Conservation and progress

isoladipatmos

- Church news -

STORAGE AND PROGRESS

.

To resolve the current intra-ecclesial conflict between modernists and Lefebvre have to give each other these two essential factors of the ecclesial dynamism: preservation and progress.

.

Author
John Cavalcoli, o.p.

.

.

PDF format Print article

 

.

.

.

Rereading some texts of the morning meditations the Holy Father in the chapel of Domus Sanctae Martha, the 31 October 2017 - as reported the columnist de L'Osservatore Romano of 1 next November -, Pope asks, against the other: The Christians' really believe in the Holy Spirit "that is in them? And have the courage to "sow the seeds", to get involved, or take refuge in a "pastoral conservation ', that does not leave that "the Kingdom of God will grow"? It responds: "So many times we see that you prefer a pastoral preservation" rather than "let the United grow".

.

We would like some comments. It must be distinguished from conservation conservatism. Keep diligently and, jealously and the sacred deposit of divine Revelation, no compromises, without adding and without taking [cf Gal 3,15; AP 22,19] and be faithful to the cost of living is the absolute duty of every Catholic, first the bishops and the Pope.

.

conservatism, instead, which probably alludes to the Pope, It is a foolish and useless conservation. It is the store that is no longer needed, It is the cling or nearsightedness or laziness or fear or interest in ideas, morals, mores, habits, traditions outdated or abandoned by the Church, is the exchange just progress for modernism, get stuck on a historic day phase of the Church's journey towards the Kingdom, is close the eye of the fields are already white for harvest " [GV 4,35]; is close ear to the voice of the Spirit, who "renews the face of the earth", that "renew our minds" [RM 12,2] and day by day renews our inner man [cf. II Cor 4,16]. The Holy Spirit urges the Church to ensure progress, but in the sense indicated by these words of the Lord, He serves to remind us [GV 14,26]and then encourage us to make money.

.

Granted - I want to believe - the Pope to speak of conservatism and not of legitimate conservation, does not seem to correspond to truth, It seems like Pope Francis wants to insinuate, that there is a wide spread of conservatism, that nevertheless exists in Lefebvrians; but what now afflicts more and disturbs the Church have a much wider spread of modernism or a false progress and or a false interpretation of the renewal promoted by the Council. 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.

.

If Francis wants to be a reformer of the Holy See So begin with the ward or false stop those employees who are infected with Modernism and rahnerismo, and take very loyal employees and loyal to the papal Magisterium and enemies not only of lefebvrismo, but also of modernism, both open while the good sides of one and the other.

.

However, there is a certain stubborn, short-sighted and presumptuous conservatism that, under the pretext of fidelity to Sacred Tradition, accused the Popes after the Council to disown, and he would like to return to the doctrinal climate and pre-conciliar pastoral, as if Vatican II did not take place, forgetting that, When a council makes a doctrinal progress, as almost always happens, The Church, more enlightened by the Gospel and overcome certain mistakes, On the infallibility of his doctrine, never comes back, while it may happen that a new Council corrects a defective pastoral practice initiated by a preceding Council, or restore or recover certain pastoral practices abandoned by that Council, because of this plan, for the changing historical contingencies or the fallibility of the churchmen themselves, it may mutate or wrong and therefore can be corrected, after experiencing the adverse effects caused by the error.

.

Thus the Council, going to meet a need of the time in which it was celebrated, He insists on the pastoral renewal and gives about many directives, that touch all aspects of church life. But after fifty years of application of these directives, many observers and impartial pastors and lovers of the Church we have conducted for years now to make clear the fact that the pastoral reconcile, for some aspects, It needs a course correction, that perhaps only a new council or a great reformer Pope will implement.

.

This in no way means that we should go back in toto to the pre-council pastoral, it means keeping the pastoral achievements of the post-council - for example a healthy ecumenism and interreligious dialogue -, purifying them from certain buonistici excesses and too optimistic towards the modern world, so that today, for lack of vigilance of the bishops, we see an impressive return of modernism, much worse and more insidious than that of St. Pius X times, also because, while this had taken root only in the lower clergy and among theologians and exegetes, that infects the same body Bishops especially in Smart thin to form the rahnerismo.

.

All good Catholics, faithful and shepherds, You have now realized this enormous scam, except, I wonder why, the same modernist, which either fall from the clouds, or pretend they do not know or are deaf to appeals and warnings or contemptuously ignore the charges against them or reject them or disdained, poor slandered victims, from superfine hypocrites, persecute the courageous few who discover their plots.

.

The great pastoral problem today, It is no longer what it was imposed fifty years ago, as he commanded the Council, to abandon a pastoral too conservative, anachronistic, static, repetitive, too defensive, suspicious, fearful, suspicious and aggressive towards the modern world, indeed poorly known and sometimes misunderstood, for a renewed approach to benign modernity, open, fair, healthily critical, certainly prudent as the serpent, but also simple as the dove, knowing that the world reserves pitfalls, but also that the world created by God offers several values ​​to be recognized, to save, and to lead to Christ.

.

