Showing posts with label Antonio Socci. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Antonio Socci. Show all posts

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Libero Poll: 84% Miss Pope Benedict


The daily newspaper "Libero" has been conducting an online vote since yesterday with clear results. In the picture Pope Benedict XVI. as a cardinal.

(Rome) The Italian daily newspaper Libero has been conducting an online vote since yesterday. The question is: "Are you missing Ratzinger as head of the church?"

The current voting result

Only one-time voting is possible. The vote is counted after a few seconds and the current result is published as a percentage. It is not known how many readers have been involved in the vote. The reconciliation result is continually updated and is unambiguous. On April 13th, at 8:57 am, it looked as follows:

84 per cent of Libero readers have replied: Yes, I am missing Ratzinger as a church leader. Only 16 percent have so far denied the question.

The well-known Italian journalist Antonio Socci, who takes a very critical attitude towards the reigning Pope, writes for the daily newspaper Libero.

The comments on the online vote reflect the mood among the voters. Some examples:

A Franco Ranuzzini wrote:

"Ratzinger spoke of God and frequently quoted the Bible, but it is only understood that Bergoglio was a Pope because he is dressed in white, otherwise he would be considered a politician."

A Francesco Cenatiempo added in response to Ranuzzini's comment:

"No, Bergoglio is the Imam of the Vatican."

A Riccardo Cavalli wrote:

"The Pope is Benedict XVI.  In his recent sermons, Bergoglio crosses the line. He said that Jesus was the devil! And made himself a serpent! Is there any doubt about who Bergoglio is and who is Pope? Read the visions of Emmerich and Neumann. Let us remain faithful to the everlasting doctrine and the constant teaching of the Church!

Giorgio Collarin wrote:

"High on the emeritus pope. Happy Birthday!"

The representativeness of the survey can cast doubt on the overall question as to whether a Catholic Church head should be measured in surveys. In any case, the Libero Initiative makes visible a part of the mood among the people, which is a counterpoint to the likely attitude of the leading media toward Pope Francis.

Is it also the case that 84 per cent miss Benedict XVI as Pope because Francis "makes himself invisible"  on the Triduum, to  the Church, and celebrates the Mass of the Last Supper not in the Lateran basilica with his diocese and the world church, but to their exclusion and in the public From?

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Libero (Screenshots)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Pope Francis Before the Most Blessed Sacrament: "He did not kneel, remove his pileolus, and assume an attitude of prayer"

Pope Francis sat in the crypt of Milan Cathedral before the Most Blessed Sacrament:
"He did not kneel, sat, not once did he remove his pileolous and assume an attitude of prayer"

(Milan) In the context of his visit to Milan today and the meeting with the clergy of the Archdiocese in the Cathedral of Milan, Pope Franziskus spent some time before the Blessed Sacrament. "He does not kneel, but sits down on a beautiful chair surrounded by other prelates who stand ..." Thus,  Antonio Socci criticized the scene, which provoked criticism from different sides.

The traditional page Messa in latino added some comments. Its author criticized Francis' attitude before the Blessed Sacrament, as had not yet been voiced by him in the four years of this pontificate.

"The Pope did not visit the Blessed Sacrament on the main altar (which would have been a good and proper opportunity to provide visibility to the worthy worship of God, the climax of the liturgy and the cult), but in the crypt, almost as if it were a private act that is made in secret and in a hurry.
A prie dieu was not even provided. That is, the master of ceremonies of the cathedral had instructions not to set him one up at all. The pope does not want to use the prie dieu and apparently does not even have one on hand.

Francis did not even remove the white pileolus on his head before the Blessed Sacrament. It was once named Soli Deo because it is only removed for God in the Sacrament.

Expression and body language, the folded hands, indicate that the pope is not taking a prayerful disposition before the Lord in prayer and worship, but just as if he were in a program and had to make an intermediate stop in the crypt which had annoyed him. The look seems apathetic as if he did not see God in the Most Blessed Sacrament.


Francis before the Most Blessed Sacrament: "Apathetic look, no disposition of prayer"

Pope Francis does not seem to have the intention of wishing to foster acts of worshiping God, as they are only due to God. He does not kneel down, as is known (he suffers, it is said, but not officially). But he sits instead of not taking the pileolus off and not to fold his hands? No, I believe he does not believe in the real presence!

On Holy Thursday we will see it.

It is pointless: I am told that I must love and respect this pope. I just do not succeed in loving him. It is hard for me to respect him.

He is Pope by right, but he does not sanctify and teach it in his office. Perhaps he is pope only in government (Therewith, to place the Franciscans of the Immaculate under provisional administration and to dismiss bishops, to protect homosexual priests, and to promote worker priests).

Christian Caritas is merited when it comes out of love for Christ. Without Christ, it is only atheistic social aid."

Text / translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Vatican.va (screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Is Benedict XVI the Last Pope? "Everything is Possible," says Benedict himself.

