https://translate.google.com/transl...pa-francisco-fe-clandestinos.shtml&edit-text= It would mean the disappearance of the clandestine church faithful to Rome Cardinal Joseph Zen: The agreement with the Vatican would be "a betrayal" to the Chinese faithful He showed his suspicion that the whole process has been guided "under the control of the Chinese Government" Drafting, September 26, 2018 at 17:27 Cardinal Zen Religion | World 12 million Catholics in China are divided between a state affiliation whose clergy is elected by the government and an unofficial, or clandestine, church in the territory that swears allegiance to the Pope Francisco, resounding: "The agreement with China I have signed, I am responsible" The probability of a trip of Francisco to China after the agreement grows Cardinal Joseph Zen , archbishop emeritus of Hong Kong, warned today that the historic agreement signed on Saturday between the Vatican and China could lead to the elimination of the so-called clandestine church in the Asian country, which would "betray" the faithful Chinese "The Chinese government will end up eliminating the clandestine church - the one that is loyal to the Vatican - with the help of the Holy See," said Zen, known for his opposition to any agreement between the Catholic Church and the Chinese authorities, before a group of journalists. In reference to the historic meeting that both sides held four days ago, Zen, who is also the oldest Catholic cleric in China, said that all those people "happy" with the agreement "are on the side of the government and not of the church" . "I'm afraid that in the 'clandestine' part most people will be very sad and worried," he added. Some 12 million Catholics in China are divided between a state affiliation whose clergy are elected by the government, given that the Chinese Communist Party is officially atheist and the religious groups are closely controlled by the state, and an unofficial, or clandestine, church in the territory that swears allegiance to the Pope. "There is concern and sadness in the clandestine church and it fears to be betrayed with this agreement," Zen stressed , referring to comments that would have come from China. China and the Vatican broke off diplomatic relations in 1951 and have since held disagreements over the appointment of bishops. The agreement reached on Saturday, September 22, includes the historical recognition by Pope Francis of seven living and one deceased bishops appointed by China who until now were not admitted "officially" by the Holy See. "These people (the bishops appointed by China) have challenged the Pope's authority , how can these people ask for forgiveness now and be appointed bishops?" Zen asked. He also showed his suspicion that the whole process has been guided "under the control of the Chinese Government" from the beginning. "They can not make good choices, the government only chooses people they can trust, but does not understand what a bishop is, what a good bishop is," the cardinal said forcefully. The cardinal of the former British colony also recalled that it is the pope who has to name bishops , a note that comes a day after Pope Francis said he would have the final say in the election of candidates.
Not orthodox, hmmm... Fr. James Martin: Those who oppose my Vatican ‘approved’ pro-LGBT message aren’t ‘orthodox’ Doug Mainwaring | https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/f...ose-my-vatican-approved-pro-lgbt-message-aren catholic, homosexuality, james martin, orthodoxy, wilton d. gregory ATLANTA, Ga., September 25, 2018, (LifeSiteNews) – Pro-LGBT Jesuit priest and Vatican advisor Fr. James Martin is suggesting that those who oppose his message of affirmation to homosexuals are not only going against the "Vatican," but they are not “orthodox.” In a tweet sent out on Monday, Martin criticized dozens of Catholics in Atlanta, Georgia for protesting Archbishop Wilton Gregory’s invitation to the pro-LGBT priest to speak at two local parishes next month. Martin trotted out three arguments as proofs of his orthodoxy, attempting to turn the tables on those who object to his efforts to normalize homosexuality within the Catholic Church. “The irony: An archbishop, the legitimate ordinary of the archdiocese, invites a priest in good standing, who has stated he is not challenging church teaching, to deliver a lecture on welcome that had been approved by the Vatican. Who is orthodox here?” he tweeted. Atlanta’s CBS 46 reported about Catholics who gathered outside the Cathedral of Christ the King on Sunday protesting Archbishop Gregory’s invitation: “We're simply protesting two things,” said Dr. Kelly Bowring. “One, that Archbishop Gregory directly invited Father James Martin to speak. It wasn't that it just happened. He invited him. And secondly that Father James Martin himself is coming to the diocese to speak with a pro-gay agenda.” Demonstrators