HERETICS Lefebvrians AND VIRGIN vilified
The lefebvrismo is a disease, a cancer from which the body of the Church must be healed, and if necessary should be bombarded with chemotherapy. The Lefebvrians is not clear that the reigning Pontiff as depositary of an authority that comes directly from Christ God, while they are self-invested with an authority that comes only from their pride, for this is difficult dialogue and the search for common points with those who live in such closed, proud and determined in their error.
"True theology does not pretend to attribute to God
what is not said, but merely explains
what he actually said "
[Antonio Love, aphorisms]
In my previous article [see which] I addressed the issue of the world of Lefebvre incentrandomi on some questions and asking questions that have remained unanswered all. My wise elder brother Antonio Livi raised some reasonable concerns centered on the concept of method adopted by me and that I myself share, since it is one of those debates in which everyone can be right or wrong, depending on the angle from which you are reviewing the subject matter. As in 'Patmos Island struggles amiably, remaining united in the common cause of service to the Church and to Catholic doctrine - even when the approach to certain issues may be different and therefore vary according to our subjective feelings - we decided to share with the readers of our discussions, in which only people in bad faith may read "divisions" or "struggle" exist between the three of us; because each of us responds to what he writes and signature, not for what they write and sign others.
Following the avalanche of insults that fell on me through dozens of comments placed at the end of one of our articles and have embittered Antonio Livi first [see which], I had confirmation of just how high the touchiness of certain characters which on one hand claim to qualify for the right to challenge all, by Vatican II to the Magisterium of the Church until the reigning Pontiff, But on the other have the prerogative to not be in any way challenged the merits of their doctrinal opinions that personally I can also consider peregrine. In my vocabulary all this is called pride and closing and listening to the actions of God's grace, that must operate precisely meet our listening, our freedom, then our acceptance; only then the grace forms us and transforms us into our substance.
The questions raised in my pthe withdrawal of the article were addressed to the person to whom I therefore legitimate to raise doubts, provided that both implicit and explicit for me all the respect due to them. I also raised practical questions, expressing that certain foundations, news agencies, luxury magazines that cost only pagination, graphical and paper quality of an eye testa - without sales and subscriptions cover even half of half of the sun-pocket expenses - can be carried out with the manna from heaven. Not to mention sites and magazines telematics, everybody size luxury, not in eternal bill as our poor Patmos Island, well that is both beautiful graphics for both our written nothing short of exceptional, not to mention the extraordinary beauty of the fathers, three authentic Riace bronzes, just to exercise the great Christian virtue of humility and mix a little’ all with equally great virtue: the ironic humor.
Faced with this evidence, in my previous written, I did not ask where pulledro out money, I only asked for the Catholic faithful and our readers reassurance that the financial support did not come "from the far right American, nor by some wealthy Brazilian entrepreneurs, or by Europeans who got rich by magic in Brazil ». Ask similar reassurance, I think it is an attack of treason to individuals, species then if Numerio Negidio is president of a foundation and Aulus Agerio director of a magazine, namely public persons legally responsible for such as these you can also ask regard to any; nor do I think that this is not a transcendence outside of theology for which this magazine was born and to which you must follow and always will abide.
I believe that certain questions are not only relevant but due, especially to those who demand from their journalistic columns, from their books and their own public conferences, loyal transparency and consistency on the part of all public authorities and private, civil and religious of this world, boasting then implicitly a virginal purity of intent and not indifferent; and this certainly can not allow it to be then discover with some crust on. Or maybe some people think that all these expensive devices made of foundations, Monthly size luxury, news agencies, magazines and telematic sites, are carried out with the offering of the poor widow in love of the Mass of St. Pius V and the pre-conciliar tradition lost? I get it: everything is held up with doilies that old granny Calitri embroiders reciting rosaries in pig Latin and to sell them to devolverne the proceeds to structures which to live, survive and organize all you have to arrange to have funds in the order of many hundreds of thousands of euro, because playing the so-called "traditionalists" is a "game" always and in itself quite expensive; and this for me, could be a serious problem of a pastoral.
