John Paul II. Gives Jorge Mario Bergoglio the dignity of Cardinal
(Rome) The Italian journalist and Rector of the School of Journalism of Perugia, Antonio Socci, took the call of Pope Francis, "tear down all the walls" as an excuse, even to demand tearing down the "wall of silence" around the conclave. Socci is known to have doubted the validity of the election of Pope Francis. It's a daring hypothesis that has met with general rejection because of its insufficient foundation. Irrespective of this, however, Socci's questions can not be passed over without further ado.
In his book "Non é Francesco" (He is not Francis) he gave a synopsis of the inconsistencies in the pontificate of the reigning Pope that seems to strike a chord with many insecure Catholics. Two and a half months after its release, Soccis's book has been number one in Italy's Religion / Spirituality area.
In the circle of his colleagues, they feel that since the publication of his book Socci has gone too far in his main thesis. Yet no one denies that he has mastered his craft as a journalist nor neglected a flair for details. It is also not surprising that he sees in Austen Ivereighs book "The Great Reformer" grist for his own mill. The more so, as Ivereigh, unlike Socci, is an avowed admirer of Francis.
Ivereigh, former Press Agent for Cardinal Murphy O'Connor, revealed the existence of a group of cardinals, which he called "Team Bergoglio". This group, which existed in its core of the cardinals Lehmann, Kasper, Danneels and O'Connor should have joined forces to raise a candidate of their choice to the papal throne. The candidate of their choice was the primate of Argentina, Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio. Back in 2005, after the obvious failure of the long-standing "Ante-Pope" Carlo Maria Martini, the voices of the progressive party had focused on another Jesuit, the Argentine Bergoglio, in the College of Cardinals. This conspiracy got cold feet in its duel against Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and retired. For this reason, said Ivereigh, team Bergoglio, having a commitment from Bergoglio before the conclave of 2013, would not back down this time. The "team" then successfully organized the campaign to Ivereigh's delight.
The revelation caused such a stir that Cardinal O'Connor published a correction and Vatican spokesman Lombardi at the request of four cardinals named issued a disclaimer.
And to this, Antonio Socci writes:
Mysterious delay
"(...) To date, there is no explanation of the unusual delay for Pope Bergoglio to appear on the loggia of St. Peter the before the people.
Between the white smoke and the first appearance, it took twice as much time as with Benedict XVI. Why? What happened? And what about the strange episode when Bergoglio entrusted Scalfari to report this together with the first papal interview on October 1, 2013?
Bergoglio explained, 'When I was elected Pope in the conclave, I asked before I accepted the option to retire for a few minutes in the room next to the balcony facing the square. My head was completely empty and a great fear had fallen upon me. So it passed and I calmed myself, I closed my eyes and every thought disappeared, and to refuse the office, which the liturgical procedure allows. I closed my eyes and felt no fear or emotionality any more. '
Then, said Bergoglio further, I jumped like a shot and went into the room where the Cardinals were waiting for me and the table on which lay the acceptance. I signed, and the Cardinal Chamberlain countersigned and then there was the Habemus Papam on the balcony.'
It would be interesting to understand why the white smoke was given at 19.06 clock, about an hour before the Habemus Papam, which was at 20.12 clock. The white smoke could certainly not have been given before Bergoglio accepting the election, since there is only with the signing of the declaration of acceptance a new pope and must take this assumption of free will, and therefore may not take place before the anticipated white smoke ,
It would also be interesting to understand the whys and the wherefores of this election acceptance after Bergoglio had indeed not accepted according to his Jesuit vow, not to accept.
The aforementioned Scalfari interview was in fact confirmed by Bergoglio himself, who had published it in an anthology of the Vatican publishing house a month ago. Why are these questions and circumstances not resolved and put to rest?"
Many New Cardinals in a Short Time
As far as Antonio Socci, he suggests the lifting of secrecy for the Cardinals. This could, said the Italian journalist, answer all the questions raised in his book. He would then like to acknowledge the facts.
But until now it has not been confirmed by any canon that the election held has been canonically correct. The sequence of the conclave will be described by Elisabetta Pique in the Pope's biography. The Argentine journalist and Pope-friend here based it directly on her personal recollections of the Pope's words himself. It's a procedure that had been confirmed by an unnamed cardinal to the Corriere della Sera.
If the conclave had been concluded, like he, Socci, describes it in his book, then the election would be invalid and thus there would be no white-robed incumbent on the Chair of Peter and all official acts since then would be null and void.
