THE ROOTS OF THE CRISIS: HISTORY OF LOST OPPORTUNITIES

Pope Benedict, the acute critic of Rahner, ascended to the papacy, where he would have all the expertise, intelligence, the authority and the power to act for the solution of the grave problem, he unfortunately did nothing and probably for those few allusive interventions that did, has brought upon the ire of rahneriani, that led him to abdicate and then to give up the Petrine ministry. The encyclical Light of Faith of Pope Francis, completion of that begun by Benedict, repeats cliches and completely ignores the issue. Today the problem is therefore still open.

..

.

Author
John Cavalcoli OP

.

.

You are Petrus …

Catholic thought is in fact and in law by the conjunction of the Magisterium of the Church with that of theologians. The guide, the authentic interpretation and the guarantee of the truth of the doctrine of the faith is chaired by the Magisterium of the Pope. Task instead of theologians is to investigate the remaining issues advancing opinions or interpretative hypotheses or proposing new solutions, in order to promote the advancement of knowledge of the Word of God, submitting to the judgment of the Church of the discoveries and new theories.

Vintage print depicting the seated of Vatican I

Il Teaching, in guarding, propose and interpret the data revealed and approve or reject the new doctrines of theologians, no mistake, as it enjoys the assistance of the Spirit of Truth promised by Christ to him until the end of the world. Instead the doctrines of theologians, especially when they fail to measure up to the Magisterium or they misunderstand the teachings, may be incorrect. But also a certain theological doctrine (theologically certain), albeit strictly deduced from principles of faith, can never claim to be considered in the Church as a truth of faith, because it is always simple human doctrine, as founded on faith. Only the Magisterium in fact it, with unerring judgment and irreformable, this grave task of determining and defining the truths of faith for Christ's mandate. However, it may happen that a new theological doctrine of interpretation or explanation of what has been revealed to be having so much importance or validity in the eyes of the Magisterium, these elevates the dignity of the dogma of the faith.

Altogether historic fact of Catholic thought therefore necessary to distinguish carefully the doctrinal pronouncements of the Magisterium in matters of faith or dogma - Pope alone or with the Council - the doctrines or opinions current among theologians, doctrines that, given their debatable and uncertainty, may legitimately be conflicting with each other, without compromising any of them necessarily in the matter of faith or sound reason. Some theories may be more conservative or traditionalist, other more innovative or progressive: anything wrong, nothing dangerous, nothing to worry about, nothing scandalous, but rather normal phenomenon, physiological and profitable, legitimate expression of freedom of thought, which results between the different currents or schools mutual enrichment, provided it does not break the fundamental unity, convergence and agreement on the essential truths and that does not come out of the bounds of true faith.

Farinata all'Alighieri illustrates the condition of heretics

The regime or normal operating level ecclesial and collective thinking Catholic entails of law and fact, in history, a general agreement in principle between the positions of the Magisterium and the theologians, unless extraordinary painful and inevitable deviations, that are found in theologians rebels, usually characterizing the phenomenon or schism or heresy. This phenomenon was severe, macroscopic, widespread and impressive to say the tragic with the birth of Lutheranism. But in the history of the Church's Magisterium has always, all in all, managed to adjust, control and dominate the climate or the general situation, so as to ensure the overall team theological and faithful a certain uniformity, consistency and obedience to the Magisterium, while theologians, for their part, are always, whole, felt willingly to say proudly representatives of the Magisterium, so that the faithful who wanted to know the way of the Gospel and the Church's doctrine could always turn to the theologian, any theologian, and received from him the authoritative answer, chiara, persuasive and safe; in short, he was the trusted and authoritative guide to walk in the truth of the Gospel and be in communion with the Church. Those who wanted to leave the Church would go openly, as indeed did the same Luther - going from Rome! —, and nothing remained treacherously and hypocritically pretending to destroy it from within to continue being Catholic and maybe boldly as a Catholic “advanced”. Thus the enemies of the Church, eventually discovered by good theologians or reported by the faithful, were promptly, without endless prevarications, declared as such by ecclesiastical, so were well known, and then the faithful were also less educated way to recognize them, to guard against and to stay away, as we distinguish the good from the poisonous mushrooms.

the Holy Pontiff Pius X

The shepherds, with their doctrine, fidelity to the Pope, prudence and love for the flock, knew unmask these impostors, these antichrists, For false Christs and false prophets, these wolves in sheep and put them up against the wall. We recall in this regard the wonderful encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis of St. Pius X. Today heretics succeed done under the nose and no one notices, no one gives thought, no one intervenes, indeed receive praise and achieved success, teaching assignments and those who dare to point out that the emperor has no clothes, is at least teased say the least.

I theology, once, as priests and religious, by virtue of their mandate ecclesiastical, were humbly and diligently aware of their mission and therefore of their grave responsibility before God, to superiors, to the Church and to the souls of their delicate office of Doctors of the Catholic truth, nor passed to anyone for the head to create doctrines subjective and arbitrary, as does the good doctor, which feels representative of medical science, and you might look good from inventing personal practices without scientific basis. Instead, unfortunately, from the years of the immediate post council began a very serious phenomenon of cleavage between the Magisterium and theologians. Many bishops, naively and enthusiastically convinced of the advent of a “New Pentecost”, relaxed their vigilance replacing the bonhomie to perspicacity, respect for human zeal brave, their own interests to defend the flock against wolves, gooders to the goodness and mercy for exchanging weakness.

un'assemblea plenary dell'assisa Vatican 2

I theology, especially those who were experts of the Council (1), their part is mounted head and, there methods protesting, began to be believed, independently and against the Magisterium, as custodians of God's Word and unappealable infallible interpreters of Holy Scripture, as well as the documents of the Second, that conversely distorted in the modernist sense. At this point we have the roots of the crisis which we suffer today. These consist in this: the subversive and revolutionary movement of theologians, The result has passed into history as “Sixty-eight of the dispute”, was traded by many in the people of God and among themselves pastors and theologians as a doctrinal revolution brought about by the same Council, which would change the data of faith until then considered immutable, especially about the superiority of Christianity over other religions, on the concept of Revelation and of the Church and about the condemnation of the heresies of the past, condemnation that would barred.

clouds on the Church

In Actually the new doctrines conciliar, correctly interpreted, beyond some expression not entirely clear, were not at all a break or denial of the dogmas traditional, but on the contrary their explanation and exposition in a modern language, suitable to be understood by the man of today, neither approach the council to modernity was to be understood in the manner modernistic as uncritical subjection to modern errors, but rather to the proposal of a healthy modernization or, as was said, “updating” the thought and life of Christians, that collectsgoes to theuce the immutable word of God can be as valuable in modernity.

