Rorate Caeli

Congratulations to Cardinal Re!

Named yesterday as one of the members of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. A well-deserved token of recognition for a man who is doing his job right at the Congregation for Bishops.


  1. Anonymous10:44 AM

    Hmmm... On Sunday, 7 January, Archbishop Stanislaw Wojciech Wielgus resigned as Archbishop of Warszawa....


  2. Do I sense ... sarcasm?

  3. I don't understand why you say that Cardinal Re is doing his job after the fiasco of the Archbishop of Warsaw, which in the hands of Cardinal Re. This appointment does not seem to be a recognition of anything since the appointment in the midst of other curial cardinal being appointed in this congregation. It is just reinforcing the olygarqy inside the Vatican, nothing more.

  4. I hope it's sarcasm. Cardinal Re has been "doing" his job for years now and we've been getting the requisite less-than-qualified bishops as a result. Of course, a good share of the blame attaches to John Paul II, who couldn't be bothered to stay home and mind the store, so intent was he on travelling around "evangelizing." However, perhaps this "promotion" to the Evangelization of peoples thing is a way to get Cardinal Re away from the Congregation for Bishops post (eventually). He's just such a time-server and part of the Sodano crowd and a LOSER. Sorry, just the mention of his name (or Walter Kasper's) is enough to get me going.

  5. As some others have noted, Cardinal Re is hardly to be congratulated! Firstly, the appointment is merely a routine one. All the Curial Cardinals serve on a variety of Congregations, Councils, and Commissions. That's their job! They are, along with their ecclesiastically ambitious underlings, the administrative apparatus of the Church.

    Secondly, agreeing with Janice for once, it is indeed Re who has given us legions of the limp-wristed, liberal liars who now tyrannise too many dioceses in the world. It is quite clear for any one who understands how the Vatican machinery chooses bishops, that His Disgrace, Bishop Wielgus was at all points a bald-faced liar seeking to conceal his Communist collaboration. I think it hardly coincidental that an unrepentant traitor to Church and Nation was chosen as a metropolitan-archbishop. (His "apology" was a self-serving deflection from reality.) The man ought to be solemnly excommunicated and degraded to the lay state.

    Cardinal Re, apart from being an enemy of the Traditional Roman Rite of the Sacred Liturgy in Latin, has much more sinister characteristics. On the one hand, it would have been impossible for him not to have known ALL of Wielgus' past. The Vatican has the best espionage in the world. I believe that Re and others coldly calculated placing a Communist in a major diocese in Poland. When they got caught, they abandoned their protégé.

    On the other hand, I have it on unimpeachable authority (whose identity I must protect in order that the person not end up dead in a gutter), that Cardinal Re is an extremely high-ranking Freemason. He appears to be near or at the top of the cabalistic collaboration of homosexualists and Freemasons who control the Secretariat of State, the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, and the Congregation of Bishops. In this respect, Cardinal Sodano is the underling presented as the prince.

    That one would "congratulate" such a servant of the New World Order, is highly inappropriate at best. The man is NOT doing his job, nor is he doing the work of God. Rather, one ought to pray (preferably Psalm 108?) that God grant him his eternal reward in a speedier fashion. Certainly, one must pray for the man's conversion.

  6. Petrus.

    "dead in a gutter?"

    Let me just post here something I posted earlier:

    here is a question for you:

    Bishop Wieglus was a 27 year-old "youth" in 1967, a philosophy student and "Catholic", prime recruiting material. 1967 was the year he began his "entanglement."

    What was significant about 1967:

    a. Jack Jones of 15 Acacia Avenue, Kings Lynn, Norfolk, England, brewed his 50,000 cup of tea?

    b. Yet another level of Troy was discovered (yawn)?

    c. The One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, seeing the greatest evil of our time, condemned grape soda as an oppressive tool of capitalist imperialism produced for the express purpose of enslaving the poor, immigrants, poor immigrants, and people on minimum wage?

    d. The Bolshevik enemies of the Son of God celebrated 50 years of worldwide murder and slavery?


