love joy, the “Theology of Blank Check”: the power of the keys is thus not a, except falling into heresy

The joy of love, THE "THEOLOGY of Blank Check": THE POWER OF THE KEYS NOT be disputed, EXCEPT TO FALL IN HERESY


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





Author Father Ariel
Ariel S. Levi Gualdo



PDF format Print article




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



Pope signature
The Supreme Pontiff Francis sign the post-synodal exhortation The joy of love

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


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


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


In De veritate the Angelic Doctor states: "You do not have the truth, but the truth is that you have ". But above, many of these warriors devotees of ideology iocentrica participating in the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, living memorial and passion saint, Death and Resurrection of Christ, could forget the final doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer:


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


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


Per ipsum, and as very, et in ipso, East you God the Father Almighty, the Holy Spirit, omnis honor and gloria, for all ages.

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


about Peter, Chapter III of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, reads the n. 22:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Many of those who attack undoubtedly the defeasible, incomplete, often improvident and imprudent man Jorge Mario Bergoglio, they show dramatically lacking the ability to make a fundamental distinction doctrinal: up to when it comes to direct criticism at the so-called "private doctor", or to ordinary pastoral ministry choices, or in administrative decisions of the Holy Father, except the devotee always had respect and deference to his sacred person, the anything goes, indeed sometimes even desirable. I myself have done over and over again, including when the Supreme Pontiff has changed the rite of the washing of the feet, replicandogli only reply with a "head washed" [cf. WHO]. Just as I did seeing multiplied by the diocese as new bishops elected duplicate complacent of the reigning Pontiff, everyone with “poor” the mouth and “periphery existential” in cu…hours [cf. WHO, WHO, WHO, WHO, etc. ..]. It is not, however, be contested on doctrinal expressions of the Roman Pontiff, even though - and this I say ironically - were wrong, because no one, including any saints on earth, It has to top potestas ability to correct his mistake. And that said please do not quote me inappropriately harsh reproaches addressed to the Supreme Pontiffs from St. Bernard of Clairvaux or St. Catherine of Siena, because the one and the other have never lifted objections to their choices doctrinarian. Indeed, and especially Catherine of Siena, with his invective directed toward the papal court to Avignon, launched calls devotees to the pontiffs of purely political and pastoral matters, but certainly not doctrinal.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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




After written

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

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







[59] CF. EUSEBIO, Hist. Eccl., The, 24, 10: GCS II, 1, p. 495; and. BARDY, Sources Chrét., (II), p. 69. DIONIGI, in EUSEBIO, ib. VII, 5, 2: GCS II, 2, p. 638with; BARDY, (II), p. 168with.

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

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

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

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

[64] CF. CONC. VAT I, Cost of the scheme. dogmatic. II De Ecclesia Christi, (c). 4:[176][176]NSI 53, 310. CF. Kleutgen report on the scheme reformed: MANSI 53,321B-322B and the declaration ZINELLI: MANSI 52, 1110In. See also S. LEONE M., Serm. 4,3: PL 54, 151In.

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






About Padre Ariel

Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo Presbitero e Teologo ( Click on the name to read all its articles )

40 thoughts on "love joy, the “Theology of Blank Check”: the power of the keys is thus not a, except falling into heresy

  1. I can tell you, paradoxically, little care if abortion is defined in GS “unspeakable crime”? The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith explicitly defines a “murder” . For me, poor ignorant who does not understand the difference between murder and murder (as if the killing was not a crime!), take away life (It looks good on this expression?) of a “fetus” (as she calls it) that is, a living human being, (as he is) is murder because, Forgive my ignorance, that “fetus” it's a man, ergo se “suppress” a “man” commetto a “murder”. And if the state law allows the killing of a fetus I rebel. Finally, I ask, instead, to her: really it believes to be the ultimate source of knowledge “doctrinally” correct”? Sometimes the studies lead to a “presumption” nientaffatto propre. In addition to: really he thinks his priestly consecration give her the authority and the authority to accuse a brother in the same faith (how I feel) to be of scandal origin? She really feels capable of “judge” guilty of such infamy? He knows what he accuses me?

