The Vatican sells out the real Catholics of China

Looks as if I was right!

And here:
http://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2016/04/the-real-catholics-of-china-about-to-be.html

And here:
http://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2016/01/cardinal-zen-calls-out-francis-parolin.html

Is the sell-out of Mindzenty and Slipyj for "Ostpolitik" about to be repeated in China?

Originally published on March 27, 2015.

Last week, a friend with strong ties to various figures in the Holy See told me over lunch something brewing on the front-burner in Rome. I was sworn to refrain from blogging and even now, cannot say more that I know but there is a story made public earlier this week by Sandro Magister. 

Is this potential of diplomatic relations between The Holy See and the communist People's Republic of China something which we've seen this before? Is history is repeating itself?


Is the Ostpolitik of Paul VI and the sell-out of Hungary and Ukraine and the great Cardinals Mindzenty and Slipyj about to repeated by making a deal with the devil himself?

Is the persecution of Roman Catholics in the People's Republic of China to be ignored for the sake of diplomatic prestige and convenience?

Are the Vatican diplomats, held at bay by Benedict XVI, ready to put before Pope Francis the selling out of millions of Catholic bishops, priests, religious and laity who gave up their lives for their faith rather than submit to the communist devils?

What is the price for relations with China?

What will this mean for the Nunciature in Taiwan and the Catholics there?

Click above for link to Ignatuis Press

Will the Church recognise these schismatic bishop of the Chinese Patriotic Association who sold-out to the communists and still not find a way for the good bishops and priests and religious of the Society of St. Pius X to find a sure way home and a secure structure in which to evangelise?

What would relations with China mean for its evil "one-child policy" and forced abortion upon women? Will the Church demand it be dropped for recognition and diplomatic relations?

What would it mean for the real Catholic Church in China, that which is underground; will they become the new schismatics?

What of the opinion of the great Emeritus Cardinal Zen of Hong Kong; who says, "no agreement is better than a bad agreement? 

Are we about to see the Catholic Church make an equivalent deal as Obama with Iran on nuclear weapons for the sake of an agreement?

Perhaps there has been too much reading around the Vatican of Mao's Little Red Book and not enough about The Red Book of Chinese Martyrs.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351013?eng=y

The Cardinals Are Dueling Over China, but the Mandarins Dominate the Game“No agreement is better than a bad agreement,” says Zen, criticizing secretary of state Parolin. The pope is keeping silent. And Shanghai remains without its bishop, under arrest for three years
by Sandro Magister

ROME, March 25, 2015 – “Do I want to go to China? Absolutely: tomorrow! All the Church is asking for is freedom for its mission, no other condition." This is what Francis said on August 18 of last year, while he was crossing over Chinese airspace, the first time any pope had done so.

Seven months have gone by since then, and the statements of readiness for “fruitful dialogue” have multiplied. On the Vatican side, with the voices of cardinal secretary of state Pietro Parolin and of Fr. Federico Lombardi. And on the Chinese side from the mouth of the spokesmen of the foreign ministry, Hua Chunying and Hong Lei.

At the beginning of March Fr. Lombardi granted a long interview to Phoenix TV, a Hong Kong television channel close to the central government. In it, among other things, he expressed hopes for an agreement on episcopal ordinations in China similar to the one in place in Vietnam – set up by none other than Parolin when he was undersecretary for relations with states – in which the Holy See presents its candidate to the government and if this does not approve presents another, until there is agreement on both sides.

In the name of the Chinese foreign ministry, spokesman Hong Lei echoed the interview with Fr. Lombardi with soothing statements released to the English-language newspaper “Global Times,” an outlet of the communist party. These were accompanied, however, by this tap on the brakes:

“Beijing on Thursday [March 12] urged the Vatican to face the historical tradition and reality of Catholics in China, after the Vatican reportedly suggested a joint review on bishop ordination.”

In effect, the ordinations of bishops are a crucial question for the Catholic Church in China. With Mao Zedong in the 1950’s the communist authorities appropriated the appointment of bishops, creating the structures of a Church subservient to the regime, independent of Rome and potentially schismatic, as well as being in conflict with the Chinese bishops and priests faithful to the pope but not recognized by the government and therefore in a situation of permanent illegality and of dramatic vulnerability.

After the end of Maoism, the Holy See succeeded in reconciling some of the illegitimate bishops with itself. But the authorities of Beijing never abandoned the “tradition” inaugurated by Mao, which continues to have its executive and supervisory body in the so-called patriotic association of Chinese Catholics and its formal expression in a puppet episcopal conference never recognized by Rome.

Vatican efforts to reconstruct the unity and fidelity of the Chinese Church reached their peak with the publication in 2007 of a letter from Pope Benedict XVI to the Catholics of China, a document that Pope Francis has confirmed, calling it “fundamental” and “timely” and thereby accepting its guidelines:

Letter...

That year Benedict XVI also set up a commission expressly dedicated to examining the case of China, made up of officials of the secretariat of state and of the congregation for the evangelization of peoples, of representatives of the Chinese bishops, of missionaries and experts. The commission met periodically and there was a prominent role on it for Hong King cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun.