On the path of renewal, of becoming, change, the rejuvenation, development and progress has insisted, and it has gone very far in the past fifty years, and certainly true progress never end; but it has not always advanced in the right way, and more than advance, in many cases, You are deflected or one has strayed from the right path and fidelity to the real teachings of the Council; There is not always a moved with the necessary resourcefulness, moderation, caution and wisdom, in obedience to the guide of the Pontiffs or the doctrine of Catechism of the Catholic Church, indeed often falling into modernism Network, which it is a misleading approach to modernity, in which it is necessary to distinguish the wheat from the chaff, and instead the modernists have confused with one another.

.

What then today we must above all do to promote healthy, effective and balanced ministry, It suits this need of the hour, different and in some respects opposed to the historical situation, he had to face and solve the council, It is not so reproach conservatism, although then it may still exist, but it is that the Pope decides, finally, with boldness and courage, heedless of any quacking of modernists, to denounce the rampant modernism, far more dangerous and harmful than lefebvrismo or conservatism, considering the extensive damage that modernism has done in recent 50 year old. and he is making, under pretext of conciliar renewal, in the Church and in society. And here I note that since 1966 Maritain denounced the danger of modernism. It is not that Maritain was precisely a conservative. We should not insist unilaterally on developing leaving quietly preserving the deposit of faith. It is the opposite that needs to be done, after fifty years of progressive rhetoric, who ended up degenerating into partisan polemics against modernism and preservation.

.

The real future of the Church and of humanity

.

It must plant it once and for all with a relativism and historicism of Hegel's origin, reported several times by Pope Benedict XVI in the wake of the conviction modernist evolutionism made by St. Pius X. Becoming supposed to be. Its only makes sense in relation to the Absolute, and the story has an end only in the Lord report. Instead, we must find the principles and the absolute values ​​of reason and faith, now largely forgotten, neglected, misunderstood, incompresi, e skin disprezzat, among the very people who should keep them and insegnarceli, including bishops. Values ​​that instead have always been taught and always will be taught for the salvation of mankind, by sound philosophy, as rational, and the Church, as values ​​of faith. We must know for sure what these values ​​of reason and of faith, We need to know why are these and not others, It is necessary to distinguish them from the subjective views and deciduous. We must distinguish dogmatism and fundamentalism by the certainty of faith and rational certainty.

.

We should be able to distinguish the immutable values, immortal and incorruptible from those that mutate and become corrupt. Necessary to distinguish the immutable truth and supra-temporal and temporal those mutable, what is true today, it is true always and will always be true - philosophical truths, moral theological - what is true today and will be tomorrow under certain conditions or historical or legal institutions or political or ecclesial realities.

.

It is with reason and faith that we know what is right and what is faith. At this point we do not underfoot quicksand, but the rock on which to build the house, the firm ground on which to rest and walk. We know what are the values ​​that will never fail. We know what is the meaning of existence and of life. We know who we are, where we come from and where we can, we want and need to go. We know that God exists. We know who to trust. We know why the good and evil. We know that there is no middle way between yes and no. We know our vocation and our duty. We see our eternal destiny and we can pursue it with hope, perseverance and courage, knowing they will not be disappointed. We know that we can do it. We know what are the values ​​and goods, for which it is worth sacrificing our lives, we know what are the values ​​on which we can not give in, even at the cost of life. We know what is martyrdom. We know we can sell everything, negotiate on everything, fiddling around, outside of our soul. So we buy all. We know it is impossible to salvation without these values, so these are the values ​​that guarantee the salvation. If we abandon delivery that was given to us by Christ, considering it outdated or aged or no longer valid or no longer relevant, for future invented by us in the idea that it is the Holy Spirit, we are not innovators, we make no real progress, but we are traitors, deserters and faithless; we are no longer under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Demon ma.

.

Instead it is necessary that we always keep before the eyes del'intelletto and heart the values ​​and the absolute property, perennial and unchanging, God's Word does not pass - The word of God remains forever - that illuminates our path, It shows us our duties, us to experience the divine law, inflames the heart, It pushes us to holiness - the love of Christ compels us —, correcting our mistakes, forgives our sins, It leads to real progress, founded on divine truth always known better in the same sense and the same meaning.

.

The appeal to "tradition" to know what is faith and what is not, in itself is not enough, and it is even illegal and wicked, if you claim to appeal directly and subjectively to Tradition, to contest or contradict or "fix" the doctrinal teaching of a Pope or a Council, as they often are the guardians and interpreters supreme and definitive Tradition.

.

The error then worsens, whether between the content of Tradition does not discern which ones are truly permanent, inviolable and insuperable, and which it is old and outdated content. Tradition is not a matter of time duration, but the intrinsic value of truth, over the time, the content of the Tradition. We must be able to distinguish in the Tradition that is related to time and historical contingencies passing, what belongs essentially the Eternal and the Absolute, ie the institutional will of Christ ("Divine right") - for example the sacraments - which can never be, It never will be changed or abandoned by the Church.

.

Thus it is not sufficient in every case to say: "gives 2000 years' - provided that you know for certain - "has always been thought or done so", because instead it is said that we should continue to do so forever. There is a past that is now past dead and buried. It would make sense to remove a corpse from the grave like the restoration of the values ​​of the past. What is rightly passed, it is good that remains of the past, otherwise it would be like trying to bring back those "things past" [II Cor 5,19], of which St. Paul speaks. Better still an ancient truth that a new error.

