Why did we Fathers of the magazine The Island of Patmos not talk about the Synod?? Because we are priests and theologians, not gossips who excite the irrational moods of the populace

WHY HAVE WE FATHERS OF THE MAGAZINE THE ISLAND OF PATMOS NOT TALKED ABOUT THE SYNOD? BECAUSE WE ARE PRIESTS AND THEOLOGIANS, NOT GOSSIPARIES THAT EXCITE THE IRRATIONAL MOODS OF THE PEOPLE

Even before it began, this latest Synod was preceded by proclamations from unspecified internet experts who sowed terror not so dissimilar to that of the Hamas terrorists, to give a completely absurd-paradoxical hyperbolic example. If in fact Hamas terrorists kill innocent civilians, this other type of terrorist kills, in the increasingly lost faithful, the little that remains in them of faith and ecclesial feeling, of being members of the living body that is the Church.

— News in brief —

.

PDF print format article

 

 

In one of my latest articles to which I refer you (see WHO) I spoke about the decline of the principle of authority in relation to social media, where even the least imbecile can launch into dealing in a grotesque and surreal way with topics that are the subject of complex historical debates on a scientific level, historical, social, politico, theological…

We the Fathers of this magazine we have convinced ourselves that when faced with certain desolations the ancient saying of Publius Terentius Afro is valid (190-159 a.C), universally known as Terence: «They are silent, praise them enough» (They are silent and in doing so they praise). With this maxim, the famous Roman playwright of probable Berber origin meant that sometimes silence prevents words from being expressed, also clearly, end up being distorted or even deliberately misunderstood by those who are inclined to misunderstand or look for any excuse for a dispute. From this maxim by Terenzi was born the famous popular saying "a beautiful silence was never written".

A personal note: for reasons that need not be explained, during this last Synod I had the opportunity to come and go from Martha House Sancthae several times, to meet and speak with various bishops from various parts of the world, clarifying the obvious that I certainly don't need to clarify, because the whole thing, for me as for many other scholars and theologians, it falls within the scope of obvious things about which there would be absolutely nothing to discuss. But, as I wrote in my previous article (see WHO) sometimes it is necessary to explain especially the things that seem obvious to us, in this crazy decadent world in which a boundless army of people thinks of giving maximum and unappealable sentences with a Tweet o a post su Facebook, after having fed themselves on the blogs of people who speak and discuss complex issues that they really don't know about practice and rigor.

Even before starting this latest Synod was preceded by proclamations from unspecified internet experts who sowed terror not so dissimilar to that of Hamas terrorists, to give a completely absurd-paradoxical hyperbolic example. If in fact Hamas terrorists kill innocent civilians, this other type of terrorist kills, in the increasingly lost faithful, the little that remains in them of faith and ecclesial feeling, of being members of the living body that is the Church (cf.. With the 1, 18).

For weeks we have read and heard proclamations in which certain web terrorists gave the best of themselves to disorient simple and increasingly lost Catholics by foreseeing the imminent customs clearance of priestly celibacy and married priests, women priests, or at least women deacons, the blessing at the altar of homosexual couples and so on to follow. And all these elements that to define as fantastic is just an understatement, they were announced as certain, indeed presented as taken for granted.

At the end of the Synod the Supreme Pontiff Francis spoke publicly, clarifying that priestly celibacy would not be affected in any way, reiterating what we have known for centuries: priestly celibacy, which has its roots since the first apostolic era and which has great value on a spiritual level, ecclesial and pastoral, it is not a dogma of faith but an ecclesiastical discipline. There is proof that even in the Catholic Church there have always been Eastern Rite priests who are married and have families. Having said this, the Holy Father reiterated that he does not intend in any way to modify ecclesiastical discipline on the celibacy of priests belonging to the Latin rite community, specifying that nothing similar "will happen under my pontificate".

Regarding the issue of women priests, the Supreme Pontiff Francis had already expressed himself several times in the past, therefore he did nothing but reiterate the pronouncement given in definitive form by his Holy Predecessor John Paul II which clarified for the present and future future: «The Church does not have the power to grant sacred priestly ordination to women» (cf.. WHO).

If in the preparatory stages of the Synod there was talk of the LGBT world, from the draft of the final document this acronym has completely disappeared, to the certain displeasure of that cheerful character Father James Martin supported not long ago with an article in the well-known pseudo-Catholic weekly slush Christian, originally born as Christian family, which he announced: «Pope Francis has restored dignity to LGBTQ people and this is a blessing for everyone» (cf.. QUI). So no blessing to the happy rainbow couples under the steps of the altars for the obvious reason that the Church, with the excuse of blessing the people who always need to be blessed, is not so naive and unprepared to end up blessing what for Catholic doctrine and morality remains the sin against nature (Catechism, n. 2357), which as such cannot be blessed, not even with the excuse of only blessing people. This is a topic on which the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith had already expressed its opinion (cf.. WHO). Several times over the last few years I have written and explained that the Church has the duty to welcome the sinner, especially the worst sinners, because if she did not do so she would betray the mission that Christ God has entrusted to her (cf.. Mt 9,13), always being careful, however, never to welcome sin, which cannot be welcomed, much less blessed.

This is why we remained silent, because we are priests, theologians and above all men of faith aware that even today the Church is experiencing very delicate moments, or if we want even confused and sad, In any case, she will never be able to betray the mission that Christ God has entrusted to her to meet the whims of the world, because God chose us from the world but we are not of the world (cf.. GV 15, 18-19).

Let's move on and conclude with two elements. The first: the essence of ecumenical councils and synods of the Church; The second one: the unusual attitude, perhaps even questionable and ambiguous of the Supreme Pontiff Francis.

The Catholic Hamas terrorists who have carried out campaigns for months and weeks aimed at exciting people, now at terrorizing them, they demonstrated first of all that they have no idea what councils and synods are in the two-thousand-year history of the Church. First let's see the difference between the two: by ecumenical council we mean, as the word itself says, an extraordinary event that involves all the bishops of the universal Church. The term “ecumenical” in fact it derives from Greek world (oikoumene) and it means universal. Otherwise instead, the Synod, which can be local or even global, it involves a slice of the episcopate, or invited and selected participants, which can also represent Catholic universality, but which do not constitute an ecumenical council, that is, that most important and solemn act of the Church which requires and implies the participation of the entire Catholic episcopate.

In both cases, whether it is an ecumenical council or a synod, participants are simply not entitled, but precisely the duty to discuss everything and its exact opposite. In discussions they can, indeed, even the most unlikely or even absurd hypotheses must be raised. Perhaps the great Fathers and Masters of classical scholasticism did not do this, often starting in their disputes even from surreal and paradoxical elements, in order to stimulate the speculative sense and arrive at wise judgments? What does this take to make clear to the aggressive blogger or to those who have a sentence on Twitter they have solved problems that have not yet had a definitive answer for centuries. Therefore, than certain fringes of the episcopate, that is, the inevitable Germans and Northern Europeans, have raised certain questions, It shouldn't have surprised anyone, including hardcore bloggers and tweeters, if only they had known the rudiments of Church history.

The Supreme Pontiff Francis for its part remains an enigma, as I defined it in an old article of mine from 2013 commenting on his first ones 100 days of pontificate (see WHO) where I compared him to the Pied Piper of Amelin, which deserves enormous credit: having made all the mice come out for what they really are, after they had hidden themselves in the most false and calculated condescension for thirty years under the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. At least today, thanks to this Augusto Pifferaio, we get to know the mice one by one for what they are and what they really think. This will make it especially difficult for them, or rather, really impossible to be able to recycle it at the next change of helmsman of Peter's boat, given that a 87 years and with health problems of no small importance, the Supreme Pontiff Francis will certainly not last forever. If so tomorrow, as if nothing had happened, a playful cardinal even went so far as to lower himself into a manhole to reconnect electricity to the inhabitants of an illegally occupied building (see WHO), if he showed up with three meters of cappa magna and a galero on his head - something that certain chameleons would be capable of doing because by their nature they lack the very sense of modesty - we would all ask him: "But you, Were you perhaps not the one who, under the pontificate of Francis, went in trousers and rolled up shirt sleeves to bring coffee in the evening to the tramps who had transformed Bernini's colonnade into a public urinal?, after showing off gold cufflinks and artfully pleated purple robes under the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI?”.

For the umpteenth time the Supreme Pontiff Francis brought them together, speak and vent in a Synod, causing them all to come out into the open again. Once the discussions were over he announced "then we'll see", concluding with a "see you next year", assuming of course that the Holiness of Our Lord is always alive.

Of the two one: or we are faced with a man who alone is crazier and more deranged than Joanna of Castile, Henry IV and Ludwig II of Bavaria all three combined, or we are faced with a man who in a very difficult and complex historical moment did what was best and most appropriate to have been done, using his state grace wisely and prudently, although at the moment his actions cannot be understood. In fact we cannot affirm either one thing or the other, because we lack the elements to be able to do it. Maybe it will take many years, but one day history will clarify the great "enigma" for us Francesco, how I defined it in 2013 after the first ones 100 days of his pontificate, revealing him as the right man who rode out an extraordinarily delicate season in the best way.

the Island of Patmos, 29 October 2023

.

.

