Communion for divorced and remarried persons: Lectio magistralis by John Carr to Corrado Gnerre & (C).

COMMUNION FOR DIVORCED AND REMARRIED PERSONS: LECTIO MAGISTRALIS JOHN Cavalcoli A CORRADO GNERRE & (C)

The impression that sometimes the Pope has not adhered to revelation transmitted by Sacred Tradition, is always a false impression, that should make us understand that with such mental attitude you end up falling under the rebuke of the Lord, the Pharisees did not hear the Word of the eternal God, that does not pass and not wetsuit, but to become slaves of fleeting and vain "traditions of men"

.

 

Author John Cavalcoli OP
Author
John Cavalcoli OP

.

John Cavalcoli photos order
the Dominican Pontifical academic John Cavalcoli

.
I answer to the recent criticisms I addressed to me by Prof. Corrado Gnerre and published in the sites Correspondence Romana [cf. WHO], Christian levied [cf. WHO], Church and post-conciliar [cf. WHO] and other. The reader can read the critical three points in those sites. Here the public and my answers point by point.

.

.

First point – Sin and sinful situation

.

The divorced and remarried, in the judgment of the Church, They are in an "irregular" position and are therefore excluded from the sacraments. But the claim that with what they are in a "state of grave sin" is a rash judgment, which takes no account of what is sin and what is its dynamism in the concrete of consciences. In fact, they may at any time, with the grace of God, repent and receive forgiveness from God, even without the Sacrament of Penance.

To clarify the discussion, I find it useful to make some assumptions of moral theology. Then I begin by saying that the conscious human conduct is constituted by a succession of acts of the will, now good, and we have the good deed, connected to virtue; now bad, and we have the bad action, that sin, connected with the vice.

It is in the power of our free will operate alternation, in time, of good deeds and sins. This dynamism of our will plays the action of divine grace, which urges us to the good, It supports us in and perform it, when we commit evil, It moves us to repent and ask God's forgiveness, with regard to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin. At last, on the basis of these assumptions, God forgives us and restores us the grace, if he had lost with mortal sin.

To get a complete picture of human action and its operation, and you can then make a judgment or an assessment of the serious issue that we are dealing, we must also take account of other factors, that contribute, albeit accidentally and occasionally the formation of the act human or moral, good or bad. It is motivation, incentives, pushed, stimuli, solicitations or more or less strong or persistent pressure, favorable or unfavorable when good or bad, that can come from inside or outside, or of the agent, and which may or may not be favored or caused by the will of the subject agent.

internal stimuli are the projects, intents, ideas, wishes, the imagination, trends, habits, the interests, the provisions and the passions of the subject. external stimuli are the human and physical environment, stimuli and influences received from other, opportunities to do good or evil, that occur, try or do not try, foreseen or unforeseen.

In particular, as it regards the sin, there are temptations, or that are from within or from meetings or acquaintances or dangerous or harmful experiences, from bad example, or the seductions of sinners, temptresses persons, with whom he lives or must or is compelled or forced to live.

If the occasions of sin They are frequent and inevitable, the fall that follows is less attributable, Whereas, on the one hand the pressure of passion and on the other, relieving stress by occasion will to sin. Our will has limited strength. Sin occurs only when, being able to resist the temptation, we do not. But if the temptation is too strong and the will can not overcome the lust, The blame diminishes, because it decreases the volunteer, which it is essential moral act, both good and bad. In this case one does not sin because he deliberately wanted to sin, but because the forces of resistance, sometimes caught off guard, They were not sufficient. If someone gives me a shove and I helmet on the ground, I will give a fault if I fell to the ground? The sexual instinct, especially in young people - we should all know -, It is an overwhelming force, which in some cases it is impossible to resist. Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur. We can not be blamed for acts we have committed for reasons of force majeure.

Also remember to distinguish between sin in the objective sense, that is, the evil deed itself, from the subjective condition agent, in whose act may lack the full awareness or deliberate consent, so that his conscience, although he objectively has hurt or damage to third parties, could be partly or completely excused.

In what the Pope was referring with that famous phrase, "Who am I to judge?». It would be absurd to believe, as did some foolishly, that with what the Pope wanted to relativize the moral law; but merely referred to a particular case, always known to the moralists.