.

There are indeed compared to Tradition firsts, never before existed. If, however, the Church establishes new things unknown to the previous Tradition, such as women's ministries or The new order of Mass, this is not a break with Tradition, but simply it means that those things were contained implicitly in Tradition.

.

These are the lines of true "breakthrough prophetic", the real reform we expect of Pope Francis. Of course he should not listen to extollers time acti, and it does well to arguirli, but above all do not listen to flatterers and false friends, but those who really loves, who urges him to join teaching and pastoral, conservation and development, continuity and progress, loyalty and inventiveness, even if the true friend can have the tone of the warning or reprimand. The "revolution" populist, reckless and low-priced to let dittatorelli ambitious, bellied and demagogues Africa and Latin America, without lowering its sacred dignity of Vicar of Christ.

.

If the Pope wants to be father of the poor, as it is clear from its intentions, imitate his Lord Jesus Christ and the countless Holy Fathers of the poor and let stand the Don Lorenzo Milani, i Fidel Castro Helder Câmara gli. The oppressed are not only immigrants. We invite the Holy Father to exercise his mercy with the crushed by the modernists, do not have too much confidence with the modernist oppressors.

.

It is true that the lefevriani also speak of "modernists", but they distort the meaning of the concept, when they accuse of "modernism" the Papacy post-conciliar and doctrines of the Council, confuse progress with modernism or Maritain with Rahner or confuse Mass new world order Dinner with Lutheran. Continues below the journalist: "Reality, indeed, It is that "wheat" - words of the Pope - "has the power within, the yeast has the power inside ", and also "the power of the Kingdom of God comes from within; the strength comes from within, the growth comes from within ' ".

.

There is no doubt about the truth of what the Pope says here. Only the Gospel image of the wheat grain is not the only image that Christ offers to His Word. No doubt it throughout history, always comes better known by the Church in the same sense and the same meaning, as St. Vincent of Lerins, with the development of the Church's dogmatic.

.

To clarify the issue of the conservative function of pastoral and avoid the conservatism, necessary to refer to statements or comparisons of Christ, in which emerges the durability, stability, the immutabilità, incorruptibility, eternity of God's Word, like when, for instance, it is compared to a. "treasure" [cf. ], to a "precious pearl" [cf. ], a "drachma" [cf. ] or a "rock" [cf. ]. It is a word that "does not pass" [cf. ]. It is a word of "eternal life" [cf. ]. The precious things are carefully preserved and jealously. It is a principle of good sense, that everyone understands. And how much more so it must be kept intact and undamaged, at any cost, without change, without corrections, without adding and without taking, although with continuous explanations, the divine message of salvation, who assures us and promises us eternal life.

.

Certain, the Gospel message is not like a perishable food, which is corrupt, if it is not well guarded and preserved. In fact, it is not afraid of the wear of time or corrosive agents. It is made of corruptible matter, but it is pure immortal spirit. It is a treasure that, though well guarded, "the thief can not steal and moths can not break '. Who can be corrupted is the possessor, who is unfaithful, negligent and neglected in the store and keep it, and then he can lose. Here apostasy. It can conceive evil and can travisarlo. That's heresy. It can hurt administer. Here human respect, sloth and negligence of the pastors.

.

He continues the columnist: "Similarly, said Francis, "If we want to preserve for us the grain, It will be only a grain. If we do not mix with life, with flour of life, the yeast, It will remain only the yeast "". Here the Pope touches an aspect of conservatism. He obviously does not deny that needs store grain: otherwise, if you come to donate? We give what we have carefully preserved. But, If values ​​are to be donated, and this is precisely the case of God's Word, although it must donate. They are the very words of Jesus: "If the grain of wheat does not die, it remains only; but if it dies, it produces much fruit » [LC 12,24].

.

How to tune preservation and progress

.

It can advance the living being that has its own stable identity. In fact the real progress is to improve the conditions of the subject. The course assumes that the preservation of the subject. It is true that life is movement, it is becoming, it is changing. But why is life indeed be development or explanation in the right direction of the existing entity. The progress of the movement must be healthy, that is orderly and well-guided and non-pathological, disorganized or incoherent. Even a madman is full of movement, but no one envies his condition.

.

The subject that divides or changes by denying their identity namely by ceasing to keep himself, start a movement that does not involve progress, but dissolution or disintegration. It is the process that leads to death. It is true that the dead no longer exercises the vital activities. However, the stiffness of death does not exclude at all in becoming a corpse which is its dissolution. So the sheer becoming, the simple change or mutate is not a good in itself. All becoming has a direction.

.

Not to be trusted to a becoming confused and contradictory. To test whether this is progress, not corruption, We have to see where tents. If it tends to better progress; it tends to worse setback. It should be short, it is becoming, the development or enhancement or improvement of a subject who is supposed to be maintained in its own identity. Otherwise, becoming is not life, my dead, It is not progress, but retrogression, not evolution but involution, but no progress relegation, not decay.

.