    1. «The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith explicitly defines a “murder”»


      Citi immediately text and precise document in which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith applies to abortion the factual situation and the lemma “murder” calling it "explicitly" as such.

      Otherwise the stop send us comments that hurt her who writes them and to Catholics who read them.

      There is only one document 1974, and it is a “declaration” in which, this congregation, He cites Tertullian who says: "It is anticipated murder to prevent birth; little difference whether one destroys a life already born or does away with it in the bud. She has a man who will be a " [Apologeticum, IX, 8 (PL I, 371-372: Corp. Christ. The, p. 103, 1. 31-36].

      This is a quote made in the text and overall very articulate this “declaration”, but this congregation does not define abortion murder.

      The text that instead I have mentioned, the N. 51 of The joy and hope, in which a precise definition of abortion and its enormous gravity, is not a “declaration” but the “constitution” Pastoral of an ecumenical council.

      Al n. 27 This Pastoral Constitution, she can find indicated "[…] whatever it is opposed to life itself, as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, voluntary euthanasia and suicide ".

      They are clearly distinct of “figure” and “species” serious, that between them, however, are different and distinct, whereas, on them, she does a lot of confusion both in subjective ideas in both concepts.

  2. dear d. Ariel, because my last post 25 April is still pending “moderation”? I have no claim and believe that moderate a comment is a sign of appropriate discretion. However leave a pending posts, I do not think good practice. However I not am offended if it were not published, but I can not help but think that there are post “first / high level” and other “not interesting or important”. In all cases, I think it is a good rule to follow to a post even if it were so “private” and, in the specific case, I would like as well as desire. In the fraternity of Christ.

      1. Thank you for your, your “patience”. And’ true, I am a person a little hard on the uptake, but try to use as best as possible what little understanding that the Lord has given me. She accuses me of confusing “guilt” with “sin”. I forgive me but I do not see anything, in my post whatsoever to suggest this! And’ She, instead, confuses the crime of murder (human law) with sin (divine law) and it goes on to affirm that a woman who aborts commits a grave sin but not a “murder” or the taking of a human life at the hands of another human being. Which suggests that she is convinced that the “fetus” would not be “man”. I hope to be wrong, and that he had misinterpreted the allegation made by her. Abortion by law (in Italy) unfortunately it is not a crime (if you accomplished in “due” form”) but it remains a “murder” according to the divine law (for me even according to the human) and in fact you yourself said that it is a serious sin! Otherwise why should it be “serious”? In the fraternity of Christ

        1. Mario Caro.

          Incidentally, before receiving a theological education I received a thorough legal education, therefore I know and practice both the legal lexicon and the theological, all to little that can affect them, and especially for little that might serve to dissuade her from seriously erroneous affirmations that she returns to revive undeterred in his comments.

          first of all, have you ever asked the immense damage that can cause to the Church, before the non-believers and the people who feed hatred towards Catholicism, subjects like her?

          Having said that the invitation to be answered by himself, seen how now accustomed to reaffirm doctrinally incorrect expressions to the indications given by me to her according to all the best doctrinal correctness.

          And the question that she has to be answered is the following: where is that, in what passage of Scripture and in what act of the Magisterium of the Church, abortion is defined as a “murder”?

          Al n. 51 the Pastoral Constitution on the Church The joy and hope, abortion is defined as “unspeakable crime”.
          Now, you know the difference that exists between a “crime” and a “murder”?

  3. Taking a cue from its Post Scriptum, am sorry to see that – after more than two weeks after publication dell'Amoris laetitia – the Congregation and its (previously thought) “authoritative” Prefect have not yet “uttered” word. Evidently the exhortation is quite complex and, having to reconcile the multiple, different, opposing readings, They are necessarily required time, reason and prudence.

  4. (d). Ariel says that she “The reigning Pontiff has chosen to maintain the standard established by the Holy Father John Paul II to the n. 84 of Familiaris consortio,..” where it is written ” "The church, however, It reiterates its practices, based on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced and remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church, signified and effected by the Eucharist. ” is ahead “…. when the man and the woman, for serious reasons - such as, eg, the education of children - can not satisfy the obligation of separation, “undertake to live in complete continence, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples”; commitment that does not seem to be required in AL. so definitive as in CF. add that, to my knowledge, There are various levels of Education and a Encyclical has much greater commitment value of an Apostolic Exhortation. Mistake? In the fraternity of Christ.

