|
Post by bernard on Sept 9, 2011 14:02:33 GMT
In 1977, Franco Bellegrandi, ex-Chamberlain of the Cape and the Sword of His Holiness and contributor to L’Osservatore Romano, wrote a book titled, NikitaRoncalli, which was published in 1994, accompanied by quite a commotion in the national press at its release because, among the persons present was Cardinal Silvio Oddi. This is an excerpt from the book. Whole book is here www.huttongibson.com/PDFs/huttongibson_NIKITARONCALLI_book.pdfnote: the book was originally written in Italian And in cardinal Tisserant’s archives, together with other important documents on the delicate “affaire”, ended up the secret relations by the Archbishop of Riga and Pius XII, in which are described, with a wealth of documentation, the contacts that Giovanni Battista Montini had, unbeknownst to the Pope, with emissaries of the Soviet Union and of satellite States’, and the sensitive outcome of the secret investigation that Pius XII had immediately entrusted to an officer of the French Secret Service. The agent had laid his hands on a collection of letters attributed to Montini that signaled to the K.G.B. – the Soviet political police – the names and the movements of the priests, largely Jesuits, who, in those years, exercised clandestinely their ministry amongst the populations of the communist countries, oppressed by religious persecution. {The priests were then shot or sent to the Gulag Randy Engal ROS pg 1156-1157} That officer would later relate to French writer Pierre Virion that “…I was dumbfounded when I laid my eyes on those accusatory letters, written on Segreteria di Stato di Sua Santità’s letterhead” (2). (2) Pierre Virion will confide the episode to Vaticanist Gabriella de Montemayor, met in Rome in June 1974, who will receive confirmation from a high ranking Roman justice, dottor Giulio Lenti, who had received the information from mons. Domenico Tardini, to whom he was bound by a long-standing friendship. Indeed, Pope Pacelli, distraught by that revelation, had immediately summoned mons. Tardini. Cardinal Tisserant’s secretary, monsignor Georges Roche, annotates the episode in his book “Pie XII devant l'histoire”, published by Laffont of Parigi. Pius XII collapsed immediately upon reading those papers. Forced into bed for many days, he disposed the immediate departure of Montini for Milan, the first vacant diocese that in that moment of terrible anguish was at hand. The future Paul VI, who at that time was de facto Secretary of State, thus departed at moment’s notice his office at the Vatican. In fact, Pius XII had left that office vacant, after the death, in 1944, of cardinal Maglione. Montini departed Rome and the great pain caused to the heart of the Pontiff, and reached Milan in conformity with that ancient Vatican norm “promoveatur ut removeatur” (“promote to remove”). It was the late autumn of 1954. In order to obtain the much sought-after “Galero” (cardinalitial hat), the Hamletic monsignor from Concesio would have to wait, from that day on, for the election to the See of Peter of his “precursor” Roncalli (3). _______________________________________________ (3) Thirty years later will write Antonio Spinosa in “Pius XII, The Last Pope” (le Scie Mondadori, October 1992, p. 357, 358): “At the close of that same year 1954, the Pope appointed Montini archbishop of Milan. Had he wanted to distance himself from him? In August had died in the Lombard capital the Benedictine cardinal Schuster, head of the Ambrosian Archdiocese, and by the beginning of the following November the Pontiff had already replaced him with Montini. He broke the news to the main exponents of the Uomini di Azione Cattolica gathered before his residence at Castel Gandolfo. “You’ve never disappointed me, said he to those present, turning in particular to Gedda, Father Lombardi, and to the Association’s assistant monsignor Fiorenzo Angelini. “And I’m glad of it”. Then he added: “I must now give you some news: His excellency mons. Giovan Battista Montini is the new Archbishop of Milan.” Heartfelt and lengthy was the applause of those present, but the buzz had it that many failed to grasp the hidden significance of the appointment... Montini was not happy, rather, he appeared as though bewildered to a friend, Camaldolese father Anselmo Giabbani, who met him in those days. “His countenance,” witnessed the friar, “had changed. Even the tone of his voice was different, and his gestures less expressive.” It was spoken of a true exile inflicted upon the monsignor who had dared to “betray” - the term was very strong – Pacelli’s anti-Socialist, and anti-communist battle. Suor Pasqualina had seen the Pope weep, disappointed by Montini’s receptive approach. The monsignor had already drawn the attention of the pro-secretary of the Sant' Uffizio (Holy Office), cardinal Ottaviani, a front-liner, with Gedda, of those who accused Montini of plotting with Fanfani and of aspiring to a Christian Democrat party autonomous of the Vatican. It was also alleged that the monsignor had even been present at certain black masses. It was father Lombardi who broke the news to the Pope.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 9, 2011 21:03:56 GMT
