We defend the Holy Father Francesco from flamethrower of mariolatri thirsty for new Marian dogmas: "Mary is co-redeemer"

- Church news -

We DEFEND THE POPE FRANCIS THROWER FROM THE THIRSTY MARIOLATRI OF NEW MARIAN DOGMAS: "MARY IS NOT COREDEMPTRIX"

.

Having said that I prefer to defer on another whimper closely related to these devotees to-redemption: «… things are going bad because you have not made the solemn and universal consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!». And I say that I prefer to postpone because I'm a modest theologian, very modest and perhaps even quite ignorant, but, however ignorant I may be, I do not mean to take care of magic and magic solutions advocated, played barrel of apparitions and the visionaries inserted into the mystery of revelation soon after Prologue the Gospel of the Apostle John Beato, if not before.

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi Gualdo

.

.

PDF format Print article

.

.

the work of St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort

Apro with an example and a question: because the Franciscans had various problems, even if it elevated by a certain fringe of the Catholic world to victims, He made them - they say - because they were celebrating Mass with The old rite of the Mass? In truth it was not a matter of Latin, as claimed by those who before a the Lord be with you lose the light of reason, convinced that The Lord be with you has not at all the same value and saving power.

.

Among the problems arisen in this worthy young Congregation, not only there was a theologically questionable Mariology, but the fact that they gave for granted the existence of a dogma that the Church has never proclaimed and who has repeatedly refused to proclaim: the dogma of Mary co-redeemer. And anyone is free from prejudices built on personal moods and passions, should know that giving to the existing one never proclaimed dogma, It is more serious than denying a defined dogma. Taking apart in this regard on Radio Maria and Catechesis of Father Livio Fanzaga, why never, especially at the gates of the upcoming Holy Week, It recommended firing bursts of gunfire on the red cross.

.

In his homily this morning, the Supreme Pontiff Francis returned to mention the figure of the Blessed Virgin, rejecting the insistent and persistent request of the proclamation of the dogma of Mary co-redeemer. Soon after, the inbox of our staff has been deluged by e-mail, in not a few of which he screams "Bergoglio heretic and antichrist", with all the appurtenances: "Lutheran, apostate, anti-pope "and so to follow ...

.

The speech “Maria Corredentrice” it is not thing bergogliana, but very old thing. It would be enough to remind some of the new dogmas thirsty, with relative insults directed almost practice to reigning Pope, that many Popes, from Blessed Pius IX, to follow with the Saint Pius X, below the Venerable Pope Pius XII, Finally Saints Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, Finally to follow with Venerable Benedict XVI, They have always refused to proclaim the dogma of Mary co-redeemer. The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, that Marian motto "All yours"I had even included in his papal coat of arms, Finally showing obvious annoyance for this cyclic insistence, He said stoutly that he did not want to hear about this matter in the course of his pontificate.

.

All these Popes They were very devoted to Our Lady, especially St. Pius X, Pius XII and John Paul II. But it, at the same time, they never fail to replicate and explain that through the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word, Mary cooperated in the redemption and, said this, it was not necessary to proclaim co-redeemer with a dogmatic definition.

.

From a theological point of view and dogmatic, the same concept of Maria redemptrix first creates big problems to Christology, at the risk of giving birth to a kind of “quatrinità” and elevate the Madonna, that is perfect creature born without the stain of original sin, to the role of real gods. Christ has redeemed us with His precious human and divine blood, while Mary, playing an extraordinary role in the history of the economy of salvation, It cooperated in our redemption. Say instead redemptrix would be to say that we have been redeemed by Christ and Mary. Let's clarify: Christ saves, Mary intercedes for our salvation. And, how to understand, It is not a trivial difference, unless otherwise create a different religion from the one founded on the mystery of God's Word.

.

This morning the Holy Father, in his own words, He has done nothing but reaffirm what you already have expressed and clarified its Supreme predecessors over the past two centuries of church history. Words before which we already know replication: "... but St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort says ... but this Madonna, appearing in this or that place, the visionaries said and asked ... but ... but … but …». believe me: really regret having to clarify that St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort did not write a high theological treatise but a treatise on true devotion to Mary. The great treatises on Mariology, touching the most delicate spheres of dogmatic, wrote them St. Bernard of Clairvaux, San Tommaso Aquino, Blessed Duns Scotus … And their enlightened treated dogmatic then formed over the centuries the basis for the proclamation of the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and her assumption into heaven. Dogmas whose definition has required a gestation period lasting centuries, It characterized by long and heated debate among theologians and between different theological schools.

.

Simply said, that before the "... but St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort says that ...", It must replicate the light of the deposit of the Catholic faith, because we know yes, What he says and hopes this saint, but the authority of Peter is by far superior to the Montfort good, because it is an authority that is based on one of the dogmas that are in constitutive foundation of the Church:

.

"And I tell you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven " [Mt. 16, 18-19].

.

With the words of the Pope this morning, place that is not the first time that refers to "co-redeemer", every request, and whining noise is closed, even with all due respect to St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort and his sublime treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, even with respect to those who yells the present day via radio …

.

Having said that I prefer to defer on another whimper closely related to these devotees to-redemption: «… things are going bad because you have not made the solemn and universal consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!». And I say that I prefer to postpone because I'm a modest theologian, very modest and perhaps even quite ignorant, but, however ignorant I may be, I do not mean to take care of magic and magic solutions advocated, played barrel of apparitions and the visionaries inserted into the mystery of revelation soon after Prologue the Gospel of the Apostle John Beato, if not before. And I can not deal with this, because what the magician is not my job …

.

the Island of Patmos, 3 April 2020

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

NOTICE TO READERS

The Editions The Patmos Island they use for printing and distribution of its books of the great Company Amazon, that at this time suspended the shipment and distribution of all kinds not urgent and not strictly necessary for problems associated with the emergence coronaviruses. At the moment it is therefore not possible to order and receive our books, But that can be ordered after 3 April.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

«You will know the truth and the truth will set you free» [GV 8,32],
but bring, spread and defend the truth not only of
risks but also the costs. Help us supporting this Island
with your offers through the secure Paypal system:



or you can use the bank account:
They were IT 08 (J) 02008 32974 001436620930
in this case, send us an email warning, because the bank
It does not provide your email and we could not send you a
thanksgiving [ [email protected] ]

.1

or you can use the bank account:

payable to Editions The island of Patmos

IBAN IT 74R0503403259000000301118
in this case, send us an email warning, because the bank
It does not provide your email and we could not send you a
thanksgiving [ [email protected] ]

.

 

.

.

Padre Ariel

About Padre Ariel

Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo Presbitero e Teologo ( Click on the name to read all its articles )

86 thoughts on "We defend the Holy Father Francesco from flamethrower of mariolatri thirsty for new Marian dogmas: "Mary is co-redeemer"

  1. Are “From a theological point of view and dogmatic, the same concept of Maria redemptrix first creates big problems to 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, in the role of a real divinity.”,
    who knows what and how many problems, from a dogmatic and theological point of view, it could create an eventual pronouncement on Maria Teotocora or Deipera if you prefer, at the risk of giving birth to a kind of “mother goddess”…
    If that were the above motivation, it seems to me to have very little consistency.

  2. Good evening, Father Ariel,
    although very ignorant in everything, I have some connection with the scientific method. For this reason I take the liberty of asking you, please, at least some of the many references to writings or speeches by the various Popes you mentioned. I would be especially interested in the references for the thought of Saint PiusX, Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I hope that the text from which the annoyance of the Polish Holy Pope for the cyclical insistence you mentioned can be traced.
    I thank you in advance and ask you to remember me in your prayers to the Holy Trinity.
    AMCC

      1. Thank you, Father.
        Frankly, I was expecting a slightly wider bibliography / sitigraphy.
        From this interview it is clear that the then Cardinal Ratzinger placed the emphasis more on the semantic question than on the contents .
        I will continue the search on my own. Thanks anyway.
        AMCC

        1. At this time I couldn't do more.
          Like the absolute majority of Italians, I too am closed at home and retired to a summer home belonging to my family, totally isolated. Therefore, I do not have all the texts in my library or the large digital archive in which I have enclosed twenty years of documents collected during my studies and research. That's why I sent her what I was able to find, because certain specialized texts or very specific documents are almost never found, usually, in internet.

          1. Good evening. Allow me to submit an element that intrigued me. In his monumental liturgical work, the “free Sacraments”, which for years I have been reading with great interest, Blessed Card. Schuster writes, in reference to the feast of the Assumption: “Mary also exercises the office of our advocate in heaven, what Jesus entrusted to her on Calvary; And this, so that redemption repairs in everything, indeed it is much more abundant, that does not ruin it. To Adam and Eve, sinners and the source of our original sin on earth, God opposed Christ and Mary, the Redeemer and Co-redemptrix of mankind”. Can you give me a comment on the use that the Blessed Archbishop of Milan makes of the term “Corredentrice”? Thank you for your attention.