Father Ariel's new book has been released and is being distributed, you can buy it by clicking directly on the cover image or by entering our bookshop WHO

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci
Of the Order of Preachers
Presbyter and Theologian

( Click on the name to read all its articles )
Father Gabriele

The love that comes from charity is the foundation of Christianity

Homiletic of the Fathers of The Island of Patmos

THE LOVE THAT BORN FROM CHARITY IS THE FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY

Jesus teaches us that there is no love for God that is very great, devoted and authentic, and that it does not become love towards our neighbor. A love of charity which therefore means acting according to concrete and real works, to help others also grow in holiness. Therefore as the Provencals said, in love you either grow or diminish.

 

Author:
Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci, o.p.

.

PDF print format article

 

 

Dear readers of The island of Patmos,

«It's obvious: l'Love waxes or wanes and never stays the same'. We find this beautiful phrase in an ancient one Provençal Love Code. This maxim contains one of the fundamental laws of love which is continuous growth in the donation of oneself to others and to God. Love is a common experience that we have all experienced at least once in our lives. The foundation, therefore, of our human love, what love of charity and tenderness is always the love of God which being eternal, He asks us to love with an eternal love too.

This cornerstone is enclosed In the Gospel of this XXX Sunday of Ordinary Time, where the fundamental law of Christianity is stated. A true Copernican revolution within Judaism and the Greek world- romano. An absolute novelty where the center of everything is the relationship of love between God and man.

Once again we find the Pharisees all united to hold a council against Jesus Christ. Last week went badly for him, when they had sent the Herodians to try to turn him against the Romans. This time they send a doctor of the law, an expert who asks him a trap question. Which 613 Jewish precepts (take it easy) you think is more important, according to the Jewish hierarchy? This is also a trick question, according to the fallacy of false dichotomy. From i 613 There was in fact a hierarchy and importance to the precepts. Regardless of whether or not we remember this hierarchical scale - which for Jesus was simple - the trap consisted in listening to Jesus' response, whatever the answer would have been, reply that the precept cited was instead the least important one. In tal modo, they wanted to discredit and show Jesus' lack of connection with Jewish tradition and with God. Jesus once again frees himself from this argumentative trap. And he exploits the situation to offer the center and core of the teaching of Christianity. Jesus responds:

«”You will love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your mind”. This is the great and first commandment. The second one is similar to that one: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets ".

The news it consists first of all in the formulation of these two precepts. The first is taken from Deuteronomy 6,5 and it is linked together with the law of Holiness that we find in Leviticus 19,18. Here then is the inseparable link between love for God and neighbor already present and prefigured in the Old Testament and is then made explicit and announced by Jesus. This answer breaks any counter-answer. And it is an answer that is still valid for us today.

Jesus teaches us that there is no such thing as love towards God who is very great, devoted and authentic, and that it does not become love towards our neighbor. A love of charity which therefore means acting according to concrete and real works, to help others also grow in holiness. Therefore as the Provencals said, in love you either grow or diminish. We grow in love towards God because the works of mercy continually fuel our choice of faith which is a relationship with the eternal You of God, perennially in love with his creation and therefore with humanity. At the same time, to love with charity is to choose to engage responsibly in the Church, so that all other believers can encounter Christ through us. If you stop loving, also our life and our joy, little by little they fade. Thus our person also becomes more and more closed in on himself. Jesus asks us to put our authentic and tender love into circulation.

We ask the Lord the strength and courage of generous and merciful action, to all grow united on the path of holiness that leads to eternal life.

Amen.

Santa Maria Novella in Florence, 29 October 2023

.

.

Subscribe to our Channel Jordan the Theological club directed by Father Gabriele by clicking on the image

 

THE LATEST EPISODES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ARCHIVE: WHO

.

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

.

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

"You will love your neighbor as yourself". On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets "

Homiletics of the Fathers of The Island of Patmos

«AMERAI IL TUO PROSSIMO COME TE STESSO» DA QUESTI DUE COMANDAMENTI DIPENDONO TUTTA LA LEGGE E I PROFETI

Gesù andò subito oltre con la sorprendente novità che non ha riscontri nella letteratura giudaica antica: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”. They, going back to the will of the Legislator, discerne che amore di Dio e del prossimo stanno in una relazione inscindibile tra loro: l’uno non sussiste senza l’altro.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

PDF print format article

.HTTPS://youtu.be/4fP7neCJapw

.

Nel lezionario, tralasciata la discussione con i sadducei a proposito della risurrezione, si giunge, col vangelo di questa XXX Domenica del tempo ordinario, ad una nuova diatriba che si apre con Gesù interrogato dai suoi avversari, ma, Once again, per metterlo alla prova.

"During that time, i farisei, avendo udito che Gesù aveva chiuso la bocca ai sadducèi, si riunirono insieme e uno di loro, un dottore della Legge, lo interrogò per metterlo alla prova: «Maestro, in the Law, qual è il grande comandamento?». She answered him: «Amerai il Signore tuo Dio con tutto il tuo cuore, con tutta la tua anima e con tutta la tua mente». This is the great and first commandment. The second one is similar to that one: "You will love your neighbor as yourself". On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets ". (Mt 22,34-40)

Sono gli ultimi giorni di Gesù nella città santa di Gerusalemme, prima dell’arresto e della passione, ed egli sa che il cerchio intorno a sé si sta stringendo sempre più. Nella nostra pagina di Vangelo entrano di nuovo in scena i farisei, e tra loro un dottore della Legge, un teologo diremmo noi, un esperto delle sante Scritture, che nuovamente si rivolge a lui chiamandolo: Rabbi (Maestro, διδάσκαλε). Infatti non si era mai vista una cosa del genere, che un carpentiere si fosse messo in testa di insegnare e dare consigli sulla Torah, su come si onori Dio, su cosa sia lecito e cosa proibito. La cosa non era ben vista come attestò Ben Sira al principio del terzo secolo a.C: «Chi è libero dalla fatica diventerà saggio»1; e nei Vangeli non si parla mai di una scuola esegetica di Gesù. Le sorprendenti interpretazioni della Torah, che gli permettono di contrastare le insidie dialettiche degli avversari, non verranno replicate dai suoi discepoli. Se Gesù viene chiamato rabbi (maestro) è per la sua autorità e per la capacità di approfondire la Scrittura in modo creativo. Non è però il genere d’insegnante che formi allievi, per trasmettere loro i propri metodi esegetici. Mentre nel giudaismo rabbinico, che si affermerà dopo la distruzione del secondo Tempio nel 70, l’allievo è destinato a sostituire e, if possible, a superare in sapienza il maestro, i discepoli di Gesù rimarranno per sempre tali, senza la possibilità di emularlo in campo intellettuale.

Proprio i rabbini avevano individuato nella Legge, la Torah, oltre le dieci parole (Is 20,2-17), ben 613 precetti, per cui la domanda posta a Gesù sembra pertinente e verteva sulla semplificazione: «Maestro, in the Law, qual è il grande comandamento?». Era un argomento dibattuto come testimonia questa risposta rabbinica: «Rabbi Simlaj disse:

«Sul monte Sinai a Mosè sono stati enunciati 613 comandamenti: 365 negativi, corrispondenti al numero dei giorni dell’anno solare, e 248 positive, corrispondenti al numero degli organi del corpo umano… Poi venne David, che ridusse questi comandamenti a 11, as it is written [nel Sal 15]… Poi venne Isaia che li ridusse a 6, as it is written [in Is 33,15-16]… Poi venne Michea che li ridusse a 3, as it is written: «Che cosa ti chiede il Signore, se di non praticare la giustizia, amare la pietà, camminare umilmente con il tuo Dio? » (Me 6,8) … Poi venne ancora Isaia e li ridusse a 2, as it is written: «Così dice il Signore: Osservate il diritto e praticate la giustizia» (Is 56,1) … Infine venne Abacuc e ridusse i comandamenti a uno solo, as it is written: «Il giusto vivrà per la sua fede» (Ab 2,4)» (Talmud babilonese, Makkot, 24a).

Jesus replied ponendo in evidenza, Once again, la sua capacità di far riferimento a ciò che è fondamentale e proponendo a seguire una sorprendente novità, legando un secondo comandamento al principale, dichiarandoli simili e facendo di ambedue una corda sulla quale sta in equilibrio tutta la struttura dei rimanenti comandi, anzi l’intero complesso della Parola di Dio. Se da essa si distaccano cadono a terra. Questo è il senso del verbo kremamai ― κρέμαμαι ― del verso v.40, ovvero essere appeso, sospeso, penzolare; che è stato reso con dipendere: «Da questi due comandamenti dipendono tutta la Legge e i Profeti».

Dove trovò Gesù il fondamento per giustificare la grandezza del primo comandamento? Nella preghiera, nella fattispecie quella dello Shemà (Ascolta) che apriva e chiudeva la giornata dell’ebreo religioso e in particolare quella di shabbat, il sabato:

«Listen, Israel: il Signore è il nostro Dio, il Signore è uno solo. Tu amerai il Signore tuo Dio con tutto il tuo cuore, con tutta la tua vita e con tutta la tua mente» (Dt 6,4-5). E chiosò: «Questo è il grande e primo comandamento».

