A modernist Pope? The falsity of Raniero La Valle

- defend the Pope from false friends -

A POPE MODERNISTA? THE SHAM OF THE VALLEY RANIERO

.

It is very sad and outrageous that a valuable and long-life experience man like La Valle has fallen so low slandering the Pope while he believes to praise him, not to have noticed to have become, with his blasphemies, miserable instrument of a Masonic plan of destruction of the Church, inexorably destined to failure, surely fail as all enemies of God.

.

.

Author
John Cavalcoli, o.p.

.

.

Raniero Valley and the Holy Father
Raniero La Valle and the Pope Francis I

Raniero La Valle, as is the custom usual modernists, especially rahneriani, He claims to submit his thesis as a heretical interpretation of the doctrines of the Council, but, since reigns the present Pope, modernists have increased their audacity and brazenness, and they have come to the point of presenting their heresies even as the thought of the Holy Father himself, taking advantage of some of his occasional expressions, that, unlike the previous Pontiffs language, it was always clear, if you pay, if it is not correctly interpreted and contextualized, to be understood in a sense or modernist rahneriano [following article …].

.

To read the entire article click below:

.

John Cavalcoli, OP - A POPE MODERNISTA? THE SHAM OF THE VALLEY RANIERO

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

About isoladipatmos

6 thoughts on "A modernist Pope? The falsity of Raniero La Valle

  1. Three observations:
    1. quote from http://www.raimon-panikkar.org/italiano/biografia.html
    which summarizes the complex spiritual experience of Pannikar:
    "I am a Christian party, I discovered Hindu and Buddhist return, without ceasing for this to be a Christian "
    2. La Valle – in support of his thesis – retrieves and uses “wrong”(?) Also different expressions of Benedict XVI. Just nothing to complain, father Cavalcoli?

    3. All the “Modernist” I am very talkative, enjoy particular authority and are often privileged hospitality and welcome even the most renowned Catholic media, fertile ground to spread their heretical ideas … How to warn operators and readers of these sites often unwary …

  2. I applaud his patient pedagogical heroism, for I feel a certain impatience which resigned in the face of these sophists, not too sophisticated, playing with the conventional nature of language, which it is also inheritance of original sin, to sow confusion with insufferably pious air. On the issue of the relationship between mercy and justice, if they wanted to really understand, It would be enough to remind them that mercy and justice can not be separated, as well as you can not separate faith from works. You can distinguish but, in a discursive logic, but higher is the degree to which they are exercised, the more they become indistinguishable. On the issue of universal brotherhood, would be enough to remind them that it is true that, broadly, we are all brothers and children of God because he created: but it is also true that only those who accept his paternity, doing his will, really becomes a child of God; while those who reject, not doing his will, becomes a son of the rebellion, son of the Devil.

  3. On the issue of non-violence, It would be enough to remind them that it is true that God is not violent, but not in the sense that it is strictly nonviolent: Being God is supremely, It is not a Non-Being something; as you say, It is not cowardly: rather exerts its power to govern the purpose of our salvation that evil and violence that do not come from him. Finally, I note how easy it would be for one of these malicious talkers say that I disagree with her because she wrote that "all of that does not have children of God", while I wrote that "in a broad sense, we are all children of God "; or because you wrote that "God is nonviolent, MA is weak ", while I wrote that "God is not violent, but not in the sense that it is strictly non-violent ": at that point I would say to send them all to hell…

  4. To be fair, however, we must recognize that our Holy Father Francis seems we put commitment for us not to miss “some of his occasional expressions “, as when he said, regarding slavery, that “And 'mortal sin. Today we say this. There, it was said: ‘No’. On the contrary, some were saying that you could do this, because these people had no souls! But he had to go on to better understand the faith, to better understand the moral “, as if at that time the Church had not spoken clearly against slavery.

    Source: http://it.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/05/11/papa_a_santa_marta_camminare_sempre_per_comprendere_la_fede/1311441

    1. It seems to me that so to speak constant double of the Pope's speeches is due, unwillingly, to immanentist mold theology of which yes is fed and in which he wanted to see especially the seemingly merciful aspect. This vision of a people journeying towards the fullness of time and to a truth that is revealed step by step in itself may be fine, but provided it is clear that the real “fullness of time” will be fulfilled in the eternal will happen at the end of this world and that will allow us to see the truth “face to face”; a truth that in this century we can, with the help of the Holy Spirit, try to lighten, not to change. On the issue of slavery, humbly we would like to say that perhaps the Pope would do well to re-read this small page of Leo XIII: not only for the content, but also for the ability to synthesize, the backbone and the elegance of the text.

      https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20111890_catholicae-ecclesiae.html

Leave a Reply