          2. He, as other, they used this term to indicate that the Blessed Virgin cooperated in the redemption.
            Others indicate her as a cooperator.
            What escapes her, however, is a homily, a public or private paper, an expression of Blessed and Saints, including the disproportionate pluricited de Montfort, they are not binding elements de fide the faithful to a dogma not proclaimed by the Church.
            Nor would a shrewd and wise person like this great Archbishop of Milan have dared to make use of such a term – as many do today – to take for granted and as existing a dogma of the Catholic faith.

      2. Saint Pio of Pietrelcina called her "our so dear Coredemptrix" and "Queen of martyrs". Not to mention Fr.. Kolbe. Please inquire Fr. Ariel.

        1. Ladies and gentlemen: here is another phenomenon that his personal San Pio da Pietrelcina has created!
          He has no idea how he would react, the real San Pio da Pietrelcina, the real one, in front of a layman who with his arrogance had thus addressed the worst of the priests of this world?
          Padre Pio would have it “information” and “reformed” with two slaps.
          And he did so on several occasions: screaming, chasing people and once even giving two slaps to one who later became his spiritual son, when someone allowed himself to treat priests as she thinks she can treat them.

          Accordingly: perhaps he means that St. Maximilian Maria Kolbe and St. Pio of Pietrelcina proclaimed a new dogma?
          You are so arrogant-ignorant that you cannot distinguish between a private expression and a dogmatic definition of the Church?
          And, did this, I also want to inquire?

          She is truly a phenomenon!

          1. Okay, let's defend him for this as well ..
            There is only one mediator between God and men who is Christ Jesus .. ok..

            But the pachamama in the Vatican who brought it ?
            Who denies that there is hell ? I believe you deny all redemption
            We want to go find the interviews?

            If only he had said this about the co-redemptrix..

          2. Believe me if I tell you that of all the shredders like you on the Pachamama I just can't stand it anymore!

            Anyway, as for Pachamama's speech, needless to say to me that in front of that fact I am horrified, I wrote it and declared it with all due courtesy of the case.

            However, there is a huge difference between her and me: you try to use the Pachamama to delegitimize the Supreme Pontiff, the allusion to which it is evident, although she asks … “and who brought it to us?”; instead I, unlike her, I do not use, nor would I ever use one evil to try to correct another evil, or to say that the other is worse and worse. Because this is neither a Christian nor a human logic.

            Learn to respect the Supreme Pontiff, even if it were the worst in the entire history of the Church. Why unfortunately her, theme, is so humoral and so ignorant in matters of doctrine and faith that he does not know or does not realize that if he touches Peter, on which Christ built his Church, all the scaffolding falls. And believe me, in that case, The Church, they would certainly not save her or her Gospa chattering nor the pseudo seers who have been ranting it continuously for forty years.

            I've been clear?
            Stop, with that … Pachamama cabbage, to say the least.

        2. Dear p. Ariel, you can repeat over and over again that a homily, a public or private paper, an expression of Blessed and Saints (including popes), they are not elements that bind the faithful de fide to a dogma not proclaimed by the Church, and subtle between theology and devotion; but, in the long run, when the people will openly address Mary with this title, the Church will eventually have to intervene, if only to heal the division between opposing factions. At that point he will ask the theologians to do their job, that is, to place their technical competence at the service of the faith of the people.

      3. But he is sure about the opinion of the popes? I found this: «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-redemptrix of humanity " (John Paul II, 8 September 1982).

        1. Ask yourself a question: why St. John Paul II, very devoted to the Blessed Virgin under whose protection he placed his entire pontificate, during 26 long years of pontificate, he never defined the dogma of Mary co-redemptrix, on the contrary, begged to do so, first he refused, then he said that he no longer wanted to receive that request during his pontificate?
          Ask yourself this: because he did not define this dogma?
          A private or public speech by the Supreme Pontiff, it is not a defining act of the supreme infallible magisterium.

          1. I agree: a public speech is not a magisterial pronouncement. But then it seems to me that there is a contradiction, in GPII, in having his say (of JPII) sentence I posted with what she attributes to him, i.e. (I copy from the rest of his writing): “(…) Finally showing obvious annoyance for this cyclic insistence, He said stoutly that he did not want to hear about this matter in the course of his pontificate”.
            First he calls her Coredemptrix…then he is annoyed. I do not understand…

  3. I, on the other hand, think with Saint Bernard, and many before him, that “Maria was never enough”. It can also be considered inappropriate or inappropriate at the historical moment to make an official proclamation of a new dogma, but it is another thing to wait with hope for something to come, it is quite another not to wish him to come with a categorical sentence that certainly Mary is not Co-redemptrix, without even trying to agree on the words and place these words in the right context.
    Instead, there is a great analogy between the question of Mary Co-redemptrix and that, in many ways similar and closely related, of Mary Mother of God. This bodes well.
    Even then it was said that Mary could not be called the Mother of God, being just a human creature; Mary was the mother of the man Jesus, it was said, how one can only dare to imagine her Mother of God, that is Goddess in turn (but the Gospel in which Jesus says is precisely of today “it is not written in your Law that you are Gods? “). Even then, some reckless will have torn their clothes against the hijackers thirsting for new dogmas.
    Certain, there is only one Redeemer, but Mary is the first redeemed and certainly with a purpose: to be Mother of God and Mother of the Church. And perhaps that the Church does not participate in the redemption of Christ? Of course yes, because it is associated with His passion and because He administers His Sacraments. So in this sense, that is, by participation, Mary is also, together with Christ and after him, Corredentrice. This title does not serve to formulate a new truth, but to summarize them…

    1. Dear Stephen,

      dogmatic theology is not poetic, right emotional sentimentality: it is a science that is based on scientific rigor not only precise, but strictly rigid.
      When there is no deep and lexical knowledge of the complex articulations of dogmatic theology, one must be silent, because one cannot dissert when one lacks the solid elements to do so.

      You start with a bombastic quote from San Bernardo di Chiaravalle: «Mary never enough» [we can never say enough about Mary]. Yes, I know this expression of the Doctor Mellifluus as Pius XII called it, but I also know his work, I have studied it for years. She, can say the same, or he limited himself to this catchphrase? Or by chance he tries to imply that this Doctor of the Church supported the dogma of Mary co-redemptrix? If I put the work before them On Grace and Free Will of San Bernardo di Chiaravalle, she thinks she can come out unscathed by quoting a short aphorism extrapolated between the lines? You have an idea of ​​the fact that to understand St. Bernard of Clairvaux and to refer to him and his works, it is necessary to know the principal Fathers of the Church, starting with Sant’Agostino, classical philosophy and the scholastics? Or think that an aphorism to effect is enough?

      Dogmatics first of all requires a language, because it has its own language, specific and tight. In fact, when we talk about dogmas, there are very precise words to talk about them, if these words are missing, or if you don't know each other, at that point one can ask, you can ask for clarification, but it cannot be disputed by supporting reasons as she does who lacks the essential elements to do so, starting from that language which expresses and which represents the immutable and eternal substance.

      However do not be embittered, is in good company: since I published this article, articles and comments have been shot around the net which are an outrage to the basic foundations of dogmatic theology. And I do not tell you with what confidence certain ignorant people support their thesis, stuff to make St. Thomas Aquinas pale in dispute over the principle of intellect with Averroe. Suffice it to say in this regard that, a dear friend of mine, to refute my article in tones of fire, has come to mention how the word of God the alleged private revelations made to Bruno Cornacchiola, in which it is stated: "I am she who am in the Divine Trinity". Because then this is what many cling to: appearances, fortune tellers, private revelations and so on. After all, it is the easiest way, compared to that of those who started from philosophy, to follow up with the school, metaphysics, the schools of Sant'Anselmo d’Aosta and San Tommaso d’Aquino and so on, and then finally arrive, with all the necessary luggage, to speculations on the great themes of dogmatics. What about … lost time! Basically enough “to be in love with the Madonna”, devour devotional booklets, to read texts of the Fathers of the Church and encyclicals that are strictly not understood, season it all with private revelations, to finally feel legitimate a “give on” and “disassemble” a dogmatic theologian who simply enunciated truths of faith, the thought of the Church e, above all, what the Church has never defined and why it has never defined it, such as the dogma of Mary co-redemptrix.

      Apart from this: you have written a number of deeply inaccurate or incomplete things, the result not of knowledge but of obvious copy and paste. And in dogmatics, incompleteness and approximation always generate errors.