Poi Gesù andò subito oltre con la sorprendente novità che non ha riscontri nella letteratura giudaica antica: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lv 19,18). They, going back to the will of the Legislator, discerne che amore di Dio e del prossimo stanno in una relazione inscindibile tra loro: l’uno non sussiste senza l’altro. Il comando di amare il prossimo è, nel Vangelo di Matteo, il testo veterotestamentario più citato: si trova anche in Mt 5,43 e 19,19. Significa che Gesù aveva insistito su questo precetto, ma anche che per Matteo era particolarmente necessario ricordarlo ai credenti in Cristo, quando questi non verranno più capiti ed accolti dalla loro stessa gente; Unfortunately, anche dai loro stessi fratelli ebrei.

Non a caso nel nostro testo il secondo comandamento è definito pari ― ὁμοία ― al primo, con la stessa importanza e lo stesso peso, mentre l’evangelista Luca li unisce addirittura in un solo grande comandamento: «Amerai il Signore Dio tuo… e il prossimo tuo» (LC 10,27). Gesù compie così un’audace e decisiva innovazione, e lo fa con l’autorità di chi sa che non si può amare Dio senza amare le persone.

L’amore essendo un sentimento umano non si può dire che rappresenti un proprium of the christian, lo è invece la fede in Gesù, the Christ, Figlio del Padre che si è rivelato. E al cuore di questo processo c’è la manifestazione di Dio come amore. Come tutti sanno gli autori del Nuovo Testamento che hanno esplorato la profondità di questo mistero sono Paolo e Giovanni. Proprio quest’ultimo, in una sua lettera affermerà che «Dio è amore» (1GV 4,8.16) e che «ci ha amati per primo» (1GV 4,19). San Paolo ci farà dono dell’inno alla carità (1Color 13). Tutte queste parole rivolte in prima istanza ai discepoli di Gesù di ogni tempo, sono ormai il segno distintivo di chi crede in lui, tanto da far affermare allo stesso Giovanni: «Se uno dice: Io amo Dio e odia suo fratello, è un bugiardo. Chi infatti non ama il proprio fratello che vede, non può amare Dio che non vede. E questo è il comandamento che abbiamo da lui: chi ama Dio, ami anche suo fratello» (1GV 4,20-21). E questo perché il riferimento sarà sempre a Gesù che pose se stesso come termine di paragone: «Da questo tutti sapranno che siete miei discepoli: if you have love for each other " (GV 13,35); ovvero quell’amore che mette in pratica “il comandamento nuovo”, cioè ultimo e definitivo, da lui lasciatoci: «Amatevi gli uni gli altri come io vi ho amati» (GV 13,34; 15,12).

Per tornare all’esempio della corda sospesa il cristiano si troverà sempre a camminare su questa via sottile evitando di non sporgersi troppo da un lato perdendo l’equilibrio dell’altro. L’amore verso Dio e verso il prossimo si mantiene in costante equilibrio e l’uno e l’altro non costituiscono l’emblema di una stagione. Anche se adesso, in the Church, si pone l’accento maggiormente sulla solidarietà e sull’accoglienza dei poveri e dei miseri, il cristiano sarà sempre un “uomo per tutte le stagioni”2. E secondo l’insegnamento di Gesù ci sarà sempre qualcuno che percorrendo la non sorvegliata scesa che da Gerusalemme porta a Gerico potrà correre il rischio di ritrovarsi mezzo morto: l’amore compassionevole sarà la risposta (LC 10,25-37).

Anche Sant’Agostino sembra pensarla così:

«Enunciando i due precetti dell’amore, il Signore non ti raccomanda prima l’amore del prossimo e poi l’amore di Dio, ma mette prima Dio e poi il prossimo. Ma siccome Dio ancora non lo vedi, meriterai di vederlo amando il prossimo. Ama dunque il prossimo, e mira dentro di te la fonte da cui scaturisce l’amore del prossimo: ci vedrai, in quanto ti è possibile, It gave. Comincia dunque con l’amare il prossimo. Spezza il tuo pane con chi ha fame, e porta in casa tua chi è senza tetto; se vedi un ignudo, vestilo, e non disprezzare chi è della tua carne. Facendo così, che cosa succederà? Allora sì che quale aurora eromperà la tua luce (Is 58,7-8). La tua luce è il tuo Dio. Egli è per te luce mattutina, perché viene a te dopo la notte di questo mondo. Egli non sorge né tramonta, risplende sempre… Amando il prossimo e interessandoti di lui, tu camminerai. Quale cammino farai, se non quello che conduce al Signore Iddio, a colui che dobbiamo amare con tutto il cuore, con tutta l’anima, con tutta la mente? Al Signore non siamo ancora arrivati, ma il prossimo lo abbiamo sempre con noi. Porta dunque colui assieme al quale cammini, per giungere a Colui con il quale desideri rimanere per sempre»3.

from the Hermitage, 29 October 2023

.

NOTE

1 [Contadini, fabbri, vasai, e tutti i lavoratori manuali che si affaticano giorno e notte per un compenso] «Senza di loro non si costruisce una città, nessuno potrebbe soggiornarvi o circolarvi. Ma essi non sono ricercati per il consiglio del popolo nell’assemblea non hanno un posto speciale, non siedono sul seggio del giudice e non conoscono le disposizioni della legge. Non fanno brillare né l’istruzione né il diritto,
non compaiono tra gli autori di proverbi, ma essi consolidano la costruzione del mondo,e il mestiere che fanno è la loro preghiera» (Sir 38,24. 33-34)

2 Sylvester R. S., The “Man for All SeasonsAgain: Robert Whittington’s Verses to Sir Thomas More, Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 26, no 2,1963, pp. 147-154.

3 Agostino d’Ippona, Commento al Vangelo di san Giovanni, Homily 17, 7-9 (see WHO)

 

 

 

Sant'Angelo Cave in Ripe (Civitella del Tronto)

 

.

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

«We will be among those who saw and yet believed». That singular concept of "scandal" of the Supreme Pontiff …

«WE WILL BE AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN AND YET BELIEVED». THAT SINGULAR CONCEPT OF «SCANDAL» OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF …

From Saint Paul VI to Benedict XVI, for sixty years we have had Supreme Pontiffs who with exhortations and documents have repeatedly recommended the use of the cassock to the secular clergy, today we have a Supreme Pontiff who mocks the cassock together with the priests who wear it.

— News in brief —

.

Now let's see who doesn't scandalize the Holy Father

 

the presbyter Marco Pozza, official interview with the Supreme Pontiff.

.

The presbyter Marco Pozza, official interview with the Supreme Pontiff

 

The presbyter Marco Pozza, official interview with the Supreme Pontiff

 

Here is the grotesque image of a Church totally de-sacralized by those priests who praise an unspecified "Church open to all" …

 

And to think that several have died, so as not to take off the cassock …

 

The young Rolando Rivi died a martyr by refusing to take off his cassock, today it would have been a "rigid" destined to cause a "scandal"

 

"The great march of intellectual destruction continue. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones of the street; will become a religious dogma to reaffirm. It is a rational argument that it takes all immersed in a dream; will be a sensible form of mysticism say that we are all awake. Fires will be stoked to witness that two plus two equals four. Swords will be drawn to show that the leaves are green in summer. We will find ourselves defending not only the incredible virtues and the incredible sense of human life, but something even more incredible, this immense, impossible universe staring at us in the face. We will fight for visible wonders as if they were invisible. We will look at the grass and the skies impossible with a strange courage. We will be among those who have seen and yet have believed " (Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Heretics, 1905)

the Island of Patmos, 25 October 2023

 

.

.

Father Ariel's new book has been released and is being distributed, you can buy it by clicking directly on the cover image or by entering our bookshop WHO

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

The Archabbot emeritus of Montecassino Pietro Vittorelli has died: pity can erase the sad truth?

THE ARCHABOT EMERITUS OF MONTECASSINO PIETRO VITTORELLI HAS DEAD: CHRISTIAN PIETY CAN ERASE THE SAD TRUTH?

Christian piety cannot omit the truth. Therefore, the site manager I cannot be silent what is is confirmed: one that «He spoke badly of everyone, except Christ, apologizing to the dir: “I do not know him”!» (Epigraph by Paolo Giovio on Pietro l'Aretino).

— News in brief —

Author
Editors of The Island of Patmos

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Among the various sites that are said “Catholics” there is one called I cannot be silent. A young man is responsible for this, who we understand has been kindly accompanied in the past to the exit doors of seminaries and religious institutions. It is perhaps for this reason that he feels legitimated to write pearls of wisdom on the problems of the Catholic Church, but above all on the training of priests - which is the most complex and delicate thing that can exist -, presenting himself as an expert in this regard?

His articles are numerous in which he repeatedly attacks people and ecclesiastical institutions with an acidic style. No one was saved from his stabs: by the Supreme Pontiff - who can be respectfully criticized, not, however, contested and mocked -, to follow with high prelates of the Roman Curia and prefects of the various dicasteries of the Holy See, which can also be criticized, but I didn't laugh in a mocking and arrogant way. He showed real ferocity towards the director of the Vatican Media and the head of the Holy See Press Office, to the point of accusing them - at best - of "incompetence" and "illiteracy".. He even took it out on the Vatican Gendarmerie, composed of elements selected for undoubted excellence as well as endowed with rare education and courtesy, to which he dedicated, even though, ironic comments regarding their professionalism.

