Di Cosmo Intini
(Part Three)
The worst blasphemy of secularism is perhaps precisely this: to deny the Church to act in truth "name" and then "of faith" Christ Jesus! Here's how it is still critical: "If his people (the Church) are attributed to the full possession of so confusing it with the spirit world that they are, how can the Church not also apply to the inexorable law of all the institutions 'secular' to fouling is the corruption of their members and, ultimately, I'm overwhelmed? At the beginning of the third millennium, Pope John Paul II has deemed it necessary to ask God's forgiveness for an impressive string of misdeeds of the Catholic Church, all caused by admixture of faith and worldly power. It 'was an admission of guilt to the past but nothing prevents other admissions to assume that tomorrow will be repeated with regard to our present, when it also passed. "[I]
introduce reflections on the primary way by which to understand the "Day of Forgiveness", expressly desired by John Paul II celebrated March 12, 2000, we would be inappropriate and excessive digressions: therefore disclaim there! But we can not remain silent about the distortion and bias with which the subject is here introduced by Zagrebelsky. This request for forgiveness is in fact re-read instrumentally by secularism and taken as an excuse to justify their anti-clericalism, as clear evidence of both the "fallibility" of the Catholic Church as the "wickedness" of its hierarchy, generally prone to collusion of convenience with powerful politicians! "The Church of Christ reduced at the table of a game, "[II] will say elsewhere in the tone of an outraged right-thinking!
But things are not so, because forgiveness is not invoked by the Church as an institute for itself, but for all their children, nor to endorse a kind of "historical revisionism", but for the purification of memory, and even to judge individuals responsible, but to reiterate its general faith in God's mercy
Having thus tried in various ways to deny the Church the actual and lawful possession of His attributes of "unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolic, "just then throws Zagrebelsky finally the mask to reveal the real purpose of aggressive secularism against the Catholic hierarchy: the de-legitimization, through it, the Church in its entirety. He says immediately after: "... we can say that ... the reduction of Christianity is a sin in the Church (sic) against the spirit." [III]
We are still the usual opportunistic contradictions! Christianity can not be reduced to the Church, yet when it suits them, The one recognizes a certain credit related to that: "... (Christianity) over the centuries has caused moments of terrible oppression, now condemned by the Church itself! [IV ] So, with "liberal magnanimity" The sweetener is allowed at least: "What is it? So ... the Church recognize the full right to participate, together with others, the definition of our collective identity, but in moral equality with any other party without the Christian name would justify a claim of incontestable. "[V] Despite
" prudery "shown on several occasions by Zagrebelsky - for example in stating to worry about providing" a solid ground to establish the harmony between believers and nonbelievers that we seek, "[VI] or even later recognized where" open the scope of a broader partnership ... (whose) job are called, at the same time and with the same responsibility to the democratic coexistence, and lay believers "[VII] - if the claim is that it must speak with the secularism that longs to bring the Catholic Church to compromise in the name of a dialogue "which is actually only put partisanship on the basis of their relativism. Since there can never be any dialogue between two parties but only sterile monologue, unless you decide to donate at least advance the same meaning to the terminology to be used and to recognize the same value to the concepts that are put in place, well, a closer examination it is established as a secular democracy by nature a priori attitude "Anti-dialogue," because it allows everyone from the outset the "Babel" legitimacy of each based on their language! Get words to the Church to surrender their spiritual incontestable in the name of such a "distorted" dialogue is not only symbolic in its offensiveness and its arrogance, but it is also indicative of a conscious deception: what it is intended that, with the ' deception, to silence her forever submerged by the "noisy" chaos of relativism!
E 'in this context only, and not otherwise, that can and should be read in fact sharing Zagrebelsky shows that enthusiastic about the ideas of D. Bonhoeffer, Protestant theologian, when these "... the draft outlines of a theology 'without God' or, more precisely, a theology that leaves the God of religion, personified by the historic churches ...: a theology that makes it possible even if, indeed, precisely because the God of religion does not exist (anymore). In the 'age of majority of the world', a world that 'sufficient unto itself' and 'work without God', and no less well than before thanks to the extraordinary development of scientific, ethical and artistic they are even able to exorcise the ' extreme fear of death by treatment of the psyche (sic) - Bonhoeffer says - There is no place for the deus ex machina of religion because it has failed ... this God who proclaim the truth from the cross, the throne of the world, opens the time of faith in suffering God 'who allows himself to kick off the world '(sic) and we know that free and problematically purified by faith, and selfless' demythologizing.' "[VIII]
Given the fact that the" throne of Christ in the world "is the" throne of Peter, "Well "kick God out of this world" precisely equivalent to "undo the Catholic Church"! Words of such a "monstrosity" may not be short uttered only by those who intend to replace Jesus Christ with that famous "prince" who is master of "this world"!
