JOY OF LOVE. Lust and marriage. THOUGHT OF THE APOSTLE PAUL

 

.

In St. Paul it is clear that for him the man-woman relationship corresponds to the upper-lower ratio [The Cor 11, 7-9; 14,34; The Tm 2, 11-14]. But these are his ideas. The doctrine instead of her husband, "head of the wife" [Ef 5, 22-33] it's another thing. Indeed, while on the subject general "Man-woman" feel Paul with his rabbinical misogynism, in the doctrine of the relationship husband wife certainly it shines the beauty of God's Word, that does not go, and that was confirmed and deepened by the Council, that has come to affirm that "their union constitutes the first form of communion of persons"

.

.

.

.

PDF print format article

.

.

Writes John Cavalcoli: "Unfortunately it was realized for centuries that here Paul does not truly reflect the vision of Genesis and even the evangelical" [ed. WHO]. there, John was needed Cavalcoli to say that St. Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, the greatest missionary and evangelist in the history of the Church "does not truly reflect the vision of Genesis and even the evangelical". Then who, of grace, It reflects authentically? Expenses, after 2000 year old, It realized that Paul was not inspired by the Holy Spirit but by lust when he wrote his epistles? But John Cavalcoli, obviously! Most learned of San Girolamo, deepest of Sant 'Agostino, wittiest most of St. Thomas, slimmest of St. Bonaventure. More inspired by the Spirit. there, I have a proposal. I propose to amend a section of the missal according to the Roman rite of Holy Mass. When you will read in 1 Corinthians 7,9, instead of "Word of God", It will say, "Here Paul is not authentically reflects the vision of Genesis and even the Evangelical" or "Word of lust '". To which the faithful respond with joy, "Thanks be to Cavalcoli!».

Matteo

.

.

.

We start from the method of biblical exegesis, since it allowed to have Having noted that in São Paulo there are some questionable ideas on sexual lust, related to his anti-feminism, I was attacked by several parties with modernism accusations and rahnerismo [cf. WHO]. I respond well to my opponents, because it gives me the opportunity to explain further.

.

I would point to my opponents I wrote a critical book on Rahner, the result of thirty years of studies. I invite you to read it [1]. And instead of wasting time with me, their audition to criticism of Rahner like the one I did!

.

I begin, therefore, with a discourse on method. Exegesis of sacred Scripture must distinguish what is truly the Word of God from their own ideas dell'agiografo or culture of his time. The inerrancy of Scripture evidently refers to those steps, in which the sacred writer, inspired by God, enunciates truths revealed by God, that is, truth of faith.

.

Senonché, But, it is inevitable that the sacred writer, be limited and fallible human, like all, let even leaked his opinions or his time, that they are not the Word of God, but they can be either very backward ideas or even wrong, obviously without any intention to deceive, but simply through ignorance or to the limits of his knowledge.

.

In tal modo, the advancement of knowledge of Bible teachings implies that, while what belongs to Revelation remains unchanged, being the Word of God, the dell'agiografo ideas can also be accepted for a long time; but it is possible that at some point the Church realizes, in the light of the Word of God itself, they are overcome or correct.

.

It was about, after all, human opinions, that the Church does not agree in the sense of dogmatizzarle - thing I could never do -, but in the sense that, for a certain time, Also many centuries, not disapprove and circulates. but when, with the progress of exegesis and the very life of the Church, it is clear that these ideas are outdated or incorrect, The Church intervenes by marrying new and better interpretation, that best reflects the truth of God's Word.

.

The antiquity, also millenary, a biblical doctrine, It not always argues in favor of its immutability; must be checked in individual cases if it is a matter of faith o di an opinion dell'agiografo. If the Church realizes, and when he realizes that it was a simple idea dell'agiografo or his cultural environment, He does not hesitate to abandon it or even to exclude it explicitly, even if it does so with every respect, not to disrespect all'agiografo.

.

The defects of the modernists and their so-called modernist exegesis, to about, no data from this principle of distinction between what has been revealed and ideas dell'agiografo, but by two things:

.

First thing. The modernists are the historicist or evolutionist, ie do not allow universal and immutable truth, even those of faith. For them, everything changes, God also. So, do not change only the dell'agiografo ideas, but also the revealed data, in the sense that today we no longer believe the same truths of faith, to which he believed St. Paul, because even the truths of faith changes over time and varies according to different cultures, so for them there can be no single faith, but a plurality of "rings". According to them, there are no eternal truths and supratemporal, ma Truth is the daughter of time. What was true yesterday, Today is false and vice versa. Therefore, the Church is wrong in repeating the same doctrines or dogmas themselves, because by doing so it lags behind the historic progress.

.

According to the modernists, for example Schillebeeckx, the identity of faith's content over time is not assured by dogmatic concepts, that I am not fixed, but they are changing and must change, depending on the circumstances and the historical and cultural situations. Indeed, per Schillebeeckx, the concept does not capture the real in himself, but only there tends not reach. The real is caught instead by a "pre-conceptual experience athematic", specific, global and existential, But that in itself is inexpressible. We have to express it; ma, by the very nature of our knowing, when we do, we are obliged to use simple, uncertain and precarious' interpretative models ", that they are just images or metaphors or comparisons, essentially subjective, at least in relation to a given time or a given culture.

