the N. 84 of Familiaris Consortio it is more important than the Prologue of John's Gospel that recounts the mystery of God's Word ?

letters from readers 2

They say the island of Patmos Fathers

THE N. 84 OF FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO It IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PROLOGUE OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN THAT TELLS THE MYSTERY OF GOD'S WORD AVATAR ?

.

What basically asking to certain people is the spirit of human and Christian integrity: or perhaps really they believe they can attack from a part the whole Magisterium of the Church of the last fifty years, but at the same time argue that the n. 84 of Family company, written by a Pope to reconcile, present as a bishop at the council, then the council actuator as Successor of Peter, is untouchable, as more important and more dogmatic than will the entire Prologue of John's Gospel ?

.

.

Author Father Ariel
Author
Ariel S. Levi Gualdo

.

.

There are no "cases" to evaluate whether to grant communion to divorced and remarried [Ed. in reference to previous answers given by the Fathers WHO]. However, there is one and the same "case" that would allow the divorced and remarried to receive Communion and that is that they live as "brother and sister". The N. 84 of Family company denies access to the remarried Communion for the simple fact that they do not being in a state of Grace, "Eat their condemnation" approaching this Sacrament. The speech of the scandal to the faithful is totally secondary to the main motivation.

Gianluca Bazzorini

.

.

Dear Reader.

Nine out of ten of his comments were not publicati because they contained the allegations seriously insulting towards the Supreme Pontiff, variously referred to her as “heretic“, “acolyte Antichrist” and so; not to mention the way she is usually demonize the Second Vatican Council and its documents, But he defends a sword No.. 84 of Family company, I assume that is for her as for other more important than faith Nicene Creed.

.

We are not aware that the apostolic exhortation love joy He has now changed for the discipline. So it is pointless to raise a question that does not exist, because the Pope has never established any official document that the provisions contained in n. 84 the Apostolic Exhortation Family company [cf. WHO] it is repealed. Therefore, we all pastors in the care of souls, we stick scrupulously to what is the current discipline of the Church in matters. But if a bishop or priest does not, wrong, but wrong - if we want to seriously - in his personal, not because the Pope has established the doctrine and discipline contrary to Catholic morality.

.

Unfortunately, there are "Catholics" on the one hand discuss and reject in whole disciplines of an ecumenical council, ie the last celebrated by the Church, feeling not only with a clear conscience, but so much the right to consider themselves the Heralds of the Truth. So what you want it, comparison, discuss without rejecting the n. 84 of Family company ? Indeed, to certain Heralds of the Truth - Including the other papessa, Mrs. Maria Guarini blog Church and Council Post [see our letter WHO] , maybe it is good to remember that the author of today often quoted n. 84 of Family company, the Holy Father John Paul II, after Blessed Pope Paul VI was the second largest actuator of that Vatican Council II, namely that council by those referred to as “source of all current ills of the Church”.

.

I believe that people accustomed to think and act in this way They should bring order in themselves, because before trumpeting the n. 84 of Family company, should accept in toto the authority of an entire council, except fall, if not, as the Lady Cristina Siccardi that I mentioned in my previous article [cf. WHO], in psychology borderline, which is exactly the following: “Long live the n. 84 of Family company of Pope reconcile, Down with I conciliabolo Vatican II celebrated by the Church Fathers gathered in the ecumenical seated ” (!?).

.

I think equally important to recall to all of them - Speaking and acting of which moves into a frightening ecclesial and doctrinal confusion - that John Paul II elected to their favorite for the n. 84 of Family company elevated to intangible dogma Faith, is the same John Paul II from them vilified in the fierce way for its ecumenical encounters in Assisi.

.

And since I do the priest and theologian and not the psychiatrist, you know well that before similar personalities suffering from such disorders bipolar spectrum [cf. WHO], throw in the towel and step dutifully to another kind of specialist expertise, namely to neuropsychiatrists.

.

Regrets that Mrs. Cristina Siccardi followed to try their hand at rants fanta ecclesiological fiercely anti-conciliar serialized on that gloomy site Pharisees which has shrunk now Levied Christian [see WHO]. Because what the Fathers of’Patmos Island ask certain people, is just a little’ the basic spirit of human and Christian integrity. Or maybe they really believe they can attack from a part the whole Magisterium of the Church of the last fifty years, but at the same time argue that the n. 84 of Family company, written by a Pope to reconcile, present as a bishop at the council, then the council actuator as Successor of Peter, both more important and more dogmatic than will the entire Prologue of John's Gospel, which tells the mystery of God's Word [cf. WHO]?

.

