remarriage in the Church for the divorced’. Yet, the question raised by the Synod, thanks to Cardinal Walter Kasper, is whether the divorced and remarried can receive Holy Communion opens the Church up to a raft of hideous inconsistencies that result in schism. But let’s think about that scenario.
If the divorced and remarried can receive Holy Communion, why should they not be permitted to remarry in a Catholic Church? This is about ‘access to the Sacraments’, right? So if they can receive the Eucharist, the Church could, having thrown off all respect for Canon Law, permit them to marry in a Catholic Church as well. Both are Sacraments of the Church so why give one and refuse the other? Because Jesus said X, Y, Z? Well, ‘who is He to judge’ in the new, humble, merciful Church? Jesus doesn’t judge anything anymore, right? Not in 2015.
You might well argue, well if what Jesus said no longer applies then why should the Church encourage or even insist on marriage in the first place, but, of course, that’s the real outcome, isn’t it? The weakening of marriage and the disregarding of the sacredness of marriage as a Sacrament. What could the Church of 2020 or 2040 look like? It could look like something a bit like I have described above because, remember, to the ‘great reformers’ nothing is really sacred or fixed, nothing is holy or immovable. No doctrine, however important it was, is too important now not to be reconsidered. All laws and customs and doctrines are in the way of modern man’s personal fulfillment. Even the words of Jesus just ‘get in the way’.
To read the rest of this fine article, click here.
Rome, February 11, 2015: The story of “Team Bergoglio” has been covered in detail by this blog from the beginning, but the story yet to be told, is that “Team Bergoglio” was and is a heretical plot to destroy the Church of Christ. The proof is found in nothing less than the words and deeds of its members, before, during and after the Conclave of 2013.
Who’s who in “Team Bergoglio”?
“Team Bergoglio” is the name given by Dr. Austen Ivereigh to the group of Cardinals whom he says, in this book, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, conspired together to promote the candidacy of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio by means of an organized vote-canvassing campaign. The facts alleged we have studied here; the canonical consequences, here.
The 7 members of the conspiracy, named by Dr. Ivereigh’s in his hard cover book, are: Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Cardinal Godfreid Danneels, Cardinal Karl Lehman, and Cardinal Walter Kasper, Cardinal André Armand Vingt-Trois, Cardinal Santos Abril y Castelló, and Cardinal Christoph Schönborn.
Two other Cardinals are named as facilitating the vote-canvassing: these have been promoted to the Council of Cardinals, the so called “gang of eight”: Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley of Boston, USA, and Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa, Congo.
Dr. Ivereigh alleges other Cardinals as promising votes, but does not name them: American Cardinals, Latin-American Cardinals and African Cardinals. Some Cardinals from these 3 groups have taken on important roles since the election of Pope Francis: such as Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga of Guatemala, Cardinal Reinhard Marx who was seen in the company of Cardinal Kasper immediately prior to the Conclave, and who is also a member of the Council of Cardinals.
We shall name the collaborators with the core 7 “Team Bergoglio” members as “players” to distinguish them.
A small Sample of the Heretical Statements & Actions of “Team Bergoglio”
Cardinal Walter Kasper, a core “Team Bergoglio” member, has been notorious for his personal heresies for more than a decade. One needs only to read his lecture, given in 2003, “That all might be one”, where he sketches out the theological necessity, according to him, of abandoning everything distinctively Catholic in the Catholic Faith, so as to promote the union of all Christian “churches” into a one world religion, blasphemously asserting his opinion as the will of Jesus Christ. But that is not all: Cardinal Kaspar is notorious also for 3 books, in which he publicly and formally denies the historicity of many of the miracles worked by Christ, calling the Gospel texts which recount them fanciful, post-Easter “legends” (See the recent study by Joe Sparks). Its obvious, therefore, that Cardinal Kasper is a formal public and pertinacious heretic, since he has held these beliefs for many years despite bitter criticism.
Cardinal Reinhard Marx, a “Team Bergoglio” player was recently outed by this blog for his blasphemous and heretical denial of truth as a necessary means of salvation. In his interview, with the Jesuit magazine, America, he also indicated that Cardinal Bergoglio is of the same mind on this point, wanting a Church without truth, since “a church with truth is not useful for the people.” In the same interview, he clearly manifested his heretical hatred for the Catholic Faith by calling those catholics who want doctrinal clarity, “terrorists”, which is to use the very language of the enemies of Christ itself.
