Tag Archives: Cardinal Sarah

A Meditation for the 11th Anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI’s Renunciation of Ministry

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

It was 11 years ago, on February 11, 2013 A. D., at shortly after 11:30 A. M., that his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI read his now famous declaration, “Non solum propter”. — Above, if you click the image, you can access FromRome.Info’s complete Index to the history, debate and controversy over the events of that day and the meaning or effect of that declaration.

By that act he clearly and manifestly intended to retain the petrine munus and renounce only the petrine ministry, so that by retiring but not abdicating he could retain the Papal Dignity and Mandate, while conceding to his opponents the other powers of governance. While there are many, many opinions about the morality, intention, cause, motives and purpose of such an act, the juridical value of it was NOT and abdication.

But, for today’s anniversary, I want to offer a reflection on the moral errors committed in the Vatican before and during that controversy, which might help explain why even to this day, notable clergy incardinated at the Vatican, such as Cardinals Burke and Mueller, Brandmuller and Sarah, and even Archbishop Viganò seemingly find it impossible to admit their error in thinking he declared that he would abdicate from the Pontificate on that day.

As I have shown in my Index to Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, there are more than 53 errors in the Latin text Pope Benedict XVI read on that day. And why it has been admitted by experts at the Vatican, that Pope Benedict XVI wrote the text without any consultation with Canon Lawyers or Latinists, even Archbishop Gänswein admits there are errors in the text — though he has not yet had the charity to the Catholic world to admit which ones he recognizes.

Thus, the national Catholic newspaper in Italy, Avvenire, which is run by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference there, though they called me an “idiot” for claiming there are errors in the text, now has to eat crow. And yes, I still await an apology for their calumny, for the sake of removing the scandal they have placed before millions of souls.

But that they resorted to the services of a defrocked priest to gaslight the Catholic world about the deficiencies in the text, showed how desperate they were to keep the narrative of an abdication going, and how they knew all in their hearts, at least by 2021 that Benedict XVI never abdicated.

This collective sin and guilt and complicity is the principal embarrassment of the Catholic Hierarchy, not only in Italy but round the world. These men are pragmatic, and they realize that their moral authority over the faithful will be utterly destroyed when it comes to be known that they collectively were incapable of understanding how Canon 332 §2 worked and what was necessary for an abdication — a thing which should be a basic concept taught in a general Canon Law class on juridical acts.

So individuals who have doctorates in Canon Law such as Archbishop Gänswein really have no excuse. And there are 1000s like him, who were all silent. Though the worst sin was of those who should have known and attempted to defend the indefensible, namely, that a renunciation of ministerium in Latin signified a renunciation of munus.

But it was not I, but Cardinal Burke himself who immediately recognized that the declaration did not contain what it should contain to effect a valid abdication. He himself spoke to friends and acquaintances from Rome to Arizona about this. But he otherwise hid this opinion of his from the press. And I surmise that if he attempted to speak with Pope Benedict XVI before February 28, 2013, he failed in his request, because Pope Benedict XVI was not wont to speak with him about “canonical details”. The other Cardinals and clergy at the Vatican also failed, either out of human respect, or complicity in the plot by Hilary Clinton to push Pope Benedict XVI from power and have a new “spring time” in the Catholic Church.

I will guess too, without any evidence, that if there were a group of Cardinals and Bishops who realized the errors in the text in February 2013, they became conflicted in their private counsels, because they considered it somehow wrong to request that Pope Benedict XVI make a proper and correct renunciation on Feb. 28, 2013, to correct the errors of his Feb. 11th text. Indeed, for men like Cardinal Burke, it was his grave duty to make his way to Castle Gandolfo on Feb. 28th, with the proper text written on paper and carried in hand, to obtain an audience and insist Pope Benedict XVI sign the document in the presence of two other Bishops or Archbishops. Perhaps he was too unfit to climb to the balcony by rope ladder or thrown himself on the ground in front of the main door, to make a spectacle, to obtain this juridical rectification. We cannot judge the man on his personal sentiments, but all who knew of the defect should have had such a zeal.

Contrariwise, if anyone knew that the act of Pope Benedict XVI did not validly cause an abdication, or that Pope Benedict XVI knew, understood or did not understand this they had a grave solemn duty to announce this to the world as soon as they knew of it. Cardinal Burke did not do this. Why? Did the Cardinals discuss this in the canonically invalid Conclave of 2013 ? We may never know. But shortly after they came out of that “Conclave” we know that they had formed a silent eternal pact to never speak of this fraud perpetrated upon the Catholic World, because immediately the Vatican began publishing falsified translations in all major languages of the world, to conceal this from 1+ Billion Catholics. And this is the greatest crime against the rights of the Faithful in the entire history of the Church!

However, the official canonical and juridical declaration that ‘Pope Benedict XVI remained pope until his death’ is a question about which the Catholic Bishops of the Roman Province are competent to judge in a Provincial Council. Anyone can request them to do it. And all honesty requires that they,  who know of it, make such a request. Moreover, if they fail to rectify the historical and juridical record, those who know of it, who could be influential to obtain this, will go to their graves to encounter a most Terrible and unforgiving Judge, Whose Immaculate Bride has been raped and sullied by such a great injustice.