Without going into the merits of what I said and affirmed, some wrote comments furious soaked insults unheard, trying to throw it on the personal and wondering who was I to raise certain issues not relevant. I complain that this is inconsistent, because in the great councils where they played the fate of the main Christological dogmas, often the debates are structured around political issues, social and economic, not coincidentally was the emperor in person - even if only formally - to preside over the councils, the seventh of which are chaired by a woman, Empress Irene. Thereby apply certain criteria of "relevance" or "no relevance" theological, you may come to invalidate the entire social doctrine of the Church, for example, stating that "not pay proper wages to the worker, considered sin that cries out to God for justice ", is a statement devoid of supports theological-logical-speculative-metaphysical, about how this political sociology or labor law, but not the theologians, task of which is to deal exclusively of other chores and speculation.
To these people I have raised questions and put questions to which no reply had arguments have left that to act were their supporters with screams from the stadium and infamous attacks and defamatory to me direct. Neither tell me that my arguments are not theological, ecclesiological and pastoral, why use the newspaper to an avowed atheist tied since the nineties to the right and to the American Zionist Movement International, to carry out a campaign of relentless criticism of the Holy Father, for me it is a matter ecclesiological serious and not a little disturbing, because on one hand we have the modernists, the other we have some fanatics Lefebvrians quantities of food from the American ultra right and from areas far from favorable to Catholicism and the papacy. That's why I want to understand why, one part, all these subjects tradition and Latin San Giovanni XXIII accuse of having purged the Easter Triduum prayer on "perfidious Jews" - since the term evil, for those who know Latin and not the late nineteenth-century ecclesiastical latinetto, should be read according to the etymology of faithless, understood, in Christ - the other here is the same deal with areas related to the Zionist Movement International. Tell me: I missed something? Am I the inconsistent, or rather they are certain untouchable and not criticism that this gentlemen pretend not to see it for whatever “good” and “right” cause, enough to have put in association with Giuliano Ferrara and his now vulgar and insolent newspaper “anti-bergogliano”?
To those who reproached me of having attacked individuals, I replied that it would be enough to read some of my articles to find out that not long ago expressed doubts and criticism respectful towards the Holy Father, who in one of his impromptu utterances had spoken of the Sacraments and offerings to the priests [see which]. In my article I was strict and said that not only the Holy Father spoke of what they did not know but with similar statements had created confusion among the faithful and clergy in embarrassment. None of belonging both to the so-called Lefebvrian both to those who sympathize with the modernists raised questions about what I had written. That's why today I doubt there is a perfectly legitimate: you can possibly criticize, even strictly necessary, not appropriate expressions of the Holy Father, though not certain circles Lefebvrians and their elders?
In the long series of insults that I have rained down on him I was accused of being a nullity emerita who dares criticize as an eminent theologian Brunero Gherardini. That this old priest is an eminent theologian is true in the same extent that it is true that I am a nobody, What, however, that does not prevent me to address this critical calm elder Prato theologian of the Roman school sued for years by Lefebvrians, by sedevacantists and abusers of various term Tradition. Statement, this my, before which one could argue: what does Gheradini? I believe - perhaps wrongly - that to put in place a cooperation in evil not enough to publish a pedagogical purpose the infamous cartoons of the journal Charlie Hebdo, to understand, readers that they had not ever seen, the seriousness of what many had not grasped, then procacciandomi just criticism, with all the sacrosanct reasons Antonio Livi told me: "Your intentions were undoubtedly good, and you have well explained in a note at end of article, But you could avoid their inclusion in the article by John Cavalcoli ». Perhaps the same logic can be applied through the same criterion to Gherardini that allows subjects to use his person, his studies and his writings as a tool to address critical authority of an ecumenical council and all the successive popes from 1958 today. Let me be clear, to do this is hardly Gherardini, faithful priest and theologian tirelessly to Catholic doctrine and to the Supreme Pontiff, which as such is limited only to allow his studies and writings are used for this purpose, without ever having denied or had dissociated himself from certain circles Lefebvrians who continue to exploit it without having procured to date one of his public dissent.
When these same circles tried to make use of some of my writings, you go to see how - even in legitimate criticism of me facing certain drifts ecclesial or pastoral choices perhaps not particularly happy with the Pope - I reacted with drawn sword defending the Church's Magisterium, Vatican II and the Holy Father. Not to mention the works of Gherardini granted in French publication editions of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, with all that this may involve manipulation of the person at the level of one part, legitimate and legitimizing the other. That said it remains undisputed that Gherardini can do what he wants it to free those who want to use his works for campaigns anti-conciliarist that he does not approve of but that did not disapprove. For my part I am free to criticize her for this act, with all the grace of the case and with the estimate due to a venerable elder brother and a great theologian. And this is an issue across the theological and pastoral, based on a substance against which you can not blame me too much for lack of form, which also has its great importance to express properly the best essences of the substance itself.