    1. Mario Caro.

      Unfortunately,, from first to last word, she confirms everything I've written in reference to theology and to improvised canonists.
      This thing that I tell with authentic pastoral love and without any polemical.
      Try something the fact that the Family company you mentioned, It is not at all "an encyclical 'whose that" a far greater commitment value ", why the Family company, written in Rates, in years and in a completely different company than today (year 1981, for the accuracy 35 years ago) It is an apostolic exhortation, as you yourself can see below, exactly as it is the The joy of love.

      1. Caught red-handed and superficial statement!
        But it, what she says, It means that the doctrine must adapt to the historical moment? I do not believe, despite being neither a theologian nor a canonist (I'd be a miserable braggart!)
        She will tell me, but the doctrine has not been touched! Then why there is so much confusion (we call it “uncertainty”?) on the proper interpretation and application of “pastoral suggestions” Data from the Pope? As you can continue on the path of “who am I to judge” leaving room for anyone to interpret, as he pleases, the word of the Pope? And what about the Veritatis Splendor (this is, Encyclical!) nos 67 and 68? Also what about the correct application of the commandments “negative” , the First and the New Testament, that, as said Bishop. Shneider (too “successor of the Apostles”) “If God said: "Do not commit adultery",… no human authority could say: "In a few exceptional cases and for a good purpose you can commit adultery"?
        I could Peter's successor?
        Fraternally yours in Christ.

        1. Mario Caro.

          No one has blessed and no one will ever bless adultery.
          What we do not understand, or better that many do not want to understand, is this: of always, Catholic morality, It comes with a lot of care and caution the matter of sin, so we are aware that even before objectively very serious sins, there are circumstances linked to the human condition, inner, psychological sinner, that can make a sin in itself and of itself serious, much less serious than it actually is.

          And these situations are many, variously linked above all to the will of the person, but often also to external situations and conditions to the person himself.

          What many people do not want to understand is that these, as it were, “extenuating”, that Catholic morality to always always apply to all cases, They are also applicable to the case of remarried divorcees.

          In my previous article, I gave the example of an abortion; and we all know how serious this sin. And yet, in that specific case, blame the woman was very attenuated by a series of circumstances both internal and external to her to her.

          The Supreme Pontiff, as masterfully explained Father John Cavalcoli in his article, He did not declare that adultery is permissible, has not blessed as acceptable the situation of the divorced and remarried; and he did not even say that certain individuals and / or couples do not live in sin; he said and explained that we can not assume that they live in a permanent state of sin. Why Is That, presume that, would almost assume the risk of reading the man's conscience, God only can read and judge.

          She followed to ask questions, to which I reply because they could now answer, but if you have the patience to read our articles, magically discover that in them you will find answers to questions that she followed to put.

          And finally, just to clarify: the words of the Holy Father “Who am I to judge”, thrown in this context, It is ungenerous and misleading, precisely because it mentioned outside of each correct context.

          With that phrase, The Holy Father – as again and again we have explained – It expressed this obvious and correct Catholic concept, referring in that case to Gay: “Who am I to judge the deep consciousness of a man, God only can read and judge?”.

          Turn that sentence into: “Who am I to judge a gay”, therefore assume that the Holy Father has said in practice “Gay is beautiful”, It is not serious and is not honest.

          And then, that the Holy Father is expressed not good in Italian, It casts sometimes half-sentences assuming that everyone will understand the true meaning, who speaks off the cuff or you leave from interviewing journalists, this is what in my opinion not suitable; and over and I have stated many times, said and written.

