The PRAISE OF HERESY Paolo Pasqualucci

[…] daily at fulfilling my duties I have the sacramental unworthy honor to announce the Word of God to the congregation, proclaiming which I never say - and like me my Venerable Brother Priests do not, including epistemologists - " From Iota Unum according Romano », nor the people of God responds: « Praise to thee Amerio ».

The text of Prof. Paul Pasqualucci to which was given the answer that follows below is readable WHO

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

Dearest son.

The Professors chronic is a disease from which we often fail to heal and often can lead to collapse in part in tuttologia cosmic in part in the megalomania. For this I start immediately with telling her that if she had seen the blockbuster film The Ten Commandments with the splendid interpretation of Charlton Heston in the role of the patriarch Moses and Yul Brynner in the role of the Egyptian pharaoh [see WHO], this does not empower it to feel an expert in biblical sciences nor to dispense wisdom that shows you do not have the specific merit of the issues that has to deal with alleged in his article the subject of my reply, beyond its inner intentions that I can not read or judge. However, according to what she writes and expresses publicly - not least through extensive copy and paste facts on authentic texts canonical fiction taken from the writings disseminated by Lefebvrian circles - I must take note that from his lines neither good intentions nor authentic Catholic sentiments emerge.

For the mandate given to me by the Holy Church of Christ I was called through the ministerial priesthood to exercise universal paternity on believers of Christ that the Lord Jesus entrusted to Peter and the Apostles the command to feed his flock [cf. GV 21, 15-17]. We priests are the direct collaborators of the Apostles custodians of the fullness of the priesthood who have moved over us part of their sacramental power, teachers and government; and in full communion and devout obedience to our bishops are called to the exercise of the sacred ministry according to our degree sacramental.

the priest Ariel S. Levi Gualdo carried in procession to the Holy Gospel during a celebration presided over by Bishop

By exercising the sacred ministry and sacramental powers and faculty related to it for service to the Catholic Church and the People of God, in my writings I always quote the Holy Gospel; unlike her that calling into question the Lady Maria Guarini that hosted its written in your blog, part instead attack disruptive citing forward all the work Iota Of Romano Amerio.

I feel obliged to inform that every day in fulfilling my duties I have the sacramental unworthy honor to announce the Word of God to the congregation, proclaiming which I never say - and like me my Venerable Brother Priests do not, including epistemologists - «From Iota Unum according Romano», nor the people of God responds: «Praise to thee Amerio». Assembly met for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, before the priest holla the Holy Gospel, one or more readers proclaim psalms and readings taken from the Book of Revelation. I can assure you that in no church reads the Denzinger during the liturgical action, nor treated narcissistic philosophical aesthetics in which proclaims that "beauty will save us', because it was the blood of the Sacrificial Lamb who washed the sin of the world [CF Jn. 1, 29], not the beauty of certain philosophers ameriani imbued with an aesthetic aesthetic that has almost the flavor of gnosis, in addition to a lack of virility languorous spiritual.

All things that please report Also Mrs. implicated in his written by her, not from me that I said to it in consciousness, for her highest good and for the salvation of his soul, what I was obliged to tell her [see WHO]; because as far as she would be offended to be one that is meant not only the liturgy but also of sola, authentic e true Catholic liturgy, remains undisputed that it is not certain this Gentildonna to celebrate the sacred mysteries in our Holy Church ordered on precise roles, within which each should stay in place and comply with what he is allowed to fulfill in the economy of salvation. Indeed, on time paradisíaco of which this like other ladies of the true "Traditio"Cry tears of nostalgia - for example under the august pontificate of the Holy Pontiff Pius X - not only, would never have been allowed to speak in their theology or liturgy, but it was not even allowed to sing in a church choir. Warns fact St. Paul the Apostle:

"As in all the churches of the saints, the women keep silence in the assembly, because they are not allowed to speak. Obey instead, as the law says. If they wish to learn something, question their husbands at home, for it is improper for a woman to speak in the meeting " [The Cor 14, 33-35].