.

Those who claim to possess, in matters of faith, universal truths, absolute and eternal, It is a rigid and intolerant person, can not appreciate pluralism, It has no historical sense, is a backward, You do not understand their time, is a presumptuous, and a fundamentalist. dthis relativist epistemology and evolutionary follows, in knowledge of faith, that the cognitive relationship with Christ is not insured, as in the dogmas, from abstract ideas, but from that experience athematic, implying the prassi, experience that would have the same faith, for which we draw from the mystery of Christ. Senonché, But, per Schillebeeckx, in the moment in which we interpret, express and communicate the concepts, these concepts are not and should not always be the same, but they are and they have to change and be different, that is suited to the mystery that we intend to capture and express, depending on the times, circumstances and people, to which we turn. If one clings to an outdated concept or the past, She lives outside of their own time and use a language incomprehensible to his contemporaries.

.

For instance, to express the mystery of Christ today, Schillebeeckx proposed to stop saying that "Jesus is God", because this expression, According to him, It would be a surplus of ancient pagan mythology of '' divine man ' (theiòs anèr), it would be better instead to designate Christ as the "eschatological prophet". And similarly, instead of talking, how does the Council of Chalcedon, of "one person in two natures", it would be better to speak of "a nature in two persons'. And so on.

.

Second thing. In interpreting Scripture, the modernists, like the Protestants, They do not account for those passages that the Church He has already interpreted or even serve as a justification, evidence or scriptural basis of a dogmatic teaching, and then they do not respect the interpretation by the Church, but interpret them in their own way, easily falling into heresy.

.

Here's an example. The church, relying on those passages of Scripture, which she speaks of the human soul, teaches 1. the distinction between soul and body [Fourth Lateran Council of 1215; 2]; that the soul is the substantial form of the body [Concilio di del Viennes 1312; 3]; that the soul is immortal [Fifth Lateran Council of 1513]. Well, Rahner, denying explicitly these dogmas of the Church, argues that when the Bible speaks of the soul, always it means the whole man.

.

In the matter, the case of São Paulo is particularly delicate course, since it is not a simple hagiographer as other, but of an eminent Apostle. But the Church, who looks only to the truth, He has problems to overcome and also correct human ideas, historically conditioned, a St. Paul. This fact is demonstrated very clearly right about our issue of sexual lust, closely connected with that of the dignity of women and marriage, so much so that it is good to treat them together.

.

The Pauline doctrine of marriage as a "remedy for concupiscence", It has actually been taught by moralists until Vatican II, who, vice versa, treating of marriage, absolutely not talk about this thing. And since then, the great papal documents, as the Human life of Blessed Paul VI, the Family member company of St. John Paul II, until The joy of love of the Reigning Pontiff, I am on this line. Which shows clearly that the idea of ​​St. Paul's exceeded, and if it is exceeded, Paul evidently there in fact does not speak on behalf of God, but in its own name, or perhaps mistakes in good faith his idea for divine revelation.

.

It is not about here obviously to doubt or deny the existence of sexual lust, or the option to cancel it in the present life. Instead, it is a legacy of original sin present in all, and which it consists of an irrational drive for sexual pleasure and the act that matches. The pursuit of pleasure is a natural impulse in humans and animals. The problem, for man, It is that this research needs to be rationally justified; and if it is not, is sinful. Well, concupiscence causes the opposite sex attracts us to her with such force, that in certain cases it is very difficult to curb.

.

St. Paul says: who can't help himself, get married. If it does it, It is better than virgin remains. Today, as I said in my article [cf. WHO], since after the Council, the Church speaks differently: everyone, with a good discipline, the exercise and the help of grace, we must be able to dominate us, to order our, to control us and restrain, then it is not nothing but the cardinal virtue of temperance, mandatory for all, whether we are called to marriage, whether we are called to religious life. even Paul, in other places, He admits this without problems. And this is certainly the Word of God.

.

The choice of one's vocation, in spirituality today, Whether it's marriage or consecrated life or priesthood, It should not be understood as answering the question of whether I can or can not help myself from sex. Ma, under the assumption that I have reached that degree of temperance, which makes me master my instincts, This choice must be made to much higher grounds: namely the response to the gift of God, which actually Paul himself acknowledges: "Each one has his own gift from God" [The Cor 7,7].

.

This means that the conjugal act It must be seen not as a result of the opening of the floodgates double, for which the torrent of passion bursts tumultuous, but legalized, in married life. It should not be seen as a fulfillment, an outlet, and at the same time a legitimate and tolerated embankment, of concupiscence, otherwise uncontrollable dilagherebbe, so its suppression would be unbearable or impossible, as Luther believed.

.

The sexual act instead it must be an expression of self-giving, will to make each other happy and welcomed the gift that the other makes of himself. Act, that, as I said in my previous article, It expresses love and increases the love. The fulfillment of the same marriage debt, it is the duty of justice and other services, more common in the elderly, in which weakened the thrust of 'eros, It must continue to be more than ever the expression. One could rightly say, thinking the sacrament of marriage, that the conjugal act is a sign of holiness and incentive.