The concern to preserve their healthy alleged identity, It is a very legitimate concern and dutiful, that has nothing to do with conservatism do not know what "closing another". It lacks in masochists subjects and d It corresponds to what in the animal kingdom is self-preservation, without which that animal would soon be destroyed by adverse agents.

.

It is necessary that the Pope, which supreme guardian, supporter, guarantor and moderator, concord and peace in the Church, to assume its responsibilities. It must ask yourself in the position it deserves fair trial, centering on the universal principles of the Church, so that both sides conflict - lefevriani and modernists - can recognize themselves as Catholic.

.

It should be, Secondly, that recognizes the part of truth and justice - mentioned in this article -, present and carried forward by both parties. The two sides, side by side relationship, fit perfectly, as the two halves of a sphere broken, because God created them just because, unite, do one thing, which it is the same reality of the Church.

.

The Pope must make every effort so that the two sides meet each other and approached, overcoming old grudges, ODĪ. and mistrust. It must abandon its current propensity for modernists, otherwise it can not be expected to elicit the confidence of Lefebvre and the modernists remain confirmed in their errors and take on an arrogant attitude, which will not lead to any result. The Pope must make sure that Lefebvre feel understood and appreciated in their good reasons, What the Pope has so far not done, indeed falling into contempt and nell'insulto. They, but, from them, They must strive to accommodate confidently all the doctrines of the Council, as he urged them repeatedly Pope Benedict XVI and, consequently, the following papal teaching until Papa Francesco.

.

As for the modernists, the Pope must follow the same method applied to Lefebvre: recognize the good sides and correct defects. Good side of the modernists, that has escaped the Lefebvrians, who misunderstood, is the attention to modern thinking and a willingness to modernization and progress of the Church. But if the Church is relatively easy to correct the errors of Lefebvre, after all few in number and fairly compact, a fact of doctrines and morals, gigantic undertaking, and above the forces of the Church it appears the work of correction of errors of the modernists, and because they are scattered throughout the Church, among pastors and the faithful, and because mistakes are very varied and touch on all the dogmas of the faith. 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.

.

However, a point of agreement between the Pope, Lefebvre and the modernists you might find around the problem Rahner. Indeed, while the modernists consider Rahner their greatest theologian, Lefebvre have sharply Rahner identified in the greatest danger for the Church today. At this point the Pope - it's about time - should decide with courage, come what may, to condemn the errors Rahner, giving a just satisfaction to Lefebvre and to all lovers of truth and of the Church. However, things are not so simple, because really Rahner gave a contribution to the doctrines of the Council. It is at this point that Lefebvre pass from the wrong and so must the Pope correct them, because they consider it as a modernist's contribution to the Council rahneriano. From here their rejection of such doctrines regarded as moderniste, which is false, because Lefebvre interpret those doctrines of modernism in the sense rahneriano; and instead there Rahner gave a positive contribution, otherwise it would not have been approved by Council. If the Pope will be able to show to Lefebvre and the modernists the points on which they meet each other and if one more he will accept the papal corrections, Peace will be made.

.

The Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary sustain the Pope in its leadership in the Church's mission in the truth, unity, in holiness, in a healthy pluralism and harmony, in a renewed evangelization, that enlarges the boundaries of the visible Church, vinca forces hostile to it, religions convert to Christ, reacquaint the separated brethren to the Holy Mother Church, showing the world the face of just God vindicates the humble, merciful comforter of the afflicted, liberator of the oppressed, conqueror of sin and death.

.

Varazze, 14 September 2018

.

.

.

«You will know the truth and the truth will set you free» [GV 8,32],
but bring, spread and defend the truth not only of
risks but also the costs. Help us supporting this Island
with your offers through the secure Paypal system:



or you can use the bank account:
They were IT 08 (J) 02008 32974 001436620930
in this case, send us an email warning, because the bank
It does not provide your email and we could not send you a
thanksgiving [ isoladipatmos@gmail.com ]

.

.

.

.

.

About isoladipatmos

See all posts by isoladipatmos 

40 thoughts on "Conservation and progress”

  1. 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?

    1. Caro Lucio,

      Il divenire confuso e contraddittorio è quello provocato e invocato dai modernisti. The Pope, come Successore di Pietro, ci guida sulla via del Vangelo. However, ha ogni tanto certe espressioni, che possono farlo sembrare un modernista. E soprattutto il suo difetto è che egli non corregge i modernisti, non risponde a chi chiede chiarimenti sul suo insegnamento e non smentisce le cattive interpretazioni delle sue parole.

  2. 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

    1. Fabius was,

      occorre conciliare la tradizione non con la modernità presa in blocco, ma con quanto di buono c’è in essa al vaglio del Vangelo. È questo il vaglio che ha fatto il Concilio. Per questo il Concilio è tuttora attuale, perché occorre continuare a fare questo vaglio nei confronti dei nuovi problemi che sorgono, e che non esistevano ai tempi del Concilio, come per esempio la diffusione dell’Islam o della massoneria o la questione degli immigrati. Non è quindi il Concilio che ha fallito, ma la falsa riforma conciliare promossa da Rahner e da altri.