Is Benedict XVI the Last Pope?
(Rome) "Who is Pope today and how many are there exactly?"  Italian journalist Antonio Socci, who is known by his accentuated criticism of Pope Francis asked on Saturday in his publication for the daily  Libero. General confusion reigns in the Church, and the new interview book by Benedict XVI., "The Last Conversations,"  instead of clearing away the fog, adds to it.
Socci had questioned 2014/2015 the validity of the election of Pope Francis. He has more recently distanced himself from this thesis though, yet he doesn't seem to have given it up so completely. The still surprising resignation of Benedict XVI, still disturbs him and other Catholics too.  It's an inner restlessness that is constantly fueled  anew by the pontificate of Francis.
In the new article, Socci has occupied himself once more with the validity of the official renunciation of Benedict and its even more surprising step, to introduce a previously completely unknown figure of "emeritus pope."  Is Benedict still Pope? How can there be two popes? These questions not only arise to Socci, as leading canonists have warned of the introduction of this figure. Such things were raised by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, a close confidant of Benedict XVI., who does not approve of the step in the "retirement." Therefore, the cardinal warned last July against the institutionalization of a "papa emeritus", also because there are groups in the Church, who still hold Benedict for the legitimate pope, and thus is a dangerously explosive force with the risk of schism in the air  (see Cardinal Brandmüller: Figure of an "Emeritus" Pope poses "Serious Risks" for Unity of the Church in German).

 The Most Curious Detail

"I start with the most curious detail," says Socci. Peter Seewald asked Benedict XVI. if he knew the prophecy of Malachi, who allegedly created a list of all future popes until the end of the world in the Middle Ages. According to this list the papacy, and therefore the Church, would end with Benedict XVI.. Seewald didn't ask the question about the last Pope directly but took a  turn from it: What if Benedict XVI. actually were to be the last pope, who has represented the figure of Peter's successor in the unprecedented form?
"The response from Ratzinger is surprising: 'Alles kann sein.'  Everything is possible? Even that Benedict is the last pope, although for more than three years his successor has ruled? In Seewald's book Benedict adds:  'This prophecy probably arose in the circles around Philip Neri.'"
"He calls them, 'prophecy,' and returns to a great saint and mystic of the Church, and then to loosen up concluding with a joke, but that was his answer," says Socci.

The Break

"Does  Benedict XVI. believe his is the last papacy (at the end of the world or at least the end of the Church)?"  asks Socci. "Probably not. But then does he think  - at least according to the recounting of his interlocutor -- one who has exercised the papacy in the recognizeable form for the last two thousand years? Perhaps. This statement can be heard, because the papacy can not be changed by human will as a divine institution as is well known, of the Church."
But what change will it involved? "Is there a break in the uninterrupted tradition of the Church? Another point in the book points in this direction. Do you see yourself as the last pope of the old or as the first of the new world?'  Benedict XVI's answer to Seewald's question: 'I would say both. '"
"But what does that mean," asks Socci. What does "old" and "new world" mean, especially for someone like Benedict XVI., who always opposed an interpretation of Vatican II as a 'break' with tradition and instead emphasized its continuity?
Seewald ascribes to  Benedict XVI. a "revolutionary"  conduct with which he, "like no other pope of modern times, changed the papacy."  Socci wonders whether this assertion, "clearly alludes to the  introduction of 'emeritus pope,'"  a reference to a concrete statement by Benedict XVI. in the book which he had made and thought to be valuable.

The Detective Story

Socci recalls that the figure of an "emeritus pope"  is completely alien to Church history and emphasizes the canon emphatically that a Pope who waives his office, automatically returns to the status he had prior to his election, because the papacy, in contrast to the episcopal ordination, is not a sacrament. While the bishops, therefore, remain bishops, even if they no longer exert a particular jurisdiction, this was not the case with a Pope.
Nevertheless, Benedict XVI announced in the last days of his pontificate against the opinion of all canonists  that he would become an "emeritus pope"  after his resignation. He did not offer a canonical or theological justification of his unusual step, which was even more unusual than the resignation itself. Rather, he said, during his last general audience on February 27th: "My decision to dispense with the active version of the office, this does not withdraw it back [being a pope]."
He coupled this statement with his announcement of remaining at the Vatican and continuing to wear the robe of a pope and the papal coat of arms and to be introduced with his papal name, including the honorary title "His Holiness".
"That was enough to ask the question of what is happening, and whether he was really withdrawn from the papacy." Therefore, Socci had, as early as 2013, been concerned in numerous articles with the unusual resignation and the subsequent conclave.
Meanwhile, the canon lawyer Stefano Violi, examining the Declaratio,  with which Benedict XVI. announced his resignation, came to the conclusion: "Benedict XVI. agreed to renounce the ministerium [service]:  not the papacy under the provisions of Boniface VIII, nor of the munus [Official] according to Canon 332, paragraph 2, but to the ministerium, or as clarified in his last audience, to the active exercise of the ministry."
After Antonio Socci had pointed the finger at inconsistencies in several articles,  the Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli, very closely linked to Pope Francis,  asked Pope Benedict XVI in February 2014  why he had remained "emeritus pope". The answer was:
"The maintenance of the white robe and the name Benedict is simply a practical matter. At the time of the resignation there were no other garments available. "
There were no other garments available?
"Tornielli broadcast his 'sensational news' in all directions, but on closer inspection, the words must have proven an elegant joke to suggest a question that Benedict XVI. then could not speak on (Who believes that there were no black cassocks in the Vatican?)," says Socci. "But he speaks now about three years later, and explained the reasons for its decision, which have nothing to do with sartorial affairs."

