4.10.18

#SodomySynod

Não vale a pena perder muito tempo com o anti-sínodo que actualmente decorre em Roma.

Os documentos foram cuidadosamente preparados, os participantes foram criteriosamente seleccionados e os procedimentos sinodais foram adaptados aos novos tempos.

Já sabemos como é que tudo vai decorrer:



A única dúvida que poderá restar diz respeito ao número de vítimas.

Será que anti-igreja se contentará  em derrogar o (pouco que resta do) 6.º mandamento ou estará programada mais alguma revolução?

Não sabemos.

Seremos, por isso, obrigados a ler as notas de pé-de-página da próxima exortação anti-apostólica (grande seca).


26.9.18

“Du Sollst Nicht Lügen” (“Thou Shalt Not Lie”)

A reportagem do Der Spiegel que marca o divórcio (ou pelo menos a separação temporária) entre os grandes media liberais-progressistas e o Papa ditador foi convenientemente sintetizada pelo Catholic Herald.

Nada de novo, mas aqui ficam o resumo para mais tarde recordar:

  • Division in the upper levels of the Church

    “Only behind closed doors do cardinals and archbishops speak,” the report says, hinting at its access to senior prelates. It suggests that the Pope might “squander his authority” by speaking at the wrong moment, and being silent when he could speak.

    One “old cardinal” describes Pope Francis as “a Holy Father who calls into question the truths of the Faith like never before.

    Der Spiegel also quotes a cardinal as saying: “He preaches mercy, but in truth he’s an ice-cold, crafty Machiavellian and – even worse – he lies.”

  • Criticism not just from ‘archconservatives’

    The report recalls its story from 2016: the Pope reportedly said privately, “It is not to be excluded that I will go down in history as the man who split the Catholic Church.” Der Spiegel suggests that there is indeed a “civil war” – and that it doesn’t only run between conservatives and progressives. There’s a “climate of fear and uncertainty”, according to one bishop in the Vatican; the magazine also quotes Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register as saying that, because Francis “does not really listen to people who don’t share his views”, many believers end up “disenfranchised”.

    “The criticism of him extends far beyond the global network of archconservatives,” Der Spiegel argues, pointing out that Pope Francis’s critics aren’t limited to those unhappy about, for instance, Francis washing the feet of a Muslim woman.

  • The wrong silences

    The magazine notes that Pope Francis has declined to comment on the allegations made by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, or subsequent inquiries – such as the letter from Catholic women requesting that he answer Viganò’s claims. (That letter has more than 45,000 signatures.)

    But Der Spiegel argues that this is typical: “On awkward subjects, he says nothing. So it was in the case of the ‘dubia’” – that is, the letter from four prominent cardinals, asking the Pope to reaffirm Church teaching on marriage, the Eucharist and morality. (The letter was sent in 2016; no reply has been given, or an audience granted. Two of the cardinals have since died.)

    The report says these silences are an unfortunate combination with the Pope’s stated advice to “Hagan lío” (usually rendered in English as “make a mess” – Der Spiegel translates it as more like “Set the cat among the pigeons”). The Pope “sets little store by the constraints of protocol” and also “calls dogmas into question”.

  • Argentine background

    The report goes into some detail about Archbishop Bergoglio’s record in Buenos Aires – which has already been criticised elsewhere. One case is that of Fr Julio Grassi, who was convicted in 2009 of sexually abusing a teenage boy. He appealed against the conviction, but it was eventually upheld. Der Spiegel says Archbishop Bergoglio helped his appeal by commissioning a report (this eventually ran to 2,000 pages) which tried to demonstrate Grassi’s innocence.

    What Der Spiegel adds is an interview with Juan Pablo Gallego, who prosecuted Grassi, and who says that Pope Francis won’t return to Argentina because he would face heavy criticism over his handling of abuse cases.

    Another interviewee, Julieta Añazco, says she was abused by a priest in Buenos Aires diocese. There are multiple accusations against this priest, which he denies. Añazco says that she and 13 others wrote to their former archbishop once he became Pope, and received no reply – again, something which has been previously covered. Añazco tells Der Spiegel what she has said before: “We want to reach the Pope, but he does not care about us.”

  • Bad advisers

    In one of its most dramatic claims, the report says that some of the Pope’s “advisers and assistants” are “in more or less obvious concubinage with representatives of one sex or the other.

    Der Spiegel makes reference to a document supposedly commissioned by Pope Benedict, describing the “gay lobby” in the Vatican. The newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano recently claimed to have a copy.

    The magazine stops short of claiming that the Pope is aware of the scale of the problem, saying that he may be guilty of either “naïvety, chutzpah or a lack of alternatives”.

24.9.18

Arquivei aqui pela primeira vez este gráfico mal-amanhado em 29/6.

Em menos de três meses, tornou-se uma das páginas mais visitadas do blog !

