From porn-theology of Avvenire ambiguity of the Argentine Bishops which can not produce clear and unequivocal pontifical magisterium

THEOLOGY OF THE PORN FUTURE Ambiguity ARGENTINE BISHOPS THAT CAN NOT MAKE CLEAR AND PAPAL UNEQUIVOCAL MAGISTERIUM

.

The publication of the Roman Pontiff response to Argentine bishops on By Janet He is doing rejoice modernists, but they do not realize that the issue is not entirely resolved, because unfortunately, the papal ruling, as useful and worthy of consideration, not yet full clarity about the vexed question, which is always the: Maybe if they can or not cases where the divorced and remarried may be admitted to Confession and Holy Communion; but above all what they are and what may be, these cases.

.

.

Authors
John Cavalcoli, o.p. – Ariel S. Levi Gualdo

.

.

PDF format Print article

.

.

.

John Cavalcoli, o.p. e Ariel S. Levi Gualdo had peckish, but then from the reserve of the columns of the newspaper Porn-theological of Future, he is served, perhaps providential way, an improvident antelope …

his Future there was an article that deals with the complex topic of Communion for divorced and remarried couples [text: WHO]. Duole to say, but even a group of wives in a row under the helmets of the hairdresser waiting to finish the shutter speed for the permanent, They treat most of the chores in a similar way to gossip after reading an article about Novella 2000. Valutino the readers as this is inconvenient for anyone who is responsible to sign the official journal articles of the Italian Episcopal Conference.

.

We must acknowledge that the dangers of the poor columnist, mostly due to the way he ignores not only the basics of fundamental theology and Catholic morality, but also the history of the Church and the papacy, It has made serious right from the container in which his words have been enclosed before being launched to the public. Indeed, directly by the newspaper of the Italian Bishops to be granted to such person to confuse the faithful, It is a matter of such gravity before which the living members of our increasingly fearful bishops should not be silent. Because it is the newspaper of the Italian Bishops of the columnist, about a letter written answer to the Argentinean Bishops by the reigning Pontiff [letter in original and in translation: WHO] states: "Words hardly equivocal, but they had made up their noses at the usual time of the defenders was ".

.

Recall that this newspaper now Porn-theological, publisher is the Italian Episcopal Conference. Therefore one would expect that someone, starting right from his Eminence the Cardinal President, informing that this columnist with similar phrase he made himself the public insult of the teaching of all the Popes of the post-conciliar. Let me be clear: not the Popes of the "trembling" and perhaps in his opinion "stagnant" pre-conciliar, but just all the Pontiffs who have succeeded on the Chair of the Blessed Apostle Peter after Vatican II. For he, with sour sentence on "defenders of the time that it was", He attacked the doctrine of men of God who have very specific names: Blessed Pope Paul VI, the Holy Father John Paul II, Venerable Pope Benedict XVI. But maybe, columnist for the poor, beatifications and canonizations, before this pontificate steeped in a merciful holiness that had never been seen before in two thousand years of history, could count done little or nothing. Urge therefore be explained to the poor articolista that when it beatific or canonize a Pope, It is first of all held their own in the great stature of that of his teaching ... "yore". Indeed, Blessed Pope Pius IX, It not beatified for having done to raise the banks of the Tiber and restored sewer, thus avoiding that during the rains the poor inhabitants of the then ultra popular Trastevere neighborhood they were with rivers of shit for the streets. In the same way, in any future, It will not be proposed for the honors of the altars the reigning pontiff to have it installed, in the bright present time is that - as opposed to from the poor articolista of Future the "olden days" -, toilets and showers for the homeless under Bernini's colonnade, least of all for having given interviews to Eugenio Scalfari, or he invited a son of Lucifer as Marco Pannella to 'hold on', or to have defined the abortion proud and unrepentant Emma Bonino as a "great Italian". Because not only, all this, It is not supreme magisterium, because there is more and wanting to worse: if anything it was magisterium, in that case, for the honor of the Church of Christ and for the honor of the same holy Petrine ministry, it would be good to forget it as soon as possible. It is not possible to forget most solemn acts of the Magisterium of Blessed Pope Pius IX, many of whom hold up as theological pillars, the doctrinal and dogmatic structure of Vatican II, because it is "the time that he was" born as long as it is, regardless of the ungodliness laid by the poor in the newspaper columnist pornotheological the Italian Episcopal Conference, all, repeat, in total silence fearful of our bishops.

.

This article penned by a person that manifests itself lacks the basic philosophical knowledge, historical, theological and juridical, This concluding sentence: "A much essential step to remove The joy of love from the round of sterile polemics and place fruitfully in the reality of everyday life '. This statement is equivalent to saying: for half a century was permissible to attack the teaching of Blessed Pope Paul VI, pubblicargli behind Dutch Catechism, contestargli the Human life and make it the object of mockery in all ecclesiastical academic institutions in North Europe; as for years it was permissible to attack the teaching of the Holy Father John Paul II, contest during classes taught in the Roman pontifical universities, distribute posters signed by intelligentsia European theological. And by the way is clear: those who have studied the teaching of all the Popes of the post-conciliar, He knows how much it is clear, accurate and not subject to misunderstanding. However, if the charges made by theologians to the Supreme predecessors of the reigning Pontiff have always been lawful, even when they were aggressive, arrogant and even defamatory, as in the case of Blessed Paul VI, who came to be severely defamed by an evil braggart, today, move instead of the legitimate concerns about the way to make ambiguous the Holy Father Francis and its lack of clarity, it seems that constitutes a genuine outrage to dogma.

.