    There was something else about 1967: it was 50 years since OLoF appeared...but, like I said, "significant", right?


    Do you have any information on a certain Nigerian Cardinal who seems to be about as much use as a wet paper bag?

  7. Anonymous3:54 AM

    This intrigue is so intriguing.

  8. "Cardinal Re has been "doing" his job for years now and we've been getting the requisite less-than-qualified bishops as a result."

    No, Janice, we've been getting superbly qualifed Bishops.


  9. Nope sorry, the reason is spurious.

    Father Kloch, you have to follow the bread crumbs...they may lead you right up to the present day.

    First you may gather information to help you in your "counter intelligence" efforts (if they exist). Second you may gather information to help you in your "counter espoinage" efforts (if they exist).

    Why don't they want to find out the depth and extent of this problem?

    This is basic stuff.

  10. as many as 12 Bishops???

    Radio Polonia:


  11. Petrus Radii, I find your comment about the efficacy of the Vatican's espionage service heartening to say the least, despite being roundly excoriated for suggesting that the Vatican conservatives were already aware of Wielgus' affiliation...etc. But be that as it may, what you say about Re's alleged freemasonry is truly conspiratorial, and hopefully proveable someday. There ought to be a way to "out" him in this. Has anyone tried? I ask in good faith, without sarcasm.

  12. At the risk of being pedestrian...but isn't Cardinal Re the guy who, as archpriest of the Vatican Basilica, had the Altar of the Chair destroyed (and replaced with some ad populum altar-on-wheels?

  13. Anonymous2:58 PM

    "In this respect, Cardinal Sodano is the underling presented as the prince."

    I can mention a name because he is now dead, but Canon G. Hesse told me that he knew Sodano did not have the brains to be the the "prince" as you refer to him. He believed someone was over Sodano, but he didn't know who.

    The late Fr.G. DePauw mentioned in writing that he kept secret files with information which would be embarrassing to the Vatican.

    The Abbe deNantes has information on the Late Holy Father Paul VI, information which could have been be used for blackmailing by enemies of the church. The Abbe stated that if the Vatican had proceeded with steps for the canonization of PVI, he would have opened his files to stop the proceedings. As we all know, all talk about canonization suddenly stopped.

    I venture to say, that eventually, we will even know some things about the 'Great'.

    But, it is all in prophecy. One's faith must be strong so as not to be scandalized into losing the Faith.

  14. I don't even pretend to understand most of the posts here, but I have my own conspiracy theory. It doesn't involve Freemasons. I think that Cardinal Re, who is Sodano's protege?, and never was Cardinal Ratzinger's friend, was simply acting on behalf of Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz (and God knows who else) to dig a sink hole deep enough for Pope Benedict to fall into. My theory is that Pope Benedict has no friends in the Vatican, not one. Sodano was really angry about being "retired." Re now does Sodano's bidding. Re knew ALL about Wielgus' background (as he does about everything else that goes on in the Vatican). Re and like-minded Poles (including Dziwisz, who's mad because Benedict hasn't canonized John Paul yet), pushed Wielgus' candidacy and THEN leaked all the background stuff. All of a sudden, Pope Benedict looks like HE'S the one who didn't do his job. And Cardinal Re says, "I didn't know anything."

  15. Anonymous6:25 PM

    To respond to "Ole Doc Farmer",no,Cardinal Re was never the Archpriest of the Vatican Basilica.After years of working in nunciatures abroad,since 1979 he has served as,in succession,Assessor of the Secretariat of State,Secretary of the Congregation for Bishops,Sostituto for General Affairs of the Secretariat of State,and Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops.

  16. I agree with you in the mechanics of it, Janice, which is one reason why I didn't want to make that big a deal of it in the first place. Now that Benedict has been embarrassed it may be harder for him to be "nice" to the trads, since we were screaming at him as loudly as both factions of Poles were. I hope not though. Now would be a good time to be voicing alot of support for him. I still would not be surprised by a freemasonic connection.

