— Letters from the readers of Patmos island —

ABOUT “DIVIDED RESPONSE: The LEFEBVRISTS, MODERNISTS AND … "THE STARS LOOK DOWN" …

.

The “problem of the Schism” is twofold and exists from 50 year old: There is the four cats lefevriani, but scratch a lot, officially schismatics; and that unofficial, but far more serious, bold and arrogant, Modernists and rahneriani, otherwise known “gooders” — But woe to touch them! —, shameless sycophants of the Pope, and they are legion.

.

.

Author
John Cavalcoli OP

.

.

Reverend Father John Cavalcoli.

I had already reported the writings on the theme of father Thomas Michelet, discordant in positions , Sandro Magister now proposes a new. «Discordant Synod. Towards a "schism" in the Church?» [cf. WHO]. Dominican theologian Thomas Michelet lays bare the ambiguities of the synodal text. Who did not drive but covered the divisions. The conflict between the "hermeneutic of continuity" and "hermeneutic of rupture". Francesco's dilemma …

Hector

.

.

Dear Reader.

There are modernist infiltration, filoprotestanti and rahneriane within the episcopate and the same College of Cardinals, under the innocent and Honorable of label “progressism“, It has become increasingly evident, with his irresponsible "do-goodism" and perdonismo, where is less a sense of sin and falls in what the Council of Trent call “Vana haereticorum trust“.

Ma, as if that wasn't enough, What is circulated clandestinely and leaked to the Synod, It is also an lefevriana infiltration, chiara appeared in some short-sighted and hard conservatism, disguised as a zeal for orthodoxy, and in the Pharisaic stiffness, which, blaming the divorced and remarried almost like damned souls of hell, has undertaken the task of safeguarding the law inflessiblimete of the exclusion of divorced and remarried the sacraments, almost like a sacred tradition, warning the Pope who peremptorily also, If this law were to change, would fall into heresy.

These shady ideas in circulation underground or open, especially among theologians and theologasters improvised or hired for the occasion, of course, not come to light in the final motion of the Synod, that is not at all ambiguous, but is geared to great caution and balance, without explicitly touching, as was convenient, the sensitive issue, but merely saggiamenre to offer the dogmatic bases, Ecclesiological, moral and legal, the Holy Father will need to enter, If you believe, and to take a decision, We all await with confidence, which it is. Also missing the decision, It is clear that there remains in force the present law. To about, the letter is exemplary of the Archbishop of Ferrara-Comacchio Mons. Negri to his diocese, We posted these last days [cf. WHO, WHO].

As regards the question of the Schism, It is twofold and exists from 50 year old: There is the four cats lefevriani, but scratch a lot, officially schismatics; and that unofficial, but far more serious, bold and arrogant, Modernists and rahneriani, otherwise known “gooders” — But woe to touch them! —, shameless sycophants of the Pope, and they are legion.

It does not seem that the Pope is able to master the situation chaotic: clubbing the hard lefevriani, did nothing but stir up their pride and their hatred against him, so today the Pope is openly accused of heresy, which was not the case since Luther.

As for the modernists, that, After a rise to power that lasts for decades, you are now possessed of a big chunk of ecclesiastical power, should be recognize themselves — at a minimum — schismatics and to repent, should punish their accomplices, ma, blinded by power and conseguìto “taking glory from each other”, are clearly lontanissmi from doing so, considering themselves, on the contrary, the vanguard of Church progress, and persecuting the Orthodox and faithful to the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church.

The Pope's attitude towards them brings to mind the famous novel by Kronin: “And the stars are watching”.

.

.

.

.

ABOUT “DIVORCED AND RESPONDED“. THE POWER GRANTED BY CHRIST TO PETER TO "BIND" AND "DISSOLVE"

.

There are cases of priests that without ceasing to be such receive the exemption from active exercise the sacred Ministry and dismissal from the clerical State, obtained which they can also marry and receive the sacrament of marriage. In other times this was neither possible nor foreseen by the ecclesiastical disciplines, indeed it was just unthinkable.

.

..

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

..

“A te [Pietro] I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and everything you melt on earth will be melted in heaven " [Mt. 16,19]

.

.

.

Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo carrying the Gospels in procession during a solemn celebration presided over by a Bishop

In 2011, in a remote country chapel outside Rome I celebrated at 7 on a Monday morning the wedding of a man who could be improperly defined “former priest“, not to mention the pejorative popular term of “spretato“. Neither friends nor relatives were present at the sacred celebration, only four witnesses and the couple's five-year-old daughter, born from this clandestine relationship two years before the priest - at the time pastor - made a request to renounce the exercise of the sacred priestly ministry, pushed to that effect by me, as soon as he became his confessor, in a decisive and even pressing way.

Overflight on the way “indecent“ in which over the years I have seen various bishops manage more or less similar situations. So I take an example among many, that of the classic ill-formed priest, coming from a situation of hardship and poverty in a developing country, just ordered 24 years in Italy by one of our bishops without aspirants to the priestly life and for this reason particularly “hungry of priests”. Between one escapade and another, the young priest ends up establishing a stable relationship with one of his parishioners, who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a creature. The concern of the then diocesan bishop, later of his successor, was to send the priest away by sending him around the world, with results that are anything but positive, because if the priest was not “generated” first, it can hardly be later, especially in the face of certain troubles that are always very difficult to manage. In the meantime, the priest's lover, she goes to the Bishop and informs him that the creature that has come to light belongs to one of his priests and that she needs the necessary financial means to maintain and raise her. Established through DNA examination that the creature really belonged to the priest, the Diocese discreetly took charge of it; I hope not through the Otto per Mille funds paid by our faithful for the sustenance of the Church and its priests, not for that of the lovers and the offspring of some presbyters. In fact, if someone had to provide out of his own pocket to repair the damage of that priest, this was the bishop who had ordained him, that in terms of filling his pockets, among other things, he had not gone slow in making a fuss. The new bishop makes an agreement with the bishop of another diocese hundreds of kilometers away and places the priest elsewhere. Because this is often the “prudent” e “wise” act of many of our bishops: not address the root problem but “solve it” moving the problematic priest from one side to the other. A completely different story than the way I am, moved by different mercy and understanding, but also by acting on severe imperatives of conscience, in my capacity as confessor I imposed on the brother just described to leave as soon as possible the exercise of the sacred priestly ministry and to assume all his responsibilities as a parent. Thank God I'm not a bishop though “wise” and especially “prudent” which speaks of the supreme and intangible values politicians della famiglia e dei figli in casa degli altri, salvo fare però disastri in casa propria.

Questi due esempi diversi per far notare come a volte la Chiesa risolva le situazioni di alcuni di coloro che sono stati segnati col carattere indelebile ed eterno del Sacro ordine sacerdotale, presupposto del quale è anche la solenne promessa di mantenersi celibi. Ma, al di là del celibato, resta il fatto che questo sacro ordine imprime un nuovo carattere dal quale ne consegue una trasformazione ontologica. E sia chiaro per inciso che il celibato non è, come certi pseudo-studiosi vanno cianciando da tempo in giro, una «mera legge ecclesiastica codificata solo dal Concilio di Trento» (!?), perché il celibato è una tradizione che affonda le proprie radici sin dalla prima epoca apostolica. Il primo esempio di celibato, o il farsi «eunuchi per il regno dei cieli» [cf. Mt 19, 11-12], ci viene dato da Verbo di Dio Incarnato. È vero che diversi degli apostoli, fatta eccezione per i giovani, erano sposati, ma è anche vero che per seguire il Signore Gesù lasciarono le proprie famiglie, le proprie ricchezze e il proprio passato; non a caso la svolta radicale di diversi di questi Apostoli fu segnata anche dal cambio del loro stesso nome, a partire da Pietro e Paolo, nati rispettivamente Shimon e Shaul. Coloro che come l’Apostolo Giovanni non erano sposati, non si sposarono mai. È vero che in passato, nei primi secoli di vita della Chiesa, there were priests called improperly “married”, but we forget that to receive the sacred order they had to follow the example of the Blessed Apostles: "Left everything they followed him" [cf. LC 5, 1-11]. So, these married men, to become priests they left their families, provided that they were equipped with the necessary means of subsistence. And to receive the sacred order the married man, in addition to leaving their family, he had to have the consent given freely by his wife; just as happens today when the Church ordains permanent deacons of married men.

