Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Hit List Against "Anti-Bergoglians"? -- Misericordina for Pope Critics

(Rome) In yesterday's Sunday edition of the Turin daily La Stampa that also operates the news site Vatican Insider, two Vaticanists, Giacomo Galeazzi and Andrea Tornielli, published a list of alleged "Francis opponents" in the Catholic Church with great ceremony.  Just as meticulous as arbitrary, the formation resembles a proscription list for future purges. In coming to an end of the Holy Year of mercy a healthy portion of Misericordina will again be leveled against alleged enemies of Pope Francis.

The Progressives and the Conservatives 

The learned political scientist Giacomo Galeazzi (born 1972) worked for six years for the newsroom TG1 of the public service broadcaster RAI 1 (departments abroad and religion). Since 2001 he is an editor of the daily newspaper La Stampa, for which he was described as Vaticanist in 2008. Galeazzi never made a secret of his progressive sympathies.
The learned classical scholar, Andrea Tornielli (born in 1964), began his journalistic career with the publications for  Communion and Liberation (CL) community. From 1992-1996 he was one of the editors of the monthly magazine 30Giorni (English Edition: 30days). This was followed for 15 years as Vatican expert at the rightwing daily newspaper Il Giornale . Since 2011 he is, next to Galeazzi, Vaticanist at the liberal daily La Stampa and coordinator of Vatican Insider .

Giacomo Galeazzi and Andrea Tornielli

In 2005 or 2010 had observers would have said that Galeazzi and Tornielli represented very different positions. Since 2013 they have both been partisans of Pope Francis. While the progressive Galeazzi personally keeps his distance from  the "progressive" Pope, the conservative Tornielli was promoted under Francis even as the house vaticanist  with direct access to the Pope.
In January 2015 Galeazzi and Tornielli submitted their first joint book: "Pope Francis. This economy kills."

Proscription list in the style communist publications of the 70s

Both jointly published yesterday, in the style of communist and neo-Marxist newspapers of the 70s, in two whole newspaper pages,  a list of Catholic publications, organizations and initiatives, which are "dangerous to the unity of the Church and the Pope's health." The headline read: "The anti-Francis-Catholics who are attracted to Putin's power."  "Their aversion to Francis keeps them together," say the authors in the first sentence.
It is "especially shabby," remarked Messa in Latino, that the item appeared at the same time on the Internet site La Nuova Europa (New Europe), published by the Christian Russia Foundation (Christian Russia), a media initiative which was first established, to give the Christians persecuted by communists a voice in Russia.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant, wrote Tacitus. In this specific context, freely translated, you might say. You make a desert and call it peace. Messa in Latino speaks of a "grotesque and slanderous attack".

There has been an assertion of an "assinational plot" made several times as criticism against conservative Catholics in the past three years. The prelude was made by the Austrian pastoral theologian and former dean of the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Vienna. In September 2013 Paul Zulehner was on camera as the inventor of a rumor . The pastoral theologian showed up in an ORF interview,  impressed by the "reforming zeal" of the pope and also "worried" that Francis could be killed. Zulehner knew at once to name the potential offenders, namely "conservative Catholics," for whom the reforms would be "too much". He is still guilty of the malicious, politically motivated insinuation.

The "Anti-Bergoglio-Catholics"

The "unity of the Church" and the "health of the Pope" have been threatened by the "Anti-Francis-Catholics". These are called "Anti-Bergoglio-Catholics" and "Para-Sedevacantists" referring to the characteristics of which they are a part, who "worship" Russia's President Putin and sympathize with the "Islamic and anti-European", "populist" Lega Nord.
The pattern of indictment that applies with respect to Italy by the two Vaticanists, can be transferred to other countries without much imagination.
 Galeazzi and Tornielli wrote:
"The galaxy of dissidence against Bergoglio, ranging from Lefebvrians who have decided to wait for a traditional Pope 'to return to the union with Rome, to the Lega-Catholics put Francis in contrast to his predecessor Ratzinger and have launched a campaign: 'My Pope Benedict.'"