      Io non cerco di conciliare la tradizione con la modernità presa in blocco, ma solo con quella parte di sana modernità, che si concilia con la tradizione. Infatti la vita della Chiesa e per conseguenza la vita del cristiano nasce dall’esperienza della tradizione, per la quale egli conserva i valori perenni, li approfondisce continuamente, li fa fruttare, li sviluppa, li migliora, li fa progredire e li ammoderna, senza mutarli nella sostanza, ma conservandoli intatti nella loro immutabile identità.
      Rahner, come tutti gli eretici, accoglie o insegna alcune verità. È questo l’aspetto positivo del pensiero rahneriano – non sono certo le sue eresie – che ha dato un contributo valido agli insegnamenti del Concilio.
      Considerare il Concilio un mezzo fallimento sarebbe una tragedia, perché in realtà i suoi insegnamenti dottrinali sono preziosi. Se ha un difetto, questo tocca la parte pastorale, dove riscontriamo un certo ingenuo buonismo, come se tutti gli uomini fossero in buona fede e di buona volontà, e un certo ingenuo ottimismo nei confronti del mondo, quasi come se in esso non vi fossero le conseguenze del peccato originale e l’azione del demonio.

      Da qui viene un atteggiamento troppo benevolo verso le altre religioni, che trascura di ricordare i loro lati negativi. Ciò ha dato occasione a quell’indifferentismo relativista, che Lei denuncia e che sembra presente nella predicazione di Papa Francesco. Ma in realtà questo errore non è autorizzato dal Concilio, il quale ribadisce il primato del cristianesimo sulle altre religioni.
      Tenendo conto di questo e senza andarvi contro, la dottrina della libertà religiosa, rettamente intesa, è da accettare tranquillamente, perché nulla ha a che vedere col relativismo, ma semplicemente ordina allo Stato di non disturbare e non interferire nelle convinzioni religiose delle comunità appartenenti a diverse religioni, presenti nel suo territorio, purchè esse non mettano in percolo il bene comune e la convivenza civile. Non appartiene allo Stato, ma alla Chiesa stabilire qual è la vera religione.

    2. Fabius was,

      occorre conciliare la tradizione non con la modernità presa in blocco, ma con quanto di buono c’è in essa al vaglio del Vangelo. È questo il vaglio che ha fatto il Concilio. Per questo il Concilio è tuttora attuale, perché occorre continuare a fare questo vaglio nei confronti dei nuovi problemi che sorgono, e che non esistevano ai tempi del Concilio, come per esempio la diffusione dell’Islam o della massoneria o la questione degli immigrati. Non è quindi il Concilio che ha fallito, ma la falsa riforma conciliare promossa da Rahner e da altri.

      Io non cerco di conciliare la tradizione con la modernità presa in blocco, ma solo con quella parte di sana modernità, che si concilia con la tradizione. Infatti la vita della Chiesa e per conseguenza la vita del cristiano nasce dall’esperienza della tradizione, per la quale egli conserva i valori perenni, li approfondisce continuamente, li fa fruttare, li sviluppa, li migliora, li fa progredire e li ammoderna, senza mutarli nella sostanza, ma conservandoli intatti nella loro immutabile identità.

      Rahner, come tutti gli eretici, accoglie o insegna alcune verità. È questo l’aspetto positivo del pensiero rahneriano – non sono certo le sue eresie – che ha dato un contributo valido agli insegnamenti del Concilio.

      Considerare il Concilio un mezzo fallimento sarebbe una tragedia, perché in realtà i suoi insegnamenti dottrinali sono preziosi. Se ha un difetto, questo tocca la parte pastorale, dove riscontriamo un certo ingenuo buonismo, come se tutti gli uomini fossero in buona fede e di buona volontà, e un certo ingenuo ottimismo nei confronti del mondo, quasi come se in esso non vi fossero le conseguenze del peccato originale e l’azione del demonio.

      Da qui viene un atteggiamento troppo benevolo verso le altre religioni, che trascura di ricordare i loro lati negativi. Ciò ha dato occasione a quell’indifferentismo relativista, che Lei denuncia e che sembra presente nella predicazione di Papa Francesco. Ma in realtà questo errore non è autorizzato dal Concilio, il quale ribadisce il primato del cristianesimo sulle altre religioni.
      Tenendo conto di questo e senza andarvi contro, la dottrina della libertà religiosa, rettamente intesa, è da accettare tranquillamente, perché nulla ha a che vedere col relativismo, ma semplicemente ordina allo Stato di non disturbare e non interferire nelle convinzioni religiose delle comunità appartenenti a diverse religioni, presenti nel suo territorio, purchè esse non mettano in percolo il bene comune e la convivenza civile. Non appartiene allo Stato, ma alla Chiesa stabilire qual è la vera religione.

  3. 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"?

    1. … 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?

      1. … 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.

        1. Caro Don Ciro,

          il rispetto per la Tradizione non esclude la facoltà del Papa di introdurre novità assolute, che non siano in contrasto con la Tradizione. Il nuovo non è necessariamente in contrasto con l’antico, ma vi può essere un certo antico – e questa è la Tradizione – che può dar spazio per un certo nuovo. E un esempio di ciò è appunto l’introduzione dei ministeri femminili, i quali non negano l’esistenza dei ministeri ordinati propri del maschio, ma vi si aggiungono, così come il femminile si aggiunge al maschile e non lo nega.