Where does this obsession on the topic of Communion for divorced and remarried? But it is obvious: It comes from the morbid Theology pant [cf. My previous article WHO], thanks to which some people identify the sex and human sexuality not only the sin of sins, but the center and the engine of the entire mystery of evil.

.

We urge consistency. That consistency based on fides and ratio human and Christian. But unfortunately, these people, of forms of genuine ideological hatred have structured their anger against the Church and against Peter, reducing everything to an obsessive Theology pant. And the anger against the Church and hatred against Peter, Catholic do not have anything, pace of Heralds of the Truth, of all their papesse and obsession with Theology pant, in virtue of which they are induced to ignore a whole series of serious sins ranging from the waist up, but of which these people do not want to just talk, sure as I am that the sins are only those that go from the waist down.

.

.

.

The Siccardi as traditionalists sites you mentioned are based, in most cases, to distinguished Catholic theologians who certainly can not be accused of ignorance or ridiculousness, I refer to Romano Amerio and Brunero Gherardini. answer, if you can, to them, and then you can afford to be accused of heresy the Siccardi and all sites "siccardiani", But to hell with them in the group of heretics and proud, It will put us well Gherardini and Amerio, if he can, is intende. I wish you a good job …

Atanasio

.

Dear Reader.

I did not know that Romano Amerio and Brunero Gherardini were the Father and Son from which the proceeds Holy Spirit, that "with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, he has spoken through the prophets".

.

She responds rather to himself: it is best to refer to the supreme magisterium of the Popes - including all those that go from San Giovanni XXIII to follow - or is it better to refer to the above Father and Son Used and abused by some people to discredit and attack the papal magisterium, not to mention the dangerous thought gherardiniano, followed in this by Serafino Lanzetta, about the Second Vatican Council "only pastoral", ie ... with no weight and account, "not being", to say these theologians, "dogmatic", therefore, de facto, non-binding ?

.

quote Iota Romano Amerio s'esso as he was above the Profession of Faith, to hit through it Peter, as certain Catholics, It is simply absurd.

.

.

.

Author John Cavalcoli OP
Author
John Cavalcoli, OP

.

.

Rev. Fathers Ariel and John Cavalcoli.

I am writing to express to you the following concerns: I think your Catholic response to Luther [Ed. cf. WHO and WHO] It is likely to be a little stronger because you accuse ideas, but then shows the sources. In fact, some would have to say sfacciatezza “but look what Luther did not say that, neither she wanted to say this!”. Also one thing to Luther and the Lutherans have an account that are inspired by Luther, who claim not to share any ideas of their illustrious predecessor and not be required to do so; then there are those who simply declare Protestants and are inspired by aspects of the thought of Luther and his “Reform” but on other points they keep their distance. It is clear that, if this is the situation, both Lutherans and Protestants may have easily evading game criticism and accusations of Catholic theologians: This means that even when you are feeling the Lutheranism and the various Protestant theologians and preachers is important to cite sources.

Letter Signed

.

.

Luther's theses I quote or to which I refer in my last article [cf. WHO] They have been known for centuries, least among connoisseurs of Luther and relate to well-known convictions of the Church. The sources, in addition to those cited by me, are located in the Authors to which reference.
.
I not therefore ask the reader to trust my authority; but he can control by means of my cross-references both to the authors that the Magisterium of the Church.
.
The intent of my article it was not to expose my new interpretation of the Lutheran thought. Only in that case I should abound in citations of sources, in order to document and prove my assumption and refute opponents. So in my article I did not say anything new, that is not already known by critics, but but it is likely to be forgotten by the current celebratory rhetoric.
.
Delivery My intent instead was informative and educational, but also of theological study, in the context of ecumenism and of Catholic, is to make known to the Catholic culture media some valid points of Luther's thought and is to refute errors, which today does little, while praising Luther inappropriately, so these errors are likely to delight even the Catholics.
.

I am not a historian of Lutheranism, but a theologian. For this I do Luther as such; I do not care the various interpretations of his more or less faithful followers, embellishments or cuts that they operate in the thought of their master.

.
I will not put myself in this quagmire, although I recognize that the thought of Luther, in its richness and complexity, but also for the inconsistency, ambiguity, darkness and paradoxical nature of some of his positions, It can require you to consult its authoritative followers and ensure that certain interpretations of his thought remain dubious or uncertain.

.

So I ask the reader who wants to judge me, to stay in what I say about Luther and not what they say Lutherans, which I do not even mention in my article.

.

.

