Bible, homosexuals and theology. The substantial difference between those who speculate and discuss and those who want to introduce a dangerous Trojan horse into the Church
/in Theologica/by hermit monkBIBLE, HOMOSEXUALS AND THEOLOGY. THE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE WHO SPECULATE AND DISCUSS AND THOSE WHO WANT TO INTRODUCE A DANGEROUS TROJAN HORSE INSIDE THE CHURCH
«Today an increasingly large number of people, even within the Church, they exert very strong pressure to bring her to accept the homosexual condition, like it wasn't messy, and to legitimize homosexual acts" (Joseph Ratzinger, 1986)
— Theologica pages —

Author
Hermit Monk
.HTTPS://youtu.be/4fP7neCJapw.
.
Homosexuality has always been a thorny topic, generates destined discussions and polarizations, like the famous parallel lines, to never meet. To give an example, I could cite the fuss raised last year by the publication of a book written by a General of the Italian Army containing decidedly clear positions on this aspect.. Of course homosexuality, During the years, it was also a debated chapter in the Catholic Church, more and more; escaped from fleeting mention in old manuals of moral theology and has become the subject of magisterial pronouncements, with specific dedicated documents, which denote how much the topic is felt in society and in the Christian communities that question themselves on this. Various meanings are found in the same documents, decisive or timid openings and closures which can also be ascribed to the sensitivity or position of that ecclesiastical representative or pontiff in office in a particular historical moment.
The Second Vatican Council he also asked that Sacred Scripture be given back the veneration it deserves as the source of divine Revelation and to it and to Sacred Tradition he dedicated one of the four dogmatic constitutions issued from that meeting, with the name of God's word. Since then every magisterial pronouncement, but one could say any theological or pastoral reflection, every single act of the Church cannot ignore the reference to the Bible. Even a topic that would seem delicate like that of homosexuality. Now, what sometimes emerges in many who want to refer to the Bible when speaking or writing about this topic, it's that they can hardly put aside the desire to polarize or necessarily emerge victorious from controversies, as we already noted at the beginning of this speech. Like this, the Holy Scripture, in debates or writings, it ceases to be that source that nourishes to become a weapon brandished by those who condemn short homosexuality, and by those who would instead like the Church to apologize to homosexuals for its closures and for the suffering it has caused them. How can you get out of this impasse? I think, first of all, recognizing the right value of the Holy Scripture which is evidently not a weapon to be used at will or a handbook and leaflet to be opened to comfort one's ideas and positions in the world. I read some passages of the voluminous commentary published last year under the name of Bibbia queer for the types of the Dehonian editions (WHO), where among other things, in the Gospels there is fear of a homosexual relationship between the Roman centurion and his sick servant for whom the former asks Jesus for healing, only because the Evangelist Luke says that "he was very dear to him" (LC 7, 1-10). The same interpretation was recently relaunched by a blog that is usually very polemical towards the current Pontiff and the leaders of the Church, but decidedly lenient on the subject of homosexuality, so much so as to state in an article dedicated to the relationship between this topic and Sacred Scripture that:
«Reading these texts carefully, so, there is nothing against homosexuality".
For real? Why leafing through the documents of the ecclesiastical Magisterium, the Catechism of the Catholic Church to cite an example, and of course those sites or blogs with a more conservative orientation, so to speak, it seems instead that for these the Bible is decidedly positioned on an attitude against homosexuality.
What I want to remember here it is how the Council wanted the Bible to be interpreted and it talks about this in nr. 12 of the Dogmatic Constitution God's word:
«For God in the Holy Scripture spoke through men in the human manner, the interpreter of the Holy Scripture, to better understand what he wanted to communicate to us, he must carefully research what the hagiographers really wanted to say and what God was pleased to demonstrate with their words. To obtain the intention of the hagiographers, among other things, literary genres must also be taken into account. In fact, the truth is proposed and expressed differently in historical texts in various ways, or prophetic, or poetic, or even in other genres of expression. It is therefore necessary for the interpreter to seek the meaning that the hagiographs in certain circumstances, according to the conditions of his time and his culture, through the literary genres in use at the time, he intended to express and has in fact expressed. In fact, to understand exactly what the sacred author wanted to assert in writing, due attention must be paid to both habitual and original ways of feeling, to express oneself and tell stories in force in the time of the hagiographer, both to those and in the various places they were then in use in human relationships. Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by which it was written, to derive the exact meaning of the sacred texts, care must be taken with no less diligence the content and unity of the whole Scripture, taking due account of the living tradition of the whole Church and the analogy of faith. It is the task of the exegetes to contribute, following these rules, to the deepest intelligence and exposition of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through their studies, somewhat preparatory, let the judgment of the Church mature".
This is important and in some ways the passage of the passage is still not fully understood God's word reminds us, in its first part, the sacramental quality, as it were, of the Holy Scripture. Since the Word of God is presented in the form of human writing that is subject to the conditions of time and culture of the writers and to the original way of organizing that literary genius that every biblical author possesses. Just as it underlies their "ways of feeling, to express oneself and tell stories... which were in use in human relationships". In the second part, instead, there is an invitation to further excavation that goes in the direction of searching for the deeper meaning or meaning of the same Scripture. A spiritual sense, it is no coincidence that the Spirit is mentioned with a capital letter, and theological, in accordance with the entire deposit of faith, for an ever fuller understanding of the text and because the Church, in particular that part of it predisposed to driving, can express a judgment on the things that concern the Christian experience in accordance with the Word of God and its tradition. In light of this, we understand that we are facing a long and patient job, quite another thing than unsheathing the sword of the Bible and brandishing it to assert, or worse to impose their ideas.
Returning to our topic, it is clear that the Church's judgment on homosexuality has undergone progress, as well as maintaining some considerations. This can be seen in the documents, it gives Human person the 1975 to the recent Begging for Confidence the 2023, passing by Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual people the 1986, issued by the Congregation, now Dicastery, for the Doctrine of the Faith. This last document is the one that more than the others makes explicit reference to the biblical passages that condemn homosexuality, he lists them all and on this basis and on that of Tradition and the Magisterium, that document states that the Church:
«He maintains his clear position on this matter, which cannot be modified under the pressure of civil legislation or the fashion of the moment" (no. 9).
Shortly before the same text mentioned that:
«Today an increasingly large number of people, even within the Church, they exert very strong pressure to bring her to accept the homosexual condition, like it wasn't messy, and to legitimize homosexual acts" (no. 8).
Even the most recent document Begging for confidence it relies on Scripture, tradition and the Magisterium, in particular of the last Pontiff. This grants the possibility of giving the blessing under certain conditions to irregular couples and to those of the same sex because in this way:
«The Church is thus the sacrament of God's infinite love. Therefore, even when the relationship with God is clouded by sin, you can always ask for a blessing, holding out your hand to him, as Peter did in the storm when he cried out to Jesus: "Man, save me!” (Mt 14, 30). Wishing for and receiving a blessing can be the best thing possible in some situations." (no. 43).
Without forgetting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, what he says about homosexual people:
«Homosexuality refers to relationships between men or women who experience sexual attraction, exclusive or predominant, towards people of the same sex. It manifests itself in very varied forms over the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychic genesis remains largely unexplained. Relying on the Holy Scripture, which presents homosexual relationships as serious depravities, Tradition has always declared that "acts of homosexuality are intrinsically disordered". They are against natural law. They preclude the gift of life from the sexual act. They are not the fruit of true emotional and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (cf.. 2357). «A non-negligible number of men and women have deeply rooted homosexual tendencies. This inclination, objectively disordered, constitutes a test for most of them. Therefore they must be welcomed with respect, compassion, delicacy. In their regard, any sign of unfair discrimination will be avoided. Such people are called to carry out God's will in their life, e, if they are Christian, to unite the difficulties they may encounter as a result of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross " (cf.. 2358). «Homosexual people are called to chastity. Through the virtues of self-mastery, educators of inner freedom, through support, sometimes, of a disinterested friendship, with prayer and sacramental grace, they can and must, gradually and resolutely, getting closer to Christian perfection" (cfr.2359).
What about all this? Evidently these are not schizophrenic visions of the same reality. Rather, in the aforementioned documents there is a desire to maintain anchoring in the Word of God, seen precisely as a source. It is clear that the different writers wanted to press a certain type of register instead of another. Thus the most recent document relied on the teaching of mercy, so dear to Pope Francis and prefer biblical passages that underline God's welcome rather than condemnation. It is probable that the texts most decisive in condemning homosexuality have been interpreted in light of that "sense that the hagiographer in certain circumstances, according to the conditions of his time and his culture, through the literary genres in use at the time, intended to express and has in fact expressed", of which the Council spoke. Thus some expressions of Saint Paul and already of the Book of Leviticus which condemn homosexual relations for some exegetes are such because "the notion of homosexuality did not exist, that is, the normal attraction that a person can have towards another of the same sex, Paul saw this behavior as a deviation, based on what he believed was the "natural relationship". His opinions on the matter have the same value as when he states that it is "nature itself that teaches us that it is unseemly for a man to let his hair grow" (1 Color 11,14) (WHO). Likewise the Old Testament prescriptions of Leviticus, they are not related to sexuality, but rather to procreation, as it contravened the divine commandment "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1,28) (WHO). The biblical text par excellence, then, on which every openness towards the homosexual condition is based and, lately, it is also used for the request for female ordination and is the Pauline passage from the Letter to the Galatians:
«There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is no slave nor free; there is no male and female, because you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3,28).