          Lo stesso dicasi dell’eventuale sacerdozio a uomini sposati, che del resto esiste già nelle Chiese Orientali. Non negherebbe il valore permanente e preminente del sacerdozio celibatario, ma vi si aggiungerebbe come forma diversa di essere sacerdoti.

          Diversa è la questione del diaconato femminile. Qui occorre distinguere. Il progetto promosso dal Papa non è assolutamente quello di istituire un diaconato come primo grado del sacramento dell’Ordine – questa sì che sarebbe una rottura con la Tradizione –, ma di ripristinare in forma nuova l’antico diaconato femminile, che era e resta un ministero laicale.

      2. Dear Stephen,

        questa retorica fu segretamente preparata, con abile finzione, da un’organizzazione internazionale col segreto appoggio del mondo comunista e della massoneria, già all’interno dei lavori del Concilio. Durante i lavori del Concilio i complottisti si mascherarono sotto l’etichetta di «progressisti», così da non generare sospetti e si acquistarono la stima di molti vescovi. Un difetto del Concilio fu quello di non organizzare un robusto sistema di difesa contro l’eresia, perché si ebbe troppa fiducia che non ce ne fosse bisogno.
        Finito il Concilio, Modernists, sicuri dell’impunità a causa del prestigio che si erano acquistato con l’inganno, uscirono spavaldamente allo scoperto, dando ad intendere a molti di essere stati loro i protagonisti del rinnovamento conciliare. A questo punto i vescovi, per non fare la figura dei retrogradi anticonciliari, presi in contropiede, non ebbero il coraggio di denunciarli. Purtroppo gli stessi Papi del post-concilio, attorniati e ingannati da questa massa chiassosa e crescente di finti progressisti, che per un certo verso, the rest, avevano dato un contributo valido al Concilio, non ebbero la forza di fermarli. Queste sono le origini della tragedia di oggi, con un Papa che non riesce a governare la nave nella tempesta, vantandosi di essere un «rivoluzionario». Io ho personalmente vissuto tutti questi avvenimenti, avendo 77 year old.

        Oggi bisogna chiarire ai giovani queste cose.

        Thank you

    2. Dear Antonio,

      Pope Francis, as Teacher of the Faith, avrebbe a disposizione i criteri per fare questa distinzione, but unfortunately, frastornato dal suo desiderio di successo, suggestionato da collaboratori modernisti e confuso dal suo carattere umorale, pare che non ne sia capace.

  4. 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)

    1. 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

      1. Caro Luciano,

        le mie critiche e la mia difesa del Papa non battono sullo stesso terreno, per cui io non mi contraddico affatto. Indeed, se da una parte sono libero di criticarlo nella sua condotta morale e nel suo governo della Chiesa, perché qui egli può peccare – e lo dimostra il memoriale Viganò -, as Teacher of the Faith, egli possiede inammissibilmente da Cristo un dono di infallibilità, nonostante il linguaggio a volte ambiguo e disonesto, per cui nel campo delle verità di fede non può ingannarsi, né può ingannare.

        Io critico pertanto questo Papa per la sua imprudenza e per la sua visione ristretta della santità, che si limita alla considerazione degli operatori sociali o eventualmente di agitatori politici, lasciando fuori mistici, contemplativi, monks, eremiti, Philosophy, theology, magistrates, militari, letterati, artists, poeti e scienziati, oltre all’ingenuità o negligenza di non informarsi di quanto hanno realmente fatto certe persone che egli ammira. That said, non possiamo negare, as did Luther, che egli sia il Successore di Pietro e quindi non possiamo negargli il rispetto che gli è dovuto come tale. Similarly, S.Caterina da Siena rimproverava il Papa proprio per richiamarlo al corretto compimento di quell’ufficio petrino, del quale dobbiamo avere sommo rispetto.

    2. Cara Suor Claudia,

      una Causa di Beatificazione che viene iniziata non è detto che giunga in porto, perché nel corso delle indagini possono emergere relativamente al Servo di Dio fatti scandalosi o cattivi esempi o testimonianze contrarie, che dissuadono dal proseguire.

  5. 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.

    1. Dear Paul,

      lefevriani e modernisti non sono due entità astratte come sono la tesi e l’antitesi della dialettica hegeliana. È chiaro che se è vero A, non può essere vero non-A. Ma le cose nel caso presente non sono così semplici. Lefevriani e modernisti sono due realtà umane ed ecclesiali storiche, concrete e collettive, coi loro lati buoni e lati cattivi, come sempre succede nelle realtà umane. Non si tratta di unire il vero col falso. Ma il Papa, invece di coccolare continuamente i modernisti e di strapazzare i lefevriani, should, redarguendo i difetti degli uni e degli altri, raccogliere i valori che si trovano negli uni e negli altri, perchè sempre un vero s’accorda con un altro vero.

