Wednesday, July 24, 2024
Father Jenkins has his reservations.
Monday, July 22, 2024
Was it staged?
Thursday, July 18, 2024
Wednesday, July 17, 2024
Thursday, July 11, 2024
Lack of Welcome
So, people, see this. Apparently, the latest blahblahblah of synod business is not as extreme as it could have been:
The document also does not include any mention of “homosexual”, sexual “orientation”, or “gay”, but offers a general acknowledgement of a desire from all continents “concerning people who, for different reasons, are or feel excluded or on the margins of the ecclesial community or who struggle to find full recognition of their dignity and gifts within it”.
“This lack of welcome leaves them feeling rejected, hinders their journey of faith and encounter with the Lord, and deprives the Church of their contribution to mission,” the document says.
Have you suffered a lack of welcome that leaves you feeling rejected because you love the unreformed rites of Holy Church? Do you feel excluded and on the margins of the ecclesial community and struggle to find full recognition . . . within it?
Of course you do, because Bergoglian mercy does not extend to those who love the Latin Mass.
Monday, July 8, 2024
The "Final Insult"
Cardinal George Pell with Pope Francis when he received him in audience in October 2020, only six months after his acquittal.
In Australia, previously unknown information, "dark allegations", according to Daily Mail Australia, surrounding the sudden death of Cardinal George Pell is causing a stir. The Australian cardinal died unexpectedly in Rome on January 10, 2023, just days after attending the funeral of Benedict XVI. He had undergone routine hip surgery at the Salvator Mundi hospital in Rome, during which he suffered cardiac arrest.
Pell was first Archbishop of Melbourne, then of Sydney and finally Prefect of the newly established Vatican Secretariat for the Economy. In 2003, Pope John Paul II created him a cardinal. Under Pope Francis, he was called to Rome, but he was treated badly there. When th
e cardinal, as Prefect for the Economy, wanted to bring order to the Holy See's finances, which were divided among countless institutions, he encountered some bitter resistance. Pope Francis abandoned him because of pressure from those who did not want to reveal their cards.
The indescribable ordeal
Then baseless accusations of sexual abuse surfaced in Australia. An indescribable ordeal began for Pell. He was dragged to court in 2017, convicted and went to prison even though he didn't have to. He was eventually acquitted by the Supreme Court. He published a diary of spiritually extraordinarily valuable value about his time in prison. To this day, he is the first cardinal to be imprisoned in a constitutional state.
To this day, however, there is a persistent rumour that the accusations which brought Pell to court in Australia were "organised" by the Vatican in order to get rid of the troublesome Australian in a particularly despicable way - and they succeeded. Although Francis sent solidarity greetings had messages of encouragement delivered to him, and criticized the trial and conviction as a "coup", the head of the Church had no comparable gestures for Pell, his cardinal. In fact, none at all. Even when Pell was acquitted, Francis made him wait outside the door for months before he agreed to receive him. Did the Pope have a guilty conscience? Francis also did not entrust the then still sprightly cardinal with any more office.
This behavior strengthened those who suspect the source of perhaps the most vile attack against a cardinal in recent history came from the Vatican. Francis signaled that the Australian was no longer wanted, and there was a reason for this: Cardinal Pell was one of the critics of the current pontificate. Even from prison, he had expressed clear criticism of the then upcoming Amazon Synod after a razor-sharp analysis. And for Francis, the question "For me or against me?" plays a central role.
“His nose was broken”
Let’s hear what Brett Lackey reported yesterday in the Daily Mail Australia:
"Dark claims about George Pell's body emerge after Australia's highest-ranking Catholic dies of cardiac arrest. Cardinal George Pell's body is said to have had a broken nose and was not properly bandaged when he was returned to Australia after his death in Rome."
And further:
"His funeral in St. Peter's Basilica four days later reportedly caused great astonishment among Vatican insiders because there was no traditional open coffin."
The Daily recalls that the measures he took as Prefect of the Economy "had brought him considerable backlash from figures within the Vatican, some of whom have since been accused of financial crimes such as fraud, conspiracy and embezzlement".
His task of bringing transparency to opaque financial structures of some long-unmonitored Vatican departments "was also complicated by the fact that Pell was charged by Victoria state police in 2017 on allegations of long-standing child abuse, which led to him spending 13 months in an Australian prison before he was acquitted of all charges on appeal."
His clothes “thrown” into the coffin
The Australian , another daily newspaper on the fifth continent, wrote at the same time that "rumours have been circulating for months at the Holy See that his body was left in disarray after the autopsy", that his clothes were "thrown" into the coffin and that his shoes were missing. The Australian also confirmed citing Pell's brother, that when the body arrived in Australia the family discovered that the cardinal's nose was broken. Andrew Bolt, a columnist for the Herald Sun, Australia's largest daily newspaper, described this in a commentary for SkyNews as a "final insult" to the cardinal that had been inflicted on him in Rome.
"Incompetence" is not ruled out as a cause. At the same time, however, Australian media are pointing to the cardinal's closest associates, who see the rough treatment of the body as "a sign that some in the Vatican have not forgiven Pell for pursuing corruption."
Andrew Bolt puts it this way:
"Pell once told me that he didn't feel safe in the Vatican when he was pursuing criminals. What they did with his body makes me think he was right."
And further:
"Pell himself said in 2021 that he was surprised at the amount of resistance he encountered within the church when it came to modernising its finances. 'I underestimated the ingenuity and tenacity of those opposed to reform,' Pell said in September 2021."
Australia's media point out, without making a direct connection, that on December 16, 2023, ten people, including a cardinal, Vatican employees and external consultants, were found guilty of financial crimes. The so-called "trial of the century" concerned real estate deals in London in which the Holy See suffered losses of 350 million euros.
Cardinal Pell, a strong personality, was not discouraged by the less than fatherly treatment by Pope Francis, but spoke out repeatedly and clearly even after his return to Rome. Since he was convinced that a conclave would soon take place, he tried to establish contacts among the new cardinals and to make them known to each other, since Francis has not convened a consistory for ten years. In the spring of 2022, Pell asked Francis to reprimand Cardinal Hollerich, the Archbishop of Luxembourg, COMECE President and General Relator of the Synodality Synod, and Bishop Bätzing, President of the German Bishops' Conference. At his death, he left behind a spiritual legacy that is a scathing criticism of Francis' pontificate.
When considering these reports, it is important to remember that Australia's media have a lot to make up for with Cardinal George Pell and that journalists are always tempted to jump on the sleazy Dan Brown bandwagon. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Cardinal George Pell was treated badly.
