The Supreme Pontiff by Fabio Fazio and the next day's dilemma: between two, who was the Old Professor and who the Blue Angel?

/1 Comment/in /by
father ariel
Latest posts by father ariel (see all)

- Actuality -

THE GREAT PONTIFF DA FABIO FAZIO AND THE DILEMMA OF THE DAY AFTER: BETWEEN TWO, WHO WAS THE OLD PROFESSOR AND WHO THE BLUE ANGEL?

I don't want to dwell too much on the image of the elderly professor in the film The Blue Angel with the legendary Marlene Dietrich in the role of the dancer Lola, I leave it to anyone who knows a little about the old cinema and the plot of that dramatic film masterpiece to evaluate, who between the two was the Professor last night and who the Blue Angel, I don't know how to answer and I don't even want to answer, rather: I don't even want to think about it ...

.

.

PDF Article in print format

 

.

.

.

.

Two days ago ho ho published an article harsh and severe to comment on the announced participation of the Roman Pontiff in a talk show always known for being a flag of the worst hipster and politically correct Left: What's the weather like, hosted by Fabio Fazio, who for years has been supported by Luciana Littizzetto who has mocked the Catholic Church in every way, the doctrine, the morality and pastoral care of the Bishops of Italy. This is the container - and no one can deny it - in which the Supreme Pontiff has decided to put his contents. Applying the justifying principle that the person is responsible for the contents expressed and certainly not for the container in which he expressed them, in that case I could easily publish an article on the mystery of the Holy Spirit in the magazine Playboy, without anyone daring to tell me anything, because I would only answer for what I write, regardless of the close-ups of the splendid naked models that fill the pages of that monthly magazine. Exactly like the Roman Pontiff guest at What's the weather like responsible for its own contents, certainly not a container that for years mocked the Catholic Church through the armed wing of Luciana Littizzetto, or not?

.

That of Fabio Fazio it is not the Left of workers' demands or struggles, policies and trade unions of the old, glorious and also lamented Italian Communist Party, to whom Italy has owed so much since the time of the Constituent Assembly and of which he was the last leader that great gentleman Enrico Berlinguer. Fabio Fazio's is the Left - as I explained and as I will reiterate - with the super-penthouses in Parioli and the villas in Capalbio. A left that has nothing to do with the demands of the Supreme Pontiff, or as I have strictly defined them: obsessive-compulsive neurosis on poor people and migrants. Indeed, for us, the true poor whom we must assist by divine mandate are the poor of Christ, the real migrants to be welcomed or recovered are those far from the Church, or emigrants from the Church. Otherwise, the severe warning of Christ God risks ringing out: "Do not even the Gentiles?» [Mt 5, 47].

.

In my humble opinion the presence of the Supreme Pontiff was inappropriate, introduced, as I imagined, from the comments of a court of secularist leftists headed by Roberto Saviano who, like a vaudeville theater before the opening of the big curtain, they attempted to legitimize - succeeding in the eyes of many, Alas! ― their not-being-Catholic, always adverse to everything the Catholic feels on the doctrinal level, of faith and morality. The one I call Gianluigi Nuzzi strategy, with whom I had a debate on live television in 2020, even though he immediately understood in the space of a few seconds that he wasn't attacking me and, like the intelligent person he is, he immediately pulled the oars into the boat.

.

Simple yet dangerous and terrifying the split made by these people between Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Church and the Papacy. Only those incapable of understanding and wanting, or those who do not want to understand and want, they can tear their clothes before my words and not notice how these sinister subjects have been presenting Jorge Mario Bergoglio as a "great revolutionary" for years, a "lonely and misunderstood" man, but above all "hindered". And who, would be misunderstood and hindered? Soon said: from the Church, by the very evil Roman Curia and by unspecified conservatives who do not want the great "revolutionary epochal change". Soon said: through this game it ends up being broadcast to the masses, including the army of simple and fragile Catholics, a terrible subliminal message: Bergoglio Yes, Church no, Bergoglio Yes, Papato no… We just need the icing on the pastry chef's cake: Bergoglio Yes, christ not.

.