"It means that he is pope"

In the new interview the considerations on the bishops come out. When it was stipulated there would be a limit of their tenure at 75 years, the "Bishop Emeritus" was created because it was said that a father always remains father.
Benedict XVI. now says that also about himself. Even if the children are already grown, the father remains father, even if he no longer bears the whole responsibility connected to fatherhood.  He remained a father in a deeper, more intimate sense, said Benedict XVI.
Socci speaks of a "poetic idea", others speak of a transfigured representation. but on the theological level it was "explosive", because "it means that he is pope."
His personal secretary, Archbishop Curia Georg Gänswein, announced last May in his speech at the Gregoriana   at what Benedict XVI. now sets forth in his interview book. Gänswein went even further and in detail.
Gänsweins speech, which was concealed by most media, "struck the Roman Curia like a nuclear bomb", according to Socci. Gänswein said the papal service hasn't been the same as before, since February 11, 2013. The papacy has in fact been the foundation of the Catholic Church, but it was altered by Benedict XVI. through his "exception pontificate" fundamentally and permanently.
His resignation and the creation of the figure of "emeritus pope" was a "weighty step of a millennially historic proportions."  It's a step that had never happened before, because Benedict XVI. never gave up his Petrine ministry, but "renewed" it.
The novelty lies in the "extension" of the papacy from a "collegial and synodal dimension" to an office exerted "quasi communally."  Although there really are not two popes, it's  a de facto "expanded" papacy with an "active and contemplative" Pope.
One of two people effecting a common Office? One wonders seriously, what the situation is and rubs his eyes in disbelief. Paul Badde had already asked Gänswein a few days after his Gregorian speech about the Malachy prophecy. Such things might be add a little spice to an interview or an article by a journalist, but it hardly helps the Church much in its current situation.  Gänswein gave the impression in his Gregorian speech and  Badde interview for EWTN  that he wanted to ultimately transfigure the incomprehensible step of Benedict XVI.  and subsequently charge through a constructed meaning, which actually made all rather worse. Especially Gänswein's response to Badde, he would have "no problem"  with four or five popes emeritus, lacks of seriousness. The whole situation of Benedict's resignation  is problematic enough, without the need for sloppy swaggering.

Torpedo against Benedict

Socci does not stop till he reaches his next goal. Until the Gänswein speech "Bergoglio must have already heard these things by Benedict XVI  without understanding them, as the emeritus papacy was explained:" The Resignation of Benedict XVI. was a "government action" comparable to a bishop who renounces and retires his jurisdiction.
Since the Gänswein speech of May "the Court of Bergoglio has only just become aware of the scale of the problem," says Socci, hence as Francis issued upon returning from Armenia, the clear rejection of the notion of a "common Petrine ministry."
In August Tornielli ( "The Thermometer of the Curia") published an interview with the eminent canonists and representatives of the Roman Curia, Titular Bishop Giuseppe Sciacca, who unreservedly shredded the figure of an "emeritus pope." "The uniqueness of Peter's successor does not allow further discrimination or duplication of the Office" or even the nominal service as an honorary title. There is especially  no distinction between the office and its exercise (see New Broadside Against "Emeritus Pope" - Canonist Sciacca: "Legally and Theologically Untenable" in German).
So Socci gets in the core of his column to a question which is quite legitimate, but at the same time, of which Cardinal Brandmüller recently warned:
"Benedict XVI. had decided to retain the authority of the Pope and to dispense only with the active exercise of the office. If this  decision of his is inadmissible and void, does it mean that even his resignation is null and void?"
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: MiL
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Ban on Criticizing the Pope is a Structural (Conservative) Problem

Cardinal Kasper: Amoris Laetitia is "the most important document
in Church history of the last 1,000 years"

(Rome) While Cardinal Walter Kasper called Amoris laetitia "the most important document of the Church's history in the past 1000 years," his great adversary in the Synod of Bishops in 2014, "Cardinal Raymond Burke" (Sandro Magister), clings to formal restrictions.
There is no shortage of parts of the Church that match vociferously with Kasper's  assessment. This includes the daily newspaper Avvenire  of the Italian Episcopal Conference . It  is  headed by  another papal confidant, Bishop Nunzio Galatino. The daily sees Amoris Laetitia not just "according to the thinking of a wise father," but exactly how Cardinal Burke does not want to see it. Namely, a regular document of the Magisterium Amoris Laetitia which was a "revolutionary" document that sealed  "by archiving  pastoral prohibitions and constraints," and "that had turned more into a reading of the code of canon law, instead of the Gospel."

"Poor Cardinal Burke, who clings to codes and commas"

"Poor Cardinal Burke, a great canonist, who clings to nothing but codes and commas ...", said the Vatican expert Sandro Magister. "Undoubtedly," said Magister,  Pope Francis  has also thought of Burke, when he speaks of the Article 305 in Amoris Laetitia, writing of those who know "only how close their heart only with moral laws...", "as if they were boulders that were thrown on the lives of people. "
In comparison, the proponents of the "pastoral reorientation" (Cardinal Schönborn) appear to have an easy time. They offer to people supposedly what they want to hear.