Note: Pell's history of covering for sex predators and other accusations against him are well known. Is the traditional blogosphere so desperate for champions that they embrace men like him? It's so discouraging.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image : VaticanMedia (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG
Thursday, July 4, 2024
The Latest Developments in the Viganò Case -- What to Make of them?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is on trial in Rome, not for his criticism of Pope Francis, but for his refusal to recognize him as Pope, warns historian Roberto de Mattei.
By Roberto de Mattei
In recent weeks, certain facts and "non-facts" have been the focus of attention on Catholic social media. The facts actually happened, the "non-facts" are hypothetical and exist more in the imagination of blogs than in reality.
A first non-fact is the existence of a document that would prohibit or restrict the traditional Mass. This document, first mentioned by Rorate Caeli and then thoroughly investigated by Messainlatino, seems to have been lying in a drawer of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, perhaps for over a year, without Pope Francis ever having expressed any intention of signing it. It would perhaps be better at this point to discuss it only when the document is taken out of the drawer.
Another non-fact is the possibility of episcopal ordinations without papal mandate by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X. This hypothesis was expressed by the superior of the French district of the Fraternity, but the Superior General of the Institute, Father Davide Pagliarani, explained at the meeting of the Mouvement de la Jeunesse Catholique de France held in Chateauroux on 29 and 30 June that this initiative, although it cannot be ruled out a priori, is not currently on the agenda. So here too it is better to speak about it in due course.
The fact that deserves the most attention, however, is the initiation of an extrajudicial procedure against Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. The main accusation is that he has broken communion with the Church of Rome and has committed the crime of schism. The news was announced by the Archbishop himself on June 20 on his X‑account and the following day in a statement in which the former Nuncio to the United States declared that he would not take part in the trial against him. On June 28, in a harsh document against Pope Francis entitled "J'accuse", Monsignor Viganò declared , among other things: "Before my brothers in the episcopate and the entire body of the Church, I accuse Jorge Mario Bergoglio of heresy and schism, and as a heretic and schismatic, I request that he be condemned and removed from the throne which he has unworthily occupied for over eleven years. This in no way contradicts the saying Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur, for it is clear that a heretic, unless he is in a position to assume the office of Pope, is not above the prelates who judge him."
Since last year, Monsignor Viganò had publicly stated that, in his opinion, the See of Peter was occupied by a usurper, but with his J'accuse his position becomes clear and official. For this reason, he declares: "I do not recognize the authority of the Tribunal that claims to judge me, nor that of its Prefect or those who appointed him." His decision not to appear in court confirms the accusations made against him, of which he is proud, declaring: "I consider the accusations made against me an honor" (statement of 20 June).
Some people point out that the severe measures announced against Bishop Viganò do not represent the same severity as those who are notorious spreaders of heresy, such as some German bishops. But the German bishops, who are adopting the strategy of modernism, which requires fighting against Rome by remaining within Rome's walls, are careful not to deny the Pope's authority publicly. They certainly deserve to be condemned, but how can one demand their condemnation if Rome fails to condemn those who reject its authority not only in fact but in principle?
Some compare the case of Msgr. Viganò with that of the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The difference between the two cases is, however, obvious. Msgr. Lefebvre never denied the authority of Rome. After the first condemnation of Ecône's work by the Bishop of Fribourg in May 1975, it was Msgr. Lefebvre himself who, faced with this abuse of power, asked that his case be judged by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. On January 28, 1978, Cardinal Šeper, Prefect of the Holy Office at the time, sent Ecône a large document and asked Msgr. Lefebvre to respond. The French Archbishop maintained a voluminous correspondence with the Holy See and the results of the investigation were published in May 1979 by the journal Itinéraires and then appeared in German translation under the title "Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Holy Office" ( Mediatrix Verlag, Vienna 1981). Reading these documents is extremely revealing, not least in order to understand the position of the French Archbishop who, in his last letter to Cardinal Šeper on 29 January 1979 , entrusted, to who by then was already John Paul II. Archbishop Lefebvre then accepted the visit of Cardinal Gagnon, whom the Pope sent as the seminary of Ecône in 1987. A friend and confidant of Cardinal Gagnon, the priest Charles Theodore Murr, testifies that the Canadian cardinal's report praises the SSPX and in particular the curricula of Ecône (Preface to Kennedy Hall: The Defence , Augustinus Press, 2023). On the eve of the episcopal ordinations in Ecône on June 30, 1988, there were intense negotiations between Msgr. Lefebvre and the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
Many of Msgr. Viganò's admirers, who reacted to the news of the trial by approving of the Archbishop because he "speaks as clearly as Msgr. Lefebvre," unlike other shepherds who today remain silent in the face of the deep crisis in the Church, are missing the point. The issue is not Monsignor Viganò's criticism of Pope Francis, which is justified in some points, but his declared desire to break off any form of communion with him and the Roman See.
Furthermore, one cannot limit oneself to such a serious and radical act by simply announcing it in a communiqué, without giving it a valid doctrinal basis. The reference to the Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of 15 February 1559, in which Paul IV states that a heretic, even if elected, is not entitled to authority, is extremely weak. That Bull only teaches that a Pope can be admonished unless it is proven that he was already a heretic at the time of his election. Was Cardinal Bergoglio one? That must be proven. Does the "vitium consensus" of which Msgr Viganò speaks correspond to the "Cassiciacum thesis" of Msgr Guérard de Lauriers, who belongs to the Institute Mater Boni Consilii ? Whether or not this is the position of Msgr. Viganò, it would have to be supported by thorough theological, canonical and ecclesiastical historical studies, which are not available to date.
But there is another aspect, even more decisive. In the current turmoil of the religious crisis, it is not possible to survive spiritually without the special help of grace that comes through the sacraments, especially the most common in daily life, such as Communion and Confession. Who are the priests to whom one should turn, according to Monsignor Viganò, to receive the necessary spiritual nourishment? It seems that not only the institutes related to the former Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei are excluded from his horizon, but also the Society of St. Pius X, which usually prays Pro Pontifice nostro Francisco.
And here we come to the final question: where is the Catholic Church for Monsignor Viganò? Not the virtual Church to which many zealous readers of traditionalist blogs adhere, but the real Church, visible in its unchanging doctrine, in its uninterrupted apostolic succession and in the life imparted by its sacraments. Without this visible Church, which is the mystical body of Christ, the soul suffocates.
Shakespeare said, "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players" ( As You Like It, Act II, 7). There is a profound truth in these words, but the world's stage is not a blog, for the fate of the people who play on it is a drama. At stake is their eternal life.