smuggle everything behind a screen to presume what might be the "dialogue" between believers and nonbelievers means distorting the real and most correct meaning that is implied in that term! The question invites us to a words needed clarification in the light of the fact that it "dialogue", whose implementation is, however, still hoped for from his own Church, as is too often a misunderstanding of the topics on which to base its demagogic secularism claims. In this case
demagogy is to ride the incorrect assumption that the "dialogue", in accordance with the principle of egalitarianism and libertarianism "- passed off as" equality and freedom "- represents the democratistic" discussion process in which two opposites are developing a unit to be replaced by a higher time synthesis! However it should be objected that this definition lies in reality the term "dialectic" than that of "dialogue", which means but its etymology with a very different meaning and significance!
there is to say first that the claim of "non-believers secularists", mounted in the wake of statements by the council, having to use right to a dialogue with the Catholic Church on a par with any "dialogue" - an attitude that it is on the other hand more and more specifically accepted by the Church itself, precisely after Vatican II, as vital sign availability of duty to the Catholic faithful of other religions in the light of recognition in the latter the actual presence of "elements of truth and goodness" - in an unlawful postulates by overlapping each other quite different contexts (cultural systems and religions ) betrays, once again, the perpetration dell'inconfessata hoax, which has already mentioned above, made from a conception of democracy idolatrous. But apart from this, although it is true that "the right to freedom of conscience and especially religious freedom, proclaimed by the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, is based on the ontological dignity of the human person and in no way on a non-existent equality among religions and between human cultural systems, "[ix] But neither the non-Catholic religious doctrines nor cultural ones, however erroneous, then the council have the same value. On the contrary, "the affirmation of freedom of conscience and religious freedom does not contradict the condemnation of indifference to and religious relativism by Catholic doctrine, is indeed fully consistent with it. "[X]
So what is the sense with which to understand the desire on the part of the Catholic Church to establish a" dialogue "with those to which nothing can give your teaching that could lead to the slightest renunciation is the centrality of Jesus Christ than himself, as his only true church? Perhaps never before in this case is illuminating to consider the etymology of the term according to it are issues that are more immediately!
Well, it derives from the greek dia-logos, "dialogue" literally means "through, through, because of the word. " Therefore, since in this case the word that is uttered by the Spirit of Truth through the Church of Christ, then it coincides precisely with what usually is expressed with the Greek word "Logos": namely, the Word, the word absolute, the Christ itself. This word is then given by the Catholic Church to be "dialectically" inserted in a debate, but much more precisely to be "announced" and that is what is really the "dialogue par excellence! After all the greek dialegomai verb, the noun from which it originates Dialogos, means precisely "Conversely, speak, reason, explain; while for its part the same noun Dialogos translates, in one of its most ancient meanings, even "hearing"! From this it follows that if ultimately the most proper concept of "dialogue" does not make any sense at all "imposition", however it does not even make any sense of "debatable"!
The Catechism states that the conviction of the Church can and must operate the dialogue with other religions and with non-believers, has its basis in the belief that human reason "can and should know God." [XI ] And also it is said: "The missionary activity (which can certainly also be added the pure and simple testimony, note) implies a respectful dialogue with those who do not yet accept the Gospel ... If it (the believers) proclaim the Good News to those who ignore it, is to consolidate, complement and elevate the true and good God has distributed among men and peoples, and to purify them from error and evil. "[xii]
When secularism (and through it the democratism) stands the principle of dialogue to his chief virtue, however, accusing the Church Catholic is a fault, does in fact a triple anti-Christian hoax: appropriates a value in an absolute sense belongs only to the Church of the Logos; subverts this value must be given a meaning quota that is not the real one, and the "return it to sender", so to speak, by availing themselves as an instrument of revenge and revolt. Behold, what do you think Zagrebelsky: "Democracy is the possibility of research must mobilize against those who reject dialogue, tolerance, denies, search only the power, believed to be always right. Criticism of democracy and goodness - as open-minded attitude of the common discourse, which seeks not to persuade but to win and is willing to be convinced - certainly is the cardinal virtue. But only the Son of God could be as gentle as a lamb. In politics, the gentleness, not to be as mocking stupidity, must be Under a mutual. If not, at some point before the end, we must break the silence and to cease to be. "[XIII]
