Tag Archives: Marco Tosatti

Russo to Schneider: We must believe Benedict, when he says he is still the pope

logo

MARCOTOSATTI.COM

Authorized English translation by FromRome.Info

Due Papi, Due Domande Impellenti, Una Risposta urgente.

by Marco Tosatti

Dear Friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae: a friend of our community, Sergio Russo, author of the book about which about which we spoke some time ago, Sei tu quello o dobbiamo aspettarne un altro? (Are you the one or should we expect another?), has sent us a reflection which seems to us particularly interesting and stimulating on the strange situation in which we we are living, and about which we have spoken in recent days.  Have a good read!

§ § §

Two Impelling Questions
which necessitate an urgent answer

by Sergio Russo

The first is: “Is Pope Francis a pope in every way, or not?”

The second, which is consequent upon the first, is: “Is Pope Benedict XVI still the pope, or not?”

I offer my personal contribution to the present debate, taking occasion also from the recent intervention by the Mons. Athanasius Schneider (dated Feb. 28, 2020) published originally in English at the site LIfeSite News, and also in French translation on the blog, Le Blog de Jeanne Smits.

Therefore, I will list here simply a series of facts, and not of argumentations, leaving it to the Reader to form his own opinion on the matter, knowing well, however, that contra factum non valet argumentum (against a fact no argument is valid).

  • Both academics and experts of things theological, as well as simple faithful, have noted how, from the date of March 13, 2013, even unto today, there has been created an unheard of situation, never before happening in the two thousand year history of the Church: the co-existence and co-habitation in the Vatican of two popes.
  • All of these, however, know well that the expression, “pope emeritus”, plays on the congruence/assonance of “Bishop Emeritus” and “Cardinal Emeritus”, and that, besides, it is not ordained by any canon of ecclesiastical law, neither past nor present …
    Moreover, it is to be noted – and here it basically returns to the same univocity which occurs in effect in the principle — just as there is, thus, no “priest emeritus”, so also, both the academic and the faithful have always known (but perhaps today the way to understand things has changed?) that there absolutely is no other kind of pope, neither Emeritus nor Presiding, and more so, and this by “una contraddizione, che nol consente … (a contradiction which does not consent to it)”, as Dante would say, since — and all believing Catholics have always held this as valid — the pope is the symbol and guarantor of unity in the Catholic Church, and She is one Body (though Mystical, but a true body), which cannot have but one sole Head!
    Therefore, not a two-headed Body, which would be a monstrosity, and neither a headless body, which would instead be a deficiency: as a matter of fact, one alone is the Christ, one alone is the Church, one alone the Faith, one alone the Vicar of Christ and one alone the Head of the Church …. and this is what the two-thousand year Magisterium of the Church has always affirmed, without the least hesitation!
  • Pope Francis, on the one hand would be the pope in every way, since he was licitly elected by all the Cardinals, united in a lawful Conclave (and which consequently is indubitable)
  • On the other hand, we are given to know that the election of Pope Francis (and this is also indubitable) might not be equally valid, since according to a declaration — never denied — of the now late Belgian Cardinal Godfried Dannels, present in his book-biography, which reports the admissions of the prelate made to the journalists, J. Mettepenningen and K. Schelkens, the said Cardinal revealed to them that a group of Cardinals and Bishops (to which he also belonged) worked for years to prepare for the election of J. M. Bergoglio, seeing that all of these porporati were opponents of Joseph Ratzinger: it was, in fact, a group which was kept secret, which the same Cardinal Danneels defined as “a mafia club, which bore the name of St. Gall”.
    And this type of agreement, according to the Apostolic Constitution of Saint John Paul II, Universi Dominic Gregis, which regulates the “vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff”, falls under a latae sententiae excommunication, as is clearly affirmed in nn. 77, 81, and 82:

    « Confirming also the prescriptions of our Predecessors, I prohibit anyone, even if he is marked with the dignity of the Cardinalate, to make agreements, while the Pope is alive and without having consulted him, about the election of His Successor, or promise votes, or take decisions in this regard in private meetings » (n.79);
    « The Cardinal Electors are to abstain, moreover, from every form of vote-canvassing, agreements, promises or other pledges of any kind, which can constrain them to give or deny their vote to one or another.  If such in reality would happen, even if under the obligation of a vow, I decree that such a pledge be null and invalid and that no one is bound to observe it; and from this moment I impose the excommunication latae sententiae upon the transgressors of this prohibition.» (n.81);
    « Equally, I forbid to the Cardinals to make, before an election, formal agreements, whether to receive pledges of common agreement, obliging themselves to put them into effect in the case that one of them be elevated to the Pontificate.  Even these promises, as much as they might be made, even under the obligation of an oath, I declare null and invalid » (n.82).

  • It is good to repeat that the “Renunciation” of Benedict XVI (according to his own admission) was truly made in full awareness and without any constraint … and yet that such a “renunciation” cannot be held to be truly such, since (and this is the seventh one which has occurred in the course of the two thousand years of Church history) all those who did renounce the papacy afterwards returned to their prior status as before thier election: and hence he who was a Bishop or Cardinal, returned to being a Bishop or Cardinal … he who was before a hermit, returned to be a hermit … (if one remembers the events of Pope Celestine V and Pietro da Morrone!), and hence none remained pope (not even an “emeritus”, or any other kind), by continuing to wear the white cassock, by maintaining the papal coat of arms, by signing wtih the name of the Pontiff, etc..
  • Hence, just as, if one must believe that Benedict XVI posited his “renunciation” in total autonomy and independence … so and equally, one must believe in what He himself declared:  “… When, on April 19 nearly 8 years ago I accepted to assume the petrine ministry … from that moment on I was engaged always and for always by the Lord …  The “always” is also a “for always”, there is no longer a return to the private: My decision to renounce the active exerciste of the ministry, does not revoke this ” (Benedict XVI, Wednesday General Audience of Feb. 27, 2013, Piazza S. Petro).
    And hence, through his own same admission, Benedict XVI is always and still pope, whether others say so or not.
    Therefore, in this case more than ever, there is required by all a firm intellectual coherence: if we ought to believe and hold as true the words of the Holy Father about His own renunciation, we ought, on the other hand and equally, believe and hold as true the just mentioned words pronounced by Benedict XVI, which affirm that he remains still and always pope!
  • In conclusion, how can one explain, then, such an apparent and present unresolved situation in the Church … what, in substance, ought we hold to have clear ideas and not to let ourselves be overwhelmed, even us, by such a contemporary “confusion”?

The solution is supplied us both by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, but as something requiring of us the highest attention and correct discernment ….

It is Our Lady Herself, in fact, who asks us to pay attention to Her words, left in our own days at Fatima, in which She speaks, both of the Holy Father, and of a Bishop dressed in white.

The Divine Providence has also arranged, also in our own days, that Pope John Paul II elevated to the honors of the altar the Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich, making in this way known to all believers her singular visions, especailly those in which she saw “the Church of the two popes”, the Church of always, faithful to the Magisterium, at whose head is the Holy Father, and another “new” church: big, strange and extravagant … (and, moreover, that the warnings, in part from the Mother of God are truly very many: the Miraculous Medal, La Salette, Fatima, Garabandal, the Marian Movement of Priests and many, many others …).

And, at last, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in nn. 675-677), in which it informs, that, in our own days, all the faithful will be called to confront a “final test”, capable of shocking the faith of many believers, since in it there will be revealed the “mystery of iniquity”, able to provide an apparent solution to contemporary men, under the form of a religious impostiture, and it will be then that we will have to decide on which side to stand: whether with the Anti-Christ (the Anti-Church and the Anti-Gospel, as even John Paul II was wont to say), though this at the cost of apostasy from the Truth, in joining in such a manner the “new church”, great and lauded by the world, as ecological and ecumenical, which concerns itself primarily with the poor … or if we would remain with the Church of always, even if it is today seen in a bad light by the world, which reputs Her as integralist and fundamentalist, to remain with the holy Magisterium, held even today as antiquated, and faithful to the Gospel of Christ, the one and true God, our Savior and Redeemer: “Whom we hold most dear!”