All these premises They should lead us to an important distinction, playing immediately in our discussion, namely that between sin as a voluntary act, protraibile or interruptible in time at will; and certain situations or hazardous conditions, internal or external, subjective or objective, pushing more or less strongly to sin, but they are still not a sin, because the will, as Stressed, It remains free to decide. However, we can call "state of sin" a sin or a crime voluntarily protracted, the psychic state and moral culprit we call "persistence" and the Bible calls "hardened heart". Even in that case, but, the will, moved by grace, can always, in principle, stop this state, break these chains and return to the good, as it occurs for example in the conversions.

What happens in the case of cohabiting, It is something that can occur in many other cases of life, where we need distinguish from opportunity sin to sin. The sin we can take it off right away; the opportunity may be, even if we do not want.

Some examples. A seminarian who has a teacher rahneriano, it is good that remains in the seminary, even if it is attempted to fall into heresy; and note that heresy is a mortal sin, worse adultery [cf. Ariel S. Levi Gualdo, WHO]. A worker has an exploitative landlord, will keep it, given the difficulty of changing jobs, even if it is attempted to beat him. a citizen, victim of a dictatorship, It would be tempted to make an attack, since it is hardly possible to emigrate abroad. And so on.

But in all these cases it is necessary to resist, even if the temptation to sin is strong. E is if yields, There are excuses or extenuating. When one has had enough, cede. This happens in sex, but also in many other cases. And we do? We send them to hell? Or perhaps that the grace of God can something? Or perhaps that the Synod can give us some advice?

In these cases and in this sense I would not be totally opposed to talk about "sinful situation", provided, however, that may always be distinguished on the one hand the state volunteer of sin, that it is possible, although not necessary and therefore can always be interrupted at any time and, other, from one context or from an objective situation durable, unsurpassable or force majeure, from which the subject, at least at the time, can not get rid, also wanting.

The thing to keep in mind is that, even in a union illegitimate, It is not at all certain that the two are always and necessarily in a state of mortal sin ("Sinful situation" or "state of sin") and they can not be touched by grace, as if to say that in itself can not be adapted to receive the Communion, without committing sacrilege.

Believing that the mere opportunity to sin ports of necessity to sin, It is a serious mistake, offensive to human dignity of the sinner himself, which preserves the free will, although it weakened by original sin. If then for "sinful situation" means that view, Well, like I said, there is a "sinful situation", because But sin is the implementation of a free judgment, yes sinful; is an act categorical voluntary and conscious, repeatable, indeed repetitive and, for how severe, always forgivable or erasable by God, whatever the situation in which we sin.

The situation, which it is a condition of the act, not constitute the act as such in its substance, but it is only an accidental mode or an occasion of human action, good or bad. But is not the real cause, which is just the ill will. So the substance of sin, that is, the thing that made objectively and substantially comes, It is independent of the situations and the occasions. You can accomplish a shame in situations that lead to good; and you can perform an act of virtue, where the situation would push us to sin. I accomplished a gesture of charity in a mood of joy, because I passed a test, or suffering, because my mother died, the moral value of the gesture is always the same.

One of the heresies of Luther condemned by the Council of Trent, it was to believe that the lust, which it is the inevitable and invincible permanent tendency to sin, in all of us, coincide with a non-existent permanent state of sin and inevitable.

The concept of sin as a "situation" is de-empowering. Unless our inner states, the situations in which we act, usually we do not determine us, but we are given to us and we can not change them. Here we are in a vision of the type of that of Rousseau, discharging our guilt on society. In addition to this, the said concept appears to reflect the vision Rahner, who refuses to look upon sin as an act categorical, replacing it with a non-existent and unsustainable "fundamental option athematic". But these ideas were condemned by St. John Paul II in the encyclical veritatis Splendor.

If the church currently excludes cohabiting from the Holy Communion, Suppose it is not because they are always in sin, but only for a pastoral measure, who wants to be: first, a summons to their conscience; second, the respect due to the sacraments; third, avoid scandal and the disturbance of the faithful. But in itself it is not impossible that they come to it Communion in a state of grace. That is to say,, although the situation is irregular, they can live in grace, although it is certainly difficult for them.

Then the Church would one day give them Holy Communion, this would not at all say that the Church - something unthinkable - to complete an attack on the substance of the sacraments, but simply that it uses its power to legislate and change its laws to better reception of the sacraments. The Church keeps prudently in that the divorced and remarried to live in God's grace, despite their situation. The other part, if the current remains unchanged discipline, I would have no problems, because in my long experience as a confessor and director of souls, I always managed to brighten these people, simply reminding them that they can still take a personal journey of penance and thus be in grace, even if they can not access to the sacraments.

