Showing posts with label Eugenio Scalfari. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eugenio Scalfari. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

With the Second Scalfari Interview, The First Interview Reappears on Vatican Webpage

(Vatican) "Another interview of Pope Francis - and a correction by the Vatican" was the headline at Riposte Catholique in France. "New Interview by Eugenio Scalfari with the Pope. New manipulation. New denial by Lombardi” wrote Religion en Liberdad  in Spain. Catholic journalists can only shake their heads these days only  in disbelief about papal "press relations". The recent "interview" with Eugenio Scalfari, the known written  interviews itself, is an elusive sense of déjà vu, you do not want a priori to assume that these media "slips" of Pope Francis  are planned and are intended to be.
The Catholic website La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana (NBQ) wrote in Italy: "Scalfari has relapsed. For the second time he has published a fake interview with Pope Francis. This raises the question of why the journalist chamber which is so eager in other cases, has not yet intervened to condemn this kind of journalism. "But this is at best a side of the coin. What NBQ from inappropriate respect not ventured to ask: How is it that Pope Francis granted an interview for a second time after the experience of the previous year Scalfari? Obviously, Francis was quite satisfied with the “fake” Scalfari  statements attributed to him. Anyway, he is so happy to accept the same "fake" one more time.

What is the True Teaching of Pope Francis?

What actually corresponds to the actual teaching of the Argentine Pope? The officially published statements by the Vatican statements or the published interviews and phone calls in which the former Archbishop of Buenos Aires seems to feel far more in his element?
The first unconventional, rather irresponsible Interview of Francis with the Pope Eugenio was with atheist Scalfari, which was published on October 1, 2013, and printed in Osservatore Romano from full content. Without comment, it was first published on the website of the Holy See, which had  given the impression that it was part of the ordinary magisterium of the Pope. Only after one and a half months and severe irritation was it finally deleted in mid-November.

The Vatican Spokesman is Forced Into Egg Dance

Last Sunday Scalfari published a new "interview" with Pope Francis.  Even without knowing the content, not a few prelates in Rome were pulling their hair at the news.  And with good reason. The interview came into being in the same unusual and irresponsible manner as the first. This time, though, the Vatican responded promptly with a corrective statement. However, Vatican spokesman Lombardi had a breathtaking limbo between different degrees of confirmation and denial, partial acknowledgments and partial denial, accomplishing to simply amplify what the interview already had created: to cause more confusion.

First Interview Has Resurfaced on Vatican Page

Suddenly with the publication of the second interview, the first interview has appeared again and finds itself eight months after its deletion from the website of the Vatican yet again, being  put down under the "speeches" of the Pope. Who would not believe it, you can see for yourself ( here ). In the next few days of the release  will the new interviews  be put there  with the doctrinal statements of the head of the Church? Are the papal interviews ultimately part of the official Magisterium? What is  official reality, and what is real reality? The papal confusion shows its quirky side. Above all, there are creeping circles in the Vatican that support the papal reconstruction of the Church, its practice and thus insidiously, also its doctrine of belief.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
image: Vatican.va (screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMGD

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Benedict XVI. Penned a Critique of Francis Interview

(Rome) Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI wrote an extensive critical commentary on the controversial interview of Pope Francis in the Jesuit magazine Civiltà Cattolic a 19 September 2013.
This was disclosed by his personal secretary and Prefect of the Papal Household, Archbishop George Gänswein  in the context of a broadcast on ZDF on the first anniversary of the election of Pope Francis. Four pages include the critical remarks to that controversial interview. Pope Francis explained himself at the time to the criticism that he is not taking a position on abortion and "gay marriage": "We can not always deal with the issue of abortion, homosexual marriage, and birth control methods. That can not be."  Among the enthusiastic omissions   regarding atheist Eugenio Scalfari about personal conscience as the autonomy of conscience, he stated affirmatively: "Listening to the conscience and  obeying it actually means to choose a thing known in the face of good or evil. And from this decision it depends on whether our actions are good or evil."
When Francis. gave to Benedict XVI the copy of the Jesuit magazine, the interview was already published.  Benedict underwent  a critical  analysis of the interview to a critical and transmitted to his successor the desired criticism "Pope to Pope," a total of four pages with "interesting" comments. What criticism Benedict XVI. directed to the interview, isn't  known to Archbishop Gänswein "naturally".
Archbishop George Gänswein told ZDF television interview:
"When Father Spadaro had then given the first copy of the interview booklet to  Pope Francis, Pope Francis had then given it back and said that you should now bring this to Pope Benedict, and you will see the first page after the table of contents is empty because Pope Benedict should write in anything he has in criticism when he reads it, and then pass on to me or back to me, which I then returned, sorry, I then brought it to Pope Benedict, so now I had only to repeat what Pope Francis had said, so you see Holy Father, here is a blank page, and here is a space for all   considerations, suggestions and  criticisms  and then I will return the packet back to Pope Francis. Three days later he says to me, here I have 4 pages, of course not by hand, but now dictated to sister in a letter and please give this letter to Pope Francis. He has done his homework. So then he says he has read it and has accommodated his  successor's request and had confirmed in fact, yes we say so, some considerations and also made some comments on certain statements or on specific issues, which he means  that,    perhaps what he would have said something elsewhere in addition.  Of course I will not say what, but it was interesting."
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
image: UCCR
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmai.com
AMGD






Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Vatican Speaker Denounces Scalfari and Effects Indirect Critique on Pope Francis

(Vatican) This time   the Press Office of the Holy See immediately answers Eugenio Scalfari's assertion that the Pope had abolished sin. Vatican spokesman Lombardi expressed here a critique of Scalfari that is actually more valid for the Pope.
Last Sunday, the atheist Eugenio Scalfari asserted in his weekly editorial, Pope Francis had sin abolished (see separate report "Pope Francis has Virtually Abolished Sin" - Scalfaris new Christianity, Which God Replaced by I  ). Up until now the Holy See  has held back from addressing  Scalfari.s comments about the unusual "dialogue" between him and the Pope, but this time there was a quick response. Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi denounced Scalfari and his "obvious inaccuracies". "Pope Francis has not abolished sin," said Father Lombardi.
The Vatican stirred this time promptly while they were done last fall after the publication of a letter from the Pope to Scalfari and an interview of the Pope late and very restrained official statements about Scalfari. Vatican spokesman Lombardi told the press: "Scalfari is not so familiar with the biblical-theological."
"Certainly Scalfari's finding  in a long editorial, that the Pope had abolished the sin is not applicable. On the contrary, who really follows the Pope every day, knows how often he speaks of  sin, of our condition as sinners, and especially the message of mercy,"  it is only understood in connection with sin.

Sin and Mercy

Last Sunday, Scalfari wrote that the abolition of sin by Pope Francis was contained in the Apostolic Letter Gaudium Gospel. A finding which was noticed in various media and has been criticized by several Vaticanists. "The fundamental spiritual dynamic, in which also the Pope asserts, is the consciousness of sins and asking for forgiveness for them,"  said Father Lombardi. But Scalfari is not quite familiar with the "biblical-theological field." The general aim was "to see the infinite greatness of God's mercy, and so engage us in this by the mercy and love of God through the experience of renewed Christian life. If someone eliminates the sin, one does not understand the message of mercy any more," says Vatican spokesman Lombardi.

Confused (er) Scalfari? - Father Lombardi Calls for "Dialogue without Misunderstandings"

The Press Office of the Holy See addressed  another glaring error in the  Scalfari's editorial statement: "Another obvious inaccuracy in this article is when Scalfari says that the Pope had canonized Saint Ignatius of Loyola a few days ago, Instead of, as we all know, Peter Faber, the first companion of St. Ignatius of Loyola, while Ignatius of Loyola has been a saint of the Church for several centuries. So I think that one must be careful to continue the dialogue, but   deepened so  that there is no confusion and it is really understood"
Scalfari  is not hurt by the denial.He is basking much more in his success,  that he had enterted into the ring with the previously unthinkable:  the option that a Pope allegedly said the conscience was the highest authority, without any restriction, and abolished sin. 
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
image: Tempi
Trans Tancred Vekron99@hotmail.com
AMGD

Monday, December 30, 2013

"Pope Francis Just Abolished Sin" --- Scalfari's New Christendom, Where God is Replaced by I






(Rome) In his usual Sunday sermon, the atheist Eugenio Scalfari returned in his personal "wire" to Pope Francis, who last summer wrote the well-known left-wing journalist of old Masonic family a letter and granted an interview (see separate reports There is no Absolute Truth? - Pope's Letter Misunderstood by Atheist Eugenio Scalfari and Truth and Belief - The Case of Misunderstanding in Dialogue with Non-believers and Christ is Not an Option Among Many, and Certainly Not for his Deputy on Earth - Why We do Not Like this Pope ). Scalfari claimed yesterday in his commentary once again that Pope Francis had 'de facto abolished sin'.

Scalfari: "Pope has De Facto Abolished Sin With Evangelii Gaudium"

The founder of the daily newspaper La Repubblica refers back not to the direct contact with the Pope, but to his recently published Apostolic Letter. The "abolition of sin," says Scalfari, was included in Evangelii Gaudium. An "abolition", which was done by means of two instruments: on the one hand by equating the revealed Christ,  the Christian God, with love, mercy and forgiveness. And then by granting people complete freedom of conscience.

Pope Francis had raised conscience as the last instance of human action already in his letter to Scalfari and this statement was confirmed in his interview with Scalfari later. The Pope's answers were indeed formulated by Scalfari himself, but the writing was just the Pope's words again. The interview, was initially published on the website of the Vatican, as if it were part of the papal Magisterium, though it has since been removed, but a distancing from the highly controversial, non-Catholic statement has not occurred to date.

Strained Mercy

The renewed insistence by the well-known journalist outrageously appear in the polemics about the authenticity of the papal statements. Scalfari does not give up on the issue of freedom of conscience, he was actually jubilant about the basic message of the papal interviews. In fact, it would have been a historical sensation, if the papal statement had been done. This means that the Pope would make of the past 300 years of his own Church, which with good reason rejected and fought against basic tenets of Freemasonry.

