25 September 2015
Now we Know
The former primate of Belgium and Emeritus Archbishop of Malines-Brussels, Cardinal Godfried Danneels was held in the central loggia of the magnificent facade of St. Peter’s Basilica where, on the evening of March 13th, 2013, was presented to the world the new Pope Francis. How was it arrived at this place of honor? The issue is not new and, at this historic moment already was as an enigma. Today, historians Karim Schelkens and Jürgen Mettepenningen present a biography of Cardinal Danneels, in which they reveal the participation of Cardinal to a secret network of bishops and cardinals. This network, called “St. Gallen Group”, set itself the goal of reducing the influence of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and to prevent his election as pope. When this attempt failed, then it is to boycott the pontificate of Benedict XVI and finally obtain the election of Argentine Jorge Mario Bergoglio. The presentation of the book took place last Tuesday in the Koekelberg Basilica, near Brussels.
In 2013, Danneels was immediately called “maker of Popes”
With Brazilian Cardinal Claudio Hummes, Danneels was immediately cited as one of those who pushed Jorge Mario Bergoglio. His Place alongside the new Pope after been elected was only one more indication. Another was the demonstrative satisfaction with which Danneels greeted the election of Argentine archbishop. Even more telling, the fact that the former Primate of Belgium continues since then to come and go to the Vatican and has direct access to the Pope Francis. That the former archbishop of Malines-Brussels had bad relation with Benedict, predecessor François, was an open secret. That Pope Francis appointed Cardinal Danneels precisely among the sixteen personal Pope invited the Synod of Bishops on the family in 2014 was suspect. The same thing happened again in 2015. When the synod at the Vatican will begin in a few days, there will be Danneels once again at the express invitation of Pope Francis; he will participate in any decisions made about marriage, family and homosexuality, although its role in scandals related to homosexuality and pedophilia within the Belgian Church is far from clear.
Ivereigh’s revelations of the “team Bergoglio”
What Schelkens Karim and Jürgen Mettepenningen present today had already been reported, but in attenuated form, ending in November 2014 by Austen Ivereigh, former spokesman of Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, in his book on Pope François, entitled “The Great Reformer”. Ivereigh wrote that there was a “Bergoglio team” composed of four cardinals who had organized a campaign whose purpose was the election of Bergoglio. Those were the German cardinal Karl Lehmann and Walter Kasper, Murphy O’Connor and Cardinal Danneels.
Ivereigh writes in his book: “They had drawn the lesson from 2005. First, they made sure the agreement with Bergoglio.” They did not want to live a second time what had happened in 2005: The Argentine, that time, bowed and withdrew his candidacy. “Asked whether he was ready, he said he believed that in these times of crisis for the Church, Cardinal could not escape, if sought.” Murphy-O’connor told to Bergoglio that he would have the need to be especially careful, because now “it was his turn”; Bergoglio said, “Capisco,” I understand.
With the book Ivereigh, the question arose whether the “team Bergoglio” had acted entirely disinterested or whether there had been electoral agreements. In other words: did they required from the Cardinal Bergoglio guarantees that it would take certain decisions affecting individuals or lead the Church on a defined path, for example on the issue of the Catholic doctrine of marriage and morality that addresses the Synod of Bishops? Does Cardinal Bergoglio has given relevant guarantees? These issues have so far not been answered and remain speculative at once.
The informal “team Bergoglio” was actually the highly organized secret circle “St. Gallen”
Karim Schelkens and Jürgen Mettepenningen are in their biography of Danneels, more explicit qu’Ivereigh. They point not only four cardinals, those Ivereigh baptized the “Bergoglio Team,” but a whole network of bishops and cardinals who called themselves as the “saint Gallen group.” In other words: the subversive activities of an organized group in secret within the Church, to give it a specific direction had a magnitude that exceeded the revelations Ivereigh.