"The problem is now that Pope Bergoglio has announced the creation of new cardinals for the upcoming February 15 and may add up to 19 cardinals to be created in February 2014. Why so many appointments in such a short time? To shift the relationships in the College of Cardinals? There is a certain restlessness in the ecclesiastical world, because it is suspected that today progressives in the Curia will push for a future conclave with an axis shifted toward a more modernist leftist.
Apart from the fact that the Pope is 78 years old, we are constantly hearing about a possible resignation. Before that happens, maybe someone wants a progressive revolution in the College of Cardinals. Thus, there can be no opposite pendulum swing by a startled Cardinal majority.
The conclave of 2013 had by no means a "progressive" majority. Bergoglio was only chosen because cardinals served up all kinds of stories to get their votes. From the transitional pope, to a pope of necessity, a pope in the southern hemisphere, but always with the assurance that the Argentine would stand in continuity with Benedict XVI. and John Paul II. It was not a coincidence that Bergoglio was found again at the recent Synod of Bishops in the minority. The result is the work of personal conversion. Thus, if the College of Cardinals were turned upside down with a view to a future conclave?" Thus is the final question of Antonio Socci in his essay, on 21 December, and thus one day before the little friendly papal Christmas message to the Curia staff in the daily newspaper Libero had been published.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
image: Nuestra America / Sussidiario
Trans: vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG
image: Nuestra America / Sussidiario
Trans: vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG
42 comments:
Yet another uncanny parallel between the circumstances of an anti-Catholic fraud occupying the Vatican and an anti-American fraud squatting in the White House.
Vile treachery is how evil wins.
Since I'm not avowed admirer of the boR, I can say that in some way, Socci got straight to the point, what was planned in 2005 and for some reason didn't happen, happened 8 years later.....on next february the boR will create new cardinals, let's wait and see, time is coming.No good feelings about it.God bless+
Let us hope that Socci's book will soon be made available in English.
A great deal remains to be exposed about these events, and not only these but, in relation to the person of Jorge Bergoglio, the period from Aparecida in 2007 through to Rome in 11 February 2013, and the period from the abdication until the conclave. The context of the homily written by Cardinal Pell for the Mass for Juventutem on October 24th seems to beg that enquiries are made, and, even just on the basis of what we have witnessed these past 22 months, it seems to be a grievous sin if those who are best placed to do so, should neglect to speak up.
Exactly Anon, the refuse to speak up for fear of losing their powerful positions. Rome runs on FEAR.
Rome is beyond fixing itself. The problem isn't so much with the conclave. The root of the problem is found in the steady and sure decline of the Inquisition/Holy Office/CDF/Knights of Malta.
Pope Francis is a fraud. He is not a legitimate Pope. There were power plays and a "team" to get him elected, which is illegal by Vatican standards for the conclave. Thus, the election of Pope Francis is invalid.
I have never accepted him as the legitimate Pope, because of his gross departure form Catholic and Papal tradition, and Catholic teaching.
He should be forced to resign. I believe that he will either resign in disgrace, because the illegality of his election will be proven beyond doubt, or he will shortly die in office.
Either way, good riddance....and I hope a Catholic is elected next.
Let us all pray that among the new Cardinals there is named one man who sits in an ancient archdiocese in Italy which has always had a Cardinal, and whose occupany also bears the title of Patriarch. I don't want to jinx him by naming him, but it would be a supreme injustice if he is not on this next list....and he would make a fabulous Pope.
This could be incorrect but I am wary of Socci the convert. They always like to lead the opposition or controlled opposition. This is the antithesis *problem, reaction, solution* paradigm. Socci never hints the Who or Why but just attacks the Papacy and especially in this case Papal Election. By questioning the Papal conclaves *why vote at all he suggests* is to perhaps pave the way for the anti-Pope. The legs of Peter´s chair are being cut from him underneath so a new chair can replace it...the antichrist. This all has been orchestrated beginning with Pope Emeritus being forced down but that has been swept under the rug notice how conveniently he still won´t touch Who was behind this and Why instead attacking the integrity of the Conclaves and subtletly suggesting that no vote should implemented.
Tancred,
Thank you for your integrity to speak the truth and cover the story on Team Bergoglio...so many so called Catholic sites or Trad sites have stuck their heads in the sand like ostriches...seems like they prefer Bergoglio no matter how he got into power, and that says a lot....
Any Catholic, of sane mind, should want this matter cleared up and the questions answered...
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/how-team-bergoglio-managed-the-news-on-team-bergoglio/
Well, to be sincere, it seems a waste of time to question his election... God knows what happened
They have two things in common. They're both socialist and they both despise the church.
Socci the convert? What do you mean? Socci is born, baptised and raised Catholic.
Rr, Italy
The Patriarch of Venice, a pupil of Cardinal Siri, was snubbed last year. If he doesn't get appointed to the College of Cardinals in February then it'll be obvious Francis is stacking the College of Cardinals.
