October 24, 2021 (Steven O’Reilly) – Along with many Catholics, Roma Locuta Est has watched this pontificate proceed from one horror to the next. Amoris Laetitia. Pachamama. The Scalfari interviews. The Abu Dhabi statement. Ted McCarrick. Betrayal of the Church in China to the Chinese Communist Party. The synod on synodality. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Some have tried to defend this pontificate from any and all of the criticisms leveled against it. Such are the likes of the sycophantic, ‘papolatrous’ Francis-apologists. On the other side, there are those who maintain that Francis is definitively not the pope. The main theory that claims this is the “Benedict is (still) pope” theory; or BiP theory as I have named it. This theory claims the wording of Benedict XVI’s Declaratio was in some way deficient. Roma Locuta Est has argued against this particular BiP theory in the Summa Contra BiP. Frankly, in our opinion, this Declaratio-based theory is a shiny-object distraction.
So, is it our position that Francis is definitely pope? No. Not quite. It is our position, as stated in the past, that from all out outward appearances of form and procedure, etc, that Francis is the putative pope, albeit one who — where and when necessary — must be resisted on certain issues. He must be considered pope, putatively at least, unless and until definitive evidence is found and or a definitive judgment of a future pope declares otherwise.[1] Personally, I do not exclude that some future pope might very well declare, for example, the election of Francis to be invalid. For example, I have researched one theory brought to me from within the Jesuit order which suggests Cardinal Bergoglio’s acceptance of his election was invalid (see Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows?). Archbishop Viganò seems to have alluded to this question about Bergoglio’s Jesuit vows in a recent interview (see Vigano: A Jesuit on the Throne of Peter “in violation of the rule established by St. Ignatius of Loyola”). I also agree the Open Letter submitted by a number scholars should be considered by cardinals and bishops (see here).
As said, I don’t exclude the possibility Francis might be one day declared to not have been pope. Again, this requires evidence. Definitive evidence has yet to be produced, which is not to say it might not one day be produced, e.g., perhaps conspirators might come forward to reveal previously unknown information. While I reject standard BiP theories which are based on the wording of the Declaratio, there is one BiP scenario that, I think, remains a possibility — although more evidence is required.
I touched upon such a scenario in a past article (see The “we” in “We did it!” — and what they did) which took a look at a Patrick Coffin interview with Cardinal Burke from August 2019. In that interview, Coffin brought up various concerns surrounding the 2013 conclave involving the activities of the “St. Gallen mafia” and McCarrick’s “influential Italian gentleman” (see here). In that interview, Cardinal Raymond Burke, speaking in the hypothetical, seemed to suggest there “could be” an argument to invalidate the conclave if two things were demonstrated:
(1) that the St. Gallen mafia engaged in an active campaign to undermine the pontificate of Benedict XVI
and…
(2) that the St. Gallen mafia, at the same time, engineered the election of someone to their liking (see Coffin interview here, especially at 20:39-21:33)
Roma Locuta Est has put forth evidence and circumstance that addresses the second condition given above, i.e., which suggests the election of Bergoglio was engineered (see The Conclave Chronicles). In this current two-part series, we would now like to examine more closely than we have before whether there are grounds for suspicion that Benedict’s pontificate was potentially undermined in order to clear the way for Bergoglio’s election. We will do this by taking a look at: (1) whether any in the St. Gallen mafia suggested to Pope Benedict XVI he should resign, and under what conditions; (2) whether there is any indication the Vatileaks scandal might have been a wider conspiracy intended to bring down Benedict, and if so; (3) who might be a leading suspect with the ability and means to have organized it, and did he have any known links to Bergoglio’s election; and (4) is there anything in Bergoglio’s past or suspicious behavior to suggest there might have been a plot, or had knowledge of it.