"What can I say except that it's a real mess?" Today writes the daily Il Giornale . "It is pure chaos, if you want to discuss about Christianity, by placing Jesus Christ in parentheses. Scalfari recognizes that the central argument of the Magisterium of Francis is mercy and divine forgiveness. Good: but what need there should be for this mercy, when sin would be abolished? What would God forgive if there is no more sin?"

Scalfari lets the Pope Live, but Christ Abolishes Christ

Scalfari's interpretation, which is regarded to be relevant and most especially raises many questions to the most influential of those distant from the Church who interpret the pontificate of Pope Francis. Most Vaticanists, including Andrea Tornielli, only dare to ask some of the questions in criticizing Scalfari. So says Tornielli that Scalfari, in order to abolish sin would equally abolish the entire teaching of the new pope: "The Pope has referred to himself many times as 'sinner' and very often speaks of the mercy and forgiveness of sins. To know the mercy of God, a merciful God, who is never tired of forgiving, one must be aware of his own limitations, our sin, our weakness, our evil and our need for salvation, forgiveness, love and mercy. Therefore, it requires the awareness that we are sinners, and therefore the exact contrary of that 'abolition' of sin that Scalfari effects to ascribe to the Pope. "

Scalfari's Appeals to Pope Francis - Consent by Silence of the Vatican?

But that only addresses one side. Implicitly, the questions remain to Pope Francis, which Scalfari - by reason of the criteria - had chosen, to write him a letter. In this letter is already the controversial redefinition of freedom of conscience included as a kind of absolute standard. Scalfari reinforced the message in the Pope's interview, which was indeed formulated by him, but previously submitted by him to the Pope for approval. A permission that has been expressly granted by the Pope. Also after criticism of the statement, which is very heavily weighted against a pope in the Church context, to date, no correction was made. Can Scalfari properly invoke to Pope Francis? He does it and as long as the Vatican does not oppose this, it must be assumed that this invocation is done with the consent of the Pope. But this would raise questions of principle of enormous dimension. Because then the question would be standing in space, what Pope Francis ever meant by sin. Similarly, the question of how the apparent contradiction between the statement on conscience with the Pope's actual assertions to reconcile is to proclaim what is laid down in the Catechism of the Church.

Replace God by I

But above all is the frightening abyss taking place in the ambivalent relationship between the Pope and Francis Eugenio Scalfari. To accuse a Pope of heresy is no less abysmal as Scalfari speaks with real and fictional appeal to the Pope about religion and there nothing left but exclude Christ. Both areas are "dangerous", as well as Il Giornale noticed. The atheist Scalfari seems here, "to house a tailor-made, fluid and relativistic Christianity," said Il Giornale. But why does Pope Francis let him act freely. After all, the Pope again declared recently to be looking forward to the next meeting with the Doyen of Left journalism in Italy. Yet in Scalfaris' way God will ultimately be replaced by the ego. Since there is not a God of the atheists, then the I will be deified and the word and the connected idea of God and divinity will be redefined. And what does the Pope say to that?

Text: Giuseppe Nardi image: Tempi Trans: vekron99@hotmail.com

Link to Katholisches...

Edit: a world where journalists attempt to authoritatively interpret and rule on the Magisterium.  Listen closely to them, they are more anxious about what Catholic doctrine means than most clergy, and are deeply upset that people are still believing Catholics.  Didn't Vatican II do away with people like you?

AMGD

Saturday, November 23, 2013

"Who in the Catholic Camp Makes Common Cause With the Enemy?" Palmaro and Gnocchi After the Telephone Call of the Pope


(Rome) The traditionalist legal philosopher Mario Palmaro, upon whom Pope Francis bestowed a phone call on All Saints Day, and the journalist Alessandro Gnocchi, deal in their recent essay with the criticism of "Denzinger", which has been in vogue. It refers to the "Enchiridion Symbolorum" which is first published in 1854 by Heinrich Denzinger, Würzburg dogmatic theologian, as a collection of the most important teaching documents of the Catholic Church. Palmaro and Gnocchi distinguish a deep-seated aversion to this dogmatic precision, which always distinguished the Church, and considered the reasons for this aversion. The starting point here is the interview that Pope Francis had granted to the atheist Eugenio Scalfari, now deleted from the Vatican website. It is an interview that caused a lot of confusion by its content, by the uncritical absorption in some Catholic circles, by defending it against internal Church criticism and not least, because of the way it was handled by the Vatican, such as the statements of Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi and the full publication without comment by the Osservatore Romano and the website of the Holy See. The two Catholic journalists were sympathetic to the recent criticism of Pope Francis in the "Spirit of the World". Consequently, however, those who make "common cause with the enemy" in the Catholic camp should also be called out by name, who makes the Catholic camp "common cause with the enemy," according to the invitation to the Pope, because the confusion is great that many Catholics no longer know what is actually Catholic and no it is hard to distinguish friend from enemy any longer. So it shall be, that Catholics, often without realizing it, defend uncatholic positions against other Catholics who hold to the Catholic doctrine.