.

The change in the concept of marriage initiated by the Council it consists of a visual more optimistic and more noble, more faithful to Genesis and the Gospel: while before the Council marriage was markedly place in the horizon fallen nature with original sin and of the inferiority of women with men, the new vision arises decisively in the horizon resurrection and equality of the specific nature of the two and mutual complementarity.

.

A woman's dignity Today is better to light, his moral qualities are better highlighted, His most exalted spiritual attitudes, while conversely diminish the reasons or prejudices, that in the past, as in the Old Testament itself, they showed in women almost a having less, a minor, with limited liability. It was seen as a fragile creature, impulsive, emotional, easy to illusions, suggestible, unreliable, to drive, educate, check, fix and hold off; or a danger: a seductress, Quasi una maliarda, of which one should beware. In essence, the woman was seen in the light of Eve sinner and not the Madonna.

.

In Sao Paulo it is clear that for him the man-woman relationship corresponds to the upper-lower ratio [The Cor 11, 7-9; 14,34; The Tm 2, 11-14]. But these are his ideas. The doctrine instead of her husband, "head of the wife" [Ef 5, 22-33] it's another thing. Indeed, while on the subject general "Man-woman" feel Paul with his rabbinical misogynism, in the doctrine of the relationship husband wife certainly it shines the beauty of God's Word, that does not go, and that was confirmed and deepened by the Council, that has come to affirm that "their union constitutes the first form of communion of persons" [GS, 12].

.

These limits that we find in the Pauline concept the woman did not prevent the Apostle to enunciate some fundamental principles of the Christian view of women, principles, they certainly are the subject of Revelation: the principle of reciprocity: "In the Lord, neither the woman without the man; neither is the man without the woman ' [The Cor 11,11]; and the prospect of 'unione eschatological, in which it is implied the resurrection of the sexes, which has widely spoken Saint John Paul II in the catechesis on the theology of the body: "There is neither man nor woman, for you are all one in Christ Jesus " [Gal 3,28]. This is the clear recovery Gen 1-2, where he taught the equality of dignity and specific nature.

.

With the Council, Anyway, It occurred an improvement in the vision of the woman, for which she, without this we fall into easy optimism, It is seen more in the light of the Madonna that does not Eve. The Council has confirmed the substance of the sublime Pauline doctrine on marriage as a mystical image (“great mystery”!) and none other than the sacramental sign of Christ's union with the Church. In this doctrine - and here we are truly in God's Word -, where it does not transpire nothing of the contempt of Paul for the woman and for his doctrine on sexual lust, There does not seem to find even the author himself. The rest, a discordant note of Paul himself seems to be in the c.7 First Corinthians, where it is hard to come to an agreement the aforementioned sublime mystical comparison with the known perhaps too human, according to which "the married woman is anxious about the things of the world, how to please the husband ' [v.34]. But if her husband is the image of Christ, who is then this? Here we go again with the remedy for concupiscence?

.

There is a clear link between the woman seen in this light and sex control problem. Progress in understanding the dignity of women through the centuries went hand in hand with a higher perspective of marriage and sexuality. It is also evident that, the nearer man abandons his superiority complex and sees in the woman not so much the temptress or having less, but rather a traveling companion to the sky, the conjugal union will become less and less the safety valve and the legitimate outburst and tolerated instinct and increasingly selfless gift of love: love, joy,!

.

Varazze, 10 May 2016

.

.

___________________

Notes

[1] Karl Rahner. The Second betrayed, Editions Faith&Culture, Verona 2009.

.

.

.

.

.

.

JOY OF LOVE. THE FOUNDATION OF indissolubility of marriage

.

The nullity of the marriage almost always emerges dramatically after a certain time, more or less long, They can also take years and be half of the children, even if we are married in church, and it was a marriage celebrated with great solemnity: red carpet from the entrance of the church to the altar richly decorated, bouquets of exotic flowers, along all the pews, Photographers who's operators, enthusiastic and emotional crowd of high society people, abundant supply to the pastor. Yet it was a simple staging. Despite the solemn High Mass and solemn blessing, grace can be dropped, but certainly not the grace of marriage, since it lacked the suitable material. The poor priest, attorniato the concelebrated, It took, as the Romans say, a beautiful buggeratura [or called in Roman: hath pijato 'na alone].

.

.

.

.

PDF print format article

.

.

One of the goals he set itself Jesus Christ in his teaching and his work was to present, restore and promote the original divine plan on man, described in Genesis, indicated as the model of human conduct, compatibly to the fallen state of nature after original sin.

.

It was not a recovery full and total state of innocence, but only to some elements, Christ has proposed as realizable, by the help of his grace and through an appropriate discipline, in this mortal life, weakened by sin, some elements of that happy original condition.

.

