On Mount Tabor the disciples receive the revelation of the son of man in a form transfigured by divine light
Homiletics of the Fathers of The Island of Patmos
ON MOUNT TABOR THE DISCIPLES RECEIVE THE REVELATION OF THE SON OF MAN IN A FORM TRANSFIGURED BY DIVINE LIGHT
In the evangelical narrative and in the Lenten journey, another framework is thus added which helps to answer the question we asked at the beginning: Who is he? Now it is the Father himself who reveals the profound identity of Jesus not only to those who witness it on the Mount of Transfiguration, but also to readers and believers in Christ: He is the Son. A theology very present in the Gospels that brings to mind what is written in the First Gospel, when Jesus says: “No one knows the Son except the Father”
.
Author
Hermit Monk
.
.HTTPS://youtu.be/4fP7neCJapw.
.
Embark on the Lenten journey it means asking ourselves again the fundamental question about Jesus: Who is he? In the same way as the disciples sitting on the boat tossed by the waves, figure of the Church in the post-Easter period, who woke up the sleeping Lord at the stern and when the storm was calmed they wondered: «So who is he?, that even the wind and the sea obey him?» (MC 4, 41). Mark's story of the Transfiguration that we read on this second Sunday of Lent seeks to answer this question.
The transfiguration of Christ, work by Giovanni Bellini, 1478. Capodimonte Museums, Naples.
"During that time, Jesus took Peter with him, James and John and led them to a high mountain, on the sidelines, them alone. He was transfigured before them and his clothes became dazzling, very white: no fuller on earth could make them so white. And Elijah appeared to them with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. Taking the floor, Peter said to Jesus: “Rabbi, it's nice for us to be here; let's make three huts, one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah". In fact, he didn't know what to say, because they were scared. A cloud came and covered them with its shadow and a voice came out of the cloud: “This is my Son, the beloved: listen!”. And suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone, if not Jesus alone, with them. As they came down the mountain, he ordered them not to tell anyone what they had seen, except after the Son of Man had risen from the dead. And they kept the matter between them, wondering what it meant to rise from the dead". (MC 9,2-10)
All three Synoptic Gospels they place the Transfiguration in the same context, that is, after Jesus' announcement of his passion. For the reader, a bridge is thus created between the public ministry of Jesus and the death that will take place in Jerusalem. But also a connection between today's proclamation of Jesus "Son of God", that is heard from the cloud, and two other similar ones. That of Baptism, When: «A voice was heard from heaven» saying «You are my beloved Son, I am pleased with you" (MC 1,11); and the other, which is found only in Mark, at the beginning of the Gospel, in the first verse of the first chapter: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God".
It is very likely that the episode narrated, originally, it was a story of the appearance of the Risen One, that Marco, who excluded such stories from his narration, would have placed it at the center of the Gospel, immediately after Peter's messianic confession, to balance the announcement of the death destiny of the Son of man (MC 8, 31) with the proleptic vision of his glorification (MC 9, 2-13). A choice that would also have determined its placement in Matthew and Luke. Supporting this hypothesis is the fact that throughout the three stories the disciples' misunderstanding of Jesus remains intact., despite some having witnessed such a sensational event. While, placed after his death, the story takes on a crucial meaning. It's the turning point. The three disciples receive the revelation of the Son of man in a form transfigured by divine light. After his death, they have the vision of Jesus placed on the same level as Moses and Elijah, that is, of two biblical figures already raised to celestial glory, and they hear the proclamation of his divine election, the same one that resonates at the moment of baptism. Finally the disciples "know" who Jesus is, and it is in the light of this understanding that the historical and initial episode of baptism takes on its "true" meaning of divine investiture.
In the verse preceding the scene of the Transfiguration that today we read in the Liturgy Jesus says to his disciples: ' Verily I say: there are some present here, who will not die without seeing the kingdom of God come with power" (MC 9,1). Six days after this announcement Jesus brings Peter, James and John with him on a high mountain, in a secluded place, and is transfigured before them. The episode is not only described by all three Synoptic Gospels, but also from the Second Letter of Peter. There the Apostle recalls and writes that he was an eyewitness of the greatness of Jesus:
«He in fact received honor and glory from God the Father when this voice was addressed to him by the majestic glory: “This is my beloved Son, in which I am pleased". We heard this voice coming down from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain." (2PT 1,16-18).
Unlike Baptism, where the voice that proclaims Jesus "Son" seems to have been heard only by Him, in the Transfiguration the words are addressed to the disciples, who cannot ignore them: «Listen to him». It is in fact important that at the moment in which Jesus announces his passion the idea that God will not abandon his Son is reiterated, even if he will be handed over for crucifixion. This will not cloud the Father's faithfulness, so that even the harsh announcement of the passion and death are within the Gospel, they are the good news that the reader needs to be aware of, in the same way as the disciples who had that experience.
Pietro, together with his companions, he is the one who needs to listen to Jesus more than anyone. After the confession of Caesarea Philippi, he demanded to stand in front of him to avoid his pilgrimage to Jerusalem. This is why Jesus calls Peter "Satan" (MC 8,33), but then invites him to go up the mountain with him. In other words, here we are faced with the reaction of God to Peter's disbelief. Not only. If the disciples must prepare for the passion of their master, Jesus also needs instructions to undertake "his exodus", as he will specify Luke in 9,31: Moses had led the Jews out of Egypt, Elijah had retraced his steps, and now the Messiah, helped by those who have lived a similar experience of suffering and liberation, he will be able to go decisively towards Jerusalem.
