We offer our readers a prayer by devout Catholics for the Pope,
the rock on which Christ the Lord has built his Church [Mt 13,18]
The Popes of the last half century and the last in the legitimate succession to the Prince of the Apostles
Lord Jesus Christ, King and Lord of the Holy Church, renewal in your presence my unconditional adherence to your Vicar on earth, the Supreme Pontiff
FRANCIS.
In him we wanted to show you the way sure and certain that we have to follow in the midst of disorientation, to concerns and dismay.
I firmly believe that through him, Thou governments, instruct and sanctify and that under his crook we form the true Church: a, santa, catholic and apostolic.
Grant me the grace to love, to live and to spread his teachings as a faithful son. Guard her life, illuminates his intelligence, fortifies his spirit, defend it by slander and malice.
Placa erosive winds of infidelity and disobedience and grant that, around him, Your Church is preserved united, firm in believing and in working and is so the instrument of your redemption.
Amen!
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Aquila-reale.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150DraftingHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngDrafting2015-02-26 23:57:402021-04-21 00:47:53Prayer for the Pope
Between Antonio Livi and the other two fathers John Cavalcoli and Ariel S. Levi Gualdo there has been no disagreement, only serene and fraternal differences of theological and pastoral. As we have outlined, about the problem is not slight of Lefebvre on which we have decided not to postpone, two different opinions, they could easily coexist together. In the legitimate freedom of the children of God Antonio Livi chose instead, to our sorrow, leaving this online magazine; we tried to dissuade him, but finally accepting her decision. The reasons are contained in written below. Our illustrious confrere confirm our highest consideration and our human and spiritual closeness with the best wishes of good and sincere grace of the Lord.
Antonio Love
[…] a theologian can be found in the speeches and actions of ecclesiastical Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre a doctrine contrary to the dogma of the infallibility of the Magisterium, and when the formula of the dogmas that when it speaks with a solemn and universal magisterium, as it was for the Vaticnao II, that Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre (which had also participated in the work of the council and had signed the final documents) had at some points considered in contradiction with Tradition, that is, with the teaching of the magisterium previous. But this legitimate theological consideration does not allow to put the hypothetical content heretical ideology of these traditionalists on the same floor of the heresies formally condemned by the Church, because this kind inevitably a very serious doctrinal confusion […]
[…] We recognize that Lefebvre are Catholics, although imperfect; and they know what faith is and what the dogma. Among their ranks there are also Thomist. Their major flaw, however, is known and not less mild and their errors are objective and not at all "hypothetical": their repeated charges of false or fallibility to the doctrines of Vatican II, under the pretext that it is not new dogmas solemnly defined. De facto, the Lefebvrians, you showed you are deaf to the calls and exhortations of the Popes, latest in chronological order of the Holy Father Benedict XVI who warned them that "to be in full communion with the Church must accept the doctrines of the Council".
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Aquila-reale.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150DraftingHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngDrafting2015-02-26 23:55:482021-04-21 00:26:48Farewell Antonio Livi
"Dear Fathers of’Patmos Island, sometimes it seems that in our churches the liturgical chaos reigns: Fair dialogate, prayers of the faithful "spontaneous" embarrassing, words of the missal changed at will of the celebrant, chants inappropriate, clapping and dancing, Women who go up to the altar during the celebrations as if he were master. I recently read an article that provides answers through a Dominican theologian, Father Thomas Calmel. I'm impressed and I would like to know what this writing is true, then ask yourself: “The Mass of Paul VI, is really valid?”» [Chiara caön, reader of Trento]
Ariel S. Levi Gualdo during solemn vespers
Dear Father Giovanni.
A reader of Trento sent us an article that appeared on the site Second Vatican Council in which a journalist returns to extract some parts of the thought of Father Roger Thomas Calmel OP [1914-1975] which supports the thesis misleading on the celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI [see WHOfull article]. Since the subject of the application revolves around a Dominican brother your, please to offer you answer to the question of our reader.
The task with The Island of Patmos we set is to make ecclesial and pastoral theology at a time of great delicacy that sees many of our faithful increasingly disoriented, as evidence the question raised by this reader that such disorientation is paradigm, because many are the letters that arrive more or less similar to the mail the editorial department.
In some of my previous articles I used irony and a certain vehemence toward some commentators that are not just a "minority” Of “noisy dissatisfied "which does not give much weight, but sowers of errors veiled behind the reassuring defense deposit of credit, until funger often a point of reference for many lost, unable to grasp in some bad teachers the drama of the "blind guides" that "filter out the gnat and swallow the camel" [cf. Mt 23, 24].
In countering certain errorsit imposes on our consciences priestly duty of balance and prudence summarized through the famous phrase: "You can not throw the baby out with the bathwater", because even in the wrong locations, or those who sometimes carry out in good faith, there may still be good. The essay fable of the baby and the dirty water leads me however to fear the danger of falling into another trap: even Arius and Pelagius was of good. The first was a man of faith, the second a pious ascetic, both theologians refined to the point that against the first One bothered Sant'Atanasio, against the second St. Augustine, which never would have lost their precious time with the little heretic village. And to the present day: Was not, Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, a man of deep piety; an extraordinary missionary in Senegal formed good priests creating excellent results in early local bishops?
To judge this thing quite delicate look for the good nell'errante and the positive elements of union nell'eterodossia, because if this act is not utmost prudence and respect of the deposit of faith and the teaching of the Church is not ironclad, you may run the risk of dragging in our house the worst heresies behind pretexts ecumenical or interfaith dialogue, as evidenced by some decades certain academic institution within which a large number of theologians larded with modernism teach doctrines of Protestant. All this happened because often we tried the good and the common points of union with wandering up to drag us into their home even serious errors, as you yourself have stated long ago in a criticism at the thought of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, certainly not to his worthy person [see WHO], which echoed shortly after another my analysis [see WHO].
As priests and theologians we are called to exercise a ministry that involves a sacred duty that we can not escape for imperative of conscience: necessary to say to our faithful what is right and wrong. For this we use for purely pastoral valuable instrument of this online magazine, I for one do not intend to use or azzuffarmi with “adverse factions” nor for sterile polemics with those who are closed to the grace of listening, but only to serve the truth and the truth for the people that God has entrusted to us, saving, if appropriate, believers of Christ from falling into the errors of some bad teachers.
John Cavalcoli OP in the choir of her Dominican convent during the Divine Office
I answer with pleasure to the Reader in Trento saying, first, that in the field of liturgy, the Roman Pontiff, exercises his authority as high priest and supreme moderator of divine worship. He is not infallible in regulating when it organized a ceremonial or liturgical reform, which belongs to his pastoral power. It is, however, in interpreting, guard preserve intact the essence or substance of the Sacraments, because data of faith, because it touches the infallibility of his teaching office.
The immutable essence of the Mass is the following:
"Rite of worship of the New Covenant, with whom and for which, in the person of the priest celebrant in communion with the Church and in the name of the Church, Christ in the Holy Spirit offers incruentemente sacrifice Himself to the Father for the salvation of the world ".
A reform of the Mass will therefore be more or less happy, will then need another reform or recovery than we had decommissioned, but it will never alter the essence of the Mass. To suppose that the Pope to launch a Mass or heretical modernist or filoprotestante, is in turn heresy, not in reference to his pastoral power, but as a teacher of the faith, given that the Mass is a The mystery of faith. In the Mass must therefore distinguish the ceremonial ritual. The first may change and is of ecclesiastical law: the second is immutable and is of divine right.
The rules of the celebrationof the Holy Mass- The so-called ceremonial - can then change over the centuries, as the history of the liturgy. But the essence of the Mass is immutable, as well as is demonstrated by history, until the Mass new world order, beyond changes that appear at times deep, but that does not really change the substance, as I defined above.
The Pope has no power to change the substance of the Sacraments and then the essential structure of the rite of Holy Mass, substance or essence that is not difficult to single out beyond the variations of the ceremony took place in the course of history.
Ora but, the Mass new world order, was motivated by the Second Vatican Council with serious reasons known to all [Holy Council, NN. 47-58]. It certainly has an ecumenical aspect, but it is folly to say that it is pro-Protestant or infected by modernism or that it changes the traditional Mass.
The Church can give to those who want permission to celebrate only the old order- As he did with St. Pio of Pietrelcina -, which obviously remains valid; but as long as they do not do it as if it were only valid Mass this. The Church recommends and orders, ordinarily, the new world order, because pastorally is more suitable to the present situation.
As you know our work is free but the costs of running the site are not few and should be supported. If you want to win approval with the PayPal system even a few Euros will help us to support the operating costs for lighting a candle The Island of Patmos.
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Aquila-reale.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150father arielHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngfather ariel2015-02-21 17:39:492015-02-21 18:34:40Request: “The Mass of Paul VI is really valid”?