The Apostle is not a misogynist, be clear, he intends only admonish reminding Guarini era their precise role in the economy of salvation, all in a social situation - that of the ancient city of Corinth - in which women were trying to dominate and dictate even to bishops, presbyters and deacons, invested by divine grace of a role is not granted to women, including those more or less pie, more or less expert in liturgy and theology. Therefore avoid certain ladies and Gentlemen of yelling "Traditio, Traditio! "And then take the Apostolic Tradition and the history of the Church exclusively what makes them comfortable, finally treating the priestly dignity literally fish in the face for the work of the laity “Catholics” that like her, Professor clear, yes true show deficiencies, but not on theology, which is what a lot of deep and serious, but on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is equally profound and serious, with all due respect for its wide copy and paste canonical fiction from the writings of the circles Lefebvrians.

I reject the accusations addressed to me of "deficiencies philosophical-theological" not because outraged, least of all because they hurt, but for the sacred respect that I have to the Bishop that I was ordained a priest and for his successor to the obedience of which are now subject filially, the first place that would never consecrated priest adult ignorant, the second would never let utter impunity errors, especially considering that my writings are read by thousands of readers and often translated into different languages ​​from the original Italian. In rejecting certain unjust and unfounded charges, I therefore do not intend to defend my dignity - which I repeat I am not interested in doing - but that of the Bishop who consecrated me a priest and that of the Bishop whose obedience I am now subject to.

I reiterate why neither my Bishop - That as the Supreme Master of the Doctrine has jurisdiction over me, so precise duties of correction and return to me - nor the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith never would marry this accusation to me revolt, I repeat that leaves me completely indifferent. If you give me ignorant but incomplete may cheer the microcosm of your gloomy Pharisees and your sad Pelagians, in that case face as well, always assuming that you are willing to lend some Catholic listening outside of your ghetto self-referential, beyond which and out of which there is the mystery of the Church with his people on the move, that far from living property, or jump like frogs always in the same puddle of water stale, lives in Christ and continues well beyond your limiting delimited and fences made of a thousand sophistries and commas weighed so paroxysmal.

The fact that she, or who inspired the substance of his writing, proclamations of a famous blog at the speck of my announced but do not try 'shortcomings philosophical-theological ", should not in any way waive its ghost writer from seeing the beam that She&Comrades brought stuck in the eye, for example its actual theological deficiencies, ecclesiological and canonical mere opinions that are not mine, but the data contained in his writings puzzling and mystifying, because structured mainly on extrapolations wildly contexts complex and articulated the previous documents of the Magisterium are antecedent to “' trembling” Vatican Council II, or shreds de-contextualized from the literature of the ancient Fathers of the Church of which she tends to do clumsy collage to produce effect on those simple - unlike me and my other brothers theologians - have not been able to devote years of their lives to studying the patristic texts in their entirety and articulated in the original Greek and Latin. All this combines sad fellowship to those who err as they were moved by the impulses of that pride that prevents them from accepting a given elementary dogmatic: the custody of the faith is entrusted to the Holy Church of Christ that worships in the figure of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, the living expression of his supreme guardian and guarantor being he called to confirm his brothers in faith [LC 22, 31-32]. It is therefore with loving kindness severe pastoral and doctrinal that admonish telling: who is against Peter is not against Jorge Mario Bergoglio, how she thinks and how his associates believe in fair and public heresy, but is against Christ which Peter, rock edifying of the Church [cf. Mt 16, 18-19], plays for his divine will and mandate as substitute: "He who is not with me is against me; and whoever does not gather with me, scatters " [Mt 12, 30].

To clear imperative of conscience I am required to tell her that her writings are a true repository of heresies, and soon I'll explain why: for years she rejects them publicly in the teaching of the last half-century history of the Church, it questions the authority of an Ecumenical Council whose doctrines it rejects, all with serious and unacceptable allegations of error and deviation from Catholic tradition promptly addressing all successive popes from the Chair of Peter 1958 till today. Allegations, these its, aimed particularly hard in his numerous articles precisely those Popes who have been canonized or beatified by the Holy Church of Christ: St. John XXIII, Blessed Paul VI, Saint John Paul II.

Becomingly then the shelf certain theories questionable del Vostro "divinizzato" Romano Amerio, so talented and intelligent, but so dark and devoid of confident hope, to which you recognize a "infallibility" not recognized instead to an entire ecumenical meeting; and especially this Lent picks up the four Gospels, because those and only those are the Word of God, not the Iota of this great and talented philosopher who has also produced some damage when he principiato to use your meter to make the philosophical theologian and ecclesiologist which in fact is not.