Text variously interpreted and sometimes forced to say what he really doesn't want to say. Yet all the documents, and the more closed ones, is the last one that presents some openings regarding the blessing of homosexual couples, you have to say it and accept it, they do not declare themselves openly Gay-friendly, as they say today; quite the opposite. Also Begging for confidence, which speaks of mercy, he does not withdraw from traditional doctrine nor does he wish to create confusion between the marital union and other types of union:
«This belief is founded on the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage. Only in this context do sexual relations find their natural meaning, adequate and fully human. The doctrine of the Church on this point remains firm." (no. 4).
There is yet another aspect that needs to be mentioned. Joseph Ratzinger who drafted the aforementioned Letter the 1986 he spoke of very strong pressures, even manipulation, to ensure that the Church accepted the homosexual condition. The document clarified the Church's position on this matter. Yet it must be admitted that in that document and in the others the Church's attitude towards homosexuals had already changed a lot and this, it cannot be denied, because the sensitivity and opinion of contemporaries in this regard has profoundly changed, at all levels. Thus the Church today also deplores the oppression of homosexual people, as expressed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church cited above, therefore the use of violent language and actions. We appeal to the "proper dignity of every person". The term sodomy has disappeared and instead of "against nature" we are instead talking about a tendency, even if the "orientation" used by the World Health Organization is not adopted. Homosexual people are Christians like everyone else and invited to live chastity. there, Homosexual acts are not accepted, but that document, in the final part, it is all a promotion of the welcome and pastoral care of homosexuals who are not denied the Sacraments, under the appropriate conditions.
But as always happens with the topics that interest us In the Christian life, discussions are never closed, the reflection continues. The same Letter by Joseph Ratzinger invites bishops to solicit "the collaboration of all Catholic theologians" (no. 17). This aspect is probably the most difficult, the most tiring, what we miss most and also the most delicate as I will mention shortly with an example. But also what we need most, precisely because the Bible, to return to the heart of our discussion, is not used as a handbook. There is a further and decisive step. So that people, immersed in contemporary culture, can appreciate the intelligence of faith, we need the continuous effort to hermeneutically re-understand the data of faith and translate it into coherent organizations of thought. The Bible must retain its character as a source, but we need theological reflection for which the Holy Scripture, according to a beautiful expression of God's word, it is like the soul that keeps it always young:
«Sacred theology rests as if on an everlasting foundation on the written Word of God, inseparable from sacred Tradition; in it it is vigorously consolidated and always rejuvenated, scrutinizing in the light of faith every truth contained in the mystery of Christ. The Holy Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because you are inspired, they are truly the Word of God, let the study of the sacred pages be the soul of sacred theology" (no. 24).
I come to the example I wanted to refer to: the known theologians who have reflected on the topic of homosexuality almost all belong to the Anglo-Saxon area, often with decidedly open-minded positions in this area. Yet in Italy we had a theologian, a priest, who has thought a lot about this topic, but few know it. I am referring to the presbyter Gianni Baget Bozzo who many know for his orbiting vocation, that is, capable of making choices and expressing opinions first in one direction and then in the opposite direction. Embodying a controversial character alive he is now almost forgotten, Unfortunately. But according to him "in God the opposites are not contradictory" and "there is nothing more fascinating for the human imagination than seeing the two sides of a contradiction at the same time"[1]. He had Giuseppe Siri as a professor of religion in Genoa, future archbishop and cardinal of the same city who ordained him as a priest, he will want him to be a professor of theology in the seminary, he will entrust the magazine to him Renewal, he will take away these two tasks and suspend him peep. He changed his mind about everything, but on a subject he never changed his opinion: about homosexuals. His comments on the matter, which date from 1976 until the 2008, so that they do not fall into oblivion, they were collected by the Vatican expert Luigi Accattoli in a book entitled: For a theology of homosexuality [2].
These are texts that appeared in newspapers, magazines or speeches at conferences in which he tenaciously made his claims, for over thirty years, the rights of those who live in the homosexual condition. And as a theologian he encouraged Christians to rethink the theology of sexuality and to develop within it the unprecedented chapter of homosexuality. With his extraordinary aptitude for speaking about God in the language of his time, he wondered and asked what the divine intention is regarding the existence of homosexuals. He did so with sharp arguments and learned quotations, to the point that in the end he even had to repeat in more than one interview that he was not homosexual. Defended homosexuals, but also virginity and celibacy and did not spare criticism of the movement gay, to the organization of Pride, in particular that of the Holy Year of 2000, jubilee year, which caused such a sensation in the city of Rome. He advised homosexuals to have stable partners, instead of variables and also accused the European Union of using i gay as a weapon against the Catholic Church. He considered chaste homoeroticism not incompatible with sanctity and wrote things like this:
«Homosexuality, anyhow, it can never be considered by society as a model. It cannot be so first and foremost for biological reasons. A society that is biologically aseptic is incompatible with the teachings of Christ. This should not be forgotten. The Church cannot accept the equalization between the heterosexual and homosexual conditions. This is valid on the level of social morality. To be clear, on the political level. But on the level of individual morality, the discussion is still open and will need to be addressed" (The Gazette, June 2020).
What I want to underline here it is not so much defending Baget Bozzo's opinions, although it is nice that they are not forgotten and that there was an Italian intellectual who was not afraid to expose himself in this debate, but that we need such a cultural and theological effort, of sharp minds that help us think about difficult issues and therefore deal with those who don't think like us, but with the same diligence. Let's leave the shortcuts of those who take the Bible and read it like a medical handbook to the dear fundamentalists from overseas or to some blog of little fortune. The Catholic tradition that has never made use of shortcuts, much less the intellectuals, has always invited us to think, after meditating on Holy page, to quote Thomas Aquinas, what it was magister.
From the Hermitage, 3 May 2024

Gianni Baget Bozzo, Genoese presbyter (1925 – †2009)
.
NOTE
[1] Baget Bozzo G., Vocation, Rizzoli, 1982, pg 68 e 142).
[2] Baget Bozzo G., For a theology of homosexualityat, edited by Luigi Accattoli, Ed. Months, 2020.
.

Sant'Angelo Cave in Ripe (Civitella del Tronto)
.
Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.
.
______________________
Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:
Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos
n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21
If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com
We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.
The Fathers of the Island of Patmos
.
.
.
.
.
The last devotion of Christ: the Sacred Heart is not devotionism but a gateway to the mysteries of God
/1 Comment/in Theologica/by Father IvanoThe fans of Mary co-redemptrix, a gross contradiction in theological terms
/3 Comments/in Theologica/by father arielTHE FANS OF MARIA CO-REDEMPTOR, A GROSS CONTRADICTION IN THEOLOGICAL TERMS
Is anyone truly willing to believe that the Blessed Virgin, the one who defined herself as a "humble servant", the woman of gifted love, silence and confidentiality, the one who has the purpose of leading to Christ, can truly ask some visionaries or visionaries to be proclaimed co-redeemer and put almost on a par with the Divine Redeemer? One might reasonably ask: of when, the "humble servant" of Magnificat, she would become so pretentious and vain as to ask for and claim the title of co-redeemer?
— Theologica pages —

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo
.
.
Article dedicated to the memory of the Jesuit Peter Gumpel (Hannover 1923 – Rome 2023) who was my trainer and precious teacher in the history of dogma
.
By frequenting enough i social media, reading and listening to priests and lay people, on biblical and theological topics, sometimes one gets the impression that no progress has been made on certain issues. It so happens that many inaccuracies are put into circulation on questions concerning matters of faith, or we continue on old registers, devotional and emotional.

Salvador Dali, The Madonna of Port Lligat, 1949, Haggerty Museum of Art, Milwaukee, WI, USA. Detail.
The desire, perhaps a little utopian, it would be for the Readers to realize, with minimal effort, who could benefit from serious and precise insights. At least it is in my hope and that of our Fathers Patmos Island, be of help to those who manage to go beyond the four or five lines read on social media, where today unlikely theologians and Mariologists pontificate, with the consequences that we often know well: deviation from the true faith. And this is very sad, because i Social media they could be an extraordinary tool for us for the diffusion of sound and solid Catholic doctrine.