NICHI VENDOLA AND OLD QUESTION OF CRUCIFIXES IN PUBLIC PLACES
Once a week our philosopher will select a script to offer our readers a comment. Hypatia, Roman cat, he received his bachelor of philosophy at the Pontifical Lateran University under the guidance of Rev. Mons. Prof. Antonio Livi with whom he then depth studies on the philosophy of common sense. He later received his doctorate in philosophy Thomistic metaphysics at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas under the leadership of Rev. Father Prof. Giovanni Cavalcoli. His book: "The mystery of creation in Genesis and the animals", Today is a best seller translated into 18 languages and used between the texts of study at the Pontifical Biblical Institute. In Rome, he founded an institute of consecrated lay cats for the assistance of cats poor suburbs existential with the patronage of the Cardinal Vicar and the funds of Charities Apostolic of His Holiness.
Author Hypatia Gatta Roman
.
.
To enter the bookshop click on the cover
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ipazia-tondo-piccolo.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150HypatiaHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngHypatia2015-02-20 15:19:162023-02-28 10:07:02The Cogitatorium Hypatia – Nichi Vendola and the old question of crucifixes in public places
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Patmos1.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150father arielHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngfather ariel2015-02-17 00:47:512015-02-18 17:45:09From the prologue of the Letter to the Ephesians to the history of dogmatic theology
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/cavalcoli56.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150Father GiovanniHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngFather Giovanni2015-02-16 22:29:092021-04-21 00:28:02Peace in the Church
The Lefebvrians confused with modernism, which is also present in Catholicism today, that healthy progressivism in doctrine and Christian life, which was promoted by the Council, that can make us talk about a healthy progressivism. A bad traditionalism stop the march of history, does not include the value of the new, mummification the perennial, confuses the unchanging with the inaction, the firmness with stiffness, the solid with petrified, the store with conservatism, loyalty with backwardness, progress with subversion and, to be steadfast in the past, is not capable of grasping the values and problems of the present and the hopes of the future.
Author John Cavalcoli OP
the Holy Pontiff Pius X
She was the famous phrase of St. Pius X, which he said, albeit in a private meeting and not in an official document, that a Catholic can not be a traditionalist. If we compare it with the attack on “traditionalists” made by Pope Bergoglio in his speech at the recent Synod of Bishops on the family, it seems that a lot of water has passed under the bridge in the Papal Magisterium.And instead, apart from the legitimate or questionable personal preferences or opinions of the two Popes, we have to make some clarifications, at the end of which, I hope, we realize that the distance to say the opposition is not as great as it might seem at first.
In fact ask ourselves what the two Popes have understood here to “love the tradition”.Which tradition? Tradition in that sense? “Love” how and how much? It should now be evident, for the Catholic Church educated and attentive to the facts of today, that the term “tradition” is understood in two different senses, so that, clarifying the respective meanings of the same term, we could be sure that the two Popes would cause data to each other.Indeed, while Pius X clearly referred to Sacred Tradition, which, together with Scripture, is a source of divine revelation guarded and infallibly interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church, Pope Francis has clearly condemned some “traditionalism”, that, bad interpreting Sacred Tradition or taking it as a pretext, denies the infallibility or the truth, or dares accuse error or possibility of error, the Magisterium of the Second Vatican Council and doctrinal, Consequently, the Magisterium which it refers, of successive Popes, until the present reigning.
If we think of the Sacred Tradition, it is obvious that a Catholic can not be that traditionalist. Indeed, it can be said in a way that all the content of the doctrine of the faith is the subject of the apostolic tradition, according to the New Testament, intended to act as a time of transmitting or preach to voice, deliver [RM 6,17; The Cor 11,23; 15, 3; II Tm 2,2; Gd 3], and content of preaching, handed over [The Cor 11,2; Ii Ts 2,15; The Tm 6,20].For Christ did not say to the apostles “write” O, as would a school teacher: “take notes”, ma: “predicate”, and in addition to hands-free, until the end of time, for then it would not exist in the modern technical means of oral communication. However, the announcement of the Word of God aloud, despite the existence today of refined and powerful communication, is still of primary importance, we would like to say almost sacramental.
the Holy Father during a homily
Consider the homily of the priest in the Mass or the word of the confessor during confession. They transmit a special grace of light linked to the sacrament, it was also a priest without academic qualifications, as a St. John Vianney or St. Pio of Pietrelcina. For this reason the Church tells us that the Mass heard on TV, as if it were just a show, does not have the same spiritual value of that listened to the physical presence of the celebrant and you can not even confess to phone, as well as Call your doctor to ask advice or help.
Jesus taught the Apostles
It is quite understandable, however, that the apostles themselves,to preserve a better memory, Then they thought of putting or writting the words of the Lord. And thus was born the New Testament, ie Scripture, which is added to that of the Old Testament, born in the same way, though not lacking circumstances, in which God commands us to write [per es. Dt 6,9; 11,20]. Even in Revelation the Lord commands to write [19,9: 21,5]. Yet the order of Christ to preach and then to transmit voice, always remains valid. And indeed, the Magisterium divinely assisted by the Holy Spirit, Magisterium, by order of Christ, has the task of preserving, to interpret and explain the data is infallibly of Tradition that of Scripture: “Who listens to you, hears me” [LC 10,16]. Therefore missed Luther to want to interpret Scripture without regard to the mediation of the Church and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wrong to want to interpret the tradition regardless of those developments that were made by the Second Vatican Council.
AND certainly this kind of traditionalism that the Pope referred in his address to the synod. However, we must say that not every traditionalism is wrong. In fact, nothing and nobody prevents to conceive a healthy conservatism, who, without in any way reject the doctrines of the new Council correctly interpreted, try a special interest in pre-conciliar traditions still valid, especially if related to the immutability of the dogma, which could be resumed remeasured with utility for the Church of our time.
the Servant of God Dominican Tomas Tyn
The lefevriani confused with modernism - Which is also present in Catholicism today - that healthy progressivism in doctrine and Christian life, which was promoted by the Council, that can make us talk about a healthy progressivism, as for example that of a Maritains, one Spiazzi, a Ratzinger and a Congar, next to a healthy conservatism, as was that of the Servant of God Father Tomas Tyn, to which I devoted a biography, published in 2007 by Faith&Culture: “Father Tomas Tyn. A traditionalist post-conciliar” [see who], a seemingly odd title, which was not understood by all, I studied with the greatest attention and which I have not regretted it at all. It means that a healthy conservatism is not at all uncomfortable in the post-conciliar Church, ma, remembering and preserving that which can not die or mutate, gives a valuable and indispensable contribution to the good of the Church, in reciprocity with a healthy progressivism, springing from what does not pass; while conversely a bad traditionalism stop the march of history, does not include the value of the new, mummification the perennial, confuses the unchanging with the inaction, the firmness with stiffness, the solid with petrified, the store with conservatism, loyalty with backwardness, progress with subversion and, to be steadfast in the past, is not capable of grasping the values and problems of the present and the hopes of the future.
the tug of war
We wish the Holy Father, which is located in the middle of the bitter conflict of modernists and lefevriani, to be able to operate effectively, with the intercession of Mary Queen of Peace, to reconcile these two opposing parties, that are tearing apart the Church, so that the tradition and progress can dutifully work together for a healthy renewal and a healthy modernity expanding Church towards increasingly amp horizons of justice and peace.
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/cavalcoli56.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150Father GiovanniHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngFather Giovanni2015-02-07 01:35:022021-04-21 00:28:42For a healthy conservatism
The lefebvrism is a disease, a cancer from which the body of the Church must be healed, and if necessary should be bombarded with chemotherapy. The Lefebvrians is not clear that the reigning Pontiff as depositary of an authority that comes directly from Christ God, while they are self-invested with an authority that comes only from their pride, for this is difficult dialogue and the search for common points with those who live in such closed, proud and determined in their error.
Author Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo
"True theology does not pretend to attribute to God
what is not said, but merely explains
what he actually said "
[Antonio Love, aphorisms]
paradigm Lefebvre in comics
In my previous article [see who] I addressed the issue of the world of Lefebvre incentrandomi on some questions and asking questions that have remained unanswered all. My wise elder brother Antonio Livi raised some reasonable concerns centered on the concept of method adopted by me and that I myself share, since it is one of those debates in which everyone can be right or wrong, depending on the angle from which you are reviewing the subject matter. As in 'Patmos Island struggles amiably, remaining united in the common cause of service to the Church and to sound Catholic doctrine - even when the approach to certain issues may be different and therefore vary according to our subjective sensitivity - we have decided to involve readers in our exchanges of views, in which only people in bad faith may read "divisions" or "struggle" exist between the three of us; because each of us responds to what he writes and signature, not for what they write and sign others.