Today there is an excessive fixation and superstitious on wanting to do to force the Communion, as if it were a labor claim, maybe neglecting confession, while the Church has long been prescribed for these couples who can make a spiritual Communion at Mass.

The other part, if the current framework should be enlarged or mitigated, I do not see why, as some fear, who can not distinguish dogma from pastoral, what should constitute an attack on the Sacraments. The ministry puts into practice the dogma and does not contradict it. Between dogma and pastoral there is a similar to the relationship between the body's biological rhythm, and two different methods of health care. The doctor can not fix care without compromising the patient's health?

The Church has under the pastoral dogma, since there are laws in the dogma intangible divine and immutable, that must be applied in life. Many are changing and the ways in which the divine laws can be applied by the Church, which instead plays and always respects and infallibly the immutability of dogma.

So it is absurd to believe or fear, as do the lefevriani, victims of a rigid legalism, that the Church and the Pope, where it adopts or change a law, can disregard or change the dogma. This would however hope the modernists, that, under the pretext of "mercy" more for himself than for others, They want to shake off the yoke of Christ, but they delude themselves, because they forget the words of Christ: "Heaven and earth will pass, but my words shall not pass away " [cf. Mt 24, 32-35].

Then, if the partner, to bad habits or previous bad choices or for various serious reasons or independent obstacles beyond his control, prisoner of vice, He can not get away from the situation where it is and get out, if he sins of lust, It is partly apologized and blamed decreases. In these subjects consciousness can ottundersi, so that they no longer find the strength to stand up and correct, Easily reclining in a perverse and fatalistic resignation. Yet the Church, caring mother to lead all to salvation, do not surrender, but it can and must be cured of these difficult cases and almost desperate. Here the work of the Synod.

The Church knows what he does especially in this delicate matter of the Discipline of the Sacraments. It knows how to heal the souls from sin and keep them healthy. It is up to her to establish the rules for the preservation and respect of those wonderful spirit medicines, which are the sacraments, as well as for their worthy and fruitful celebration, Administration and reception, ordering the Minister's conduct and that of the faithful, according to the times, places and circumstances, affnché such conduct is consistent with a worthy sacramental practice.

We have to trust the legal provisions, liturgical and pastoral of the Church, in the certainty that the Bride of Christ, even among its human limitations, He will never fail in fidelity to his spouse and his commandments, as different and also in contrast between them, in time and space, may be its laws, which in any case always apply and interpret the will of the Lord.

.

Second point – Regarding the difficulty of the relationship

.

It is clear that we are talking about an illegitimate cohabitation. But I have spoken of "sinful situations" and not "sinful condition", which I am not the same. As I rejected the first expression in the sense that I have explained, instead I would be willing to accept the second, in the sense of "living conditions that lead to sin ". But then, even here there is still in the game sin. As I said about the situation, so I must say for the condition: they can not be classified as "sinful", because they are not sins, but circumstances of sin, as I explained above.

Do not constitute the substance of sin but a property accidentally added, you can miss, without the kind of dumb sin. Even two legitimate spouses may commit a sin of lust. Thus, to return to our case, the illegitimate union does not necessarily in itself the act of sin, while constituting a situation or condition, which leads to sin and arose from sin.

Certain, then, that living together is an act of will. But the sin of living together, as sinning, It is not necessarily coextensive with their live. It's not that their whole life is a sin?. They may very well have good quality in other respects, quality that they can and should enhance, without sin on the merits. If he is an engineer and she is a nurse, They can not possibly do good in these respects? It is true that the good works done in a state of mortal sin are not valid for salvation. But judgment would severely reckless and cruel to think that these humans, redeemed by the blood of Christ, They are in a continuous and irremediable state of mortal sin, unless you leave. And the grace of God that we're doing?

Their live, indeed, despite the objective irregularity of their position, It can also lead, at least at certain moments, the intervention and the presence of grace. It depends on the two sin or not to sin, on the basis of free will. Only the damned in hell are in a state of continuous and irremediable sin. Assuming then what I said, it is said that the two necessarily live and continuously in sin, as if they were lost souls, for the simple fact that their union is illegitimate.

This union sinful, some, is the status or condition of life. But the situation is not as yet himself the sin, which does not arise from the situation, but the will, will that can change, while the situation may remain the same. The persistence of a situation or condition of life, from which, for hypothesis, you can not go out and involving a continuous temptation to sin, It does not mean that in many cases the two can not, with the grace of God, overcome temptation or, always with the grace of God, resurrected from sin.

