Pope Francis gave an in-depth interview to AP's Nicole Winfield on current issues.
(Rome) Interviews by popes are only given very rarely. Under Pope Francis, this has changed. He uses the interview as a main means of communication. Recently, he granted one to the Associated Press (AP), one of the Big Three international press agencies. The interview published yesterday was conducted by the AP Vatican scholar Nicole Winfield in Spanish with a potpourri of topics from Benedict XVI. to Cardinal George Pell to papal critics and the wealth of Africa, from the Ukraine conflict to the arms trade to the trivialized People's Republic of China and a ridiculed Cardinal Zen, from homosexuality and the sexual abuse scandal, from the women's diaconate to the Amazon Synod and synodality to the only "so-called synodal way" of the German bishops and from his own resignation, the Rupnik case to a visit to Argentina – with some interesting statements.
Edit: His Holiness was truly one of the least destructive popes of the late 20th century, and that's saying something. What will the Benevacantists do now?
It's been hard not having a pope with his intelligence and sensitivity on the throne. Even though he was a liberal, he was a lot more loving and sincere than most others.
Of course, his funeral Mass will likely be a post-V2 canonization Liturgy with music by sex predator David Haas. I'm guessing it will, best case, be a "reverent" Novus Ordo in Latin. The best outcome would be a full pontifical High Mass according to the pre-1955 Missal.
Pope Francis quoted the conciliar theologian Henri de Lubac on Sunday, whom he also quoted in his last address as a cardinal before his papal election.
Bergoglio cites Jesuit Henri de Lubac
(Rome) "Two days after the election of Francis, with the illusion of being wrong, we expressed the thought that now the time could begin to put into practice what a certain author of the Nouvelle Théologie, Henri de Lubac, said in one of his writings,” as Secretum meum mihi recalls.
A few days later, "cold sweat ran down our backs," the blogger continued, when Cardinal Jaime Ortega, Archbishop of Havana, published Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio's final speech before his election as pope, in which he quoted de Lubac had, and thus "confirmed the fear".
Looking back is obvious, since on Sunday, August 14th, Francis again quoted the conciliar theologian of the Nouvelle Théologie, who still makes a "cold sweat" run down their backs of many people. Before praying the Angelusin St. Peter's Square, the Pope meditated on the Gospel of the 20th Sunday of the Church Year (Year C) of the Novus Ordo, which Francis said is "the only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite," as stated in his Motu proprio Traditionis custodes and confirmed in his Apostolic Exhortation Desiderio desideravi. The Pope said:
“'Indeed', says one theologian, 'faith in God reassures us, but not in the way we wish: that is, not to give us a crippling illusion or a blissful satisfaction, but to empower action'.”
Francis did not say which theologians were involved. His name and a source are only found in the official reproduction of the speech on the Holy See's website: "De Lubac, About the Ways of God, Milan 2008, p. 184". The Spanish translation names the book but not its author.
Henri de Lubac was one of the key figures who prepared the ground for the Second Vatican Council and set the premises under which it met and unfolded. Under the influence of the post-conciliar period, de Lubac then changed course and founded the magazine Communio in 1972 together with Hans Urs von Balthasar and Joseph Ratzinger, which was intended to represent a counterweight to the magazine Concilium , which fueled the "conciliar spirit".
For the overall assessment, it is important that the journals mentioned did not oppose modernists and traditionalists, but rather radical and moderate supporters of the Second Vatican Council, comparable to the Girondists and Jacobins at the time of the French Revolution.
De Lubac now lamented the feverish agitation with which the Council's interpretation was usurped. De Lubac belonged to that conciliar faction, as did the then theologian Joseph Ratzinger, who were appalled by the radicalism with which a section which they had hitherto seen as partisans of the same cause was proceeding. The more moderate ones like de Lubac and Ratzinger had helped these radicals to open Pandora's box.
This reversal was also the reason why de Lubac was elevated to the rank of cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 1983. However, even these representatives of the moderate faction could not really part with the fundamental necessity of the Council and also the correctness of the path it had taken. This was shown in a way that was as significant as it was tragic in Benedict XVI's last speech as pope, which he held shortly before his abdication to the Roman clergy. The lack of ultimate consequence seems to be a major reason why Benedict XVI. has failed in his efforts to correct course, indeed had to fail, as some observers believe.
It seems doubtful that Francis is citing Henri de Lubac for what John Paul II created him a cardinal for. The papal favor seems to have more in mind that de Lubac, who prepared the ground for the ecclesiastical '68 with the Nouvelle Théologie, which started a few years before the Paris student protests in May 1968.
Joseph Ratzinger, Archbishop of Munich and Freising for a few months, at his cardinal creation by Paul VI. in St. Peter's Basilica in 1977.
(Rome) Enmities also last a long time. That's what Benedict XVI is getting to feel. An orchestrated media campaign is once again attempting to dismantle his reputation. And once again, things are not as claimed.
Benedict XVI will, God willing, celebrate his 94th cradle festival in a few weeks. As of September 2, 2020, he is the oldest pope in history. Leo XIII had this primacy so far. who, however, died in office at the age of 93. Benedict XVI renounced it, not for the benefit of the Church. For almost nine years he has been the first “pope emeritus” in Church history. And although since then he has no longer taken part in the leadership of the church and lives in seclusion in the Vatican Gardens in the Mater Ecclesiae monastery, the hostility of certain circles against him has not broken.