However, there are cases of priests who without ceasing to be such they receive the dispensation from the active exercise of the sacred ministry and the dismissal from the clerical state, obtained which they can also marry and receive the sacrament of marriage. In other times this was neither possible nor foreseen by the ecclesiastical disciplines, indeed it was just unthinkable, because only one was the way to dismiss a priest from the exercise of the sacred ministry: the excommunication imposed by the Ecclesiastical Authority for reasons related to very serious moral and doctrinal reasons; and to the priests excommunicated and dismissed from the clerical state, in the past it was not allowed to marry, sometimes not even civilly. Article no. 5 of the text of the old Concordat stipulated between State and Church in 1929 [cf. WHO] provided, in agreement with the Civil Authority, some limitations that speak for themselves and which are precisely the result of this ancient heritage:

.

"No clergyman can be hired or remain in a job or office of the Italian State or of public entities dependent on it without the authorization of the diocesan Ordinary. The revocation of the nulla osta deprives the clergyman of the ability to continue to exercise the employment or office assumed. In any case, apostate or censored priests cannot be employed or kept in teaching, in an office or a job, in which they are in immediate contact with the public ".

.

It is soon said what a miserable end it was reserved for those priests who abandoned the ministry without having a family behind them capable of supporting them, or if with premeditated calculation they had not previously subtracted from the parishes entrusted to them the necessary money to be able to support themselves, always assuming that they had been parish priests or rectors of churches where money circulated. Questo il motivo per il quale in passato le situazioni di concubinato dei chierici erano in parte conosciute e in parte tollerate, perché un presbìtero non più in grado di sostenere gli impegni assunti attraverso la sacra ordinazione, o viveva in uno stato di grave irregolarità, oppure si sarebbe condannato alla morte civile e ad una vita miserabile, anche perché in certe situazioni passate di cosiddetto caesaropapism, alla dura scomunica che avrebbe colpito il sacerdote fuggitivo avrebbe fatto seguito la durezza politica ancora maggiore del braccio secolare.

Qualcuno potrebbe obbiettare che il Sacramento dell’Ordine e il Sacramento del Matrimonio sono due Sacramenti diversi regolati come tali da due diverse discipline, and it is true, basti solo pensare che il primo, imprime un carattere indelebile ed eterno che comporta una trasformazione ontologica; il secondo non imprime invece un nuovo carattere e non è eterno perché dura per tutta la durata della vita degli sposi.

Se secondo le discipline attuali un uomo sposato, con moglie e figli, non può essere ordinato sacerdote poiché privo del requisito dello stato celibatario, viceversa un sacerdote non può ricevere il Sacramento del Matrimonio, Why “non compatibile” — sempre secondo le attuali discipline canoniche — col Sacramento dell’Ordine, salvo dispensa data dalla Sede Apostolica e come tale regolamentata da precise leggi ecclesiastiche, l’ultima in ordine di serie la Costituzione Apostolica Anglicanorum Coetibus of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI [cf. WHO]. Esistono infatti casi rari e molto particolari che come tali richiedono sempre di essere trattati a sé. Proprio quel concetto che oggi spaventa tanto certi rigoristi e legalisti quando viene fatto cenno al fatto che non esiste la casistica monolitica de “the divorced and remarried“, because often, ciascuna di queste situazioni umane, è una situazione tutta quanta a sé, non trattabile come tale secondo gli schemi rigidi e ben definiti del “Traffic laws”. O come di recente ho risposto ad un nostro lettore: «Dinanzi a certi problemi, non si può installare l’speed cameras e poi dire: the limit was 130, you were going to 140, so you're wrong, ti prendi la multa, la paghi e chiusa la questione. Nella morale cattolica e nella disciplina dei Sacramenti, le cose non funzionano propriamente così; e se così qualcuno pretende di farle funzionare, in tal caso va applicata la saggia massima che qualsiasi rigorismo applicato con rigore matematico rende disumana e immorale la morale e la legge».