Chamberlain of the Sword and Cape was not so grand a title as it sounds - it was an honorific title given quite freely to aristocrats and other generous donors. If half of this was true I doubt very much if Pius XII would have made Mgr Montini Archbishop of Milan - he would have been made nuncio to some backwater, or something worse. After all, Pius reassigned the Archbishop of Montreal (or Quebec - not sure which) as chaplain to a convent in Vancouver for quarrelling with the Duplessis government's handling of labour disputes, so he was not reluctant to visit severe punishment on senior prelates. How much of this is anything more than second-hand (or worse) gossip?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 9, 2011 22:16:10 GMT
Montini was secretary of state at the time and to be sent to Milan was undoubtedly a demotion, although officially the position is better. The book was presented by Cardinal Silvio Oddi, cardinal since 1963.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 9, 2011 22:45:00 GMT
Montini was not Secretary of State - Pius XII was his own Secretary of State after 1944. Montini was one of two senior officials who worked closely with him - his deputy, in effect. The fact that Montini was not made a Cardinal by Pius after becoming Archbishop of Milan was not necessarily a sign of displeasure. Montini was appointed to replace Cardinal Schuster (who died in August 1954) and Pius did not hold a Consistory after January 1953. Even if it was a demotion, it is certainly not the sort of punishment that Pius would have meted out if he had proof that Montini had deliberately betrayed priests to their deaths and attended Black Masses. That would have got him sent to some nunciature in the back of beyond, or worse. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Charbonneau shows that Pius was prepared to force an Archbishop into retirement and obscurity for much less serious transgressions (in Charbonneau's case for quarrelling with the government of Quebec over a labour dispute, which IMHO was not a transgression at all). The fact that Cardinal Oddi attended the book launch does not prove that he endorsed the claims, and if he did endorse the claims it would not prove that they were true.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 9, 2011 23:58:13 GMT
No it does not prove they are true but the number scandals and claims against Montini (Paul VI) cannot be ignored. The most shocking claim and the reason for wich he was blackmailed is that he was a sodomite. I'm sorry that you were scandalized by the claims against him, I certainly do not want to offend fellow Catholics but feel it's necessary to bring these things up so that Catholics will realize what has happened to their Church. The allegations of Paul Vi's homosexuality numerous and come from solid sources and sincere Catholics. As i mentioned Cardinal; Silvio Oddi was present at the release of the Franco Bellgrandi's book, where these claims are made. Bellegrandi's book.www.huttongibson.com/PDFs/huttongibson_NIKITARONCALLI_book.pdfAnother source, and in my opinion the most thorough and in depth analysis of the homosexual collective's penetration and colonization of the Catholic Church is Randy Engel's (a woman) Rite of Sodomy. The book is 1500pages and contains over 3000 footnotes. Randy Engel is the founder of Coalition for Life, an American pro life group dating back to the 60s. She has several other books out there, one on the agenda behind sex education, and another on how the pro-life movement was sabotaged. She has appeared on EWTN and is highly respected. Her books can be purchased in e-book format here newengelpublishing.com/ the hardcopy is a bit expensive at 65$ plus shipping but well worth it. A third source is Father Luigi Villa, who wrote "Paul VI Beatified?" Father Villa was commissioned by Pius XII to collect information on freemasons, and was a close associate Padre Pio. In fact it was padre Pio who sent him to Pius XII. Father Villa's work effectively blocked the beatification process of Paul VI. FR Villa's book www.huttongibson.com/PDFs/Paul-VI-Beatified-Book.pdfAlllegations were also made in several Italian newspapers when gay activist Roger Lafayette publicly accused Paul Iv