Caro Father,
If things are as you say you should not trust a becoming confused and contradictory (and certainly that is the case), this means that we should not trust the tenant of Santa Marta? For whoever is ambiguous and contradictory is he, or is the opposite?
Becoming confused and contradictory is provoked and invoked by the modernists. The Pope, as Successor of Peter, guides us on the path of the Gospel. However, He has occasionally certain expressions, which can make it look like a modernist. And above all, his fault is that he does not correct the modernists, He does not respond to those who asked for clarification on his teaching and does not contradict the misinterpretation of his words.
I wanted to ask why seeks to combine tradition with modernity?
If Rahner is heretical because she says that she brought something positive to the Second Vatican Council?
Because for her to consider the council a partial failure would be a tragedy? given the results after 50 years a question I'd do, why condemn the error is no longer good
as it was done in Preconciliar? The council opened to religious freedom and that is the result of the whole of Europe is in the hands of false religions and souls are lost indeed they say all lead to God.
the Holy Father has said publicly: Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists,we are all children of God, but not if it is invented Bergoglio, and it is a consequence of Our life? and conciliar openings.
It must reconcile tradition with modernity taken as a block, but with the good there is in it to the scrutiny of the Gospel. This is the screen that made the council. For this reason the Council is still current, because we need to keep doing this screening against new problems that arise, and which did not exist at the time of the Council, such as the spread of Islam or the Freemasons or the question of immigrants. It is therefore not the Council which has failed, but the false conciliar reform promoted by Rahner and others.
I do not try to combine tradition with modernity taken as a block, but only with that part of healthy modernity, which accords with tradition. In fact, the life of the Church and consequently the life of the Christian is born from the experience of tradition, for which he retains the perennial values, it continually deepens, It makes them bear fruit, the spread, enhance them, makes them move forward and modernize them, without changing them in substance, but keeping them intact in their unchanging identity.
Rahner, like all heretics, It accepts or teaches some truths. This is the positive aspect of rahneriano thought – I'm not sure his heresies – who has made a valuable contribution to the teaching of the Council.
Consider the Council a partial failure would be a tragedy, because in fact his doctrinal teachings are precious. If you have a defect, This touches the pastoral, where we find a naive certain gooders, as if all men were in good faith and good will, and a certain naive optimism about the world, almost as if in it there were no consequences of original sin and the action of the devil.
From here is too benevolent attitude towards other religions, who neglects to remember their downsides. This has given rise to relativist quell'indifferentismo, you complaint and that seems to be present in the preaching of Pope Francis. But in fact this error is not authorized by the council, which he reiterates the supremacy of Christianity over other religions.
Taking this into account and without going there against, the doctrine of religious freedom, correctly understood, has quietly accept, because it has nothing to do with relativism, but simply order the state to not disturb and not to interfere in the religious beliefs of the communities belonging to different religions, in its territory, as long as they do not offer for percolo the common good and peaceful coexistence. It does not belong to the state, but to the Church to establish what is the true religion.
It must reconcile tradition with modernity taken as a block, but with the good there is in it to the scrutiny of the Gospel. This is the screen that made the council. For this reason the Council is still current, because we need to keep doing this screening against new problems that arise, and which did not exist at the time of the Council, such as the spread of Islam or the Freemasons or the question of immigrants. It is therefore not the Council which has failed, but the false conciliar reform promoted by Rahner and others.
I do not try to combine tradition with modernity taken as a block, but only with that part of healthy modernity, which accords with tradition. In fact, the life of the Church and consequently the life of the Christian is born from the experience of tradition, for which he retains the perennial values, it continually deepens, It makes them bear fruit, the spread, enhance them, makes them move forward and modernize them, without changing them in substance, but keeping them intact in their unchanging identity.
Rahner, like all heretics, It accepts or teaches some truths. This is the positive aspect of rahneriano thought – I'm not sure his heresies – who has made a valuable contribution to the teaching of the Council.
Consider the Council a partial failure would be a tragedy, because in fact his doctrinal teachings are precious. If you have a defect, This touches the pastoral, where we find a naive certain gooders, as if all men were in good faith and good will, and a certain naive optimism about the world, almost as if in it there were no consequences of original sin and the action of the devil.
From here is too benevolent attitude towards other religions, who neglects to remember their downsides. This has given rise to relativist quell'indifferentismo, you complaint and that seems to be present in the preaching of Pope Francis. But in fact this error is not authorized by the council, which he reiterates the supremacy of Christianity over other religions.
Taking this into account and without going there against, the doctrine of religious freedom, correctly understood, has quietly accept, because it has nothing to do with relativism, but simply order the state to not disturb and not to interfere in the religious beliefs of the communities belonging to different religions, in its territory, as long as they do not offer for percolo the common good and peaceful coexistence. It does not belong to the state, but to the Church to establish what is the true religion.
Dear Father Carlson,
she writes … "Conservatism, instead, which probably alludes to the Pope, It is a foolish and unnecessary conservation ".
So you think that Pope Francis has a mind so enlightened and so deep a culture to be perfectly able to distinguish "conservatism" from "conservation"?
… wanting in this paper gets worse, because the distinguished author writes that we had "Fifty years of liberal rhetoric that has come to degenerate into modernism".
It has only to ask, according to the principle of cause / effect, those that generated, favorite, protected and carried out this "rhetorical"? Or maybe it is a "rhetorical" sine cause that the cause exclusively in itself?
… you are wrong: the worst there is no end!
Father Cavalcoli also says that if compared to the traditional "are firsts" including "women's ministries", this means that soon he will approve and will explain to us the optimal choice of women deacons and even the priesthood to married men who will be discussed at the next synod pan Amazon, because this does not at all constitute a "break with tradition" because it will be a thing "implicitly contained in the tradition", and he will also explain us how is contained in tradition.
respect for tradition does not exclude the Pope's right to introduce firsts, that are not in contrast with Tradition. The new is not necessarily at odds with the old, but there may be an ancient sure - and this is the Tradition – that can make room for a new. And an example of what is precisely the introduction of the female ministries, which does not deny the existence of the ordained ministries of their male, but there are added, as well as the female joins the male and does not deny it.
The same is true of any priesthood to married men, which incidentally already exists in the Eastern Churches. Do not deny the permanent and pre-eminent value of the celibate priesthood, but there would be added as a different form of being priests.