In recent days, in an orchestrated media campaign, he has been accused of having entrusted pastoral duties to two convicted pederasts as Archbishop of Munich and Freising, a post Joseph Ratzinger held from 1977 to 1982. The media outcry was triggered by a report by a law firm on sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, which the media insists "severely burdened" the former archbishop. In reality, the expert opinion is characterized primarily by morality and not by evidence. DieTagespostwrote on January 20: "The Westphal law firm is attempting the media execution of the emeritus pope". They can be certain of support by a specific mainstream.
The report on Benedict XVI. was submitted last Thursday. His secretary, Curial Archbishop Georg Gänswein, published a press release yesterday in which Benedict XVI. corrected himself. Not necessarily a smart move, but one that honors him.
In contrast to his statement to the commission of inquiry at the time, he now confirmed his presence at a meeting in 1980. As was to be expected, this correction caused a second wave of scandalous headlines, this time even more hypocritical than before: “Benedict XVI. gave false testimony,” headlined Die Welt. A word that is as strong as it is disproportionate. However, this indicates the direction of impact. It's about discrediting, discrediting the reputation of Benedict XVI. and of course the Church. The latter is apparently accepted with approval by certain ecclesiastical circles in order to advance their agenda. The correction that Benedict XVI. made, which is simply the correction of a footnote, is presented by the media cartel as if the (lack of) evidence had been provided that the allegations of the abuse report were correct. But in reality it is a classic media misrepresentation.
Benedict XVI had said in his statement at the time that he had not been present at a particular meeting in 1980. The events happened decades ago. The point, however, is that the said session was not about what is being insinuated. The Daily Mail therefore headlined: “No lie, one mistake”.
Archbishop Gänswein writes in the declaration for Benedict XVI:
"Even if he tries to read it quickly, he asks for your understanding that the complete review still needs time in view of his age and his health, but also because of the large volume. There will be a statement on the report.”
And further:
"But he would like to make it clear now that, contrary to what was said during the hearing, he took part in the Ordinariate meeting on January 15, 1980."
For this it is executed:
“So the statement to the contrary was objectively wrong. He would like to emphasize that this was not done out of bad faith, but was the result of an error in the editing of his statement. He will explain how this came about in the pending statement. He is very sorry for this mistake and he apologizes for this mistake.
However, what remains objectively correct, as documented by the documents, is the statement that no decision was made at this meeting about the pastoral assignment of the priest in question. Rather, the request was only granted to provide him with accommodation during his therapeutic treatment in Munich."
One could also speak of hypercorrectness, since the correction of a marginal event that has nothing to do with the actual question is tantamount to media "suicide" in the heated atmosphere. The prompt relentlessness of the media cartel provides evidence that every little thing is used to discredit.
Finally, Msgr. Gänswein writes in the statement:
"Benedict XVI. is close to his former archdiocese and home diocese these days and is very connected to it in his efforts to clarify. He thinks especially of the victims who have experienced sexual abuse and indifference.”
So it "fits in time" that yesterday 125 church employees, professors of theology, some priests and other employees "denounced the 'discriminatory' policy of the Church" and confessed to be homosexual, for which they also presented their own website called OutInChurch. AFP, one of the world's three most influential press agencies, also dedicated its own report to the "outing".
The denunciation of the sexual abuse scandal by clerics, which is above all a homosexual abuse scandal, does not primarily serve the victims or the cleansing of the Church, but Her dismantling. The first goal is to demand changes in Her sexual morals, particularly through the recognition of homosexuality. A contradiction? Not at all. The 1968 scene had a slogan for this: "Destroy what destroys you". An abstruse motto that was developed in the anarchist, neo-Marxist milieu, but has been widely used ever since. The homo movement received its decisive impetus from the 1968 riots: the "liberation of sexuality in a liberated society".
(Rome) Eugenio Scalfari did it again. After he declared on November 20, why Pope Francis should be defended and Francis picked up the phone to thank the left doyen of Italian journalism, Scalfari now seemed to be reading the diarchy between Benedict and Francis in an entirely new way.
The headline is provocative, but not wrong. Since the Holy See has not seriously denied Scalfari's claims for the past seven years, his representations must be taken for willy-nilly.
On November 22nd, Scalfari himself was pleased to report that Francis had thanked him by telephone on November 21st. However, he did not report anything about the content of the phone call. On December 5th, the founder of La Repubblica made up for it from a Masonic house:
“During these hours, an intellectual understanding of great interest is confirmed in the Catholic Church - and not only. It is about the agreement between the two Popes: Pope Francis and Pope Ratzinger, who has resigned from his former functions, but is still theoretically the holder of the same, which will last as long as his life will allow him. Bergoglio and Ratzinger have been in a relationship for a long time, in a community of intentions, which involved even the most complicated phases of the pontificate, which was characterized by poisons and contradictions because of Francis' reform course. It may seem difficult for a convention of such importance to still be in full application. But the exchange continues with respect for roles. All of the most important decisions that the Popes can make can and must be agreed upon and applied jointly by both. There has never been such a situation, except in the times of Boniface, Innocent and Gregory: times that go back centuries."
The representation sounds too absurd to be true. Rather, the question seems to be what Scalfari, the unofficial mouthpiece of Pope Francis, is trying to make the world know or believe. Scalfari, it is certain that after seven years of cooperation with Francis, reproduces the statements he ascribes to the Pope in an idiosyncratic manner, but unless the Holy See announces otherwise, he cannot be accused of havin made up these statements. The unusual reading of the equally unusual situation of two popes, which is now required, also reflects the opinion of Francis in Scalfari's words.