Martini lays the Predicate: Ratizinger, if elected pope, should resign if he cannot reform curia
During the 2005 conclave, reports indicate that Cardinal Martini, founder of the St. Gallen mafia, threw his own support and votes behind Ratzinger’s election. Apparently hoping to reach a tacit agreement with the future Pope Benedict XVI, Martini suggested to then Cardinal Ratzinger that if Ratzinger failed to reform the curia as pope, then Benedict should resign at some future point. According to reporting based on the account of Fr. Silvano Fausti, a close associate of Cardinal Martini:
…Martini apparently handed his votes over to Ratzinger in order to avoid “foul play” which attempted to eliminate both in order to elect “a thoroughly obsequious member of the Curia, who didn’t make it”. According to Fausti, Ratzinger and Martini “had more votes, Martini a few more” than Ratzinger. There had apparently been a scheme to elect a Curia cardinal. “Once the ploy had been unveiled, Martini went to Ratzinger in the evening and said to him: tomorrow, you agree to become Pope with my votes… He said to him: you accept, you have been in the Curia for 30 years and you are intelligent and honest: if you manage to reform the Curia great, if not, you step down.” (Source: Martini: Benedict XVI’s resignation and the 2005 Conclave)
Above we see that Cardinal Martini offered a tacit agreement, suggesting in effect that ‘I will throw my support to your election as pope on the condition you reform the corrupt curia…but if you fail, you are to resign.’
As events would turn out, seven years later, the Vatileaks scandal erupted. This scandal further exposed the corruption of the Roman Curia, as well as Pope Benedict XVI’s seeming inability to competently govern the Vatican. It was then, at the height of the scandal, that Cardinal Martini — something like a Rumplestilskin — met with Pope Benedict XVI in June 2012. The reform of the curia evidently unaccomplished, Martini solemnly suggested it was now time for Benedict to resign. As the La Stampa article reports on Fr. Fausti’s account (emphasis added):
The Jesuit cardinal, who was seriously ill with Parkinson’s (he died three months later), met Ratzinger in the archbishop’s residence in the early afternoon.
During that meeting, according to Fausti’s version of events, Martini told Benedict XVI that the time had come for him to resign because the Roman Curia seemed irreformable: “it’s right now, one cannot do anything here.” Fr. Fausti is a primary source given the relationship he had with Martini. It also widely known that Ratzinger and Martini esteem each other, despite their different positions. There is no doubt that during that painful period the Holy See was going through, with the Vatileaks scandal in full swing, the Archbishop of Milan spoke frankly to Benedict XVI suggesting he resign.
(Source: Martini: Benedict XVI’s resignation and the 2005 Conclave)
It is already known that Benedict appeared to be intent on resigning the papacy at some point having witnessed the prolonged decline of his predecessor, John Paul II. According to the La Stampa article, both Cardinal Bertone and Archbishop Ganswein had learned of Benedict’s decision to resign in mid-2012 (see here), about the time of Benedict’s meeting with Martini, or shortly thereafter. Other accounts place the final decision in December 2012, after Benedict received the dossier which revealed details regarding the homosexual ‘mafia’ in the Vatican. However, given that the Vatileaks court case was not completed until the fall of 2012, it could just be that Benedict waited until the court case and dossier were done so as not to hand an ongoing, unresolved scandal onto his successor.
It is remarkable that Cardinal Martini of the St. Gallen mafia had been so prescient in 2005 as to suggest that Ratzinger resign if the curia could not be reformed, and then, voila, lo and behold, the Vatileaks scandal erupts making clear it had not been — thus activating Martini’s if-then condition, and his subsequent call for Benedict’s resignation.
So, as we see above, the founder of the St. Gallen mafia asked Benedict to resign because of the Vatileaks scandal. If there was a St. Gallen conspiracy, I believe we need to look much more closely at the Vatileaks scandal to see if there is smoke here. The question then is, what was the Vatileaks scandal, who was it really targeted against, and if a potential conspiracy — who might really been behind it?
Did Martini, Bergoglio, and the St. Gallen mafia really care about the reform of the curia?
However, before getting in the Vatileaks scandal in greater detail, it is important to first consider whether the interest in the “reform of the curia” professed by Cardinal Martini, Cardinal Bergoglio, and the St. Gallen mafia — can be taken seriously. Was the call for the “reform of the curia” a sincere goal, or simply a cynical ploy.
The reform of the curia had been one of the supposed goals of Cardinal Martini and of the St. Gallen mafia. However, no one can seriously argue that St. Gallen’s pope of choice — Cardinal Bergoglio — has done much on the subject. His record on corruption is worse than spotty. For example, Pope Francis lifted the sanctions on ex-cardinal McCarrick, despite the horrendous nature of the accusations against him; accusations of which he was undoubtedly made aware by Archbishop Vigano….that is if Pope Francis had not already been aware of them.