of being a homosexual, claims which were never refuted. Montini's boyfriend was the Italian actor Paul Carlini (he played the barber in Roman Holiday) as reported by New York Times press correspondent Paul Hoffman in the book Oh Vatican. Bellegrandi also claims that he was picked up in Milan while archbishop in street clothes for soliciting a male prostitute. The allegations emerged again in 1993 When John Paul II tried to canonize Paul 6, the Abbes de Nantes addressed him … So, after the scandal of the election of an avowed homosexual to the throne of Saint Peter having poisoned the Church, you Most Holy Father, would have him relive and gain strength by having this same wretch of a Paul VI raised to the altars, and his bones offered as relics to the faithful for their pious kisses, and his tormented face presented to their fervent gaze in Bernini’s Gloria? Ah no, that is impossible. It will not be!As disturbing as this information is it is essential to understand why the church is riddled with perverts.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 10, 2011 9:02:47 GMT
I am aware of the rumours that Pope Paul VI was homosexual. I do not know whether they are true or not, and even if they were true they would not incapacitate him from being Pope, though they would of course have the gravest implications for him personally. Many Popes have been scoundrels wihout thereby ceasing to be Pope. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornocracyen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_III I am not "scandalised" by statements of historical fact even if they involve wickedness in high places - I AM scandalised by accusations which are made without sufficient evidence, and I treat anything coming from the notorious Holocaust denier Hutton Gibson (father of Mel) with scepticism unless serious evidence can be found to sustain it. I notice you have not addressed my original point - that if your original claims that Paul VI betrayed priests in Russia to their deaths and Pius XII discovered it were correct, Pius would not have made him Archbishop of Milan but would at the very least have demoted him into utter obscurity. I am aware of Ms Engel's book though I have not read it. I am not asking in what books these accusations were made; I am asking what sources their authors give for these claims? Are they just repeating second or third-hand gossip, or do they give first-hand evidence from named sources, or do they have primary documents which can be checked? A book is only as good as its sources. Malachi Martin produced numerous imposing-looking books on the Vatican (in which incidentally he lauded Paul VI as a saint when he was alive and denounced him as a heretic when he was dead) but they were based on "inside sources" existing only in that fraudster's imagination.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 10, 2011 13:10:10 GMT
I am aware of the rumours that Pope Paul VI was homosexual. I do not know whether they are true or not, and even if they were true they would not incapacitate him from being Pope, though they would of course have the gravest implications for him personally. Many Popes have been scoundrels wihout thereby ceasing to be Pope. Right, a bad pope is still a pope. But a heretic cannot be pope because a heretic is not a Catholic. St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head ofwhat he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope." St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp.305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..." This video is entitled the amazing heresies of Paul VI and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Paul VI was a public heretic and not a member of the Catholic Church, much less pope. www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6LKnX3CWeI I am not "scandalised" by statements of historical fact even if they involve wickedness in high places - I AM scandalised by accusations which are made without sufficient evidence, and I treat anything coming from the notorious Holocaust denier Hutton Gibson (father of Mel) with scepticism unless serious evidence can be found to sustain it. He's only notorious because the media/hollywood present him in this way. Could you provide me one shred of evidence that he denied the holocaust? And I mean actually deny it, not cast doubt on the the 6 million number. I'll remind you that the head of the ADL Abe Foxman tried to stop the release of the the Passion of Christ on the grounds that it was anti-semetic. Anyway, the books I linked were not written by him, they are just available on his website. A sixty page biography of Father Villa and his work with Padre Pio can be found here. He is not