He likes to present himself as an expert “Vatican things”, as if he were coming and going from the sacred palaces, omitting to say that it does not possess any pass to transit through the territory of the Vatican City State, where we do not know he is a welcome guest.

it does not concern us in any way how this individual - who does not appear to benefit from the support of a wealthy family or the income from a professional job - can camp out in Rome where the costs of living have always been high, today more than ever to the stars, because the subject of the question is completely different.

In today's article (cf.. WHO) this excellent expert on the Roman Curia publishes a comment on the death of the Archabbot emeritus of Montecassino, Dom Pietro Vittorelli, already presented in the past as an innocent victim acquitted of the accusation of having stolen money from the abbey's funds:

«It concludes, today, a long and unjust judicial via crucis that began in 2017" (cf.. WHO).

Considering that they are in fashion i dubia, we intend to submit some of them to the person responsible for this Site with the express invitation to respond strictly on the merits of the seven questions that follow:

 

  1. It is true that Pietro Vittorelli did not simply use but rather abuse hard drugs and that he was a cocaine addict who was so severely addicted that he ended up admitted to a discreet Swiss clinic to be detoxified where the cost for three months of treatment amounted to approximately 160.000 Euro?

 

  1. It is true that the serious neuro-cardiological problems that severely debilitated Pietro Vittorelli were the consequence of his abuse of a narcotic substance known as crack, which finally caused him a strong thrombosis?

 

  1. It is true that when he was hospitalized as an emergency, the specialists who treated him were embarrassed when they learned from the clinical analyzes that Pietro Vittorelli appeared to be making massive habitual use of cocaine and crack and that this was precisely the cause of the serious attack that had struck and severely debilitated him?

 

  1. It is true that Pietro Vittorelli was an irrepressible practicing homosexual who led a life in total contrast with Catholic morality, the principles of the priesthood and monastic life and who used to avail himself of the paid services of young people escort homosexuals around Europe, leaving traces of this in his chat private, later acquired by the investigators as documentary evidence, in which he expressed himself with a style and language of unspeakable immorality?

 

  1. It is true that Pietro Vittorelli traveled around Europe suffering from compulsive shopping reaching the point of spending up to approximately 50.000 euro in a single month, with transactions documented by his credit card records, paying hotel to 5 luxury category stars, gourmet restaurants, high fashion boutiques and perfumeries?

 

  1. It is true that what is contained in the points 1-5 they are all elements meticulously documented in investigative documents then passed by the investigators to the Holy See for information, in consideration of the fact that Pietro Vittorelli was a diocesan ordinary?

 

  1. The site director I Can't Be Silent, well-known punisher of the Roman Curia, of the prelates of the Holy See, of the Vatican Media, of the Vatican Press Office, of the Pontifical Gendarmerie and so on (see archive of his articles) perhaps believes that when the serious and immoral exploits of a practicing and unrepentant homosexual are involved, everything should be relegated to the spheres of his private life, without this having any impact on the ecclesial and canonical-juridical level?

 

the tenor of the exchanges that Pietro Vittorelli used to have with escort gay for pay: «I'm going to look for cocks»

 

Christian piety cannot omit the truth. Therefore, the person responsible for this Site, it confirms itself for what it is: one who «He spoke ill of everyone, except Christ, apologizing to the dir: “I do not know him!» (Epigraph by Paolo Giovio on Pietro l'Aretino).

The great expert on Church matters answer these dubia, but strictly on the merits, or shut up, commending with us the soul of this unfortunate deceased to the infinite mercy of God.

 

the Island of Patmos 14 October 2023

.

.HTTPS://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltEAQNopUYM&t=2s

.

.

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

War of Hamas terrorists against Israel: «The statements of the Israeli Ambassador to the Holy See are false and defamatory»

WAR OF THE HAMAS TERRORISTS AGAINST ISRAEL: «THE STATEMENTS OF THE ISRAELI AMBASSADOR TO THE HOLY SEE ARE HISTORICALLY FALSE AND DEFAMATORY»

For certain political Zionists who have little or nothing to do with the Jewish world and with Judaism, there is no worse humiliation than having to be grateful to those who did good to him and saved his life.

— Politics and current affairs —

.

Under certain circumstances words must be measured and limited, especially with the exponents of a young country in which it is difficult, a rough ex-colonist from some kibbutz can be inserted into the diplomatic corps and sent around the world completely lacking the level and class required by the office entrusted to him, but above all of prudence and knowledge.

I was Padre's student Peter Gumpel who together with Father Paolo Molinari directed the General Postulation of the Society of Jesus for half a century (cf.. Federico Lombardi S.J. WHO), they themselves initiated and trained me in the causes of the Saints. The process for the cause of beatification of the Supreme Pontiff Pius XII was entrusted to them, periodically attacked by circles that have nothing to do with the Jewish world, because they are all linked to the fringes of radical political Zionism, which is completely different from Judaism. All with all due respect to those who would like to brand anyone who wishes to profess or be anti-Zionist as an anti-Semite. Be against any nationalist ideology, such is political Zionism, it's legal, provided that it displeases it never leads to forms of violence or damage to the dignity of others.

In democratic countries you are free to be anti-communist, anti-fascists, anti-clerical... they are all freedom of thought and speech protected by the law itself. However, it seems that this is not how it works in what some continue to call "the only democracy in the Middle East"..

In my book Herbs Amare – The century of Zionism published long ago 2006 I also dismantle this legend about the "only democracy" piece by piece, explaining and documenting that certain political forcing aimed at equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism are in and of themselves aberrant. It would be enough to remember that the most severe anti-Zionists have always been the most famous Jews in the world for having been leading exponents of science, of culture and the arts. I will mention just one of many: Sigmund Freud, who always showed strong opposition to the creation of the State of Israel. And when the Zionist Movement asked for his signature, received a firm refusal, by him as by various other Jewish personalities.

Political Zionism was born from characters full of Marxism and inspired by real Socialism, of which Pius XII was an opponent, as were his other Predecessors and Successors. Starting from the end of the 1950s, black legends came to life in Zionist circles about the figure of this Supreme Pontiff who was active and industrious for the salvation of the Jews persecuted and wanted by the Nazis, but to whom certain ideologists decided to serve a terrible cold revenge in the post-war period.

The political Zionists have finally reached the grotesque: the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the direct protagonists who were saved by the massive intervention of the Catholic Church - so much so that after the Second World War they wanted to put up plaques on convents, monasteries and religious institutes where their lives were saved - have begun to deny their grandparents and great-grandparents with "historical" statements which if they were not tragic would border on the comical: «In the immediate post-war period, our grandparents and great-grandparents were not yet clear about what had really happened». That means: approximately six million Jews exterminated throughout Europe, but the direct protagonists who saved their lives were not yet clear about the extent of a huge tragedy unique in its own way in the history of humanity?

In these books of mine, I refer you to reading which, I define everything with this joke:

"Not no, because you believe what you have seen and experienced as a protagonist, instead of believing what your Zionist grandson born in the early 1970s tells you?».

One of these grandchildren he is the Ambassador of the State of Israel to the Holy See, who, irritated by the calls for peace from the Bishops of Jerusalem, has once again brought up the Supreme Pontiff Pius XII:

«It is not out of context to remember that today a conference will begin at the Gregorian University 3 days on the documents of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII and their meaning for Jewish-Christian relations. Apparently – concludes the note – a few decades later, there are those who have not yet learned the lessons of the recent dark past" (see WHO).

All this confirms that for certain characters "being grateful to those who saved your life is a humiliation that some cannot bear".

The book Herbs Amare - The century of Zionism he asked me 5 years of intense work and historical research. Afterwards, from its central body, I made another stand-alone book entitled Pius XII and the Shoah.

I cannot cover topics in a short article which required years of study and research, but who is interested in history, not to the legends of certain political Zionists, he can read them and ascertain how different reality is from the wickedness constructed around the table with rare political malice by the supporters of a nationalist movement born from a heresy of the most degenerate Marxism. This movement is called Political Zionism and anyone can claim the right to be anti-Zionist without anyone being able to accuse them of being a dangerous anti-Semite, especially those grandchildren and great-grandchildren who, lacking the basic sense of decency, claim to deny their grandparents and great-grandparents who paid devout gratitude to Pius XII through whose work about a million Jews were saved in religious structures throughout Europe, including the Vatican City State and all the buildings of the Holy See which in Rome enjoy the regime of extra-territoriality according to the laws and treaties of international law.

the Island of Patmos, 10 October 2023

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

Internet and the destruction of the principle of authority, a final blow dealt by legions of imbeciles in power

INTERNET AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY, A COUP DE GRACE INFERRED BY LEGIONS OF IMBECILIALS IN POWER

The destruction of the principle of authority is that element that fundamentally supports the triumph of the fundamentalist dictatorship of non-knowledge, of that crass ignorance, rude and violent which is something completely different from the "not knowing" of the cultured man. And this crass ignorance, rude and violent, it has long since carried out its great and devastating coup through the internet and i social media.

— Church and current events —

.

PDF print format article

 

.

I often remember than when we talk, or when explaining a specific thing, when holding a lesson or conference, when preaching or doing catechesis, it is always of fundamental importance to start by underlining the true meaning of the words, indicating and, if necessary, carefully explaining the true etymological meaning of the terms used.