told reporter Ashley Thompson that Father Martin is known to celebrate the gay community, which they say is against church doctrine. “He is promoting active homosexuality,” said Diane Duquette. “He says there is nothing wrong with that.” [...] “We're concerned that Father James Martin is being invited because we understand and agree to reach out to homosexuals and to love the sinner but the problem that Father James Martin does not address is the sin of homosexuality,” said Bowring. The controversy grew from Fr. Martin’s announcement that he would be speaking at the Atlanta parishes. Martin tweeted: “Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta has graciously invited me to his archdiocese to speak,” he said, “so I will be speaking at St. Thomas More Parish (the Jesuit parish) on Sat. Oct 20 and at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception on the morning of Sun. Oct 21.” “I will be speaking on the same topic as I did at the World Meeting of Families: ‘Showing Welcome and Respect in Our Parishes to LGBT People and their Families,’” noted Martin in a follow-up tweet. Martin’s announcement came on the heels of his pro-LGBT World Meeting of Families presentation, where he declared that active homosexuals “should be invited into parish ministries” specifically mentioning them becoming “eucharistic ministers” in order to make them welcomed and accepted in the Catholic Church. Throughout his talk, Martin spoke of ‘LGBT Catholics,’ reinforcing the notion that God creates men and women gay, lesbian or transgender. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, however, that the homosexual inclination is "objectively disordered," meaning that God does not create anyone homosexual. Some lay members of the diocese have also been distressed about Archbishop Gregory's appointment of a pro-LGBT priest who heads a homosexual-affirming parish to be diocesan spiritual director for victims of sexual abuse by clergy. Monsignor Henry Gracz, pastor at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception––one of the Atlanta parishes where Martin will speak––remains in that position, despite a change.org petition to have him removed. “This is very concerning,” one Atlanta Catholic told LifeSiteNews about Gracz’s appointment. “Isn’t this what we’re talking about with McCarrick?” The Catholic, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal, said that the Shrine is well known as the “gay parish” of the archdiocese, and said that Msgr. Gracz “gives carte blanche to everything gay in Atlanta.” *** P, I thought it was just me when I watched this video and thought what is he talking about?... VIDEO: Pope says he received a ‘sign from God’ through Chinese bishops after Viganò testimony Diane Montagna | https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/v...sign-from-god-through-chinese-bishops-after-v carlo vigano, catholic, pope francis, sex abuse crisis, theodore mccarrick ROME, September 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis has claimed to have received a “sign from God,” in response to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s extraordinary testimony implicating him and several high-ranking prelates in covering up the Theodore McCarrick abuse. But some are suggesting that the only “sign” that has been given is that Pope Francis wants to “sweep the bombshell Viganó dossier completely under the carpet.” In concluding remarks during a Q&A with journalists, on his return from the Baltic States last evening, the Pope said the divine “sign” came from two Chinese bishops — from the underground and patriotic churches — just before the Vatican signed a provisional agreement with the People’s Republic of China on the appointment of bishops. The Pope was asked by a Spanish journalist if he would provide additional information about the content of the Vatican’s provisional agreement with China (the text of the agreement has not been released), and how he responds to Cardinal Zen’s accusation that he is “selling out” the Church to the Communist government in Beijing. Pope Francis replied by describing the process by which the agreement was reached, and then praised several of the key negotiators for the Vatican, including Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, whom he lauded for his devotion to detail. As to accusations of “selling out” the underground Church in China, Pope Francis offered this reply: “I think of the resistance, of the Catholics who have suffered: it’s true, they will suffer. There is always suffering in an agreement. But they have great faith and they write, they send messages, affirming that what the Holy See, what Peter says, is what Jesus says: that is, the ‘martyr’ faith of these people today continues on. They are great.” Taking full responsibility for signing the agreement, the Pope said it was not “an improvisation” but “a journey.” continued...