In the years following the Second Vatican Council Biblical science has made important strides, offering contributions that are now essential for theology in its various branches and for Christian life. This since when, since the time of the Venerable Pontiff Pius XII, in the Catholic Church the study of the Bible has been encouraged by giving the possibility of using all those methods that are normally applied to a written text. To cite just a few examples: rhetorical analysis, the structural one, literary and semantics have produced results that perhaps have sometimes appeared unsatisfactory, but they also allowed us to explore the text of the Holy Scripture in a new way and this led to a whole series of studies that made us know the Word of God better and more deeply. Or to reconsider ancient acquisitions, of tradition, of the Holy Fathers of the Church, which despite being true and profound, as well as works of high theology, however they did not have the support of a modern study of sacred texts, precisely because still, certain tools, at the time of their speculations they were missing.
Before continuing, an aside is necessary: i "teologi" da social media they need the fight, to unleash which it is necessary to choose and create an enemy. For certain groups the most popular enemy is Modernism, rightly defined by the Holy Pontiff Pius (cf.. Feeding of Dominic's Sheep). That doesn't mean that, But, than the actions of this Holy Pontiff, before that and of his Supreme Predecessor Leo XIII, has always produced beneficial effects in the decades to follow. Obviously, to make an objective critical analysis, it is imperative to contextualize the condemnation of Modernism and the severe canonical measures that followed in that precise historical moment, certainly not to express judgments using criteria linked to our present, because only misleading and distorting sentences would emerge. To briefly summarize this complex problem to which I intend to dedicate my next book, suffice it to say that the Church of those years, after the fall of the Papal State which occurred on 20 September 1870, it was subject to violent political and social attacks. The Roman Pontiff withdrew as a "voluntary prisoner" within the Vatican walls from which he emerged only six decades later. The anticlericalism of Masonic origin was raised to the maximum power and the Church had to seriously deal with its own survival and that of the institution of the papacy. It certainly could not afford the development of currents of thought that would have attacked and corroded it directly from within. It is in this delicate context that the fight of the Holy Pontiff Pius. With all the consequences, including negative ones, of the case: theological speculation was effectively frozen amidst a thousand fears and the training of priests was reduced to four formulas of decadent neo-scholasticism, which was not even a distant relative of the classical scholasticism of Saint Anselm of Aosta and Saint Thomas Aquinas. This produced such an unpreparedness and ignorance in the Catholic clergy that for clear proof it would be enough to read the Encyclical Back to the Catholic Priesthood written in 1935 of Pope Pius XI.
The consequences of the fight against Modernism they were in some ways disastrous, suffice it to say that when on the threshold of the 1940s, at the beginning of the pontificate of Pius XII, Catholic theologians and biblical scholars began to get their hands on certain materials and to carry out exegesis in the context of the Old and New Testaments, they were forced, discreetly and working prudently under the table, to refer to Protestant authors, who had been speculating and carrying out in-depth studies on certain topics for decades, especially in the field of biblical sciences. And so today, if we want to do a study and analysis of the text of the Letter to the Romans we must necessarily refer to the commentary of the Protestant theologian Carl Barth, which remains fundamental and above all unsurpassed. These too were the fruits of the struggle against Modernism, which the "theologians" certainly don't talk about social media that to exist they need an enemy to fight. But as already said, this theme will be the subject of my next book, but this aside was necessary to better introduce our theme.
What is still missing today is that these results obtained through modern exegesis or the study of the Old and New Testament texts become the prerogative of the majority of believers. And here I return to reiterate the extraordinary importance that the social media, to disseminate and make certain materials accessible. Too often they remain confined to specialist texts and do not pass, if not sporadically, in preaching and catechesis, encouraging a new awareness of the terms at stake and therefore a more solid and motivated Christian faith, not based only on acquired data that is often fragile and confusing, on the devotional, on the sentimental, or worse: about revelations, on real or alleged apparitions, or on the itchy trembling “secrets” of talkativeness Madam di Medjugorje (cf.. my video conference, WHO)…and so on to follow.
If certain madonnolatrous fans they had humility, perhaps even the decency to read books and articles by authoritative scholars, perhaps they could understand that not only, they didn't understand, but that they have understood nothing at all about the Mary of the Holy Gospels. It would be enough to take - I mention just one among many - the article written by Father Ignace de la Potterie: «The Mother of Jesus and the mystery of Cana» (La Civiltà Cattolica, 1979, IV, pp. 425-440, full text WHO), to thus understand what abysmal difference there may be between Mariology and Mariolatry.
When even today we still talk about the Virgin Mary, Unfortunately, even among certain priests - and even more so among certain devout believers - we witness the trite repetition of the usual devotional and emotional discourses, until reaching, with the step of elephants inside a glassware shop, the very delicate and discussed theme of Mary co-redemptrix, that as is well known - and as the last Pontiffs have pointed out several times -, it is a term that in itself creates enormous theological problems with Christology and the mystery of redemption itself. In fact, affirm that Maria, perfect creature born without sin, but still a created creature, he cooperated in the redemption of humanity, it is not exactly the same as saying that he co-redeemed humanity. It was Christ who brought about the redemption, who was not a created creature but the Word of God made man, begotten not created of the same substance as God the Father, as we act in the Symbol of Faith, the I believe, where we profess «[…] and by the work of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary". In Symbol of Faith, redemption is entirely centered on Christ. That's why we say that the Blessed Virgin “he cooperated” and say “ha co-redee” it has a substantially and radically different theological value. In fact, only one is the redeemer: Jesus Christ God made man "begotten not created of the same substance as the Father", who as such does not need any created creature to support or sustain him as co-redeemer or co-redeemer, including the Blessed Virgin Mary" (cf.. Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo, in The Island of Patmos, see WHO, WHO, WHO). Request: to the fans of the co-redeemer, how come it is not enough that Mary is the one who in fact cooperated more than any creature so that the mystery of redemption was realized? For what reason, but above all for what obstinacy, not happy with her role as a cooperator, at all costs they want her to be proclaimed co-redemptive with a solemn dogmatic definition?
From a theological point of view and dogmatic, the very concept of Mary co-redemptrix first of all creates big problems for Christology, with the risk of giving life to a sort of "quatrinity" and of raising the Madonna, that is perfect creature born without the stain of original sin, to the role of real gods. Christ redeemed us with his hypostatic precious human and divine blood, with his glorious resurrected body which still bears the signs of passion imprinted on it today. Mary instead, while covering an extraordinary role in the history of the economy of salvation, It cooperated in our redemption. To say co-redemptive is equivalent to saying that we have been redeemed by Christ and Mary. And here it is good to clarify: Christ saves, Mary intercedes for our salvation. It is not a small difference between “saving” and “interceding”, unless otherwise create a different religion from the one founded on the mystery of God's Word (cf.. My previous article WHO).
Mariology is not something in itself, almost as if he lived an autonomous life. Mariology is nothing more than an appendix of Christology and is inserted in a precise theological dimension of Christocentrism. If Mariology is somehow detached from this Christocentric centrality, one can run the serious risk of falling into the worst and most harmful Mariocentrism. Not to mention the obvious arrogance of the exponents of some young and problematic Congregation of Franciscan-Marian imprint, who did not limit themselves to making hypotheses or theological studies to support the peregrine idea of the so-called co-redemptive, but in fact they instituted its cult and veneration.
Who proclaims dogmas that do not exist commits a greater crime than those whose dogmas deny them, because it operates by placing itself above the authority of the same Holy Church Mater et Magistra, holder of an authority that derives from Christ himself. And the latter yes, which is a dogma of the Catholic Faith, which was not reached by logical deduction after centuries of studies and speculation - as in the case of the dogma of the immaculate conception and Mary's assumption into heaven -, but on the basis of clear and precise words pronounced by the Word of God made Man (cf.. Mt 13, 16-20). And when dogmas that don't exist are proclaimed, in that case pride enters the scene in its worst manifestation. I have written and explained it in several of my previous articles but it deserves to be repeated again: in the so-called scale of the deadly sins the Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates pride in the first place, with painful peace of those who persist in concentrating the entire mystery of evil in lust - which we remember does not figure in first place at all, but not even to the second, to the third and fourth [See. Catechism no. 1866] ―, regardless of the fact that the worst sins ranging everyone and rigor from his belt to rise, not instead of his belt to fall, as I wrote in an ironic but theologically very serious tone years ago in my book And Satan became triune, explaining in one of my books 2011 how the sixth commandment has often been exaggerated beyond measure, often forgetting all the worst and most serious sins against charity.
If then all this is filtered through fideistic emotions - as if such a delicate topic centered in the most complex spheres of dogmatics were a sort of opposing fan base made up of Lazio fans and Roma fans -, in that case one can fall into actual Marian idolatry or so-called Mariolatry, which is to say: pure paganism. At that point Mary could easily take the name of any goddess of the Greek Olympus or the Roman Pantheon.