But the Chinese authorities continued to ordain bishops not recognized by Rome. The latest two, installed in 2011 in the dioceses of Leshan and Shantou, were excommunicated by the Holy See, which also asked the bishops who had taken part in the illicit ordinations to justify their actions, on pain of excommunication for them as well.

The following year came the most spectacular case, that of the new coadjutor bishop of the archdiocese of Shanghai, Thaddeus Ma Daqin. Ordained on July 7 of 2012 with the approval of both the Holy See and the Chinese government, he quit the patriotic association on the same day, obeying the 2007 letter of Benedict XVI, which defined membership in the association as incompatible with fidelity to the Church. And because of this he was immediately punished with house arrest, which made it impossible for him to take up the succession of the elderly archbishop of Shanghai, Aloysius Jin Luxian, who died in April of 2013.Since then the diocese of Shanghai has remained headless, with its legitimate bishop still under house arrest, bearing witness at a high price to fidelity to the universal Church.

But meanwhile the pope has changed. Benedict XVI has been succeeded by Francis. And the diplomats have regained power in the Vatican.

With the new pope, the commission for China has not been convened again. The combative approach of confrontation with the regime embodied by Cardinal Zen has been replaced with an approach of reiterated offerings of dialogue and of silence on the painful points.

To their own advantage, the proponents of this diplomatic approach attribute to themselves the cessation of the appointment of illegitimate bishops since 2012.
But on the part of Rome, the appointments of faithful bishops have also ceased. With the consequence of a growing number of dioceses deprived of leadership.
The resumption of illegitimate ordinations also continues to hang like a sword of Damocles. Last January it was the ministry of religious affairs that threatened a new batch of appointments without papal mandate in 2015.From what has leaked out, the Vatican authorities are trying to coax Beijing into an agreement on the appointment of bishops according to the model of Vietnam.

And in order to reach this goal they are willing to keep public silence on everything. Even on the most offensive prevarications of the Chinese authorities toward the Catholic Church.

Silence on the enduring impediment on the bishop of Shanghai’s exercising his office.

Silence on the disappearance of Bishop Cosma Shi Enxiang of Yixian, in Hebei, arrested on Good Friday of 2001 and imprisoned in an unknown location. Last January 30 his relatives were given the news of his death, at the age of 93, news that was afterward retracted confusedly and without explanation.

Silence on the disappearance of another bishop, James Su Zhi-min of Baoding, taken away by the police 18 years ago and never heard from again.

The official Vatican media are silent on everything that could irritate the Chinese authorities. For information on the persecution of the Church in China, the most timely and trustworthy Catholic source is the online agency “Asia News," published in Italian, English, and Chinese, founded and directed by Fr. Bernardo Cervellera of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions.

On the other hand, beating the drum with boundless optimism for the approach currently adopted by the Vatican diplomats is the journalist and expert on China Gianni Valente, a friend of Jorge Mario Bergoglio from before his election as pope and a writer for “Fides,” the online agency of the Vatican congregation for the evangelization of peoples, as well as being a prominent contributor to the portal “Vatican Insider.”

The historical model to which Valente refers, in dealing with the question of China, is the “Ostpolitik” practiced by the Vatican with the regimes of the Soviet empire, overlooking the fact that at the time this diplomatic stance was balanced and ultimately supplanted by the different approach that had in John Paul II its victorious protagonist.

And also today the diplomatic steps underway in China do not fail to raise criticisms.The most explicit and authoritative of these come from Cardinal Zen, who gave a lively reaction last February 17 to two interviews - with “leading questions,” according to him - conducted by Valente for “Vatican Insider” with two Chinese bishops in communion with Rome:

 Zen: It looks like someone is trying to shout us down 

Referring explicitly to secretary of state Parolin, Zen warned against concession: “No agreement is better than a bad agreement. We cannot, pro bono pacis, tolerate an agreement which betrays our identity.”

This was followed by another interview “steered” by Valente with a third Chinese bishop. And also the publication, by “Vatican Insider,” of a stinging “ad personam” invective against Cardinal Zen, signed by a Chinese priest and blogger, Paul Han Qing Ping:

> "Cardinal Zen, don’t you believe in miracles?"
And then again by a defense on Valente’s part of the Vietnam model in the appointment of bishops. The limitations of which were however brought to light by “Asia News,” in a letter from a Vietnamese Catholic and above all in an editorial by Fr. Cervellera on the grave risks of the Vatican’s striking a diplomatic agreement without first establishing commitments in terms of religious freedom:

> Nothing to toast between China and the Vatican: Beijing wants complete control

Freedom for the Church, without conditions, is exactly what Pope Francis has said that he wants, in his most explicit statement on China so far, seven months ago.

After which he has said nothing more about this. On January 19, flying over China for a second time, he limited himself to saying, after justifying the lack of an audience with the Dalai Lama: “The Chinese government is considerate, and we too are considerate and do things step by step, as things are done in history.”
Not one word on China, not even in the speech that the pope had given to the diplomatic corps a week before.

