Islam and the Christological mystery: Christ promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, He did not say that Europe will not collapse

ISLAM AND THE Christological mystery: CHRIST HAS PROMISED THAT THE GATES OF HELL SHALL CONTROL NOT ON THE CHURCH, He NOT SAID THAT will not collapse EUROPE

.
Always remains true that the promise of Christ portae hell not praevalebunt. But Christ did not say that Europe will not collapse, but that will not be destroyed the Church. They are not the same thing. Today, Europe is likely to present Islam the framework of a civilization in cultural and moral decay, that, He is having forgotten its Christian roots and the strength of wisdom greek-Roman, It is back to barbaric customs and pagan solvents, worse than before his conversion to Christ.

.

Author John Cavalcoli OP
Author
John Cavalcoli OP

..

To open the ’ article click below

John Cavalcoli, OP – ISLAM AND THE Christological mystery

.

.

.

About isoladipatmos

45 thoughts on "Islam and the Christological mystery: Christ promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, He did not say that Europe will not collapse

  1. Rev. Father,
    From believer in continuing education, I must thank you for the wonderful dissertation clear, masterful for at least four-fifths.
    In the final part I think, is lacking something. I try to explain. She rightly speaks of Europe's weakness and the clash between two certainties: or Christ or Mohammed. Remember (as also noted P. Ariel S. Levi Gualdo in his article “The Ecclesia in Europa“) the actions of St. Giovanni Paolo II, on the subject of Christian roots and condemnation of terrorist violence, the complaint of Benedict XVI in Regensburg, international reactions, political and media, public curses that followed? how many crusaders, political and ecclesiastical, abandoning the Vicar of Christ, They imitated Peter in the Sanhedrin? Then only silent retreat, betrayal of values “Christians” and anteposition of the secular. And the Church itself, defeatist, He has changed the language and nature of the mission, no longer speaks of faith, sin,conversion, but of humanism, hospitality, inclusion …
    We are moving towards new Roncesvalles or Vienna?
    Where are the soldiers of Christ?
    A cardinal suggested: a council, a synod, encyclical on Islam.

    With many, many prayers, our best weapons.

  2. Father John Carlson.

    A question: it is legitimate, (especially in light of what was written by Father Cavalcoli) , argue that Islam is a false religion? Or it is correct (logically I would say no… but theologically, at this point, It might as well have some basis unknown to me… standing, Moreover, my ignorance on the subject) say that those who consider Catholicism the only true religion… not Catholic? Just to be able to replicate with certainty (about doubts that arise in increasingly lost faithful) the important journalist from Vatican Radio that a few nights ago, here on fb, what if “accused” (in a good-natured way but seriously and literally) not to be a true Catholic, if I consider false all religions except precisely that Catholic… Obviously, if he were to be right, I accept excommunication and cease to believe catholic (as my reason I still refuse to believe no false simultaneously all religions).

    1. Dear Gianfranco,

      the confrontation between religions is not a simple thing. You can not compare one religion with another as you compare a real banknote with a false. Every religion involves a set of beliefs and practices of different value and weight, which make rather difficult the comparison.

      Easily into this set will give truth and error, virtues and vices. There are degrees of truth, of goodness, as there are degrees of falsehood and vice. In this way, a religion can be superior to another. But none can be completely false, because the false exists only where there is also the real. If the false totally distracted true that clings, destroy himself. In this sense it can not be said that the Islamic religion is false. It is as true as the Catholic.

      The real, on the other hand, It can be totally free from the false. And this is precisely the case of the Catholic religion. This is the only completely true, above all other, because it is the only one founded by God, ie by Jesus Christ, Son of God. The others, like for example, Jewish and Islamic, They were founded by simple creatures, as large, the first by Moses, the second by Muhammad.

      A good criterion to compare the Catholic religion with Islam is given to us by the Declaration Our age, of Vatican II. It remembers the primacy of Christianity over other religions, but at the same time it recognizes Islam as the presence of values ​​and important truths, as for example monotheism, values ​​that come from God and lead to God.

      In conclusion, according to what is said it is not advisable to say that Catholicism is the only true religion, as if all the others are false SIC et simpliciter. But it is better to say that Catholicism the truest of all, to imply that in the other there are some truths, however mixed to errors, and then there is the fullness of pure truth, that exists only in Catholicism.

  3. Rev. Father Cavalcoli. In blunt and polite way, She, in this article, he said, I believe, everything there was to say, pointing to Catholics, and not only, there was to indicate. In a previous article, Father Ariel, He explained that Muhammad was (and it's) a “false prophet”, he even uses a striking image, He defined it as a barman who had put in the shaker Judaism, Christianity, various currents Christian heretics of the first centuries, etc.. creating a unique (it's dangerous?) solution.
    I attend the parish, not only Sunday Mass, but also various meetings, catechesis, etc..
    He knows what terms they use, many priests, when they refer to Islam and to Islamic? First of all, “hospitality”, “comprehension”, “dialogue”, they say that in truth “Islam is a religion of love”, that “We have to talk to the Islamic modernati” and, when they mention Muhammad, several times I heard him call “the great prophet of Islam”.
    Before you sink Europe (and this time we will not win the battle of Lepanto!), You think someone will listen to? Because you have said, and you have explained clearly and precisely what awaits us, and I think (unfortunately!) you're right, I think he's right, the Archbishop of Mosul, Ariel whose father suffered a terrible warning to Europe: “you are receiving in your home the enemy … tomorrow will happen what happens to us today”.
    Thanks for everything!

    1. Cara Laura.

      Muhammad is indeed a false prophet, as, those who follow him around, conscious of being in error, It would not be devoid of ill will, for instance, of pride or arrogance, and therefore could not be saved.

      Thank God, many of his followers are peaceful people, which either must submit by force the Islamic state or do not do Christian for fear of being sold or are not aware of any errors or take from the Qur'an only what it is reasonable or meets natural ethics.

      These are the moderate Muslims, with whom you can dialogue and work together for peace and justice. The hope is that they can grow in numbers and disillusion, appease and influence beneficially fanatics, fundamentalists and warmongers.

      However we must remember that even the false prophets, in the middle of errors, impertinences and immorality, support of the truths or values, We need to recognize and accept. This forms the basis of interreligious dialogue. Mohammed, in this sense, He was certainly a prophet and teacher. But even call it the "Great Prophet", it's too much, It is misplaced and misleading, and it is scandalous on the lips of Christians, especially then when priests.

      moderate Islam exists, thank God, and it constitutes the vast majority of the Islamic world; one billion human beings! The problem is that, if they were faithful to the end to the Koran, They should assume that proud hardness and relentless aggressiveness, we see the climax conducted in terrorists, though in terrorism Koran does not speak at all, and indeed it is implicitly condemned, as treacherous assassination of innocent people.