Daring criticism of Pope Francis

The compilation is in reality a motley list of very different Catholic initiatives which, however, have two elements in common with  each other: they are not progressive and have publicly dared to criticize certain actions of Pope Francis.


The authors eagerly seek to throw all initiatives into the same pot, that they are more or less outside the Church. Who does not fit into your picture, must be put in the corner. They have designated the Society of St. Pius X., and this is followed by entities such as the Internet newspaper, La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana or estimable personalities like the editor Riccardo Cascioli, of the Lepanto Foundation and Corrispondenza Romana by the renowned historian Roberto de Mattei, the blog Settimo Cielo of veteran Vaticanist Sandro Magister, the Forum Libertá e Persona ( Freedom and Person).These are all initiatives who stay far away from any cheap polemics.
The list continues with tradition related news sites like Messa in Latino , Chiesa e Concilio post and Riscossa Cristiana and the monthly magazine Il Timone .
Galeazzi and Tornielli point fingers at Cardinals Raymond Burke and Carlo Caffarra, at Archbishop Luigi Negri and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, the liturgist Nicola Bux, Prof. Roberto de Mattei, Antonio Socci and many other more. The reason? They have all been guilty of defending the unchanging doctrine of the Church publicly and draw attention to pieces of evidence pointing in an opposite direction.

Politically Correct Gauntlet

The authors do not skimp on topics where those listed will be struck with clubs of political correctness before the audience: "Para-Sedevacantists", "Lefebvrian," "Islamophobic", "anti-European" and finally - they want to play it safe - even "Putin admirers". Already it is apparent in the title that the whole "galaxy" is assumed to be financed through murky channels issuing from Moscow.
The page Messa in Latino took it with humor: "We need to improve our internal secret service, because we have not even been noticed yet by the cash flows from Moscow. We will give you the account numbers and accept the benevolent euros and rubles."
At the same time they called upon Canon 212, paragraph 3 of the Code of Canon Law  that holds explicitly that each Catholic has the right, where it is necessary, to criticize the ecclesiastical authority, and the Pope.
Galeazzi and Tornielli see in the listed other hand, "revolutionaries", "coup plotters" and "Putin Cronies."
One should notice: If a close papal confidant like Tornielli swings into such a sweeping attack, it means that there is a rough wind coming to Rome from Pope Francis.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: MiL / La Stampa (Screenshots)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...


Ana Milan said...

As the Year of Mercy draws to a close, great pressure should be brought to bear on this Papacy to come back to the fundamentals of Catholic teaching which stood the test of time for nigh two thousand years before the ideology of Marxism, Freemasonry & Modernism hit the Vatican. This ideology has nothing whatever to do with Catholicism & it is one we need to eradicate immediately. The Ten Commandments were set down by Christ Himself for all time to be kept by all peoples. There was no leeway to accompany sinners in their sin but plenty of scope to help them abandon their sin & come back to Christ. Of course if PF insists there is no sin & no Hell why is he occupying the Seat of Peter, as he is obviously not a Catholic? Such matters must be addressed by a council of the Hierarchy as they are a great impediment in the instruction to " go & teach all nations" which Christ gave to the First Apostles. PF has certainly ticked all the boxes of one who does not recognise the Triune Godhead & wants to start another Church in contradiction to it.

Anonymous said...

