JOY OF LOVE, THE "THEOLOGY of Blank Check": THE POWER OF THE KEYS NOT be disputed, EXCEPT TO FALL IN HERESY

.

With the "you are beautiful Peter"Christ has signed to set up their legitimate vicar on earth a blank check. It is only limited to sign it with your name and surname, that on the check result: Word of the Lord. And on this check, after having stamped signature, He has written above only the date of issue, there has instead written no expiration date; but most did not write you any amount, the amount has left everything to Peter and his successors, because at the issuing bank is unlimited coverage.

.

.

 

 

.

.

PDF print format article

 

.

.

I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, Christ died in vain " [II Gal 20, 21]

.

.

In my last Lectio, to which I refer all those who have time and desire to hear the position of the other [cf. WHO, WHO], in addition to its "I say”, “I think”, “I read, so “I know …”, It demonstrates a disturbing drift of contemporary faith: emotion. This fact that for many matters is what "I think”, what "I feel”. This objectively sick attitude to faith and faith itself, door to slip into various old heresies, Dal pelagianesimo to pantheism. And for little to assert my pastoral experience of priest and my experience as a theologian, basing on both affirm that never, as in our present, He had witnessed a resurgence of all the worst heresies; which are not only the ones enclosed in Modernism defined by the Holy Pontiff Pius X as the synthesis of all heresies [cf. WHO], but also he enclosed in thinking and expressing of those who today, in the name of a vague defense of Catholic tradition, invite to publicly despise him who this traditio is supreme guardian: the Roman Pontiff.

.

Anyone who wants to analyze with lucid objectivity certain social dynamics, that the liquid thought we are now bringing to the vaporous thought, will notice how duelists in contention, whether they are so-called traditionalists, or so-called progressives, so-called moralists or so-called lax, gives preference to the base of the dissertation 'I am. And the more they try to impose ideological reasons of "self" in the name of "God", most feel guardians of one, one pure correct interpretation of authentic. In short, I sometimes have the impression to live in a schizophrenic ecclesial community in which many Christians appear to have never even been touched by Pauline warning:

.

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. This life in the flesh, I live it in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, Christ died in vain " [II Gal 20, 21].

.

In Of the truth the Angelic Doctor he claims: "You do not have the truth, but the truth is that you have ". But most of all, many of these warriors devotees of ideology iocentric participating in the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, living memorial and passion saint, Death and Resurrection of Christ, could forget the final doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer:

.

For Christ, with Christ and in Christ, to you God the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honor and glory for ever and ever ".

.

Here also the Latin text in deference to those for whom, in the absence of the sacred of the Latins, every liturgical source is suspect if not worse "infects":

.

By itself, and cum very, and in him, East tibi God the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honor and gloria, for all ages.

…

Some of the many theologians, ecclesiologists and improvised canonists, sprouting of blogs in blogs like wildflowers after the rain, often confusing our good people of God more and more disoriented, when they emanate and spread some opinions and judgments - that would be comical if it were not tragic -, They never questioned about the true meaning of this doxology? Because behind this doxology there - and certainly not last - even the mystery of Peter, one who by divine will unites and holds all the living members of the Body of Christ which is the Church [cf. I Col, 18]. And without Peter, with which before the People of God, with the People of God and for the People of God, we declared "in communion "stating his papal name just a few lines later in the Canon, there is no communion, therefore, who is not in full communion with Peter, can not praise, understand and participate in the "By itself, and cum very, and in him …». And anyone who has the audacity to contradict me about certain obvious truths of the Catholic faith, to do it with strictly theological arguments, why not take it really more of quell'emotivo how devastating "I think” … “I feel” … that is sowing confusion and discord among our believers of Christ too lost and confused.

.

about Peter, Chapter III of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church The light, so it says in n. 22:

.