This is an authorized translation of the original at

MARCOTOSATTI.COM

logo

Viganò openly questions whether China forced Benedict to resign, St Gallen Mafia plotted invalid election

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Many Catholics have been waiting for it for more than a year: the time when Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò would publicly admit that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI may be invalid, or that the Conclave of 2013 may be invalid.

Yesterday, in his interview with Marco Tosatti, Archbishop Viganò opened both questions, saying (Red added on key passages):

Marco Tosatti: Don’t you think that in the end the Report that everyone is waiting for will be published?

 Abp. Viganò: If it is possible to shed light on this affair, this will happen despite the Vatican: the interests at stake are enormous and directly affect the very top of the Church, and not only for questions of a doctrinal, moral, or canonical nature, but also for political and diplomatic aspects that have seen the Holy See become the object of a coup d’état with the complicity of those who should have defended it in its sovereignty and independence. What did not succeed during the pontificate of Benedict XVI was brought to fruition after his resignation. How can we hope that the one who is indebted for his own election to McCarrick – who was one of the main proponents of the secret agreement with China – will be able to clarify a series of events that involve him personally, demonstrating the connivances with the Chinese dictatorship against Catholics faithful to the Holy See and perhaps also the responsibility of that regime for the resignation of Pope Benedict? How can we imagine that the murky events of Saint Gallen will become clear, when it was there that the conspirators organized the election of Bergoglio? And how can we believe that the Church will purify herself of the corruption and vice of her clerics and prelates, when they are the ones who have taken power and who are promoted to the highest levels in a web of complicity between heretics, perverts, and traitors?

The one who ought to investigate the scandals is heavily involved in the appointment, promotion, and protection of those who are guilty: Bergoglio has surrounded himself with compromised and thus blackmailed personalities, whom he has no qualms about getting rid of as soon as they risk compromising him in his media image.

Let’s not forget that the legitimization of homosexuality is part of the agenda of the New World Order – to which the Bergoglian church adheres openly and unconditionally – not only for its destabilizing value in the social body, but also because sodomy is the principal instrument with which the Enemy intends to destroy the Catholic priesthood, corrupting the souls of the Ministers of God.

For this reason, at least as far as what seems possible, the entire truth about McCarrick will never officially come to light.

Viganò, Magister, Tosatti: all attack Pope Benedict XVI in mourning

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I am continually amazed how some people can wade through hundreds of pages of text to attack a person, but refuse to read 1 word to his defense, all the while claiming to be honest and devout Catholics.

The latest egregious case of this is the position take by Archbishop Viganò and the Italian Vaticanista Magister, condoned after the fact by Marco Tosatti with his publication of his anonymous editorial signed by Msgr. X.

And, yes lately, it does seem that Tosatti’s website has become a newspaper devoted to promoting the Archbishop, as many have noticed. In fact, Viganò and Tosatti are in direct communication and Tosatti publishes everything Viganò wants to publish as part of his own personal publicity campaign which appears more and more, each week, to be a campaign to be the next pope, since it pronounces itself on a variety of key issues in the life of the Church, through the publication of sometimes even personal letters with others. All this, even though Archbishop Viganò holds no munus in the Church to do anything of the kind.

But on to the matter at hand.

Viganò in recent days had Tosatti publish a long letter of criticism of Vatican II (see here). But why criticize Vatican II now? It is not like the current man in control of the Vatican is a shining exemplar and paragon of every virtue who does not know what Vatican II is about. We have 7 years of scandal that could be talked about — and Viganò has talked about that in part — but Viganò no longer names Bergoglio, and his demand that Bergoglio resign has been left in the air, with no action.

But here in Italy, the question of Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation has become the hot issue. And one of the chief hermeneutical arguments for the invalidity of the Renunciation is the magisterial teaching of Pope Benedict XVI, on February 14, 2013, during his meeting with the clergy of Rome. In that meeting he did not speak to the clergy as a man who was resigning the Papacy, he spoke instead about how the Council was misinterpreted by the press and misrepresented to the world, and that the clergy of Rome need to return to the texts and read the Council for itself, without the presuppositions of what the press wanted you to think it meant.

I wrote about this speech by Pope Benedict XVI, showing how it conclusively affirms the way he wants his Declaratio interpreted. The Holy Father is, in substance, saying nothing strange or novel, he is merely saying in his own way, that Canon 17 should be observed, namely, that the Declaratio should be read in accord with the norm of Canon Law which requires that words in the Code be understood in their proper meaning, and when there is a doubt, read according to their sense in parallel passages of the Code of Canon Law.

This speech by Pope Benedict XVI was discussed by Don Alessandro Minutella and myself in a hour long program recently (here  specifically, and if you want to know about the Mafia of St. Gallen, see part II here). In that program, we laid down a challenge to the Sacred Hierarchy and clergy of Italy to respond to the evidence.  Viganò’s letter on Vatican II is clearly that response. Those who deny that Pope Benedict XVI is the pope, and all now insist that the Declaratio does not mean what the rules of Latin grammar says it must mean, have to attack the truth of that. And if not a direct attack on that truth, an indirect attack on the rules by which you are lead back to it.

So the speech of Pope Benedict XVI had to be attacked.

At the same time, Sandro Magister, who makes efforts to defend Bergoglio whenever he can, rose to the challenge of Viganò, who had attacked the god of Vatican II, using as he did the clever trick of blaming Viganò openly for being unfaithful to Pope Benedict XVI in his discourse on Vatican II. Magister’s article can be read here. Massimo Borghesi commented on it here. Magister accuses Viganò of being on the rim of schism. A good narrative trick to trigger all Viganò fans and those deluded by putting hope in a man who affirms Bergoglio, an archheretic and schismatic, is the pope. And Magister is clever enough to cite a speech from 2005, lest he draw attention to the speech of 2013.

Finally, Marco Tosatti publishes an anonymous essay which attacks Pope Benedict XVI while arguing against Magister’s charge of schism, with the outrageous accusation that Pope Benedict XVI resigned validly to prepare the way intentionally for Bergoglio. The title of the article leaves no room for doubt about that against which it was launched: BXVI’s never clarified Renunciation gives Viganò reason.

The title alone is a subterfuge. Only those who refuse to read the Declaration in the Latin cannot find the clarity in it they seek.

But the villainy of such an accusation is not exceeded by the villainy that would publish it. It is clearly a direct attack on the person of the Holy Father to discredit him in the eyes of Catholics who uphold the laws of the Church. And this during the time he is mourning the sickness and death of his brother, having been deprived of the opportunity to remain with him until the end and celebrate his funeral personally.

But it appears rather that what we are seeing is a very cleverly designed narrative control, to both anoint an Archbishop who holds no munus in the Church, while attacking the one who holds still the Petrine Munus. It allows the forces which hate Pope Benedict XVI to have Viganò play the good cop, and Magister and Msgr. X play the bad cop. But the result is the same as what Bergoglio has always sustained: Benedict resigned so that I can be the Pope, accept that and shut up!

As regards the speech of Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, and to discuss it on its merits: it is clear that the Holy Father explained a very sound forensic and catholic principle of textual interpretation, which Vatican II merits to have applied to it, regardless of all other considerations. Having read some of the conciliar texts in the Latin, I know that they are much more Catholic than the vernacular translations make them appear, and did enact a reform which was never put into action. What we got instead was the Aggiornamento of Paul VI. But, neither was free of errors, and the Council clearly never intended to give us texts which were infallible.

But forensic techniques are the nemeses of all Mafia. And that is why they are being ignored by the Sacred Hierarchy today, and many a layman who hangs on their tail coats.