      In fact, the Koran but pushes killing, but only the infidels who do not want to convert. They thus believe to punish in the name of God those who refuse to believe. Christ also threatens condemnation to those who refuse to believe, but, apart from the question of the doctrinal content, There is a big difference: that Christ refers to eternal punishment after death and gives us plenty of time to reflect, clarify and decide.

      Instead Islam threatens with impatience and hardness of the penis in this life, depriving man of the way and the time to quietly reflect, thoughtfulness and serenity, Free from the pressure of a threatening power and despotic.

      The Muslim claim to punish the infidel in this life, which supposes a method of diffusion of the Koran that does not respect the freedom of conscience of others, but it moves him to believe with coercion, which deforms the act of faith, which must be free and voluntary and not compelled by fear.

  4. Send this comment article by Father Ariel (Ecclesia in Europa), and that of Father John (Islam and the Christological mystery)

    ... then, Dear Fathers, Some weeks ago I came to loggerheads with my bishop, because when dall '... supercelestial of Santa Marta was widespread demand to host a refugee family in every parish, first of all, I said that my, like many other parishes, they are, nowadays, traveling on "red numbers" and forced to squirm between debts and payments. I replied that though, with pleasure and sacrifice, I could sleep, with the help of the parishioners (welcoming and generous before humanitarian cases) a family of Syrian Catholics persecuted by Islamic fundamentalists, but I never hosted, ever, in the parish entrusted to me, a Muslim family.
    In our northeastern Italian people are very affected by an army of false refugee solar, landed on Lampedusa and come up here with us, all of which are strong and stalwart, young and in perfect physical health, who stamp their feet so arrogant, throwing away quality food offered to them ... and that all, all rigor, they are Muslims. Perhaps because few Christians on board barges have thrown them overboard before arrival?
    When Bishop, angry, He said "I want the Holy Father", I replied "we are not talking about the doctrinal application of a dogma of faith, then wants them, if you put them in his house ".
    Outcome? The threat to remove me from the parish if "you do not tow the line".
    I greet the bishop saying that "to put in line a priest it takes little, is that, unfortunately, we can not put this line army that is invading us day after day ".
    To you, fathers, someone has even threatened you to get in line, for what sacrosanct write?

    Father Pier Paolo

    1. Father Pier Paolo… I point out that the Good Samaritan professed Samaritanesimo (so to say), not Judaism… but the victim jew greets although (for him) 'heretic', Abrahamic religion as a follower of his, but other from its…

      1. Dear Beppe.

        I do not answer on behalf of Don Pier Paolo, I intervene only in this thread.
        My grandfather used to say that everyone has always been good and generous in paying portfolios with others.
        the result, for case, that the Samaritans had planned a methodical and massive invasion of the territory of Judea?
        And the result for the case that the members of the fundamentalist fringes of samaritanesimo, We have never proclaimed Holy War, carried out massacres and bombings and slaughtered people and then spreading the video of their executions?

        She realizes that among all “Samaritan” Today we host in our house, the only ones who have expressed disagreement with the exploits of Isis Islamists, were only “four cats”, for the most part almost all women born in Italy in Italian Catholic families, that marrying a Muslim have renounced the Christian faith and converted to Islam? And today, confusing Islam with their renegade Christianity, They go with the headscarf and clothing to the ankles in our televisions to tell, with Roman accent or Milanese accent, the tale that Islam is a religion of peace and love.

        She realizes – subject to the many brave individuals – that Islam is a violent religion structurally, that violence is contained in its “sacred texts” ridigi fixed and do not allow any kind of interpretation?

        She realizes that in this religion entirely lacks the concept of freedom, then the divine value of the freedom of God's children, the latter element that lies at the foundation of the mystery of creation, place that God created us in his image and likeness, free and have free will?

        And when the Word of God became incarnate, what did: It proposed its divine message of salvation and redemption, or he has armed the armies and forced people to choose between two possible solutions: the forced conversion or death?
        Because this is what happened, from the seventh century, to entire Christian population converted by force with the sword. This happened all over North Africa was the cradle of Christianity and the land of birth of many of the great Fathers of the Church; This is what happened to the ancient Byzantium or Constantinople, the current Istanbul, Cradle of Eastern Christianity, where the ancient St. Sophia Cathedral now stands a large mosque.

        He wants to happen just as soon as the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter? We just continue to confuse the sense of “good Samaritan”, because this time, the “Battle of Lepanto”, certainly not the win, so Europe is suffering from self-hatred and from its Christian roots.

        Finally, I grant a last example, by animal lover who are: dogs, even those of large size, I am taken one by one, They are not dangerous, if they instinctively feel that the man does not want anything to him and is not afraid; unless it is a watchdog that is seen invading its territory. But I guarantee that when the dogs – including the good ones – they are together in packs, in that case there is to be very afraid.

        Try to understand the example for what you mean.

        1. Very briefly. The I point out that before the Muslim Turks turn into the mosque cathedral S. Sofia Catholics – two centuries before – They had turned into the great cathedral mosque of Cordoba; and then I remember that the Jews expelled by the very Catholic King of Spain found refuge mostly in North Africa or the east turkish Muslim and Muslim… And to stay in the parable of the Good Samaritan, I must point out that it is not the jew hosting the Samaritan, but the Samaritan who helps the jew, and the Jews were not tender with Samaritans … We 'Samaritans’ we host the 'Jews'.
          And Pope Francis does not seem to have said only accommodate families of refugees of Christian faith, but to accommodate the refugee whatever his faith … Pope Francis and I do not think you think the Muslim religion as "a structurally violent religion" if he agreed to pray barefoot along with the Grand Mufti in the Blue Mosque in Istanbul ... as before him Pope Giovanni Paolo II ...

    2. Dear Don Pier Paolo,

      as I mentioned in the article, it is necessary that the civil and religious authorities, with the collaboration of experts, operate a sieve in the migratory flow, as it is now clear for years that, except for cases of actual needy migrants, deluded by criminal exploiters, desperate poor, It does also cover, the Islamic powers are implementing a smart, systematic, tenacious, subtle and grand piano widespread clandestine invasion of Europe, making use of fake needy, but really skillful propagandists, authorized for the end of the Islamization of Europe, openly declared by their leaders of Islamic countries, by creating Islamic nuclei, which, according to the Koran, prepare the Islamic state, undermining the security of our democratic states and weakening the vitality of the Church in collaboration with those forces that, within the Church, under the pretext of dialogue and "Church open to all", crumble and relativize the certainties of faith and solidity of moral convictions, dissolving the unity of the faith in a chaotic jumble of contradictory ideas and behavior among their, as the swarming of worms in a body in dissolution. And this would be the "pluralism" and respect for "diversity".