In a spirit of faith, hope and charity I will continue to pray with priestly paternity so that she and Mrs. Maria Guarini can correct you from these serious mistakes with your great responsibility spread such false truth among believers; mistakes that make you closed listening and actions of God's grace; errors poison where you are confirming with each other and urging you so evil to consider the Holy Church of Christ as the first, the worst and the greatest enemy of your distorted and erroneous idea of ​​faith and Catholic tradition, up to consider and present the Successor of Peter, supreme shepherd and guardian of deposit of credit, as a “destroyer” it's a “forger” the truths of faith; and all this make you a dangerous heretics as speaker of poisonous errors between the People of God.

This act is partly foolishness partly aberration, especially for her that in her capacity as legal philosopher assumed to be able to move so smooth on the ground of complex and delicate theological and dynamics of many complex and delicate canonical disciplines, that in the concrete facts shows, however, with his public writings do not know neither good nor thoroughly. Then take to the good “reasons” of Lefebvre who attempt to play on quibbles Byzantine-fetched and targeted primarily to alter the solar truth of the facts and the facts as they are clearly held, know that it can only lead to the brink of that Pharisaism which these subjects are natural heirs. Indeed, when the Pharisees could not deny the Lord Jesus the fact that he had healed before numerous witnesses a man blind from birth, wanting to attack anyway altered to such an extent the reality up to accuse him of having performed a miracle on Saturday, day in which it is forbidden to work, then make even miracles [GV 9, 16].

I commend you and then again to the mercy of God with a special prayer to the Holy Spirit in this fourth Sunday of Lent.

Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo - presbyter

From the island of Patmos, 15 March 2015 – Rejoice on Sunday

I came Creator

Come, Creator Spiritus,
blest!,
To fill the,
that thou hast made.

Who díceris Paraclitus,
God's gift of the highest,
VIVUS background, ignis, caritas,
and spiritalis unctio.

Your munere septiformis,
Digitus Paternae dexterae,
You Promise of the Father,
speech endow.

Kindle a light,
hearts with love,
our bodily
blest.

Guest repéllas lóngius
pacémque women prótinus;
Through you prǽviam
Each harmful.

Praise we the Father
we also know the Son,
You the Spirit
credamus omni tempore.

All glory,
and the Son, who died
Surrexit, and Paráclito,
forever and ever.

"APPLICATION OF PAUL VI is REALLY VALID»?

"Dear Fathers of’Patmos Island, sometimes it seems that in our churches the liturgical chaos reigns: Fair dialogate, prayers of the faithful "spontaneous" embarrassing, words of the missal changed at will of the celebrant, chants inappropriate, clapping and dancing, Women who go up to the altar during the celebrations as if he were master. I recently read an article that provides answers through a Dominican theologian, Father Thomas Calmel. I'm impressed and I would like to know what this writing is true, then ask yourself: “The Mass of Paul VI, is really valid?”» [Chiara caön, reader of Trento]

Ariel S. Levi Gualdo during solemn vespers

Dear Father Giovanni.

A reader of Trento sent us an article that appeared on the site Second Vatican Council in which a journalist returns to extract some parts of the thought of Father Roger Thomas Calmel OP [1914-1975] which supports the thesis misleading on the celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI [see WHO full article]. Since the subject of the application revolves around a Dominican brother your, please to offer you answer to the question of our reader.

The task with The Island of Patmos we set is to make ecclesial and pastoral theology at a time of great delicacy that sees many of our faithful increasingly disoriented, as evidence the question raised by this reader that such disorientation is paradigm, because many are the letters that arrive more or less similar to the mail the editorial department.

In some of my previous articles I used irony and a certain vehemence toward some commentators that are not just a "minority” Of “noisy dissatisfied "which does not give much weight, but sowers of errors veiled behind the reassuring defense deposit of credit, until funger often a point of reference for many lost, unable to grasp in some bad teachers the drama of the "blind guides" that "filter out the gnat and swallow the camel" [cf. Mt 23, 24].