Following the avalanche of insults that fell on me through dozens of comments placed at the end of one of our articles and have embittered Antonio Livi first [see who], I had confirmation of just how high the touchiness of certain characters which on one hand claim to qualify for the right to challenge all, by Vatican II to the Magisterium of the Church until the reigning Pontiff, But on the other have the prerogative to not be in any way challenged the merits of their doctrinal opinions that personally I can also consider peregrine. In my vocabulary all this is called pride and closing and listening to the actions of God's grace, that must operate precisely meet our listening, our freedom, then our acceptance; only then the grace forms us and transforms us into our substance.
the Riace bronzes
The questions raised in my pthe withdrawal of the article were addressed to the person to whom I therefore legitimate to raise doubts, provided that all due respect is implicit and explicit on my part. I also raised practical questions, expressing that certain foundations, news agencies, luxury magazines that cost only pagination, graphical and paper quality of an eye testa - without sales and subscriptions cover even half of half of the sun-pocket expenses - can be carried out with the manna from heaven. Not to mention sites and magazines telematics, everybody size luxury, not in eternal bill as our poor Patmos Island, well that is both beautiful graphics for both our written nothing short of exceptional, not to mention the extraordinary beauty of the fathers, three authentic Riace bronzes, just to exercise the great Christian virtue of humility and mix a little’ all with equally great virtue: the ironic humor.
Faced with this evidence, in my previous written, I did not ask where pulledro out money, I only asked for the Catholic faithful and our readers reassurance that the financial support did not come "from the far right American, nor by some wealthy Brazilian entrepreneurs, or by Europeans who got rich by magic in Brazil ». Ask similar reassurance, I think it is an attack of treason to individuals, species then if Numerio Negidio is president of a foundation and Aulus Agerio director of a magazine, namely public persons legally responsible for such as these you can also ask regard to any; nor do I think that this is not a transcendence outside of theology for which this magazine was born and to which you must follow and always will abide.
elderly embroiderer of Calitri
I believe that certain questions are not only relevant but due,especially to those who demand from their journalistic columns, from their books and their own public conferences, loyal transparency and consistency on the part of all public authorities and private, civil and religious of this world, thus implicitly boasting a virginal purity and not indifferent intentions; and this certainly can not allow it to be then discover with some crust on. Or maybe some people think that all these expensive devices made of foundations, Monthly size luxury, news agencies, magazines and telematic sites, are carried out with the offering of the poor widow in love of the Mass of St. Pius V and the pre-conciliar tradition lost? I get it: everything is held up with doilies that old granny Calitri embroiders reciting rosaries in pig Latin and to sell them to devolverne the proceeds to structures which to live, survive and organize all you have to arrange to have funds in the order of many hundreds of thousands of euro, because playing the so-called "traditionalists" is a "game" always and in itself quite expensive; and this for me, could be a serious problem of a pastoral.
The Empress Irene presided anus 772 the seventh ecumenical council, the Nicene II
Without going into the merits of what I said and affirmed, some wrote comments furious soaked insults unheard, trying to throw it on the personal and wondering who was I to raise certain issues not relevant. I complain that this is inconsistent, because in the great councils where they played the fate of the main Christological dogmas, often the debates are structured around political issues, social and economic, not coincidentally was the emperor in person - even if only formally - to preside over the councils, the seventh of which are chaired by a woman, Empress Irene. Thereby apply certain criteria of "relevance" or "no relevance" theological, you may come to invalidate the entire social doctrine of the Church, for example, stating that "not pay proper wages to the worker, considered sin that cries out to God for justice ", is a statement devoid of supports theological-logical-speculative-metaphysical, about how this political sociology or labor law, but not the theologians, task of which is to deal exclusively of other chores and speculation.
To these people I have raised questions and put questionsto which no reply had arguments have left that to act were their supporters with screams from the stadium and infamous attacks and defamatory to me direct. Neither tell me that my arguments are not theological, ecclesiological and pastoral, why use the newspaper to an avowed atheist tied since the nineties to the right and to the American Zionist Movement International, to carry out a campaign of relentless criticism of the Holy Father, for me it is a matter ecclesiological serious and not a little disturbing, because on one hand we have the modernists, the other we have some fanatics Lefebvrians quantities of food from the American ultra right and from areas far from favorable to Catholicism and the papacy. That's why I want to understand why, one part, all these subjects traditio e of the Latins San Giovanni XXIII accuse of having purged the Easter Triduum prayer on "perfidious Jews" - since the term evil, for those who know Latin and not the late nineteenth-century ecclesiastical latinetto, should be read according to the etymology of faithless, implied, in Christ - the other here is the same deal with areas related to the Zionist Movement International. Tell me: I missed something? Am I the inconsistent, or rather they are certain untouchable and not criticism that this gentlemen pretend not to see it for whatever “good” e “right” it causes, enough to have put in association with Giuliano Ferrara and his now vulgar and insolent newspaper “anti-bergogliano”?
lovable beast
To those who reproached me of having attacked individuals, I replied that it would be enough to read some of my articles to find out that not long ago expressed doubts and criticism respectful towards the Holy Father, who in one of his impromptu utterances had spoken of the Sacraments and offerings to the priests [see who]. In my article I was strict and said that not only the Holy Father spoke of what they did not know but with similar statements had created confusion among the faithful and clergy in embarrassment. None of belonging both to the so-called Lefebvrian both to those who sympathize with the modernists raised questions about what I had written. That's why today I doubt there is a perfectly legitimate: you can possibly criticize, even strictly necessary, not appropriate expressions of the Holy Father, though not certain circles Lefebvrians and their elders?
The child who tries to push the wrestler wants to portray the level of relationship that can run between Brunero Gherardini and Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo. It should however be noted that Brunero Gherardini, albeit ultra octogenarian, has features very elegant and slender figure and a slender enviable
In the long series of insults that I have rained down on him I was accused of being a nullity emerita who dares criticize as an eminent theologian Brunero Gherardini. That this old priest is an eminent theologian is true in the same extent that it is true that I am a nobody, What, however, that does not prevent me to address this critical calm elder Prato theologian of the Roman school sued for years by Lefebvrians, by sedevacantists and abusers of various term Traditio. Statement, this mine, before which one could argue: what does Gheradini? I believe - perhaps wrongly - that to put in place a cooperation in evil not enough to publish a pedagogical purpose the infamous cartoons of the journal Charlie Hebdo, To make understand, readers that they had not ever seen, the seriousness of what many had not grasped, then procacciandomi just criticism, with all the sacrosanct reasons Antonio Livi told me: "Your intentions were undoubtedly good, and you have well explained in a note at end of article, But you could avoid their inclusion in the article by John Cavalcoli ». Perhaps the same logic can be applied through the same criterion to Gherardini that allows subjects to use his person, his studies and his writings as a tool to address critical authority of an ecumenical council and all the successive popes from 1958 till today. Let me be clear, to do this is hardly Gherardini, faithful priest and theologian tirelessly to Catholic doctrine and to the Supreme Pontiff, which as such is limited only to allow his studies and writings are used for this purpose, without ever having denied or had dissociated himself from certain circles Lefebvrians who continue to exploit it without having procured to date one of his public dissent.
When these same circles tried to make use of some of my writings, you go to see how - even in legitimate criticism of me facing certain drifts ecclesial or pastoral choices perhaps not particularly happy with the Pope - I reacted with drawn sword defending the Church's Magisterium, Vatican II and the Holy Father. Not to mention the works of Gherardini granted in French publication editions of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, with all that this may involve manipulation of the person at the level of one part, legitimate and legitimizing the other. That said it remains undisputed that Gherardini can do what he wants it to free those who want to use his works for campaigns anti-conciliarist that he does not approve of but that did not disapprove. For my part I am free to criticize her for this act, with all the grace of the case and with the estimate due to a venerable elder brother and a great theologian. And this is an issue across the theological and pastoral, based on a substance against which you can not blame me too much for lack of form, which also has its great importance to express properly the best essences of the substance itself.
Lucifer in its beauty, paintings of Roberto Ferri
Why would insolent challenge certain Lefebvrians that starting from historical criteria end up playing on the theological, beating on the authority of Peter and the criteria of his infallibility, paralyzed screens fossilized in the First Vatican Council? I could say and rebuke: but they are all scholars … educated people … People of great elegance ... So what? Maybe the devil, the unsurpassed master of sowing confusion, of doubts and divisions, looks like a goat or smelly like a farmer illiterate? It seems to me that behind the veneer of “tradition” and of “sound doctrine”, behind certain outstanding scholars there are entrepreneurs, freelancers, politicians, international associations that often have nothing to Catholic, sometimes not even a Christian. And this is precisely the paradigm eloquent man of great skill and intellect that is Giuliano Ferrara, that I rightly quoted beyond the person itself - that is to say precisely as a paradigm - asking in my previous article if by chance there was a good and a bad atheism, seen that some have torn his clothes for weeks before the Holy Father guilty of them said to have agreed to be interviewed atheist Eugenio Scalfari in a newspaper of the left, while precisely the most critical of the Holy Father feel instead of all entitled to publish articles of disagreement with the Pope in the newspaper atheist Giuliano Ferrara, but heads a right-wing newspaper. In what would, therefore, the irrelevance of my question?