Instead arose two tendencies ecclesial and doctrinal who saw in the doctrines of the Council a break or change compared to the traditional doctrine and convictions of the past, inspired by a total intake of modernity: one of Lefebvre, which, on the pretext that the council are not new solemn dogmatic definitions, denied the infallibility of doctrines council accused of being infected with liberalism, Enlightenment rationalist, Indifferentism, secularism, filoprotestantesimo and anthropocentrism, all errors that had already been condemned by the Church in the nineteenth century and in previous centuries, especially the First Vatican Council and that of Trento.

the German Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner

The other stream which appeared and still appears to many with the chrism of officialdom and interpreter of’ modernization reconcile, is one that has long been called or self-proclaimed “progressive”, title seen by many as highly positive and coveted, while this current calls with contempt “conservative”, “traditionalist” O “an integrist”, or more recently “fundamentalist” the current lefevriani, in which, however, includes indiscriminately all those who do not accept his modernism. For many years this current, very strong today in the Church, mainly due to the contribution of Rahner, thrived rubbing of Mr title of progressive, reference to the value of the undoubted progress, the new and modern, but in reality for its excesses increasingly discovered and impudent, typical of those who try the false security of being in command, has increasingly revealed as modernist, and then clear falsification of the true teachings of the Second, which they promote the modern, certainly not endorse modernism, heresy already condemned by St. Pius X.

Wanting to express ourselves in the language sports, we could say that the local ecclesiastical authority and also at the top was taken “counterattack”. After the climate of dialogue and peaceful confrontation intra and Extra ecclesial created by the extraordinary charisma of St. John XXIII, it was widely spread belief in the Episcopate and in many theological circles that now no longer existed or heresies, if there theologies which marked a departure from the official doctrine of the Magisterium, it was mostly questionable doctrines or expressions of theological pluralism or maybe some attempts’ bold innovation to watch with interest and benevolence. In fact things were not nearly so. Starting from the immediate post-modernist tendency council, taking advantage dell'immeritata confidence that he learned from a cunningly tear episcopate naively optimistic, began compact and bold to come to light, secure impunity and even with the halo of progressivism, almost to implement a plan international precedent, coming particularly from the Protestant tradition, secretly developed previously.

"Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs from thistles?” [Mt 7, 15-20]

The few that signaled the impending danger, like Maritain, the von Hildebrand, the de Lubac and Danielou, certainly not suspected of conservatism or closed to new, characters were seen as troublemakers, birds of ill omen, nostalgic Inquisition, damper that, as they say, breaking eggs in the basket. Those “doomsayers”, catastrophic and discouraging, from which St. John XXIII had ordered to shop. Yet there he realized the imprudence which had fallen, lowering his guard, as if they were missing the consequences of original sin, and now the Church and theology had started a new era of all men of good will, all intimately solicited in the preconscious (Anticipation) experience divine athematic pre-conceptual, all cristianthe anonymous yearning for God, all object of divine mercy, according to the honeyed formulas rahneriane. Born that “gooders destructive” and that false mercy recently denounced by the Pope in his address to the synod of bishops.

The Council was undoubtedly a progressive approach, in the sense of wanting to bring to the Church a new push or a new impetus to the future, using the values ​​of the modern world: the Council, rather than on the need to preserve or recover or restore lost, pointed on the duty to go ahead, to renew and advance, changing what was no longer suitable or no longer needed to the new times or the new requirements, that it was intended to prepare and meet in an eschatological horizon. No wonder, therefore,, if the current very large Fathers and experts who appeared better interpreter of the Council was the one that was agreed to call “progressive”, while those that were resistant to the new or did not understand him or too insisted sull'immutabile and tradition, they began to call them with an accent of endurance and not of admiration, “Conservatives” O “traditionalists”.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Among the latter emerged, as you know, since the early years of the post council the famous figure of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which soon began to attract a following, up to found the equally famous Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), still exists and thrives. Monsignor Lefebvre, supporter not entirely lit the sacred tradition, that he thought the council had betrayed, along with a few others, Instead of seeing the heresies denounced by the Holy Office in the theology of the modernists, instead had the great naivety to find them just the same council, who then accused of terrible mistakes already condemned by the Popes of the nineteenth century, as liberalism, rationalism and indifferentism.

More recently, in the eighties, Romano Amerio has joined the list of alleged errors of the Council “mutation of the concept of Church”. According to his disciple Enrico Maria Radaelli, the council would instead “overturned” the church. Paul Pasqualucci, for its part, note the presence of”anthropocentrism”. Monsignor Brunero Gherardini instead sees a contradiction in the documents of the Second Vatican with. The historian Roberto De Mattei then deny the infallibility of the doctrines of the Council under pretext that in them there is no dogma defined according to the rules set out by the First Vatican Council. All of them confuse the doctrines of the Council with the modernism born after it. It is harmful confusion which, if one part involves a straight definition of modernism according to the criteria offered by St. Pius X, other charges of modernism just that Vatican II that, on closer, it is the wise antidote with his proposal of a healthy modernity in the light of the Gospel, the doctrine of the Church and of St. Thomas Aquinas, as did, for example, Jacques Maritain.

the Dutch Dominican theologian Edward Schillebeeckx

From the first rising of lefebvrismo Paul VI took him with an attitude very severe, while remained mild and indulgent towards rahnerismo. This behavior is not fair unfortunately remained in Pontiffs following up the current. Benedict XVI tried an approach to lift the excommunication Lefebvrians with their bishops and with the famous motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. In truth the rahnerismo was felt even in the liturgy with the phenomenon of the desecration of the sacred and secularization, consequence of the false concept rahneriano priesthood and the denial of the sacrificial character of the Mass. Vice versa, theologians who identified with the current general and equivocally that “progressive”, gathered around the journal Concilium, still exists. But when it became clear the misunderstanding and appeared that some “Progressives” in fact they were modernists, then there was the separation of one from another: one part, progressives really honest and faithful to the Council and to the Church, as Ratzinger, by Balthazar, Shortcut, de Lubac and Danielou, became aware of criptomodernisti, as Küng, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Schoonenberg and other. So it was that the true progressives separated by seconds founding the magazine Communio. As for Ratzinger, realizing the modernist tendency of Rahner, abbandono e lo lo crítico severamente in Principles of Catholic Theology (2) the 1982, a year after he was appointed Prefect of the CDF from San Giovanni Paolo II.

Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani with Cardinal Karol Wojtyla

In 1966 Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, pro-prefect of the Holy Office, now become the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, along with the Secretary, the most learned christologist Pietro Parente, letter sent un'allarmata (3) the presidents of episcopal conferences denouncing in 10 points a number of serious errors that were snaking among theologians called “Progressives”. To many this serious complaint appeared to be exaggerated or a kind of cold shower; to others, already infected by modernism, must have caused irritation and appeared to be a brake or a reactionary unbearable condemnation of the new theology promoted by the Council.

The new Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), led by Cardinal Franjo Šeper, unspoken truth proof enough energy to cope with the serious problems reported by Cardinal Ottaviani and Monsignor Parente, did then Cardinal. These, with the insight and courage that had characterized previous years, wrote in 1983 a golden book (4), that could have been the text of the papal encyclical, indicating the heresies of many theologians, as Küng, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, 3,625 seater Tata Steel, Hulsbosch and other. Unfortunately only a small part and so too bland CDF censured these authors, which in the majority could proceed unhindered to spread their errors, protected by powerful forces filoprotestanti and philo, perhaps clandestinely They penetrate the Church itself.

the young Dominican theologian Tomas Tyn

Since the early years of the post council there was a host of good theologians and prelates, which is premurarono to comment on the texts of the Council in the line of the Magisterium, showing their continuity with the previous Magisterium, defending them from the accusation of modernism, and removing them from the manipulation of the modernists. Among these there were theologians and prelates Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, Jacques Maritain, Yves-Marie-Joseph Congar, Henri de Lubac, Jean Daniélou, Father Raimondo Spiazzi, John Guitton, Jean Galot, the Dominican theologians of Rome, Florence and Bologna, and Alberoni College of Piacenza to the Servant of God Father Tomas Tyn in recent years. Unfortunately, their work in the decades meritevolissima, not entirely ignored by the Holy See, was almost overwhelmed by the two opposing parties of Lefebvre and the modernists, the first with a short-sighted and obstinate attachment traditionalism exceeded, seconds, strong of success, with a gradual climb to positions of power in the Church, beginning with the win in Sixty journalists, young people, i laici, the lower clergy and religious and gradually going up to the conquest of the upper levels of the episcopate and in more recent years by penetrating in the same college of cardinals.

The disturbing signs of what we have had recently at the Synod of Bishops, so that the best part of the College of Cardinals, headed by cardinals Gerhard Ludwig Müller and Leonard Raymond Burke, has felt the urgency to intervene in defense of the Magisterium of the Church and the Pope, but it does not seem to have shown towards them sufficient gratitude for the valuable work undertaken by them.

the Blessed Pontiff Paul VI

Paul VI, which went the very serious task of enforcing the decrees of the Council, soon found herself in front of a difficult situation, that he himself, as it had to confess a decade after the Second, not included (5). Modernists Dutch, with incredible timeliness, already published in 1966, developed under the influence of Schillebeeckx, with the permission of Cardinal Bernard Jan Alfrink, the famous “Dutch Catechism”, published in Italy in 1969, that was a huge success. The Catechism, certainly not deprived of quality, but it has remained to this day the manifesto of modernist Church, contained numerous heresies and serious doctrinal deficiencies, Paul VI was compelled to correct by a special commission of cardinals in 1968. Evidently this catechism was the implementation of a great secret plan already drawn up during the years of the Second, during which many experts guidance modernist cunningly concealed and unfairly their heresies under a correct external behavior, indeed sometimes giving a contribution doctrinal commendable during the work of the Council. Their disease in them remained in incubation and then came clearly to light only since the years of the immediate post council (6). Meanwhile he was gaining more and more support the thought of Karl Rahner, which had been one of the most influential experts of the Council, adviser to Cardinal Franz König. Rahner on the principle of identity of being with being thought, that confuses being as such with the divine being.

the ancient snare pantheist

This pantheistic view the human being is reduced to the divine; the divine (the “grazia”) enters into the definition of the human, but retaining a historical aspect (“man is transcendence and history”), relativized the concept of human nature, human knowledge and the natural law, the Hegelian model, while the divine being is essentially human. Christ then is the divine summit of man and God is necessarily Christ. Hence the pantheistic confusion of grace with God, understood as constitutive of man. Every man is essentially and necessarily in grace. It can neither be bought nor lost. Sin does not take away the grace but cancels itself, because it is inconsistent. Christ saves not as redeemer (mythical concept), but as a factor of the passage of man to God and God becoming man. Faith is not doctrine or conceptual knowledge, but encounter with God, self-awareness and experience of God pre-conceptual and athematic (Anticipation). It involves on the level of a fundamental option for God, act of supreme freedom, for which everyone is saved regardless of the acts categorical, Empirical and finished, own free will, cognitive and moral, good or bad, that arise in terms of changing history and its. Hence the relativity and mutability of the dogma, inevitably uncertain and fallible, unlike the experience of faith still saving, that experience is the becoming of God in history.

one of the first prints of the Dutch Catechism, immediately translated into several languages ​​and distributed worldwide

With the emergence of these ideas Rahner, line of this Catechism Dutch, even character-Enlightenment rationalist, assumed an accent clearly pantheistic Hegel-Heidegger in “Foundations of Faith” ie Rahner, published in Germany in 1976 and in Italy in 1977. This time no commission of cardinals had the courage and wisdom to condemn this pseudo-catechism (7), worse than the previous. The modernists, become increasingly powerful, began to silence the Holy See itself. In fact, Paul VI did not take any measure. There was no authoritative refutation by some members of the Holy See or theologian in sight. Even the CDF, led by Cardinal Seper, did nothing. Rahner was too afraid. To tell the truth, the serious mistake pastoral of the Holy See was in my opinion to let prevent the Dutch Catechism, forgetting the providential and timely care of the Church of the Reformation Tridentine, which, immediately after the Council of Trent and almost as his final document and summary, published the famous and useful Catechism of Trent, which basically is still valuable.