derives from that observed in short all the 'unreliability" of the secularist-democratic constitution, with good availability, to have received a dialogue with the Catholic Church, and what precisely the nature Vistani apart, by his own admission, retention of each to make their case except in the light of resentment and rebellion! Beyond the apparent calmness of those words that praise the gentleness, the ambiguity in which it falls when you declare Zagrebelsky democratically "willing to be convinced," shows indeed a clear hypocrisy. First, because it is neither operable nor appropriate to a too easy equation of attitude that is "available to the change of opinion" - that is devoid of any real effort of abdication, operated by those who, like him, just think relativistically in the equal validity of different "opportunities" - with the ontological impossibility for the Church to "be convinced" to change their beliefs on issues that are contrary to the truth. And also because it establishes clearly that the difference is to be placed between the so-called "mild" from the vaunted secularism - However, he wrongly assumed the role of a "cardinal virtue", that it is actually more precisely one of the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit (see Galatians 5:22-23 vulgar.) - And "gentleness" Christian that it is relativized (once again) from being able and wanting to exist only in reciprocity, this is absolute for its existence ever fin'anche in martyrdom! The fan
need and duty of the so-called "mild democratic" to finally stand up to "break the silence and to cease to be, with his proud conviction of never having to comply to avoid the danger of being nell'umiliante mistaken for "weakness" (which is really the true sense of the word "stupidity"), betrays a rather ill-concealed the existence of a vocation to want to impose on each other with the "strength". It does not matter the cross-specification that anything is true in a more specifically "political"! In fact, the irreverent and casual mention of the mildness of the "son of god" (written symbolically all lower case), in the irony that puts you on the edge of blasphemy confirms that Zagrebelsky, the much desired deference to the rules secularist must be implemented and also taken by those who persist in wanting to recognize Christ as their model: starting from the hierarchy then! And that this is an explicit reference to the Church, is also confirmed by his further statement, "The Church wants to be 'dialoguing'. Unfortunately, however, adopted a friendly attitude exterior, the interior does not seem changed. The parties continue to be considered not as different but as the lower the moral and rational. "[Xiv] For
Zagrebelsky therefore the Church" rejects dialogue, denies tolerance, the only real power, believes being right: "... the other party non-Catholic, the Church, is one who, in morality and rationality, is worth little or nothing, is that the circumstances lead to a bear (sic), but for which you'd rather avoid ... The dialogue is not a question of conviction but expediency dictated by force majeure or tactical reasons. "[xv] As a result, apart from the contradictory question whether or not the actual tolerance of the Church, those who are oppressed by it with arrogance, there is nothing legitimate that "rebellion"!
We observe in this regard and what one might read in the light of a full-blown case of nomen omen, that such a character prone to "revolt" against the hierarchy Catholic repeatedly revealed itself to be Zagrebelsky, nightspots curiously harmonious reflected in the fact that the decomposition of his name comes out the word "rebel-sky", which in English translates to "rebel to heaven! While "-zag", for its part, is significant relevance with the German "zach" which means "pointy thing" as well as with the English "Zaga", "rear, tail." Moreover, the "zig-zag" means "snake" and Russian "zagovor" translates "conspiracy" but also "exorcism"! We call this
perhaps some process, and then some also issue a verdict? Absolutely not, because it is not our intention to judge, but only express contingencies even singular objective. Moreover, because the positivist and materialist secularism could never condescend to consider such operations semantic nothing more than play games without any scientific sense, and then practice!
However, in a surprising way Zagrebelsky just let go a reflection of this kind: "It happens sometimes ... however, that the Catholic side, even upper class, is invoked today to allegations of collusion demonic, not just a manner of speaking (the reduction figures in the faith of symbols is doomed) waves, the writer This article may be an adept, at best irresponsible, of Satan. "[XVI]
The speech here is inserted in the larger context of the" moral issue "which should not ask for Zagrebelsky" ... in terms of a trivial list of merits and demerits. No one should venture to assert the primacy of this kind. There can be a competition like this, where all risk of leaving battered. "[Xviii] In other words, according Zagrebelsky the Catholic hierarchy (the Catholic" upper class "), already the victim of his eccepibilità a moral, not with arrogance to recognize the moral superiority of Christianity precisely - Let alone in its - on secularism, however, silenced him, in extreme cases, even explicit collusion with evil! And to substantiate its argument concludes, "postulates an external moral, provided by an authority, even as the divine father, means, in the great conversation about freedom that occupies a famous chapter (II, 5, 5) of the Karamazov, right and wrong to give the Inquisitor to Christ. "[XVIII]
not go into details an analysis of the highly praised here," famous chapter of Dostoevsky's novel, nor a contradiction with the numerous entries that secularist, riding content note "Legend of the Grand Inquisitor, which is alluded to here, they also endeavor to establish and then confirm (for them) whether there is a rift between Christ and His Church hierarchy (in this case personifies the Inquisitor), Church therefore charged with having just it, an identity "antichrist." For an instant refutation of these slanderous statements, that claims against any temptation to recognize and enact any truth content of the text in question all we need only observe that it is not, nor can it claim that it is more than what is his due be: a narrative and non-sacred, a representation made by human invention and certainly not a writing attributed to a divine revelation! A
Zagrebelsky But like almost convinced of the "sacred" authority of the text, much to mention it as a model in more than one occasion [XIX] and even the publication of devoting an entire essay, thus forging a "truth" ad hoc and demanding also that it will be accepted by Catholics themselves as the most suitable for them!