Mine was therefore a pertinent question addressed to Roberto de Mattei and before which are always waiting to be answered; because for now the only response received were the insults of laborers Lefebvrian, which is not, as some would have you believe, a minority of sparse infiltrates. The subjects that I have attacked in forms in which even the most sinful priests Orbe should be defamed, make up the majority of this idyllic setting that defends the real Catholic tradition; to be the minority are the gentlemen and gentlewomen of great education, culture, thickness academic and so, used as a public face presentable, that is to say little more than four cats.
young Forza Nuova
Or to put it so sad and easy to document: you go around Italy and it is subject to higher the number of priests who warmly welcomed and fervor Motu Proprio Benedict XVI on the Missal of St. Pius V, have ceased to celebrate Mass with the old order and no longer want to hear about it. Needless to say: supporters lefevbriane defend themselves by accusing these priests and spreading falsehoods about them emeritus, talk about conspiracies and boycotts, they affirm that the priests «have been ensnared by modernist and hyper conciliarist bishops … threatened them to cut off his legs … to beat them in some country parish …». Since I myself have made the sad experience of what, I will explain now why many priests have made act of denial; and I will explain not in my name, but on behalf of many of my confreres. Many priests - and I repeat many - have ceased with regret these celebrations because they were left with the churches full of these fanatical supporters, including my brother who was even pushed because he did not want a large group of youths entered the church with the flags and symbols of Forza Nuova. So not only, my brothers, have not been enmeshed, but when several of their bishops have them requested to continue to ensure that celebration at least once a week, they replied: "If he imposes it on me out of obedience, I can't refuse". And hardly, a bishop, imposes a priest to celebrate against his will for assemblies “Original” formed by people who go to discourse before and after Mass on Popes are all anti popes heretics from 1958 following, the Vatican II council apostatic, the Missal of Paul VI on the model developed by the Lutheran Mason Annibale Bugnini and so on. But maybe, scholars of high lineage and respectable people as those who have dared to mention in my previous article, though not priests know more than me. For this we consider from now free to contradict me, but the answer to that point will no longer be my, but rather a collection made available by this our online magazine of all fed testimonies of many of my brethren scattered from Cefalu to Bolzano, so are the priests who celebrate and that for reasons of expediency pastoral ceased to celebrate with old order posted, to explain what happened to them with certain faithful, with all due respect to those lay people who have not celebrating the sacred mysteries not hesitate however to deny the concrete with blatant false and painful pastoral experiences of us priests, when our real experiences do not match their dreams ideological.
Dear Lefebvrians, watch it right this man … Weigh and just as well, why is not the meek Benedict XVI who has opened their arms in exchange for taking from you “two slaps”, this, to lend him heretic modernist from your improvident Bishop Bernard Fellay [see who], or apostate and anti pope from your fans from stadium, will not be willing to stay in it all that much … and what he does will be well done and never deserved enough on your part.
The lefebvrismo is a disease, a cancerfrom which the body of the Church must be healed, and if necessary should be bombarded with chemotherapy. The Lefebvrians is not clear that the reigning Pontiff as depositary of an authority that comes directly from Christ God, while they are self-invested with an authority that comes only from their pride. Per this is difficult to dialogue and the search for common points with those who live in such closed, proud and determined in their error. That's why I consider it intolerable that the improvident and insolent bishop of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, Bernard Fellay, has dared to publicly ask the Holy Father Francis epitetandolo as "an authentic modernist ' [see who], perfectly aware that Pius X, through his Encyclical Sheep feeding Domici, defined modernism as the synthesis of all heresies. The Holy Father Francis is not the meek Benedict XVI who opened his arms all the way to the heretics Lefebvrians, while procacciandosi in exchange two sound slaps, given that they demand the impossible really: that the Church disavow an entire ecumenical council. The reigning Pontiff does not seem prepared to be slapped much and what it will do when the time will be well done and never earned enough by these unreasonable people, with all our support and all our praise. Why the Church, as stated Father Divo Barsotti preaching spiritual exercises to the Roman Curia in 1971 at the invitation of Blessed Paul VI: «… is the custodian of a coercive power because God has entrusted him, then you must use it ".
Having not yet acquired the science and wisdom two theologians elderly as Antonio and Giovanni Livi Cavalcoli - always assuming manage to acquire one day -, my current temperament, perhaps pastorally crude, perhaps even wrong, leads me to feel that these are our times in which you request the strength and courage of a certain radicalism Pauline free from any form of fundamentalism. But above all we need to start with an idea to familiarize painful as not easy to accept: Lefebvre perhaps are even worse than the modernists. Affirmation latter on which I know does not agree Giovanni Cavalcoli, that for this will not fail to explain his point of view that is certainly compared to my wiser and relevant. In my opinion questionable, while the modernists would like to rephrase the papacy to the specious light of their erroneous ideas of collegiality, falling into relativism dissipating; the Lefebvrians, the papacy, are showing to attack him in every way in the worst ways in the name of “vera” tradition, dell ' “bona fide” love for the Church and the historical method used to arrive at sowing doubts about the legitimacy of theological Peter that have occurred over the last sixty years and their infallibility in matters of doctrine and faith. So if on the one hand you get to relativism, the other leads to a nihilism of gnostic matrix-Pelagian. Needless to say, all this translates soon - and so the penalty sneaky - in serious doctrinal errors unfortunately taken for good because … how could some educated, educated and highly placed gentlemen, Catholics so devoted and loyal to Tradition, say the wrong things? No, some things they say because they suffer for the Church, because the love, because they want to defend it … so, if its wrong, not condanniamoli, we try to talk to them and find all possible points common …
chair of Peter
… in this game do not mean to fall for sneaky and I have taken that road that makes me in every way in solidarity with the spirit and wisdom of the two fathers of the elderly 'Patmos Island: with the Church, in the Church and in the Church, that is not our idea of subjective Church, but the Church of Christ ruled by Pietro of which we are instruments and devoted servants. And if our being priestly and theological is based on these assumptions, any divergent opinions or different way of feeling ends up leave time that is, just as we are demonstrating with these our writings.
To hear from the author the piece shown here, click on the image and go to the minute 12,10 and on to follow
We do not speak of the allegations of lack of style or even blasphemy I have rained down on him for having ironically stated that it was better to read Play Boy certain books instead of misleading Cristina Siccardi, so pedestrian that false facts and historical situations to reach a doctrine adulterated, then ideological. His attempts to manipulate the figures of St. Pius X and Blessed Paul VI to legitimize the serious errors Marcel Lefebvre, would be comical if it were not tragic. We take one of the many pearls of this writer, obviously public and documented, then heard from his lips by all our readers:
"Monsignor Lefebvre was a knight without fear and without reproach with a force that was definitely not human, he acted like he could act during a Sant'Atanasio Arianism, acted as a St. Catherine of Siena, which alone has faced the Popes […] this is when Monsignor Lefebvre becomes the champion of the most important things, of the most essential, that is, a champion of faith, in the sense that defending Mass defends the faith itself […] Monsignor Lefebvre acted so much love for Jesus Christ and then for the Church and for the Pope […] Ecône was a place where you really can defend itself by bombing liberal, modernists, relativists and where it was possible to keep the Tradition ".
It was the face of these delusions fanta-Catholics I claimed to be a thing less serious and misleading reading Play Boy instead the books of some people unfortunately taken for good by many believers of Christ, although of course, a few lines later, clarifying the obvious paradox - which as such was already explicit in and of itself in my statement - I invited you not to read this magazine in which there is nothing edifying, but this was not enough to appease certain minds.
Cristina Siccardi during a conference: to his right, the theologian Brunero Gherardini, to his left, the theologian Serafino Lanzetta FI.
Faced with all this my logic and my way of acting may be contestable. But I believe that these people who always take terribly seriously, that behind their aura of formal education and gallantry sow such errors, should be taken just around a sort of duty Catholic. Because when you compare me seriously and “valid” arguments a Lefebvre to St. Athanasius of Alexandria who struggle against Arianism, as did the Siccardi pontificating at the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, then comparing subliminally Vatican II to the Arian heresy and the Church Fathers who participated to Arian bishops; or when other much more furious declare a heretic and apostate Pontiff a whole Church from an Ecumenical Council; when an eminent theologian elected by these people in their backbone and generous dispenser of various prefaces to their books, plays on the concept of pastoral council ambiguously, though animated by all the best intentions, but for which certain ideologues Lefebvrians not take into account, inevitably you end up giving tools to these characters to finally arrive to say that the last Council of the Church is not dogmatic, but only pastoral, then remove him from authorities, after making use and abuse of Brunero Gherardini, who never claimed similar things, being a great theologian and above all a true man of God.