associated with any sedevacantist group that I am aware of. padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Chi___don_Villa_OK_en.pdf I notice you have not addressed my original point - that if your original claims that Paul VI betrayed priests in Russia to their deaths and Pius XII discovered it were correct, Pius would not have made him Archbishop of Milan but would at the very least have demoted him into utter obscurity. Pius XII did some pretty strange things. First of all he muzzled the heroic radio priest from Detroit Michigan Father Coglan, who until this day has the record for the largest radio audience in history. He also shut down the Cristero movement that had nearly succeeded in overthrowing the masonic government of Mexico. www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pu4gst3FmI ~cristero movement I am aware of Ms Engel's book though I have not read it.I am not asking in what books these accusations were made; I am asking what sources their authors give for these claims? Are they just repeating second or third-hand gossip, or do they give first-hand evidence from named sources, or do they have primary documents which can be checked? Well the book is 1500 pages and took her ten years to write so I'm not going to reproduce it here. I'll give you a few sources though. And you do realize that if you publish lies about someone you likely to get your butt sued, Bishop Magee sued the guardian, and another and they had to print retractions. Also, the issue of whether Paul VI was a sodomite is very relevant. Before someone accuses me in just being interested in scandal, the fact that every safeguard to keep homosexuals out of the seminaries has been removed, that numerous seminaries have been taken over by homosexuals, the abuse scandals, the fact that 22 US bishops have been investigated for sex crimes and the whole 2005 World Youth Day debacle where the clergy wore rainbow vestments is almost certainly correlated to having a homosexual pope for 15 years. A book is only as good as its sources. Malachi Martin produced numerous imposing-looking books on the Vatican (in which incidentally he lauded Paul VI as a saint when he was alive and denounced him as a heretic when he was dead) but they were based on "inside sources" existing only in that fraudster's imagination. I'll just concede that there are problems with Fr. Martin. Not that one could not learn a lot from his writings but he was admittedly a double if not triple agent.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 10, 2011 13:51:32 GMT
This notes do no justice to the case against montini as there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence and detail that I cannot include.
...Irish Writer Robin Bryans aka Robert Harbinson claims his friend Hugh Montgomery told him he (Montgomery) and the young Montini had been lovers. .. (Hugh Montgomery was brother to the infamous Cambridge spy (and homosexual) Peter Montgomery) During the mid thirties Montgomery was assigned a diplomatic post at the Vatican while Montini was a junior prelate. Montgomery later converted to Catholicism and was ordained a priest....
Roger Peyrefitte, French novelist and former ambassador gave an interview with D.W Gunn and J. Murat representing gay sunshine press. Peyrefitte said he was inceensed at the popes hypocrasy after he condemned homosexuality, masterbation and pre-marital sex since it was known in certain circle that while Montini was in Milan he had an affair with a young man named Paul. The interview was eventual picked up by the Italian newspaper Il Monde and published in 1976....
....The Abbes de Nantes reports that Father Saint-Avit informed him on the eve of the 1963 conclave that the new pope could not be Montini because the Milan police had a file on him....
....Franco BelleGrandi repeats the charge that Montini was picked up by the police in Milan and goes on to describe the homosexual colonization process that began under John XXIII and excelerated under Montini..old employess were tuened out of their jobs to make way for Montini's Brethren afflicted with the same vice. They in turn brought along their favorite catamites-effeminate young men earing elegant unbiforms and make-up on their faces o dissimulate their beards....
...bellegrandi claims that he was told by a vatican security agent that Montini's actor boyfriend was given special was permitted free access to the pontifical apartments at night and was often seen taking the elevator......
.....Pope Paul VI played a decisive role in the selection and advancement of many homosexual members of the american hierarchy including Cardinal Bernadin, Cardinal Cooke, Cardinal Wright, Archbishop Weakleand, Bishop Gulifoyle.........