Eugenio Scalfari, the atheist friend and unofficial press officer of Pope Francis
But why does Francis, after seven years, eight months and 22 days of his pontificate, present a completely new representation with which he claims a double pontificate?
Is Benedict XVI. in quarantine?
For the time being there seems to be a plausible explanation for this: Francis knows that a growing number of Catholics are critical or even hostile to his pontificate. There is no small part of the Church that in fact no longer really recognize him as Pope. This part sees rather in Benedict XVI. the still rightful Pope. In most cases this is a personal decision that is made individually, but there are also approaches by organized groups.
Santa Marta did not hide the fact that the small trickle of 2013 has turned into a considerable stream by 2020, although for obvious reasons it is hardly recognizable to the outside world. The thesis of a Bergoglio-Ratzinger pontificate put forward by Francis through Scalfari seems to have the purpose of removing the formally central reference point, namely Benedict XVI., from his heterogeneous counter-movement. In the best case, another attempt to capture could be accepted; in the worst case, an attempt to discredit Benedict XVI. So far, Francis had stayed away from that. The attacks against Benedict XVI.and against his circle, however, came repeatedly from the closer and wider court of the Pope. Immediately after the conclave, a sheet couldn't be fit between the sayings that were passed between Francis and Benedict XVI.
That not only a sheet but entire books fit between the two popes, showed the drumbeat at the beginning, as Benedict XVI. together with Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. With the expression "From the depth of the heart " for the sacramental priesthood and Priestly Celibacy and after the Amazon Synod, generally opposed the adopting of the softening of celibacy.
Do the kingmakers want to overthrow Francis?
Is Pope Francis running out of reliable friends? The progressive forces that lifted him up and celebrated him began at some point to turn away in irritation because he could not or did not want to satisfy their hunger for radical changes, which he himself repeatedly encouraged. Since this development is fluid, it is difficult to give an exact date. However, stages can be identified based on the events and the Church in Germany that play a central role in this.
Pope Francis visited Benedict XVI for the first time after a long break.
This, specifically the progressive majority of the German Bishops' Conference began in 2018 not to wait any longer for Francis, but to take the initiative. Admitting Protestant spouses to Communion was their first step. When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wanted to intervene, it was called back by Pope Francis. The German rebels prevailed.
But it seems like with power: those who have some always want more of it. So the progressive appetite for breaking up the existing and implementing innovations also grows. In this sense, the "synodal journey" was followed by the German Bishops' Conference and the progressive stronghold called Central Committee of German Catholics. And suddenly there was another ghost, the ghost of a new German schism. Francis had personally participated in the 500th anniversary celebrations of Luther's “Reformation”.
Francis made an initial allusion to the schism in 2017, but in 2020 this fear took on a new quality. It was only slightly dampened because of the Corona paralysis in public life. There are voices that speak of the fact that important progressive forces who helped Francis to the papal throne have lost patience with him and even wanted to get rid of him.
Is Francis looking for new allies?
The representation spread about Eugenio Scalfari that Francis and Benedict XVI. are one heart and one soul and want the same thing in all important questions, and not just since today, but always, sounds nice, downright idyllic, but a bit too kitschy. Reality is different, which is why the strange attempt as presented by Scalfari could hardly be successful, not on the one hand and not on the other. Santa Marta knows that too. So why the advance, when even the “no sheet of paper” thesis has hardly been advocated for some time?
The papal shadow speakers
In the past few years, an unflattering term repeatedly appeared in the analyzes to describe the current pontificate. We are talking about the "Jesuit ruse." What Scalfari presents in the name of Francis is too transparent and clumsy.
If one follows the path that Francis himself has trodden on, something far more sober, perhaps even terrifying, seems to be hiding behind the most recent Scalfari teaching post. Francis wants to inform through his Masonic friend that Benedict XVI. was placed under supervision and from now on he will no longer be able to represent his own position? So there will be a coercive harmony between the two popes because the more powerful, Francis, subjects the weaker to his control?
In August 2019 was another "shadow spokesman" of Pope Francis, the British journalist Austen Ivereigh, with the statement:
“We need the to get the circle of Benedict XVI. get under control."
Ivereigh was the spokesman for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, a leading member of the secret circle of Sankt Gallen and its executive organ, team Bergoglio. From the British cardinal, who died in 2017, the journalist switched directly to Francis' unofficial "press department". On December 1, four days before Scalfari's versions, the new Ivereigh-book appeared on the market, which is officially a book by Pope Francis. It received the cooperation with Scalfaris' La Repubblica for publication.
Austen Ivereigh explains the encyclical Fratelli tutti for Jesuits Global
With the "control" of Benedict it did not work as well as the book by Cardinal Sarah showed. Archbishop of the Curia Georg Gänswein therefore lost his office as Prefect of the papal house, because he was supposed to ensure that Benedict distanced himself from the book project, which he did not. But a few days ago, Mario Grech, who had just been created cardinal, let the public know that Benedict XVI. was having difficulty in speaking. Gänswein denied this. If one takes some statements together, those of Ivereigh, of Cardinal Grech and of Eugenio Scalfari (on behalf of Pope Francis) and looks at the development of the past 18 months, one can understand why some draw the conclusion that Benedict XVI. has allowed himself little leeway and that which was left to him is to withdraw. Is it the aim that the voice of Benedict XVI. should no longer be heard as an independent voice?