Giuliano Ferrara and Roberto de Mattei at a conference at the Lepanto Foundation
And before this I can only respond by inviting the people of God not to take anything into consideration and to laugh out loud on similar blunders of practices presented in a serious way as if they were genuine truth of faith. Of course, it should all be done with style and intelligence, especially when you criticize susceptible lords, scholars, noblemen and noblewomen prostrate at Lefebvrians and with an eye to the secret wrung sedevacantists; than on Correspondence Romana, Levied Christian, church&Post-Council, Mass in Latin, from The Gazette devout atheist Giuliano Ferrara, etc… insolentiscono the Roman Pontiff every day. And in the face of these facts I feel free to say that these people are to expire, not that I react to their serious doctrinal errors destituendoli foundation with sacrosanct sneer, as in my opinion we should do with all those that cover their blunders of the seriousness of that nonsense can not in itself have.
The book by Alessandro Gnocchi and the late Mario Palmaro with a preface by Giuliano Ferrara [see who], which followed their famous article: “This Pope we do not like” published in Il Foglio Giuliano Ferrara [see who]
A final example before which priests would that much more mature and wise of me, together with theologians with science much greater than mine, I would explain in what capacity you could and you should take seriously a heretical assertion of this kind, recognizing those who have uttered the aura of serious scholar, so steeped itself of ignorance and arrogance:
"What Bergoglio is demolishing even admirable energy with the Catholic Church, and I emphasize "Catholic", is in deeds and not in opinions. But I disagree with those who say that he does in the name of a Third Vatican Council undeclared and, so, the remedy is to apply correctly the Second Vatican. The disasters that led the Church to the brink of the precipice and many Catholics to lose faith are precisely the correct application of the Second Vatican: not of his spirit, but his letter. I've said it many times and I do not tire of repeating: this Church deserves this Pope. On the contrary, This Pope is the perfect expression of this Church which has less and less of a Catholic ' [full text who].
Alessandro Gnocchi
Statements like this Alessandro Gnocchi is in itself a grotesque theologically, ecclesial and historical. Grotesque thus became in this and only this for the online magazine Levied Christian - Belonging to the Lepanto Foundation - kneeling by now as a devoted handmaid to the worst heresies of Lefebvrian origin, What proved to be Gnocchi and other columnists through their writings that represent a blatant and painful denial of Catholic communion. Then there is little or nothing to talk or to look for common points with sowers and seeders of such poisons that require express severe and unacceptable judgments invalidating an entire ecumenical council, the Magisterium of the Church and the Roman Pontiffs last half century. I do not exclude, however, be mistaken for choosing to act in that spirit that I defined earlier as healthy radicalism Pauline.
Therefore, if the good soul of Massimo Troisi said: "We just have to cry ', I feel for say that before these blunders, the result of real closures and listening to the actions of God's grace, we just have to laugh. The rice is in fact healthy and effective medicine that can help us to support our good faithful ever more lost and confused, urging them not to seek answers to their questions in the books, in articles and lectures of these confused souls who are elected to masters of thought and proper Catholic opinion, and finally taking them for what they really are: comedians extraordinary as unaware of what, then rendered particularly comedians that are their biggest mistakes they take terribly seriously. Because pride, view on the other hand, has implications that are often really hilarious comedians, the only thing is that the superb, this, unfortunately does not know, because pride closes, blinds and removes any healthy Christian and want to laugh and wholesome self-irony.
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Patmos1.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150father arielHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngfather ariel2015-02-07 01:02:012021-08-26 13:41:35Heretics Lefebvrians and virgins vilified
WHAT SAY THE “TRADITIONALISTS” (ABOUT THEM AND CONVICTION IN BLOCK)
My dissent against the father Ariel just about externals, while of course I agree with the complaint of ideological fanaticism and commingling policies found in traditionalist. In which area we are, But, even legitimate opinions and legitimate stances, and I can not deny my strategy theological, that is to judge only the doctrine
Author Antonio Love
the brutal murder of unarmed security guard already on the ground during the attack of terrorists to the editorial department Charlie Hebdo
In my previous article I have already expressed my dissent from the way, in my view unwise, with which my brother Ariel S. Levi Gualdo has treated the subject of blasphemous cartoons of Charlie Hebdo. [see who]. Now, perhaps abusing his patience, I go back to disassociate myself from certain aspects of his way of arguing with Italians members of militant traditionalism; they, indeed, It is not limited to legitimate and indeed necessary criticism of certain ideas but switches to heavy personal references, making the names of some publicists (book authors and editors of newspapers) and even some serious scholars. Everything in the article entitled "We are the change of an era, the Holy Father Francis is necessary to suspend judgment and proceed on the wings of faith” [see who].
Even before these recent events I had published who, on 'Patmos Island, an editorial in which - on behalf of all three editors of the magazine - precisavo one that I thought would be our doctrinal policy, and consequently our editorial line: "Why can not we tell us traditionalists but even progressives" [see who]. The essence of the speech that I made it this: when it comes to matters of faith of the Church and its correct interpretation, We can not dogmatize what is questionable, ie absolutizing what is relative, because in the end is to be put in perspective just what is absolute, that is, the truth of the dogma. As a result, The Island of Patmos should have, in my opinion, on every occasion to reaffirm the truth of the dogma and discern, among many theological opinions that are proposed, those that constitute a legitimate interpretation / application of the dogma from those that are incompatible with the dogma itself. Doing so could avoid taking positions theologically confused, such as to jeopardize the function of orientation to the truth of the dogma The Island of Patmos must have. For "theologically confused positions" I mean those that emphasize beyond measure any legitimate opinion on the Catholic doctrine, eventually take the epistemic quality (negative) of ideology.
Interview with Antonio Livi ed Correspondence Romana. Click on the image to open the video
the, calling Fondazione la mia "Apostolic Union for scientific defense of Catholic truth”, I meant precisely that it was promoting a proper scientific, ie founded on secure principles and guided by an appropriate method. Ideology is exactly the opposite of this way of interpreting the dogma, because it confuses dogma uncritically with questionable, the limited and relative human science with the absoluteness and finality of divine revelation, as it is formalized in dogma, St. Thomas considered a participation 'Knowledge of God and the saints». What forms of ideology, I mean? At these ideological positions that today in the theological debate are contrasted provocatively and I mentioned in the article title: traditionalism and progressivism.
We dell 'Isola we would had to look from appearing supporters of one of these opposing ideology, and explain to all our theological reasons for this distancing. But not passing through the criticism of certain ideas "extremist" denigration of individuals. Because individuals with an idea you never indentificano, let alone with the ideas of a political group, a current of thought. And every person has a dignity that should not be unfairly convolta in the criticism of ideas, His area or cultural environment. Nor should they be criticized, in this doctrinal background, its hypothetical intentions, much less the personal and private facts.
Ariel signigica Lion of God. Ariel's father has a characteristic, he recognized: He likes to poke fun alone …
My disagreement with ArielSo far only externals, while of course I agree with the complaint of ideological fanaticism and commingling policies found in traditionalist. In which area we are, But, even legitimate opinions and legitimate stances, and I can not deny my strategy theological, that is to judge only the doctrine (that is something to be known with sufficient certainty on the part of a believer with theological criterion), and not the conduct, especially if private, of people (given that their intentions and the complex events of their lives are never knowable properly and then do not allow anyone to make certain judgments but only more or less legitimate suspicion and speculation more or less well-founded).
Enzo Bianchi during a conference
I have been faithful to this theological strategy even when I felt compelled, for the preservation of the faith in the people of God, flatly disapprove doctrines that seemed totally incompatible with the dogma (I did it, as everybody knows, denouncing the incompatibility with faith seen in the speeches of certain public figures, including lay people as Enzo Bianchi and Vito Mancuso, Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, and as Walter Kasper, bishops like monsignor Bruno Forte, etc). In this line, I have also worked to promote the Church mutual respect among all the opinions that are compatible with the dogma, whatever the differences in its doctrinal interpretation or historical application. For this reason I refrain from judging what is not doctrine, but practice (pastoral practice, institutional, apostolic etc.), because the practice of individuals is made up of many prudent choices that the individual has to operate in the face of various concrete circumstances and must be guided, precisely, by virtue of prudence: virtues that I want to play in my own work, but about which I have no way to judge the work of others.