          1. dear d. Ariel, It did not mean decontextualise a phrase uttered by S. father “him to say” what has not told. But we all know the reactions, better interpretations, which are triggered in the LGBT world to justify the unjustifiable, starting right from the sentence. Simply allowed myself to emphasize that it would be more appropriate and wherever use of that virtue which is called prudence, from which even the Pope is exempt.
            Turning now to the issue of guilt is evident that the level, not guilty, because a fault or is this or it is not, but the responsibility is different depending on the level in the same perseverance that gives the measure of the extent of the guilt or otherwise. I feel I can say that it is a shame that or it is not. it is not possible that it is only if you are aware of doing it. It una donna “kills” the child who is in her womb always commits murder even if he is unaware. A / an adulterer / a is always that if he lives with another woman who is not his wife. Both God's mercy when the time of judgment. May the Lord forgive us for all our sins!

          2. … yet we have tried to explain to the best of our priestly and theological possibilities, the good Father John and I!
            Mi tip, what do I need them, a catechesis on human consciousness and sin?
            since, as you well understand, I can not do it in this space, the reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, inviting her to not confuse “sin” with the “guilt”, because it does not always, who also commits a sin, It is objectively guilty, for example when the knowledge is lacking (for example the inevitable ignorance) the will, deliberate consent …

            And of confusion in confusion she says through:

            "If a woman" kills "the child who is in her womb always commits murder even if he is unaware".

            A woman who aborts commits a grave sin, a deadly sin that could seriously affect the eternal salvation of his own soul, but does not commit a murder. Commits a crime, but not a murder.
            The criminal offense of murder would use if – for instance – you kill me, but not if it suppresses / kill the fetus.

            How do you see, words and concepts used bad, cause do not understand, especially those who are not willing to take in and then figure out what all in all we have clearly explained in many articles.

          3. Dear Vincent.

            Please be assured that we we have received post to which you refer. However, if the retained, Send him that we insert.

  5. Thanks! I must say that before reading this page, I had criticized Pope Francis for what I saw as his lack of consistency (how can you’ affirm a doctrine, and then let it change in the pastoral, case by case, depending on how one sees ..). But now, I understand even better thanks to the other pagini and explanations contained in the site. Feel better those in the know, because a faithful town is really hard to understand these things. What you say makes sense. I especially understand the charism given by Jesus to Peter and then the distinction of being Pope. A Pope that leaves me thrilled in some of his utterances sometimes,but with which in (many) others agree fully. Still I do not know what will come for the Church on the practical side. The confusion is great, I think.

  6. The “power of the keys”, as it has been exposed by Cavalcoli and Ariel, It is a forgery and abuse of what it really means. And’ another demonstration of the fact that it wants to put man above God to the point that it is man himself to decide what is good and what is bad. Cavalcoli Ariel and give the nod to Bergoglio that he can establish that evil (give Communion to divorced) can become good. use the “FIG leaf” of “power of the keys” to subvert the order established by God. This thing is? …… if not satanic pride?

    1. Themselves. Bazzorini,

      the last response we had agreed that she would have prayed and done penance through bodily sacrifices to ask the grace of God for the conversion of heretics John Cavalcoli and Ariel S. Levi Gualdo.
      It is known instead that, instead devote himself to this pious exercise for the salvation of our souls, continues to waste time sending comments to explain that we are souls of the damned.

      He understands that without his prayer and his silence penitent, for us likely to be no salvation?

  7. Dear Father Ariel she is instead an example of pride embodied, hard and closed hearts which speaks so often the Holy Father. I, premise in all humility to be neither a theologian nor a moralist, I asked you the questions that trouble me sincerely and that for now I have not been answered. If she is, as they say they, "A shepherd in the care of souls and a" theologian take note of her to ignore the first spiritual work of mercy: teach the ignorant. I know very well to be ignorant, However a head I have it and I try to use it, and I'm sorry that she from its liquid chair the doubts and concerns of those who, less knowledgeable about her, in a moment of great confusion in the Church, demand.

    1. She has no place at all of the questions, He sent us, as I said in the previous answer, a text of 6.800 characters corresponding to four A4 sheets in which he sproloquiato contempt for the Synod Fathers, to the Supreme Pontiff and his acts of the Magisterium, accusing one another of having betrayed the dogma and doctrine. And all this was not delivered at all as "questions", but as his judgments lapidary, foolish and harmful, that is why I have not published.
      Or has it that this will give evidence to the readers by publishing all its full text?