Paul VI, in the course of his pontificate, proposed us or by themselves or through the CDF considerable body of doctrine, that in addition to developing the doctrines of the Council, also refutes the false interpretations and sentencing errors arising, but has never been able to tackle head and explicitly the problem of rahnerismo. Indeed Rahner appointed member of the International Theological Commission, from which shortly after, disappointed because you could see rejected his ideas, he came up with annoyed tone and arrogant accusing her of conservatism. Paul VI with many essays and acute interventions against secularism, the spirit of dispute, the immanentismo, the antropocentrismo, false carismatismo, Liberalism, false news, dogmatic relativism and evolutionism, the desecration of the liturgy, laxity and moral subjectivism, he shot several times towards the target, but without center it never completely, so i rahneriani, with the audacity and hypocrisy that characterizes them, have always felt safe and allowed to continue in their ideas and in their costumes.

the Blessed Pontiff Paul VI

The 1974 could perhaps be an opportunity to solve the problem of rahnerismo with good condemnation of his mistakes and the indication of the true path of renewal and progress of theology. But unfortunately Paul VI also lost this opportunity, which was given by a major conference on St. Thomas Aquinas in the seventh centenary of the death, organized by the Dominicans, which had the support of well 1500 Scholars from around the world. For this occasion clearly emerged on the world scene International Theological the great figure of the most learned and wise Father Cornelio Fabro, who elaborated (8) the design of the beautiful letter “Light Church” Pope Father Vincent de Couesnongle, Master of the Order of Preachers, dedicated to recommend, with a wealth of suitable topics, the studio, the deepening and spreading of the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as its use for the comparison with modern culture, in accordance with the provisions of the Second (9).

theologian Stigmatine Cornelio Fabro

In the same year 1974 Fabro published The anthropological turn of Karl Rahner (10), an investigation of the roots acute epistemological and metaphysical thought of Rahner, powerful one studio, in which the theologian Stigmatine demonstrated irrefutably, texts at hand, making use of his exceptional knowledge and of St. Thomas and of German, the abominable although fascinating imposture with which Rahner, falsifying the same texts Thomistic, claimed submit Aquinas, Doctor of the church, as conforming to Hegel, whose idealism has been repeatedly condemned by the Church. What clearer tacit message sent to Paul VI of the absolute necessity not to keep your feet on two brackets, but the fact that the statement of the truth can not fail to result in the condemnation of error and in this case the clear and unequivocal statement that the renewal and progress of theology ordered by the council did not have to move from Rahner but by St. Thomas? But nothing came from Paul VI. The opposition of good theologians not discouraged. Aware of their responsibility towards the souls and loyal to their duty of fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church, continued to report dangerous errors Rahner, albeit sadly, as was to be expected, the rahnerismo not backward, and indeed strengthened to date. The history of this terrible struggle within the Church I briefly told in my book on Rahner (11), that must be updated for example with the persecution made to the Franciscans of the Immaculate, in which it is not difficult to see the revenge of rahneriani for international theological Congress antirahneriano the Franciscan 2007 (12).

first blessing Urbi et Orbi of John Paul II

With the election of St. John Paul II had the impression that the papacy was able to take the situation in hand. The Pope in 1981 replaced as head of the CDF, Cardinal Seper with the great theologian Joseph Ratzinger, and an immediate result you began to notice a more decisive stance against errors Schillebeeckx and condemnation of the errors of liberation theology. Ratzinger was able to hit some followers of Rahner, but the same Rahner, who died in 1984, remained untouched. The rich teaching of John Paul II undoubtedly corrected many errors Rahner, but he did so only allusive and generic, merely expose sound doctrine, without going into the merits of the questions accurately, how does the good doctor who takes an accurate and precise disease, in order to affix the appropriate remedy.

Large enterprise of the Pope was the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992. Although this undoubtedly was indirectly a robust antidote errors Rahner, though of course he could not be appointed. Interesting how then Pope Benedict XVI pointed to the Catechism as a criterion to discern the errors of theologians. The Pope would have had two great chances to tackle head, once and for all, the vexed question and gangrenous: le due Encicliche great Splendor del 1993 e Fides et Ratio del 1998. Only in the first there is a hint to the distinction Rahner, without that Rahner is appointed, between the “transcendental” and the “categorical”, which is expressed in morality in”fundamental option” and in the “acts categorical”. Like this, still in the years 2004-2005, the year before the death of the Pope, the struggle between rahneriani and antirahnriani revived to great: with a congress of opponents in Germany 2004 (13), which followed, almost polemical response, a conference in his favor at the Lateran University, during which the only voice that was heard in strong opposition was Monsignor Antonio Livi.

Karl Rahner, provides

Undoubtedly there is to be horrified to see the success of Rahner, if he was celebrated in the most prestigious of Roman Pontifical Universities. It is the sign of a dramatic situation, that more and more urgently asking to be healed, especially considering the disastrous consequences of the ideas of Rahner in the field of morality and ecclesial life. In this climate of heated battle and I thank the Lord I'm amazed how with the permission of my superiors, which also are grateful, I could publish my book on Rahner, which has had some success, although I refer the deaf war that rahneriani make him and the contempt of which the cover. Yet I am always here, ready to correct any errors of interpretation and reasons and listen to his defense. But no one shows up.

first blessing Urbi et Orbi by Benedict XVI

Benedict XVI, the acute critic of Rahner, ascended to the papacy, where he would have all the expertise, intelligence, the authority and the power to act for the solution of the grave problem, he unfortunately did nothing and probably for those few suggestive interventions that did, has brought upon the ire of rahneriani, that led him to abdicate and then to give up the Petrine ministry. The encyclical Light of Faith of Pope Francis, completion of that begun by Benedict, repeats cliches and completely ignores the issue. Today the problem is therefore still open. Pope Francis never speaks of Rahner. But do not believe that is the best solution. Rahner is well-known and followed. His serious errors, who continue to give, have been demonstrated for fifty years from a huge array of scholars and the Magisterium of the Church in the past fifty years, in the condemnation of many mistakes, still glimpse the shadow left of rahnerismo, not absent, for example, in the current gooder emerged even at the last synod of bishops. It is not, therefore, come the time to “put on, as they say, the tables”? Why pretend to ignore what everyone knows? There are still some stragglers self-styled progressives who have not yet figured out where it comes from evil? If it is as clear as it is clear its origin and nature, moreover, given that there are remedies, why not acknowledge it frankly a good time and decided to treat him, having regard to its harmful consequences, after a diagnosis precise and detailed? Maybe that evil shall go alone?