A separate issue of women deacons. Here we must distinguish. The project promoted by the Pope is by no means to establish a diaconate as a first degree of the sacrament - this means that it would be a break with tradition -, but to restore in a new form the ancient female diaconate, who it was and remains a lay ministry.
this rhetoric was secretly prepared, with skillful fiction, by an international organization with the secret support of the communist world and the Freemasons, already within the work of the Council. During the work of the Council, the conspiracy theorists are disguised under the label of "progressive", so as not to generate suspicion and acquired the esteem of many bishops. A defect of the council was to not organize a robust defense against heresy, because there was too much trust than were needed.
After the Council, Modernists, sure of impunity because of the prestige they had acquired by fraud, boldly they came out of the closet, giving to understand to many to have been the protagonists of the conciliar renewal. At this point the bishops, not to make the figure of retrograde anticonciliari, I caught out, They did not have the courage to denounce. Unfortunately the same Popes of the post-conciliar, surrounded and deceived by this mass noisy and growing fake progressives, that to a certain extent, the rest, They had made a valuable contribution to the Council, They not had the strength to stop them. These are the origins of today's tragedy, with a pope who can not steer the ship in the storm, bragging about being a "revolutionary". I have personally experienced all these events, having 77 year old.
Today we must make it clear to young people these things.
Pope Francis, as Teacher of the Faith, It would provide the criteria for making this distinction, but unfortunately, He bewildered by his desire for success, influenced by modernist collaborators and confused by his character humoral, it seems that none is able.
Dear Father, because as she writes … the pope should leave alone the Brazilian Bishop Camara? By chance she is not informed? Look, "The Holy See has already ratified the green light to the introduction of the cause of canonization of the Brazilian Bishop of the favelas", writes Stefania Falasca of Avvenire.
Read below for confirmation.
Sister Claudia,
I observe that the father Cavalcoli says little before Pope Francis must also give up “i don Lorenzo Milani”, and I agree with him.
I am afraid that in addition to Camara next Holy Father Cavalcoli forget that Pope Francis has paid tribute to all high-risk graves, honoring Don Lorenzo Milani and Don Tonino Bello, passing between the one and the other in Grosseto to render homage to that outside of Don Zeno Saltini head (God rest his soul) founder of the Catholic-socialist-Nomadelfia kibbutz. Do you think it was just a scant fifty of kilometers of highway from us (They are Siena), but hath looked well to move on to pay tribute to Santa Caterina Doctor of the Church that both popes Striglio confused like him to Avignon, ancient homolog of the future home of Santa Marta.
What father Cavalcoli do not understand is that on the one hand and on the other the curries and almost justifies the exalted, as if to calm criticism should immediately be followed un'incensata to wash the guilt of having criticized softly.
Of course it will be me who do not understand, rather it is right of course not understand, and then … who am I to judge!
my criticisms and my defense of the Pope not flying on the same grounds, why I do not contradict myself at all. Indeed, if one side are free to criticize him in his moral conduct and in its governance of the Church, because here he can sin - and it shows the memorial Viganò -, as Teacher of the Faith, He has impermissibly from Christ the gift of infallibility, despite the language at times ambiguous and dishonest, so in the field of the truths of faith can not err, nor can deceive.
Therefore I criticize the Pope for his recklessness and his narrow view of the sanctity, which is limited to the consideration of social and possibly political agitators operators, leaving out mystics, contemplative, monks, hermits, Philosophy, theology, magistrates, military, writers, artists, poets and scientists, more than naivety or carelessness not to inform themselves of what they have actually done some people he admires. That said, we can not deny, as did Luther, that he is the successor of Peter and therefore we can not deny him the respect that is due him as such. Similarly, St. Catherine of Siena scolded his Papa to retrieve the correct fulfillment of that office Petrine, which we must have great respect.
a cause of beatification that is initiated does not mean that arrives in port, because in the course of the investigation may emerge regarding the Servant of God made outrageous and bad examples or evidence to the contrary, which deter from pursuing.
I'm just a little passionate about philosophy, but small. Or I do not understand, or she confuses me or she is confused ... but since she can not be confused, I'm confused, because if the pope "must make every effort so that the two parts (lefevriani and modernists) to approach and meet ", This means that thesis and antithesis must harmonize together and that contrary opposites can come together in a harmonious way.
Thank you, reading his articles really learn many new things.
lefevriani and modernists are not two abstract entities as they are the thesis and the antithesis of the Hegelian dialectic. It is clear that if A is true, It can not be real-A. But things in this case are not so simple. Lefebvre and modernists are two historic human and ecclesial realities, concrete and collective, with their good sides and bad sides, as always it happens in human affairs. This is not to unite the true with the false. Ma il Papa, instead of constantly pampered modernists and scramble the lefevriani, should, berating the defects of one or the other, collect the values ​​that are found in one and in the other, why more real agree with another true.
It 's true as you say Father that we can not say that 2000 years has always thought and done well and that we should continue to do so forever. I'm a divorced but remarried civilly, I'm not going to receive communion, although I go to Mass every Sunday, because I know I am unable to receive. And when with all the assurances given in this regard by priests, others in my own terms go there because the priests say to divorced and that Pope Francis opened the communion for divorced and remarried, I do not go there, because I continue to believe what the Church has always taught.
According to her doing wrong to do as we have always done?
Treats.
I talk to a priest, not great theologian, they are not and could never be, nor specialist in dogmatic sacramental, I am not and could never be, I have a hard head like the Cure of Ars. The speak as a priest who floured the necessary basic theology knows the catechism.
She is right to do as he does and what God will reward.
For the second consecutive year, for the first communions in the parish I have it replaced by a brother, not intending to make me an accomplice of sacrilegious communions by components assemblies composed not only by divorced and remarried (divorced remarried least has assumed responsibility) but from a plethora of living together out of wedlock (in which marriage they dichiaran publicly not to believe) and that at the time of the communion line up.
If the church had 10 parishioners as she'd be the happiest pastor in Emilia Romagna, Instead I 100 who desert for years the confessional, living irregular situations, including provocative gay couples demanding full legitimacy, you are saying that the communion “is my right” then adding “Pope Francis said who am I to judge?”.
For now I got away because I have a pure septuagenarian bishop School John Paul II, in Italy I do not know how many remain, But few believe.
Tomorrow I do not know, if I will manage with the new that will, but I never give anyone “to eat his own condemnation”.
Allow for though I have only a smattering of theology and know and apply the catechism, for that what I say is true for what it's worth.
do well to abide by what has the Family company, because, as I said, the note 351 of The joy, speaking in the conditional, It is not a true law in force, but only a hypothesis of Law. Now a law is not expressed in the conditional ⦋ "could"⦌, ma all’indicativo o all’imperativo.
