The bad guys friends of the Holy Father: the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro between utopianism and secularism
Latest posts by Father Giovanni (see all)
- The definition of the essence of man - 26 November 2018
- Reflection moral honesty of language: the Church has always had its own clear and precise language - 11 November 2018
- The Synod Youth: Enzo Bianchi and original sin in the context of a dissolution - 20 October 2018
It's not so sweet, Wonderland Queen of Hearts with a cutting of heads. Mussolini was not “the man of Providence”, ma “Providence he did meet a man…” et cetera.
Providence will always meet others; even the Pope (for-time) there he did meet Providence. Because ? E’ a mystery, and we not ask Mr. Spadaro (father not, at least my no) to explain it.
In his speech "We want first of all” the 13 February 1929, papa Pio XI says literally: “And maybe we also wanted a man like that that Providence We did meet”.
If the Italian makes sense, say that a guy has “the man whom Providence has made us meet” It has a different meaning from saying that this guy is “the man of Providence”.
Find the priest, I had promised myself not to intervene for a piece: the aim should be in fact always contributory, never personally rewarding. I repeat, I understand very well your delicate position, quite different from that of a layman. Much, however, similar to that of the military, I know that conversely, bound to the oath of allegiance, but that does not inhibit the use of the brain and common sense. The thesis “the Holy Father” It does so because bad advice is not sustainable, better would then remain silent. The Holy Father surrounds its, others defenestra them a kick in the c… , and boots, da by suo (all the esteem, consideration and respect to Cardinal Mueller, for the before and after).
Cordially
Licio Zuliani
What then, when did the Holy See – says Spadaro – “does not take sides”? For instance: Pope Francis during the election campaign flatly said that Trump “It was not a Christian”, because of the project to extend the wall on the border with Mexico. He didn't say a word about Killary Clinton, industry supporter of abortion; and the third wheel, Bernie Sanders, He was even received at the Vatican. This would be “do not take sides”?
no, no ,,, This means taking sides … and on the right side!
Dear Joseph,
every now and again, Unfortunately, It happens not to publish your comment, not because they contain criticism or dissent that we accept and we have to accept and publish, but because they simply contain the obvious doctrinal errors, expressed, inter alia, with a pseudo irony that having nothing really this is often insulting in respect of two theologians who perform with seriousness their apostolic work. But mostly we can not spread its errors, given the nature of our trade journal on-line.
The issue of Father Antonio Spadaro S.J, Father John Cavalcoli, O.P responded with theological rigor. That said, his jokes from “output from stage”, they are inappropriate, in this as in numerous other cases.
We have long wanted to ask you a question, to which she is not in any way obliged to reply, and it is the following: she, It is a faithful Catholic, or it belongs to some other religion of the variegated world of Protestantism ? Because if that were the case, then we could open a book of ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue.
I read your answer just now….
In this case I had agreed to you; when Pope Francis said that Trump is not Christian because they erect walls, or when in full campaign receives Sanders, or also – always in the election campaign – He does not say a single word about the Clinton, expresses (with her words, but also with his silence) a political judgment, and therefore – Certain – take sides; and if those who sided, must expect praise or criticism… I said just that to me (I repeat: per me) it is on the side right, while for the other party (in whose speech I expressed my) He was fighting on the wrong side…
As to your curiosity about my religious affiliation, precisely who they are not Catholic, but I not even belong to some small group of Protestant galaxy… though, in a sense, I too have a faith: my faith – if I may say so for brevity – and a little’ that of Dr.. Rieux, though – like him – I admire the faith of Father Paneloux
About article Spadaro, what strikes me most is that a Jesuit completely forget all the work in favor of the consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus of nations, complete with a formal acts pronounced by kings and presidents and erection of monuments, that he was able to unfold in the decades of the century and who was actively advocated by the Jesuits own (not only from them, moreover, and with the support of the popes) in the wake of the revelations of Paray Le Monial.
I do not understand how a Jesuit can ignore or throw the shredder all this and say that the Christian scheme is only eschatological, while at the same time today's Jesuits advocate at every turn all those activities aimed at “change the world” from a purely material point of view (pacifism, favor to the uncontrolled and unlimited immigration etc.) and forget altogether otherworldly appearance.
Perhaps it would be to highlight these aporias.