From TIA:   Why was archbishop Parolin chosen?


WHY WAS PAROLIN CHOSEN?    - In the present day circus, Pope Francis continues to surprise. No week has passed these first six months of his pontificate without a bombastic surprise. As he continues his self-assigned mission of astonishing the world by desacralizing the Papacy and subverting Catholic Morals, let us focus our attention on the ideological profile of the new Secretary of State he chose.

 Archbishop Pietro Parolin will officially take up his work on October 15, replacing Card. Tarcísio Bertone, the long-term auxiliary of Joseph Ratzinger. Who is this never-heard-of Parolin? Why was he chosen?





Pietro Parolin meets communist head of Vietnam government
Msgr. Pietro Parolin meeting with the head of communist government in Vietnam, Nguyen The Doanh


The progressisivist weekly The Tablet from London has these words of praise for Parolin on two of his most important behind-the-scenes accomplishments:

•“Msgr. Parolin played a fundamental role in helping to re-establish relations with Vietnam’s Communist Government. Applying patient and careful compromise, Parolin and his delegation were able to secure the appointment of new bishops and begin the course toward diplomatic normalization. …

•“His most impressive diplomatic achievement … came with Communist China. A major writer of Pope Benedict’s letter to Chinese Catholics in 2007, Parolin led the delegation to the Asian super-power in 2008 and 2009, re-opening a dialogue for the first time in more than 50 years. Again imitating the methods of the old Ostpolitik, he painstakingly achieved an agreement with Beijing regarding the selection of 10 bishops, something that had not been achieved in six decades.” (September 7, 2013, p. 5)

Because of internal disagreements among high-ranked personages involved in these concessions to Communism, the magazine reports, Parolin was cut off from his contacts with the Vietnamese and Chinese governments and sent to Venezuela to deal with the communist regime of Hugo Chavez.

 So, Parolin was the mind behind Benedict’s policy of approaching Communism both in Vietnam and in China, re-igniting the Vatican Ostpolitik that characterized the post-conciliar period.

 Indeed, it was in the name of Ostpolitik that John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II made inadmissible concessions to Communism. Wherever the Church was being persecuted by the red regime, these Popes ordered that all confrontation cease. Using the local religious authorities, they promised the communist authorities that the Church would stop preaching the principles of Catholic doctrine opposed to Marxism in exchange for a partial liberty to exist - that is, to have Masses for the faithful and keep seminaries opened.



Does the choice of Parolin reveal a pro-communist approach of Francis?
 Thus, we saw the Catholic Church “forget” to preach on the right of property, free initiative, social hierarchy and other principles that characterized Christendom in Poland and Hungary, Ukraine and Yugoslavia, Czech-Slovakia and Romania, in all the countries of the ex-USSR and its “satellite” countries. Opposition to communist regimes that would rise among the faithful were promptly discouraged and forbidden, when not reported to the communist police. The Church thus saw, under the blissful blessings of the conciliar Popes, an era of shameful “liberty” won by abandoning honor and orthodoxy.

 In these countries the Vatican Ostpolitik in some ways ended when the Wall of Berlin and the Iron Curtain fell and the USSR was declared dissolved. In some ways, I say, because in many countries the rule of Communism continued under a deceitful appearance of democracy. The Vatican Ostpolitik also continued in Cuba throughout this period. There it reached its apex with John Paul II’s and Benedict XVI’s visits to the Island to support the Castro tyrants.

 Benedict took other bold steps in the same direction in Vietnam and China.

 The letter to the Chinese Catholics told them to accept Communism and unite with the Patriotic Association (PA), which is nothing but a façade of a “Catholic” Church whose bishops are employees hired by the communist regime. The letter represented a betrayal of the underground Catholics faithful to Rome. Two TIA writers have analyzed the bad consequences of this letter in several articles (here, here, here & here).

 Also, the Vatican policy accepting the bishops of the Patriotic Association has been a constant point of shame for the Holy See.