End the relationship It would certainly be good and dutiful, cs but it is not always possible due to obstacles and of objective situations of various kinds, to which I have already mentioned in the interview [cf. WHO]. But it is clear that if this is possible, It must be made.

As for the issue of education of children, raised by Gnerre, it is clear that the new couple has a primary duty towards their children, possibly born from the new union, while the new couple will have an interest, as far as is possible and convenient, according to the provisions of civil law and possibly under a spiritual guide, also any children born in the previous marriage or other had to be a new possible link with other contract from previous spouse.

.

third point – The Pope, Guardian of Tradition

.

I repeat that the authentic voice and official of the Apostolic Tradition is none other than the living Magisterium of the Church today, heir, guardian and custodian of the tradition of the apostles. The Magisterium of the Church throughout the centuries, beginning with the Holy Fathers, especially in the Ecumenical Councils, It is always authentic witness of Tradition. Pope Francis is therefore now the baton guide Tradition, it is the definitive interpreter and authentic.

Certainly that over the centuries the tradition was put in writing. And the same Holy Scripture, at the bottom of, It is nothing more than oral tradition, Preaching put in writing. In this sense Tradition, born from having heard the same word output from the lips of the Saviour, It is more important than Scripture. Christ did not say to the apostles "write", ma “predicate”, although in putting in writing they have had a very good idea.

It is clear that the Bible is a holy book. But it is interpreted by the Church, Custodian of Tradition. Luther, then, with its rebellion against the Pope and with his fetishistic attachment and presumptuous in a book printed by Guttenberg, He has lost sight of the true origin of God's Word.

But it still remains that Sacred Tradition, for its essence is oral, He is the living apostolic Magisterium; and in this it differs from the Writing. The current voice of our shepherds, under the guidance of the Pope, is the voice of Tradition, which is then regularly written down in Acts of the Apostolic See.

Certainly the Pope in his teaching on the truths of faith is based on Tradition, which, in this sense, is the rule of the same papal teaching. But the judge or know ultimately if the Pope adheres or not to Tradition, responsible only to the Pope himself. Christ did not entrust to others the apostles his word, ordering them to teach the world until the end of time what he had taught them.

So no one else outside of Peter's Successor It is the supreme and infallible guardian of Tradition. I repeat, therefore, that the claim of some Catholics to know the best tradition of the Pope, so it can be to find fault when he's wrong, It makes no sense, but rather resembles the attitude of the Pharisees who wanted to find fault with the Lord in his speeches.

We can discern when the Pope speaks in the name of tradition and when the. Of course we too can learn the tradition of documents and verify the Pope's loyalty to them. But even when the Pope speaks outside the Tradition, never talk against it.

The impression that sometimes the pope does not comply with the figure revealed transmitted by Sacred Tradition, is always a false impression, that should make us understand that with such mental attitude you end up falling under the rebuke of the Lord, the Pharisees did not hear the Word of the eternal God, that does not pass and not wetsuit, but to become slaves of fleeting and vain "traditions of men":

.

[…] so you have made the commandment of God by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men " [cf. Is 29,13]. He called the multitude said: "Hear and understand! Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth defiles a man!». And his disciples came to him: "You know that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?». And he answered: "Every plant which is not planted by my heavenly Father will be uprooted. let them! They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a ditch!» [Mt. 15, 7-14].

.

Varazze, 18 October 2015

.

__________________________________________

Dear readers,

Please note that occasionally The island of Patmos and all the work and care that it requires for site maintenance, needs your support. Grant us a little, but grant us anything to support us, using the convenient and secure Paypal system.

Thanks.

Avatar

About isoladipatmos

27 thoughts on "Communion for divorced and remarried persons: Lectio magistralis by John Carr to Corrado Gnerre & (C).

  1. Dear father Cavalcoli,

    I must tell you in all honesty that I can not follow his reasoning. In the end it seems to me not to tell anything new: two divorced and remarried who decide to live in chastity, not committing sin. If they fall occasionally, but they repent and demonstrate the intention to reaffirm its chastity, certainly they can confess and log back Eucharist. We agree: but then there is nothing new compared to what you already know and do not see the need to discuss any new pastoral. Too bad that here there is talk of divorced and remarried who wish to live “totally” the new marriage and argue that there is nothing wrong. This is the new “pastoral” promoted by the synod fathers who adhere to Kasper line.