The guidelines of the 2007 letter of Benedict XVI are still in place. But between Parolin and Zen, Francis seems to side with the former.
___________

The three interviews of Gianni Valente with the three Chinese bishops criticized by Cardinal Zen:
> Joseph Wei Jingyi, Bishop of Qiqihar
> Joseph Han Zhi-hai, Bishop of Lanzhou
> Paul Xie Ting-zhe, Bishop of Urumqi
__________

All of the previous articles on this topic:
> Focus on CHINA
__________
In the photo, Cardinal Zen, behind the banner, demonstrates in Hong Kong for the truth on the disappearance of Bishop Cosma Shi Enxiang.

"They chose seven men" and the predecessors of Phyllis Zagano were not amongst them!

In another post, analysing some of the appointees to the commission to study the creation of deaconettes/deaconesses, Father Z quotes German theologian Karl-Heinz Menke, who will sit on the commission. In Die Zeit, Menke states:

The Second Vatican Council conclusively clarified the question whether the deacon receives the Sacrament of Orders. The Sacrament of Orders is received not only by the bishop and the priest, but also by the deacon. If there is only one Sacrament of Orders (in three stages, that is, deacon, priest, bishop), the admission of women would be sacramental, transmitted through ordination, diaconate would mean their admission to priestly and episcopal ordination.

During a recent diaconal ordination, I noted that sitting beside the bishop at his throne was not a priest, but a deacon. During the whole Mass, the bishop was assisted at the altar and at the faldstool, by a deacon. Following the ordination, the new deacon took his proper place at the altar beside the bishop. It was obvious, that the first role of the deacon, is to assist the bishop. The deacon is first and foremost, a liturgical minister. He also assists the bishop, as the prayers made clear, in other assignments, including charitable actions on the bishop's behalf.

The Second Reading  for the Mass of Ordination was appropriately from the Book of Acts beginning at chapter six. Let us take a look at what Holy Scripture states. I have chosen it from the New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, just to point out that the newest, most scholarly translation, and the one used in the approved Canadian Lectionary, is quite clear:

6 Now during those days, when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. 2 And the twelve called together the whole community of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables.  3 Therefore, friends, select from among yourselves seven men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this task, 4 while we, for our part, will devote ourselves to prayer and to serving the word.” 5 What they said pleased the whole community, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, together with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 They had these men stand before the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

Note that, they selected "seven men." Seven men, not seven women! 

Not even one, woman!

Not. One. Woman! 

Not Phoebe. Not Miriam. Not Sarah. Not Elizabeth. Not Mary. 

Not any woman. 

They chose men.

Who are we in our modernist mindset to argue with the Apostles. Only a fool or an apostate would attempt it. Who are you, who am I to dispute Holy Scripture. Who is any priest or any so-called, "theologian." Who is any bishop or cardinal to do this? What kind of pope would think this even possible.

To put the matter to rest, Pope John Paul II had the matter studied. No women deacons. He also pronounced definitively, no women priests. The matter was studied decades ago. Instead of just admitting he misspoke, which would be a true sign of humility, Francis charges ahead. Why? Is it because he cannot admit he erred?  Is it to placate women that this is something to study and then reject? Cruel, to be sure and dishonest. Is it to change the Church and blame those opposed to his Peronist schemes as not trusting the "god of surprises?"

Based upon what he did at the Synod, I suspect that if the Commission does not do as he wants, he will do what he wants; and I suspect it will be to have some kind of women deacons.

Women were never deacons.

Any women that may have been called such were the wives of deacons. They assisted women getting into baptismal pools and other functions for the sake of modesty. They were not ordained.

No woman can be ordained deacon.

No woman can take the role of the deacon described above.

If a woman wishes to "serve," she can become a religious sister or a contemplative nun. How hard is this for the Bishop of Rome and feminist, radical religious and their aiders and abettors such Phyllis Zagano to understand. The fact is, they do understand it. They want women priests even if they don't live long enough to see it! That is what this is about. This is the nose of the camel into the tent.

Those who are pushing for this are apostates.

We follow Our Lord Jesus Christ and the revealed truth of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as it has been handed down to us. Period!

The Pope is being irresponsible by undertaking this unnecessary commission and Phyllis Zagano, is an apostate!

Any diocesan official such as the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of  Toronto, who would sit on a panel discussing and promoting "women deacons" and not denounce such ideas is misleading the faithful. What position did the Reverend Brian Clough take on the matter of women deacons when he had the chance at St. Michael's College? Did the Judicial Vicar reject it? Did he correct Phyllis Zagano and denounce the idea? Did he remain silent on it? 

When you're a bishop, such as Durocher of Hull, what does it say about you when you go to a Synod on the Family and raise this heretical agenda of women deacons?

Let the light shine. 

http://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2016/07/phyllis-zagano-and-national-schismatic.html

http://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2015/10/now-durocher-wants-women-deacon-youre.html

http://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2016/05/there-have-never-been-women-deacons.html

http://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2016/08/i-say-deaconnettes-you-say-deaconesses.html

Glory to sport in the highest, and on earth fraternity, and encounter to all peoples

A culture of encounter.

A dream of fraternity.

A kindly encounter.