Fontanellato, 21 November 2014

Entrance Sunday First Advent

The authors of the Island of Patmos promote the protection of the heritage of good singing and Latin liturgical

_______________________________________
1. It is said that Don Giuseppe Dossetti claimed that “the council had made him”. Not to mention the fire that have become part of the mainstream press on the part played by secularist Rahner at the Council.
2. German edition Erick Wewel Verlag, Munich 1982, French edition Téqui, Paris 1985.
3. Letter to the venerable prelates Conferences, in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, The documents of the Second Vatican Council from the moment of the completion of the second (1966-1985), Vatican Publishing House 1985.
4. The crisis of truth and the Second Vatican Council, Po Institute of Graphic Arts, I rovigo 1983.
5. “We expected a new spring, and came a storm”.
6. Wrong, so, those historians, as De Mattei, who argue, on line Lefebvre, that these experts would give an address at the Council modernist. E’ possible, indeed it is likely that some modernist theses have emerged during the debates, which greatly worried Paul VI, but they then disappeared at the time of the final documents. So too is the wrong interpretation of the Council given by the School of Bologna, for which it should be, in official documents, track one “spirit” l’ “event” that goes beyond the letter retrivamente conservative , and that does not consist merely in his modernist ideas. It is also wrong to see the card.Kasper in the Council of “contradictions” “unresolved tensions” between elements fissisti and traditional exceeded and”new”, evolving, that is no more than that modernism, for which he sympathizes. The valuable contribution given by the Council in collaboration with Rahner Ratzinger is illustrated by Peter Paul Saldanha in his work as Revelation “self-communication of God”, The Urbaniana University Press, Rome 2005.
7. Rahner himself did not have the nerve to call him “catechism”, but in practice it is evident that it intends to propose an initiation into the faith nonetheless affected by Gnosticism Protestant and antithetical to the Catholic.
8. Me personally communicated in confidence.
9. Oct, 16 the most serious of education, 10.
10. Rusconi editions, Milan.
11. Karl Rahner. The Second betrayed, Editions Faith&Culture, Verona 2009, II and.
12. These have been published in Karl Rahner. A critical analysis, edited by Father Serafino Lanzetta, Published By Cantagalli, Siena, 2009.
13. These have been published in Karl Rahner. Critical approximations, edited by David Berger, Publisher Franz Schmitt, victory bug 2004

THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS AND

Eugenio Scalfari

[…] Scalfari seems to ask the Pope if you can admit a certain relativism of truth. The Pope could argue with relativism, as did Pope Benedict, and instead recognizes that there is a God relate. Of course the Pope's words should not be considered in conflict with Pope Benedict and as an endorsement of relativism, which is a serious defect in the thinking and moral behavior, for which "relativized" not absolute in the sense that the legitimate Pope, but in the sense of making an idol of God in the service of their desires or otherwise relativizzarlo man, as if the man is above God […].

Author
John Cavalcoli OP

when it comes out of the mouths of everything and even more …

When the Pope speaks, should take the high tone, above the cawing of birds. Editrice Vaticana, as we know, published the contents of some talks by Pope Eugenio Scalfari. Some expressions of the Pope in this circumstance caused the time a part of the Catholic world concerns, apprehension and wonder, while the secular world gleefully took the opportunity to present an unfair Pontiff near its positions. I would like to limit myself only to express how, in my view, should be interpreted in fact some words of Pope, to judge of their continuity with the perennial teaching of sound reason, Church and faith.

It may surprise you, first of all, in the letter the Pope wrote to Scalfari, his statement: "I would not call, even for those who believe, of "absolute" truth ", when we know how this expression is traditional not only in philosophy but also in the language of the Magisterium, for God or the divine truth; but to understand what it means to say the Pope, we read the following words: no truth to the "absolute", "In the sense that all is what is untied, what is lacking in any report. Now, the truth, according to Christian faith, is the love of God for us in Jesus Christ. So, the truth is a relationship!”.
It should be noted here that the Pope is not speaking the truth in general or of truth as such, but of divine truth, which in God is the same love (1). So we have to dispel a suspicion of voluntarism that might emerge from a superficial reading of the words of the Pope.

The Holy Father in his general audience

What in this context is the heart of Pope Francis is reminding us that God is in relationship with the world, with the world that He created to love freely and this mainly through the mystery of the Incarnation. So also our relationships with Him, different in each of us, means that the same divine truth is relationships with us in different ways for each of us.
For this reason, and in this sense the truth of God is God's relationship with the world: God knows the world; the truth is intentional relation of a subject to an object: the conformity of intellect and thing, as St. Thomas says, although in the case of God is he who must adapt to things, but they are things that are appropriate to the designer and creator thought that God has for them.

But God's relationship with the world is love, for God loves the world and God in truth and love, as mentioned, are identified in the absolute simplicity of the divine essence. The Pope wishes to focus attention on this issue and in that sense here rejects the term "absolute truth".
We can not imagine fact that the Pope does not continue to treat with traditional language of God in himself as the Absolute and the Absolute Truth, because the term "absolute", joined by a few centuries in the language of philosophy and theology, may be synonymous with "divine", although it is true that not everything that is absolute is divine, because a finite being can be absolute to look for another and relative. But God is absolute in every point of view: is absolutely absolute (2).

It is reasonable and necessary to distinguish truth from about absolute truth and absolute truth. It would be wrong, as it seems to assume Eugenio Scalfari, that there are only relative truths. This is the error of relativism, seen for example in the philosophy of Auguste Comte (SEC. Nineteenth), that says: "Everything is relative, and this is the only absolute principle " (3). Truth or relative can be said in relation to the object or in relation to the subject. If I say "today is Wednesday" and it is actually Wednesday, This truth is relative to the current Wednesday, past which that statement, in relation to the object (what day is it?), ceases to exist. In fact, if I say "today is Wednesday", while it's Thursday, are false in. However, if you consider the person who makes the claim, this may or may appear to be true only in relation to the subject, but be false by an objective point of view, or because the subject is in good faith, wrong without knowing it (the so-called "subjective truth", "Invincible ignorance") or because it is in bad faith, that is opposed to the truth voluntarily ("Ignorance sliced ​​or guilty"). Note that, from the moral point of view, In the first case the person who sins is innocent before God, is guilty while in the second case.