      We must cope with this difficult situation, which it seems to reign the power of darkness, strengthening our moral convictions and faith, drawing on authentic sources of Revelation - the Magisterium, infallible interpreter of Scripture and Tradition -, enduring trials, nourishing our spiritual life with the abundance of the means of grace, striving to see the holiness of the Church beyond the misery of its members, certain degenerative phenomena, scandals, indignity, or the inability of some shepherds, bad theologians, imitating the saints, discerning and appreciating the positive, wherever they are, in or out of the Church, with a healthy inter-religious dialogue, but also open eyes, in order to avoid the ingenuity and fascinating errors, avert dangers and pitfalls, cultivating a universal charity, tight around the guide of the Vicar of Christ and all good shepherds united to him.

  5. On one thing fundamentally I disagree. The article seems (unless I'm wrong) accept the idea quite common in environments that are not secularists that a Christian civilization (not to be confused with Christianity, of course) in serious identity crisis opposes an Islam altogether vital,Despite the crazy fundamentalist demonstrations. My opinion however is that these events are a sign of a deadly disease, and that Islam is now time of reckoning. Today we see how the whole world step by step, insensibilmente, We are being westernized, namely, in a broad sense cristianizzando. And 'Christianity that has "set" Western civilization, with its universalism but also with its distinction (I do not say “separation”) Church and State. Islam is now subjected to a tremendous pressure that is pushing to redefine: hence the violent convulsions that afflict. But if Islam comes to this redefinition, flows just in Christianity, that dies, as it suggests, moreover, towards the end of the article, when we talk about a “Mohammed, freed from the errors” that leads to Christ.

  6. because either Christ or Mohammed? I would rather say, or Christ / Mohammed or Voltaire…

    "It's very important to bring flowers to our dead, it is very important to read several times the Hemingway book “Paris is a feast”. We are an ancient civilization and we will bring the highest values. […] We fraterniserons with 5 millions of Muslims who practice their religion freely and nicely and we will fight against 10’000 barbarians who kill, supposedly in the name of Allah "

    1. Dear Beppe.

      The alternative you places you could file, it seems to me, in these terms: or the ultimate end of man is eternal bliss after death, obtained from religious practice, based on divine revelation (Christ / Mohammed); or is this the end, the man if he should try for themselves, without any religion; with the forces that is found to have, He must make do with his own reason and his will to seek that happiness, he does find, if found, without knowing what is there after death, since no came from the beyond to tell us, while in the sky there is a Great Architect who is going to look like and finish.

      Choose the first option that I said (Christ-Mohammed), it means having a sense of human dignity, that leads a person to believe in God, to listen to his word, to obey Him, to ask for his help to reach eternal bliss after death. All this is common to Christianity and Islam. But the question remains: between Christ and Mohammed who is right? Which one teaches us the way of salvation? Which of the two do we reach God? Which one teaches us the virtue?

      The choice for Voltaire falls into that which I make as a second alternative, ie the European humanism horizon originated by Descartes, anthropocentric, self and self-sufficient, founded on pride, their enlightenment and Freemasonry, who is leading Europe to ideological and moral collapse, because it is deprived of that reference to God, the Creator of man, so true transcendent foundation of moral law and, consequently, of human rights obligations.

      You can share the distinction between peaceful Muslims and Voltaire makes bellicose Muslims. However, the fact remains that the Koran justifies and indeed controls the use of force or the war against the infidels, who do not convert, as would the public authority with a robber who does not submit to the law.

      Magdi Cristiano Allam is too strict in claiming that the Koran should be banned as a criminal text inciting hatred and violence, because it, as it recognized by the Church itself of the Council, also it contains moral and religious values, who are the foundation of interreligious dialogue, so much so that by the Church the Koran is considered "sacred text".

      it remains true, anyway, that, while in the Koran it is advocated as the will of God above constriction, none of this is given in Christianity, which is not given to any criminal punishment or coercion or use of force, let alone the death penalty against those who will not believe or does resistance to evangelism, but rather it is felt that it will be punished in the Hereafter, warning, this, very different from the storm threat, as is the case in Islam, an edict of the State or of the caliph or the umma or the ulema, but has its foundation and raison d'etre ontological imprescriptible in the objective dynamic of man's destiny.

      For Jesus but warns that those who do not believe, it is condemned. However, as is well known, He does not refer to a conviction in the present life at the hands of public authorities, as it gives the Islamic State, but in the future, ie refers to the penalty of hell.

      But unfortunately the Koran completely ignores the fundamental legal principle for Christianity, which reads: “is forced to embrace the faith against his will to the one which”. The Church, in the past, as we know, but he practiced the death penalty for heretics. But the case is quite different: it is one thing to punish a traitor and a bill is to force one to embrace a religion by force.

      The Christian threat of eternal punishment does not constitute undue pressure on the conscience, as it happens in Islamic law, which is embodied in sharia, because the recipient of the warning Christian has plenty of time to reflect, weigh and weigh up the evidence, signs and credibility guarantees that are offered in abundance dall'apologetica and the testimonies of the saints and the Church.

      Instead the Quran can not stand the way spontaneous and free of consciousness, path may be long and last for a lifetime, but it encourages or promotes legislative action or acts of government, imposing of deadlines or ultimatums authorities, as would a tax office in respect of a tax evader or as a police command requires a group of nomads to move out within a certain period.

      1. “… none of this is given in Christianity, which is not given to any criminal punishment or coercion or use of force, let alone the death penalty against those who will not believe or does resistance to evangelism, but rather it is felt that it will be punished in the Hereafter…”

        Really? Christianity only alerts the infidel who will be punished in the Hereafter? There has been limited to this benevolent warning with the Spanish Jews in the late fifteenth century? no coercion? no use of force? and good Giordano Bruno? they told me the story that was burned alive… but it is certainly a fairy tale… and the Aztecs or the Incas? only benevolently warned that if they did not convert would be punished in the Hereafter? and the Syllabus condemning freedom of conscience? all fairy tales… or perhaps it will not be thanks to Voltaire TODAY (just to give a name) The Church of Rome finally (but only after Vatican II) accept freedom of conscience?