"Indissolubility of marriage" It does not mean that de facto the constraint can not be dissolved, otherwise there would be no divorce. Indissolubility means he must not be loose, namely that there is no right to dissolve the bond. So, this act can never be good. Indeed, it is God's will that man be united to his wife,, in such a way that the two are no longer two, but only one flesh. But it does not create a union that in fact can not be broken, as instead is the unbreakable union which exists for example between the color of a vessel and the vessel itself, or the union that exists between the soul and its faculties. Man and woman are made to join together, but it depends on their willingness to implement and maintain this union. God wants them to be together forever; but to them it is possible to disobey this will and divide. They should never loosen the constraint; but it depends on them to respect, keep it, keep; or break it, breach it or dissolve it, ie divide. It's clear that, if they remain united, They do the will of God; if you divide, Peccano.

.

What is the reason for which husband and wife They must remain united forever in a unique love, exclusive, incommunicable to others or not partecipabile or shared by others? God does not say "will join any woman or more women", but "the its donna”.

.

Because God does not allow the group love or polygamy or the occasional love or part-time or the succession of women? God's will leaves instead suggests that every man must match that date women and not others, and vice versa. It's a bit 'as the fact that each lock is necessary that key date and not others, or to those who have defective eyesight, We need those glasses data and not others.

.

With original sin This divine plan was overshadowed in the minds of men, their will began to tend to sin, while their forces began to be insufficient to achieve this high ideal.

.

In the Old Testament, It gave, with the law of Moses, shows a certain tolerance, allowing polygamy and divorce, especially in some important characters, patriarchs and kings. But with the new covenant, stipulated by Christ, God wants, in Christ and with Christ's grace, is re-established the original project, at least in its fundamental lines, necessary to a proper reproduction of the human species.

.

Christ thereby establishing marriage as the sacrament of salvation and sanctification. It is always the same natural marriage bond, It revealed on the Genesis, in its unity, indissolubility, exclusivity and fruitfulness, but purified, enriched, high and strengthened by supernatural grace, so that the bride and groom, Despite their weaknesses and their sinfulness, may be able, with God's help, to be faithful to their love for life and overcome trials, difficulties and temptations, fulfilling the obligations of marriage and the family.

.

With the establishment of Christ, fidelity and indissolubility of the bond for life again becomes an obligation for all. Now, But, God allows some life conditions that make it impossible for the full restoration of the Edenic marriage. The first of these conditions is the existence of death.

.

This allows the lawfulness of remarriage. This fact is connected in turn to the second condition, namely that in the present life This perfect reciprocity is very rare. It happens then, that second marriages are made possible and are justified by the above-mentioned very rare possibility of the existence of so-called "soul mates", ie for a perfect match or reciprocity, irreplaceable and exclusive between this man and gave that date woman.

.

In this life, the expression "his woman" remains valid, but it loses the rigor and determination. The exact correspondence Edenic remains just a dream or an illusion for many, which, however, they are called to settle for something less, that does not make it impossible to fidelity until death.

.

But many today unfortunately they conceive marry like buying a car or a computer, whereby, if you find a better product, They are inclined to leave the old for the new. This difficulty finding the suitable partner can come to the point that the subject remains only. The other part, Christ also introduces the ideal of religious life, which implies the renunciation of marriage. This does not mean that the regime of the New Covenant does not continue to rely on the principle of gender reciprocity and "his woman". It should be noted, indeed, that, In the Genesis, God does not say, "cleaves to his wife", but "his woman". In fact the term used here is Ishan, which means "woman", while to say "wife", Hebrew has balah.

.

These words of Genesis, as is known, They are taken by Christ in the Gospel of Matthew [cf. 19,5]. that my, since the greek has gyne, so to speak donna to say that wife, the greek text does not do exactly what the Jewish. However, as in Matthew Christ speaks of marriage, it is right to make gyne with "wife". Whatever, from the Genesis is that reciprocity or union or male-female communion, as you call it, It is not reduced to the husband-wife relationship, but it is a broader value, that touches the human being as such, and can and should concern every human being, man or woman, secular or religious, and that it is.

.

The indissolubility of marriage It supposes that God creates every man and every woman with its own, it needs, unmistakable and unchanging identity, which remains unchanged and unchanging over time until eternity. If, however, the Edenic state the identification and recognition of this identity was not any trouble, in the present state of fallen nature, this discernment becomes difficult, and it requires a special intuition or introspection, that Husserl's phenomenology calls empathy [1], word which in Italian translates as "empathy" or "entropathy". In the epistemology of Blessed Duns Scotus is similarly admits the chance to grasp the thisness of that given single person.

.

It is clear that very few They can avail themselves of similar philosophical methods, whereas the vocation of marriage is the vocation of the vast majority of the population. It must therefore be found a simpler method, which would allow two young people like, to be able to tell if they are made to marry. To know this, You need both to notice of that reciprocity, they must objectively understand and enjoy the intimate the substantial identity of each other, the value of his person, the character qualities, without ignoring the flaws, going beyond appearances, in addition to matters perishable, surface and those which may or may be accidental occurrences, to grasp the essence of his personality. This is the fundamental basis of a pact and tighten an unbreakable bond.

.