In countering certain errors it imposes on our consciences priestly duty of balance and prudence summarized through the famous phrase: "You can not throw the baby out with the bathwater", because even in the wrong locations, or those who sometimes carry out in good faith, there may still be good. The essay fable of the baby and the dirty water leads me however to fear the danger of falling into another trap: even Arius and Pelagius was of good. The first was a man of faith, the second a pious ascetic, both theologians refined to the point that against the first One bothered Sant'Atanasio, against the second St. Augustine, which never would have lost their precious time with the little heretic village. And to the present day: Was not, Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, a man of deep piety; an extraordinary missionary in Senegal formed good priests creating excellent results in early local bishops?

To judge this thing quite delicate look for the good nell'errante and the positive elements of union nell'eterodossia, because if this act is not utmost prudence and respect of the deposit of faith and the teaching of the Church is not ironclad, you may run the risk of dragging in our house the worst heresies behind pretexts ecumenical or interfaith dialogue, as evidenced by some decades certain academic institution within which a large number of theologians larded with modernism teach doctrines of Protestant. All this happened because often we tried the good and the common points of union with wandering up to drag us into their home even serious errors, as you yourself have stated long ago in a criticism at the thought of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, certainly not to his worthy person [see WHO], which echoed shortly after another my analysis [see WHO].

As priests and theologians we are called to exercise a ministry that involves a sacred duty that we can not escape for imperative of conscience: necessary to say to our faithful what is right and wrong. For this we use for purely pastoral valuable instrument of this online magazine, I for one do not intend to use or azzuffarmi with “adverse factions” nor for sterile polemics with those who are closed to the grace of listening, but only to serve the truth and the truth for the people that God has entrusted to us, saving, if appropriate, believers of Christ from falling into the errors of some bad teachers.

_______________________________________________________

Replies the Dominican John Cavalcoli

John Cavalcoli OP in the choir of her Dominican convent during the Divine Office

I answer with pleasure to the Reader in Trento saying, first, that in the field of liturgy, the Roman Pontiff, exercises his authority as high priest and supreme moderator of divine worship. He is not infallible in regulating when it organized a ceremonial or liturgical reform, which belongs to his pastoral power. It is, however, in interpreting, guard preserve intact the essence or substance of the Sacraments, because data of faith, because it touches the infallibility of his teaching office.

The immutable essence of the Mass is the following:

"Rite of worship of the New Covenant, with whom and for which, in the person of the priest celebrant in communion with the Church and in the name of the Church, Christ in the Holy Spirit offers incruentemente sacrifice Himself to the Father for the salvation of the world ".

A reform of the Mass will therefore be more or less happy, will then need another reform or recovery than we had decommissioned, but it will never alter the essence of the Mass. To suppose that the Pope to launch a Mass or heretical modernist or filoprotestante, is in turn heresy, not in reference to his pastoral power, but as a teacher of the faith, given that the Mass is a The mystery of faith. In the Mass must therefore distinguish the ceremonial ritual. The first may change and is of ecclesiastical law: the second is immutable and is of divine right.

The rules of the celebration of the Holy Mass - The so-called ceremonial - can then change over the centuries, as the history of the liturgy. But the essence of the Mass is immutable, as well as is demonstrated by history, until the Mass new world order, beyond changes that appear at times deep, but that does not really change the substance, as I defined above.

The Pope has no power to change the substance of the Sacraments and then the essential structure of the rite of Holy Mass, substance or essence that is not difficult to single out beyond the variations of the ceremony took place in the course of history.

Ora but, the Mass new world order, was motivated by the Second Vatican Council with serious reasons known to all [Holy Council, NN. 47-58]. It certainly has an ecumenical aspect, but it is folly to say that it is pro-Protestant or infected by modernism or that it changes the traditional Mass.

The Church can give to those who want permission to celebrate only the old order - As he did with St. Pio of Pietrelcina -, which obviously remains valid; but as long as they do not do it as if it were only valid Mass this. The Church recommends and orders, ordinarily, the new world order, because pastorally is more suitable to the present situation.

___________________________________________________________________

Dear readers.

As you know our work is free but the costs of running the site are not few and should be supported. If you want to win approval with the PayPal system even a few Euros will help us to support the operating costs for lighting a candle The Island of Patmos.