She is right to do as ago. Pope Francis in love joy ⦋Nota 351⦌ has not given permission to spouses of the Communion in his condition, but simply she said it could give in the future. But so far he did not. So those priests who give communion to these couples, disobey the Pope.
As for you, You have as the provisions of 84 of the reference point Family company, in accordance with which, in the fulfillment of your Christian duties, you can be sure to live in grace.
Father Cavalcoli says Bergoglio is the guarantor of the unity of the church harmony and peace. So all divisions and struggles going on for five years have unleashed the evil modernists under poor papal eyes, while the poor Pope prisoner of Santa Marta in the hotel, He does not know how to keep with her always so clear and unambiguous language of this agreement and this peace?
In the old Marxist language sessantottino one would have said that "Bergoglio is the innocent victim of the capitalist imperial system"
The Pope took from Christ the task of ensuring, to found, ensure, promote unity in the Church, peace and harmony between its various components, and trends. Pope Francis, although by law and divine commission to have this office, It does not exercise with due caution, justice, diligence, charity and impartiality, but, perhaps his thirst for success, unduly favors the modernists giving them an exorbitant power and mistreats lefevriani keeping them away from involvement in the governance of the Church. He is in the same culprit and victim of this system that he himself created.
"And these evils the Pope never speaks, all it is taken from exaggerated and biased polemic against traditionalism, which he is likely to make a bundle of all herbs, Also blaming that healthy conservatism that, along with a healthy conservation, are essential factors of the structure and progress of the Church ".
And why do you think the Pope of these evils never talks? Have you ever thought that what for her is bad for Pope Francis rather than being all bad?
I do not judge the Pope according to what seems to me, but according to what the Church teaches on the same Pope's duties. If the Pope feels well what I indicate how badly, he does not act against my advice, but against the duties that are imposed upon him by Christ and the Church.
hear, heard! Bergoglio is surrounding by "false infected with Modernism collaborators and rahnerismo". And who is put around them? They are appointed by themselves? And when they combined disasters who protected them and who continued to keep them around (I only mention Bishop. Rich) ?
The card. Mueller was not among those "infected with Modernism and rahnerismo" that made the end?
I'm sorry, sometimes I can not understand the father Cavalcoli, but surely it is my fault.
my idea is that the Pope is not only guilty of having surrounded himself with sycophantic staff, corrupt, smart and heretics, but that he, for his ingenuity, ambition and recklessness, it is also a victim, so that, if not doing his duty secure leadership in the Church, it is not just his fault, but also of the criminals who cheat him and block.
Today we had the Pope in Palermo, in a Sicilian capital in practice semindifferente, stuff the visit of John Paul II a quarter of a century ago, but that's not the issue ...
Rev.mo the father, the modernists do not persecute anybody. They do not need !!! To say that the mafia that has all the territory under full control with the right people to the right places, He is putting it turns out to persecute and make attacks with explosive charges three cats who criticize anti-Mafia association. If anything, the Mafia will have this association of subsidies.
it is true that the Modernist feel powerful and mighty. But they know that their power is based on lies and violence. They know they are a foreign body in the Church and to have against the good Catholics. Of course the Pope is soft against them, but what he is not fulfilling his duty of guarding the flock of Christ, Although, perhaps deceived by the modernists, He believed to be good, also for the success they achieved, to which the rest is too attached.
But the power of the modernists is not as quiet as you think, I know that Christ is against them. Today modernist lobby is shaken to its foundations by the tremendous scandal denounced by the memorial S.It is. Mons.Carlo Maria Viganò, which he involved the Pope himself, and that sparked outrage against them throughout the Church. For this, they try desperately and angrily to stay afloat with invectives, the slander and persecution, glimpsing, desperate, albeit still arrogant, that their end is near.
Father, if as you say ... "the Council had confined himself to abandon a pastoral too conservative, anachronistic, static, repetitive, too defensive, suspicious, fearful, suspicious and aggressive towards the modern world "... today we will find ourselves in a situation where we are?
I ask: what was the situation of the church in the decades following the Council of Trent and what is the situation of the church today 5 decades since Vatican II ? Council of which I have never questioned authority and documents, I am a priest 69 year old, to clarify.
It seems to me that when things are going well is about the church and all its personality lit, when things go wrong it is the fault of the world, of society, of politics, of historical events ...
In this, the so-called pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar church have remained identical and unchanged in a perfect line of continuity.
The Council certainly did not just do what I said, but it proposed a modernization, reform and advancement of the Church, so as to make it more effective evangelization of the modern world, taking, in the light of the Gospel, what is good in modernity and rejecting the bad.
If the Vatican has not given the wonderful fruits that gave the Council of Trent, This is not from the teachings and directives of Vatican II in themselves, but the fact that the Council was followed by a strong, insidious and unexpected regurgitation of modernism, disguised as "progressivism", that the Popes of the post-conciliar, as Santi, They have not been able to curb.
The current Pope, and then, instead of correcting some defects of the pastoral council, as for example a certain tendency buonistica and too optimistic about the world, He has aggravated them by his misunderstanding misericordismo, so we have arrived at where.
I wonder if the phrase "the bishops do not watch and this promotes the return modernism" is meant to be a joke or meant to be a major hit. If the joke is serious you have to wonder ... who it is who appoints the bishops who do not ensure, and who should oversee the bishops who do not ensure? We in Bologna after Biffi and Caffara who it was who sent us a bishop who has transformed St Petronius in a restaurant and now fights for the construction of mosques and the city's churches are increasingly empty?
the phenomenon of bishops who do not ensure is now fifty years old. However, before we had Papa Francesco Popes Saints, who have tried to halt the advance of modernism, and for that they strove for the supervision of bishops, though with little success. The current Pope, instead, unfortunately, that is too kind to the modernists, It gives us the worse bishops.
She says that ‘ a reformer Pope could correct the pastoral course of Vatican II '. I fear that the writing has escaped a little shade ... ... Benedict XVI had tried. Remember his last speeches made after the announced resignation when he said that Vatican II was not a 'superconcilio’ and 'superdogma’ ? Also remember the fate that Benedict XVI had been reserved before he came to the resignation? Do not you think that Pope Benedict attended the council has come to realize that the Vatican several things did not work properly? How else to interpret the sentences of his last speeches on the Vatican that was not taken as a 'superconcilio’ and 'superdogma’ ? Pope Benedict has resigned implying that the serious problems of the Church were to be sought in what the Vatican II had not worked, if the problem had been modernism, He would have said as clearly before retiring in Castel Gandolfo awaiting the conclave to elect his successor.