 The mind behind these initiatives was Msgr. Pietro Parolin. Now, Pope Francis chooses him to be his Secretary of State. What could this mean, except that Francis wants to give high priority to concessions to Communism and move in fast speed in this lane?

MARX’S INPUT      -   Card. Reinhard Marx of Munich is one of the eight cardinals chosen by Francis to be in his Counsel of Advisors, which will have its first meeting with the Pope in October to deal with the “reform of the Roman Curia.”

Asked by a journalist where the Church needs to change, Card. Marx reportedly said: “‘We are not rulers of the faithful,’ adding that the Church must not rule in a feudal manner. Decisions must be ‘transparent,’ he emphasized. Pope Francis has already warned the Church of the danger of ‘narcissism,’ Card. Marx recalled before pointing out caustically that ‘in the final instance, an institution which no longer serves but only strengthens and fattens itself is bad for everyone … We need more supervision, control and responsibility - and in this respect, there is nothing to stop the Church from learning from the world.’” (The Tablet, September 21, 2013, p. 27)





Cardinal Reinhard Marx
Card. Marx, a desire to end the monarchy in the Church
 Let me try to  correctly decipher these puzzling statements.

 It seems that Marx is saying that the Church needs democracy, that she should imitate the world - “learning from the world.” Introducing more democracy would make the prelates no longer be “rulers of the faithful” in “a feudal manner,” and would oblige their decisions to be more “transparent.”

A monarchical institution turned toward itself would be “narcissist” and should be avoided. Thus, “an institution that no longer serves [the people] but only strengthens and fattens is bad for everyone.” Democracy should be introduced everywhere, and for this “we need more supervision, control and responsibility.”

So, when we introduce the key concept of democracy - a word not actually mentioned by Marx to the journalist - all his confused ideas become crystal clear.

 A last observation on these words: Marx considers that if the Church grows, has more members and becomes more powerful, this is just to "strengthen and fatten” itself. It is an expression that shows despisal for the Catholic Church as she always was.

 It seems that what the German cardinal wants is a Church that is increasingly weaker and smaller. An ideal that has been expressed by progressivists for a long time (Ratzinger was one who predicted this). Now, Francis with his revolutionary committee of public safety is ready to put it into execution.

From TIA:   Why was archbishop Parolin chosen?


WHY WAS PAROLIN CHOSEN?    - In the present day circus, Pope Francis continues to surprise. No week has passed these first six months of his pontificate without a bombastic surprise. As he continues his self-assigned mission of astonishing the world by desacralizing the Papacy and subverting Catholic Morals, let us focus our attention on the ideological profile of the new Secretary of State he chose.

 Archbishop Pietro Parolin will officially take up his work on October 15, replacing Card. Tarcísio Bertone, the long-term auxiliary of Joseph Ratzinger. Who is this never-heard-of Parolin? Why was he chosen?





Pietro Parolin meets communist head of Vietnam government
Msgr. Pietro Parolin meeting with the head of communist government in Vietnam, Nguyen The Doanh


The progressisivist weekly The Tablet from London has these words of praise for Parolin on two of his most important behind-the-scenes accomplishments:

•“Msgr. Parolin played a fundamental role in helping to re-establish relations with Vietnam’s Communist Government. Applying patient and careful compromise, Parolin and his delegation were able to secure the appointment of new bishops and begin the course toward diplomatic normalization. …

•“His most impressive diplomatic achievement … came with Communist China. A major writer of Pope Benedict’s letter to Chinese Catholics in 2007, Parolin led the delegation to the Asian super-power in 2008 and 2009, re-opening a dialogue for the first time in more than 50 years. Again imitating the methods of the old Ostpolitik, he painstakingly achieved an agreement with Beijing regarding the selection of 10 bishops, something that had not been achieved in six decades.” (September 7, 2013, p. 5)

Because of internal disagreements among high-ranked personages involved in these concessions to Communism, the magazine reports, Parolin was cut off from his contacts with the Vietnamese and Chinese governments and sent to Venezuela to deal with the communist regime of Hugo Chavez.