And yet, all those who insist that Bergoglio has never been the pope, fail to avail themselves of the most important confirmation of the invalidity of the Conclave of 2013, which they could obtain by the convocation of such a Council. Why is this? Those who insist he has always been the pope, also fail to seek this solution. Why?

So as we commemorate and remember that fateful day 11 years ago, we should make a renewed effort to admit the truth, connect the dots and study the sources, if we have not yet understood what really happened on that day and who is at fault for it.

And I encourage all the Catholics who have had the grace of the Holy Spirit to do this and complete this necessary task, to pray for all those who live within the ideological limits imposed upon by the boy’s clubs and magic circles in which they move, who out of human respect have preferred not to ask the question or worse to denigrate the messengers of truth, whom God has sent to His Church in the last 11 years.

Many have urged me to write a book about Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, but I make all the articles and videos available for free, because as a Franciscan Brother I realize that my vocation is to give freely, when one has received freely, and to work for the repair of Christ’s Church. — Of everything I have written and mentioned, here, you can find reference and articles in the above index. Just click the top image in this post.


FromRome.info is an electronic journal chronicling the events of the Church without keeping silent about the duty of Catholics to respond with faith-filled action, rather than as mere spectators. This article is one of more than 10,000 published since September 2013 A. D.. For more information about our journal, see our About Page.

BREAKING: 5 Cardinals Question Pope Francis’ Catholicity, issue new Dubia

Letter of 5 Cardinals to all the Faithful

Notification to Christ’s Faithful (can. 212 § 3)
Regarding
Dubia Submitted to Pope Francis

TRADUCTION FRANÇAISE

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We, members of the Sacred College of Cardinals, in accord with the duty of all the faithful “to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church” (can. 212 § 3) and, above all, in accord with the responsibility of Cardinals “to assist the Roman Pontiff … individually … especially in the daily care of the universal Church” (can. 349), in view of various declarations of highly-placed Prelates, pertaining to the celebration of the next Synod of Bishops, that are openly contrary to the constant doctrine and discipline of the Church, and that have generated and continue to generate great confusion and the falling into error among the faithful and other persons of good will, have manifested our deepest concern to the Roman Pontiff. By our letter of July 10, 2023, employing the proven practice of the submission of dubia [questions] to a superior to provide the superior the occasion to make clear, by his responsa [responses], the doctrine and discipline of the Church, we have submitted five dubia to Pope Francis [select the link below to read them]. By his letter of July 11, 2023, Pope Francis responded to our letter.

Having studied his letter which did not follow the practice of responsa ad dubia [responses to questions], we reformulated the dubia to elicit a clear response based on the perennial doctrine and discipline of the Church. By our letter of August 21, 2023, we submitted the reformulated dubia [select the link below to read them] to the Roman Pontiff. Up to the present, we have not received a response to the reformulated dubia.

Given the gravity of the matter of the dubia, especially in view of the imminent session of the Synod of Bishops, we judge it our duty to inform you, the faithful (can. 212 § 3), so that you may not be subject to confusion, error, and discouragement but rather may pray for the universal Church and, in particular, the Roman Pontiff, that the Gospel may be taught ever more clearly and followed ever more faithfully.

Yours in Christ,

Walter Cardinal Brandmüller

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke

Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez

Robert Cardinal Sarah

Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun

READ THE NEW DUBIA

Canonical Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Finally, someone has taken action. The Dubia were proposed and Pope Francis evaded a clear response, putting him under the suspicion of heresy. Now the Cardinals have written Pope Francis again, and after more than 30 days, Pope Francis has failed to respond.

This confirms the juridical doubt that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a Catholic. It has established a canonical fact that his heresy is pertinacious, manifest and public.

This questioning of the man by 5 members of the College of Cardinals, without a Catholic response on the part of Bergoglio, now demands a hearing in a PROVINCIAL COUNCIL to elicit an act of Catholic Faith from the man WHICH MUST CONTAIN A FORMAL AND EXPLICIT RENUNCIATION OF ERRORS.

I THANK THE LIVING GOD, THAT THESE 5 CARDINALS HAVE ACTED.

What can we expect now?

Pope Francis must answer the Cardinals within 60 days in a Catholic manner, or he must be publicly suspected of having separated himself from the Church by heresy. In such a case a Provincial Council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome MUST be convened to discern if he be a Catholic or not, and if he be not, declare him in virtue of canon 1364 to no longer hold the Papal Office. In which case the Council will pronounce the Apostolic See legally vacant, requiring the College of Cardinals to elect another.