Pope Francis thanked Mario Palmaro for the criticism that he "needs" in a telephone conversation. Radio Maria Italy had dismissed the two Catholic journalists for their comments critical of the papacy. Whether they will be reinstated after the Pope's call, is not known. Program Director Father Livio Fanzaga justified the expulsion in recent weeks several times with counter criticism of the "Denzinger-Catholics".

Palmaro and Gnocchi's essay appeared on 20 November in the daily newspaper "Il Foglio". The intertitles were chosen by the editors.

The "Denzinger" and Half-Worldly

by Mario Palmaro and Alessandro Gnocchi

It was recorded "with joy," as is customary in the Church today, defended without ifs and buts, hermeneutisized as needed and eventually deleted from the website of the Vatican, where it was published for one and a half months: the discussion of the interview Pope Francis gave to Eugenio Scalfari. It was established with a simple click on the file. It is reliable as a whole, said the director of the Vatican Press Office, Father Lombardi, but not in some single site, even if the controversial passage on the conscience is "completely compatible with the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

"Broker no Horse Trading with God's Faithfulness" or the Church as Equidistant Mediator Between God and the World?

Although it is now stored in the file folders for a mere chronicle of events, the incident remains an indicator of a degree of confusion, which is too much even for a field hospital. It's strange that no one asked the question before, and as a precaution, if the interviewer of the Voltaire-press was a patient who came to be healed, or a not particularly well-camouflaged poisoner. Seeing what the concern of the secular interlocutor was, is a question that referred to as fundamental by Pope Francis himself in his sermon in Santa Marta last Monday. Expounding on a passage from the Book of Maccabees, the Pope warned against using the faithfulness of God to engage in horse trading, because the spirit of the world negotiates everything. But the actual state of the postmodern Church has presents itself for decades more as a neutral place for mediation instead of a fortress which is determined to resist the world. It seems to be a place where many complacent standards, methods and tools to use with which both the flattery of the world are understood also as the complaints toward the Church.

The tension of a justified rigor, which under Benedict XVI had begun to return and along with asceticism and prayer protecting from the siren songs of the world, seems to evaporate. Today, it is sufficient to call the razor-sharp but loving precision in memory, with which the Church is always expressed to faith, doctrine and morals, to be disparaged as the ideologized specialist of the Logos. Woe to those who dare to mention the great work of a deserving pioneer of dogmatic theology of Henry Denzinger: he is immediately accused of wanting to replace the gospel with the Enchiridion Symbolorum, that crystal clear compendium of the main texts of the Magisterium, which should serve as a dam, where the world challenges, provokes, negotiates and corrupts. Constantly updated over the decades, the "Denzinger" is named after its first editor, one of the safest points of reference for those who want to know and practice the always valid thinking of the Church. But he is not liked. He irritates and annoys.

Aversion to "Denzinger"? Karl Rahner Knows Why

To find out the reason for this aversion, it is sufficient to read Wikipedia. In a pathetic single line it says in the Italian version: "The great fundamental theologian, the Jesuit Karl Rahner, warned students and scholars of the danger of a reductionist, Denzinger theology." When you consider that the inventor of the theory of the "anonymous Christians" has replaced St. Thomas Aquinas in the Church of today as Doctor Communis, the general dislike of the "Denzinger" of course becomes understandable, which is a severe judge against anyone who the likes to abandon it for some quite personal encounter with the Gospel. Somehow, the issue of personal conscience is coming back to the surface, which Rahner, a brother of Pope Francis, that concepts are believed with difficulty that has been made into a ​​school without a doubt and that: Everyone follows his own conscience, whether it because he thinks he has to be Christian or non-Christian, or because he thinks he's an atheist or a believer, such an individual is accepted and accepted by God and can reach that eternal life, which we call in our Christian faith, the professed goal is for all people. In other words, the grace and justification, the unity and communion with God, the way to have eternal life, everything is just a hurdle only people's bad conscience.

Before the Gospel such a thought can't be anything else, than a revision shying away from the compelling austerity of "Denzinger", which is the compelling austerity of the Church. The Catholic Faith can not just be settled by a personal encounter with the Gospel itself. The Dominican Roger Thomas Calmel explains the why in the "Short Apologetics of the Eternal Church": "There is a strong interaction between the Scriptures and the Conciliar texts and the Catechism. So we change from the reading of the Old and New Testaments to the definitions of the Councils or the popes in order to understand the exact content of the true meaning of the holy texts. Then we return from the Councils and the Catechism back to the Scriptures to never lose the living, concrete, supernatural, inexhaustible text from the eyes, the necessary precision and the depth of the mystery is expressed in the texts of the Church's Magisterium."

Truth of Faith Incomprehensible for Modern People?

The war against the "Denzinger" and thus against the harmonious exposition and concretization of the eternally valid teaching of the Church, has come a long way. It is no coincidence, says Rahner, that the "pronouncements of the traditional faith are not suitable to a large extent, at least as regards the first and most important thing: the proclamation of the faith." Specifications such as "God consists of three persons" or "we are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ," were "for the modern man simply incomprehensible". They would convey the same impression as the mythology of a religion of yesteryear. According to the Jesuit theologian, Jesus, who Lazarus was raised from the dead, has the same taste for modern man as Heracles, Hydra, or Theseus, who defeated the Minotaur. Therefore, nothing else than to reform the Annunciation remains, to adapt to the wavelength of modernity and to transpose the words for the needs of the new audience.

