Comments are closed.
The website of this magazine and the editions take name from the Aegean island in which the Blessed Apostle John wrote the Book of the Apocalypse, isola also known as «the place of the last revelation»
«God revealed the secrets of others ALTIUS»
(in higher than the others, John has left the Church, the arcane mysteries of God)
The bezel used as the cover of our home page is a 16th century fresco by Correggio. preserved in the Church of San Giovanni Evangelista in Parma
Creator and editor of this magazine website:
MANUELA LUZZARDI
I would like to point out two priests and theologians who defend the 25 December as the birth date of the Lord. The first is Don Alfredo Maria Morselli (https://youtu.be/PeJL6tHgn08). The second Msgr. Nicola Bux (https://www.ilpensierocattolico.it/index.php?/entry/345-ges%C3%B9-di-nazaret-%C3%A8-nato-il-25-dicembre-risponde-mons-nicola-bux/)
Dear Father Ariel, as you know there are few things in which I disagree with you; and I certainly do not enter the theological field, in which I miss them “this boss”. However, I don't understand your answer to Signora Maria: made the necessary distinction between approved and unapproved Marian apparitions, if a mariophany is approved by the Church it is certainly true and the Church approves it through the work of the Holy Spirit; and if Our Lady took the trouble to appear, this also happened through the work of the Holy Spirit. So I don't need a new Creed; and I consider Mrs. Maria's paradoxical question to be very valid: but if no one listens to the Virgin, what the Holy Spirit acts for?
Of course the mariophanies add nothing to Revelation, but obviously they want to warn us about important issues that if we were good Christians we would be able to understand on the basis of Revelation and the Magisterium; but for which, as we are not good Christians, we need a little help.
That then too often these mariofanies are interpreted irrationally, so much so that if St. Thomas returned to earth he would bludgeon many, even among traditionalists, it is true. That in some there is a wrong and morbid attitude in considering them as well. But there is the right way to take them into consideration without ignoring them; there is necessarily, Why – I go back to the point before – the Holy Spirit never acts in a vacuum.
Dear Fabrizio Giudici Father Ariel has a certain flair in the answers and I think he is a bit tired for sure “apparitionism”. But from what I understand for him and I believe for most theologians the apparitions can also be recognized but what the visionaries say they have known from Our Lady is not necessarily true., because they may misunderstand or be conditioned by their beliefs, personal expectations. This has long ago taken away a lot of hope regarding the times that await us because at least before “i knew” that the confusion and upheaval that are being experienced in the Church and in the whole world would in some time end as “planned ” from the Apparitions of La Salette (recognized), of Fatima itself considering that passed i 100 years of which more than one seer have or would have spoken there would have been the victory of Mary because “God had other plans”. If I understand correctly according to Father Ariel, we risk waiting in vain…… Have a good evening
Dear Fabrizio,
first of all it is a pleasure to hear you and with the opportunity to greet you.
The theme is very delicate from a theological point of view, because it touches the deposit of faith and at the same time the pronouncements of the Church which however have different degrees that many cannot understand, perhaps because “we” we do not explain everything sufficiently, busy as we are talking only about “migrants” Of “existential suburbs” rather than instructing the People of God in sound doctrine.
The problem is not that the Church has pronounced itself on Marian apparitions or messages given to visionaries, but how and with which “degree” the Church pronounces itself. Because the pronouncement is divided into very specific degrees. Example: the Church can pronounce itself to define a dogma (pronouncement defining O first degree pronouncement which implies the exercise of the highest infallible magisterium), it can decide to define a new ecclesiastical discipline (pronouncement definitive, which is not an infallible first-degree pronouncement that defines a dogma but which, however, implies the exercise “second degree” infallibility by infallibly proposing a teaching or a doctrine). Then there are various other forms of pronouncement that do not involve the exercise of the infallible magisterium, through which pastoral and disciplinary directives can be given which can be modified, revocable, cancellable.