I wasn't convinced of conclave tomfoolery until Austen Ivereigh dropped the bomb on Team Bergoglio. Pope-elect Bergoglio wanted to call himself John XXIV before opting for Francis, it looks like his papacy is very much like that of John XXIII.
No it doesn't look like John XXIII at all.
John XXIII has gotten a very bad reputation from traditionalists for no reason.
It is true he was more open to dialog with non-Catholics than his immediate predecessors, and with non-Christians. It is true he had an affection for the Jews , but so did Pius XII.
John XXIII would not have approved of the way Vatican II turned out. He wanted a quick, six week long Council. The liberals hijacked it, and at 81 and dying of stomach cancer even before the Council, he had little energy to object.
He did object to the way the liberals were acting, especially insulting his friend, Cardinal Ottaviani during speeches.
John XXIII would not have appreciated the decline in Papal pomp (he once said, "the more the better". And he would have been 100% against the Novus Ordo or a radical changing of the Mass.
He would have been against the updating of religious life....because it was well know he loved seeing nuns in traditional habits, as well as monks and priests likewise attired.
The only thing JOhn XXIII hated was the Sedia Gestatoria because he had very severe stomach troubles, and the swaying of the Sedia made him nauseous.
Donlt compare John XXIII to Bergoglio. John XXIII in nearly all his actions, the way he dressed (he loved the Papal tiara), etc. was a true Catholic and Pope.
Bergoglio is neither. It's best for the Catholic Church if he go.....one way or another.
And yes, I would not put it past him that he would try to stack the College of Cardinals with radicals. His last set of Cardinals had several good, traditional and true Catholics....along with the others.
Don't forget Benedict XVI gave us the radical Caridnal Tagle in the Phillipines, and if it wasn;t for John Paul II....Bergoglio would never have been a Cardinal in the first place. LOL !
What a bunch of angry, sad, sanctimonious commenters we have here. If you don't like the Church, or her leader (ordained by the Holy Spirit, mind you), feel free to leave. Shame on you all for your infidelity.
Yes. And it has been plain from the very beginning of his pontificate that Our Lord Jesus Christ has not permitted to Francis Bergoglio so many of the privileges of Peter.
We have a solemn duty to seek to understand why this may be, especially as the Pope seeks to demolish so much within the Church with such seemingly intemperate haste.
Exactly. Anyone who actually believes this drivel, should contact Burke asap and have him declared the new Pope. Then all will be well.
What nonsense. The Holy Spirit is never the causer of any evil - that is caused by men going against God's Holy Will. If one loves the unchanging Faith of Our Lord, one will not accept opposition to it from anyone, especially popes or bishops. The Faith does not change. It is a pope's duty to defend it; if he refuses to do so, he must not be followed.
Did the Holy Spirit "ordain" (whatever that means) Stephen VI? Honorius? John XII? Alexander VI?
Troll alert
What an absolute joy it must have been to have lived during the days BEFORE Vatican II.
John XXIII was a transitional pope that wasn't supposed to do anything. Good Pope John ended up calling a council that changed the Church radically, even though it wasn't entirely his fault. Francis is supposed to be a transitional pope that wasn't supposed to do anything, he is changing the Church radically. That's the comparison I tried to make.
Primary reasons why Traditionalists are suspect of John XXIII is 1. He allowed radical theologians at the council, he thought it would make the debates interesting. 2. He also didn't condemn Communism, the biggest threat to Christianity and the world at that time, because he wanted ROC observers at the council.
Supplementary reasons why Traditionalists are suspect of John XXIII are 1. He didn't reveal the Third Secret. 2. He thought St. Pius X wasn't a saint 3. He persecuted Padre Pio (not John's fault according to Padre Pio).
A question regarding the White Smoke: is it actually true that the White Smoke is not sent up until the Pope-Elect has accepted the Office? I thought, or perhaps rather just assumed, that the Smoke went up immediately after the ballots are tallied. That would also explain the, shall we say, peculiar circumstances during the 1958 and 1963 Conclaves.
God ordained King Saul too y'know! Do you like King Saul? Would you obey King Saul to hunt down and kill David? I bet you would, wouldn't you?! That David... if he didn't like the King of Israel and always kept running away and disobeying him, why didn't David just feel free to leave Israel? What an angry, sad, sanctimonious man that David guy was... Ditto for that Nathan fellow... exposing the infidelity and murderous intent of God's anointed King like that creating scandal for the world! Obviously Nathan was a crypto-Lefebrian.