Liturgy according to the old order posted
in traditionalist There are opinions and are also recognized legitimate. Let me explain: If the "area" or "current" you can talk, it is because the different actors have in common a certain ideological approach, which consists in considering illegitimate (totally or in part) the teaching of Vatican Council II, because it would have welcomed (totally or in part) instances ideology opposite, that of progressivism or modernism. Hence hermeneutics of Vatican II as a radical "break" with the Tradition, particularly with the decrees of the Council of Trent and Vatican I, with the condemnation of theological modernism by Saint Pius X and the condemnation of "new theology"By Pius XII. From here also the rejection in block of the entire post-conciliar theology and the constant reference to the sole pre-reconcile theology. From there the fact to consider doctrinally and pastorally unacceptable reforms introduced by Vatican II in the Church's life, beginning with the liturgical reform, with the consequent attachment to The old order, considered the only valid way of celebrating the Eucharist. From here finally the systematic critique of the pastoral decisions of the popes of the post-conciliar (Blessed Paul VI, St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI and especially the current pope, Francesco), considered deleterious effects of the conciliar reforms.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
The most extreme positions,in this sense, are those represented by the followers of Archbishop. Marcel- Francois Lefebvre, some of whom come to speak of "vacant" and "Church apostate". Evidently, these extreme positions are not made their, all together, by all the representatives of the Catholic traditionalism, because among them there are also serious and balanced scholars, whose ideas - taken one by one - can and should be appreciated, although not necessarily shared, as valid and legitimate interpretations of Catholic dogma and history of the Church. It is a question of objectively respectable theological opinions, and I, When the opportunity presents itself, I find it quite right to respect them, and sometimes also to express my appreciation. And to those who work with me I suggest you do the same, ie respect these objectively respectable theological opinions. Respect them - I clarify – not for the impersonal context (socio-cultural) ideology which is their humus, but in the personal context of righteous arguments of those who propose.
a valuable historical work of Roberto de Mattei
I do a first example, so to further clarify This my criterion. The historical research of Roberto de Mattei on Vatican II are in themselves - regardless of ideological use that they can do - a record that has a great scientific value. I do not share his interest in pursuing the Council as an "event", because I'm interested in the Council as the Magisterium, regardless of how the conciliar documents have been developed in the committees and voted on in the classroom; but that does not stop me from reading his works without bias and to draw useful indications for the hermeneutic of the Council, that papa Ratzinger leads to recognition in Vatican II a "renewal in continuity of the one subject Church". I not even completely share his strategy of intervention of Catholics in social life in defense of "non-negotiable principles": but I know well that some initiative in civil society must indeed be taken, and my mistrust of the use of certain means (the inevitable mingling with political issues) does not take away my full sharing of ends. This is why not just believe that you find fault in 'Patmos Island without distinguishing between its historiographical considerations (which fall within the limits of legitimate freedom of opinion of Catholics) and its cultural and socio-political (the expediency of which does not touch us of 'Patmos Island to judge).
Anthology of writings by Piero Vassallo Levied Christian
As another example,. Piero Vassallo Genovese is a cultured intellectual, good knowledge of the history of modern philosophy, and he and I are in agreement there on the validity of the "philosophy of common sense" and the critical idealism of theology; why should I refuse his friendship as manifested, when he is dealing with matters unrelated to theology, sympathies for the political right? In addition to not talk (neither good nor bad) political conviction, I should also point to it to public contempt? And what theological argument I should come up to attack? I should perhaps say that the Catholic morals forbids to have sympathies for the right? But the view that we must necessarily be left to be a good Catholic has no theological foundation: It is the classic view of "fundamentalist" (that can be right-wing Catholics, m also left Catholics: just think of the theorists of "political theology" or "liberation theology").
astray …
The "fundamentalists" are theologically astray,because they ignore the complexity of policy issues and the area of freedom that the Church gives to the faithful in the choice of means to operate the necessary "mediation" between the principles of social ethics and the concrete possibility of promoting the common good in the historical contingency. I do so I must limit myself to theological considerations, reminding everyone that in politics there are no dogmas, and the real dogma, what is the basis of Catholic morality, does not oblige the faithful to any contingent political option. The principles of moral theology (and the Church's social doctrine is a chapter of moral theology, said St. John Paul II) indicate the criteria that the conscience of the faithful must follow, applying them with freedom and personal responsibility to concrete historical circumstances in which it has to operate.
the eminent theologian of the Roman school Brunero Gherardini
A third example is that of Brunero Gherardini, theologian of the Lateran and exponent of what was once the famous "Roman School", to which progressives wanted to inflict damnation of memory. Traditionalists however exalted Gherardini because he put at the center of theological discussion of the post-conciliar precisely the notion of "Tradition", without, however, fully understand in its complexity epistemica. I think I've fully understood and not convince me at all (He knows this because we hang out amicably for many years and we exchange opinions on many topics), but nonetheless I recommend to everyone the study of his texts, full of good doctrine and deep piety. In one of them his lyrics he concludes his analysis of the doctrinal documents of Vatican II detecting in some cases the ambiguity: ambiguity as to enable progressive false and tendentious interpretations, justifying their "hermeneutic of discontinuity", namely the argument that the Vatican II would mark a radical rupture with Tradition. But what is the consequence that Gherardini draws from his analysis? Do not indiscriminate rejection of the Council's teachings but rather a respectful and heartfelt appeal to the supreme authority of the Magisterium, dad, to make provision in the way that he believes should be made clear in which direction those ambiguous propositions can and should be interpreted in continuity with the previous magisterium. I thought it right and proper to join this public plea to the Pope, although personally I have always thought that the problem of the ambiguity contained in some Council texts should be solved with the hermeneutical criterion of "analogy fidei", ie assuming that the Church of Christ - only subject permanent in the changing historical circumstances – He never intended to contradict, so that in the intentions of the teaching Church every evolution of dogma is always substantially harmony with Tradition (it is a "homogeneous evolution", as Marin Sola said).
And I could give many other examples, but these are enough. And new dell 'Patmos Island indiscriminately we condemn individuals of a certain ideological area, without saving the objectively positive aspects of their theoretical proposals, we do too ideological operation, and so our work of public theological orientation is to be severely limited.
__________________________
We point out to our readers that the previous article by Antonio Livi was particularly appreciated within the French and has been translated and reproduced in an online magazine which can be viewed by clicking below
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Antonio-Livi-Patmos2.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150Father AntonioHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngFather Antonio2015-02-06 18:24:542021-04-21 00:29:06What about the “traditionalists” (and who condemns them in bulk)
So the West can not oppose irrationalism of a morality derived from the Koran without any mediation theological much less philosophical - thus ignoring the natural law - another kind of irrationalism, to legislation "secular" without God and the natural right, which is precisely the Of the lex aeterna.
Author Antonio Love
I am speaking about the sad events of January 2015 in Paris (the murderous violence of Islamic fanatics and the great demonstration of solidarity with the editors Charlie Hebdo to express an opinion different from that of the other editors of The Island of Patmos. The readers of this online magazine does not surprise you, let alone be offended by this difference of opinions, because we have always said that we wanted to bring every problem topical theological principles of the true doctrine of the Church, i.e. dogma, illustrating it, however with comments and applications which by their nature belong to the field dell'opinabile, there where no opinion necessarily require the unanimous consent. I remembered a few occasions the old motto patristic: “In necessary, Unitas; in doubtful, Libertas; in all, caritas”.
So, without wanting to miss the charity, I express my opinion with all freedom.To be as clear and precise, will enunciate in three points:
1) First of all, I consider "sad events" as the murderous violence by Islamic fanatics as the great demonstration of solidarity with the editors of Charlie Hebdo by French politicians and leaders of many other countries in the Western. Both of these facts - military and ideological - judge them enormous moral gravity, but not as much as it is a third fact, the one that gave rise to the other two, namely the pertinacious publication dissemination of obscene and heavily irreverent cartoons against Islam (with a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad) and against Christianity (with blasphemous depiction of the Holy Trinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Immaculate Mother).
2) The reaction to these cartoons was, by Islamists, of furious indignation, especially for the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, that they believe should not be represented by anyone ever; the most aggressive have resorted to terrorism in France and new waves of violent persecution of Christians (all considered equally complicit in the "great Satan", ie the West) Middle East and Africa, and more and more explicit is the threat to extend the "holy war" to all the West, even threatening Rome, center of Christianity.
3) The reaction to aggression Islamists, by Western, was the exaltation of the alleged indiscriminate freedom of anti-religious satire, to the point that the irreverent cartoons were distributed in all countries, not only with the special editions of Charlie Hebdo (recently in seven million copies, also distributed outside France, in Italy with The daily show) but also with the reckless reproduction by information bodies Catholics, which over everything they preferred to select the cartoons against Christianity rather than those against Islam that had caused the massacre in Paris. The political-cultural magazine Studies, directed by religious Jesuits, has offered to its readers with the absurd pretext of wanting to show that Catholics are not "fundamentalists" and know they also respect the "freedom of satire", laughing gladly of their institutions and their representatives. Even The Island of Patmos, without my being consulted relevant, thought of having to play such horrendous anti-Christian cartoons in support of an excellent article on the subject signed by Father John Cavalcoli. I consider this choice journalistic - despite good intentions, including that of documenting the severity of the facts of which you speak - a wrong choice, because materially constitutes a "cooperation in evil”, involuntary complicity with the sin of others, which in this case - the offense to the Name of God - is even greater sin.
Point out that the problem of how to reconcile freedom of opinionwith the respect of religious institutions and their symbols is a matter entirely secondary in relation to the enormity of the blasphemy act as intrinsically immoral, as an offense against God. Faced with the facts of which we are speaking, a person of proper criterion, and even more a theologian, should not accumulate many socio-cultural considerations but detect what is immeasurably worse than all the rest: that those infamous cartoons Charlie Hebdo contain, among many obscenities and insults irreverent - all despicable things - even curses in the proper sense, ie desecration of the holy name of God, and this is in itself directly and the "matter" of that grave sin from which God warns all men with the second commandment of the Decalogue.