      An example: she affirms that Mary is the first redeemed. To say this is to say that the Blessed Virgin “has been redeemed”. And from what one is redeemed, in theological language? One is redeemed from sin, unless we want to understand the concept of redeemer as a title for an end in itself conferred on Christ, who instead redeemed us from sin with his blood.

      In this regard, I enlighten you by saying that Blessed Duns Scotus, he sublimates “Doctor of the Immaculate Conception”, together with several theologians of the twelfth century, offered the key to overcoming all understandable, objective and complex objections to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. In fact, he argued that Christ, the perfect broker, he exercised the most sublime act of mediation in Mary, preserving it from original sin.

      Now she understands – or I hope you understand – that among “To redeem” and “to preserve“, there is no difference in terms of semantic nuance, there is a profound substantial difference. And it was Blessed Duns Scotus who introduced the precise concept of “preserving redemption“, that is to say that Mary was redeemed in an even more admirable way than the redemption from sin: she was redeemed not by way of deliverance from sin but by way of total preservation from sin.

      That's why I tell you, with all the kindness of the good shepherd: you also raise questions, ask all questions and ask for all clarifications you want, but not disputes on dogmatic theology, because that's not his job, so you do not have a profession that is not yours, because this is dangerous.

      1. O illustrious theologian, Is it not true that all the learned disquisitions of Blessed Duns Scotus, given the theological depth of the pros and cons, they would not have led to any dogma if he had not resolved the matter with that “Potuit, befitted, So "?
        Who writes: “unless we want to understand the concept of redeemer as a title for an end in itself conferred on Christ”,
        what do you think of defining simple “historical title” the term “Vicar of Christ”?

        1. You are a polemicist who confuses the more complex themes of dogmatics with football fans.
          He also doesn't know theological Latin, because if she knew him, you should know what significance the terms you mentioned in the theological disputes of the thirteenth century have.
          Do not engage in jobs that are not yours, especially with the spirit from sports bar.
          At last: in this theme – to reiterate how aggressive you are – what does "defining the term" Vicar of Christ "a simple" historical title "have to do with it?».
          He just couldn't help but use a Marian theme to throw a misplaced jab?
          Think … reflect …

      1. … therefore you are able to establish what the supreme custodian of the deposit of faith must insist on or should not insist?
        Bravo, you have really understood everything about the mystery of revelation and Catholicism!

  4. I do not dispute as a theologian, which I am not, but as a believer, which I am.
    Because Mary's redemption is special? This is a question to which, as a theologian, she could answer for her part. I do my best.
    I then did not say, nor intended, that Bernard supported the co-redemption, I also don't think it was talked about at the time. This was not my topic. My argument started from the statement, surely believed, by Bernardo, to dare a step further, in conformity and consistency with that truth. Certain, de Maria numquam satis is not dogmatic truth, nor could it be, because the dogma stops there, while affirming that we can never say enough about Mary opens up a boundless horizon of truth.
    So I don't want to use a bombastic statement to prove the unprovable; I only dare to act like Duns Scotus who did not give up in the face of the dogma that did not allow. Perhaps that Mary was not Immaculate even before? But how many ignorant devotees have had to wait until 1854, not to be right, but to see the reasons of faith triumph?

    1. I see that she has understood all the precise explanation I have given her very well and in response she adopts the technique “philosophy” of the sophist who overturns words.
      SA, the narcissist defends his reasons, the theologian does not defend his own reasons but the truths of faith.
      Lacking certain conditions, experience teaches me that every dialogue is equivalent to throwing a rubber ball on a reinforced concrete wall.

      1. I do not reply to the sophist and narcissist, if I have given rise to these judgments it means that I deserve them.
        But of all his precise explanation I have certainly learned the moral, that is, that I have to limit myself to asking questions without presuming to be able to dispute about theology.
        Well, I asked him a question: what is the meaning of Mary's special redemption?

          1. Well done P. Ariel! In fact the Catechism says just enough. Only the last word is missing.

          2. And to whom they belong, the last words, both definitive and definitive?

  5. Good morning Father Ariel, just a clarification. Who at this moment believes in Mary Co-redemptrix according to the correct meaning and the sense that the previous Roman Pontiffs gave when they used this expression , it always remains in the Catholic Faith or not? ( considering the lack of official dogma)
    Thank you

    1. Your question arises from a candor I would dare to say disarming and as such it deserves an answer.
      But I don't answer her, I have them answer directly from Jesus Christ, that to a question like his answers this way:

      From the Gospel of St. Matthew [22, 23-33] «On that same day some Sadducees came to him, who affirm that there is no resurrection, and questioned him: «”Maestro, Moses said: If someone dies childless, his brother will marry his widow and thus raise his brother's offspring. Now, there were seven brothers among us; the first just married died e, having no offspring, he left his wife to his brother. So also the second, and the third, up to the seventh. Eventually, after all, the woman also died. At the resurrection, of which of the seven she will be wife? Because everyone has had it”. And Jesus answered them: “You are deceiving yourself, knowing neither the scriptures nor the power of God. In fact, at the resurrection neither a wife nor a husband is taken, but one is like angels in heaven. As for the resurrection of the dead, you have not read what God has told you: I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? Now, he is not God of the dead, but of the living”. Hearing this, the crowd was amazed at his doctrine ".

  6. Dear don Ariel, I'm just a poor ignoramus. My faith, to tell the truth, it looks more like that of a small child than that of a theologian. The arguments that you have brought to support your thesis seem to me correct. And yet, I believe that in the course of this pontificate the figure of Mary Most Holy, Mother of Christ and our Mother, without having been elevated to the rank of Coredemptrix, has been extremely humiliated. It is not exactly the Pope who defines it “woman next door”, “woman who, together with Giuseppe, she was not born a saint, but he had to learn holiness in the course of his life”, “mother and mestizo, who also mixed God”? Now, it is not certain that the rejection of the dogma of Co-redemption by this Pontiff is motivated by the same intention of the predecessors, without prejudice to the internal forum. I notice in this Pope an antipathy tending to hatred towards our Mother. If we then combine all this with what he says about Jesus Christ, that “he wasn't a clean one” and other amenities, that death on the Cross was a “failure”, without forgetting the communion of Protestants, the fact that he regularly does not kneel in front of the Blessed One and that at least on one occasion he made the sign of the cross with his left, you don't have a complete enough picture? But you don't mention these things, or so it seems to me. If I'm wrong, do you forgive me. As for the Franciscans of the Immaculate Conception, I found disgusting the way in which an outgoing nun went on television to whine and sell the order to that “vate” of our days which is the…

    1. His comment is an authentic florilege, read this one sentence of yours:

      "I notice in this Pope an antipathy tending to hatred towards our Mother".

      But she, after this, he really manages to look himself in the face in the mirror and make the sign of the cross in the morning and evening?
      Not only are you accusing the Supreme Pontiff of feeling antipathy and hatred towards Mater Dei, but he even assumes that he can read and therefore judge his deep conscience, God only can read and judge, its like that of all of us.

  7. Now the times are not yet ripe, but nothing prevents a new Duns Scotus in the future, appropriately inspired by Heaven, formulate a precise concept of “Maria corredentrice xxxx ” as a cooperator and participant in life, to the works, to the Passion and death of Our Lord and his role of intercession and mediation – however, always subordinate to the Son.

    In recent months, Aldo Maria Valli's blog has hosted some interventions in this regard.

    Three of the American Mariologist Mark Miravalle documenting as the term of “co-redemptrix in the alternative to his son Jesus” has often been used by Popes and Saints and that the request to proclaim this fifth dogma has been the subject of ancient and recent petitions “The voice of the people” the Pope:

    https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2019/12/18/il-papa-il-popolo-di-dio-e-quel-quinto-dogma-mariano-che-fa-discutere/

    https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2020/01/01/maria-madre-di-dio-dunque-corredentrice/

    https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2020/01/21/i-sette-frutti-di-un-nuovo-dogma-mariano/

    Instead Silvio Brachetta recalled the studies of San Bonaventura da Bagnoregio:

    https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2019/12/20/il-valore-corredentivo-della-compassio-di-maria/

    The Marian Theological Commission (1996) held that the question of the recognition of the titles of Mediarice, Corredentrice, Advocate needs further study in a renewed Trinitarian perspective, ecclesiological and anthropological. Furthermore, non-Catholic theologians have proposed possible ecumenical difficulties that would imply a definition of the above…

  8. Dear p. Ariel,

    You don't seem irreverent, even if the thing is light: Sometimes, digerendo mall, I dreamed of the devil. To drive him out, in dream, I hastened to recite a Pater or an Ave Maria, but always in Latin, and the devil would leave immediately. I then wondered why I used Latin in my dream, and the answer was that (in dream) I thought that Latin was faster and more effective: satanasso, accustomed for many centuries to being thrown out in Latin, just hear “Full of Grace” the “who art in Heaven” it goes away by conditioned reflex, like Pavlov's dog; if you used Italian instead, he would listen to the meaning of prayer and should understand it before leaving. I am not joking, I really did and thought so in a dream.