The traditional interpretation of the presence of Moses and Elijah on the mountain he says, indeed, that they would represent the torah e i Propheti, that is, all Scripture before Jesus. But today we rather think that the meaning of their presence is important if it refers to what Jesus is experiencing at the moment he climbs that mountain. Moses and Elijah experienced events comparable to Peter's reaction to the announcement of Jesus' passion mentioned above. The analogy between the events is given by the way in which Jesus interprets Peter's refusal: like a new temptation, similar to those at the beginning of his ministry; thus Moses experienced the golden calf and Elijah experienced the flight towards Horeb. These two events took place right on a mountain, after a failure of the people of Israel who had, in the first case, built an idol and, in the second, supported the priests of Baal against whom Elijah had to fight. In the face of these two disappointments, both Moses and Elijah ask God to die (cf.. Is 32,32; 1Re 19,4), ma, in response, instead, both are granted the vision of God. Moses, scared, But, he hides in the cliff (Is 33,21-22), and Elijah covers his face (1Re 19,13). While then they did not see God, now they finally stand before Jesus, in his glory and no longer veil their faces; they are no longer afraid of him, because «Jesus, the "beloved Son" of the Father (MC 9,7), "the chosen one" (LC 9,35), he is himself the visibility of the Father: «Who saw me, he saw the Father" (GV 14,9). In him Moses and Elijah meet, they see Jesus in glory, and they bring him their comfort. At the end, the Father confirms to the three disciples, Peter included, the path that Jesus will have to take" (M. Gilbert).
In the evangelical narrative and in the Lenten journey thus another framework is added that helps to answer the question we asked at the beginning: Who is he? Now it is the Father himself who reveals the profound identity of Jesus not only to those who witness it on the Mount of Transfiguration, but also to readers and believers in Christ: He is the Son. A theology very present in the Gospels that brings to mind what is written in the First Gospel, when Jesus says: “No one knows the Son except the Father” (Mt 11,27).
From the Hermitage, 24 February 2024
.
.
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
.
.
.
.
.
Gestures and words, about the liturgy. Let's break a spear in favor of “Kiss me Tucho”, anche se pare avere dimenticato la Redemptionis Sacramentum
GESTURES AND WORDS, ABOUT THE LITURGY. LET'S BREAK A SPEAR IN FAVOR OF "KISS ME TUCHO”, EVEN IF HE SEEMS TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THERE THE SACRAMENT OF REDEMPTION
Many, to put it mildly, they turned up their noses when the Pontiff chose the current Prefect. There was no shortage of criticism. By responding with respect and to lighten up the whole discussion so far with a joke, we could remember the saying that goes: «Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day»
.
Author
Simone Pifizzi
.
.
.
By a curious law of retaliation many who had rejoiced at the publication of Begging for confidence, confused and ambiguous statement from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith published on 18 December last year, before which entire episcopates rose up, they felt like arguing with the most recent Note from the same Dicastery on the validity of the Sacraments of 2 February of this year and entitled: By gestures and words.
The question arises spontaneously: In the 2004 the Instruction was published Sacramentum which is a masterpiece of sacramental theology, of discipline of the Sacraments and liturgical pastoral care. Education that, according to what continued to happen in our churches, it was beautifully ignored by armies of creative priests and lay movements who continued undaunted to create their own personalized liturgies, Neocatechumenals in the head, all in total carelessness and lack of vigilance on the part of the bishops, although the document speaks very clearly in its final conclusion:
«This Instruction, drafted, by order of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the Pontiff himself on 19 March 2004, on the solemnity of St. Joseph, who ordered its publication and immediate compliance by all those responsible ".
Why not call for compliance with this instruction, so well made and detailed, if anything, establishing precise sanctions for anyone who disregarded the provisions given? Because this is the underlying problem that has characterized the last fifty years of life of a Church that asks, exhorts, instructs and recommends, but it still looks good, in these documents, to establish precise sanctions for violators. Not only: in 64 reminder notes of By gestures and words the Sacramentum it has never been recalled and cited once, something objectively serious.
As even the stones now know the first aforementioned Declaration, in the broader context of the meaning to be given to blessings in the Church, it opened up the possibility of spontaneously blessing couples in irregular situations and of the same sex. Something that for many bishops and priests of the various regions of Northern Europe was not necessary, they've been doing it arbitrarily for years. This controversial Declaration provides for Blessings to be given in places and in ways that are not in any way similar to those given to regular couples, ma: «In other contexts, such as a visit to a sanctuary, the meeting with a priest, the prayer recited in a group or during a pilgrimage. Indeed, through these blessings which are imparted not through the ritual forms of the liturgy, but rather as an expression of the maternal heart of the Church, similar to those that emanate from the depths of popular piety, it is not intended to legitimize anything but only to open one's life to God, ask for his help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel can be lived with greater fidelity" (no 40).
So far everyone is happy, at least the supporters of this opening, as if we had previously withheld blessings from individuals, especially to those who lived in irregular conditions, or who were guilty of the most serious sins and crimes.
Ironically, precisely those who had rejoiced before the Begging for Confidence, shortly afterwards they launched into harsh criticism regarding the Note of 2 February, Gestures and words, because it uses traditional language in defining what is needed for a Sacrament to be valid, as well as lawful. The criticism, in particular, points out the insistent use of the terms "form" and "matter" used by the Note as irreplaceable components of every celebration of the Sacraments, together with the intention of the celebrant. Criticism that concerns the disconnection of these three constitutive elements from the entire celebration of the Sacrament, by the subjects who participate in it and by the various signs that intervene, which they should be, by their very constitutionality, significant e, how do you say, speakers. The wavy notes, so, refer to the way in which the Note does not examine the entirety of the Sacrament celebrated e, as a return wave, they also pour onto the Begging for confidence, as there: «…A blessing without form (without space, time, words, all over) It's nonsense." (cf.. See WHO).
It's not up to me to defend myself of a strategic Dicastery such as that for the Doctrine of the Faith. But, reading and rereading that Note comes to mind «Ockham's Razor» which could be summarized more or less like this: «All things being equal, the simplest explanation is the one to prefer"; or even «Do not consider plurality if it is not necessary».
this Note, and in the accompanying letter from the Prefect, than in his body itself, remember that they were detected by Cardinals and Bishops, and therefore requested clarifications, on the serious changes made to the matter and form of the Sacraments, effectively rendering them null and void. It would be enough to read the few clues and examples, sometimes bizarre and curious, to which the Prefect refers to understand the simple purpose of the Note itself: call everyone to a correct celebration of the Sacraments, loyal, ecclesial. That if they are granted, where permitted by the Episcopal Conferences, spaces of creativity, these do not instead become an invention that actually arbitrarily manipulates the celebrated Sacrament.
