THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED AND THOSE THEOLOGIANS WHO EXPLOIT THE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP OF SAINT JOHN PAUL II

.

The Family member company, precisely because it only touches the external hole, almost not even matter, the hole feature internal, i.e. the condition or State or inner dynamism of will of partners and thus leaves the door open to the legality of the ongoing discussion in the Synod, I know, in some severe cases, well specified and detailed, with strong excuses, the divorced may or may not have access to the sacraments.

.

.

. Pat

Introductory note — The fathers of’Patmos Island they don't “controversy”, but their “craft”: disseminate and defend the doctrine and the Church's Magisterium. In dealing with the latest topics on our telematics columns, Giovanni Cavalcoli and I found ourselves being attacked by intransigent lay people and self-styled Catholics who show a disturbing propensity to confuse politics with theology., which they edged accusations of heresy, including being modernist heretics and modernist doctrines diffusers. And like all insiders know, modernism, as defined today more than ever the Saint Pope Pius X, It is not a simple heresy, but the synthesis of all heresies. Below followed by signed articles’useful wooden head who used his name to support reasons given to it by a theologian, which could do firsthand to expose legitimate theories, but these are contradictions in terms under dogmatic disciplines, of moral and pastoral feel impressed in the principal documents of the past five decades of teaching. What about the rigor “morale” used in political way on issues related to various delicate sphere of human sexuality, by people who show no interest to take account of the principles of humanity and the founding of Christian charity policy, species in the face of human suffering that situation always demand attention and respect, In addition to competing solutions to the wise Ministry of the Church, not to the supposed claims of those who shout the loudest in an attempt to change the blind opinions of their own into dogmatic doctrines “I“. To no small worry were written and speeches full of self-righteous rigor from which emerge the spirit of an ancient heresy but always insidious: Manichaeism. This is the reason for this new answer given by Giovanni Cavalcoli, that does not call for the name his interlocutor for the respect which he intends to pay tribute to the free choice of those who decided to show up through dummy instead of firsthand. Personally I would like to take this opportunity to make grace to God for giving me the privilege of friendship of a wise gentleman like John Carlson, they are tied in fraternal blood kinship divine Redeemer in Christ through the Holy Priesthood.

Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

Dear Brother.

Answer your objections to my ideas on the question of the divorced and remarried. You mthe charges "false theory that the pastoral and canonical consideration of divorced and remarried as of the faithful must get out of their" sin "would be a theological error and a rash judgment"». You know very well that that is not my opinion but the doctrine of Saint John Paul II " Family member company e The splendor of truth ―, For more on the external forum and not the conscience of individual (or, the internal forum, where the Guide and the Council entrusted to the prudence of the Confessor), in line with the traditional doctrine on the "State of grace" (and its contrary, also recently found in the moral theological studies of theologians and pastors such as Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, that you know well.

I answer with tell you I see you clearly misunderstood and you should know it too. Indeed, if you read well what I wrote, as well as my recent work onPatmos Island, What I call "rash judgment», It is not "pastoral and canonical consideration of divorced and remarried as of the faithful must get out of their" sinful State "», but rather the claim on the part of some to believe that certain cohabitants, that may not be removed from their unlawful and irregular status, they are necessarily a permanent state, inespiabile and irrepressible mortal guilt, they were almost devoid of free will and grace forgiving did not exist. This is a hallucinating judgment of someone who does not know what free will is or what grace is. Indeed, the incentive not to sin is still SIN. The incentive may be unwanted, inevitable and invincible. Sin is an act wanted, avoidable and winnable. Otherwise, do as Luther, that confounded the lust, that is only tendency to sin or desire to Sin, with sin, thereby falling under the clear condemnation of the Council of Trent.

From this heresy of Luther is much less rigorous than the laxity. Indeed, as you know, concupiscence is invincible. What do you say then? You can do things: or farisaicamente and relentlessly accuse of full time sin, like a damned soul, spend, for this simple fact, he is under the stimulus of lust. Or hypocritically excuse from sin, because it is said: "I'm not to Sin, but the lust that makes me SIN. So I am not guilty and I can continue to sin. God is good and always forgives me».

Partners certainly are required, If they can, to stop their relationship, that makes them a strong temptation and continues to Sin. But this break is not always possible, even despite all good wishes, and this for reasons of force majeure and also reasonable grounds, as is known in certain intricate and complex particular cases, where it is necessary to take account of the indispensable objective data, for example, the presence of children or civil obligations or financial benefits or sick partner. In that case, the two are in a State of life that remains, but this does not mean that they are necessarily in a permanent "state of sin", If this expression we intend to remain lengthily and willfully in Sin. Indeed, under the liberto will and action of grace, they can anytime and in any situation or condition, internal or external, current or usual, environmental or psychological, legal or moral, also very poor, cancel the blame and return to grace, without this requiring an impossible interruption of cohabitation and without the practice of the sacrament of penance, which was denied to them. It gave, indeed, as you well know, can give grace even without the sacraments.

Familiaris consortio, precisely because it only touches the external hole, almost not even matter, the hole feature internal, i.e. the condition or State or inner dynamism the will of partners and thus leaves the door open to the legality of the ongoing discussion in the Synod, I know, in some severe cases, well specified and detailed, with strong excuses, the divorced may or may not have access to the sacraments.

John Paul II merely reiterate the existing rule, expression of an ancient tradition, albeit accompanied by high theological reasons. But it is certainly based on the standard dogma, ma not necessarily associated with it, This teaching of the Pope is not immutable, as they are generally positive standards, the Church's pastoral and legal, without this leading to an insult to the dogma on which they are based. Indeed, the same moral principle can have different applications. It would not be wise or prudent to stick stubbornly to one of the possible applications, for the simple fact that it is based on an absolute value, who, vice versa, admits a plurality of different applications, without prejudice to the principle.

Now, Some fear that a change in the current regulations could affect the dogma, it is unfounded, because the current legislation is not so connected to the dogma as was the conclusion of a demonstrative syllogism, where the premise would be dogma; but the said legislation has only one connection of convenience col dogma, such as to admit other possible conclusions. Similarly, from the proposed live christianly ― absolute value and essential ― does not necessarily only the lay life, as Luther believed, but the priestly or religious choice can also arise.

So in theology, you teach me, the theologian, When explaining a dogma, adduces reasons you need dogmatic content, because the dogma you can't prove rationally, but further reasons of convenience, which make dogma compatible with reason, and allowing other possible explanations. If instead the dogma could be demonstrated rationally, there would be nothing but a single demonstrative conclusion - truth is only one -, While each other would be false. Then there are allowed and indeed may be helpful discussion and inconsistent, but in the mutual respect of our opinions, and avoid what absolutizing our personal opinion by passing the "doctrine of the Church", as if the contrary were against the dogma. Otherwise, if the Pope decides that Communion be granted to the divorced and remarried, What shall we say? The Pope is a heretic? That has changed the doctrine of the Church?

.

Varazze, 23 October 2015

.

_______________________________

by clicking the logo above inblu Radio, You can open and listen to the radio interview made to John Carlson on 22.10.2015

.

.

.

.