    I will be a while’ crazy and I'll eat heavy, but it is to be understood who thinks so even when awake, but there is a difference: satanassus is a creature, therefore subject to Pavolvian reflections; the Lord no, and therefore Italian or Serbo-Croatian are also good. Maybe the faithful, come creature, are subject to the Pavlovian reflex of Latin, it doesn't seem a great pity, provided that one admits that without Latin transubstantiation happens less well, that would be heresy (the, anathema, for the nostalgic of the old councils).
    Let J.C.
    ac

  9. You have made a screw dad Francesco many times with your fragile one (psychologically speaking) arrogance. Then she is so sure that God has given her the lights for discernment. He appeared to me to be very small intellectually in the appearances a [CENSORED]

    1. Mr. Lorenzo,

      St. Francis of Assisi used to send his friars to confess to the worst priests in the district, and at the time there were plenty of them, more and worse than today. Many of these priests were in fact quite ignorant, some semi-illiterate, many lived with concubines, they made merchandise on the Sacraments and so on and so forth.
      The Saint of Assisi sent them to these priests on purpose so that his friars and traveling companions would learn to honor even the worst of priests, as always and in any case, to the mystery of grace, made participating, however unworthy and gravely sinners, of the ministerial priesthood of Christ.

      I will not go into the merits of the serious offenses that you have repeatedly allowed yourself to address, although I am not ignorant and semi-illiterate, neither one who lives in a state of concubinage nor a simoniac. I have my human limitations and my burdens of sins, but at least I use my good will to improve and correct myself.

      But I can tell you that your unwelcome presence is not accepted on these pages, because I have a moral duty not to protect my personal honor as a man, but the sacredness of the priesthood with which I have been marked forever, indelibly, for eternity.

      Given therefore that you do not even know the rudiments of respect for the priestly figure, please do not post any more comments, because if they arrive they will be promptly and strictly trashed.

      So feel really proud, in a few days, when to Mass of the Lord's Supper the institution of the ministerial priesthood and the Most Holy Eucharist will be remembered, of having addressed the gates of Holy Week to a presbyter of almost 57 years with insults that really have the Luciferian.
      May God have mercy on his soul, while I bless you from my heart.

      P.S.
      I know and am a friend of atheists, non-believers, hard and pure communists and anti-clerical liberals, but I can assure you that not only that, none of them, he would dream of spilling his insults on me, but if someone dared to do so they would defend me with the sword and, some of them, particularly fiery, if they were not held back in this, without hesitation they would even get their hands on her.
      And they are atheists, non-believers, hard and pure communists and anti-clerical liberals …

      1. Caro father Ariel,

        for some years now I have made a few comments and I always sign my name and surname, this time, I omit for the fact that I narrate and for which I have to avoid any kind of possible identification of places and people.
        The mayor of the populous town of which I am the parish priest, former high school teacher in the past, he is an atheist, as a young man he was a militant in Lotta Continua then moved to the P.C.I.. later in the Communist Refoundation.
        Because of me he ended up on trial for assault years ago … That's right. All solved with a sentence to a monetary penalty, however he was condemned anyway.
        For reasons that I am not going to explain, it was decided by mutual agreement with the Municipality not to make a traditional procession because it was not the case and above all it was not appropriate for certain situations of that precise delicate moment..
        The very catholic president of that brotherhood, son of Catholics … grandson of Catholics … old Christian Democrats etc. … etc … first he yelled at me, and the mayor present tried to silence him, then instead of silencing he threw me a very heavy insult, this: “but go be a pedophile like everyone of your race!”. The former young mayor Lotta Continua, ex P.C.I. and then of the Communist PRC, which was a meter away, she slapped him in the face and yelled at him “how dare you turn to the parish priest head of …. ?”.
        Or like you (Holy words!) you told me once in one of our telephone conversations … “God save us from Catholics, apostolic, Romanian, committed and militant in their own way”, and today we must add … “and by those who improvise themselves theologians”.
        But this is our current situation, unfortunately.

        Letter Signed

  10. The councils defined Mary as the Mother of God.

    A “mariologist” who wants a new dogma, above wrote Mother of Christ, which recalls Walter Map's anecdote at the Lateran council of 1179, called Lateran III: Valdo of Lyon, a former merchant, founder of the Waldensians – then heretics, now they are Methodists – he came there to ask to be authorized to preach; the fathers questioned him: Believe in ..? yes believe in ... ? one of them, ancestor of Father Ariel, he asked him “believe in Mary mother of Christ” “Yes”, and they all laughed and sent him to that country. Rightly.

    Then there was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, asked by the Franciscans, but opposed by the Dominicans; as it was proclaimed by the Council of Basel that he had become schismatic, Pius IX had to wait, but no one doubted the Immaculate Conception. Ditto for the Assumption, which is of Pius XII, but since the dawn of Christianity the churches have been dedicated to the Assumption.

    Co-redemptrix is ​​not possible, because redemption takes place with the sacrifice of Christ man and God, stop. Mary is mother of God and of man, but it is not God. it is immaculate, devoid of original sin; she is assumed into heaven, can therefore intercede, but intercession has nothing to do with redemption.

    Then you can use poetic language, but it is another matter. A song now out of use defined the pope “sweet Christ on earth”, not in the proper sense, but poetic implying vicar. For poetic emphasis we can say Maria co-redemptrix, but in the proper sense it is heresy as to say the mother of Christ. If not, theology is abolished. (Of course, in a theological debate, yes…

    [Ed. The sentence came incomplete at the end, it does not depend on the editorial staff but on the broadcast]

    1. I confess that she sparked my curiosity: what would be the subtle difference between Mother of God and Mother of Christ, such as to constitute the distinction between a thoroughbred and a donkey, between an orthodox and a heretic?
      I ask him because I would like to understand if for centuries we have deceived ourselves to pray to Mary Mother of Christ in the Litany of Loreto, and even if such is the gullibility of the editors of the Catechism of the Catholic Church who have entitled a paragraph of their own MARY – MOTHER OF CHRIST, MOTHER OF THE CHURCH (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_it/p123a9p6_it.htm).
      Thanks if you want to reply.

      1. Dear Stefano,

        the council of Ephesus established that Mary is theotokos, or mother of God for the simple fact that Christ is man and God. At the time (III-V century) there were Trinitarian disputes over the nature of God: the Arian heresy, according to which Christ was human in nature, others that it had only a divine nature, I'll spare you the details, but they are centuries of discussions: Christ has 2 nature, human and divine and a will. So who claimed that Mary was the mother of Christ, implied the heresy of a human nature. This is the greatest glorification of Mary, for this she was conceived without sin (Immaculate Conception) etc..

        Litanies are not a dogmatic definition, but they resume (also from the Old Testament) all the attributes of Mary. For this in the 1179, to demonstrate the inability of a layman to preach, Valdo of Lyon, he was asked that question-trap, and he in good faith responded by ignoring the council of Ephesus.

        Francis of Assisi, unlike Valdo (heretic) he had a real fixation on transubstantiation and therefore on the role of the suns that made Christ the redeemer present on earth, I priest, even the worst.

        Then there is devotion, poetry etc.. For this Fr.. Ariel has 2 times right, and has my esteem as a bad unbeliever, also because we are looking for controversy, only means of shaking sleepy brains.

        Until the 1917 (I don't know now) in the Codex Iuris Canonici there was only one case for deposing a pope, if heretic, it is never applied (or in doubtful cases: the council of Constance against John XXIII, but he was true papa?). From the throne de fide è…

        [Ed. the final sentence was incomplete, it does not depend on the editing but on the transmission of the text]

  11. A man,a friend whom I consider very wise, 'In love' with Mary and the rosary – on which he also wrote 'something' – mi said, noted my almost morbid interest in ancient religions, those still prior to c. (d). polytheism according to a historicist observation, that my soul was 'very old' and this bloody theological disputes make me smile a little. After the dispute, you get out of bed the same way you went. I think about 'doing' more than 'believing’ this or that and therefore I propose this passage:

    “The shaman is a cosmic traveler […] which operates a level break between the different areas of the cosmos and its communication channel; an illo tempore communication open to all men, but now the prerogative of the shaman's ecstatic journey who thus transforms a cosmological ideogram into a concrete experiential experience (…) A dimension analogous to that cohesive vision of the earth, with all that is on it , as a single and complex living system, recently formalized by the English scientist Lovelock in the geophysiological hypothesis of Gaia "
    (F. Speziale: The flight of the shaman, 173)
    And for this an illiterate shaman Sete Rumba, friend of the great Romano Mastromattei said, to close a boring speech “theological"

    Without carrying the god in the body
    no one can say anything

    No offense
    A.B.

