THE APOSTLE John on Patmos
I, John, your brother and companion in tribulation, in the kingdom and patience of Christ, I was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus [AP 1, 9]
John Cavalcoli, OP
As is well known on the island of Patmos, archipelago of Greece, is linked to the exile of John the Evangelist, Auto dell'Apocasmooth, which begins precisely in his paper with the following words: "I, John, your brother and companion nshe tribulation, in the kingdom and patience of Christ, I was on the island called Patmos because of the word of DI and the testimony of Jesus " [AP 1,9].
The Apostle John has experienced the sufferings that Christ provides for those who will follow him and that he himself has suffered giving us the example and at the same time providing us with courage, patience, consolation and comfort, when Jesus warns us that the disciples will be retested and will suffer injustice and abuse of power by the civil and religious authorities, will be slandered, marginalized, betrayed and abandoned by relatives and friends because of the Gospel. But they must be regarded as blessed, why suffer the same who have suffered the prophets and the Son of Man [CF. Mt 5, 10-12].
The figure of '"exile" in opposition to the "homeland" is traditional in Christian symbolism: the man, driven out of Paradise, now lives in a land of exile, some created by God and not devoid of beauty, but also beset by many evils and miseries.
The Christian life involves, therefore, the prospect of reaching the true home in heaven serenely accepting exile and in preparing it for entry into the true homeland of eternal life. As we know, this issue for which we now live in a nether world, in which we have fallen after a takeover original, detaching from the gods, is not absent even in certain ancient pagan wisdom, as for example in Plato, in Plotinus, Gnosticism and the same in Indian philosophy.
The difference with Christianity is given by the fact that while these visions Pagan dualistic, why the disgrace of the human spirit is to be dropped in the matter - which therefore should be abandoned in order to achieve the pure spirituality - in the Christian conception, which still houses a primacy of the spirit over body, also the material world this is basically good and created by God, why should not so much be abandoned, almost is bad in itself, but rather must be freed from evil. This is what is taught by the dogma of the resurrection of the flesh.
As you know John wrote the Apocalypse in Patmos to comfort the Christians and the Church in their trials and suffering for the Word of God. What is the meaning dedicate this site to the place where the Apostle and Evangelist gave us an example of that his heroic fidelity to the Lord?
The founders of the site: Monsignor Antonio Livi, Father Ariel S. Levi and I Gualdo, intend to resume and apply to the present the message of John and put under his patronage and intercession of our initiative, proven in the certainty that even in the Church today - and perhaps now more than ever - those Catholics who want to live the fullness of their faith and their ecclesial communion with the Church and with the Successor of Peter are in the apocalyptic message of the Word of God the light to understand the situation that the Church is living and the wisdom and the strength to live today by faithful sons of the Church.
The term apocalyptic in the vulgar language recalls the idea of huge upheaval, calamities and disasters; but biblical scholars know that apocalyptic simply means scriptural reference to the book of Revelation, which prophesies certainly those frightening events, but in a very specific theological key, that has nothing to do with the defeatist morbid taste for the horrible and cataclysmic end in themselves; and even for a pessimistic doom, that she is aware of the values and good sides of today's Church, and the elements of hope that are provided by Providence.
Then we have nothing to do with those "prophets of doom”, bitter and amareggianti, terrified and terrifying, desperate and despairing, to which St. John XXIII warned the Church in his famous keynote speech Gaudet Mater Ecclesia opening of the Second Vatican Council of 11 October 1962 [which, which].
It is true that the biblical prophet and prophecy in general in the history of the Church often denounce the sins and injustices, which will be followed by the divine punishment; it is true that the evils and misfortunes that they identify and highlight them are presented as effects of infidelity Alliance, without fear and disgust with what stand against the powerful, doers, government officials and civil priestly, until sometimes pay with their lives that their courageous denunciation. But it is equally true that the false prophets are those who say, for pure self-interest or fear, that everything is okay not to irritate the powerful, and the crimes remain unpunished so.
The most urgent need of the church today, in our opinion, is that of harmony and mutual cooperation among Catholics on the basis of the one faith kept by the Successor of Peter. The Second Vatican Council, the name says it all, came to reconcile the opposing factions. It therefore indicates the path of unity and peace, in justice and truth. But unfortunately it happened that as the immediate post-conciliar Catholics were divided into two parties, lefebvriani and modernists, in conflict with each other and both claimants to the authenticity of being Catholic.
Undoubtedly, the Church itself remains a, as this is a necessary factor of its essence. This unity is realized in the communion of saints, that is, those who are in communion visible or invisible grace between them, participation in the explicit or implicit to the medesimi sacraments and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff, express or implied. They reject the extremists on both sides, though in each of these values exist and a partial communion with the Church. But the problem today is to join to the fact that values are partial agocts per se to create a unique synthesis and a single body that is the Church in the fullness of its elements, of its charisms and its factors. Instead, the opposite parties, of a cache of the values of the Church, opposed to the other one starts, rather than merge them together in a harmonious whole that that is precisely the Church. Thus for example the preservation must be combined with progress and change with the perennial, Tradition with Scripture, distinguendo the knowledge of faith, that continually progresses, by 'object of faith that, as divine truth, is fixed and immutable. In this way, you avoid both a rigid fixity that a relativistic theory of evolution.