The fans from social media of co-redemption of the Blessed Virgin affirm as a sort of incontrovertible proof that it was Mary herself who asked for the proclamation of this fifth Marian dogma (cf.. among many articles, WHO). Something they say there is no discussion about, the Blessed Virgin herself would have asked it when appearing in Amsterdam to Ida Peerdeman. Given that no Marian apparition, including those recognized as authentic by the Church, Fatima included, it can be the object and binding matter of faith; given also that the locutions of certain seers are even less so, we can only smile at certain pleasantries of amateur theologians which make certain subjects difficult to manage for us priests and above all for us theologians, precisely because their arrogance goes hand in hand with their ignorance which leads them to treat such a topic as if it really were a heated exchange between Lazio fans and Roma fans who shout at each other from the opposite corners of the stadium. Even in this case the answer is simple: is anyone truly willing to believe that the Blessed Virgin, the one who defined herself as a "humble servant", the woman of gifted love, silence and confidentiality, the one who has the purpose of leading to Christ, can truly ask some visionaries or visionaries to be proclaimed co-redeemer and put almost on a par with the Divine Redeemer? One might reasonably ask: of when, the "humble servant" of Magnificat, she would become so pretentious and vain as to ask for and claim the title of co-redeemer?
Finally, here it is “proof of proof”: «several Supreme Pontiffs have made use of the term co-redemptive», Having said this, the list of their various speeches follows, although everything demonstrates the exact opposite of what the co-redemption fans would like to experience. It is true that the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in a speech of his on 8 September 1982, stated:
«Maria, even conceived and born without stain of sin, he participated in a wonderful way in the sufferings of his divine Son, to be co-redemptor of humanity".
However, this expression demonstrates the exact opposite on the theological and Mariological level. Let's clarify why: from then on, following John Paul II - who was undoubtedly a Pontiff of profound Marian devotion -, he had others before him 23 years of pontificate. Come May, in this long period of time, as well as not proclaiming the fifth Marian dogma of Mary's co-redemption, he flatly rejected the request, when it was presented to him twice? He rejected her because between the 1962 and the 1965, the then young Bishop Karol Woytila was a participating and active figure in the Second Vatican Council who in one of its dogmatic constitutions clarified how Mary had «cooperated in a unique way in the work of the Savior» (The light, 61). Statement introduced by the previous article where it is specified that the only mediation of the Redeemer «does not exclude, but it arouses in creatures a varied cooperation participated by the single source" (The light 60; CCC 970). And the highest and most extraordinary cooperation was that of the Virgin Mary. This should be enough to understand that the Supreme Pontiffs, when they sometimes resorted to the term co-redemptive in their speeches, never in encyclicals or solemn acts of the supreme magisterium, they intended to express with it the concept of Mary's cooperation in the mystery of salvation and redemption.
The very term co-redemptive it is in and of itself a theological absurdity that creates enormous conflicts with Christology and the mystery of redemption brought about solely by God the Incarnate Word, which does not need co-redeemers and co-redeemers, he repeated it three times, In the 2019, 2020 e 2021 also the Supreme Pontiff Francis:
«[…] Faithful to his Master, who is his Son, the only Redeemer, he never wanted to take something of his Son for himself. She never presented herself as a co-redeemer. No, discepola. And there is a Holy Father who says around that discipleship is more worthy than motherhood. Questions of theologians, but a disciple. He never stole anything from his Son for himself, she served him because she is a mother, gives life in the fullness of time to this Son born of a woman (cf.. Homily of 12 December 2019, full text WHO) […] Our Lady did not want to take any title away from Jesus; she received the gift of being His Mother and the duty to accompany us as a Mother, to be our Mother. She did not ask for herself to be a quasi-redeemer or a co-redeemer: no. The Redeemer is only one and this title is not doubled. Only disciple and Mother (cf.. Homily of 3 April 2020, full text WHO) […] the Madonna who, as the Mother to whom Jesus has entrusted us, envelops us all; but as a mother, not as a goddess, not as a co-redemptrix: as Mother. It is true that Christian piety always gives it beautiful titles, like a son to his mother: how many beautiful things a son says to the mother he loves! But let's be careful: the beautiful things that the Church and the Saints say about Mary take nothing away from the redemptive uniqueness of Christ. He is the only Redeemer. They are expressions of love like a son to his mother, sometimes exaggerated. But love, we know, always makes us do exaggerated things, but with love" (cf.. Hearing of 24 March 2021, full text WHO).
The mystery of redemption it is one with the mystery of the cross, on which God made man died as a sacrificial lamb. On the cross the Blessed Virgin Mary was not nailed to death like a sacrificial lamb, that at the end of her life she fell asleep and was assumed into heaven, she did not die and rose again on the third day, defeating death. The Blessed Virgin, first creature of the whole creation above all the saints for its immaculate purity, he does not forgive our sins and does not redeem us, he intercedes for the remission of our sins and for our redemption. So if he doesn't redeem us, because we insist on dogmatizing a title aimed at solemnly defining which co-redeems us?
Many fans of co-redemption are likely have never paid attention to the invocations of the Loreto Litany, which were certainly not the work of some recent pontiff smacking of modernism, as some would say, they were added to the recitation of the Holy Rosary by the Holy Pontiff Pius V after the victory of the Holy League in Lepanto in 1571, although already in use for several decades in the Sanctuary of the House of Loreto, from which they take their name. Yet it would be enough to ask this question: How come, when at the beginning of these litanies God the Father is invoked, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, let's say "Miserere nobis» (have mercy on us)? While just starting, with the invocation Holy Mary, to enunciate all the titles of the Blessed Virgin, from that moment on we say «Pray for us» (pray for us)? Simple: because God the Father who created us and who gave himself to humanity through the incarnation of the Word of God made man, Jesus Christ, who then brought the Holy Spirit who "proceeds from the Father and the Son", with compassionate mercy they give the grace of forgiveness from sins through a Trinitarian action of the triune God, the Virgin Mary does not, he does not forgive us our sins and does not forgive us, because in the economy of salvation his role is that of intercession. This is why, when we turn to her through prayer, both in the Ave Maria than in Hi Regina, of always, throughout the history and tradition of the Church we invoke her saying "pray for us sinners", we do not ask her to forgive our sins or to save us (cf.. My previous article, WHO). This alone should be sufficient and advance to understand that the term co-redemptive itself is a gross contradiction on a theological level, unfortunately enough to make those theologians who insist on calling for the proclamation of this fifth Marian dogma to be rude, charging and using as fans fringes of faithful, most of whom have deep and serious gaps in the foundations of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The person of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of Jesus, it is looked at and indicated with a theological depth that places it in close relationship with the mission of his Son and united with us disciples, because this is his role that the Gospels wanted to communicate and remind us of, all with all due respect to those who claim, sometimes even arrogantly, to relegate the Woman of Magnificat in a microcosm of emotional devotions that often even reveal the fumus of neo-paganism. The Supreme Pontiff Francis is therefore right, than with his very simple and direct style, at times even deliberately provocative and for some even irritating, but precisely for this reason capable of making himself understood by everyone, he specified that Maria «[…] he never wanted to take something of his Son for himself. She never presented herself as co-redeemer". And she did not present herself as such because Mary is the Woman of Magnificat: «He looked at the humility of his servant, from now on all generations will call me blessed"; blessed because I became a servant, certainly not why I asked, to some demented seer, to be proclaimed co-redemptrix.
the Island of Patmos, 3 February 2024
.
.
______________________
Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:
Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos
n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21
If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com
We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.
The Fathers of the Island of Patmos
.
.
.
From the doctrinal disorientation of the Church to the sin of priests and the recycling of lay people. Prospect of an intransigent culture which while condemning sanctifies and condemns by sanctifying
/in Theologica/by Father IvanoFrom the friendship of Jesus with Abraham to Jesus who welcomes us calling us friends
/in Theologica/by hermit monkFROM GOD'S FRIENDSHIP WITH ABRAHAM TO JESUS WHO WELCOMES US CALLING US FRIENDS
This famous biblical story tells us that being friends is definitely not a diminution or a subtraction from the relationship of faith, because it calls for condescension, complicity and waiting when, for instance, a friend is in trouble. It is not by chance, long after the story of Abraham in Genesis, one of the most beautiful expressions we find in Scripture regarding the relationship between God's messenger, Jesus, and who followed him was: "I called you friends".
— Biblical pages—

Author
Hermit Monk
.
.
It seems that the term friend cannot exist without its specific qualification. We have different types declined, in the various arts, which from time to time offer the image of a fragile friend, rediscovered or ingenious. We could talk about it endlessly. A friend can be true or false, always be there or disappear, you can trust him or her unconditionally or in the worst case scenario be betrayed by them.