* Roberto de Mattei, historian, father of five children, professor of modern history and history of Christianity at the European University of Rome, chairman of the Lepanto Foundation, author of numerous books, most recently in German translation: Defense of Tradition: The Invincible Truth of Christ, with a foreword by Martin Mosebach, Altötting 2017, and The Second Vatican Council. A History Unwritten Until Now, 2nd expanded edition, Bobingen 2011.
You can purchase books by Prof. Roberto de Mattei on Amazon.com.
Translation/Footnote: Giuseppe Nardi
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.clom
Tuesday, July 2, 2024
Tschugguel Breaks Silence to Praise Hero Who Chops Head off Blasphemous Statue
Edit: “America” Magazine is horrified and complains about those evil trads celebrating this.
UPDATE:
— Alexander Tschugguel (@ATschugguel) July 1, 2024
The Hero responsible got in touch with me and has just told me the following: "I did it first and foremost for the Mother of God!"
So let us pray to God through the intercession of Our Lady: Protect this man, O Lord, and continue to guide him!#catholicchurch #mary… https://t.co/kYkODM6zUc
AMDG
Wednesday, June 26, 2024
“The Trial” Against Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, once number four in the Vatican Secretariat of State, right-hand man of the head of government of the Vatican State and ambassador of the Holy See to the USA, could be expelled from the Church in a few days.
(Rome) The Holy See, specifically the Dicastery of the Faith, has initiated “extrajudicial criminal proceedings” against Msgr. Carlo Maria Viganò, titular archbishop of Ulpiana and former apostolic nuncio. The archbishop himself announced this on June 20th. The high-ranking Vatican diplomat was already one of the few among the previous popes who not only recognized problems, but also wanted to tackle and solve them. This not only brought him friends, but now also a criminal case. And the verdict seems to have already been written.
In Rome, outside the papal court, the Lombard is generally given a very good reputation. He is described by those who have dealt with him as fundamentally honest, who, even during his time as Secretary General of the Governorate of the State of Vatican City from 2009 to 2011, did not close his eyes to deficiencies but wanted to eliminate them. If there is something to criticize about Msgr. Viganò, it is his intolerance. This, it is now said, has probably gotten in his way in recent years. He is quick to point out not just a problem, but also its cause. Not many people like that, especially not in an environment designed for harmony.
The result was that in 2011 the highly intelligent top diplomat was appointed Apostolic Nuncio to the USA by Pope Benedict XVI for the sake of peace in the Vatican City, undoubtedly the most prestigious and influential of all diplomatic positions. Undoubtedly an award for the Monsignor, who was born in Varese, although he - not entirely wrongly - saw it as a promotion when he believed he had recognized and targeted some corrupt machinations.
In the USA, the conservative majority in the episcopate found support in him, which escalated into open conflict with Pope Francis. When Francis traveled to the USA in 2015 to celebrate joining forces with the left-wing “messiah” Barack Obama, his own nuncio thwarted his plans by, at the request of US bishops, choosing Kim Davis, the symbol against the homosexual agenda at the time - was smuggled into the Pope's audience schedule. The Pope's confidants organized the visit in a politically correct manner down to the last detail. However, Viganò's “complicity” made the coup possible, with which leading US bishops wanted to voice their concerns. The contrast was “perfect”: Up in the state hall, Francis officially met with a gay couple for press photos with a broad smile, down in the basement the unsuspecting pontiff met with Kim Davis, who had been imprisoned in Obama’s empire because she was a registrar who had refused to register a “gay marriage”. The Vatican press officials, who were not prepared for this, panicked and worsened the damage to their image by first denying the encounter and then having to admit it. Nobody could have planned something like that, but Nuncio Viganò must have hoped for it a little, because after all he knew the Vatican apparatus and its workings down to the last detail.
Santa Marta's anger quickly turned against him, the Pope's official representative in Washington, and so the retaliation was not long in coming. Msgr. Viganò was shortly afterwards retired at the age of 75. When he returned to Italy, things initially remained quiet until the summer of 2018, when the unthinkable briefly seemed conceivable: a possible resignation of Pope Francis.
The McCarrick case and the demand for Pope Francis to resign
It was the bergoglio-friendly New York Times that, in the midst of the Trump era, resorted to weakening the Catholic Church in the USA and, in doing so, let the elderly “liberal” (left-wing) Cardinal Theodore McCarrick jump on his sword. The target was not Pope Francis in Rome, but the attack was almost fatal for him. Archbishop Viganò wanted to make sure of that.
The Holy See was completely surprised by McCarrick's homo-pederastic double life. [Doubt] Then Msgr. Viganò exposed Pope Francis to the whole world as a liar and hypocrite by revealing that in June 2013, during his inaugural visit to the new Pope, he had informed him in detail about McCarrick. The only option the Vatican could take was to stammer that Francis “couldn’t remember” and didn’t listen carefully because he had to receive Church representatives and nuncios from all over the world on the assembly line at the time. That was pathetic and quite unbelievable, precisely because Francis, the “politician on the papal throne”, is very sensitive to both the personal weaknesses of others and in political matters - after all, it was about the USA and after all about a cardinal.
Within the Church, however, no one dared to pick up the ball that Archbishop Viganò had put into play. If anything, the work should be done by others: the secular media. But they didn't. The overthrow of Francis did not fit into their planning. No order was given for this. So, with the help of media silence, the highly embarrassing matter was swept under the rug as quickly as possible, all lapses in memory were forgiven, all obvious hypocrisies were overlooked , and all contradictions were benevolently accepted. It didn't help that McCarrick wasn't an isolated case, but that Francis had protected or brought into office a long list of high-ranking corrupt prelates with homosexual double lives. The mainstream, including the New York Times, was interested in weakening the conservatives in the USA, not in an early end to the office of the very pope who is closer to the globalist establishment than any pope before him. End of the story.
Archbishop Viganò had held his head; no one had to pressure him to do so, not even Marco Tosatti, who had met with him for lunch at which the initiative was developed. Msgr. Viganò had recognized the opportunity, knew that he had enough explosives on hand and saw a need to free the Church from its ruling pope. A daring step, but it didn't work out. The counter-church forces that wanted to hold on to Francis as pope were stronger. And since there is no regular procedure in the Church for deposing a pope, the pontiff faced no realistic danger from this side anyway.
Monsignor Viganò was left alone and, as he explained, felt compelled to go underground in order to avoid the Pope's longa manus. At the beginning of 2020 he appeared in Munich, unrecognized by most, when there was a protest against the synodal German special path in front of the Feldherrenhalle. At that time, traditional forces that often acted in a solitary manner seemed to come together as one.