continued from above... He then wrapped up his remarks with a curious reference to the extraordinary 11-page testimony of former U.S. Nuncio, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. Seeming to treat the dossier more as an historical event than a current issue, he said: “And then, a simple anecdote and a historical fact, two things before ending. When there was that famous statement by a former Apostolic Nuncio [a reference to the testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò], the episcopates of the world wrote to me saying that they felt close, that they were praying for me. The Chinese faithful wrote, and the signature on the letter was that of the bishop — so to speak — of the traditional Catholic Church and the bishop of the patriotic Church: together, both of them, and the faithful of both [Churches]. For me, this was a sign from God.” [emphasis added, The Chinese faithful wrote with a gun to their head more than likely.] While the bishops of Canada and New Zealand have come out in support of Pope Francis, dozens of cardinals and bishops from the U.S. and abroad have shown support for Archbishop Viganò, and have attested to his character and integrity. Some prelates, including Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, have even called for an investigation into the allegations contained in the Viganò dossier. DiNardo’s proposed investigation, however, appears to have been put on hold after his recent meeting with Pope Francis. Commenting on the Pope’s remarks, respected priest and theologican Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S. had this to say: “In another plane interview (Sept. 25th), returning to Rome from his trip to the Baltic States, Pope Francis let slip another indication that he wants to sweep the bombshell Viganó dossier completely under the carpet. Speaking of that document in the past tense as something now over and done with, Francis managed, within a very few words, to convey the impression that he has been an innocent victim enjoying total support and sympathy from all the world’s bishops in the face of an isolated accuser. (He conveniently omitted all mention of the dozens of cardinals and bishops who have now publicly called for transparency and a proper investigation of Archbishop Viganó's grave and all too credible allegations about corruption, homosexual predation and cover-ups reaching up to the very top of the Church.)” It is also unclear, from the Pope’s words, exactly what the divine “sign” denotes. Were the joint signatures of the two Chinese bishops a “sign from God” that he did the right thing in signing the accord with China? Pope Francis’ comments come one month after he was asked, during an inflight press conference on his return from Ireland, exactly when he learned of McCarrick’s history of homosexual abuse. The Pope responded by telling journalists that he’s “not going to say a word” about the McCarrick cover-up. Since then, however, in what have come to be known as his “Great Accuser” homily series, Pope Francis has compared Archbishop Viganò — and concerned lay faithful who question bishops — to Satan, saying the cries for justice and accountability come from a diabolical spirit. He has reportedly also compared himself to Jesus, the Good Shepherd who “chooses silence when the ‘Great Accuser’ accuses him ‘through so many people.’” Italian and American journalists had reportedly been “poised” during last evening’s press conference to “return to issues dodged by the Pope” on previous occasions. They also reportedly intended to ask the Pope why he had not yet launched “a full-scale investigation into the McCarrick case, which the U.S. bishops’ conference had explicitly requested.” Read the Pope’s full remarks in context: Antonio Pelayo (Spanish agency “Vida Nueva”): Holy Father, three days ago an Agreement was signed between the Holy See and the Government of the People’s Republic of China. Can you give us any additional information about this, about its content? Because some Chinese Catholics, in particular Cardinal Zen, are accusing you of having “sold out” the Church to the Communist government in Beijing, after so many years of suffering. How do you respond to this accusation? Pope Francis: This process has been going on for years, a dialogue between the Vatican Commission and the Chinese Commission, to sort out the appointment of bishops. The Vatican team has worked very much. I would like to mention a few names: Msgr. Celli, who patiently went, talked, came back... years, years! Then, Msgr. Rota Graziosi, a humble 72-year-old curia official who wanted to be a parish priest but remained in the Curia to help in this process. And then, the Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin, who is a very devout man, but has a special devotion to the lens: he studies all the documents — periods, comma, and accents... And this gives me very great confidence. And this team, with these qualities, has moved forward. You all know that when a peace agreement or negotiation is made, both sides lose something, that’s the rule. Both sides. And they move forward. This is how the process went: two steps forward, one back, two steps forward, one back...; then months went by without speaking to each other, and then... These are the times of God, that resemble Chinese time: slowly... This is wisdom, the wisdom of the Chinese. The situations of the bishops who were in difficulty were studied case by case, and at the end the dossiers arrived on my desk and I was responsible for the signature, in the case of