"It is not Francis"? Antonio Socci reveals to the world that the reigning Pope is a “Papocchia”. Ariel S. Levi Gualdo replication with a short essay on the contemporary Papacy
– Theologica –
"NOT FRANCESCO '? ANTONIO SOCCI UNVEILS THE WORLD: THE reigning pontiff IS A "Papocchia ". ARIEL S. LEVI of GUALDO REPLY WITH A SHORT ESSAY ON THE SIMULTANEOUS Papacy
.
Before the limitatezze and identified weaknesses and the Blessed Apostle Peter, Pope Francis flying high in the sky as a golden eagle. Not only for the fact that it has never taken flight, after doing above the snooty, only to escape before the danger and deny the Redeemer three times. there, to tell the truth, to me it does not appear that the reigning Pontiff has ever done anything like this until now. Therefore: The "election" of Peter, denier and a fugitive, It is really good?
.
.
Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo
.
.
To enter the bookshop click on the cover
.
.
.
.
_____________________________________
Dear Readers.
Every so often we remind you that the management of’Patmos Island it is claimed entirely by your donations, that you can send through convenient and secure service PayPal that you find in the right column of home-page.
Thank you!
.
.
.
.
.
.
Thanks for your response.
E’ the first time I write on this site and I apologize in advance if I'm wrong I will express.
I agree what he wrote but Ariel dad and I would like an opinion on the center of the issue that Socci has raised and the comments that maybe I missed:
Assuming it is true reconstruction of Socci about the way in which he was elected Pope at the fifth ballot, and even if it were correct in its interpretation of the nullity of the votes as established by Pope John Paul II wonder: Cardinal Bergoglio although nothing is elected by a vote anyway because Pope “declared” from the church or not? And so the special support of the Holy Spirit as Pope (though not elected correttamenete) there would still?
I do not know if I explained well…..
I take this opportunity to thank the wonderful work they do every day fathers.
In these difficult times, and confused your articles are like manna from heaven….
Dear Reader.
The irregularities there would be if the Cardinals had proceeded to count the votes and then they canceled the vote to do another.
In fact there has been no serious irregularities nor disabling, because they are limited only to count the ballots, and once it established that there was one more, which ignited and proceeded with further vote. To be understood: is not that the end of the examination – that there was – They have discovered one more card.
Then takes account of another thing: seated in the conclave there were also fine canonists, with prior history of teachers, prefects of the various departments, of employees in the drafting of legislative texts, etc … They were also attended by the president and the two previous presidents of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature.
She believes that a serious irregularity would never have passed with the unanimous consent of all, starting precisely from experts canonists members of the Sacred College of Cardinals and the eligible voters in the Sistine Chapel?
The Roman Pontiff has been duly elected and accepted by the Cardinals as well as representatives of the College of Bishops, welcomed and hailed the election by the People of God, with all the necessary grace was received by the Holy Spirit at the time of its acceptance.
Thank you for your response.
And that the Pope always spoke with prudent caution I am convinced would like to many…
It being understood that Socci is less credible than that of Cassiciacum, looking at the history of the Church is to me a question: you do not have the impression that most Pietro somehow “Abuse” of his power, most are created divisions?
I try to explain myself better because I am aware of not being able to use correct terminology: more Peter absolutizes the Papacy, what is its role, more the unity of the Church is not (schisms, heresies)?
Dear Paul.
You understand what the speech was long and complex about the question you have raised very pertinent.
I'll try to briefly answer, obviously not with a “truth”, but with my modest hypothesis based on what we would call the theologian Antonio Livi “the philosophy of common sense” [cf. WHO].
From half century in this part we have entered our vocabulary terms that until recently were unthinkable, for instance: “Paul VI gave the papacy a type imprint …”, “John Paul II has characterized the papacy with his outgoing personality …”, “Benedict XVI gave to the papacy its theological imprint …”.
Are all terms used not only, but alas accepted even within the Church and used by the theological professorships as from church pulpits.
I remember for example when in April 2014 attacked one “unfortunate” Father Paolino, obviously left to do damage in her delicate role of the monthly columnist “Catholic” Jesus, who stated, with use of a truly Jacobean language, that the Holy Father Francis had "de-sacralized the papacy" [cf. WHO].
In my opinion – simply subjective or ecclesiological? – are wrong terms, in their way pernicious.
When I was consecrated to the Holy Sacrament of grace in priestly order, It is not that I have given to the priesthood “my mark” O “my character“, quite the opposite! E’ It was the priesthood, that gave me a character, However indelible and eternal. Therefore, I can not “personalize” the priesthood, which it is the instrument of grace to act in persona Christi, not sure in my person, because it is the priesthood “personalize” e “characterize” me.
At the same time, But, you must understand that I, in a seminar to do a meditation or a conference to seminarians, I do not even dead would call me. First, because the rectors of seminaries in cahoots with their bishops are too busy to invite as a star the heretic Enzo Bianchi so that he can imbenzinarli thoughts epistemological; second, because I teach future priests own these things, that as a Catholic, and related to the foundations of the deposit of faith, I am for this thoughts “obsolete”, unacceptable, thus to be rejected and with them those who dare to disseminate and transmit.