It should be added that both authors are far from being adversaries of Cardinal Danneels, nor qu’Ivereigh was an opponent of Cardinal Murphy O’Connor. Cardinal Danneels was present in person at the presentation of the book in the basilica of Koekelberg dedicating willingly copies.
Schelkens and Mettepenningen both works as historians of the Church at the Catholic University of Leuven (KULeuven). Mettepenningen was for a very short time, spokesman for Archbishop Leonard, whom he publicly shot in the back after a difference of opinion; he spoke in favor of the ordination of women and criticized the decision to allow the Archbishop of St. Peter’s Fraternity to exercise an apostolate in his archdiocese.
The personal position Schelkens and Mettepenningen gives their work a particular credibility. The initiative group created against Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was taken by the former archbishop of Milan, the Jesuit Carlo Maria Martini, who had appointed himself as ” Anti-Pope. ” Martini convened secret meetings of bishops and cardinals in St. Gallen, Switzerland, with the aim to modernize the Church and his reconciliation with the zeitgeist, to fill the “gap” caused, according Martini, by his refusal of the French Revolution.
Karl Lehmann and Walter Kasper present from the beginning
The first meeting took place in 1996. At the time, the bishop of St. Gallen was Ivo Fürer. These meetings were at best vaguely known to a few experts. We whispered but nobody could bring anything concrete; so the idea of the existence of an anti-Roman subversive group within the Church could be swept with a wave of the hand as a “conspiracy theory”. In 1999, Cardinal Danneels joined the group, which already counted among its members the Cardinals Walter Kasper and Karl Lehmann, Germany, Cardinal Basil Hume in Britain, Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, Italy, and Dutch Bishop Adriaan Van Luyn. The members of the secret circle camouflaged their meetings as “spiritual holiday.” The secret society allowed them to support each other in a time they felt like “dark”.
Cardinal Ruini investigation due to rumors of a secret association
Rumors about the existence of a secret association succeeded to the Vatican, which dispatched Cardinal Camillo Ruini, president of the Italian Episcopal Conference, Cardinal Vicar of Rome, one of the closest followers of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, to investigate.
But the inner circle knew so well how to hide his activities Ruini returned without concrete results. At the same time, tells Schelkens and Mettepenningen, the St. Gallen group had begun to take action to change the course of Vatican. The central question for the group was: who will be the successor of John Paul II? The objective defined circle of secrecy was to prevent the election of Joseph Ratzinger as pope. With the help of Martini, Cardinal Bergoglio was put on track in 2005 as “challenger” of the German cardinal. Cardinal Martini hoped until the last minute, even if the votes for his fellow Jesuit Bergoglio did not allow the election of Argentine archbishop, at least they would be sufficient to block the election of Ratzinger.
In 2005 conclave, Cardinal Ratzinger proved so strong that attempts of St. Gallen group to prevent his election ended in a failure.
Boycott and undermine the pontificate of Benedict XVI
The two authors report that members of the St. Gallen Group expressly sought to hinder the pontificate of Benedict XVI and to blur his message for the Church and the world address. Schelkens and Mettepenningen says nothing about the nature or existence of any relationship between the activities of St. Gallen group and the unexpected resignation of the German pope who, suddenly, the closer the goal: ending the Age of Polish and German pontificates.
The Jesuit Silvano Fausti, who died recently, said in his last interview, June 2, 2012, Cardinal Martini had categorically demanded of Benedict XVI that he should retire. Eight months later the German Pope made known his resignation, to everyone’s surprise.
Historians write something anyway: “The election of Bergoglio was without a doubt prepared in St. Gallen. And an outline of its program are those Danneels and colleagues discussed for over 10 years. ”
The black clouds above the pontificate of Pope Francis, removing completely unheard of Benedict XVI and the election of the Argentinian cardinal did not dissipate; but they seem to grow as advanced by this pontificate.
(Translated from German to English using google traduction so not perfect but understandable)
Now we Know
During his Inauguration Homily, our Holy Father the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI asked for prayer that he might not “flee for fear of the Wolves”.