  12. Caro father Ariel, I'm one of those people who believe it will be proclaimed, sooner or later, the dogma of Mary Co-redemptrix of the world. I am convinced why [CENSORED].

    _________________________

    Dear Mrs,

    the Fathers of the Island of Patmos have no intention, through his celebratory comment, to highlight his public praise addressed to an excommunicated priest who declared the reigning Pontiff a "false pope", "Impostor" and "antichrist's emissary", besides accusing all of us members of the Sacred College of Priests of celebrating invalid Holy Masses, as guilty of celebrating in communion with the "false pope".
    The network is teeming with blogs and sites built and run by authentic freaks who can host his celebratory praises, which, however, cannot find space in these columns of ours.

    Ariel S. Levi Gualdo

  13. She doesn't give a damn about the Pope. You have understood that it has become scorched earth everywhere. In Rome, and also among the heretics who consider his thoughts not even heretical but only unbalanced.
    Nice way to spend that gift of God which is life

    1. … whereas, the monsignorine gossippare of curia, who in the summer go on vacation to the gay islands of Mikonos and Ibiza and then suggest splashes of menstrual poison, they are very balanced people, true? Certainly the gay monsignor they did not burn on this earth, but they have certainly burned for eternity if they do not convert, if they do not do penance and if they do not spend the rest of the days of their life asking God for forgiveness.
      Besides, I know it well: since I wrote a book on cancer ten years ago lobby gay in the Church, or when I have repeatedly denounced to the Holy See with reports, various documents and evidence clerical fags climbing in the ecclesiastical career, they have sworn revenge for life and, sometimes, in addition to sowing poisons, they also use useful idiots like her.
      By the way tell me: this year, with the coronavirus problem, as they will do from the curial Rome to go on vacation in the gay Mikonos and Ibiza, the numerous gay officers of the various dicasteries?
      I don't dare to think what terrifying reactive itches in my ass, if deprived of their pleasant outbursts!
      Greet them all for me!

  14. This time I can only agree with Father Ariel. Mary is not co-redemptrix. On the contrary, I am thrilled by the article about it that appeared today on the NBQ. I am not a theologian, but a poor ignoramus. In my small way I have always thought that Mary could not be co-redemptrix because she does not have a divine nature like Christ and much less unites human and divine nature in one person as happens in Jesus. I don't know if my reasoning is correct. In other words, being Mary having only human nature, she cannot redeem herself nor redeem herself. She is certainly the first and most eminent cooperator of the Redemption. Months ago I spoke on a blog stating precisely that Mary we can at least call her Cooperator of the Redemption, but I was obviously overwhelmed with insults. I am pleased now that this definition is also used by Father Ariel.

    1. … and she does not imagine the insults rained down on me, most of which were so serious that it was not even possible to publish them.
      Obviously, all sent by devotees of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is also Mother of Priests.

      1. Oh, I can vaguely imagine.
        Since the can can that once again the Coredemptrix topic is being done these days on various blogs, you wouldn't want to start taking it seriously and write a good book, well argued that explains why Mary is not Co-redemptrix?
        Among other things, I was just thinking this morning (I won't go into details because it would be long) such as the extreme consequences of co-redemption, that is, to put Mary on the same level as Jesus, lead in the first instance to believe that we are all co-redeemers e, secondly, that ultimately we save ourselves without God's help. I believe that writing a good book on the subject is appropriate. It would certainly raise a crawl space and could lead to closing the subject once and for all.

    2. Dear Antonello,

      given that if the Hierarchy has not yet proclaimed the dogma it is certainly right, it is quite another to say that the Redeemer is only one, it is quite another to say that Mary is not Co-redemptrix.

      I don't claim to have the solution in my pocket, I limit myself to making some considerations. And’ It is true that I cannot argue about theology because I am not theologian, however, it is also true that no theologian has the authority to say that Mary is not co-redemptrix; the theologian can explain if and how it is possible to justify theologically the attribution of this title to Mary e, if it fails, he can say that according to him the right arguments to do so are missing.

      But between us it is enough to understand each other, there is no need to immediately cry out heresy.

      Co-redemptrix does not mean Redeemer, it means associated with the Redemption or, as you say, Cooperator of the Redemption. It is just a matter of speaking the same language – which as Benedict XVI says must be the language of the Fathers – and then, eventually, specify the concepts in the most appropriate terminology, taking care that the interlocutor (or the people of God) don't have to misunderstand.

      The Redeemer is Jesus Christ Son of God, point. But if God's will is to associate His Mother with His Son's mission, if to redeem our human nature by taking it upon himself he wanted to ask for the “fiat” of the Daughter of Her Son, that is, if it is His Son who wants it “Corredentrice” together with him in the plan of the Father's Salvation, and even Bride of the Holy Spirit, how do you say you would usurp that title?

      1. God forbid, I don't cry out for heresy. The problem is precisely one of language, in fact in my opinion the term Coredemptrix is ​​highly ambiguous and is received as something that puts Jesus and Mary on the same level. Since you mentioned Ratzinger, I report below some of his statements on the subject, which I fully agree with and which underline the ambiguity of the term co-redemptrix:
        “I do not believe – answers the future Pope Ratzinger - who will follow up on this request, which in the meantime has gained the approval of several million people, in foreseeable times. According to “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, those characteristics of Mary that the proposal would like to highlight can be better expressed by other titles of Mary, while the formula “Corredentrice” it strays too far from the language of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers; and can therefore produce misunderstandings.

        What is acceptable in this request? The fact that Christ is not outside or beside us, but that he establishes a new one with us, deep communion. All that is hers becomes ours, and Jesus took charge of what is ours to the point of making it his own: this great exchange is the true content of the Redemption, which allows us to go beyond the limits of our individuality to arrive at communion with God.

        Since Mary prefigures the Church, e impersonifica – as it were – The Church, this communion is exemplary realized in her. But we cannot go beyond this communion, to the point of forgetting the priority of Christ: all over…

  15. The key to his soul is the arrogance of “very pseudo” wisdom. And’ the Sgarbi of the clergy. All smoke… I will pray for her.

    1. … and, pray for me, as I pray for her.
      I need prayers and conversion, considering that I have now written thousands and thousands of pages in total – which you have obviously examined all of them – in which I try to practice in serious doctrinal errors, theological blunders and perhaps even sensational heresies.
      And the whole thing you could prove and document it, from my first to my last page.
      For this I really need your prayers and those of everyone.

  16. C.mo Father Ariel,

    but how do you explain all this flowering of personalities so attentive and inflexible in the face of the highest and most complex theological questions of the Church?

    Every time I go to church I see it empty for at least three quarters and the priests make real somersaults to cover the masses without drastically reducing them or centralizing them in a single parish. So where do all these souls who are so intimately suffering and concerned about the general situation of Catholicity and the integrity of its ministers come from?

    And’ a phenomenon that has been appearing for a while’ of time to this part, following decades of near catatonia by the so-called. faithful towards epochal passages crossed by the Church (abortion ? they didn't even hold a referendum?).

    And now that Christian membership is tinged with politics ( and of the highest levels as only in Italy we can conceive) and many have found themselves holders and defenders of Dogmas and Doctrine. And maybe they haven't seen a priest since their first communion.

    Of course the writer is not better than these but, at least, reserves the right not to go pissing off others, let alone priests.

    What do you think?

    1. Dear Roberto,

      what do you want me to answer? You have painted reality in a few lines, which is exactly as he illustrated it.
      I can tell you our faith, that of us priests, today it is really put to the test, also and above all through humiliations and sufferings that few, indeed, very few are able to understand.

      If you have time to read the various comments on this article, it will be able to verify how certain subjects belonging to an unspecified Church and Catholicism, they attack in a hateful way, disserting on topics they do not know, on a Catholic doctrine they ignore, teaching you what – obviously according to them – it's right, while it is almost always wrong and in contrast with the Catholic faith itself.

      If then I answer in kind, if anything, also using a certain severity, at that point they call you aggressive, of the vulgar and the scurrile.

      More and worse than the Pharisees they are capable, from an articulated response and all of it rigorously based on the deposit of the Catholic faith, to extrapolate one “Word” to build a castle on it and cover yourself with insults, with unending accusations, after blaming you for what you didn't say, if not worse: sometimes judging even your intimate and deep conscience.

      That decision and severity that I sometimes use, it is nothing but an evangelical and pedagogical principle, place that Jesus Christ, over and over he showed sternness, also resorting to harsh words and in themselves also offensive, to shake consciences.