    As for the Pope who never acts against tradition ... have patience, There are documented cases: Honorius, Liberius, John XXII ... A counterexample disproves alone universal affirmation.

  2. Good evening,
    I apologize but I am a bit’ confusing and for that I rise. I'm always afraid to ask for something because in this general confusion you are accused of being legalists even when you are asking questions in good faith. I did not understand what it means (beginning of the article) that the divorced and remarried can repent and obtain forgiveness from God even without the Sacrament of Penance. Second, in exposure it does not say anything about the first marriage of the two remarried divorcees. If this is not zero as you can not be in a sinful situation, even when there is no objective sin? Living in a situation as special as it can be avoid sin? This theory can then be applied at this point to the partners or to the engaged? I ask for personal scruples and to understand why,at least in my part, nobody says anything, and all do the communion as and when they want. Thanks and pray for me.

    1. Dear Simone.

      The first question. According to the doctrine of the Church, God, in his goodness, has established that ordinarily the saving grace that comes through the sacraments. But since not all, not their fault, They know they exist or do not know in good faith that serve for the salvation, or they can not receive them for justifiable reasons of fact or (for example, baby or the demented) or by law.
      It's here, among other, there is the case of remarried divorcees. They, according to current legislation, They can not receive the sacrament of penance. However, they are also called to salvation, because God wants to save all, and it gives everyone the chance to save.
      These couples, therefore, as every human being, they need the grace of the remission of sins. It is supposed, but, that, in view of their illegitimate union, often they fall into sin, perhaps deadly, with the danger of losing the grace.
      How do then to retrieve it, if they are forbidden to confess? The other part, if examination, it is assumed that they can not interrupt this report, which causes them to sin. Then confess directly to God. Thus may recover grace and salvation, while remaining in that illegitimate cohabitation, that, per se, not at all conducive salvation.

      The second question. If the previous marriage was invalid, as their union is unlawful, reprehensible and scandalous, We should not say that they live in a "sinful situation". The situations can lead to sin, be occasions of sin, be based on a past sin, but they can not be sinful or guilty in themselves, because the situation that continues over time, – for example the illegitimate union – It is an accidental circumstance than when sinful, also admitted that the act will endure over time.
      The situation may be different, and sin may be of the same species. Even in a situation conducive to virtue, as a legitimate union, you can commit acts of lust. As well as in an unfavorable situation such as that of the partners you can perform acts of chastity.

      I can not therefore have to blame for this situation, which currently it does not depend on me, although in the past I've caused me. Thus, there are situations caused by a rather sinful act - for example adultery – but that, persisting for itself over time, regardless of our will, are no longer considered guilty. Certain, some dangerous situations, that may be changed, They may instead be voluntarily maintained. And this is certainly a fault. However it is not the situation that causes sin, but sin that makes a guilty situation, which itself can be dangerous, but never sinful. Anyway, the assumption that we do, is that of an objective situation and can not be eliminated, from which the two, they can not, They fail and in some sense must not go out.

      To the third question. The issue at stake here is only those who are divorced and remarried That cohabiting concerned may be assimilated, though it presents the easiest solution, and their scandalous conduct appears less and less sinful, since there is no previous ties.
      But the current church law provides for an exclusion from the sacraments for simply living together or free cohabitees from previous marriage bonds. Next, as regards the duties and powers of the engaged, these things are governed by current morality, which does not place any limitation on access to the sacraments, of course, it fulfills the necessary conditions.

      1. Thank you very much for your kind response father , It helped me to understand a little’ better. I ask because it can carry a prayer with faith and joy my sufferings and to offer them for the Church.
        Simone

  3. I have found that it is impossible to register in order to produce a live debate to articles posted. I do not understand why.
    However I read with great interest, but I found the scandalous article by Father Cavalcoli (I have always appreciated, however,) which justifies the cohabitation outside of marriage. It is no sin? It is not a voluntary choice? It is not an evil in itself, a contradiction repeated with the will of God (John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio says contradicts even the Eucharist)? I would also lay many reasons to object to Father Cavalcoli, not least the fact that over then even justify premarital cohabitation (another evil freely chosen whose effects are seen) , They justify the laws on civil unions.
    Unfortunately the fact that riponessi much confidence about the author of such articles, He exposed me even more to disappointment. I hope that this reflection will come and does not close in a self-referential debate (references to Rahner quantomi are out of place and indicate an ideological approach of the type, if you do not think like me you're rahneriano, Martian etc.).
    Good evening

    Armando

    1. Dear Reader.

      Re-read the article carefully, because by doing so you will find out the obvious: she imputes to Father John Cavalcoli what he never wrote and said. But it gets worse: she brings up and then imputes to the Dominican theologian acceptances of facts, things and situations to which he did not even vague and indirect nod.
      We spent his comment also demonstrating how people often do not read, they do not understand, and even though they initiate claims and judgments lapidary and to say the least out of place.