There were the Pope’s dubious appointments of Bishop Zanchetta to the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (see here), and of Archbishop Edgar Pena Parra as an assistant Secretary of State at the Vatican (see here). We also recall that the Pope halted an investigation into sexual abuse accusations against the aforementioned Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor (see here). Third parties were said to have interfered with CDF sexual abuse investigations, and Pope Francis dismissed two priests involved in such investigations at the CDF under Cardinal Mueller, then prefect of the CDF (see here). There have been additional sexual scandals, such as the orgy — by some accounts, presided over by a cardinal close to Francis (see here). Without going into great detail here, it is enough to note that financial reform has fared no better (e.g., here and here).
Then there is the interesting case of Cardinal Becciu. His case is discussed in the recent Forbes article (see The Pope’s Corruption Problems). Francis was seemingly forced by public revelations involving a shady London real estate deal to finally intervene in the question of Cardinal Becciu, and stripping him in 2020 of his privileges as a cardinal. What is curious is that Francis apparently had been given sufficient reason five years ago to have had Becciu investigated on another, unrelated matter, as the Forbes article reports (emphasis added):
And it’s not so simple for Pope Francis to distance himself from Cardinal Becciu despite having removed him from his post and stripped him of his rights as a cardinal a year ago. According to a former Vatican official in a position to know what transpired, Pope Francis directly received a secret dossier some five years ago that supposedly set out “incontrovertible” proof about Cardinal Becciu diverting more than $2 million in church funds. “His Holiness closed the file; that was the end of it,” the ex-official told Forbes. The information, that source says, was never passed to the Vatican’s version of a public prosecutor, the Promoter of Justice. And Becciu then continued overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Vatican.
Francis, in spite of having “incontrovertible” proof against Becciu, allowed him to continue in his position. Why would Francis have not acted against Becciu five years before if he had such information? One might well wonder, did Becciu hold some information over the pope’s head? If so, what was it?
We will return to this question involving Becciu later on in part two of this series. It suffices for the moment merely to point out the obvious. “Reform of the curia“, at least in terms of moral and financial corruption does not appear to have ever been a real goal of Martini, Bergoglio, or the St. Gallen mafia, as suggested by Martini to Ratzinger in 2005. Events have demonstrated over the last eight years that this professed interest in the “reform of the curia” appears to have been little more than a cynical, disingenuous ploy.
The St. Gallen group wanted “drastic reform” and “modernization” of the Church—not reform of the Vatican Curia—and it opposed Ratzinger. The evidence on its face suggests Cardinal Martini as a member of the Saint Gallen group was duplicitous on both occasions when he spoke of Ratzinger’s resignation. It appears Martini played his Machiavellian best with his losing hand in the 2005 conclave (to appear magnanimous in throwing his votes to Ratzinger!) and thereby setting up a plausible pretext (i.e., “reform of the curia”) to push Benedict XVI to resign in 2012 when he had failed to do so.
Vatileaks: A Weaponized Scandal to Bring Down Benedict?
In 2012, Martini was dying of Parkinson’s disease. His heir apparent, Cardinal Bergoglio, the St. Gallen mafia’s best hope to win the papacy, was approaching 75 years of age when he would be required to submit his resignation. Time was running out for St. Gallen’s and Bergoglio’s dream of a Bergoglian papacy. It was now, or never.
Certainly in retrospect, the Vatileaks scandal contributed to the timing of Benedict’s resignation. It clearly disheartened the Pope, and could only suggest to Benedict he was indeed unable to effectively govern the affairs in the Vatican. Absent the scandal, Bergoglio may not have ever become Pope Francis. As such, the Vatileaks scandal seemed a made to the order scandal for Bergoglio and St. Gallen. If we ask Cui Bono, or “who benefited” from Vatileaks ultimately — it is clear it was Bergoglio.
It was in January of 2012 that the Vatileaks scandal broke when Italian journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi aired on television the contents of certain secret Vatican documents he had obtained. The leaks continued through to May 2012 when Nuzzi then published a book (His Holiness: The Secret Papers of Benedict XVI) that revealed still more secret Vatican documents. By May 2012, the Vatican police had investigated and arrested Pope Benedict XVI’s own butler, Paolo Gabriele, as the culprit who had leaked the documents to Nuzzi. However, given other documents were leaked to other press outlets, it was clear additional leakers were out there beyond Gabriele the butler. One of these turned out to be Claudio Sciarpelletti (see Vatileaks, the case of the butler).