The Bible which is literature formed over a very long period, as well as talking about the main protagonist, who is God, presents a diverse set of human situations. Not by chance the poet Byron he called it "the great code of art", expression later taken up by the critic N. Frye who made a book of it[1]. In this roundup of disparate humanity, the interest in friends could not be missing. This is how the code of the Bible was able to arouse symbols that have remained in everyone's imagination (Frye called them imagery), even of non-students of the biblical book.
The character of Judas is famous (c)he embodies the betrayed friendship: «Amico, that's why you're here" (Mt 26,50), these are the words that Jesus addresses to the traitor after receiving his kiss. Remaining with the Gospels, one cannot forget Jesus' friendship for the family of Bethany: March, Maria and Lazzaro. When he dies Jesus will say: «Lazarus, our friend, he fell asleep; but I'm going to wake him up" (GV 11,11). As well as the reputation of a friend of tax collectors and sinners which led Jesus to be disliked by the authorities.
There are many biblical expressions referring to friendship, especially in the wisdom books. Here are two mentions among many:
“A faithful friend is medicine that gives life:
those who fear the Lord will find him." (Sir 6, 16).
“A faithful friend is a safe haven:
who finds it, find a treasure" (Sir 6,14).
A saying that has become famous the one that reads «whoever finds a friend finds a treasure». But the first biblical character to be referred to as a friend, none other than God, it was Abraham. The prophet Isaiah called him that: "But you, Israel, my servant, you Jacob, I have chosen, descendant of Abraham, my friend" (Is 41,8). The book of Daniel echoes this: «Do not withdraw your mercy from us, for Abraham's sake, your friend, of Isaac, your servant, of Israel, your saint" (3,35) and the second book of Chronicles: “You didn't drive away, our God, the inhabitants of this land in front of your people Israel and you have not given it forever to the descendants of your friend Abraham?» (20,7). Until the second testament where we find in the letter of James: «And the Scripture was fulfilled which says: Abramo believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness, and he was called a friend of God" (2,23).
And if the Author of the letter of James he insisted on Abraham's actions as qualifying his faith, on the other Paul of Tarsus reversed the medal, in Romans, putting Abraham's faith before his works and by this and by this alone was he justified.
Here we do not want to address the arduous and complex subject of justification and grace pertaining to theology. But we simply want to decline how the biblical story speaks to us of the relationship between God and Abraham. What kind of friendship it was? Abraham deserved this particular relationship? He always corresponded to you? It seems an interesting topic given that it has become the vestment of the gift of divine life to the man of faith and of the grace that saves. Without neglecting the fact that Abraham is considered the father of the three great monotheistic religions, even if some find it difficult to define Christianity as a monotheism.
Because the Bible prefers to narrate than to set forth theories, we will try to trace the stories of Abraham's events to understand this friendship relationship and to understand in the end that Abraham was not so distant from us, from our expectations and emotions, from our points of view which appear unshakeable and which are put to the test by divine requests and promises which are not immediately revealed.
There is an episode in the story of Abraham narrated in the book of Genesis (18, 25-32) which seems to highlight more than others, more than the same call, the special friendship relationship between him and God, and it is the story of the negotiation about the destruction of the city of Sodom. To God who had already decided the fate of the city, Abraham points out the possible presence of righteous people in it. And from ten to ten to go down he manages to snatch a piece of God's benevolence. This episode highlights a characteristic of the patriarch that recurs several times in the stories, or his indisputable ability to negotiate. It's a well, of territorial division, of earth for the grave of his wife Sara, of how to find a wife for Isaac his son or of God himself, as in the above case, Abraham is unbeatable.
A little less, a lot less, when it comes to having faith in the divine words and this seems incredible for all that is normally thought of him. But God doesn't seem to care. Just like true friends do.
Even rabbinic exegesis he looked favorably upon the Abrahamic ability to deal, when it comes to saving people. The teachers of the Torah, indeed, they have not accorded equal benevolence to another famous patriarch, Noah, who received the command to build an ark because of the impending flood. These, unlike Abraham, he did nothing to thwart the destructive purpose.[2] Noah was an obedient man who asked no questions, "walked with God" (Gen 6,9) but he did not establish any relationship with him, perhaps because of the end of everything that was to come. With Abraham who "walked ahead of God" (Gen 17, 1) it was required, instead an active relationship, patient and friendly.
And patience with Abraham must have a lot. A modern reader of the biblical text would be surprised to find some embarrassing features in the life of the patriarch. These act as a counterbalance to the obvious mediation skills already mentioned, to his being an expert in weapons and guerrilla warfare (Gen 14, 14-16), of men and alliances (Gen 17, 17-24) and capable entrepreneur of the ancient world (Gen 24, 34-35).
Yet Abraham's first ever words in the Bible, immediately after God's call, they speak a lie, letting Sarah pass, in the eyes of the Egyptian pharaoh, like a sister instead of a wife[3]. An episode that will be repeated later with another king (cap. 20). Despite the repeated divine promise that he will surely have offspring, will agree, further on, about Sarah's intention to have a child with the slave Hagar; but when the two women come into conflict he will drive her out into the desert, reluctantly, with only a loaf of bread and a skin of water. When with his son Isaac will go up to Mount Moriah, place of his sacrifice, he will load the wood on his son's shoulders. Which father would have done this knowing what fate he was going to meet?
But Abraham, rightly, he is remembered above all for his faith: “He believed the Lord, who credited it to him as justice" (Gen 15, 6). But this faith evidently had to grow and mature, passing through important evidence, in addition to the fact that it was a word and a divine promise that aroused it, remembered over and over again.
In the Book of Genesis (cf.. 12) God first spoke to Abraham. The expression used in Hebrew, psychoanalysts liked it a lot: Go (play play) “Go for you” or “Go towards you”[4]. A new word, personal, addressed to Abraham son of Terak, invited him to leave his father and go to a land to become a blessed nation. Set off, but as often happens, the enthusiasm was lost along the way. The journey was tiring, in stages, hostile people e, above all, what progeny could he have had if a son did not come? That is how, you want for the difficulties, you want for the advancing age, he satisfied. After all, the slave's son, Ishmael, it was already something. So at one point Abraham blurted out before God: «If at least Ishmael could live in front of you!» (Gen 17, 18). Until the umpteenth promise of a child of theirs, Abraham and Sarah burst out laughing. Abraham even doubled over with laughter (Gen 17, 17).
But here's the twist. Sarah did indeed bear a son to Abraham: Isaac, the promised. But which friend gives you such a gift: Isaac, from Hebrew Isaac literally “the laughing son, which elicits laughter, that you can make fun of and ridicule[5]? Which for this very reason became the cause of the removal of the other son, Ishmael, which had no flaws?
Abraham was speechless at the birth of his son, since the text contains only the words of Sarah, who spoke of laughter and laughter. Who is this son that his friend God has sent?? We must accept this gift? Because Isaac, among all the biblical patriarchs and Sui generis. He never had the role of the protagonist and immediately appeared devoid of his own personality. He couldn't even find his wife by himself and this one, Rebecca, when she finally saw him up close, fell off the camel. Not surprisingly, several commentators, both Jews and Christians, they pointed out that Isaac may not have been a perfect son, disabled, autistic son of an aging father[6]. Let's imagine Abraham's feelings if this was to be the fulfillment of the promise. How to accept all this?
It is at this point that the biblical narrative presents us with one of the most fascinating and dramatic episodes of all his literature. The story of the sacrifice or rather of the Akda (aqedàh, about the connection) of Isaac in chapter 22. An episode that has inspired artists and commentators from antiquity to the present day. It is not possible to account for it here, but we can propose an interpretation that is well linked with what has been said so far about the relationship between God and Abraham.
First of all it was a new beginning. Let's go back to the verse 2 the same "play play” (goes for you, towards you) the chapter 12. Again a going towards oneself. But this time the promise came true, unexpectedly. Where should Abraham go? The ascent to Mount Morìa, with only dialogue about a ram to find, it's heartbreaking. Despite the outcome in the end happy, the episode will retain its tragedy: in the silence that falls during the return home of the two, in the lack of exultation or joy, in the subsequent physical separation between the father and the son and in the death of Sara that a Midrash (midrash)[7] it follows from the fact that she came to know what was about to happen on the mountain.
So what had happened? That Abraham was called to accept God's promise, in the person of Isaac, imperfect son. Because of this, her faith was tested and she was strengthened. The friend had finally understood what had been asked of him from the beginning, even if unexpected and far from its prerogatives and psychological characteristics. But Abraham went towards him, to open up to a new self and to the you of the son finally dissolved and left free to go.
Someone, many centuries later he would say: "God chooses what is weak in the world" (1Color 1,27). This is probably what Abraham's faith had to dramatically understand: welcome the promise in the fragile person of Isaac. Only when he understands will he choose for Isaac a woman with whom to console himself for the death of his mother, he will bestow on him all his good, he will protect him from possible competitors and die "satiated with days" buried by his sons Isaac and Ishmael finally reunited (Gen 25,9).
