4
replies
Comments are closed.
The website of this magazine and the editions take name from the Aegean island in which the Blessed Apostle John wrote the Book of the Apocalypse, isola also known as «the place of the last revelation»
«God revealed the secrets of others ALTIUS»
(in higher than the others, John has left the Church, the arcane mysteries of God)
The bezel used as the cover of our home page is a 16th century fresco by Correggio. preserved in the Church of San Giovanni Evangelista in Parma
Creator and editor of this magazine website:
MANUELA LUZZARDI
Dear Father Ariel,
I feel there is much truth in what you wrote here. Even about what we could call “reception malignant” the Motu Proprio “Popes”. In the latter regard, however, allow me a brief reflection. It seems to me that the misappropriation of S. Messa V.O. by paralefebvriani and paralefebvriane (aware or not of being such) is at least in part be attributed to the resistance – active or passive – that the Motu Proprio has met with most of the dioceses. Do not think that the right way, smarter and far more effective to subtract the old Latin rite to ideological manipulation that have operated certain bad actors should be sought not in the revocation of the Motu Proprio (or the assignment of an application to the discretion of individual bishops), but in its “normalization”? Are, indeed, la S. Messa V.O. is (stata) introduced willingly in most parishes of many dioceses (regardless of the presence of a stable group of applicants), malignant and embezzlement would receive (state) circoscritte, marginalized and finally defeats,…
Dear father Ariel,
I share your view on “correzione filiale” of form.. a powder’ less about substance. Okay that recognizes that love joy have certain not exactly brilliant expressions in terms of clarity, But if this document deserves full acquittal on the line with the constant teaching of the Church, as she says, because four cardinal (she has proven to be estimated) They have felt the need to ask the Pope to confirm his intention, placed in AL, there is actually the suppository continuity?
Let me also make her a note… I found it rather curious that the judgment indirectly expressed about Benedict XVI, evaluating deleterious to the Church his Motu Proprio (liberalizing a missal, aimè, unknown to me). I believe that in this way he ended up denying the profound theological intelligence to the Pope, which I'm sure will not act naive in enacting that provision, but with wise foresight. E’ curious that doing so, ends to recognize a most imprudent to Benedict than they recognize Francis.
These are just observations,These are just observations, maybe wrong!
Kind regards,
Pietro
Dear Peter,
the four Cardinals to which she refers, including the two recently lamented failed us, They asked for clarification – a giusta ragione – because some steps in this post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, if not fully clarified, They could have been misinterpreted and arbitrarily applied, as it happened, for example, by the Sicilian Bishops, Who changed the assumptions in standards.
The problem, and in particular for a big man and preparation acumen as was the Cardinal Carlo Caffara, It was not possible “discontinuity” with the previous magisterium, but the arbitrary interpretations that some might get it, mutating precisely the hypotheses in standards, as did the Sicilian bishops.
The Own motion popes on the liturgy it was not deleterious da parte the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, but was made deleterious to those who immediately have used it, and at present they continue to use it, as opposed tool, division and “political struggle”. They were in fact quite different intentions of Benedict XVI, that we know, from the desire that a great liturgical patrimony as the Missal of St. Pius V would not be lost.
It was unfortunate the choice of Benedict XVI, But it was a changed choice in choosing not happy by those ideologues who now dare to call the Missal of St. Pius V “the missal of always mass” and one born of the liturgical reform and promulgated by Blessed Paul VI as “the missal protestantico nato dal I conciliabolo“.
If these are the good part of the results produced by this motu ProprioO, results that are attributable neither Benedict XVI nor his choices, but the people who have made the use just described, might as well eliminate the problem by removing these people some tools to fight, litigation and contempt.
Therefore, in my opinion, would be appropriate, given the situation that has arisen, the Venerable Missal of St. Pius V can be used at the discretion of the diocesan bishops, with the authority given to them to prohibit use when it should be used and exploited by certain groups of people to fights and quarrels that compromise the communion of the Church, that in Sacred Liturgy it has its own beating heart and center of unity.
As for the two Popes in question, so different from each other, I have no problem telling her, Benedict XVI, committed pastoral and judgment errors as they committed them all popes, saints and doctors of the Church included, but it is not tacciabile reckless spirit; unlike the Pope Francis I, which has certainly valuable in the economy of salvation, ma che talvolta, on imprudence, It seems rather marciarci, from non improvident few answers, sometimes very unhappy, dates during these years to interviewers and journalists, not to mention various homilies delivered in the arm and feeling, why then we, for several successive weeks, we had to try to explain what he meant.
His remarks are not incorrect, but just and legitimate. It's me that if anything could be wrong, and also a lot, in these My ratings, anzi le dirò: I just want to be wrong.
Dear Father Ariel,
I read very carefully and certainly food for thought there are many, what thank. However I dare to express the impression, I hope wrong, that his observations of Mons. Livi are at least partially marked by a certain personal resentment linked to the events spent part of that island. Besides, I think it is justified and legitimate to ask why the Holy Father does not respond with a YES or NO Gospel variously expressed doubts.
Cordially,
Licio Zuliani