It seems absurd to assume that Francis seriously intends to claim a double pontificate. However, it is he himself who, with this latest Scalfari move, has strengthened those who have already said that Benedict XVI. continues to be Pope. If Francis himself says this, even if only a Masonic voice in alliance with himself, why should Francis critics not, conversely, assert a papal authority of Benedict independent of Francis, when Benedict “theoretically still holds the papal functions that have continued for so long as his life will allow him, ”as long as he lives."
Did Francis consider this when he communicated his ideas to Scalfari?
Text: Giuseppe Nardi Image: La Repubblica / Wikicommons / Vatican.va (screenshots)
The Second Vatican Council must be discussed, says the Vaticanist Americo Mascarucci.
(Rome) Much attention is being paid to the debate on a revision of the Second Vatican Council, which was started by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano. It moves Catholics who take their faith seriously and live and suffer with their Church. The journalist and Vaticanist Americo Mascarucci, author of two books on the pontificate of Pope Francis, also speaks. In 2018, "The Revolution of Pope Francis was published. How the Church transforms from Don Milani to Luther"[1] and in 2019 a book on the changes in the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI) "The Church in Politics. How the CEI has changed from Ruini to Pope Francis"[2] Marco Tosatti has published the statement of his colleague on the proposal of Archbishop Vigano.
After a short introduction, "I am not a theologian", but "a simple journalist who is passionate about Vatican affairs," Mascarucci comes straight to the point.
"The historian Roberto De Mattei refuted in his book "The Second Vatican Council: A Hitherto Untold History" the thesis of the hermeneutics of continuity, which both Wojtyla and Ratzinger were so concerned with, and proved that it is impossible to separate the Council from the errors that followed it. (...) Today, De Mattei's thesis seems to be taking shape in the face of certain behaviours typical of the current pontificate, precisely where the Council becomes the cover for certain, at least questionable, positions to be reclaimed."
Pope Francis was "perhaps the best example of how the Second Vaticanum, far from renewing itself in the sign of continuity, was rather the event that put an end to the Catholic Church as the only Church of Christ in apostolic continuity, the one and only Church in which salvation lies."
According to Mascarucci, the theologian and philosopher Karl Rahner's thesis, "a great supporter of the Council as a break with tradition," according to which it is not belonging to the Church that guarantees salvation, but that the just conscience, which is oriented towards good, brings people closer to God, even if they do not believe in him (the theory of the 'anonymous Christian'), "seems to be the guiding star today, on which the current Pope orients himself."
"It is no coincidence that he is applauded and praised more by atheists than by practicing Catholics, and that he has never made a secret of having a greater affinity for certain infidels like Eugenio Scalfari than with the so-called traditionalist Catholics."
Thus, if it is not possible to separate the errors from the Council, "then it is not possible to believe that the schism of Isolotto, which developed in "Catho-Communist Florence," which gathered around the ideas of Giorgio La Pira, was the result of a false interpretation of the Counciliar spirit".
This entreaty requires a little excursion.
The schism of Isolotto
The schism of isolotto from 1968 refers to the one between the pastor of the Florentine district of Isolotto, Don Enzo Mazzi, and his archbishop. Don Mazzi, a "worker priest" who seemed to have more in common with Communists and Socialists than with the Christian Democrats, followed his own course. He justified this with the aim of "overcoming the dividing lines between believers and unbelievers, between good and bad, between priests and laymen, between the sacramental and the profane, between the parties." He made changes to the liturgy by introducing the vernacular and celebrating Mass facing the people. He was supported by Giorgio La Pira, then the mayor of Florence on the left.
Don Mazzi demonstrated against the Americans in Vietnam, showed solidarity with blacks in the United States, and supported a group of students from the Catholic University of Milan, which occupied Parma cathedral in September 1968 as part of the student protests. While Pope Paul VI condemned the action, Don Mazzi showed solidarity with the students. When Don Mazzi held a "basic democratic" meeting of his parish, even though his archbishop had forbidden it, he deposed him as a pastor.
Don Mazzi did not, however, depart, but founded a "base community" in the District of Isolotto as a substitute for the deprived parish, which became the model of the base communities in Europe. That was the schism. In 1974 he was suspended a divinis and was no longer allowed to exercise his priesthood. Shortly thereafter, he was transferred back to the layman. Although the basic community was not recognized by the Church, it was visited by like-minded priests from all over the world who celebrated there.
Mazzi himself became a permanent columnist for the left-leaning daily La Repubblica by Eugenio Scalfari and the Communist daily Il Manifesto. His last book, "The Value of Heresy"[3], was published there in 2010. Mazzi died in 2011 at the age of 84. According to his final request, his body was burned.
So we return to Mascarucci's remarks.
Therefore, the commitment of many Catholics to the side of the Communist Party or the support of divorce in the referendum by well-known priests and theologians was not the result of a "false interpretation" of the Council. Nor was it due to a "misinterpretation" that Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro, Archbishop of Bologna from 1952 to 1968 and one of the four Council moderators, "in the middle of the Cold War, delivered his famous sermon against the Vietnam War and American imperialism, while the Communists drowned the uprisings in the countries of Eastern Europe in blood and tortured priests and religious."
The Second Vaticanum was manipulated by outright sabotage
Archbishop Vigano had rightly pointed it out:
"The Second Vatican Council was in fact manipulated by veritable acts of sabotage, which, inside and outside, saw proper centers of conspiracy at work. Among these, an organization called Opus Angeli deserves attention, whose main initiators were the ultra-progressive Belgian Cardinal Léon-Joseph Suenens and the Brazilian Bishop Helder Camara, one of the most important representatives of the liberation theologyoften praised by Francis."