Pope Benedict denounced those pastoral shortcomings of the Council, to which I referred above, while confirming the validity of its doctrines. He did not use the term "modernism", but it used equivalent expressions, like when he talked about the spread of subjectivism and relativism, false biblical exegesis, of irrationalist philosophies, "hermeneutics of rupture", the general crisis of faith, the "filth" in the Church and when prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith condemned many modernist errors, especially rahneriani.
there are no dangerous modernists on one side and the other innocent victims of the modernists, if anything, there is the weakness of Paul VI (soon saint) and the great personalism of John Paul II (already a saint) to which only interested in the speeches related to sexual morality, while the churches were made creative Masses, they danced, you did concerts, it was theater, while the foundations of the house trembled under the shock of the earthquake, But it was enough that you were using contraceptives, and all was well in Africa.
At the time I graduated in Classics, then I made with such passion theological studies (in Bologna where she taught) and then I had the role of teacher of religion in schools.
In 1997 I was fired from the school where I taught because I slipped on the speech of contraception talking to students in their final years, and when I called the mistake to insist in supporting my reasons, you were wrong, but I recall feeling even more intestardii.
To many it may seem unusual, but to defend myself and ask the bishop of that diocese that I was reinserted Bishop. Carlo Caffara, at the time bishop of Ferrara, but did not succeed.
My colleagues explaining that the miracles of the Gospels were allegories and not real events continued to teach until retirement, But not sliding on contraception under the big 'moral papacy’ John Paul II.
Who, then, he has protected the modernists of which you speak, starting with Bultmann in the chair children?
In 78 years I've come to thank God serenity and peace with certain past vicissitudes, and I feel useless to ask (even if I write the question rhetorically): if we had not restricted to just defend “no to condoms”, things could have been different?
We all have contributed to this situation, clergy and laity, Father why I admire her for the way she identifies' origins’ and 'faults’ in others, as if the years she had lived in a happy island (not the Isle of Patmos), while all this to life.
There was only one ready to admit that this is all our fault!
No.
All ready to admit that it is the fault of others, they are called modernists or rahneriani, while progressives show how guilty conservatives or traditionalists Lefebvre.
Meanwhile, the house falls to pieces, but it is the fault of others …
She mentions appropriately to an essential aspect of Christianity: the recognition of our sins, Which brings us to repentance, the request for forgiveness to God and to brothers, thereby obtaining the divine mercy, that drives us to the repair and correction of our faults. In this conversion process it is not allowed to accuse the brother of some blame, as long as there are freed us first. Indeed, it is useful thing for him, for to do penance and to the community, so avoid follow suit. Thus, if lefevriani between modernists and run mutual accusations, This is not necessarily inconvenient thing that breaks mutual charity, It provided that the allegations are well-founded and constructive.
It is in fact done in this way, the mutual fraternal correction, it was also to the Pope, although he remains always the supreme guardian of the fraternal unity, and arbiter in disputes, and resolve the divisions, called by Christ to create peace, concord and reconciliation among brothers.
To critics of the article Cavalcoli Father escapes the theological background in which his intervention was framed. Without this awareness it is likely to remain enmeshed in the lonely and confusing dimension of Becoming and fall, by reaction, the same mistake of who you want to fight. On a practical level and contingent (as this "contingent" has become relevant historical dimensions) P. Cavalcoli has made it clear that "Wanting to make a comparison drawn from garbage, to clean up the field Lefebvre is to make field cleaning modernists, as well as to clean up in a Swiss city is to treat the Naples garbage. "So P. Cavalcoli does not live at all on Mars. If the legion of progressives "heretics" wants to put to the Truth of History Service, The tiny squad of traditionalists "heretics" eventually denied the History in the name of Truth, but in so doing obtain an opposite result and yet the image and likeness of that produced by the first, a result that denies the same metaphysical to which they appeal: Truth ends up vitrify in one dimension of space and time and to become fetish…
... Truth ends up vitrify in one dimension of space and time and to become a fetish rather than dissolved in it.
With this awareness, an irreducible critical Rahner as P. Cavalcoli, can therefore afford to recognize the German theologian to have given even (that is, "accidentally") a positive contribution to the Council, But that nothing detracts from the substance of his thought heretical. He wrote Chesterton: "Since heresy is often not a simple falsehood; as said the same Thomas More, "There has never been a heretic who has only said false things". A heresy is a truth that hides all other truths'.
In conclusion, after thrashing of P. Ariel came the P carrot. Cavalcoli, perhaps because only by means of a vast theological and temporal perspective today are still unable to exercise a charitable and hopeful understanding for this season of the Church.
Avoidance of doubt: l ' "instead of melt in it" refers to the position of the progressive "heretics". In one and in the other case (liberals and conservatives) you come for different ways to identification of Truth and History, Being and Becoming, ie to a negation of Being in the Christian sense.
and Father John Cavalcoli that a few days after he wrote this, you are simply … divided the task between them.
I'm too online and solidarity between them, Cavalcoli and Levi Gualdo, just read their articles (and I read them for years) to understand it.
And’ very typical of speculative minds with keen intelligence, offer the pros and cons, White and black.
And both, as always, they have fulfilled (My personal opinion) so dear to their task of priests and theologians.
you understand exactly the meaning of the fraternal relationship and intimate collaboration between me and Father Ariel our doctrinal and pastoral ministry for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.
Caro Father,
If things are as you say you should not trust a becoming confused and contradictory (and certainly that is the case), this means that we should not trust the tenant of Santa Marta? For whoever is ambiguous and contradictory is he, or is the opposite?
Lucio Caro,
Becoming confused and contradictory is provoked and invoked by the modernists. The Pope, as Successor of Peter, guides us on the path of the Gospel. However, He has occasionally certain expressions, which can make it look like a modernist. And above all, his fault is that he does not correct the modernists, He does not respond to those who asked for clarification on his teaching and does not contradict the misinterpretation of his words.
Dear father Cavalcoli
I wanted to ask why seeks to combine tradition with modernity?
If Rahner is heretical because she says that she brought something positive to the Second Vatican Council?