+ + +

If you would like to support FromRome.Info, click the banner below.

cropped-from-rome-header-032520

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

Marco Tosatti: The Now uncertain Future of the Order of Malta

logo

by Marco Tosatti

An English translation of the original Italian, entitled, Ordine di Malta, il Futuro: Nulla è escluso. Anche clamoroso.

Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae we offer you a reflection on the situation that has arisen after the death of the Grand Master of the Order of Malta. With the death of Fra’ Giacomo Dalla Torre del Tempio di Sanguinetto, which occurred shortly after midnight on April 29, a not exactly reassuring scenario opens up for the Order of Malta. The disappearance of a leader – who, in this case, is both ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ – is always in itself something which quakes the system, but even more so – we believe – it will be for the Order of St. John who has already been experiencing a deep institutional crisis for at least four years.

Suffice it to say that already in the afternoon hours preceding the official announcement of the departure, there were discordant news (which sources tell us were sent by an imprudent letter signed by Prince Erich von Lobkowicz, powerful president of the German Association of the Knights of Malta) on the Grand Master’s state of health, who was declared dead prematurely, with a very quick update of the Wikipedia page, later corrected, following an official communiqué of the Order and the letter “signed” by the Grand Commander (the Order of Malta’s second office and responsible for religious life), the 80-year-old Portuguese, Fra’ Ruy Gonçalo do Valle Peixoto de Villas Boas.

Such a thing would never have happened in other times, not least because it is presumed that news concerning the health of the head of a religious Order who is also – a unicum in the current legal panorama – Head of State must necessarily be filtered through the entourage of close and, hopefully, trusted collaborators.

The late Grand Master had personally announced – in an unusual letter dated 24 February last – that he had health problems linked to a diagnosed throat cancer that would have taken him away from many institutional commitments because of the treatment he would have had to undergo; in that same letter, in a truly anomalous way, Dalla Torre had, among other things, written “The important decisions will remain in my hands”, as if to reassure that no one would take advantage of them. But why write it, we wonder?

All these creaks give the impression of a very frail institution in itself, which seems to forget its almost a thousand years of history of battles and victories for the defense of Christianity.

A very weak government, that of Brother Giacomo Dalla Torre, chosen for his well known bonhomie, for his integrity but also for the undisputed closeness of his noble family to the Vatican world: his grandfather Giuseppe was director of L’Osservatore Romano, while his brother, Giuseppe himself, was for decades (until a few months ago) the influential president of the Vatican Tribunal.

A government that has also shown its flaws and its pockets of incapacity since the lieutenancy that Dalla Torre assumed as a “buffer” to the wound inflicted on the sovereignty of the Order with the expulsion of the former Grand Master Fra’ Matthew Festing by the now untrusted Teutonic-Vatican maneuver devised by the first hunted and then reinstated Grand Chancellor Albrecht Freiherr von Boeselager, who also asked for the head of Card. Raymond Leo Burke, freezing him the office (which still formally exists today) of “Cardinalis Patronus”.

A singular coincidence of dates: Dalla Torre was elected Lieutenant precisely on April 29, 2017 – under the supervision of Msgr. Angelo Becciu (now Cardinal, Prefect of the Congregation of Saints), at the time the most powerful Substitute to the Vatican Secretariat of State and very faithful to Pope Bergoglio, appointed “Special Delegate” of the Pontiff to the Order – and the Lord calls him to himself on the same day, three years later.

Both as Lieutenant and even more so as Grand Master, on May 2, 2018 behind the clear placet of the Transtevere, alongside the undisputed moral and religious qualities of great value, Dalla Torre was never able to show the institutional attitude that contingencies demanded, very often allowing a form of heterodox management of the Order over which he had been placed in charge. It allowed all three Italian Grand Priories (which would be the territorial government bodies which run clinics, welfare facilities, charitable works, and to which the Order of Malta’s Italian Relief Corps [CISOM] is linked) to be managed by “procurators” and not by religious (a form of indirect commissioning). It allowed the Pope’s Special Delegate to block the novitiate for the new “professed” (i.e. those knights who take a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience and become the “first class” of the Order), thus immobilising the Order’s religious life, now reduced to a mere decorative aspect, which, if not reactivated, will be destined to be quickly wiped out. Don’t forget, among others, also the big slip-up of the prohibition in the ceremonies of the Order of the Mass in ancient rite (see here our comment at the time): an act certainly imprudent, probably the result of internal institutional blackmail, but which was also an inappropriate form of plagiarism against a presumed “apostolic” will, almost as if to demonstrate that in the Order of Malta – already badly seen in itself because it would embody (at least in principle) a certain elitist and excessively aristocratic approach to Catholicism – no voice is given to the “traditionalist” seditious people; it was also an indirect attack on the sensibility of the predecessor Festing, notoriously a lover of Tridentine spirituality; in short, it was a testimony to an alignment which probably was not necessary. It seems at least suggestive to consider that Dalla Torre died at the first light of day when the Church, in the calendar of the traditional mass, commemorates the Universal Patronage of Saint Joseph, who is also the patron saint of good death.

Beyond this – which in any case constitutes a “political” consideration of the style of government but is certainly not a moral judgement (which would appear ungenerous, even before being reckless) on the person – now with the death of Dalla Torre there are very problematic scenarios for the life of the Order.

First of all, it should be noted that the death of a Head of State, which occurs in a circumstance such as the one we are experiencing due to the planetary blockade of the pandemic, certainly suffers ceremonial repercussions, starting with the uncertainty about the funeral: Certainly, the Order of Malta is a subject of international law that enjoys, therefore, sovereignty, independence and also extraterritoriality, for which the grotesque measures containing the Italian legislation on the subject would certainly not be applicable; however, objectively, we do not believe that a rite proportionate to the dignity of a “Most Eminent Highness” is conceivable. Probably there will only be a ceremony restricted to members of the Sovereign Council and professed knights; perhaps one could hope for the consolidated practice for which, in the trigesimo of the disappearance, state funerals will be officiated in the presence of heads of state and the diplomatic corps. We shall see; of course it is a pity that the head of a religious order, who is in any case a very pious and devout man, cannot have a worthy moment of extreme greeting with the honours he is due.

But beyond the pitiless protocol problems – although in this world form is substance – the institutional scenario that opens with his death is much more significant.

The Grand Magistry’s communiqué, issued last night around 1.00 a.m., informed that “According to Article 17 of the Constitution of the Sovereign Order of Malta, the Grand Commander … has assumed the functions of Interim Lieutenant and will remain head of the Sovereign Order of Malta until the election of the new Grand Master”.

Now the problem is really big. Already from his Lieutenancy and then, in his Magisterium, Dalla Torre was to conduct and conclude the Order’s constitutional reform. Commissions were organised (in which, however, the professed religious knights were largely marginalised), there were exchanges of documents (all internal acts, nothing public, of course), and then everything fell into oblivion, in a form of acquiescence to the status quo: very imprudent for those who cannot count fifty years of government experience among them.

Everything is now in the hands of the Grand Commander.

Yes, of course, formally that is the case, but it is clear that an 80-year-old Portuguese gentleman (and not exactly sprightly at what one sees and knows), who has remained confined to Portugal, will not be able to manage a complex situation like this on his own, and will therefore need help. There is no doubt that the obscure Grand Chancellor Boeselager will pull the strings… but the first obstacle is the incomplete reform, which is therefore also useless. Because, on closer inspection, the Order is in the same stalemate that led to the election of Dalla Torre.

Art. 13 of the Constitutional Charter of the Order, in force today, prescribes that “The Grand Master is elected for life … from among the Professed Knights, with at least ten years of Perpetual Vows, if they are less than fifty years old; for the Professed Knights of higher age, who have been members of the Order for at least ten years, three years of Perpetual Vows are sufficient”. (paragraph 1), and then continues: “The Grand Master and the Lieutenant of the Grand Master must meet the noble requirements prescribed for the category of Knights of Honour and Devotion.” (paragraph 2). What does this mean?