Exactly the Gianluigi Nuzzi strategy who has written about the Church and the true and presumed wrongdoings of the clergy for over a decade about everything and more. From the 2013 however, it does so with a strategy that has something diabolical in it: separates Jorge Mario Bergoglio from his sacred office, he detaches him from the Church and from the clergy of which he is supreme head by divine mandate, it changes it into an unspecified one “misunderstood revolutionary”, it elevates him as a victim and then as such defends him from a corrupt and corrupting system, that is, the Church of Christ. Having done this, he feels so entitled to dump all the worst mud in the world on us. As if Jorge Mario Bergoglio were nothing more than a simple Jorge Mario Bergoglio, while for us he is the Successor of the Blessed Apostle Peter and the legitimate Vicar of Christ on earth to whom the Word of God has given the power of the keys [cf. Mt 13, 16-19]. And as such all of us Catholic priests and faithful venerate and obey him, always. Regardless of some of its limitations and defects about which one is not required to remain silent, even more so in the name of the most sinister and blind clericalism which would even have the comical claim of criticizing clericalism, like: can a burglar perhaps criticize and condemn burglary?

.

It may be that the solons of the Holy See and those responsible for the Vatican Media have never noticed this dangerous game? Yup, who noticed it, but the problem is that the Supreme Pontiff rejected the old one, consolidated and all in all functional machine of the Roman Curia, which with all its strengths and weaknesses has always fulfilled its delicate primary task: protect the figure of the August Pontiff and his public image. Unfortunately, the problem is known: the Holy Father does not listen to anyone and acts on his own mind, after having turned away numerous faithful and valued servants to surround himself with mediocre subjects and complacent pimps, with the results we have under our eyes today.

.

We also want to talk about its obvious inconsistencies? Also the Blessed Apostle Peter, chosen by Christ, God himself, appeared inconsistent and fragile, it is written in the Holy Gospels, in the Apostolic Letters and in the Acts of the Apostles. So explain to me, or clerical novices who ridicule clericalism in a ridiculous way: we can speak of the limitations of the Blessed Apostle Peter, preach and write, while on those of the man Jorge Mario Bergoglio no? Interesting, this new authentically anticlerical ecclesiology is really interesting … and while for years, From speech to speech the Holy Father was pining for migrants, that great man of God and faithful servant of the Cardinal's Church Carlo Caffara he died without ever being received. I don't pay for this, a short time later the Holy Father left the elderly and heroic Chinese cardinal outside the door like a stray dog Giuseppe Zen, over 80 years old from Hong Kong, who for a week waited in vain to be received. In return, But, received that proud and unrepentant atheist Eugenio Scalfari, founder and director of the newspaper The Republic, who for years has written editorials and articles on the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II often bordering on the most sinister anti-Catholic infamy. Perhaps some intend to deny it, or worse, call me inappropriate for daring to report historical facts that are both public and documented? Since when has the truth become inappropriate in the Church?? Or perhaps someone intends to attack me by saying that we need to evaluate the form, or rather evaluate how the truth is told? In this case I will respond immediately in advance: read the Holy Gospels, because these were the reasons of the ancient Pharisees.

.

The Holy Father spoke about the chatter of gossip and clericalism. It's a shame, however, that he didn't explain that the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura could easily be closed and its large building transformed into a hostel for Roma, because in the beautiful season he inaugurated the certainty of law, together with that of a fair and impartial judgment, of an acquittal or a just sentence, in concrete facts they no longer exist in this visible Church cloaked in an unspecified and identified mercy. There have been ecclesiastics ousted from their offices overnight after having faithfully served the Church for several decades within the Roman Curia, without ever knowing why. Their legitimate questions remained unanswered and were answered: "Order comes from above, so it's just like that!». Matters of mercy! Not to mention the numerous canonical judicial proceedings that were closed with a peremptory phone call from Domus Sanctae Martha because the suspect for very serious crimes was a friend of the friends of the "magic circle" of the Holy Father, as the Cardinal called him Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, great man and theologian and for this reason unworthily defenestrated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And in the face of all this and much more, we even had to put up with the sermon on "gossips", "chatter" and "clericalism" pronounced from the unfortunate pulpit of Fabio Fazio's living room. So let me say that if this were not tragic it would be truly comical.