The point of contention between the two parties is the interpretation of the Council, for which both believe to find a discontinuity with the previous Magisterium, for the fact that the council would have assumed in toto the modernity that until tollora the Church had fought: therefore a change in doctrinal, assume that what was rejected and condemned.
In lefebvriani and modernists this interpretation because of two opposing effects or insert in two opposing panels REFERENCEent: for Lefebvre, the Council would betray Tradition, changed the essence of the Church, and assumed the errors of Modernism already condemned by St. Pius X [see which]. Hence the refusal of Lefebvre's doctrines the new Council judged false for not say heretical. They believe, therefore, of having to refuse appealing directly to Tradition, that the post-conciliar Papacy would leave to be swayed by the errorthe modern world [among the numerous examples, see which]. For their part, the modernists have understood the intention of the Council of proporre an updated and modern Catholicism, but there has been the belief that the Church with the Council has finally taken, after centuries of closure, senseless sentences and sterile polemic, the values of modernity, for which you must deny or change or abandon the dogmas defined in the past. But for what the modernists do not make any problem, because according to them the Magisterium of the Church is not infallible, there is no unchanging truth, but it is always relative to the historical evolution and the diversity of cultures. There is nothing fixed and stable, and tutto speech ends, Everything is in flux, everything is relative. God himself becomes. Believe that there is something that does not change, mean vain and foolishly cling to that which inexorably changes and disappears, what is no longer present, means to retain what no longer serves, it does not say anything and is overtaken by history.
What was false yesterday for the modernists is true today and not to be left behind in the march of history, you have to be to today, not tadorn the last. The truth is what the world thinks today, no matter if in contrast with what we thought yesterday, because today it is more advanced than yesterday. There are no values to recover lost, but you must always advance towards nuwin ove. There is no need to check if the new reflects the true; the truth is just the new one as new. Ofnque, for the modernist doctrinal progress normally involves quite contradictions with previous teaching jobsinstitutions of the Church. It is in the bottom of the Hegelian scheme of becoming. So for them in the past, the Church is wrong and finally with the Council has corrected its errors, long denounced by reformers of the past, as for example Luther. For this ecumenism is not understood by the modernists in harmony with the preservation of the Catholic dogmas integral, but as the host of the doctrines of the brothers sepplowed that in the past, especially the Council of Trent, were condemned by the Church. So there is no need to have any scruples to abandon or at least to relativize those Catholic dogmas which are not recognized by the Protestants.
This affinity that the modernists have with Protestants He porta, in imitation of Luther, to promote the knowledge of Scripture and the Christian message, as well as theological progress regardless of the Magisterium, but by appealing directly to the Bible or to modern exegetes, Protestants also, as well as Lefebvre criticized the Council's teaching by appealing directly to the Tradition. So is the one that others bypass the Magisterium and placed on top of it, and found them, rather than - as they should if they were true Catholics - docility and confidently through the mediation of the Magisterium of the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition.
But there is this difference between modernists and lefebvriani, that while they have no scruples to challenge certain doctrines of the Council which they consider outdated or backward, as well as any other teaching of the Church according to their dogmatic evolutionism, Lefebvre at least know how to preserve with care the dogmas of the past, However, only up to the Council, after which, according to their, the Magisterium would have degenerated, so that they feel compelled to keep the "tradition" against the Magisterium itself.
That in the Church there may be two currents, a traditionalist healthily, more sensitive to the preservation of the most sacred values and perennials, as for example those of the liturgy, ed un'altra, more careful historical element, development and progress of the dogma of the Christian life, current that we might call "progressive", is something completely normal, useful and even necessary to the integrity and smooth operation and funziration of the Church in her human and social. In fact, these two currents, If rEstaño within orthodoxy and ecclesiastical discipline, are specially made to complement each other and to work together in the promotion of the one faith and the one charity. Instead become hostile to each other when they divide the Church, ambition, presumption, or need to take center stage, protrude from the right faith, by a common obedience to the Pope and the observance of the same discipline and ecclesial charity. Must therefore ensure that lefebvriani and modernists, like brothers in faith, reach an agreement on the common basis of that Catholicism means that although all profess. E 'dunque urgent, really bringing the Council, highlight what can foster dialogue and agreement, factor which ultimately is summed, in short, in a sincere full acceptance of the Magisterium of the Church, noting in particular the fact that the doctrines of the Council implement a progress in the continuity.
The modernisyou must therefore love a healthy renouncing modernity to modernism, while the Lefebvrians is not prohibited, rather it is greatly commendable, maintain a special esteem for Tradition, to condition, however, to understand that the Council did not betray it at all, ma the conferma, interprets and develops. OCCorre also that both parties recognize the values in the other and waives the right to be considered as the one of being comfortableChurch and excluding or disregarding the other.
This our online magazine modestly but honestly intends to contribute to this valuable outreach work reciproco and peace, in order to make the Church today a more credible witness to the world of salvation that Christ has given us.
Fontanellato, 1October 2014
Click below to listen to a song popular tradition Marian