The college or body of bishops has no authority, if you have not understood together with the Roman Pontiff, Successor of Peter, as its head, and without prejudice to its power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, By virtue of his office, that is, as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, this has a full power, supreme and universal, You can always freely exercise. The other part, the order of bishops, which succeeds the college of the apostles in teaching and in pastoral governance, rather, in which perpetuates the apostolic body, He is also together with its head the Roman Pontiff, and never without this head, the subject of supreme and full power over the whole Church [63] although this power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. The Lord placed Simon alone as stone and keybearer Church [cf.. Mt 16,18-19], and he formed the shepherd of his flock [fr. GV 21,15 ss]; but the office of binding and loosing, which it was given to Peter [cf.. Mt 16,19], It is known to have been also assigned to the college of the apostles, jointly with her boss [cf.. Mt 18,18; 28,16-20] [64]. this college, as it composed of many, It expresses the variety and universality of God's people; because it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of Christ's flock. In it the bishops, conscientiously respecting the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their faithful, indeed of the whole Church, mind the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and its harmony. The supreme power which this college enjoys the Church, it is exercised in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council. Never ecumenical council, which as such is not confirmed or at least accepted by the successor of Peter; and it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, preside over them and to confirm them [65]. This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops around the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to act collegially, or at least freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, as well as a collegiate act.

.

This dogmatic constitution, perhaps remained open to doubt, about the "power of the keys" given by Christ to Peter God, on which he has built his Church? And today, Pietro, It is the Supreme Pontiff Francis, that as a human being is no less defeasible and inadequate than he showed to be the Prince of the Apostles, perhaps he is chosen by the Word of God in person also to prove our faith through the centuries; or to show us how His Divine Power can also operate through the human inadequacies, including those of his Vicar.

.

One of the keys is a power in itself and in itself unquestionable for the simple fact that no, by grade and faculties, It can put it into question. Therefore no one is given regulatory or try to regulate this power structure of one of the fundamental tenets of our faith:

.

«[…] and I tell you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and everything you melt on earth will be melted in heaven " [cf. Mt 16, 17-19].

.

Since we live in an atmosphere of schizophrenia in which also the last of bloggers He does not hesitate to climb on its established theological professorship internetica to brand as heretics real and serious theologians, rather than admit that he is not to have understood the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine, therefore the penalty address a specific question to these new lovers of legalism that they sentence "or is black or white". And the question is as follows: in what precise piece of Sacred Scripture Christ God spoken to Peter patterns and canonical rules regarding wire and melt? Dove, Christ gave, It indicates and what exactly Peter can bind and loose, or rather what can neither tie nor untie? Christ God clothes Pietro a vicarious functions linked to the whole divine mystery and then gives him absolute power linked to the concept of fundamental dogmatic absolutism of faith. therefore I say, consequently I ask: before all this, there are really real or imagined Catholics, publicists and pundits self-elettisi true interpreters of doctrine and dogma, intending to seriously criticize how Peter can and should exercise a warrant combined with a similar absolute power and founding conferred on him by Christ God?

.

Let's try to clarify matters: with the "you are Peter"Christ has signed to set up their legitimate vicar on earth a blank check, which it was limited to sign with their name and surname, that on the check result: Word of the Lord. And on this check, after having stamped signature Word of the Lord, He has written above only the date of issue, there has instead written no expiration date; but most did not write you any amount, the amount has left everything to Peter and his successors, because at the issuing bank is unlimited coverage.

.

Well tell me, lovers of legalism, the Gospel to be used as a blunt instrument rather than as a medicine for the care and redemption of man, and fearless advocates of "black or white": the due date and amount, maybe you want mettercelo, above the divine check? you really want to do what Christ God has done? Because, in case no one will had yet explained, In this case, I hasten to explain it I: assumed to be replaceable in this way to God, It is impious and blasphemous.

.