 So, Parolin was the mind behind Benedict’s policy of approaching Communism both in Vietnam and in China, re-igniting the Vatican Ostpolitik that characterized the post-conciliar period.

 Indeed, it was in the name of Ostpolitik that John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II made inadmissible concessions to Communism. Wherever the Church was being persecuted by the red regime, these Popes ordered that all confrontation cease. Using the local religious authorities, they promised the communist authorities that the Church would stop preaching the principles of Catholic doctrine opposed to Marxism in exchange for a partial liberty to exist - that is, to have Masses for the faithful and keep seminaries opened.



Does the choice of Parolin reveal a pro-communist approach of Francis?
 Thus, we saw the Catholic Church “forget” to preach on the right of property, free initiative, social hierarchy and other principles that characterized Christendom in Poland and Hungary, Ukraine and Yugoslavia, Czech-Slovakia and Romania, in all the countries of the ex-USSR and its “satellite” countries. Opposition to communist regimes that would rise among the faithful were promptly discouraged and forbidden, when not reported to the communist police. The Church thus saw, under the blissful blessings of the conciliar Popes, an era of shameful “liberty” won by abandoning honor and orthodoxy.

 In these countries the Vatican Ostpolitik in some ways ended when the Wall of Berlin and the Iron Curtain fell and the USSR was declared dissolved. In some ways, I say, because in many countries the rule of Communism continued under a deceitful appearance of democracy. The Vatican Ostpolitik also continued in Cuba throughout this period. There it reached its apex with John Paul II’s and Benedict XVI’s visits to the Island to support the Castro tyrants.

 Benedict took other bold steps in the same direction in Vietnam and China.

 The letter to the Chinese Catholics told them to accept Communism and unite with the Patriotic Association (PA), which is nothing but a façade of a “Catholic” Church whose bishops are employees hired by the communist regime. The letter represented a betrayal of the underground Catholics faithful to Rome. Two TIA writers have analyzed the bad consequences of this letter in several articles (here, here, here & here).

 Also, the Vatican policy accepting the bishops of the Patriotic Association has been a constant point of shame for the Holy See.

 The mind behind these initiatives was Msgr. Pietro Parolin. Now, Pope Francis chooses him to be his Secretary of State. What could this mean, except that Francis wants to give high priority to concessions to Communism and move in fast speed in this lane?

MARX’S INPUT      -   Card. Reinhard Marx of Munich is one of the eight cardinals chosen by Francis to be in his Counsel of Advisors, which will have its first meeting with the Pope in October to deal with the “reform of the Roman Curia.”

Asked by a journalist where the Church needs to change, Card. Marx reportedly said: “‘We are not rulers of the faithful,’ adding that the Church must not rule in a feudal manner. Decisions must be ‘transparent,’ he emphasized. Pope Francis has already warned the Church of the danger of ‘narcissism,’ Card. Marx recalled before pointing out caustically that ‘in the final instance, an institution which no longer serves but only strengthens and fattens itself is bad for everyone … We need more supervision, control and responsibility - and in this respect, there is nothing to stop the Church from learning from the world.’” (The Tablet, September 21, 2013, p. 27)





Cardinal Reinhard Marx
Card. Marx, a desire to end the monarchy in the Church
 Let me try to  correctly decipher these puzzling statements.

 It seems that Marx is saying that the Church needs democracy, that she should imitate the world - “learning from the world.” Introducing more democracy would make the prelates no longer be “rulers of the faithful” in “a feudal manner,” and would oblige their decisions to be more “transparent.”

A monarchical institution turned toward itself would be “narcissist” and should be avoided. Thus, “an institution that no longer serves [the people] but only strengthens and fattens is bad for everyone.” Democracy should be introduced everywhere, and for this “we need more supervision, control and responsibility.”