The butler confessed his role in the scandal explaining that he intended the leaks to help Pope Benedict. While this appears to be the butler’s actual motive it is clear that the revelations in the secret document had the opposite effect than what was intended by the butler. Rather, as might be more reasonably expected, the scandal hurt both Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bertone (see here). That the butler could really believe, incredibly, that leaking this information could help Benedict, only reveals his naivete. Consequently, this has led to the reasonable hypothesis that Gabriele was simply a naive pawn used by others for their own more devious ends; one that were quite different from Gabriele’s. It is a fact that Gabriele did not act alone. Aside from Gabriele and Sciarpelletti, as is obvious in Nuzzi’s other book (Ratzinger was Afraid: The Secret Documents, the Money, and the Scandals that overwhelmed the Pope), Vatileaks was a far broader conspiracy involving a great deal of organization, and many people. At the time, there were speculations in the Italian press that one or more Cardinals were ultimately behind the scandal (e.g., here).
Thus, the theory the butler was, in the end, no more than a “scapegoat” (see here and here) is a reasonable hypothesis. Unfortunately, Gabriele died at the young age of 54 in November 2020. Unfortunately, he can no longer be interviewed on the topic. Dead men tell no tales, they say. Still, the question lingers: was Benedict’s butler no more than a puppet whose strings were pulled by one or more Cardinals who were the real puppet masters behind the scandal (see here)?
In Part 2 of this series we will examine the hypothetical question above, and then offer a speculation as to which Cardinal would seemingly be the likely candidate to have been the potential “puppet master” who organized Vatileaks, having motive, means, and an interest in Cardinal Bergoglio’s election.
Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions. He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on GETTR, Parler, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).
Notes
- Francis has not yet contradicted a strict reading of the Vatican I’s Pastor Aeturnus. His pontificate, should its validity be upheld, will be reckoned in my opinion, as the worst in the history of the Catholic Church, embodying all the worst aspects of the bad popes up to this moment in history (e.g., John XXII, Honorius, Liberius, Vigilius, etc).
Roma Locuta Est 
Dear Mr O’Reilly. I will have to produce the evidence for my thoughts that Benedict XVI was in favor of Popes resigning at a certain age so the Papacy would come more in line with the secular world; that is, the Pope’e reign would come to reflect that of a powerful CEO of the business world
LikeLike
VC, thanks for the comment.
My theory is, BXVI’s views on the possibility of his own resignation was shaped by what he had seen of JP II in his last years…where he was a broken down physically, and I imagine of diminished intellectual capacity.
I believe BXVI from the beginning intended to resign so as to spare the Church a similar spectacle. He left his pallium at the tomb of one pope who had resigned, I think, symbolizing his intent.
So…I think…he was clearly inclined to resign. That said, I think there is evidence his inclination was given a further shove by the Vatileaks scandal, and the simmering scandal around his brother. I think there is reason to believe, as outlined in this 2 part series of articles, that Bergoglio, St. Gallen, etc., organized the Vatileaks plot to further dishearten him — and set up Martini to say he needs to resign.
Thanks again.
Steve
LikeLike
Dear Mr O’Reilly. I’ll have some more info tomorrow but your ideas are certainly plausible if not convincing.
On another matter, the answer is clearly “NO” to the rhetorical question – Is the Pope Catholic?
https://web.archive.org/web/20170129164015/https://en.denzingerbergoglio.com/
LikeLike
VC…looking forward to your info. Thanks.
Steve
LikeLike
Thanks to the radical Paul VI, modern Popes wil become like CEOs of secular companies.
+++++++++++++++++++
Even before this, however, another meaningful occurrence which might
be very useful for the research I have suggested, should be mentioned. I quote from the Spanish What’s Up (Que Pasa?) magazine, Vol. VII, No. 363, of December 12, 1970:
The famous and “regretfully” octogenarian Cardinal Ottaviani does not
conceal his bitterness.