For non-experts, the Grand Master of the Order of Malta cannot but be an aristocrat (which also seems logical to us for an Order that qualifies as “noble”); and the Constitution provides that the Head of the Order is chosen not “from among the knights of honour and devotion” (who may have been included in this category also with a “motu proprio”, also for particular merits, without having the right to do so heraldically) but that he “has the requisites required to be admitted among the knights of honour and devotion”: 4/4 (= both father’s and mother’s side) of nobility for 200 years, or: 250 years of nobility for the paternal line in addition to 200 years of the other 2/4 in addition to the amnesty for an grandfather, or: 300 years paternal line in addition to 200 years of the other 2/4 in addition to the amnesty for an grandfather, or: 350 years, paternal line in addition to 200 years of another quarter, or: 450 years paternal line.

This was one of the rules that the reform was supposed to modify, at least allowing for the possibility to range among the professed members (called “first class”), perhaps extending (this was the hypothesis) eligibility also to knights of grace and devotion (which would be the step immediately below honour and devotion), but this was not the case. And therefore the rule in force is the one mentioned above.

Given this, who could be elected Grand Master given these rules? Well, the game is complex because, on closer inspection, there is not a wide selection from which to chose. Some are candidates “only on paper”, such as Friar Luigi Naselli of Gela (born in 1930, former Grand Prior of Naples and Sicily, resigned for health reasons) and Friar Gherardo Hercolani Fava Simonetti (born in 1941, also a former Grand Commander, but very ill health); finally there would be Friar Pierre de Bizemont (born in 1944, the only French professed with eligibility requirements). Naturally, the former Grand Master Festing, born in 1949, must be added to these few eligible candidates, and perhaps put before him, for whom technically the great return is not excluded, considering the controversial resignation that followed.

The same Grand Commander could not be elected, coming from the ranks of the knights of grace and devotion, as well as the Italians fra’ Carlo d’Ippolito di Sant’Ippolito (an energetic Calabrian gentleman born in 1933, former Grand Commander) and fra’ Marco Luzzago (born in 1950, “commendatore di giustizia”, in charge of the castle of Magione), also admitted as knights of grace and devotion. To be excluded, of course, all the other professed from the other ranks.

There would then be hypotheses that would benefit a hypothetical Italian reconquest of Via Condotti, because there could also be another professed knight with the noble requisites provided for in art. 13, paragraph 2, but who is lacking those provided for in paragraph 1, such as the forty-four year old Friulan Fra’ Nicolò Custoza de Cattani (who took the solemn vows in 2016, but would have to wait until 2026 to be eligible). And then there is another Italian, who, however, today is on the verge of achieving the requirements of solemn profession: he is Friar Alessandro de Franciscis from Campania, born in 1955, the current director of the Bureau Médical of Lourdes, who would complete his three years of profession next December. Therefore, in a hypothetical procrastination linked to the contingencies of covid-19, the hypothesis of his election could also materialize. However, de Franciscis is not only a highly esteemed doctor who plays a role of clear prestige in one of the most important Marian shrines in Christendom, but also has a political past among the ranks of the centre-left area (former DC, then Margherita, UDEUR, Democratic Party) which led him to hold the position of president of the province of Caserta in 2005 and to be unpleasantly involved in legal problems inherent in that position, which were then resolved positively for him. Certainly since 2009 he has not been in politics, but it is known that in certain circles certain things never cease to be considered, especially when it comes to electing what, though sui generis, is still a Head of State.

Of course, the whole issue will be played out over time, which will certainly not be lacking given the circumstances surrounding the pandemic. It has to be said, however, that the Code which regulates the life of the Order and in art. 145 sets the time for the convocation of the Council of State (the elective body of the Grand Master, which constitutes a sort of “parliament” of the Order, in which the Grand Priories and national associations are also represented) at a maximum of three months, and therefore the time for hypothetical alliances is not so long; unless an exception to this rule is made, but even this is only a ‘school’ hypothesis.

It is clear, however, that, net of this, the influence of the German management of the Order, orchestrated by the ineffable Boeselager, will not delay in making itself felt. He certainly has almost all the national associations in his grip – a little more recalcitrant than the others – the Italian one, led by the Sicilian Riccardo Paternò di Montecupo, to which, although it has more members than the others, was arbitrarily prevented from expressing preference in the last elections in 2018 on the grounds that Italy was already represented by the three Grand Priories (two of which were already commissariats at the time) – and clearly can count on a sprawling system of control based on the management and distribution of economic funds and diplomatic privileges (just think of the choice of all the Order’s diplomats – among whom we recall the son of the very powerful former commander of the Vatican Gendarmerie Domenico Giani, now torpedoed by Pope Bergoglio). The professed (not only those “born noble”), on the other hand, are numerically few and above all appear very disorganized and demoralized; theirs is a stalemate, which seems to have neither breath nor room for action.

It is not excluded, however, that in all this the Holy See, through the special delegate Becciu, can once again extend its paw towards the Order, exercising a leading role in the election procedures, perhaps leading to the choice of a Lieutenant to temporarily hold the Order and ferry it towards the much sought after reform. But also the Lieutenant must have the requisites foreseen for the Grand Master (as we saw before quoting art. 13 par. 2 of the Constitutional Charter), and therefore the problem of the choice is also proposed, but in this case, it would be limited to only one year of government, in order to be able, at the moment of electing the new Grand Master, to range over several candidates. On the other hand, however, if this were to happen, the fracture linked to the consideration of the, albeit peculiar, sovereignty of the Order, which would be in some way vitiated by a form of external interference, would open up again.

In addition, however things go, the question of the “Cardinalis Patronus” comes up again, a position from which Raymond Burke has never been formally removed; the American Cardinal, who certainly does not need captions, elegantly never claimed any role after his ousting, which in fact created a “freeze” of his function, but considering that the rules of the Order assign to his office some tasks related to these phases, an honest definition of the problem would be desirable.

Naturally, these are political hypotheses. But the situation may not be as tragic as one thinks, and on the contrary, trusting in the strengthening of a “resistant” group, the pars sanior of the Order could take advantage of the moment for a change of course towards a more responsible autonomy and a better awareness of its past.

Let us watch.

§ § §

We were told that in our above essay of yesterday there are inaccuracies and incompleteness. We correct them here:

First of all, to the Italians should be added Fra Roggero Caccia Dominioni, Grand Prior Emeritus of Lombardy and Venice, who, however, is over ninety years old and does not enjoy excellent health … ; then it should be noted that both Fra’ Carlo d’Ippolito di Sant’Ippolito and Fra’ Marco Luzzago (who is Commendatore di Giustizia but does not reside at the Castello di Magione but at Villa Ciccolini, in Macerata) were received into the Order as Knights of Grace and Devotion and then integrated the evidence of nobility and have (as they say in technical jargon) “healed the missing quarters”, thus proving to have those requirements to be admitted among the Knights of Honour and Devotion. This practice – which at the time also followed the late Grand Master Fra’ Giacomo – is consolidated within the Order, since genealogical research can often be perfected over time, thus enabling the Order to integrate its process of nobility with new suitable and appropriate evidence.

To the eligible professed already indicated must then be added:

Brother Ludwig Hoffmann von Rumerstein, Austrian, born in 1937, former Grand Commander who was interim lieutenant in the transition phase immediately following Festing’s resignation;

Brother Karel Paar, born 1934, Grand Prior Emeritus of Bohemia;

Fra’ Elie de Comminges, French, born in 1935, who had been missing from the Order’s public life for several years;

Brother Ludwig von Call, Tyrolean, born 1934, professor of chemistry in Innsbruck.