The publication of the Roman Pontiff response to the Argentine bishops on By Janet He is doing rejoice modernists, but they do not realize that the issue is not entirely resolved, because unfortunately, the papal ruling, as useful and worthy of consideration, not yet full clarity about the vexed question, which is always the: Maybe if they can or not cases where the divorced and remarried may be admitted to Confession and Holy Communion; but above all what they are and what may be, these cases. Therefore, we are not yet at Roma she, Because over, rant as poor columnist, for two simple reasons: because it is not clear the thought of Bishops and why, for logical consequence, I am not clear terms in which the Roman Pontiff would give his interpretation approval love joy made by the Argentine Bishops. Indeed, the list of "basic criteria for the application of Chapter VIII of The joy of love»Prepared by the Argentine Bishops, we find these trouble spots, from the first in which they state:

.

"It is not appropriate to speak of" permission "to access to the sacraments, but accompanied by a shepherd process of discernment ".

.

Avoiding now entering the theme of this "accompaniment" sometimes sweet sounds and sometimes even corny and which has long taken the place of what should be instead the spiritual direction of souls, we observe that affirm: "It is not appropriate to talk about possible", is a statement that makes no sense. Indeed, the question, it is precisely this: whether the Roman Pontiff allows or does not allow divorced and remarried to access in some cases to the Holy Eucharistic Communion. Otherwise, Argentine bishops are likely to do harakiri, because it is as if to say that the Pope has not given permission; and in fact we believe it is just that, namely that this permission has never given. Therefore?

.

The discern whether certain couples who live in a state of irregularities They may or may not go to Communion, is not an act that can be separated or opposed, or replacement of the papal permission, but it is a legitimate act of Shepherd only in the condition in which the Roman Pontiff has given permission so that in certain cases they may make the Communion; a permit, as now prove, it is not.

.

Al n. 5 and n. 6 of their letter, the Bishops They say the The joy of love "The possibility" leaves open - possibility - 'Access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation ". Well, we observe that the only reference or coupling that this assertion may have to The joy of love It is the note. 351, in which these words are referred to remarried divorcees: "In some cases it may also be the Sacramento aid '. Words before which is only right to ask: what they intend to say the Bishops with the expression "leaves open the possibility"? The answer may have to come from not just weasel words of this note? In waiting for a response to that effect, Meanwhile we can not omit a reasonable question: before a text of about two hundred pages, was it really necessary to insert a phrase so ambiguous and cryptic in a statement at the page bottom, to treat a subject of such complexity and delicate? After that were written socio-pastoral rhetoric pages and pages to indicate and explain the tenderness of the couple's relationship, can be a sensitive issue related to Catholic morality and the Discipline of the Sacraments will end up being relegated on the sly in a noticina far from clear at the page bottom? Definitely, this note, It could also give the impression of establishing a permit to Communion for divorced and remarried, but in reality it is not so. In this note at bottom of page does not express a current standard, but the futuristic possibilities of a rule, as evidenced by the formulation of the same phrase that is expressed in the conditional. And we know that a valid and binding norm is expressed or with the indicative or imperative, not with the it could be, worse than ever with It could be you, but it could also be no.

.

When a legislature passes a law with reference to cases that are exceptions, so that the law is valid, These cases must be specified, which, however, it does not make the controversial footnote is inserted into the bottom of a text of about two hundred pages. So in it, the Roman Pontiff, He does not say at all what grants or intends to grant, but only suggests what might grant. For now, he does not give any permission, He says only that could grant. Therefore, if the above considerations are valid, we must infer from them that the Roman Pontiff, stating that the bishops have misread, It seems to be saying in essence that for now he does not give it permission, but it could give. Unfortunately,, the thing, It is not at all clear, and because it is not clear thought of the Argentine Bishops, and because it is not clear the same Roman Pontiff in what he says. And then, that the letter of the bishops with relative Pope's response was published on By Janet, It is a step forward in the process of clarification, but not at all sufficient to give complete clarity and certainty in such a sensitive and complex. anything, in this way the Roman Pontiff runs the serious risk of throwing in a quagmire, if not worse: to finish just trapped in barbed wire in a trench on the face of a war that unfortunately, himself, It contributed prior to unleash, then to feed.

.

While Future cheers for the pen of one of his galantiniano columnist informing Urbi et Orbi the answer would be the Acts of the Holy See and as such would magisterium, Now let's try to analyze, objectively and impartially, what serious has happened instead, because in the concrete reality of the facts it happened this: Argentine Bishops wrote a letter in which they advance with interpretive hypotheses concerning probable and equally hypothetical solutions concerning the cases of so-called irregular couples and their access to the Sacraments. The Roman Pontiff, without assuming any responsibility and carefully avoiding clarify the issue with answers and precise statements, He responded that their interpretation is correct (!?). If someone did not understand this obvious contortion battled out on the escape from accountability, then we repeat it again: Argentine Bishops advance a hypothesis, the Pope defines it in fact a correct hypothesis, after that, This interpretative hypothesis becomes act of the magisterium, without either the Argentine bishops nor the Holy Father have taken on a clear responsibility is directed saying clearly yes or no. Unfortunately,, like it or not, things took place in fact in this way; and we do not believe just be lost anything, or have misunderstood.

.

Having said that now challenge the best historians of the Church and the best scholars of the history of theology find, during the whole of the two thousand year life of the Church, only one similar case in all the previous magisterium, since the Council of Nicaea until reaching the Second Vatican Council.

.