In its issue of Thursday, November 26, in three columns on the first and
second pages, The Messenger (It Messagero) from Rome, published a sensational interview with His Eminence Alfred Cardinal Ottaviani. The report is accompanied by a large photograph of this venerable prince of the Church. . . .
According to the Pope’s November 24 Motu Proprio, beginning next
January no eighty -year-old cardinal will be able to participate in the election of the Pontiff. Presently, these persons amount to twenty-five. Among them is saintly Cardinal Ottaviani, who celebrated his eightieth birthday on October 29, 1970.
Question: What does His Eminence think about this decision of Paul
VI?
Answer: More important than my personal opinion, which could be
deemed biased because of my age, I should like to convey the feelings of
canons, prelates, and even renowned hierarchs who are unaware of the
current problems of the Church. Undoubtedly they all are impressd by this
unusual and expeditious way of enacting this grave disruption in the high
ecclesiastical hierarchy. This radical change was implemented without
previous consultation with experts and specialists, at least to observe the
formalities to a certain extent.
Question: Why did Your Eminence say “unusual?” Perhaps because
no one expected such a big upsetting decision?
Answer: It is unusual that, through a Motu Proprio, without previous
advice, the pages of the constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica and those of
the Code of Canonical Law, which regulated the position of the cardinals,
both as to the cooperation they owe the Pontiff for the rule of the world
Church, and as to their most important ministry as top electors of the Head
of the Universal Church, are suppressed. This Motu Proprio then, is an act
of abolition of a multicentennial tradition. It rejects the practice followed
by all ecumenical councils. Regarding the age limit [the Most Eminent
Cardinal spoke calmly and composedly, without any sign of uneasiness],
should old age be respected, we would be able to sow the seed whose fruits
you yourselves would harvest. But here respect was laid aside. … It is
precisely the motivation of age which the Motu Proprio invokes to justify
such a grave regulation. In fact, along the centuries, a principle was always
deemed immutable, namely, that old people are a firm safeguard of the
Church and its best advisors, for they are rich in experience, wisdom, and
doctrine. If, in a given case, these gifts were not present, it sufficed to
examine the circumstances concerning this particular person to determine
whether disease or mental disturbance made him inept, this check
belonging to skillful experts. In Holy Writ,” [the Most Eminent Cardinal
was astonishingly bright], “the value of age and the aged are often
mentioned. This shows how constructive are the cooperation and
guarantee of advanced age in the administration of holy things and in right
and efficient pastoral administration. In addition, let us not forget the
glory of Pontiffs, who, in their old age, enlightened the Church with their
wisdom and sanctity. Finally, when we cardinals are in our eighties, to our
credit is a curriculum vitae full of merits, experience, and doctrines at the
service of the Church. The Church cannot afford to lose these advantages
by accepting only the cooperation of younger and less-experienced people.
Question : Eminence, could not this discrimination of octogenarian
cardinals by chance affect the Pontiff himself someday?
Answer: Certainly, for the same criterion must be analogically
applied to the case of the sovereign Pontiff, be he an octogenarian or be his
acts questioned due to age.
Question : Finally, Eminence: What was your impression about this
decision of the Pope?
Answer: You will see. I felt flattered each time Paul VI, verbally or
in writing, called me u il mio maestro ” (“my master”), but now this act of
laying me aside completely is openly contradictory with his autographed
letter of October 29. In that, he congratulated me for my eightieth
birthday, using affectionate phrases and flattering felicitations for my long,
faithful, everyday services to the Church.
STATEMENTS BY CARDINAL TISSERANT
According to the November 27, 1970 issue of La Croix , 86-year-old
Cardinal Tisserant, who enjoys full mental clarity and excellent physical health, answered questions on Italian Television (First Network). I quote La Croix:
Rarely had an interview attained such importance and contained such
interesting information. In just three minutes, the audience was informed about the Pope’s critical health condition (“he had to be held up on the way out of his Wednesday audience”), about the Cardinal’s excellent state of health, about Christ having founded His Church under the form of a monarchic state , and about the collegiality of the bishopric about which we have heard so much (“The more it is mentioned, the less it is exercised”).
Apropos of Paul Vi’s decision to keep the election of the Pope in the hands
of less-than-80-year-old cardinals, Cardinal Tisserant said he did not know the grounds thereof (though the Pontifical document stated them clearly), and that, undoubtedly, the Pope wanted to please young people , since “now, everybody wants old people to disappear
Wednesday afternoon. Professor Alessandrini categorically denied the
Cardinal’s words regarding the Pope’s health condition.
