Wednesday, 1 June 2016

Francis’ Trustworthiness (with related thoughts on SSPX) - by John Vennari

bruno_forte_cfn

Francis’ Trustworthiness in Light
of the Forte Revelation
With related thoughts on the present SSPX drama

by John Vennari

Archbishop Bruno Forte, confidant and collaborator of Pope Francis, revealed in a recent interview a statement from Francis that displays the cagey manner by which he manipulated the Synod toward a pre-determined heterodox outcome.

To quote the May 3 Zonalocale.it Italian news report provided in English by Steve Skojec:“Archbishop Forte has revealed a ‘behind the scenes’ [moment] from the Synod: ‘If we speak explicitly about Communion for the divorced and remarried,’ said Archbishop Forte, reporting a ‘joke’ of Pope Francis, ‘you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, [but] do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusion’.” 1
Let’s take a look at what is here revealed:

1) Francis is determined to open the door for sacrilegious Communion via admission of divorced and remarried to the Blessed Sacrament;

2) He is aware that to speak openly of this aim would make a ‘terrible mess,’ in other words incite a healthy Catholic opposition;

3) He urges his collaborators not to speak plainly of this insidious aim but to lay the groundwork and prepare the structure;

4) “And I will draw out the conclusions,” that opens the door to sacrilegious Communion under the false pretext of tenderness and mercy.

Is anyone else long weary of dishonest tactics enacted by the one man on earth who has the greatest obligation to speak the truth?

The rest, including his observations on the SSPX, can be read at:


9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Vox,

I was able to see your post on Cardinal Sarah but can't read this one nor the one by Chris Jackson (? - barely legible).

I use my Android mobile phone to look at your site. However, when I scroll down and tap web version, then it's legible.

It might be because of the different background color and type color.

Whatever you used for the address of Cardinal Sarah worked really good.

Please stick with that if possible.

Thank you!

Regards,

Margaret


Vox Cantoris said...

Margaret, this column is doing the same on my Blackberry. It is a copy and paste from CFN, so it is importing something from there. I don't know how to stop it. I think I would need to past it as text only in a MS Word doc and then copy and paste it in to blogger.

Anonymous said...

On Windows phone the text is not even visible, instead its showing solid colored stripes. Workaround is to highlight the entire text so it changes the color and the text appears, although reading that way is quite painful :)
Rab

Vox Cantoris said...

I think if you look at it on a smart phone as a "web page" it is fine, I have the settings adjusted for a smart phone to see it without all the widjets and gizmos to make it easier to load. However, when I look closely, I can see the colour imported under the text from CFN. I will try to fix it through a word doc.

Thanks for the info!

Fatimite said...

How did this man rise to prominence in the Catholic Church?

Here is an article from the "way back" file...

At least he hasn't taken over the post as the head of the CDF...yet.

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-ratzinger%20consecrates.htm

Ana Milan said...

Whether the SSPX are normalised or not they must break out of their cushioned existence and spread the Gospel according to their ordination vows & in compliance with the Great Commission. All Popes since Vatican II have been apostate - their heresies have been recorded and history will not be kind to them.

An apostate Vatican cannot excommunicate anyone and have no right to disempower a validly ordained priesthood from conforming to the Great Commission as instructed by Christ. By their reticence to do so they display an unbecoming obedience to what is clearly a Modernist set-up. Their calling is from God & they should not be fearful of being classed as illicit. That is purely a political weapon being used by men who have strictly no power to debar them from preaching the Gospel, many of whom don't believe in the Resurrection & have ravaged the Liturgy of Ages, discarded many Sacraments & Catechesis, & now say that anyone can get to Heaven by good deeds. Who have wilfully ignored the greatest scandal of our day & allowed deviant priests & their enablers to run riot without any public reprimand (defrocking) & spent billions of faithful Catholic donations in compensation claims which amounts to misuse of funds (stealing). Their stated goal is climate change & the environment - not evangelisation.

Archbishop Lefebvre knew this and that is why he ordained bishops against the will of the Vatican as he foresaw this apostasy and wanted to retain Tradition for which Catholics should be grateful. However, I'm sure he did not envisage that the SSPX would allow themselves to be held in a corner and only available to preach if the local Bishop allowed them. That is not in accordance with his wishes nor indeed God's. So many souls have been deprived of hearing the Truth by their refusal to set-up parishes, schools, seminaries all over the world for an inordinate fear of reprisal. Time for them to conform to God's command & go & teach all nations.

Mark Thomas said...

John Vennari accepts the claim about the supposed conspiracy that Bishop Forte revealed (supposedly ) publicly. Conversely, I find that the conspiracy theory in question is not worthy of belief.

We have an Italian news outlet who claimed that Bishop Forte revealed publicly the conspiracy theory in question. In turn, the supposed news report, in Italian, was then translated into English. I checked several weeks ago one Italian, and, for that matter, European news agency after another, and the supposed story in question was dead in the water.

Even in the United States, such outlets as Rorate Caeli, who hasn't hesitated to traffic in bizarre conspiracy theories, in particular, conspiracy theories designed to smear His Holiness Pope Francis, paid scant, if any, attention to the Bishop Forte-related conspiracy theory.