Giuseppe Siri, a cardinal, who was elected pope, grasped the question with a brilliant clarity when, he wrote in "Gethsemane": "With the beginning of secularization the great death began: the world contains the forces for full development of the human and is also the environment in which the purpose of human life must be achieved, and it would therefore be sufficient to abolish the distinction between the sacred and the profane, between the Church and the world." The diagnosis was thought to be acquiescence, as confirmed by Edward Schillebeeckx, who said in 1970: "In Christ, it is now possible to say Amen to the reality of the world and to consider it as a cult, because since the appearance of Jesus the perfection of God lives on earth."

Church as a Field Hospital: But in Effect, There Are The Doctors Who Cure the Patient and Those who Euthanize Him

If the world is the object of the new cult, it is obviously impossible to encounter her in any conflict. The American bishops, who resist Barack Obama, so of course do not follow Rahner and Schillebeeckx. But hundreds of Jesuits with their Catholic universities and hundreds of rebellious nuns say Amen to the U.S. President and perform the worship of the world. The real problem of the field hospital, it is therefore to identify and distinguish who it distributes the salutary medicine and on the other hand who euthanizes the patient.

If it is true that the worldly spirit even tempts God's faithfulness to negotiate, as the Pope said in his homily, then you should also have the courage to say who makes common cause with the enemy in the Catholic camp. It is not possible to point the finger to the flattery of the world, but to tolerate Rahner, who says: "With the progress of the history of grace, the world will become more independent, mature, profane and must think to realize itself. This growing historical worldliness (...) is not a misfortune that obstinately resists grace and the Church, but in the way grace slowly realizes itself in creation."

In the wake of ambiguous and obsessive "primacy of the word" and the Lutheran sola fide, the church has come so far that it is reflected in the perverted horizon of Pelagianism, denies the sin and celebrates the world.

The result is in any case a weakening of tradition and its mission as Mater et Magistra. The free conscience, subjectivism, the sola scriptura, take control and undermine the importance of the bishops and the Pope. The logical framework of this operation is, however, feebly expssed because it is tradition that precedes the word and defines it. It is the Church that determines what the Holy texts are and how they are to be interpreted. A fact that makes it ultimately impossible to label Christianity as a "religion of the book," a misunderstood term that has entered from Protestantism to the Catholic Church. The church is historically and logically in written advance and therefore, Cardinal Siri said, "whoever makes tradition subjective, undermines the Scriptures."

The Eternal and Unique Beauty of the Catholic Church

The eternal and unique beauty of the catholicity consists in the ability to put together all these elements and harmonize. In the constant tension between reason and mystery, between worldly desire and heavenly, there is an impression in patience, in which the magmatic and formless creature prays to rise again like a butterfly from pupa. For to know the doctrine, he is called to love and follow by one agrees with its forms and definitions, and she accepts. There are prayers according to formulations that were formulated by unfathomable inspiration, but with precision, from others. Then it fulminates, away from feelings, digressions, unnecessary speeches and without one iota too much, what is granted by the happiness on this earth, a whisper, a practice and life instead of prattling: "Whoever gives many speeches does not benefit the soul", teaches the Imitation of Christ, "but a good life gives strength to the spirit".

The Annunciation to Mary by St. Luke the Evangelist, would not produce in the praying soul the same tension for the God bearer, as St. Ambrose preached, had not the Council of Ephesus in 431 so permeated and defined the truth in teaching the Virgin as Theotokos, Mother of God. There it is, if anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth and the Holy Virgin is therefore Theotokos because she gave birth to the incarnate, Who came from word of God according to the flesh, let him be anathema. The Christians loved nothing more than this clarity. "All the people of the city waited from morning to evening on the decision of the Holy Synod," says the Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who was instrumentally involved in bringing about the decision. "When we stepped out of the church, we were escorted to our accommodation. It was evening, the whole town was illuminated, women went ahead with incense. Those that flew to His name, the Lord showed His omnipotence."

To those who read it, who read it in a loving interaction with Scripture, which is told in "Denzinger" these testimonies of history and thus nourishes the righteous life, which in turn nourishes the spirit. This is the life of the Church, which flows through the centuries and gives them shape, it is the tradition, which always anew and imperiously, knocks on the soul and calls it to make a decision.

There is no Alternative to the Fight Against the Spirit of the World

There is no alternative to the fight against the spirit of the world. The temptation, even to negotiate the faith and faithfulness of God, one can only oppose the immutability and eternal validity of the Magisterium. For its entire life, the church has done this by disputing the world of time and space, the two dimensions in which tradition unfolds. The definitions that are collected in "Denzinger" were passed without change over the centuries, they came up with no change to the farthest ends of the earth and of faith. These pages, which you can so easily purchase in bookstores today, put the most adventurous way back through all the continents, as Arold Innis told in his epic work of Empire and Communications (Oxford 1950). They traveled on parchment, "heavy support", suitable for the preservation of unchangeable and eternally valid religious truth as opposed to what went on papyrus and paper, "ephemeral carriers", as they are preferred in secular bureaucracy, transitory and illusory.