The confusion between truth and verisimilitude, the latter being the only quality that can be granted for a novel, although it is subject of philosophical and religious, goes hand in hand with confusion perpetrated repeatedly between "morality" individual and "moral law" to him outside! If the first is indicative of the freedom enjoyed by the human person as such, ie owner to act according to a review of consciousness may suggest that, by virtue of greater or lesser reason, acts of "good or bad", while the second is the "work of divine wisdom ... a father's teaching, a pedagogy of God, "[XX], which is ratified, that" issued by competent authority for the common good ... It presupposes the rational order established among creatures ... It 's declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. The sort of reason (the Logos, note), here is what is called the law. "[Xxi] This repeats the word autonomy, freedom, but not the independence of morality to moral law, and the specification value of a response to all questions and doubts raised in a purely artistic and philosophical point of doctrine and theology, including the novel by Dostoyevsky, in which the investigator represents, but is certainly not the Church, and the prisoner is, but certainly is not Jesus!
Even the morality of human beings who make up the hierarchy can not circumvent the requirements of "addiction" the "moral law" is obvious! But the claim of legitimacy accuse them of speaking "on behalf" of the moral law and thus effectively ratify the principles, though moral imperfection of human nature, well, this means will, in a subtle, reject the divinity of Jesus Christ giving him only his humanity! But the mystery is this: Christ is God, he is a man! And according to both people, human and divine, will always be next to the church: "I am with you always, until the end of the world" (Mt 28:20)! It 's just the "great tempter" who can seduce a lie, it is only the "big mystifying" that can instill doubt, it is only the "great rebel" that can incite to revolt!
Certainly, at the end of all this discussion against the temptation, deception, rebellion secularist, we do not want to hide the crisis of morality and authority in recent times suffered from the hierarchy. But if your morals are in crisis, namely the ability to adhere to the moral law, and His authority, ie the ability to gain the popular view, however, can not be called into question his authority in dispensing really the moral law.
On the other hand this is not even have to worry that the faithful lay, in part because "... that servant who knew his master's will, and does not have according to the will of him, will be severely whipped, and he who does not know, but work to deserve the beating, shall receive a less. Much will be required of one who has received a lot, and the more you require from one to whom much has been entrusted "(Lk 12, 47-48). This represents a clear warning to the "shepherds" whose leadership has been "entrusted with the flock of Christ! Warning which, if not absolve the flock, at least release him from a lot of responsibility!
On the other hand, in a somewhat "mirror" well that deserves mention is made here that passage of Gaudium et Spes, which recognizes that "... the power of God often shows the strength in the weakness of the witnesses of the Gospel" (IV, 76)! Which is this time an "encouragement" at all the believers not to despair, while not exonerating them from their responsibilities.
As the only true believers and therefore "secular," because their desire not to be confused with the atheists "secularists," we can not and must not fall into the same trap to operate their "de-legitimizing" anti-Christian game: namely that there would be a problem would be attributable to the exclusive responsibility of the hierarchy. Apply rather than the repeated calls that are persistently (if not begging) come from a certain part of the hierarchy itself, because it remedies the lack of effective presence of a strong proposal and determined that it is in fact "purely and legitimately lay "and, therefore, aimed to" protect "the Church in the world and the world. This is indeed the primary function of the laity, the "ministry" that is relevant to them! Val
well to remember what precisely should write Attilio Mordini:
"Saying no intention of moving this process to the clergy. The problem concerns only the laity, and the causes are to be found in the affirmation of Guelphism. By the clergy, indeed, there have been many laudable attempts to change the situation for the better, but everything is useless unless you climb to the very root causes ... Responding to the needs of their time meant, in the era of Christianity and equestrian really militant , fight for ever and ever, and with the same tenacity, heresies typical of the moment, and then establish a civil system suitable for the defense of institutions and souls from the disease which in turn rushed to the Church. But in modern times, to live their time means, in practice, comply with the heresies of the century looking a modus vivendi with them, provided that it is prejudice to comply with the precepts of the Church. For a long time, organizations of the Catholic laity were no longer ongoing at the advent of the enemies of Christianity and civilization in a word, Catholics were no longer able to fight. "[Xxii]
We conclude, therefore, , summing up the thought: today lacks the Cavalry that could stand as a defensive bulwark against the wiles Antichrist who aim to dismantle the castrum of the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ aedificium; those pitfalls of which secularism is precisely democratistic the ram to break through and which Zagrebelsky has proven to be one of the most dangerous bearers!
September 29, 2007 (the feast of St. Michael the Archangel, patron of chivalry)
Cosmo Intini
Assoc. Studies of Chivalry "St. Joseph of the Lioness"
[I] Idem, pg.87.
[II] Idem, pg.159.
[III] Idem, pg.87.
[IV] Idem, pg.48.
[V] Idem, pg.87.
[VI] Idem, pg.17.
[VII] Idem, pg.23.
[VIII] Idem, pg.18.
[ix] Doctrinal Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of 24/11/2002.
[X] Ibid.
[XI] See Catechism of the CC, 39.
[XII] Idem, 856.
[XIII] G. Zagrebelsky, The Crucify and democracy, Einaudi, Torino 1995.
[xiv] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.146.
[XV] Idem, pg.148.