      As for his latest comments, mi tip: by how she writes and the content of his writings, by the way she attacks the priests and the disrespectful way in which she relates to the priests, including feedback data to their conscience - place that only God can read the human conscience -, who would be "ignorant" to which "teach", so ready to "learn" according to the first work of mercy, maybe she?

      Has at least the common sense of the ridiculous and read, I do not say what I write I, but at least read what she writes.

      As for the answers she seeks: my article, that she has not read, or who read with eyes blinded by ideology subjective, It contains clear and precise answer to his questions, and in it they indicate the passages of Sacred Scripture, the dogmatic constitution of an ecumenical council, the fathers of the Church, the Magisterium of the Church, Canon Law, statements and apostolic exhortations.

      If you can not read, or do not want to read, This is a big limit her that I can not be remedied through any work of mercy, given that the work of mercy which she called, It requires openness to grace on his part, certainly not her airtight.

  8. L’iocentrismo It is a widespread hurt a bit’ in all disciplines, and the implications of human life, But it becomes really shameful, if not hateful, in the Catholic Doctrine, Truth of God, when someone after reading a few books, and often not even those, like the totem of some self-styled traditionalists, the “Commentary on the Catechism of St. Pius X of the Dragon” which it is certainly a very good book but not exhaustive, They claim to get into the chair as true popes to, note, pontificating using these texts to the letter…
    and everything that is not found in the lines of the Dragon becomes pure heresy or at best ambiguous cases to be rejected a priori…

    Say no more because somebody with that approach also writes books crammed us to nonsense true, not understanding that the Truth is not a set of factual knowledge, maybe stolen from Denzinger, juxtaposed to the beautiful and better and interpreted with the free examination of the Protestants to bend the words of the Church to their own personal conjecture, but CORPUS to be, as well as properly studied, including as a whole in Divine Mercy and Justice, but especially in the full grace of God. Grace that is impossible to have, as he explained by Father Ariel, when you are not in communion with the Church and the Pope. Communion necessary and vital to our soul and to understand far from evil influences what is happening.

  9. At this point it located a question…
    We believe the future pope, a Francis II say, He admitted to the sacrament of marriage Persons with Homosexual Tendencies… it would be in his power?
    They could then be celebrated Catholic marriages between two men or between two women?

    1. … and I could, I, celebrate Gregorian Masses in suffrage for the soul of the chihuahua in an old British noblewoman who gave me 10.000 euro bid?

      sees, my dear, when doing academic examples based on absurd assumptions, the logic to follow is this: the example is more absurd and more needs to be itself and for intelligent and convincing themselves.
      So it worked for centuries in the great theological debates of the Fathers of school.
      Otherwise, is not offended in any way the interlocutor, but is offended only themselves.

      1. Ariel caro … dear! Please: remember me, If you have some customers like that.
        Right now I have the parish accounts in the red, But if you can find any English nobleman so generous, I Masses for the repose of the soul of his little dog I celebrate them to him for 3.000 euro only.

        P.S. I always expect to Naples, do not give me the hole like last time.

      2. Who knows if a century ago had suggested to a theologian and pastor of souls the coming of a pope who would grant the Eucharist to those who live as husband (or a wife) without being married (What Francis did not make but that would be in his power).

        Probably the theologian and pastor of souls would respond in his own way.

        That said, I do not understand where is the limit, and at present it does not seem absurd to even his example, and figures.

        So I repeat and amplio: given what he thinks about homosexuality the great Dominican theologian, Cardinal Schönborn, perhaps the future prefect of the CDF, it is not impossible to imagine a future Francis II, one mons. Tagle to make a name, who decides to grant the sacrament of marriage to same-sex. It would be in his power?

        1. Dear Paul.

          When you play on the paradoxes – What I do frequently – or when using a hyperbole, you have to be more credible than ever.
          first of all, Cardinal Schönborn, He never blessed and sanctified homosexuality, BUSINESS has spoken of persons with homosexual tendencies, of their non-discrimination … which, moreover, the Church does not of course today, but for centuries.