I'll give you an example: to my theological criticisms of the Neocatechumenal Way (see WHO), certain groups of very ignorant Neocatechumenals have insisted on replying with the obsessive-compulsive mantra: "The Church has approved it … approved us! Whoever is against us is against the Church and against the Supreme Pontiff who approved us … approved us!». It is useless to explain to certain closed and dull people that, a purely administrative act that recognizes a lay movement, it is not a dogma defined in the eternal and immutable deposit of faith that binds to the solemn “I believe” the faithfuls, but an administrative act that a Pontiff could revoke on the spot at any time.
Unfortunately, when this is not clear, the faithful can fall into confusion and confer the rank of dogma on any kind of pronouncement or act of the magisterium of the Church, to the point of putting on the same level the mystery of the resurrection of Christ God and the apparitions and messages given to the visionaries by Our Lady of La Salette.
The Church has recognized several Marian apparitions as authentic and has recognized the messages of the Blessed Virgin reported by various visionaries as reliable and credible, but this kind of recognition does not imply an adhesion of faith on the part of Catholics, which they could be – I say for example – completely indifferent to the apparitions that took place in Fatima and recognized as authentic, without compromising in any way the solidity of their faith. This because, certain apparitions or revelations, they add nothing and take nothing away from the deposit of faith.
What no devout Catholic can do, it is to declare false apparitions or messages recognized as authentic by the Church.
The same is true for the Saints, to whom we owe veneration but which we are not obliged to venerate. I will tell her, there are some saints and saints who leave me completely indifferent, I find some of their writings even banal and boring. I am allowed to try this, within the limits of the Christian respect. What I could never say is that, since that saint does not inspire me sympathy, therefore it is not holy. This no, because the Church recognized him as such, but recognizing it as such, does not oblige me to worship him, if anything, he asks me to respect him as such, surely he does not oblige me to pray to him and ask for his intercession.
Unfortunately, with the advent of the internet and social media, it's all swarming with websites and blogs that spread appearances, prophetic messages, revelations, secrets revealed but not fully disclosed. Here then are the pseudo-Catholic internet gurus who reveal the true secret of Fatima kept hidden by the Church and so on … and as another reader said who replied, I admit that all this causes me hives as a presbyter and as a theologian.
The Blessed Virgin Mary, The Immaculate Conception, the Mater Dei, it has a precise role in the history of salvation or in the so-called economy of salvation.
E’ she first, who does not wish to be placed in a role other than that attributed to her by the Divine Majesty.
father ariel, the pleasure of hearing from you in a direct reply is all mine. I take this opportunity to offer you a Merry Christmas (also to the rest of the island).
I totally agree with what he replied. But my point was another: given that certainly not * all * the faithful must feel obliged to listen to Mary's messages, however, I would find it paradoxical that * no one * listened to them. Someone must be directed, otherwise the Holy Spirit would make a useless move. So what, while adding nothing to the Revelation, there must be some content…
Maria, the hundred-year question is a prime example: in approved revelations one must know the approved text and distinguish it from its interpretations. The time frame between the 1917 and the 2017 it is not explicit in the words of the Virgin, but it was so deduced by third parties. Of course there “apparitionism”, both in these undue interpretations in the approved episodes, and in the myriad of unconfirmed episodes that are nevertheless considered by many to be the same as the first. But countering apparitionism is one thing, underestimate the apparitions of another.
As always, the magisterial intervention of the Church is necessary to prevent the faithful from scattering over strange ideas. Let's say that on this the hierarchies have not been impeccable: first a lot of emphasis was given to Fatima in relation to the attack on JPII (the pope himself was an active part of this emphasis); then we were told that the Third Secret was exhausted in that episode; then Ratzinger / BXVI said more…
Even Professor Talmon dell ‘ Hebrew University of Jerusalem shares the thesis of 25 December. As for Mary and Jesus I don't know if they were blond but the Phelesets (and the Amorites) ancestors of the Canaanite peoples were Indo-Arians and so, according to scholars, Abraham and his family too, more precisely they were mitanni, l ‘ aristocracy of’ empire urrita (whose people were Semitic). L ‘ Egypt was under the dominion of the Hyksos who were partly made up of Indo-Aryan elements as well as Semitic tribes and who dominated the country for about 200 years According to some scholars, the expulsion of the Hyksos by the pharaohs of Thebes would constitute the’ biblical exodus. According to the famous Professor Melis, among the people who followed Moses c ‘ there were hundreds of Shardana, who were often enlisted as Pharaoh's elite guards, they would be the famous tribe of Dan who, according to the Bible, returned on ships, in fact they returned to what was their homeland, Sardinia from where for about a millennium they ruled the Mediterranean at the time, they were there ‘ skeleton so to speak of the famous Sea Peoples who destroyed around the 1200 l’ Hittite empire, The Mycenaeans who were also one of the tribes that constituted the Brotherhood and devastated there ‘ Egypt. Even now it is possible to see Palestinians with blue eyes. So…..