        1. look, She raises several issues and all of them historically complex, because in its various vegetable soup he has put everything, part of the seventeenth century with the Dominican Giordano Bruno of Nola and then takes off for the New World coming with a jump of a century back to the Aztecs and the Incas. Then backtracks, back to Europe, He makes another leap of three centuries and began to quibble about the Syllabus of Pius IX. But Pius IX just quoted him comes to mind another, then again he makes a leap backwards 94 years to go to pull out Voltaire, and yet another leap forward by more than two centuries to finish with Vatican Council II.
          And mind you, I have not lost anything, I only did a faithful summary of what you wrote.

          To this I answer one of his questions, to only one: I come from an ancient Jewish family came away from Spain in the late fifteenth century; Catholic family for several centuries. And how do you see they are healthy and well, and as far as I know, my ancestors, or they died of disease or old age. Without, however, ruled that she is more knowledgeable than me on my personal history, is intende …

          1. Minestrone of various vegetables, Lei says; Accord to, but of various vegetables… because the issue is always the same. Freedom of conscience that she supports distinguishes Catholicism from Islam, the Catholic Church has allowed only with Vatican II, but for almost 2.000 years sentenced, as has denied you could talk about human rights… It is offended by the use of force and coercion by Muslims, thing, of course, I condemn, but forget that for centuries the Church of Rome did the same… about mote and beam… here you see the beam (not the speck!) in your brother, but do not see the beam that is in their… The facts that I mentioned them to him I can put in chronological order, by the murder of Hypatia at the stake of Giordano Bruno to the Syllabus, etc.… I mentioned them to him not in chronological order because for almost 2.000 years the Catholic Church has not done this fear (coercion and violence) no breakthrough… The breakthrough came just had with the Second Vatican Council !

          2. Dear Beppe.

            First of all, I doubt that she is a Catholic, because in addition to having an idea totally distorted the Catholic Church, He moves his arguments bringing the exact same motivations and “irrefutable historical evidence” that has always served up the most intransigent members of the Calvinist currents, Adventist, Evangelical and Pentecostal, in addition to Jehovah's Witnesses.

            But above all, she talks about what is unknown and not familiar; and it also does with great complacency and with great superficiality.

            The Church has never condemned freedom, place it, along with free will, It is one of the fundamental elements, structural, the mystery of creation.

            She says: “The Church has denied you could talk about human rights”? the answer: not only the Church, with official documents of the Popes condemned what today, in modern language, is called “violation of human rights”, but he did not hesitate to go against the big European powers of the time, Spain, Portugal, repeatedly condemning slavery and human trafficking. Go and read the bubble The immense pastors prince Benedict XIV and see in what terms and how severely he condemns in 1741 slavery in the Americas. What, however, already made earlier by other predecessors, Since the discovery of the New World.

            To say that the Church has admitted the freedom of conscience only with Vatican II is a huge folly, It means not to know the main documents of the Magisterium of the Church and the Fathers of the Church, It would be enough to see the one and the other, since the school, to see how and with what passion he discoursed on faith and reason; then go see what the Blessed Pius IX wrote, in their teaching, at the time of the First Vatican Council, about faith and reason.

            Hypatia, Alexandrian philosopher, it was not “killed the Church”. The films anticlerical and tall tales written by some praticone are not history but black legends hovering between fiction noir and gossip. Hypatia was killed by a fundamentalist Christian sect; however, sect considered heretical. His murder attributed to St. Cyril of Alexandria Bishop emeritus is a hoax that began to turn in the context of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, but there are no documents and historical evidence that witness in any way the responsibility of the bishop of Alexandria.

            The trial of Giordano Bruno of Nola for heresy and apostasy from the faith was opened by the ecclesiastical court of Naples in 1575. The Bruno became in default and began to turn to Europe where he sowed damage of any sort in the length and breadth, to say nothing of his deeply immoral conduct, suffice it to say that in Venice even had the gall to harass the wife of the gentleman who had hosted and protected in their own home. only in 1592 It was opened a trial against him by the Inquisition in Rome; process that lasted 8 year old, before it in 1600 the secular arm eseguisse his death sentence.
            At the stop in order to save Bruno, the inquisitorial process was canceled and started again from scratch twice, then led for long just to convince the accused to escape, because this was the intention of the judges. The Bruno persevered in his grave heresies, and finally he chose so resolved to die “martyr” of their indomitable pride, and certainly not a martyr for truth.
            Bruno was never mistreated in prison, let alone tortured, It was well-fed, he was allowed to write, keep matches and have books.

            She totally erroneous idea of ​​Church and thinks that with Vatican II a sort of happened “miracle” of “repentance”.
            Someone has informed that before Vatican II there were other 20 council, including the whole range of great dogmatic councils?
            To which “guilty” and “retrive” Church that killed, burned, condemned and not recognized human rights, They would have tied these councils who sealed the dogmas of our faith and without which the Second Vatican would never have existed, place that it represents the continuity and the synthesis of the previous councils?

            In conclusion, she has ideas very confused, especially from a historical point of view.

      2. A journalist, emphasizing the gestures of friendship that the Pope has made towards Muslims, he asked: what Islam has to say to the world today? "You can talk, He responded the Pope: they have values. Many values. But I also have the experience of friendship with a Muslim: It is a world leader. But we can talk: he has his values, I my. He prays, I pray. The prayer. fasting: religious values. Other values. You can not delete a religion because there are groups in a certain moment of history, of fundamentalists. It's true, wars between religions, we always have been in history. We also must ask forgiveness- Catherine de 'Medici was not a saint. And the Thirty Years War, The Night of San Bartolomeo. We must ask forgiveness we fundamentalist extremism to the religious wars. But they have values, with them you can talk. Today I was in the mosque, I prayed; Also Imam wanted to come with me to make the tour of the stadium where there were many who could not enter. And on the Popemobile it was the Pope and the Imam. You could talk. Everywhere there are people with values, religious.

  7. And’ interesting solution to implement a new apologetic for submission to Islam, sign that interreligious dialogue can not create mutual respect in the religious beliefs of every human being who is son or God's people. As for us Catholics it was necessary to establish a fraternal relationship agreement with the Jewish religion, the conciliar declaration Nostra Aetate, inter alia also directed to other religions, eliminating and prohibiting certain prayers or quote some words, not to infringe upon the susceptibility of others, so it should be requested to them. If their divinely inspired texts that qualify the Gentiles and infidels like people to be subjected, and also convert them with violence, how could a civilization of peace accord ? The political Europe eliminates its laws belief divine and acquires the sovereignty of individual states under those laws, them instead through religion impose state laws. This means that with our laws they are invading us and with them we will rule.