|
|
|
Post by losleandros on Sept 12, 2011 11:08:24 GMT
Interesting posts. I had never heard of these " rumours " before until I received a copy of Fr. Villa's book in the post recently ( anonymously ). Funnily enough, it also included a copy of an interview with Fr. Malachi Martin. Like hibernicus I would be disposed to view them as unsubstantiated rumour/conspiracy. However when bernard listed out the dubious Cardinals promoted by Paul VI, it gave me pause for taught !. Hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 12, 2011 11:38:38 GMT
NEW YORK TIMES interview with Hutton Gibson, 9 March 2003 extract: ...He moved on to the Holocaust, dismissing historical accounts that six million Jews were exterminated. ''Go and ask an undertaker or the guy who operates the crematorium what it takes to get rid of a dead body,'' he said. ''It takes one liter of petrol and 20 minutes. Now, six million?'' Across the table, Joye suddenly looked up from her plate. She was dressed in a stylish outfit for church, wearing a leather patchwork blazer and a felt beret in place of the traditional headdress. She had kept quiet most of the day, so it was a surprise when she cheerfully piped in. ''There weren't even that many Jews in all of Europe,'' she said. ''Anyway, there were more after the war than before,'' Hutton added. The entire catastrophe was manufactured, said Hutton, as part of an arrangement between Hitler and ''financiers'' to move Jews out of Germany. Hitler ''had this deal where he was supposed to make it rough on them so they would all get out and migrate to Israel because they needed people there to fight the Arabs,'' he said... www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-02-20-gibson-dad-anti-semite_x.htmEXTRACT Steve Feuerstein — host of Speak Your Piece!— said he interviewed Hutton Gibson for a segment of his show to be broadcast Monday by the small Talkline Communications Network. According to a transcript released by the network, Hutton Gibson said, "It's all — maybe not all fiction — but most of it is," when asked about his views on the Holocaust. He added: "They claimed that there were 6.2 million (Jews) in Poland before the war and after the war there were 200,000, therefore he (Hitler) must have killed 6 million of them. They simply got up and left. They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney and Los Angeles." [THE NETWORK HAVE HIM ON TAPE SAYING THIS] Sounds awfully like holocaust denial to me. Message from Earth to Planet Moonbeam; if you say the Nazis killed about 200,000 Jews and the Jews then exaggerated the numbers killed for their own nefarious ends, that still makes you a holocaust denier. The essence of holocaust denial is (1) denial of the Nazi intention to exterminate the Jews as a people/race (whatever that term means) (2) the claim that the commonly accepted (i.e. true) account of thee Holocaust is a Jewish fabrication.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 12, 2011 12:18:09 GMT
I am familiar with the writings of Robin Bryans- several memoirs (the ones I have read are called THE DUST HAS NEVER SETTLED and LET THE PETALS FALL) which are hundreds of pages of unstructured rant in which he does not distinguish clearly between what he personally knows and what he has picked up from other sources. At one point he makes the insinuation you repeat about Pope Paul and Mgr Montgomery; at another he denies that he ever made such an accusation against Paul Vi and says he "defended" him from Paisleyite accusations. Bryans was a deeply disturbed man, and in her biography of the traitor Anthony Blunt, Miranda Carter says that while Bryans did know Blunt, many of his statements about the spy are demonstrably untrue. BTW Peter Montgomery (brother of the monsignor) was a homosexual but he was not himself a "Cambridge spy" in the sense of being a spy for the USSR. He was an associate of Burgess and Blunt and they visited him at his estate in Tyrone, but he does not seem to have been aware of their Soviet links.
Roger Peyrefitte was a well-known militant homosexual whose statements should be treated with caution.
The mere fact that a statement does not lead to a libel suit does not mean it is true - the person denounced may decide the statement is beneath contempt, or the statement may be made somewhere like the US where it is almost impossible to sue successfully for libel.
You are now making accusations of sodomy not only against Paul VI but against numerous American bishops. Rembert Weakland by his own admission was guilty; Bernardin is a matter of controversy; I have NEVER heard this claim made about Cardinal Wright or Cardinal Cooke (indeed Cooke founded the Courage International ministry which works to assist homosexuals to lead chaste lives and to counter the evil work of pseudo-Catholic groups such as Dignity, and is bitterly denounced for so doing). I know nothing of Bishop Guilfoyle; I presume the reference is to the Bishop of Camden (New Jersey) of that name, since you reproduce material by the Dimond brothers, whose unrecognised sedevacantist monastery is based in Camden.