But things also turned out differently. With the emergence of Covid-19, the unity we had just found fell apart again. Some believed the official narrative of the “deadly” global pandemic, from which only Bill Gates knew the emergency exit, which rhymed with mRNA vaccination (no other vaccination). The others saw the dangers of a gigantic coup from above, attempted by activating irrational fears.
Archbishop Viganò, although at 80 years old he was supposedly at high risk according to the official narrative, sided with the warners who spoke of camouflage, that Corona was just a pretext to achieve completely different goals. In the following years, his video messages became an important international reference point for resistance against repressive Corona measures. He never did so without forgetting his missionary and pastoral mandate. He saw his actions as part of a larger spiritual battle. In keeping with his character, he leaned far out of the window and did so in his own clear language, because he declared that he saw a handwriting behind the events, that of the Deep State, a “deep state” that controls the state He uses the means of power to push through his agenda in a non-transparent manner and without democratic legitimacy. This also included the “stolen” re-election of Donald Trump in autumn 2020.
However, large-scale election fraud could not be proven in court (this would delegitimize democracy itself). This made it easier for critics from different directions to doubt Viganò's authority and to distance themselves. The accusation that Viganò was a conspiracy theorist, a favorite term for discrediting opponents, was encouraged by ideological fighting tools such as Wikipedia.
Rumors were spread against Viganò, the provenance of which was not always clear. Some of them came from opponents within the Church, some of them came from the circle of those with whom he had just allied himself shortly before Corona. Above all, the question has recently become increasingly louder as to whether the Archbishop still recognizes Francis as the legitimate pope. But in this regard it was clear in Rome that the former nuncio stayed away from sedevacantist positions. Last year, he soberly stated to those who were pushing for Sedevacantist positions that there is no authority that could clarify a question of legality, which is why there is “no human solution.”
Did Archbishop Viganò allow himself to be “consecrated”?
But then Santa Marta suddenly saw an opportunity to knock out the unwelcome critic when on January 12, 2024, in the midst of reports of the worldwide opposition to the Roman document Fiducia supplicans, with which homosexuals Blessings were allowed, while the news was spread that Viganò had been partially “re-consecrated” as bishop. This consecration was carried out, horribile dictu, by Bishop Richard Williamson, who was expelled from the SSPX in 2012 and who incurred excommunication in 2015 through the unauthorized consecration of bishops. Williamson has already been declared a conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier by the media in the past, which is why an easy game seemed to be opening up. With the news, the question now arose as to whether Msgr. Viganò considered his episcopal ordination, which had been bestowed on him by Pope John Paul II on April 26, 1992, to be invalid, along with all the other questions that ensued.
Archbishop Viganò has not yet confirmed a subsequent consecration. It also seems unlikely because Williamson said nothing about it in his weekly commentaries at the time of the alleged consecration, but rather dealt with the question of whether Viganò was a Sedevacantist, which Williamson admittedly denied; but he urged Viganò to recognize the real “evil” of the Church crisis, the Second Vatican Council. The former nuncio actually increasingly agreed with this criticism.
However, if such a consecration had taken place, by whomever, the former nuncio would have incurred excommunication latae sententiae and provided Rome with an opportunity to get rid of the annoying critic. Rome would only have to declare the excommunication that has occurred, not for the sake of the matter, since the facts stand alone, but for the sake of publicity, in order to declare to the whole world that the archbishop and best-known critic of Francis no longer belongs to the Catholic Church.
Is Viganò's criticism of Pope Francis' administration and the Second Vatican Council justified and legitimate (the questions about the Deep State, the Corona dictatorship and the WEF's power plans have no role to play for the Church), or has the former top diplomat radicalized beyond measure in his antipathy to the current pontificate? Does he put his finger in an open wound or does he first open one? Was it just his language towards Pope Francis that was occasionally too caustic and frightened pious Catholics?
There is a great danger that this question will not be discussed because there is no interest in such a discussion. Msgr. Viganò has an interest in one, but not Santa Marta. However, the Church as a whole should certainly have an interest in this, because it is a matter of clarifying whether the archbishop is expressing justified criticism or which part of his criticism is justified and which may go beyond that. The believers and the hierarchs need this orientation.
The formalistic way of establishing the excommunication that has occurred through unauthorized episcopal ordinations or questioning the post-conciliar authority is the easiest way to get rid of the matter and avoid a public discussion. Rome obviously wants to take this route by initiating an “extrajudicial criminal procedure” against Archbishop Viganò on June 11th. The corresponding communication to the Archbishop was made by Msgr. Anthony Kennedy, head of the disciplinary department of the Dicastery.
This process began earlier, and everything points to Serena Sartini's article at the beginning of the year as a starting point. Everything was then prepared and on May 10th the general assembly of the Dicastery of Faith gave the green light to prosecute the archbishop.
The legal basis
The procedure follows Canon 1364 of the Codex Iuris Canonici:
§ 1 The apostate, the heretic or the schismatic incurs excommunication as a punishment, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 § 1, n. 2; in addition, he may be subject to penalties in accordance with can. 1336 §§ 2–4 must be taken.
§ 2. If persistent insubordination or the seriousness of the offense so require, further punishments may be added, not excluding dismissal from the clergy.
Specifically, Archbishop Viganò is accused of schism. The reasons for this are “public statements”. He questions the legitimacy of Pope Francis, is no longer in unity with him and rejects the Second Vatican Council. According to Canon 1717, a preliminary investigation is dispensed with:
§ 1. If the Ordinary receives at least probable knowledge that a crime has been committed, he should carefully inquire about the facts of the crime, the detailed circumstances and the criminal liability himself or through another suitable person, unless this appears to be completely unnecessary .
In his first statement on the proceedings, on June 20, Msgr. Viganò, alluding to this unusual procedure, stated:
“I assume that the conviction has already been determined, given that the proceedings will take place out of court.”
Above all, the shortened procedure, which can only be viewed to a limited extent as an ordinary procedure, is cited by Archbishop Viganò as a reason why Santa Marta does not intend a fair trial.
Archbishop Viganò's reaction
Regarding the allegations themselves, he wrote:
“The Council represents the ideological, theological, moral and liturgical cancer of which the Bergoglian ‘synodal church’ is the necessary metastasis.”
We document Archbishop Viganò's entire further statement as a contemporary document:
“The episcopate, the clergy and the people of God must seriously ask themselves whether it is consistent with the profession of the Catholic faith to stand idly by and watch the systematic destruction of the Church by its leadership, just as others destroy civil society.