[XVI] Idem, pg.146.
[xviii] Ibid.
[XVIII] Idem, pg.147.
[xix] See idem, pgg.23, 118, 146, 147.
[XX] Catechism of the CC, 1950.
[XXI] Idem, 1951.
[XXII] A. Mordini, The temple of Christianity. For a rhetoric of history, The Circle, Rimini 2006, p.139.
introduce reflections on the primary way by which to understand the "Day of Forgiveness", expressly desired by John Paul II celebrated March 12, 2000, we would be inappropriate and excessive digressions: therefore disclaim there! But we can not remain silent about the distortion and bias with which the subject is here introduced by Zagrebelsky. This request for forgiveness is in fact re-read instrumentally by secularism and taken as an excuse to justify their anti-clericalism, as clear evidence of both the "fallibility" of the Catholic Church as the "wickedness" of its hierarchy, generally prone to collusion of convenience with powerful politicians! "The Church of Christ reduced at the table of a game, "[II] will say elsewhere in the tone of an outraged right-thinking!
But things are not so, because forgiveness is not invoked by the Church as an institute for itself, but for all their children, nor to endorse a kind of "historical revisionism", but for the purification of memory, and even to judge individuals responsible, but to reiterate its general faith in God's mercy
Having thus tried in various ways to deny the Church the actual and lawful possession of His attributes of "unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolic, "just then throws Zagrebelsky finally the mask to reveal the real purpose of aggressive secularism against the Catholic hierarchy: the de-legitimization, through it, the Church in its entirety. He says immediately after: "... we can say that ... the reduction of Christianity is a sin in the Church (sic) against the spirit." [III]
We are still the usual opportunistic contradictions! Christianity can not be reduced to the Church, yet when it suits them, The one recognizes a certain credit related to that: "... (Christianity) over the centuries has caused moments of terrible oppression, now condemned by the Church itself! [IV ] So, with "liberal magnanimity" The sweetener is allowed at least: "What is it? So ... the Church recognize the full right to participate, together with others, the definition of our collective identity, but in moral equality with any other party without the Christian name would justify a claim of incontestable. "[V] Despite
" prudery "shown on several occasions by Zagrebelsky - for example in stating to worry about providing" a solid ground to establish the harmony between believers and nonbelievers that we seek, "[VI] or even later recognized where" open the scope of a broader partnership ... (whose) job are called, at the same time and with the same responsibility to the democratic coexistence, and lay believers "[VII] - if the claim is that it must speak with the secularism that longs to bring the Catholic Church to compromise in the name of a dialogue "which is actually only put partisanship on the basis of their relativism. Since there can never be any dialogue between two parties but only sterile monologue, unless you decide to donate at least advance the same meaning to the terminology to be used and to recognize the same value to the concepts that are put in place, well, a closer examination it is established as a secular democracy by nature a priori attitude "Anti-dialogue," because it allows everyone from the outset the "Babel" legitimacy of each based on their language! Get words to the Church to surrender their spiritual incontestable in the name of such a "distorted" dialogue is not only symbolic in its offensiveness and its arrogance, but it is also indicative of a conscious deception: what it is intended that, with the ' deception, to silence her forever submerged by the "noisy" chaos of relativism!
E 'in this context only, and not otherwise, that can and should be read in fact sharing Zagrebelsky shows that enthusiastic about the ideas of D. Bonhoeffer, Protestant theologian, when these "... the draft outlines of a theology 'without God' or, more precisely, a theology that leaves the God of religion, personified by the historic churches ...: a theology that makes it possible even if, indeed, precisely because the God of religion does not exist (anymore). In the 'age of majority of the world', a world that 'sufficient unto itself' and 'work without God', and no less well than before thanks to the extraordinary development of scientific, ethical and artistic they are even able to exorcise the ' extreme fear of death by treatment of the psyche (sic) - Bonhoeffer says - There is no place for the deus ex machina of religion because it has failed ... this God who proclaim the truth from the cross, the throne of the world, opens the time of faith in suffering God 'who allows himself to kick off the world '(sic) and we know that free and problematically purified by faith, and selfless' demythologizing.' "[VIII]
Given the fact that the" throne of Christ in the world "is the" throne of Peter, "Well "kick God out of this world" precisely equivalent to "undo the Catholic Church"! Words of such a "monstrosity" may not be short uttered only by those who intend to replace Jesus Christ with that famous "prince" who is master of "this world"!
smuggle everything behind a screen to presume what might be the "dialogue" between believers and nonbelievers means distorting the real and most correct meaning that is implied in that term! The question invites us to a words needed clarification in the light of the fact that it "dialogue", whose implementation is, however, still hoped for from his own Church, as is too often a misunderstanding of the topics on which to base its demagogic secularism claims. In this case
demagogy is to ride the incorrect assumption that the "dialogue", in accordance with the principle of egalitarianism and libertarianism "- passed off as" equality and freedom "- represents the democratistic" discussion process in which two opposites are developing a unit to be replaced by a higher time synthesis! However it should be objected that this definition lies in reality the term "dialectic" than that of "dialogue", which means but its etymology with a very different meaning and significance!