Thus the Church of Rome has announced the kingdom of Christ and won from soul to soul for souls of simple and more sophisticated intelligence, but all require the same food. If the Blessed John Henry Newman had not seen the truth expressed in constant statements in space and time, he would never have had the strength and the desire to leave the Anglican community in order to belong to the Church of Rome. In his Apologia, explained the Cardinal, as he only made ​​the big move back home when he became aware that the arguments of the Anglicans against the Council Fathers of Trent were the same that were also raised against the Fathers of Chalcedon, and that to condemn the popes of the 16th century, meant to also condemn the Popes of the 5th Century. The drama of religion, the struggle between truth and error was always the same. The principles and procedure of the Church today are the same as those of the Church of that time. The principles and procedure of the heretics of that time are the same as those of the Protestants of today. "I have noted with horror," said Newman.

But the Church can not have a soul alone before a truth, which could frighten. Each offers them the strict and gentle caress of the Rite. The tradition of the people is becoming through a sacred poem, in its catholicity, which has its heavenly expression in the Eucharistic Celebration as Domenico Giuliotti writes: "It is the Holy Mass, and not the Divine Comedy, which is really sacred', applied to the heavens and the earth have on hand (...) God, the Trinity, and all the angels form the argument. The conversion, which renews the Incarnation, is the highlight of this immense mystery. And the priest is at the same Thaumaturge and Poet". The radiance of the heavens to the earth, tradition and liturgy are almost consubstantial even in the method by which the people have contributed to their formation. While one is the repertory of thought, purified from all that is purported not to be definitely divine, the other is the composition of gestures and words unchanging, free from all that is human.

The Church has always Forgave the Sinner. Forgives Sin Today?

There are two approaches to the same world where everyone always gets what is due to him, wherever he is located and in whatever age he lives. On earth there is nothing fairer. John Henry Newman explained this with gentle precision in his novel Loss and Gain (London, 1848), when he describes the thoughts and impressions of the young main character who attends a Catholic Mass for the first time. At that time, the same doctrine and the same liturgy were good for all, for the saints and for sinners, for the living and for the dead, for the Romans and the barbarians. There was still not that complaint, which Nicolas Gomez Davila should perceive later: "The Church once forgave sinners, now It has decided to forgive sins."

Introduction / Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: publisher / Polis (assembly)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

Link to katholisches...

AMGD

Friday, November 15, 2013

Controversial Pope-Interview by Eugenio Scalfari Deleted from the Vatican Website

(Vatican) The interview by atheist Eugenio Scalfari with Pope Francis has been deleted from the official website of the Vatican. On the 1st of October 2013 by the newspaper La Repubblica published an interview which sparked some incomprehension and violent criticism among some Catholics to the Pope's statements, which are contrary to the Church's teachings or are at least ambiguous in their formulation. The crux of the criticism was, among other things, the statement of Pope Francis on the autonomous conscience ("Everyone has their own idea of good and evil"), and the rejection of conversions ("proselytism is a giant stupidity", "I do not want to convert").

The interview was shortly afterwards completely reprinted and accepted by the semi-official newspaper of the Vatican, the Osservatore Romano. In addition and without comment, it was published on the website of the Holy See. Thus there was the impression that the interview is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Pope, which is now precluded in the deletion.

What remains are a half month's unnecessary confusion about the authority of this interview. What also remains is the self-inflicted confusion by the interview of the Pope - as is clear now - was as a private person. This leaves the question of whether a pope ever give an interview as a private individual and to make statements. His predecessors seem to have had good reasons not to do so. The Scalfari interview has confirmed it.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi Image: Una Fides Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com Link to Katholisches... AMGD

Saturday, October 5, 2013

Why Canonize a Pope Whose Teaching Office You Contradict?

(Rome) Recently the Catholic art and cultural critic Francesco Colafemmina posed a provocative question recently in response to Pope Francis' interview with atheist Eugenio Scalfari. This refers to the canonization of Pope John Paul II by Pope Francis. Colafemmina refers to the encyclical Veritas Splendor, which John Paul II published on the 6th of August in 1993 in the fifteenth year of his pontificate. The cultural critic sees in the statements of Pope Francis on conscience an open contradiction to the previous church teaching.

Specifically, he cites as an example, paragraph 32 of the encyclical said. The full text of the encyclical Veritatis Splendor can be found on the website of the Holy See. The statements of Pope Francis can be found in the post Sandro Magister: Turning and Breaking of Pope Francis - Gap Between John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Excerpt from the Encyclical Veritatis Spendor of John Paul II in 1993 on the Conscience:

32. Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to "exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of values". This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one's conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one's moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and "being at peace with oneself", so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment.

As is immediately evident, "the crisis of truth" is not unconnected with this development. Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person's intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature.

These different notions are at the origin of currents of thought which posit a radical opposition between moral law and conscience, and between nature and freedom.

Text: Fides et Forma / Giuseppe Nardi
 Image: Fides et Forma
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
 AMGD

Link to katholisches....