They tried "with the support of powerful media they attempted to influence the work of the Council and, above all, its final result.
"Although they failed, that the Council should approve their civil rights agenda, the abolition of priestly celibacy, the opening up to the priesthood of women and the change in sexual morality by allowing the laity to use artificial contraceptives for birth control by colusion with the state, they were very adept at clouding the clear water, confusing the contents and contaminating the texts, so that a free and ambiguous interpretation of the council documents and the doctrine of faith was opened to a modernist key, which became the basis for the errors following the Council.'
Pope John Paul II recognized many of the wrong developments and made an active, sometimes courageous, effort to put the Council on the right path in its perception and effect. He was tirelessly supported by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, his Prefect of Doctrine and the Faith.
"But he too was misled on some issues that abounded, perhaps because he was the first foreign pope in the midst of a Vatican curia still wholly controlled by Italians, the heirs of the Montini era, who themselves were often associated with the Council period and its errors."
In other words, Mascarucci says, the hard line taken against Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the great critic of the Council, and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, which he founded, cannot be explained. A line vigorously defended by Cardinal Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli (1914–1998) and his spiritual son Achille Cardinal Silvestrini (1923–2019), even after the death of Paul VI, as well as both influential defenders of the Eastern Policy and its rapprochement of the Church with the Soviet Union and the Communist Eastern Bloc.
"Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated in 1988, as demanded by the most left-wing sectors of the Roman Curia, although Cardinal Ratzinger had spoken out against it."
However, according to the above-mentioned sectors, the French archbishop had to be punished precisely because "he denounced with the greatest determination the lack of continuity of the Second Vatican Council".
John Paul II could not completely contain the "Spirit of Assisi" and other excesses, "as even his friend and great admirer Vittorio Messori repeatedly lamented."
"Messori noted the unacceptable episode of the World Day of Peace,which took place on 27 May. On October 1, 1986, in Assisi, in the presence of representatives of all world religions, pagan rites took place in the Basilica of St. Francis, chickens were slaughtered on the altar of the Basilica of St. Clare, esoteric dances and other, denounced excesses that had themselves escaped the attention of Cardinal Ratzinger, who had intervened vigorously in the days before to prevent other questionable and sacrilegious initiatives."
The German influence on the Church
Mascarucci concludes from the development:
"All this has laid the foundation for this ecumenism, which, far from promoting a relationship of mutual respect between the different faiths in the spirit of dialogue, has led to the legitimisation of the idea of a universal church, the one and the same God for all, for a person who is almost entirely free to choose the Church that best suits his preferences, because it is sufficient to believe in the true God in order to find salvation independently of baptism.
An idea that, in the years since the end of the Ratzinger era, which was marked by Benedict XVI's attempt to counter the projects of the German episcopate, based on ideas of the theologian Hans Küng to accelerate the break with tradition, by affirming the hermeneutics of continuity, especially in the ethical questions and independence of the national Episcopal Conferences from Rome. Under Bergoglio, these projects fall on fertile ground thanks to the influence exerted on the current Pope by the German Cardinal Walter Kasper, the keynote speaker for the Family Synod and the openings to remarried divorcees, dissolute marriages and homosexuals. Kasper also has the promotion of ever closer relations with that of the Lutheran and Protestant worlds as a whole."
Cardinal Walter Kasper and his influence on the pontificate of Pope Francis
The Amazon Synod was the logical consequence of a policy "aimed at affirming the triumph of syncretism in the name of the only God of a world unity religion." As such, this could be "recognized and revered under every form, symbol and deity, whether Christian or pagan."
The result is a Catholic Church "which, despite assertions to the contrary, is reduced to a mere agency for the promotion of good, a kind of NGO empowered solely for support, solidarity and hospitality without any conversion purpose, and rather interested in subjecting faith to the project of planetary globalism. Only in this way can the Koran recited in the Church be declared a sign of respect for Muslim migrants who are welcomed in the name of universal Soros goodness."
Archbishop Vigano is therefore right, says Mascarucci:
"The time has come to discuss the Second Vatican Council and the fruits it produced, in the hope that the future Pope will submit the request for a profound revision in the sign of the only true faith, the only true Gospel, the only true Magisterium and the only true Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the God incarnated for the salvation of mankind, as its own."
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Picture: MiL/Vatican.va (Screenshot)
[1] Americo Mascarucci: La rivoluzione di Papa Francesco. Come cambia la Chiesa da don Milani a Lutero, Historica Edizioni, Cesena 2018.
[2] Americo Mascarucci: La Chiesa nella politica. Come cambiata la CEI da Ruini a papa Francesco, Historica Edizioni, Cesena 2019.
[3] Enzo Mazzi: Il valore dell'eresia, ManifestoLibri, Rome 2010.
Cardinal Müller: "The celibate way of life of Jesus Christ corresponds most intimately to the sacramental priesthood".
(Rome) Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the former Prefect of the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, today published a magisterial lecture to defend priestly celibacy and the sacramental priesthood. In it he describes celibacy as the “bastion of the transcendent” that is to be destroyed and verbal charges against “external and internal forces” who strive for a man-made world religious unity without God. The wording of the Lectio, published today by Cardinal Müller at La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana.