What a bunch of masonic, modernist, globalist malarkey.

Not one word of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is his prayer intention for the month. An absolute and disgusting disgrace of vomitous babel emanating from the Peronist, Bishop of Rome.

How dare he take the monthly prayer intention and belittle it to such idiocy.

He has no faith. 

He sells access to the rich and famous.

His prayer, is not mine.

How long, O LORD?

Toronto parish of St. Leo's Mimico denies Holy Communion on the tongue

All the new marble and art work and beautification of a what had been a dirty, dilapidated, unworthy and terribly wreckovated Toronto church, means absolutely nothing. 

As much effort that was put into this has become worthless. Worthless if the liturgy is not worthy. As worthless as Canon Law and the Instructions from the Church, such as Redemptionis Sacramentum, as when a priest decides on his own what he will follow. His own clericalism, pride and modernist mindset.

"You denied me Communion," said the parishioner, a man known to me for at least a decade. "No," he replied, "I offered and you rejected Communion." 

This after the Communicant, who presented himself at the end of the Communion line with his little daughter in tow, knelt and put out his tongue to receive the Lord. 

This is clericalism. It is arrogance and a violation of the Law to dismiss the rights of the faithful. But with our current Pope, who cares about the Law? This is the Francis effect in the peripheries. The smelly sheep mean nothing to these men.

The renovation above is but a shell and fraud if this kind of abominable un-priestly behaviour continues.

There were twenty people at the Mass this morning and the father and his little daughter were the youngest. He was denied Communion on the tongue and told it was be "his choice," if he never came back. 

This generation of priests have no fruit to show. It is all a facade, just like much of what you see above.

This issue has been addressed previously on this blog, so many times and it keeps coming back. Within the last year, a similar situation happened at St. Pius X Church on Bloor Street, not far from St. Leo's, when another faithful Catholic was harassed over Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling.

Unacceptable!

Fathers, is this what it takes to stop this? Do you have to be publicly "outed" to get it through your heads that you cannot do this?

It is not acceptable. It is scandalous and clericalist.

Far be it from me to target every priest with this statement, not all of you to be sure, some of you are friends and acquaintances so please forgive me -- but the rot from the Pocock, Carter and Ambrozic eras has a stench to it of effeminacy, modernism, clericalism and Arianism that is nothing more than a pussification of the priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It needs to be lanced no matter how putrid the smell.   

STOP IT NOW FATHERS, AND YES, I'M YELLING!

You will be held accountable for these games and you may even end up in Hell for it. 

Catholic people, do not let these clericalists and liturgical fascists manipulate you.

Oh, he'll be calling; you can count on it; and the last memory the little girl will have of this parish is to have this priest tell her father, "I don't care if you here for Mass anymore.

After 50 years of priesthood Father? Surely, you can do better than that.

Postcript.

Neil MacCarthy ‏@neilmaccarthy  1h1 hour ago

@VoxCantoris @archtoronto The GIRM is clear in its instruction. I'd encourage those concerned to speak to the priest or archdiocese.

I thank the Director of Communications, Neil MacCarthy, for the public statement, affirming what the GIRM states. Clearly, the Cardinal and Chancellor, in spite of the many, many problems on their desks, don't need this. 

Priests of Toronto, smarten up! 

The laity do not need your shenanigans!

With everything else going on, does Cardinal Collins or the Chancellor, Father Camilleri really need to deal with this kind of thing!

From the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite)

160. ... In the Dioceses of Canada, Holy Communion is to be received standing, though INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL MAY CHOOSE TO RECEIVE COMMUNION WHILE KNEELING.... WHEN RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION ON THE TONGUE, THEY REVERENTLY JOIN THEIR HANDS;...

161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. THE COMMUNICANT REPLIES, AMEN, AND RECEIVES THE SACRAMENT [EITHER] ON THE TONGUE,or... As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it.

You nasty, nasty satanic parish secretaries, it's all your fault!

Is there anyone free from his insults?

"There are parishes with parish secretaries who seem to be 'disciples of Satan' and scare people; parishes with closed doors." Francis of Rome

Nope, I guess not.

Against the Antichrists!

A “Pontificate of Exception." The Mystery of Pope Benedict

Against the Antichrists who are undermining the Church. The theories of the political philosopher Carl Schmitt applied to the pontificate of Joseph Ratzinger and to his resignation

by Sandro Magister

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351344?eng=y&refresh_ce

ROME, July 26, 2016 – The biting criticism of the resignation of Benedict XVI formulated a few days ago by cardinal and Church historian Walter Brandmüller has brought out into the open the risks of the “terra incognita” into which the papacy has slid after February 11, 2013, all the more so with the imposition of the unprecedented and enigmatic figure of the “pope emeritus” beside that of the reigning pope:

> Brandmüller: “The Resignation of the Pope's Possible, But May It Never Happen Again”

What provoked the cardinal to come out into the open were above all the staggering statements of Archbishop Georg Gänswein made on May 20 in the aula magna of the Pontifical Gregorian University, during the presentation of a book by the historian Roberto Regoli on the pontificate of Benedict XVI:

> Benedetto XVI, la fine del vecchio,l'inizio del nuovo. L'analisi di Georg Gänswein

Gänswein - with the weight of one who is in the most intimate contact with the “pope emeritus” in that he is his secretary - had said that Joseph Ratzinger “has by no means abandoned the office of Peter,” but on the contrary has made it “an expanded ministry, with an active member and a contemplative member,” in “a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a shared ministry.”