The same thing also applies to the papacy – which we know is not a Sacrament – but in which lies the mystery of faith to the supreme grace of God's primacy given by Christ to Peter,, which among other benefits of infallibility when it expresses itself in matters of doctrine and faith.
I'd like to – but the pleasure is subjective – which the Holy Father spoke first of all and always with due care, using the “We” and not the’ “the“, emphasizing the mystery of the Church which is founded on the rock of Peter, not himself.
In fact, when you customize Simone, whoever it is, you end up with the depersonalizing Pietro, whoever it is.
Dear P. Ariel, I renew my thanks and my appreciation also for the last response article to the book Socci. Reading her essay – and that's why I write – I remembered that Ratzinger, in his comment made by the Prefect of the CDF Education “donum Veritatis” (1990), He was cited as an example of “dogmatic fact” Also the valid election of the Roman Pontiff. I tried to find that comment on the net, but without success. I remember very well, however, which it had been published on “The kingdom”. She also remembers him by chance? It might perhaps be useful… A warm greeting, Manuel
Dear Manuel.
I do not know and do not remember this comment, because to answer should read in such precise terms was done and especially articulated, Also because nothing, most of dogmatic theology, It requires clarity and precision in the expressions and comments.
Is still given some faith that the Petrine ministry, so the figure of the Roman Pontiff, to their base it has a structured dogma on the mystery of the Church and enclosed in the mandate given by the Word of God to Peter [cf. Mt 16, 13-20] which entrusts the precise interim function of feeding the flock after asking him three times “you love Me?”, a question that implies the love of the total and faithful dedication [GV 21, 15-16].
Just called to the sacred throne, the question on him if he accepts the election as Roman Pontiff, he replies “and”, he instantly assumes this interim function. Do not assume the “intronizzazione”, or the imposition of the pallium or ring piscatorio … nor it is “consecrated” Supreme Pontiff through the Sacrament of grace, etc … This assumes the interim function with his “and” the call, giving continuity to the ministry entrusted by Christ to Peter God.
In that sense you could say that “and” It is contained in the dogma of faith linked to the mystery of the Church and to the vicarious function to which Christ, God has called Peter.
On the question of Manuel.
I remembered reading something too.. but of 30Days carry the link
http://www.30giorni.it/articoli_id_15149_l1.htm
Cordially,
Laura
Thanks Laura,
It was precisely to this text that I referred!
Good evening Father Ariel,
I have a question: she long ago in this article https://isoladipatmos.com/stage/amoris-laetitia-la-teologia-dellassegno-in-bianco-il-potere-delle-chiavi-non-e-sindacabile-salvo-cadere-in-eresia/ said that the Pope might change the ecclesiastical rule relating to divorced and remarried, and the point is that he did it (I assume that you have heard the last news, where the Pope indicates the correct interpretation of love joy, to the time when you wrote that article the question was not yet clear).
The point is that there are those who, by virtue of this above text, He says that not even the Pope can change this ecclesiastical law, therefore assurgerebbe to the rank of dogma or almost.
What do you say? It is so or not?
“The prohibition made in the aforementioned canon [the 915 of the Code of Canon Law, namely the prohibition for divorced and remarried persevering in live more uxorio ricdevere of the Eucharist], BY ITS VERY NATURE, It derives from the DIVINE LAW and transcends the domain of positive READ CHURCH: These may NOT introduce legislative changes which would oppose the Doctrine of the Church. "
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_it.html
Vincent's body.
hear me well, not that I do not want to answer this question his, is that in certain questions, Father Giovanni Cavalcoli and myself, We have already answered many times and with very detailed theological cutting articles.
For this I will only send her all the answers already given in detail in this regard and can be found in the archive of Patmos Island going mainly to October 2015.
Dear father Ariel, I think that in this your written product, indeed very learned, You have shown how the saints are human and as humans can be holy.
The problem is what you have said and explained … the changed legends in history.
Thank you for these clarifications that will make a lot of good to many Catholics our increasingly lost and confused.
I read very carefully, it personally, for obvious intellectual honesty, I was never allowed to question the election, from simple catholic down-to-earth and knows the doctrine, I limit myself to apply a saying of Jesus: “by fruits ye shall know the tree”, In fact, I just see what does and says, possibly sources and if you say stupid things, by virtue of the doctrine, I can not argue with that and not follow, and instead, follow him and support him if faithful to Christ and the Church. that's all.
As always, even in this very long text (I think too much) Don Ariel, there is some truth to ponder, but the fact remains, eat ben says don Ariel, that it can be Peter and “cannare” very much. To err is human, but persevere Now diabolical. Please stop that!
What you like is the ability to combine the side “scientific” with that “polemical” carrying on the most critical of reading levels simultaneously. Hat!
She is a humorless and person, there is no doubt, However, overall this harsh criticism to the claims of Socci, does not convince me. Though, I admit, I do not convince me at all not even the central point “It is not Francis”. And even if, and here I agree with you, I consider the excessive emphasis given by Socci in incongruous elements judgment and / or secondary.