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the obvious “Team Bergoglio” owner, has said numerous non-Catholic and anti-Catholic things since being elected Pope. Here at the From Rome blog, we have have singled out his heretical denial of salvation by dogmatic faith for specific censure. For a fuller list, see Christopher Ferrara’s, The Remant’s Man of the Year. According to Sandro Magister, one of the leading Vaticanistas of Italy, Cardinal Bergoglio actively promoted communion for those in irregular situations, in violation of the anathema of the Council of Trent, Session 13, canon 11, which reads:
CANON XI.: If any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, howsoever contrite they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.
There is no need to add that Cardinal Baldiserri recently affirmed that Pope Francis was behind every scandalous happening at the recent extraordinary Synod for the Family, which pushed for communion for adulterers and sodomites.
Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, who has been infamous for more than a decade on account of his denial of the existence of a child-abuse scandal in the Church, has recently pronounced himself in heretical terms on two occasions: during a talk given at the University of Dallas, Texas, where he says the Church no longer is opposed to the heresy of all heresies, Modernism (his talk is critiqued here, introduced and linked to here), and recently at Santa Clara University where he proposes the heretical thesis of Kasper regarding Mercy, which is founded on the denial of the dogma of original sin and its effects (video: here, talk critiqued here). He has recently affirmed that Pope Francis wants to irreversibly change the Church and make Her radically different than She has ever been.
Cardinal Godfried Danneels is, in his own right, notorious for his scandalous handing of child abuse, which indicates a profound rejection of the morals taught by Jesus Christ. But then again so is Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley, who sold off about 1/4 of all the Catholic Churches in his diocese, in violation of the 12th canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council, the Second of Nicea, which forbids Bishops from selling churches.
Cardinal Santos Abril y Castelló, the Archipriest of Santa Maria Maggiore, the Basilica in Rome, where the relics of Christ’s crib from Bethlehem are kept, terminated the only Mass in the Ancient Roman rite regularly celebrated at the Basilica in the winter of 2014, within the very first year of Pope Francis’ pontificate despite the desperate pleas of the Catholic Faithful of Rome. This mass was the very first mass in the Ancient Roman rite which was established after Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI, begun the very day of its publication. It was celebrated every month on the First Saturday, in honor of the Immaculate Heart of of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. The closure of the Mass was made without any reason or justification, out of pure hatred for the Mother of God and the Ancient Liturgy and the Catholics of Rome.
Several other members and players are notoriously friendly to sodomites, as can easily be verified from their pastoral actions and statements. Indeed, Edward Pentin on February 11th reported on NewsMax that the informed members of the Roman Clergy now realize that the Kasperian proposal about giving communion to adulterers, has nothing to do with marriage, its all about advancing the political agenda of Sodom, and the heresies which they propose: such as their abomination not being a sin which cries out to God for Divine Vengeance.
A Conspiracy of Heretics Heretical doth become…
That the conspiracy identified by Dr. Ivereigh is heretical follows from a simple co-linking of facts: heretics of a feather flock together for but one purpose, their mutual heresy. Since March 12, 2015, every move Pope Francis has made, every talk and every discourse and every appointment or promotion either directly promoted the common heresy of Modernism, or did not forestall it. He has specifically promoted all but a few members of “Team Bergoglio” to the Council of Cardinals. He has allowed every “Team Bergoglio” member or player to say whatever heretical thing they want with impunity. Catholic Bishops have been summarily removed for fidelity to the Faith ( e. g. Paraguay); those who have celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or promoting the right formation of seminarians or religious have been attacked and removed from power. The animus is clear, present and malevolent, for one purpose.
For this reason Archbishop Langa on January 1st, 2015, lamented there is no longer any hearing in Rome against the agenda of Freemasonry. For this reason Cardinal Burke announced his resistance, and was forced today to issue a clarification of his perfectly catholic statement, while Cardinals Marx and Rodrigues-Maradiaga are under no constraint against spouting heresies.
Let him who has eyes to see, see!