  6. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. Caro Don Pino,

        fai bene ad attenerti a quanto dispone la Family company, because, as I said, the note 351 of The joy, che parla al condizionale, non è una vera legge in vigore, ma solo un’ipotesi di legge. Ora una legge non si esprime al condizionale ⦋«si potrebbe»⦌, ma all’indicativo o all’imperativo.

    2. Dear Paul,

      Lei fa bene a fare come fà. Papa Francesco nella love joy ⦋nota 351⦌ non ha affatto dato il permesso della Comunione a coniugi nelle sue condizioni, ma ha semplicemente detto che potrebbe darlo in futuro. Ma finora non l’ha fatto. Quindi quei preti che danno la Comunione a queste coppie, disobbediscono al Papa.

      Quanto a voi, avete come punto di riferimento il disposto del n.84 della Family company, in conformità col quale, nel compimento dei vostri doveri cristiani, potete esser certi di vivere in grazia.

  7. 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"

    1. Caro Leoluca,

      Il Papa ha avuto da Cristo il compito di garantire, fondare, assicurare, promuovere nella Chiesa l’unità, la pace e la concordia fra le sue varie componenti e tendenze. Pope Francis, benché per diritto e incarico divino abbia questo ufficio, non lo esercita con le dovute prudenza, justice, diligenza, carità ed imparzialità, but, forse per la sua sete di successo, favorisce indebitamente i modernisti concedendo loro un potere esorbitante e maltratta i lefevriani tenendoli lontano dalla partecipazione alla direzione della Chiesa. Egli è nel contempo colpevole e vittima di questo sistema che egli stesso ha creato.

  8. "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?

    1. Dear Simone,

      Io non giudico il Papa in base a quello che pare a me, ma in base a ciò che la Chiesa stessa insegna sui doveri del Papa. Se il Papa ritiene bene ciò che io indico come male, egli non agisce contro il mio parere, ma contro i doveri che gli sono imposti da Cristo e dalla Chiesa.

  9. 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)

    1. Dear Martina,

      sono dell’idea che il Papa non sia solo colpevole di essersi circondato di collaboratori adulatori, corrotti, astuti ed eretici, ma che egli, per la sua ingenuità, ambizione ed imprudenza, ne sia anche vittima, so that, se non compie il suo dovere di guida sicura della Chiesa, non è solo per colpa sua, ma anche dei malfattori che lo ingannano e lo bloccano.

  10. 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.

    1. Caro Salvo,

      è vero che i modernisti si sentono potenti e sono potenti. Ma sanno che il loro potere è fondato sulla menzogna e sulla violenza. Sanno di essere un corpo estraneo nella Chiesa e di avere contro i buoni cattolici. Certo il Papa è cedevole nei loro confronti, ma con ciò egli non sta assolvendo al suo dovere di custodire il gregge di Cristo, Although, forse ingannato dagli stessi modernisti, crede di far bene, anche per il successo che ottiene, al quale del resto è troppo attaccato.
      Ma il potere dei modernisti non è così tranquillo come Lei crede, lo sanno che Cristo è contro di loro. Oggi la lobby modernista è scossa dalle fondamenta dal tremendo scandalo denunciato dal memoriale di S.E. Mons.Carlo Maria Viganò, che ha coinvolto il Papa stesso e che ha suscitato indignazione contro di loro in tutta la Chiesa. For this, essi cercano affannosamente ed irosamente di mantenersi a galla con le invettive, la calunnie e le persecuzioni, intravvedendo, disperati, seppur ancora arroganti, che la loro fine è prossima.

  11. 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.

    1. Caro Don Francesco,

      Il Concilio certamente non si è limitato a fare quello che ho detto, ma ha proposto un ammodernamento, una riforma ed un avanzamento della Chiesa, così da renderla più efficace evangelizzatrice del mondo moderno, taking, in the light of the Gospel, quanto di buono c’è nella modernità e respingendo il cattivo.

      Se il Vaticano II non ha dato gli splendidi frutti che dette il Concilio di Trento, ciò non è dovuto agli insegnamenti e alle direttive del Vaticano II in se stessi, ma al fatto che al Concilio ha fatto seguito un fortissimo, insidiosissimo ed inaspettato rigurgito di modernismo, mascherato da «progressismo», che i Papi del post-concilio, per quanto Santi, non sono stati capaci di frenare.
      Il Papa attuale, and then, anzichè correggere alcuni difetti pastorali del Concilio, come per esempio una certa tendenza buonistica e troppo ottimista sul mondo, li ha aggravati col suo equivoco misericordismo, per cui siamo giunti alla situazione attuale.

  12. 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

    1. Dear Andrea,

      il fenomeno di vescovi che non vigilano è ormai vecchio di cinquant’anni. However, prima di Papa Francesco abbiamo avuto Papi Santi, i quali hanno cercato di frenare l’avanzata del modernismo, e per questo si sono sforzati di vigilare sui vescovi, benchè con scarso successo. Il Papa attuale, instead, unfortunately, che è troppo benevolo verso i modernisti, ci dà dei vescovi ancora peggiori.