But that's not all. The resignation of Benedict XVI, in the judgment of his trusted secretary, also marked a revolution for this other reason:

“As of February 11, 2013, the papal ministry is no longer what it was before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and nonetheless it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed in his pontificate of exception (Ausnahmepontifikat).”

The formula, emphasized by Gänswein with the use of the German word, is not accidental. It contains a transparent reference to the “state of exception” theorized by one of the greatest and most talked-about political philosophers of the twentieth century, Carl Schmitt (1888-1985).

According to this theory, a “state of exception” is the dramatic hour of history in which the ordinary rules are suspended and the sovereign imposes new rules on his own.

Surprisingly, however, this description of “pontificate of exception” as applied to the pontificate of Benedict XVI precisely by virtue of his resignation has not yet received the attention it deserves, nor has it raised particular controversies.

But it is precisely this that is the focus of an analysis by Guido Ferro Canale, a brilliant young canonist. With an expertise and an acuteness that are out of the ordinary.

His contribution has already appeared in Italian on the blog Settimo Cielo. But now it is offered here in English, French, and Spanish, to a worldwide readership, as it rightly should be.

A word to the wise. Where Gänswein, citing the book by Regoli, refers to the “group of St. Gallen” and its role in the conclaves of 2005 and 2013, the reference is to the cardinals who used to gather periodically in the Swiss city of St. Gallen and who first opposed to the election of Ratzinger and then supported the election of Bergoglio.

The group included the cardinals Carlo Maria Martini, Basil Hume, Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Achille Silvestrini, Karl Lehmann, Walter Kasper, and Godfried Danneels, the last two of these being particularly dear to Pope Francis, in spite of the fact that Danneels was proven to have attempted in 2010 a cover-up of the sexual offenses of the then-bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, against his young nephew.

____________

The resignation of Benedict XVI and the shadow of Carl Schmitt

by Guido Ferro Canale

The statement on May 20 by Archbishop Georg Gänswein on the resignation of Benedict XVI from the pontificate has stirred up both noise and reflection, above all because it seemed to offer support for the theory of the “two popes.” Without entering into the debate over this aspect, or over the problematic distinction between the active and passive exercise of the Petrine ministry, I would like to draw attention to a different point of the statement of Joseph Ratzinger’s secretary, the implications of which seem worthy of elaboration.

Allow me to begin by pointing out, in the first place, the title selected by the illustrious author for his speech: “Benedict XVI, the end of the old, the beginning of the new.”

He justifies this from the outset, stating that Ratzinger “has embodied the richness of the Catholic tradition as no one else; and that - at the same time - he was so audacious as to open the door to a new phase, through that historical turning point which five years ago no one could have imagined.”

In other words: Gänswein does not see the “beginning of the new” in any of Benedict XVI’s many acts of governance or magisterium, but precisely in his resignation and in the unprecedented situation that it creates.

A situation that he does not describe only in terms of the dichotomy between active and contemplative exercise of the ministry. He also uses - although in a much less evident way - another category: the state of exception.

He introduces this in an oblique manner, as if referring to the opinion of another: “Many continue to perceive this new situation even today as a sort of state of exception intended by Heaven.”

Nonetheless, however, he makes it his own, as if extending it to the whole Ratzinger pontificate:

“As of February 2013, the papal ministry is no longer what it was before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and nonetheless it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed in his pontificate of exception (Ausnahmepontifikat), with respect to which the sober Cardinal Sodano, reacting with immediacy and simplicity right after the surprising declaration of resignation, profoundly moved and almost in the grip of dismay, had exclaimed that the news had resounded among the gathered cardinals ‘like lightning from a clear blue sky’.”

The analysis seems fairly clear: that of Benedict XVI becomes a “pontificate of exception” precisely by virtue of the resignation and at the moment of the resignation.

But why does Gänswein present the expression - in a speech he gave in Italian - also in German, as “Ausnahmepontifikat”?

In Italian, “pontificate of exception” simply sounds like “out of the ordinary.” But the reference to his mother tongue makes it clear that Gänswein has no such banality in mind, but rather the category of “state of exception” (Ausnahmezustand).

A category that any German with an average education immediately associates with the figure and thought of Carl Schmitt (1888-1985).

“The sovereign is the one who decides on the state of exception. [. . .] Here by state of exception must be understood a general concept of the doctrine of the state, and not any sort of emergency ordinance or state of siege. [. . .] In fact, not every unusual exercise of authority, not every emergency measure or police ordinance is in itself a situation of exception: to this there pertains instead an authority that is unlimited in line of principle, meaning the suspension of the entire established order. If such a situation is in place, then it is clear that the state continues to exist while the rule of law declines” (C. Schmitt, "Teologia politica", in Id., "Le categorie del politico”, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1972, pp. 34 and 38-9).