  8. Syllabus (1864) XV. It is free to every individual to embrace and profess that religion, that glue the basis of the reason lumen will reputed to be true (Became. apost. among the many, 10 June 1851; Alloc. the biggest, 9 June 1862)

    1. In the Syllabus, referring to two previous documents, please note that it is heretical to argue that each man is free to embrace and profess the religion he prefers. It condemns religious freedom: This was the Church of Pius IX.

    2. Giordano Bruno, You will recognize the same, It was put on trial “for heresy and apostasy from the faith”; therefore, If these were the charges, it must be inferred that in the second half of the sixteenth century heresy and apostasy crimes was that the Church was pursuing, or he was pursuing political power… Giordano Bruno insidiously abused the wife of a Venetian nobleman? could be… the problem is that he was not convicted for sexual harassment, but for heresy and apostasy; The trial was conducted for long because you wanted to save… could be; but to save what to do Giordano Bruno… if you wanted to avoid the burning had to repudiate his heretical ideas. At the face of freedom of…

    1. Dear Beppe.

      The basic foundation of the historical investigations and that of the historical and sociological investigations is exactly what she refuses to grasp and if it is shown and explained refuses to apply it. And the elementary foundation of historical investigations and that of the historical and sociological investigations is as follows: you can analyze and let alone make an impartial and objective of a society of the past by applying contemporary socio-political criteria.
      This is not my opinion but a scientific foundation.

      I notice that you quote, with some scandal The phrase from the Syllabus of Blessed Pope Pius IX that indicates how “heretic to claim that each man is free to embrace and profess the religion he prefers”.

      Then I will try to make her understand: She has no idea what happened in Europe, specifically to the Catholic Church, during and then after the French Revolution throughout the nineteenth century? Because this statement of Blessed Pope Pius IX is placed in a precise historical context in which, just to say, Emperor Napoleone Bonaparte self-nominatosi, a few years earlier he had captured and put into prison Pope Pius VII, after saying in bold so that he would destroy the Church.
      Any idea confiscations capillaries that the European Church and the Italian suffered earlier during the French Revolution, then by Napoleon, then by the newly formed Kingdom of Italy?

      At the end of the nineteenth century the Church was reduced to poverty and many priests from the outlying areas, not to mention those of the country, They had serious problems of survival; many of them to make some thing for a living did private lessons to the new middle class children, those of the country often worked as farmers. The successor of Blessed Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, urged the bishops to avoid ordering priests if it was not able to provide for their subsistence seen the state of deep misery poured in which a good part of the clergy.

      Many of the buildings that were originally convents, monasteries, abbeys, Today she can see around Italy transformed into schools, barracks, hospitals – with huge mess made during the nineteenth century on the national artistic heritage – are all stable requirements to various religious orders and congregations, which they were suppressed by state laws, etc … etc …
      Now understand what kind of years and what kind of events they ran in those days?

      The concept of “religious freedom” It was one of the tenets of Freemasonry, on the pretext of which aimed to deconstruct Catholicism and spread religious relativism. The Blessed Pope Pius IX condemned in response Masonic relativism and post-Enlightenment theories which claimed that every religion was worth each other and that if there was a God – admitted there, obviously – was that for all, regardless of religion, which was in itself and by itself it irrelevant. And all this, in theological language, It called de-structuring and nullification of the entire mystery of Revelation.

      Said in other words: Blessed Pope Pius IX says that no man is free to refuse the truth to embrace errors contained in those religions defined at the time bluntly as false, or as concentrates heresies, for example Protestantism.
      That said, I explain in what way and what it supports the manifestation of his deep outrage?

      I think needless to quibble with you the case of Giordano Bruno of Nola for a simple fact: she pretends to analyze and evaluate facts and circumstances related to the company, the history and politics of the sixteenth century by applying the criteria anacronici pseudo-legal and pseudo-humanitarian year 2015, but not in this way that you make historical analyzes, least serious and scientific analysis.

      Again I will try to meet her with an example: if the 1948 a woman had presented on a public beach with a bikini two-piece or a man with a bathing suit briefs, on that beach would rush immediately the police and they took them away covered by two bath towels to protect the present from such obscene affront to common decency. Today it is not so, because the costumes have changed and with them has evolved common decency. Try to think what woman, in 1900 He would dare to wear a pair of pants; and what man, in those years, He would dare to wear a pink shirt, or a pair of pants with orange on a pea green t-shirt with short sleeves?

      All this to say that she can not, in the year 2015, with bikini in two pieces, swimwear briefs, with women in trousers and with the men carrying no problem pink, orange pants and T-shirts with short sleeves pea green, Sentencing on the costumes and the different lifestyles of those in the second half of the nineteenth century wore swimsuits that today might seem ridiculous bathing suits, but certainly not the beach costumes. Because the truth is that “tute” bathing wear in the second half of the nineteenth century are not ridiculous , as they are not obscene costumes in two pieces worn by women today, are just times, stories, policies, perceptions and common sense of feeling different.

      If that is not clear or you do not want to accept it as a scientific fact, if in response it intends to argue that it is inconceivable that in the second half of the people did the swim in the sea covered with the suits, keeping also in a discreet way a prudent distance and separation between men and women, then I tell you right now that groped to reason is useless and that she is a lost case.

      1. “.. The primary basis of historical investigations and that of the historical and sociological investigations is as follows: you can never make an impartial and objective of a society of the past by applying contemporary socio-political criteria "
        Completely agree! the institutions, from time immemorial, are always in tow of society ... I am not surprised at all that the freedom of religion and conscience the Church recognizes only with Vatican II, Pius IX condemns "expressly" religious freedom, and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the Roman Inquisition for sexual harassment, but because "heretic and apostate", that is, for daring to publicly support religious ideas different from Catholic orthodoxy ... I will just note it! The Catholic Church was at the towing company ... and it was hard to drag, much effort, towards the values ​​of modernity, as the Muslim world, the Orthodox Church, or even the Anglican Church ... Religious freedom was a cornerstone of Freemasonry? So what? It was a value to be defended, better: to be accepted to institutions (including the Catholic Church!) that value denied

  9. We come to human rights.
    The Catholic Church condemns the Declaration of Human Rights of 1789, accept with reservations the Universal Declaration of the United Nations 1948, only with Vatican II and later with Paul VI accepts that there is talk of human rights. Please read the beautiful volume of Menozzi, Church and human rights, The Mill 2012. I'll advice, He can fill some deficiency in terms of history.