Globalism calls for ethnic exchange: Bergoglio promotes uncontrolled immigration and calls for the integration of cultures and religions.
Globalism supports LGBTQ+ ideology: Bergoglio authorizes the blessing of same-sex couples and forces acceptance of homosexuality on believers, while covering up the scandals of his protégés and promoting them to the highest leadership positions.
Globalism imposes the green agenda: Bergoglio worships the idol Pachamama, writes insane encyclicals about the environment, supports Agenda 2030 and attacks those who question the theory of man-made global warming.
In questions that concern exclusively science, he steps out of his role, but always in a direction diametrically opposed to what the Church has always taught. He has mandated the use of experimental genes that have caused severe harm, death and infertility, calling them an 'act of love' in exchange for funding from the pharmaceutical industry and philanthropic foundations.
The complete conformity to the religion of Davos is scandalous. Wherever governments in the service of the World Economic Forum introduced or expanded abortion, promoted vice, legitimized same-sex unions or gender reassignment, promoted euthanasia and condoned the persecution of Catholics, not a word was said in defense of threatened faith or morals, in support of the lost in the civil society struggles of so many Catholics abandoned by the Vatican and the bishops.
Not a word for the persecuted Catholics in China, with the Holy See as an accomplice, for whom Beijing's billions are more important than the lives and freedom of thousands of Chinese believers in the Roman Church.
A schism is not seen in the “synodal church” led by Bergoglio, either on the part of the German episcopate or on the part of the government bishops who were ordained in China without a mandate from Rome. Because their actions correspond to the destruction of the church, they must be hidden, trivialized, tolerated and ultimately encouraged.
In these eleven years of “pontificate”, the Catholic Church has been humiliated and discredited, mainly because of the scandals and corruption in the highest echelons of the hierarchy, which were completely ignored during the most ruthless authoritarianism of the Vatican against faithful priests and religious, small communities traditional religious women and communities associated with the Latin Mass.”
Archbishop Viganò went further in his analysis:
“This one-sided zeal is reminiscent of Cromwell's fanaticism and is typical of those who defy Providence, assuming that they are finally at the top of the hierarchical pyramid and can do whatever they want without anyone doing anything who would be against it. And this work of destruction, this willingness to renounce the salvation of souls in the name of a human peace that denies God, is not an invention of Bergoglio, but the main (and unspoken) aim of those who used a council to serve the Catholic to contradict the Magisterium and destroy the Church from within, in small steps, but always in one direction, always with indulgent toleration or culpable inaction, if not with the express approval of the Roman authorities. The Catholic Church was slowly but surely occupied, and Bergoglio was given the task of transforming it into a philanthropic agency, the 'Church of Humanity, Integration and the Environment' in the service of the New World Order. But that's not the Catholic Church: it's its counterfeit.
Benedict XVI's renunciation and the appointment of a successor in line with the 2030 Agenda by the St. Gallen Mafia should make it possible – and has made it possible – to control the global coup with the complicity and authority of the Roman Church. Bergoglio is to the Church what other heads of state are to their nations: traitors, subversives, final liquidators of traditional society, confident of their impunity. The vitium consensus of Bergoglio, who accepted the election, is based precisely on the obvious alienation of his government and official actions from what every Catholic of all ages expects from the Vicar of Christ and the successor of the Prince of the Apostles. Everything Bergoglio does is an insult and a provocation to the entire Catholic Church, to its saints of all times, to the martyrs killed in the Odium Fidei, to the popes of all times up to the Second Vatican Council.
It is also and above all an insult to the Divine Head of the Church, our Lord Jesus Christ, whose holy authority Bergoglio exercises to the detriment of the Mystical Body, with an approach that is too systematic and consistent to be the result of mere incompetence. In the work of Bergoglio and his circle, the Lord's warning is realized: 'Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the form of lambs, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves' (Mt 7:15). With them I have the honor of not having or wanting any ecclesial communion: they are a lobby that disguises their complicity with the masters of the world in order to deceive as many souls and prevent any resistance to the establishment of the empire of the Antichrist.
In the face of the accusations of the Dicastry, I, as Successor of the Apostles, claim full communion with the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, with the magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs and with the unbroken doctrinal, moral and liturgical tradition which they have faithfully preserved.
I reject the neo-modernist errors inherent in the Second Vatican Council and the so-called “post-conciliar magisterium”, especially in questions of collegiality, ecumenism, religious freedom, the secularity of the state and the liturgy.
I reject the scandals, errors and heresies of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who demonstrates an absolutely tyrannical exercise of power directed against the goal that legitimizes authority in the Church: an authority representative of the authority of Christ and as such only has to obey him. This separation of the papacy from its legitimating principle, which is Christ the Pope, transforms the ministry into a self-centered tyranny.
No Catholic worthy of the name can be in communion with this 'Bergoglian Church', because it acts in blatant contradiction and rupture with all the popes in history and with the Church of Christ.
Fifty years ago, in the same Holy Office Palace, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was summoned and accused of schism for rejecting the Second Vatican Council. His defense is mine, his words are mine, his arguments are mine, before which the Roman authorities could not convict him of heresy because they had to wait for him to consecrate bishops in order to have an excuse to make him a schismatic to declare and lift his excommunication when he was already dead. The pattern repeats itself even after ten chandeliers [50 years] confirmed the prophetic election of Bishop Lefebvre.
In these times of apostasy, Catholics find in the pastors who remain faithful to the commission received from our Lord an example and an encouragement to remain in the truth of Christ.
Depositum custodi, according to the Apostle's exhortation: As the time draws near when I must give an account of all my deeds to the Son of God, I intend to continue in bonum certamen and not to fail in the witness of faith which is required of one, who, as bishop, is endowed with the fullness of the priesthood and appointed successor to the apostles.
I invite all Catholics to pray that the Lord will come to the aid of his Church and give courage to those who are persecuted for their faith.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
June 20, 2024
Sancti Silverii Papæ et Martyris
Beati Dermitii O'Hurley, Episcopi et Martyris
Aldo Maria Valli: “The Archbishop is being pilloried in the media”
The archbishop was scheduled to appear at the Holy Office in Rome on June 20 at 3:30 p.m. If he does not appear, he must submit a written defense by June 28th. Otherwise he will be judged in absentia. However, Msgr. Viganò made it clear that he would not defend himself because he did not recognize the authority of his judges:
“I emphasize that I have not gone to the Vatican, that I have no intention of going to the Holy Office on June 28, and that I do not respect the Dicastery, whose authority I do not recognize, neither that of its Prefect nor that of those, who appointed him, did not hand over any memorandum or document in my defense.