there is to say first that the claim of "non-believers secularists", mounted in the wake of statements by the council, having to use right to a dialogue with the Catholic Church on a par with any "dialogue" - an attitude that it is on the other hand more and more specifically accepted by the Church itself, precisely after Vatican II, as vital sign availability of duty to the Catholic faithful of other religions in the light of recognition in the latter the actual presence of "elements of truth and goodness" - in an unlawful postulates by overlapping each other quite different contexts (cultural systems and religions ) betrays, once again, the perpetration dell'inconfessata hoax, which has already mentioned above, made from a conception of democracy idolatrous. But apart from this, although it is true that "the right to freedom of conscience and especially religious freedom, proclaimed by the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, is based on the ontological dignity of the human person and in no way on a non-existent equality among religions and between human cultural systems, "[ix] But neither the non-Catholic religious doctrines nor cultural ones, however erroneous, then the council have the same value. On the contrary, "the affirmation of freedom of conscience and religious freedom does not contradict the condemnation of indifference to and religious relativism by Catholic doctrine, is indeed fully consistent with it. "[X]
So what is the sense with which to understand the desire on the part of the Catholic Church to establish a" dialogue "with those to which nothing can give your teaching that could lead to the slightest renunciation is the centrality of Jesus Christ than himself, as his only true church? Perhaps never before in this case is illuminating to consider the etymology of the term according to it are issues that are more immediately!
Well, it derives from the greek dia-logos, "dialogue" literally means "through, through, because of the word. " Therefore, since in this case the word that is uttered by the Spirit of Truth through the Church of Christ, then it coincides precisely with what usually is expressed with the Greek word "Logos": namely, the Word, the word absolute, the Christ itself. This word is then given by the Catholic Church to be "dialectically" inserted in a debate, but much more precisely to be "announced" and that is what is really the "dialogue par excellence! After all the greek dialegomai verb, the noun from which it originates Dialogos, means precisely "Conversely, speak, reason, explain; while for its part the same noun Dialogos translates, in one of its most ancient meanings, even "hearing"! From this it follows that if ultimately the most proper concept of "dialogue" does not make any sense at all "imposition", however it does not even make any sense of "debatable"!
The Catechism states that the conviction of the Church can and must operate the dialogue with other religions and with non-believers, has its basis in the belief that human reason "can and should know God." [XI ] And also it is said: "The missionary activity (which can certainly also be added the pure and simple testimony, note) implies a respectful dialogue with those who do not yet accept the Gospel ... If it (the believers) proclaim the Good News to those who ignore it, is to consolidate, complement and elevate the true and good God has distributed among men and peoples, and to purify them from error and evil. "[xii]
When secularism (and through it the democratism) stands the principle of dialogue to his chief virtue, however, accusing the Church Catholic is a fault, does in fact a triple anti-Christian hoax: appropriates a value in an absolute sense belongs only to the Church of the Logos; subverts this value must be given a meaning quota that is not the real one, and the "return it to sender", so to speak, by availing themselves as an instrument of revenge and revolt. Behold, what do you think Zagrebelsky: "Democracy is the possibility of research must mobilize against those who reject dialogue, tolerance, denies, search only the power, believed to be always right. Criticism of democracy and goodness - as open-minded attitude of the common discourse, which seeks not to persuade but to win and is willing to be convinced - certainly is the cardinal virtue. But only the Son of God could be as gentle as a lamb. In politics, the gentleness, not to be as mocking stupidity, must be Under a mutual. If not, at some point before the end, we must break the silence and to cease to be. "[XIII]
derives from that observed in short all the 'unreliability" of the secularist-democratic constitution, with good availability, to have received a dialogue with the Catholic Church, and what precisely the nature Vistani apart, by his own admission, retention of each to make their case except in the light of resentment and rebellion! Beyond the apparent calmness of those words that praise the gentleness, the ambiguity in which it falls when you declare Zagrebelsky democratically "willing to be convinced," shows indeed a clear hypocrisy. First, because it is neither operable nor appropriate to a too easy equation of attitude that is "available to the change of opinion" - that is devoid of any real effort of abdication, operated by those who, like him, just think relativistically in the equal validity of different "opportunities" - with the ontological impossibility for the Church to "be convinced" to change their beliefs on issues that are contrary to the truth. And also because it establishes clearly that the difference is to be placed between the so-called "mild" from the vaunted secularism - However, he wrongly assumed the role of a "cardinal virtue", that it is actually more precisely one of the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit (see Galatians 5:22-23 vulgar.) - And "gentleness" Christian that it is relativized (once again) from being able and wanting to exist only in reciprocity, this is absolute for its existence ever fin'anche in martyrdom! The fan
need and duty of the so-called "mild democratic" to finally stand up to "break the silence and to cease to be, with his proud conviction of never having to comply to avoid the danger of being nell'umiliante mistaken for "weakness" (which is really the true sense of the word "stupidity"), betrays a rather ill-concealed the existence of a vocation to want to impose on each other with the "strength". It does not matter the cross-specification that anything is true in a more specifically "political"! In fact, the irreverent and casual mention of the mildness of the "son of god" (written symbolically all lower case), in the irony that puts you on the edge of blasphemy confirms that Zagrebelsky, the much desired deference to the rules secularist must be implemented and also taken by those who persist in wanting to recognize Christ as their model: starting from the hierarchy then! And that this is an explicit reference to the Church, is also confirmed by his further statement, "The Church wants to be 'dialoguing'. Unfortunately, however, adopted a friendly attitude exterior, the interior does not seem changed. The parties continue to be considered not as different but as the lower the moral and rational. "[Xiv] For
Zagrebelsky therefore the Church" rejects dialogue, denies tolerance, the only real power, believes being right: "... the other party non-Catholic, the Church, is one who, in morality and rationality, is worth little or nothing, is that the circumstances lead to a bear (sic), but for which you'd rather avoid ... The dialogue is not a question of conviction but expediency dictated by force majeure or tactical reasons. "[xv] As a result, apart from the contradictory question whether or not the actual tolerance of the Church, those who are oppressed by it with arrogance, there is nothing legitimate that "rebellion"!