A quel point, lovers of legalism, the Gospel to be used as a blunt instrument rather than as a medicine for the care and redemption of man, and fearless advocates of "black or white", bring out the hypothesis of the "heretical pope" and the possibility that these might fall into apostasy, be dismissed. Cite and spread catastrophic messages, publish books that abrade the confused and in troubled waters, make continual references to private revelations, many of which are recognized by the Church, but used out of context rigor to pull water to the mill of their delirious thesis and to support a more or less subtle way, but sometimes even with open effrontery, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the Antichrist emissary, the acolyte of Satan who is going to destroy the doctrine. These delusions answer with all the serene obvious doctrinal applicable: that of the Pope a heretic and apostate is merely a hypothesis canonical; hypothesis that in the history of the Church has never occurred, let alone resulting in dismissal of the Roman Pontiff.

.

Next, as regards private revelations, from those recognized by the Church, which must always be contextualized and never de-contextualized for subjective purposes sometimes even wicked and perverse, their authors and speakers make one thing clear supported by an irrefutable: private revelations are not a dogma of faith, whereas, "Tu es Petrus", and, It is a fundamental tenet of the faith of the Church.

.

Many of those who attack undoubtedly the defeasible, incomplete, often improvident and imprudent man Jorge Mario Bergoglio, they show dramatically lacking the ability to make a fundamental distinction doctrinal: up to when it comes to direct criticism at the so-called "private doctor", or to ordinary pastoral ministry choices, or in administrative decisions of the Holy Father, except the devotee always had respect and deference to his sacred person, the anything goes, indeed sometimes even desirable. I myself have done over and over again, including when the Supreme Pontiff has changed the rite of the washing of the feet, replicandogli only reply with a "head washed" [cf. WHO]. Just as I did seeing multiplied by the diocese as new bishops elected duplicate complacent of the reigning Pontiff, everyone with “poor” the mouth and “periphery existential” in cu…hours [cf. WHO, WHO, WHO, WHO, etc. ..]. It is not, however, be contested on doctrinal expressions of the Roman Pontiff, even though - and this I say ironically - were wrong, why nobody, including any saints on earth, It has to top power ability to correct his mistake. And that said please do not quote me inappropriately harsh reproaches addressed to the Supreme Pontiffs from St. Bernard of Clairvaux or St. Catherine of Siena, because the one and the other have never lifted objections to their choices doctrinarian. Indeed, and especially Catherine of Siena, with his invective directed toward the papal court to Avignon, launched calls devotees to the pontiffs of purely political and pastoral matters, but certainly not doctrinal.

.

The Roman Pontiff has power that he is not received by a Cardinals Assembly, much less by a popular assembly; its power comes directly from the Christ God, then it is a power which is not subject, as shown in the canon, a union endorsement [cf. CIC, can. 1404]. This is the reason why in the past I moved harsh protests in some Catholic circles who reacted to a decision taken by the Supreme Pontiff and regarding the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, enacting the painful charade of a petition, style referendum, declaring himself to be a part of the paladins of the pure and true traditio catholic, but ignoring the other data is both legal and doctrinal to the measures of the Roman Pontiff is not contemplated any appeal [cf. CIC, can. 333§3], because no one can criticize the work of the supreme guardian of the faith, the keybearer.

.

To those who have asked me so dry: "You would give the Eucharist to divorced and remarried?». I answered: "No. And not only do not give it to him, but soon also note that do not show up to receive it. If, however, the Roman Pontiff would establish otherwise - which, as we have seen, thank God he did not - I can not and I do not deny it, why do not I establish the Discipline of the Sacraments; why am I not provided by Christ God the power of binding and loosing ".

.

This is why in my previous article [cf. WHO] I criticized the style and language of The joy of love which in my opinion it is unhappy and peppered with sociologisms, its length talkative ... to its vagueness to dangerous stretches because as this harbinger of some kind of bad interpretations by certain specialists of the alteration of the lyrics ... but without going even indirectly - as anyone can see in that my writing - in strictly doctrinaire speech, because the doctrines apply just, not discussed, much less on the basis of subjective and humoral “I think“, “I think” Why “I feel“…

.