To explain better, I have to remember that "blasphemy", etymologically, mean generically "insult". Now, when the victim dell'ingiuria is only human, it goes against the fourth and the fifth commandment, and the blame more or less severe, according to the dignity of the victim; instead, when the injury is addressed directly to God is blasphemy in the proper sense.
Muslims speak of "blasphemy" even when it is Muhammad, that even they consider God but only his Prophet. And so it is not exactly blasphemy, how to Christianity, the derision of the representatives of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, Including Pope. Not that they are tolerable acts: are desecrating actions against institutions and people who represent the true religion, instituted by Christ Himself. But - I repeat again – the severity of these sins is absolutely not comparable with the gravity of the sin of blasphemy, that is the fault of those who offend the Father, his son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit (and remember that, by virtue of the union hypostatic, also the insult to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother Dio, constitutes a real blasphemy).
the, since childhood, I have suffered so much for the blasphemies I felt around - and since I have felt several Tuscan -, and sometimes reacted with berating some animosity blasphemers. Then, as a priest, I had to take a calmer I contain, imitating the meekness of Jesus. But the offense done to God in public profaning his name and that of his Mother has always gone a deep pain and the Church I learned to personally make many acts of reparation, in addition to the prayers in repair of curses that are recited during exposure Eucharistic. The reaction against blasphemers went quickly into the background, indeed even then there was more. They too are the subject of prayer, asking God not to take account of their sin, "They know not what they do". In short, in front of the blasphemy, a person of conscience suffers for blasphemy because he knows that God deserves not only respect but also acts constant adoration and thanksgiving by all men. No matter, a Christian who is endowed with common sense even before faith, the fact that blasphemy hurt his ego and he feels personally offended in his belonging to a religion. What really counts, when it comes to blasphemy, not the subjective and sentimental but the objective and moral. Because blasphemy is primarily a sin, one of the most severe, because it goes directly against the second commandment of the Decalogue, so trivialized by Roberto Benigni, that is Prato like me and does what it can, poor thing, but they give too much attention and too much money even when wants to laugh with arguments taken from theology.
This is not an abstract discourse and idle: need to understand that almost all Catholic commentators have responded inadequately to unpleasant facts related to "blasphemous cartoons", because they have only ever spoken of respect for religions, for their followers and their symbols. For example, the bishop of Verona, Monsignor Giuseppe Zenti, in an article published in the diocesan weekly, Verona faithful, titled "How do you reconcile the blasphemy with the secular democratic?”, deprecates simply "the cultural climate" that made possible the publication of the "blasphemous cartoons": a climate, specifies the prelate, who is "that of barbarism, in which there is no right of citizenship for the respect of people and their human and religious' [see who]. Another bishop, the Patriarch of Venice Francesco Moraglia, speaking to the Jews said: "There are issues that can not be treated with literary genres like the irony, especially when this is fierce: when the responsibility is public, our words are heavier stones » [see who]. Too little, I say. Most serious of any lack of "respect for people and their human and religious', and even more serious offenses to the ministers of God, is an offense against God himself, God as a person and not as a reality idea of someone or symbol of something else.
Not even Father John Cavalcoli, in the comment to the facts of Charlie Hebdo,seems to take due account of the terrible fact of blasphemy repeated everywhere in millions of copies, but prefers to recommend a greater dialogue between Christianity and Islam, starting from the common faith in the God of Abraham and practicing mutual respect. Even the Holy Father, intervening on the subject, spoke of the inevitable reaction - he calls unjust but humanly understandable - that you can expect when you causes offense to a person, for example, speaking ill of his mother [see who]. Ma, I repeat, here are not in play the "horizontal" relationships among men in human society, but the relationship "vertical" of men with God. If you stay in the line "horizontal" and we are only concerned to determine the manner and the way to protect the honor and rights of some social subject, but uniform, Also in the West, the typical mentality of Islam, where everything is political, and there is no natural law but only positive law established arbitrarily by the Member.
So the West can not oppose irrationalism of a morality derived from the Qur'an without any mediation theological much less philosophical - then ignoring the natural law - another kind of irrationalism, to legislation "secular" without God and the natural right, which is precisely the Of the lex aeterna. In the West, after all the rhetoric defenseless of freedom of opinion and even satire, they wanted to react to the military violence of Islamist ideology justifying violence of satirical newspaper - all told: “I'm Charlie"-. Then, the contingent fact it has gone to theorize the "right" to insult any religion - but especially Christianity, and of course Islam -, proclaiming the "right to blasphemy" or "right to blasphemy ', that French President Holland has included between civil rights and the achievements of freedom that the West has inherited from the French Revolution. Of course, from a point of view merely cultural-historical, Holland is right: The trouble began with the Enlightenment own anti-Catholic, whose representatives, however, were not really atheists (neither was Voltaire). What did the Enlightenment Masonic - outweigh Catholic Enlightenment, which had among its representatives two Neapolitan intellectuals, Giambattista Vico and St. Alphonsus Maria de 'Liguori - was to replace the worship of God with the worship of Political Power. Like this, Jacobins in France devised the solemn enthronement of an image of the Goddess of Reason in the basilica of Notre Dame in Paris, no more than the house of God but exaltation of revolutionary thought. Like this, in the United States, the Pilgrim Fathers did God the flag of independence aspirations by the Anglican Church, ruled by the King of England, and the dollar bill wrote "In God we trust”. Two centuries later, the Nazis were fighting their battle neopagan keeping the motto of the German emperors: “God with us!"... In Conclusion, history shows us the rapid evolution of an operation ideological secularization, at the height of which is not only God is no longer recognized as the foundation of natural law and the logical holder of the right to worship by all men, but it is even denied in his own reality. To operate this substitution, as evidence of an Absolute is inherent in human reason, Enlightenment modern contemporary drew a grotesque cultural regression, making all'idolatria, the deification of the "elements of this world" as named by St. Paul.
First you should set up the Christian societyhistory records companies who practiced the worship of idols of the nation (ancient East) or the cult of the military chief (the two Caesar Roman Empire, to which the Christians refused to offer sacrifice). Modernly, secularist ideology wanted again deify the Political Power (the "State", the "Country" or the "People"). To impose this deification secularism borrows from Christianity the language of the sacred, which in itself makes sense only when referring to God: here is the "civil religion" theorized by Jean-Jacques Rousseau; here is the altar of the Fatherland Savoian after the fall of Rome; here is "the sacred boundaries" of the Fatherland; here is the worship of the memory of the martyrs (in Fascist you spoke of "martyrs fascists', immediately after the "martyrs of the Resistance"); this is the "apostle of freedom" (Joseph Mazzini); here is the "pilgrimage" to the mausoleum of Lenin etc.. The sense of the sacred is past all the political rhetoric: the Sacred authentic, the Holy par excellence, ie God, no longer has any public recognition as reality itself. If it turns evoked, is only to describe "the religious feeling" of some group of citizens, to which the State may graciously grant some freedom of worship.
That being the case, is too little, I said, simply plead, satire against the blasphemous of Western newspapers, respect for the subjective rights of people who believe in God, and that the sole purpose of ensuring social peace. For example, Compass on the Daily 18 January I read an article by Ettore Malnati titled "The offense to religious feeling does not help coexistence" [see who]. I repeat again: too little! Here it is the respect due to God, which undoubtedly exists even if the state secularist says that is not true, that "is not". State secular anti-religious satire, including blasphemy, is only a lawful manner to express rational criticism of a subjective feeling irrational. But the truth is that blasphemy is an injustice, a moral disorder (that is a shame) absolute gravity, because what is being violated, first of all, is the primary law that God has respect, honor and adoration. Propose, as has been done, that the state upholds the existence of a "right to blasphemy" is equivalent to formalize the implicit premise atheistic secular state, his "material constitution": we claim that the State must explicitly assert - without having any authority, neither logical nor moral - that God does not exist, that what some call "God" is only a subjective idea tolerable in private but not worthy of public protection. While I have other ideas, for example, the idea of being worthy of respect and esteem as gay. For this reason we can not absolutely offend nor criticize gays (is the crime of "homophobia") but you can offend God, because God does not exist. Instead, offending a head of state is the offense of defamation, because the head of state exists, and of course the state knows. This is the logic of speech, if logic is. In reality it is not logic but of mere arrogance on the part of, to maintain power, must continue to impose its cultural and ideological hegemony. The state was formed arbitrarily absolute authority, so explicitly considered the source of all truth and moral metaphysics, and therefore legal (who exists and has the right to respect and who is not).