Traduzione di Antonio Marcantonio dal testo inglese originale
con qualche modifica dell’Autore
Roma, 30 gennaio 2015: Due giorni dopo la presentazione, da parte del blog From Rome, di quelli che sembrano essere crimini canonici ad opera del “Team Bergoglio” – così il Dr. Austin Ivereigh, ex-portavoce del Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, ha definito il gruppo di otto Cardinali che hanno cospirato per l’elezione del Cardinal Bergoglio prima del Conclave del 2013 e durante il suo svolgimento – Padre Federico Lombardi, portavoce della Santa Sede, ha annunciato che Papa Francesco ha convocato un concistoro speciale di Cardinali nei giorni 14 e 15 febbraio, per nominare venti nuovi Cardinali: si tratta di un tentativo di alterare per sempre la fisionomia del Collegio, sostituendone una la cui maggioranza di membri era stata scelta da Papa Giovanni Paolo II e Benedetto XVI ad un’altra la cui maggioranza di membri sarà composta da Cardinali scelti da Papa Francesco o che sono stati coinvolti nello scandalo della richiesta di voti per la sua elezione*.
Il dovere del Sacro Collegio dei Cardinali
L’attendibilità delle accuse portate nel caso contro il “Team Bergoglio” è stata ampiamente dimostrata nel nostro articolo del 6 gennaio 2015: Da Ivereigh all’abdicazione, i passi canonici resi necessari dallo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio”. E i fondamenti canonici che consentirebbero di sollevare la questione dell’invalidità dell’elezione del Papa durante il Concistoro di febbraio sono stati esplicati nel nostro articolo del 17 gennaio 2014, Qualsiasi Cardinale Elettore ha il diritto di richiedere che lo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio” sia chiarito.
Vedi la nostra Cronologia completa sullo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio”.
È ovvio che se i venti nuovi Cardinali nominati da Papa Francesco si aggiungono al Collegio dei Cardinali, tale corpo, de facto, non avrà più la capacità di indagare sulle accuse contro la validità dell’elezione di Papa Francesco che emergono tanto dalla narrazione degli eventi da parte del Dr. Austen Ivereigh come dall’indagine sulle irregolarità della procedura osservata durante il Conclave da parte di Antonio Socci, nel suo libro Non è Francesco che è attualmente un best-seller in Italia.
In questo caso, è valida la massima e la regola canonica: Qui tacet videtur consentire (C. 43 in VI.5.12.).
Entrambe le fonti esprimono dei dubbi che sorgono da dichiarazioni fatte non dagli oppositori del Cardinal Bergoglio, bensì dai suoi stessi sostenitori, che sostengono di aver parlato con i Cardinali Elettori (nel caso di Ivereigh) o con lo stesso Cardinal Bergoglio (nel caso di Socci). Si tratta pertanto di testimoni estremamente attendibili.
Allo stesso tempo, nel momento in cui scriviamo, 354 Cattolici di tutto il mondo hanno inoltrato una petizione al Collegio dei Cardinali affinché esso indaghi sulle accuse di eterodossia contro il Cardinal Bergoglio e sul carattere eterodosso del suo comportamento personale prima e dopo la sua “elezione” papale, elementi sulla base dei quale essi credono che egli debba essere dichiarato invalidamente eletto e deposto come eretico. Non si sa quanti Cardinali conoscano l’esistenza di questa petizione, anche se le dovrebbe essere garantita con certezza una risposta pubblica.
I Cattolici di tutto il mondo, pertanto, dovrebbero farsi la seguente domanda:
Dopo il 15 febbraio, quando i nuovi Cardinali saranno insediati, che ne sarà della Chiesa?
Il Cardinal Bergoglio, già a partire dall’epoca del Conclave del 2013, ha mostrato in modo estremamente chiaro e costante, a tutti quelli che hanno occhi per vedere, di non essere in possesso della Fede Cattolica – anche se ogni volta che parla spontaneamente contro di essa e glielo si fa notare, egli si scusa adducendo il fatto di non aver avuto l’intenzione di negare nulla –; le ripetute espressioni del proprio credo individuale, la costante impunità e l’artificialità dei tentativi di mettere tutto a tacere dopo gli scandali che egli provoca, mostrano che egli sta semplicemente mantenendo salda la sua presa sull’ufficio che detiene, al fine di portare avanti il disegno esplicito e maligno di distruggere l’adesione e la lealtà della Chiesa al Magistero di Gesù Cristo, il Figlio Incarnato di Dio.
Persino i suoi sostenitori, come il Cardinal Baldissieri o il Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga, affermano che egli si trovava dietro ogni azione scandalosa al recente Sinodo Straordinario sulla Famiglia e che la sua intenzione era quella di alterare irrimediabilmente e irrevocabilmente la natura stessa della Chiesa. Pure, il Cardinal Marx afferma che Francesco rigetta la Chiesa come “una chiesa di verità”, perché come tale sarebbe “inutile per il popolo”.