Now, very usefully, the unspeakable Daneels has blurted out information about how the Wolves described themselves: they were “the St Gallen Group”. Their declared purpose was to oppose the mission of Pope Benedict to reconnect the Catholic Church with Tradition. Apparently these lupi see no disgrace in likening themselves to the Mafia.
Interesting. If it is OK for Cardinals to gang together to subvert the Roman Pontiff during Pontificate A, then clearly it must be OK for Cardinals to gang together to subvert the Pontificates of Popes B, C, and D. And if it is OK for Cardinals, the sworn intimate collaborators of the Roman Pontiff, to gang together against him at all, then clearly there can be nothing unOK if mere clerics and laity do the same. Or if there is, please tell me why in simple words of one syllable.
Or is it only after the end of a pontificate that the brave souls who have conspired against the Pontiff have the courage to rubbish him publicly? During his pontificate, did they proclaim their loyalty to him from the housetops? While putting in the boot behind closed doors? And then boasting noisily about their doings as soon as he was gone? Is that how the Church is supposed to operate? I’m uncertain whether to call this ‘group’ a latrocinium or a lupanar.
What a seedy gang of hypocritical crooks at the very heart of the Church, plotting … even as I write this and you read it … to corrupt the imminent Synod of Bishops.
A final question. The “Team Bergoglio” that we read about a year or two ago … does that group have any overlap with the “St Gallen Group”?
My Comment : So now we Know and be ready to learn even more, especially next Year but if these 2 articles are published on my blog is because I was also aware of a possible plot in progress during the Pontificate of Pope Benedict and well before his resignation but this is another story, for the moment get ready for the next Synod, some say that everything must be completed for the Year 2017 but time will tell only.
15 September 2016
Now We Know II
So now we know. We knew before, really, but didn’t have explicit confirmation. The long, agonizing slog, however, is finally over: from Pope Francis’ invitation to Cardinal Kasper to address the bishops in Rome in February of 2014 to the pope’s letter last week to some Argentinean bishops affirming guidelines they had developed in a joint document that, in “exceptional cases,” people divorced and remarried (living in an “adulterous” relationship as we believed for 2000 years in Western Christianity), may receive Holy Communion. This whole affair is bizarre. No other word will do.
As I wrote on this page many times before the two Synods on the Family, daily during those events, and subsequently, it was clear – at least to me – that the pope wanted his brother bishops to approve some form of what came to be known as the Kasper Proposal. That he did not get such approval – indeed, that he got significant pushback from bishops from various parts of the globe – visibly angered him, and even led him into a bit of snark at the close of the second Synod, that some opinions had “at times” been expressed there, “unfortunately, not in entirely well-meaning ways.”
Well, one man’s not entirely well-meaning ways is another’s conviction about remaining faithful to the words of Jesus. And since then and even after the publication of Amoris laetitia, Catholics – indeed, the whole world – have been embroiled in tumultuous and fruitless speculation on whether things had changed or not. Even the notorious footnote 351 of Amoris laetitia, for all the worries it caused traditional Catholics, did not really come out and say what the pope evidently thought.
The puzzlement was understandable. Has a pope ever changed something of such significance via confused footnotes and, now, a private letter to a small group of regional bishops? In that obscure context, he’s quite categorical: “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.” [Emphasis added.]
I say again: bizarre – both in process and substance. It took several days before it was even certain that the letter to the Argentinean bishops – leaked, only later confirmed by the Vatican – was authentic. Pope Francis has no trouble making bald public statements such as “who am I to judge,” and “if you don’t recycle go to Confession.” He rails, often rightly, against careerism and gossip and division within the Curia, but suddenly becomes gun-shy when it comes to marriage and family? As Hungarian Cardinal Peter Erdö said frankly during the Synods, it all just comes down to a choice: either you give a certain group of people Communion or you don’t.