Conservative prohibition of criticism  forces it to a sideshow 

Even Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, another Cardinal who had rendered outstanding services in the past two years to defend the sacrament of marriage, has so far limited his formalistic criticism of Amoris Laetitia. The content of the post-synodal letter was not the problem, but the false interpretations. In other words, what the Pope says, that it is all right, it is  just misunderstood. A reading of this pontificate, which was bumpy from the start and  easily turns into a stumbling block, just as  now.
Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller  in not criticizing the pope, are forced to resort to a sideshow and to steer clear of the actual battlefield. Criticism of Amoris Laetitia  turns out to be weak when it renounces the direct, substantive confrontation. While some are going onto the sidelines,  Cardinals like Kasper and Schönborn roll ahead at full speed on the main line and announce the exact opposite. They talk about content and refer explicitly to Pope Francis. The do not address  formal questions. 
The weakness of the cardinatial resistance is homemade in this case because the cardinals themselves are possessed of their strongest means, when they bring forth a substantive confrontation. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of the consequences? What consequences? Is it not perhaps a lack of the insight on the part of the papacy, which proves to be the inhibition?

Approaches a substantive criticism

Both cardinals seem to be aware  of the weakness of their own reasoning. Sandro Magister points out that both Burke and Brandmüller, for example,  don't dispense  quite completely with a  substantive review.
Cardinal Brandmüller  explained  to the Bild newspaper that it was unacceptable to grant exemptions to the Communion ban for people living in the state of the public and persistent adultery. This is categorically impossible for religious reasons and also in individual cases.
Cardinal Burke sees the danger in a dangerous misconception that in Amoris Laetitia the formulation of marriage as an "ideal" may arise. "In the document, there are numerous references to the "ideal marriage." Such a description of marriage can be misleading. You can lead the reader to think that marriage is an eternal idea of what  men and women approach more or less under varying circumstances. But Christian marriage is not an ideal. It is a sacrament that gives the grace of a man and a woman to live in a true, lasting and fruitful, mutual love," said Cardinal Burke.

Rethink self-imposed ban on the Pope's criticism

The self-imposed ban against criticizing the Pope proves to the defenders of religious marriage and morality as a major weakness because it is structural. With consistent compliance, it gives the other side an almost insurmountable advantage and can be repeated as well as on other matters.
The self-limitation is  anachronistic anyway because Pope Francis had given his critic Antonio Socci a free pass  in which he explained that the criticism is legitimate and is thought to be, according to Socci, that the  criticism was "good for" the Pope. Socci had nevertheless doubted the legality of the Pope's election for half a year.
In a time in which the Pope is himself the engine of controversial breaks, faithful Catholics, particularly the so-called "conservatives" have to rethink their attitude towards the Pope. They will not fail to be bound and  soon  will not be able to check  if and how they have  been weighed down by the erroneous ballast of the papacy. And they will have to get rid of it if they want to fulfill their duty to defend the immutable doctrine.
Then to hoped that the pontificate of Francis might not be long, could yet prove to be as  double-edged as the prohibition of criticism.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: MiL (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG

Friday, February 19, 2016

Pope Francis Writes Letter to One of His Bitterest Critics, Antonio Socci


Letter from Pope Francis to Antonio Socci
(Rome) The Catholic journalist Antonio Socci, a persistent  Pope critic, has received a personal letter from Pope Francis. It is not the first time that Francis has shown  his attention to critics. Shortly before his death, he telephoned  the legal philosopher Mario Palmaro in Fall of 2013, who was then one of the most intellectually sharpest critics of this pontificate.  Antonio Socci went so far in his Pope criticism in his 2014 published book "He is not Francis", to challenge the validity of the Pope's election. He was followed in this by neither canon nor other church representatives.  In his latest book, "The Last Prophecy" he corrected [Socci publically disavowed this already?] this position. He has  recognized since then, the election, but maintains his criticism of this pontificate. Now, he's received a surprising letter from the Pope. In the daily newspaper Libero , he reported it:

The letter that the Pope wrote about my book "The Last Prophecy." And my answer

by Antonio Socci
Last Friday, I looked  quickly over the house of my parents, it's full of memories of my father like his best picture: The miners carried one of their mates on a stretcher (my father risked  his life in the mine  and became handicapped).
He taught me that life is a struggle for the truth, and that truth and freedom are more important than  bread. It was he who as a Catholic miner fought for the freedom of our country on April 18, 1948, I owe him the most important lesson: to live without lies.
And I thought immediately of him on Friday, when I received this letter by express delivery. My mother astonished, handed me a white envelope with the stamp of the Vatican City, by whispering to me: "Did the Pope write you?"
And indeed, the handwriting is unmistakable. He has written my address with a fountain pen in black ink  (wherever he has found), on the back was the sender and underneath: "Casa Santa Marta - 00120 Vatican City".
I thought of my father, because he is a symbol for me of those Christian people, who are so despised by the pseudo-intellectual establishment that Pope Francis celebrates (I think of "La Repubblica"). That Christian people that has felt abandoned in the last three years by their  shepherd.
Pope Francis has indeed triumphed among the anti-clericals with a big media success, but has led the Church into great confusion.  It suffices to reflect on the statements yesterday made on the return flight from Mexico, where he "mixed" greatly in immigration policy, but stated that he would not interfere in the Italian debate on gay marriage (though he is Bishop of Rome and Primate of Italy).