FOR A HEALTHY traditionalism

The Lefebvrians confused with modernism, which is also present in Catholicism today, that healthy progressivism in doctrine and Christian life, which was promoted by the Council, that can make us talk about a healthy progressivism. A bad traditionalism stop the march of history, does not include the value of the new, mummification the perennial, confuses the unchanging with the inaction, the firmness with stiffness, the solid with petrified, the store with conservatism, loyalty with backwardness, progress with subversion and, to be steadfast in the past, is not capable of grasping the values ​​and problems of the present and the hopes of the future.

Author
John Cavalcoli OP

the Holy Pontiff Pius X

She was the famous phrase of St. Pius X, which he said, albeit in a private meeting and not in an official document, that a Catholic can not be a traditionalist. If we compare it with the attack on “traditionalists” made by Pope Bergoglio in his speech at the recent Synod of Bishops on the family, it seems that a lot of water has passed under the bridge in the Papal Magisterium. And instead, apart from the legitimate or questionable personal preferences or opinions of the two Popes, we have to make some clarifications, at the end of which, I hope, we realize that the distance to say the opposition is not as great as it might seem at first.

In fact ask ourselves what the two Popes have understood here to “love the tradition”. Which tradition? Tradition in that sense? “Love” how and how much? It should now be evident, for the Catholic Church educated and attentive to the facts of today, that the term “tradition” is understood in two different senses, so that, clarifying the respective meanings of the same term, we could be sure that the two Popes would cause data to each other. Indeed, while Pius X clearly referred to Sacred Tradition, which, together with Scripture, is a source of divine revelation guarded and infallibly interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church, Pope Francis has clearly condemned some “traditionalism”, that, bad interpreting Sacred Tradition or taking it as a pretext, denies the infallibility or the truth, or dares accuse error or possibility of error, the Magisterium of the Second Vatican Council and doctrinal, Consequently, the Magisterium which it refers, of successive Popes, until the present reigning.

If we think of the Sacred Tradition, it is obvious that a Catholic can not be that traditionalist. Indeed, it can be said in a way that all the content of the doctrine of the faith is the subject of the apostolic tradition, according to the New Testament, intended to act as a time of transmitting or preach to voice, deliver [RM 6,17; The Cor 11,23; 15, 3; II Tm 2,2; Gd 3], and content of preaching, handed over [The Cor 11,2; Ii Ts 2,15; The Tm 6,20]. For Christ did not say to the apostles “write” O, as would a school teacher: “take notes”, ma: “predicate”, and in addition to hands-free, until the end of time, for then it would not exist in the modern technical means of oral communication. However, the announcement of the Word of God aloud, despite the existence today of refined and powerful communication, is still of primary importance, we would like to say almost sacramental.

the Holy Father during a homily

Consider the homily of the priest in the Mass or the word of the confessor during confession. They transmit a special grace of light linked to the sacrament, it was also a priest without academic qualifications, as a St. John Vianney or St. Pio of Pietrelcina. For this reason the Church tells us that the Mass heard on TV, as if it were just a show, does not have the same spiritual value of that listened to the physical presence of the celebrant and you can not even confess to phone, as well as Call your doctor to ask advice or help.

Jesus taught the Apostles

It is quite understandable, however, that the apostles themselves, to preserve a better memory, Then they thought of putting or writting the words of the Lord. And thus was born the New Testament, ie Scripture, which is added to that of the Old Testament, born in the same way, though not lacking circumstances, in which God commands us to write [per es. Dt 6,9; 11,20]. Even in Revelation the Lord commands to write [19,9: 21,5].
Yet the order of Christ to preach and then to transmit voice, always remains valid. And indeed, the Magisterium divinely assisted by the Holy Spirit, Magisterium, by order of Christ, has the task of preserving, to interpret and explain the data is infallibly of Tradition that of Scripture: “Who listens to you, hears me” [LC 10,16]. Therefore missed Luther to want to interpret Scripture without regard to the mediation of the Church and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wrong to want to interpret the tradition regardless of those developments that were made by the Second Vatican Council.