Even now that Francis has said yes, we keep hearing that there are qualifications and nuances and limits. The pope has several times refused to comment on the change in order, as he’s said, to avoid giving “a simplistic answer.” But quite apart from the fact that he’s done so on many other matters, he at least appears to believe that it will be possible in practice to finesse this process, through accompaniment, discernment, all those words that have no clear limits. The Argentine bishops themselves have warned that the change applies only to exceptional cases: “it’s necessary to avoid understanding this possibility as an unrestricted access to the sacraments, or as though any situation might justify it.”
But while they’ve recognized the danger, they haven’t avoided it. In the world today, everyone thinks he’s a special case, and pity the poor parish priest or local bishop in the future who seems “too rigid” by not granting enough people special status.
A Catholic has a right to ask for a little accompaniment and discernment of his own about what the Church teaches – particularly which principles define that “exceptional status.” To take a case that will not long remain hypothetical: what about the gay couple who are committed to one another and experienced same-sex attraction their whole lives, through no fault of their own? When the first Synod started down that path, it was regarded as extremist and quickly abandoned by the small number of bishops who wanted to push it. But without some clear principles to distinguish such cases from others, why not?
In the Church’s 2000-year history – a history of apostles, martyrs, confessors, great saints, brilliant doctors, profound mystics – none thought this new teaching Catholic. Some even died to defend the indissolubility of marriage. For a pope to criticize those who remain faithful to that tradition, and characterize them as somehow unmerciful and as aligning themselves with hard-hearted Pharisees against the merciful Jesus is bizarre.
I’ve lived long enough in Washington and spent sufficient time in Rome not to trust what a journalist says some leader – secular or religious – told him in private. But I’m convinced that when Eugenio Scalfari – the eccentric editor of La Repubblica, the socialist paper in Rome the pope reads daily – said that Francis told him he would allow all who come to receive Communion, he may not have gotten the words exactly right. But he caught the drift.
Indeed, Catholics have a new teaching now, not only on divorce and remarriage. We have a new vision of the Eucharist. It’s worth recalling that in January the pope, coyly, not ruling it out, suggested to a group of Lutherans in Rome that they, too, should “talk with the Lord” and “go forward.” Indeed, they later took Communion at Mass in the Vatican. In a way, that was even more significant. A Catholic couple, divorced and remarried, are sinners, but – at least in principle – still Catholic. Has intercommunion with non-Catholic Christians also been decided now without any consultation – almost as if such a momentous step in understanding the Sacrament of Unity hardly matters?
I say this in sorrow, but I’m afraid that the rest of this papacy is now going to be rent by bands of dissenters, charges of papal heresy, threats of – and perhaps outright –schism. Lord, have mercy.
My Comment : Now we know, I published the first article 1 year ago, today many of our great Catholic minds as Robert Royal among many other, most are considered as faithful Catholic only and in no way Traditionalists (which is not an insult but a fact), even those minds fears today of a possible schism, Lord have mercy, due to the destruction of the Holy Church step by step and especially since the election of Pope Francis from Day 1 to date.
So I will not repeat my famous “I told you, the worse at the worst time”, no today I will remaint silent and will just add few words, follow closely the next Synod already on the way, probably in 2017 or in 2018 according to some, after the Eucharist, the ministers of the Lord, the Priests, this will be probably the last Attack from the same group and do not expect any protest from our so called Princes of the Church, they are frightened and most have already left the battlefield, now it’s between the Lady of the Apocalypse and the devil himself, schism must be avoid at all costs, stay within the Church, do not follow any heresies, to me the last word will be with Benedict, Pray for the Pope Emeritus as well, as long he is in life, please be sure that we are safe, his last book is a confirmation of what I was aware, those are the end of times prophesied in Garabandal, in other words, VERY great events are ahead, please do not blame those who supports this Pontificate, they have not all the details, oppose them by reminding them the Teachings of the Church ONLY, Pray for each other, this is also our duty, I reconfirm to all of you, those are blessing times, stay within the Church at all costs, their time is limited, you have my word.
About the same topic, Read more :