I have been patient with you, but there is a limit. Ireland is faced with a major crisis of the Faith in which our nation is apostasising wholesale, significant moves are being made to legalise abortion, and large sections of the Church authorities have disgraced themselves. I give more of my limited time than I can afford to keeping this board open as a resource for orthodox Irish Catholics; I am not going to have it turned into a venue for a game of Hunt the Gay American Bishop which can only take away time and resources from dealing with our chronic and ongoing crisis of faith. In future you will confine yourself to arguing the theological defence of sedevacantism and will NOT introduce such scandals except insofar as they are public knowledge and theologically relevant.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 12, 2011 12:24:32 GMT
Oh, and Fr Coughlin was a demagogue who picked up and ran with Fr Denis Fahey's anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, incited anti-semitic violence, and used his position as a priest to support his dubious political agenda. The majority of the American bishops wanted him silenced, not just Cardinal Pacelli/Pius XII. His regard for accuracy may be shown by the fact that when the IRA started setting off bombs in Britain in 1939 he suggested the perpetrators were "Czech terrorists" hostile to the Munich Agreement - provoking indignant complaints from the IRA!
|
|
|
Post by losleandros on Sept 12, 2011 13:59:59 GMT
I'm inclined to agree with hibernicus bernard. We have enough on our plates trying to defend the Church in broad terms without introducing these conspiracy-like distractions. Also while I also agree with hibernicus on the need to avoid paranoia over homosexuals, nevertheless where there is definite evidence of an undue/malign homosexual infuence we should'nt be afraid to call a spade a spade. For example, the examples of Rembert Weakland in the U.S., & Michael Ledwith in Ireland are particularly malign. But a witch-hunt is to be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 12, 2011 17:09:27 GMT
I don't object to discussing the problems posed by active homosexuals in the Church; what I do object to are wild accusations being thrown around and being bogged down in disputes over whether Bishop X was or was not homosexual, especially given that it is much easier to start a rumour than to refute it. Reference can be made where the person's proclivities are on record or where credible evidence can be produced. Paul VI is a special case given his role as Pope. I do not know enough about him to know whether there is substance in those rumours (which have been doing the rounds for years), but the credibility of the people making these allegations leaves something to be desired. The video to which Bernard links, by the way, (or such of it as I could bear to listen to) does not distinguish at all between heresy and allegedly flawed or mistaken actions and words. The two principal examples which I came across denounce as heretical Paul VI's supporting the United Nations and praising it as a good thing, and his referring to the Eastern Churches and their leaders as "holy" "venerable" etc. NEither of these are remotely heretical. The Eastern patriarchs have valid sacraments and episcopal orders (which in itself suggests God has not withdrawn His grace from them) and are the leaders of millions who follow Christ, often under terrible conditions - how is it "heretical" to employ elementary diplomatic courtesy when addressing them? Furthermore they are not in the same position as the originators of the schisms - they were born and brought up in their churches. As for the UN, there is a good case for an international diplomatic forum in which problems can be threshed out and which endeavours to maintain peace among nations (how far the UN as it stands fulfils that role is another matter). This point is easier to see for a continental European of Paul VI's generation who lived through both World Wars than for a North American who has not seen their country occupied by enemies and their continent bled and wrecked by wars of mass mobilisation. The fact that he endorsed the UN in principle does not mean he endorsed all its evil actions. St Paul and St PEter exhorted the recipients of their Epistles to obey the temporal authorities when those authorities were headed by the emperor Nero; does that make THEM heretics, or participants in his crimes? A certain openness to disillusionment is healthy (Twenty years ago I certainly never would have imagined that some of the clerical scandals revealed in Ireland could possibly have happened) but paranoia is a comprehensive mistrust which leads to complete paralysis and despair, the intellectual equivalent of major depression. We must practice discernment and distinguish personal vice and maladroitness (bad though those things are) from heresy and conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 13, 2011 9:49:29 GMT