“misses” in candy pink to gay pride … Sodom and Gomorrah had more good taste

Like this, for instance, it is not difficult to show that from the point of view of the moral law sodomy is sin objectively; however, given the current shameful campaign of exaltation of this sin, it is not easy to know whether that particular homosexual knows or does not know sin. In this sense, the Pope uttered that famous phrase: "Who am I to judge?». Since, however, the truth sets the object, we are all obliged to seek the objective truth, that is the real as it is in itself, but it may happen that what seems true is not, for which we are deceived or deceiving us. And what or why we err inadvertently or guilty because we close to the truth. In the first case we apologize, in the second we deserve to be reprimanded.

Here you have a lot of importance to the principle of consciousness. When the Pope says that even the atheist must follow their conscience, the Pope to approve this atheism (you imagine an atheist Pope?). Francis Pope does not teach that the individual consciousness or subjective is the absolute source of truth, but evidently refers to the principle of freedom of conscience (or religion) teaching of the Council, which reminds us that even those who err in good faith, However, you must follow their conscience and is innocent before God [See the previous article on this subject by Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo, who].

For this reason, the State and the Church should allow the wanderer an area of ​​freedom, prejudice of course the basic needs of the common good. In fact there are core values ​​for human society, whose breach is inexcusable and, therefore, in any case must be prevented or repaired, is or is not in good faith or wandering the criminal. It is a principle taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, when he says that the erroneous conscience obliges (4), but at the same time it is clear that the good Aquinas admits to the absolute limits of tolerance.
The subjective consciousness of innocence or of its own right, even if objectively unfounded and unintentionally, is of great consolation and comfort, when one is isolated and misunderstood in a hostile environment, persecuted by unjust laws, betrayed by friends, oppressed by superiors, despised by his subjects, slandered by liars, defamed by malicious or ill-treated by bullies because of truth and justice.

urn containing the remains of Saint Lucia virgin and martyr of Syracuse

This awareness that such tests do without the consent and support of the human, is that which characterizes the strength and freedom of Heroes, saints and martyrs, both in the civil history of the Church in the. In this sense, Christ proclaims blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, and to his disciples: "You will be hated by all for my name's sake" [Mt 10.22]. Instead, who carefully avoids slyly or not to be hated by the world for the sake of the world, so as not to look bad in front of him or to have no trouble, has a guilty conscience and self-righteous, or at least he's a coward and not worthy disciple of Christ, as the divine Teacher says: "If anyone is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, will be ashamed of him the Son of Man, when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels " [MC 8,38].

It is useful in this question of objectivity (absoluteness) - Subjectivity (relativity) the truth should also mention the corresponding distinction between truth or epistemological relation to truth as an act of the intellect and truth ontology as the real thing object of knowledge. The relation of truth, which refers to the subject – the truth as a relationship, in the words of the Pope – itself is absolute and immutable, even if the object is mutable: it is true that today is Wednesday, and I say that today is Wednesday, this proposition, in relation to Wednesday which is passed, will remain true forever (true judgment), that is, in absolute, although on Wednesday (object of judgment) increased. Instead, if the object is mutable, the affirmation, just to be true, must change according to changing object, so in relation to the object and the truth is silent on the change of the object. If you arrive on Thursday and I still say that today is Wednesday, evidently false in.

the work of Gilbert Keith Chesterton devoted to Angelic Doctor

The truths are so changeable, instead the absolute truth – human or divine – is immutable, because by definition it is the truth which does not change neither the object, nor, consequently, subject or grade: are objective truths, Fundamental and Universal's own reason and faith. In this sense it is said that the truth is “just one”, otherwise the negation of the principle of non-contradiction.
Speaking of relative truth, The Pope, however, specify that it will not support any subjectivism. In fact, tell the truth "subjective" (as we have defined above) does not necessarily mean subjectivism. The fact is the alleged arbitrary subjectivism and individualism of the individual to be subject to the rule of truth, when instead, as I said, the rule of truth is the object (which can be something of one's self, this means nothing). In subjectivism, the truth is no longer a single, but each one builds its own “truth” as they wish and as it suits them. The truth may be much in the way of many things that are true, but not as said, from the point of view of the relationship of truth.
To understand this, we must remember the distinction I made above. Indeed, from the definition that I just gave, that subjectivity is given, when the subject individual claims to be the absolute rule of truth, What evidently alienissima the intentions and the words of the Pope. Subjectivism you, for instance, the idealistic ego solipsism absolute and all-encompassing, considered as the only source of absolute truth and any other truth (5).
It is true that the Bible does not speak of "absolute" as a divine attribute. There is not even the word (6). Even St. Thomas considers God as the Absolut, neither speaks veritas absoluta. In vain among the divine attributes listed in the Summa Theologica we would seek the attribute of the absoluteness. Among other things, the time of Thomas just gives the concrete "absolute", but not the abstract "absoluteness".

Conversely l 'Absolute for Aquinas is a normal attribute to the finite realities substantial, formal or material. For instance, in the field of logic, for him the abstract universal is a absolutum, as it is timeless, free and independent (by-soluble) individuals who are subject. To understand what it is the absolute, is useful to consider the etymology of the word, which Aquinas closely follows. Sol with that in the nineteenth century theology, especially in German Idealism, is the exploit of the "Absolute". To indicate God, we begin to talk of how '' Absolute '. The tendency of Hegel's monistic solve any real in the Absolute, for which there is only the Absolute, everything is Absolute, everything is in the Absolute, the Absolute is everything (immanentism), because all is One. It is precisely the Absolute One.