Why would insolent challenge certain Lefebvrians that starting from historical criteria end up playing on the theological, beating on the authority of Peter and the criteria of his infallibility, paralyzed screens fossilized in the First Vatican Council? I could say and rebuke: but they are all scholars … educated people … People of great elegance ...
Maybe the devil, the unsurpassed master of sowing confusion, of doubts and divisions, looks like a goat or smelly like a farmer illiterate? It seems to me that behind the veneer of “tradition” and “sound doctrine”, behind certain outstanding scholars there are entrepreneurs, freelancers, political, international associations that often have nothing to Catholic, sometimes not even a Christian. And this is precisely the paradigm eloquent man of great skill and intellect that is Giuliano Ferrara, I mentioned with good reason beyond the person itself - that is, precisely as a paradigm - in my previous article wondering if by chance there was a good and a bad atheism, seen that some have torn his clothes for weeks before the Holy Father guilty of them said to have agreed to be interviewed atheist Eugenio Scalfari in a newspaper of the left, while precisely the most critical of the Holy Father feel instead of all entitled to publish articles of disagreement with the Pope in the newspaper atheist Giuliano Ferrara, but heads a right-wing newspaper. In what would, therefore, the irrelevance of my question?
Mine was therefore a pertinent question addressed to Roberto de Mattei and before which are always waiting to be answered; because for now the only response received were the insults of laborers Lefebvrian, which is not, as some would have you believe, a minority of sparse infiltrates. The subjects that I have attacked in forms in which even the most sinful priests Orbe should be defamed, make up the majority of this idyllic setting that defends the real Catholic tradition; to be the minority are the gentlemen and gentlewomen of great education, culture, thickness academic and so, used as a public face presentable, that is to say little more than four cats.
Or to put it so sad and easy to document: you go around Italy and it is subject to higher the number of priests who warmly welcomed and fervor Motu Proprio Benedict XVI on the Missal of St. Pius V, have ceased to celebrate Mass with the old order and no longer want to hear about it. Needless to say: supporters lefevbriane defend themselves by accusing these priests and spreading falsehoods about them emeritus, talk about conspiracies and boycotts, say that priests "have been ensnared by modernist bishops and hyper conciliarists … threatened them to cut off his legs … to beat them in some country parish …». Since I myself have made the sad experience of what, I will explain now why many priests have made act of denial; and I will explain not in my name, but on behalf of many of my confreres. Many priests - and I repeat many - have ceased with regret these celebrations because they were left with the churches full of these fanatical supporters, including my brother who was even pushed because he did not want a large group of youths entered the church with the flags and symbols of Forza Nuova. So not only, my brother, have not been enmeshed, but when several of their bishops have them requested to continue to ensure that celebration at least once a week, they said: "If I impose obedience I can not refuse '. And hardly, a bishop, imposes a priest to celebrate against his will for assemblies “Original” formed by people who go to discourse before and after Mass on Popes are all anti popes heretics from 1958 to follow, the Vatican II council apostatic, the Missal of Paul VI on the model developed by the Lutheran Mason Annibale Bugnini and so. But maybe, scholars of high lineage and respectable people as those who have dared to mention in my previous article, though not priests know more than me. For this we consider from now free to contradict me, but the answer to that point will no longer be my, but rather a collection made available by this our online magazine of all fed testimonies of many of my brethren scattered from Cefalu to Bolzano, so are the priests who celebrate and that for reasons of expediency pastoral ceased to celebrate with The old order is posted, to explain what happened to them with certain faithful, with all due respect to those lay people who have not celebrating the sacred mysteries not hesitate however to deny the concrete with blatant false and painful pastoral experiences of us priests, when our real experiences do not match their dreams ideological.