“Aus-nahme” literally means “out-law.” A state of things that cannot be regulated a priori and therefore, if it comes about, requires the suspension of the entire juridical order.

An “Ausnahmepontifikat,” therefore, would be a pontificate that suspends in some way the ordinary rules of functioning of the Petrine ministry, or, as Gänswein says, “renews” the office itself.

And, if the analogy fits, this suspension would be justified, or rather imposed, by an emergency impossible to address otherwise.

In another essay, “The guardian of the constitution,” Schmitt glimpses the power to decide on the case of exception in the president of the Weimar republic, and maintains that it is instrumental for the protection of the constitution. Perhaps this aspect of Schmittian thought is not pertinent, but it certainly gives the idea of the gravity of the crisis required by a state of exception.

Is it possible, then, that a concept with such implications should have been used frivolously, in an imprecise way, perhaps only in order to allude to the difficulty of framing the situation created with the resignation according to the ordinary rules and concepts?

It does not seem possible to me, for three reasons.

1) Inaccuracy of language is not to be presumed, for all the more reason since this is one of the best-known concepts of a scholar who, at least in Germany, is known “lippis et tonsoribus,” even to purblind and barber.

2) The emphasis, evident right from the title, on the effects and scope of the resignation, which is certainly not considered a possibility of rare occurrence but is tranquilly anticipated by the code of canon law (one should consider that it is called, among other things, “a thoroughly pondered step of millennial implications”);

3) The possible references to the critical concrete situation that it seems to me can be glimpsed in the remarks of Gänswein.

One should consider what he says about the election of Benedict XVI “following a dramatic struggle”:

“It was certainly the result even of a clash, the key to which had been furnished by Ratzinger himself as cardinal dean, in the historic homily of April 18, 2005 at Saint Peter’s; and precisely there where to ‘a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires’ he had opposed another measure: ‘the Son of God, the true man. as ‘the measure of true humanism’.”

A clash where, if not in conclave, in the heart of the Church?

Gänswein also indicates the protagonists of the clash, in the wake of the book by Roberto Regoli, professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University, on the pontificate of Benedict XVI. And it is not a mystery for anyone, by now, that the cardinals of the “group of St. Gallen” went back into action in 2013.

How many of the difficulties of the pontificate of Benedict XVI, in fact, can be explained precisely with this clash, perhaps underground but incessant, between those who remain faithful to the evangelical image of the “salt of the earth” and those who would like to prostitute the Bride of the Lamb to the dictatorship of relativism? This clash, which is not just a power struggle, but if anything a supernatural struggle for souls, is the main reason why those on the one side have loved Benedict XVI and those on the other have hated him.

And we continue with the analysis made by Gänswein:

“In the Sistine Chapel I witnessed that Ratzinger experienced the election as pope as a ‘true shock’ and felt ‘uneasiness,’ and that he felt ‘as if dizzy spells were coming on’ as soon as he understood that ‘the axe’ of the election would fall upon him. I am not unveiling any secrets here, because it was Benedict XVI himself who confessed all of this publicly on the occasion of the first audience granted to pilgrims from Germany. And so it comes as no surprise that Benedict XVI was the first pope who immediately after his election asked the faithful to pray for him, another fact of which the book by Roberto Regoli reminds us.”

But more than the “above all I entrust myself to your prayers” pronounced immediately after the election, do we not perhaps recall the dramatic invitation at the Mass for the beginning of the Petrine ministry: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves”? In the parable of the Gospel the bad shepherd does not run away out of fear. He runs away because “he is a hireling, and the sheep do not matter to him.”

I believe, therefore, that Benedict XVI was confessing a concrete fear. And that he was thinking of very concrete wolves. I also think that this explains the shock, uneasiness, and dizziness.

And perhaps another reference can be found in Gänswein’s reference to a rather frequent criticism:

“Regoli does not omit the accusation of a lack of understanding of men that was often lodged against the brilliant theologian in the garments of the Fisherman; capable of evaluating difficult texts and books in a brilliant way and who in spite of this confided to Peter Seewald how difficult he found it to make decisions about persons, because ‘no one can read into the heart of the other.’ How true that is!”

When the wolves are disguised as lambs, or as shepherds, and when their thoughts are not printed on paper and subject to refined theological analysis, how can they be unmasked? How can one know whom to trust, and to whom to entrust part of the authority over the flock of the Lord? Because of this, it seems to me that even the phrase “Benedict XVI was aware that he was losing the strength necessary for the most burdensome office” takes on a meaning that is less neutral and, perhaps, more sinister. The office would be most burdensome not because of the multiplicity of external obligations, which are certainly tiring, but because of the exhausting internal combat. So exhausting that, no longer feeling oneself capable of enduring it. . .

Perhaps I am reading too much into this text. Perhaps Gänswein loves colorful images or soundbites. Certainly there will be some who will not fail to say so. And I am the first to admit that the taste for analysis can get me carried away.