Finally, they point out that although it is true that Friar Alexander de Franciscis will theoretically reach the proportion between years of age and years of profession required by Art. 13 of the Constitutional Charter next December, he lacks another requirement that the same article provides for in a not inconsiderable aside, namely that of being a member of the Order “for at least ten years”, having been received only in 2012.

The circle, therefore, between the old and the wretched, closes on de Bizemont, Luzzago, Paar, von Call… and Festing.

There are also twists and turns… If we were English, we could also place a bet on it.

Meanwhile, a ramshackle obituary informs us that the funeral of the late Grand Master will be held (it is not known when) “in a restricted manner” in the Church of Villa Malta on the Aventine (extraterritorial), announcing the celebration of “a solemn Requiem Mass on a date to be defined”. No mention of State funerals. Boh.

§ § §

logo

 

Tosatti interviews Viganò: Conte’s shameful delusions of Omnipotence in his COVID-19 response

 

logo

by Marco Tosatti

An English Translation of the Original, entitled: Intervista a Viganò. Conte, delierio di onnipotenza indecoroso. E illegale.

Dear Stilumcuriali, today we offer you an interview with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. Which touches on all the main themes of the moment we are living in Italy and in the Church. We think we should thank the Archbishop for the frankness and courage with which he expressed opinions that many people share, and fears that many live.

The interview comes out on 29 April, in memory of Saint Catherine of Siena. Enjoy reading.

§ § §

Your Excellency, the last Decree of President Giuseppe Conte dashed the hopes of the Italian Bishops’ Conference (CEI) and prolonged the lock-down of Masses throughout Italy. Some canonists and experts in concordat law have expressed many reservations about the behavior of the Government. What are your thoughts on the matter?

The Concordat between the Holy See and the Italian State recognizes, as Her native right, the Church’s full freedom and autonomy in carrying out Her own Ministry, which sees the celebration of Holy Mass and the administration of the Sacraments as Her social and public expression, in which no authority can interfere, not even with the consent of the ecclesiastical authority itself, which is not the mistress but the administrator of the Grace conveyed by the Sacraments.

Jurisdiction over places of worship therefore belongs in its entirety and exclusively to the Ordinary of the place, who decides in full autonomy — for the good of the souls entrusted to his care as Shepherd — the functions that are celebrated there and by whom they are to be celebrated. It is not for the Prime Minister to authorize access to the churches, nor to legislate on what the faithful or the Minister of worship can or cannot do.

In addition to this, the pronouncements of eminent jurists and magistrates – including those of the Supreme Court – are very authoritative and they question the legitimacy of legislating through Prime-Ministerial Decrees, which violate the superior and prevailing rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Italian Republic. Even if we are not talking about the Catholic Religion, particularly protected by its special status, the suspension of the right to freedom of worship implied by the Prime Minister’s Decrees is clearly illegitimate, and I trust that there will be those who wish to declare it officially, putting an end to this indecorous delusion of omnipotence of civil authority not only before God and His Church, but also before the faithful and citizens.

Many faithful and priests have felt abandoned and little protected by the Episcopal Conference and the Bishops.

It must be made clear, for the avoidance of misunderstandings, that the Episcopal Conference has no authority over the Bishops, who have full jurisdiction in their own Diocese, in union with the Apostolic See. And this is even more important at a time when we have understood how much the CEI is all too condescending, indeed succumbing, towards the Italian government.

Bishops do not have to wait for a body without any jurisdiction to tell them what to do: it is up to them to decide how to behave, with prudence and wisdom, to guarantee the Sacraments and the celebration of Mass to the faithful. And they can do so without having to ask either the CEI or the State, whose authority ends in front of the churchyard of our churches, and there it must stop.

It is unheard of that the Italian Episcopal Conference continues to tolerate such an abuse, which violates the divine right of the Church, violates a law of the State and creates a very serious precedent. And I believe that the communiqué issued on Sunday evening is also proof of the consent of the leaders of the Episcopate not only to the means, but also to the ends that this government proposes.

The supine silence of the CEI, and of almost all the Ordinaries, makes clear a situation of subordination to the State that has no precedent, and that was rightly perceived by the faithful and priests as a sort of abandonment of themselves: the scandalous raids of the public force in the church, even during the celebration of Mass, with sacrilegious arrogance that should have provoked an immediate and very firm protest by the Secretariat of State, are emblematic of this. The Ambassador of Italy to the Holy See should have been summoned, been presented a harsh Note of Protest for the very serious violation of the Concordat by the Government, and reserving the right to recall the Apostolic Nuncio to Italy if the illegitimate measure had not been withdrawn.

Cardinal Parolin, as sponsor of the President Conte, is in great embarrassment and in conflict of interest. It is clear that, instead of protecting the sovereignty and freedom of the Church in fidelity to its high institutional function as Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin has shamefully chosen to side with his lawyer friend. Not even the economic interests of so-called Catholic volunteerism could justify such an option.

What interests are you referring to?

I am referring to the scandalous distribution of public funds intended for the hospitality of illegal immigrants, of which Pope Bergoglio and the CEI are largely beneficiaries and, at the same time, strenuous promoters. Another conflict of interest, this one, which places the Church in a position of gratitude towards the State, making it not entirely illegitimate the suspicion that the multiple silences of the CEI, including the one we have witnessed in recent months on the occasion of the alleged pandemic, are motivated by the fear of seeing the lucrative proceeds from the reception fade away. Let us not forget that the funds deriving from the 8×1000 are decreasing more and more, confirming the estrangement of the Italian faithful from a Church that seems to have no other purpose than that of favoring the ethnic substitution strongly desired by the globalist elite. I fear that this trend will be confirmed in the coming months, in response to the silence of the Bishops.

In all this, the position of Pope Francis seems contradictory: at first he ordered the Cardinal Vicar to close the churches of Rome before Conte issued the Decree; then he embarrassed him, publicly denying it and having them reopened. He encouraged the Masses in streaming and then spoke of a Gnostic attitude, encouraging the CEI to take a stand against the Government; but just yesterday he recommended to the faithful obedience to the provisions of the Decrees…

Bergoglio is no stranger to this kind of sudden change. As everyone well remembers, before the scandal broke out within the Order of Malta concerning the distribution of condoms in its hospitals, Francis had written a letter to the Cardinal Protector, Burke, in which he gave him very clear instructions about his duty to watch over the Order so that Catholic morals would be scrupulously followed. But when the news became public he did not hesitate to disavow His Eminence, commissioning the Order, demanding the Grand Master’s resignation and reinstating the Councillor who had been expelled precisely because he was responsible for that deplorable violation of morals.

In the case you mentioned, the Cardinal Vicar tried to defend his correctness, explaining that the order to close the churches had been given to him by His Holiness. In the most recent case of the CEI, the Communiqué issued on Sunday evening clearly had the approval of President Cardinal Bassetti, who in turn must have consulted with Francis. He disconcerted that, in the space of a few hours, St. Martha’s pulpit contradited the CEI and invited the faithful and priests to obey the government’s instructions, which is not only undue, but also a violation of conscience, harmful to the health of souls.

No one intends to expose the faithful to possible contagion, admitted and not granted that it is such a formidable eventuality; but the size of our churches and unfortunately the very small number of the faithful who normally attend them, allow safe distances to be respected both for individual prayer and for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice or other ceremonies. Evidently the diligent legislators have not been going to church for a long time…

Let us not forget that the faithful have the right, as well as the duty, to attend Mass, to confess, to receive the Sacraments: this is a right that comes to them from being living members of the Mystical Body by virtue of Baptism. Pastors, therefore, have the sacred duty – even at the risk of their health and life itself, when required – to comply with this right of the faithful, and for this they must answer to God, not to the President of the Italian Episcopal Conference nor to the President of the Council.

In recent days, H.E. Mons. Giovanni d’Ercole has launched a stern warning to Count and the “scientific committee” in which he intimated: “You must give us the right to worship, or else we will take it back”. Strong and courageous words that seem to suggest a certain awakening in the consciences of the Pastors.