Because for her to consider the council a partial failure would be a tragedy? given the results after 50 years a question I'd do, why condemn the error is no longer good
as it was done in Preconciliar? The council opened to religious freedom and that is the result of the whole of Europe is in the hands of false religions and souls are lost indeed they say all lead to God.
the Holy Father has said publicly: Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists,we are all children of God, but not if it is invented Bergoglio, and it is a consequence of Our life? and conciliar openings.
Thank you
Fabius was,
It must reconcile tradition with modernity taken as a block, but with the good there is in it to the scrutiny of the Gospel. This is the screen that made the council. For this reason the Council is still current, because we need to keep doing this screening against new problems that arise, and which did not exist at the time of the Council, such as the spread of Islam or the Freemasons or the question of immigrants. It is therefore not the Council which has failed, but the false conciliar reform promoted by Rahner and others.
I do not try to combine tradition with modernity taken as a block, but only with that part of healthy modernity, which accords with tradition. In fact, the life of the Church and consequently the life of the Christian is born from the experience of tradition, for which he retains the perennial values, it continually deepens, It makes them bear fruit, the spread, enhance them, makes them move forward and modernize them, without changing them in substance, but keeping them intact in their unchanging identity.
Rahner, like all heretics, It accepts or teaches some truths. This is the positive aspect of rahneriano thought – I'm not sure his heresies – who has made a valuable contribution to the teaching of the Council.
Consider the Council a partial failure would be a tragedy, because in fact his doctrinal teachings are precious. If you have a defect, This touches the pastoral, where we find a naive certain gooders, as if all men were in good faith and good will, and a certain naive optimism about the world, almost as if in it there were no consequences of original sin and the action of the devil.
From here is too benevolent attitude towards other religions, who neglects to remember their downsides. This has given rise to relativist quell'indifferentismo, you complaint and that seems to be present in the preaching of Pope Francis. But in fact this error is not authorized by the council, which he reiterates the supremacy of Christianity over other religions.
Taking this into account and without going there against, the doctrine of religious freedom, correctly understood, has quietly accept, because it has nothing to do with relativism, but simply order the state to not disturb and not to interfere in the religious beliefs of the communities belonging to different religions, in its territory, as long as they do not offer for percolo the common good and peaceful coexistence. It does not belong to the state, but to the Church to establish what is the true religion.
Fabius was,
It must reconcile tradition with modernity taken as a block, but with the good there is in it to the scrutiny of the Gospel. This is the screen that made the council. For this reason the Council is still current, because we need to keep doing this screening against new problems that arise, and which did not exist at the time of the Council, such as the spread of Islam or the Freemasons or the question of immigrants. It is therefore not the Council which has failed, but the false conciliar reform promoted by Rahner and others.
I do not try to combine tradition with modernity taken as a block, but only with that part of healthy modernity, which accords with tradition. In fact, the life of the Church and consequently the life of the Christian is born from the experience of tradition, for which he retains the perennial values, it continually deepens, It makes them bear fruit, the spread, enhance them, makes them move forward and modernize them, without changing them in substance, but keeping them intact in their unchanging identity.
Rahner, like all heretics, It accepts or teaches some truths. This is the positive aspect of rahneriano thought – I'm not sure his heresies – who has made a valuable contribution to the teaching of the Council.
Consider the Council a partial failure would be a tragedy, because in fact his doctrinal teachings are precious. If you have a defect, This touches the pastoral, where we find a naive certain gooders, as if all men were in good faith and good will, and a certain naive optimism about the world, almost as if in it there were no consequences of original sin and the action of the devil.
From here is too benevolent attitude towards other religions, who neglects to remember their downsides. This has given rise to relativist quell'indifferentismo, you complaint and that seems to be present in the preaching of Pope Francis. But in fact this error is not authorized by the council, which he reiterates the supremacy of Christianity over other religions.
Taking this into account and without going there against, the doctrine of religious freedom, correctly understood, has quietly accept, because it has nothing to do with relativism, but simply order the state to not disturb and not to interfere in the religious beliefs of the communities belonging to different religions, in its territory, as long as they do not offer for percolo the common good and peaceful coexistence. It does not belong to the state, but to the Church to establish what is the true religion.
Dear Father Carlson,
she writes … "Conservatism, instead, which probably alludes to the Pope, It is a foolish and unnecessary conservation ".
So you think that Pope Francis has a mind so enlightened and so deep a culture to be perfectly able to distinguish "conservatism" from "conservation"?
… wanting in this paper gets worse, because the distinguished author writes that we had "Fifty years of liberal rhetoric that has come to degenerate into modernism".
It has only to ask, according to the principle of cause / effect, those that generated, favorite, protected and carried out this "rhetorical"? Or maybe it is a "rhetorical" sine cause that the cause exclusively in itself?
… you are wrong: the worst there is no end!
Father Cavalcoli also says that if compared to the traditional "are firsts" including "women's ministries", this means that soon he will approve and will explain to us the optimal choice of women deacons and even the priesthood to married men who will be discussed at the next synod pan Amazon, because this does not at all constitute a "break with tradition" because it will be a thing "implicitly contained in the tradition", and he will also explain us how is contained in tradition.
Dear Don Ciro,
respect for tradition does not exclude the Pope's right to introduce firsts, that are not in contrast with Tradition. The new is not necessarily at odds with the old, but there may be an ancient sure - and this is the Tradition – that can make room for a new. And an example of what is precisely the introduction of the female ministries, which does not deny the existence of the ordained ministries of their male, but there are added, as well as the female joins the male and does not deny it.
The same is true of any priesthood to married men, which incidentally already exists in the Eastern Churches. Do not deny the permanent and pre-eminent value of the celibate priesthood, but there would be added as a different form of being priests.
A separate issue of women deacons. Here we must distinguish. The project promoted by the Pope is by no means to establish a diaconate as a first degree of the sacrament - this means that it would be a break with tradition -, but to restore in a new form the ancient female diaconate, who it was and remains a lay ministry.
Dear Stephen,
this rhetoric was secretly prepared, with skillful fiction, by an international organization with the secret support of the communist world and the Freemasons, already within the work of the Council. During the work of the Council, the conspiracy theorists are disguised under the label of "progressive", so as not to generate suspicion and acquired the esteem of many bishops. A defect of the council was to not organize a robust defense against heresy, because there was too much trust than were needed.