    1. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen It was prepared by “butchers” that kept the guillotine in operation day and night and with which according to the calculations of the true historical cut around 60.000 heads only in the so-called Period of Terror. Why in the name of Freedom, in those years they were finished efferatissimi crimes.
      That charter was written in blood from blood on their hands.

      What she writes is not true! She says things that I deeply false public because I do not like censorship and why in’Patmos Island not only publish texts of appreciation and sharing, but comments like his.

      And’ Daniele Menozzi showing bias and gaps, with all due respect for the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, and I do not need acculturarmi on site amenities enclosed in that book that explores issues of non-free number from a plea of ​​prejudice and knowledge with a very patchy history of the Church.

      I who am a theologian I would never venture to make astrophysicist. It explains why instead, any astrophysicist who do not even know the alphabet ecclesiology, however claims the inviolable right to make the theologian and historian of the Church, while expressing so blatant did not even know what they are, theology and church history?

    2. To Mr. Beppe escapes the obvious consideration that the so-called “human rights” I am a figment of Christian civilization, and that without the supernatural authority of Christianity would never have had the strength to impose itself. Also that escapes “from the beginning”, in the words of the biblical flavor, the champions of these human rights used them to try to impose a pseudo-religion immanentist with the middle man emancipated from God. In the words of Maritain, It is the anthropocentric humanism that was to replace God-centered humanism. The Catholic Church, in his wisdom, He could not endorse this development until the inner anti-Christian charge (and anti-human definitive) of “human rights” it had been at least partially defused. Wanting instead using a colorful language, the Catholic Church, behind the Christian aspect of “human rights”, sniffed, rightly, l'Antichrist, and once revealed deception, publicly he could do just what in reality was already his.

      1. The same goes for “liberalism”. Can it be the Catholic Church against freedom if it was always strenuously defend and free will, and if human freedom derives from the divine nature that God has given him? The Catholic Church has condemned the “liberalism” as it presented itself as an ideology, because he wanted to do without God, at least of the Christian, not because in Christianity there is something deeply opposed to the expansion, giving it time, of “civil Liberties”. Also because God wants men who freely obey, not by coercion.

        1. carrying Zamax, I say nothing of Christianity. It merely stated that the freedom of religion and freedom of conscience as we know them were the subject of condemnation by the Catholic Church. the breakthrough only occurred with the Second Vatican Council. So for Human Rights and Citizen. These are made. What God wants men freely obey the, and not by coercion, I said Locke, whose Letter sulal Tolerance was placed on the Index.

          1. and I believe that it was indexing! That letter basically said that you could tolerate all, provided they were not Catholics!
            He also said that there could not be trusted atheists, as substantially faithless and perjured…

        2. And the same is true even for the twin concepts of equality and democracy. I remember a beautiful Chesterton's phrase that justifies democracy by saying that all men have the same value as all are made in the image and likeness of God, a powder’ as all the coins from one pound have the same value, as some are fresh coinage, other threadbare and worn, because’ all stamped with the portrait of the King.
          Democracy as intimately Christian value, therefore. Of course democracy was invented in classical Athens, but often people forget that in the ancient world, populated by autocrats and tyrants, Athenian democracy was a flower out of nowhere and for a short time. The middle Ages, Christian age par excellence, It was also deeply democratic. And the modernists who stracceranno his clothes in my statement that I reply, certainly not the Middle Ages it was the age of feudalism, but it was also the era of a colorful network of small and large freedom, of municipalities and cities, the guilds and brotherhoods, in which he unraveled the free and democratic act of man.
          Values ​​of freedom and democracy "foundations;"I am absent in Islam. Islam is the heir of grim Eastern autocracies, He founded by a ruthless leader of desert raiders who was Mohammed. Islam is a leaden pall of sadness under which hatching unspeakable bloodlust (read a few pages of Journey from Paris to Jerusalem Chateaubriand to have an idea of ​​what was the Ottoman Empire only 200 years ago). Islam is literally submission, flattening, prostration man crushed by such a god-awful as it is in July, The Desert Sun. Islam is abstaining from pork and wine, but also the killing of animals for slaughtering (and men), and is the thrill killer (etymologically) hashish. And as ye would that there is room, in the middle in this latter nightmare, for something that even remotely smells of freedom and democracy ...

  10. The Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights was voted the National Constituent Assembly of the Kingdom of France Wednesday 26 August 1789, When Monsieur Guillotin the idea of ​​the guillotine had not even occurred to, and the Terror with its 60.000 severed heads (but 20.000 The Huguenots were massacred in the night of St. Bartholomew celebrated with a Te Deum by papa Gregorio XIII) It was to come… that card, therefore, It was not written by blood on their hands if only because the blood which she mentions still had to be shed…

    Again, I am not surprised that the Church of human rights talk much later… He was late, big delay, on civil development, here, as always. Certain, the Catholic Church was not alone…

    1. Senta, dear Beppe.

      You do not know the historical events, this is a fact contained in his statements, and certainly not in my personal judgment.

      She has a major grudge against the Catholic Church and his freedom to express it, Did you see as I granted without the same problem on our telematics columns; something that neither the Pentecostals or the Jehovah's Witnesses would never be allowed to do on their discussion forum.

      However, what I find serious is the following:

      1. She raises several issues, Also very distinct in their historical and temporal space and all of them complex, uniting them in one cauldron to the one and only in order to discredit the Catholic Church.
      2. She refuses to reason, as evidenced by his comments and his responses to the answers.
      3. She is not willing to dialogue and discussion, speaking on, or as they say if the singing and if he plays alone.

      But mostly it responds with arguments completely wrong giving clear evidence of not knowing the Catholic doctrine, Church history and history in general.

      The talk and what she is sterile and useless.
      You are an ignorant – in the etymological sense of the term: he who ignores – proud of their ignorance, always in the etymological sense of the term, typical expression and manifestation of the world in which many internetico, too many, having before if only the screen of a computer, not one or more subscribers in the flesh, they say and, above all “you say” what they want and how they want without any reasonable brake inhibitory. Therefore, my next public lecture, come before to debate with me 100 people, that then we'll talk …

      And with that I say hello.

      1. She says: “You do not know the historical events, this is a fact contained in his statements”. I cite just one fact among those reported to me that it is invented. I do not insult: It will only bring arguments. I also greet.

        1. Of, but even then she does not read the answers!
          Did I explained in my answers, What she ignores and what is so determined to ignore, which he is, free to do.
          If this is not clear, then it means that I preach to the sands of the desert.

          And then, please, do not call “insult” the discussion and rebuttals, because I will then ask: but as she struggles, if floundering? Who dares deny it responds accusing him of insulting her?