the bishops. As to the Agreement, the drafts passed by my desk, there was talk, I gave my ideas, the others discussed and they went forward. I think of the resistance, of the Catholics who have suffered: it’s true, they will suffer. There is always suffering in an agreement. But they have great faith and write, they send messages, affirming that what the Holy See, what Peter says, is what Jesus says: that is, the “martyr” faith of these people today continues on. They are great. And I signed the Agreement, the Plenipotentiary Letters to sign that Agreement. I am responsible. The others, who I have appointed, have worked for more than ten years. It’s not an improvisation: it’s a journey, a real journey. And then, a simple anecdote and a historical fact, two things before ending. When there was that famous statement by a former Apostolic Nuncio [a reference to the testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò], the episcopates of the world wrote to me saying that they felt close, that they were praying for me. The Chinese faithful wrote, and the signature on the letter was that of the bishop — so to speak — of the traditional Catholic Church and the bishop of the patriotic Church: together, both of them, and the faithful of both [Churches]. For me, this was a sign from God. And the second thing: we forget that in Latin America — thanks be to God this has passed! — we forget that for 350 years the kings of Portugal and Spain were the ones who appointed bishops. And the Pope only gave jurisdiction. We forget the case of the Austro-Hungarian Empire: Maria Theresa got tired of signing the appointments of bishops, and gave jurisdiction to the Vatican. Other eras, thank God, that are not repeated! But the present case is not for the appointment: it is a dialogue on possible candidates. The thing is done in dialogue. But the nomination is from Rome; the nomination is by the Pope, this is clear. And let us pray for the sufferings of some who don’t understand or who have many years of clandestinity behind them. I thank you all very much! They tell us that dinner is ready and the flight is not long. Thank you very much! Thank you very much for your word. And pray for me.
Did you ever get the urge to vomit? Is it wrong from me to wonder whether that sign from God came with a note from President Xi singing the praises of Cardinal McCarrick's charming personality?
The signatures of the two Chinese bishops were "a sign" to the Pope?? Maybe Archbishop Vigano's letter was a sign"! How did the Pope miss that one? It was all but broadcast to the entire world in flashing, neon lights, and yet he has refused to acknowledge it directly. I guess signs are only signs when they conveniently fit into one's desired personal narrative.
Nothing this Pope says sounds holy to me. It just sounds like so much hogwash. I realize I am stating the obvious here.
I had almost forgotten about this assassination plot. But this is one of the reasons that I think there is more to Pope Benedict's resignation than we know. And I believe it is also linked to why he wanted to be called Pope Emeritus rather than go back to being Cardinal Ratzinger, why he wears the papal white and lives in the Vatican. I don't think of him as having abandoned the ship. There is simply more than we know.
I'm afraid that there are stories like this all around the world now--priests being punished for speaking out. More prayers needed! HOMELESS AFTER WHISTLEBLOWING 2018-09-27 PADREPEREGRINO I am a priest of eight years in good standing of the Archdiocese of Denver. About three weeks before the McCarrick scandal broke, I relayed reports of misconduct with children to Archbishop Aquila, and since then, I have been homeless and ignored by his chancery. After months of reaching out to them, I am now forced to go public with these scandals. After seeking legal counsel, I wrote an email to Archbishop Aquila dated 24 May 2018 that I had heard third-hand that a high-power priest in the 1980s used to share a bed with a boy. That boy is now an adult, and he is a friend of a very good friend. That priest is now an extremely important person in the Archdiocese of Denver. I fear that if one boy was involved with slumber parties with this man, then many others may have had slumber parties, too. I tried to get the victim to talk to me, but he would not. Should the Archbishop retaliate with lies about me for this blog post, I will consider bringing this name to Denver’s 9News. In that same email dated 24 May 2018 to Archbishop Aquila, I expressed concerns that about five years ago, a seminarian web-cammed or spy-cammed two 12 year old boys in their shower at a private residence. Although the seminary reported this to police, and although the seminarian fled the country, the seminary never apologized officially (except for one holy priest at the seminary who did so on his own.) I expressed my concern at the lack of transparency from the seminary to the family that I know so well. The day after my report of scandals, the Archdiocese of Denver put $2583.82 into my bank account as seen in this picture. Notice the date of 25 May 2018. “AoD management corp” stands for “Archdiocese of Denver management corporation.” I believe that $2583.82 is the back pay that would have been owed to me while I was taking care of an injured family member that spring, beginning 24 March 2018. They had not paid me a single dollar for months prior! The very next day, 26 May 2018, the threats from the chancery began. Archbishop Aquila wrote me on 26 May: “To be direct, the way you have