Cos’è accaduto quando qualche sacerdote fuggitivo ha contratto matrimonio religioso cattolico senza avere ricevuto la prevista dispensa e nascondendo il proprio status di chierico? Il matrimonio è stato dichiarato invalido, come invalide sono state dichiarate le sacre ordinazioni sacerdotali ed episcopali di uomini sposati fatte da qualche vescovo uscito dalla Comunione ecclesiale, come nel recente caso di Emmanuel Milingo, già Arcivescovo di Lusaka; e ciò al di là della validità delle sue potestà apostoliche. Merita infatti ricordare che questo anziano vescovo scomunicato per le sue svariate “stravaganze”, rimane comunque un vescovo dotato di tutte le potestà sacramentali proprie dell’episcopato; potestà il cui esercizio gli è stato interdetto prima con la sospensione a divinis e poi con la scomunica, ma la sacramentale pienezza del sacerdozio apostolico ricevuta rimane un sigillo indelebile che nessuno gli può togliere.

La sacramentaria è da sempre uno dei rami più complessi e delicati delle discipline dogmatiche e chiunque desideri essere serio non si lancia in certi temi portando a suffragio delle proprie opinioni peregrine stralci del Catechismo e brandelli male intesi estrapolati dal Magistero della Chiesa, a partire dal pluri citato n. 84 from the Family member company, meno che mai citando come the word of God articoli di giornalisti aventi come supremo merito un ferreo spirito “anti-bergogliano“, che li ha fatti ormai sprofondare nel più penoso e pietoso sedevacantismo, a difesa non si sa bene di quale fede e di quale Chiesa [cf. articolo di Giovanni Cavalcoli, WHO].

L’accademico pontificio Giovanni Cavalcoli, con tutta la sua autorevolezza, io con autorevolezza parecchio minore, abbiamo scritto e parlato di queste tematiche di straordinaria delicatezza dottrinale e disciplinare dalle colonne dell’Patmos Island, ottenendo due diversi risultati: le persone predisposte all’ascolto, hanno ragionato e trovato spesso risposta ai loro quesiti. Le persone chiuse all’ascolto, quindi alla possibilità di qualsiasi discussione, ci hanno invece bollati come eretici, modernisti e traditori, salvo poi lanciarsi in autentici sproloqui derivanti da una “faith” mutata in ideology policy, o presumendo di poter praticare agevolmente dei “terreni minati” così delicati da spaventare anche teologi valenti ed esperti, ma non particolarmente addentro a queste specifiche e delicate questioni. E proprio dinanzi a complessi temi dottrinali e giuridici così delicati, lo stesso Pietro ha reputato opportuno convocare un apposito Sinodo sulla Famiglia, per ascoltare il parere di una congrua rappresentanza dell’episcopato mondiale.

In a conciliar or synodal assembly, come da settimane vanno ripetendo i Padri dell’Patmos Island of these columns, all possibilities must be explored and examined, even the most absurd; even those bordering on heresy, perché discutere non vuol dire affatto “sancire”,”to establish”, “modificare”, “to deny” O “delete” in alcun modo delle discipline, least of all to undermine the dogma or the substance of the sacraments.

Noto invece con profondo e autentico dolore che un esercito di laici in vena di puri scontri politicians portati avanti dietro falsi pretesti dottrinali, si muovono con incredibile sicumera come elefanti dentro una vetrina di cristalli, lanciando moniti, lezioni e richiami ai Vescovi, ma soprattutto al Romano Pontefice. Perché quando in uno scritto vergato da due stolte auto-elettesi supremi difensori della vera fede, si legge «Il Papa deve imparare che …» quindi «se non ha imparato è bene che impari», purtroppo il discorso è tristemente chiuso nel microcosmo di tutte le loro stoltezze pseudo-teologiche e psuedo-dottrinali. Non chiuso da me o da chicchessia, ma chiuso dalla volontà di persone che in nome di una non meglio precisata “faith” si rifiutano di ragionare, non cogliendo così il basilare elemento filosofico e metafisico di Faith and Reason, ed appresso vantandosi pure di non voler usare alcuna ratio e anteponendo la frase: «There is no arguing about this!». E detta in termini sia teologici sia pastorali, il tutto costituisce una pericolosa chiusura alle azioni della grazia di Dio.

Cari cattolici e cattoliche in vena di scontri politici su pretesti dottrinali, vi rendete conto che se molti dei Padri riuniti a Nicea e appresso negli altri grandi concilî dogmatici della Chiesa, they had said: «There is no arguing about this!», thus acting accordingly, today we would not have, I am not referring to the evolution of the discipline of the Sacraments over the centuries, we would not even have had the correct perception of the Incarnation of the Word, of the human and divine nature of Christ God [hypostasi]? But there's more: we wouldn't even be Christians, bensì solo una “sètta eretica” di ebreo-gesuani sviluppatasi nell’antica Giudea e poi diffusasi in giro per il mondo.