Well, it makes perfect sense that it wouldn't. After all, even if the votes were counted, the man chosen could of course, still refuse the Papacy. Thus it's sensible that there'd be no white smoke until after the elected man definitely accepts the position. If they sent the white smoke up after counting the votes and the man refused, then that'd be pretty embarrassing and confusing, wouldn't it?
What is a "transitional Pope????" What an absurd idea, at least for a Catholic. Aren't the Church and the world always in transition to the end times? (And please, no comments on the end times...) Who decides what these transitions are, what the actual state of the times were, and what they will be after the "transitional pope" leaves the stage at the duly appointed time?
I do thank Anon 2:29PM and also the following commenter for the information about John XXIII especially because the latter
reported a few things unknown to me that seem in character.
That should read "former," i.e. Anon 2:29 PM, not "latter."
Does anyone know when Socci's book will be translated into English and distributed?
Vatican II has wrecked everything! Pope Francis is a nightmare! God save is from Pope Francis!
Yes. It was. No confusion. No evil portrayed as good. And popes who fed His lambs. If a Catholic layman or priest sinned it was not because of lies and confusion. It was similar to the way it was in the early Church where any confusion or lies of heresy were put down by the Apostles especially Peter and Paul. Post Vatican II is more
like what the early Church would have been like if there had been no Apostles, Paul or Pope Peter. A church to please Satan rather than God.
But then...you already know that the Conciliar church serves Satan, don't you, Anonymous 4:44? And I think you like that. I think you like that alot. You should ask yourself why that is. And be honest with yourself with your answer.
I agree with you Anonymous 4.29PM.
We have to pray a lot for ourselves to sustain the Faith during this nightmare, for the Church in general and Pope Francis in particular.
Every day it gets worse with him. There is something hellishly surrealistic happening in Rome.
Ir really does seem like a waste of time doesn't it? What can we as distant lay members of the Church do about it anyway? Write an angry comment on a blog somewhere? Great, what else can we do? A: pray the rosary, the very "bead counting" Bergoglio has mocked. Keep mocking jorge. It's in God's hands and as one excellent, faithful bishop recently stated "God is waiting for them (these men in Rome) just around the corner".
John XXIII was a transitional pope. They like to break up long reigns with older popes who aren't likely to rule as long.
Not really.
Indeed, I'm sorry I didn't get around to correcthing that.
It's hard not to see comments like that as ill-willed.
Thanks to Rr. Socci's not a convert. He joined Communion and Liberation in 1977, in fact. He was born and raised a Catholic in the heart of Catholic Italy.
Comments like this really strike me as ill-willed.
@anonymous 4:29
It's been a slow hellish nightmare since 1955 or so,believe me.Read for yourself,Bergoglio is just finishing up what Bugnini started in 1949.
Google 'The Metz Pact 1962' then tell us about 'Good John'
"Bergoglio had indeed not accepted according to his Jesuit vow..."
Now which vow would that be? In effect, Bergoglio ceased to be a Jesuit when he first accepted episcopal nomination although in practice he did not. However, on entering the conclave and swearing his oath as a conclavist he removed himself from all influences, including and especially Jesuitical ones, for the duration. On accepting election he legally ceased being a member of the Jesuits, but may remain one in his heart. A for Ivereigh's book, catalogue it under fiction.
"Bergoglio had indeed not accepted according to his Jesuit vow..."
Now which vow would that be? In effect, Bergoglio ceased to be a Jesuit when he first accepted episcopal nomination although in practice he did not. However, on entering the conclave and swearing his oath as a conclavist he removed himself from all influences, including and especially Jesuitical ones, for the duration. On accepting election he legally ceased being a member of the Jesuits, but may remain one in his heart. As for Ivereigh's book, catalogue it under fiction.
"Why so many appointments (of new cardinals) in such a short time?"
A wee bit of history is always good for the soul. And helps put things into perspective. On December 15, 1959, Good Pope John, elected Pope on October 28 and crowned November 4, created 23 new cardinals and, incidentally, exceeded by four the then upper limit of 70. Almost exactly a year later, on December 14, 1959, he created a further 8.
Elected Pope on June 21, 1963 and crowned on the 30th, Pope Paul VI could not hold an early consistory because of the Second Vatican Council. At the earliest possible time, February 22, 1965, he created 27 new cardinals. A year and a half later, on June 26, 1967, he created 27 more.
Pope Francis's efforts seem tame by comparison.
If you noticed, the majority of the Bishops present at the Synod voted for the controversial proposals, so the need certainly isn't as pressing as it was during Paul VI, to stack the deck.
You also fail to mention that Paul VI's creations are still around with the influence he lent them, and their creatures too, are still around, doing what evil Modernists do.
Post a Comment