AND certainly this kind of traditionalism that the Pope referred in his address to the synod. However, we must say that not every traditionalism is wrong. In fact, nothing and nobody prevents to conceive a healthy conservatism, who, without in any way reject the doctrines of the new Council correctly interpreted, try a special interest in pre-conciliar traditions still valid, especially if related to the immutability of the dogma, which could be resumed remeasured with utility for the Church of our time.

the Servant of God Dominican Tomas Tyn

The lefevriani confused with modernism - Which is also present in Catholicism today - that healthy progressivism in doctrine and Christian life, which was promoted by the Council, that can make us talk about a healthy progressivism, as for example that of a Maritains, one Spiazzi, a Ratzinger and a Congar, next to a healthy conservatism, as was that of the Servant of God Father Tomas Tyn, to which I devoted a biography, published in 2007 by Faith&Culture: “Father Tomas Tyn. A traditionalist post-conciliar” [see who], a seemingly odd title, which was not understood by all, I studied with the greatest attention and which I have not regretted it at all. It means that a healthy conservatism is not at all uncomfortable in the post-conciliar Church, ma, remembering and preserving that which can not die or mutate, gives a valuable and indispensable contribution to the good of the Church, in reciprocity with a healthy progressivism, springing from what does not pass; while conversely a bad traditionalism stop the march of history, does not include the value of the new, mummification the perennial, confuses the unchanging with the inaction, the firmness with stiffness, the solid with petrified, the store with conservatism, loyalty with backwardness, progress with subversion and, to be steadfast in the past, is not capable of grasping the values ​​and problems of the present and the hopes of the future.

the tug of war

We wish the Holy Father, which is located in the middle of the bitter conflict of modernists and lefevriani, to be able to operate effectively, with the intercession of Mary Queen of Peace, to reconcile these two opposing parties, that are tearing apart the Church, so that the tradition and progress can dutifully work together for a healthy renewal and a healthy modernity expanding Church towards increasingly amp horizons of justice and peace.

WHAT SAY THE “TRADITIONALISTS” (ABOUT THEM AND CONVICTION IN BLOCK)

My dissent against the father Ariel just about externals, while of course I agree with the complaint of ideological fanaticism and commingling policies found in traditionalist. In which area we are, But, even legitimate opinions and legitimate stances, and I can not deny my strategy theological, that is to judge only the doctrine

Author
Antonio Love

the brutal murder of unarmed security guard already on the ground during the attack of terrorists to the editorial department Charlie Hebdo

In my previous article I have already expressed my dissent from the way, in my view unwise, with which my brother Ariel S. Levi Gualdo has treated the subject of blasphemous cartoons of Charlie Hebdo. [see who]. Now, perhaps abusing his patience, I go back to disassociate myself from certain aspects of his way of arguing with Italians members of militant traditionalism; they, indeed, It is not limited to legitimate and indeed necessary criticism of certain ideas but switches to heavy personal references, making the names of some publicists (book authors and editors of newspapers) and even some serious scholars. Everything in the article entitled "We are the change of an era, the Holy Father Francis is necessary to suspend judgment and proceed on the wings of faith” [see who].

Even before these recent events I had published who, on 'Patmos Island, an editorial in which - on behalf of all three editors of the magazine - precisavo one that I thought would be our doctrinal policy, and consequently our editorial line: "Why can not we tell us traditionalists but even progressives" [see who]. The essence of the speech that I made it this: when it comes to matters of faith of the Church and its correct interpretation, We can not dogmatize what is questionable, ie absolutizing what is relative, because in the end is to be put in perspective just what is absolute, that is, the truth of the dogma. As a result, The Island of Patmos should have, in my opinion, on every occasion to reaffirm the truth of the dogma and discern, among many theological opinions that are proposed, those that constitute a legitimate interpretation / application of the dogma from those that are incompatible with the dogma itself. Doing so could avoid taking positions theologically confused, such as to jeopardize the function of orientation to the truth of the dogma The Island of Patmos must have. For "theologically confused positions" I mean those that emphasize beyond measure any legitimate opinion on the Catholic doctrine, eventually take the epistemic quality (negative) of ideology.

Interview with Antonio Livi ed Correspondence Romana. Click on the image to open the video

the, calling Fondazione la mia "Apostolic Union for scientific defense of Catholic truth”, I meant precisely that it was promoting a proper scientific, ie founded on secure principles and guided by an appropriate method. Ideology is exactly the opposite of this way of interpreting the dogma, because it confuses dogma uncritically with questionable, the limited and relative human science with the absoluteness and finality of divine revelation, as it is formalized in dogma, St. Thomas considered a participation 'Knowledge of God and the saints». What forms of ideology, I mean? At these ideological positions that today in the theological debate are contrasted provocatively and I mentioned in the article title: traditionalism and progressivism.