Like I mentioned before, I have a friend of mine, a young nun stationed in Rome, who when permitted (she's not permitted to play on the internet or send e-mails whenever she wants, but sends me a long note every few months) tells me the mood in Rome about this Pope.
In a word...the average Roman (Italian) hates him. Literally. They hate his initiatives, his lack of orthodoxy, his scandalous gestures to Muslims, his support for Muslim "refugees", and his overtures to Protestants. The latest outrage is his throwing Castel Gandolfo open for tours. Outsiders may be pleases, but Italians....especially those in and around Castel Gandolfo, are outraged and hate Francis for it.
Many young Italian priests despise him. Which is a good thing. Seminary enrollments in Italy are going down again....after a very slight rise during the last decade of John Paul II and all thru Benedict XVI.
They hate him for what he has done to the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate....really hate him for that!
They also hate his latest pick of Cardinals.....and there is great outrage and anger that the great Patriarch of Venice is again snubbed, as well as other orthodox and good Italian choices. The Roimans and Italians in general hate...literally hate...Francis' seemingly daily insulting comments directed towards "conservative" Catholics. Many are deeply offended.
But there is a new rumor in Rome, and it is that Francis is not at all well...despite his activity. Many people gleefully wait for news that he has a serious issue. They want him gone.
My friend belongs to a great Order of Italian nuns which still wears their 1950's pre-Vatican II habits. The priest who founded their Order, also founded another Order of priests/brothers, one Order of cloistered nuns, and another Order of active sisters. Unfortunatly, the Order of priests and brothers (never large numbers wise....founded in 1881), was downgraded from a congregation of Pontifical right, the just local, because they have declined 75% since Vatican II. They only have 30 members now....all elderly. They went liberal like all the rest. At their peak they were just about 200...never more.
The other active Order of sisters should have followed the example of my friends' Order and kept their beautiful grey and black habits. But, as usuall, they modified (1970), and then discarded (1982) their habits and declined from roughly 1,200 before Vatican II, to 225 today....all mostly elderly white haried nuns in white blouses and grey skirts. The cloistered Order, again never large, has kept to tradition, and has at least been stable...numbering about 100 sisters 4 cloisters...all in Italy and a tiny house in India. Before Vatican II, they had about 350 sisters and 11 houses (Italy mostly, but also Swiss, France, and Spain..England too till 1999.
My friend's Order wears a distinctive black habit, with no modification except they discarded the wide red sash around the waist they used to wear (like a Cardinal's sash) before Vatican II and now just have a red cord. But they've been stable (about 800 before Vatican II, about 550 today...nearly all in Italy but a handful of houses in India and Mexico...unfortunaly none in the USA! But this September they did welcome 19 new postulants, of which 1 is an American! Most are Italian, but there are 2 Indians also.
So, in Italy at least, most people hate Francis. He is definitely hated in may other parts of Europe, and obviously in bishops conferences as well, and in the Sacred College of Cardinals.
At almost 80, hopefully this will be his last full year. I always pray to God that Francis is gone soon (either quitting, being thrown out, or dying), and that the next Pope is a Catholic....in the mold of Benedict XVI...or even more traditional.
Francis' model doesn't wPeople are learning that. If he does something outrageous on Oct. 31 in Sweden with Protestants, I think he will be thrown out of office.
Damian Malliapalli

philipjohnson said...

Damian.I hope to God that your friends comments are correct for it gives me hope that this vile Heretic of a man may vacate his Office asap!

M. Prodigal said...

We know this pope does not like faithful Catholics. And those who even ask for 'clarification' about some of his ambiguous statements are being persecuted, reviled, slandered, deposed, exiled, and so forth. For shame!

Anonymous said...

Maybe if I actually put my name to my rare posts, I would have made the list.


I must try harder...

Catholic Mission said...