Chiunque legga le notizie lo dovrebbe ormai sapere. Anche i Cardinali del Sacro Collegio.
Se essi non interverranno, risulterà evidente che fanno parte di un gruppo di complici de facto che condividono gli sforzi o le intenzioni del Cardinal Bergoglio di rovesciare la Chiesa Cattolica. In tal caso, essi diventeranno sospetti non solo di eresia, ma soprattutto di pertinacia in collusione sia attiva sia passiva col Cardinal Bergoglio. Essi perderebbero in tal modo ogni diritto di rappresentare il clero di Roma, in virtù del Canone 194, che recita in latino come segue:
Can. 194 — § 1. Ipso iure ab ecclesiastico amovetur:
1° qui statum clericalem amiserit;
2° qui a fide catholica aut a communione Ecclesiae publice defecerit;
3° clericus qui matrimonium etiam civile tantum attentaverit.
2. Amotio, de qua in nn. 2 et 3, urgeri tantum potest, si de eadem auctoritatis competentis declaratione constet.
Che, nella nostra traduzione non ufficiale ma letterale in italiano, recita come segue:
Canone 194 — § 1. In base alla stessa legge sono rimossi dallo stato ecclesiastico:
- Chi ha perso lo stato clericale;
- Chi ha disertato pubblicamente la Fede Cattolica o la comunione con la Chiesa;
- Un chierico che abbia cercato di contrarre matrimonio, anche solo civile.
2. Si può procedere alla rimozione, nei casi di cui ai numeri 2 e 3, solo se il caso viene stabilito da una dichiarazione dell’autorità competente riguardo la stessa.
È infatti ovvio che chi cospira per la negazione dell’insegnamento di Gesù Cristo è un eretico e un nemico della Chiesa Cattolica. Non è legittimo considerarlo in comunione con Essa più di quanto un virus mortale possa essere considerato parte del corpo che infetta**.
Il paragrafo 2 stabilisce che in primo luogo le autorità competenti devono giudicare i fatti: solo allora è lecito rimuovere dal loro ufficio la persona o le persone coinvolte.
Il diritto divino e naturale del Clero di Roma
Il fatto che l’autorità competente in una materia così grave sia il Clero della Diocesi di Roma si deduce senza alcuna possibilità di obiezione dal suo diritto divino e naturale. Divino, per il fatto che il clero di ogni diocesi, in caso di eresia del proprio vescovo e dei suoi collaboratori, ha il diritto di espellerli dalla comunione della Chiesa; naturale, poiché in ogni società umana gli unici membri che hanno l’autorità di espellerne altri sono quelli che conservano fedelmente la natura e la forma di tale società.
Questo duplice diritto del Clero di Roma viene affermato dall’Enciclopedia Cattolica, pubblicata più di cento anni fa, nel suo articolo sull’Elezione di un Papa, in cui dice:
Come si è visto, la guida suprema della Chiesa è abbinata all’ufficio di Vescovo di Roma. Il Papa diventa pastore capo perché è il Vescovo di Roma; non diventa Vescovo di Roma perché è stato scelto come capo della Chiesa universale. Pertanto, è corretto dire che l’elezione al papato è innanzitutto un’elezione al vescovato locale. I membri della Chiesa Romana hanno sempre avuto il diritto di eleggere il proprio vescovo. Sono essi che hanno la facoltà di poter dare alla Chiesa universale il suo pastore supremo; non viene loro assegnato un vescovo in virtù della sua elezione da parte della Chiesa universale. Ciò non significa che l’elezione debba consistere in un voto popolare da parte dei romani. Per quanto riguarda gli affari ecclesiastici, spetta sempre alla gerarchia guidare le decisioni dei fedeli. La scelta di un vescovo spetta al clero e deve essere limitata ai suoi livelli più alti. Questo è valido per la Chiesa Romana attuale. I membri del collegio dei cardinali elettori esercitano il loro ufficio in quanto gerarchi del clero romano. Se mai il collegio dei cardinali cessasse di esistere, il compito di scegliere un pastore supremo non cadrebbe sui vescovi riuniti in un concilio, ma sui restanti membri del clero Romano. Fu Papa Pio IV, all’epoca del Concilio di Trento, che insistette su questo punto in un’allocuzione concistoriale, temendo che al momento della sua morte il concilio potesse rivendicare tale diritto.