          Marriage to persons of the same sex can not be granted because it is contrary to the divine law and the natural law.

          1. Meanwhile, thank you for the answers.

            Mons. Schönborn has also pushed a little’ a little further, praising a pair of men living together for “how they are helped when one of them fell seriously ill” (interview with CdS). Charity towards the sick is always a good thing, God forbid, But it is quite clear the order affirmation.

            So sex marriage will never be granted, as well as it can not be granted a second marriage who is already married to another person.

            I imagine, as a result, that the Pope could give the opportunity for same-sex partners to receive the Eucharist.

            At this point I stop, I agree with the fact that it gives too much importance to the sixth commandment, also in relation to the fact that they are the first three to be more frequently transgressed.

          2. Dear Paul.

            You yourself understand that the comparison between the divorced and remarried, and same-sex couples “married”, can not hold.
            In the first case, we are in fact in a dimension In addition to nature, in the second case we are in a serious dimension, indeed serious contrary to nature.

            This does not mean that homosexuals should be removed to kick, many of them have a deep Christian feeling, regardless of their state of life in part very delicate and very serious side right in the relationship with the state and the condition of sin.

            I have never had problems, pastorally, nor homosexuals, nor with transsexuals, several of whom are participating with profound devotion to My Sacred Eucharistic celebrations, obviously without approaching the Eucharist.

            pastorally speaking, I had none of the problems, however, when ideologists of gender and dell'omosessualismo promoters have tried to bring their unacceptable reasons and above all immoral, therefore, their ideology and their propaganda in the church; in that case I just dismissed them, Once I literally kicked them out.

            All of these distinctions are de rigueur for a pastor in charge of souls, He called to heal the sick and certainly not healthy, always starting from the principle that, the first ill, we often we, just think of the little moral exploits of many of us priests.

  10. What they write Cavalcoli and Ariel are heretical rantings of people who have made their choice and that is to stay with the “prince of this world” and therefore enemies of Christ, because their numbing ruminations are all aimed at making sin a “right” of the person. And’ the exaltation of blasphemous'”I” instead of God, Satan is the cry of the “non served”. The reason why God has allowed the rise of an antichrist vicar (Bergoglio) It is now clear: the hypocrisy time is over and we are all called to a radical choice for or against Christ; the “false Catholics” trooped for decades in the Church must be discovered.

    1. Thanks Mr.. Bazzorini.

      A fortiori, the Father Giovanni Cavalcoli and I trust in your prayers, together if anything in his bodily mortifications and his penances, to apply for and receive the grace of God our conversion and therefore the salvation of our souls now on their way to eternal damnation.

  11. Don Ariel,
    I am a layman with no infused knowledge claims. I write not to criticize but to understand.

    Your analogy bank the check is very beautiful and useful. But the central bank really guarantees unlimited coverage? It seems to me that there is an implicit limit: the principle of non-contradiction, where the same divine omnipotence conforms. No need to dwell on the difference between the false god believed by the Mohammedans, a purely arbitrary and disvuole who wants to taste, and the true God worshiped by Christians, who is Logos. Just call Regensburg.
    But if God himself is by nature tied to reason, this is when there is a limit, and the Vicar can not overcome it. The power of the keys is "absolute" in the sense that she writes "tied to the concept of founding absoluteness of faith", but it is not "absolute" in the sense of "unlimited". Peter can not change the doctrine, can not revoke the dogmas, He can not contradict what I said yesterday today. Because Christ does not specify these limits in the Gospel? The only answer I can think of: because they are obvious.

    Thank you for your attention and I remember in my prayers

    1. Yes, they are obvious.
      Indeed, obviously, nothing of this in the story of Peter's Church has ever done.
      No coincidence I explained that

      "That the Pope heretic and apostate is merely a hypothesis canonical; hypothesis that in the history of the Church has never occurred, let alone resulting in dismissal of the Roman Pontiff ".

      Add to this that in the course of Church history, When outside of the great ecumenical councils dogmatic some Popes have proclaimed the dogmas, I am sure you do not wake up one morning proclaiming a dogma afternoon, but have “dogmatizzato”, or so to say “sealed”, the truths of faith which as such had already been taken for centuries, both the doctrine and the piety, just think of all the Marian dogmas.

