Of the two one: or the Supreme Pontiff has confused the person, or he wanted to mock Prince Philip of Edinburgh, one of the greatest whoremongers and swindlers of the twentieth century
Latest posts by Hypatia (see all)
- Soon we will have Pietro Pacciani President of the Supreme Court of Cassation assisted by Bombolo, Alvaro Vitali and Er Monnezza - 4 June 2023
- Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller's book contains reality and truth, but it makes us long for all the men of the old school like Cardinal Angelo Sodano - 9 February 2023
- Parallel existences: Lady Diana e Georg Gänswein, like having everything in life and then spending your time complaining about it? - 15 January 2023
Who knows if the pope will remove Bishop Gisana who defended the pedophile and pig priest or the church will accept this too in silence.
I feel sick reading that the priest touched them in the sacristy while he was preparing the pyx
Those like this would also be nice articles, if they weren't stuffed with crude provincial vulgarity as an end in itself.
Because our Holy Father should have criticized the husband of the head of the English Church, who let himself be guided, in his marital relations, Give The joy?
The official and complete text of the telegram can be read here:
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2021/04/10/0217/00476.html
It should be remembered that the telegram is a formal public gesture of good manners, and the statements contained therein simply reflect the usual canons of diplomatic etiquette.
It is not and could not be a moral assessment of the past life of the deceased, whose final judgment is however reserved exclusively to God.
By being aware that I am a sinner, on the occasion I recited some requiem in a Christian manner in favor of the soul of the deceased, entrusting him to divine mercy.
Paul VI, which dictated the general lines of the current organization of the Curia, he put the Secretariat of State at the center. Quite a justifiable choice for various reasons, moreover it was the department in which the young Montini was brought up. The point is that this presupposes that the Secretary of State is a person with uncommon governance skills and enjoys recognized authority.. Otherwise they are pains, especially if the Pontiff is not interested in the progress of the “curial machine”. Now, I'll be a pessimist, but the last to approach the required requirements (despite being anything but free from limits) was card. Agostino Casaroli.
Dear Andrea,
if we go through the last ones 100 years we discover that the office of Secretary of State has been held by men very different in character, temperament, human quality, origin and social class to which they belong, think big Rafael Merry del Val (1903-1914), coming from one of the families of the most noble European aristocracy, to which he succeeded Peter Gasparri (1914-1930) nicknamed in the acid corridors of the curia he shepherd, coming from a family of poor Abruzzese shepherds who emigrated to Lazio, but no less great and talented than his predecessor.
What to say about Eugene Pacelli (1930-1939), on which any word would be superfluous.
Another great figure Louis Sweater (1939-1944) friend and most faithful man to Pius XII.
Then Pius XII, from the 1944 al 1958 he did not assign the job to anyone, remaining de facto without a secretary of state and acting as his own secretary of state. A choice that history has not yet clarified and on which only hypotheses can be made, which, however, remain so.
And to follow:
Dominic Tardini (1958-1961), another great figure, how it was Hamlet Cicognali (1961-1969).
Then Paul VI chose a man without color, smell and taste, Jean-Marie Villot (1969-1979). It was not a mistake at all but a very deliberate choice. Paul VI, perhaps he was left with the bitterness of not having become Secretary of State at the time, the secretariat had a very specific idea of his own, to realize which he needed a man with three precise characteristics: mediocre, apathetic and lazy.
Of Agostino Casaroli (1979-1990) she said what there was to say.
Angelo Sodano (1990-2006) he is a man who perhaps one day will be re-evaluated, also because he was the last of the diplomats. Fanciful and almost always ungenerous black legends have been created about him, while in truth he was a most faithful servant and executor of John Paul II.
With Tarcisio Bertone a free fall begins which up to twenty years before would never have been conceivable even by a short story author fantasy.
And here I stop, nothing else out of modesty.
father ariel,
these days there are rumors of total isolation of the first three who are cold to each other: Francesco, Parolin, Parra.
Parolin isolated from everyone and from Francesco.
Who's in charge right now in this shit of the Secretariat of State?
Of course I, either they are stupid or they are great jokers, to write that telegram ???
Dear Francis,
it seems to have gone back to the last delicate and tragic years of the pontificate of John Paul II, when the Supreme Pontiff was now totally debilitated by the disease. Between 2000 and the 2005 we asked ourselves several times: «… who is, which governs the Church?».
In those years, to be fair, while on the one hand the appointments of the most unlikely bishops came out, thanks above all to the work of Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, at the time prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of which Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was prefect at the time, documents such as the Lord Jesus Sacramentum.
The question “who is governing the Church?», today we have been asking it for many and for years now, since June of 2013, after the first ones 100 days of pontificate.
I don't know what to answer, because I really don't know, who governs it.
What I can say instead is that contrary to the documents of the last years of John Paul II, today documents are coming out in the balance between boutade of the goliardic association and unconsciousness in the wild.
Below is an excerpt from an article by Giulio Andreotti on 30 Days del Lug-Ago 1999 by title: Royal chastity.
The Minister of the Interior Francesco Crispi had considered it appropriate to make known in the Vatican the text of the funerary inscriptions that was intended to be placed on the side of the bier, on the occasion of a solemn trigth mass. The special correspondent, Baron Monti, had reported that, pending the delicacy of the matter, he had been accompanied to the Supreme Pontiff himself, finding him very tired, but lively and controversial. With some discomfort the baron had noted Pius IX's pungent comments on the individual praises: ""I love freedom": in fact the Pope said we are prisoners; "He loved justice": in fact he took what is not his ". And so on. But the ending was gorgeous: "Request His Holiness for a global judgment, he said to thank the minister for the attention given to him and proposed a small addition to make it a monument of truth: loved purity».
Other fabric, other times.
Monsignor Giovanni Zanchi, Arezzo
I read somewhere that, on the occasion of the solemn funeral of Vittorio Emanuele II, famous whoremonger for most of his life, the epigraphic signs hypocritically celebrating the virtues and works of the deceased king were hoisted at the Pantheon in Rome, as was then customary; the Vatican, Blessed Pius IX ironically commented that just one was missing, con la scritta loved chastity. It seems then that in our times this missing funeral epigraph was directly raised by the eleventh successor of that Pontiff.
* * *
N.d.R.
Our Brother Giovanni Zanchi, man of profound culture and solid doctrine, donated to the island of Patmos, during the first lockdown, a series of valuable homilies and meditations that are still very topical today and are preserved on our video page:
https://isoladipatmos.com/stage/category/i-nostri-video/
Dear Hypatia, as the good soul of Sora Lella said: “Ah, annamo well! Own bbene!“. I just add: pores us!
A caress, Hypatia.