They say the island of Patmos Fathers

THE N. 84 FROM THE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP It IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PROLOGUE OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN THAT TELLS THE MYSTERY OF GOD'S WORD AVATAR ?

.

What basically asking to certain people is the spirit of human and Christian integrity: or perhaps really they believe they can attack from a part the whole Magisterium of the Church of the last fifty years, but at the same time argue that the n. 84 from the Familiar Consortium, written by a Pope to reconcile, present as a bishop at the council, then the council actuator as Successor of Peter, is untouchable, as more important and more dogmatic than will the entire Prologue of John's Gospel ?

.

.

.

.

There are no "cases" to evaluate whether to grant communion to divorced and remarried [Ed. in reference to previous answers given by the Fathers WHO]. However, there is one and the same "case" that would allow the divorced and remarried to receive Communion and that is that they live as "brother and sister". The N. 84 from the Familiar Consortium denies access to the remarried Communion for the simple fact that they do not being in a state of Grace, "Eat their condemnation" approaching this Sacrament. The speech of the scandal to the faithful is totally secondary to the main motivation.

Gianluca Bazzorini

.

.

Dear Reader.

Nine out of ten of his comments were not published because they contained seriously insulting statements towards the Supreme Pontiff, variously referred to her as “heretic“, “acolyte Antichrist” and so on; not to mention the way in which you usually demonize the Second Vatican Council and its documents, But he defends a sword No.. 84 from the Familiar Consortium, I assume that is for her as for other more important than faith Nicene Creed.

.

We are not aware that the apostolic exhortation love joy He has now changed for the discipline. So it is pointless to raise a question that does not exist, because the Pope has never established any official document that the provisions contained in n. 84 of the apostolic exhortation Familiar Consortium [cf. WHO] it is repealed. Therefore, we all pastors in the care of souls, we stick scrupulously to what is the current discipline of the Church in matters. But if a bishop or priest does not, wrong, but wrong - if we want to seriously - in his personal, not because the Pope has established the doctrine and discipline contrary to Catholic morality.

.

Unfortunately, there are "Catholics" on the one hand discuss and reject in whole disciplines of an ecumenical council, ie the last celebrated by the Church, feeling not only with a clear conscience, but so much the right to consider themselves the Heralds of the Truth. So what you want it, the confrontation, discuss without rejecting the n. 84 from the Familiar Consortium ? Indeed, to certain Heralds of the Truth - Including the other papessa, Mrs. Maria Guarini blog Church and Council Post [see our letter WHO] — , maybe it is good to remember that the author of today often quoted n. 84 from the Familiar Consortium, the Holy Pontiff John Paul II, after Blessed Pope Paul VI was the second largest actuator of that Vatican Council II, namely that council by those referred to as “source of all current ills of the Church”.

.

I believe that people accustomed to think and act in this way They should bring order in themselves, because before trumpeting the n. 84 from the Familiar Consortium, should accept in toto the authority of an entire council, except fall, if not, as the Lady Cristina Siccardi that I mentioned in my previous article [cf. WHO], in psychology borderline, which is exactly the following: “Long live the n. 84 from the Familiar Consortium the Pope reconcile, Down with I conciliabolo Vatican II celebrated by the Church Fathers gathered in the ecumenical seated ” (!?).

.

I think equally important to recall to all of them - the speech and action of which moves in a frightening ecclesial and doctrinal confusion - that John Paul II, elected as their darling for the n. 84 from the Familiar Consortium elevated to intangible dogma Faith, is the same John Paul II from them vilified in the fierce way for its ecumenical encounters in Assisi.

.

And since I do the priest and theologian and not the psychiatrist, you know well that before similar personalities suffering from such disorders bipolar spectrum [cf. WHO], throw in the towel and step dutifully to another kind of specialist expertise, namely to neuropsychiatrists.

.

Regrets that Mrs. Cristina Siccardi followed to try their hand at rants fanta ecclesiological fiercely anti-conciliar serialized on that gloomy site Pharisees which has shrunk now Levied Christian [see WHO]. Because what the Fathers of’Patmos Island ask certain people, is just a little’ the basic spirit of human and Christian integrity. Or maybe they really believe they can attack from a part the whole Magisterium of the Church of the last fifty years, but at the same time argue that the n. 84 from the Familiar Consortium, written by a Pope to reconcile, present as a bishop at the council, then the council actuator as Successor of Peter, both more important and more dogmatic than will the entire Prologue of John's Gospel, which tells the mystery of God's Word [cf. WHO]?

.

Where does this obsession on the topic of Communion for divorced and remarried? But it is obvious: It comes from the morbid pant theology [cf. My previous article WHO], thanks to which some people identify the sex and human sexuality not only the sin of sins, but the center and the engine of the entire mystery of evil.

.

We urge consistency. That consistency based on fides and on the ratio human and Christian. But unfortunately, these people, of forms of genuine ideological hatred have structured their anger against the Church and against Peter, reducing everything to an obsessive pant theology. And the anger against the Church and hatred against Peter, Catholic do not have anything, with all due respect to the Heralds of the Truth, of all their papesse and obsession with pant theology, in virtue of which they are induced to ignore a whole series of serious sins ranging from the waist up, but of which these people do not want to just talk, sure as I am that the sins are only those that go from the waist down.