On the other hand Socci shows off the typical journalist vis-Catholic controversy, saddened by the structural doctrinal crisis -and perhaps even of faith- where too many churchmen drag the community of believers, He sees Pope Bergoglio a dramatically serious danger, and tries to give and give us a few answers. More or less adequate and reasonable.
In this sense, however, it gives voice to those among Catholics, at different levels of culture and theological-canonical knowledge, They were upset in the short span of time of at least four (mis)-Facts:
1 – the outbreak of the scandal pedophilia, and subsequent media assault on Ratzinger
2 – the Vatileaks scandal, and the subsequent abandonment of the Pope
3 – the chilling “good evening” the newly elected Pope
4 – interviews with Scalfari, with their regrettable content divulged prior papal approval.
Then it happened even worse, but there is more upsets! Trying to pray.
Gent. Toni.
I state that mine is not an answer to the question you addressed to Father Ariel, but only a comment to your comment anything relevant.
I do not know Dr.. Socci, meaning they do not know him personally. I seem to have realized that Ariel's father has been very reluctant to write this text, and he did it only when the priestly consciousness has laid it on him. In fact, we understand that with regard to Dr. Socci nourished affection and esteem.
I think I understand (but this needs to specify when the person concerned, although I think it is very clear) that Father Ariel has remained untouched by the faithful questions, in and out of the confessional.
I can also confirm, because I felt (and I would ask), and I have to say increasingly, questions on the book by Antonio Socci, Today more than when it came out.
I believe it is this that has pushed Ariel's father to write this article after some time that, in my opinion, and not to indulge in lavish compliments, It is a lucid analysis of the contemporary papacy denoting a polymath, and that has been written outside of each political-correct “golden legend”. All it based on a theological as nobody can deny: “The saints are not required perfection”, having been people who, like all, in their lives, they made a mistake, sometimes even seriously.
ingenious, in my opinion, the final part, one dedicated to the curriculum “Galilean fisherman”.
Caro father, It understands well, from what she writes in this short essay, that the very serious doctrinal and pastoral crisis that today the Church lives is not only attributed to the reigning Pontiff (as erroneously implies good Socci), but rather lies in the Ecumenical Council Vatican II and all the Popes of the Council and the post-conciliar. She should, Instead of responding to the often delusional accusations that are now addressed to Pope Francis, They are wrong to explain where those excellent theologians (not only Lefebvre) that for several years now, with scientific and theological rigor, highlight the break between the last Vatican Council and the Church of 20 previous council. Because, until those theologians will not be proved wrong, it will be hard not to see how the Modernist cancer that her complaint with so much zeal has infected the texts themselves of the council. It is not in fact that someone only declared in words the continuity of CVII with the Tradition of the Church has also never shown such continuity. I wonder how they would be judged by the Popes and theologians pre-conciliar documents like Nostra Aetate, unity redintegrazio, human dignity, from the light of the nations.
Thank you Father for the excellent work and for taking the time to unravel these scoop media.
Socci is a man of great intelligence and value, but that his desire to affirm “dogged immovability” his own opinions is a Modus Operandi all it learned from the Medjugorje phenomenon to which he is totally prostrate without a minimum of discernment: It would make her the shoes in Medjugorje as does the Pope! And then that would be outside the true monstrosity, but there, coincidentally, no one ever. On the contrary… E’ just from those shores that it emanates ideology “the likes of me, so it's all true and the Church – who is it (?!) – Say what takes so I am right”, along with the motto has become a catchphrase of the various followers, the “seeing is believing” with which you are invited to visit the place and to overcome the signs of the Church to test for yourself and choose subjectively, according to your own “personal feel”, the veracity of the phenomenon, ie suggestionarsi in a sort of collective hypnosis … what not to believe and would like to call “Catholics”!
Thank you again Father.
Greetings in Christ
good evening, the fact remains that Pope Francis was chosen by bishops and cardinals who conspired against Pope Benedict VXI:http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.it/2015/09/godfried-danneels-ha-lavorato-per-anni.html.
Praised be Jesus Christ!
Always praised and … never mistreated!
Since you reply to a text scientific cut as bringing “supreme source” to his grave the statement of a notorious blog circulate the heretics, this is precisely the Church&Council post, I inform her – if you were Catholic – that from a moral point of view is much less severe and less sinful read the magazines Sex Playboy e Penthouse instead drink Some blogs heretics like the one you mentioned and related.
The sight of a beautiful naked woman never damaged souls as is the heresies have always damaged, united to the supreme hatred of the Successor of Peter, oozing everywhere from articles and comments in this painful blog carried out by hanging in the balance between the parties fixism and psychopathology, convinced that the whole mystery of salvation is founded and will rest on the Missal of St. Pius V turned into a cross between a fetish and an idol.
Thanks for the advice. I do not follow the so-called blog, but when I can read everything. The blog still takes up the book by Cardinal Godfried Danneels (the secret meetings of St. Gallen), never denied.
Luckily for me, I do not hate anyone. Praised be Jesus Christ!