expressed yourself raises serious civil and canonical implications.” Fr. Capucci, the judicial vicar wrote me: “Please identify your civil lawyer so the Archdiocese’s long-time counsel, Scott Browning of the law firm Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie, can be in touch with these lawyers first thing tomorrow.” These threats did not stop me from reporting what I had heard. I brought the above potential cases of misconduct with children to the Denver District Attorney. I met with Beth McCann on 31 May 2018 at 10am. Ms. McCann and her team were ready for me on the 8th floor of 201 W. Colfax in downtown Denver. I reported everything that I had heard. Similarly, I had a 42 minute conversation on the phone on 10 Sept 2018 with the Colorado Attorney General, Cynthia Coffman. Both women were very helpful to me. As far as my ministry this past summer, I then tried to apply to a religious order in Kentucky. Archbishop Aquila’s team assured me that I was in good standing, and gave me permission for this one week of ministry as seen in this July pdf. It is the last correspondence that I have heard from his office. In fact, one reason I left the religious order in Kentucky to pursue the life of being a diocesan hermit is that I had no proof that the Archdiocese of Denver ever handed over my paperwork of good standing for anything more than one week. (The other reason is that I have been asking Archbishop Aquila to be a diocesan hermit since 26 March 2018, but had no answer.) For months after reporting misconduct I have been writing emails to the chancery, asking for a residence or permission to be a diocesan hermit or permission join a religious order. I was never given any residence or paperwork to go elsewhere since my reporting on misconduct. Nevertheless, this important pdf from the Archbishop’s office that shows I have never lost my faculties as a priest: Since reporting scandals, Archbishop Aquila has iced me and I have been homeless and living out of my car. Here is what my “dresser” now looks like: Archbishop Aquila recently created a “solemn promise” website where he said: “I take very seriously all reported incidents of misconduct by members of the clergy or other Church workers, and we will investigate even non-criminal misconduct with great diligence.” Above, Archbishop Aquila also promises us priests that he would “ensure your physical, spiritual, and psychological well-being.” Here is me sleeping in my car after my having relayed reports of a priest and a seminarian having a past of potential misconduct with children: These are very saddening promises, considering that my Archbishop recently built himself a multi-million dollar home as CNN reported here. Sometimes I stay in my car. Sometimes I stay in a motel (I have gotten bedbugs at least once.) Sometimes I stay with friends. In defense of the Archdiocese of Denver, I do receive $600 every two months, which is the salary of a retired priest. However, that is not enough for a motel and groceries every night. Many of my readers might remember that I have written many times how I had five Novus Ordoparishes in five years under Archbishop Aquila. Wasn’t I in trouble long before the Spring of 2018? Yes, but I can say in good conscience that I was ousted from the Archdiocese of Denver and forced to farm myself out to other dioceses because of how many whistles I had blown on Eucharistic abuses in Denver. To protect the Archbishop’s reputation, I never published all of the Eucharistic abuse that I reported to him, but under Canon 220, I now believe I have a right to a good name, so I have written this new blog post of the letters of Eucharistic abuse that I wrote to Archbishop Aquila in my last two parish assignments that led to my removal from ministry in the Archdiocese of Denver in 2014. Here is my unpublished (until now) blog post called Unanswered Eucharistic Abuses I reported to Archbishop Aquila to explain why I have had to farm myself out for years with the Traditional Latin Mass to other dioceses. However, I never lost my faculties as a priest in good standing to hear confessions or offer public Mass. From 2014 to 2018 I have been on loan to other dioceses with all my letters of suitability. Because this on-loan status has stopped after my reporting misconduct, I am now beginning a cause of action of wrongful discharge and violation of public policy against Archbishop Aquila for leaving me without an assignment after reporting misconduct with children. If anyone knows of an employment law firm in Denver that would do this on contingency, or if you are willing to provide the financial retainer to me for this lawsuit, please email me at an email that I opened up for this cause at broen.finn@gmail.com (Please don’t write me with advice or support. I may begin a Go Fund Me soon enough. At this point, please only write me if you can help with an employment law firm willing to do this on contingencyor if you have the money to donate to a retainerfor me. I realize that 1 Cor 6 says believes should not sue believers, but canon law and reasonable discussions have failed me.) Thus, if this blog post leads to my suspension as a priest under the pretext of anything else in my past, the proof is in the pdf that I again publish below that I remain a priest in good standing. I fully expect Archbishop Aquila to find a “different reason” far in the past to suspend me, so I again publish again here my proof of being in good standing, sent even after my last time of visiting Colorado, but before having any permanent home: continued...