The story of Abraham and God can be read in many ways. The Bible beyond the implications that refer to faith and that passing through St. Paul and James mentioned above have arrived up to today, the Law as a story of friendship. With all its tones and variations, since Abraham remains a man with his personality made up of limits and greatness. This famous biblical story tells us that being friends is definitely not a diminution or a subtraction from the relationship of faith, because it calls for condescension, complicity and waiting when, for instance, a friend is in trouble. It is not by chance, long after the story of Abraham in Genesis, one of the most beautiful expressions we find in Scripture regarding the relationship between God's messenger, Jesus, and who followed him was: "I called you friends" (GV 15, 15).
from the Hermitage, 17 June 2023
Notes
[1] N. Frye, Great code, Bible and literature, 1981 (Trad.. it.: Einaudi, 1986)
[2] The parallel between the flood and the destruction of Sodom has been grasped by many. This is total destruction. Only one family is saved in both cases. The presence of incestuous relationships in the two stories, from which non-Jewish tribes arose (Canaanites from Cam, son of Noah and Moabites and Ammonites from the daughters of Lot).
[3] Even if it's true, for they were sons of the same father, but from different mothers.
[4] Likewise Noah is commanded to make an ark of cypress “for you” (Gen 6, 14)
[5] the root of the name (zade/chet/qof) with these senses, compare 179 times in the Bible mentioned 112 times referred to Isaac in Genesis
[6] Marmorini G., Isaac, the imperfect son, claudian 2018; Baharier H., Genesis explained by my daughter, Milan 2015
[7] Nd.R. Midrash, from Hebrew Midrash, term that indicates a method of biblical exegesis of the Jewish tradition
.
_______PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE WHO ________
Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:
Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos
n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21
If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com
We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.
The Fathers of the Island of Patmos
.
.
.
The priest's bad words, the Latinisms of the new cat-kaifans suffering from doctrinal illiteracy and the laughter of the disenchanted old Cardinal
/2 Comments/in Theologica/by father arielTHE PRIEST'S WORDS, THE LATINISMS OF THE NOVELS CATTO-KAIFANI AFFECTED BY DOCTRINAL ANALPHABETISM AND THE LAUGHTERS OF THE DISENCHANTED OLD CARDINAL
“A good priest with a truly priestly heart can be recognized even by bad words. Only a genuine man of God can swear words with genuine purity of heart without ever being vulgar. Thanks for the laughs you gave me, these days we desperately need it ".
- Church news -
.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo
.
.

The technician who takes care of the assembly is outside Italy, the audio reading of the articles will be inserted by the end of September
.

.
After some time a Cardinal with decades of life spent in the Roman Curia confided to me that years ago a letter signed by several "integral Catholics" reached the Vatican and made the rounds of all the offices of that section of the Secretariat of State, causing the monsignors to laugh with laughter as they turned between them from desk to desk. The object of the protest was me, presented as a highly unworthy priest because he was guilty of scandalizing the immaculate faithful by sometimes using colorful words not suited to a minister in sacred. For this they invoked severe canonical sanctions against me. Bearers of the petition were those characters that have always been known to us priests, those endowed with such a vocation in the rag of their robes that Kaifa appears angry before the Sanhedrin like a novice beginner.
.
These characters they feel first of all noble soldiers placed as halberdiers in defense of the true Catholic tradition and of the most rigid sexual morality always applied and rigorously to others, never to themselves and least of all to their children, daughters and grandchildren, only to the children and grandchildren of others. For them the Church was born suddenly in 1570 with the Roman Missal promulgated by the Holy Pontiff Pius V, from which they jump directly to the beginning of the twentieth century, to the pontificate of the Holy Pontiff Pius X, the one who condemned that trembling Modernism that the Halberdiers know in the same way as the Latin of the Tridentine missal.
.
Halberdiers have three sets: Latin, St. Thomas Aquinas and the fight against Modernism. As for the Latin I will just mention that years ago, copiously taking the piss out of the members of a circle of so-called and improperly called "traditionalists", I sang to him on the meter of the Gregorian preface the Poetry of the Sparrow by Valerio Gaius Catullus, finally saying: «This is indeed a sacred liturgy, little that messalaccio by Annibale Bugnini approved by the improvised Holy Pontiff Paul VI!» [cf.. see WHO]. And everyone agreed with me enjoying from the seventh heaven. Well, however unusual it may seem, you should know that even I am endowed with a common sense of modesty, for this I avoided adding the singing of some collection, taking from the Catullian carmina some delicacies of the type:
.
«I will bite you and break in, Aurelius pathically and Cinaede Furi, who thought I was from my verses, because they are soft, a little modest»¹.
.
But if I did the Halberdiers would have further confirmed that yes, which was the language of the angels that from the benches beyond the altar balustrade takes you directly to Heaven, not thanks to the sacred mysteries, but thanks to the magic of the Latins an end in itself. For this reason I limited myself to the Poetry of the Sparrow passed off as a preface, avoiding turning certain lustful carminas into collections., which of course I know by heart since the days of classical high school.
.
Segue San Tommaso d'Aquino, which these halberdiers know in the same way as the Latin of the Tridentine Missal, unable to understand that the Angelic Doctor e Doctor Common speaks of the mysteries of faith and provides an effective and still unsurpassed speculative method, but neither his method nor his extraordinary production in themselves constitute immutable truths of the faith. Let's take one example among many: today Catholic doctrine teaches that the soul is blown into the living being from the moment of conception. L’Aquinate, which followed Aristotle's speculative method, argues that in the course of the growth of the fetus they develop in succession: first a vegetative soul, then a sensitive soul, at last, when development is adequate to receive the intellectual soul, this is infused directly by God in the third month of pregnancy [cf.. QUESTION Iª q. 118 a. 2 ad 2].
.
Aquinas had a different idea also regarding the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, believing that she was not born without original sin but that soon after her conception she received an extraordinary sanctification in her soul that canceled original sin [cf.. QUESTION IIIa, q. 27, a. 3 ad 3]. You understand well that between conception without original sin e cancellation of original sin, the difference is not merely semantic, but precisely substantially theological.
.
Equally unique the way in which the Halberdiers justify the fact that the genius and science of the very pagan Aristotle are at the basis of Aquinas's speculative method. Soon packaged and answered: Aristotle was in fact a Christian, having perceived centuries before, even without realizing it, the mystery of the incarnation of the Word of God. This is a statement as stupid as it is illogical that began to circulate in the areas of the decadent neo-scholasticism of the late nineteenth century.. The parrots of the unspecified tradition that today repeat it and propagate it as a truth of faith, they do not even realize that in this way they are defining Aristotle as an "anonymous Christian", according to the controversial and dangerous theory of Karl Rahner, another sworn enemy of theirs, although they do not even know the title of his main works. It matters little, because the Catholic and theological culture of the Halberdier of true and pure tradition is based on a castle of "it is said that ...".
.
Finally, the evil specter of Modernism, of which the Halberdiers speak starting from a total lack of knowledge, as well as a critical spirit. Then, if they are supported by a deranged priest, excommunicated and discharged from the clerical state, irreparable damage is soon done. Not all the measures that followed the Encyclical Feeding of Dominic's Sheep of the Holy Pontiff Pius X were by no means far-sighted, on the contrary, they partly favored the development of a dangerous reactive Modernism, on the other, they crystallized theological speculation in four stagnant and rancid formulas of decadent neo-scholasticism, effectively preventing theologians from speculating outside those four sclerotic and intangible formulas. This while on the other side, the Protestants, they carried out very thorough studies on the biblical sciences and exegesis, which decades later we were forced to make up for, after being paralyzed for decades in those four sclerotic and intangible formulas that made up the unsuccessful struggle of the Holy Pontiff Pius X - or rather who for him - against Modernism, that in retrospect we can affirm that it was indeed condemned and opposed, but in a completely different way, not in the narrow-minded way that was often adopted.
.
Among the many Protestant scholars I quote as an example the great commentary on the Letter to the Romans by the theologian Karl Barth, which still remains unsurpassed in the context of exegesis novo testamentaria and to which all of us must necessarily refer.
.
We cannot speak of Modernism if you do not know and are not moved by the conscious honesty that it was born and developed as a reactive thought within a Church that throughout the nineteenth century was wrapped up in purely political questions - undoubtedly justified by history and from the events of those years following the French Revolution -, while Catholic theology languished and stagnated in forms of true ignorance. So it is not possible to talk about Modernism if not starting from a fact: the French Alfred Firmin Loisy and Italian Ernesto Buonaiuti they are two figures to be counted among the most brilliant thinkers of the twentieth century. Only illiterate bigots or some deranged priest can treat them with heretical sufficiency from the top of their total lack of knowledge. And I conclude by specifying, to be fair, that by Holy Mother Church Ernesto Buonaiuti was treated with such a ferocious lack of Christian charity that he really cries to heaven, like it or not the Halberdiers fighting against the specter of that Modernism that they do not know and of which the Holy Pontiff Pius X, who rightly and prudently condemned him, at the same time it favored its development and dissemination thanks to repressive measures and actions that were anything but far-sighted. But I am preparing a book on this very complex and articulated theme, if I don't crack first.