This action of the Provincial Council must be undertaken, because a doubtful pope is no pope. That is, the Provincial Council will be the only way for him holding on to the office. If he obstructs its convening, the faithful can omit his name in the Canon, publicly admit he is a heretic, and refuse all his orders, even those legitimate, on the grounds that he does not appear to be a member of the Church. — If the Bishops of the province are asked to convene such a council and refuse, then the same results. (While private persons can request such a convocation, I think the Bishops of the Province are only canonically required to respond to Bishops holding jurisdiction, or other Provincial Councils called in other parts of the world, which demand this be done, to preserve the Unity of the Church).

As a side note, if you are such a Catholic, especially if you are a Bishop or priest, as doubts that Bergoglio is a Catholic, should should already have written to all the Bishops in the Province of Rome, and asked them to convene such a Council.

Many Catholics have long held that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a heretic, in virtue of their private judgement, discerning things spiritually and comparing his statements and actions with the rule of the Faith. But such private judgements have no canonical value as a fact to condemn a man. By the above action of the Cardinals, which has elicited an evasive response from Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the matter has entered into the canonical record, since as Bishops the Cardinals possess the charism of truth and can discern heresy in a manner in which the Church must hear their witness.

The only organ of the Church that can decide the matter juridically, however, is the Provincial Council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome (roughly co-extensive with the Region of Lazio, in the Italian Republic). These Bishops, and all the major superiors of diocesan institutes in that territory, as well as all Rectors of pontifical institutes and all Abbots of the Territorial Abbeys, constitute the juros in the matter. Technically the first phase of which is not a trial, but a Synod in the true sense where Pope Francis should be invited to attend and respond to the doubts of the Faithful. If he refuse, or if he attend and give unCatholic answers, then the Council can proceed to the trial phase, and vote whether his responses constitute an act which has undubitably shown that he is not a member of the Church in virtue of canon 1364, since the profession of manifest, public, pertinacious heresy ipso facto excommunicates a man. If he refuses to attend the Council can also proceed to the trial phase and declare him contumacious, and thus juridically guilty of all charges, and thus depose him.

UPDATE of October 3, 2023

THE GREAT DEFECT of the action by these 5 Cardinals, is that they have divulged the sin of Bergoglio to the public without apparently taking any action to convene a provincial Council. This is not the proper juridical procedure.

Perhaps they have failed here because they are following the erroneous juridical opinion of Cardinal Burke, who has stated in the past, that there is no way to resolve a crisis of a heretical pope. I have publicly corrected him several times on this matter, most fully (here) 2.5 years ago.

Cardinal Burke is an expert on annulments, so I do not expect him to have spent time in the past on this. But in the last 2.5 years he has had plenty of time. I theorize that he is stuck on the canonical problem that the New Code of Canon Law states that the Metropolitan of the province has the right to convene a Provincial Council. And thus it cannot be convened if he is the person to be put under trial. However, in the case of the Pope, such a reading is not valid, because a doubtful pope is no pope. Therefore, since in the above, the 5 Cardinals have shown that it is doubtful that he is the pope, since he has pertinaciously refused to give a Catholic answer to 10 dubia, the Bishops of the ecclesiastical Province of Rome have the liberty to elect one of their own to convoke the Council, on the grounds that the Metropolitan see can be rightfully held to be impeded by the unwillingness of the man who is the Roman Pontiff of solving this canonical crisis.

Cardinal Sarah decrees Easter is to be celebrated without the Faithful

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In what can only be described as a liturgical directive from the Congregation for Divine Worship of the Anti-Church, anti-Cardinal Robert Sarah by an official directive dated on the Feast of Saint Joseph, ordered the Bishops of the world to NOT celebrate the Sacred Triduum, of Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday with the faithful.

While affirming that the celebration of the Triduum cannot be moved to another day of the year, he has the audacity to suggest the faithful be invited to partake in popular devotions which commemorate the Passion of Our Lord, on September 14-15.

That’s right: YOU UNWASHED MASSES, YOU CAN HAVE YOUR SUPERSTITIONS IN SEPTEMBER, BUT DON’T COME NEAR US FOR THE EASTER TRIDUUM!

Anti-Cardinal Sarah was the first to insist, in a full length interview, on Oct. 6th that Bergoglio is certainly the pope, despite the fact that he just presided over public idolatry in the preceding days at the Vatican will full knowledge of Cardinal Sarah. Some say that Sarah was even present and consented.

The Anti-Cardinal would not have issued this decree if he were not totally intellectually and spiritually behind the extinction of the Catholic Church throughout the entire world. And he gives sign of it on his instruction for Easter, by saying that the lighting of the Easter Fire should be omitted: an ancient ritual done on the day of the Resurrection itself to indicate the faith in the Risen One.

Cardinal Sarah just stabbed Holy Mother Church in the back!

Indeed, by saying that the Triduum is not to be celebrated with the faithful, he is essentially implying that only Satanists, unbelievers and other godless men should be admitted. He got that right!

This decree or instruction, to be precise, is an indication of the Vatican’s strong desire to suppress the Catholic Religion and stifle all criticism. This decree will be used to silence faithful priests who would otherwise buck civil authorities. Now they will be told that they are bucking the wise, Conservative super Cardinal who might yet be the next great Conservative pope! — Excuse me while I puke!