Not to mention the dangerous precedent that this case is likely to create, because from now to follow, any group of bishops around the world could for example be assumed - means, always purely hypothetical level -, that should be studied the possibility of granting the Sacred Order of Priests for women, formulating in this regard of the equally hypothetical interpretations. After that, a Supreme Pontiff, He responds to those bishops that the hypothetical interpretation is the right one. And, did this, It could be so declared lawful in practice - with great joy to Future and its unwise columnists galantiniani ―, under certain conditions and in particular situations, the priestly ordination of women. All without those that have been suggested and drafted an interpretation, together with the one that the High Grade declared it as the correct interpretation, It has assumed liability, but above all no one I have ever claimed that it is permitted to consecrate women priests, so would still valid, even with the "women priest" ordered to practice in special cases, As it stated definitively by the Holy Father John Paul II:

.

"I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" [Priestly ordination, 19. Text WHO].

.

A statement that would remain valid how the rules dictated by the Holy Pontiff in his Family company [cf. n. 84, text WHO], But then only to be disregarded in pastoral practice. Or maybe capocomici of these sad comedies in progress, they think that no one has figured out what they aim? Sadly and simply, aim at this: leave the doctrine as it is, do not touch, but though empty of meaning, then change it, if you do not subvert it entirely, in the so-called pastoral practice. In conclusion, like … "Made the law find the loophole".

.

The people so deeply dissociated from the real doctrinal and pastoral, I'm really convinced that no, before they made their games with a ball thrown by a field goal to another, seize the painful essence of these so-called cunning, which, moreover,, come to think, They have in them and a lot of ridicule for himself, little crafty?

.

And while all this is done, the episcopate silent hoping for better times neighbors, without considering after such irreparable damage likely to achieve the best times, if anything will come. Question: between the various sins declassified, for case, It was also canceled the sin of omission? Because in that case we must also correct the penitential rite and, during Holy Mass, ask for forgiveness only to have sinned "thoughts and words", then removing half omissions, only to save the soul of a considerable number of bishops.

.

Tips to the Supreme Pontiff

.

To come out of this situation played on ambiguity, in our humble opinion it is necessary that the Roman Pontiff, optionally in a Motu Proprio or an Apostolic Exhortation, or an Instruction entrusted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, developing as it has had published in the Proceedings of the Holy See, then taking all its responsibilities, face and close the matter with the full breadth and merits it deserves, exposing the theological principles, moral and legal that underlie, thus solving problems and answering, to the doubts and objections.

.

Any change in the discipline of the Holy Communion, It would in fact be a step of such historic significance, to request to be justified by serious and special pastoral cases, showing how such a change would leave intact the moral principles and dogmatic, and indeed it would be a better application of the same. What completely different, instead, would leave intact the doctrinal principles on paper centers, mutandoli then in pastoral practice.

.

The Roman Pontiff has all the authority to make such a step, but it must do so with much greater commitment, with circumspection and prudence canonical, with historical expertise, rigor speculative, merits theological and moral seriousness, sending to walk the teologastri and the charlatans who around and relying on solid foundations scriptural, traditional and magisterial. Also because some wounds inflicted on the Church and the faithful increasingly lost, unfortunately they do not bother with kisses Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, the new St. Thomas Aquinas, who delighted us with his summa: Heal me with your mouth, the art of kissing [Heal me with your mouth, the art of kissing, WHO], because at this point, around the Pope, we need is Pedro Almodovar as corresponding author for the Treaties of mysticism and spirituality. Nor face shield, the Supreme Pontiff, the past two Synods on the Family, but assume fully its responsibility: You are Petrus [cf. Mt 16, 13-20]. The Roman Pontiff is not a notary who ratified the acts of the bishops, but it is the guide of the bishops. Therefore, let loose Alberto Melloni and kisses Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, and listen instead his Supreme and Holy Predecessor Gregory the Great, that much more and much better to teach, though perhaps, for writers at Future, It is likely to be counted among … "The usual defenders of yore".

.

The Fathers de The island of Patmos, which blessing God are more beds and especially judged by Christi fideles far more reliable the Porn-theological Future, then it may suggest to the Holiness of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Supreme Pontiff Francis I, the following points:

.

  1. The Roman Pontiff should remember that Christ has entrusted not only the task of strengthening his brethren in faith, but also pascerli and guide them in their moral conduct and therefore also in the proper use of the Sacraments [cf. GV 21, 15-19].

.

  1. While in the dogmatic Roman Pontiff preserves and teaches infallibly the unchanging truths of the faith - among which we have the doctrine of the Sacraments -, in the subject area and the administration of the Sacraments, and in dictating their conditions for a worthy reception by the faithful, He makes use of his pastoral prudence, for which, according to the evolution or to vary the possibilities, the capacity and the needs of people in a given period of history or in various places, it can also change a directive or a regulation issued by his predecessor. In that case, he should, however,, having full power, changing the discipline of St. John Paul II, certainly not let one side unchanged on paper, however allowing the same time that it has changed in pastoral practice and moreover only on the basis of pure interpretative hypothesis.

.

  1. The Roman Pontiff may also grant the sacraments to divorced and remarried, in special cases specified by him, making use for example of the proposals made in hypothetical form by Argentinean Bishops, Cardinal Francis Coccopalmerio or other conservative pastors or canonists. But he must do it, in a clear and unambiguous, taking all the full and direct responsibility of that decision.

.

  1. Similar special cases should in no way be construed or interpreted as a denial of the doctrine of the act and always intrinsically evil, giving in some way endorsement, albeit exceptional, than it ever will instead be accepted and endorsed, ie adultery, almost as if the duty or the moral law in its universality and immutability, They did not depend from the ends of human nature, then ultimately the will of the Creator, but they could be determined by the subjective conscience of everyone, erected to absolute, according to changing situations, the times and social customs.

.

  1. We should distinguish between a sin in himself, objectively taken, by sin as it appears subjectively in a conscience in good faith, possibly errant. This distinction requires to admit the possibility, Also in the divorced and remarried, the attenuation of the blame from mortal to venial because of human frailty and in case of ignorance in good faith. The grace, therefore, not would be lost, They might go to Communion; and if they lose the grace, You can confess.