For Hegel, the "other" from the Absolute, outside of himself, relativizzerebbe the Absolute, Why, to stand out from the Absolute, should have something that the Absolute has no. But that is not an Absolute Everything, is no longer absolute. Also break the unity of the One-All. For Hegel, however, that escapes instead ,this "other" from the Absolute, may well exist as a body relative to the Absolute ("Being for participation", as St. Thomas says), which is precisely the condition of creaturely, just as in the biblical doctrine of God the Creator of the world, necessarily external to God (Opus ad extra), For everything that's in God is God. Moreover, Hegel does not include the set up does not break the divine unity, because it's not on a par with God in competition with him, but infinitely below (divine transcendence), as picture, effect or sign of divinity.

For Hegel instead, nothing exists outside of the Absolute, and as though he does not give up even admit its, here is that for him, since the relative can not be out of the Absolute, the Absolute itself is conceived as including within itself its, ie the world. God becomes the world and the world becomes God. That is ultimately the Hegelian Absolute is not a true absolute, independent of its, but paradoxically, just to be absolutely, for God, home in his own divine essence the world, according to the famous assertion: "God is not God without the world".

Image of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel retouched by the boys in the mood for jokes. The term Swag, translated into Italian as "booty" or "swag", slang of young people is a worthy replacement for the word "cool" then identifying a person, a piece of clothing or, in general, an object that has style.

For Hegel, we can not give an absolute pure, an Absolute absolutely simple, but the Absolute itself is relative to the world, is "historicized", though then God is, from the point of view of Hegel, to be relevant only to Himself, because the world itself is God coincides with the divine essence. But this obviously removes the distinction between God and the world and you fall into pantheism.

We would of course out of the way if we interpreted in this sense the words of the Pope, who knows by faith and reason that God, in his infinite perfection, could exist even without the world, He being the Absolute, the Infinite, l'Eternal, the most perfect Being, and therefore completely self-sufficient. An "Absolute" itself on the world might not be a true Absolute, because report says dependence that with which it is in relation. The world depends on God, but God does not depend on the world. God's relationship to the world in the sense that it created, knows him and loves him, but not in the sense that it depends on the world. Now, as seen, independence is the character of the absoluteness. If in fact, with the creation and even more with the Incarnation, God has placed in relationship to the world, it is simply because he wanted to free love in the world, It follows necessarily either or "logically" from the divine essence, as Hegel believed.

The question of ' “Absolute ", Kant ignored dall'illuminista, comes to the fore in the romantic philosophy of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. But for them the Absolute is not what he meant St. Thomas. For these, from-solutm it means rather loose, free, independent, self-sustaining, self-sufficient, who sits on their own, things that might be appropriate for God. But in fact, in Thomas, as I said, it is a divine attribute, logical and ontological category but a moral analogue. If we want, "Absolute" also means "loose", but not with the negative nuance that seems to possess in the words of Pope, because the 'Absolute may have ties made: the universal, as in itself independent from the individual, in fact this is in the individual (one in many). It gave, though independent of man, has wanted to bond with the man with a covenant of love.

We also think all ' “sacramental absolution ". "Acquitted" comes from Absolute, past participle of acquit, which means here dissolve ties that make a slave or prisoner, that is, the bonds of sin. Who is absolved from sins is free, intact and happy. Vice versa, as mentioned, is related that does not fit with the divine essence, because its employee and says God clearly does not depend on any. Only in the mystery of the Trinity are divine relations, the divine Persons, but fails to say dependence, but we speak of "relationship" only source in the equality of the one divine nature. The Son, for instance, originate with the Father, but it is not dependent on the Father as the bottom depends on the upper, or the effect of the cause, but only because it is generated by the Father, that is equal to the common divine nature.

… The Word became flesh

The relationship here is not an accident, but it is subsistent, because it is a divine Person, for which the person RELATED TO THE identical in nature with the divine Person relazionante. Therefore God is the Absolute: God and the Trinity are one absolute Being, God himself. What if in the Bible we find the attribute of the absoluteness, However, attributes are equivalent. The absoluteness in a sense summarizes them all: freedom, the independence, the goodness, eternity, the totality, infinity, the majesty, perfection, the immutabilità. The attribute of the absoluteness retains its value even if in fact God has created a world, became incarnate and therefore has a relationship of knowledge and love for him. God indeed, creating the world, does not change its nature, that is in itself the Absolute. But it is clear, as has been said - and this does the Pope knows this - that God created the world freely, utmost freedom, says the Vatican Council. He could, if he wanted to, Also do not create it. God did not need us, wanted for our sake in Christ begging for our love and ask for a glass of water to the Samaritan woman. "Dio, as St. Augustine says, who created you without you, does not save you without you ".

Hence the dignity, Certain, but also the contingency of the world and the existence of God is absolutely necessary. If there were no God, the world would not hesitate. While the world may not exist, God can not exist, because it is Being itself absolute, is what accounts for the existence of the world: is therefore absolutely Necessary. E-il must be, as he called the great metaphysical Muslim Avicenna, often mentioned by St. Thomas.
The world does not depend on God for logical deduction required, as the properties of the triangle depend from the essence of the triangle, as Spinoza thought. This implies the existence of love in God, a free love, generous, merciful, of free choice. The set does not derive from the divine essence, but is a result of divine will. We do not say that the properties of a triangle depend on the love triangle because, but simply a logical deduction from the essence of the triangle. This is not how the world comes from God, because it comes from the essence of nothing but, by virtue of his wisdom, his freedom, of his goodness and omnipotence.

Photo of Eugenio Scalfari with the funny writing by the Papaboys

Eugenio Scalfari seems to ask the Pope if you can admit a certain relativism of truth. The Pope could argue with relativism, as did Pope Benedict, and instead recognizes that there is a God relate. Of course the Pope's words should not be considered in conflict with Pope Benedict and as an endorsement of relativism, which is a serious defect in the thinking and moral behavior, for which "relativized" not absolute in the sense that the legitimate Pope, but in the sense of making an idol of God in the service of their desires or otherwise relativizzarlo man, as if the man is above God.

It is clear, as the Pope says, what a god, order to be in relationship with us and because we can position ourselves in relationship with Him, is presented to us from time to time in the manner suitable for each of us. But it is one thing to say that God stands in relation to each of us in ways related to each of us and it is one thing to deny God's absoluteness inherent in his divine essence, to make a product or a man or a contingent fact of history and culture. It 'clear that on this point the Pope Francis is in total agreement with Pope Benedict. And they will have no difficulty to subscribe to the words of Pope Francis Scalfari, understood as the Pope understands them and tried to explain.