You can view the scanned images of the original Italian of the Instruction at Gloria.TV.

__________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of Google Image search for images of Robert Sarah, and is an excellency resource for finding images which show the 1000 faces of Sarah: used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

 

Benedict, not Francis, unplugged Gänswein

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Sandro Magister has at last spilled the beans — as we say in English — that is, he has told us what really happened during the recent Book Flap over the defense of the Priestly Celibacy by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah, the only Cardinal in any position in the Roman Curia, who was appointed to his office by Pope Benedict XVI.

The Main Stream Media has run with the story that it was Bergoglio who fired Archbishop Georg Gänswein for not preventing that Book from going to press and obstructing its publication as a work of the the Cardinal and the Pope.

But Magister, apologist extraordinaire for the Argentine Regime at the Vatican, in a report on his official Blog at L’Espresso, says what really happened. In a post entitled, Il silenzio di Francesco, le lacrime di Ratzinger e quella sua dichiarazione mai pubblicata – in which he speaks in a noticeable intent to humiliate the reigning Pontiff by calling him by his civil name — he says that it was Benedict who first detected Gänswein’s treachery and took decisive action to circumvent his interference.

Magister, writing in Italian says:

Ebbene, la mattina di mercoledì 15 gennaio, mentre papa Francesco stava tenendo la sua udienza generale settimanale e Gänswein sedeva come di regola al suo fianco nell’aula Paolo VI, lontano quindi dal monastero Mater Ecclesiae che è la residenza del papa emerito di cui egli è segretario, Benedetto XVI alzò di persona il telefono e chiamò Sarah prima a casa, dove non lo trovò, e poi in ufficio, dove il cardinale rispose.

Benedetto XVI espresse, accorato, a Sarah la sua solidarietà. Gli confidò di non riuscire a comprendere le ragioni di un’aggressione così violenta e ingiusta. E pianse. Anche Sarah pianse. La telefonata si chiuse con entrambi in lacrime.

My English translation:

Well, the morning of Wednesday, January 15th, while pope Francis was holding his weekly general audience and Gänswein was sitting, according to the rule, at his side in the Paul VI Hall, far indeed from the Monastery Mater Ecclesiae which is the residence of the Pope Emeritus, of whom he is the secretary, Benedict XVI personally picked up the phone and called Sara first at his home, where he did not find him, and then in his office, where the Cardinal picked up.

Benedict XVI expressed, in a heartfelt manner, his solidarity with Sarah. He confided in him that he had not understood the reasons for such a violent and unjust aggression.  And he wept. Sarah also wept. The phone call ended with both of them in tears.

Magister also reports that Cardinal Sarah and Pope Benedict then wrote up a joint Statement and had Gänswein bring it over to the sostituto of the Secretary of State, Edgar Peña Parra — the very man whom the Italian State Police say they speak with when they are asked by Italian citizens why they are being treated so bruskly by them on Vatican soil or in Vatican extra-territorial zones here at Rome.

I know this, because in October, while I attended the Proud to be Italian rally organized by Matteo Salvini and the heads of all the opposition Parties in Italy, I was accosted by the Italian State police for the “crime” of having attached a banner in support of Pope Benedict to a Fence demarking the beginning of Vatican Extraterritorial zone at the Scala Santa. Here is an image of one of the banners.

egp24h_wsaa21fi

They told me to take it down because it violated Italian Law. I said it cannot be violating Italian law because it is on Vatican Territory. Fluxed, they called the Secretary of State at the Vatican, and then returned and put me on the phone with the sostituto, whose name I did not catch at the moment. This evidently was Edgar. He told me I should not display such a banner at the Rally, because the Rally had nothing to do with the Catholic Faith. I told him that I do an apostolate in public among persons of all kinds. He told me to take it down or else. I asked his name and he refused to give it to me. He insisted.

I understood I would be arrested. So I had my volunteers, all supporters of Pope Benedict, take it down and we mounted upon tall poles provided to us by Forza Italia, the party of Burlesconi. That way even more persons saw them! One of the men who was there the day I was told to take the banners down was in the Piazza S. Pietro on Tuesday morning, when I was led away by the police. Strange coincidence, no?

Thus it is not surprising in the least that the communication written by the Pope and Cardinal never saw the light of day. But Magister says, that the Italian Version of the Book, was defended by the Publisher a few days later, with a public statement crafted by Cardinal Parolin himself, word for word, praising the book.

My observations

The news about Edgar Peña Parra does not surprise me. It was reported at ChiesaRomana.Info in December, that a local priest said in public that Edgar authorizes excommunications over the telephone — a thing which he has no authority to do in any law. That the Archbishop brought the message to him and not to Parolin is already significant, since as Head of the Pontifical Household he should not suffer to speak with anyone but the Secretary of State.

But the real news is this. Pope Benedict XVI is as fiesty as ever. He had no illusions about the Archbishop which would have made him hesitant to break faith with him and make his own phone call behind the Archbishop’s back. He then began direct relations with Cardinal Sarah and was devastated to hear how his former personal secretary had betrayed him in the public press.