According to Professor Melis there were thousands of Shardana among the people of Israel,who in Egypt were often enlisted as personal guards of the Pharaoh according to the famous scholar they were the so-called lost tribe of Dan, of which in the Bible it is said that they went up on ships, in” reality”the Shardana went to their homeland, Sardinia from which for at least a millennium they dominated the Mediterranean, provoking together with the other peoples of the Brotherhood all ‘ beginning of 1200 BC with their raids the destruction of the Mycenaeans( which they too were “siblings) Dell’ Hittite empire and the ruin of ‘ Egypt. Have a good evening
I hope I misunderstood the following sentence: “If his life and death are certainly proven by history, the same certain proof obviously cannot be provided for the great mystery of his resurrection and ascension to heaven, the author of the Letter to the Hebrews explains it to us coherently: "Faith is the foundation of the things that are hoped for and the proof of those that are not seen" (EB 11, 1-3).”.
In essence, you Father would be saying that the resurrection and ascension are truths of faith that cannot be verified through historical and scientific instruments? And that therefore what is the main argument at the foundation of the Christian faith itself becomes an untestable dogma of faith? If we add ourselves to the calculation of the truths of faith, in addition to the resurrection, even the miracles performed by Jesus, what would be the proof of the truthfulness of the Christian faith at this point?
Or still means that the Gospels, being literary writings “biased”, they do not have the authority to assert the objective historicity of events “resurrection” e “Ascension Day”? And that therefore the foundations on which every demonstration of the Christian faith rests are at least doubtful?
Very expensive,
I affirmed what I affirmed with theological rigor and in doing so I took it for granted that I was not misunderstood, one of two: either I have explained myself badly or someone has misunderstood. It will surely depend on the first thing, I don't rule it out.
I use another example to clarify what I thought I had expressed with extreme clarity when speaking of the resurrection and ascension to heaven as founding elements of our faith that are not scientifically demonstrable so much that they transcend the human and the very principles of physics.
I believe with certain and absolute faith that when I celebrate the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, the bread and wine really and substantially become the body and blood of Christ., here I'm, alive and true in soul, body and divinity.
All of this, he believes it can be proved with rigorous scientific rationalism?
Well, I am unable to provide such proof, But, if you know someone who can scientifically prove that that bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ, in that case let me know. He will certainly also be able to scientifically prove Christ's resurrection and his ascension into heaven.
Caro Father, thank you for your reply but allow me to insist. What I contest is the following circular reasoning that I glimpsed in his sentence:
1) Who tells me that the resurrection (or likewise the miracles performed by Jesus) it really happened? Faith.
2) Who tells me that the Christian faith is true? First the demonstrations “empirical” of the resurrection and of the miracles performed by Jesus to prove his divinity.
If the second statement is true (e, from my limited knowledge of theology, I understand that it is), the first cannot be. So it is necessary that the resurrection (and other miracles) have a demonstrable historical basis, obviously within the limits of historical science, moreover in relation to facts of 2000 Years ago. Nevertheless, there must be a reasonably credible empirical proof, otherwise faith would remain groundless.
In the case of transubstantiation, the problem does not arise. This is a truth of faith alone, it is not necessary to demonstrate the credibility of the faith.
That's what I say Father, Faith cannot be rational, it would not be called Faith if it were so, if it were tried, all people would be converted, rather, perhaps the more correct term would be “Membership”. That is, if God appears at, bags, speaks and does works, all incontrovertibly, then men, all people would recognize Jesus as the Creator. It would be too good but it isn't… therefore those people who want clear explanations, those who desire an Apoftegma, that is, a definitive answer are bound to be disappointed. Therefore this is the Faith, believe without being sure. Thank You Father.