Writes Father John Cavalcoli: "As I have explained publicly on several occasions on the Island of Patmos and elsewhere, the Pope, under the power of the keys, the right at its discretion to change the laws of the Church, although founded on divine right. Now the law of exclusion of remarried divorcees from Eucharistic Communion is one of these ' [cf. WHO].
I'm sorry but change the laws founded on divine right is not possible because it is precisely the divine right and then to his immutable nature. The Pope by virtue of the keys has no authority to change what God has established, if it did commit an abuse and his teachings on the subject would not be binding, as an expression of a pseudo pastoral teaching (not dogmatic and therefore not infallible), whose falsity is obvious insofar as it departs from the Catholic dogma to chase false modern philosophies, repository of all heresy.

Atanasio

.

Dear Reader.

we must distinguish the 'institution of the sacraments from Discipline of the Sacraments. The first is due to Christ and forms the divine or divine law right; the second was entrusted by Christ to Peter, and is the canon law or ecclesiastical law.

.

The ban on Communion for divorced and remarried, still in force under the The joy of love, certainly it is founded on divine right, but not so necessary and stringent, that, if the Pope tomorrow will, He has no power, according to the power of the keys (Discipline of the Sacraments), grant permission Communion in special cases, to be determined by the law.

.

It can be said that even this permit will be based on divine right, although with different reasons from those which justified the prohibition. Indeed, while this, as it is clear from the n. 84 of Family company, It was motivated by the opportunity to avoid scandal, any permission given by the Holy Father Francis, as shown by The joy of love ((c). VIII), It may be motivated by the opportunity to provide the couple with additional means of grace, such as to enable them to cope with greater confidence and supernatural force the duties of their state, which, constituting a strong occasion of sin, as it was irregular, It appears to be a more difficult path to salvation, than that of the regular pairs.

.

We here another way to respect the dignity of marriage, of Confession and the Eucharist, ie the divine right, suitable to their situation, and different from the one implemented by regular couples and other than that provided by law of prohibition.

.

It will be well that the Supreme Pontiff emanates an Instruction for Confessors, in order to help them to the proper administration of the sacrament in this matter so complex and difficult, as is that of the state of remarried divorcees, distinguishing between cases in which the confessors can admit them to the sacraments from those in which they can not, and leaving to them a sufficient space for discernment and decision.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

About isoladipatmos

3 thoughts on "the N. 84 of Familiaris Consortio it is more important than the Prologue of John's Gospel that recounts the mystery of God's Word ?

  1. Rev. fathers,
    I think it's not simply a matter of piddling. All, you too, perhaps for the sake of convenience we use the expression “neolinguistica” of divorced and remarried: a comprehensive understatement and abused by the media, now entered the common parlance, but stultifying the same people of God, in the same baptized that they live different marital situations “irregular”, each one different from the others, feeding erroneous expectations, hopes of easy solutions … and consequent, inevitable painful disappointments …
    Therefore, it would be more appropriate, canonicamente, theologically, decouple collective category “Divorced and remarried” in some subgroups using more precise phrases that can best summarize the many existing cases that in reality?
    Discernment should not start from the language, calling bread bread and wine wine?
    The interpretation is not as clear – These herbs do not require interpretation – said the Latins

  2. In regard to the first responses of the Father Ariel add this. If we dwell on one of the erroneous concepts of modernism we find: “The Church's Magisterium does not communicate us at all the truth that comes from God” . Since the “tradi-Protestant” They do not believe the Last Second Vatican Council, Modern Mass and the post-conciliar Magisterium as a communication of God, but merely as a veiled human discourse of heresies, it goes without saying, that they are positioned perfectly within the framework of the real modernists. This is fully corroborated also by their behavior antidottrinale and often unethical towards the hierarchy of the Church. If, then, it is what they look for modernism, I propose them to look in the mirror: They will have sensational surprises. A warm greeting to the Reverend Fathers of the Island

  3. The issue is actually much simpler: these people are in a state of mortal sin always, if they do not live in chastity?

    Because in the end the question is this, even before the Communion speech.

    Orthodox Christians are divorced and remarried, just to say (and if you speak of Orthodoxy should be noted that they have a valid episcopate and valid sacraments, Eucharist including), it is very difficult to be in a state of mortal sin, since their Church blesses the second marriage does not have full awareness of sin.

    Now, if the Orthodox divorced and remarried were in a state of grace while Catholics in the same condition they were in a state of mortal sin, it would follow that it would be easier to save belonging to the Orthodox Church rather than to the true Church of Christ. But this seems to me a paradox.

    In this regard, how about Amoris Laetitia 301, who says that even knowing well the norm there may be extenuating circumstances that make you the person is still in a state of Grace?

Leave a Reply