      Uselessly, More and more times, to those who have the diaphanous image of a very androgynous Christ hippy, very much Pace&Love, I explained the powerful charge of certain words he addressed to the castes of the highest notables of the time, illustrating that to call certain personalities «snakes, race of vipers 'or' whitened sepulchers …"Was an expression and a much more serious offense than telling them “motherfuckers” the “shits”. In the first case, because the snake was an unclean animal, as well as an emblem of evil and a symbol of sin, then why, saying “race”, this involved also offending all his ancestors and living relatives together with the person. In the second case, because with the corpses, especially the priestly castes, they could not be contaminated, to the point that they were forbidden to approach even in the vicinity of the burial places. So imagine the extent of the serious offense to even compare them to corpses, but worse: to rotten corpses [cf. Mt 23, 23-39]. Of course … “motherfuckers” and “shits”.

      Therefore, with all due respect to those who do not understand, at the right moment I must feel the poignant tenderness that Christ felt in front of the crowd of people who seemed to him like sheep without a shepherd: "Landing, He saw a large crowd and he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd, and he began to teach them many things " [Mt 6, 24]. But it, if in the face of kindness and teaching, the sheep attack the shepherd, assuming to be able to correct it with completely wrong concepts and to be able to impose their error at all costs and with rare arrogance, at that point I must necessarily pass to Christ who screams «serpents, breed of vipers ".

      And I don't tell how many friends, before them writings or public expressions profoundly erroneous and doctrinally delusional, I have sent detailed private messages to point them out, with doctrine in hand and in the light of the perennial deposit of faith and certainly not of my opinions, how serious their mistakes were. And often, the most educated, they didn't even answer, except to do and affirm a little later even worse, for example by throwing avalanches of shit on the Supreme Pontiff for – heard, heard! – defend Our Lady from him (!?) Just so: to defend the seriously outraged Madonna – according to their – by the Vicar of Christ on earth.

      I have lost days, sometimes, to explain to certain passionates and above all passionaries than ever, the Supreme Pontiff, he denied the Marian dogmas and never defined them silly stuff, that is nonsense, as they have been saying around for weeks and weeks. Nothing to do! Gained in their blind pride, they persist in supporting things that are clearly false and never said. Also because, if the Successor of the Blessed Apostle Peter, supreme guardian of the faith, had publicly stated such things and above all denied it – as they falsely insistently claim – Marian dogmas, I can guarantee that there would be an immediate uprising of hundreds of bishops around the world, of thousands and thousands of priests, not to mention dogmatic theologians.

      This army of people often without faith, sometimes with one do-it-yourself-faith, without guides and teachers, ready to tell the masters … “No, you did not understand the mysteries of faith well, wait for me to explain them to you …”, they have an inextinguishable desire for controversy and quarrel, due to who knows what inner frustrations that lead them to search for an outlet.

      That said, let's pass and conclude with the accusation against me of vulgarity: if in an ironic way, I remind this kind of immovable person that there are women of easy virtue or brothels for men, or that there are handsome young men who work for a fee like toy-boy for the unsatisfied ladies … Well, if he replies with jokes of this kind, they are vulgar, or, taken by some people to the most extreme extremes, I try in every way to shake their consciences to the bottom, up to resorting to grotesque or strong images and examples such as those just described, all just shake them up and to say that faith, or what they believe to be, it cannot be an escape valve through controversy, disputes and insulting attacks against the Pontiff, to Bishops and Presbyters. And all of us, from the Supreme Pontiff to the last of the priests, we are burdened with inadequacies, limits and sins, but by mystery of grace we remain their shepherds, therefore teachers and guides of the People of God.

      One time, when a priest passed on the street, People – especially the Catholic faithful – they got off the sidewalk to let him pass. Today, if we pass on the street, some “faithful worshipers” they kick us in the ass and intimidate us “move that I have to go through!”. And often, to help and protect us from these “authentic” faithful of the “being” Church, faithful of the Madonna, faithful of San Pio da Pietrelcina and so on, atheists come to our aid, laicisti, Communists, anticlerical and so on, who if anything react by saying to these “devotissimi” that “you don't treat people that way”.

      Today, being a priest and being a priest, this is what it means: or succumb to these people by becoming a puppet in their hands, or you roar at him if necessary like an angry lion.
      Talk to my confreres, and in this regard will have confirmation.

  17. Salve father Ariel,

    I think like her, both on radio Maria, sia su i “Catholic” sedevacantists.
    I have just one doubt,I don't understand why the Pontiff speaks only of social problems,but he never talks about the news,of mortal sins,of purgatory etc..
    But it, alas he called Luther “reformer.

    1. Caro Michele,

      people – it is not related to her – they have a terrible vice: they are limited to comments on the comments made on a main sentence taken from a speech by the Holy Father, on which they build a title and an article, of practice always looking for a catchphrase, because this is how the information market works.

      Although the Holy See has made an official site available to the public where the speeches, the catecheses and documents of the Holy Father are reported in full, translated into numerous languages ​​and almost always accompanied by the video, most people limit themselves to comments and then comments, many of them, they criticize and attack, they rail and sentence.

      A little while ago, by replying to another reader, I explained that never, the Supreme Pontiff, he denied the Marian dogmas by defining them silly stuff, nonsense. And yet, for weeks and weeks, there are angry people who make this infamous accusation against him, totally denied both by the text of the speech and by the video in which he is filmed while speaking.

      To answer you on the merits: morality and family were very dear to St. John Paul II. It is not by chance, time, the Supreme Pontiff was accused of speaking only of “sex and family”.
      If St. John Paul II insisted on the family, it was because he was aware that the family was being deconstructed and destroyed. So it was an urgent issue to insist on.

      If the Supreme Pontiff Francis insists on social problems, it is because surely, According to him, these are the most pressing problems at the moment.

      It is not true that the Supreme Pontiff Francis never speaks of hindmost, suffice it to say the word “Demon” and ” inferno” he named it more times in seven years than St. John Paul II in twenty-six years of his pontificate.

      Just as none of his predecessors had ever defined abortion with the severity with which the Supreme Pontiff Francis defined it, who went so far as to say that, abort, it's like hiring a killer to kill an innocent.

      When he called Luther “reformer” and the Lutheran one “reform”, I wrote very hard words – and the articles can be found in our year archive 2017 – criticizing the use of these definitions, reiterating that Luther was a heresiarch and his movement is not a reform but a dramatic schism.
      Further severity I used when in Lund, in Sweden, for the 500 years of the so-called and improperly said “Lutheran reform”, he accepted to be welcomed and to be next to one “arcivescova”, that is a carnival lady dressed with the priestly insignia.
      I was even more severe when the Vatican Post Office issued a commemorative stamp on the so-called and improperly said “Lutheran reform”.

      The right to criticize has always existed in the Church, also with regard to the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops in their pastoral choices, provided it is done within the limits granted with a spirit of truth and charity, which can sometimes also be expressed through severity. However, it is different if the Supreme Pontiff gives a very specific directive, for example through a Motu Proprio, in front of which there is no room for discussion or criticism, but only out of devoted obedience to his apostolic authority.

      Unfortunately, however, there is a large army of very weak Catholics, humoral and fragile in faith that, feeling more Catholic than Catholics as well as holders of the authentic truth, in the face of certain ambiguous or unhappy expressions of the Supreme Pontiff, they react by questioning his authority or even rejecting it, not understanding that, both when he talks like “private doctor” both when it expresses itself “arm” or colloquially, he can say too, like all, inaccuracy or even nonsense. But not when he expresses himself in matters of doctrine and faith, indeed, in this sense, I challenge anyone to prove that the reigning Pontiff has affirmed something contrary to the deposit of the Catholic faith and dogmas.

      1. Padre Ariel, criticism is not enough, if this has no effect on the part of the criticized, there is no frustration? Have you ever heard the Supreme Pontiff retract at least one of his countless slips? If these are not retracted, slips are not!

  18. A sincere curiosity arises, to which I hope one of the people who are insulting the good father Ariel for putting the word on the matter can answer: but even if Mary were defined as Co-redemptrix, what would change in practice? There is literally no definition that can change the reality of Revelation, that is, Christ is God and the Redeemer, and Maria no.
    It is not to do cheap psychology, but, given the reactions, it almost seems that in certain issues concerning the mother of God there is a truly ancient thirst for a Mother Goddess to be able to pray as an alternative to the Father (I sincerely hope not from the same ones who then inveigh against the now famous Pachamama…).

    1. Iacopo, certainly that it would not change anything of the Revelation, God forbid! The attribution of a new title to Maria, dogmatically defined or not, he would neither add nor modify the revealed Truths in any way; it would only serve to deepen your knowledge of these, even through discussions like this.