The wrong accent can start a war, I once said to some people who at the time didn't understand why, while I was talking about topics related to dogmatic theology, incidentally I occasionally explained the meaning of words and terminologies. In fact, there are terms that in philosophy or theology have a totally different meaning from that attributed to them by the current language in which they often, certain words, they have been emptied of their original etymology to be filled with something else and take on an opposite meaning. I explained that not just one word, but even a simple accent can change the meaning of a speech. For instance: the word "peach" can indicate both a fruit and a fisherman with a rod in his hand patiently waiting for the fish to bite the hook, depends on oral pronunciation, or where the accent falls from in a written version. Around you, I love her, it may be the small hook into which the fisherman attaches the fish bait, but it can also be the statement with which a lover declares that he loves another person. The word “anchor” can mean either the weight thrown into the seabed to block the boat and prevent it from continuing to float on the sea currents, but it can also mean repeating a given thing. Even in this case it depends on oral pronunciation, or where the accent falls from in a written version.

An audience of listeners who are not particularly cultured, in which however, precisely the most uncultured, they considered themselves true masters of knowledge, little by little they understood my lexical explanations when I illustrated that the word "punishment", in theological and doctrinal language, has a different meaning from that given to it in the current lexicon. First of all, the etymology of punishment derives from Latin chaste (pure) e act (make/give/give back). The true etymological meaning of this word is therefore "to purify", or “to make pure” or “to restore the lost purity”. A completely different meaning from that of current spoken language. Soon said: if a theologian will speak to an audience about God's punishments, listeners may understand the exact opposite of what he is trying to convey, if anything, giving rise to misunderstandings that do not depend on the way in which the scholar expressed himself or even on the listeners, but consequent to the fact that both give this term a dissimilar meaning, thus ending up speaking two different languages ​​using the same words. In theological language, punishment is a purifying action of the grace and mercy of God who "punishes and shows mercy" (Tb 13,2) because «The Lord is merciful and merciful, slow to anger and rich in goodness" (Shall 103). Therefore, divine punishment, in the economy of salvation it is a true act of love by the Creator towards his creatures. And here I point out in passing that the term "economy" just used has, similarly to that of "punishment", a meaning that is also completely different from that of the current spoken lexicon. This Greek-derived lemma ― oἰκονομικά ― appears in a work attributed to Aristotle who uses it to indicate the management of oἰκος, that is, of the family and what belongs to it. For the Greeks the economy was not a factor, as we understand it today, an autonomous reality that operates equally autonomously. And precisely because of this word I used with reference to the "economy of salvation", someone present - obviously the most cultured and refined of all the listeners - started laughing and then showed evidence of crass ignorance by asking me publicly:

"But she, talking about the economy of salvation, he always stuck to the sale of indulgences?».

A very widespread characteristic in today's society non è il sapiente e saggio "I know that I don't know" (xéro óti den xéro, I know I do not know), according to the wise maxim of Socrates reported later by Plato in the Apology of Socrates. Today, the sovereign principle in our increasingly uncultured and arrogant masses is the exact opposite: know what you don't know, then discuss, contest and often even attack through various channels social media those who know and who for this very reason try in vain to provide clarifications, according to the psychopathological style of who, despite not knowing, However, he presumes to know more than ever.

In people of true culture knowledge is founded and moves on the basis of Socratic wisdom "I know that I don't know". Because no matter how much one may have dedicated their entire existence to study and research, all of us, even the most cultured, we remain basically ignorant in the etymological sense of the term ignorant of his predecessors hence the term ignorance, its turn derived from the Greek verb γνωρίζειν (gnorízein), which literally means "lack of knowledge". Or any of us, including long-time scholars, he would perhaps be able to say: “I know everything”? When Rita Levi Montalcini became Senator for life, distinguished neurobiologist scientist, shortly after the Nobel Prize was awarded in 1986, for having discovered the Nerve Growth Factor (the growth element of the nerve fiber), during a public event she was told that she was among the few people in the world who knew the human brain. In response she replied:

«Of the human brain, in my life, I learned something, but just something, because many of its resources remain unknown and today, we scientists, we can say we know about the 5% of its potential".

Let's now try to move from neuroscience to theology and specifically to patristics or patrology. There is a patrologist in the world capable of claiming to know in depth the works of all the great Fathers and doctors of the Church, from major to minor ones, or to have even simply read them all? I know patrologists in their eighties who have dedicated their entire lives to studying the Cappadocian Fathers, also known as the Wise Men of Cappadocia, which are three: the Saints Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus also known as Nazianzen. Of all the others they have a summary knowledge, many others still have never examined and studied them, not even read. The true man of culture is aware, precisely because it is so, of one's ignorance, precisely because true knowledge necessarily comes from the awareness of not knowing: «… of the human brain, in my life, I learned something, but only something".

The destruction of the principle of authority it is that element that fundamentally supports the triumph of the fundamentalist dictatorship of non-knowledge, of that crass ignorance, rude and violent which is something completely different from the "not knowing" of the cultured man. And this crass ignorance, rude and violent, it has long since carried out its great and devastating coup through the internet and i social media. The cancellation of cultural roles, social, political and religious develops at its worst through these channels which constitute the destructive element of every principle of authority. This is a problem that requires us to take a historical-social leap backwards to be understood, to be precise, the inglorious seventies of the twentieth century, with all its devastating and emotional "do not forbid", «imagination in power» and so on. In that season a real process of subversion took place, reversal and finally a real elimination of roles. Today the teacher is no longer someone sitting on a desk in a higher position, which not by chance had a pedagogical and symbolic platform that raised it in height above the desks where the students sat, from which he dispensed his teaching to subjects who had to remain silent, listen and learn, responding only when questioned, or, when granted, ask questions about what the teacher had explained but which had not been well understood. Many lower or high school teachers, or university professors, at the end of their lessons they used to ask: «I was clear... I explained myself well? You have some clarifying questions to ask?». I honestly have no memory of ever hearing any of my schoolmates or university colleagues speak up: «I don't agree with what he said because in my opinion… I think that…». This could have meant finding yourself later in the exam in front of an examiner who could have made you repent of your past sins in an impeccable manner and in full compliance with the law and academic rules., present and even future. And I will tell: it would have done well too, because arrogance must be punished, precisely for the sake of the arrogant, which needs to be corrected, not indulged, less than ever tolerated. Arrogance is in itself intolerable.

The post-1968 teacher he has become the one with whom we dialogue and compare ourselves, no longer in a vertical role position, that is, from above (teacher) downward (students), but in a horizontal relationship. If then, in this kind of sick relationship relationship - which could not and never should be, first of all for the good of those who have to learn - one starts challenging the teacher with "I don't agree", because I think that... because in my opinion...", here is that subject, today, he will even be judged as a particularly brilliant student. Then, if he insults the teacher, at that point he will become the favorite of all his companions and his comrades they will send him little hearts for WhatsApp, or directly their half-naked images on Instagram. Nobody thinks that today's parent, learning of his son's feat, you feel a sense of human shame for having a child who is rude to that level, because the answer will be more or less this: «He insulted him, you can see he deserved it". Or maybe it can, today's parent, feeling ashamed and then admitting that he was a total educational failure? Of course not, therefore it is the insulted teacher who is wrong and the child who is right.

The exams I took at the time first in high school and then at university ― me like everyone else ― were not based on a dialogue between peers, but on a completely unequal relationship where a person is vested with authority, the professor, he asked me questions to which I, student, in a subordinate position I had to answer precisely, especially in the strict merit of what had been requested of me, showing that I had acquired and developed the knowledge that had been transmitted to me. Having done this the authority, that is, the high school teacher or the ordinary university professor, he expressed a judgment on me in the form of a vote, with a rating given in numbers between 0 e 10 or between 18 e 30. I got to have teachers who were talented, knowledgeable people, as well as educational qualities, as I have had others that were mediocre, equipped with little science and, if anything, also lacking in teaching skills. However, it was not our job as students to evaluate teachers, that could be judged, for their merits or demerits, only by their superiors, or at least by their peers, certainly not from the students who were acquiring knowledge and who had not yet acquired and matured. This made them lack the necessary judgment skills - including contestation - to be able to express positive or negative judgments on the qualities and abilities of the teachers..

Cases have been multiplying for years in which the disastrous parents of certain students, worthy children or grandchildren of the less than glorious Sixty-eight and the Seventies that followed, they do not even limit themselves to appealing to the Regional Administrative Courts for a failure they consider unjust, because they clog them up with appeals even for a vote since, in their opinion, it was not adequate. If the parent, more or less the son or grandson of 1968 or the 1970s, he is unable to pass on to his child the healthy and healthy principle of authority and respect that is due to authority, society is inevitably doomed to colossal failure after descending into the absolute worst and most destructive form of anarchy: the anarchy of emotions, or if we prefer "forbidden to forbid" and "imagination in power".