Di recente ho scritto un lungo articolo nel quale indico quelli che a mio parere sono certi difetti umani dell’uomo Jorge Mario Bergoglio [cf. WHO], ma ribadendo che certi suoi difetti umani non intaccano in alcun modo quelle che per mistero di grazia sono le sue potestà di Romano Pontefice, di roccia sulla quale Cristo ha edificato la sua Chiesa, dando ad esso una gravosa funzione vicaria legata a uno degli elementi fondanti del deposit of credit. To Pietro, il Verbo di Dio ha dato potere di «legare» e di «sciogliere» [cf. Mt 16, 13-20], pertanto il problema non dovrebbe essere la ipotesi stolta, well as impossible, del Sommo Pontefice che cade in eresia o in apostasia dalla fede; il problema dovrebbe essere invece la docilità delle pecore verso il Pastore, assieme alla certezza di fede che per quanto difettoso il Pastore possa essere, in certi suoi atti di magistero e di governo gode di una speciale assistenza dello Spirito Santo. Il problema dovrebbe esser quindi il rifuggire l’eresia da parte di certe pecore pompate da certi teologi rigoristi che non distinguono il dogma dalle leggi umane e dalle loro stesse opinioni, la sostanza inalterabile dei Sacramenti dalla disciplina dei Sacramenti ripetutamente modificata nel corso dei secoli. Sono quindi certi teologi e certe pecorelle smarrite che rischiano seriamente di scivolare in un’eresia generata peraltro dal primo dei peccati capitali, perché pensare superbamente di poter sindacare ciò che eventualmente Pietro potrà decidere di «legare» o di «sciogliere», oppure cosa lasciare legato e cosa non sciogliere mai, è in sé e di per sé empietà, ed a volte anche eresia, perché neppure l’opinione di un concilio ecumenico è superiore alla volontà e alle decisioni di Pietro, alla cui volontà e decisione l’assemblea conciliare o sinodale deve sempre sottostare, and today, il nostro Pietro, è il Santo Padre Francesco.

È pertanto cosa penosa e stolta che certi rigoristi scrivano trionfanti: «Quella “frase ambigua” è passata al Sionodo per un solo voto!». And note well, ad attaccarsi a “voti” e “maggioranze” sono proprio i rigoristi, quelli che in pectore risognano le glorie del vecchio Stato Pontificio, la tiara, la sedia gestatoria ed i flaubelli, il connubio trono e altare, ma pur malgrado ignorantemente dimentichi che Pietro ascolta chi vuole e se vuole, decidendo a prescindere dai voti e dalle maggioranze, perché lui ha una speciale grazia di stato derivante da un potere vicario che ad esso perviene da Cristo Dio in persona, non dai voti di maggioranza o di minoranza delle assemblee. Il Santo Padre potrebbe alzarsi domani mattina, prendere un tale che passa per la strada e consacrarlo vescovo e conferire poi la dignità cardinalizia a Sor Romoletto che vende cicoria in Campo dei Fiori. Potrebbe canonizzare seduta stante la defunta Sora Lella, ex venditrice di arachidi in Trastevere, senza seguire alcuna delle procedure fissate dal Codice di Diritto Canonico e senza chiedere conto alcuno alla Congregazione per le cause dei santi. E nessuno potrebbe invalidare il suo operato, perché il tutto rientra in quelle sue potestà non soggette come tali a sindacato alcuno. Ma tutto questo, i rigoristi, sembrano esserselo dimenticato.