But if I may be mistaken in the reconstruction of the concrete emergency, I do not believe it is possible to free the resignation from the shadow cast on it by that expression as heavy as a boulder: “Ausnahme.” I am not the one who has evoked the shadow of Carl Schmitt: I have limited myself to indicating the point at which Gänswein has made it visible, I would even dare to say palpable.

One question remains open, however: in what way, in what terms would the resignation, with the introduction of the “pope emeritus,” constitute an adequate reaction to the emergency?

One could think of the spiritual power of the example of detachment from power, or more simply of the fact that the army of Christ would have a new commander, no longer worn out by the struggle in question and able to lead it better. But these reasons apply to the resignation, not to the “emeritused.”

Perhaps one hint could emerge from Gänswein’s statement that Benedict XVI has “enriched” the papacy “with the ‘headquarters’ of his prayer and compassion set up in the Vatican gardens.”

Compassion - in this day and age it bears repeating - is not mercy. In ascetical or mystical theology, it is uniting oneself with the sufferings of Christ crucified, offering oneself for the sanctification of one’s neighbor.

A service of com-passion on the part of the pope is made necessary - in my judgment - only when the Church appears to be experiencing Good Friday in the first person. When there must reecho the most bitter words of Luke 22:53: “This is your hour, and the power of darkness.”

Correctly understood, with this I am not denouncing conspiracies or formulating accusations: the state of exception could very well be “intended by Heaven,” since the darkness would have no power at all without divine permission. And we know that there also exists a mysterious necessity of the “mystery of iniquity”: “It is necessary that he be taken out of the way who restrains it until now” (2 Thes 2:7). For all the more reason, therefore, does the plan of God include the lesser Antichrists and the hours of darkness.

I do not possess nor can I offer sure answers on the concrete causes of Benedict XVI’s resignation, nor on the theological or personal reasons that may have induced him to call himself “pope emeritus,” even less on the supernatural plans of Providence. But that today the Antichrists have been unleashed - above all those who should feed the flock of the Lord - seems to me incontestable.

So, however we may have arrived here, this is certainly a time of com-passion.

It is a time to offer Christian hope in opposition to the “religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth,” to the “pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 675).

It is a time to hasten with Christian suffering, the most potent spiritual weapon that has been given us to use: the moment in which God will intervene, in the way known to him “ab aeterno,” to reestablish truth, law, and justice.

Kyrie, eleison!

__________

English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.

Irish seminarians and priests at Maynooth caught grinding away and playing Poke-A-Man - Diarmuid Martin said to be "somewhat unhappy!"

Wasn't there and investigation of this horrendous place a few years ago conducted by Cardinals Collins of  Toronto and O'Malley of Boston and Dolan?

Did the Irish bishops do anything about this nest of bundled sticks?

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin is somewhat unhappy that the next generation of molesters, buggers and sodomite rapists has been found out.

Priests and seminarians  on an app called Grindr. Do you know what it is? You register and through GPS, another  who wants to play Poke-A-Man near you uses it to "hook-up." 

It's like "cruising."

Priests and seminarians playing Poke-A-Man.

What an utterly useless, effeminate excuse for an Apostle!

You filthy, rotten sodomitical bastards. You have no business even considering priesthood.

Get out!

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dublin-archbishop-pulls-seminarians-from-national-seminary-over-gay-subcult

Unfortunate wreckovation of one of Toronto's finest churches - Holy Rosary

St. Mary the Virgin, Huntingdonshire

The recent dust-up over Cardinal Sarah's comments about the already presumed Roman Missal's instruction to celebrate Mass "ad orientem," has reminded me of what we have lost in most Toronto Churches. In many churches, particularly newer ones, the altar is too close to the step to celebrate "ad orientem" in the modernist liturgy. The glorious high altars are mostly gone, yet; in a few churches around Toronto, they still survive.

Alas, Holy Rosary is not one of them. Holy Rosary Catholic Church is on St. Clair Avenue West, near Bathurst Street. It is around the corner from the Basilian owned, St. Michael's College, a private high school for boys. 

There is an interesting fact about Holy Rosary. It is a near replica, though still without the unfinished tower, of the 15th century Church of St. Mary the Virgin in the Parish of St. Neot's, in Huntingdonshire in the Diocese of Ely. The parish was originally founded in the late 1100's and is now, of course, under the Anglican "Church."

Holy Rosary, Toronto

Renovated rectory and kitchen

Until recently, it was staffed by priests of the Congregation of St. Basil. As that religious congregation continues to decline, their responsibilities in Toronto where they once ruled Catholic education, are coming to a quick end. They have only St. Michael's University and St. Basil's Church left and in 25 years, there won't be a Basilian young enough to get out of a walker to manage. 

Holy Rosary Parish now has a diocesan priest as Pastor, a Monsignor and former Rector of St. Augustine's Seminary in Toronto, who has, thanks to the previous occupants, inherited a rectory kitchen that would be the envy of most of the rest of the upper crust neighbourhood and is a scandal to those that had to pay the bill.

Hardly an example to set in the new Church of the Peripheries, but one imagines, in the peripheries of Forest Hill, it just fits right in. A luxurious rectory kitchen to match the smell sheep there and a unique historical church stuck in a 1970's liturgical distortion and diabolical disorientation.