There may in fact have a healthy relativism, when one recognizes as its what is actually required and it is not an absolute. But as yet there is relativism deleterious, so there is also an equally deleterious absolutism, that excludes the other, exacerbates conflicts, and creates unresolvable dualisms, opposing positions against the so absolute, that seems impossible any way for dialogue and reconciliation. E’ the tragedy of ideology. This is certainly what he means by concluding this part of his letter: "You have well understood the terms and, perhaps, to exit from the confines of an opposition… absolute, reset in depth the issue. I think this is now absolutely necessary to engage in the dialogue and constructive expressed the hope that the beginning of this I say ".

Interestingly, this statement turns up twice ' “absolute ", once as an adjective and another adverb. The concept of "absolute" it is in our own everyday language. Its application depends on the theological meaning of the term analog, which lends itself both to indicate the world, is to describe God. Therefore noOn it is doubtful that the Pope knows everything. But he believes in that Absolute, do not confuse the extreme and foolishly and gnostically, in a false "synthesis", positions in contrast (being with non-being, truth with falsehood, the good with the bad), such as the Hegelian dialectic or pantheism of Emanuele Severino, but in his infinite, beneficial and absolute power of peace and reconciliation unites souls in the absolute truth of eternal bliss.

Fontanellato, 8 November 2014

_________________________________________________________________________

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

WHEN IN FILOFOSIA AND THEOLOGY IN

Relativism BECOME HEALTHY AND CHRISTIAN

talking in public with one of my teachers …

Dearest Father Giovanni,

Since the three of us "guys" from the island of Patmos are long in the crosshairs of certain "traditionalists" and “sedevacantists catatonic”, wishing I could anticiparti their lamentations on the site Lace&Lace, Straight&It's roteche, Latin did not know that I Love You … and so on. And also what if your article is built on the master “philosophy of the day” so dear to our brother Antonio Livi, then your deep sense of Church, pastoral, theological and metaphysical. Even despite, contact: repeat what I have said and written, That's why this time I would like to anticipate, so trite and repetitive are their arguments …
… me too, as you may remember, I was accused by them so heavy. When in fact the journals of gay organizations began to stand out the phrase "Who am I to judge?», while pederasts ideological sentenziavano: "The Pope has opened the world's gay", I replied with my article calling for the correct reception of the sentence of the Holy Father.

Of course, Perhaps the Holy Father expressed a concept devoid of depth explanations, as indeed we often do when we all take for granted certain obviousness, that in this world are not that obvious and least of all discounted. That's why I pointed out that my writing: «The Holy Father expressed a gospel truth: In fact, none of us can judge the most intimate and profound consciousness of man that God alone can read and judge accordingly». From this was born the obviousness of the expression of the Holy Father: "Who am I to judge?». Sentence but, by journalists, intellectuals and politicians on the payroll of the culture of gender, lack the rudiments of basic vocabulary and catechetical Christian, was changed to a completely different meaning expressive, Finally upside down in a completely anti-Christian.
At that time I was attacked by the usual suspects corifeo with amenities like: "Progressista ... vagum Modernist"…

… Now it's up to you again, so get ready to read: "The Father John Cavalcoli climbing on mirrors to understand and mitigate the word" heretical "in this “antiPope”». While the truth is that you recepisci and broadcast in consciousness, science and truth of the Holy Father's words to mean what they say and not for what they do not mean and do not intend to say. Of course, should always be avoided mangled sentences and phrases that might sound ambiguous to most ears willing to hear and incorporate a Christian language. It is in the latter case that we are called to carry out our pastoral ministry in pastoral care and theologians, which is certainly not that of "scrambling", but remember what they mean in our lexicon certain expressions. What we need to remember the ultra-secularists as to certain "traditionalists" who similar way have also lost the proper Christian vocabulary, enough to sit in judgment of conscience “Collective” the College of Bishops in communion with Peter, seizing alleged heresies, even in the most solemn acts of the supreme magisterium, for example, those of the Second Vatican Council, they shamefully defined “heretical” ed “apostate” in the name of an unspecified purity Catholic, behind which lurks in truth the fearsome queen of all the seven deadly sins, the holding as a solid column all the other six: the Superbia.
That's why I find this extremely precious your article and I feel it is our duty to return, occasionally, on certain details, as you taught me to do along with Antonio Livi. No coincidence that we have on purpose to make life on the Island of Patmos ecclesial and pastoral theology according to the doctrine and the perennial teaching of the Church, certainly not according to our subjective humoral. And may the grace of God, to which we wish to be always open — which passes not least through the Magisterium of the Church and the Apostolic authority to his obedience — save us from the formidable Queen: that pride which unfortunately is devastating circles increasingly closed and self-referential Lace&Lace, Straight&It's roteche, Latin did not know that I Love You … and in that way not only aberrant, but worse evil, present themselves as saviors of the Church fomenting daily contempt for the Holy Father, which is not perfect, You can like it or not — and it is quite legitimate that like it or not — but how many times we repeated and how we will never tire of repeating: He is Peter, whether you like it or not like it. And it is a truth of faith dogma that underlies the founding of the Church built on Peter the mandate given to him by Christ Himself. That's why in some cases the pleasure or the pleasure is not really relevant in the most exquisitely philosophical and theological term. Why is there, both in philosophy and in theology, a healthy Christian relativism.

A fraternal embrace and a priestly prayer to remember me to the Blessed Virgin Mary of Fontanellato.

Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

________________________________________

NOTE

(1) It is known thesis of classical theology, for example in S.Tommaso, that knowledge is identical to loving God. Famous is the dogma of the Council of Florence 1442 for which the divine essence "all is one, unless it is on the opposition of the divine persons " (With God all things are one , ubi non overlooked relations oppositio, Denz. 1330).
(2) For example, the human person has an absolute value in the image of God, but has a relative value as finite creature, and above all, fragile and sinful.
(3) One has to wonder how it is possible, If everything is relative, there is then an absolute principle. This shows how even the most driven relativists can not do without some absolute, which then will not be the real one (It gave) but the absolutism of the value of.
(4) See Part, I-II, q. 19. a. 6
(5) Like for example in the philosophy of Fichte.
(6) But this means nothing: the word "person" does not exist, yet the mystery of the Trinity is one of the fundamental teachings of the Bible.