Tutt’oggi taluni mi rimproverano di essere stato «irriverente» nei riguardi del Cardinale Raymond Leonard Burke. Sincerely, più che irriverente sono stato severo, perché un porporato che si presta a essere strumentalizzato da certi circoli di “alabardieri tradizionalisti” che lanciano critiche inaccettabili all’operato del Sommo Pontefice, verso il quale mettono in scena persino illogici processi alle sue intenzioni, non è né prudente né sapiente; e come tale e in quanto tale non merita d’esser preso sul serio, ma solo d’esser preso allegramente, assieme a tutti i suoi sostenitori ed i suoi ricchi benefattori dell’ultra destra americana che urlano «all’eresia, to heresy!», «allo scisma, allo scisma!». Non giriamo quindi le carte sul tavolo mutando gli offensori di professione in vergini vilipese, because it's them, scritto dietro scritto e conferenza dietro conferenza a mancare gravemente di rispetto alla Somma Autorità del Principe degli Apostoli, non sono certo io a mancare di rispetto a un Cardinale che lasciandosi invitare, intervistare ed elevare a vessillo dell’opposizione verso un Sommo Pontefice che starebbe niente meno «guidando la Chiesa verso la deriva dottrinale» — ed il tutto senza mai una sua chiara smentita in proposito riguardo certa gente che a tal fine lo usa in opposizione al Santo Padre —, si palesa di fatto per quello che è: un imprudente irresponsabile.

that .

Where Peter, Church was there.

Amen!

.

.

.

THEOLOGICAL DEBATES – REPLICA OF JOHN CARR TO CRITICISM OF ANTONIO LIVI

.

I have said on many occasions that we do not know what the Holy Father will decide and that we must be available to maintain the current law that some its change. We tell the conservatives that the current law is not untouchable and the innovators that the dogma is not changeable. As is the case in the mystery of the incarnation, so it is in Christian morality and family: We must reduce the eternal in time, without eternizzare the storm and without temporalizzare the eternal.

.

Author
John Cavalcoli OP

.

.

the Pontifical academician John Carlson

.Monsignor Antonio Livi has published Apostolic Union website Faith and Reason [cf. WHO] an article entitled "In defense of the Catholic truth about marriage", in which he addresses many objections to me. The article was also reported by press agency Correspondence Romana [cf. WHO] and the online magazine Levied Christian [cf. WHO], and from various other sites and blogs, several of which have been limited to only report the criticisms addressed to me, looking though the return my texts published with my answers, all of them available on’Patmos Island, which thousands of visitors access every day, and that suggests that many readers went definitely read what I've written really.

We review the questions raised by Antonio Livi and give each answer.

.

1. I immediately replied, arguing that the pastoral and canonical consideration of the divorced and remarried as faithful obliged to come out of their "state of sin" cannot be considered contrary to the Magisterium and therefore theologically unfounded..

.

I have already explained elsewhere what can be understood by "state of sin". However, I repeat it. If by "state of sin" we mean that the cohabitants, under the single and simple situation, where there are, I'm permanently and necessarily, twenty-four hours a day to fall short of the grace of God, as if they were damned souls of hell, almost with the pretense of scrutinizing the depths of conscience known only to God, well, There is no doubt that this would be a rash judgment. If instead with that expression means the stable situation, which can be independent of the will of the two, in which they are taken easily to Sin, the expression may be acceptable, though it may seem ambiguous and may lead to understand it in the first meaning. Better to talk about a "dangerous situation", or use the term "irregular Union legal" or that "unlawful" morale [cf. doc. the, 1979, his The pastoral care of marriage of the divorced and remarried and living in difficult or irregular situations, WHO, WHO].

.

2. According To Carlson, "Sin is only a single act" that runs out when it is committed and does not give rise to a "state" or permanent condition of the soul: but this is an unfounded theory.

.

I never said that sin does not give rise to a permanent state or condition in the soul. I argue just the opposite, that is what Antonio Livi claims. I simply said that sin is not to be confused with the situation resulting from the Sin itself, fault situation, which can be more or less durable. Partners can and must terminate voluntarily anytime this inner situation with repentance, While you can make it impossible to stop the coexistence. In fact, however, one of the two can repent and the other cannot.

.

3. There is a semantic illogicality contained in the definition of sin as a "willed act, avoidable and winnable» (because what should be "winnable" not voluntary, but the disordered passion that drives the subject to it).

.

The will does not always and only have to overcome the passion, but also itself in the acts that are exhausted within the will itself and do not involve a relationship with passion. Will can be evil in itself, unrelated to the passions. In the event to, will must win herself. For instance, an intention of heresy, resides exclusively in the will. This, to return to the Orthodox intention, he must win and annul that intention of the will itself.

.