  13. 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

    1. Cara Luisella,

      Papa Benedetto denunciò quei difetti pastorali del Concilio, ai quali ho fatto cenno sopra, pur confermando la validità delle sue dottrine. Egli non ha usato il termine «modernismo», ma ha usato espressioni equivalenti, come quando ha parlato di diffusione del soggettivismo e del relativismo, di falsa esegesi biblica, di filosofie irrazionalistiche, di «ermeneutica della rottura», di crisi generalizzata della fede, di «sporcizia» nella Chiesa e quando da Prefetto della Congregazione per la dottrina della fede condannò molti errori modernisti, especially rahneriani.

  14. 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)

    1. Cara Professoressa,

      Lei accenna opportunamente ad un aspetto essenziale del cristianesimo: il riconoscimento delle nostre colpe, che ci porta al pentimento, alla richiesta di perdono a Dio e ai fratelli, ottenendo con ciò la divina misericordia, che ci spinge alla riparazione ed alla correzione dei nostri difetti. In questo processo di conversione non è proibito accusare il fratello di qualche colpa, a patto che ce ne siamo liberati noi per primi. Anzi è cosa utile per lui, affinchè faccia penitenza e per la comunità, affinchè eviti di seguirne l’esempio. Thus, se tra lefevriani e modernisti corrono accuse reciproche, ciò non è necessariamente cosa sconveniente che rompa la carità reciproca, a patto che le accuse siano ben fondate e costruttive.

      Si realizza infatti in tal modo la correzione fraterna reciproca, fosse anche nei riguardi del Papa, benché egli resti sempre il supremo custode dell’unità fraterna, ed arbitro nelle controversie, e nel comporre le divisioni, chiamato da Cristo a creare la pace, la concordia e la riconciliazione tra i fratelli.

  15. Ai critici dell’articolo di Padre Cavalcoli sfugge lo sfondo teologico nel quale il suo intervento è stato inquadrato. Senza tale consapevolezza si rischia di restare irretiti nella sola e confusionaria dimensione del Divenire e di cadere, by reaction, nello stesso errore di chi si vuole combattere. Sul piano pratico e contingente (per quanto questo “contingente” abbia dimensioni storiche ormai rilevanti) P. Cavalcoli ha messo bene in chiaro che “Volendo fare un paragone tratto dalla nettezza urbana, il far pulizia in campo lefebvriano sta al far pulizia in campo modernisti, così come il far pulizia in una città svizzera sta al curare la nettezza urbana di Napoli.” Quindi P. Cavalcoli non vive affatto su Marte. Se la legione dei progressisti “eretici” vuole mettere la Verità al servizio della Storia, la sparuta pattuglia dei tradizionalisti “eretici” finisce per negare la Storia in nome della Verità, ma così facendo ottengono un risultato opposto e tuttavia ad immagine e somiglianza di quello prodotto dai primi, un risultato che nega la stessa metafisica alla quale si appellano: la Verità finisce per vetrificarsi nella sola dimensione spazio-temporale e a diventare feticcio…

    …la Verità finisce per vetrificarsi nella sola dimensione spazio-temporale e a diventare feticcio anziché sciogliersi in essa.
    Con tale consapevolezza, un critico irriducibile di Rahner come P. Cavalcoli, può perciò permettersi di riconoscere al teologo tedesco di aver dato anche (cioè “accidentalmente”) un contributo positivo al Concilio, che nulla toglie però alla sostanza ereticale del suo pensiero. Scrisse Chesterton: «Giacché un’eresia spesso non è una semplice menzogna; come disse lo stesso Tommaso Moro, “Non c’è mai stato un eretico che abbia detto solo cose false”. Un’eresia è una verità che nasconde tutte le altre verità».

    In conclusion, dopo le legnate di P. Ariel è arrivata la carota di P. Cavalcoli, forse perché solo per mezzo di una vasta prospettiva teologica e temporale oggi si riesce ancora ad esercitare una caritatevole e speranzosa comprensione nei confronti di questa stagione della Chiesa.

    A scanso di equivoci: l’ “anziché sciogliersi in essa” è riferito alla posizione dei progressisti “eretici”. In one and in the other case (progressisti e tradizionalisti) si arriva per vie differenti ad un’identificazione di Verità e Storia, di Essere e Divenire, cioè ad una negazione dell’Essere nel senso cristiano.

    1. In my view, Padre Ariel che giorni fa ha scritto questo articolo

      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/

      e Padre Giovanni Cavalcoli che pochi giorni dopo ha scritto questo, si sono semplicemente … divisi il compito tra di loro.
      Sono troppo in linea e solidali tra di loro, Cavalcoli e Levi di Gualdo, basta leggere i loro articoli (e io li leggo da anni) per capirlo.
      And’ molto tipico delle menti speculative dotate di acuta intelligenza, offrire il pro e il contro, il bianco e il nero.
      E tutti e due, as always, hanno adempiuto (opinione mia personale) in modo egregio al loro compito di sacerdoti e teologi.

      1. Caro Don Francesco,

        hai compreso esattamente il senso del rapporto di fraterna ed intima collaborazione tra me e Padre Ariel nel nostro ministero dottrinale e pastorale per il bene della Chiesa e la salvezza delle anime.

        Ricordaci nella preghiera.

Leave a Reply