I am a Catholic. If being a Catholic is being a fundamentalist then so am I

If they called me a fundamentalist I would say that it is true that I affirm the Syllabus of Errors,the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)according to the 16th century missionaries but I also accept Vatican Council II, with all hypothetical cases being invisible and not explicit in 2016.So I affirm the Catholic Church's teachings before and after Vatican Council II, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1995),with no known exceptions to the old ecclesiology as it was known to St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis of Assisi and St. Francis Xavier.
I do not interpret magisterial documents with the Kasper-Lefebvre premise,which infers invisible cases are visible in 2016.I do not apply the Ratzinger-Rahner new theology to Vatican Council II which infers invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance(Lumen Gentium 16) are visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS; to 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.So with the old ecclesiology in place, for me, there is no change in the Church's old teachings on ecumenism(only of return) and no known salvation outside the Church in other religions.Since there is no salvation outside the visible Church, and all need to be incorporated as members I affirm the need for the Social Reign of Christ King and the non separation of Church and State.The inter-office Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake when it assumed that the baptism of desire was explicit.It was Cardinal Richard Cushing who was in heresy for me and Fr.Leonard Feeney who was teaching orthodoxy.
So I differ from the liberals, traditionalists and sedevacantists who use the Kasper-Lefebvre new theology to interpret Vatican Council II etc.The liberals accept the irrational and heretical conclusion and the traditionalists reject it but both use the same new, irrational theology.
Like them all I do not use the irrational premise and so my conclusion is not non traditional and heretical like that of the present magisterium and the political Left.
I affirm Feeneyite EENS and implicit- for-us and known-only- to- God baptism of desire.So there is no violation of the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Someone allegedly saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in the past, cannot be a living exception to the dogma EENS in 2016.
If a liberal says he is a Catholic and accepts Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being not hypothetical but objectively visible in 2016 , he differs from me.
If a traditionalist says he rejects Vatican Council II, with hypothetical cases being explicit, I would agree with him.I too reject this irrational Cushingite version of Vatican Council II.
However unlike the traditionalist, I accept Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical.
I am a Catholic. If being a Catholic is being a fundamentalist then so am I.-Lionel Andrades

October 18, 2016
Vatican Council II is fundamentalist if you stay clear of the Kasper-Lefebvre theology.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, my friends' comments are accurate, but I interpret the feelings she says the Italian people have towards Francis as hatred. Of course, she would never say that in her e-mails because they are probably read by her superiors...and she would be in a lot of trouble if she was posting e-mails that Italians hate this Pope. But that's the feeling I get. She says very few Italians participated in Francis' "Year of Mercy".....they were mostly outside pilgrims stupid enough to go. Likewise, she says most of the people lined up for the Sunday audience are 80% tourists and foreigners, and 20% Romans/Italians. She said that even with JP II and Benedict XVI, the Romans loved the Pope even though he wasn;t one of them, and came to their audiences very faithfully. Not Francis.
When I say that the Italians hate Francis...maybe I am too strong. What my friend says more often is that they are displeased with him, ignore what he says, and mock his agenda and gestures. There was mild applause for him when it made a quick visit to the area devastated by an earthquake two months ago, but even then, a lot seemed to have rolled their eyes at him, bored by another Francis gesture.
My friend is an American who joined the Order after studying three months in Italy as a student at the University of Pennsylvania (not Penn State). The Order runs three convents in Rome, 1 in a town called Rocca di Papa near Rome, which she visited, and about 20 other foundations up and down Italy. But she did use a word ...despise...which I interprete as "hate" for the feeling of Italians for Francis for what he fid to the Franciscans of the Immaculate, and for not going to Castel Gandolfo....and for his continual harping about Muslims and the "refugees"
She may not have actually said they hate him, but it was obvious that he has no fans in most of Italy except the cliques of like minded loser liberals, and most people would like to see a pope in the mold of Benedict XVI or John Paul II back again. The older Italians still have good feelings about John XXIII, not because of Vatican II, but because he was a traditional Pope, and he was a jolly,happy man of the people...but he still kept to Catholic doctrine. Many also still revere Pius XII, and many...especially many young, would like to see a Pope like him. Many young resent not being able to see the pomp and pageantry that once went with the Papacy....just like the British monarchy, etc.
They hate Francis' style. They think he is a bore, and an uncultured buffoon.
Damian Malliapalli

Kathleen1031 said...

Thanks Damian, we need some consolation. One Cardinal put it this way, "may God open his eyes or close them for good".

Kathleen1031 said...

What kind of puny men put together a toadie list of opponents. That is so girlish, it's really repugnant. These are not men. These are worms.

Catholic Mission said...