The Imperium

On Friday, just when I got his letter, I saw the Holy Father on television because of the jointly signed statement by him and the Orthodox Patriarch Cyril. It involved  memorable historico-political  remarks, which has stuffed the "Obama Agenda" together with the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church,  which the Pope has disastrously circulated.
The declaration brings the Church back on the path of Benedict XVI. and is a true torpedo against "the dictatorship of relativism" of the West and against the dictatorship of Islamism in the East. It is a cry of freedom that allows the celebration of Christian values from the Atlantic to the Urals, and we returns to the big story of the Europe of the peoples and the cathedrals.
It's the opposite of what Francis did in those years.
The explanation takes decidedly (finally)  to the defense of persecuted Christians and religious freedom at all longitudes, and does so with an appeal to a courageous Christian witness in public life. It attacks the nihilistic technocracy of Western Europe, which has denied its Christian roots and excludes the Christian to contempt. Finally, they vigorously defend the natural family and life from conception to its natural end.
However, immediately after the ceremony, carried out before the television cameras, Pope Bergoglio tried to "withdraw" his signature from the publication of this document by playing down its importance. He reduced everything to a proper "photo-op".
What explains this repentant and incredible backpedaling? Obviously, it allowed the Imperium of the "resigned" Benedict XVI. and "cropped" the pontificate of Francis, it impedes him from overturning the geopolitical positioning of the Church.
Therefore Francis (who showed in 2013. a bold  independence with Syria) returned immediately in the assigned limits. It was not difficult for him because of the ease with which he normally speaks, withdrawing and contradictorily depending  on the interlocutor. His Magisterium is often as changeable as the dress Saruman.
Probably one now wonders in the Patriarchate of Moscow, how many  Franzi kisses are actually in circulation. We've asked that for three years. All boats  so guided  capsize, and in fact confusion rules in the Churc.
Perhaps the Pope is begging so emphatically because he wants prayer.
Unfortunately, he has many sycophants, courtiers, shoeshine boys and fans who celebrate him, but few of them pray for him and for the boat of Peter, which threatens to drown in the applause and the laughter of the world.
However, I pray for him.
[...]

The letter

When I opened the envelope, I saw that it came from him entirely. I understand the meaning of certain details: the popes communicate through the State Secretariat (in the past I have already received a papal letter of this kind).
That this was even handwritten by the Pope and a directly forwarded letter, without going through any Vatican office, has a precise meaning: It is intended to be of a familiar character, a fatherly gesture of affection and of Community.
Although I know how happily Pope Bergoglio leaves formalism behind, I would not have expected it. I sent him a copy of my book from the publisher Rizzoli. In it there is a dedication with which I tell the Pope that the book contains what my conscience requires me to tell him.
I was therefore very surprised to see his letter and read his truly informal words.
Vatican, February 7, 2016
Mr. Antonio Socci
Dear Brother:
I have received your book and the accompanying letter. Thank you for this gesture. May the Lord reward you.
I started to read it, and I am sure that many of my things in it will bring good things. In reality, critics help Us also, to walk in the right way of the Lord.
I really thank you very much for your prayers and those of your family.
I promise you that I will pray for you all and ask the Lord to bless you and the Blessed Mother, to protect you.
Your brother and servant in the Lord,
Francis
These are words  that do not leave me indifferent. There are things this Pope does that move me deeply (as I have written in the book).
His evangelical freedom and his simplicity inspire me, his standing outside the clerical schemes. It is moving when he speaks of the view of Jesus, or as in the past few days in Guadalupe from the maternal eyes of Mary. And he recalled that Our Savior wants that no one is lost and is ready to invite everyone on His shoulders.
But ultimately, there is in his pontificate primarily from his Magisterium and from the government of the Church, and  the face of disorientation and confusion that have entered the Christian people in these three years,  so I wanted to tell the truth, even at the cost of professional and moral suicide.

