FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Theologians Approved Paul VI "Miracle": Dom Luigi Villa's Unanswered Criticism
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Theologians Have Approved Paul VI "Miracle": Dom Luigi Villa's Unanswered Criticism

[url=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WSpgMsnGbns/UwlupIeBs3I/AAAAAAAAOPE/oE6Kg0i0ZpY/s1600/b6e5d28785.jpg" imageanchor=1][Image: b6e5d28785.jpg][/url]

Vatican Insider is reporting from its confidential sources that a miracle has been confirmed.  Theologians from the Congregation for the Causes of Saints unanimously approved a miracle attributed to the intercession of Giovanni Battista Montini, Pope Paul VI earlier this week. The  “inexplicable” healing has been confirmed by the medical consultation headed by Professor Patrizio Polisca, who will have to be examined by the dicastery’s cardinals and bishops before receiving final approval from Pope Francis. If, as authoritative sources from the Congregation for the Causes of Saints tell Vatican Insider, these latest steps will be concluded quickly, and Montini could be beatified within the next few months.

The Postulator of the Cause, Fr. Antonio Marrazzo, had selected a special case from among many which early medical examinations described as “inexplicable”. On 20 December 2012, shortly before Benedict XVI’s historic resignation, he proclaimed the heroic virtue of Paul VI, concluding the canonical process. For Paul VI to be beatified, all that was needed was for one approved miracle.

The miracle which Marrazzo presented to the Congregation’s consultation involved the healing of an unborn child from  California in the early 90’s.  Doctors had found a serious defect in the fetus and high risk of brain damage which the surgery implied, they advised the mother to abort. The woman  decided to have the child, entrusting the fate of the child to the intercession of Paul VI, the Pope who wrote Encyclical  “Humanae vitae”  in 1968. She did so despite being told that without a shadow of a doubt her child would be born with serious physical and mental handicaps.

But the child was born with no defects. Doctors waited to see whether problems would arise during the child’s adolescence before confirming that the child was completely healed. The Postulator of the Pope Paul VI’s cause said this was an extraordinary and supernatural event which took place through the intercession of the late Pope. It was in line with his Magisterium and the contents of the “Humanae Vitae” encyclical, i.e. the defense of life, “but also the defense of the family, because that document discusses married love, not just unborn life. This healing is apparently in line with the Pope's teaching.”

Image: Vatican Insider

[/url]Of note from an interview with Alice von Hildebrand lifted frome the blog[url=http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2013/01/interview-with-alice-von-hildebrand.html] LES FEMMES:

Quote:AVH: But he did! I shall never forget the private audience we had with Paul VI just before the end of the [Second Vatican] Council. It was on June 21, 1965. As soon as my husband started pleading with him to condemn the heresies that were rampant, the Pope interrupted him with the words, “Lo scriva, lo scriva.” (“Write it down.”) A few moments later, for the second time, my husband drew the gravity of the situation to the Pope’s attention. Same answer. His Holiness received us standing. It was clear that the Pope was feeling very uncomfortable. The audience lasted only a few minutes. Paul VI immediately gave a sign to his secretary, Fr. Capovilla, to bring us rosaries and medals. We then went back to Florence where my husband wrote a long document (unpublished today) that was delivered to Paul VI just the day before the last session of the Council. It was September of 1965. After reading my husband’s document, he said to my husband’s nephew, Dieter Sattler, who had become the German ambassador to the Holy See, that he had read the document carefully, but that “it was a bit harsh.” The reason was obvious: my husband had humbly requested a clear condemnation of heretical statements.

TLM: You realize, of course, Doctor, that as soon as you mention this idea of infiltration, there will be those who roll their eyes in exasperation and remark, “Not another conspiracy theory!”

AVH: I can only tell you what I know. It is a matter of public record, for instance, that Bella Dodd, the ex-Communist who reconverted to the Church, openly spoke of the Communist Party’s deliberate infiltration of agents into the seminaries. She told my husband and me that when she was an active party member, she had dealt with no fewer than four cardinals within the Vatican “who were working for us.”

And also, she wrote about the controversial, but never refuted book of Don Luigi Villa which, it is said in some circles, irrevocably torpedoed the cause of Paul VI's canonization:

Quote:AVH: The two books I mentioned were published in 1998 and 2000 by an Italian priest, Don Luigi Villa of the diocese of Brescia, who at the request of Padre Pio has devoted many years of his life to the investigation of the possible infiltration of both Freemasons and Communists into the Church. My husband and I met Don Villa in the sixties. He claims that he does not make any statement that he cannot substantiate. When Paulo Sesto Beato? (1998) was published the book was sent to every single Italian bishop. None of them acknowledged receipt; none challenged any of Don Villa’s claims.

In this book, he relates something that no ecclesiastical authority has refuted or asked to be retracted – even though he names particular personalities in regard to the incident. It pertains to the rift between Pope Pius XII and the then Bishop Montini (the future Paul VI) who was his Undersecretary of State. Pius XII, conscious of the threat of Communism, which in the aftermath of World War II was dominating nearly half of Europe, had prohibited the Vatican staff from dealing with Moscow. To his dismay, he was informed one day through the Bishop of Up[p]sala (Sweden) that his strict order had been contravened. The Pope resisted giving credence to this rumor until he was given incontrovertible evidence that Montini had been corresponding with various Soviet agencies. Meanwhile, Pope Pius XII (as had Pius XI) had been sending priests clandestinely into Russia to give comfort to Catholics behind the Iron Curtain. Every one of them had been systematically arrested, tortured, and either executed or sent to the gulag. Eventually a Vatican mole was discovered: Alighiero Tondi, S.J., who was a close advisor to Montini. Tondi was an agent working for Stalin whose mission was to keep Moscow informed about initiatives such as the sending of priests into the Soviet Union.

Add to this Pope Paul’s treatment of Cardinal Mindszenty. Against his will, Mindszenty was ordered by the Vatican to leave Budapest. As most everyone knows, he had escaped the Communists and sought refuge in the American embassy compound. The Pope had given him his solemn promise that he would remain primate of Hungary as long as he lived. When the Cardinal (who had been tortured by the Communists) arrived in Rome, Paul VI embraced him warmly, but then sent him into exile in Vienna. Shortly afterwards, this holy prelate was informed that he had been demoted, and had been replaced by someone more acceptable to the Hungarian Communist government. More puzzling, and tragically sad, is the fact that when Mindszenty died, no Church representative was present at his burial.

Another of Don Villa’s illustrations of infiltration is one related to him by Cardinal Gagnon. Paul VI had asked Gagnon to head an investigation concerning the infiltration of the Church by powerful enemies. Cardinal Gagnon (at that time an Archbishop) accepted this unpleasant task, and compiled a long dossier, rich in worrisome facts. When the work was completed, he requested an audience with Pope Paul in order to deliver personally the manuscript to the Pontiff. This request for a meeting was denied. The Pope sent word that the document should be placed in the offices of the Congregation for the Clergy, specifically in a safe with a double lock. This was done, but the very next day the safe deposit box was broken and the manuscript mysteriously disappeared. The usual policy of the Vatican is to make sure that news of such incidents never sees the light of day. Nevertheless, this theft was reported even in L’Osservatore Romano (perhaps under pressure because it had been reported in the secular press). Cardinal Gagnon, of course, had a copy, and once again asked the Pope for a private audience. Once again his request was denied. He then decided to leave Rome and return to his homeland in Canada. Later, he was called back to Rome by Pope John Paul II and made a cardinal.
If i was a freemason and wanted to mess with your mind i would tell you that the Vatican had been infiltrated and x, y and z  Cardinals were fully fledged masons.

Oldest trick in the books.
(02-24-2014, 01:42 AM)triumphguy Wrote: [ -> ]If i was a freemason and wanted to mess with your mind i would tell you that the Vatican had been infiltrated and x, y and z  Cardinals were fully fledged masons.
There are many "fully fledged masons" in the Vatican. One needs only judge by their Freemasonic beliefs: ecumenism, collegiality, and religious indifferentism.
Every time I hear Bella Dodd's name, I wonder: why didn't she name names? Why didn't she call them out and expose them? It's the same with all of the Masons in the Church: why not name them?

(02-24-2014, 03:05 AM)damooster Wrote: [ -> ]Every time I hear Bella Dodd's name, I wonder: why didn't she name names? Why didn't she call them out and expose them? It's the same with all of the Masons in the Church: why not name them?

I agree, but I read that Archbishop Fulton Sheen asked her not to do so. I think he was her confessor. Would her life be in danger if she gave every name?
(02-24-2014, 03:05 AM)damooster Wrote: [ -> ]Every time I hear Bella Dodd's name, I wonder: why didn't she name names? Why didn't she call them out and expose them? It's the same with all of the Masons in the Church: why not name them?
Probably for the same reason that popes after Pope Leo XIII ceases explicitly mentioning Freemasonry and just said "secret societies" etc. I'm guessing this is for two reasons: (1) Freemasonry is just a specific secret society, and the popes want to condemn all of these anti-Christian societies and (2) Freemasonry has dramatically infiltrated the Church, making it tougher to explicitly condemn them.
Father Luigi Villa exposed and published  over 120 with all of the information, names, places, etc. The Italian Magazine exposed another dozen or so.When Roberto Calvi was murdered, his papers concerning P due were intercepted by MI-5 from Scotland Yard and delivered to Pope John Paul II. Shortly afterword Parliament passed a law which said if you're a Mason you must declare your affiliation. Not long after that it was changed. When Italian Police raided Licio Gelli a mobster and Mason, his papers too found their way to Pope John Paul II's desk. Calvi's papers are reported to contain another 120 or so Vatican officials, and Gelli's contained a list of all Italian Pols and Clergy.

Bella Dodd was the secretary of the Communist International and in her capacity would know the numbers but not necessarily the names of the sleepers placed in Seminaries. It's curious to note that those Seminarians may have become Bishops in time for Vatican II. After the fall of Communist Poland they made a law similar to our freedom of information law. The upshot is the freedom of information law exposed many priests that Pope John Paul II brought as communist operatives. Later when Pope Benedict XVI wanted to raise a Polish Bishop to Cardinal of Poland, he was embarassed as it became known at the eleventh hour he was a communist operator. I believe this was done particularly to shame him and make look foolish. That Bishop was vetted by the Vatican and came through clean as a whistle.

Except for Fr. Luigi Villa all of these were news stories in Europe and were double sourced. If Pope Francis ha the courage he will expose the Gay Lobby. I believe they are the glued  which bind the churchmen together. Oh and I just remembered Bella Dodd testified in front of Congress on the commies, and those transcripts concerning the infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church have been lost, but her testimony concerning the Government was not. Perhaps I'm paranoid but it seems to m that is a true indication of the hatred in the US for the Church.

tim
If we apply evidence of similar quality in a similar way, we can spin quite a tale that goes back pretty far:

The problem obviously goes back to at least Pius IX.  He was a known freemason, of course:
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/pius...mason.html

If that’s not enough evidence for you, he also donated a stone to the masonic Washington Monument and made many concessions to the Liberals on the Italian peninsula and in the papal states.  Sure, he issued some apparently anti-liberal documents, but these were just a cover.  For example, take the Syllabus.  A committee drew up a list of Liberal errors for him to definitively condemn with precise theological classifications.  Instead, he fired that committee and had another draw up an ambiguous Syllabus that just pointed to some mostly low level speeches and audiences.

Finally, while he had the longest papacy ever and plenty of time to stack the College of Cardinals, who was elected as his successor? Leo XIII, who, much to chagrin of French royalists, initiated the first détente with the French Revolution.  His papacy was known in some circles as the Church’s 1789 long before Vatican II, for his policy toward France and for “baptizing” the Revolution’s ideas of human rights and dignity.  John Courtney Murray based his arguments heavily on the Leonine corpus of documents.

Again, after Leo’s very long papacy, who was elected? The known freemason Cardinal Rampolla.  Only an imperial veto prevented his ascension, and instead a compromise candidate was elected, the first non-nobility in centuries (a very Masonic choice!). Of course, Pius X turned out to not be very favorable to Masonic ideals, despite his man-of-the-people image, but at least he kick-started the liturgical reform that would lead to the Novus Ordo.

After his papacy, the pro-Masonic Cardinals appointed by Pius IX and Leo XIII got their man, Benedict XV.  He had been Rampolla’s secretary and was known as “little Rampolla.” Pius X had refused to give him the customary red-hat when making him Archbishop of Bologna until Rampolla died, because he didn’t want the chance of two Rampollas in a conclave.

Who followed Benedict XV? Pius XI, who, according to Ratzinger in his famous “anti-Syllabus” quote, paved the way for Gaudium et Spes with his policies that “produced a certain openness toward the liberal understanding of the state.”  Enough said.

His successor, Pius XII, appointed Bugnini and laid the most important ground work for the institution of the Novus Ordo (the Holy Week reforms, affirming the Pope’s power to institute all new rites, defining the bare minimums needed for the other sacraments to guide future reform, approving new Biblical translations and acceptance of more historical criticism, etc.).  He also supported the UN (a UN with real power) and promoted various masonic ideals in his radio messages and other addresses like the unity of the human family and universal human dignity, a “healthy secularism” of the state, religious freedom, that the medieval conception of the relationship between Church and State was historically conditioned, etc.  He also approved the condemnation of those who taught EENS, approved NFP (as did Pius IX), and officially permitted and regulated ecumenism.

And we all know what happened after that…

Of course, the chain of events leading to Pius IX’s election probably go back to when Napolean captured Pius VII—he no doubt replaced him with a double.  

NB: the above was an exercise of reduction ad absurdum and is not meant to express the idea that such a conspiracy is true
Don Luigi Villa's book never was refuted on the points that Geremia quoted and on many oyher points, the main one being the pope's homosexuality. This last one was even quoted in other books and was publicly exposed during Paul VI's pontificate by a notorious french gay writer thus actually  triggering a scandal in the italian press and elsewhere.
I am a bit puzzled that the Vatican would take the risk to canonize this pope, in the case further new documents would be later brought up confirming the pope's unnatural vice.
In addition I don't understand why the Vatican's commission in charge of the canonizations is using much laxer standards than those used by the Lourde's "Bureau des Constatations" to asses that an unexplained healing can be called a miracle.
In fact one must know that less than one healing among a hundred of unexplained ones is declared a miracle in Lourdes. Every healing is scrupulously checked and the final decision is given many years, sometimes tens of years after the healing happened.
I remember that many doctors criticized the purported "miracle" of a french nun who claimed to have been healed of a multiple sclerosis by John Paul II.
It seems pretty obvious to me why all these fast-tracked canonizations are happening:

Beatifying and Canonizing every Pope since 1958 would be a lovely ploy to give Vatican II - and all the supposed implementations thereof - greater legitimacy in the eyes of all.

I don't know about Paul VI's private vices, but he acted with a very weak personality while in the office of Peter.
Pages: 1 2 3