The second important fact is that it appears that Parolin is willing to take Benedict’s side, because it is really beneath a Secretary of State’s duties to write a communique for a private publisher of a pope emeritus’ books, but not so, if the author is the Successor of Saint Peter in truth.

The events related by Magister point to a significant moment in history. That was when Pope Benedict XVI unplugged Gänswein. The Italians call it, defenistrazione, which is a colorful word deriving from Late Latin, meaning to throw someone out of their office through the window, rather than letting them resign with dignity by leaving the office through the door after a resignation.

That is really why the Archbishop disappeared. Bergoglio could not fire him. Only the Pope can do that.

+ + +

Let us continue to pray for Pope Benedict, by joining the League of Prayer for Pope Benedict XVI, that his strength and resolve grow more and more daily and that he take up the reigns of the Petrine Munus which he still retains to this day.

________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is an excerpt of a video feed showing Pope Benedict leaving the Vatican on Feb. 28, 2013, as Pope. It is used here for editorial commentary, in that Benedict’s gesture of leaving the Vatican as Pope and not as Cardinal Ratzinger was a prophetic sign that he had not given up the fight, but that victory in the end would be his.

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Marco Tosatti — The Book on Celibacy: Shall Parolin Open an Inquest?

MARCOTOSATTI.COM

by Marco Tosatti

January 18, 2020

Authorized English translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Dear readers of Stilum Curiae,

After the visit [on Friday evening, January 17] of Cardinal Robert Sarah to Benedict XVI, and his declarations [on Twitter], the same “Monsignor X” who wrote us a few days ago has offered us another intervention. He appears justly indignant at what is happening in the Vatican, and in particular among the journalists of the Vatican court. And he makes an interesting proposal….

§§§

“Because of the incessant, nauseating, and untrue controversies that have never stopped since the beginning of the week concerning the book “From The Depths of Our Hearts,” this evening [Friday, January 17, 2020] I met with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. +RS. With Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, we have been able to certify that there is no misunderstanding between us. I left very happy, full of peace and courage from this beautiful audience. +RS”

Friends of Stilum Curiae,

who was responsible for the this attempt to harm Cardinal Sarah and Benedict XVI? I pray you take note of the expression used by Cardinal Sarah to connote the facts:

“Incessant, nauseating and untrue.”

I realize that it will be a waste of time, as was true with the Dubia and the Correctio Filialis, but do we want to call for an investigation?

Shall we ask Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin to create an Investigative Commission that will shed light on an affair that has sought to defame the reputation of the Pope Emeritus and a most eminent Cardinal?

The expression of Sarah – “nauseating” – struck me. Something nauseating – that is, which provokes nausea and generates a sense of repulsion, disgust, and contempt – is attributed to an immoral person, who therefore arouses a feeling of repulsion.

Since we know how much Cardinal Sarah weighs his words, it is now indispensable to identify this immoral person who is going around in the Vatican, in the Catholic Church.

It will not be easy to find this exact “specific” immoral person, given the number and variety of immoral people who are behind the Sacred Walls of the Vatican, disguised as priests or as expert journalists of communications services, rather than experts in theology or liturgy.

But someone who has experience in such investigations ought to be able to identify him. They could entrust the oversight of this Investigative Commission to Cardinal Herranz, the former president of the Herranz Commission, which was convened by Benedict XVI to shed light on Vatileaks I, which in 2012 discovered intricacies and conspiracies, identified names and reported them secretly to Pope Benedict XVI, a few days prior to February 11, 2013. Then the Pope resigned.

And it was Don Georg Gänswein, first and personally, who hurried – surprisingly – to explain that the resignation was a decision that had been made by Pope Benedict for at least a year!!

I propose a hypothesis: that what has just happened in the matter of the Sarah – Benedict book is connected by an umbilical cord to what happened in 2012.

In short: Benedict XVI had to definitively disappear from history – and the same is true today. Because Benedict XVI was restoring the Church of Christ, which was instead destroyed, and continues to be destroyed.

Signed,

Monsignor X

See the Original at MARCOTOSATTI.COM

IL LIBRO SUL CELIBATO. PROPOSTA A PAROLIN: APRA UN’INDAGINE.

Marco Tosatti — Cardinal Sarah and Benedict XVI Book controversy

By Marco Tosatti

January 14, 2020

Authorized Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino of the Original Italian

Published Dear readers, various people have asked me to try and shed light on the argument over the publication of the book “Des Profondeurs des nos coeurs” created by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah. Here we have brought together from extremely reliable sources a series of elements that we offer to you.

Apparently nobody in the Mater Ecclesiae monastery [where Benedict XVI lives] had seen the cover of the book, and this was one of the principal problems.

The central point however to clarify is the content of the polemic that the “Bergoglio Press Team” launched from the beginning: claiming that Benedict had not been involved in writing the book, that he only put his signature on it and other such miserable insinuations. The reality is that Benedict XVI edited all of the drafts of the book, obviously his own part, but also reading and editing the part written by Cardinal Robert Sarah.