          1. She wrote: “She refuses to reason… She is not willing to dialogue and discussion, speaking on, or as they say if the singing and if he plays alone….The talk and what she is sterile and useless. You are an ignorant - in the etymological sense of the term: he who ignores - proud of their ignorance”. These are his words. judge You…

            I merely say: I cite a single fact, among those listed by me, that is not true… And’ true or not true that Pius IX in the Syllabus condemns the freedom of religion? etc..

          2. She was thoroughly explained what he meant by Blessed Pius IX “freedom of religion”, we lost needlessly time to explain everything from a both historically and theologically, but she does not want to understand and returns to repeat a question to which has been answered in such a way widely detailed.

  11. She writes Father Cavalcoli: “The Muslim civilization in history has had and has undoubtedly
    its splendor and its merits. But the honest faithful and objectives of the Koran can not ignore that, if the West has assumed values ​​of the civilization of the Koran, far more than this has taken from the civilization of the Gospel,Despite the betrayals of Europe today”.

    But the values ​​of which the civilization of the Koran seems to be missing (freedom of conscience and religion, democracy, secular state, civil rights, equality between men and women, compared sexual orientation of the individual) are all values ​​that the Christian civilization (and still only partially) in turn hired by modern Western civilization, values ​​that Western civilization has conquered almost always clashing with the Catholic Church (as now the Islamic world those values ​​if they should win more often clashing with the Islamic religion)

    1. Dear Beppe,

      She lists the values ​​that have not been drawn from Christian civilization to the modern Western civilization, but it is exactly the opposite: It is the western civilization that has received them from the Christian civilization, the Church and the Gospel, and often badly or fraintendendoli or decurtandoli or falsificandoli, with the result that, as he complained repeatedly San Giovanni Paolo II, Europe today, esaltatasi for its wealth and its technology, He has lost his memory and respect of its Christian roots; and the illusion to implement some kind of progress or some kind of freedom, beyond and against Christianity, the "yoke"Christ, gloating is subject to an impressive and disastrous return of paganism and barbarism, which has its beginnings in the corruption of customs and mythologies of anthropocentrism Renaissance.

      What it has original modernity, born quell'antropocentrismo, apart from its undoubted values ​​of the remainder resulting from the Gospel, exactly is corruption or falsification of the same Gospel, which he has borne fruit in Protestantism, rationalism, of empiricism, in Freemasonry, Enlightenment, Marxism, in Darwinism, in liberalism, positivism, in Freudianism, ne secularism, idealism, existentialism, gnosticism, in modernism and pantheism.

      European culture has therefore drawn:

      – The concept of science, from the biblical notion of wisdom;
      – Freedom of conscience, from the concept of consciousness evangelical;
      – Religious freedom, from the concept evangelical religion;
      – democracy, from the concept of evangelical brotherhood;
      – The secular state by the words of Christ: the things that are Caesar's, Caesar; what are the, part;
      – Civil rights, by the Ten Commandments of God to Moses, confirmed by the Gospel;
      – Equality between men and women, from the biblical account of creation;
      – The principle of tolerance, from the Gospel precept of mercy.
      – The ideal of progress, from the Gospel duty of following Christ.

      Instead, the only supposed "value", among those listed by you, that puzzles me and I arouses suspicion, It is the following: "Respect sexual orientation of the individual". What does it mean? What everyone can direct their sexual activity as they like? What obligations do not exist in the sexual field that apply to all, albeit in the freedom of each to achieve them in their own way?

      It 'obvious that I have to comply with a different sexual orientation from my, if only because the other is a woman, while I am a man. However, I have this obligation, the assumption that, as his choice or his way of living his sexuality is different from mine, the choice of this other person, man or woman, is legitimate, ie compliance with the general norms of sexual ethics.

      Indeed, in the event that that choice was contrary to the moral law, it would not be simply and only different, but perverse. There is a vast difference between the different and the perverse. The difference in the well is another way to do good. The pervert is an evil act. The first is worthy of respect, approval and praise; the second deserves blame and disapproval. The difference can not be a pretext to hide the perverse.

      There are several ways to orient their sexuality in obedience to the moral law, all worthy of respect. But one way to direct it, whatever, contrary to the moral law, It is not worthy of respect, but blame, of condemnation and disapproval.

      There is in fact a sexual orientation, that everyone possesses by nature, and that those who intend to put in place, they are required to take: the reproduction of the species by the family institution.

      Because choice is worthy of respect and morally good, not enough that meets the individual's needs in a way any. But it is necessary that such compliance implement the universal law in conformity with that individual. Although homosexuality is the homosexual felt as conforming to his individuality. But for this it is in itself praiseworthy, lawful and respectable. The theologian Adriano Oliva, hurt playing in his book a passage from St. Thomas, where he talks about the "good natural to the individual", It falls into this trap, St. Thomas and has a homosexual, when it actually Aquinas considers sodomy "and most grievous sin” . In this regard,, I suggest you read my article on the Isle of Patmos

      http://isoladipatmos.com/ci-mancava-solo-san-tommaso-daquino-omosessualista-il-piacere-omosessuale-secondo-san-tommaso-daquino-o-secondo-il-domenicano-adriano-oliva/

      At last, An important note: It looks like she conceives the human and social progress as something that, throughout history, liberal movements, reformers and progressives tear to the religious and clerical power, jealous of their privileges, attached to the old stuff and suffering from an incurable conservatism, sign of cultural backwardness and mental laziness. Now, that can happen and did happen in many cases, it is true. But this is just a sign of how often the human weakness is not up to the ideals that should be pursued. Indeed, if we observe the conduct of the greatest people, the holiest and most valiant, and the history of the institutions or the best institutions, we will see how religion is the foundation of honesty and moral rectitude, for individuals as well as societies, inspirer of wisdom, culture, of virtue and sanctity.

      For this, it is important that the Church, Behind the inspiration that comes from the declaration Our age of Vatican II, now expert exhibition interreligious dialogue, continues to be at the forefront of mutual cooperation with the religious authorities of Islam, for mutually decide to play their decisive contribution to building peace and justice in the way.