.

  1. We need to distinguish one It was irregular, as for example that of divorced and remarried, from State of mortal sin. Because even if adultery is objectively and always mortal sin, It is not, however, claimed that the uneven torque is always in a state of mortal sin and therefore devoid of grace, although it is possible and perhaps even very likely; because they presume it is - which unfortunately certain so-called penalty takers in opposition to certain so-called laxists - would amount to a real substitute for the judgment of God, place that God alone can read and judge the profound consciousness of men. Indeed, while an irregular state is an objective condition of outdoor life from which the two, in certain cases, also wanting, can not or can not get out, the state of sin or guilt is a stable or lasting condition of rebellious will to God, maintained by the same desire, whereby, the same will can, at any time, under the impulse of grace, remove it, repent, ask God's forgiveness and the grace to recover. Or to quote an example: we can assume that for what he did and how they did Judas Iscariot is on Hell, but nobody, from the Church itself, can be stated with absolute certainty that both Hell, because nobody can not know what happened between God and the conscience of Judas in short minutes in which the rope that was tied around his neck removed it to life.

.

  1. From the same moral principle can descend applications opposed. Example: right from the duty to respect and protect human life can go down the death sentence on a dangerous terrorist or a dictator whose survival would put at risk entire populations, as from the same respect for human life can be born instead the grace for a repented murderess same or refusal of the death penalty. Equally, the duty to respect the sacrament of marriage, one can derive both the prohibition as permission of the sacraments to divorced and remarried, because what the Holy Father John Paul II wisely arranged in its Family company [cf. n. 84] is an ecclesiastical discipline based on the ancient tradition of the Church, It is not a dogma of faith. And those who try to dogmatize this discipline, They fall in a different way but similar error in the same severity of those who would rather mutate in a manner furbesca through the pastoral practice, because if it is something serious de-construct dogmas, What is equally and not less serious proclaim dogmas that do not exist. Add to this, always to emphasize the seriousness of the statements of certain so-called penalty takers, that the Church itself, and its pastors in the care of souls, They have an overriding obligation to warn the faithful that certain sinful conduct can lead to eternal damnation, or that, along certain routes, it is likely going to Hell. But no one - least some lay people who assume unheard “rights” the sentencing of what the “true doctrine” —, It may determine that certain men and women are out of the grace of God, because they say perennial state of mortal sin and therefore destined to damnation. Not even the Church of Christ has the power to establish this: In fact, the Church must teach and warn how, through sin, you can lose the grace, but it can not declare with certainty and absolute way that a sinner is perpetually out of the grace of God.

.

  1. But what is no small difficulty is not to motivate the ban, but permission, on which it is good to dwell. Indeed, the reason is not to assume that marriage is soluble, how they think Andrea Grillo, Cardinal Walter Kasper, Modernists, and rahneriani ed and Lutherans. Although this may seem paradoxical, whether permission could mean the help of grace to those who particularly need, to help a couple who live in grace, in an irregular condition and unfortunate, from which - supposedly - can not get out, however, it strives to live in grace.

.

  1. The divorced and remarried, if they want to live in grace, They must continually be purified of their sins, even if they can not access the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion, renewing the resolution not to sin again and do penance.

.

  1. The Roman Pontiff should clarify the cases to which alludes to Note. 351. Are they the ones mentioned in possible interpretation given by the Argentine Bishops? Then you should take these cases, explicitly make them their own and not just a vague "have misread ', all without the proponents on the one hand, accoglitore the other hand, They have made clear and unequivocal acceptance of responsibility.

.

  1. It is true that the pastor must be able to track down unknown cases by the legislature and know how to adjust accordingly, since the legislature can not predict them all. But the vagueness of what, It is certainly not a help nor the shepherds nor the faithful to orientate on such a difficult issue, fluid, complex and uncertain, inside which can wallow only those who are unreasonable or love to fish in troubled waters.

.

  1. Although it remains true that the confessor maintains its responsibility to discern in particular cases provided by law, who ultimately can be admitted and who can not be admitted to Communion, it would be good to be determined and established by the Roman Pontiff with the utmost precision and an indication of the cases in which the torque can be permitted after an appropriate examination, so that the confessors may have clear criteria, objective, secure and verifiable to be made known to the parties concerned. This would be limited to the maximum the space of confessors arbitration, so that they can be away from disputes or complaints, otherwise it is a strong risk of subjective and conflicting assessments, that would only stir up discontent or disappointment in the affected and disagreements or unpleasant antagonisms between confessors, creating the well-known phenomenon that become the most sought after confessors more permissive. Discerning pass to be very merciful, whereas those who are letting the "narrow gate", teach us the true way of holiness [cf. LC 13, 24].

.

  1. If, after mature consideration, the confessor is obliged to refuse absolution and then Communion, It must do so with the utmost prudence and charity, even if it is acting with firmness, explaining the reasons and employing the maximum pastoral care in pointing to the couple that God can save even without the Sacraments. Explaining that this irregular torque can and should do still a Christian journey of conversion and it is part of the Church and should strive to make progress in communion with the Church and in the performance of good works.

.

Conclusion

.

One gets the impression, in the conduct of the Supreme Pontiff, a serious pastoral lightness and superficiality that give space to the crafty and a dismissive attitude, and at the same time tough and authoritarian, almost angry or annoyed, the difficulties, the doubts and objections that arise from all sides, except by a slap and a contour of flatterers modernists and wire-Lutherans, adept manipulators of the masses, but not the body of the faithful. Indeed, the faithfuls, unfortunately we are increasingly bewildered and unhappy about this pontificate marked by churches and empty squares, who continue to bleed more and more with every increase of applause to the Supreme Pontiff by those secularists who have spent their lives battling the Church, to deny its moral and despise the teaching of previous Popes, Today while shouting "Long live the revolutionary Francesco!».