About this issue immutable identity of the person, from more than three centuries, we deal with the objection, that is English empiricism, especially by Locke, followed then by Hume, who, exaggerating the part of the experience in human knowledge, and neglecting to cultivate the intellectual activity, lose sight of this unchanging substantive core of the person, that is the foundation and raison d'etre of all forms of contract or human stipulation, that are to be established for always.

.

In these visions of reality and therefore also of the human person does not give definitive and absolutely certain truth, but every theory or law can always be changed to the rise of new experiences. Accidental mutations invade the whole field of knowledge, by which a thing or a person is not defined with the claim to grasp the identity, the essence, the substance, o la thisness, as if it he was hidden behind the accidents or sensitive phenomena.

.

The substance, according to the empiricists, is none other than the unified collection of accidents, which do not refer to anything other than themselves, to each other, Mutually. The person is like a cloud in the sky, or a drop of water or a flame: it's no distinguishing an immutable substance changing accidents, but everything changes and evolves, even if the cloud or the drop or the flame may be the same. From what you understand that, this conception of the person, any promise or any commitment made comes comes caught, and here of course it falls on the promise of marital fidelity, everything always implies the reserves to maintain the pacts, It will not happen until something expected or unexpected, grounds that their dissolution or annulment.

.

Vice versa, Once the two realize they be made for each other, in view of the foundation of a family, It arises in their hearts desire to be together for life, precisely with the intention of realizing this regard [2]. This will establishes and conditions the truth O validity the covenant or marriage bond, It gives for which, if you get married for different reasons or contrary to this will, which bases, justifies, guarantees and constitutes the essence the marriage covenant, this pact does not exist, it is invalid, it is null. Similarly, It would be nothing priestly ordination based on a false concept of the priesthood, as is for example that of Rahner.

.

Nullity of marriage almost always it emerges in a dramatic way after a certain time, more or less long, They can also take years and be half of the children, even if we are married in church, and it was a marriage celebrated with great solemnity: red carpet from the entrance of the church to the altar richly decorated, bouquets of exotic flowers, along all the pews, Photographers who's operators, enthusiastic and emotional crowd of high society people, abundant supply to the pastor. Yet it was a simple staging. Despite the solemn High Mass and solemn blessing, grace can be dropped, but certainly not the grace of marriage, since it lacked the suitable material. The poor priest, attorniato the concelebrated, It took, as the Romans say, a beautiful buggeratura [or called in Roman: hath pijato 'na alone].

.

It is not excluded that the couple, noticing the nullity of marriage, succeed, after all, to move forward, especially for the sake of the children. It is good to do it. Quite another thing however is divorce. It is one grave disobedience to God's will, will that remains intact and unchanged, although disregarded by the two. In this sense, marriage is indissoluble. The two can be unfaithful, but God is faithful, and he gives them a way to repent and come back together. Divorce is therefore the divide what God has joined together, and who wants to be joined. Divorce is a grave sin against justice and charity in those who, one of the two or both, despite having contracted a valid marriage, It is unfaithful to the sacred pact celebrated before God and the Church. Of course, if the two regularly married, do not make it longer live together, it is good that they part. However, It remains valid constraint before God and the Church, and can not contract a new marriage. Vice versa, if two like, this is not a sufficient reason to go on living together, especially if they are related to a previous valid marriage. The above shall be null and now they have met the true love. But to address the matter before God, to the Church and to their conscience as Catholics, They must first obtain a declaration of nullity, and then will be able to contract a new marriage blessed by God.

.

As to mixed marriages, You must be careful. There are cases, for instance, Unions between a Christian and a Muslim, that do not give concerns. It, however, is occurring in other cases, It seems more numerous, that the Muslim side wants to compel the Christian to be Muslim. In this case, if the Christian part warns that has endangered his faith, It can be considered dissolved by the marriage bond. Questoi case was already covered by St. Paul [cf. The Cor 7, 12-15], and therefore it is called the "Pauline privilege" and was implemented in Canon law [Can.1143, § 1].

.

So the Church distinguishes four cases, in which the two can indulge: three licit and dutiful, and an illegal. Cases in which they must leave:

.

1. Concubinage (cohabitation more uxorio between two unmarried);

2. Pauline privilege;

3. marriage null. Case apart, which would be the fourth, it is rather the case of divorce.

.

Be careful not to confuse: annulment, dissolution and divorce. Cancellation or declaration of invalidity is the judgment of the ecclesiastical court, declaring that a true bond there has never been, despite the previous coexistence and the presence of children. The dissolution is the effect of divine mercy, which wants to protect the faithful or loyal, although the bond was valid. Instead the divorce is the breakup of a valid constraint. That being the case, in valid and true marriage, the two promise each other to be faithful all his life to this covenant of love, which it is the marriage covenant, by virtue of which they become husband and wife. At the time of this Decision, God unites them forever and blesses them with his grace. They join consciously, voluntarily and freely. But this very act of their will is fulfillment of God's will, Who wanted them to unite eternity and eternity has designed their wedding. Unfortunately today, with historicist and evolutionist mindset that has also crept in Catholic circles, few reflect on the greatness of this love, called to be an eternal love and even, as a sacrament, a saving love, a way of salvation.