I find it so dramatic the fact that precisely those who accuse the Pope Francis to have de-sacralized the papacy, then are the same ones, disparaging the dogma of faith and the perennial teaching of the Church, pretend to criticize about his prerogatives misquote unquestionable dogma and even more inappropriately citing the perennial teaching of the Church, slavishly trying to twist it all pathetically against the person who is the legitimate custodian not worth discussion and without possibility of review by anyone, from certain aggressive and unwise Laity Lords.

.

My fellow priest and theologian John Cavalcoli certainly she did not need my office defended, but being part of his brothers, part of his disciple, I can not hide my irritation understandable, reading around the electronic network charges of heresy and betrayal directed to this distinguished Dominican theologian by several persons, especially by a fierce harem of passionarie, one of which has even accused of being rahneriano, he who criticizes the dangerous and pernicious theologians Karl Rahner has dedicated three decades of extensive studies even after the legacy and the work done previously by the Servant of God Tomas Tyn. If the individual concerned ride on all this, with its unique taste from Romagna, I can not seem instead to ironizzarvi much, because it touches my revered brother and my beloved teacher.

.

Needless to say that the allegations addressed these days the Dominican theologian and rigor are all based on the lack of typical theological culture of the people who presume to know before, then dissected in the fields by more and more delicate dogmatic, which are precisely those dogmatic sacramental, Finally give the heretic to a papal outstanding academic, calling me to tell me then amused: «Sai, they gave me the heretic!». And you laugh while I comment: "Hell will put definitely in the bottom, near Lucifer, why now, with the Prince of Darkness, it seems that for some people you are now become ass&shirt».

.

Since the study of dogmatic sacramental I spent years of my life; since my theological education is not that of internetico chicken or of the hen crazy that scratching from blog to blog collects stupidity pills and then changing them in a unique and solid truth, I think I can say with due theological science that the disciplines of the Sacraments have suffered not only numerous reforms, But the really radical reforms. Many would be examples, I will therefore, to some, from confession, the actual sacrament of penance and reconciliation, which for several centuries it was allowed to administer only once in a lifetime and never again. Indeed, as generally almost all the sacraments, the confession was not repeatable. Not to mention the complexity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which is one, but now divided into three grades. The thing is even more complicated if we consider that this sacrament instituted by Christ in a unique solution God, and now it divided internally into three grades, It encloses two orders that are different institution: the priesthood, which it is of divine institution, and the diaconate, which instead it is of apostolic institution [cf. At 6, 1-5]. I also note that while the institution of the priesthood made by God Incarnate is told in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, the establishment of the first seven deacons instead narrated in Acts and took place after the death, resurrection and ascension into heaven of God's Word.

.

It's still: over the centuries those who were instituted before the Second Vatican Council's reforms were the split orders between them in major e minors. And for centuries is discussed, not be answered, if among the seven orders the sub-diaconate was to be regarded a lower order or a higher order. Question which was never answered. In its way he answered the Blessed Paul VI, who along with the other orders abolished and closed thereby the speech by replacing the smaller orders with the ministries of lector and acolyte.

.

And to stay on the Order Sacred speech: we know that the sole director of this sacrament is the bishop, the only priests can consecrate and ordain deacons. but yet, over the centuries, There were several exceptions, for example, the privilege granted to Cistercian abbots uncoated episcopal dignity to order deacons, or the right given to some priests to consecrate priests in exceptionally special situations and conditions. In this case the question is not trivial: how can, one who is not invested with the fullness of the priesthood, consecrate a priest? There is a hypothesis not so farfetched to some teachers of the school who argued that every priest, as such, He has the fullness of the priesthood, but this fullness is in it reduced to its sacramental and especially judicial totality it can only be exercised by the bishop.

.

These few brief references made to the dogmatic and sacramental discipline of the Sacraments, They should be enough to champions of "black or white", to understand that even the best theologians always tremble when they have to move around the complex and complicated terrain of the Discipline of the Sacraments. So why certain people, passionarie ahead of all, they do not want to exercise their human and Christian humility that the ports, I do not say to silence, but at least to try to learn everything so obvious show of not knowing?