4. Carr thinks he can then say that the rules contained therein – starting with the one for which the divorced and remarried are excluded from Eucharistic communion – they are only one possible pastoral application among many possible ones, making it perfectly plausible – he says – hope that actually are taken completely different standards.

.

Christ commands us to feed His body. This is the divine law. But there are many ways to be able to apply it or not be able to apply it. In fact, he entrusted to Peter [Mt 16, 19] the task of regulating, determine or establish in detail about, come, When, where is that, under what circumstances, under what conditions and why allow or forbid access to Eucharistic Communion to the various categories of faithful. I don't see what is strange about this practice, that the Church has always at its discretion to the same mandate of the Lord.

.

5. Carr believes the dogma is perfectly compatible with a new law under which, even when the sacramental forgiveness denied (because the penitent was unable to show the minister of penance his sincere and effective decision to get out of the state of sin), the faithful can access the Communion if God forgives him otherwise. But how does a law of the Church predict the occurrence of this event of grace?? The church, at any level, can never become aware of when and how you can verify the justification of the sinner in the secret of his conscience and extrasacramentale. If the Church, aware of its limitations, in the new law proposed by Cavalcoli, simply faithful councelling set conscientiously, in practice we would return to traditional canon law, based on what was established by the Council of Trent: to access the faithful Communion must be certain in conscience about not being in mortal sin.

.

The law or the licence or permit that can be hoped for communion for divorced and remarried persons in special cases, Let the faithful recognize if he is in a State of grace necessary to access Communion. It is obvious that it is always the obligation of the Council of Trent, given that actually is based on the words of Saint Paul. Except that in our case the Church would allow for divorced and remarried persons to check themselves each time, How should you do any good faithful, whether or not the inner conditions suitable to receive communion. At this point, It is clear that the Church could and should give them even the sacramental confession.

.

6. But how does – at present – a divorced remarried to have the certainty that God has granted him in the secret of his conscience that forgiveness and that return to the grace of God the Church denied him in the celebration of the sacrament of penance, because they lack the qualifications required to demonstrate a genuine repentance?

.

If the Church denies the divorced and remarried the Sacraments, It has no power on the grace extrasacramentale, God only to the mysterious designs of his mercy. It is not necessary for the divorced remarried show confessor repentance: just that God manifests them. However, in the case that the Church would grant Fellowship, he should also grant Confession.

.

7. Many theologians (with which Cavalcoli seems to agree) envisage what the final document of the Synod calls, in a very vague way, «accompaniment and discernment ". But here too: What kind of discernment may have a extrasacramentale priest who serves as a spiritual counselor, a parish priest or the Bishop of the diocese? And on the basis of what knowledge of the action of grace in the soul of that single penitent and on the basis of what instruments of discernment can they authorize the faithful to approach Communion?

.

It is necessary and sufficient that the priest checks if the subject has repented, If it is correct, If you want to improve, If it follows its guidelines, if you want to do penance, if he participates in ecclesial and civil life, If the care work, family and friends. Can then propose an ad hoc spiritual journey, you use the gifts God has given him his human qualities and service to others and the Church. As the Bishop, can possibly prepare a manual that, applying the general laws of the Church for these situations, provides guidelines and recommendations, especially for the most difficult cases, confessors, to spiritual guides, to teachers, educators, to the parishes, families, to the institutes of the diocese on how to deal with these people, How to accommodate their human contribution and faith, How to help them and correct them fraternally.

.

8. What is absolutely not possible is precisely what Cavalcoli thinks should be done and it is foreseeable that it will be done, i.e. establish that some local authorities (bishop, Pastor, Chaplain) they can judge me "from outside" that a person who is not able to receive sacramental absolution is back in "State of grace" (and therefore can receive Communion) through an intimate act of repentance (that would be ineffective, that is not enough to obtain sacramental absolution) and an absolving grace of an extrasacramental type.

.

The confessor has the authority to discern and judge If the penitent exist or no goodwill, based on the way to accuse of sins and signs giving of repentance and faith in God's mercy. And the penitent himself, enlightened by his faith, after an appropriate examination of conscience, based on the testimony of good conscience, is qualified to declare anyone fearlessly their innocence before God, recovering, following the example of the Apostle, to divine judgment, that searches hearts. How to repent, It is effective, even without sacramental absolution, because God provides to forgive him. It is therefore hoped that the Church will also grant sacramental confession.