Parrhesia, not hypocrisy

I've thrown into the nettles what the world calls by the name of 'Prestige,'   built in decades of work, to be an outcast of the Catholic world, which is my home. I was, with one blow thrown among  the "lepers."  In those two years I had to digest a lot of verbal abuse. The most common were: "You are possessed by the devil" and "You're crazy."
Others called for an exorcist for me or even a judgement of excommunication. They even have assumed that I was in some sect, under some guru or an obscure "power" under a fog, but in any case outside of the Church.
I was banished from their media and my book has been placed on an index in certain Catholic bookstores, which probably has no problem having Augias and Mancuso for sale.
Today, however,  the words of Francis gives justice for months and months of defamation. They are above all, for each one of us, an example of humility and fatherhood.
The legitimacy of the "criticism of the Pope", which is contained in the letter, also seems to teach that we should be bold and not fearful or opportunistic Christians. One should talk of parrhesia and not calculated hypocrisy.
In my book I quoted the words of the Spanish Bishop Melchor Cano (1509-1560), a great theologian of the Council of Trent:
"Peter does not need our lies and our flattery. Those who defend blindly and indiscriminately any decision of the Pope, are those that undermine the authority of the Holy See:. They destroy its foundations  instead of strengthening it."
Francis knows, moreover, that for him, the danger does not come from the sincerity of the children of God, but from his court: one day he went so far as to say that "the Court is the leprosy of the papacy."
Incidentally, it is also true that a climate of real terror reigns in the Roman Curia and the other Curias during his pontificate, a never before experienced oppressive inquisitorial air. And for that he is responsible.
The way he has led Church affairs in these years and the recent Synod, unfortunately, shows that next to the paternal and understanding Francis there is also one who uses the power in a very hard way. Sometimes, in order to impose the Church heterodox teachings.
He is the one who raises an iron fist against large religious families  and orthodox faith and then praises those who promotes the chasing of the winds of secular ideologies.
I continue to hope and pray that he will put an end to this climate and call for all to stay in the freedom and dignity of the children of God in the Church, as well as the Council teaches (without fearing purges, revenge and humiliation).
I hope above all that he remains faithful to  the mission of Peter and defends the Catholic faith and neither sells it and nor  tips it over: this is not permissible for him. He can not do it.
For even the Pope can not do what he wants, as Joseph Ratzinger has said. He is not an absolute monarch, as once some rulers were. He is the exact opposite: He is the guarantor of obedience.  He is the guarantee that we are not of his opinion or the opinion of whomever, but profess the faith of all times, to defend it against the opinions of the moment. 
Introduction / Text: Giuseppe Nardi
picture: Antonio Socci
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG

Monday, February 1, 2016

"The Last Prophesy" -- Antonio Socci Recognizes the Pope as Pope, but Steadfastly Continues His Criticism

(Rome) Antonio Socci, Rector of the School of Journalism of the public service broadcaster RAI at the University of Perugia, is among those journalists and publicists who to suffer even at the risk of personal disadvantages in directing criticism against the pontificate of Pope Francis. Despite all the assurances, observers like Antonio Socci do not believe that there is "a sheet" of difference between Benedict XVI. and Francis.

Among the most mentally tough critics of Pope Francis was the legal philosopher Mario Palmaro, who died in March 2014 at the early age of 45 years, so now it seems that Antonio Socci, albeit on a different level, will briefly take over his role.

In 2014  Socci called the validity of the Pope's election into question

In October 2014, he published the book "Non è Francesco" (He is not Francis. The Church in Great Storm).Therein, Socci went so far in his criticism of the pope as to challenge the validity of the his election in conclave on March 2013. It's an enduring position that has been ignored in fact in the Catholic world. While Socci  has run of the track some time in wanting to prove his alleged thesis, it was attacked by a canon lawyer.
Now Socci has introduced a new book with "La profezia finale" (The Last Prophecy. Letter to Pope Francis on the Church in a Time of War). Both books were published, of course, not by religious publishing companies, yet also not in some unknown "samizdat" publisher, but at Mondadori and Rizzoli, the two largest publishing houses in Italy. The discussion was open and even Socci's theses were given place, since they promise business in the book market.  Socci's book questioning the Pope's election was on the best seller list for weeks on the Apennine peninsula.


Antonio Socci: "It is not Francis", 2014

While Mario Palmaro was in the grip  of a fatal, incurable disease,  he still received a personal phone call from Pope Francis, Antonio Socci has been ignored by the Vatican. He has since been cut off in the second and third rows of the Catholic hierarchy,  A longtime employee of Radio Maria was shown therefore the door, because he attended a festival in which also Socci was invited. The criticism of the validity of the Pope's election has been considered "fundamentalist" and cost a lot of sympathy for Socci even from those who wish him well.

Socci corrects himself, and recognizes the validity of the election 

In his new book "The Last Prophecy"   Socci takes a step back and gives up his 2014 formulated thesis. Socci sees the validity of the conclave and the papal election of 2013. The book is a long "letter" from a "son of the Church" to the Catholic Church leader, whom he addresses as "Father".   Socci made a daring approach in his Pope-criticism: it was direct, eloquent and pointed as before.
He reminded  Pope Francis that he is not only called "Holy Father", but also to behave  "like a father."  Francis should "watch less twitter and pay attention less to the number of followers  and the media flatterers galore circling around Santa Marta, ready to à la bowing Leonardo Di Caprio including ring kiss and always in the front row,  when it goes down, to celebrate every gesture and every sigh ".


Antonio Socci: "The Last Prophecy", 2016

Instead, should Francis "reflect more on what the Blessed Mother, Father Giussani, Don Tantardini, the Blessed Emmerich and Don Bosco have prophesied that the trumpets of the apocalypse will announce as never before that the world's end is near and the demons are dancing  to rhythm of the Tango on the dome of St. Peter  (Leo XIII. had seen this during Mass at the end of the 19th century  and was horrified)."
Soon,  three years after the conclave  Antonio Socci also recognizes Francis as the validly elected and therefore legitimate Pope. Socci has given up his argument about irregularities in the Pope's election. Irregularities complained of by  no conclave participants and not picked up by any canon lawyer.