We dell 'Isola we would had to look from appearing supporters of one of these opposing ideology, and explain to all our theological reasons for this distancing. But not passing through the criticism of certain ideas "extremist" denigration of individuals. Because individuals with an idea you never indentificano, let alone with the ideas of a political group, a current of thought. And every person has a dignity that should not be unfairly convolta in the criticism of ideas, His area or cultural environment. Nor should they be criticized, in this doctrinal background, its hypothetical intentions, much less the personal and private facts.

Ariel signigica Lion of God. Ariel's father has a characteristic, he recognized: He likes to poke fun alone …

My disagreement with Ariel So far only externals, while of course I agree with the complaint of ideological fanaticism and commingling policies found in traditionalist. In which area we are, But, even legitimate opinions and legitimate stances, and I can not deny my strategy theological, that is to judge only the doctrine (that is something to be known with sufficient certainty on the part of a believer with theological criterion), and not the conduct, especially if private, of people (given that their intentions and the complex events of their lives are never knowable properly and then do not allow anyone to make certain judgments but only more or less legitimate suspicion and speculation more or less well-founded).

Enzo Bianchi during a conference

I have been faithful to this theological strategy even when I felt compelled, for the preservation of the faith in the people of God, flatly disapprove doctrines that seemed totally incompatible with the dogma (I did it, as everybody knows, denouncing the incompatibility with faith seen in the speeches of certain public figures, including lay people as Enzo Bianchi and Vito Mancuso, Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, and as Walter Kasper, bishops like monsignor Bruno Forte, etc). In this line, I have also worked to promote the Church mutual respect among all the opinions that are compatible with the dogma, whatever the differences in its doctrinal interpretation or historical application. For this reason I refrain from judging what is not doctrine, but practice (pastoral practice, institutional, apostolic etc.), because the practice of individuals is made up of many prudent choices that the individual has to operate in the face of various concrete circumstances and must be guided, precisely, by virtue of prudence: virtues that I want to play in my own work, but about which I have no way to judge the work of others.

Liturgy according to the old order posted

in traditionalist There are opinions and are also recognized legitimate. Let me explain: If the "area" or "current" you can talk, it is because the different actors have in common a certain ideological approach, which consists in considering illegitimate (totally or in part) the teaching of Vatican Council II, because it would have welcomed (totally or in part) instances ideology opposite, that of progressivism or modernism. Hence hermeneutics of Vatican II as a radical "break" with the Tradition, particularly with the decrees of the Council of Trent and Vatican I, with the condemnation of theological modernism by Saint Pius X and the condemnation of "new theology"By Pius XII. From here also the rejection in block of the entire post-conciliar theology and the constant reference to the sole pre-reconcile theology. From there the fact to consider doctrinally and pastorally unacceptable reforms introduced by Vatican II in the Church's life, beginning with the liturgical reform, with the consequent attachment to The old order, considered the only valid way of celebrating the Eucharist. From here finally the systematic critique of the pastoral decisions of the popes of the post-conciliar (Blessed Paul VI, St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI and especially the current pope, Francesco), considered deleterious effects of the conciliar reforms.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

The most extreme positions, in this sense, are those represented by the followers of Archbishop. Marcel- Francois Lefebvre, some of whom come to speak of "vacant" and "Church apostate". Evidently, these extreme positions are not made their, all together, by all the representatives of the Catholic traditionalism, because among them there are also serious and balanced scholars, whose ideas - taken one by one - can and should be appreciated, although not necessarily shared, as valid and legitimate interpretations of Catholic dogma and history of the Church. It is a question of objectively respectable theological opinions, and I, When the opportunity presents itself, I find it quite right to respect them, and sometimes also to express my appreciation. And to those who work with me I suggest you do the same, ie respect these objectively respectable theological opinions. Respect them - I clarify – not for the impersonal context (socio-cultural) ideology which is their humus, but in the personal context of righteous arguments of those who propose.