(Homeless because of Whistleblowing continued from above) I have been living out of a car for months. I am not looking for pity among my readers, but I must admit that all these explanations of my vagabond nature are now becoming embarrassing. Anything embarrassing requires me to go public under the Code of Canon Law 220, especially after I have been ignored by my bishop for so many months. Canon 220 reads: “No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.” And yet my reputation is harmed every time I have to explain to a family why I look like a criminal priest on the road. After months of being ignored by Archbishop Aquila, I now must go public, for the Code of Canon Law also states in Can. 212 §2: “The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.” I am being treated as a criminal priest, when there are still criminal priests active in Denver. Denver is the city where I was baptized, confirmed, worked for the City Paramedic Division, and was finally ordained by Archbishop Chaput to the Holy Priesthood of Jesus Christ. I thought of giving up, but I decided I need to fight for this since it is not my priesthood, but Christ’s. Aware that lying will land me in hell, I sign off with these words from the book of the Apocalypse: But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.—Apocalypse 21:8 In Christ, Fr. David Nix Roman Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Denver http://padreperegrino.org/2018/09/27/whistleblowing1/
I have read this priest’s twitter feed. This is ynbelievable. This tells me all I need to know about Bishop Aquila.
Home » News » Vatican Archbishop Vigano issues new letter on Pope Francis and McCarrick AddThis Sharing Buttons Share to Facebook62Share to TwitterShare to Google+Share to WhatsAppShare to PinterestShare to PrintFriendlyShare to More9 Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. Credit: Edward Pentin / National Catholic Register. AddThis Sharing Buttons Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Google+Share to WhatsAppShare to PinterestShare to PrintFriendlyShare to More Vatican City, Sep 27, 2018 / 03:51 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has issued a new letter addressing his allegation that senior prelates have been complicit in covering up alleged sex abuse by Archbishop Theodore McCarrick. Headed with Archbishop Viganò's episcopal motto, Scio Cui credidi (I know whom I have believed), the letter, dated Sept. 29, was released Sept. 27. The former apostolic nuncio to the US prefaced his letter giving “thanks and glory to God the Father for every situation and trial that He has prepared and will prepare for me during my life. As a priest and bishop of the holy Church, spouse of Christ, I am called like every baptized person to bear witness to the truth … I intend to do so until the end of my days. Our only Lord has addressed also to me the invitation, “Follow me!”, and I intend to follow him with the help of his grace until the end of my days.” He noted it has been a month since he released his testimony, “solely for the good of the Church,” alleging that Pope Francis and other high-ranking prelates knew of grave sexual sins committed by Archbishop McCarrick. He said he chose to disclose the cover-up “after long reflection and prayer, during months of profound suffering and anguish, during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events … The silence of the pastors who could have provided a remedy and prevented new victims became increasingly indefensible, a devastating crime for the Church.” “Well aware of the enormous consequences that my testimony could have, because what I was about to reveal involved the successor of Peter himself, I nonetheless chose to speak in order to protect the Church, and I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true.” Archbishop Viganò affirmed that some of what he revealed is covered by the pontifical secret, but defended himself saying that “the the purpose of any secret, including the pontifical secret, is to protect the Church from her enemies, not to cover up and become complicit in crimes committed by some of her members.” He called himself a witness “of shocking facts,” and said he believed very grave harm could be avoided “only by divulging the truth.” “Neither the pope, nor any of the cardinals in Rome have denied the facts I asserted in my testimony,” the archbishop noted; referring to the proverb “silence is consent”, he said that “if they deny my testimony, they have only to say so, and provide documentation to support that denial.” “How can one avoid concluding that the reason they do not provide the documentation is that they know it confirms my testimony?” Archbishop Viganò noted that Pope Francis' response to his testimony was, “I will not say a word,” though “he has compared his silence to that of Jesus in Nazareth and before Pilate, and compared me to the great accuser, Satan, who sows scandal and division in the Church — though without ever uttering my name.” The former nuncio charged that rather than simply saying, “Viganò lied”, the pope has “put in place a subtle slander against me — slander being an offense he has often compared to the gravity of murder.” “The pope’s unwillingness to respond to my charges and his deafness to the appeals by the faithful for accountability are