Criticism of Francis remains justifiable, because "the situation of the Church is frightening"

"Socci is an honest Catholic," said the Vatican expert Matteo Matzuzzi to the daily newspaper Il Foglio . He takes  his faith and membership in the Catholic Church very seriously. He is questioning, struggling with himself, because his conscience demands it of him.
"He has just shown this honesty  that he has the courage to correct himself, but noted at the same time his criticism of the pontificate of Pope Francis." The question of the validity of the Pope's election is off the table. "The low affinity for the reigning pope,"  is something Socci  still holds as ever like a banner in front."Not because he wants to, but because he must," because, says Socci, "The position of the Church is frightening".
Socci directed the question to Pope Francis: "If today all the enemies of Catholicity you adore as the one who adapts the Church in the modern world, does not then mean that something is wrong in your message? Have you never asked?"
Socci quotes the Magisterium of the Popes to Benedict XVI. including a counciliar gap, and he quotes especially Fatima and the mysteries surrounding the phenomena of the past century and a half.  "To withdraw the Church on their behalf from the resistance (and witness) against falsehood and evil, means to sail on the 'banal grande'  [pun on Grand Canal in Venice] and to leave the boundless 'mystery of iniquity' to rule," says Socci.
According Matzuzzi, Soccis criticism gets "jammed" especially when it comes to evil, because none of the recent popes speak as frequently about the devil and evil as Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Accident?Argentinian heritage?

Socci and the "Bergoglio- (D) effect"

There is little prospect that Antonio Soccis book will be published in German translation [Or English for that matter.]. His form of papal criticism stops at the Alps. However, it is knocking with effect at the doors of the Vatican.
Whether Socci will be released from  quarantine by church hierarchs and Catholic organizations remains to be seen. In Italy it is at least more probable than it would appear in the German language. Socci is a powerful voice whose merit credit for  disclosing the "Bergoglio- (D) effect". These mainly include the "false friends" of the Pope. Socci documented this in early 2014 on the basis of anti-clerical Radical Party of Italy of Marco Panella and the former European Commissar Emma Bonino. The Radicals are the abortion, divorce, euthanasia, homo- and gender party par excellence. The rejection and combating of the Catholic Church is its defining feature. . Under John Paul II  Pannella and Bonino stood on St. Peter's Square and shouted: "Wojtyla go home." Under Benedict XVI .: "No Taliban, No Vatican". Under Francis they stand there and shout "Viva il Papa. We radicals love you."
Socci repeatedly directs the question to Francis, if he had never asked himself why this is so.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
image: Il Foglio / Rizzoli (screenshots)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG

Thursday, November 12, 2015

"The Chaos in the Vatican" -- Is the Media Honeymoon for Pope Francis at an End?

Gianpaolo Pansa on Pope Francis
(Rome) Is the media honeymoon with Pope Francis coming to an end? Is the media circus becoming tired of him? Is the anti-Ratzinger effect spent? Or does the reigning pontiff no longer meet the expectations placed in him?
Giampaolo Pansa, a known source for left journalism in Italy, has attacked Pope Francis in an unusually sharp manner. This Panza is a historical companion of Eugenio Scalfari, the preferred atheist interlocutor of the Pope. Pansa was one of the founders of the Scalfari daily newspaper La Repubblica, its deputy, and he served as editor in chief from 1978 to 1991. Since 2000 Panza is again constant columnist of the left media flagship.
In 1987  he also created the column "Bestiario" (Bestiary), at the first  it appeared in the bourgeois weekly magazine Panorama, from 1990 in the left-wing weekly magazine L'Espresso, since 2008 in the left-liberal daily Il Riformista and now it is printed in the right-wing liberal daily newspaper since 2011, Libero. What has remained unchanged is the author of the Bestiary, namely Giampaolo Pansa.
The example is intended to document that something is seeming to change in the relationship between the media and Pope Francis.

Chaos in the Vatican. Pope Francis brings more confusion than Ignazio Marino

Il Bestiario
"Is that clear?" This sarcastic question of just three short words with a question mark, which Pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio growled under an improvised press conference will go down in history. The meeting with journalists took place on board an aircraft, which brought  the pope from one stage of his autumnal trip to the US. The pope had fired them, in order to deny that he had invited Ignazio Marino [since June 2013 Mayor of Rome's left Democratic Party, resigned on 12 October 2015 in accordance with a corruption scandal], at that time still Mayor of Rome,  to the World Meeting of Families, which was being held in Philadelphia. But unfortunately for Pope  Bergoglio, he was not aware that his famous "Is that clear?” would also remain a part of his history as head of the Vatican. A real mess, with all due respect and without innuendo, which is still phenomenal, as the collapse which Marino left, when they had chased him out of the Capitol.

What Does  Bestiary Think about Bergoglio? He talks too much

Should I say what Bestiary thinks about Bergoglio? The past of each of us is a peephole to what he will be like in his future. I speak mainly about us old gentlemen, as much the undersigned as the current Pope. Pope Francis is an unpredictable figure, an inexhaustible source of problems, even for himself. He talks too much. Every day he invents something new. is how my grandmother Caterina would have complained, at her praying daily of the rosary, after all, the whole Psalter. He is always on the move. He meddles in matters that really do not concern him, since he is not a political leader. Finally, he shows a strong tendency to the left as it seems.  Libero has already designated him as Peronist. For the rest, even though he is descended from a family of Asti, he is also a son of Argentina, the landing place of many Italian emigrants.
Antonio Socci, a really excellent colleague who knows all about priests, bishops and popes, has recalled in this newspaper since, that Bergoglio had left a bad impression of himself when he was head of the Argentine Jesuits. At that time he proved to be a disaster and caused lots of problems. According to a Big of the Society of Jesus, he had surrounded himself with a retinue of super loyal, Peronist Pasdaran and was displeased in no way is to be the object of a personality cult. This led to a number of problems which are not yet solved even after many years. Maybe the same ones who today also happen in the Vatican.