It is from this background and that is from the concern of the Pastors of the Churches, that the Note must be read. Which then summarizes what is needed for a Sacrament to be valid, recalling the traditional doctrine, which is true, in its salient features it dates back to the Council of Trent which Vatican II took up and reworked in harmony with everything that the Church in the meantime, in quell’assise, rediscovered about herself and how she intended to present herself to today's world.
It is no coincidence that the Note takes its inspiration from the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium to remember that the Council: «It analogically refers the notion of Sacrament to the entire Church». And from The light which states about the Church that the latter is: «In Christ as Sacrament, that is, a sign and instrument of intimate union with God and of the unity of the entire human race". And this is achieved mainly through the Sacraments, in each of which the sacramental nature of the Church is realized in its own way, Body of Christ... The Church is aware of this, since its origins, he took particular care of the sources from which he draws the lifeblood for his existence and his testimony: God's Word, attested by the sacred Scriptures and Tradition, and the Sacraments, celebrated in the liturgy, through which it is continually brought back to the mystery of Christ's Easter" (cf.. no. 6, 7 e 10).
For the magnitude of it all the church, if he says, receives the Sacraments, who administered, but she is not the owner of it. Which instead seems to have happened with the creative variations of various ministers and various lay movements. It is only at this point that the Note briefly recalls - it is not a treatise on liturgy - what are the essential elements. First of all, the "form" of the Sacrament which corresponds to the words that accompany the matter, transcends it, conveying the Christian meaning, salvific and ecclesial of what is being accomplished in the celebration. Therefore the "matter" of the Sacrament which instead consists in human action, through which Christ acts. Sometimes there is a material element in it (water, pane, vino, oil), other times a particularly eloquent gesture (sign of the cross, laying on of hands, immersion, infusion, consent, anointing). This corporeality appears indispensable because it roots the Sacrament not only in human history, but also, more fundamentally, in the symbolic order of Creation and leads it back to the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word and the Redemption carried out by Him (cf.. no 13).
Finally, the "intention" of those who celebrate, which has nothing to do with his morality and faith, rather with the conviction to accomplish: «At least what the Church does» (Council of Trent). This provision removes the celebrant from the automatism and possible arbitrariness of the individual, since this exquisitely human act is also ecclesial. Internal and subjective act yes, which, however, manifesting itself in the Sacrament, it becomes of the entire ecclesial community and: «For what the Church does is nothing other than what Christ instituted, also the intention, together with matter and form, contributes to making the sacramental action the extension of the saving work of the Lord" (cf.. no 18).
In this regard the Church he has prepared the liturgical books which must not be altered or used at will, rather faithfully observed in the words and even in the gestures indicated in them. They provide spaces for creativity and the Episcopal Conferences of the various countries have prepared possible adaptations and variations that correspond to the sensitivity and situation of the participants. Think of celebrations with children, for instance, to the various Eucharistic canons prepared for them and approved by the CEI.
The Note also reminds, and this seems to respond to the critical notes, that: «Materia, form and intention are always inserted into the context of the liturgical celebration, which does not constitute a decorated ceremonial of the Sacraments and not even a didactic introduction to the reality that takes place, but overall it is the event in which the personal and community encounter between God and us continues to take place, in Christ and in the Holy Spirit, meeting in which, through the mediation of sensitive signs, «perfect glory is given to God and men are sanctified». The necessary concern for the essential elements of the Sacraments, on which their validity depends, it must therefore accord with the care and respect of the entire celebration, in which the meaning and effects of the Sacraments are made fully intelligible by a multiplicity of gestures and words, thus favoring theactive participation of the faithful (cf.. no 20).
In this context all the importance of liturgical presidency and the art of celebrating is included. These require knowledge of the theological reasons behind them, like those to act, when it is celebrated, In persona Christi e In the name of the church. As well as knowledge of liturgical books and theirs To be noted which are often skipped over because they are boring. But what if we wanted to make a comparison, which I hope doesn't seem out of place, between celebrating and sporting gesture, we can see how the latter is effective if it is backed by good knowledge and implementation of the so-called fundamentals. A champion, especially those disciplines that require repeated, identical and precise gestures, a lot of time passes, years even, to study, to train and then express themselves with an ease that amazes. A very difficult athletic gesture that we see performed, during an Olympics for example, It required considerable preparation, yet it seems simple and natural to us.
To conclude, I know many, to put it mildly, they turned up their noses when the Pontiff chose the current Prefect. There was no shortage of criticism. By responding with respect and to lighten up the whole discussion so far with a joke, we could remember the saying that goes: «Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day». But, honestly, this Note sounds good this time. There is nothing objectionable about it, if the intention is precisely to invite us to safeguard and present such a precious asset in a dignified and ecclesial way. In fact, this is how it ends:
"We […] we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that it appears that this extraordinary power belongs to God, and it doesn't come from us" (2Color 4, 7). The antithesis used by the Apostle to underline how the sublimity of God's power is revealed through the weakness of his ministry as an announcer also describes well what happens in the Sacraments. The whole Church is called to safeguard the richness contained in them, so that the primacy of God's saving action in history is never obscured, despite the fragile mediation of signs and gestures typical of human nature" (no 28).
Florence, 21 February 2024
.
______________________
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 fans of Mary co-redemptrix, a gross contradiction in theological terms
THE FANS OF MARIA CO-REDEMPTOR, A GROSS CONTRADICTION IN THEOLOGICAL TERMS
Is anyone truly willing to believe that the Blessed Virgin, the one who defined herself as a "humble servant", the woman of gifted love, silence and confidentiality, the one who has the purpose of leading to Christ, can truly ask some visionaries or visionaries to be proclaimed co-redeemer and put almost on a par with the Divine Redeemer? One might reasonably ask: of when, the "humble servant" of Magnificat, she would become so pretentious and vain as to ask for and claim the title of co-redeemer?
— Theologica pages —
Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo
.
.
Author
Editors of The Island of Patmos
.