These are the results that are before our eyes today: the parent ceases to be a parent and becomes a friend or a "criminal" accomplice of the child; the teacher is a subject with whom one compares oneself, contesting it and giving vent to one's egocentrism with "I don't agree... because I think that... because in my opinion..."; the doctor is no longer the one who treats you but a person who can be interrupted while he is giving you a diagnosis by expressing the fateful phrase «Ah, I do not agree, because I read on the internet that..."; state offices, from the carabiniere to the policeman up to the Senator for life of the Italian Republic who became such due to special merits, they are figures who are often mocked and debased by people who do not even know the first fundamental article of the Constitution of the Italian Republic and who are completely ignorant of the republican system in which they live; priests and theologians are people now relegated to the most useless and marginal roles of civil society to whom young people suffering from functional or digital illiteracy turn face to face with the "you" telling them how and why the Church makes mistakes, or putting their foot down because they have to act as godparents at baptism, however, they had not been confirmed, here, after having made a profession of not believing the truths announced by the Church, they tell you, if anything even with a bad face "I have the right to do Confirmation because I need it", ignoring that the Sacraments are not a right but an action of divine grace … In short, a society in which, together with the principle of authority, all the rules have disappeared, with a mass of arrogant ignorant people who every half sentence pronounce «I have the right to… I have the right to…» but in an egocentric and anarchic way they don't even accept the vague idea itself that alongside rights there are duties and vice versa, since a society made only of rights cannot exist, just as one made only of duties cannot exist.

I have quoted Umberto Eco several times in various of my writings that touched on the problem of the internet and social media, because with four brushstrokes he depicted, more than a problem, a real social disaster:

«I social media they give the right to speak to legions of idiots who previously only spoke at the bar after a glass of wine, without damaging the community. They were immediately silenced, while now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It is the invasion of imbeciles!» (cf.. WHO).

Before the semiologist Umberto Eco, when still i social media they had not taken the field, a famous Italian mathematician, George Israel, he expressed himself this way about the internet:

«It is true - as someone noted - that I have decided to put an end to this type of “dialogue”. It highlighted two of the worst aspects of the internet, a means which I will not give up anyway, but not to give in to the evil temptations it leads to. I am alluding to the loss of inhibitions whereby one believes one can treat people with whom one would not dare to do so hastily and even rudely. de visu; and the tendency to pass judgment on crucial issues that are perhaps the subject of secular reflection, even calling anyone who doesn't comply an idiot" (cf.. Article from May 2008 taken from Giorgio Israel's website).

Forgive me if I use myself as an example, but I believe that transmitting one's personal experience is important, especially by a presbyter and a theologian who has just reached the threshold of sixty years of age. This means - or at least it is assumed - to have acquired and developed a certain life experience and, through methodical research studies continued over time, a certain knowledge, always and rigorously based on the awareness of "I know that I don't know". As always we exemplify: once, the classic frigid hysteric who was reactively affected by obsessive neuroses of a pseudo-religious nature, after causing problems, friction, arguments and confusion of various kinds in the parish, or perhaps even before it could generate similar things, she was taken aside by some of the parish priests who were, made new from head to toe and then chased away. Today the classic frigid hysteric reactively affected by obsessive neuroses of a pseudo-religious nature dives into the sea of social media, goes hunting for the priests' pages and with a quarrelsome and aggressive spirit begins to challenge them in an insulting and provocative tone, especially if the priest has written a clear and precise post in which he deals in a simple way with serious matters in terms of doctrine and faith, making them understandable to the general public, but to which she responds with absurd nonsense. This is one of the main pitfalls of social media, for us presbyters and theologians as for any scholar or for any person who in society has what he should be, but above all it should be felt and respected as a role of authority.

In internet, but above all in social media, as Giorgio Israel pointed out many years ago, there is a total loss "of inhibitions that allow people to be treated hastily and even rudely with people they wouldn't dare to do so with." de visu». Which adds a worse element: «the tendency to pass judgment on crucial issues that are perhaps the subject of secular reflection, even calling anyone who doesn't comply an idiot". We have had recent experience of this, moreover linked to an affair that brought civil societies to their knees for two years, governments and the economy: the Covid-19 pandemic. Who among us does not remember armies of shampoo girls and bar intellectuals with a lower secondary school diploma from evening schools who, between one ungrammatical message and another, denied the most expert virologists and infectious disease specialists because they had read on blogs managed by equally arrogant ignorant people that …? I tried to respond in this way to many of these people at the time:

«Science is not perfect and has always been fallible and defeasible. Vaccine yes, vaccine no? Personally I have decided to trust science, that he can make mistakes and has often made mistakes. However, I intend to make an act of faith towards science, because if anyone must be wrong about me, I prefer that the mistake is made by a specialist in an attempt to save me rather than by a naturopath-esotericist hunting for idiots who makes people believe he can cure them with homeopathic pills and colored magnetic stones. Also because, while science asks for trust when necessary, these charlatans and those who decide to follow them ask and demand instead real acts of blind faith regarding what is absurd and anti-scientific they say and support".

At that delicate juncture as in other different but similar ones, public and private television stations have burdened themselves with enormous responsibilities that a true civil society and truly enlightened politics should not have hesitated to make pay dearly out of a sense of justice and for the protection of the population. In fact, we remember that while people were locked in their homes at the height of lockdown, for five days a week, three or four hours every evening, in all the most followed talk show quarrels and brawls were encouraged and fomented between clinical specialists and ignorant emeritus people taken from the street who contested and denied them. All passed off as the right to information and the right to freedom of speech. Request: of when, the imbeciles, they have the right to express themselves in prime time on public and private television, even more so to challenge and refute scholars with absurd and irrational theories, even more than anti-scientific? The television networks were really interested in giving everyone a voice? And since when, this passionate love for truth on the part of mass media that they usually hide the truth, manipulate and distort it, when it suits the bosses who keep them tight and tied to their payrolls? No, the truth was completely different: the editorial staff of television programmes, with a cynicism that it would have been good to make him pay dearly for, they had a single purpose, much higher than Covid-19 and the pandemic danger itself: audience ratings. More brawls broke out in the television studios, the more the audience ratings went up. But let's go back to Umberto Eco again:

«Television had promoted the village idiot compared to whom the viewer felt superior. The tragedy of the Internet is that it has promoted the village idiot to the bearer of truth" (cf.. WHO).

Call yourselves an "old-fashioned" priest, if you prefer demodé, but I remain aware that the Church, through the so-called three gifts, he sent me to teach, to sanctify and guide the People of God, this after having trained me, educated and specialized in theological sciences, therefore giving me a mandate. This is my job, both for those who believe in it and for those who, even if you don't believe it, he would still be required to respect it, especially in this world in which respect and maximum political correctness are de rigueur even for the last of the illegal immigrants landed on our shores and for transsexuals balancing on stiletto heels, who certainly do not have a human dignity superior to that of a human being called a priest. As a result, the task of ours believers of Christ it remains today to accept our teaching, allow yourself to be sanctified through the Sacraments of grace administered by us and be guided on the path of Christian life, or if you prefer to be governed by pastors within the Church, where you are free to enter and from which, to be understood, you are free to leave, but no one has the right and the recognized freedom to insolent the shepherds.

Soon said: come minister in sacred I am not a person with whom any person who proclaims himself Catholic or believer can deal face to face, because the relationship is theologically and hierarchically bottom-up (loyal) upward (presbyter). It is not the believer or worse the presumed one who can wag his finger and give me lessons on how a priest should be a priest or on how he should transmit the truths of the faith, or worse, which truths can be good and which "must" be changed instead. All expressed by subjects who have never even looked at the Catechism of the Catholic Church and who therefore ignore that the truths of faith are immutable and certainly not mutable at will, with lots of like on social, because "I think that... in my opinion...".

In front of this kind of people I act and interact in two ways: or I reprimand them with a severe and, if necessary, authoritarian attitude, making it clear to them that I am not their companion, much less a person with whom they can think of confronting one-on-one, or, as in the case of social media in which relationships are perversely horizontal, I react with a sneer, with the colorful word, sometimes even using some completely random trivial phrase, less than ever instinctive or emotional, but precisely scientifically studied and desired in order to shake up certain subjects, whose reaction is as evident as it is obvious: «Shame of a priest... vulgar priest... but you really are a priest?». Yup, I'm a priest, with the aggravating circumstance of also being a theologian to whom you, young girl or do-nothing woman, after having spent the day browsing the internet in search of gossip and titillating news, you thought you could explain what the Catholic faith really is. Because the most disrespectful and most violent of all are de rigueur: give it, how they feel social media. Or it could happen that I don't respond and that I respond to some of these angry comments by posting on my page social the photography of Only Rose in spray version used by women for vaginal itching, if anything accompanying the photo with the phrase: "they say it works...".

Imbeciles always take things seriously and they desperately need to be taken seriously, because the social authorities are felt, scientific, policies, moral and religious which they absolutely are not, this thing that, for a sort of strange and complex unconscious envy, it leads them to insult those who truly and legitimately hold these roles of authority. What is not serious, never be caught and treated as if he were. A quel point, clever mockery is the only antidote. It's about cunning and subtle pedagogy: mocking one happens that he, together with others 100, they post hundreds of insulting comments to you, but it almost always happens that at least two or three, in front of your answers, they understand, giving you and recognizing the social role and authority that you deserve and are owed, because certain relationships are not, nor can they ever be equal, nor based on the principle of «… in my opinion… I think that…».