Monsignor D’Ercole spoke as a true Bishop does, with the authority that comes from Christ. Like him, I am sure, there are many other Pastors and priests who feel the responsibility towards the souls entrusted to them. But many remain silent, more so as not to uplift souls than out of fear. Precisely at this Easter time the Gospel parable of the Good Shepherd resounds in the liturgy; Jesus also mentions the mercenaries who do not care about the salvation of the sheep: let us not render in vain the divine warning and the example of the Savior, who gives his life for the sheep!

I take the liberty of addressing my confreres in the Episcopate: do you believe that, when in Mexico or Spain they closed the churches, banned processions, prohibited the use of the religious habit in public, things began differently? Do not allow the freedom of the Church to be restricted under the pretext of an alleged epidemic! Do not allow it either by the State or by the CEI! The Lord will ask you for an account of the souls who died without the Sacraments, of sinners who could not be reconciled with Him, of having allowed the faithful, for the first time in history since Constantine’s Edict, to celebrate Holy Easter with dignity. Your priests are not fearful, but heroic witnesses, and they suffer for the arbitrary orders you give them. Your faithful implore you: do not remain deaf to their cry!

These words seem to invite disobedience to ecclesiastical authority even before civil authority.

Obedience is ordered to Truth and Good, otherwise it is servility. We have arrived at such a dulling of consciences that we no longer realize what it means to “bear witness to the Truth”: do you believe that Our Lord will judge us for having been obedient to Caesar, when that means disobeying God? Is not the Christian bound to conscientious objection, even at work, when what is required of him violates divine law? If our Faith were based only on obedience, the Martyrs would not even have to face the torments to which civil law condemned them: it would have been enough to obey and burn a grain of incense to the statue of the Emperor.

We are not yet, at least in Italy, faced with the crucial choice between life and death; but we are asked to choose between the duty to honor God and worship Him, and obedience to the diktats of self-styled experts, a thousand times contradicted by the evidence of the facts.

I find it paradoxical that in this deception, which is now being revealed even to the most moderate observers of what is happening around us, the thankless task of having to bear witness to one’s own Faith before the wolves is imposed on the People of God, without being able to have their Shepherds at their side. That is why I exhort my Brothers to proudly resume their role as leaders, without camping as a pretext the observance of illegitimate and unreasonable norms. I make mine the words of Monsignor D’Ercole: “We do not need favors from you: we have a right to claim and this right must be recognized”!

Some might think that his words are “divisive” at a time when it is easy to exasperate the already proven souls of the citizens.

Unity in Faith and Charity is based on the salvation of souls, not to their detriment: neither the “interventions” of the CEI nor the smiling papal meetings with the Prime Minister, who has been granted an indulgent collaboration, which reveals connivance and collaboration. Proclaiming the truth is necessarily “divisive”, because truth is opposed to error, just as light is opposed to darkness. So said the Lord: “Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division.” Luke 12:51

Admitted and not allowed that the coronavirus is so virulent and so deadly that it justifies the segregation of an entire people, indeed the whole world, well: at this very moment the sacraments and Mass are denied when they are most needed for eternal salvation?

From what you have said, Your Excellency, I seem to understand some of your perplexities about the nature of the Coronavirus: is it my impression or do you believe – as many doctors say – that someone wanted to take advantage of the pandemic for other purposes?

This is not the place to express my reservations about the so-called “pandemic”: I believe that authoritative scientists have been able to demonstrate what really happens, and what the masses believe, through a air-tight control of information that does not hesitate to resort to censorship to silence voices of dissent. It seems clear to me, however, that Covid-19 has provided an excellent opportunity, whether desired or not — we shall soon know — to impose on the population a restriction of freedom that is neither democratic nor good.

These are technical proofs of dictatorship, in which people are even being programmed to track people under the pretext of health and a hypothetical future resurgence of the virus. They think they can impose a tyrannical regime in which people who are not elected by anyone claim to determine what is lawful and what is not, what treatment to impose and what punishment to inflict on those who want to evade it. What is even more serious, all this happens with the support of part of the Hierarchy: if they had told us about it a few years ago, we would not have believed them.

A word of hope in conclusion?

There’s always a reason for hope, if you have a supernatural look. First of all, this epidemic has brought down many masks: those of the real powers, of the international lobbies that patent a virus and are also preparing to patent the vaccine, and at the same time push for it to be imposed on everyone, in a clamorous conflict of interest. At least now we know who they are and what they look like.

The masks of those who lend themselves to this farce have also fallen, sounding unjustified alarms and spreading panic among the people, creating a crisis not only in terms of health, but also in terms of economics and world politics. Here, too, we know who they are and what their plan is.

Finally, the mask of the anonymity of so many good people has fallen. We realized how much generosity, how much self-sacrifice, how much goodness is still around, despite everything. Doctors, nurses, priests and volunteers, certainly; but also many faceless and nameless people who help their neighbors, who bring comfort to those who suffer, who wake up from the torpor and begin to understand what is happening around them. An awakening of the good, of which the Lord is undoubtedly the author. He governs the destiny of the Church and the world, and He will not allow Evil to prevail.

Let us not forget that – as I recalled recently – Our Lady of Fatima promised Sister Lucy that before the end of time a Pope would consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, and that this gesture of obedience would be followed by a period of peace. Let us therefore entrust ourselves, our families and our dear Italy under the mantle of the Most Blessed Virgin, trusting in Her words.

§ § §

logo

An English Translation of the Original, entitled: Intervista a Viganò. Conte, delierio di onnipotenza indecoroso. E illegale.

Russo to Schneider: We must believe Benedict, when he says he is still the pope

logo

MARCOTOSATTI.COM

Authorized English translation by FromRome.Info

Due Papi, Due Domande Impellenti, Una Risposta urgente.

by Marco Tosatti

Dear Friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae: a friend of our community, Sergio Russo, author of the book about which about which we spoke some time ago, Sei tu quello o dobbiamo aspettarne un altro? (Are you the one or should we expect another?), has sent us a reflection which seems to us particularly interesting and stimulating on the strange situation in which we we are living, and about which we have spoken in recent days.  Have a good read!

§ § §

Two Impelling Questions
which necessitate an urgent answer

by Sergio Russo

The first is: “Is Pope Francis a pope in every way, or not?”

The second, which is consequent upon the first, is: “Is Pope Benedict XVI still the pope, or not?”

I offer my personal contribution to the present debate, taking occasion also from the recent intervention by the Mons. Athanasius Schneider (dated Feb. 28, 2020) published originally in English at the site LIfeSite News, and also in French translation on the blog, Le Blog de Jeanne Smits.

Therefore, I will list here simply a series of facts, and not of argumentations, leaving it to the Reader to form his own opinion on the matter, knowing well, however, that contra factum non valet argumentum (against a fact no argument is valid).