.

.

.

The Siccardi as traditionalists sites you mentioned are based, in most cases, to distinguished Catholic theologians who certainly can not be accused of ignorance or ridiculousness, I refer to Romano Amerio and Brunero Gherardini. Answer, if you can, to parrot, and then you can afford to be accused of heresy the Siccardi and all sites "siccardiani", But to hell with them in the group of heretics and proud, It will put us well Gherardini and Amerio, if he can, is intende. I wish you a good job …

Athanasius

.

Dear Reader.

I did not know that Romano Amerio and Brunero Gherardini were the Dad and the Son from which the proceeds Holy Spirit, that "with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, he has spoken through the prophets".

.

She responds rather to himself: it is best to refer to the supreme magisterium of the Popes - including all those that go from San Giovanni XXIII to follow - or is it better to refer to the above Dad e Son Used and abused by some people to discredit and attack the papal magisterium, not to mention the dangerous thought gherardiniano, followed in this by Serafino Lanzetta, about the Second Vatican Council "only pastoral", ie ... with no weight and account, "not being", to say these theologians, "dogmatic", so, de facto, non-binding ?

.

Quote the Iota Romano Amerio s'esso as he was above the Profession of Faith, to hit through it Peter, as certain Catholics, It is simply absurd.

.

.

.

.

.

Rev. Fathers Ariel and John Cavalcoli.

I am writing to express to you the following concerns: I think your Catholic response to Luther [Ed. cf. WHO e WHO] It is likely to be a little stronger because you accuse ideas, but then shows the sources. In fact, some would have to say sfacciatezza “but look what Luther did not say that, neither she wanted to say this!”. Also one thing to Luther and the Lutherans have an account that are inspired by Luther, who claim not to share any ideas of their illustrious predecessor and not be required to do so; then there are those who simply declare Protestants and are inspired by aspects of the thought of Luther and his “Reform” but on other points they keep their distance. It's clear that, if this is the situation, both Lutherans and Protestants may have easily evading game criticism and accusations of Catholic theologians: This means that even when you are feeling the Lutheranism and the various Protestant theologians and preachers is important to cite sources.

Letter Signed

.

.

I am not a historian of Lutheranism, but a theologian. For this I do Luther as such; I do not care the various interpretations of his more or less faithful followers, embellishments or cuts that they operate in the thought of their master.

.
I will not put myself in this quagmire, although I recognize that the thought of Luther, in its richness and complexity, but also for the inconsistency, ambiguity, darkness and paradoxical nature of some of his positions, It can require you to consult its authoritative followers and ensure that certain interpretations of his thought remain dubious or uncertain.

.

So I ask the reader who wants to judge me, to stay in what I say about Luther and not what they say Lutherans, which I do not even mention in my article.

.

.

Writes Father John Cavalcoli: "As I have explained publicly on several occasions on the Island of Patmos and elsewhere, the Pope has, under the power of the keys, the right at its discretion to change the laws of the Church, although founded on divine right. Now the law of exclusion of remarried divorcees from Eucharistic Communion is one of these ' [cf. WHO].
I'm sorry but change the laws founded on divine right is not possible because it is precisely the divine right and then to his immutable nature. The Pope by virtue of the keys has no authority to change what God has established, if it did commit an abuse and his teachings on the subject would not be binding, as an expression of a pseudo pastoral teaching (not dogmatic and therefore not infallible), whose falsity is obvious insofar as it departs from the Catholic dogma to chase false modern philosophies, repository of all heresy.

Athanasius

.

Dear Reader.

we must distinguish the 'institution of the sacraments from the discipline of the sacraments. The first is due to Christ and forms the divine or divine law right; the second was entrusted by Christ to Peter, and is the canon law or ecclesiastical law.

.

The ban on Communion for divorced and remarried, still in force under the The joy of love, certainly it is founded on divine right, but not so necessary and stringent, that, if the Pope tomorrow will, He has no power, according to the power of the keys (discipline of the sacraments), grant permission Communion in special cases, to be determined by the law.

.

It can be said that even this permit will be based on divine right, although with different reasons from those which justified the prohibition. Indeed, while this, as it is clear from the n. 84 from the Family member company, It was motivated by the opportunity to avoid scandal, any permission given by the Holy Father Francis, as shown by The joy of love ((c). VIII), It may be motivated by the opportunity to provide the couple with additional means of grace, such as to enable them to cope with greater confidence and supernatural force the duties of their state, who, constituting a strong occasion of sin, as it was irregular, It appears to be a more difficult path to salvation, than that of the regular pairs.

.

We here another way to respect the dignity of marriage, of Confession and the Eucharist, ie the divine right, suitable to their situation, and different from the one implemented by regular couples and other than that provided by law of prohibition.

.

It will be well that the Supreme Pontiff emanates an Instruction for Confessors, in order to help them to the proper administration of the sacrament in this matter so complex and difficult, as is that of the state of remarried divorcees, distinguishing between cases in which the confessors can admit them to the sacraments from those in which they can not, and leaving to them a sufficient space for discernment and decision.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.