    2. I do not condone any cohabitation outside marriage. Indeed I say that in themselves are grave and sinful.
      How it occurred to me to get me to say something like that?

  4. Salve, if I understand it second father Cavalcoli the goal for an irregular torque that can not be separated is to live as brothers; but between a fall and the other to the temptation there is a chance to repent (and why not confess at this point?) and comunicarsi. I wonder if this route is not currently feasible to those already proposed to the confessor to live as brother, confesses (if you remember correctly it can despite living together) but then it falls and repents? Can happen all'inizi a journey of conversion these falls from which one learns not to fall into them again. This position is not as' heretical’ who now no longer believes in the indivisibility, to sin and the Real Presence; on the contrary it requires a serious penitential: but if this is what is already feasible change laws? Personally I think it would be a grave mistake also grant small openings in this climate, this will lead to increase the sacrilege of those who consider the law a Communion. I am sure that not even the island fathers advocate change but these items are simply trying to calm the tense and dangerous. Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us …

    1. Caro Giovanni S.

      If they manage to live as brother and sister, They are admitted to the sacraments. If, however, do not make it, are excluded, at least until now; unless the Pope decides otherwise.

      It 'clear that if you have sex, Peccano. But each time can repent and recover the grace. In the event to, They can make a spiritual communion. Although noin can confess, They can apologize directly to God, without going through the sacrament of penance.

      The change in the law which comes today hypothesized, and which it is proposed by the Synod, is that in special cases, provided by a new law to be based, following the opinion or judgment of the confessor, a pair, that, for valid reasons, He can not separate and that has sex, It can take communion accompanied by an appropriate penitential.

      Certainly the change will have to be moderate, under strict conditions, and monitored, to avoid undue approfittamenti and relaxations of discipline. We Fathers of Patmos island we expressed in favor of this opening; but of course we will stick scrupulously to what the Pope will decide in the last resort.

  5. The interview, Then the Father John Cavalcoli response, They are a tribute to the wisdom, in charity and true mercy.
    The article by Father Ariel is also wise, and worthy of the prose of a prophet of’ A.T. that, like Jeremiah, thunders against those who dared to replace those of God the precepts of men.
    To arouse in me bitterness, are so many silly comments, by many, too many people who treat (or they think they can treat?) the lives and human lives, “with criteria by the Highway Code of the Federal Republic of Germany”, writes Father Ariel.
    And the arid spirit, decisive and merciless of these people, which say they are directly or indirectly Catholics of one piece, it scares me, especially as a priest.
    Use so inhumanly, so dryly, the Eucharist and marriage for pure ideology clashes, it is scary, I dare say devilishly scary.
    Go on like dear Fathers, Many are the priests who pray for you and with you identify.

    1. You are not alone, dear fathers and dear brother priests, you are not alone, and you are esteemed by so many priests. Just to say … in my diocese longer speak of seggezza of your articles that of “carina” pastoral letter written by our bishop, “carina” …

      1. (Father John, I reproduce the same text sent to Father Ariel, it also suggests the commentary on this article in the same things)

        Dear fathers and brothers, I unite myself to "presbiteral choir". this Island, for us priests, It is truly an island on which to meditate seriously and thoroughly.
        You know what irritates me, since the beginning of this Synod on the Family? The fact that it immediately started talking, by certain press, and certain Catholic (e diaciamolo!) filolefevriani to the core, of crazy chess, of coups, the upheavals of the doctrine, theorems ...
        I quote from memory because I do not remember the article in which Father Ariel explains in a masterful way that, of always, in the church, specifically nei Council, but also in the synods, must, necessarily, talk about everything, serenely and freely, evaluate all assumptions, also, to the limit, the most absurd.
        Obvious!
        Here, I wonder, because at some point, this course, He began to frighten, and to scare an area of ​​very specific and circumscribed Catholics?
        Sincere prayer for you.

        father Luciano, PART

        1. Between “filolefevriani to the core” must put the thirteen cradinali, between which the card. Mueller, who denounced the danger of a drift protestant, Bishop Peta, who talked about the smoke of Satan entered the Synod, the Polish bishops and Archbishop. Livi which heavily criticized the Instrumentum Laboris which would contain heresies (I do not quote the card. Burke not to irritate anyone). Indeed it is very precise and limited area, that of the orthodox Catholics.
          However insult giving schismatics who evidently does not think like you, It is a lack of charity.