We observe in this regard and what one might read in the light of a full-blown case of nomen omen, that such a character prone to "revolt" against the hierarchy Catholic repeatedly revealed itself to be Zagrebelsky, nightspots curiously harmonious reflected in the fact that the decomposition of his name comes out the word "rebel-sky", which in English translates to "rebel to heaven! While "-zag", for its part, is significant relevance with the German "zach" which means "pointy thing" as well as with the English "Zaga", "rear, tail." Moreover, the "zig-zag" means "snake" and Russian "zagovor" translates "conspiracy" but also "exorcism"! We call this
perhaps some process, and then some also issue a verdict? Absolutely not, because it is not our intention to judge, but only express contingencies even singular objective. Moreover, because the positivist and materialist secularism could never condescend to consider such operations semantic nothing more than play games without any scientific sense, and then practice!
However, in a surprising way Zagrebelsky just let go a reflection of this kind: "It happens sometimes ... however, that the Catholic side, even upper class, is invoked today to allegations of collusion demonic, not just a manner of speaking (the reduction figures in the faith of symbols is doomed) waves, the writer This article may be an adept, at best irresponsible, of Satan. "[XVI]
The speech here is inserted in the larger context of the" moral issue "which should not ask for Zagrebelsky" ... in terms of a trivial list of merits and demerits. No one should venture to assert the primacy of this kind. There can be a competition like this, where all risk of leaving battered. "[Xviii] In other words, according Zagrebelsky the Catholic hierarchy (the Catholic" upper class "), already the victim of his eccepibilità a moral, not with arrogance to recognize the moral superiority of Christianity precisely - Let alone in its - on secularism, however, silenced him, in extreme cases, even explicit collusion with evil! And to substantiate its argument concludes, "postulates an external moral, provided by an authority, even as the divine father, means, in the great conversation about freedom that occupies a famous chapter (II, 5, 5) of the Karamazov, right and wrong to give the Inquisitor to Christ. "[XVIII]
not go into details an analysis of the highly praised here," famous chapter of Dostoevsky's novel, nor a contradiction with the numerous entries that secularist, riding content note "Legend of the Grand Inquisitor, which is alluded to here, they also endeavor to establish and then confirm (for them) whether there is a rift between Christ and His Church hierarchy (in this case personifies the Inquisitor), Church therefore charged with having just it, an identity "antichrist." For an instant refutation of these slanderous statements, that claims against any temptation to recognize and enact any truth content of the text in question all we need only observe that it is not, nor can it claim that it is more than what is his due be: a narrative and non-sacred, a representation made by human invention and certainly not a writing attributed to a divine revelation! A
Zagrebelsky But like almost convinced of the "sacred" authority of the text, much to mention it as a model in more than one occasion [XIX] and even the publication of devoting an entire essay, thus forging a "truth" ad hoc and demanding also that it will be accepted by Catholics themselves as the most suitable for them!
The confusion between truth and verisimilitude, the latter being the only quality that can be granted for a novel, although it is subject of philosophical and religious, goes hand in hand with confusion perpetrated repeatedly between "morality" individual and "moral law" to him outside! If the first is indicative of the freedom enjoyed by the human person as such, ie owner to act according to a review of consciousness may suggest that, by virtue of greater or lesser reason, acts of "good or bad", while the second is the "work of divine wisdom ... a father's teaching, a pedagogy of God, "[XX], which is ratified, that" issued by competent authority for the common good ... It presupposes the rational order established among creatures ... It 's declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. The sort of reason (the Logos, note), here is what is called the law. "[Xxi] This repeats the word autonomy, freedom, but not the independence of morality to moral law, and the specification value of a response to all questions and doubts raised in a purely artistic and philosophical point of doctrine and theology, including the novel by Dostoyevsky, in which the investigator represents, but is certainly not the Church, and the prisoner is, but certainly is not Jesus!