I have no intention of submitting myself to a sham trial in which those who are supposed to judge me impartially in defense of Catholic orthodoxy are at the same time those whom I accuse of heresy, treason and abuse of power.”
Aldo Maria Valli, for many years the chief Vaticanist for the Italian state television RAI 1, wrote about the reactions of the mainstream media to the news of the criminal proceedings against Archbishop Viganò:
“Reading the articles that the major newspapers are devoting in these hours to the affair of Monsignor Carlo Maria Viganò requires an iron stomach, but is also instructive. Through a slew of innuendos and untruths, the monsignor is effectively portrayed as a conspiracy theorist, a careerist, and ultimately a raving lunatic. Not that I would have expected anything different from a press subject to EEE (the only permitted unified thinking), but at least a little modesty! At least a minimal attempt to reconstruct the facts. At least some semblance of objectivity. Instead we experience the media pillory. And the more ignorant and superficial the authors of the articles are, the more persistent the call for pillorying. I feel completely alienated from this information system (it would be better to call it a disinformation factory).”
The media pillory means that a negative judgment against a person or organization has already been determined in advance and that the “convicted” are judged using all the dialectical tricks and little seriousness. This is a show trial. In the past few days it has been repeated many times that the Vatican had been so “generous” with Archbishop Viganò and had allowed him to criticize the Pope for a long time. But this isn't about lese majeste, it's about right or wrong. Is the criticism of the current church leader justified or is it not?
Archbishop Viganò could have remained silent, as many others in the Church do. You now see yourself confirmed. According to a former close colleague of the archbishop, prudence sometimes dictates waiting. That sounds as if it means: Pope Francis will soon step down anyway, until then it is important to hold on and avoid confrontations. A confirmed excommunication does not just mean being in the pillory. Getting rid of them requires time and special circumstances, in short, Rome's willingness to do so. The four bishops of the SSPX, consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, now referred to by Archbishop Viganò, experienced it. It was not until 2009 that their excommunication was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI. The fact that they themselves had never recognized this did not matter to Rome.
However, on June 21st, the Society of St. Pius X distanced itself from Archbishop Viganò because he did not recognize Francis' authority as pope. Not because he doesn't think the election was legal, but because he makes a reservation about reproaching Francis for accepting his office as pope after the election, but without the actual intention of exercising this office as pope.
The question is complex because it affects the internal forum. How and who should clarify this question? In any case, the Society declared that it had never represented such a position:
“On this point, neither Msgr. Lefebvre nor the fraternity he founded were prepared to get involved.”
Archbishop Viganò could soon have one thing in common with Archbishop Lefebvre. Msgr. Lefebvre died in 1991 under a state of excommunication. The 83-year-old Msgr. Viganò is likely to follow him.
Archbishop Viganò responded to an interview request from Katholisches.info with a request for leniency if he currently, "during the ongoing 'process'", considers it wiser to forgo such.
In the end, is it intolerance that drove Archbishop Viganò into the corner where Santa Marta wanted him? Will his arguments, beyond the formal question of papal authority, also be pilloried?
Since June 28th was given as an ultimatum by the Dicastery of Faith, an answer can be expected soon. The bridges seem to have been burned, since Monsignor Viganò himself said: "If I am declared separated by schism from this 'Church', I make this a source of honor and pride for myself."
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Vatican.va/Facebook (screenshots)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG
Tuesday, June 25, 2024
Sunday, June 23, 2024
Jürgen Moltmann, obituary for the father of the errors of contemporary theology
With his book "Theology of Hope" from 1964, Jürgen Moltmann became the impetus for all currents of political theology
From hope came a new explanation of all traditional theological themes: revelation understood not so much in its doctrinal but rather in its historical character, transcendence understood as the future in a temporal rather than a spatial sense, sin as the rejection of hope, grace as the gift of the possibility and ability to hope, conversion as turning away from the present and turning towards the future. Hence the revolutionary impact of his theology, linked to the pan-Protestant idea of the mature world, secularization as a Christian phenomenon and the need for a secular theology, which was also expressed the following year, in 1965, by Harvey Cox in his book The Secular City: Secularization and Urbanization in Theological Perspective, as coordinates of the new theology that we find in all subsequent theology, including Catholic one.
A secular theology with political language
 |
| The illusion of earthly "paradise" |
In both the Old and New Testaments, according to Moltmann, God is not understood as a consecration of times and places, but is linked to a word of promise. The promise binds man to the history that stands between the promise and its fulfillment. This is the space for human responsibility, for the future, morality and practice. The theology of hope is elaborated in an eschatological key that henceforth entrusts the theologian with the task not of "interpreting the world, history and human nature, but of transforming them in anticipation of a divine transformation". The place of God's revelation becomes history, and God reveals himself through historical promises and historical events starting from the Exodus. The task of the Christian is not so much to ask who God is and what qualities he has, but to recognize where God is at work in history and to actively participate in his work of redemption. It is necessary to eliminate all metaphysical dualism and all spatial conceptions of God in order to create a secular theology with a political language: "This means that we recognize where God is at work and thus participate in his work: this incessant action is a way of speaking: in doing this, the Christian speaks of God." Truth becomes action. Who God is is not said by the theologian through speeches, but by the practice of Christians.
With Moltmann, the dimension of history enters theology and confuses its connotations. The aforementioned Harvey Cox approached theology of hope, arguing that "God loves the world, not the church" and uses the world, not the Church. In his book The Christian as Rebel, he states that "it was professional baseball, not the church, that took the first steps toward racial integration. We are way behind on this whole thing. We must hurry to catch up with what God is already doing in the world."
The real breakthrough in contemporary theology
As we can see, the "church that goes out" has distant origins. Moltmann's new proposals were taken up by Johann Baptist Metz in his Political Theology, and Karl Rahner would also adopt the same assumptions, starting with secularization, which required us to think that the revelation of God took place in human history before the Church. It can be said that the real innovative turn in contemporary theology was brought about by Moltmann. All other theologies will in fact follow the path he took. The theology of hope can therefore be compared to an explosion that sets off others in a chain reaction. He was able to deal with the theology of revolution and liberation, and was the midwife of black theology and feminist theology. He was also at the centre of the dialogue between Christians and Marxists.