Something is terribly wrong when even among leading Traditionalists outlets, the Bishop Forte conspiracy story in dead in the water. Everything about the conspiracy theory in question is, at best, very, very dubious.

I don't believe that John Vennari served himself well by having built his column upon a bizarre conspiracy theory that has gained zero traction in Italy and beyond.

The massive problem with the conspiracy theory in question is that Pope Francis has, at least twice publicly, contradicted the supposed conspiracy.

On February 17, 2016 A.D., Pope Francis declared that (unrepentant) divorced and "remarried" Catholics are not permitted to receive Holy Communion. What is, in particular, very important about Pope Francis' declaration is that he referenced the two Family Synods as well as the Exhortation. He also announced certain things that were included in the Exhoration.

Anne Thompson of NBC News then asked whether that meant that divorced and "remarried" Catholics would be permitted to receive Holy Communion. That is when Pope Francis declared that said Catholics would not be allowed to receive Holy Communion. That fact has shattered the conspiracy theory in question.

Pope Francis, in direct reference to the "Two Synod Assemblies"...and "the Post-Synodal Document", declared publicly that divorced and "remarried" Catholics are not permitted to receive Holy Communion.

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 A.D., Pope Francis declared the following: "Dear Brothers and Sisters, Good morning!

"With this catechesis we return to our reflection on the family. After speaking the last time about families wounded due to misunderstandings between spouses, today I would like to focus our attention on another reality: how to take care of those who, after an irreversible failure of their matrimonial bond, have entered into a new union.

"The Church is fully aware that such a situation is contrary to the Christian Sacrament."

We have two public declarations from Pope Francis that shatter the Pope Francis/Bishop Forte conspiracy theory. Even more important, Pope Francis' February 17, 2016 A.D. declaration was in direct reference to the two synods and the Exhortation.

John Vennari's column does not stand up to Pope Francis' public declarations in question. John Vennari's column is built upon an unstable foundation. John Vennari would do well to read Robert Cardinal Sarah's recent praise of Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia in upholding God's teachings on family and marriage.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

The column by John Vennari is flawed terribly. He employed the "Who am I to judge him" comment to launch a bizarre attack against His Holiness Pope Francis.

John Vennari declared that it was Pope Francis' fault that "homosexuals around the world latched on to his “Who am I to Judge?” phrase to publicly celebrate their homosexuality. Homosexuals now sport “Who am I to judge” t-shirts complete with Francis’ picture on display."

Excuse me, Mister Vennari. How on earth is that Pope Francis' fault? Pope Francis' presented Catholicism 101 in regard to homosexuality. He declared that a person who has sinned, then seeks the Lord, confesses the sin(s) in question, converts his life to the Lord, then said person is forgive of his sin(s).

Attention: John Vennari. That is Catholicism 101. The news media misrepresented the Pope's words. Homosexuals misrepresented the Pope's words. Various Traditionalists misrepresented the Pope's words. However, for some bizarre reason, that is Pope Francis' fault, according to John Vennari. What kind of thinking is that? Answer: Irrational thinking.

A reporter asked Pope Francis a question about Monsignor Ricca. Pope Francis then made the following points:

-- "I did what canon law calls for, that is a preliminary investigation. And from this investigation, there was nothing of what had been alleged. We did not find anything of that."

-- "But if a person, whether it be a lay person, a priest or a religious sister, commits a sin and then converts, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives.

"When we confess our sins and we truly say, “I have sinned in this”, the Lord forgets, and so we have no right not to forget, because otherwise we would run the risk of the Lord not forgetting our sins."

Why didn't John Vennari point out the above? Why didn't he acknowledge that Pope Francis said that when "we confess our sins..."? Why didn't John Vennari admit that Pope Francis made it clear that we must "confess" our sins, seek the Lord's forgiveness, convert to the Lord, then "the Lord forgives"...

...and then, "who am I to judge him (the sinner)?

Why didn't John Vennari point out that homosexuals who twisted the Pope's "who am I to judge him" comment failed to note that Pope Francis declared that as sinners, we must "confess our sins and we truly say, “I have sinned in this”, the Lord forgets"?

John Vennari attacked Pope Francis when, in fact, Pope Francis' words in question about homosexuality were misrepresented by various groups. Pope Francis offered Catholicism 101 in regard to sin, confession, conversion, and forgiveness. However, John Vennari has chosen to attack Pope Francis and the Pope's trustworthiness.

Sorry, Mister Vennari. Your column in question is untrustworthy. You need to get the facts straight in regard to Pope Francis' "who am I to judge him" comment. It beyond belief that you blamed Pope Francis for the fact that various people misrepresented his perfectly orthodox comments in question.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Ben.quivenit@gmail.com said...

...Got that Catholics?
"Who am I to judge?" Conforms with Tradition.
Shut up with your conspiracy theories.
And all that nonsense about 85% decline in Mass attendance,
Average priest being 70+ years old,
The shuttering and sale of one Church after another,
all just conspiracy theories.
By the way conspiracy theorists, there is ONE POPE,
which is proved by Francis and Benedict both being Pope!