      1. I Understand, Thanks for the reply, what I do not explain, however, is how the deepening of this type of knowledge can generate so much fervor, since it seems like a field in which they can do “brawl” the specialists, but for an average faithful it is something that does not particularly affect and to be acknowledged only if it becomes the official patrimony of Catholic thought and theology; for this I saw something improper in the strong desire to see this dogma proclaimed. Maybe I have a limited view of the matter.

        1. Dear Iacopo,

          I do not reply to you in the place of the reader to whom you sent this comment, that is to Stefano, I simply insert myself into your discussion.
          You raise a very pertinent question:

          "But what I don't explain is how the deepening of this type of knowledge can generate so much fervor, since it seems to me a field in which specialists can "fight" ".

          Well I fear many people, for a misunderstood idea of ​​democracy, exchange the right to speak with the right to ignorance and arrogance. The right to speak is in fact a constitutionally recognized right, guaranteed and protected, that of ignorance and arrogance is not a right.
          Let me explain with an example: in my lifetime, first as a secular then as a cleric, I have acquired a little’ of fundamental knowledge, then a little’ of knowledge in some specific sciences and subjects.
          In many other subjects, I am completely ignorant, in the etymological sense of the term: ignore, I do not know.
          Since even the last of the demented has confused freedom / right of speech with freedom / right to ignorance, we have fallen into the abyss, thanks especially to social in which, even the most inexperienced of the inexperienced, he can present himself not only as an expert, but as an authentic teacher and specialist.

          To give you an example of how I was raised and trained, I can tell you this: Once, at the Mediaset offices in Milan, waiting for the start of the program I was participating in, I found myself in a living room with two distinguished virologists and a politician, the two virologists spoke in strictly scientific terms of virology, the politician and I listened to them. At one point the politician, who by training is an economist, he asked the two for specific information on Codiv-19, in order to better understand the problem.
          Neither of us, both incompetent in that matter, in front of those scientists he talked, we listened and tried to understand. And then, i due, went into transmission, the politician and I were in the next broadcast block.
          Left alone, the politician told me: “Father, what a difference between you and me and people who know everything and who understand everything!”. To which I replied: “Senator, it would be as if I had the sudden boldness to start discussing economics with her. Imagine, for me math is just a vague opinion and without a calculator I can't do ten divided by two!”.

          A distinguished Senator of the Italian Republic and myself, last priest of the orb Cattolica, we had this awareness that it should be obvious, but which is not obvious. So much so that this obviousness collides every day with people who not only presume to talk about what they do not know, but they do so by often saying wrong things of a severity that is at times truly unheard of.

          In conclusion, if some astrophysicists invited me to listen to them while they talk, I would try to listen to them and I would certainly understand little or nothing of what they say, but one thing is certain: I would never argue or worse deny them on the basis of some science fiction movies I saw on television.
          In the sad reality we are dealing with people who, with a fearful self-assurance and arrogance, claim to explain the evolution of the indefinite universe to astrophysicists because they saw the saga of the film Star Wars.

          And then, the broken reactions of certain people, you can read them yourself in the comments on this article, verifying how they react when they are denied. And I'm not going to tell you what is written in the trashed comments in which they range from supporting heresies to heavy insults aimed at those who dared to correct certain serious doctrinal errors.

          1. Caro Father. You are right. Everyone has their own field of knowledge ,I can imagine how much you have studied and the level of difficulty of the texts with which you have measured yourself. I also recognize that the Lord has given you an abundance of talents: eloquence, logical ability, memory, and a great irony.
            If I think of me, I think my neurons are now decaying, I often have memory lapses and I know little or nothing about dogmatics. Compared to you, I could be a little ant, while you are a giant.
            And I get discouraged. How to live the faith given that its contents are so difficult? Who knows how many inaccuracies, how many little heresies could I have said and thought without realizing it. In conclusion, perhaps the Christian faith is too high a step for my poor ant leg. Then I think of the words of Jesus:
            «I give you praise, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you hid these things from the wise and the learned and revealed them to the little ones ..”
            In the Gospel in many episodes this revelation recognized by the “little ones”: St. Joseph, the shepherds of Bethlehem, i Re Magi, fishermen etc.. But in what sense are they “little ones”? What Jesus meant? Surely those Pharisees were not small who faced the miracle of the man born blind instead of recognizing a fact, they go into fibrillation because they do not admit that there may have been an intervention from above.
            Our Lady who appears in these difficult times to scold, lead, ask for prayers and fasts, defining himself as co-redemptrix, it is a fact. And many “little ones” the…

        2. Thanks to you Iacopo.
          I am inclined to believe that the deepening of knowledge, per se, can only lead to the pacification of souls and the civilization of relationships.
          Instead, I believe that the fight is the result of the ideologization of the debate that leads to dividing not on positions but on supporters, and this not only among the ultras, but primarily among specialists, which are precisely they who give the “the” to the controversies and that launch the war cries gathered by the rabble of the verbal confrontation as an end in itself.
          This is true in all areas – just think of the environmental issue – and increasingly in the religious one, and the Catholic world is unfortunately not exempt from this process of cultural barbarization with serious harm to the human spirit.
          In my opinion, but, non-specialists have a relative fault, because no one has educated them in the dialogical method and the pleasure of knowledge. I know it is an uneven effort, and that bad example is always easier to follow, as well as much more abundant, it is a sad reality that is difficult to accept.
          However, coming to the credit of what you noticed, it must be said that questions of faith hardly arise in the specialist field, this is affected by the problem only in the second place; nascono dal sense of faith of the faithful, that is, from the supernatural appreciation of the faith by all the people, aroused and supported by the Holy Spirit in the experience of an encounter (“Didn't our hearts burn in our chest as he conversed with us along the way”).

  19. I would like to express my appreciation, father, for having had the courage to honor the Most Holy Name of Mary, from headless devotion that would like her to be the victim of a title that serves more to embellish those who ask for it with a pseudo-theological satisfaction, than to the Most Blessed Virgin, whose admirable virtues are already properly praised by the four dogmas reserved for her, proclaimed by the Church.

    Unfortunately often the people of the faithful “reasons” more with feelings and emotions than with the intelligence of faith, otherwise she would have no difficulty in perceiving the role of cooperator in the redemption wrought by Our Lord, which she absolves, is already fully revealed and effectively summarized by the aforementioned dogmas, and understand that to attribute equivocal titles to you (at least for the most inexperienced) it could become a pedagogically questionable operation, if not bankruptcy, for a large slice of the baptized.

    I would like to say that mine is the opinion of a fervent devotee of Our Lady.
    If I may dare give you a suggestion, however, try not to be too severe with those who ask you to account for it. Maybe, just enough.

    In these dark times, I wish you a holy and fruitful Palm Sunday, for his soul and for the soul of those who are in his prayers, with the intercession of Our SS. Mother.

    1. Thank you and I take this opportunity to tell you that you are absolutely right, about the severity.
      If I can justify myself I'll tell you that I've always been so used to being strict and demanding towards myself, to the point that often, surely wrong – and more people have told me, than in this mistake -, I apply this severity and this requirement to others as well.
      but be careful: not to everybody, but only to those who claim to be faithful devotees. Whereas, towards non-believers, secularists and so on, I am always very serene and very forgiving.
      However it is true and he is right: sometimes I am really very strict and many, in this severity, they fail to grasp the Christological passion of loving kindness, but they think it's aggression instead.
      I'm almost 57 years that I try to correct myself, I am sure that I will continue to do so, and also to succeed with the grace of God.

    2. Peter, I appreciated the balance of his speech, except for the fact that you immediately jump to the conclusions that would belong to the Ecclesiastical Authority. To say that there is no need for a dogma on the mystery of Mary “Corredentrice” (I put it in quotes) because already implicit in the first four is at least a little’ contradictory: if there is already in the first four, what forbids to make it explicit, extrapolating it on its own (apart from reasons of opportunity or pastoral pedagogy)? And then, at this rate, even the fourth would be too many, being able to deduce from the first three, and so on.
      I do not deny that there is (as always there has been) whom “he reasons more with feelings and emotions than with the intelligence of faith”, but what does it matter now? This is just a diversion from the reasoning, non serve a corroborarlo.

      1. Hi Stefano.

        Allow me a few comments: each of the four Marian dogmas are mutually deducible, but it is a question of truth of faith whose understanding, for each of them, it is not so immediate from the reading of the Sacred Texts, so much so that entire Christian confessions are unable to see them and end up deceiving themselves, denying them. The same Christian denominations, moreover, they have no difficulty in recognizing Mary, like any other baptized Christian, as a human cooperator, through sanctifying grace, to the Redemption brought about solely by Christ.