.

The accusations made against the Dominican theologian about his alleged defections from Catholic orthodoxy are supported by its critics of that absurd that stems from their inability to not understand. Father John Carlson, commenting on the post-synodal exhortation The joy of love wrote the following sentence strictly not understood that he did yell some heretic and manifest:

.

The rule which forbids remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion, is a rule which depends on the power of the keys, ie it is an ecclesiastical law, that does not stem from divine law unambiguously, necessary and without alternative, like a syllogistic deduction, almost, as some believe, possible change, elimination or mitigation of the discipline introduced tomorrow by the Pope, be prejudicial or offense to the divine law and Christian dignity of marriage. On the contrary, everything is part of the faculty of the Supreme Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Church. If it has not seen fit to do so, leaving unchanged the law of St. John Paul II, it means that he had good reasons to do so, November's, to be good Catholics, meekly and trustingly welcome the decisions of the Vicar of Christ [cf. WHO].

.

And to show the heresy of the Dominican theologian now pro-modernist novel rahneriano, in theology do it yourself, but especially the teologhesse passionarie, procededono with copy-paste internetici prefixing Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts on the admissibility of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried, which he recites:

–

The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, It derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: latter can not introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: "Therefore everyone who unworthily, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord, It will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Each, therefore, examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup; because whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord, eating and drinking his own condemnation " (1Color 11, 27-29) (3) [cf. WHO].

.

This text, published in’'Osservatore Romano the 7 July 2000, also applies to divorced and remarried the can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law, which excludes from Holy Communion those who "obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" [in manifest grave sin obstinate perseverantes].

.

At this point it is a question of rigor paid to the legal rigor and masters "or is black and white": the Blessed Apostle Paul, where it refers to cohabitees or adulterers? Because if things need to be ", or black or white", then it must be based on a precise and clear reminder that in this case, But, the Blessed Apostle does.

.

We start from the fact of life that many escapes: the Blessed Apostle Paul raises a matter of principle and with it that a rule of conduct which has as its object the sin itself and in itself, not a specific sin, nor it directs this expression to cohabitees and adulterers. And anyone who reads carefully the Pauline text and then say otherwise, or it is blind, or simply an ideologue, but not a theologian, the limit can be a clumsy canonist who jumps into gear the minefield of the discipline of the sacraments closely connected to the Dogmatic Sacramental.

.

No one has ever denied - He has not made the Dominican theologian and I have not done it myself - that the callback application in this Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts on the admissibility of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried It is beyond sensible doubt. There are indeed a few cases in which is revealed this perverse perseverance. In this case the pair, as well as giving scandal to be in a state or condition of life, said "irregular", in open contradiction with conjugal ethics dictates Christians, assuming it does not appear absolutely show signs of intention to repent and stop sinning, so the assumption is that living in a constant state of mortal sin, devoid of grace.

.

However, it remains always the fact that if sin It has an external event, deduce from this event an inner state or subjective permanent fault, It is always difficult thing, though not always impossible. In particular, it is difficult judgment on stubbornly persevering, because you can not know from the outside. They know only those involved and knows God, which only can read the depths of the heart and the deep consciousness of man. The case therefore provided by this Declaration It is objectively unverifiable, why did well the Pope quoting the mitigating, without absolutely reject the possibility to make a judgment about the stubbornly persevering, that is not canceled and that in no way is less both as a principle and as a possibility.

.

The Dominican theologian and I recognize and both agree that it is simply the external manifestation of sin, to justify the practice of exclusion from the Communion, without pretending to judge in the internal forum, that is not the faculty of canon law, pace of canon lawyers or those who confuse dogmatic theology with the right and vice versa.

.

But what is puzzling in Declaration is the quote of the admonition of Blessed Paul the Apostle about the sacrilege that those who commit accosted at Communion in a state of mortal sin [1 Color 11, 27-29], as if to insinuate that all remarried divorcees are to be cataloged as obstinately persevering in a state of mortal sin, on the basis of the cold and unacceptable in a Christian principle: two remarried divorcees are cohabiting and as such permanently mortal sin was, and all because "it is either black or white", and that's!