  12. European culture has therefore drawn:
    - The concept of science, from the biblical notion of wisdom;
    MA DOOMED GALILEI
    - Freedom of conscience, from the concept of consciousness evangelical;
    - Religious freedom, from the concept evangelical religion;
    - Democracy, from the concept of evangelical brotherhood;
    BUT STILL IN 1864 Pope Pius IX CONDEMNS FREEDOM’ CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION AND DEMOCRACY
    - The secular state by the words of Christ: the things that are Caesar's, Caesar; what are the, part;
    BUT CONDEMNS THE LETTER ON TOLERANCE OF LOCKE (OLTREE THAT ORDER THE SECULARITY’ STATE IN MANY DOCUMENTS (ES AD. GIA’ CITED SYLLABUS Errorum
    - Civil rights, by the Ten Commandments of God to Moses, confirmed by the Gospel;
    BUT CONDEMNS THE DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE CITIZEN;
    - Equality between men and women, from the biblical account of creation;
    BUT TO PREVENT ES. THE WOMEN'S ACCESS TO THE PRIESTHOOD (to say the least)
    - The principle of tolerance, from the Gospel precept of mercy.
    BUT UP TO A CENTURY AGO’ And’ BEEN INTOLERANT (putting at stake)
    - The ideal of progress, from the Gospel duty of following Christ
    BUT…

    1. Father Giovanni Cavalcoli has responded with theological and pastoral wisdom of the elderly priest and theologian, offering clear answers in clear text, she is shown not to have understood, sending in response this rambling and verbose jumble of things.
      It's this one, against the other, it is also a lack of respect towards a theologian and an elderly priest who was kind enough to dedicate his time, speaking with crystal clarity, just to get her to understand, or at least to think about how much has responded in detail.
      As he told just above the Father Ariel S. Levi Gualdo: in which pro, continue this obstinate “no dialogue”. Think about, at least, us reflect.

      1. Indeed, I appreciated the civil tone and philosophical and theological competence of the Father Cavalcoli, who argued, with arguments, I took the liberty to contest (shortly, because space is limited I). I also read the article on the subject of homosexuality in St. Thomas, I loved the argumentative rigor… I think he's right, not his brother…

  13. I read your article. I understand that – Finally – even in the Catholic world on issues such as homosexuality there is extensive discussion. These are changing times, and the debate within the Catholic Church shows that it is finding… Other Christian churches have noticed it before. Let me give an example. Alan Turung, the father of modern computer science, homosexual, kills himself because the State (and the Church of England) sentenced him to undergo treatment for “heal” homosexuality… Today the Church of England consecrating homosexual bishops, and homosexuality is certainly not a crime , and even Pope Francis comes out with the phrase: “Who am I to judge a gay?”

    1. She takes note of what has not really understood and which apparently does not want to understand.

      repeat: she is an ignorant, in the etymological sense of the term person who ignores, and to this must be added an aggravating: the persistence ignorance, always in the etymological sense.

      We start from the Holy Father …
      Saying “Who am I to judge a homosexual”, he said and implicitly understood: “Who am I to judge the conscience of a man (in this case a homosexual) that only God can read and judge?”. In fact none of us engaged in the ministry as a confessor and spiritual director of the ministry, would dare pass judgment on the conscience of the penitent or spiritual Direct, because God alone can read and judge his conscience.
      And this is a theological given for us incontrovertibly.
      I rather tell where, how and when the Holy Father would have lawful practice of sodomy.

      Let's move on to another.

      Always so ignorant – obviously in the etymological sense – she confuses crime with the sin and vice versa.
      What for us is a sin, it is said that he ought to be a crime, but often it is not; and we accept that it is not.
      Obvious that homosexuality is not a crime, but for us it is a shame, and seconded the case, Also very serious.

      The fact that there are in the Anglican Community “vescovesse” lesbians “order” “priests” gay declared and practitioners, for us it is something abhorrent, instead, however, that the sacred orders made by Anglicans are not sacred as invalid, being for centuries failed the continuity of the apostolic chain, therefore, their consecrations, They apply in the same way you would an absolution from sins imparted by my cat Hypatia.

      In conclusion, tell me and tell us: in which pro, she is so determined to post these comments on the site of a Catholic online magazine directed by two Catholic theologians along with other collaborators everyone Catholics faithful to the deposit of faith, the doctrine of the Church and its teachings?

      Because these items its premises, she realizes that his is just a dull talk?

  14. (to finish what I had to truncate)
    I do not say that some (not all) It lists the values ​​you have not even evangelical origins… only that these values, de facto, They have emerged only recently despite and against the Church of Rome (and against the Christian Churches)… values ​​that are found in the Gospel, perhaps, in any New Testament text… but not all
    As equality between men and women São Paulo I do not think a strong supporter:
    “the women keep silent in the assemblies because it is not allowed to speak; but should be subordinate, as also saith the Law. If you want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, it is improper for a woman to speak in church” (1 Corinthian, 14: 34-35)
    “I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man; rather it be in silence” ( 1 Timoteo, 2, 12)

    She will say that Paul does nothing but express the common understanding of woman in her room and in his time… conception of the hard woman until the last century… in '600 Piscopia wants to study theology and San (!) Gregorio Barbarigo prohibits! to allow him to study end…

    1. … and naturally, sure enough she did not have the faintest idea of ​​what was first the Corinthian society at the time when he wrote the Blessed Apostolo Paolo and what weight it had in women, being that Corinta an eminently matriarchal society.

      Le donne, to Corinto, as they were accustomed to command and to strongly influence society, also they claimed to give direction to the bishops, presbyters and deacons.

      I want to explain why she is so determined to embark on and comments to show, through them, to be completely devoid of deep knowledge that require practice and rigorous arguments that you would assume to deal, moreover with two interlocutors who, the study of theology, and also of other disciplines, they continue to have dedicated and dedicate their lives, and everything always with prudence and modesty that certain complex disciplines require from anyone who approaches you?

      In conclusion … a powder’ prudent modesty – as they say – needless to die, true?

    2. Caro sig. Beppe, his insistence and impatience of this Catholic Church for over 2 thousands of years is a sign of contradiction and stumbling for every man, It shows that his conscience will glimpse the Truth. The rightly understood Consciousness is the echo of God's voice, It suggests to follow the good and the evil to be avoided, and should always be followed (even before the Pope). So it understood by the Church (= Newman precisely at the end of '800). The “freedom of conscience” (Nell'accezione wrong) preached by Freemasonry at that time meant the freedom to do what you want, that is, the freedom to operate what Consciousness scolds how wrong. The Church has always (Also today) condemned the act evil (= Serving Satan) autogiustificandosi distorting the meaning of 'conscience', almost it recovered today because it is a term now abandoned to the mass. So I beg you Mr.. Beppe: follow the true consciousness and opens the hope of the Mercy of Jesus Christ who is waiting for you with open arms. Only there is no Eternal Happiness, Only the Truth is Freedom! Let us not be captured by pride and respect human! Only God is Everything: that Mary. obtains the humility and…

Leave a Reply