After the Council, Modernists, sure of impunity because of the prestige they had acquired by fraud, boldly they came out of the closet, giving to understand to many to have been the protagonists of the conciliar renewal. At this point the bishops, not to make the figure of retrograde anticonciliari, I caught out, They did not have the courage to denounce. Unfortunately the same Popes of the post-conciliar, surrounded and deceived by this mass noisy and growing fake progressives, that to a certain extent, the rest, They had made a valuable contribution to the Council, They not had the strength to stop them. These are the origins of today's tragedy, with a pope who can not steer the ship in the storm, bragging about being a "revolutionary". I have personally experienced all these events, having 77 year old.
Today we must make it clear to young people these things.
Thank you
Dear Antonio,
Pope Francis, as Teacher of the Faith, It would provide the criteria for making this distinction, but unfortunately, He bewildered by his desire for success, influenced by modernist collaborators and confused by his character humoral, it seems that none is able.
Dear Father, because as she writes … the pope should leave alone the Brazilian Bishop Camara? By chance she is not informed? Look, "The Holy See has already ratified the green light to the introduction of the cause of canonization of the Brazilian Bishop of the favelas", writes Stefania Falasca of Avvenire.
Read below for confirmation.
https://www.avvenire.it/chiesa/pagine/dom-camara-via-libera-al-processo-di-canonizzazione
"The granting of the Nihil obstat was already signed on 25 February " (2015).
Sister Claudia
(22 years missionary in Brazil)
Sister Claudia,
I observe that the father Cavalcoli says little before Pope Francis must also give up “i don Lorenzo Milani”, and I agree with him.
I am afraid that in addition to Camara next Holy Father Cavalcoli forget that Pope Francis has paid tribute to all high-risk graves, honoring Don Lorenzo Milani and Don Tonino Bello, passing between the one and the other in Grosseto to render homage to that outside of Don Zeno Saltini head (God rest his soul) founder of the Catholic-socialist-Nomadelfia kibbutz. Do you think it was just a scant fifty of kilometers of highway from us (They are Siena), but hath looked well to move on to pay tribute to Santa Caterina Doctor of the Church that both popes Striglio confused like him to Avignon, ancient homolog of the future home of Santa Marta.
What father Cavalcoli do not understand is that on the one hand and on the other the curries and almost justifies the exalted, as if to calm criticism should immediately be followed un'incensata to wash the guilt of having criticized softly.
Of course it will be me who do not understand, rather it is right of course not understand, and then … who am I to judge!
https://www.avvenire.it/papa/pagine/il-papa-a-nomadelfia-com-e-nata-e-cos-e
https://www.avvenire.it/papa/pagine/papa-francesco-a-barbiana-visita-alla-tomba-di-don-lorenzo-milani
https://www.avvenire.it/papa/pagine/papa-francesco-alessano-don-tonino-bello
Caro Luciano,
my criticisms and my defense of the Pope not flying on the same grounds, why I do not contradict myself at all. Indeed, if one side are free to criticize him in his moral conduct and in its governance of the Church, because here he can sin - and it shows the memorial Viganò -, as Teacher of the Faith, He has impermissibly from Christ the gift of infallibility, despite the language at times ambiguous and dishonest, so in the field of the truths of faith can not err, nor can deceive.
Therefore I criticize the Pope for his recklessness and his narrow view of the sanctity, which is limited to the consideration of social and possibly political agitators operators, leaving out mystics, contemplative, monks, hermits, Philosophy, theology, magistrates, military, writers, artists, poets and scientists, more than naivety or carelessness not to inform themselves of what they have actually done some people he admires. That said, we can not deny, as did Luther, that he is the successor of Peter and therefore we can not deny him the respect that is due him as such. Similarly, St. Catherine of Siena scolded his Papa to retrieve the correct fulfillment of that office Petrine, which we must have great respect.
Sweat face Claudia,
a cause of beatification that is initiated does not mean that arrives in port, because in the course of the investigation may emerge regarding the Servant of God made outrageous and bad examples or evidence to the contrary, which deter from pursuing.
Il.mo Prof. Cavalcoli,
I'm just a little passionate about philosophy, but small. Or I do not understand, or she confuses me or she is confused ... but since she can not be confused, I'm confused, because if the pope "must make every effort so that the two parts (lefevriani and modernists) to approach and meet ", This means that thesis and antithesis must harmonize together and that contrary opposites can come together in a harmonious way.
Thank you, reading his articles really learn many new things.
Dear Paul,
lefevriani and modernists are not two abstract entities as they are the thesis and the antithesis of the Hegelian dialectic. It is clear that if A is true, It can not be real-A. But things in this case are not so simple. Lefebvre and modernists are two historic human and ecclesial realities, concrete and collective, with their good sides and bad sides, as always it happens in human affairs. This is not to unite the true with the false. Ma il Papa, instead of constantly pampered modernists and scramble the lefevriani, should, berating the defects of one or the other, collect the values ​​that are found in one and in the other, why more real agree with another true.
It 's true as you say Father that we can not say that 2000 years has always thought and done well and that we should continue to do so forever. I'm a divorced but remarried civilly, I'm not going to receive communion, although I go to Mass every Sunday, because I know I am unable to receive. And when with all the assurances given in this regard by priests, others in my own terms go there because the priests say to divorced and that Pope Francis opened the communion for divorced and remarried, I do not go there, because I continue to believe what the Church has always taught.
According to her doing wrong to do as we have always done?
Treats.
Paolo P.
Dear Paul P,
I talk to a priest, not great theologian, they are not and could never be, nor specialist in dogmatic sacramental, I am not and could never be, I have a hard head like the Cure of Ars. The speak as a priest who floured the necessary basic theology knows the catechism.
She is right to do as he does and what God will reward.
For the second consecutive year, for the first communions in the parish I have it replaced by a brother, not intending to make me an accomplice of sacrilegious communions by components assemblies composed not only by divorced and remarried (divorced remarried least has assumed responsibility) but from a plethora of living together out of wedlock (in which marriage they dichiaran publicly not to believe) and that at the time of the communion line up.
If the church had 10 parishioners as she'd be the happiest pastor in Emilia Romagna, Instead I 100 who desert for years the confessional, living irregular situations, including provocative gay couples demanding full legitimacy, you are saying that the communion “is my right” then adding “Pope Francis said who am I to judge?”.
For now I got away because I have a pure septuagenarian bishop School John Paul II, in Italy I do not know how many remain, But few believe.
Tomorrow I do not know, if I will manage with the new that will, but I never give anyone “to eat his own condemnation”.
Allow for though I have only a smattering of theology and know and apply the catechism, for that what I say is true for what it's worth.