On the occasion of the release of the doctrinal note Mother of the Faithful People, we propose the latest article on the topic written by Father Ariel S. Levi of Gualdoil 3 February 2024 his “Maria Corredentrice”, within which we refer to the following articles published previously: «Article of 3 April 2020 — We defend the Holy Father Francesco from flamethrower of mariolatri thirsty for new Marian dogmas: “Mary is not co-redemptrix”»; «Article of 14 August 2022 – Proclaiming new dogmas is more serious than deconstructing the dogmas of faith. Maria Corredentrice? A theological idiocy supported by those who ignore the bases of Christology»; «Article of 11 May 2023 – Bergoglio, heretic and apostate, blaspheme the Madonna". Word of a solar heretic with the obsession of Mary co-redemptrix who would ask for the proclamation of the fifth Marian dogma»
_________________
.
Article dedicated to the memory of the Jesuit Peter Gumpel (Hannover 1923 – Rome 2023) who was my trainer and precious teacher in the history of dogma
.
By frequenting enough i social media, reading and listening to priests and lay people, on biblical and theological topics, sometimes one gets the impression that no progress has been made on certain issues. It so happens that many inaccuracies are put into circulation on questions concerning matters of faith, or we continue on old registers, devotional and emotional.
Salvador Dali, The Madonna of Port Lligat, 1949, Haggerty Museum of Art, Milwaukee, WI, USA. Detail.
The desire, perhaps a little utopian, it would be for the Readers to realize, with minimal effort, who could benefit from serious and precise insights. At least it is in my hope and that of our Fathers Patmos Island, be of help to those who manage to go beyond the four or five lines read on social media, where today unlikely theologians and Mariologists pontificate, with the consequences that we often know well: deviation from the true faith. And this is very sad, because i Social media they could be an extraordinary tool for us for the diffusion of sound and solid Catholic doctrine.
In the years following the Second Vatican Council Biblical science has made important strides, offering contributions that are now essential for theology in its various branches and for Christian life. This since when, since the time of the Venerable Pontiff Pius XII, in the Catholic Church the study of the Bible has been encouraged by giving the possibility of using all those methods that are normally applied to a written text. To cite just a few examples: rhetorical analysis, the structural one, literary and semantics have produced results that perhaps have sometimes appeared unsatisfactory, but they also allowed us to explore the text of the Holy Scripture in a new way and this led to a whole series of studies that made us know the Word of God better and more deeply. Or to reconsider ancient acquisitions, of tradition, of the Holy Fathers of the Church, which despite being true and profound, as well as works of high theology, however they did not have the support of a modern study of sacred texts, precisely because still, certain tools, at the time of their speculations they were missing.
Before continuing, an aside is necessary: i "teologi" da social media they need the fight, to unleash which it is necessary to choose and create an enemy. For certain groups the most popular enemy is Modernism, rightly defined by the Holy Pontiff Pius (cf.. Feeding of Dominic's Sheep). That doesn't mean that, But, than the actions of this Holy Pontiff, before that and of his Supreme Predecessor Leo XIII, has always produced beneficial effects in the decades to follow. Obviously, to make an objective critical analysis, it is imperative to contextualize the condemnation of Modernism and the severe canonical measures that followed in that precise historical moment, certainly not to express judgments using criteria linked to our present, because only misleading and distorting sentences would emerge. To briefly summarize this complex problem to which I intend to dedicate my next book, suffice it to say that the Church of those years, after the fall of the Papal State which occurred on 20 September 1870, it was subject to violent political and social attacks. The Roman Pontiff withdrew as a "voluntary prisoner" within the Vatican walls from which he emerged only six decades later. The anticlericalism of Masonic origin was raised to the maximum power and the Church had to seriously deal with its own survival and that of the institution of the papacy. It certainly could not afford the development of currents of thought that would have attacked and corroded it directly from within. It is in this delicate context that the fight of the Holy Pontiff Pius. With all the consequences, including negative ones, of the case: theological speculation was effectively frozen amidst a thousand fears and the training of priests was reduced to four formulas of decadent neo-scholasticism, which was not even a distant relative of the classical scholasticism of Saint Anselm of Aosta and Saint Thomas Aquinas. This produced such an unpreparedness and ignorance in the Catholic clergy that for clear proof it would be enough to read the Encyclical Back to the Catholic Priesthood written in 1935 of Pope Pius XI.
The consequences of the fight against Modernism they were in some ways disastrous, suffice it to say that when on the threshold of the 1940s, at the beginning of the pontificate of Pius XII, Catholic theologians and biblical scholars began to get their hands on certain materials and to carry out exegesis in the context of the Old and New Testaments, they were forced, discreetly and working prudently under the table, to refer to Protestant authors, who had been speculating and carrying out in-depth studies on certain topics for decades, especially in the field of biblical sciences. And so today, if we want to do a study and analysis of the text of the Letter to the Romans we must necessarily refer to the commentary of the Protestant theologian Carl Barth, which remains fundamental and above all unsurpassed. These too were the fruits of the struggle against Modernism, which the "theologians" certainly don't talk about social media that to exist they need an enemy to fight. But as already said, this theme will be the subject of my next book, but this aside was necessary to better introduce our theme.
What is still missing today is that these results obtained through modern exegesis or the study of the Old and New Testament texts become the prerogative of the majority of believers. And here I return to reiterate the extraordinary importance that the social media, to disseminate and make certain materials accessible. Too often they remain confined to specialist texts and do not pass, if not sporadically, in preaching and catechesis, encouraging a new awareness of the terms at stake and therefore a more solid and motivated Christian faith, not based only on acquired data that is often fragile and confusing, on the devotional, on the sentimental, or worse: about revelations, on real or alleged apparitions, or on the itchy trembling “secrets” of talkativeness Madam di Medjugorje (cf.. my video conference, WHO)…and so on to follow.
If certain madonnolatrous fans they had humility, perhaps even the decency to read books and articles by authoritative scholars, perhaps they could understand that not only, they didn't understand, but that they have understood nothing at all about the Mary of the Holy Gospels. It would be enough to take - I mention just one among many - the article written by Father Ignace de la Potterie: «The Mother of Jesus and the mystery of Cana» (La Civiltà Cattolica, 1979, IV, pp. 425-440, full text WHO), to thus understand what abysmal difference there may be between Mariology and Mariolatry.