.

Needless to say, such behavior is undignified nor suited to the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles who continually proclaims to want to listen to all, welcome all, reply to all, dialogue with all, have mercy for all. Therefore we, as faithful priests in charge of the care of souls and how theologians responsible for the transmission of sound doctrine and the Magisterium of the Church, we hope that the Supreme Pontiff plays and provides for, especially considering that the Lord Christ, to Peter, did not just only to say, "confirms his brethren in the faith", because before you urge him to this, the first he invited to mend:

.

«Simone, Simone, behold Satan has demanded to sift you like wheat; But I have prayed for you, that thy faith fail not:; and you, turned again, strengthen thy brethren " [LC 22, 31-32].

.

Just so: "Turned again" ...

.

the Island of Patmos, 13 December 2017 – Saint Lucia virgin and martyr

.

.

… and you do not think bad things about us, because, in truth: Fathers de The island of Patmos I am very loving with humans, a powder’ less with the inhuman …

.

in the picture: a penitent grateful hugs John Cavalcoli, o.p. after sacramental confession

.

.




«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

27 thoughts on "From porn-theology of Avvenire ambiguity of the Argentine Bishops which can not produce clear and unequivocal pontifical magisterium

  1. But when Jesus says “Anyone(whoever) repudiates… and marries another(the), commits adultery”, It was referring only to observant Jews and to all those who pool their lives in a way comparable to marriage?

  2. Reverend Padri,

    The document says that

    "If we come to recognize that, in a given case, There are personal limitations that limit the responsibility and the guilt (cf.. 301-302), especially when you consider that a person would do far more failures hurting the children of the new union, Amoris laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist ".

    Thus it says clearly that opens the possibility of access to the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (if one is obviously absolved), It is not expressed as a doubt and not just talk about the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

    Instead you wrote

    “Al n. 5 and n. 6 of their letter, the Bishops say the Amoris laetitia "leaves open the possibility" - posibilidad - "access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation". “

    But this is not so, as I have shown above. To me what they have written the Argentine bishops seems clear and beyond any misunderstanding, then you do.

    1. Dear Achille,

      I fear frankly - and I say it to him with genuine respect - she does not understand what he reads, or are we so much dull and limited as to not understand what we read.

      You've read our article from top to bottom? Or it flowed here and there? Because he sees, she is free to read or not to read what they want, but, at the time when post a comment, the script that she said should not only reading it, but reading it well.

      I then try to put the question in these terms:

      1. John Cavalcoli, o.p. and I celebrate the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass and administer the sacraments to the faithful all the relevant our sacramental able ;

      2. confessions and administer, when there was still the "canonical reserve", that precisely reserved to the Bishop the absolution from the sin of abortion procured, we had power to fulfill this sin by order of the respective diocesan bishops, who had given us both the ministry of exorcist;

      3. We presume to know the Catechism of the Catholic Church and perhaps even something theology ...

      And yet, like many of our Brothers, we are in serious difficulty to treat certain cases and to answer the questions of the faithful, because the document in question lacks clarity and above all the lack of precise indications given to the confessors. Therefore, to date, we answer that is confirmed the discipline dictated by Saint John Paul II because at the time it was not in any way reformed.

      Now I ask you: in your opinion, What is the difference between "Leaves open the possibility" and instead the possibility?

      Given that throughout our text we have never used one time the term "doubtful form," but we made extensive use of the term "hypothesis", if as you say the document "Is not expressed as a doubt and not just talk about the Sacrament of Reconciliation ', then show us where, in a clear way, in the affirmative and wanting also imperative, is clearly indicated that the divorced and remarried can receive absolution and access to Eucharistic Communion to the following conditions and precise:

      1 ……..
      2 ……..
      3 ……..

      etc. …

      Because we, when, nothing that we still read, and to us who we celebrate Mass and administer the sacraments, no one has yet said when, in such cases and under what conditions, perform and give Holy Communion to remarried divorcees living a union outside of sacramental marriage without the previous ever declare null and void - that never existed, although formally it celebrated - in the judgment of an ecclesiastical court.

      1. Reverend Padri,
        I'm afraid he's right Achilles. For here “possibility” It does not mean a theoretical or hypothetical possibility, but just a concrete allowed. You are right to say that this is not a legally certain manner or dignified to express themselves, but the meaning of the text is clear, albeit it spoiled by this vagueness which rightly censored.

        You are then in a grave mistake to think that the FC discipline is editable, as John Paul II has clearly said that it is founded “the divine law”.

        You are also wrong in saying that those who support this anti-modification will allow you to make judgments about the state of people's grace: They only say that
        is the objective state of remarried not to allow them access to the sacraments. Just like FC says. So have nothing to “extenuating”, so dear to defenders and AL, seems, Now you too.
        More details in my last reply to Buttiglione:

        Here’s why every argument allowing Communion for ‘remarried’ ultimately fails
        https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/heres-why-every-argument-allowing-adulterers-to-receive-communion-ultimatel

        Friendly…

        1. Dear Claudio,

          in the Holy Gospels is made clear and definite reference to adultery: GV 8, 1-11, Mt 5, 32.

          In no step of the Gospels it is, however, contained the prohibition of access to Eucharistic Communion for the so-called irregular pairs, that comes from a right, prudent and ancient ecclesiastical discipline that is part of the tradition and that I hope will continue in force, although I'm not sure I decide, but who has full power.