Positive law has legitimacy only if presupposes and respects the natural moral law, starting from the certainty that God exists as the first cause and final end of all, and therefore as universal Legislator. Before, about the offense to the holy name of God, I was speaking of the first and second Commandment. This and all other constitute the Decalogue, which is nothing if not a codification of the natural moral law of the Old Testament. It contains so fully intelligible fundamental moral norms that every man knows spontaneously and is obliged to observe faithfully, as taught by the great philosophical tradition, and also the Holy Scriptures. No need to know the Law of Moses, St. Paul says in his Letter to the Romans, to honor and love God as creator and legislator. Like this, today, we must say that there is no need of a positive law of civil society not to blaspheme. Of course, a modern state Western, who claims to be "secular", not only did not keep the laws against blasphemy that before had been variously formulated, but even impose a law in favor of the "right to blasphemy".
We must react statist ideology, which is one of the most bitter fruits of idealism and remember that it is rather the state that does not exist: instead there are men and women who make up civil society, men and women who, as citizens of a nation are given or received a particular legal form for public institutions (government, justice, defense, tax etc.), and among these there are some citizens who exercise public functions. One and the other (private citizens and public officials) have an intellect and a conscience, and they know what is the obvious reality for all, and from this knowledge base (which in philosophy is called the "common sense") form their opinions, at large, on immediate issues. By the consent of all the evidence of common sense comes in so many different ways to form positive law, valid if in harmony with the will of the people, but first and foremost with the natural moral law.
Those who still have the ability to think for themselvesknows that the metaphysical truth and morality is an achievement that human reason is based on the experience obtained when immediate and universal and then also on critical reflection (the philosophy), which are the foundations of any rational acceptance of divine revelation. Faced atheistic indoctrination state must return to the evidence that God exists, even if those who govern the state does not want to recognize it. Recognizes common sense and philosophy: no true philosopher professed atheism (it showed Etienne Gilson with his book Atheism difficult), and no scientist has ever been able to prove with his tools of investigation that there is no God. An influential Italian philosopher, work in the sixties of the last century, he wrote:
"The route of man to God is presented as the most difficult and the most pressing. Without reference to the Absolute in fact all values remain suspended and the man is exposed to the continuous risk of being overwhelmed by the temporality and of getting lost in the pitfalls of contingency. The various attempts to evade the problem of God atheism in its polyhedral shapes up to contemporary forms of so-called "theology of the death of God", show the dialectic never resolved the drama disconcerting man down here can not draw and possess God, while always felt somehow that they can not live without God " (Cornelius the carpenter, The man and the risk of God).
Atheism State, as that which has prevailed in the West, is conceivable only in a purely political horizon: but not politics as an exercise of power regulated by criteria of justice in sight for the common good, but of politics as a conflict of interest for the conquest or retention of power by an ideological force, economic and military. Such a policy seeking popular support with demagogic speeches, turned to the feeling and not the conscience of citizens; e, when it reaches its goals, here is that the social order is radically compromised through laws which have no connection with the natural right. But laws contrary to natural law are not true laws, have no moral value, but are reduced to bullying, to tyranny, to despotism. No matter, from this point of view, that the form of government is democratic or totalitarian: in both cases it must be recognized that a power management (judiciary, government, parliamentary) ignore the natural law ensures that the political class is reduced to a criminal (huge robbery), as St. Augustine said already at the time of the transition between the Roman Empire and the barbarian kingdoms.
Now, the conscience of a man gifted, precisely, of conscience, will cause it to behave well with God, both in private life and in public, without the need for legal constraints in one direction or another. From the point of view of personal conscience there is no problem. The problem arises when the personal consciousness leads to an interest of public affairs and to take a stand in the face of unjust laws. So many people are the ways to take a stand: with their active intervenento in shaping public, with diversity of form and social criticism (the teaching, the use of mass media), by personal example that it is right or not to observe and, exercising the right to vote when circumstances permit, help to ensure that it is not approved or if already approved will be abolished. Many have done it and are doing it, for example as regards abortion, (question of established law) or public recognition of homosexual unions (question creating the right). But the paradoxical aspects of this opposition of "secular state" is that the Absolute, ie God, is not considered real, while the State, that is related to an idea of society, is considered real. Relativism, denies any absolute - which is impossible for the basic laws of logic - and ends up shut himself in solipsism irrationalistic. Typical irrationalism is making speeches that continually fall in contradiction (the self-denying discourse), and therefore more wrong that are properly senseless, are authentic nonsenses. The "secular state" professes irrationalism as much as "Islamic state", namely the politico-religious ideology of Islam denounced by Benedict XVI in Regensburg speech.
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Antonio-Livi-Patmos2.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150Father AntonioHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngFather Antonio2015-01-27 16:34:512021-08-26 13:40:04Irrationalism intolerant of Muslims the West opposes irrationalism only tolerant of atheists
I had a half-sister after my father got married for the second time. download porn My new sister is a slacker watch porn He neither goes to school nor studies. sex story He skips school every chance he gets free porn That's why his family members are so angry at him brazzers porn Today, while there was no one at home, I thought I would do some exercise in the garden. sex stories Luckily I saw my sister, she didn't go to school and was hiding in her room. rokettube I shouted at him and forced him to go to school turkish porn When I left home, I started exercising in the garden. porno Shortly after, I received a notification on my phone that the alarm at home was disabled. incest stories He persuaded me to have sex by standing in front of me naked and with his provocative speeches..
Manage consent
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
traditionalist. 
placed at the end of one of our articles and have embittered Antonio Livi first [see 
Neither tell me that my arguments are not theological, ecclesiological and pastoral, why use the newspaper to an avowed atheist tied since the nineties to the right and to the American Zionist Movement International, to carry out a campaign of relentless criticism of the Holy Father, for me it is a matter ecclesiological serious and not a little disturbing, because on one hand we have the modernists, the other we have some fanatics Lefebvrians quantities of food from the American ultra right and from areas far from favorable to Catholicism and the papacy. That's why I want to understand why, one part, all these subjects traditio e of the Latins San Giovanni XXIII accuse of having purged the Easter Triduum prayer on "perfidious Jews" - since the term evil, for those who know Latin and not the late nineteenth-century ecclesiastical latinetto, should be read according to the etymology of faithless, implied, in Christ - the other here is the same deal with areas related to the Zionist Movement International. Tell me: I missed something? Am I the inconsistent, or rather they are certain untouchable and not criticism that this gentlemen pretend not to see it for whatever “good” e “right” it causes, enough to have put in association with Giuliano Ferrara and his now vulgar and insolent newspaper “anti-bergogliano”?
temperament, perhaps pastorally crude, perhaps even wrong, leads me to feel that these are our times in which you request the strength and courage of a certain radicalism Pauline free from any form of fundamentalism. But above all we need to start with an idea to familiarize painful as not easy to accept: Lefebvre perhaps are even worse than the modernists. Affirmation latter on which I know does not agree Giovanni Cavalcoli, that for this will not fail to explain his point of view that is certainly compared to my wiser and relevant. In my opinion questionable, while the modernists would like to rephrase the papacy to the specious light of their erroneous ideas of collegiality, falling into relativism dissipating; the Lefebvrians, the papacy, are showing to attack him in every way in the worst ways in the name of “vera” tradition, dell ' “bona fide” love for the Church and the historical method used to arrive at sowing doubts about the legitimacy of theological Peter that have occurred over the last sixty years and their infallibility in matters of doctrine and faith. So if on the one hand you get to relativism, the other leads to a nihilism of gnostic matrix-Pelagian. Needless to say, all this translates soon - and so the penalty sneaky - in serious doctrinal errors unfortunately taken for good because … how could some educated, educated and highly placed gentlemen, Catholics so devoted and loyal to Tradition, say the wrong things? No, some things they say because they suffer for the Church, because the love, because they want to defend it … so, if its wrong, not condanniamoli, we try to talk to them and find all possible points common …
say that before these blunders, the result of real closures and listening to the actions of God's grace, we just have to laugh. The rice is in fact healthy and effective medicine that can help us to support our good faithful ever more lost and confused, urging them not to seek answers to their questions in the books, in articles and lectures of these confused souls who are elected to masters of thought and proper Catholic opinion, and finally taking them for what they really are: comedians extraordinary as unaware of what, then rendered particularly comedians that are their biggest mistakes they take terribly seriously. Because pride, view on the other hand, has implications that are often really hilarious comedians, the only thing is that the superb, this, unfortunately does not know, because pride closes, blinds and removes any healthy Christian and want to laugh and wholesome self-irony.
which - on behalf of all three editors of the magazine - precisavo one that I thought would be our doctrinal policy, and consequently our editorial line: "Why can not we tell us traditionalists but even progressives" [see 
ideology, and explain to all our theological reasons for this distancing. But not passing through the criticism of certain ideas "extremist" denigration of individuals. Because individuals with an idea you never indentificano, let alone with the ideas of a political group, a current of thought. And every person has a dignity that should not be unfairly convolta in the criticism of ideas, His area or cultural environment. Nor should they be criticized, in this doctrinal background, its hypothetical intentions, much less the personal and private facts.
Point out that the problem of how to reconcile freedom of opinion 