In response to the comment of Maria and then of Father Ariel to Maria. I say that Father Ariel's words in response to Mary are sharp but right in my opinion. Today faith is truly created and felt at one's own taste and pleasure, it happens to me too, however, in this way you risk losing the compass, Street. It can not be all true and all valid or on the contrary not or maybe, otherwise our Lord Jesus would also become relative. Waiting for an ever more necessary Divine Intervention, I wish a Happy and Holy Sunday to all.
“….even our Lord Jesus would become relative.”
Why would the attention to Mary pay “relative” our Lord Jesus?
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, al n. 975, read the following quote: “We believe that the Most Holy Mother of God, new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues her maternal role in Heaven towards the members of Christ ..” Therefore, Mary should not be relegated to 2000 years ago because her maternal care is also contemporary.
When an event such as Civitavecchia's lacrimation occurs, a 2 February, a symbolic day for consecrated persons, or is it a scam to be exposed, o c’ it is the paw of Satan and must be exorcised, or i know not…..we must at least say a Hail Mary to help us understand, without haughtily slamming the door in your face.
But how dare you detach half a sentence from an articulated speech and then impute what has never even touched my mind from a distance?
Shame on you, if he has a Christian conscience (which I doubt), dishonest and fanatic!
“I suggest you change the Creed…”
As if I were answering the traffic policeman who approaches me: “I don't calculate you because you are not the mayor!”
In Heaven everyone has their role and their importance.
The Virgin comes to us (when it really comes, that's the trouble) as a prophet, she who is recognized by the Church as “queen of prophets” besides “queen of apostles”.
God shares his glory and his powers with the souls he loves and who love him, each according to his abilities and merits.
It would be sad if the Madonna “Servant of the Lord” came to compete in glory with the Holy Trinity.
“Examine everything, St. Paul exhorts us today in the Mass, but hold back only what is good”
Certainly it is not dogma 25 December, and least of all the midnight hour is dogma, which time zone then ? , but vice versa it is certain that it is not up to the ducets of the Lamorgese style and prefect of Bari, nor to Maurizio Crozza-style pseudo-satirical guitti to tell us when and if and how to celebrate Christmas.
It is truly right for …
And the Pope? The Pope who does? It would not be up to him to warn and reprimand anyone in this and other cases like this? The Pope is not the beacon of the Church? Bah…
Occasionally it may happen that the lighthouse needs maintenance, that the burned out lights have changed, the power supply batteries replaced …
He has.. He has.. He has.. Bravo father Ariel. Sometimes it's best to joke about it, at least we hope they decide to make that obbrobio of the Nativity scene disappear (if you can call it that) in Piazza S. Pietro. Let Jesus Christ of Ave Maria, a tulti.
Excuse me Father Ariel, I did not understand the fact of the straw. The Gospel of Luke tells us that the Child was wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in a manger, not Valtorta.. symbolic language and all is fine, however, I do not think the church has ever stated that the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem as we are told is one “fairy tale” which refers to something else.. I don't know huh, maybe i'm wrong
The article seems to me to be accessively aggressive towards what is written by La nuova bq. In fact, they lingered (at least for the moment) more on the year of birth, than on the day. In any case it is also confirmed in this article that the last 10 December days could be a plausible date. So I don't understand why there is so much controversy… maybe it's just for groped to raise the audience, as it often seems to me.
Then about the day Jesus was born, the days between December and January are the days when the lambs were born (reason why the shepherds spent the night outside with their flocks) which would then be used for Easter: lambs are born and the True Lamb is born.
father ariel,
I agree with you that there are texts / facts / actions in front of which no reasoning is valid, but the wisest answer, more pertinent and even more Christian is the mockery. However, the text with which you argue is very serious and technical, written by a specialist or academic. The text is obviously open to criticism, but it is one thing to do so while remaining on the same specialist level, explaining what in the text is unconvincing or at least wrong, another thing is to make fun of him, quoting things that the text does not say (girl from Hanover, sledge dogs, etc.), to then say that the thesis supported is in fact known to specialists and discussed by them (Abia class).
father ariel, better control your Tuscan-Roman spirit, because articles like this degrade her from a theologian to a polemicist, a Sgarbi in a cassock that is not felt the need.