  • Both academics and experts of things theological, as well as simple faithful, have noted how, from the date of March 13, 2013, even unto today, there has been created an unheard of situation, never before happening in the two thousand year history of the Church: the co-existence and co-habitation in the Vatican of two popes.
  • All of these, however, know well that the expression, “pope emeritus”, plays on the congruence/assonance of “Bishop Emeritus” and “Cardinal Emeritus”, and that, besides, it is not ordained by any canon of ecclesiastical law, neither past nor present …
    Moreover, it is to be noted – and here it basically returns to the same univocity which occurs in effect in the principle — just as there is, thus, no “priest emeritus”, so also, both the academic and the faithful have always known (but perhaps today the way to understand things has changed?) that there absolutely is no other kind of pope, neither Emeritus nor Presiding, and more so, and this by “una contraddizione, che nol consente … (a contradiction which does not consent to it)”, as Dante would say, since — and all believing Catholics have always held this as valid — the pope is the symbol and guarantor of unity in the Catholic Church, and She is one Body (though Mystical, but a true body), which cannot have but one sole Head!
    Therefore, not a two-headed Body, which would be a monstrosity, and neither a headless body, which would instead be a deficiency: as a matter of fact, one alone is the Christ, one alone is the Church, one alone the Faith, one alone the Vicar of Christ and one alone the Head of the Church …. and this is what the two-thousand year Magisterium of the Church has always affirmed, without the least hesitation!
  • Pope Francis, on the one hand would be the pope in every way, since he was licitly elected by all the Cardinals, united in a lawful Conclave (and which consequently is indubitable)
  • On the other hand, we are given to know that the election of Pope Francis (and this is also indubitable) might not be equally valid, since according to a declaration — never denied — of the now late Belgian Cardinal Godfried Dannels, present in his book-biography, which reports the admissions of the prelate made to the journalists, J. Mettepenningen and K. Schelkens, the said Cardinal revealed to them that a group of Cardinals and Bishops (to which he also belonged) worked for years to prepare for the election of J. M. Bergoglio, seeing that all of these porporati were opponents of Joseph Ratzinger: it was, in fact, a group which was kept secret, which the same Cardinal Danneels defined as “a mafia club, which bore the name of St. Gall”.
    And this type of agreement, according to the Apostolic Constitution of Saint John Paul II, Universi Dominic Gregis, which regulates the “vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff”, falls under a latae sententiae excommunication, as is clearly affirmed in nn. 77, 81, and 82:

    « Confirming also the prescriptions of our Predecessors, I prohibit anyone, even if he is marked with the dignity of the Cardinalate, to make agreements, while the Pope is alive and without having consulted him, about the election of His Successor, or promise votes, or take decisions in this regard in private meetings » (n.79);
    « The Cardinal Electors are to abstain, moreover, from every form of vote-canvassing, agreements, promises or other pledges of any kind, which can constrain them to give or deny their vote to one or another.  If such in reality would happen, even if under the obligation of a vow, I decree that such a pledge be null and invalid and that no one is bound to observe it; and from this moment I impose the excommunication latae sententiae upon the transgressors of this prohibition.» (n.81);
    « Equally, I forbid to the Cardinals to make, before an election, formal agreements, whether to receive pledges of common agreement, obliging themselves to put them into effect in the case that one of them be elevated to the Pontificate.  Even these promises, as much as they might be made, even under the obligation of an oath, I declare null and invalid » (n.82).

  • It is good to repeat that the “Renunciation” of Benedict XVI (according to his own admission) was truly made in full awareness and without any constraint … and yet that such a “renunciation” cannot be held to be truly such, since (and this is the seventh one which has occurred in the course of the two thousand years of Church history) all those who did renounce the papacy afterwards returned to their prior status as before thier election: and hence he who was a Bishop or Cardinal, returned to being a Bishop or Cardinal … he who was before a hermit, returned to be a hermit … (if one remembers the events of Pope Celestine V and Pietro da Morrone!), and hence none remained pope (not even an “emeritus”, or any other kind), by continuing to wear the white cassock, by maintaining the papal coat of arms, by signing wtih the name of the Pontiff, etc..
  • Hence, just as, if one must believe that Benedict XVI posited his “renunciation” in total autonomy and independence … so and equally, one must believe in what He himself declared:  “… When, on April 19 nearly 8 years ago I accepted to assume the petrine ministry … from that moment on I was engaged always and for always by the Lord …  The “always” is also a “for always”, there is no longer a return to the private: My decision to renounce the active exerciste of the ministry, does not revoke this ” (Benedict XVI, Wednesday General Audience of Feb. 27, 2013, Piazza S. Petro).
    And hence, through his own same admission, Benedict XVI is always and still pope, whether others say so or not.
    Therefore, in this case more than ever, there is required by all a firm intellectual coherence: if we ought to believe and hold as true the words of the Holy Father about His own renunciation, we ought, on the other hand and equally, believe and hold as true the just mentioned words pronounced by Benedict XVI, which affirm that he remains still and always pope!
  • In conclusion, how can one explain, then, such an apparent and present unresolved situation in the Church … what, in substance, ought we hold to have clear ideas and not to let ourselves be overwhelmed, even us, by such a contemporary “confusion”?

The solution is supplied us both by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, but as something requiring of us the highest attention and correct discernment ….

It is Our Lady Herself, in fact, who asks us to pay attention to Her words, left in our own days at Fatima, in which She speaks, both of the Holy Father, and of a Bishop dressed in white.

The Divine Providence has also arranged, also in our own days, that Pope John Paul II elevated to the honors of the altar the Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich, making in this way known to all believers her singular visions, especailly those in which she saw “the Church of the two popes”, the Church of always, faithful to the Magisterium, at whose head is the Holy Father, and another “new” church: big, strange and extravagant … (and, moreover, that the warnings, in part from the Mother of God are truly very many: the Miraculous Medal, La Salette, Fatima, Garabandal, the Marian Movement of Priests and many, many others …).

And, at last, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in nn. 675-677), in which it informs, that, in our own days, all the faithful will be called to confront a “final test”, capable of shocking the faith of many believers, since in it there will be revealed the “mystery of iniquity”, able to provide an apparent solution to contemporary men, under the form of a religious impostiture, and it will be then that we will have to decide on which side to stand: whether with the Anti-Christ (the Anti-Church and the Anti-Gospel, as even John Paul II was wont to say), though this at the cost of apostasy from the Truth, in joining in such a manner the “new church”, great and lauded by the world, as ecological and ecumenical, which concerns itself primarily with the poor … or if we would remain with the Church of always, even if it is today seen in a bad light by the world, which reputs Her as integralist and fundamentalist, to remain with the holy Magisterium, held even today as antiquated, and faithful to the Gospel of Christ, the one and true God, our Savior and Redeemer: “Whom we hold most dear!”

This is an authorized translation of the original at

MARCOTOSATTI.COM

logo

Skojec & Delinis troll Tosatti with vile insults

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The moral and intellectual depravity of those who say that Bergoglio is certainly the pope, just sunk to a new low today, with their vile public contumely hurled at one of the most eminent and respected Vaticanista in Italy: Marco Tosatti.  His “crime” is that he quoted an anonymous source at the Vatican saying that Benedict regards himself as the Pope and most of the Roman Curia know this.

https://twitter.com/SteveSkojec/status/1228736578626834432

https://twitter.com/jamesdcos/status/1228757689288855558

Then Denlinis goes for the juggler and says Pope Benedict XVI has lost his mind:

https://twitter.com/jamesdcos/status/1228768182619512836

Skojec then doubles down in the vile insult:

https://twitter.com/SteveSkojec/status/1228773035886309376

Then Denlinis calls Tosatti a liar too:

https://twitter.com/jamesdcos/status/1228790370722631680

I think you can see who here is honest and who has embraced Hell.

My question is, why do you love Bergoglio and his agenda so much, that you would resort to public contumely of such a honorable man?

POSTSCRIPT:

Some people are reading the title of this post as if the the ablative of means (with insults) were the verb (troll):

https://twitter.com/SteveSkojec/status/1229137969824485376

So if they do not even know English grammar, what value could their opinion be about a Latin Declaratio and the text of the Code of Canon Law? Steve and company need to get out of the victim-hood complex and recognize that they are the victimizers. Serial calumniators of all who ask them to be rational. It is beyond juvenile. And it is likely to stoke a complaint to the IRS about One Peter Five, for private inurement, because its public tax filings over several years raise serious questions.