          1. If all the people that you mentioned had been among the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea, in the same way they tried to prevent any kind of discussion, just where, to define the fundamental dogmas of the faith, it was however necessary to discuss everything and its opposite, including “theory” and “positions” more or less absurd. And so they went on to do in the great dogmatic councils during the following centuries, in which there was no question of church discipline, but the Person of Christ and the Mystery of the Trinity.
            She also learns to distance themselves from those who put forward all the idea of … “this is not discussed”, because it is the truth of faith that to be sealed dogmatically they require you need every possible kind of discussion, for reaching out precisely to their dogmatic definition.
            Because he sees … the dogma, it is not “neither mine nor yours”. And let me tell you, people who believe “my” and “because I do not argue”, I personally really disturbing.

            Suppose it is placed in question the proclamation of the Marian Dogma of Mary Co-Redemptrix; suppose I have theological reasons for being contrary and that during the discussions and the preliminary discussions to its possible development and announcement I expose and supports the best of my modest theology my opposition. She seems appropriate that in this case, Another theologian – I repeat, during preliminary discussions – react by saying: “And’ and so is not discussed”?
            Because that made the group of “heroic”Cardinals banner carried by some,: “And’ and so is not discussed!”, in a context in which should be evaluated all the possible scenarios and solutions, I repeat: even the most absurd.

            These days I have had bitter trial, between secularists who do not know the Catechism of the Catholic Church, lay people who presume to know the theology and canon law, screamers stadium that change certain Synod debates in squalid supporters, and an army of passionarie I do not say, how high, alarmingly high, the number of people that, on the basis of a title and a subtitle newspaper, or on the basis of an article misread, or also on the basis of an extrapolated fragment from Family company St. John Paul II, give judgments such as to manifest the whole their profound and disturbing foolishness; and I not tell you by what sum pride and arrogance do all this.

  6. Dear Father Carlson,
    beyond each learned argument, what everyone, at least those who have eyes to see, can not see, is much confusion (in all its forms) that is everywhere (and continues to increase, and certainly not the fault of the Pharisees Catholics / legalists / fundamentalists / traditionalists) , and that in itself is a thermometer all the more clear and palpable to all the questions that today are placed at ' "agenda" ... and not only issues related to the Synod.
    We are in the midst of an epochal turning point (and I would not say positively)... Everything else is a big climb on the glass…

  7. Rev. Father,
    crystalline analysis his, wide and deep masterful as always.
    This morning, however, I read Mgr Livi,
    http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/articoli-quelli-che-rispettano-la-dottrina-ma-poi-attaccano-i-dogmi-di-fede-come-il-matrimonio-indissolubile-14153.htm
    A schematic article that expresses a different location. Like his brother P. Michelet always on lanuovabq yesterday and in his essay in the journal Nova et Vetera.
    Many schools of thought, aunt “factions”, learned so many different interpretations, many arguments among theologians, cardinals, bishops. between professors, between secular, between more or less wise faithful…
    And we poor Christians astonished in front of so much mess?
    too many words, what matters, that is, the foundation is not what is already written in the Gospel, summarized in the Catechism?
    Have mercy on us, Domine

    1. A great article that you quote written by a philosopher and theologian of great flair and polymath, ie Antonio Livi, we estimate that we all, very much.
      Or maybe you think that people cease to esteem and love each other because debate or taunt each other with each other on issues in which they have divergent opinions? And note well, I said “these”, I did not say the truth of faith, because of these latter, there are no “differing opinions”, but the acceptance and obedience in faith.

      No mess or confusion, therefore. We are just at the stage of the debate, legitimate and fruitful, as always did the Fathers of the Church in the councils and synods. Debates which will cease – as it has always happened – after the Church, through its Supreme Pastor, will be answered.

      There have been some assize in which the bishops have taken to blows with each other, as are the theologians in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries at great academies.

      Stay calm and wait for the final word, that of Peter; and that word is discipline, doctrine or law of the Church.