Celibacy, the last transcendent bastion to be torn down
By Gerhard Cardinal Müller *
The media attempt to create confusion, because of the participation of Benedict XVI in Cardinal Sarah's book “From the Depths of our Hearts” is nothing more than a sign of the paranoia that is spreading in public about the alleged coexistence of two popes. Apparently, since there can only be one Pope in the Catholic Church because "the Bishop of Rome, as Peter's successor, is the everlasting, visible principle and foundation for the unity of the multitude of bishops and believers" (Lumen Gentium , 23).
In Benedict XVI's contribution in Cardinal Sarah's book there is new confirmation of the perception of this disturbance between the two opposing principles of unity. It is also obvious that Pope Francis and his predecessor Benedict XVI. are not the originators of this pathological polarization, but rather the victims of an ideological projection.
"Benedict XVI. is not a pensioner"
The latter poses a threat to the unity of the Church and at the same time undermines the primacy of the Roman Church. All these facts only show that the psychological trauma that was triggered by the resignation of Pope Benedict in early 2013 has not yet healed in the “sense of faith of the people of God” (LG 12; 35). However, believers have the right to a clear theological judgment about the coexistence of a ruling pope and his predecessor, who has now emerged. This extraordinary event, that the Pope, head of the college of bishops and the visible Church, whose invisible head is Christ himself, the Cathedra Petri before his death who has been given him for life can never be understood according to secular criteria, such as an age-related right to retirement or the popular desire to change the person of one's own boss. Although it is true that canon law provides this possibility in an abstract way (Can. 332 §2 CIC), there are still no detailed provisions or concrete experiences to describe the status of this figure and even more, how this in practice will be realized for the good of the Church.
In the world of politics, antagonists are common in the power struggle. Once the enemy is overcome, things continue as if nothing had happened. But it should not be like this among the disciples of Christ, because all are brothers in the Church of God. God alone is our father. And only His Son Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate (Jn 1: 14-18), is the master of all people (Mt 23:10). Bishops and priests are ministers of the Church because of the sacramental ordination chosen by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28). They lead the Church of God in the name and authority of Christ, and He speaks through their mouths as Divine Teachers of the Annunciation (1 Thess. 2.13). He sanctifies the faithful through them in the Sacraments. And finally Christ is the “guardian and shepherd of your souls” (1 Petr 2,25), He cares for the salvation of people by calling priests (bishops or presbyters) to His church so that they can be their shepherds (1 Peter 5: 2f; Acts 20:28). The Bishop of Rome holds the office of Saint Peter, who was called by Jesus, Lord of the Church, to be the universal shepherd (Jn 21:15–17). But the bishops are also brothers to one another, although as members of the college of bishops they are united with and under the authority of the Pope (LG, 23).
A still living "ex" pope is fraternally connected with all bishops and is subject to the teaching authority and the jurisdiction of the ruling pope. This in no way excludes that his word still has great weight in the Church due to his theological and spiritual competence as well as due to his experience in government both as a bishop and as a pope.
The relationship of each retired bishop to his successor must be marked by a spirit of fraternity. A desire for worldly prestige and political power games is a poison in the body of the Church, the body of Christ. This applies a fortiori even more so to the even more delicate relationship of the incumbent Pope to his predecessor, who has given up the office of Peter and all privileges of the papal primacy, which is why he is no longer the Pope.
"The Common Front of the Church's Inner and Outer Enemies"
What is particularly surprising is that those enemies of the Church, who come from the ranks of the Old Liberals and Marxist Neoheathens, make common cause with inner-Church secularists, who are driven by the desire to transform the Church of God into a globally active, humanitarian organization.
The militant atheist Eugenio Scalfari prides himself on being Pope Francis' friend. United through the common idea of a single, planetary religion of human origin (without trinity and without incarnation) he offers him his cooperation. The idea of a popular front of believers and non-believers is propagated against those who identify Scalfari as an enemy and opponent in the ranks of the cardinals and bishops and the Catholics ("right-wing conservatives"). In it he finds like-minded spirits who belong to the circle of those who describe themselves as part of a "Bergoglian Guard." This network of left-wing populists, driven by the mere desire for power, they pervert the Pope's potestas plena into a potestas illimitata et absoluta. This reflects obvious voluntarism: From their point of view, everything is good and true because the Pope wants it and not because the Pope says or does something. They contradict the Second Vatican Council, which the Magisterium recognizes in the service of revelation “by teaching nothing but what has been handed down, because it hears the word of God with the divine commission and interprets it with awe with the help of the Holy Spirit, holy preservation and faithfulness" ( Dei Verbum , 19). They therefore turn to be demonic opponents of the papacy, as it is dogmatically defined in the teachings of the First and Second Vatican Councils. If the principle of service and the standard of friendship (Jn 15:15) applied between Jesus and His disciples, how can the relationship between the Pope and his brothers in the episcopate be shaped by a submissive opportunism and a blind and irrational obedience that is outside the unity of belief and reason inherent in Catholic theology? According to the liberal Marxist view, a pope would be "up to date" to the extent that he would finish the ruthless agenda of the extreme left and promote a spirit of unity devoid of any transcendence,without God and without historical salvation through Christ, the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2: 5).
The masters who manipulate public opinion and the ideologues of this world (the Civitas terrena ) abuse their power if they fail to observe the natural law of morality and the commandments of God. They repeatedly usurp God's place and turn into demons in human disguise. But where God is recognized as the only Lord, there is grace and life, freedom and love. In the Kingdom of God, the words of Jesus are basic guidance:
"But it shouldn't be like this with you, but whoever wants to be great with you should be your servant (...) Because the Son of Man didn't come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk 10.43–45).