 

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Viganò reveals the friendship between Maciel and Cardinal Sandri, who will oversee the next Conclave

logo

by Marco Tosatti

Authorized English Translation by FromRome.Info

READ THE ORIGINAL IN ITALIAN AT MARCOTOSATTI.COM

Dear Friends and Enemies of Stilum Curiae, we offer you today an extremely interesting document from the ex-Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, regarding one of the recent nominations by the Bridge-Builder: that of Cardinal Leonardo Sandi, as Vice Deacon of the College of Cardinals.  It will be Leonardo Sandri, who at 76 years of age, who will oversee in reality the functions of the Dean of the Conclave, Giovanni Battista Re, who being 85 years of age cannot participate.  It is a nomination which has stunned us, seeing that Leonardo Sandri was the Sostituo to the Secretary of State (then, Cardinal Sodano) when there was published the unsigned “note” in which it was affirmed there was no ongoing investigation against Marcial Maciel, the diabolic founder of the Legionaires of Christ.  Moreover, the good will of the reigning Pontiff towards Sandri is extraordinary. He has already completed two tours of duty of 5 years each, since 20o7, as Prefect of the Congregation for Oriental churches (and is in the middle of a third) and has completed 76 years, when 75 is already the limit imposed for heads of the Dicasteries and for Bishops. But let us read what Archbishop Viganò has written:

§§§

The Faithful have the right to know

We have just been witnesses to one of the most indecent episodes where we have looked upon the work of the prince of lies intent upon falsifying the book of Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah, by covering them with ignoble insults and vulgar insinuations, by means of the actions of the papal prison guard, who is now serving as a hit-man.  And now again we find him to be involved in another masterpiece of trickery: the confirmation on the part of the Bridge-Builder in the election of Cardinal Bishops and of the new Dean and Vice-Dean of the College of Cardinals.  These acts have passed unobserved, while they conceal a subtle strategy.  It is necessary to keep in mind, indeed, that in June of 2019, Papa Francesco increased the number of Cardinal Bishops, which had remained unchanged for centuries, by promoting 4 new ones at a single stroke. In this manner he insured for himself a majority favorable to himself, a thing which he has always done with new members of the College of Cardinals.

To Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, named Dean at the age of 86, but excluded form the next Conclave, I wish a longer life than his father. But his nomination is a cover for the more decisive one – that of Cardinal Sandri – who is now positioned to steer the next Conclave secundum Franciscum, that is, according to the updated and augmented version of the Mafia of St. Gall.

With Cardinal Leonardo Sandri I am bound by a long friendship, which had its beginning in the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, and then throughout 11 years in the same office as secretary to the Sostituto of the Secretary of State, and then 7 years of collaboration, from when he returned from a mandate as Nuncio to Mexico, after only 6 months, and was named the Sostotuto.

Amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas — This maxim, attributed to Aristotle, and then taken up by Plato in regard to Socrates, and successively by Cicero, is explained in this way by Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Sententia libri Ethicorum, Book 1, Lesson 6, nn. 4-5:

Quod autem oporteat veritatem praeferre amicis, ostendit hac ratione. Quia ei qui est magis amicus, magis est deferendum. Cum autem amicitiam habeamus ad ambo, scilicet ad veritatem et ad hominem, magis debemus veritatem amare quam hominem, quia hominem praecipue debemus amare propter veritatem et propter virtutem… Veritas autem est amicus superexcellens cui debetur reverentia honoris; est etiam veritas quiddam divinum, in Deo enim primo et principaliter invenitur. Et ideo concludit, quod sanctum est praehonorare veritatem hominibus amicis.

In my own translation, it goes like this:

Then, that it be necessary to prefer truth to friends, is demonstrated with this reckoning. To him to whom one is more a friend there goes greater honor.  Being friends of both, that is, of truth and of neighbor, we ought to love more the truth than our neighbor, because we ought to love the neighbor above all according to truth and virtue. Truth, indeed, is the most excellent friend to which one owes the reverence of honor. Truth is something of the divine, it finds itself in the first seat, and in its first principle in God.  From which one must conclude, that it is something holy to prefer the honor of truth to friends.

Moreover, what constrains me to write about Cardinal Leonardo Sandri is inspired solely by the friendship which binds me to him for nearly 50 years, for the good of his soul, for the love of the Truth which is Christ Himself and for the Church His Bride, whom we have served together.

In the first audience which Francis conceded to me after that which I already mentioned on June 23, 2013, in which he asked me about Cardinal McCarrick, he asked me a similar question: “What is Cardinal Sandri like?” Struck with surprise by that question in regard to my dear friend, I did not reply out of embarrassment. Francis, then, opened his hands and moved them up and down like scales — as if to say: “Which one is heavier?” — and he looked me straight in the eyes to see if I agreed.  In reply, I moved to confide in him: “Holy Father, I do not know if you know that the Nuncio Justo Mullor, President of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, was removed from the Apostolic Nunciature in Mexico because he opposed the directives coming from the Secretary of State aimed at covering for the grave accusations against Marcial Maciel”. I said this to the pope, so that he might reckon it for an eventual remedy to the injustice which Mons. Mullor suffered for not joining in the compromise, for remaining faithful to the truth and for his love of the Church. And this is the truth, which we reaffirm to the honor of this faithful servant of the Holy See, on the tomb of which I celebrated a Holy Mass in suffrage, in the Cathedral of Almeria, Spain.

I have already written in my first testimonial that the principal responsible for covering the misdeeds committed by Maciel was the then Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the recent acceptance of whose own resignation as Dean of the College of Cardinals was tied to his being implicated in the affair with Maciel. He, in addition to having protected Maciel, was certainly not outside of the loop in regard to the promotion of McCarrick … In the mean time, it is just that it be known that Cardinal Francis Arinze duly opposed himself, inside the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to the attempt by Sodano to coverup the case of Maciel.

Unfortunately for him, even Sandri let himself be involved by Sodano in this coverup operation for the horrible misdeeds of Maciel.  To replace Mons. Mullor in Mexico City, it was necessary to name someone securely loyal to Sodano. Sandri had already given proof as Assessor of the Secretary of Sate. And so, the Nuncio in Venezuela, who was only there for 2 years, was transferred to Mexico. Of these shady maneuvers, which the ones in charge qualified as normal events, I was a direct witness in a conversation held by them on January 25, 2000, the Feast of Saint Paul, while we were on our way to the Basilica which bears the Saint’s name, for the closure of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.  The connection of these dates for the transfers is also significant: June 19, 2000, the transfer to Moscow of Mons. Giorgio Zur, after being President of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy for only 1 year; February 11, 2000, the nomination of Mons. Justo Mullor as President of the same Academy, after having been only 2 and a half years in Mexico; March 1, 2000, the transfer to Mexico of Mons. Sandri after only 2 and a half years spent in Venezuela. Only six months after this, on Sept 16, 2000, Sandri was promoted to the position of Sostituto of the Secretary of State, as the right hand man of Sodano.

The Legionaires of Christ did not omit to show Sandri their thanks. In the occasion of a pranzo held in the Paul VI Hall in honor of the Cardinals created in the consistory of Nov. 24, 2007, among whom was Sandri himself, we were left shocked when he cut in front of me as I stood in line to speak with Pope Benedict, as the Pope was making his entrance, saying: “Holy Father, excuse me, but I cannot stay for Pranzo, as I am the invited guest of 500 Legionaries of Christ.”

Look how Francis, after having repeatedly and obsessively indicated as the cause of sexual abuse a very vaguely defined “clericalism”, to avoid in this way denouncing the plague of homosexuality, has himself exhibited the worst kind of clericalism, which he has accused others of: to promote Sandri, the Cardinal-Priest in May 2018 to being Cardinal-Bishop only one month later, so that he might be able to name him as Vice-Dean of the College of Cardinals, as the candidate chosen beforehand by Francis to preside over the next Conclave.

The Faithful have the right to know of these sordid intrigues in a corrupt court. In the heart of the Church, it seems to us, there has invaded the shadow of the synagogue of Satan (Apocalypse 2:9).

+ Carlo Maria Viganò

Arciv. tit. di Ulpiana

Nunzio Apostolico

This is an authorized English translation of the Italian Original

from MARCOTOSATTI.COM

logo