          The Blessed Apostle Paul refers to "one who eats and drinks without discerning the Lord's body, eating and drinking his own condemnation " [1 Color 11,29], but it does not indicate specifically adulterers and concubines, who at the time were not lacking, and especially in the city of Corinth. In these his lines the Blessed Apostle refers to the Holy Communion received in a state of sin.

          Instead, the Word of God made man, before the question addressed to him by the Pharisees if it was right and lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, clearly and not subject to easy refutation, states:

          «”Shew me the tribute money”. And they brought him a denarius. He asked them: “Whose is this image and inscription?”. They answered: “Di Cesare”. Then he said to them: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God what is God's”» [Mt 22, 19-21].

          Well, She agrees that, before this so clear expression of Christ God, the duty to pay taxes is not a simple duty, but it should be proclaimed as a true dogma of the Catholic faith? Or maybe we want to doubt, before words so clear, that the command given about the due payment of taxes, It is an immutable divine law given by Christ, God himself, in a clear and precise?

          Here, I do not understand why, when it comes to paying taxes, then this phrase of the Gospel must be interpreted, contextualized, including … whereas, when there is to enter the rooms of strange bed, They proclaim themselves easily even the dogmas that do not exist.

          Are we not in error, it is you who are still confused about the dogmatic.

          "The joy. SIAT headphones, however, pay taxes, because the payment of taxes is a true dogma of faith "

        2. @ Claudio Pierantoni

          In the FC n. 84 it is read:

          "The church, however, It reiterates its practices, based on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced and remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto, since (…). There is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching on the indissolubility of marriage ".

          I would point out two things:

          1) the emphasis placed on "practice" at the beginning;

          2) The "special pastoral reason" alleged.

          Now, this peculiar reason is based on reasons of expediency (the confusing ...), but the presence of this reason of opportunity would be absurd, superfluous and misleading for the faithful if not admitted to communion derived ne-ces-sa-ria-men-te from the doctrine. The Church now wants to widen the narrow path identified by the FC: but does not say how. The fact that the revolutionaries of the merciful Church they use it to destroy the dogma does not mean that this way can not – theoretically – exist and be viable.

        3. Dear Claudio,

          Saint John Paul II meant that the prohibition of the sacraments to divorced and remarried is based on divine law, but not in the sense that by this law the Pope, for example Pope Francis, according to the power of the keys, not possible to deduce from that same law, a rule that changes the previous rules, but in the sense that that prohibition is supported by good reasons, to which, however, if they can replace other weight equal or similar.

          In respect of the question of the state of grace of some divorced and remarried, Unfortunately, in reality, There are opponents to allow their access to the Sacraments, which for the simple fact that the divorced risposatisi are in an irregular state, They believe that they are always in mortal sin, which supposes an unacceptable rash judgment, since the Pope himself admits that at least occasionally can be a grace.

      2. Dear Achille,

        After answer that was given by the Father Ariel There are three joints its comments on the final were all incomplete, so we proceeded to rinviarglieli asking her to complete them on the final missing and then merge them into one comment, because otherwise we would not be able to publish them.

        Shortly after we received this notification from the system:

        Address not found
        Your message was not delivered to XXXXXXX@virgilio.it because the address is non-existent or can not receive email.

        If you send us comments from a non-existent address, and then, in the face of a problem like the one that occurred, we are not able to communicate or publish comments joints loose and incomplete on the final.

        1. Reverend Padri, Comments I've published them, and they are not incomplete.

          They are incomplete only in the sense that one is the continuation, because there is a limit to the characters available. And in this regard, how do I send a single comment, if there is the character limit and the only comment would surpass much this limit?

          1. Dear Achille,

            there are character limits because in the past it happened a few times that have survived the “comments” Longer even of our articles.
            Once there was posted a comment about 30 pages that was a copy / paste made from a text.

            The email we returned for his three comments because in the end, having just exceeded the limit of characters, missing words, then we, also wanting, we could not join them together. You should do it yourself and send it to us by email.

            In the e-mail in which we explained that, The system has, however, responded with an automated message:

            Address not found
            Your message was not delivered to XXXXXXX@virgilio.it because the address is non-existent or can not receive email.

            More than this we can not do.

    2. Dear Achille,

      above all in those numbers love joy there is no mention at all to permit the sacraments to divorced and remarried. Second, the expression "opens the possibility 'is unclear, because, like I said, The Pope, in its response to the Argentinean Bishops, It does not clarify whether this permission is now, it is current, is present, It is in force, or if it is a possible allowed, hypothetical, or any future. It is not benefiting from a possible allowed, but a permit in force.

      "Open to the possibility" does not mean still allow today. Confusing one with the other means or do not know how to express or get confused ideas or playing sull'equivoco. The Pope would take very little to clarify this point. He would have made a good step forward to a complete and total enlightenment, but, in our opinion, It would also require the fulfillment of other conditions that we have indicated in our article.

      Meanwhile, until the Pope, with official and formal act does not explicitly repeal the current legislation, and grant permission, specifying carefully cases allowed, It remains in force the rules of the Code of Canon Law (can. 915), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1650) and n. 84 of Family company.

  3. balanced and well-considered Article. As for Pope Francis, there is little hope, the man is what it is. Let us entrust ourselves to God.
    Merry Christmas to the Fathers of the Island of Patmos
    Licio Zuliani

  4. I would like to remind those who believe that the Church today authorizes adulterers, although only in certain cases, to approach the Eucharist, that the canon 915 which reads: “Do not be admitted to holy communion the excommunicated or interdicted, after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin “, It was not repealed.
    Therefore, if a person does not persevere obstinately in manifest grave sin, It may be allowed, as determined not today, to Holy Communion.