#FrancisEffect



21.9.18

Archbishop Chaput publishes strong criticism of Youth Synod document


"The Instrumentum veers dangerously close to heresy – specifically the heresies of naturalism, Lutheranism, and relativism"

18.9.18

11.9.18

What Went Wrong? (Fr. Paul Mankowski, S.J. / 2003)

8.9.18

Can a Pope can be canonically deposed? The case of the Synod of Sutri

O artigo original

Mais informação:

  • "In the autumn of 1046 the King of Germany, Henry III, crossed the Alps at the head of a large army and accompanied by a brilliant retinue of the secular and ecclesiastical princes of the empire, for the twofold purpose of receiving the imperial crown and of restoring order in the Italian Peninsula. The condition of Rome in particular was deplorable. In St. Peter's, the Lateran, and St. Mary Major's, sat three rival claimants to the papacy. (See BENEDICT IX.) Two of them, Benedict IX and Sylvester III, represented rival factions of the Roman nobility. The position of the third, Gregory VI, was peculiar. The reform party, in order to free the city from the intolerable yoke of the House of Tusculum, and the Church from the stigma of Benedict's dissolute life, had stipulated with that stripling that he should resign the tiara upon receipt of a certain amount of money. That this heroic measure for delivering the Holy See from destruction was simoniacal, has been doubted by many; but that it bore the outward aspect of simony and would be considered a flaw in Gregory's title, consequently in the imperial title Henry was seeking, was the opinion of that age.

    Strong in the consciousness of his good intentions, Gregory met King Henry at Piacenza, and was received with all possible honours. It was decided that he should summon a synod to meet at Sutri near Rome, at which the entire question should be ventilated.

    The proceedings of the Synod of Sutri, 20 December, are well summarized by Cardinal Newman in his "Essays Critical and Historical" (II, 262 sqq.). Of the three papal claimants, Benedict refused to appear; he was again summoned and afterwards pronounced deposed at Rome. Sylvester was "stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a monastery". Gregory showed himself to be, if not an idiota, at least a man miræ simplicitatis, by explaining in straightforward speech his compact with Benedict, and he made no other defence than his good intentions, and deposed himself (Watterich, Vitæ Rom. Pont., I, 76); an act by some interpreted as a voluntary resignation, by others (Hefele), in keeping with the contemporary annals, as a deposition by the synod. The Synod of Sutri adjourned to meet again in Rome 23 and 24 December. Benedict, failing to appear, was condemned and deposed in contumaciam, and the papal chair was declared vacant." (Fonte).

  • Pope Benedict IX

    "The nephew of his two immediate predecessors, Benedict IX was a man of very different character to either of them. He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter. Regarding it as a sort of heirloom, his father Alberic placed him upon it when a mere youth, not, however, apparently of only twelve years of age (according to Raoul Glaber, Hist., IV, 5, n. 17. Cf. V, 5, n. 26), but of about twenty (October, 1032). Of his pontifical acts little is known, except that he held two or three synods in Rome and granted a number of privileges to various churches and monasteries. He insisted that Bretislav, Duke of Bohemia, should found a monastery, for having carried off the body of St. Adalbert from Poland. In 1037 he went north to meet the Emperor Conrad and excommunicated Heribert, Archbishop of Milan, who was at emnity with him (Ann. Hildesheimenses, 1038). Taking advantage of the dissolute life he was leading, one of the factions in the city drove him from it (1044) amid the greatest disorder, and elected an antipope (Sylvester III) in the person of John, Bishop of Sabina (1045 -Ann. Romani, init. Victor, Dialogi, III, init.). Benedict, however, succeeded in expelling Sylvester the same year; but, as some say, that he might marry, he resigned his office into the hands of the Archpriest John Gratian for a large sum. John was then elected pope and became Gregory VI (May, 1045). Repenting of his bargain, Benedict endeavoured to depose Gregory. This resulted in the intervention of King Henry III.

    Benedict, Sylvester, and Gregory were deposed at the Council of Sutri (1046) and a German bishop (Suidger) became Pope Clement II. After his speedy demise, Benedict again seized Rome (November, 1047), but was driven from it to make way for a second German pope, Damasus II (November, 1048). Of the end of Benedict it is impossible to speak with certainty. Some authors suppose him to have been still alive when St. Leo IX died, and never to have ceased endeavouring to seize the papacy. But it is more probable that the truth lies with the tradition of the Abbey of Grottaferrata, first set down by Abbot Luke, who died about 1085, and corroborated by sepulchral and other monuments within its walls. Writing of Bartholomew, its fourth abbot (1065), Luke tells of the youthful pontiff turning from his sin and coming to Bartholomew for a remedy for his disorders. On the saint's advice, Benedict definitely resigned the pontificate and died in penitence at Grottaferrata. [See "St. Benedict and Grottaferrata" (Rome, 1895), a work founded on the more important "De Sepulcro Benedicti IX", by Dom Greg. Piacentini (Rome, 1747).]" (Fonte)

  • Pope Gregory VI (JOHN GRATIAN).