When even today we still talk about the Virgin Mary, Unfortunately, even among certain priests - and even more so among certain devout believers - we witness the trite repetition of the usual devotional and emotional discourses, until reaching, with the step of elephants inside a glassware shop, the very delicate and discussed theme of Mary co-redemptrix, that as is well known - and as the last Pontiffs have pointed out several times -, it is a term that in itself creates enormous theological problems with Christology and the mystery of redemption itself. In fact, affirm that Maria, perfect creature born without sin, but still a created creature, he cooperated in the redemption of humanity, it is not exactly the same as saying that he co-redeemed humanity. It was Christ who brought about the redemption, who was not a created creature but the Word of God made man, begotten not created of the same substance as God the Father, as we act in the Symbol of Faith, the I believe, where we profess «[…] and by the work of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary". In Symbol of Faith, redemption is entirely centered on Christ. That's why we say that the Blessed Virgin “he cooperated” and say “ha co-redee” it has a substantially and radically different theological value. In fact, only one is the redeemer: Jesus Christ God made man "begotten not created of the same substance as the Father", who as such does not need any created creature to support or sustain him as co-redeemer or co-redeemer, including the Blessed Virgin Mary" (cf.. Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo, in The Island of Patmos, see WHO, WHO, WHO). Request: to the fans of the co-redeemer, how come it is not enough that Mary is the one who in fact cooperated more than any creature so that the mystery of redemption was realized? For what reason, but above all for what obstinacy, not happy with her role as a cooperator, at all costs they want her to be proclaimed co-redemptive with a solemn dogmatic definition?
From a theological point of view and dogmatic, the very concept of Mary co-redemptrix first of all creates big problems for Christology, with the risk of giving life to a sort of "quatrinity" and of raising the Madonna, that is perfect creature born without the stain of original sin, to the role of real gods. Christ redeemed us with his hypostatic precious human and divine blood, with his glorious resurrected body which still bears the signs of passion imprinted on it today. Mary instead, while covering an extraordinary role in the history of the economy of salvation, It cooperated in our redemption. To say co-redemptive is equivalent to saying that we have been redeemed by Christ and Mary. And here it is good to clarify: Christ saves, Mary intercedes for our salvation. It is not a small difference between “saving” and “interceding”, unless otherwise create a different religion from the one founded on the mystery of God's Word (cf.. My previous article WHO).
Mariology is not something in itself, almost as if he lived an autonomous life. Mariology is nothing more than an appendix of Christology and is inserted in a precise theological dimension of Christocentrism. If Mariology is somehow detached from this Christocentric centrality, one can run the serious risk of falling into the worst and most harmful Mariocentrism. Not to mention the obvious arrogance of the exponents of some young and problematic Congregation of Franciscan-Marian imprint, who did not limit themselves to making hypotheses or theological studies to support the peregrine idea of the so-called co-redemptive, but in fact they instituted its cult and veneration.
Who proclaims dogmas that do not exist commits a greater crime than those whose dogmas deny them, because it operates by placing itself above the authority of the same Holy Church Mater et Magistra, holder of an authority that derives from Christ himself. And the latter yes, which is a dogma of the Catholic Faith, which was not reached by logical deduction after centuries of studies and speculation - as in the case of the dogma of the immaculate conception and Mary's assumption into heaven -, but on the basis of clear and precise words pronounced by the Word of God made Man (cf.. Mt 13, 16-20). And when dogmas that don't exist are proclaimed, in that case pride enters the scene in its worst manifestation. I have written and explained it in several of my previous articles but it deserves to be repeated again: in the so-called scale of the deadly sins the Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates pride in the first place, with painful peace of those who persist in concentrating the entire mystery of evil in lust - which we remember does not figure in first place at all, but not even to the second, to the third and fourth [See. Catechism no. 1866] ―, regardless of the fact that the worst sins ranging everyone and rigor from his belt to rise, not instead of his belt to fall, as I wrote in an ironic but theologically very serious tone years ago in my book And Satan became triune, explaining in one of my books 2011 how the sixth commandment has often been exaggerated beyond measure, often forgetting all the worst and most serious sins against charity.
If then all this is filtered through fideistic emotions - as if such a delicate topic centered in the most complex spheres of dogmatics were a sort of opposing fan base made up of Lazio fans and Roma fans -, in that case one can fall into actual Marian idolatry or so-called Mariolatry, which is to say: pure paganism. At that point Mary could easily take the name of any goddess of the Greek Olympus or the Roman Pantheon.
The fans from social media of co-redemption of the Blessed Virgin affirm as a sort of incontrovertible proof that it was Mary herself who asked for the proclamation of this fifth Marian dogma (cf.. among many articles, WHO). Something they say there is no discussion about, the Blessed Virgin herself would have asked it when appearing in Amsterdam to Ida Peerdeman. Given that no Marian apparition, including those recognized as authentic by the Church, Fatima included, it can be the object and binding matter of faith; given also that the locutions of certain seers are even less so, we can only smile at certain pleasantries of amateur theologians which make certain subjects difficult to manage for us priests and above all for us theologians, precisely because their arrogance goes hand in hand with their ignorance which leads them to treat such a topic as if it really were a heated exchange between Lazio fans and Roma fans who shout at each other from the opposite corners of the stadium. Even in this case the answer is simple: is anyone truly willing to believe that the Blessed Virgin, the one who defined herself as a "humble servant", the woman of gifted love, silence and confidentiality, the one who has the purpose of leading to Christ, can truly ask some visionaries or visionaries to be proclaimed co-redeemer and put almost on a par with the Divine Redeemer? One might reasonably ask: of when, the "humble servant" of Magnificat, she would become so pretentious and vain as to ask for and claim the title of co-redeemer?
Finally, here it is “proof of proof”: «several Supreme Pontiffs have made use of the term co-redemptive», Having said this, the list of their various speeches follows, although everything demonstrates the exact opposite of what the co-redemption fans would like to experience. It is true that the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in a speech of his on 8 September 1982, stated:
«Maria, even conceived and born without stain of sin, he participated in a wonderful way in the sufferings of his divine Son, to be co-redemptor of humanity".