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Papal Dyarchy in Discourse With Atheists? Kulturkamp of Benedict XVI.,



(Rome) The daily Il Foglio addressed recently the unexpected letter from Benedict XVI. to the atheist Piergiorgio Odifreddi. A letter brings the retired Pope back from his self-imposed retreat in the current confrontation between an aggressive atheism and Christianity. One can't speak of "Retirement" of a Pope anyway. The commentary with which Benedict XVI. replied, was addressed to the militant Church opponent Odifreddi, differing from that of the reigning Pope. The question is how the unusual situation of two living popes who act in the same discourse is to be classified. Is it a supplement or an abnormal dyarchy? The historian Roberto de Mattei had doubts (see separate report), whether it would be good, so to speak, for two popes to act simultaneously, even though one is reigning, and the other an emeritus pope. Il Foglio said in the letter to Odifreddi that the actual reason for the resignation by Benedict XVI. visible. But then things had gone differently in the conclave, as originally designed by the German Pope. A contribution to the discussion.

The letter, in which Benedict XVI. Lambastes Odifreddi, Poses the Real Reason for his Resignation

"Very few people in the world, Eugenio Scalfari is one of them, can understand the surprise and emotion that one feels to receive unexpected letter from the Pope at home." It could also just take note that within two weeks, the Pope emeritus had also written an atheist at La Repubblica in secret and watched the effect it would have. One could joke about Emeritus miracle, given the feelings with which Piergiorgio Odifreddi has received the postman. One may note, that miraculous contained in the (current) media triumph of the papacy, but maybe just something artificial. One could also determine that something is overdrawn in the way La Repubblica thrilled at the papal letters, but they were judiciously published and can comment more or less intelligently.

If you read Pope Ratzinger's intelligent lashes against Odifreddi, however, after Francis had lovingly massaged Scalfari's conscience, one might also suspect the two play the game from the good and the evil Pope, one caressing, the other skinning. But it is not.

One may note that the Pax Journalistika between La Repubblica (and virtually all mass media in the world) and the Vatican began the moment when the ruling bishop of Rome decided and signaled that he is withdrawing from the harsh terrain of cultural struggle with the secularization, and instead, prefers a dialogue that emphasizes the freedom of conscience and no longer sits on the bayonets of the doctrine and the dogma (a position that however the Pope Emeritus demands Odifreddi). The crucial turning point was the first meeting of Pope Francis with the press, as he at the end of the attending journalists, "respect" only "silently" blessed.

In view of Roman Catholicism, the resistance (after Protestantism has ceased for some time to be an oblique counterpart to the modern and surrendered without much resistance), and now it appears to be crumbling, the media creates cheering for Pope Francis as a golden bridge, that it must be built for the surrender of the Catholic Church. But even so, it is not.

You could say a lot of things, by varying slightly between the important and the less clearly wrong. The key point is quite another, for whoever wants to see it. The letter of Benedict XVI. to Odifreddi is written in a tone of relaxed severity. He grants the opposite as far as possible out of academic courtesy, but then the blows are mercilessly struck. Benedict XVI. attacks his opponent on the field: "In your religion of mathematics three basic themes of human existence remain disregarded: freedom, love and evil"

All this means two things. That Ratzinger, freed from the burden of Peter, has become again as he always wanted to be, an intellectual and theologian, a thinker who is freer than it is intended for him by others. Now that he is no longer a Pope, he takes back the freedom of a tone of voice that had to suffer from the continuous bombardment of the world. This clearly also points to the dark side of the same coin. That Benedict XVI. no longer felt the power of being able to withstand the highest position in his supreme authority and Church government. The collision with the post-Christian, secular culture of the West, however, he has still grown very well into his role as a theologian. The resignation was an admission that would have been required the energy and power of another for the post that he had not. According to him, a pope should come who can take the same weapons for the same battle, but with a different momentum, force and vigor.

But instead of this, a pope has come to the scene and stage, to change whole theater even more. The Cardinals had understood the resignation of Benedict quite differently than he. As he wanted to pass on to younger hands, so the fight would continue with renewed vigor, some Cardinals saw a chance to disengage from combat. Had Benedict XVI. looked closely, he would have noticed that some Cardinals had not fought faithfully at his side, but at best are "heroic" in Rome for the "all'armi" - called to arms, but exchange the Catholic armor at home with the staid street clothes where political and cultural arrangements are reversed.

The new pope turns toward modernity to another discernment. A little naive, a little smart, he avoids it, to bring them into the field of fire. He is differently cultivated, even Ignatian. We'll see how it goes. Anyway, it would have been interesting to experience a Benedict XVI. on Peter's throne, who responded with such intellectual looseness, but the answer all of the Odifreddis this world and the friends of the false and fraudulent gods who attack the Church, and forced on to fight on their own terrain, where the debate is to take place and the Odifreddi now acknowledges: "The search for the truth."

Text: Giuseppe Nardi Image: Wikicommons Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

Link to Katholisches... AMGD

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Conscience Instead of Penance? Who is the Atheist Eugenio Scalfari, Whom Pope Francis Wrote?