.
Perhaps my interlocutor Cardinal he wanted to laugh further, for this I have heard it starting by saying: It's true, Eminence, I say bad words, Alas! Sometimes I also say many and some Catholic or Catholic from the gloomy sacristy reproaches me about the moderns social media, on the contrary, I acknowledge that they have protested by writing to you too, what he tells me. Some of these have even told me that I am too explicit, for example in the references - in my opinion completely natural and scientific - to human sexuality, because they say I should use euphemisms, for example some Latin terminologies, not too explicit terms. E, as known, Latin is terribly appealing to all those who do not know it, because it does a lot chic.
.
Eminence, the problem is not Latin, that I know. The problem is who does not know Latin. Let me explain: as far as I'm concerned, I can also blur out saying "You've broken your brain!». But if I don't translate that this literally means "you broke your dick", who understands this noble Ciceronian expression in splendid Latin?
.
The Cardinal starts laughing as he did not dare to do even at the time, young monsignor of the curia that he was, in the eighties he saw the film The Marchese del Grillo together with John Paul II and other prelates. Which John Paul II, to what the Cardinal himself refers in camera of love, apparently he commented on the film saying that the director and screenwriter had understood everything about papal Rome.
.
I let the Cardinal finish his laughter and I carry on: sometimes we priests are like certain caring doctors of the health insurance, that prescribed the recipe they say to the poor uneducated ignoramus: «These suppositories must be taken pro rectal via». Very serious mistake! Because at that point of two o'clock: or that patient is clearly told that the suppository must be pushed into the asshole, or he will end up being taken to the emergency room after having swallowed suppositories for a month by swallowing them with a glass of water.
.
Why certain demure delicate ears they yearn so much for those Latinisms that they don't understand? Perhaps because they want the Church to use magic formulas that the more incomprehensible they are the more effective they would be? I'll explain it to you because they yearn for Latinisms: because they have never been confessors, to begin. Or do you think that Saints confessors such as San Leopoldo Mandic and San Pio da Pietrelcina presented themselves, repent and repent, libertines and women of easy virtue to speak of fellatio, cunnilingus, ani trade, fornication against nature, intrusion, scenterasty …
.
Try to imagine a man who confesses to having had sexual intercourse with another man, today it is so fashionable, indeed it is a trend, to the point that it is no longer sin but a high expression of love (!?). Above all, try to imagine me, confessor, than to fulfill what certain Catholics and Catholics with delicate ears and therefore yearning Latinisms demand, I start talking to the penitent like this:
.
«… you would take into your hand another man's grave, and your other into his own, and so alternately shake the rods with your hands, so that by means of that pleasure you would cast the seed from yourself? If you did, thirty days of penitence in bread and water!»².
.
The elderly Cardinal at this point he almost fell from the chair lying under the table, as I went on: … in conclusion, Eminence, I can also make happy those who yearn to hear Latinisms, I can also tell him via rectal, only to swallow the suppositories for a whole month instead of putting them in the asshole. I can also respond to some self-styled Catholics who are highly arrogant and irreverent towards us priests by blurting out «Tace. Maxiom crazy brain!». After that, who explains to him that I just told him "shut up, you big dickhead"? Or maybe they think they can translate the terminologies of an ancient dead language with the search engine Google?
.
The Cardinal smiles from the top of its eighty years that have long since passed, during which he saw everything and more in the Church, including armies of Pharisees, Pelagians and Puritans full of private vices and propagators of the most rigid public virtues always claimed and rigorously on the skin of others. Finally telling me in a tender and paternal tone:
.
“A good priest with a truly priestly heart can be recognized even by bad words. Only a genuine man of God can swear words with genuine purity of heart without ever being vulgar. Thanks for the laughs you gave me, these days we desperately need it ".
.
Yup, we need it, because having to choose whether to cry or laugh, all in all it is always better to laugh with the holy irony of faith. And to conclude with a laugh. It happened that mocking and irreverent Tuscan boys in the mood for jokes call the Convent of the Capuchin Friars Minor in Florence, making their debut:
«… pronto? Listen to Father and we have du’ whores and a yes you know what to do, we can send them to you?».
The Capuchin answers seriously at the other end of the phone:
"...’ o Son, we are sixteen here, with du 'sole whores' that you what we do, a little bit not even shit smooth!».
.
And we are talking about the Capuchin myths and seraphic, imagine what they would have answered if they had called the Convent of those pitt bull of the Dominicans.
From the island of Patmos, 4 September 2022
.
.
NOTE
¹ See. Catullo (Carmen 16) translation from classical Latin: “I'm going to shove it up your ass and then into your mouth, Aurelio cocksucker and Furio fennel smashed, than for my verses (poetic) tender and kind, you thought that I am a wreck ".
.
² From an ancient collection of Tariffed Penitences, translation from medieval Latin: “You took another man's cock and he took yours, after that, in this way, you played with your respective cocks through your hands, until he ejaculates with pleasure? If you did, I impose you thirty days on bread and water as penance ".
.
.
THE LATEST BOOK BY ARIEL S. LEVI of GUALDO – TO ACCESS THE BOOKSHOP CLICK ON THE COVER
.
.
.
.
.
.
______________________
Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:
Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos
n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21
If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com
We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.
The Fathers of the Island of Patmos
.
.
.
It is being distributed “Sadness of Love”, latest editorial work by Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo dedicated to the memory of Cardinal Carlo Caffarra
/in Theologica/by Jorge Facio LynxIT IS IN DISTRIBUTION THE SADNESS OF LOVE, LATEST EDITORIAL WORK BY ARIEL S. LEVI di GUALDO DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF CARDINAL CARLO CAFFARRA
«Those of us who were trained in theological field on the pages of the recent supreme magisterium of the Pontiffs Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II, treasuring the great homiletics of Benedict XVI, worthy of the sermons of the Holy Pontiff Gregory the Great, reading certain recent documents or hearing certain daily sermons from a vanished country priest, can reasonably come to say that from golden eagles we have moved on to intensive battery farmed chickens ".
- Editorial news -
.

Author:
Jorge Facio Lynx
President of Editions The island of Patmos
.
.
The 6 September it is the fifth anniversary of the death of Cardinal Carlo Caffarra who in 1981 he was commissioned by the Holy Pontiff John Paul II to found the Institute for studies on marriage and the family. The work of Father Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo is a critical examination of love joy in relation to the Human life. About the love joy the Author writes:
.
"After the close of the Synod on the family, the womb of the elephant gave birth to 19 March 2016 the country mouse of the post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation love joy, a device of ambiguity built on the said and the unspoken, on ambiguous two-way sentences, emotional sentimentality and many sociologisms that in fact decree the death of what for centuries has been the precise language, decisive and unambiguous of the Magisterium of the Church supported on the most solid and clear principles of classical metaphysics, long placed in the attic to make room for decadent German romanticism and the little heart that beats and that looks to the immediate of its own subjective "I" rather than to the future and to God. Those of us who were trained in theological field on the pages of the recent supreme magisterium of the Pontiffs Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II, treasuring the great homiletics of Benedict XVI, worthy of the sermons of the Holy Pontiff Gregory the Great, reading certain recent documents or hearing certain daily sermons from a vanished country priest, it can reasonably be said that from golden eagles to intensive battery farmed chickens, as has sometimes happened at cyclical intervals in the history of the Church, even if never at the bleak levels of our times […] Some superficial might misunderstand, in good or even bad faith, objecting that in these pages I have addressed severe criticisms of an Apostolic Exhortation given by the Roman Pontiff. Anyone who accuses me of this would be in grave error, because I do not criticize a given norm at all, before which I would be silent and would carry out the provisions of the supreme magisterium. What is critical is an undisclosed norm and questions that have never been answered, leaving everything wrapped in ambiguity. This is the object of my criticism: the lack of a norm together with the lack of clarity and response. The faithful servant of the Church reasons, debates and criticizes as long as it is allowed. After the Church has spoken, her job is to carry out and transmit the teachings and to keep the standards given, unless otherwise creating scandal in the People of God and fractures of ecclesial communion. No One, Catholic priest or lay person who whatever, he can disagree and substitute his own personal opinions for the authority of the Church, German theologians take care of this, it has always been their prerogative e pontifical privilege».
.