    "Date of birth unknown; elected 1 May 1045; abdicated at Sutri, 20 December, 1046; died probably at Cologne, in the beginning of 1048. In 1045 the youthful libertine Benedict IX occupied the chair of Peter. Anxious, in order so it is said, that he might marry, to vacate a position into which, though wholly unfit, he had been thrust by his family, he consulted his godfather, John Gratian, the Archpriest of St. John "ad portam Latinam", a man of great reputation for uprightness of character, as to whether he could resign the supreme pontificate. When he was convinced that he might do so, he offered to give up the papacy into the hands of his godfather for a large sum of money. Desirous of ridding the See of Rome on such an unworthy pontiff, John Gratian in all good faith and simplicity paid him the money and was recognized as pope in his stead. Unfortunately the accession of Gratian, who took the name of Gregory VI, though it was hailed with joy even by such a strict upholder of the right as St. Peter Damian, did not bring peace to the Church. When Benedict left the city after selling the papacy, there was already another aspirant to the See of Peter in the field. John, Bishop of Sabina, had been saluted as Pope Sylvester III by that faction of the nobility which had driven Benedict IX from Rome in 1044, and had then installed him in his stead. Though the expelled pontiff (Benedict IX) soon returned, and forced John to retire to his See of Sabina, that pretender never gave up his claims, and through his party contrived apparently to keep some hold on a portion of Rome. Benedict, also unable, it seems, to obtain the bride on whom he had set his heart, soon repented of his resignation, again claimed the papacy, and in his turn is thought to have succeeded in acquiring dominion over a part of the city.

    With an empty exchequer and a clergy that had largely lost the savour of righteousness, Gregory was confronted by an almost hopeless task. Nevertheless, with the aid of his "capellanus" or chaplain, Hildebrand, destined to be the great Pope Gregory VII, he essayed to bring about civil and religious order. He strove to effect the latter by letters and by councils, and the former by force of arms. But the factions of the antipopes were too strong to be put down by him, and the confusion only increased. Convinced that nothing would meet the case but German intervention, a number of influential clergy and laity separated themselves from communion with Gregory or either of the two would-be popes and implored the warlike King Henry III to cross the Alps and restore order. Nothing loath, Henry descended into Italy in the autumn of 1046. Strong in the conviction of his innocence, Gregory went north to meet him. He was received by the king with all the honour due to a pope, and in accordance with the royal request, summoned a council to meet at Sutri. Of the antipopes, Sylvester alone presented himself at the synod, which was opened 20 Dec., 1046. Both his claim to the papacy and that of Benedict were soon disposed of. Deprived of all clerical rank and considered a usurper from the beginning, Sylvester was condemned to be confined in a monastery for the rest of his life. Benedict's case also presented no difficulty. He had now no claim to the papacy, as he had voluntarily resigned it. But it was different with Gregory. However, when the bishops of the synod had convinced him that the act by which he had become supreme pontiff was in itself simoniacal, and had called upon him to resign, Gregory, seeing that little choice was left him, of his own accord laid down his office. A German, Suidger, Bishop of Bainberg (Clement II), was then elected to replace him. Accompanied by Hildebrand, Gregory was taken by Henry to Germany (May, 1047), where he soon died." (Fonte)

7.9.18

Official 2006 Vatican Letter confirms Vatican officials knew of McCarrick allegations in 2000

"... The 2006 letter not only confirms past remarks made by Father Ramsey, but also elements of a document written by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, who served as nuncio to the United States from 2011 to 2016."

1.9.18

"The believer must not give assent to a prelate who preaches against the faith…"

Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church, International Theological Commission (2014): 
63. Alerted by their sensus fidei, individual believers may deny assent even to the teaching of legitimate pastors if they do not recognise in that teaching the voice of Christ, the Good Shepherd. ‘The sheep follow [the Good Shepherd] because they know his voice. They will not follow a stranger, but they will run away from him because they do not know the voice of strangers’ (Jn 10:4-5). For St Thomas, a believer, even without theological competence, can and even must resist, by virtue of the sensus fidei, his or her bishop if the latter preaches heterodoxy.[78]In such a case, the believer does not treat himself or herself as the ultimate criterion of the truth of faith, but rather, faced with materially ‘authorised’ preaching which he or she finds troubling, without being able to explain exactly why, defers assent and appeals interiorly to the superior authority of the universal Church.[79]

[78] Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum, III, d.25, q.2, a.1, qla 4, ad 3: ‘[The believer] must not give assent to a prelate who preaches against the faith…. The subordinate is not totally excused by his ignorance. In fact, the habitus of faith inclines him against such preaching because that habitus necessarily teaches whatever leads to salvation. Also, because one must not give credence too easily to every spirit, one should not give assent to strange preaching but should seek further information or simply entrust oneself to God without seeking to venture into the secrets of God beyond one’s capacities.’
[79] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum, III, d.25, q.2, a.1, qla 2, ad 3; Quaestiones disputatae de veritate, q.14, a.11, ad 2.