Dear Paul,
any polite criticism is always relevant, because it will always be precious to those who receive it, acting as a stimulus for those healthy examinations of conscience that then lead us to deal with our human limitations and inadequacies, both of thought and of speech.
In the church of San Miniato al Monte at sunset on the winter solstice, the light of the languishing sun at the winter solstice penetrates through a window and illuminates the figure of the zodiacal Capricorn (magnificent but original lace, because the zodiac opens to Aries) which is located near the entrance. In the absence of a gnomonic hole (as elsewhere) the polarization of light occurs through architectural artifices. The upper edge of the entrance window decapitates part of the light and another part is identically reduced by the balustrade that separates the celebrants from the faithful, thus creating a true door to heaven that opens only for a moment.
This pattern is very archaic and dates back to a tradition well prior to Christianity, so much so that the dies a quo can be fixed in the very archaic rock cave of Pair non Pair where a figure, significantly named Agnus dei, from Abbé Breuil shows exactly the change of meaning of the solstice sun, this is a theme that will dominate archaic rock art in the Franco-Cantabrian area and will continue into the Neolithic.
This timeless crack (which actually has involved the structures of the sacred for millennia) it connects Heaven with Earth and is the subject of a universal mythology (the myth of the simplegades) where a "hero" or inversely an "avatar" ascends to a completely other celestial place or descends from it, thus putting the circle of heaven in communication with the square of the earth Perhaps the most complete Christian architectural testimony of the heavenly doors is offered by the prodigious temple of San Tomé in Almenno, in the Bergamo area, where all the heavenly doors are exactly identifiable: the four solar and the two lunar (the two lununists that take place every 18, 62 year old) and more. Not by chance Adriano Gaspani, the archaeologist who produced the astronomical surveys of the site, he attributed the authorship to Irish workers, probably descendants of those who built the local mounds of Newgrange and Lougcrew and others.
Be indifferent to this ancestral symbolism that has remained intact over the millennia itself of wise Christian architecture (where time becomes space says Wagner ) and it is unfortunately an indication of modernism because the temporal symbol that makes the moment of the nativity unique has been lost (like that of the two “animals” and of “straw”)
Christ has been defined as the eternal solstice by Saint Bernard (I believe) there will be a reason for this ?
Paragraph?
Today, the learned teach that Jesus should have been born around 6 a.C. because they place Herod's death at 4 a.C..
On the web we read that the dating of Herod's death to 4 a.C. was established on the basis of what Josephus reports on him.
Studying with a minimum of attention what Josephus writes about the death of Herod, it derives may have died between 3 a.C. e l’8 d.C..
In “Jewish Antiquities” Book XVII:167 we read that, a few months before his death: “Erode, so, deposed Mattia from the supreme pontificate. As for the other Mattia, the one who raised the sedition, he burned him alive together with some of his adherents. And that same night there was a moon eclipse.”.
Since the dates of the lunar eclipses can now be easily obtained from the internet, the lunar eclipse that fully meets the specifications described by Josephus is that of 29 December 1 BC: Herod should therefore have died on a date between 15 and the 20 March 1 A.D..
Jesus, at the death of Herod, he had not yet turned a year and a half to live.
Even Christmas Day is irrelevant to you, and so you even deny that Jesus was born in Bethlehem on 25 December, what to say ,you are children of relativism and so you question everything. And so through interpretations you have built a gospel on a human scale: the man ” modern “.It Will Be, but I never miss the past times like today, when I heard in churches ,( stracolme) a great silence, smell of incense and the scent of candles, but you really felt the sense of the sacred, of a faith and fervor you could touch.
Given that her words do not express faith but emotional fideism made of candles and incense scents, I fly over and go over …
Or she hasn't read my article, or if he has read it he has not understood it, or she is a brawler a free!