.

many ironic on this and believe it is a fine utopia, if not a deception, looking at the depressing sight of so many separations, many betrayals, of many disappointments, many divorces, many extinct loves, of so many failed marriages, of so many broken families. But also overcame this obstacle and refuted empiricism, by showing how the intellect can not do without the idea of ​​substance [3], other problems arise. Indeed, yet all this is not enough to look to the future with confidence and serenity, without fear of disappointments or disappointments, for the fact that, also admitted the possibility of grasping the essence of the, the indissolubility of marriage is not the simple loyalty to a fixed and immutable as, which may be the essence of my person and that of the other, but fidelity to the daily commitment of both, which is supposed to continuously, consistent and persevere over time For all life.

.

Now, we all know how many changes take place in our conduct. How can you commit for a lifetime with someone who maybe now is good, but then it becomes bad? And if I betray? And if he hid me some bad things? And if he had a bad past that may return? anguished questions, when you love someone.

.

The third of the conditions, typical of fallen nature, and the lust, namely the fact that the desire or sexual drive is not the consequence of love and encouragement to love, is no longer self-giving and availability to each other, is no longer bring joy to others and rejoice in the gift which the other makes of himself, but in his youth uncontrolled lust and enjoyment and use of the other selfish, while in old age and disease is the desire languishes in frigidity and even in disgust. The youth must be curbed; in old age must be strengthened.

.

St. Paul, with his famous theory of marriage as remedy for concupiscence [cf. The Cor 7,9] obviously has an eye only the boiling youth and not the weakness of seniority. One gets the impression that he did not consider good thing the sexual act, so it becomes excusable and tolerable in marriage: "It's good for them to remain as I am; but if you can not live in continence, they get married; it is better to marry than to burn " [vv.8-9]. But all that seems to underlie Paul in a dissociation if not a contrast between love and sexual union. Unfortunately there it was realized for centuries that here Paul does not truly reflect the vision of Genesis and even the Evangelical, where being "one flesh" is seen as something good, is in itself [Gen 2], and in relation to procreation [Gen 1].

.

Only in the last century the Second Vatican Council, in the Pastoral Constitution The joy and hope, He deleted this duality teaching instead the link between marital love and sexual union with these words: "This love is expressed and perfected uniquely through the exercise of acts, that they are proper to marriage; it follows that the acts with which the spouses are united in chaste intimacy,, are honorable and worthy and, achieved in a truly human way, promote mutual self-giving, they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude same " [n.49].

.

Blessed Paul VI He has taken this teaching in the encyclical Human life [n.11], and St. John Paul II has further developed it, as recalled by the current Pontiff Exhortation The joy of love, when he says that "in his catechesis on the theology of the human body, Saint John Paul II taught that sexual corporeity is "not only the source of fertility and procreation", but it has "the ability to express love: that love precisely, in which the person becomes a gift '' [n.152].

.

If man can not dominate the sexual instinct before or outside or after marriage, We will not succeed even in marriage. The remedy to concupiscence is not marriage, but it is the self-control education. If you search for the marriage to satisfy the lust, It remains slaves of instinct, It is scarce in mental clarity, in the strength of will and sense of responsibility, which it is necessary for maintaining marital fidelity, and endangers the stability of the marriage bond. Or, no one is satisfied of his wife, but is seeking other opportunities to satisfy itself, especially when the attractiveness of the bride fades with age. Sexual intercourse in marriage must be free act of love and not the outburst of a passion, you can not hold back. This is the right way to preserve the fidelity. But the indissolubility of marriage is also justified by the fact that the education of children requires a caring presence of parents, that never end, and generally it results from the mutual cooperation of parents. You know how the thinking of children is a strong incentive to conjugal fidelity. Moreover, seniority lived together in mutual support is also a powerful factor of fidelity to a single love.

.

At this point then we see how a marital fidelity seriously thought and truly lived is not possible without a relationship with God. Because of this, among all peoples, the rite of marriage is always a sacred rite. We had to get to our secularized society, to reduce the ritual of marriage or the marriage contract to a secular ceremony in the City, as if you were to enter into a lease or to register a change of ownership. But unfortunately too often we see how the religious marriages are in crisis. They are multiplying null marriages.

.

The crisis of marriages it depends, basically, in my opinion, from a crisis of faith among believers. We no longer feel the importance, the height and arduità values ​​and the elements that I have set out above. It considers marriage not as a transcendent reality, which depends so we, ma especially by divine grace. You see marriage as any land contract, in the power of our decisions, as erroneously thought Luther, when he denied the sacramental nature of marriage.

.

If you meditate seriously over the value of marriage, as I tried to suggest in this article, you'll immediately notice that it is not possible to address the enterprise without relying on God and rely on His grace.

.

A phenomenon that today's sobering It is one of those divorced and remarried, they would like to receive Communion and, also staying Exhortation The joy of love, They do not have permission. Some would like to confess. It makes you wonder: but in the irregular condition and scandalous, where there are, What drives them to desire the sacraments? They can be repented or at least one of the two, but had no way to stop their relationship. And on the other hand, It may not succeed to do to live as brother and sister. The Holy Father said that may be in the grace. So they are not forgotten of God and the Church. And God and the Church have not forgotten them.