hardly consistent with his calls for transparency and bridge building,” Archbishop Viganò asserted. He said that “the pope's cover-up of McCarrick was clearly not an isolated mistake,” noting that Francis “has defended homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults.” He gave as examples Fr. Julio Grassi, Fr. Mauro Inzoli, “and his halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.” Archbishop Viganò called on Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston and the other American bishops who met with Francis Sept. 13 to state whether the pope refused “to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and of those responsible for covering them up,” saying that “the faithful deserve to know.” He also appealed to Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. Archbishop Viganò said that Cardinal Ouellet “had maintained his dignity … at the beginning of Pope Francis' pontificate.” “Later, however, when his work as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was being undermined because recommendations for episcopal appointments were being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual 'friends' of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in favor of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender.” Addressing Cardinal Ouellet, he said: “before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth.” Archbishop Viganò closed his letter by encouraging the faithful to “never be despondent” and to have faith and complete confidence in Christ. “This is a time of repentance, of conversion, of prayers, of grace, to prepare the Church, the bride of the Lamb, ready to fight and win with Mary the battle against the old dragon,” he said. He referred to an image of the calming of the storm from St. Mark's Basilica in Venice, which shows Christ both in the boat asleep, with Peter trying to wake him, and also standing behind the apostles and in command of the boat. “The scene is very timely in portraying the tremendous storm the Church is passing through in this moment,” Archbishop Viganò said, “but with a substantial difference: the successor of Peter not only fails to see the Lord in full control of the boat, it seems he does not even intend to awaken Jesus asleep in the bow.” “Has Christ perhaps become invisible to his vicar? Perhaps is he being tempted to try to act as a substitute of our only Master and Lord?” “The Lord is in full control of the boat,” he concluded. “May Christ, the Truth, always be the light on our way!”
Have just posted the full text of the Archbishop's statement here: http://motheofgod.com/threads/pope-...buse-former-us-nuncio-testifies.12311/page-24
Viganò opens a new chapter in recent Church history: The silence has been broken John-Henry Westen | https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...recent-church-history-the-silence-has-been-br carlo vigano, catholic, pope francis, theodore mccarrick, vatican cover-up Editor’s note: The following is a modified version of the editorial of the October issue of the Vatican news magazine Faithful Insight. To subscribe, click here. September 27, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The dam has broken. For years, LifeSiteNews has been cataloguing the calamity to the Church being caused by Pope Francis and his allies in the Vatican. But with the 11-page testimony of former U.S. nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, a new chapter in the history of the Catholic Church has opened. Heretofore, criticisms of Pope Francis by his brother bishops have been extremely timid and few and far between, despite grave abuses of the faith which have veritably destroyed orthodoxy in the Church. But the silence has been broken. Thus far, 36 U.S. bishops have supported the credibility of the Viganò testimony by calling for an investigation of his claims. Most of those bishops publicly acknowledged the stellar character and deep faith of Archbishop Viganò. I personally know Archbishop Viganò to be a good and holy servant of the Lord. His explanation of the reason for his willingness to speak out despite the risk to his priesthood and his safety was this: To discharge my conscience before God of my responsibilities as bishop of the universal Church. I am an old man and I want to present myself to God with clean conscience. Knowing the nuncio, that statement is not surprising, for he lives life as a preparation for heaven. And that way of living is precisely what led to so many U.S. bishops standing up for his character at this most crucial time. But it wasn’t only bishops. As you’ll read on LifeSite, Fr. Benedict Groeschel’s order, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, called for an investigation of the Viganò testimony. The chair of the board of Christendom College did the same. As did famous canonist Ed Peters, Pope John Paul II biographer George Weigel, EWTN’s papal posse, and over 46,000 Catholic women and over 10,000 Catholic men. That doesn’t include the over 16,000 LifeSite readers who have pledged to pray for the Archbishop. Conservative commentators like Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, and even non-Catholic Ben Shapiro also supported Viganò’s heroic action. A key point, though, is that it wasn’t only conservatives speaking out. Australia’s Daily Telegraph said