Dear Father Pino,
do well to abide by what has the Family company, because, as I said, the note 351 of The joy, speaking in the conditional, It is not a true law in force, but only a hypothesis of Law. Now a law is not expressed in the conditional ⦋ "could"⦌, ma all’indicativo o all’imperativo.
Dear Paul,
She is right to do as ago. Pope Francis in love joy ⦋Nota 351⦌ has not given permission to spouses of the Communion in his condition, but simply she said it could give in the future. But so far he did not. So those priests who give communion to these couples, disobey the Pope.
As for you, You have as the provisions of 84 of the reference point Family company, in accordance with which, in the fulfillment of your Christian duties, you can be sure to live in grace.
Father Cavalcoli says Bergoglio is the guarantor of the unity of the church harmony and peace. So all divisions and struggles going on for five years have unleashed the evil modernists under poor papal eyes, while the poor Pope prisoner of Santa Marta in the hotel, He does not know how to keep with her always so clear and unambiguous language of this agreement and this peace?
In the old Marxist language sessantottino one would have said that "Bergoglio is the innocent victim of the capitalist imperial system"
Dear Leoluca,
The Pope took from Christ the task of ensuring, to found, ensure, promote unity in the Church, peace and harmony between its various components, and trends. Pope Francis, although by law and divine commission to have this office, It does not exercise with due caution, justice, diligence, charity and impartiality, but, perhaps his thirst for success, unduly favors the modernists giving them an exorbitant power and mistreats lefevriani keeping them away from involvement in the governance of the Church. He is in the same culprit and victim of this system that he himself created.
"And these evils the Pope never speaks, all it is taken from exaggerated and biased polemic against traditionalism, which he is likely to make a bundle of all herbs, Also blaming that healthy conservatism that, along with a healthy conservation, are essential factors of the structure and progress of the Church ".
And why do you think the Pope of these evils never talks? Have you ever thought that what for her is bad for Pope Francis rather than being all bad?
Dear Simone,
I do not judge the Pope according to what seems to me, but according to what the Church teaches on the same Pope's duties. If the Pope feels well what I indicate how badly, he does not act against my advice, but against the duties that are imposed upon him by Christ and the Church.
hear, heard! Bergoglio is surrounding by "false infected with Modernism collaborators and rahnerismo". And who is put around them? They are appointed by themselves? And when they combined disasters who protected them and who continued to keep them around (I only mention Bishop. Rich) ?
The card. Mueller was not among those "infected with Modernism and rahnerismo" that made the end?
I'm sorry, sometimes I can not understand the father Cavalcoli, but surely it is my fault.
Martina De Piscopo (Naples)
Dear Martina,
my idea is that the Pope is not only guilty of having surrounded himself with sycophantic staff, corrupt, smart and heretics, but that he, for his ingenuity, ambition and recklessness, it is also a victim, so that, if not doing his duty secure leadership in the Church, it is not just his fault, but also of the criminals who cheat him and block.
Today we had the Pope in Palermo, in a Sicilian capital in practice semindifferente, stuff the visit of John Paul II a quarter of a century ago, but that's not the issue ...
Rev.mo the father, the modernists do not persecute anybody. They do not need !!! To say that the mafia that has all the territory under full control with the right people to the right places, He is putting it turns out to persecute and make attacks with explosive charges three cats who criticize anti-Mafia association. If anything, the Mafia will have this association of subsidies.
Dear Salvo,
it is true that the Modernist feel powerful and mighty. But they know that their power is based on lies and violence. They know they are a foreign body in the Church and to have against the good Catholics. Of course the Pope is soft against them, but what he is not fulfilling his duty of guarding the flock of Christ, Although, perhaps deceived by the modernists, He believed to be good, also for the success they achieved, to which the rest is too attached.
But the power of the modernists is not as quiet as you think, I know that Christ is against them. Today modernist lobby is shaken to its foundations by the tremendous scandal denounced by the memorial S.It is. Mons.Carlo Maria Viganò, which he involved the Pope himself, and that sparked outrage against them throughout the Church. For this, they try desperately and angrily to stay afloat with invectives, the slander and persecution, glimpsing, desperate, albeit still arrogant, that their end is near.
Father, if as you say ... "the Council had confined himself to abandon a pastoral too conservative, anachronistic, static, repetitive, too defensive, suspicious, fearful, suspicious and aggressive towards the modern world "... today we will find ourselves in a situation where we are?
I ask: what was the situation of the church in the decades following the Council of Trent and what is the situation of the church today 5 decades since Vatican II ? Council of which I have never questioned authority and documents, I am a priest 69 year old, to clarify.
It seems to me that when things are going well is about the church and all its personality lit, when things go wrong it is the fault of the world, of society, of politics, of historical events ...
In this, the so-called pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar church have remained identical and unchanged in a perfect line of continuity.
Dear Don Francesco,
The Council certainly did not just do what I said, but it proposed a modernization, reform and advancement of the Church, so as to make it more effective evangelization of the modern world, taking, in the light of the Gospel, what is good in modernity and rejecting the bad.
If the Vatican has not given the wonderful fruits that gave the Council of Trent, This is not from the teachings and directives of Vatican II in themselves, but the fact that the Council was followed by a strong, insidious and unexpected regurgitation of modernism, disguised as "progressivism", that the Popes of the post-conciliar, as Santi, They have not been able to curb.
The current Pope, and then, instead of correcting some defects of the pastoral council, as for example a certain tendency buonistica and too optimistic about the world, He has aggravated them by his misunderstanding misericordismo, so we have arrived at where.
I wonder if the phrase "the bishops do not watch and this promotes the return modernism" is meant to be a joke or meant to be a major hit. If the joke is serious you have to wonder ... who it is who appoints the bishops who do not ensure, and who should oversee the bishops who do not ensure? We in Bologna after Biffi and Caffara who it was who sent us a bishop who has transformed St Petronius in a restaurant and now fights for the construction of mosques and the city's churches are increasingly empty?
Andrea Sanguinetti
Dear Andrea,
the phenomenon of bishops who do not ensure is now fifty years old. However, before we had Papa Francesco Popes Saints, who have tried to halt the advance of modernism, and for that they strove for the supervision of bishops, though with little success. The current Pope, instead, unfortunately, that is too kind to the modernists, It gives us the worse bishops.