The sacramental ordination (to the bishop, priest and deacon) remains valid and effective and with it also the responsibility for the teaching of the Church and its pastoral mission. The old opponents of Joseph Ratzinger (as Prefect of Faith as well as pope) have no right against him to impose a damnatio memoriaeto, all the less since the majority of them differ from their qualities as Church teachers by a startling theological and philosophical dilettantism. Benedict XVI's contribution Cardinal Sarah's book can only be discredited as an act of opposition to Pope Francis by those who mistake the Church of God for an ideological-political organization. They do not want to understand that the secrets of faith can only be grasped with the "spirit of God", but not with the "spirit of the world".
"But the earthly minded man does not accept what comes from the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:14).
In the beginning, not even the apostles wanted to understand that there are people who are willing to renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus said to them:
It is not the healthy who need the doctor, but the sick (Mt 19:12).
And then explained to them:
"Anyone who has left home or wife, brothers, parents or children for the sake of God's Kingdom will receive many times over in present time and eternal life in the world to come" (Luke 18: 29-30; cf. Mt 19 , 29).
The claim that Benedict was the secret opponent of the ruling Pope and that the defense of the sacramental priesthood and celibacy were part of an obstruction policy against the expected post-synodal writing on the Amazon Synod can only thrive in the fertile ground of theological ignorance. Nobody refutes this fixed idea more brilliantly than Pope Francis himself.
In the foreword to the anthology on ordination, on the occasion of Joseph Ratzinger's 65th anniversary in 2016, Pope Francis wrote:
“Every time I see the works of Joseph Ratzinger / Benedict XVI., it becomes clear to me that he practiced theology on his knees and still does it on his knees, because you can see that he is not just an outstanding theologian and teacher of faith, but a man who really believes, who really prays. You can see that he is a man who embodies holiness, a man of peace, a man of God.”
After rejecting the caricature of the Catholic priest as an official and expert in a Church that is like an NGO, Pope Francis once again underlines the exceptional status of Joseph Ratzinger as a theologian on Cathedra Petri in the following words:
"Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller has confirmed that the theological work of Joseph Ratzinger first and Benedict XVI. then enlisted him among the great theologians in the Petrine chair, such as Pope Leo the Great, saint, and Church Father. (…) With this in mind and with due regard to the Prefect of Faith, I would add that perhaps today, as Pope Emeritus, he is obviously giving us one of his greatest lessons in 'theology on his knees'.”
"The priest associated with Christ is not an official."
Benedict XVI's contribution on Cardinal Sarah's book offers a hermeneutic, Christological-pneumatological deepening of the unity of the Old and New Testaments, a unity based on the divine revelation of himself in history. He thus offers help to overcome the theological and spiritual crisis of the priesthood, which “has an increasingly important task (…) in the area of the renewal of the Church of Christ” ( Presbyterorum Ordinis, 1). The priest is not a company official who offers socio-religious services. He is also not a representative of an autonomous community that could exercise its own rights before God, instead of receiving "every good gift and every perfect gift (...) from above, from the Father of the stars" (James 1:17). Rather, through holy consecration, he is made equal to Jesus Christ, the high priest and mediator of the New Covenant, the divine master and good shepherd, who gives his own life for the sheep of the flock of God (LG, 29; PO, 2).
For this conformitas cum Christo also follows the fact that Christ's celibate way of life closely corresponds to the sacramental priesthood. Jesus himself spoke of the disciples who live abstinently and freely choose to dispense with marriage and their own family than those who bear witness to the coming kingdom and work for the salvation of men (Mt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:32). Celibacy is not categorically required by the nature of the priesthood, but it corresponds most intimately to the nature of this sacrament, since it represents Christ, the head of the Church, with the authority that comes from the mandate and the way of life dedicated to God ( see PO, 16). For this reason, the dispensaries of the Celibacy Act, as they have developed in different ways in the Eastern and Western Churches, are exceptions and not the rule of priestly celibacy. The Church must fundamentally aim at a celibate priesthood. Based on the biblical origins and as a result of the obligation to abstain in marriage for the married clerics, the practice took shape to consecrate bishops, priests and deacons only from among those who promise from the beginning to live as celibates.
In the Eastern Church, a break with the tradition of the early church - and certainly not based on its model - led to the marriage of priests and deacons by the Second Trullan Synod (691/692), which took place, characteristically, in the Imperial Palace and not in a Church respectively. In the Latin Church, on the other hand, only celibate men who had previously promised to lead a celibate life were consecrated. In the Eastern Churches, married clerics, but not the bishops, were allowed to remain married provided that they abstain from the marriage act and cease it for a period prior to the celebration of the Divine Liturgy and not marry again should their wife die. This provision also applies to those Catholic clerics who have received a dispensation from the obligation to celibacy (LG, 29). The Catholic Church accepts this practice in the Uniate Eastern Church in the name of the greater good of unity and has been granted since Pius XII, and as for the Anglicans, since Benedict XVI, those clergymen who return from other denominations to full unity with the Church and are already married, are exempt from celibacy if they are ordained priests.
“Attack on the Sacramental Priesthood”
In short, abolishing priestly celibacy along the lines of the 16th century Protestant and Anglican communities would be an attack on the nature of the priesthood and an act of contempt for the entire Catholic tradition. Who wants to take responsibility before God and His Holy Church for the catastrophic consequences for spirituality and theology of the Catholic priesthood? Millions of priests since the founding of the Church would feel deeply hurt by claiming that their existential sacrifice to the Kingdom of God and the Church was based only on an external, legal discipline that had nothing to do with the priesthood and celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The shortage of priests (in number and quality) in western countries, is not a shortage to be blamed on God, but on our own shortcomings in living the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and savior of the world.