.

9. Cavalcoli's speech does not agree with logic. The law of the Church concerning the "state of grace" to be admitted to Communion appeals to the discernment of the subject himself who is required to examine his conscience (eventually, with the prudent advice of a confessor "in foro interno"), as already established by the Council of Trent teaches that when the faithful must discern for themselves, in conscience, If you find it or not in mortal sin. This means that, logically, a human moral law waiver to provide all types of specific cases in which a person can be sure that you are not obliged to observe. Therefore, if the new pastoral practice requested by some synod fathers (and father Carr) it takes the form of a law which expressly provides for certain cases of exception to the rule, then one cannot speak of a different application of the same theological criterion possible of previous law. In short, the truth is that with this proposal the Familiaris consortio is abolished, as its explicit doctrine is substantially contradicted by another doctrine, albeit implicit. The go repeating, How does Carr, that it is just a different application of the same prudential practice doctrine is a mere rhetorical device.

.

Any new law should not expect "all types of specific cases in which a person can be sure that you are not obliged to observe it". That would be actually impossible. Nor should "make explicit provision for certain types of exception to the rule". The new law, instead, could maintain the current one of exclusion from the sacraments, just give a few examples of possible cases of exception to the law, but in a purely indicative form, website not, without claiming to exhaust all possible cases, but giving space to the work of careful discernment of the Confessor or the Bishop. If a Church law it contradicts another, there is no need to be alarmed. You may indicate a thousand examples of this in the history of ecclesiastical legislation. Just think of the prohibition on women for millennia to serve at the altar, prohibition that was overcome by allowing women to proclaim the Readings of the Mass or to distribute Communion to the faithful. So don't be scandalized or do a drama, if on this point the Family member company will be changed. How many reform laws implemented by the Second Vatican Council abolished or changed, since they are ecclesiastical and not divine laws. I have already discussed the difference between these two kinds of laws in recent articles on’Patmos Island [cf. WHO, WHO, WHO], so I'm not going back above.

.

10. The doctrine of Carr is incorrect: consists in attributing to the Magisterium prior knowledge of cases in which the divine grace, providing exceptionally to the saving action guaranteed by it in the ordinary way by the administration of the sacraments. But is this the only ordinary way that the Magisterium may know because he knows – not for human science or private revelation but only for public disclosure – that Christ has entrusted him to establish his Church. A new moral law that abolished the indissolubility?

.

No way. What does indissolubility have to do with it? It is not about, I repeat for the umpteenth time, of "moral law", which, as contained in divine revelation, it is divine law for us Christians: but of Church law, that ultimately, although dictated by utmost prudence and descended from dogma, still remains a positive human law, changing how all human laws. "To attribute to the Magisterium prior knowledge of cases in which the divine grace, providing exceptionally to the saving action guaranteed by it in the ordinary way by the administration of the sacraments, a priori knowledge of cases in which the divine grace, providing exceptionally to the saving action guaranteed by it in the ordinary way by the administration of the sacraments "? This is absolutely not at this, like I said, it is not a question of programming the freedom of the Holy Spirit, but to put in place a flexible and supernatural prudence, as well as an enlightened charity, worthy of the heart of Christ, that put us in listening to the needs of souls and make us wise discernment assess the diversity of cases and situations, in order to bring the law of the Gospel and the scent of eternal life.

.

11. Carr suggests that Pope's intentions are clear and binding, in the sense of wanting just what he's proposing with such ardor dialectic, that is a standard specification "" which puts the bishops the right to evaluate "in foro interno" grant opportunities, case by case, access to Communion for the divorced and remarried. Dominican theologian does not mention, but you should know that in the debate on the family on the occasion of the Synod many proposed a new ecclesiastical law, on the basis of a new doctrine, abolish the Familiaris consortio, and with it the principle of the indissolubility of marriage.

.

I have said on many occasions that we do not know what the Holy Father will decide and that we must be available to maintain the current law that some its change. We tell the conservatives that the current law is not untouchable and the innovators that the dogma is not changeable. As is the case in the mystery of the incarnation, so it is in Christian morality and family: We must reduce the eternal in time, without eternizzare the storm and without temporalizzare the eternal.

.

.

Varazze, 29 October 2015

.

.

.