Even the morality of human beings who make up the hierarchy can not circumvent the requirements of "addiction" the "moral law" is obvious! But the claim of legitimacy accuse them of speaking "on behalf" of the moral law and thus effectively ratify the principles, though moral imperfection of human nature, well, this means will, in a subtle, reject the divinity of Jesus Christ giving him only his humanity! But the mystery is this: Christ is God, he is a man! And according to both people, human and divine, will always be next to the church: "I am with you always, until the end of the world" (Mt 28:20)! It 's just the "great tempter" who can seduce a lie, it is only the "big mystifying" that can instill doubt, it is only the "great rebel" that can incite to revolt!
Certainly, at the end of all this discussion against the temptation, deception, rebellion secularist, we do not want to hide the crisis of morality and authority in recent times suffered from the hierarchy. But if your morals are in crisis, namely the ability to adhere to the moral law, and His authority, ie the ability to gain the popular view, however, can not be called into question his authority in dispensing really the moral law.
On the other hand this is not even have to worry that the faithful lay, in part because "... that servant who knew his master's will, and does not have according to the will of him, will be severely whipped, and he who does not know, but work to deserve the beating, shall receive a less. Much will be required of one who has received a lot, and the more you require from one to whom much has been entrusted "(Lk 12, 47-48). This represents a clear warning to the "shepherds" whose leadership has been "entrusted with the flock of Christ! Warning which, if not absolve the flock, at least release him from a lot of responsibility!
On the other hand, in a somewhat "mirror" well that deserves mention is made here that passage of Gaudium et Spes, which recognizes that "... the power of God often shows the strength in the weakness of the witnesses of the Gospel" (IV, 76)! Which is this time an "encouragement" at all the believers not to despair, while not exonerating them from their responsibilities.
As the only true believers and therefore "secular," because their desire not to be confused with the atheists "secularists," we can not and must not fall into the same trap to operate their "de-legitimizing" anti-Christian game: namely that there would be a problem would be attributable to the exclusive responsibility of the hierarchy. Apply rather than the repeated calls that are persistently (if not begging) come from a certain part of the hierarchy itself, because it remedies the lack of effective presence of a strong proposal and determined that it is in fact "purely and legitimately lay "and, therefore, aimed to" protect "the Church in the world and the world. This is indeed the primary function of the laity, the "ministry" that is relevant to them! Val
well to remember what precisely should write Attilio Mordini:
"Saying no intention of moving this process to the clergy. The problem concerns only the laity, and the causes are to be found in the affirmation of Guelphism. By the clergy, indeed, there have been many laudable attempts to change the situation for the better, but everything is useless unless you climb to the very root causes ... Responding to the needs of their time meant, in the era of Christianity and equestrian really militant , fight for ever and ever, and with the same tenacity, heresies typical of the moment, and then establish a civil system suitable for the defense of institutions and souls from the disease which in turn rushed to the Church. But in modern times, to live their time means, in practice, comply with the heresies of the century looking a modus vivendi with them, provided that it is prejudice to comply with the precepts of the Church. For a long time, organizations of the Catholic laity were no longer ongoing at the advent of the enemies of Christianity and civilization in a word, Catholics were no longer able to fight. "[Xxii]
We conclude, therefore, , summing up the thought: today lacks the Cavalry that could stand as a defensive bulwark against the wiles Antichrist who aim to dismantle the castrum of the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ aedificium; those pitfalls of which secularism is precisely democratistic the ram to break through and which Zagrebelsky has proven to be one of the most dangerous bearers!
September 29, 2007 (the feast of St. Michael the Archangel, patron of chivalry)
Cosmo Intini
Assoc. Studies of Chivalry "St. Joseph of the Lioness"
[I] Idem, pg.87.
[II] Idem, pg.159.
[III] Idem, pg.87.
[IV] Idem, pg.48.
[V] Idem, pg.87.
[VI] Idem, pg.17.
[VII] Idem, pg.23.
[VIII] Idem, pg.18.
[ix] Doctrinal Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of 24/11/2002.
[X] Ibid.
[XI] See Catechism of the CC, 39.
[XII] Idem, 856.
[XIII] G. Zagrebelsky, The Crucify and democracy, Einaudi, Torino 1995.
[xiv] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.146.
[XV] Idem, pg.148.
[XVI] Idem, pg.146.
[xviii] Ibid.
[XVIII] Idem, pg.147.
[xix] See idem, pgg.23, 118, 146, 147.
[XX] Catechism of the CC, 1950.
[XXI] Idem, 1951.
[XXII] A. Mordini, The temple of Christianity. For a rhetoric of history, The Circle, Rimini 2006, p.139.
0 comments:
Post a Comment