.

Varazze, 4 May 2016

.

.

____________________________

NOTE

[1] See the study of Edth Stein, The Problem of Empathy, pp. 157-158, Studium Editions, Rome, 1985.

[2] Speaking of marriage between St. Joseph and Our Lady, St. Thomas gives this remarkable definition: "The form of marriage consists in a certain inseparable conjunction of minds, for which the partners are required to remain faithful to each other indivisibly ", QUESTION, III, q.29, a.2.

[3] cf M. D.Philippe, Philosophy Essay - The be - Looking for a first philosophy – I, Who are you, Paris 1972, chap.III; T.Tyn, Metaphysics of substance. Participation and analogy entis, edited by G. Horses, Editions Faith&Culture, Verona, 2009.

.

.

.

.

.

.

JOY OF LOVE, THE "THEOLOGY of Blank Check": THE POWER OF THE KEYS NOT be disputed, EXCEPT TO FALL IN HERESY

.

With the "you are beautiful 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.

.

.

 

 

.

.

PDF print format article

 

.

.

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

.

.

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 read, so “I know …”, It demonstrates a disturbing drift of contemporary faith: emotion. 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 Catholic tradition, invite to publicly despise him who this traditio 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 'I am. 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 short, 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 it in the faith of 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 Of the truth the Angelic Doctor he claims: "You do not have the truth, but the truth is that you have ". But most of all, many of these warriors devotees of ideology iocentric 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, in the unity of 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 of the Latins, every liturgical source is suspect if not worse "infects":

.

By itself, and cum very, and in him, East tibi God the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all 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 "By itself, and cum very, and in him …». 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 believers of Christ too lost and confused.

.

about Peter, Chapter III of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church The light, so it says in 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, rather, 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, Pietro, 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 will be bound in heaven, and everything you melt on earth will be melted in heaven " [cf. Mt 16, 17-19].

.

Since we live in an atmosphere of schizophrenia in which also the last of bloggers 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, consequently I ask: 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 "you are Peter"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? Because, 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, why nobody, including any saints on earth, It has to top power 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 traditio 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” Why “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 theologians 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, why 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 of the 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.

.

It's still: over the centuries those who were instituted before the Second Vatican Council's reforms were the split orders between them in major e minors. 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. but 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 do it yourself, 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 he recites:

–

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; because whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord, eating and drinking his own condemnation " (1Color 11, 27-29) (3) [cf. WHO].

.

This text, published in’'Osservatore Romano the 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 as today, He taught to confessors to behave well? Far from it, 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, quite the opposite, 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 of Church of Christ ever, They are shown and explained by the Supreme Pontiff to the numbers 301 e 302 from the 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]. "Because of 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 made in the aforementioned 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: I know 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. So, 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 from the Family member 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 the Church laws, 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, bloggers 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: «you are Peter». 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 mine. You take it as you think best, but in the meantime take it and Keep it, because you deserve it, forever, amen!

.

.

___________________________

..

NOTE

.

[59] CF. EUSEBIO, Hist. Eccl., V, 24, 10: GCS II, 1, p. 495; ed. WENT, Sources Chrét., (II), p. 69. DIONYGIUS, in EUSEBIO, ib. VII, 5, 2: GCS II, 2, p. 638s; WENT, (II), p. 168s.

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

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

[62] CF. S. CIPRIANO, Epistle. 56, 3: CHARTER 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. dogm. II On the Church of Christ, (c). 4:[176][176]NSI 53, 310. CF. Kleutgen report on the scheme reformed: MANSI 53,321B-322B and the declaration ZINELLI: MANSI 52, 1110A. See also S. LEONE M., Sermon. 4,3: PL 54, 151A.

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

.

.

.

.

.

"And BOMB BOMB OR NOT WE WILL ARRIVE IN ROME» NUNCIO GALANTINO CONVERSA ABOUT GOD WITH DARIO FO

.

The Fo speech is absurd and blasphemous, and I do not see that this would be "great religion" that Nunzio Galantino, with obvious flattery, He attributes to Fo.

.

.

.

.

S. AND. Mons. Nunzio Galantine, General Secretary of the C.E.I, He started in the newspaper Sole 24 Ore Sunday a column entitled Dwell in the words, which it aims to treat the meaning of some key words of modern culture on the I relationship with the world. He started with the word It gave referring to the thought of Dario Fo, the full article is legible WHO.

I extracted from the writings of Nunzio Galantino some statements, here shown in red, each of which would like to make a comment.

.

God is a word paradox. For some there is only the term and there is no corresponding subject, for others there is the subject, but has not be appointed and according to others the God of Moses could not bear to be represented.

.

And what do you think Galantino? It is not pronunciation.

.

God is the word of maximum creativity […] God is the main protagonist of visibility […] By the word God, and the reality to which it refers, we allow our minds to travel in large spaces and to experience extraordinarily loaded with life, both starting from the word and opening ourselves to the imagination, either starting from the image and then the words ricollegandoci.

.