Benedict also said, and wrote, to Sarah, that he approved both the introduction and the conclusion of the book.

George Gänswein has not read the book, and this has definitely caused a problem.

The entire operation remained in the hands of Benedict and Sarah, and also the editor Nicolas Diat, who obviously took a great interest in the job, seeing it as an occasion to make this book the “important” book of Benedict XVI and Sarah, all to his glory and merit.

Thus, when the bomb went off Monday morning [which had already begun to explode on Sunday night because in America they were awake], and people like Faggioli, etc. started shooting, with a very clear intention. The focused on the cover, which Diat had published, saying that here he wanted to make an “operation against the Pope,” that is, against Pope Francis.

The objective of Faggioli etc. was to have there be no discussion of the content of the book. On Monday morning at the Mater Ecclesiae monastery they did not realize the extent of the polemic that was taking place, despite having been warned. Gänswein finally got in touch with Andrea Tornielli, who wrote an article for L’Osservatore Romano and Vatican News, referring to the ideas of Pope Bergoglio on the importance of celibacy, and seeking to throw oil on the waters that various channels were agitating, claiming among other things that Benedict XVI and Sarah had not written the book together.

The latest development, which is frankly quite incomprehensible, has come to us from the declarations of Georg Gänswein, who told a German journalist that the title needs to be changed as well as the cover. For what reason, we don’t know.  Perhaps in order to protect his own position, which is definitely a complicated one, as he is the person closest to Benedict and at the same time close to Bergoglio as the Prefect of the Papal Household. In passing, we can note that among the yelps and barkings of the pro-regime press in the first hours of this controversy they were speaking of a manipulation by the “entourage” of Pope Benedict. But actually, since Benedict’s “entourage” consists of Gänswein alone, it was in the dark about everything…. But the impression is that Gänswein is trying to avoid being crushed between a rock and hard place is strong; to the point of making people believe that if some sort of push was given to Benedict, well, it only happened now and not previously.

Undoubtedly Gänswein with his declarations today places Cardinal Sarah in a difficult situation that has nothing to do with him. Sarah has conducted himself in an extremely straightforward way. All of this work on the book, however, began before the Synod on the Amazon, in September.

In September, because of the pre-synodal polemics over priestly celibacy and the question of “viri probati,” Benedict had already written fifteen reflections on the theme of celibacy. These were then included in the book.

Note that the path taken seems very similar to what happened on the occasion of the summit on clergy sexual abuse [in February 2019]. Benedict had prepared a reflection, probably with the intention of offering it as a contribution to bishops directing the summit, sending it to the reigning Pontiff and the Secretary of State. But it remained there [and was never presented at the summit], and it was published a few months later in a German journal that focuses on the clergy.

Once again, it seems interesting and important to repeat: these paper polemics have moved all of our attention away from the contents of the book to its cover!

(For the Italian original click the link below)

IL LIBRO DI BENEDETTO XVI E SARAH. ECCO I RETROSCENA DEL GIALLO.

 

Antonio Socci: The Furor of the Despot Against the Catholic Pope

 

by Antonio Socci

January 14, 2020

Authorized Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino
Italian Original on Facebook

Reliable sources from inside the Vatican reconstruct the whole affair in this way. The book “Des profondeurs de nos coeurs” is clearly written by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah (as is indisputably demonstrated by the letters the two exchanged last fall made known by Sarah [on his Twitter account].) Everything was decided and agreed upon together from the beginning.

The other day – when the excerpt in defense of celibacy was issued [in Le Figaro] – the end of the world broke out in the Vatican because Bergoglio was furious. Such an authoritative pronouncement from Benedict XVI prevents him from smashing priestly celibacy, as had been his intention to do in the forthcoming Post-Synodal Exhortation.

And so BERGOGLIO PERSONALLY called Archbishop Gänswein, who is personal secretary to Benedict XVI but also Prefect of the Papal Household of Bergoglio and – furious – he ORDERED him take the name of Benedict XVI off the cover of the book (since he could not demand that the text of the book be changed).

Bergoglio demanded a complete and total disavowal. For this reason the first news that filtered through spoke of sources “close to Benedict XVI” saying that Benedict had not co-authored the book with Sarah, had not approved the cover (which said that he is the author of the work).

This however was not true and Benedict XVI could not accept saying something false, thereby implicitly accusing Cardinal Sarah of having involved him without his consent. Nor did Pope Benedict have any intention of taking back what he had written in defense of celibacy in the book.

Cardinal Sarah immediately revealed the letters the two had exchanged, which demonstrated that the book was planned by both of them, and certainly Sarah revealed these letters with the consent of Benedict XVI – in order to re-establish the truth.

On the other hand, Benedict also needed to shelter his secretary [Gänswein] from the South American “vendettas” since Gänswein had received a peremptory order from Bergoglio.

