Skip to main content

Rorate Caeli: Socci: The Backstory: here is what went on behind the scenes. The rage of the despot against the Catholic Pope

+
JMJ

I sometimes wonder if Pope Francis is going to have a stroke one of these times when his little plans are thwarted  - even a tiny bit.

P^3

Source: Rorate-Caeli

Reliable sources inside the Vatican have pieced together what happened. The book “From the Depths of Our Hearts” is clearly by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah (as is indeed the letters between the two of them -  made public by Cardinal Sarah -  demonstrate unequivocally). Everything had been decided and agreed upon from the very start. The other day – when the part defending celibacy was published -  pandemonium broke out in the Vatican because Bergoglio was fuming with rage. In fact, that authoritative  pronouncement by Benedict, stops him from tearing apart ecclesiastic celibacy, as he had intended to do in the upcoming Post-Synod Exhortation. So, he personally summoned Monsignor Gaenswein, Benedict’s secretary, but also Prefect of Bergoglio’s Papal Household and, furious, ordered him to have Benedict XVI’s name removed from the cover of the book (being unable to demand the changing of the texts therein).
 
Bergoglio demanded a full and total disclaimer. For this reason the first filtered report spoke of sources “close to Benedict XVI” who said Benedict had not written the book with Cardinal Sarah, nor had he approved the cover (that is, his signature on the volume).
This however, was not true and Benedict XVI was unable to accept speaking falsely by implicitly accusing Cardinal Sarah of having involved him without his consent. Neither did Pope Benedict have any intention of taking back what he had written in defense of celibacy in the book. In fact Cardinal Sarah immediately made the letters exchanged between them public, which showed the book had been decided upon by both of them, and without doubt he made them public with Benedict’s permission. To re-establish the truth.   
 
On the other hand, Benedict also found himself needing to protect his secretary from the South American’s “vengeance”, seeing as he had received a peremptory order from Bergoglio. So this solution of compromise was adopted: in  successive book editions the author will be Cardinal Sarah “with the contribution of Benedict XVI”.  The text of the book, nevertheless, remains the same. 
 
With this messy compromise, the Bergoglian court can say to the mass-media that “Benedict XVI removed his signature from the book” (even if it’s not true) but in actual fact the book remains just as it is, with Sarah’s signature and Benedict’s name as author of the parts agreed upon. 
 
A very ugly story of clerical bullying, which, in the end aims at muzzling Benedict XVI.  
The fundamental question remains however: If Bergoglio – in his Exhortation -  hits out at celibacy (with the ordination of “viri probati”), he places himself de facto in direct contrast with the  doctrine of the Church, reaffirmed in recent days by Pope Benedict XVI. Thus, he becomes  responsible for a very grave rift, fraught with consequences.
Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana
Source: Antonio Socci’s Facebook

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Count Capponi - RIP

+ JMJ I had heard of Count Capponi over the years and was happy to hear a voice crying in the wilderness. I suspect that his conscience was clearer than many. This part of the article caught my attention: Capponi defended the right of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to continue his work without the label “schismatic,” which term Capponi rejected, saying: “You cannot apply the standards of the new code of canon law and the mentality of the old code. According to the new code, Lefebvre could do what he did with a Catholic intention, and he did what he did in ‘sincerity’ and invoked the ‘state of emergency’ argument, which the new code permits. You might not like the new code, but it’s what governs the Church.” I know a few people who tried to stir up a fuss when the SSPX cited the New Code in one of the documents with Rome.  Yet, the truth is what it is --- the New Code was promulgated by a reigning Pope and flawed as it is ... there are some benefits to its liberality. ...

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized ma...

Those who return to the past are not outside the Church - Rorate Caeli

+ JMJ I had been thinking about putting together a post explaining some of the history of how the SSPX has arrived at its current position. Now I see that Rorate has posted a translated editorial that shows the roots of the SSPX principles. In reading these words, I see patterns and themes that were put forward by Archbishop Lefebvre decades ago. Perhaps his sight was clearer than most. P^3

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

 + JMJ   Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX.  In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below)  items 2 and 3 are key.  Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess!  This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him...

SSPX Transfers

+ JMJ Eponymous flow posted the following list of transfers etc. Source: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2020/04/castling-of-leadership-at-sspx.html The departures Bishop Bernard Fellay, the third Superior General until 2018, leaves the General House in Menzingen and moves to the Seminary of St. Thomas Aquinas in the USA. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, suffering from ill health, is being referred to the Seminary of St. Pius X in Ecene as a retreat. Fr. Christian Thouvenot, until now Secretary General of the General House, becomes a professor at the seminary in Ecene. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, until now Rector at the Seminary of the Heart of Jesus in Zaitzkofen, moves to the district of Germany. Fr. Jürgen Wegner, until now district superior of the DISTRICT USA, moves to the district of Austria. Fr. Philippe Brunet, until now Superior of the Autonomous House of Spain-Portugal, becomes professor at the Seminary U.L.F. and co-saviour of La Reja in...