However, this expression demonstrates the exact opposite on the theological and Mariological level. Let's clarify why: from then on, following John Paul II - who was undoubtedly a Pontiff of profound Marian devotion -, he had others before him 23 years of pontificate. Come May, in this long period of time, as well as not proclaiming the fifth Marian dogma of Mary's co-redemption, he flatly rejected the request, when it was presented to him twice? He rejected her because between the 1962 and the 1965, the then young Bishop Karol Woytila was a participating and active figure in the Second Vatican Council who in one of its dogmatic constitutions clarified how Mary had «cooperated in a unique way in the work of the Savior» (The light, 61). Statement introduced by the previous article where it is specified that the only mediation of the Redeemer «does not exclude, but it arouses in creatures a varied cooperation participated by the single source" (The light 60; CCC 970). And the highest and most extraordinary cooperation was that of the Virgin Mary. This should be enough to understand that the Supreme Pontiffs, when they sometimes resorted to the term co-redemptive in their speeches, never in encyclicals or solemn acts of the supreme magisterium, they intended to express with it the concept of Mary's cooperation in the mystery of salvation and redemption.
The very term co-redemptive it is in and of itself a theological absurdity that creates enormous conflicts with Christology and the mystery of redemption brought about solely by God the Incarnate Word, which does not need co-redeemers and co-redeemers, he repeated it three times, In the 2019, 2020 e 2021 also the Supreme Pontiff Francis:
«[…] Faithful to his Master, who is his Son, the only Redeemer, he never wanted to take something of his Son for himself. She never presented herself as a co-redeemer. No, discepola. And there is a Holy Father who says around that discipleship is more worthy than motherhood. Questions of theologians, but a disciple. He never stole anything from his Son for himself, she served him because she is a mother, gives life in the fullness of time to this Son born of a woman (cf.. Homily of 12 December 2019, full text WHO) […] Our Lady did not want to take any title away from Jesus; she received the gift of being His Mother and the duty to accompany us as a Mother, to be our Mother. She did not ask for herself to be a quasi-redeemer or a co-redeemer: no. The Redeemer is only one and this title is not doubled. Only disciple and Mother (cf.. Homily of 3 April 2020, full text WHO) […] the Madonna who, as the Mother to whom Jesus has entrusted us, envelops us all; but as a mother, not as a goddess, not as a co-redemptrix: as Mother. It is true that Christian piety always gives it beautiful titles, like a son to his mother: how many beautiful things a son says to the mother he loves! But let's be careful: the beautiful things that the Church and the Saints say about Mary take nothing away from the redemptive uniqueness of Christ. He is the only Redeemer. They are expressions of love like a son to his mother, sometimes exaggerated. But love, we know, always makes us do exaggerated things, but with love" (cf.. Hearing of 24 March 2021, full text WHO).
The mystery of redemption it is one with the mystery of the cross, on which God made man died as a sacrificial lamb. On the cross the Blessed Virgin Mary was not nailed to death like a sacrificial lamb, that at the end of her life she fell asleep and was assumed into heaven, she did not die and rose again on the third day, defeating death. The Blessed Virgin, first creature of the whole creation above all the saints for its immaculate purity, he does not forgive our sins and does not redeem us, he intercedes for the remission of our sins and for our redemption. So if he doesn't redeem us, because we insist on dogmatizing a title aimed at solemnly defining which co-redeems us?
Many fans of co-redemption are likely have never paid attention to the invocations of the Loreto Litany, which were certainly not the work of some recent pontiff smacking of modernism, as some would say, they were added to the recitation of the Holy Rosary by the Holy Pontiff Pius V after the victory of the Holy League in Lepanto in 1571, although already in use for several decades in the Sanctuary of the House of Loreto, from which they take their name. Yet it would be enough to ask this question: How come, when at the beginning of these litanies God the Father is invoked, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, let's say "Miserere nobis» (have mercy on us)? While just starting, with the invocation Holy Mary, to enunciate all the titles of the Blessed Virgin, from that moment on we say «Pray for us» (pray for us)? Simple: because God the Father who created us and who gave himself to humanity through the incarnation of the Word of God made man, Jesus Christ, who then brought the Holy Spirit who "proceeds from the Father and the Son", with compassionate mercy they give the grace of forgiveness from sins through a Trinitarian action of the triune God, the Virgin Mary does not, he does not forgive us our sins and does not forgive us, because in the economy of salvation his role is that of intercession. This is why, when we turn to her through prayer, both in the Ave Maria than in Hi Regina, of always, throughout the history and tradition of the Church we invoke her saying "pray for us sinners", we do not ask her to forgive our sins or to save us (cf.. My previous article, WHO). This alone should be sufficient and advance to understand that the term co-redemptive itself is a gross contradiction on a theological level, unfortunately enough to make those theologians who insist on calling for the proclamation of this fifth Marian dogma to be rude, charging and using as fans fringes of faithful, most of whom have deep and serious gaps in the foundations of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The person of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of Jesus, it is looked at and indicated with a theological depth that places it in close relationship with the mission of his Son and united with us disciples, because this is his role that the Gospels wanted to communicate and remind us of, all with all due respect to those who claim, sometimes even arrogantly, to relegate the Woman of Magnificat in a microcosm of emotional devotions that often even reveal the fumus of neo-paganism. The Supreme Pontiff Francis is therefore right, than with his very simple and direct style, at times even deliberately provocative and for some even irritating, but precisely for this reason capable of making himself understood by everyone, he specified that Maria «[…] he never wanted to take something of his Son for himself. She never presented herself as co-redeemer". And she did not present herself as such because Mary is the Woman of Magnificat: «He looked at the humility of his servant, from now on all generations will call me blessed"; blessed because I became a servant, certainly not why I asked, to some demented seer, to be proclaimed co-redemptrix.
the Island of Patmos, 3 February 2024
.
.
______________________
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
.
.
.