The lefebvrismo is a disease, cancer from which the body of the Church must be healed, and if necessary should be bombarded with chemotherapy. The Lefebvrians is not clear that the reigning Pontiff as depositary of an authority that comes directly from Christ God, while they are self-invested with an authority that comes only from their pride. Per this is difficult to dialogue and the search for common points with those who live in such closed, proud and determined in their error. That's why I consider it intolerable that the improvident and insolent bishop of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, Bernard Fellay, has dared to publicly ask the Holy Father Francis epitetandolo as "an authentic modernist ' [see which], perfectly aware that Pius X, through his Encyclical Sheep feeding Domici, defined modernism as the synthesis of all heresies. The Holy Father Francis is not the meek Benedict XVI who opened his arms all the way to the heretics Lefebvrians, while procacciandosi in exchange two sound slaps, given that they demand the impossible really: that the Church disavow an entire ecumenical council. The reigning Pontiff does not seem prepared to be slapped much and what it will do when the time will be well done and never earned enough by these unreasonable people, with all our support and all our praise. Why the Church, as stated Father Divo Barsotti preaching spiritual exercises to the Roman Curia in 1971 at the invitation of Blessed Paul VI: «… is the custodian of a coercive power because God has entrusted him, then you must use it ".
Having not yet acquired the science and wisdom two theologians elderly as Antonio and Giovanni Livi Cavalcoli - always assuming manage to acquire one day -, my current temperament, perhaps pastorally crude, perhaps even wrong, leads me to feel that these are our times in which you request the strength and courage of a certain radicalism Pauline free from any form of fundamentalism. But above all we need to start with an idea to familiarize painful as not easy to accept: Lefebvre perhaps are even worse than the modernists. Affirmation latter on which I know does not agree Giovanni Cavalcoli, that for this will not fail to explain his point of view that is certainly compared to my wiser and relevant. In my opinion questionable, while the modernists would like to rephrase the papacy to the specious light of their erroneous ideas of collegiality, falling into relativism dissipating; Lefebvre, the papacy, are showing to attack him in every way in the worst ways in the name of “being” tradition, dell ' “bona fide” love for the Church and the historical method used to arrive at sowing doubts about the legitimacy of theological Peter that have occurred over the last sixty years and their infallibility in matters of doctrine and faith. So if on the one hand you get to relativism, the other leads to a nihilism of gnostic matrix-Pelagian. Needless to say, all this translates soon - and so the penalty sneaky - in serious doctrinal errors unfortunately taken for good because … how could some educated, educated and highly placed gentlemen, Catholics so devoted and loyal to Tradition, say the wrong things? No, some things they say because they suffer for the Church, because the love, because they want to defend it … so what, if its wrong, not condanniamoli, we try to talk to them and find all possible points common …
… in this game do not mean to fall for sneaky and I have taken that road that makes me in every way in solidarity with the spirit and wisdom of the two fathers of the elderly 'Patmos Island: with the Church, in the Church and in the Church, that is not our idea of subjective Church, but the Church of Christ ruled by Pietro of which we are instruments and devoted servants. And if our being priestly and theological is based on these assumptions, any divergent opinions or different way of feeling ends up leave time that is, just as we are demonstrating with these our writings.
We do not speak of the allegations of lack of style or even blasphemy I have rained down on him for having ironically stated that it was better to read Play Boy certain books instead of misleading Cristina Siccardi, so pedestrian that false facts and historical situations to reach a doctrine adulterated, then ideological. His attempts to manipulate the figures of St. Pius X and Blessed Paul VI to legitimize the serious errors Marcel Lefebvre, would be comical if it were not tragic. We take one of the many pearls of this writer, obviously public and documented, then heard from his lips by all our readers:
"Monsignor Lefebvre was a knight without fear and without reproach with a force that was definitely not human, he acted like he could act during a Sant'Atanasio Arianism, acted as a St. Catherine of Siena, which alone has faced the Popes […] this is when Monsignor Lefebvre becomes the champion of the most important things, of the most essential, that is, a champion of faith, in the sense that defending Mass defends the faith itself […] Monsignor Lefebvre acted so much love for Jesus Christ and then for the Church and for the Pope […] Ecône was a place where you really can defend itself by bombing liberal, Modernist, relativists and where it was possible to keep the Tradition ".