Tutte queste cose devono essere osservate con proprietà, discrezione e coscienza.
Quindi, se il Sacro Collegio si astiene dal ripudiare queste intenzioni maligne e dallo sciogliere i dubbi a proposito dell’elezione, il clero della Diocesi di Roma ha il diritto di fare da giudice. In tale diritto sarebbe inclusa la facoltà di interrogare le parti, tanto il Cardinal Bergoglio come tutti gli altri membri o co-cospiratori del “Team Bergoglio”, o chiunque possa dare testimonianza sulla mancanza di Fede Cattolica in lui o nei suoi sostenitori.
È sufficiente giudicare gli elementi a disposizione per poter emettere una sentenza che stabilisca o – in virtù della legge papale UDG 4 – che il conclave del 2013 non ha svolto un’elezione canonicamente valida, ovvero che Papa Francesco, per sua propria eresia, manifesta l’intenzione maligna di allontanarsi dalla fedeltà a Cristo su qualche materia. Qualora venissero interrogati, i Cardinali non potrebbero avvalersi del fatto di essere vincolati al voto pronunciato al conclave, perché nei procedimenti giudiziari le testimonianze non violano in nessun modo un voto di segretezza e perché in situazioni di questo genere il bene della Chiesa è superiore ad ogni voto.
Il clero della Diocesi di Roma comprende non solo i sacerdoti e i diaconi incardinati, ma anche i Vescovi Ausiliari e gli Arcivescovi, i Vescovi, i sacerdoti e i monsignori che sono incardinati nel Vaticano, che pur essendo per la legge civile uno stato separato, rimane una parte della Diocesi di Roma per il diritto canonico. Avrebbero diritto di partecipare come giudici a un processo del genere anche i Cardinali che non hanno potuto partecipare al Conclave del 2013 o che non potranno partecipare al Concistoro del 2015 – ivi compreso il Papa Emerito, “Padre Benedetto”, come chiede ora di essere chiamato –, così come i vescovi ausiliari, i sacerdoti e i diaconi della Diocesi di Roma in pensione ma ancora incardinati nella Diocesi.
Sarà quindi Dio che riderà ultimo, perché con il mero fatto di nominare nuovi Cardinali Elettori un uomo eletto in modo non canonico non potrà mai imporre un fait accompli alla Chiesa di Roma.
* 115 Cardinali hanno partecipato al Conclave del 2013. Il Dr. Ivereigh afferma che il “Team Bergoglio” era composto da otto Cardinali (sette dei quali partecipavano attivamente, mentre l’altro conteggiava le promesse di voto) e da due possibili cospiratori che hanno raccolto 25 promesse di voto per il primo scrutinio. Se essi hanno ottenuto quanto volevano alla prima votazione, si può presumere con un ragionevole margine di probabilità che – come dice il Dr. Ivereigh – abbiano continuato tale attività anche dopo di essa, e quindi che anche qualcuno dei 53 voti guadagnati successivamente sia stato promesso. Tutti i Cardinali che hanno richiesto e promesso voti sarebbero stati ipso facto scomunicati. La serietà di queste accuse è stata recentemente dimostrata: il 6 gennaio 2015 il Cardinal Danneels, tramite il suo portavoce, ha esplicitamente negato di aver chiesto voti per il Cardinal Bergoglio prima il Conclave. E a partire del 15 febbraio più la maggioranza del Sacro Collegio sarà tanto in favore di Bergoglio, che con ogni probabilità non vorrà sentire nemmeno un accenno all’invalidità della sua elezione né tanto meno emettere un giudizio equo su di essa.
** Bisogna qui distinguere con attenzione e riconoscere che una cosa è avere abbastanza elementi per esigere un processo o un’indagine per stabilire se il Pontefice di Roma è un eretico o è stato eletto in modo non canonico; altra cosa è averne la certezza: la seconda ipotesi richiede infatti la certezza delle prove a livello dei giudizi privati, e anche un atto forense di giudizio da parte dell’autorità competente a livello dei giudizi pubblici. È questa la ragione per cui la necessità che vengano sciolti i dubbi sullo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio” tramite un giudizio pubblico è di un’urgenza assoluta: perché la Chiesa rischia non solo che ai suoi fedeli venga negato il diritto di avere un legittimo successore di San Pietro, ma anche uno scisma tra i seguaci di un candidato che sembrerebbe essere falso e quanti insistono sulla necessità di averne uno legittimo.