She says that ‘ a reformer Pope could correct the pastoral course of Vatican II '. I fear that the writing has escaped a little shade ... ... Benedict XVI had tried. Remember his last speeches made after the announced resignation when he said that Vatican II was not a 'superconcilio’ and 'superdogma’ ? Also remember the fate that Benedict XVI had been reserved before he came to the resignation? Do not you think that Pope Benedict attended the council has come to realize that the Vatican several things did not work properly? How else to interpret the sentences of his last speeches on the Vatican that was not taken as a 'superconcilio’ and 'superdogma’ ? Pope Benedict has resigned implying that the serious problems of the Church were to be sought in what the Vatican II had not worked, if the problem had been modernism, He would have said as clearly before retiring in Castel Gandolfo awaiting the conclave to elect his successor.
Luisella De Angelis
Rome
Dear Luisella,
Pope Benedict denounced those pastoral shortcomings of the Council, to which I referred above, while confirming the validity of its doctrines. He did not use the term "modernism", but it used equivalent expressions, like when he talked about the spread of subjectivism and relativism, false biblical exegesis, of irrationalist philosophies, "hermeneutics of rupture", the general crisis of faith, the "filth" in the Church and when prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith condemned many modernist errors, especially rahneriani.
Chr.mo Prof. Cavalcoli,
there are no dangerous modernists on one side and the other innocent victims of the modernists, if anything, there is the weakness of Paul VI (soon saint) and the great personalism of John Paul II (already a saint) to which only interested in the speeches related to sexual morality, while the churches were made creative Masses, they danced, you did concerts, it was theater, while the foundations of the house trembled under the shock of the earthquake, But it was enough that you were using contraceptives, and all was well in Africa.
At the time I graduated in Classics, then I made with such passion theological studies (in Bologna where she taught) and then I had the role of teacher of religion in schools.
In 1997 I was fired from the school where I taught because I slipped on the speech of contraception talking to students in their final years, and when I called the mistake to insist in supporting my reasons, you were wrong, but I recall feeling even more intestardii.
To many it may seem unusual, but to defend myself and ask the bishop of that diocese that I was reinserted Bishop. Carlo Caffara, at the time bishop of Ferrara, but did not succeed.
My colleagues explaining that the miracles of the Gospels were allegories and not real events continued to teach until retirement, But not sliding on contraception under the big 'moral papacy’ John Paul II.
Who, then, he has protected the modernists of which you speak, starting with Bultmann in the chair children?
In 78 years I've come to thank God serenity and peace with certain past vicissitudes, and I feel useless to ask (even if I write the question rhetorically): if we had not restricted to just defend “no to condoms”, things could have been different?
We all have contributed to this situation, clergy and laity, Father why I admire her for the way she identifies' origins’ and 'faults’ in others, as if the years she had lived in a happy island (not the Isle of Patmos), while all this to life.
There was only one ready to admit that this is all our fault!
No.
All ready to admit that it is the fault of others, they are called modernists or rahneriani, while progressives show how guilty conservatives or traditionalists Lefebvre.
Meanwhile, the house falls to pieces, but it is the fault of others …
S.L. (Ravenna)
Dear teacher,
She mentions appropriately to an essential aspect of Christianity: the recognition of our sins, Which brings us to repentance, the request for forgiveness to God and to brothers, thereby obtaining the divine mercy, that drives us to the repair and correction of our faults. In this conversion process it is not allowed to accuse the brother of some blame, as long as there are freed us first. Indeed, it is useful thing for him, for to do penance and to the community, so avoid follow suit. Thus, if lefevriani between modernists and run mutual accusations, This is not necessarily inconvenient thing that breaks mutual charity, It provided that the allegations are well-founded and constructive.
It is in fact done in this way, the mutual fraternal correction, it was also to the Pope, although he remains always the supreme guardian of the fraternal unity, and arbiter in disputes, and resolve the divisions, called by Christ to create peace, concord and reconciliation among brothers.
To critics of the article Cavalcoli Father escapes the theological background in which his intervention was framed. Without this awareness it is likely to remain enmeshed in the lonely and confusing dimension of Becoming and fall, by reaction, the same mistake of who you want to fight. On a practical level and contingent (as this "contingent" has become relevant historical dimensions) P. Cavalcoli has made it clear that "Wanting to make a comparison drawn from garbage, to clean up the field Lefebvre is to make field cleaning modernists, as well as to clean up in a Swiss city is to treat the Naples garbage. "So P. Cavalcoli does not live at all on Mars. If the legion of progressives "heretics" wants to put to the Truth of History Service, The tiny squad of traditionalists "heretics" eventually denied the History in the name of Truth, but in so doing obtain an opposite result and yet the image and likeness of that produced by the first, a result that denies the same metaphysical to which they appeal: Truth ends up vitrify in one dimension of space and time and to become fetish…
... Truth ends up vitrify in one dimension of space and time and to become a fetish rather than dissolved in it.
With this awareness, an irreducible critical Rahner as P. Cavalcoli, can therefore afford to recognize the German theologian to have given even (that is, "accidentally") a positive contribution to the Council, But that nothing detracts from the substance of his thought heretical. He wrote Chesterton: "Since heresy is often not a simple falsehood; as said the same Thomas More, "There has never been a heretic who has only said false things". A heresy is a truth that hides all other truths'.
In conclusion, after thrashing of P. Ariel came the P carrot. Cavalcoli, perhaps because only by means of a vast theological and temporal perspective today are still unable to exercise a charitable and hopeful understanding for this season of the Church.
Avoidance of doubt: l ' "instead of melt in it" refers to the position of the progressive "heretics". In one and in the other case (liberals and conservatives) you come for different ways to identification of Truth and History, Being and Becoming, ie to a negation of Being in the Christian sense.
In my view, Father Ariel days ago wrote this article
http://isoladipatmos.com/dinanzi-ad-una-chiesa-visibile-affetta-da-una-decadenza-dottrinale-e-morale-irreversibile-e-necessario-aprire-quanto-prima-la-banca-del-seme/
and Father John Cavalcoli that a few days after he wrote this, you are simply … divided the task between them.
I'm too online and solidarity between them, Cavalcoli and Levi Gualdo, just read their articles (and I read them for years) to understand it.
And’ very typical of speculative minds with keen intelligence, offer the pros and cons, White and black.
And both, as always, they have fulfilled (My personal opinion) so dear to their task of priests and theologians.
Dear Don Francesco,
you understand exactly the meaning of the fraternal relationship and intimate collaboration between me and Father Ariel our doctrinal and pastoral ministry for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.
Remember us in prayer.