  17. Heb:

    I think this will have the opposite effect re:

    "Now that Benedict has been embarrassed it may be harder for him to be "nice" to the trads, since we were screaming at him as loudly as both factions of Poles were."

    Isn't the difference that "we" were (and have been) trying to warn him? Did "we" embarrass him, deliberately, maliciously? No, no, no. Look, after the Holy Father slapped down the French who applauded? "We" did.

    re Wieglus:

    What were we "screaming?"

    "Behind you, behind you."

    What were they "screaming"?

    "Peace, peace."

    When there was no peace.

    This has NOT made "trads" look bad. The longer this continues the better. How trusted do you think "trad" opposition in Rome is right now? Remember Heb how Magister has written extensively on the Popes belief that his communications are deliberately being sabotaged? Is that "trads" doing that? What about the compulsive behaviour of the USCCB in foot-dragging and refusing every instruction, correction, admonishment that comes their way? Is that "trads" doing that?


    What's he that wishes so?
    My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
    If we are mark'd to die, we are enough
    To do our country loss; and if to live,
    The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
    God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
    By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
    Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
    It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
    Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
    But if it be a sin to covet honour,
    I am the most offending soul alive.
    No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
    God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
    As one man more, methinks, would share from me
    For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
    Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
    That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
    Let him depart; his passport shall be made
    And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
    We would not die in that man's company
    That fears his fellowship to die with us.
    This day is called the feast of Crispian:
    He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
    Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
    And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
    He that shall live this day, and see old age,
    Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
    And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian":
    Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars
    And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
    Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
    But he'll remember with advantages
    What feats he did that day: then shall our names,
    Familiar in his mouth as household words
    Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
    Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
    Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
    This story shall the good man teach his son;
    And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
    From this day to the ending of the world,
    But we in it shall be remember'd;
    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition:
    And gentlemen in England now a-bed
    Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.


    Or, one may wet his finger and wave it in the air.

  18. Hebdomadary:

    Nothing would surprise me, even the Freemason connection, but actually, I don't think Sodano, Re, Dziwisz, et al., care about the "trads" or the fact that Benedict may issue the indult. I think they actually want him to be so hobbled he can't do anything at all. After all, all of them were part of John Paul's team and while I don't think (with the exception of Dziwisz) that they personally cared that much, at least John Paul let them do as they liked. Benedict will come to find out, as Lyndon Johnson did, that the worst mistake you can make is in not replacing the previous occupant's team with your own. He stayed so aloof from the other curial offices and curial machinations (not completely, of course, but generally) that I wonder how well he can actually deal with it.

  19. Quite so, both of you. Well, we shall see. We shall see.

  20. Some people forget that the current pontiff really was part of the last pontiff's team. Yes, they should all be replaced, I agree.

  21. OK Mack,

    So who do you want? Be specific. It's one thing to sit around and complain, but since you want everyone out, you must have a candidate in mind.

  22. Janice,

    if you weren't a woman...YOU! How about New Catholic? Heb?

    "They" say the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar" is the "source, center, and summit" of "our" ("Our"?) faith.

    That is what they say. Their acts and omissions put the lie to this.

  23. Simon-Peter,

    Thanks (I think). But seriously, one can only complain so long. Now, it's time to step up and name your favorite horse. So who's it going to be? Mack, either put up or ____

  24. Janice,

    how about this idea?

    For me, it would have to be the Abbe de Nantes, the real modern Athanasius.

  25. Before there can be a true restoration in The Church, the hierarchy, led by The Holy Father (whomsoever he is) must obey Sacred Tradition and authentic interpretation of Sacred Scripture. These are the true compasses of The Faith established by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. They must propagate The Gospel as He counselled and no other.

    It would also help if they obey Our Blessed Lady who has brought to us a very important divine message which is above "private revelation" - consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart in the manner described to the humble seer Sr Lucia at Fatima. To those who understand the real significance of this country it is of the utmost importance this prescription is followed. [Go further here & this site wobbles].