I don't object to discussing the problems posed by active homosexuals in the Church; what I do object to are wild accusations being thrown around and being bogged down in disputes over whether Bishop X was or was not homosexual, especially given that it is much easier to start a rumour than to refute it. These are not wild accusations, everything I have written comes from a 1500 page book with 3000 footnotes on the homosexual colonization of the Catholic Church, the most exhaustive study I know of on the topic by a well respected orthodox Catholic. Engel double checked Harbinson's info with another source, plus she does not claim that this alone proves he was a homosexual. I also point to the fact that a Cardinal Silvio Oddi appeared in support of Franco Bellegrandi when he released his book. Although there is a chance that Cardinal Oddi did not read the book the more likely reality is that he read it and appeared as an endorsement especially in light of his frankness on other topics regarding apostates in the church. And what of Father Villa who effectively blocked the canonization of Paul VI? Hardly wild accusations. Reference can be made where the person's proclivities are on record or where credible evidence can be produced. Paul VI is a special case given his role as Pope. I do not know enough about him to know whether there is substance in those rumours (which have been doing the rounds for years), but the credibility of the people making these allegations leaves something to be desired. The video to which Bernard links, by the way, (or such of it as I could bear to listen to) does not distinguish at all between heresy and allegedly flawed or mistaken actions and words. The two principal examples which I came across denounce as heretical Paul VI's supporting the United Nations and praising it as a good thing, and his referring to the Eastern Churches and their leaders as "holy" "venerable" etc. NEither of these are remotely heretical. The Eastern patriarchs have valid sacraments and episcopal orders (which in itself suggests God has not withdrawn His grace from them) and are the leaders of millions who follow Christ, often under terrible conditions - how is it "heretical" to employ elementary diplomatic courtesy when addressing them? Furthermore they are not in the same position as the originators of the schisms - they were born and brought up in their churches. Some of his arguments are stronger than others, you seem to like to pick out the weakest points, attack them and make out as if you had destroyed the entire argument. In the video (it is 5 parts~50 minutes) there is ample video provide of John Paul II/Paul VI taking part (not just observing) in a variety of worship rituals, from pagans and hindus to American Indians, yet you bring up the example of of the Eastern Church. And then criticize the video for not distinguishing between mistaken actions or words, as if the pope doesn't know he should worship with pagan witches. As for the UN, there is a good case for an international diplomatic forum in which problems can be threshed out and which endeavours to maintain peace among nations (how far the UN as it stands fulfils that role is another matter). This point is easier to see for a continental European of Paul VI's generation who lived through both World Wars than for a North American who has not seen their country occupied by enemies and their continent bled and wrecked by wars of mass mobilisation. The fact that he endorsed the UN in principle does not mean he endorsed all its evil actions. St Paul and St PEter exhorted the recipients of their Epistles to obey the temporal authorities when those authorities were headed by the emperor Nero; does that make THEM heretics, or participants in his crimes? A certain openness to disillusionment is healthy (Twenty years ago I certainly never would have imagined that some of the clerical scandals revealed in Ireland could possibly have happened) but paranoia is a comprehensive mistrust which leads to complete paralysis and despair, the intellectual equivalent of major depression. We must practice discernment and distinguish personal vice and maladroitness (bad though those things are) from heresy and conspiracy. We'll you're not paranoid if they really are out to get you. The Mass has been completely changed. The words of consecration have been changed. The rite of ordination has been changed. The rite of consecrating a bishop has been changed. In 2005, at world youth day the clergy in attendance were dressed in rainbow vestments, the international colors of sodomy. At the moment you seem to be afraid that someone will call you an anti-semite. Father Fahey was a greater priest than all the clergy in Ireland today together, so he pointed out that Leon Trotsky's real name was Leon Bronstein, and that Karl Marx's name was Moses Levi, I don't think that makes him an anti-semite. You have to get over the fear of being called a "conspiracy theorist" , "sedevacantist", etc. Otherwise you'll forever accept the explanation that 2 + 2 =5 ie the english words of consecration are valid because they were not changed in the Latin. or the words were translated using "dynamic equivalence" which resulted in the "many" becoming "all." The Church has been hijacked and until you realize that you will make no progress defending Catholicism.
|
|