I do not see what God has to do with the "creativity" and "visibility". They do not belong to theology, but to poetry, or literature or painting. He says he does not want to do theology. Ma, speaking of God, what does it want to do, At that time? St. Paul is very clear. Dice: "Since the creation of the world His perfections invisible They can be covered with the intellect by the things made him " [cf. RM 1,20]. God is not covered either by fantasy or imagination, but intellect. Otherwise, as the Scripture says, we have made an idol out of our hands.

.

A child would have difficulty following our discourse, because he knows that the word "mother" is a mom; But what's behind the word God? What to tell him? […] Explain to a child that can rain from invisible reality, but existing. With a child I would try to get along well.

.

Behind the word "God" is no God, because the mind of the child, as capable of thinking, You can know that God exists. Apart from the fact that in any case comes to us alone, We have to help him in the implementation of the principle of causality, as taught by the Book of Wisdom: "The Author is known by analogy from the beauty and grandeur of creatures" [cf. Sap 13,5].

.

Dice Fo: "God is not. Does not exist. I do not believe it ... But ... ". According to him God is a great forger who has invented for itself, a genius of History, because he was able to create his image. A skilled dealer. His anti-religious to me seemed very religious […] To God is never enough love of others, while Jesus founded his feelings on love to give and not to receive.

.

The Fo speech is absurd and blasphemous. God alone is infinite goodness and generosity, and the God of Jesus Christ. If Christ gives, and is not a selfish, this depends from the fact that it is God Himself. I do not see what would this "great religion", that Galantino, with obvious flattery, He attributes to Fo.

.

We humans need for transcendence and for us Christians the essence of human existence lies in coming to us, in going and feel projected beyond. What some call "self-transcendence" not only leads us towards God […] This situation also belongs to an atheist.

.

It is true that we need to transcendence, but we do not confusion. we distinguish first. It is one thing to come out of ourselves, which it is a sign of sociability, and a bill is the "feel projected beyond", which it is a psychological phenomenon, which may be normal as pathological. A bill is the metaphysical ulteriority, moral or theological, from which he feels attracted reasonable man, and an account is emotional ulteriority, irrational and fantastic, which attracts the mental alienated. It 'obvious that it is only the first type of ulteriority that stimulates the affirmation of God.

As all'autotrascendimento, even here we must distinguish. L'autotrascendimento, in general, It is a psychological act, with which the person intentionally and voluntarily surpasses himself or goes beyond himself. The spirit of salt, if it raises, It rises to a summit which is beyond its limit.

This elevation of the spirit, But, It is different in the case that the impulse is from below or above, that is, either by man or by God. Man can transcend or rise towards God or because they are attracted by Him, in submission to Him, and then we have the transcend yourself, of which St. Augustine speaks, or because it raises setting himself up against God, antagonistic to God. In the first case we have the humility, which bears fruit in religion; in the second case we pride, fruiting impiety and atheism. It is clear that only the first type of transcendence characterizes, not the Christian life as such, but the power or the power of his spirit, since the identity of being with the act is only in God.

The essence of human existence in the Christian view is not found in any "out to us, or in going and feel projected beyond "or what some call" self-transcendence ", but it is to be, as the Second Vatican Council says, 'Unity of soul and body "[1], created "in the image of God, capable of knowing and loving his Creator "[2] and not at all "in coming to us, in going and feel projected beyond. What someone called 'self-transcendence' '. If anything, these are powers or possible acts and not constitutive of human existence. I would like to know where Galantino has caught the definition of man. Certainly not in Scripture or in the Magisterium of the Church or St. Thomas.

.

Jesus asks, aims to, It loves hard, illogical, paradoxical.

.

Jesus' illogical does not claim any love », but perfectly consistent with reason. Love is illogical sinful, because it would conflict with our duty to act reasonably. Examples leading Galantino or are equivocal or you can easily fix, but here we do not have the space, then you can always consult any treatise on moral theology.

I only stop on the love for the enemy. There is nothing illogical in this love, of course, to understand it well, and not as if Christ command us to love the enmity of our enemies against us; which would be quite a shame on our part. It lies instead in this command profound wisdom, that gives comfort to the victim, It facilitates the reconciliation and the opponent has more merciful, making it willing to ask for forgiveness and be forgiven.

.

Varazze, 16 March 2016

.

.______________________

[1] The joy and hope, n. 14.

[2] Ibid., n. 12.

.

.

And BOMB BOMB OR NOT WE WILL ARRIVE IN ROME … AND UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE ARRIVED !

.

.

.

___________________

 

.

.

.

The Editors of’Patmos Island, takes this opportunity to remind S.It is. Mons. Nunzio Galantino which has always been the “commendable” level of "religiosity" atheist Dario Fo: mock God, of Christ, the Gospel, and all the saints. We take note, however, that the farsighted Secretary General of the Italian Episcopal Conference, in all this still it sees "great religion". Request: the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is always open and operational, or was the first department of the Holy See to be abolished by the reform of the Roman Curia with a view to next “new church” Free at last from all “unnecessary dogmatism” that for too many centuries have “oppressed“?

.

.

.

.

THE GIULLARATA THE GOSPEL OF THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.