A Hellish Landscape Comes to Light

Do I speak badly of the Pope? Not at all, I think, but even if that were so, I would commit no sin. I'm not religious. On the evening before I fall asleep, I ask my parents, my succor in his sleep and let me wake up in good health and sound mind again the next morning. Therefore, I can afford it, to think that Bergoglio should ask himself the fatal question "Is that clear?". The reason for this lies in front of everyone. With thanks to the publication of books by Gianluigi Nuzzi and Emiliano Fittipaldi, it comes to light, revealing a landscape that seems like hell, though it lies in the shadow of the dome of St. Peter.
As mayor of Rome, Ignazio Marino will have recognized too late the weeds that grew around the clique run by Salvatore Buzzi & Co.  of “Capitol-Mafia". This has now earned him his ironic nickname 
Ignaro (ignorant) instead of Ignazio. But even showing himself more ignorant than he was Pope Bergoglio. His court today trying to assert that the reports and research by Nuzzi and Fittipaldi would reflect a disastrous situation which had already been fixed by the drastic intervention of the Pope. But the bestiary seems just a useless porch. Not to say that this is a completely unsuitable escape.

Vaticanopoli Many Times Worse than Tangentopoli

I have told the tragedy of Italian parties for many years.  And every time I was overwhelmed with protests of many of the porter caste that dominated both the First and the Second Republic. If they do not accuse me of spreading falsehoods, they claimed that the defects described by me and other colleagues in daily and weekly newspapers were related to the past. The that blots that I discovered had already been resolved. When in February 1992 the Tangentopoli bribery scandal broke out and the investigation by the Prosecutor of Milan brought undeniable facts to light, it also came to light that the rot was just not eliminated. The earthquake that followed, we still remember all too well.
Today one must have the honesty to say that the dramatic scenario that has everything on the banality of entertainment films related to  the accountant Ugo Fantozzi, is also coming to light behind the sacred walls of the Vatican, which is hundreds of times greater than what came to  light at the time of Tangentopoli. And that with an aggravating factor: this time it comes to a reality, and thus also to an authority which is much much greater than the political caste of Italian parties.

Francis Has Not Only the "Cross" of Bertone to Wear, but Vallejo and Chaouqui

The Vatican and the Catholic Church are the only hope that millions have remained faithful. This hope appears to be going to rot,  that is flushed to the surface, causing a myriad of believers great pain, the horrified witness a disaster that no one had expected. And we are only at the beginning. Yesterday there was a cartoon published about the pope on the front page of Corriere della Sera, in which has   Emilio Giannelli has drawn an new class of satire. The cartoon "Via Crucis" shows us Bergoglio who wears a large cross on his shoulder: Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. But an old saying goes, the devil is in the details. This also applies to the Vatican disaster. Bergoglio has namely to do with two extras: a Spanish prelate and a Moroccan lady. He is located  in the papal prison, the only reason she was not jailed is because she is pregnant. But the media are relentless and not all are obedient to Francis.
Part of a functioning free press  is an iron mechanism: competition. Even the benevolent media can not long stand aside and leave the hostile-minded media field for the current incumbent in the Vatican. As told in an old motto? That's capitalism, little one! The very "generous" photos of Francesca Chaouqui,  of the until recently completely unknown PR consultant, add ingredients as spicy as malicious to a story which will have nothing on Boccaccio.

The Mayor and the Luxury Apartment in the Vatican

In comparison to this, even the chaos in the Capitol and the figure of mayor Ignazio Marino gets its real dimension back. The receipts of the poor "Ignaro" have, at best, the weight of a feather compared to the financial machinations of dubious figures together with high prelates who behave  "like Pharaohs" (Bergoglio dixit). Therefore Marino's words can not be ignored. He stated, and I quote the Messaggero of 11 October: "I'm humiliated. They treated me like the Mafia boss Provenzano. My wife can not leave the house. If you can imagine that?"
Last Tuesday, the now ex-mayor has acted properly when he took questions from Giovanni Floris on television. Not even with the merciless caricature of Maurizio Crozza did he bat an eyelash. What should we do with him? Put him against  the wall, exile, withdraw his civil rights? Ignazio the ignorant will remain among us. And I'm willing to take a bet that he will not leave the storeroom  locked. He will continue to speak, write and revenge, as I would also do in his place.
Does anyone remember the Garibaldi anthem, which was written in 1859 by Luigi Mercantini? It  began with the famous words: "Opens the graves, bring the dead out". If Marino really wants it, then he would have to open many graves. And since we're at it, he could tell us at the same time, how  he has managed to rent a luxury apartment in the Vatican. 
Introduction / translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Libero Online (screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...