    1. The question, expensive Orenzo, is whether the license fee 915 both abrogabile. Certainly it was not repealed, but can the Church authorities repeal in principle. Don Levi Di Gualdo (and father Cavalcoli) think so. The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts in 2000 (It was then Pope John Paul II) He thought really do not. (I already imagine the sophistry of Don Levi Di Gualdo, so specific that not to be abrogabile is the substance CIC915, not making or numbers or other incidental aspects).

    2. Dear Orenzo,

      certainly it was not repealed, as I said to Achilles. However Amoris Laetitia recognizes that there may be cases in which certain remarried divorcees, at least occasionally or sporadically, They may be in grace. This obviously does not admit for exceptions to the prohibition of adultery, but to say ch'esso can be pardoned by a suitable penance, which, in cases where the divorced and remarried can not let, It can restore them to grace eventually lost.

  5. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_it.html

    This document explains well that A) it is not about church discipline, possibly be waived with a clear pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff, my B) a principle founded on the divine law, exposed by St. Paul in the very passage quoted by appropriately Claudio Pierantoni.
    This article implies that CIC 915 It is not based on divine law, mother’ ecclesiastical discipline. There is’ therefore a contradiction between the content of the article and the document I mentioned above.

    Hats off to the father Giovanni.

    1. He also wants her to answer the question that follows below? Because it may be that he escaped, ma contains a “truth of faith” having to do with a divine law given by Christ, God himself: to pay taxes.
      So we would like its precious character of canonical and theological response in this regard.

      ______________

      in the Holy Gospels is made clear and definite reference to adultery: GV 8, 1-11, Mt 5, 32.

      In no step of the Gospels it is, however, contained the prohibition of access to Eucharistic Communion for the so-called irregular pairs, that comes from a right, prudent and ancient ecclesiastical discipline that is part of the tradition and that I hope will continue in force, although I'm not sure I decide, but who has full power.

      The Blessed Apostle Paul refers to "one who eats and drinks without discerning the Lord's body, eating and drinking his own condemnation " [1 Color 11,29], but it does not indicate specifically adulterers and concubines, who at the time were not lacking, and especially in the city of Corinth. In these his lines the Blessed Apostle refers to the Holy Communion received in a state of sin.

      Instead, the Word of God made man, before the question addressed to him by the Pharisees if it was right and lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, clearly and not subject to easy refutation, states:

      "" Show me the tribute money ". And they brought him a denarius. He asked them: "Whose is this image and inscription?”. They answered: "Caesar". Then he said to them: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God what is God '" [Mt 22, 19-21].

      Well, She agrees that, before this so clear expression of Christ God, the duty to pay taxes is not a simple duty, but it should be proclaimed as a true dogma of the Catholic faith? Or maybe we want to doubt, before words so clear, that the command given about the due payment of taxes, It is an immutable divine law given by Christ, God himself, in a clear and precise?

      Here, I do not understand why, when it comes to paying taxes, then this phrase of the Gospel must be interpreted, contextualized, including ... while, when there is to enter the rooms of strange bed, They proclaim themselves easily even the dogmas that do not exist.

      See in store:

      "The joy. SIAT headphones, however, pay taxes, because the payment of taxes is a true dogma of faith "

      1. Look I do not know how to answer. If I answered, she would be successful in using this sophisticated technique to evade the topic at hand. Therefore, for the good especially its, I not answer. And I emphasize that I do not place any demand, nor her. Rather I addressed to those who have theological expertise (Father John) to raise the issue of the document Posts. Council Legislative Texts. 2000 which contradicts the content of your article.
        Me carefully and read some books, It will be good.

        1. If you will be kind enough to show me some books, I shall be very grateful, But keep in mind that my gaps are indeed many, because before the divine mystery, I shall never cease to feel a poor ignorant, as opposed to those who do, the divine mystery, They own it and juggles with mastery.

          Therefore, books that I need, are indeed many, for example should tell me:

          1. a book that I clarify the meaning of the ministerial priesthood ;
          2. a book that teach me to celebrate the Eucharistic Sacrifice and understand that through it the bread and wine are converted into the Body and Blood of Christ adorable;
          3. a book to teach me to preach the Holy Gospel;
          4. a book to teach me to administer confessions ;
          etc. … etc. …

          Because if I do not learn this and much more, as she lay, lost on the high speculative clouds, They will unfortunately be forced to administer the sacraments alone, unfortunately having to do with priests ignorant like me, if not – I dare say – even worse. In any case you can always take the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle and only absolve themselves.

          And do not go well in to ask if his “staff” San Tommaso Aquino, has never taught to keep the Ministers in sacris, all it told by someone who knows how to be ironic but never offensive, but above all told by one that, even in the most immoral and sinful priests of this world, venerates the mystery of the ministerial priesthood of Christ.

          But I'm not a speculative. What say … thank God!

          1. Vorrei capire in cosa le ho mancato di rispetto. Certo che io non la rispetto come dovrei, ma stia sicuro della mia simpatia e mi creda che scriverle pubblicamente per sottolineare che lei cade in sofismi, cattive argomentazioni ecc. non è affatto piacevole.

          2. Non credo di dover più intervenire per risponderle pubblicamente. I lettori di questo sgradevole scambio di commenti saranno in grado da soli di capire che (to) Lei non ha mai risposto al merito della mia obiezione; (b) io non le ho mai mancato di rispetto; ((c)) le sue risposte si distinguono per la violenza verbale e il loro carattere manipolatorio unite al totale disinteresse per le questioni di merito.

      2. I also see that, in response to my comment, answer, with copy-paste, the ramshackle response to calm and substantiated comments Claudio Pierantoni.
        Really I do not understand how she managed to involve in its activities over the top respectable people like Don Livi and father Cavacoli.