SOME COMMENTS BY FATHER RAYMOND DULAC
When Fr. Raymond Dulac was asked his opinion of Paul Vi’s decision to
take away the right of voting in papal elections from cardinals 80 years and
older, he made these statements:
This decision taking away the right of voting in the papal election from a
whole category of cardinals, is an enormous decision. Until now, the most
important part of their function was this right. It commands and effects their beheading in the most accurate sense of this word; they keep their hats, but their heads are chopped off. This is what the ancient Romans called diminutio capitis, a lessening or amputation of their civil rights and, of course, of their personality.
Let us not forget that the statute creating the cardinals’ right to elect the
Pope dates back to the year 1059; that during the arduous course of this
thousand-year period of history this rule was never questioned; that the
“impediment” of advanced age has never prevented the creation of a cardinal or the continuing of a Pope once he became 80 years old, that it is contrary to the Catholic spirit and the Roman Tradition to suspend a law supported by such a time-honored custom without most grave reasons; and that this type of change, affected by the Pope in 1970 in such a sudden, personal, and suspicious way, will increase most people’s feelings of insecurity, instability, and the alienation which
has contributed to de-sacralizing the Church and loosening its customs.
Let us forget the inhuman, vain, vile aspects of this decision concerning
the age of men whose sacerdotal ordination had separated them from mortal mankind as far as powers and dignities are concerned.
After this blow and all the others of the past five years designed to
naturalize and laicize the clergy, how could one have the heart to keep on telling the ordained young priests: ”7u es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech ?” Priest for all eternity? Of what order? Not of the carnal Levitical tribe, but of the order of that astonishing, unique, ageless personage, Melchisedech, whose mystery is revealed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, verse 3 of Chapter 7: “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God, continueth a priest forever.”
This all being over, today’s priest is just like an official who, in due course,
is “retired,” with a life pension, like a Swiss guard.
Since Paul VI, without much of a preamble, has nullified a millenary
legislation, it is important to know whether his Motu Proprio was not in fact, a Motu alieno.
This most unusual act is an act of personal might on the part of a Pontiff
who, so far as others are concerned, keeps on covering himself with the curtain of collegiality. We are sure this act has not been free. Should it be proven that it was free, there will be no need to nullify this act; as a matter of right, it will be null and void
“For behold … the Lord of hosts shall take away from Jerusalem, and
from Juda . . . the strong man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the cunning . . . and the ancient. The captain over fifty, and the
honourable . , . and the counsellor . . . And I will give children to be their princes, and , . . the child shall make a tumult against the ancient ; and the base against the honourable (Is. 3:1-5). He who is able to understand let him understand [italics
added].
This is Paul VI, living contradiction. On the one hand, he affirms; on the
other, he denies. Many times, without even preserving appearances, he destroys with facts what he has built with words. Let the reader remember what the Pontiff wrote in his brief to Cardinal Lercaro when the Cardinal was almost eighty years old, wishing him a long life in the service of the Church. Then let him read the Motu Proprio, whereby he deprives octogenarian cardinals of their legitimate rights on grounds of age, not because of incapacity. Paul’s dialectics
are incomprehensible and plainly destructive.
Applying these dialectics, regulating our criteria by the principles of this
Motu Proprio , we must conclude that the octogenarian Pontiff, John XXIII, was an inept pope, and his council was no real council, because, according to Pope Montini, one’s reason quits functioning when one is eighty years old, and one is no longer able to receive the light of the Holy Ghost.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF GENOA , CARDINAL SIRI t SPEAKS
In order to decipher the enigma of the current Pontiff, I believe it to be
extremely important to quote the courageous statements of Cardinal Siri,
Archbishop of Genoa. He did not speak directly about Paul VI, but I believe that what he said can be applied to Pope Montini:
1. Opinions Replace Truth .
In this world the first and fundamental doctrine of power consists of an
affirmation that there is no truth. Saint Augustine said that the difference
between the city of this world and the city of God consists of the former having a thousand opinions, while the latter has only one truth. The basic difference between both cities, therefore, is not based on the content, but on the very existence of truth. It suffices to remember the dramatic dialogue between Jesus and Pilate.