We went too far

It was "wreckovated" under the watchful eye of the late Bishop Pearce Lacey of Toronto. He was described to me by a senior Toronto priest as "ruthless" when it came to implementing the non-existent "orders" of the Second Vatican Council to destroy Catholic Church sanctuaries. Bishop Lacey told me himself at the age of 92, "I think we went too far," causing me to recall that erudite British comedy to reply,"Yes, Excellency."

Holy Rosary was the only Church in Toronto and maybe in Ontario to have been constructed with a full Rood. It extended from the communion rail to the Crucifixion at the top and still exists at the two side chapels. The crucifixion scene remains but the rail and the screen are long gone but survive, decaying on a dirt floor in part of the basement, perhaps one day to be restored by a future faithful pastor. The high altar that had upon its mensa, the Tabernacle of God has been replaced by the Seat of the Presider - the exalted priest in place of the High Priest. Such clericalism. Such Masonic infiltration. They took this holy space devoted to the worship of God and turned it into a masonic lodge layout to the glory of man. 

The Chair of Man supplants Christ the King

I wonder, do the people know that the marble frieze on the wall of the Lady Chapel is actually the frontal from the marble high altar? Has the rest been used as parking curbs as happened in many places.? 

Lady Chapel with the former altar frontal as a souvenir on the wall

This great work of history and architectural art for the Glory of God is not beyond restoration. This abomination of a Masonic Lodge "sanctuary" could be restored to God and right Catholic worship. The rood exists, rotting away. The altar frontal, now a pointless frieze, could be restored. The masonic chair of man replaced by the Rightful and High Priest, Christ the King. The Mass in this glorious edifice once again be celebrated properly, all turned to God to the sung prayer of Gregorian chant in right worship as was intended in this place. The Mass celebrated according to the Missal in place at the time of this construction.

The financial resources to fix this wreckovation are there, particularly if one can justify a six figure kitchen.

The question is, "is the will, the vision and faith there to do it?

I say Deaconnettes, you say Deaconesses, Don't expect that they'll call the whole thing off!

Father Z is reporting on the founding of the commission to study "Deaconettes."  He writes two posts, first on the new commission, and then on losing ones souls for something less than even Wales, (no offense to the Welsh).

I note that Phyllis Zagano is on the commission. 

Surprise.

Zagano was in Toronto a few months ago speaking at St. Michael's College on this very subject. A few days later, Francis of Rome mused about the idea, it just popped into his head. The College is a Basilian institution.

I note that one of the panelists was Rev. Brian Clough. I attended his first Mass, oh maybe around 1967 or so. My dad was his family's barber. He was an up-and-comer to be sure and highly regarded. He went on to become seminary rector and was then sent away for more education. He returned decades ago and is still the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Toronto. I wonder what Father Clough's position is on deaconettes?

A few weeks ago, Zagano provided a screed to the NonCatholicReporter defending the claims by a certain Basilian priest that bloggers are full of vitriol and hate.

The Novus Ordo liturgy is a bastard rite. It is lead by a bastard theology and a bastard church.

Don't believe it will happen?

Well, friends. Francis has "full, immediate and universal jurisdiction." He is a Peronist and a Marxist. He refused to kneel before God in the Eucharist but grovels before man.

Don't think he'll do it?

The world is burning from a lack of faith in Christ and this Pope thinks we should have deaconettes.

Rorate reports that the sodomite pervert from Belgium, Roger Vangheluwe and protected friend of Godfried Danneels who led the campaign to place this Peronist, Bergoglio, in the Seat of Peter, authored a book on the subject of deaconettes. 

You remember Vangheluwe, right? He was the one that raped his own nephew, buggered him and then the pervert protector Daneels, the one who led the Gallen Mafia to elect Bergoglio told the nephew to back off.

Bergoglio has removed the bishops of Kansas City and Minneapolis, one in Italy as I recall, another in Central America and maybe more for not properly dealing with cases of abuse. Fine. I accept that they made mistakes. What I cannot accept is that the same vigour is not applied equally to those bishops and cardinals who have done the same or more and yet, not only survive, but prosper under this sham of a papacy.

One more thing.

Remember that the St. Gallen Mafia wanted Francis to “speed things up.” As I reported previously on Uncle Teddy McCarrick’s video presentation at Villanova University where he reflected on being lobbied by a “very brilliant man, a very influential man in Rome,” who said to him, “If we gave him five years, he could put us back on target.” He then instructed Uncle Teddy to “talk him up.”

Remember, it was Archbishop Fernandez, a man elevated by Bergoglio and the author of the art of kissing who said, “If one day he should intuit that he’s (Francis) running out of time and he doesn’t have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up.”

Hmmm, “he doesn’t have enough time” and “you can be sure he will speed up.”

So, it seems that Bergoglio knows his time is short.

So does someone else.

Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. Woe to the earth, and to the sea, because the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time. Apoc. 12.12

It is all coming together friends; and it is going to fall down around all of them.

Parce Domine, Parce populo tuo. Ne in aeternum, irascaris nobis.