It was the face of these delusions fanta-Catholics I claimed to be a thing less serious and misleading reading Play Boy instead the books of some people unfortunately taken for good by many Christi fideles, although of course, a few lines later, clarifying the apparent paradox - that as such already been expressing itself and of itself in my statement - I urged not to read this magazine in which there is nothing edifying, but this was not enough to appease certain minds.
Faced with all this my logic and my way of acting may be contestable. But I believe that these people who always take terribly seriously, that behind their aura of formal education and gallantry sow such errors, should be taken just around a sort of duty Catholic. Because when you compare me seriously and “valid” arguments a Lefebvre to St. Athanasius of Alexandria who struggle against Arianism, as did the Siccardi pontificating at the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, then comparing subliminally Vatican II to the Arian heresy and the Church Fathers who participated to Arian bishops; or when other much more furious declare a heretic and apostate Pontiff a whole Church from an Ecumenical Council; when an eminent theologian elected by these people in their backbone and generous dispenser of various prefaces to their books, plays on the concept of pastoral council ambiguously, though animated by all the best intentions, but for which certain ideologues Lefebvrians not take into account, inevitably you end up giving tools to these characters to finally arrive to say that the last Council of the Church is not dogmatic, but only pastoral, then remove him from authorities, after making use and abuse of Brunero Gherardini, who never claimed similar things, being a great theologian and above all a true man of God.
And before this I can only respond by inviting the people of God not to take anything into consideration and to laugh out loud on similar blunders of practices presented in a serious way as if they were genuine truth of faith. Certain, it should all be done with style and intelligence, especially when you criticize susceptible lords, scholars, noblemen and noblewomen prostrate at Lefebvrians and with an eye to the secret wrung sedevacantists; that of Correspondence Romana, Levied Christian, Church&Post-Council, Mass in Latin, from The Gazette devout atheist Giuliano Ferrara, etc.… insolentiscono the Roman Pontiff every day. And in the face of these facts I feel free to say that these people are to expire, not that I react to their serious doctrinal errors destituendoli foundation with sacrosanct sneer, as in my opinion we should do with all those that cover their blunders of the seriousness of that nonsense can not in itself have.
A final example before which priests would that much more mature and wise of me, together with theologians with science much greater than mine, I would explain in what capacity you could and you should take seriously a heretical assertion of this kind, recognizing those who have uttered the aura of serious scholar, so steeped itself of ignorance and arrogance:
"What Bergoglio is demolishing even admirable energy with the Catholic Church, and I emphasize "Catholic", is in deeds and not in opinions. But I disagree with those who say that he does in the name of a Third Vatican Council undeclared and, therefore, the remedy is to apply correctly the Second Vatican. The disasters that led the Church to the brink of the precipice and many Catholics to lose faith are precisely the correct application of the Second Vatican: not of his spirit, but his letter. I've said it many times and I do not tire of repeating: this Church deserves this Pope. On the contrary, This Pope is the perfect expression of this Church which has less and less of a Catholic ' [full text which].
Statements like this Alessandro Gnocchi is in itself a grotesque theologically, ecclesial and historical. Grotesque thus became in this and only this for the online magazine Levied Christian - Belonging to the Lepanto Foundation - Kneeling now as handmaiden devoted to the worst heresies matrix Lefebvrian, What proved to be Gnocchi and other columnists through their writings that represent a blatant and painful denial of Catholic communion. Then there is little or nothing to talk or to look for common points with sowers and seeders of such poisons that require express severe and unacceptable judgments invalidating an entire ecumenical council, the Magisterium of the Church and the Roman Pontiffs last half century. I do not exclude, however, be mistaken for choosing to act in that spirit that I defined earlier as healthy radicalism Pauline.
Therefore, if the good soul of Massimo Troisi said: "We just have to cry ', I feel for say that before these blunders, the result of real closures and listening to the actions of God's grace, we just have to laugh. The rice is in fact healthy and effective medicine that can help us to support our good faithful ever more lost and confused, urging them not to seek answers to their questions in the books, in articles and lectures of these confused souls who are elected to masters of thought and proper Catholic opinion, and finally taking them for what they really are: comedians extraordinary as unaware of what, then rendered particularly comedians that are their biggest mistakes they take terribly seriously. Because pride, view on the other hand, has implications that are often really hilarious comedians, the only thing is that the superb, this, unfortunately does not know, because pride closes, blinds and removes any healthy Christian and want to laugh and wholesome self-irony.