What is most grave is that there is a technique to replace truth by opinions.
This technique exists and is very useful. It suffices to look at present religious, literary, and philosophical productions. Opinions can be so cautiously expressed that it is impossible to get to know what the author’s thesis is, or even more paradoxical, doctrines that are mutually contradictory are juxtaposed as if they
were consistent.
Let us look at the words, “God is dead.’ 1 If the slogan were denial ,
everybody would be able to understand. However, here we have a subtly
sophisticated idea through which “theologians” want to convey the deceitful impression they are preserving the most assayed and chemically pure idea of God . . . through its “identification” with the most profound reality of man.
Even the ambiguous terms “conservative” and “progressive” conceal the
relativistic technique, which leads every doctrinal issue in the direction of right wing and left wing. Thus everything becomes relative; everything becomes a matter of opinions and an instrument of power. Relativity of truth and doctrine is the actual goal of these arbitrary developments of the Church’s present problems.
Is not this measure, proclaimed even by bishops and cardinals among us,
absurd and most unjust, as if it were an ideal to place us halfway between truth and error?
2. Is Gnosis Reappearing?
[To name the current errors in the Church, one speaks about a new
Modernism and also the Protestantization of the Church, but the Archbishop of Genoa prefers to use the term Gnosis.]
Let it be remembered that Gnosis, with its appeal to science and higher
speculation, with its eagerness to understand mystery and to naturalize the Faith, was, during the second century, perhaps the worst danger in all the history of the Church. I believe that the complex of errors circulating today can be called Gnosis , systematically speaking. But … do many people know what they are talking about? This is terrible, but they do not!
One does not act on rational grounds, but on one’s excessive desire to
adapt oneself to the world. Worldly power, however, has its own philosophy, and fashionable theologians translate fashionable opinions into theological language, not because they accept a doctrine as such, but because they accept these doctrines that flatter the powers of this world.
The present times are grave, not because it is no longer a question of
opposition or contrast between truth and error, but between truth and non-truth, between the order of truth and the dictatorship of public opinion. People believe they are free because this appears in juridical texts; as a matter of fact, this deceiving belief is evidence of their servitude.
Is the Church also under the despotism of public opinion? Perhaps not the
Church, but certainly many people within the Church are. The Church could not be deprived of its freedom without the Holy Spirit’s provoking powerful reactions. . . .
The altercation around the Council was not intended by John XXIII, who
suffered profoundly as a result of it; of this I am a personal witness. The real Christian greatness of John XXIII consisted of the serene Christian manner by which he humbly accepted his cross up until his death, fully realizing the tremendous gravity of the problems.
3. What is Most Urgent?
The most urgent work is to restore the distinction between truth and error
in the Church. We have reached a point where any exercise of ecclesiastical
authority is considered an abuse of freedom, as if authority were a denial of
freedom! A thousand illegitimate powers severely and systematically curtail the conscience and liberty of people at a superficial level, while at the deepest level they detach them from the truth contained in the sources of revelation and Magisterium, I hope that just and authorized distinctions will be forthcoming. Pastoral authority is no art of compromise and concession, but the art of saving souls through the truth.
This truth is many times obscured by abusive liturgical deformations.
Today dangerous losses are discovered in the essential. Not only is the rite
sacred, but also the presence in the rite of the meaningful reality. Once the rite is mythologized the meaning of its contents is lost. No wonder that the Eucharist becomes for some a mere feast of human unity where God is just a spectator. This is no longer heresy, but apostasy.
Right. The present situation in the Church is one of the most grave in its
history, for this time the challenge does not come from outer persecution, but from inner perversion. This is very grave. But the gates of Hell will not prevail.
+++++++++++++++
It is said that one of the reasons for Pope Benedict xvi to resign is he was tired and didn’t think he could fly to the next World Youth Day, a despicable novelty fully in line with forcing elderly Prelates to retire.
Why promote youth? They don’t know what’n’hell they are talking about when it comes to Catholicism so they can be manipulated by the Hierarchy even why the Hierarchy is flattering them.
The modern Papacy is nearly all about political action.
Go on, try to think of the last time a Pope spoke publicly about The Real Mass and Sacraments – about Salvation and Sanctification
PFFFFFT
LikeLike