Only Jesus could be so good and merciful as to cure and heal a mother-in-law
Homiletics of the Fathers of The Island of Patmos
ONLY JESUS COULD BE SO GOOD AND MERCIFUL TO TREAT AND HEAL A MOTHER-IN-LAW
«Simone's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever and they immediately told him about her. He approached and made her stand up by the hand; the fever left her and she served them. Evening came, after sunset, they brought him all the sick and possessed. The whole city was gathered in front of the door».
.
Author
Hermit Monk
.
.HTTPS://youtu.be/4fP7neCJapw.
.
The pericope of the Gospel of this V Sunday of Ordinary Time tells us again about Jesus' typical day in Capernaum.
"During that time, Jesus, left the synagogue, he immediately went to the house of Simone and Andrea, in the company of Giacomo and Giovanni. Simone's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever and they immediately told him about her. He approached and made her stand up by the hand; the fever left her and she served them. Evening came, after sunset, they brought him all the sick and possessed. The whole city was gathered in front of the door. He healed many who were suffering from various illnesses and cast out many demons; but he did not allow the demons to speak, because they knew him. Early in the morning he got up while it was still dark and, out, he withdrew to a deserted place, and there he prayed. But Simone and those who were with him set out on his trail. They found him and told him: «Everyone is looking for you!». He told them: «Let's go somewhere else, in nearby villages, because I preach there too; For this is why I came!». And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons". (MC 1,29-39)
If Mark's frequent use of the adverb "immediately" it served to speed up the narrative time, highlighting Jesus' haste regarding the announcement of the kingdom; in today's song, the locations here are also taken into account, like a space that tends to expand more and more. In fact, the movement of the story passes through the synagogue of the town on the lake (MC 1,29) to Peter's house, then again from the house to the open road in front of the courtyard door of Peter's house (v. 33), from a city to nearby villages (v. 38); at last, from the villages to "all Galilee" (v. 39). As if all space, quickly, must be occupied by Jesus, from his announcement and his works.
The characters of the story they are the disciples closest to Jesus, Simone's mother-in-law and above all the sick. These are the ones who take over the scene. They can already be found where Jesus arrives, like Pietro's mother-in-law, or they are brought to him; still others look for him spontaneously from dawn, when he is praying. Illness frames our song: be it a fever or a deeper suffering, spiritual or physical (like that caused by the impure spirits of v. 39), the vocabulary of the semantic field of the illness studs the story and is consistently present, including all the narration.
«And they immediately told him about her». The concern for this elderly woman is striking, because it shows attention towards the fragile and faith in the presence of Jesus. The elderly, feverish woman is not hidden from the Master as if she were a problem or someone to be ashamed of, so it wouldn't be worth bothering. The fact that the disciples immediately spoke to Jesus about Peter's mother-in-law shows that that woman was a priority for them. They don't ask for healing, they do not exploit the presence of the Master for their own purposes, they simply indicate the sick woman: this person is important to them. From this we can understand the meaning and value of intercession as of speaking on someone's behalf. Jesus appreciates it, so much so that he immediately does something: he holds out his hand to her, he lifts her up and then heals her of her illness. Jesus wants to be disturbed by the sick. Jesus appreciates and admires the intercession on behalf of the sick, as in the case of the centurion who intercedes for his sick servant (LC 7,1-10).
The theme of illness, we were saying, runs through the entire text of St. Mark. Suffering touches every man, but «experiencing one's own impotence in the illness, the man of faith recognizes that he is radically in need of salvation. He accepts himself as a poor and limited creature. He relies totally on God. He imitates Jesus Christ and feels personally close to him." (Adult Catechism, The truth will set you free, 1021). It is the "conversion" to which the sick healed by Jesus are called, rather, to which we are all called.
Thus we discover another meaning of Jesus' first words in the Gospel of Mark: «The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near» (MC 1,15). Time and space, but men and women are also touched by the fullness of God's presence and the kingdom is that reality in which the encounter with Jesus is possible. Jesus does not only carry out therapeutic activities, because his gestures are accompanied by words, from teachings. In fact these are signs to say that the kingdom is near: miracles announce and inaugurate the kingdom of God and correspond to Israel's expectations, where it was believed that the Messiah would come with thaumaturgical abilities. For this reason the announcement that "the kingdom is near" is complementary to the word "repent and believe in the gospel", because the crowds that flock to Jesus, before these divine gestures, they are called to believe and convert. If this doesn't happen, miracles are useless, as Matthew explains in another passage: «Then he began to rebuke the cities in which he had performed the greatest number of miracles, because they did not repent: Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida. Because, if in Tyre and Sidon they had been done the miracles that were done among you, some time would have repented, wrapped in sackcloth and ashes" (Mt 11,20-21). The greatest healing that God can bring about is from our unbelief.
Finally, perhaps related to what we just said, we note the small discrepancy between the "all" who flock to Jesus to be healed (vv. 32.33.37) and the "many" who instead, actually, they are healed: «He healed many who were afflicted with various diseases» (v. 34). That, But, it is superseded by the resurrection vocabulary used by Mark. In fact, the verb that Mark uses to narrate the healing of Peter's mother-in-law - "he lifted her up" in v. 31) — is very important in the New Testament, because it does not only occur in healing contexts (MC 2,9.11; 5,41; 9,27), but above all in the story of the resurrection of Lazarus (GV 12,1.9) and of Christ (ad es.: At 3,15; RM 10,9). How Jesus was able to lift up Simon's mother-in-law, thus he will be able to give life to the dead, to everyone. The path that Mark wants us to take to come to know who Jesus is then becomes clear. He who in the opening of the Gospel is defined as "Son of God" (MC 1,1), as the Baptizer in the Holy Spirit (v. 8), as the "beloved Son" (v. 11) he is finally revealed in his being towards men: he is the one who "came" («exited», verbatim, from the verb exérchomai; cf.. v. 38) to men to listen to him and be healed of their infirmities.
The story of Jesus' day continues with rest, but then «early in the morning he got up while it was still dark and, out, he withdrew to a deserted place, and there he prayed. Simone and those who were with him set out on his trail. They found him and told him: «Everyone is looking for you!» (MC 1,35-37). We do not know which desert place the evangelist may be referring to, but it certainly couldn't have been far from the lake. Mark has already mentioned Jesus' prayer, in the form celebrated in the synagogue. This morning prayer is personal, as we also learn from other evangelical traditions, it seems to be the Lord's way of bringing everything back to the Father: what he experienced since the previous evening, what will await him in the day that continues. Thus Jesus teaches his disciples that prayer is essential to create unity in one's life.