the pope must answer Viganò’s claims or “resign”; a prominent Swiss paper opined, “The silence of the two popes seems strange”; the Wall Street Journal called on the pope to end the silence and “explain the truth”; and a prominent German newspaper said of the papal silence, “What a mockery of the victims!” Naturally, there have been attacks on Viganò. Unsurprisingly, pro-homosexual prelates such as Cardinals Blase Cupich and Joseph Tobin and Bishop Robert McElroy have attacked the former nuncio’s credibility. When Cardinal Cupich played the race card, to paint critics of the pope as being against him because he’s “a Latino,” it seemed he was losing his mind. The reaction to the pope’s response of silence has been yet another public relations disaster for the Vatican. The pope has called for silence about the matter and prayer, and in his homilies he has associated those exposing the corruption with Satan, the “Great Accuser.” Even some of his die-hard fans are asking, “does he know he sounds like an abuser?” The pope’s approval ratings have plummeted from 72 percent to 48 percent. The Catholic CEO group Legatus has chosen to withhold its annual tithe of nearly a million dollars to the Holy See until the situation improves. Reflecting on all these events, I couldn’t help but think of Christ’s admonition to his disciples about the end of time recorded in the 21st chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke. Speaking of the time of persecution, Christ said, “This will be a time for you to bear testimony. Settle it therefore in your minds, not to meditate beforehand how to answer; for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict.” Despite the best efforts of many, every attempt to contradict the Viganò testimony has backfired, demonstrating its veracity. The McCarrick revelations followed quickly by the Pennsylvania AG report are what opened the way for the Viganò testimony. Interestingly, I received an email from a reader noting that the bishops of Pennsylvania consecrated the state to Our Lady last year. She wondered if the AG report, which brings a needed but painful purification, was not a miracle of Our Lady of Fatima. With the opening of the investigations into sexual abuse by clergy in many more states besides Pennsylvania, and indeed around the world, Catholics may well find themselves in a time of serious persecution. It may well strip the Church of any prestige it once had and very likely, too, its wealth and earthly power. With all that worldly pomp stripped away, the only impetus left to join the faith – and especially the clergy – will be a sincere and ardent love for Christ which will never die. It will thus result in a purification, an exodus of any who would seek high office in the Church for worldly gain. As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI predicted when he was still Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, the Church in the future “may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man's home, where he will find life and hope beyond death.”
I have been trying to search for a thread on Pope Benedict's resignation and discussions about his pope emeritus status etc., (is there one?) but have been unsuccessful. I've recently come across this article. I'm not sure if it has been posted before. It touches on recent discussions here about St Malachy's prophecies about the popes, the question of whether Benedict is still pope and even links to Cardinal Brandmuller's opinion on Benedict's pope emeritus status which was in the news recently with the publication of Benedict's letters to the Cardinal. Is Benedict XVI the Last Pope? "Everything is Possible," says Benedict himself. http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2016/09/is-benedict-xvi-last-pope-everything-is.html (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. (continues..)
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
One Pope refuses the Apostolic Blessing -- the other gives it. And the view from Rome. https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/09/one-pope-refuses-apostolic-blessing.html Last weekend, at the end of a "youth" event in Sicily, the Bishop of Rome refused to give the apostolic blessing to those present, so as not to cause offense to the "many non-Catholic christians, those of other religions, and the agnostics" who were also supposedly present at the Catholic rally: ( a twitter video here) Now, amidst the maelstrom raised by the mainstream media regarding some private letters sent by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (in which he criticized those who had not understood his gesture of resigning -- full translation of letters here), this detail almost went unnoticed until some Francis sycophants noticed it: ( a tweet here) This confusion continues while a friend in Rome reports on the general view from those surrounding the Pope who refuses to give his apostolic blessing, Francis: The usual care-free attitude prevails in general. Most aren't very concerned about consequences of U.S. anger. Unless they feel real negative change (drastic cut in finances / power), they're just going to keep on with their agenda. And their agenda at the moment is the "gay" agenda of "LGBT" issues that the upcoming "Youth" Synod is about to unveil before the whole Church.