    Without this, no Holy Father will ever play his part in restoring The Church. Furthermore, he cannot do it without good well-instructed clergy and Roman Catholic laypeople. Fortunately, there is already an army of these faithful as ever to the true Roman Catholic Faith but they await the obedience of the hierarchy, quite rightfully anticipated by Our Blessed Lord.

    Instaurare omnia in Christo

  26. Mack,

    Pope Benedict XVI already fulfills your criteria. He has always been faithful to tradition and the faithful interpretation of Scripture. You are showing hubris.

    And what is your fixation on Fatima? That is only one manifestation of the Virgin Mary. It's a private revelation and not dogma. Speaking only for myself as a poor, probably unfaithful Catholic (in your eyes, I'm sure), I much prefer Our Lady of Grace.

  27. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  28. No traditional pope would go to WYD where 10,000 condoms are disseminated under his nose and young people behave like rock-oriented neo-pagans. A traditional pope would have no hesitation in celebrating The Latin Mass of All Times. A traditional pope would have nothing to do with novelties such as the blasphemies encouraged by the Assisi charade. No traditional pope would give Holy Communion to a protestant as this one has. I will not continue but I could write a lengthy article on the un-traditional and un-Catholic behaviour so far demonstrated by our Holy Father. Your problem is you do not understand the nature of Traditional Roman Catholicism. If you did, then you would never claim what you do. He has declared he will follow the previous phenomenological papacy, publicly - would Traditional Pope St Pius V or Traditional Pope Pius X have done so? Of course not. They condemned, and rightly so , some of the un-catholic but very dangerous nonsense being pursued by modernist papacies.

    If the Holy Father is as Traditional as you believe, he has yet to prove this objectively. So far, all we see is what we get.

    I won't answer your second paragraph since you seem unaware.

  29. Mack,

    Your fixation on Fatima is purely your own as is your fixation on Pius X and Pius V. Yours are private revelations and do not constitute dogma. Indulge yourself, but don't evaluate a real saint, like Benedict XVI, by purely personal criteria.

  30. Focus on the arguments and objective evidence not delusional feelings janice. You obviously know little about the criteria for Catholic sainthood. Nor what constitutes "fixation" for that matter.

    As I said before, we need a Holy Father guided by Sacred Tradition and the proper Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture together with well-instructed priest and lay. This is the point I keep making because at present we do not have these fundamentals fulfilled. If we did we would not be here discussing the lamentable condition of NO church. All we receive at the moment are popular platitudes, discussion of rumour, continued evidence of a completely disorientated modern church which you deny and all of this is reinforced by objective evidence that unfortunate people like your self are unable to understand because you rely on emotion and feelings. You are in state of perpetual denial. Answer the evidence.

    I could put up here several statements by the Holy Father which directly contradict Pope St Pius V, Pope Leo XIII, Pope St Pius X and so on but you would deny any contradiction. That is where you are at present. Many modern catholics today are either in a state of ignorance or denial or they have left the church for the protestants. It is not entirely their fault since they are guided by a false post-conciliar and relativised perspective which has been added to and further corrupted by the phenomenologised views of the previous pontiff. Even Benedict XVI has had to correct some of those ideas.

    However, this Holy father can put this right by showing the courage and good sensus catholicus expected of a Holy Father and set the ship on a more orthodox course. Nonetheless, this will require "obedience" from the hierarchy and it is this which is lacking as the false objectives of collegiality, modernist ecumenism and interfaith policies lead the church even further astray. Disobedient hierarchy - disobedient church.

    So far, we have had very little evidence of this proper catholic reoreintation. Of course not, because this ponificate is on the same path as the previous one.

    No traditional and Catholic pope would allow himself to go where the last four popes have gone. There is no answer to that janice. None that is, unless you are a phenomenologist.

    That is my last word on this particular and most recent scandal.


Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!