.

And that's that? But when did the Catholic moral, yesterday as today, He taught to confessors to behave well? Far from it, good morale has always taught and still teaches that there are sins that "technically" have in itself and of itself deadly sins, but although these, seconded people, situations, the circumstances ... can be reduced up to real venial sins. As I found confessor to absolve penitents and penitents from mortal sins serious; on three different occasions I had to send the penitent to the Apostolic Penitentiary, finding myself in front of the sins reserved to the Holy See. Sometimes, with the option and granted, I also absolved from sins reserved to the bishop, for example from the sin of abortion, sometimes finding myself in front of women whose guilt was very attenuated. To cite by way 'of example a case: a young girl, very simple, from modest social backgrounds, devoid of culture and also of maturity, with disarming candor really explained to me that she, practicing abortion, He had worked for the good of the unborn, was no proof that they were doctors advise her to have an abortion, for his sake. And if a doctor, for your own good, He tells you that you have to have an abortion, He does what he says, because "he is the doctor, but I'm only a poor ignorant ". And in this penitent were absent knowledge and deliberate consent about what he had done, quite the opposite, she was certain that he acted on the advice it should be given by the sages before which is not discussed, you obey. Entirely different in the case of those women who have abortions instead for trivial reasons, although fully aware of what is abortion and that what life; women of practice I have always met two or three times for long talks and appropriate catechesis, before giving them absolution, strictly denied - and accurate: only in two cases over the course of my entire priestly ministry - to two women who instead of showing true repentance, persisted in wanting to justify when sacramental confession the legitimacy of the crime made towards the bottom of the mystery and the gift of human life.

.

These logical and theological principles of judgment, that are not part of bergogliana church today, but of Church of Christ ever, They are shown and explained by the Supreme Pontiff to the numbers 301 e 302 from the The joy of love, where they indicate the factors that mitigate or diminish the guilt, which, from deadly, It can be lowered to the level of venial.

.

L 'The joy of love does not exclude the ability to make a judgment about the obstinacy persevering, however, he prefers to talk about a different case, in which the two "can live and grow as living members of the Church, feeling it like a mother who welcomes them forever " [n.299]. "Because of this, It is no longer possible to say that all those who are in some situation so-called "irregular", They live in a state of mortal sin, deprived of sanctifying grace " [n.301].

.

# 1 of Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, then it says: «The prohibition made in the aforementioned canon, by its nature, It derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: latter can not introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church ". And here - given that the dogmatic theologians should make dogmatic theologians and canonists should do instead canonists and not the spin doctors -, there is a totally unwarranted assimilation of the aforementioned fees to the divine law, almost enjoyed the same authority. That the fees resulting from divine law, no one can dispute. but be careful: I know drift, It means that it is beneath; What it is not a sophism, or a scrambling, It is pure theological logic. The other part, canon law, to its essence, in addition to incorporating divine laws, It does nothing but collect the positive law of the Church, as an expression of the power of the keys or judicial power.

.

On top of canon law, that are positive laws of the Church - apart from the natural law, that has nothing to do here now - there is nothing but the divine right or divine law. So, say that a canon law "transcends positive law" is to attribute a divine authority, which obviously can not be said, because in that case we just have to make a joke ... Well, if it is written in the Code of Canon Law by canonists, then even God Almighty can do anything!

.

The rule of exclusion of remarried divorcees the Eucharistic communion not therefore assumed the status of individual guilt, but it has a pedagogical and symbolic purposes. pedagogical, to avoid the scandal of the faithful; symbolic, because there is a contradiction between the Eucharist, meaning units, compared to what is done instead of the status of divorced, division means that instead, then broken communion.

.