It is well known and known how much Father Ariel is a thinker, an analyst and a theologian who leaves his mark when he scratches. And who gets the scratch, it generally has two possibilities: or keep it and treat the wound, or find themselves in serious difficulty in denying what he wrote true and indisputable. This is why it has happened over time several times, various people who felt hurt by his words or his reproaches, not being able to deny it nor wanting to debate the merits of the precise issues raised, they attached themselves to the expressive form, which in the case of this writer is often ironic, sometimes even colorful. But on the other hand it is known: in this way the Pharisees already acted in time.
.
Discussing the delicate issue of Human life the Author is placed in the middle in a point of balance between those who would like to relativize it and those who would rather "dogmatize a condom by enclosing within it Catholic morality and the entire mystery of evil". In this regard he specifies:
.
"I would like to clarify from the beginning of my exposition that I have never been to certain kinds of perverse thoughts and games, nor do I intend to be there as a man and as a Catholic, as a priest and as a theologian. This book intends to be a clear and objective proof of this in open criticism addressed both to those who would like to apply to the Church the lacking moral sense of the world and its disordered and unruly sexuality., both to those who are animated by those forms of dark moralism that have nothing to do with healthy and authentic Catholic morality, right on the most important of the theological virtues: the charity (cf.. The Cor 13), certainly not on the principle of The highest law is the highest wrong (supreme justice often equates to supreme injustice). And the truth is based on charity, while charity is such if it is governed by truth (cf.. Charity in truth). Because it is on charity that we will be judged by God ".
.
From the island of Patmos, 30 August 2022
.
TO ACCESS THE BOOKSHOP CLICK WHO
.
.
.
.
.
______________________
Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:
Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos
n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21
If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com
We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.
The Fathers of the Island of Patmos
.
.
.
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia is not simply the “idiot brother” of Don Abbondio but the whore of Babylon kneeling before the Prince of this world
/2 Comments/in Theologica/by father arielARCHBISHOP VINCENZO PAGLIA IS NOT SIMPLY THE IDIOT BROTHER OF DON ABBONDIO BUT THE MERETRICE OF GENUFUL BABYLON BEFORE THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD
"The first condition for the end of the eclipse of traditional values and for Catholicism to emerge from its crisis is that the Church resume its function, which is not conforming to the world, but counter it " (Augusto Del Noce, 1971)
- Actuality -
.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo
.
.
.
Of Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia I have already dealt with epithetizing it Don Abbondio's idiot brother, today she deserves the title of whore of Babylon kneeling at Prince of this world [cf.. GV 14, 30]
.
“He had written a mysterious name on his forehead: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and abominations of the earth "" [AP 17, 5].
.
The statements made by this idiot in the etymological sense of the term - from the Greek ἰδιώτης (idiots) which means "private man" and indicates the incompetent person, inexperienced and inept - they are of unprecedented gravity, all the more by covering the very delicate role of President of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Recently participating in the program The hot roof on the sinister and politically correct Rai Tre magnified the law 194 the 1978 on legalized abortion by stating: «I think now the Law 194 is a pillar of our social life ". After climbing for 40 seconds on the mirrors, to the dry question of the interviewer who pressed him: «You say the Law is not in question 194?». The Idiot replied: «In no, absolutely… absolutely!».
.
Words in themselves not even commentable in front of which comes to mind a phrase of the philosopher Augusto Del Noce who painted our current situation by writing these prophetic words four decades ago:
.
"The first condition for the end of the eclipse of traditional values and for Catholicism to emerge from its crisis is that the Church resume its function, which is not conforming to the world, but counter it " [Sunset or eclipse of traditional values? Rusconi Editore, Iª ed. 1971]
.
Can a bishop please the world with similar flattery, instead of opposing those who proclaim abortion "sacrosanct right" and "great social achievement"? Respect must be paid to a bishop who is the legitimate successor of the Apostles and a member of the Sacred Apostolic College, always, regardless of his weaknesses, fragility and lack of objective merits that can make him a character even below mediocrity. As confessor and spiritual director of numerous priests, I have often heard the complaints of various confreres who explained to me how their bishop was an idiot emeritus. And they were right, because such it was in the disastrous concrete facts. And to all of them I have always answered:
.
«… And to this emeritus idiot you owe filial respect and devout obedience, always and regardless. Therefore try to live your bishop's objective idiocy as a test of faith. You can not estimate it, because the esteem is not due to him, if he wants it he has to earn it. But respect and obedience yes, it is always due to him and cannot in any way be canceled from his demerits of which at the opportune moment he will have to answer to God as it is written: “Everyone was given much, much will be asked for; to whom men have committed much, much more will be required”» [LC 12, 48].
.
On the one hand, I collect the complaints of the priests towards their bishops, on the other hand, those of various bishops who can no longer cope with certain priests. And both are right. For years now, to priests who complained about their not particularly lovable bishops, paternal or doctrinally brilliant I reply: "In a short time you and your brothers will regret your bishop with tears in your eyes". Sentence repeated to dozens of priests starting from 2017, when the highest leaders of the Catholic Church crossed the threshold of no-return by celebrating the 500 years of Martin Luther's pseudo-reformation, who was by no means a "reformer", how he painted it La Civiltà Cattolica, nor a subject about which we can say: “I believe that Martin Luther's intentions were not wrong. He was a reformer ". Why so the Supreme Pontiff Francis defined in an off-the-cuff rant on a high-altitude plane this diabolical heresiarch who gave birth to a dramatic schism, certainly not a reform. That was done by the Council of Trent, not Luther. Today, the same priests, they write to me, they call me or face to face they tell me: "You were right, if I could have the previous bishop I have complained about so much, I would not kiss his hand but his feet!».
.
I spread a merciful veil on the criteria for selecting our new bishops under this august pontificate, all with the poor and the migrant on their lips, so much so that after hearing one, all the episcopal homilies delivered from north to south were heard, from east to west by the Italian bishops.
.
That ours are not times of “golden eagles” it is clear to anyone who has even the slightest light of reason. For this reason it is worth delineating the difference between an idiot bishop to whom filial respect and devoted obedience are always due., from a bishop reduced to a whore of Babylon kneeling at the knees of the Prince of this world. Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia must be publicly paid all that holy contempt that any believer is required to pour out on what is evil and which as such constitutes a grave sin, in the specific case the crime of abortion, regulated in our country by a law that is by no means a "pillar of our social life" but the worst of the legalized crimes perpetrated against life. This is why we must not pay filial respect and devout obedience to Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, because, abusing the episcopate in the worst way, he expressed concepts that contradict the structure of our morality and our ethics, which both rest on the pillars of the deposit of the Catholic faith. He remains a legitimate bishop with an important and delicate ecclesiastical office, this is out of the question. But, if its power which involves first of all the supreme custody of the doctrine of the faith, it exercises it in order to sacrilegiously deny the foundations of Catholic morals and ethics, in that case it must not be nor heard, neither obeyed nor followed and least of all respected, but rather made the object of holy Christian contempt.
.
Vincenzo Paglia is a shame of the episcopate belonging to that nefarious category of people towards whom the Holy Scriptures thunder:
.
"I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot! But because you are lukewarm, that is, you are neither cold nor hot, I will spit you out of my mouth " [AP 3, 15-16].
.
Together with Vincenzo Paglia all the ambiguities and duplicities of this pontificate are also likely to be vomited from the mouth of the Almighty, to which the serious and objective demerit of having included immoral and clearly heterodox subjects in all the most delicate key positions goes, thus running the risk of "[…] go down in history as an eccentric pursuit of the new and the sensational as a substitute for the search for meaning, which has ended up producing a doctrinal and pastoral confusion that has never occurred previously in the history of the Church ".
.
The latter words with which I open my book dedicated to the memory of Cardinal Carlo Caffarra which will be distributed in early September and which I invite you to read, only to lift you up a bit, to gain confidence in the fact that all is not lost and to be able to touch firsthand that in the midst of so many fearful career rabbits who are de-building the very foundations of Catholic doctrine, there are always also lions who aspire to conquer the prize of eternal life as their only career ambition. Leoni that it is good not to go to annoy with the word of angry clerical reproach, because they bite and tear, as it should and as befits the Lions of God placed in custody of the doctrine of the faith and the health of the souls of believers of Christ entrusted to us by the Redeemer.
From the island of Patmos, 28 August 2022
.
.
.
___________________
Dear Readers,
please read this article [WHO vedere] and to be as sensitive and thoughtful as you can
Thank you
.
.
.
______________________
Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:
Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos
n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21
If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com
We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.
The Fathers of the Island of Patmos
.
.
.
The website of this magazine and the editions take name from the Aegean island in which the Blessed Apostle John wrote the Book of the Apocalypse, isola also known as «the place of the last revelation»
«God revealed the secrets of others ALTIUS»
(in higher than the others, John has left the Church, the arcane mysteries of God)
The bezel used as the cover of our home page is a 16th century fresco by Correggio. preserved in the Church of San Giovanni Evangelista in Parma
Creator and editor of this magazine website:
MANUELA LUZZARDI