As a presbyter I can ask my Bishop opinion and advice, expose a problem and ask for suggestions for its solution, I can also raise doubts about certain choices or pastoral directives, with all the deepest courtesy of the case I can also offer some advice, because every priest is a close collaborator of the Bishop. However, I cannot dispute him and reject what he has established, thus placing me above him, because I am the one who depends on his authority, to whom I promised filial respect and devout obedience with a solemn sacramental act. It is the Bishop who granted me the mandate and the related faculty to celebrate the Holy Mass, to preach the Holy Gospel, to absolve from sins and to care for and safeguard the People of God, all in a relationship of subordination, because I am subjected in a subordinate way to the apostolic authority of the Bishop, who has the power, wanting or deeming it appropriate, to revoke this mandate as well, partially or totally, if he deemed me inadequate or unworthy. So, even if I had a hundred reasons in and of itself, if I dared to place myself above his apostolic authority, those reasons would turn into a thousand serious wrongs which would make me a terrible priest and which would cause scandal and disorientation to the believers of Christ. This, it is the principle of authority in the Church, entirely based on the theological virtues of faith, of hope and charity (cf.. The Cor 1.13). And make it clear to the Catholics of «in my opinion … I do not agree ..", it's not easy.

At times, to recover people and bring others to reason, a photo of a pharmacological product against vaginal itching may be more useful rather than a useless dissertation on certain key principles enunciated by the Holy Father and Doctor of the Church Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, who also had good knowledge of vaginas, when he was always Aurelius of Tagaste. And someone, after laughing about Only Rose which relieves vaginal itching, it may be that he understands and then opens up. Only at that point will it be possible to talk about the Gospel and the precious thoughts of Saint Augustine, producing good fruit, all thanks to a teasing joke that started with a product that relieves vaginal itching.

Who is in authority, faced with this total crisis of every principle of authority today there are two solutions: or he starts fighting in vain against windmills by speaking a language that the masses are ignorant of, arrogant and quarrelsome people who swarm the social media I am not even able to understand and understand, or he makes fun of imbeciles while maintaining the respect that is due to him and that is due to him. Recovering some from time to time, which is no small thing these days:

«Who among you has a hundred sheep and loses one, he does not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and goes after the lost one, until he finds her again? Find it again, he puts it on his shoulder all happy, go home, call friends and neighbors saying: “Rejoice with me, because I found my lost sheep". Like this, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven for a converted sinner, that for ninety-nine righteous people who do not need conversion" (LC 15, 4-7).

I social media I am an ocean where sardines think they are sharks and where cod have the killer whale complex, but yet, occasionally, it is possible to recover some sea bass, aware first of all that he is a bass.

 

the Island of Patmos, 9 October 2023

 

.

.

Father Ariel's new book has been released and is being distributed, you can buy it by clicking directly on the cover image or by entering our bookshop WHO

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci
Of the Order of Preachers
Presbyter and Theologian

( Click on the name to read all its articles )
Father Gabriele

The kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruits

Homiletic of the Fathers of The Island of Patmos

THE KINGDOM OF GOD WILL BE TAKEN FROM YOU AND WILL BE GIVEN TO A PEOPLE WHO PRODUCES ITS FRUITS

Today the New People of God are all of us, that is, we united in His Baptism, which God asks to bear fruit, therefore become fruitful. In this way each of us becomes the guardian and protector of that vineyard, which is our Catholic Church and the local Church in which we are active.

 

Author:
Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci, o.p.

.

PDF print format article

 

 

Dear readers of The island of Patmos,

we are all born and raised within a nation and a city. This being together with others has built a bit’ our identity. We have become "I" thanks also to many "You", our fellow citizens. We were then baptized and thus inserted within a particular and general ecclesial community, children of the Catholic Church. We were thus entrusted to a particular community, a local Church made up first and foremost of our family. Today we are adults, we are asked to be those who build and guard the Church. This is the summary of Today's Gospel.

The murderous winemakers, Illustrated French catechism from the 20th century.

Once again Jesus decides to propose this teaching in parables. So he tells a bit of a parable’ violent, If we want. The owner of a piece of land gives his vineyard to farmers to cultivate it and bear fruit. The time has come to collect the harvest, send several servants: first few, then many. These are killed. Finally the last envoy is killed, that is, the master's son.

At this point Jesus dialogues with the elders and leaders of the people about the fate of these farmers. They offer him an answer that seems clear: upon the return of the same master, the murderous peasants will be punished and killed. Quoting the psalm 118, very famous, Jesus offers them the definitive answer:

"I tell you: the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruits"

Jesus' response is very strong: it will no longer be only the leaders of the Jewish people and the priests who maintain the alliance with God. There will be a new kingdom of God, a new vineyard, therefore a new people of God who will be fruitful and bear fruit.

Jesus therefore comes to lay the foundations of His Church, who will receive and maintain the final and Eternal Covenant, the New and Eternal Covenant between God and man. Therefore a New People of God, which will not coincide exclusively with the circumcised.

Indeed, today the New People of God are all of us, that is, we united in His Baptism, which God asks to bear fruit, therefore become fruitful. In this way each of us becomes the guardian and protector of that vineyard, which is our Catholic Church and the local Church in which we are active. This fruitfulness is achieved in different ways: first of all with the practice of charity and spiritual and material works of mercy. Also the exercise of the theological and cardinal virtues, with others and in communion with God, it is another way of being fruitful. Because fruitfulness and fruitfulness is giving the grace of friendship and God's love to others. The beauty of our faith then asks us to give this grace according to a fruitfulness that is original and entirely our own: therefore we all become fruitful because we are called with our beauty and uniqueness. This is a beautiful way in which God asks us to be part of the Church: neither dominant nor passive but fruitful. Open to God's plan but without becoming robots.

As John Stuart Mill wrote: «All the good things that exist are the fruit of originality».

We ask the Lord to become that new people of God able to enter into silent prayer, listen to the voice of the Eternal You of God, and bring this voice to a world that seeks endless love.

Amen

Santa Maria Novella in Florence, 8 October 2023

.

.

Subscribe to our Channel Jordan the Theological club directed by Father Gabriele by clicking on the image

 

THE LATEST EPISODES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ARCHIVE: WHO

.

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

.

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

From homo Sapiens to murderous peasants in the Lord's vineyard

Homiletics of the Fathers of The Island of Patmos

DALL’A wise man TO THE MURDERING PEASANTS IN THE LORD'S VINEYARD

Our ancestors sapiens when they began to domesticate those animal species and those few seeds that we still find on our table, they could not imagine the particular bond that would be created between man and the cultivation of vines. A relationship that smells of alliance and therefore of passion, of care and even love. I remember the farmers I met, when they wanted to express the effort of their specific job they said: «The land is low!». Because not only do you have to lean towards it, but also to support it and work on it with great effort.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

PDF print format article

.HTTPS://youtu.be/4fP7neCJapw

.

Historians of evolution they say that the transition to agriculture for our species began in a period ranging from 9500 all’8500 a.C. in a hilly region located between south-eastern Turkey, western Iran and the Near East. It started slowly and in a rather limited geographical area. Wheat and goats were domesticated approximately around 9000 a.C.; peas and lentils around 8000 BC.; the olive trees in 5000 a.C.; the horses in the 4000 a.C.; and the screw in the 3500 a.C. It is precisely about the soil that will take the name of vineyard from the vine that Jesus will speak in the Gospel passage about it twenty-seventh Sunday of ordinary time.

"During that time, Jesus said to the chief priests and the elders of the people: Listen to another parable: there was a man, who owned land and planted a vineyard there. He surrounded it with a hedge, he dug a hole for the wine press and built a tower. He rented it to some farmers and went far away. When the time came to reap the fruits, he sent his servants to the farmers to collect the harvest. But the farmers took the servants and beat one of them, they killed another, they stoned another. He sent more servants again, more numerous than the former, but they treated them equally. Finally he sent his son to them saying: «They will have respect for my son!». But the farmers, saw his son, they said to each other: «This is the heir. His, Let's kill him and we will have his inheritance!». They took him, they chased him out of the vineyard and killed him. So when will the owner of the vineyard come?, what will he do to those farmers?». They answered: «Those wicked people, he will make them die miserably and will rent the vineyard to other farmers, who will deliver the fruits to him in due time". And Jesus said to them,: «You have never read in the Scriptures: «The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was done by the Lord and it is a marvel in our eyes"? Therefore I tell you: the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruits" (Mt 21,33-43).

Our ancestors sapiens when they began to domesticate those animal species and those few seeds that we still find on our table, they could not imagine the particular bond that would be created between man and the cultivation of vines. A relationship that smells of alliance and therefore of passion, of care and even love. I remember the farmers I met, when they wanted to express the effort of their specific job they said: «The land is low!». Because not only do you have to lean towards it, but also to support it and work on it with great effort. However, when they started talking about the vineyard and the wine they had tapped, the conversation changed, the memory of the effort and dedication disappeared: they appeared repaid, they became proud of the fruit obtained from the vine and therefore jealous of their vineyard. It is possible that this primordial experience inspired the biblical authors, especially the prophets, when they sang on several occasions the special bond between the farmer and the vineyard as an allegory of the alliance between God and his people Israel. The undoubtedly most famous passage is the one reported in this Sunday's first reading taken from the prophet Isaiah:

«I want to sing for my beloved my song of love for his vineyard. My beloved owned a vineyard on a fertile hill. He had dug it up and cleared it of stones and had planted valuable vines there; in the middle he had built a tower and also dug a vat. He waited for it to produce grapes; it produced, instead, unripe grapes. And now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, be you judges between me and my vineyard. What else should I have done to my vineyard that I haven't done??» (Is 5,1-4).