  8. At times, responding to certain comments, it also responds to those of other commentators, if it rises above to my previous comment, You will find part of the answers to his questions also.

  9. Hello dear fathers island! I wanted to send you my warmest congratulations for your work that often helps me to put myself in discussion and to grow in faith.
    I just have a question about this Product, I read:
    “In this case one does not sin because he deliberately wanted to sin, but because the forces of resistance, sometimes caught off guard, They have not been sufficient.”
    Reading this piece, I immediately thought of the fact that God does not allow us to be tempted beyond our strength, and I wanted to understand how the coexistence of these two statements.
    I renew my congratulations and greet!
    Mattia.

    1. Dear Mattia.

      Sometimes God allows us we collapse under the burden of proof, for out of it overwhelmed, as Christ falls under the weight of the cross. In this case God wants us to teach humility and to be aware of our weakness, so we trust in Him again.

      Other times it that we overcome the test and win with courage strength. In this case it gives us strength.

      At the same time, but, and under a certain point of view, It can say that God always gives us the strength to endure or pass the test, in the sense that, meaning the test as an opportunity to exercise the virtue, even when we feel overwhelmed by the opposing force, which can also be the passion, if the will remains free and rejects the opposing force, we can always perform acts of virtue, as for example the patience, the fortress, perseverance and humility.

  10. Dear JOHN Cavalcoli,
    I venture to say with great humility that I seem to catch a lot of inaccuracies in his argument.
    They are not able to answer promptly theologically, despite feeling uncomfortable about what I say, but I can still ask her to be more precise in the use of our beautiful language.
    And please, that the Spirit may come upon her and, above on the participants in the Synod and that God takes care of His Church, his truth, because today more than ever, while you discuss people, like sheep without a shepherd, suffer, not so much because they can not go to Communion, No, They suffer the uncertainty of your laws. The fragility of your guide and your teachings.
    The small church to legislate?! Thus we speak of laws?
    where you have hidden Jesus and the gospel to be given to small, to simple?
    My opinion on Communion, possible or not possible, if you're interested, find here:
    https://veramacri.wordpress.com/2015/10/18/volete-misericordia-datela-voi-per-primi-alla-chiesa-a-voi-stessi/

    1. «They are not able to answer promptly theologically, despite feeling uncomfortable about what I say, but I can still ask her to be more precise in the use of our beautiful language».

      And thank goodness, dear Reader, that says it all "humbly», doing this to Father John, who, «provided that they are not able to answer on the theological level», that said "It seems to catch a lot of inaccuracies in his argument».
      Then follows the invitation – humble course, indeed I would say most humble – « can I still ask her to be more precise in the use of our beautiful language». Sottindendendo so that the poor Dominican academic, to 74 years played, still it is not able to express themselves in correct Italian, or at least in a comprehensible Italian.

      I do not understand anything about nuclear physics, a fortiori, if you read the article by a specialist, I would look at him, careful not to say: “Given that nuclear physics we do not understand anything, by the way you learn to be more precise in the use of our beautiful language”.

      Here, dear Reader, I pray the Holy Spirit as she, I pray to him to deliver us soon by some Christians to be neck twisted sacristy, that on one hand they give you a slap after admitting he does not understand, other underlie air from madonnine infilzate, as it says in my area of ​​origin, then ending by telling you that you have to learn the alphabet even use.

      Everything always said with humility, is intende!

  11. Can explain, father, the phrase “In fact, they may at any time, with the grace of God, repent and receive forgiveness from God, even without the Sacrament of Penance”? It alludes forces to an act of perfect contrition? But it is conditioned or not the resolution of confessing as soon as possible? So it is not only an exceptional case? If there is the intention to cease to have extramarital sex, how is it possible that there is perfect contrition? Thanks for the answer that will give me.

    1. Dear Reader.

      Household members are not admitted to the Sacrament of Penance. The other part, they need the forgiveness of their sins. Then they get it directly from God, that can give grace even without the Sacraments.
      Certainly they must have the intention of sinning no more whenever they sin. But the situation in which there are often pushes them to sin, so sooner or later they sin, Although, these are pushed to the sin that can not be avoided in view of the situation in which they live, their sins have the mitigating and guilt by mortal can stoop to the level of venial.

      1. Those Cavalcoli are heretical rantings that Bishop Livi has confirmed to me telling me that he had stopped the doctrinal collaboration.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters remaining

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.