This last keyword leads us to another important chapter in Moltmann's story. I am referring to the dialogue of ideas with the East German Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch, who so strongly influenced Moltmann's theology at that time and later. Bloch's principle of hope and Moltmann's theology of hope relate to each other. Bloch reformulated Marxism under the category of utopia, he sees all reality as determined by the future and driven to self-overcoming, he reads the Bible as an expression of a "transcendence without transcendence", future and history are as much features of the Christian religion as of the secularized world, the God of Israel is the God of the eighth day, "who was not yet and is therefore more authentic", and Christ has nothing spiritual, but is the man who sat not at the right hand of God but in his place, because Christianity is liberating and therefore atheistic. In this way Moltmann met not only with Marxism but also with the atheistic nihilism of modernity.
To pass judgment on Moltmann's theology is also to pass judgment on much of contemporary theology. To celebrate his thought by praising it is to condone the great errors of that theology and of the theologies that followed. I have limited myself here to recalling some basic assumptions. Readers, if they wish, can train themselves to recognize the negative effects of Moltmann's thought on theology since then and also on the practice of the Church.
Stefano Fontana, Director of the International Observatory Cardinal Van Thuan for the Social Doctrine of the Church ; his recent publications include “La nuova Chiesa di Karl Rahner” (“The New Church of Karl Rahner: The Theologian Who Taught Surrender to the World”, Fede & Cultura, Verona 2017), together with Archbishop Paolo Crepaldi of Trieste “Le chiavi della questione sociale” (“The Keys to the Social Question. Common Good and Subsidiarity: The Story of a Misunderstanding”, Fede & Cultura, Verona 2019), “La filosofia cristiana” (“Christian Philosophy: A Complete View of the Areas of Thought”, Fede & cultura, Verona 2021).
Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Wednesday, June 19, 2024
The Last REAL Mass in Melbourne
Edit: according to the local blog, the sixty year old Lord Archbishop is running things into the ground and nobody goes to the Bugninine Mass.
150 were participating at this “last” Mass, although it took place at a side altar on a weekday.
Think of how those Irish settlers brought a thriving faith with them, and what the last generations have done to kill it.
[Catholic is Pure] The Roman Mass on 12th June, a Wednesday evening, was attended by over 150 faithful, even though it was a weekday Mass and celebrated on a side altar (pictured).
The Latin Mass Parish of Melbourne (NewmanParish.org) continues to celebrate Mass at St Aloysius Church in the Melbourne suburb of Caulfield North.
The Archdiocese of Melbourne is being run into the ground by Archbishop Peter Andrew Comensoli, 60. [Comment: “Want to know more? Then find out who appointed him.”]
AMDG
Tuesday, June 18, 2024
Bergoglio’s Court Liturgist Explains His Hatred for Traditional Mass
According to Pope Francis' "house liturgist", communities and believers are following pure deception because they are subject to an error in thinking.
On the sidelines of a conference on the priest Don Primo Mazzolari that took place last weekend in Bozzolo, northern Italy, an interview on the traditional website Messa in Latino with the liturgist Andrea Grillo, a declared enemy of the traditional Rite, was possible. Although people disagreed with Grillo on “almost everything” about liturgical questions, they always appreciated his “brutal openness”: “At least he speaks plainly,” said Messa in Latino. The interview comes at a moment of heightened unrest as rumors of another, now “definitive” thumbscrew against the traditional Rite are circulating. Grillo doesn't say anything about that. The interview provides an interesting and very direct insight into the mind of one of the tradition's most vocal opponents. Grillo, professor of sacramental theology and philosophy of religion at the Pontifical Athenaeum of Sant'Anselmo in Rome and of liturgy at the Liturgical Institute of the Abbey of Santa Giustina in Padua, has been at war for years against the traditional rite and the communities and believers in the Church who adhere to it. Above all, the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum by Benedict XVI made Grillo angry in 2007. From then on, he made it his mission to combat it with the aim of abolishing it. He has access to Santa Marta in the current pontificate and is considered Pope Francis' “house liturgist”. Grillo had already called for “restricting” access to the traditional rite in 2019, which became reality two years later with the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes. Here is the full text of the interview:
Messa in Latino: Why, at least it seems to us, is it that the traditionalists loyal to Rome (like so many other lay movements) do not want to be given freedom in the Catholic Church at any price and that they are just believers who need to be re-educated?
Andrea Grillo: The first question contains numerous inaccuracies that undermine the actual meaning of the question. I will try to explain them in turn. Those you describe as “traditionalists loyal to Rome” are actually people who, for various reasons, are not in a relationship of loyalty to Rome, but rather in opposition. The element of contrast concerns not simply a “ritual form” but a way of understanding relationships within and without the Church. Everything begins with the misunderstanding caused (in good faith, but with a completely wrong judgment) by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, which introduced a “ritual parallelism” (between Novus Ordo and Vetus Ordo) that is neither justified, systematic nor practical: It is not theologically sound and leads to greater divisions than previously existed. The idea of “loyalty to Rome” must be questioned: to be loyal to Rome, one must acquire a “ritual language” that corresponds to what Rome has collectively established. You are not faithful if you have one foot in two shoes. It is the achievement of Traditionis custodis to have pointed out this contradiction, which restores the one valid Lex orandi for the entire Catholic Church. If someone tells me that he is simultaneously faithful to the Novus Ordo and the Vetus Ordo, I answer that he has not understood what tradition means, in which there is a legitimate and surmountable progress that is irreversible.
Messa in latino: Are you of the opinion that after the Paris-Chartres pilgrimage in 2024 (18,000 people, average age 25 years, diocesan bishops, a cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, extensive media coverage) the Church now also has pastoral care for the “traditional” charism should reflect (like other movements that have emerged since the Second Vatican Council) or can it continue to deny the massive vitality of the ancient liturgy?
Andrea Grillo: What are 18,000 people compared to the great mass of the Catholic Church? Little more than a cult that sees infidelity as salvation, often combined with moral, political and customary positions that are completely questionable. Things don't get better by changing the words. Tradition and traditionalism should not be equated. Traditionalism is not “one of many movements” (although it has some similar features to some of the more fundamentalist movements that have been unduly favored over the past 40 years), but a form of “denial of the Second Vatican Council” that exists within the Church experience can only be severely hindered. The Church is not a “club of notaries or lawyers” who cultivate their aesthetic passions or plan to exploit the Church as “the most famous museum.”
Prof. Andrea Grillo, whose radical expression of liturgical reform and a spearhead in the war against the traditional rite that he himself declared
Messa in latino: How is it that, in your opinion, especially in the Anglophone and Francophone areas, the number of believers, seminarians, converts, financial support and large families in the traditionalist area is increasing significantly, in the face of an obvious and serious qualitative and quantitative crisis of the Novus Ordo communities, at least in the Western world?
