- The delicacy of the ancient scorpion: a commendable ironic comment by L'Osservatore Romano on the Sanremo Festival - 3 February 2022
- A precise and decisive note from the Bishop of San Remo-Ventimiglia on the Song Festival now reduced to a porcine event - 2 February 2022
- About the note from the Holy See on the Zan-Scalfarotto bill: tomorrow evening Father Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo will be a guest at the Dritto e Rovescio program on Rete4 to discuss the topic - 23 June 2021
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS SHORT heresy Lefebvrian
[…] if the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, as he wrote and reiterated, says the Bishop Marcel Lefebvre that his ideas are "against the faith" and invited him to submit in obedience to the Church and to the Successor of Peter, it is clear that it intends to accuse him of heresy. For what is the heresy, if not a proposition against the faith arising from the refusal to pay obedience to the doctrines of the Church and its Supreme Apostolic Authority? But, as we have recently seen, exist “Catholics” that while before such evidence attempt to quibble with futile sophistry, but in fact there is little to quibble because of futile sophistry is precisely.
The concept of heresy can be expressed with various expressions verbal equivalent. There you have to stick to the words, but paying attention to the concept; otherwise you are hypocrites, Pharisees obtuse, or fanatics closed in themselves.
For example, if we say that Joseph no longer lives, is clearly meant to say that he is dead. It is therefore easy to say that if the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, as he wrote and reiterated, says the Bishop Marcel Lefebvre that his ideas are "against the faith" [who] and invites him to submit in obedience to the Church and to the Successor of Peter, it is clear that it intends to accuse him of heresy. For what is the heresy, if not a proposition against the faith arising from the refusal to pay obedience to the doctrines of the Church and its Supreme Apostolic Authority? But, as we have recently seen, exist “Catholics” that while before such evidence attempt to quibble with futile sophistry, but in fact there is little to quibble because of futile sophistry is precisely.
How to assert that this error was not the heretic and schismatic bishop Marcel Lefebvre but the whole of the Second Vatican Ecumenical seated, then the Holy Father John XXIII, the Blessed Pontiff Paul VI, the Holy Pontiff John Paul II, The Popes Benedict XVI and Francis as they say “responsabili” of the continuity of these “errors” caused by none other than an ecumenical council “Pastoral only” so “undogmatic“, for the sake of which the Church would be made even slip in “apostasy from the faith” [see WHO], affirming that are themselves heretics and speakers of dangerous heresies, without any possibility of pettifogging sophistry Justifiers on the theological, metaphysical and epistemological, if we really want to be serious. The Vatican, as repeatedly wrote and explained the Fathers John Cavalcoli and Ariel S. Levi Gualdo in their various articles, although not sanctioned new dogmas, according to the principles and the three different degrees of infallibility [cf. To protect the faith, WHO] has sanctioned the new doctrines binding and not subject to rejection by anyone [on the degree of infallibility, see our previous article WHO].
Even if so and so is a heretic and manifest, the Apostolic, reasons for its, is free to speak or not to pronounce a judgment of heresy. It is therefore necessary to distinguish the problems of heresy that is the task of the theologian and what is the task of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is in fact two orientations or pastoral functions different and somewhat independent of each other. The Apostolic See has never supported certain theories and let theologians always free to express their views.
The Apostolic See can blame the theologian who is wrong in judging another as a heretic; but does not prohibit all a theologian detect in another the germs of a heretical thought. As the theologian who is accused by a colleague of heresy, he must guard - something which unfortunately happens - dall'indignarsi as if he had been defamed; quite the opposite, the accused must examine the charges that are facts and act accordingly. If the charges are fair, will mend; if it is wrong to be the theologian accuser having to apologize or repair the wrong done.
One might wonder if the highlight the fact that Marcel Lefebvre is a heretic can be useful for obtaining the return of lefevriani. The Apostolic until now proceeded with too much delicacy and lefevriani took advantage to drag the dispute to infintum.
The Apostolic See has so far been too frugal using the term “heresy”, perhaps not evoke dark ghosts of the past? This overindulgence, not to say negligence, But he finished with allow the rise, the resurgence and the free flow of many and various heresies, existing in certain subjects particularly aggressive as "natural" fruits of the Council, by the College of Cardinals until the sacristan of a country parish; a Council that these heretics overt and posters indicate as "evil" and then as the "natural" source and origin of all evil.
Clearly, so you can not go on, perché l’eresia pone ostacolo alla salvezza. We must therefore go back to using that term when appropriate, so well considered and examined; as well as a conscientious doctor makes the diagnosis of a cancer or leukemia, with the difference that from these evils almost always not heals, while it heals from heresies.
The fear of repeating the mistakes of the past It should not be so high up to push the Ecclesiastical Authority to do nothing or to remain silent, otherwise they perform opposite and worst mistakes, as it is clear today, as we are invaded by a large amount of disease-free and that the medical care.
The church, dice il Santo Padre, It is a "field hospital". D’accordo. But where are the doctors? It is not that heresy disappear by itself for the fact that it is not spoken or not treated. On the contrary, as the facts, heresies increase and the word ends up being misused by senseless exasperated as demonstrated for example by the extremists that today even accuse the Supreme Pontiff of heresy, and its predecessors succeeded on the Chair of Peter from 1958 following.
If a doctor misses a cure, Perhaps that is why you should stop being a doctor? L’uso pudico di circonlocuzioni per alludere all’eresia può essere utile in certe situazioni incandescenti, ma l’usarlo sistematicamente non ha per effetto, come è dimostrato dell’esperienza, altro che il dare il permesso a chiunque di abbracciare l’eresia sotto i più speciosi pretesti che tutti conosciamo.
If we apply wherever this devastating principle, None, since we are all fallible, It should do nothing for fear of making mistakes. That's why perhaps it is time to address decisively the doctrinal question from this angle.
We must make it clear once and for all to Lefebvre in good faith, who they love the truth and sincerely want to be Catholic and respect the Tradition, che sono vittime dell’eresia, hoping that they listen. Otherwise you have to clearly warn the faithful of the danger, perché questi falsi cattolici continuano a far proseliti aumentando l’odio contro Roma, against the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, against the teachings and doctrines of Vatican II.
the rebuke, la correzione dell’errore e la lotta contro l’eresia, is an act of love and mercy to which the Church can not and must not shirk if necessary, especially during the Jubilee of Mercy, indetto dal Sommo Pontefice Francesco per l’anno 2015/2016.
ATTI E DOCUMENTI DELLA SANTA SEDE SUL CASO DELL’ERESIA LEFEBVRIANA
– «Letter S.S. Paul VI to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre», 29 June 1975 [text WHO]
– Apostolic Letter of SS. Paul VI, «New admonition to S.It is. Mons. Marcel Lefebvre», 8 September 1975 [text, WHO]
– S.S. Paul VI, «Letter to Bishop. Marcel Lefebvre», 15 August 1976 [text WHO]
– Speech by SS. Paul WE "On the painful story of Mons. Marcello Lefebvre», 1September 1976 [text WHO]
– «Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei"The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in the form of motu proprio, 2 July 1988 [text WHO].
– Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note "On the excommunication for schism they face the adherents to the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre», 24 August 1996 [text WHO].
– Congregation for Bishops: «Decree of remission of the excommunication latae sententiae to the Bishops of the Fraternity of St. Pius X», 21 January 2009 [text WHO]
– «Note from the Secretary of State about the four bishops of the Fraternity of St. Pius X», 4 February 2009 [text WHO]
– Letter of the Holy Father Benedict XVI to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of 4 Bishops consecrated by 'Archbishop Lefebvre [text, 10 March 2009 WHO].