From the Hermitage, 4 February 2024
.
.
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
.
.
.
.
.
A good priest is such if he waits for the end of his mandate to praise his Bishop: Andrea Turazzi, from today Bishop emeritus of the Diocese of San Marino-Montefeltro
A GOOD PRIEST IS SUCH IF TO PRAISE HIS BISHOP HE WAITS FOR THE END OF HIS EPISCOPAL MANDATE: ANDREA TURAZZI, FROM TODAY BISHOP EMERITUS OF THE DIOCESE OF SAN MARINO-MONTEFELTRO
«Venerable Bishop, I want you to know that during your episcopate you gave me the ten best years of my priesthood, this is something for which I will always be deeply grateful to you"
- Church news -
Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo
.
.
From today H.E. Mons. Andrea Turazzi he is Bishop emeritus of San Marino-Montefeltro, my Diocese of belonging.
My Bishop for a year, after meeting me he told me in that distant May 2015: «You were born to be a hunter and I was born to be a veterinarian». He smiled at me fondly and continued: «Both hunters and veterinarians are needed in the Church, just please don't shoot with heavy buckshot, if anything use smaller pellets".
For a priest, not loving a Bishop who presents himself in this way is impossible. And I loved my Bishop, even though I have never said it publicly, because it would not have been appropriate and prudent.
Last year, while a controversy was raging into which I had directly dived with my cassock on without even undressing and putting on my bathing suit, mi said: «I don't question your reasons, impeccable on a doctrinal and theological level, I just ask you to try to be a little more moderate". After extending this invitation to me he added: "Sure, no one can say that you lack courage, maybe you even have too much of it. For this I don't feel like addressing you in any way, for this is your nature and the character God has given you, no one can ask you to be different than you are, I only ask you for a little moderation in the legitimate controversy, nothing more".
As always I listened to him. And a few days later I sent him a private message in which I thanked him in these terms: «Venerable Bishop, I want you to know that during your episcopate you gave me the ten best years of my priesthood, this is something for which I will always be deeply grateful to you".
If to use these words of affection he's someone like me, that I did not hesitate to publicly call a powerful Cardinal a criminal, stating that I would have preferred to deal with those of the Banda della Magliana rather than with him and his henchmen (cf.. WHO), this means that I had the grace of having as Bishop an authentic man of God and a true model of a Pastor in the care of souls, something that is increasingly rare in these sad times that the universal Church is experiencing. In his life and in his episcopal government my Bishop was an elevated model and living realization of the teaching of the Fathers of the Church who exhort:
«All the priests, in union with the bishops, they participate in the same and unique priesthood and ministry of Christ, in such a way that the same unity of consecration and mission requires the hierarchical communion of presbyters with the order of bishops […] The bishops therefore, thanks to the gift of the Holy Spirit which is granted to priests in sacred ordination, they have in them the necessary collaborators and advisors in the ministry and in the function of instructing, sanctify and govern the people of God […] For this common participation in the same priesthood and ministry, bishops should therefore consider priests as brothers and friends, and take care of them, in everything they can, their material and above all spiritual well-being" (See. By decree of the Presbyters of the Order, n. 7).
Only now who no longer has the power of pastoral governance over the Diocese and over me, I can publicly say how much I revered it, appreciated and loved my Bishop. And how difficult it wasn't for me at all, with a Bishop like that, put into practice this exhortation of the Fathers of the Church:
«I presbiteri, for their part, keeping in mind the fullness of the sacrament of orders enjoyed by bishops, let them venerate in them the authority of Christ the supreme shepherd. Let them therefore be united to their bishop with sincere charity and obedience. This priestly obedience, pervaded by the spirit of collaboration, it is based on the same participation of the episcopal ministry, conferred on priests through the sacrament of orders and the canonical mission" (See. By decree of the Presbyters of the Order, n. 7).
To the bishop It is due filial respect and devout obedience by the presbyter, We solemnly promise this on the day we receive priestly consecration. And I respected and obeyed my Bishop, because it was due to him. Then I also respected and loved him, but not because it was due to him, because neither esteem nor love is due to any Bishop as such; if I poured them on him, it's because he deeply deserved them.
Sorry for the Brother Priests and it hurts believers of Christ of this Diocese of Feretra that the mandate of the Bishop has not been extended. One would almost scream "wasteful".!” in front of a man of 75 years in perfect physical health, equipped with all the necessary human and spiritual strengths, of knowledge and wisdom. But on the other hand, the Rome of the "field hospital Church" and of the "existential suburbs" seems accustomed to it, today even more than yesterday, to decide on the dry cards, especially when it comes to the much vaunted "suburbs".
I have no idea who his successor is because I don't know him, I only know that his name is Domenico Beneventi, 49 year old, priest of the Diocese of Acerenza, a Diocese particularly dear to Cardinal Crescenzio Sepe, very active and industrious in recent times in presenting new suitable candidates for the episcopate. From now on I wish the new elected Bishop not only to be respected and obeyed, as due to him by sacramental bond; I also wish him to be loved and esteemed as his predecessor was. But the love and esteem of the clergy and the faithful must be earned at a high price, often even at the cost of tears and blood, precisely because they are not necessary things. This is the hardest work for any Bishop, which always translates into success only in authentic men of God, ready to conform to the mystery of the Cross of Christ the Lord.
the Island of Patmos, 3 February 2024
.
.
______________________
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 website of this magazine and the editions take name from the Aegean island in which the Blessed Apostle John wrote the Book of the Apocalypse, isola also known as «the place of the last revelation»
«God revealed the secrets of others ALTIUS»
(in higher than the others, John has left the Church, the arcane mysteries of God)
The bezel used as the cover of our home page is a 16th century fresco by Correggio. preserved in the Church of San Giovanni Evangelista in Parma
Creator and editor of this magazine website:
MANUELA LUZZARDI