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's response to the Argentine bishops on the By Janet it is making the modernists cheer, 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
Giovanni Cavalcoli, o.p. – Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

Click on the cover to access the bookshop

.

 

.

.

.

.

.




«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
thanks [ isoladipatmos@gmail.com ]

27 replies
  1. Luca Gili says:

    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, but it is’ 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.

    • father ariel
      Ariel S. levi Gualdo says:

      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, he claims:

      "" Show me the tribute money ". And they brought him a denarius. He asked them: "Whose is this image and the inscription?”. They answered: "Caesar's". 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?

      there, I don't 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:

      "Love's Laetitia". SIAT headphones, however, pay taxes, because the payment of taxes is a true dogma of faith "

      • Luca Gili says:

        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. So, 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 Giovanni) 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.

        • father ariel
          Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo says:

          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.

          So, 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 would dare to 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 “personal” San Tommaso Aquino, has never taught to keep the ministers of the sacred, 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 to tell her … thank God!

          • Luca Gili says:

            I would like to understand what I disrespected. Of course I do not respect how I should, but to be sure of my sympathy and believe me that to write publicly to emphasize that she falls in sophistry, bad arguments etc.. not at all pleasant.

          • Luca Gili says:

            I do not think having to intervene to answer publicly. Readers of this unpleasant exchange of comments alone will be able to understand (a) She never replied to the merits of my objection; (b) I've never disrespected; ((c)) his responses are characterized by verbal violence and their manipulative character combined with total disregard for the substantive questions.

      • Luca Gili says:

        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.

        • father ariel
          Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo says:

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

    • Zamax says:

      @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.

    • father ariel
      Giovanni Cavalcoli, o.p. says:

      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.

      Because of this, dad, 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 that, 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"), whoever, 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 of 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?

  2. orenzo
    orenzo says:

    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 recites: “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.

    • Luca Gili says:

      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).

    • father ariel
      Giovanni Cavalcoli, o.p. says:

      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.

  3. liciozuliani says:

    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. Achille says:

    the Rev. 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 e al 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.

    • father ariel
      Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo says:

      Dear Achilles,

      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. Giovanni 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 ...

      but 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 her: in your opinion, What is the difference between "Leaves open the possibility" and instead gives 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, at the moment, 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.

      • Claudio Pierantoni says:

        the Rev. 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…

        • father ariel
          Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo says:

          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, he claims:

          «”Shew me the tribute money”. And they brought him a denarius. He asked them: “Whose is this image and inscription?”. They answered: “Caesar's”. 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?

          there, I don't 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.

          "Love's Laetitia". SIAT headphones, however, pay taxes, because the payment of taxes is a true dogma of faith "

        • Zamax says:

          @ 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.

        • father ariel
          Giovanni Cavalcoli, o.p. says:

          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.

      • father ariel
        Editor of The Island of Patmos says:

        Dear Achilles,

        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, 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.

        • Achille says:

          the Rev. 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 about it, how do I send a single comment, if there is the character limit and the only comment would surpass much this limit?

          • father ariel
            Editor of The Island of Patmos says:

            Dear Achilles,

            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 us, 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.

    • father ariel
      isoladipatmosi Cavalcoli, o.p. says:

      Dear Achilles,

      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, Why, like I said, dad, 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, which, however, 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), of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1650) and of n. 84 from the Family member company.

  5. orenzo
    orenzo says:

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

    • father ariel
      Giovanni Cavalcoli, o.p. says:

      Dear Orenzo,

      He was referring to marriage as an indissoluble contract founded on natural law, valid for all men.

Comments are closed.