Eugenio Scalfari is former editor of the left-liberal daily, La Repubblica , who comes from an old Masonic Family, is presented by the Catholic Culture and art critic Francesco Colafemmina apposite quotes from various articles about Pope Benedict XVI.. They provide a good overview of Scalfaris' relationship to the Church, which he only perceives as an institution, with the question as to whether it exerts influence for or against his Masonic sense, while he himself is devoid of faith.

Whenever possible, Scalfari, who was and is a senator, was awarded by the Left Democratic president with the honor of a senator for life, he engages on the forefront against the Church. Pope Francis wrote him a lengthy letter exciting letter, but it contains some doubtful passages. See the post there is no absolute truth? Misunderstood letter from Pope to Eugenio Scalfari and atheists. (Coming up)

Scalfari? Who?

by Francesco Colafemmina

That one, yes exactly that Eugenio Scalfari who wrote on the 2nd December 2007 in Repubblica:

Benedict XVI. does not like relativism and that is understandable for someone who manages the absolute truth (namely his). There is nothing to say to that. Sure, the Church frequently changes her mind about sin and sinners. That is human. If you read her story, you realize that she too is immersed in relativism. This too is human.
.

Not satisfied with this superficial judgment, he expanded his comment on the 13th of January 2008 as always in Repubblica :

Apart from the obvious political and cultural insubstantiality of Pope Ratzinger, who is behaving since Regensburg today as a pupil of this or that dignitaries of his court, where he directs the rudder according to the suggestions that are given to him by those who he just consults from time to time, there is in the Church and among Catholic laity, more than ever, a deep unease. The Church of Benedict XVI., but also that of John Paul II, doesn't just work to come into line with the modern culture and modern society. That is the real issue, which should provide all those concerned with the relations engaged between the ecclesiastical society and secular society in the early 21st Century.


On the 22nd of October, 2009 in the journal Espresso he expressed himself again:

The popes also represent a phenomenon in themselves. They were very great, mediocre, vicious and exemplary. I think the last ones were John XXIII., Paul VI. and Pope Wojtyla. The current [Benedict XVI.] is a moderate theologian who can mourn his predecessors.

And on the 22nd of April, 2010 also in Espresso he makes the following considerations:

The Second Vatican Council represented the extreme attempt to consider the Christian message as a leaven, which is implanted into modern society, according to a pluralist conception of society that preserves the dignity of the people regardless of their religious beliefs. The rights and obligations of the person, his liberty, his responsibility, the moral root, the charity as opposed to selfishness and the will to power. This vision provided the hierarchy and the primacy of the institution in question. Therefore, the Second Vatican Council was initially slowed and then reinterpreted. The bishops were returned to the hierarchy, restored the balance in a sign of continuity. The five years of Benedict XVI. has been this important. The scandal of pedophile priests was appreciated by the Pope, addressed, albeit in belated severity, but he did not address the fundamental issue and has not asked the key question: Is the church the place where the message of Christ is applied or is it the institution managed on behalf of the power of the hierarchy?

On the 27th of May, 2012 he finally delivered his most definitive blow in Repubblica:

Benedict XVI. is not a great pope, though not lacking in intelligence and education. He is not an actor, but rather the opposite. Wojtyla had a great wardrobe because everything looked great on him. The wardrobe of Ratzinger, however, is campy, because the Pope is even campy, how he dresses, how he speaks, how he goes. He writes well, already, his books about Christ are read, his encyclicals are not without holes and also some of his speeches. His reassessment of Luther was surprising and some hope of progress toward modernity are contradicted by his operating decisions, of his removal of Sodano from Secretary of State and Bertone's appointment: from mediocre to bad. Bertone: is a Ruini without the intelligence and flexibility of the former vicar and former president of the Italian Episcopal Conference. The hierarchy has again become powerful, but broken into many pieces. Ecumenism is now a prematurely wilted flower. Benedict XVI. has again completely excavated the scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas with many greetings to Origen, Anselm of Canterbury and Bernard. Augustine seemed one of Ratzinger's ideals, but which Augustine? The Manichaeans, the coadjutor of Ambrose, or the author of the Confessions? Augustine was in a lot, even for Calvin, to Jansenism and Pascal. If he really wants to say something up to date, Pope Ratzinger would then initiate the beatification of Pascal, but I am aware that in the world of Bertone, the Roman Curia and the current congregations, that would really be a radical gesture towards modernity. They will never do it. The campy pontificate will continue as long as it can, but then there won't be a deluge, but a rain over a marsh full of frogs, mosquitoes and some wild ducks.


Finally, he cheered on the 17th of February after Benedict XVI. had announced his resignation:

And finally, the process of secularization of the entire West, and especially Europe and North America. None of these problems was solved by Benedict and that is the real reason that has led him to his sensational resignation. This decision has violated the sacredness of the office, it has exposed the lobbying nature of the hierarchy and has weakened the role of the Pope and strengthened those of the Conciliar Church. The Council will, from now on, be the highest authority, the conversation with modernity is likely to revive a church as a minority, which represents fewer plastered dogmas in ethics.

Text: Fides et Forma / Giuseppe Nardi
 Image: Fides et Forma
Translation: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...