So when Jesus began to tell the listeners instantly understood what he was talking about, unlike us who have lost that immediacy and need many explanations. In fact, the understanding of the parable called "of the murderous winegrowers" represented a significant moment in the history of Christian exegesis. There was a time, not very far from ours, in which it was thought that the verse «Therefore I say to you: the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruits" constituted a real punishment for Israel and an attack by Jesus on Judaism, so that the Church was not to be considered as a new Israel that replaced the old, but the real one1, as God had intended from the beginning. But throughout the Gospel of Matthew this attack is not evident and so that interpretation is today considered obsolete. As well as the idea descending from the previous one that Israel as a people had been rejected by God. Certainly Jesus was speaking in the temple addressing the elders and chief priests and his words reported the heavy punishment caused by the refusal of the emissaries of the owner of the vineyard. They were those envoys who will be spoken of in Mt 23,34: «So here, I send prophets to you, wise men and scribes: of these, some you will kill and crucify, others you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute them from city to city.". Above all, Jesus announced the killing of his son. But he was addressing the leader religious, what he will call blind guides (cf.. Mt 23,16) and since the parable is now present in the Gospel those words will always be valid for the Church and its leaders. In particular the vineyard which is the holy Israel of God, the chosen people, it will not be burned or devastated like the city spoken of in the following parable (Mt 22,7) but rather it is there ready to bear good fruit; solo, the current winemakers will not be the ones to pick them: the vineyard, the people of the alliance, will be entrusted to other farmers. Therefore all the parables of Jesus and this one in particular must be considered as open works. Enclose them within a single interpretation, as a Procrustean bed, it would do them an injustice because the value lies in the concern that they will continue to arouse, combined with the questions that will press the faith of the disciples and their following, so that they are continually encouraged.

Jesus began the story by saying that there was a man, an owner – the term oikodespotes (host) it can also mean a family man, in fact the Vulgate translated: The man was the father of the family - who planted a vineyard and equipped it with everything necessary, then he entrusted it to some winemakers and left. The verb apodemeo (I'm emigrating from which resigned the v.33) indicates someone who goes outside the homeland, all’estero, moving away from your home. This man left taking with him the thought and memory of the vineyard, so when the time came for the fruits he sent servants to ask for them, but they were brutally treated by the foster carers. Evidently they were convinced in their hearts that the owner, having left, had also forgotten about the vineyard and that it was now theirs., so they grabbed it, replacing the real owner. But ultimately he only claimed the fruits, he wasn't claiming ownership. With a patience that would seem incredible if it were not ascribed to God, he again sent servants in greater numbers and these too suffered the same fate as the previous ones.. The readers of the Gospel who at this point will already feel the anger at the abuse building, hoping to see the re-establishment of justice even with the use of force, they will find themselves unprepared and shocked to read that the father is about to jeopardize the life of his own son. But the owner of the vineyard, we know it by now, he is an extraordinary father, as this Sunday's collection prayer will say: He adds "what prayer does not dare to hope for". So he did not send any more emissaries as representatives, but he sent his son directly, moved by an intimate hope: «They will have respect for my son!».

We know how things ended, it is useless to repeat it. The detail of the murder committed outside the vineyard remained engraved in the memory of the authors of the New Testament and so they mentioned it when it came to recounting the death of Jesus (cf.. MC 15,20; Mt 27,31, EB 13,12) or Stefano's (cf.. At 7,58). The son expelled from the vineyard was the tangible sign of the rejection of divine will and of the substitution that those farmers wanted to pursue: «This is the heir. His, Let's kill him and we will have his inheritance!».

The next words of Jesus introduced by the question about the fate of those murderous winemakers will take all the attention and, as we reported above, also that of future exegesis, passing over in silence a not insignificant detail that Jesus had mentioned and which could instead represent the heart of the parable, what illuminates it and gives it meaning, even more so than the very elimination and replacement of evil tenants. This detail refers to the thought of the owner of the vineyard who expected respect towards his sent son. The verb warehouse, I allow the v. 37 in the active form it means to change, to change, return to one's senses and into the passive one, as it is in the Gospel: be moved, bring respect, hesitate. The Vulgate chose to fear and reported: “They will fear my son“. In whatever way you want to translate that explicit desire, it is clear that the owner of the vineyard did not expect the violent death of his son. That was his dream, God's dream. In the Gospel of Matthew already Joseph and then the Magi (cf.. Mt 1,20; 2,12-13) by listening to a dream they were able to save Jesus. They had thus accomplished God's will. What would have happened if Pilate had listened to his wife's dream (cf.. Mt 27,19) narrated in the tale of the passion: he would have spared Jesus from condemnation? That phrase from the parable, apparently innocent, it undermines some easy and inappropriate theologies of redemption. In it we read not only the hope that Israel will convert, but also that the son is spared.

Of course without forgetting that three times Jesus will show that he ascends voluntarily, freely and knowingly in Jerusalem (cf.. Mt 16,21-23), where he would have met the death that he would accept even more decisively in Gethsemane: "Thy will be done" (Mt 26,42). Matthew even reread his delivery in the light of the Scriptures: «All this happened so that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled» (Mt 26,56). However, one could not think so, always in the logic of Matthew's story, that the initial project was not this, but rather what Jesus himself will talk about - in truth after all three announcements of the passion - hinting at a palingenesis (cf.. Mt 19,282 e 25,31-46); that he would have liked to advance by restoring the Israel of God? However, when the plan began to deteriorate, then Jesus, like the son in the parable, he will show that he loves his vineyard so much to the point of dying for it. St. Ambrose's comment comes to mind: «Hi, vineyard worthy of such a great guardian: not the blood of Naboth alone but that of countless prophets has consecrated you, and indeed that, all the more precious, poured out by the Lord"3. The parable, so, who insisted on the master's mercy, he also let his son's free offer emerge in the background.

This parable certainly resonates as a judgment from God, but not on the people of Israel, but on those leaders of the people who rejected and condemned Jesus. Matteo, indeed, will record their reaction immediately afterwards; they tried to capture him but were afraid of the crowd and therefore postponed their plan for a few days, waiting for a more favorable situation (in the night and in Gethsemane, where there will be no crowd of his followers; cf.. Mt 26,47-56). In fact, they had understood that that parable identified them as the murderous winemakers. But the parable says that this will also be the judgment on the Church, especially on his bosses. The vineyard was taken away from those leaders of Israel and given a new human community (ethnos, without article of v.43): the community of the poor in spirit, of the myths that, according to the promise of the Lord, they will inherit the earth (cf. Mt 5,5; Shall 37,11), to that humble and poor people constituted heirs forever by the Lord (cf. Sof 3,12-13; Is 60,21; Gives 30,3).

It is very important on a theological level understand that the function of the Matthean form of the parable is not to exalt Christianity over Judaism, but rather to leave open the response to the renewed offer of reconciliation made by the raised Christ. In a sense, the Church finds itself in a similar position to that of Israel. In another sense, however, she has already experienced the miraculous intervention of God. The discarded stone now constitutes the corner header. It will be this generation of Christians who welcome the kingdom of God and produce fruits of justice, or it will be taken away from her to be entrusted to another? The aforementioned Ambrose of Milan saw that the danger of incurring punishment is for everyone, also for Christians: «The vinedresser is without any doubt the almighty Father, the vine is Christ, and we are the branches: but if we do not bear fruit in Christ we are cut off by the sickle of the eternal cultivator"4. Said this, it is clear that the parable is Christological and theological. The son of the owner of the vineyard is characterized with those attributes, like the idea of ​​inheritance, which are typical of Jesus' language when he wanted to talk about himself and his relationship with his father; his death outside the city walls will obviously remember the end of the Messiah. But the parable also says a lot about the Father: his judgement, strangely, late in arriving; God is even represented as far too patient. Any listener of the story, in the time of Jesus, he would have been struck by what might appear to be a weakness of character. That God, however, knows how to wait and continues to hope for a change in his winemakers who might even "respect his son" (cf.. Mt 21,37). Unlike what we do, God does not allow himself to be demoralized by a rejection, he persists in his proposal of salvation, He never wants the death of the sinner, but that he converts and lives.

I would like to conclude by remembering that the significance of this parable was grasped in a particular way by Benedict XVI, in a moment that we imagine was full of emotion and great fear for him. From the loggia of St. Peter's Basilica on the evening of his election he spoke thus of himself:

«They elected me, a simple and humble worker in the Lord's vineyard. I am consoled by the fact that the Lord knows how to work and act even with insufficient tools and above all I entrust myself to your prayers"5.

Happy Sunday everyone.

from the Hermitage, 8 October 2023

 

 

 

1 Trilling W., The real Israel. Studies on the theology of the Gospel of Matthew, Piemme, 1992

2 "And Jesus said to them,: “«Truly I say to you: you who followed me, when the Son of man sits on the throne of his glory, to the regeneration of the world, you will also sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.".

3 Sant'Ambrogio, Exposition of the Gospel according to Luke, New City 1978.

4 Sant'Ambrogio, on. cit.

5 See: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/speeches/2005/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050419_first-speech.html

 

 

Sant'Angelo Cave in Ripe (Civitella del Tronto)

 

.

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.