We are not only experiencing a discussion, but a fierce battle against celibacy and also against the sacramental priesthood. The Protestant reformers of the 16th century considered the Church office only a religious function within the Christian community, and so they denied its Sacramental character. If ordination no longer corresponds to an inner alignment with Christ, the Divine Master, the Good Shepherd and high priest of the New Covenant, then the understanding of the intimate connection with celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, which is rooted in the Gospel, is also lost ( Mt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:32).
In the wake of the polemics of the Protestant Reformation and due to an immanentist view of man that is his own, the French Enlightenment saw priestly celibacy and religious vows only as a form of the repression of the sexual instinct that could lead to neuroses and perversions similar to those later theses, which were represented by depth psychology, considering sexuality as a mechanical satisfaction of instincts, which, if "suppressed", would cause neuroses and perversions.
In the current dictatorship of relativism, the emphasis on sacramental authority, which stems from a higher divine authority, is perceived as a clerical hunger for power, and the celibacy model of life as a public accusation against a viewpoint that reduces sexuality to selfish pleasure. Priestly celibacy appears as a final bastion of a radically transcendent orientation of man and hope for a future world in the hereafter, which according to the atheistic principles is a dangerous illusion.The Catholic Church is bitterly hostile because it represents an ideological alternative to the radical immanentism of the power and economic elite, which strives for absolute control over the mind and body of the starving masses of mankind .
You disguise yourself in a therapeutic gesture as philanthropists who would do nothing but do a favor to the poor priests and religious by freeing them from the cage of oppressed sexuality. In their triumphant ignorance, however, these benefactors of humanity do not notice how much they insult the dignity of all Christians, who take the indissolubility of marriage seriously in their God-oriented conscience or faithfully adhere to celibacy with the help of grace. Exactly where these believing Christians make the most important decisions in the depths of their conscience before God, those who deny a supernatural vocation of man want to convince them to enter the limited horizon of a doomed existence, as if the living God did not exist ( Gaudium et spes , 21).
“Since the creation of the world, its invisible reality has been perceived in the works of creation with reason, its eternal power and deity. Therefore, they are inexcusable. Because they recognized God, but did not honor him as God and did not thank him. (...) They claimed to be wise and became fools. They exchanged the glory of the imperishable God with images depicting a transient human being and flying, four-footed and crawling animals” (Romans 1: 20-23).
The vile indictment claims that those sinister reactionaries in the Church who promote sacramental celibacy, a worldly sexual morality - as it appears in the prosecutor's eyes - and defend misanthropic celibacy in order to modernize the Catholic Church and adapt it to the modern, would delay or even hinder the world. At best, they tolerate a Church without God, without the cross of Christ, and without the hope of eternal life. This "Church of dogmatic indifferentism and moral relativism,“ which could include atheists and non-believers alike, can talk about the climate change, overpopulation and migrants; but it has to remain silent about abortion, self-mutilation, which is called a sex change, euthanasia and the blameworthy character of a sexual intercourse outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. One is called to absolutely accept the sexual revolution, since it is an act of liberation from the rejection of the body by Catholic sexual morality. In this way this would send a sign of remorse for the traditional rejection of the body that comes from the Manichean legacy of St. Augustine.
"An Advisor to the Pope"
In spite of all this flattery, faithful Catholics hold the well-founded conviction that instead of the atheist Scalfari, who neither believes in God nor is able to understand the "mystery of the Holy Church" (LG, 5), Benedict XVI. (Joseph Ratzinger) would be an infinitely more competent advisor for the representative of Christ, successor of Peter and head shepherd of the world Church. This applies both to his theological qualities and his spiritual intuition in the mystery of God's love, as well as to his experience as a pope, alone before God, for the world Church, a responsibility that Benedict is the only one among all still living people on earth, shares with Pope Francis.
What Pope Francis wrote in the foreword to the book on the priesthood of his predecessor should be read by all "the knowledgeable and powerful of the world" (1 Cor. 2.6) before they share their paranoid fantasies about opponents of the pope, cardinals at war, and impending schisms trumpet in all four directions:
“[Joseph Ratzinger / Benedict XVI.] Embodies that constant relationship with the Lord Jesus without which nothing is true, everything becomes routine, the priests almost full-time employees, the bishops bureaucrats and the Church no longer the Church of Christ, but our product, an ultimately superfluous NGO. "
Francis continues by addressing the cardinals, bishops and priests gathered for the book presentation in the Sala Celementina on July 28, 2016, not as to subordinates to be commanded but how to speak to friends:
"Dear Brothers! I dare to say that if any of you ever have doubts about the center of your ministry, its meaning, its usefulness, if you ever have doubts about what people really expect from us, meditate thoroughly on these pages you are offered to us: because they expect us above all from what you find described and testified in this book: that we bring them Jesus Christ and lead them to him, to the fresh and living water that they want more than anything else that only he can give and that no substitute can ever replace; that we lead them to full and true bliss; when nothing satisfies them anymore, that we can make them realize their innermost dream, which no power can promise and fulfill! "
* The text is a translation of the Italian text published today by Cardinal Müller in the Catholic Internet newspaper La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana .
