Alessandro Gnocchi with Mons. Fellay
Alessandro Gnocchi is an Italian Catholic journalist and writer, traditionalist. Graduated in philosophy, a former journalist of Il Giornale, he strongly denounces, through his books, articles and lectures, the revolution of Pope Francis. He has been invited to lecture cycles organized by the FSSPX, and his bookshops frequently find his books.
On January 16, at the Ricossa Cristiana site, he responded to someone who asked him about the possible agreement of the SSPX with Rome and about the dismissal of Fr Petrucci as Superior of the Italian District of the Fraternity. Extract (emphasis in bold is ours):
Monday 16 January 2017
Very kind Alessandro Gnocchi:
I am writing to you to have your opinion on ... the removal of Fr. Pierpaolo Petrucci from his position as superior of the Italian district of the SSPX and the interview in which Bishop Athanasius Schneider calls the Fraternity agreement with Rome giving the impression That is already done
Roberta Russo
Dear Roberta:
In my view, the question is ... quite simple ... It is only a question of placing the above facts in the right perspective, which in my opinion is as follows: still recognizing that the SSPX represents, but above all represented , An important phase in the life of the Tradition and therefore of the Church, it matters little to me that its leaders decide to throw themselves into the hands of Bergoglio and the anti-Christ church that the bishop of Rome represents. I have already written what it would mean if they did and I will not repeat it (click here ). I merely say that it would be an unnatural embrace between those who have defended the Catholic faith and the reason for their lives and who, instead, see their mission in the destruction of the Catholic faith . Entering with great pomp in the Bergoglian neo-church, the heirs of Monsignor Lefebvre would carry the integrity of the faith to a place where no one cares, thus giving it an insignificant ostentation of embroidery and lace, only good for Ineffective traditionalists.
The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that, however unpleasant it may be, this outcome would be dramatically lethal only if a burden that is not its own is borne on the shoulders of the SSPX: the salvation of our faith and our soul. That's why I care little about the decision that their leaders will make. Even if they are thrown into the arms of Bergoglio, the conditions will not be changed so that all souls, including yours and mine, are saved. We must continue to do what we did before.
I can already feel the choir of the orphans and the abandoned ones to their destination and of so many "faithful of the Tradition" left in the disorientation . Dear Roberta, if these faithful of the tradition were simply faithful Catholics, they would know very well what to do in the face of such a situation. And, above all, to trust in Providence, which, if at one time raised a Bishop Lefebvre, may well do so now. It is better to pray and strengthen to the Lord than to lose oneself in so many speeches.
As for the removal of Fr. Petrucci, I do not know the letters , as they say, and therefore I take for good everything that holds the authority that has taken this measure. Otherwise, I merely make some observations on the communiqué with which the removal has been made public. I know little of Fr. Petrucci, and with this little I esteem him; But this is not the reason why I dropped my arms when I read the statement .
I work for thirty years in the newspapers, which is the least merciful place in the world. Well, even here, when the most unworthy of the directors is expelled, the editor publishes a statement in which he thanks for all the work done and wishes him a happy professional future. It is not formalism Roberta, it is civility, it is respect for a person to whom public shame is avoided. But of all this, in the communique of the SSPX on the P. Petrucci no traces are found. Obviously, the bergogliana mercy is so virulent that a few visits to Casa Santa Marta are enough to be infected. Believe me, it pitiates me who wrote it and I feel sorry for the priests who have had to read it in all the Masses.
I am told that the statement was written in haste to avoid agitation by the faithful who, through the defense of Father Petrucci, intended to question the general house. It will be, but the question has been on the table since 2015, as the same FSSPX says, and it also turns out that the mandate of the superior of the Italian district expires in January. How is it possible that no one, with almost two years of preparation, had the lucidity to write something, I say no more Christian, but at least more civilized? If this is the human fabric with which the defenders of the Tradition are cut and sewn, I think I see a crude clerical cloth of which I am gladly at a distance.
But there is another question, Roberta estimated. If the leaders of the Society of St. Pius X are capable of bringing such a disastrously minor question, what will they do when they have to direct the agitation of an eventual agreement with Bergoglian or post-Bergoglian Rome, but certainly not Catholic? Perhaps that is why the role of superior of the Italian district has been assigned on an interim basis to Fr. Nely, second assistant of the Superior General Monsignor Bernard Fellay.
As for Monsignor Schneider's interview, there is little to add to the criticism already published in Ricossa Cristiana ( here and here ). I should like to say that it is not surprising to me that, from the outset, the objective of Schneider's declarations has been to bring the SSPX back to the Roman fold, regardless of who the custodian is, eliminating once and for all the anomaly of Monsignor Lefebvre erected in defense of the Catholic faith. What is strange, then, if now the emissary of Rome asks those who have welcomed him and given him credit, reach the end of the road undertaken?
Concerning the arguments of Mgr. Schneider, I do not share them from beginning to end. But that is not the point. Worse than the arguments, I consider censurable and fraudulent two passages that reinforce the thesis exposed. The first is the explicit attempt to prejudge the decision Monsignor Lefebvre had made today. Naturally, according to Monsignor Schneider, Lefebvre would have firmly accepted what Bergoglio offered. Well, there is no argument more intellectually miserable than attributing one's own way of thinking and decision to a dead person who can no longer express his own. Intellectually miserable for those who do it and potentially destructive for the host. If the FSSPX does so, it would inevitably end in the process of ineluctable revision of the thought of the founder that will lead to the decomposition of everything, but everything: orders, institutions, associations, movements founded by a personality of great charisma. I wonder: is this phenomenon of revision within the SSPX already in place?
The other objectionable argument used by Monsignor Schneider is the accusation of little or no supernatural sense thrown against those who oppose the embrace with modernist Rome. It falls here in the usual totalitarian vice of discrediting those who think differently, the "dissident," who, as soon as he lacks the fundamental requirements to express himself, has to be silent. If he has no supernatural sense, and this is set by Monsignor Schneider, he can not articulate thoughts, open his mouth or decide what to do, under penalty of thinking, word and deed.
But the lack of supernatural sense is just what was imputed in his time to Mons. Lefebvre, which was quite clear with modernist Rome. How is Monsignor now being rehabilitated by appending the acceptance of the agreement? And, again, if this is the main argument, why could not anyone think that the same people who want to embrace Bergoglio have no supernatural meaning? Archbishop Schneider has never, in fact, ever waived his apology.
Alessandro Gnocchi
On January 21, a few days after the publication of this article, the SSPX published a response to it, signed by Fr. Angelo Citati. Abstract:
Alessandro Gnocchi, a celebrated Catholic journalist and apologist, expresses some very critical considerations regarding the Fraternity.
We declare that we have a great esteem for Alessandro Gnocchi, whose numerous publications are on sale in our Priories and our chapels. But it is precisely the esteem we profess to this brave journalist - and a true Catholic in this age of crisis of the faith - that today the reading of his inspired pen is all the more painful, and it seems more a bitter zeal out of place than A deep ecclesial sense of which he has always proved, that is to say, a zeal impelled no doubt by the best intentions and by a sincere love for the Church of Jesus Christ, but that degenerates in defeatism and acrimony , a little like the zeal that impelled To the Apostle Peter to cut off the ear of the servant of Caiaphas, Malchus (John 18, 10-11) to defend, but untimely, Our Lord.
We declare that we have a great esteem for Alessandro Gnocchi, whose numerous publications are on sale in our Priories and our chapels. But it is precisely the esteem we profess to this brave journalist - and a true Catholic in this age of crisis of the faith - that today the reading of his inspired pen is all the more painful, and it seems more a bitter zeal out of place than A deep ecclesial sense of which he has always proved, that is to say, a zeal impelled no doubt by the best intentions and by a sincere love for the Church of Jesus Christ, but that degenerates in defeatism and acrimony , a little like the zeal that impelled To the Apostle Peter to cut off the ear of the servant of Caiaphas, Malchus (John 18, 10-11) to defend, but untimely, Our Lord.
Fr. Citati immediately provided a large number of rather well-chosen quotations from Mgr. Lefebvre, all prior to Episcopal Consecration. He then undertakes the defense of Monsignor Schneider in these terms:
Among the voices that have been raised against this revolution in the Church, there is also a bishop, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who for months has not lost the opportunity to express his disagreement - both in public and private - with The Church's ongoing revolution, and for some years also adopted a certain critical discourse on the Second Vatican Council, which should arouse all our interest and support. Gnocchi unfortunately does not save his ungrateful attacks even on this brave successor of the apostles . The argumentation of this "emissary of Rome" (sic) is, according to him, "intellectually poor", "potentially destructive" as well as "censurable and fraudulent", and this only because, expressing the desire that the official recognition of the Fraternity comes to fruition, Monsignor Schneider says that according to him, Monsignor Lefebvre would have approved this project of canonical regularization, and he invites the supernatural sense in this matter.
What Gnocchi does not understand in these words is that the one who lacks supernatural sense is not the one who does not share the position of Monsignor Schneider (it does not seem that this humble man has ever attributed an alleged infallibility Of his own opinions), but that which assumes, in this respect, a position with a schismatic and sectarian tendency .
What Gnocchi does not understand in these words is that the one who lacks supernatural sense is not the one who does not share the position of Monsignor Schneider (it does not seem that this humble man has ever attributed an alleged infallibility Of his own opinions), but that which assumes, in this respect, a position with a schismatic and sectarian tendency .
So, who does and who lacks supernatural sense? In our opinion, Bishop Schneider simply wanted to say that whoever did not share the first of the two trials (the speculative), that is, one who said: "Even if the Pope explicitly grants him the right to profess the faith in full and to reject The mistakes that are contrary to it, without altering in any way its theoretical positions and its practice, the Fraternity must reject this official recognition, since in all cases it is better for it to stay away from the Bergoglian neo-church, " Who would lack the supernatural sense . And he is perfectly right. For our part, we can add only that the reasoner in these terms would express not only a position devoid of supernatural sense, but also incompatible with the position of the SSPX, position, that position, with a schismatic and sectarian tendency of which Monsignor Lefebvre Always veiled ardently to preserve its surroundings.
The second judgment, on the contrary, the practical, is not apodictic. It deals with the prudential order and admits for the same thing a plurality of positions. In other words, to the question: "What does the current Pope propose to the SSPX, does it really correspond to what Monsignor Lefebvre would demand for his canonical recognition?" Even people sharing the same speculative judgment on this question could answer ( And in fact respond) differently. And it is precisely this legitimate plurality that, in our opinion, are inscribed by Monsignor Schneider. All that he says, with extreme politeness, is that for him what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith now proposes to Fellay, corresponds in fact to the wishes of Monsignor Lefebvre. It is possible, if you prefer, not to agree with it (plurality is valid in both senses), but then it would be necessary to argue with concrete elements, for example citing some points of this proposition do not correspond to the conditions proposed by Monsignor Lefebvre , And certainly not insulting this brave bishop who, manifestly jeopardizing any possibility of career, declared several times (both privately to the Roman authorities and publicly in the media) that the Fraternity is a Catholic work, That their suppression was unjust, that their positions are perfectly Catholic, that Bishop Fellay is an exemplary Catholic bishop and that, for all these reasons, an official canonical status is the right of the Fraternity. Here is what it means, according to us, to speak with a supernatural sense.
Dear Alessandro, the numerous publications of your journalist and apologetic career show that you have the supernatural sense. That is why we gladly forgive these last untimely articles , in which, as we said at the outset, you remind us of the apostle St. Peter who, in his zeal for the defense of Our Lord Jesus Christ, exceeded the limits and had to be corrected. But the comparison is happy: you know well how the apostle knew how to correct this intemperance and continued the good fight.
On the other hand, the bitter times in which we live, in society as in the Church, render humanly understandable a certain hardening in tone and therefore invite a copious exercise of mercy (the true, of course: not the Amoris Laetitia). But they do not exclude fraternal correction either. Certainly we are aware of not carrying on our backs, as you wrote, "a weight that is not ours: the salvation of your faith and your soul." Each of us, in effect, will be responsible for this before the eternal Judge. But the fact that, as priests, we strive at least to give some advice on the conduct to be had in the crisis that afflicts the Church, will not seem doubtless reckless. And the advice that we would give you is simply the same as our Lord gave to his impetuous disciple: "Keep your sword in its place; For all who take the sword shall perish by the sword " (Matt. 26, 52).
Don Angelo Citati, FSSPX
Alessandro Gnocchi replied to Fr. Citati on Tuesday, January 24 in an article entitled "Professionals of Tradition". Abstract:
I have read the article with which Don Angelo Citati answers my recent considerations about the institute of which he has recently become a priest. I confess that if I had not heard what happened behind the scenes regarding the publication of this article I would not have responded. The necessary conditions would not have been met, because the natural sympathy I have for the zeal of the young buds tender like Don Citati is inversely proportional to the consideration I have for his writings. How can you not find a young priest who, on behalf of the SSPX, even willingly forgives my incipient sixty-year-old vehemence? "That is why we gladly forgive these last untimely articles," says the young Don Angelo Citati. Boy: who do you take, you and those who send it? Do you know how I'm concerned about your forgiveness and the SSPX's regarding my untimely articles?
I have seldom seen the ridiculous reach so high and so easily. To do the same, Bergoglio would have to wear his clown nose and make two somersaults in St. Peter's Square, but Don Citati and those with him would manage to remain serious. This is not a good sign.
I see already the usual beautiful souls offended by the way I treat a priest, without respect for the cassock. But the priest, if he wishes to keep his priesthood out of these dangers, should be careful not to mingle in public diatribes. From the moment he does, he must have the manliness to take off his cassock and enter the fray. Here is why the writings of a religious should not carry in his signature more than the name and the surname, without his title of religious. One must take note, esteemed reverend, and not jeopardize the "Don" on issues too thorny and leave the simple Angelo Citati. First mistake.
But let us return to the pardon that you grant me "willingly" on behalf of the SSPX. Perhaps poor Don Citati does not realize the monstrosity he enunciated in style: those who think differently from him and the Society of St. Pius X need to be forgiven . But you and the FSSPX, Don Citati, who do you think they are? The fourth person of the Quaternity? Note that, like all men, I, too, must be forgiven only if I think differently from Our Lord: not if I disagree with you, with Father Marc Nely, with Fellay, much less with Bergoglio waiting for you with The arms open. Maybe you have not noticed, but you have transformed into legitimate differences of opinion with yours. I am sorry, and I am not at all happy because we are no longer on the threshold of the totalitarian attitude, but we are completely inside and with both feet. Obviously, the illness of bergogliana mercy, as you say in your article, already did the work that had to do.
But, for the benefit of the readers, let us return to the beginning, briefly showing the uncertain path of Don Citati's article: first published on the FSSPX website, then removed from the FSSPX site because it raged certain members of The SSPX, then reinstated on the site of the SSPX after the explicit imprimatur of Don Marc Nely, pro-consul of Ms Fellay in the Italian district until the agreement is ratified. Consequently, although written by a young tree so naive and therefore so sympathetic, Don Citati's opinion is that of the Fraternity. And for that reason, it deserves some clarification, of which I would have abstained if it were not so.
As a complement of information, I do not violate any secret if I say that at 16:47 on Saturday, January 21, I received an email in which Don Citati warned me that he had published the article in question assuring me of his esteem, the total absence of Controversial intention, etc. Second error.
There is no attitude capable of giving me gags in my stomach of an old professional, like the one who throws you a stone and then warns you. The so frequent and bad practice of the public attack and the excuse in private . When initiating a controversy, honest people have a double possibility: to call the person to whom it concerns before writing against it with the purpose of explaining, or saying nothing, whatever happens later. He who writes to justify himself after having thrown the stone, can do so for two reasons: Either he is little gifted with virility and tries to somehow get shelter from an eventual reaction, or he is the clever boy of the neighborhood, in this case The smart kid in the district, who thinks he's gotten his way with a postdated check, hoping no one will notice that he was discovered.
And now some considerations on the article by Don Citati, which reflects the official thinking of the SSPX. But not before specifying that I have nothing to correct in the passages of my previous writing, so disgusting to so many delicate palates: no, I did not express myself wrong, no, I was not misunderstood, no, I did not want to say another thing. In a world where everyone is ready to retract, at least they will appreciate this frankness.
Then, according to Don Citati and according to the FSSPX, what we are about to attend would not be an "agreement", but a unilateral canonical recognition, with no doctrinal counterpart. Several times I have explained that it is precisely this "without doctrinal counterpart" that definitively establishes that the doctrine is worth nothing, and this with the complicity of the SSPX.
But this is not the question: do they make fun of the world, Don Citati? Third mistake. Since when has a "unilateral" act of this magnitude been done without the agreement of the addressee on the action taken? Bergoglio, ruthless and very effective power, and the curial machine modeled in his image and likeness, would risk hearing to say to Fellay "thank you, I prefer not to, I do not agree" and to keep the empty bag ? So it is true that never as in this time the profane rooms of Santa Marta have been frequented, in a visible and hidden way, by the leaders and the emissaries of the SSPX. Tell me you Don Citati: Do you do it to take a Fernandito in good company or to coordinate the next actions to take?
We come immediately to the long list of gentle declarations of Monsignor Lefebvre about Rome, compiled by the diligent Don Citati in name and on behalf of the SSPX. Fourth error. As many have emphasized, our bold writer reveals himself to be ill-formed or to have a disturbing selective spirit for a young man of his age. This priest may well know the history of the institute of which he is a member, since in regard to the relations of the Fraternity of Monsignor Lefebvre with Rome, he shows numerous gaps. Therefore, to avoid going like a moron it is sufficient to consult Wikipedia which says: "Despite the official reprimand (June 17), on June 30, 1988 Monsignor Lefebvre ordered four bishops (one more than those previously announced ), Thus performing a schismatic act (in accordance with canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law), thus having openly rejected submission to the pope and communion with the members of the Church submitted to him. Consequently, both Bishop Lefebvre and the bishops consecrated by him, incurred in excommunication latae sententiae ("judgment already given" which will be imputed by the very fact of having performed the act) ipso facto, whose dissolution is reserved to the Apostolic See " .
Not bad as an act of respect for apostate and modernist Rome! And, believe me, I do not think it's an action to reproach you! In fact, I think it was one of the elections that, throughout history, have contributed to save the Church and for which Monsignor Lefebvre will be honored. But all this, Don Citati does not know. Or, if he does, he seems to have accepted the totalitarian attitude of changing the past in order to deform at will the present and the future, so well described by George Orwell in 1984. This leads me to think that the work of reinterpretation of Thought of the founder is already in place, even in the SSPX and it is therefore urgent to re-educate all possible dissidents . It is clear that poor Don Citati did not tell him to convince me, because I can not laugh more than he says, but convince his confreres not convinced of the turn taken by the Institute in recent times. With what result? We'll see.
Finally, a consideration of the scam which consists in making the Tradition coincide with the FSSPX, nourished by an ever stronger force in the same Fraternity. Fifth error. In this case, a brief but intense lesson in journalism, which could serve as a lesson to the reckless Don Citati if you get to venture to resume the pen, although as a veteran of the profession, would not advise ...
The SSPX ... identifies itself with Tradition and, as a consequence, every person who criticizes it is accused of being an anti-traditional heretic. It is true that this identification comes partly because of objective historical merit, but the fact is that equivalence is false and has always been false. The one who criticizes the SSPX criticizes only the SSPX and does not attack Tradition or the Catholic Church. That is why you should not be shocked if someone says that you are not interested in the way the institution takes. The same should be said to remove from the FSSPX the monopoly that was unduly arrogated, transforming it into an instrument of power.
Now, presenting themselves as the sole depositors of the traditional brand, Fellay & Co. found in Bergoglio the ideal interlocutor to make fructifying such an income. They pay homage to the sovereign, recognize the treacherous sovereignty and he grants them a freakish freak for the nostalgic of the Latin Mass with the ability to do whatever they want . It is enough that they guarantee him the good order, the discipline and recognize his supremacy. For their part, the bizarre nostalgic of the Mass in Latin use the goal achieved as a proof that the Church begins to heal, or rather is cured because it has also welcomed them.
Then you have to relax because the leader has left you alone. They will say that they can relax, that it is no longer necessary to put sentinels in order to keep the faith and, in a few years, they will end up celebrating the new mass to replace the vacation priests in the Maldives: it is better for us to explain to the skeptics, That the extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist ...
Some observers argue that in the space of three months after the agreement, or unilateral recognition if they prefer, even the SSPX should receive a commissioner, as happened to other institutes. But they are wrong: the SSPX already has its commissar and the most uncompromising of commissioners: his superior general, whoever he may be, if he does not reverse the route.
Alessandro Gnocchi
Praise be to Jesus Christ!