        1. .. mAh, you ask him. Species Whereas it is not just the kind of man and a priest who never frequenterebbe dangerous friendships …

    2. @Luca Gili
      The ecclesiastical discipline and divine law are distinct but not separate, so there are positive laws of the Church falling only in either of the two areas: they must always move in respect of the divine law, but the divine law does not in ecclesiastical discipline one and only outlet needed, so much so that the latter is often changed over 2.000 year old, always in respect of the first. it CIC 915 you mentioned only states as a general principle of address.

    3. Dear Luca,

      your intervention has made me very happy. I remember with nostalgia the time in which, ten years ago, Bologna spoke of God Father Tomas Tyn Servant.

      I respond to your speech by asking that the simple fact that Pope Francis assume to grant permission of the sacraments to divorced and remarried, already tells us implicitly that any such permission would not at all or against Scripture or against the divine law.
      The Pope is subject only to the natural law and the divine law; but it has its own field, in the government of the Church and of souls, where it is allowed to legislate, obviously in accordance with those supreme, the natural and divine law. This is precisely exercised its competence in love joy.

      They currently, therefore, there papal standards, stances of the Roman Curia, or canon laws, which contrast with the above eventualities, does not mean that the Pope, under its jurisdiction, conferred by Christ (“trap oats meas”), the so-called power of the keys, has not, if it considered appropriate or necessary for the good of the Church and of souls, the power to change or repeal the previous standards, although the ancient tradition. And this is precisely the case.

      What you deny is the argument of those who believe that the Pope has already granted the sacraments to divorced and remarried with the approval, published on the AAS, interpretation of love joy made by the Argentine bishops. Instead, as I explained recently on this site, The contents of this approval is not sufficiently clear, so we need the Pope to explain better. Meantime, it is the current norm of prohibition of the sacraments to divorced and remarried.

      One must distinguish, papal in authority, the power from the judicial magisterial, which it falls to regulate the administration and discipline of the reception of the sacraments. In magisterial power, with which the Pope, teaches, He interprets and defends the doctrine of the faith, for example regarding the essence of marriage and the Eucharist, which are divine truths and immutable, the Pope's teachings, He enjoys the assistance of the Holy Spirit, They are infallible and immutable.

      Instead, the judicial power – for example in the field of liturgical and sacramental discipline – where matter is often in itself changeable, variable and uncertain, the Pope did not receive such infallibility, although it is assumed that normally decide prudently.
      It is true that the liturgical norms established by the Supreme Pontiff - for example, controlling the use of the Eucharist - are an application of divine laws - for example, the Lord's command to feed his body, or the Pauline prohibition to take Communion in a state of mortal sin -; but it is necessary to distinguish the practice from the theoretical deduction.

      In the field of theorising, the conclusion of a syllogism is one and only one. A different conclusion would be mistake. For instance, the spirituality of the soul one can not infer the only immortality and immortality. Instead, from a moral principle - it is for example the case of those who can not go to Communion - the Pope can draw conclusions different and even opposite practices in the course of time. Historical examples of this are numerous. For instance, the fifth commandment - the respect for human life - can be drawn is the promotion of the common good that the death penalty; the sixth Commandment can be drawn both the exercise of sex that sexual abstinence, etc..

      A similar case is that the question of Communion for divorced and remarried. In principle, the Pope has the right to obtain, precisely from the respect of marriage and the Eucharist - as it may seem paradoxical if not blasphemous to some - is the prohibition to permission, always in special cases, is intende.

      While it is easy to understand the reason for the prohibition, It is not perspicuous, indeed seems to create scandal in many why the permit. In particular, many wonder and asked the Pope how and why any permission would not be a sacrilegious profanation of the sacrament of marriage and the Eucharist.

      The fact that so far, the Pope did not respond to objectors, the doubters and applicants, He suggests that he is reflecting on the serious issue, he for now (note 351 dell'amore swimsuits), It solved only in hypothetical form and non-formal and assertive, therefore devoid of legal and binding.

      For this, The Pope, before making this possible gentle pace, which would mark a historic turning point in the practice of the Eucharist, It should explain the reason for his decision, with appropriate pastoral and theological reasons, in a special document, that could be a Motu Proprio.

      Meanwhile we need to denounce firmly and clearly dishonest maneuver the usual con artists modernists, which, again - quousque tandem? - they have the audacity to groped to exploit to their advantage the impression, unfounded but possible, that the ethical framework dell'Amoris Laetitia is not sacred respect of the immutable natural and divine law, but the heretical opinion found in Rahner, Kasper, Andrea Grillo, Maurizio Chiodi and Teilhard de Chardin, that natural and divine law is not fixed and immutable, it evolves and changes throughout history, so, if yesterday the marriage was indissoluble, Today it can be considered dissolvable and if yesterday the Eucharist could be taken only by those who were in favor and free from mortal sin, today that Rahner has found that all have grace ("Anonymous Christians"), anyone, including Lutherans, It can go to Communion when and as they wish – both transubstantiation is a mere opinion – and insist on the ban it would be a sign of narrow conservatism, pharisaical legalism and inexcusable lack of mercy. The important, Father says Hermes Ronchi eat, the Eucharist is not worship, but eating. It is unclear what.

      But we have not yet reached the point at which the reader waits for a response: why and how even the eventual permission would still respect the Eucharist marriage? In the sense, so at least I think we should interpret the views, the mens Pope Francis, that the grace that they would receive the divorced and remarried would serve to heal and strengthen them in their love and mutual loyalty, in raising children, in the purification of their sins and on their way conversion.

      And where would derive this supernatural force, if not by the grace of the sacrament of marriage, but they have offended with adultery, grace but still, for the great mercy of God, He continues to act covertly in the subsoil of their soul desirous of redemption and salvation?

Leave a Reply