      In the Church's history we have had the Popes that as men were sometimes corrupt, simonists, immoral, libertini … yet, just a few of them, including Alexander VI – that figure is quite different from the black legend about him created – necessary were the wonderful Defenders of the doctrine, without ever making abuse of the power of the keys, the power of binding and loosing, in the field of doctrine.

  12. Dear brother.
    If there's one thing to you and to Father Giovanni Cavalcoli must be recognized, is your constant meticulous research dell'equibrio. you are not right and you are not left, not for Tom sided sided and not for Caio … seek truth, try to explain it and try to pass it.
    This implies, however,, as you wrote long ago, often having to take beatings from right and left.
    I think that your article deserves to be defined masterful, and I really hope that many confused to read it from cover to cover, and that many other, ready to understand only their own reasons, understand what fundamental are you saying … you are saying “you are Peter”, and explain what it means “the rock on which I will build my church;”.

  13. It publishes only a small part of the comment
    the editors


    Caro father Ariel,

    She continues to insist that it is in the faculties of the Church change the rules of sacramental discipline also allowing remarried divorcees who do not live chastely to receive the Holy Eucharist […]

    1. Caro Atanasio.

      She posted there in four comments a text that matches 6.800 characters, in practice four A4 sheets.
      Given that the priest and I do not live on the internet course, I limited myself to just take his two first lines, to which I reply grieved in these terms: She is proof, love and frustrating, for a pastor in the care of souls and for a theologian, than it is useless to waste time and energy to explain what many subjects, has climbed, refuse a priori to understand.

      I could answer with a certain irritation “I do not take lessons in theology from her”, and beat them in the face one after another all the gross doctrinal error of which is peppered his talkative comment.

      Rather I not say so, indeed thank you for putting me in a position to understand even better the perfect humanity of the Word of God made man when he felt pain and bitterness in front of those who not only, They did not want to listen to his word, my the travisavano, the alteravano, They are trying to find footholds in his speeches to attack …

      May the Lord have mercy of Catholics like her.

      1. Father Ariel Caro, is right to say that the people of God and’ disoriented but try to ask who they and’ the cause, let stand his preparation that often leads to pride, especially when attacks “improvised canonists” and wonder why more’ three years do nothing but to get ( to hundreds…). purposely ambiguous statements and behaviors that are in fact dividing the Church. She asks strictly theological arguments and I can not give them to him, but we both know that the Lord and’ Lord of the ignorant and the humble who are precisely those “improvised canonists” He evidently has chosen at this time perceiving that “wise” They would have betrayed! And’ what I think ( and for that I tell) of all those who instead of defending what’ Christ said they lose time attacking those that do so, showing, however, a preparation that then in fact and’ precisely because of their ignorance … and ignorance! Its one thing but’ I agree: ” Ubi Petrus, Church was there “, BUT REMEMBER THAT WE HAVE TWO POPES IN VATICAN even though I know that in this respect will show off’ ” ARGUMENTS STRICTLY…

        1. Dear reader.

          She offered to readers of’Patmos Island confirms what has always I argue on the basis of that pastoral experience as a priest that she – willingly or unwillingly – it has not an. And experience tells me this: it is much easier to convert to the Gospel an atheist, rather than one which assumes, as she, to be a believer.

          She did not understand a pipe Emeritus of what though clearly I wrote, But think to discussing, umoralmente e aggressivamente, in tones, however insulting.

          I remember them, incidentally, that the teaching, I received it I; and I have not received “culture” or for “diploma”, but I received it through a sacrament of grace which is called the Sacrament of Orders.

          thus learn, first, the respect of the art, I do not say the person, but at least the indelible and eternal Sacrament which marked this person makes him participate in the ministerial priesthood of Christ.

          And may God have mercy on the subject as she!

    2. The problem, Atanasio, It is that she not only understands what you want to understand, but it does not read just what Ariel father wrote:

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

      So I join too invoked the punishment of my brother on her.

Comments are closed.