Then read my article and you will see how clearly I explain that our faith is linked to the incarnation of the Word of God, not on the date he was born, which is completely irrelevant.
Our faith is founded on the incarnation of the Word of God, about his death, resurrection and ascension to heaven, it is not based on “magica” date of 25 December.
Said this: calling a theologian like me a relativist, it is like accusing the Holy Mother Teresa of Calcutta of the crime of exploiting child prostitution.
Caro Father,
I am not an expert and I did not understand if the question of the stigmata in the saints is said ironically by you or if you want to imply that in reality, if the stigmata were true they should have appeared on the wrists.
In my opinion the question is very interesting, especially for someone as poor in faith as I am. By reading the comments on this funny and informative article, (who knows if the huskies were white / gray or white / brown) I read that they called her “relativistic”… I want to hook on to this by pointing out that his statement regarding the Saints, of their visions or phrases, you recalled that these are not part of the deposit of faith and above all do not bind the faithful to adhere to faith, this is true but it seems to me that the Christian Catholic Church wants the faithful to also take into account the Catholic tradition and therefore also the facts concerning the Saints. Therefore my ignorance leads me to perceive this statement as similar to Protestant thought. Mistake?
I greet you with 2 Best wishes: that of “Happy Christmas Holidays” and to see it as soon as possible a “Straight and Reverse”.
Dear John,
I answer you in order:
1. No, my example about the stigmata has nothing ironic about it, imagine if I would make fun of the stigmatized people who have been subjected to tremendous physical pain. I just meant that God respected, in its sumptuous and divine pedagogy, popular iconography, that for centuries before the Holy Father Francis received, first in history, the stigmata, they depicted the crucifix with nails driven into the palms of the hands, while the crucifixes were nailed with nails driven into the wrists. The holy shroud, that the more time passes, the more it gives ever new proofs of authenticity, bears the imprinted figure of a crucified man with nails driven into his wrists.
2. I will give you as an example one of the different events and apparitions, with related messages, recognized by the Church, to explain what it means “recognition” and what it entails: the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Fatima. The Church has recognized the apparitions as authentic, later he also canonized Giacinto and Lucia, today venerated Saints, and considered the messages authentic – also known as “secrets” – given by the Blessed Virgin to the little shepherds. Said this: those apparitions, authentic and recognized, they add nothing and take nothing away from the mystery of Revelation, nor in any way perfect it. Therefore, although unfortunately it is difficult to put it in the head of certain fideistic fanatics of unspecified catholicity, my faith and that of any devout Catholic, can easily ignore that event, that nothing adds, I repeat, to the deposit of faith. Therefore I could be – I speak for example – completely indifferent to the Fatima event, what I cannot and must not do is deny its authenticity, because the Church has recognized it as authentic.
Unfortunately, we priests and theologians, we have to fight, alas without success, with certain hordes of faithful who would like to impose visions, supernatural phrases and messages received from Saints and Saints, as if they were a kind of fifth Gospel. And when you try to explain to them what to canonize a saint or a saint, it does not mean transforming everything he said into a dogma of faith, written or perceived, it is impossible to be heard, because they usually react badly and in a completely rambling way.
And let me tell you: over and over again the Church, although he raised certain men and women to the honors of the altars as models of heroic virtue, at the same time he did not recognize, or he has branded as not authentic and unreliable certain writings or visions attributed to them. E’ the case for example of Blessed Catherine Emmerick, of which the Church has not recognized the authenticity of the so-called “prophecies”. Unfortunately, the ignorant who are overwhelmingly proud of their ignorance, he replies that if the Church has beatified her, everything she would have said must be authentic. This is not the case. In the case of this Blessed brought as an example, the Church has declared that her visions cannot be considered authentic because they have been manipulated by the imagination of their editor and it is impossible to establish what Emmerick really reported and what is instead attributable to the literary fantasy of Clemens Brentano.
3. The last time I went on air on 8 October, then I did an external recording two weeks later. I don't know when I will be able to return to the Milan studios because with the covid-19, as you have seen yourself, the number of guests in the programs has been very small and they try to avoid people having to travel long distances at this time. However, I will have the opportunity to return soon, they have already invited me.