Thus a compromise solution was adopted: in the successive editions of the book the author of the book will be Cardinal Sarah “WITH THE CONTRIBUTION OF BENEDICT XVI.” The text of the book in any case remains the same.

With this messy solution the Bergoglian courtiers can tell the media that “Benedict XVI has removed his signature from the book” (even though this is not true) and yet the book remains as it was, with the signature of Sarah and the name of Benedict XVI as the author of the parts written together.

A most ugly story of clerical bullying that in the end led to the gagging of Benedict XVI.

THERE IS STILL THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION: IF BERGOGLIO, IN HIS EXHORTATION, STRIKES AT CELIBACY (BY PERMITTING THE ORDINATION OF “VIRI PROBATI”) HE PLACES HIMSELF IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH RESTATED IN THESE DAYS BY POPE BENEDICT XVI. THUS HE ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR A SERIOUS RIFT OF THE CHURCH FRAUGHT WITH CONSEQUENCES.

Cardinal Sarah’s shameful confession of impiety

Rome, October 8, 2019:  The much beloved and respected Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, gave an interview to the notorious Marxist Newspaper, here in Italy, the Corriere della Sera. (The very same paper which was asked by the Vatican Secretary of State to attempt to get Pope Benedict to deny his tacit acceptance that he was still the pope).

In his interview, Cardinal Sarah made this shameful confession of impiety:

First, just three days after the Apostasy in the Vatican Gardens, in which Bergoglio presided over the adoration of the idol of Pachamama (the Andean equivalent of Astaroth), the Cardinal made this outrageous statement, in reference to Bergoglio:

«Chi è contro il Papa è ipso facto fuori dalla Chiesa. La Provvidenza ci vede benissimo, sa?».

My translation:

He who is against the Pope is by that very fact outside the Church. The (Divine) Providence sees us very well, you know?”

In all my years as a Catholic I have never heard such an absurd form of papolatry stated. There have been many Saints who argued or disagreed with the pope. They are now in Heaven. Saint Paul, the first of them, and his opposition is approved of by the Holy Spirit in Scripture.

Arguably, then, What Cardinal Sarah has said is pure heresy. It is in the very least a false and gross misrepresentation of the Catholic Faith.

But the Cardinal, to utter this just after the wicked deed in the Vatican, is incredible. That he uttered it at all, after 6 years of Bergoglio’s daily heresies and opposition from many Cardinals and Bishops, is incredible. IS THE CARDINAL SAYING THAT BURKE, SCHNEIDER, BRANDMULLER, ETC. are OUTSIDE of the Church?

But Cardinal Sarah’s impiety does not stop there. In the same interview he says, immediately before the above statement:

« La verità è che la Chiesa è rappresentata sulla terra dal Vicario di Cristo, cioè il Papa ».

My translation:

The truth is that the Church is represented on earth by the Vicar of Christ, that is, the Pope.

One wonders if the Cardinal has ever been to seminary. Because for more than a thousand years the Church has taught:

That Christ Jesus is represented on earth by His Sacred Ministers who receive valid ordination and jurisdiction in the Apostolic Succession.

To say that the Church is represented by the Pope, is to make the Pope the Vicar of the Church, not the Vicar of Christ. It also excludes that anyone else represents the Church.

But when you add both these errors of the Cardinal together, what he is really saying seems to be:

The Church of Apostasy, which is the New Christ to be worshiped, is represented on Earth solely by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, its Pope

I think if you ever thought that Cardinal Sarah is papabile, that you better think again.

If he wants to retract these words, now that he realized what was done on Friday, then he now has the grave obligation to do so!

Veri Catholici: An Open Letter to Cardinals Burke and Sarah

Their Eminences, Cardinals Burke and Sarah

The International Association « Veri Catholici » has published this open Letter to the Cardinals, on their twitter feed at @VeriCatholici. I post it here (in its unrolled format) for the sake of those who do not have a Twitter Account.

Here beings the Introduction, with the first paragraph of the Letter subordinated to it:

The rest of the text of the open Letter continues here:

“It’s also evident that canon 124.1 and canon 188 require that the proper object of canon 332.2 be posited, namely the renunciation of the munus, otherwise, in virtue of canon 188, the substantial error of doing otherwise invalidate the act ipso iure!

“Now if a pope should act in violation of Canon 332.2, since in doing so he would injure the rights of the whole Church to know who is and who is not the true Pope, he would have to apply canon 38 derogating from the discrepancy. But Benedict did not do anything of the kind!

“Therefore, he is still the pope, and canon 359 invalidated the Conclave of 2013. Also, on this account, all the Cardinals and Bishops ARE WRONG to reason from their presumption that Francis is the pope toward any conclusion. As he never was. He is an antipope, a usurper.

“Nor can one argue that the Pope, being above canon law, is above Canon 332.2, because that canon enshrines merely the principles of the Natural Law, which are superior to the Pope and from which he CANNOT dispense!

“One aspect of which is the semiotic law, whereby the being of a thing cannot in a forensic act be rite manifestatur by a term which signifies an accident of it.