.

All this to those who benefit? I really can't find any other questions that could better justify the appearance of the Roman Pontiff on last night's television program. It definitely benefited that talk show, to its handler, to all that plethora of ideological intellectuals who love visibility and who will finally be able to include the Holy Father in their tiaso as a simple first among equals. But as a simple priest I ask myself a question: last night's intervention will benefit the Catholic faithful, to the sacred shepherds, to priests, to the holy people of God who are increasingly disoriented and in need of certainties? I'm afraid not, because last night left many with a sense of emptiness that will end with a question destined to remain unanswered: it was really needed? No, there was certainly no need because we did not understand different things - in terms and substance - of those trite and coy pronounced in an obsessive-compulsive way in nine years of pontificate: migrants, migrants, still migrants, environmentalism, clericalism, rigidity and mercy. Nothing that does not already feel abundantly with every blessing Urbi et in the days of Christmas or Easter and which has already tired even the most devout Catholic papists.

.

It couldn't be otherwise, given the editorial line of Fabio Fazio's program which, through Saviano, invests the Supreme Pontiff with the title of "last socialist", something that will surely drive the blessed soul of the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII mad with joy, of happy memory, than in the first part of his memorable and prophetic Encyclical Of the new things defined Socialism as a "false remedy". A socialist Pope who raises a smile by saying that as a child he wanted to be a butcher and that in front of television screens he is unable to argue a simple theme of theodicy which touches on the mystery of innocent suffering and which has its model in Christ crucified and in the Holy Innocent martyrs a path of real sanctity that is repeated daily in millions of abortions considered as social achievements by the friends of the factional Fazio, whose attendance at New Horizons Community it should at least allow for some healthy crisis of conscience, between one Saviano and another. Mystery of innocent pain and of the little ones that the Holy Pontiff John Paul II masterfully argued in his Apostolic Letter Saving pain and which is inextricably linked to the mystery of iniquity of sin in which forgiveness is certainly not a "right" - as the Holy Father stated and repeated, causing the theologians to fall to the ground under the television screen - but a grace that Christ offered us in his blood and which at every confession is renew.

.

The guest was there, for a few more days we will talk about this event which will then fall into oblivion as we usually do on Monday after a Sunday match between amateurs. All this will leave nothing, not a desire for conversion, nor a desire to discover Christ, not even the desire to love the Church more. Indeed, our enemies will say more than ever «Bergoglio is one of us!», so let's take the Holy Father and use him as a club to beat the non-revolutionary Church of Christ, political opponents and those who espouse anti-sovereignist ideas. That's why I'm worried, more than for what was not said last night and for what with skillful manipulative sense the Supreme Pontiff will be told in the following days of what he has never said.

.

After last night the Papacy was struck and desecrated, perhaps the only religious leader cloaked in ineffable dignity remains Queen Elizabeth II of England, that as head of the Anglican Community he would never dream of going to any Fazio to be interviewed, because you know: before the King they expect to be called, you keep your head down and answer only and exclusively if he speaks to you and asks you questions. It is the King who questions and who asks, no one can question and ask questions to the King. This is why I say that we have witnessed a traumatic reversal, to a terrible twist of roles, one of which, that of the Roman Pontiff, it is a sacred role by divine institution and mandate. And I honestly don't want to dwell too much on the image of the Elder Professor in the film The Blue Angel with the legendary Marlene Dietrich in the role of the dancer Lola, I leave it to anyone who knows a little about the old cinema and the plot of that dramatic film masterpiece to evaluate, who between the two was the Professor last night and who the Blue Angel, I don't know how to answer and I don't even want to answer, rather: I don't even want to think about it ...

.

the Island of Patmos, 7 February 2022

.

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

1 reply
  1. Antonello
    Antonello says:

    I agree in full except for one particular: what you call the icing on the cake that would still be missing, and that is «Bergoglio yes, not Christ», in my opinion it is instead the pedestal on which this cake rests.

Comments are closed.