Father Thank you for the long and detailed reply, Thank you for the time he has given me. God reward him. I saw her on TV on October 8th and I also saw her video contribution the week after. At least while you wait, send the video contributions to the editorial staff if possible. On the matter, she was very clear. But I would like to say that, I don't have a good memory and so now I'm not specific, but when in the past I explored the question of the method used by which the Church establishes whether an apparition is true or not, I was perplexed, disappointed, because I believed in a more articulated and in-depth analysis process. Instead, I will be wrong about the stigmata, but I say so, I would have been happier if St. Francis or Padre Pio had had stigmata on their wrists, because in fact it is on the wrists that the nails of Jesus Christ have been driven (if I think about it I start to cry, scusi). But I almost certainly see it this way because I am the last of the faithful, they are almost zero. Let Jesus Christ be praised.
In the Shroud we see only one sign of the nail coming out on the wrist.
This does not exclude that the nail may have been driven into the lower part of the palm of the hand and then, passing in the space between the captain, the scaphoid and the lunate, come out of the wrist: with this backward inclination of the nail, given any hole already made in the wood, the hand could be fixed to the gallows without the need to fold back the tip of the nail.
“…those apparitions, authentic and recognized, they add nothing and take nothing away from the mystery of Revelation, nor in any way perfect it…”
I say – do you forgive me – but the Virgin has time to waste? He does not know he is irrelevant? Because it appears and then reappears? Perhaps because she herself was a seer?
Today we remember the apparition of Guadalupe to Juan Diego and the “fatigue” that the Virgin had to do to break the Bishop's hardness. The prodigy of the tilma …the fragrant flowers out of season …..
No, the Virgin does not waste time but reaches the hearts of the people bypassing the “wise” they “insiders” , thus evangelizing the evangelizers.
Now, lately, the Virgin of Medjugorje shed blood in Civitavecchia, in the hands of such a rational Bishop, ma
no one seems to care….
but yet, even before Mary, the ancient father Abraham was a seer, Moses was a seer, the Prophets were seers….We read them during Mass defining them “Word of God”
St. Paul was not a seer? Its a theology grafted on the previous Jewish culture but,
if he hadn't been a seer, we would not have had the apostle and martyr we know.
It is true that it is not prudent to believe in every chatter, especially in times like ours, but I'm afraid it's not prudent to even close the door to the supernatural who knocks stiffening in the certainties of all time.
I suggest you change the Creed, in the part in which he professes:
I believe in one God,
Almighty Father,
Creator of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
only begotten Son of God,
He born of the Father before all ages:
God from God, Light from Light,
True God from true God,
generated, not created,
of the same substance as the Father;
through him all things were created.
[…]
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
who is Lord and gives life,
and proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified,
and spoke through the prophets.
[…]
there, the parts in which our faith in the triune God is professed, he could integrate them as he likes:
I believe in the apparitions of the Virgin of Guadalupe, in the apparition of the Virgin Mary at Fatima, I believe in the tearing of the Madonna of Civitavecchia, to Our Lady of Medjugorje but above all to the trembling secrets entrusted to “fortune tellers” from the Gospa …
If you want, you can also add whatever you like best: the belief in the visions of the Saints, in their interior locutions, in their prophetic messages and so on to follow.
The Church has never done this, But, in these times of great emotional creativity, she can always do it.
And once done, can recite it.
Where is the problem?
I will continue to recite the the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (the belief) where all these things are not there, because they do not constitute elements of the deposit of faith and because they add nothing and take nothing away from the deposit of faith. But that doesn't mean anything, basically today, faith, it is only a matter of personal tastes and beliefs, you don't think so?
The 'typical mistake’ of the 'bad apologetics’ is reported at the end of the article by Don Ariel: that's what he talked about, precisely…. Messori in an article of 2003. This: http://www.vittoriomessori.it/…/a-25 really happened…/
Dear Sebastiano,
thank you very much.
I did not know this old article by Vittorio Messori, which is very valuable and that, from what I've read, it goes back to the source I cited at the end.
Best wishes and best wishes