“Take this example. A pope has the habit of calling the burden of his work, Bananas. And one day while shaving says, I am renouncing Bananas. Can the Cardinals lawfully proceed to elect another, if the Pope says nothing more? No, because Bananas is not a due term for a legal act.

“Even if he said, I am renouncing bananas, during a solemn Consistory of the Cardinals, they could not proceed to elect another. Not even if he commanded them or allowed them explicitly to do so, because until he says I renounce the Papacy, Christ does not remove the office!

“These Cardinals also need to recognize that the criteria employed to determine validity in contractual law is not the same in beneficiary law. For in contractual law, as is used in Annulments evidence regards whether there was a right intention, this is principal.

“But in beneficiary law, which regards bequests, the intention has no force, what matters is only the verbal signification of the act of bequest. Renunciations fall under beneficiary law, not contractual law. This is the fundamental legal error of the Cardinals and bishops.

“For just as it is impossible for anyone to be the Pope unless he succeeds to the Chair of Peter, the office, so it is impossible for anyone to renounce the Papal Office unless in a forensic act there is an explicit renunciation of that office.

“The case is analogous to property law, wherein no one is the rightful owner of the same single property, until the one who holds the property rights renounces them in a legal act. Renouncing only the usufruct (ministerium) does not grant the title to the successor in law.

Ad orientem, the Catholic & Apostolic thing to do!

4345cardinalsar_00000003864

Rome, July 8, 2016 A.D.:  His Eminence, Cardinal Sarah, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, has called upon all priests of the Roman Rite to return to praying the Mass ad orientem.

Ad orientem, is the Latin for “facing the East”.  In matters liturgical, it means facing the Tabernacle placed at the center of the narthex of the Sanctuary, that is the point on the central axis between the High Altar and the back of the Church.  Though, technically, in Major Basilicas, the doors of which open to the East, it means facing the main doors, as the Pope does at the Basilica of St. Peter and St. John Lateran, at Rome.

Ad orientem, means, thus, that the priest when he offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, would be facing away from the congregation, in most churches, and showing them his back.

Here are some sound reasons, to heed the Cardinal’s invitation:

  1. He is the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, hence it must be presumed he has the Pope’s permission to issue this invitation, therefore, not to, would signify disrespect at the least, for proper ecclesiastical authority.
  2. He is the most eminent member of the College of Cardinals from Africa, so not to heed his invitation might make some thing that one is a racist, like Cardinal Kasper.
  3. Catholics and even all the Orthodox, have faced ad orientem, during Mass for 1965 years.  The practice only was attacked after Vatican II, by the bad example of Paul VI, who tolerated and practiced this.
  4. Ad orientem, has always been the liturgical law in the Roman Rite, even the rubrics presuppose this, but priests have been constrained by political forces in the Church, and often threaten gravely with spiritual, legal and physical violence if they kept this tradition.
  5. This practice is more biblical, because when Our Lord Ascended into Heaven, He ascended into the East, and the Apostles and Disciples gazed for a long time to the East to see if Our Lord would immediately come back.
  6. This practice is more eschatological, for when the Mass is offered in this direction, the whole congregation of the faithful show that they are awaiting the imminent return of the Lord, at the end of time.
  7. This practice is more theological, because the Priest faces the Son and the Father, in the Holy Spirit, and the congregation worships the Triune God with the Priest.
  8. This practice is more mystical, because the priest, and the congregation with him, turns to God, face to face, as Moses did on Mt. Horeb, when the living God revealed Himself for the first time, face to face to a human being.
  9. This practice is more prayerful, since by facing in this way, there are less distractions, and the dialogue of prayer, which should be directed solely to God, is directed solely to God.
  10. This practice is more priestly, because the priest has the intimacy of praying to God without distractions and with his own face veiled to the people, as it were, since they cannot see him face on; while the faithful join him in the same attitude of prayer, sharing in it in their own way.
  11. This practice is more ecclesiological, because priest and faithful pray in the same direction in unity.
  12. This practice is more pastoral, because it manifests evidently to all the faithful that the Mass is a prayer to God.
  13. This practice will promote vocations, because men and altar boys will recognize more clearly that the role of the priest is not to be an actor before men, but a priest before God, and that the Mass is a solemn act of sacrifice and worship, not a stage for entertainment.
  14. This practice will promote reverence, because facing God in this way removes all need for showing off to the congregation, and obstructs it.
  15. This practice will promote mass attendance, because the faithful, wearied throughout the week by their mundane duties, will at last have the most important moment of their week, the prayer of the Canon of the Mass to themselves as a prayer time with God, their Lord, Savior and Redeemer, without distractions.
  16. This practice will promote the restoration of the Ancient Liturgies of the Church, because the silly language and non reverential rubrics promoted by the Aggiornamento will be more easily seen for the discordant realities that they are.
  17. But most importantly of all, Catholics always have prayed the Mass in this way, and if that or all these reasons are not enough, there is something gravely lacking in the faith of the local church and her pastors.