a valuable historical work of Roberto de Mattei

I do a first example, so to further clarify This my criterion. The historical research of Roberto de Mattei on Vatican II are in themselves - regardless of ideological use that they can do - a record that has a great scientific value. I do not share his interest in pursuing the Council as an "event", because I'm interested in the Council as the Magisterium, regardless of how the conciliar documents have been developed in the committees and voted on in the classroom; but that does not stop me from reading his works without bias and to draw useful indications for the hermeneutic of the Council, that papa Ratzinger leads to recognition in Vatican II a "renewal in continuity of the one subject Church". I not even completely share his strategy of intervention of Catholics in social life in defense of "non-negotiable principles": but I know well that some initiative in civil society must indeed be taken, and my mistrust of the use of certain means (the inevitable mingling with political issues) does not take away my full sharing of ends. This is why not just believe that you find fault in 'Patmos Island without distinguishing between its historiographical considerations (which fall within the limits of legitimate freedom of opinion of Catholics) and its cultural and socio-political (the expediency of which does not touch us of 'Patmos Island to judge).

Anthology of writings by Piero Vassallo Levied Christian

As another example,. Piero Vassallo Genovese is a cultured intellectual, good knowledge of the history of modern philosophy, and he and I are in agreement there on the validity of the "philosophy of common sense" and the critical idealism of theology; why should I refuse his friendship as manifested, when he is dealing with matters unrelated to theology, sympathies for the political right? In addition to not talk (neither good nor bad) political conviction, I should also point to it to public contempt? And what theological argument I should come up to attack? I should perhaps say that the Catholic morals forbids to have sympathies for the right? But the view that we must necessarily be left to be a good Catholic has no theological foundation: It is the classic view of "fundamentalist" (that can be right-wing Catholics, m also left Catholics: just think of the theorists of "political theology" or "liberation theology").

astray …

The "fundamentalists" are theologically astray, because they ignore the complexity of policy issues and the area of ​​freedom that the Church gives to the faithful in the choice of means to operate the necessary "mediation" between the principles of social ethics and the concrete possibility of promoting the common good in the historical contingency. I do so I must limit myself to theological considerations, reminding everyone that in politics there are no dogmas, and the real dogma, what is the basis of Catholic morality, does not oblige the faithful to any contingent political option. The principles of moral theology (and the Church's social doctrine is a chapter of moral theology, said St. John Paul II) indicate the criteria that the conscience of the faithful must follow, applying them with freedom and personal responsibility to concrete historical circumstances in which it has to operate.

the eminent theologian of the Roman school Brunero Gherardini

A third example is that of Brunero Gherardini, theologian of the Lateran and exponent of what was once the famous "Roman School", to which progressives wanted to inflict damnation of memory. Traditionalists however exalted Gherardini because he put at the center of theological discussion of the post-conciliar precisely the notion of "Tradition", without, however, fully understand in its complexity epistemica. I think I've fully understood and not convince me at all (He knows this because we hang out amicably for many years and we exchange opinions on many topics), but nonetheless I recommend to everyone the study of his texts, full of good doctrine and deep piety. In one of them his lyrics he concludes his analysis of the doctrinal documents of Vatican II detecting in some cases the ambiguity: ambiguity as to enable progressive false and tendentious interpretations, justifying their "hermeneutic of discontinuity", namely the argument that the Vatican II would mark a radical rupture with Tradition. But what is the consequence that Gherardini draws from his analysis? Do not indiscriminate rejection of the Council's teachings but rather a respectful and heartfelt appeal to the supreme authority of the Magisterium, dad, to make provision in the way that he believes should be made clear in which direction those ambiguous propositions can and should be interpreted in continuity with the previous magisterium. I thought it right and proper to join this public plea to the Pope, although personally I have always thought that the problem of the ambiguity contained in some Council texts should be solved with the hermeneutical criterion of "analogy fidei", ie assuming that the Church of Christ - only subject permanent in the changing historical circumstances – He never intended to contradict, so that in the intentions of the teaching Church every evolution of dogma is always substantially harmony with Tradition (it is a "homogeneous evolution", as Marin Sola said).

And I could give many other examples, but these are enough. And new dell 'Patmos Island indiscriminately we condemn individuals of a certain ideological area, without saving the objectively positive aspects of their theoretical proposals, we do too ideological operation, and so our work of public theological orientation is to be severely limited.

__________________________

We point out to our readers that the previous article by Antonio Livi was particularly appreciated within the French and has been translated and reproduced in an online magazine which can be viewed by clicking below

WHO