The reigning Pontiff has chosen to maintain the rule established by the Holy Father John Paul II to the n. 84 from the Family member company, this thing that cheers, theologically speaking, both the Father Giovanni Cavalcoli is me, But, after having reconfirmed, proceeds with a just and necessary distinction between the divine law and the Church laws, for example as regards the Eucharist. This was established by Jesus Christ and is immutable divine law, pace of canonists. The discipline and the administration of the Eucharist it is for the ecclesiastical legislation, under the chairmanship of the Supreme Pontiff, which has the power to legislate and to change laws [cf. note 351].

.

By acting in this way the Supreme Pontiff he healed a legal text in my opinion not particularly happy as the Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts enacted in 2000. A text you blind and deaf, bloggers and passionarie assault that rattle "or is black or white", They have come to confer the status of a dogma of faith, while at the same time, however, putting into question - and we have also seen how aggressive contempt - a true dogma and right: the authority of Peter, custodian of the keys.

.

And making use of its sovereign jurisdiction over, the Supreme Pontiff loosens the tie too tight this Declaration It arises between the canonical norm of exclusion and the divine law, assimilating too that this. The Supreme Pontiff shows the possibility of mitigating and teaches that divorced and remarried may be in the grace. Finally shows the risk that the Declaration He runs to attribute to divorced and remarried a permanent state of mortal sin, deducing too quickly by the permanence of their state of irregular life.

.

So spoke the one who has received the power of the keys, custodian of a authority that he comes from the Word of God that he signed at the time a check with only the date of issue, without giving it either the amount or the expiration date. And that statement just now is a gift of faith contained in a fundamental dogma of the Church: «you are Peter». And this with all due respect to those who insist on denying the fundamental tenets and founding the Church, But to give the rank of indisputable dogma of the canonical provisions formulated bad and worse written by canon lawyers entered a straight leg in matters involving deep and complex doctrinal issues, or as the Blessed Apostle Paul says: "For if righteousness comes through the law, Christ died in vain " [II Gal 20, 21]. And for the Fathers of’Patmos Island, Christ is certainly not died in vain, with respect to those who yells “or is it black or is it white”.

.

.

.

After written

Given my desires known career, I wanted to say to those of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: if at your Council you are not too busy to take on monsignorini gai, who then they will flee in the Basque Country with their boyfriend screaming with chilli in the ass "Gay is beautiful!», if the place was still vacant you could call me as Secretary to the International Theological Commission, unless you intend discriminarmi as guilty of being Catholic, Orthodox and especially heterosexual.

Obviously it is a deliberate mockery and due, this mine. You take it as you think best, but in the meantime take it and Keep it, because you deserve it, forever, amen!

.

.

___________________________

..

NOTE

.

[59] CF. EUSEBIO, Hist. Eccl., V, 24, 10: GCS II, 1, p. 495; ed. WENT, Sources Chrét., (II), p. 69. DIONYGIUS, in EUSEBIO, ib. VII, 5, 2: GCS II, 2, p. 638s; WENT, (II), p. 168s.

[60] Over the ancient Councils cf. EUSEBIO, Hist. Eccl. V, 23-24; GCS II, 1, p. 488ss; WENT, (II), p. 66ss e passim. CONC. OF NICEA, can. 5: CODE p. 7

[61] CF. TERTULLIAN, the fast, 13: PL 2, 972B; RUSE 20, p. 292, lin. 13-16.

[62] CF. S. CIPRIANO, Epistle. 56, 3: CHARTER IIIB, p. 650; BAYARD, p. 154.

[63] CF. the official report ZINELLI to CONC. VAT I: MANSI 52, 1109(C).

[64] CF. CONC. VAT I, Cost of the scheme. dogm. II On the Church of Christ, (c). 4:[176][176]NSI 53, 310. CF. Kleutgen report on the scheme reformed: MANSI 53,321B-322B and the declaration ZINELLI: MANSI 52, 1110A. See also S. LEONE M., Sermon. 4,3: PL 54, 151A.

[65] CF. CIC, can. 222 e 227 [in the new Code of Canon. 338].

.

.

.

.

.