The La Stampa report suggests conservatives and even the SSPX is fundamentalists was not contested by Ecclesia Dei.
Archbishop Guido Pozzo does not state that Vatican Council II is fundamentalist.Even Catholic conservatives, traditionalists and La Stampa journalists are not aware that Vatican Council II in itself is fundamentalist.
Why is Vatican Council II not fundamentalist for La Stampa?
It is because their leftist journalists assume hypothetical cases are explicit in 2016 and with this premnise interpret Vatican Council II to get a non traditional and heretical conclusion.In this way Vatican Council II is not 'fundamentalist'.
If like me they assumed hypothetical cases are just hypothetical, then hypothetical LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc would not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There would be nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite EENS.The Council would be saying there has to be an ecumenism of return and all non Christians need to formally convert into the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7). This would be terribly fundamentalistic.
So instead Archbishop Pozzo like the leftist journalists at Vatican Insider,interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise and conclusion. So the SSPX is fundamentalist for not accepting this interpretation of Vatican Council II and they(La Stampa, CDF) are not fundamentalists since they accept this interpretation of Vatican Council II based upon hypothetical cases being physically visible exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2016.So the Council (with the premmise) is a break with traditional and fundamentalistic documents(EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc)
Tancred what's your position on Vatican Council II, is it fundamentalist or not for you?

Anonymous said...

Kathleen above is totally correct: these are not men but repugnant quasi-girls. This effeminacy of mind (which, by the way, real Catholic women do not have as effeminacy is a caricature of true feminity) is either the product or the source of their heretical thinking: I suspect the latter. These are weak, petty men---the ecclesiastical equivalent of the liberal new "sensitive male"---who lack the strength to be real Christian warriors and defenders of the Faith. So, they go for the petty, for the comfortable false obedience, the sappy and false "mercy," and the rest of the pathological liberal ethos. They are truly repugnant; and this should be shouted from the housetops, in conformity with true charity (which is always at the service of Catholic Truth, bold, and dignified).

Lars said...

For us living in former comunist countries, the style, the odor of that list, it' so... familiar. As if the good old days are back.

Scarra said...

A more extended biography of Andrea Tornielli might be called for: how did he transition from CL and 30Giorni into a Bergoglista?

JBQ said...

Bergoglio is a Marxist as parallel profiled on this site with a definition of the Marxist background of Arturo Sosa who hit no home run like his namesake Sammie.

Catholic Mission said...

Atila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei are unknowingly assisting La Stampa.

Atila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II while assuming imaginary and hypothetical cases were objectively visible .

Atila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei wrote their books on Vatican Council II while assuming imaginary and hypothetical cases were objectively visible and that these objectively visible cases, were mentioned in Vatican Council II and they were objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted in the 16th century.

So they both rejected Vatican Council II as being a break with Tradition after using this irrational premise and conclusion of which they were not aware of and nor were corrected by the contemporary magisterium.

For both of them Lumen Gentium 16( saved in invincible ignorance) referred to someone known who was saved without the baptism of water in the present times, and so was an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

For both of them Lumen Gentium 8 refers to not invisiible but actually known cases of people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. Otherwise why would Lumen Gentium 8 be an exception to the dogma on salvation ? So this is an exception to the old ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.So since there was known salvation outside the Church and ecumenism of return has exceptions.With this theology they are liberals.

For both of them Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 refers to an objectively visible case, may be of a Protestant, Anglican or Lutheran, who is/was saved outside the visible limits of the Church.So outside the Church there is objecively known salvation for them.They both use the false premise to reach a non traditional and heretical conclusion.This is the new theology.It is being applied to Vatican Council II by them.

For me Vatican Council II is not a break with the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St.Francis Xavier, the three Church Councils which defined it and the many popes were affirmed it.I do not reject the baptism of desire etc. I just assume that they are invisiblle and hypothetical cases. If they happened they would only be known to God.
So I am affirming the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS along with implicit and invisible for baptism of desire.Similarly being saved in invincible ignorance with or without the baptism of water, for me, is an imaginary and hypothetical case. So it is irrelevant to Feeneyite EENS. Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objecitive mistake. An injustice was done to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.

For me Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Holy Office in 1949 were in heresy and Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center were teaching orthodoxy, in as much as the present day traditionalists and sedevacantists, like the liberals, are affirming heresy, though unknowingly.

-Lionel Andrades

October 21, 2016
Atila S. Guimarães was ignorant of all this when he wrote his book