        And’ true, for us Catholics Mary is so in a special way, cooperator for redemption (in this sense, and only that in a sense, Redemptrix), as ontologically “filled by Grace”, as the dogmas have defined. If it is true that all believers in Christ participate in his work (2PT 1, 14; Color 3, 9; 1 Tim 2, 5), it is also true that she participates in it in an extraordinary way, exemplary and more effective, but this does not mean that the nature of its participation is the same to which we are also called.

        Personally I do not feel the need to dogmatically define a truth that can be deduced immediately from the knowledge of the fundamentals of our faith, and those who feel the need, I believe it is, in good faith, only for an emotional outburst.

        I wish you a Happy Palm Sunday too.

        1. It would be precisely the mission of the Church, Light of the World, that of making the truths entrusted to her ever clearer and more evident, obviously not with the aim of dividing Christianity even further, but aware that without truth there is no unity.
          Anyway thanks Petrus, it was nice to confront her.

  20. Thanks Father Ariel for the clarification, it is true some Catholic sites are only capable of making controversy, unfortunately.
    There are Catholics who would like a church with the ideas of the theologian Hans Kung and others who are firm at the Council of Trent.
    Juggling these two ends is tough.

  21. Dear p. Ariel,
    on the verge, I have already expressed myself: the clerical laity are like Waldo at the Lateran III; each is in its place, science and religion are not democratic. Granted then that I have no personal sympathy for the pope and for the adult-democratic Catholics who take him (adult catholic = unbeliever who, wanting to be Catholic, he makes his religion limited to what little he believes), are Bolognese or Piedmontese or Romans (I know the first two categories perfectly and personally, the Romans, Jesuits and Saints no), however the pope when he celebrates a mass and any priest, albeit effeminate, ignorant or thief, they are co-redeemers more than the Mother of God, because only they with their words of consecration renew the sacrifice of redemption (what I believe doesn't matter, this is simply what the faithful must keep by faith, and the Council of Trent expressed it in the form of a decree). Third, those who evoked too much of the Spirit were the Cathars who believed that Christ did not really have human materiality, for which the Eucharist was not a real body, and it is no coincidence that Francis was fixed with the Eucharist as a real presence, much more than with poverty.
    But one question: I to speak clearly as you are burned (with the academic excommunication of the great leader of adult Catholics, who knows less than me), but I can't get over the pain of the burn from not having the “degrees” that belonged to me. How do you manage to have lost the degrees that you were entitled to and stay calm? And see red and purple nothings ignoring you…

  22. We can't take it anymore!
    On the Pope I pray for him and I think that at this moment it is not easy to understand who is the devil who sows discord and further divisions…..

    Thanks father Ariel

  23. I can't understand all this garment tracking.
    Manco had said it is not Immaculate conception…

  24. A doubt that has assailed me for a few days… But the complaints scream, disjointed and coarse on the subject of co-redemption by hijackers, they can be defined MARIOLATRATI? No, just for… Let's not take the series seriously… 🤣🤣🤣

    1. Your Welcome: summarize in a few words the procession of the Divine Persons and specifically how and why, de fide, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
      Give me a summary.
      If you need material for the synthesis you can see in St. Thomas Aquinas, QUESTION, III: La SS. Trinity, The, qq. 27-43.

    2. Exact! You took the words out of my mouth.
      Who has not [CENSORED]

      _______________________

      His broadcast email is non-existent.
      When he wants to insult me, you send them to me from your e-mail address, so, if I can't answer you in public, I answer you at least in private.
      By the way … “happy clandestine Easter banquet” to her and her associates, in the closed rooms.
      Like all sheep that bleat kikamente, you are instantly recognizable: devoid of originality even in the insult, all always equal and strictly speaking.

      Ariel S. Levi Gualdo

  25. Dear Father Ariel in this “hustle and bustle” this site seems to me the only one that writes articles, funny and pungent, but which in any case always invite common sense, to ecclesial communion, and above all to the study of the sources of Revelation! I wrote to you some time ago about my concern about the lack of a reading “theological” clear of the events of this time….

    I am writing to you today to tell you that you are “arguing”, or trying to argue, with a portion of ” baptized “which nourishes its own Christian path by feeding on private revelations, sites of vaticanists and words of ” mystics” taken from the context….

    so do all those who radically follow sects and fideistic movements… while the Catholic Church always calls for a correct use of reason… before proclaiming the dogmas!

    Dear Father Ariel, Church history teaches us that “heresies” they easily come out during times of crisis in the mystical body of Christ….but at the same time the Lord remedies with the saints who always obeying the popes and humbly healed the wounds of the body of Christ.

    Now the world is in crisis?
    Certain!The Church? Certain? The solution? Prayer….humiliation and study!

    I stop here…I would like to write to you privately if you allow it!
    I can?
    I bless you! Since I am a priest!

    1. Dear Brother,

      and from what you write and how you write it you can perceive how much you are a holy priest.
      If you write to me privately you will give me a gift and a grace at the same time.
      A fraternal embrace priestly.

  26. Caro father Ariel, I don't know if the obvious or the nonsense bother her more, but I hope not to write one, nor the other… However, know that, even if it will cut me blutally, I have great admiration for her and for the island's collaborators. But let's go: I think it is correct to say, than anyone who is tried by suffering, in whatever form they occur, if he sincerely accepts them and offers them to the Lord, he unites these sufferings of his to those of Jesus crucified. In this way it is also possible for us to participate in His redemptive action, certainly not because of sharing his nature as a Redeemer (God forbid!), but rather by offering him our little suffering, that joins the atoning suffering of His sacrifice. From the life of the Saints (St. Veronica Giuliani, Saint Padre Pio, etc.) we know that mysteriously it is God who requires this vicarious suffering. Now, Mary united her sufferings with those of the crucified Jesus in the best and highest degree, because he did it on Calvary, in the moment in which the Redemption was accomplished. And the presence of Mary under the cross with her painful participation (the heart pierced by the sword), he certainly supported Jesus under the weight of atrocious sufferings. The prefix "co" is "cum", which means "with" and not "equal to". Cooperator of the Redeemer is a title of Mary: at this point it could not fit… Corredentrice?
    I recommend it, don't hit too hard….

  27. Dearest father, your little sister in faith wants to abuse your patience a little more. We women are a bit’ pain in the ass, what do you want to do with it…and we don't give up easily.
    Yesterday I was reading an illuminating article on this subject. In particular with regard to the apparitions (recognized) occurred in Amsterdam.
    To the visionary Ida Peederman, la S. Vergine asked that the Church approve the new dogma: Corredentrice, Mediatrix and Advocate and that she was venerated as Lady of all peoples.
    However, I do not want to dwell on the arguments of this article of which I leave you the link.
    I would just like to bring to your attention the following request received by the seer:
    “Tell your theologians that they can find everything in books. I don't bring any new doctrine. I carry the ancient thoughts now” (04.04.1954).”
    Here, I will pray that the desire to respond to this request of the
    S. Virgin, putting your immense knowledge at her feet. Think how you would make her happy and think how you would make her Son happy!

    https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2020/04/06/per-il-nuovo-dogma-di-maria-corredentrice/

  28. only an ignorant person claims that the Church recognizes a Marian apparition still in progress. The apparition must end and then the effects and fruits must be carefully studied and evaluated. In this criticism continues, recurrent and heavily offensive I see a decidedly malignant and almost satanic note.

    1. Thank you for giving essay and confirming to our readers what an authentic is fanatic who launches into comments, in this case at a conference, without having absolutely listened to it.
      Indeed, if she had first listened and then only commented on what she would presume to attack, he would hear with his own ears than the hoax of … “you can't because the apparitions are still in progress”, I replied with historical rigor, theological and canonical. And mind you, not with my opinions, but with the facts.

      Therefore, if there is an ignoramus here, these is you who, besides not listening, he has no historical knowledge, theological and canonical.
      As indeed I explain – and everything is confirmed in history and in the measures taken – the Church has expressed itself over and over again in a very negative way on phenomena that were always in progress, all with the aim of immediately crushing them and thus protecting the most naive and vulnerable faithful.

      Thank you again for confirming how i act fanatic medjugoriani.

  29. Probably in the near future it cannot be excluded that it may be solemnly declared as the truth that the Blessed Always Virgin Mary actively cooperated in the Redemption and salvation of mankind operated alone and uniquely by Christ. , the lamb sacrificed for our sins, whose sacrifice alone has washed away our sins. Even when there is no such dogma and it is actually not a dogma, or should never be there, for me it doesn't change much. The substance is always the same. Jesus the only Redeemer and Mary made sharers in his plan of salvation by the will of the Son. I would say not to get bogged down in these accidents but to go to the substance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters remaining

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.