So, when we introduce the key concept of democracy - a word not actually mentioned by Marx to the journalist - all his confused ideas become crystal clear.

 A last observation on these words: Marx considers that if the Church grows, has more members and becomes more powerful, this is just to "strengthen and fatten” itself. It is an expression that shows despisal for the Catholic Church as she always was.

 It seems that what the German cardinal wants is a Church that is increasingly weaker and smaller. An ideal that has been expressed by progressivists for a long time (Ratzinger was one who predicted this). Now, Francis with his revolutionary committee of public safety is ready to put it into execution.

Tradition in Action are a bunch of phoney pseudo-traditionalists, everything they say is anti-clericalist. They are a bunch of defenders of hardcore capitalism, everyone who is not peeing their pants of joy with capitalism in their eyes is a socialist. I would not take anything they say as serious, since they have a whole mission and agenda to do certain false opposition things.

If you don't believe me, then go into their search engine of their website and type, "distributism" and you will be surprised how they consider a Catholic economic system as socialism. Equating it with pedophilia etc... It is just disgusting what they do, and I happen to know Anarcho-Capitalism economics very well and these guys are even more hardcore capitalist then they are. I have seen every single video that has come out from the Mises Media youtube page, and I have read several of their books so I know when I see a true and false capitalist. These guys are a bunch of idiots seriously, they are nothing but a cult like TFP is. Totally phony anti-Communist, they claim to be "counter-revolutionaries" but do not be deceived. "Not everyone that says Lord, Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven."

+PAX+

I disagree with you.

Consider the content of the article.  
Who else is exposing such ʝʊdɛօ-marxist infiltration within the Vatican.... Michael Voris... ?  the neoSSPX ?

I don't agree with everything TIA or TFP says and does, but they are Catholic my friend.

TFP has organized a Rosary rally for years on the weekend closest to October 13th, in Honor of
Our Lady of Fatima and the Miracle of the Sun.

TFP America Needs Fatima Rosary Rally

10,000 Rosary rally points across America.  Who else is doing this ?
Do you think it is in vain?   Do you think our Lord is not pleased by this?

Please, take what Catholic graces you can get, while they are still available my friend and... stop sniveling.

  :pop:

Maybe you are not aware of their errors, have you read what they promote etc... For someone who has a very good formation such as yourself with the permission of explicitly refuting their errors it might be okay to read it. However, if you happen to agree with their work then I would have to question that. Yes commit to memory anything good that they write, I can agree with that. However, you are simply copy pasting without correcting their errors. An anti-clericalist spirit they have, among many other things. Now more then ever we are to be on guard, because once your mind has accepted error it is difficult to come back.

Bishop De Castro Mayer+, may he rest in peace. Called them a heretical cult and sect, it took a theologian like him to realize what was going on with TFP about 35 years later after his own approval (now remember as opposed to +ABL, Bishop de Castro Mayer never signed any Vatican II docuмents, he was also a SV'ist). I will later post another thread with regards to TFP, so I can back up my claims. Take care friend.

+Pax+

The point here isn't how we feel about TIA and TFP. Even if the article is a fabrication, it doesn't matter.

Under the Treaty of Metz in 1962 the Church agreed to withhold all criticisms of communism. They also agreed to cede their authority to communist countries allowing them to determine who is fit to be a priest within their country. In China that led to the recognized Church with communist flunkies masquerading as clergy, and the underground Church.

Once identified by the government, Traditional priests were arrested and beaten to death. I know of no time that the conciliar Church has spoken out condemning those murders.  

Cardinal Marx has a well established leftist record. Whether he said what is attributed to him in the article or not, the Church should certainly recognize that appeasing communists has proven to be a failed strategy and one that provided communists with access to the Vatican.

Back in the 30's there were several communist ministers within the protestant faiths. Since '62 we have witnessed Catholic clergy (often Jesuits) supporting communist regimes throughout the world.

Elizabeth Dilling predicted this would happen. She was absolutely correct.