Andrea Grillo: We are dealing with a distortion of perspective. Faith, particularly in the Western world, is in a crisis that began more than a century ago and has accelerated dramatically over the past 50 years. But the crisis will not be solved by restoring the “society of honor” way of life. It is not the “Capa Magne” or the “dead languages” that give strength to faith. They only reinforce identity bonds, forms of fundamentalism and intransigence that are no longer those of 100 years ago, but take on unprecedented manifestations in which, with the maximum of postmodern life, one adopts a "Catholic" identity where “Catholic” is merely an idealized label. This is not an ecclesiastical or spiritual phenomenon, but rather a phenomenon of customs and ways of life that has little to do with the authentic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Messa in latino: In this situation of lack of seminarians and young believers, why do you think the Holy Father Francis sees - at least apparently - only the traditionalist believers (who pray "cum Papa nostro Francisco" and are increasing in number) as enemies?
Andrea Grillo: First of all, the “lack of seminarians” and the “flight of young people” is not just a negative fact: it is the sign of a test that is necessary for the entire Church. The “simple” solutions (let us fill the traditionalist seminaries with militarized young men following the example of the presbyters of the 17th or 18th centuries) are just illusions, the costs of which must primarily be borne by those affected. They do not lead to a life of faith, but often to great resentment and personal hardening. I would not worry that Pope Francis would perceives this as a danger. What worried me was that his predecessors saw this as an advantage. Nostalgia is never an advantage, even when it leads you to believe that the Church has nothing to reform but only finds all the answers in the past. When one prays 'una cum papa', one cannot do so just as chatter, but must above all share with the Church and the Pope the one valid Ordo. Otherwise you just chatter, but live contrary to tradition.
Messa in latino: Is it possible that a ritual form that was the “normative” of the Catholic Church for a very long time now no longer has a place alongside so many other rites of the Catholic Church, among others? The Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Chaldean, St. John Chrysostom, Armenian etc.? Why should a traditional charism not coexist in the great diversity of Church charisms? “We must not be afraid of the diversity of charisms in the Church. On the contrary, we should rejoice in living this diversity,” said Francis in 2024.
Andrea Grillo: Here too there is a pretty serious misunderstanding in the question. On the other hand, I recognize that your question resonates with one of the strongest (and least justifiable) motivations that characterized the period (of Summorum Pontificum), to which you are so attached that you have almost made it your banner. At the heart of this document was an argument that said: “What was sacred to past generations cannot but be sacred to present generations.” Where does this principle come from? Not from theology, but from nostalgic feelings about the past. Such a principle tends to fixate the Church on its past. Not on the 'depositum fidei', but on the appearance that it took on at a certain time, as if it were final. The fact that there have been ritual forms throughout history that have been recognized in their “otherness” depends on the “specific” tradition of the places or the orders. But no one could ever have imagined that on a universal level anyone would be free to remain in a version of the Roman Rite or in the version that had been superseded by a general reform. And one cannot use the great Pauline ideas so shamelessly “from the right”: the freedom of the charisms cannot be understood as a breeding ground for “anarchy from above,” as the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum did in an irresponsible manner. It would have been much better to work “at one table” so that everyone could contribute to enriching “the only ritual form that exists.” Relying on mutual improvement between Novus Ordo and Vetus Ordo was a wholly inadequate strategy and theology fueled by ideological abstraction.
Messa in latino: You have expressed strong criticism of the traditional liturgy. Do you think that the believers who favor it also have the right to make similar criticisms of the liturgical reform, or do you think that the critical analysis of the liturgy can only take place in the spirit of the theological current of which you are the leading representative?
Andrea Grillo: I don’t think in terms of “factions” or “parties”. I'm just trying to read the tradition and discover what we can do and what we're not allowed to do. Everyone can critically examine any part of the tradition. I'm interested in the fact that this discussion takes place with arguments. The traditionalists' arguments are weak because they deny tradition in what best qualifies it: namely, its service to change. Those who question liturgical reform have every right to express themselves, but they cannot expect their arguments to be self-validating. So you can e.g. B. from the criticism of the “reform of Holy Week” one cannot derive the right to resort to the rites before “every reform” of the Triduum, i.e. the rites before the 50s of the 20th century. Anyone who acts like this does not contribute to the ecclesiastical debate, but rather places themselves objectively outside the Catholic tradition, and no matter how much “loyalty to the Pope” is emphasized, this is actually denied. It is not so easy to avoid becoming “sedavacantist,” and indeed even before the declaration.
Messa in latino: One last question. We believe that liturgical reform as a whole has failed, as can be seen in the empty seminaries and churches, merged parishes and diocese, etc., and that it has contributed to the crisis of the Church. We also think that in order to defend them, one tries to present as expected results what seems to us to be negative consequences. How would you try to change our minds?
Andrea Grillo: There are cases in theological and liturgical debate where the use of arguments is doomed to failure. I never give up - I wouldn't be a theologian if I didn't have faith in arguments - but I understand the difficulty. In these cases I use arguments that are often difficult to understand. Even the well-known journalist Messori has often made the same mistake as you. You say: “The liturgical reform has failed,” and you argue in numbers. They think like this: If something in history comes before something else, then what comes before is the cause of what comes after. So it is not difficult to believe that responsibility for the abuses of the 70s, 80s and 90s until 2024 lies with the Second Vatican Council and in particular with the liturgical reform. However, this argument is not historically based. The Church crisis largely precedes the emergence of the liturgical movement: Guéranger and Rosmini spoke of a “liturgical crisis” as early as 1830–40. Festugière says at the beginning of the 20th century: “No one knows what celebration is anymore”… but not only do you ignore all this, you tend to simplify things and think that “if the reform had not taken place”, we would still be in the church of the 50s. [Who really believes this?] There is an error in reasoning here that results from an overly superficial analysis of the relationship between ecclesiastical and ritual form. To change your mind, we should first think about the relationship between liturgy and ecclesiastical experience. Following Christ does not mean joining a high society club [So insulting. I guess we all can’t meet with abortion promoting politicians, Masonic journos and intellectuals like Bergoglio does] or association, speaking a foreign language, or identifying with the past by cultivating reactionary ideals. Tradition is not the past, but the future. Since the Church and faith are serious matters, they cannot be reduced to the association of those who cultivate a nostalgia for the past.
Introduction/Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: MiL
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.Com
AMDG