1. Amerio: “Deus Trinitas first”. Modernista: “Deus Trinitas nothing”.
2. Amerio: “to match not” the Truth is not “to lose” it.
The Modernist: Got it. Now I know how to proceed.
3. Freedom follows the Truth as the handmaid her Queen.
If she doesn’t follow her, she strips her own, robs her, kill her.
4. It is spelled “Buonaiuti”. It is pronounced “Ratzinger”.
5. If the dogma doesn’t return to his throne, the Church dies. And – nobody believes that – civilization with her.
* * *
I would like to thank the Lepanto Foundation, his President Prof. Roberto de Mattei, all present guests.
 In June 1926, at 21 years old, Romano Amerio saw published in Pagine nostre, periodical of the diocese of Lugano, one of his thoughts that can be considered cardinal, crucial: « The problem of man is the problem of adoration, everything else is done to give it light and substance ». “Deus Trinitas first”.
1. AMERIO: “DEUS TRINITAS FIRST”.
THE MODERNIST: “DEUS TRINITAS NOTHING”.
(Return to top)
The history of the world is theocentric, in fact christ-centric, not at all anthropocentric: man is in row two. A theology that would not exalt such a scenic and substantial centrality of God is not catholic theology.
The exact opposite of what the modernist wants, he for whom the first actor on people and history is the spirit of the world: “Deus Trinitas nothing”. Why does he want it? His freedom, his independence. This is the cause of the fight that is taking place on all fronts between the world and the Church.
The principle of authority is born from God, and is established in Jesus Christ, with S. Paul as mediator: « even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed » (Gal 1,8).
In Stat Veritas. Followed by “Iota unum”, Amerio sets it so: « The Word is from beyond the talking human who utters it and it is not to be compared, to be commensurated, to be verified by anything other than itself ».
In Iota unum. Study of the variations of the Catholic Church in the 20th century, Amerio connects the nesting of the spirit of the world established by the followers of the Enlightenment to the spirit of independence of the world, faced up in vain by Pius IX, X and XII with the three Syllabi of ’874, ’907 and ’950.
In vain, because the spirit of independence becomes more and more cunning, and with Buonaiuti (« Not against Rome nor without Rome, but with Rome and in Rome ») it understands that to defeat the divine Auctoritas it is necessary to follow her. Or at least: to make her believe so.
Amerio discovers it, identifying the pivot upon which the logical and metaphysical system of the Church rotates from the first pages of his book-cathedral (Iota unum, pp. 27-8 Lindau): « The law of the historical preservation of the Church », he writes, let us precisely discern that « the Church is not lost in the case it did not match the truth, but in the case it lost the truth » (underlining the Author).
2. AMERIO: “TO MATCH NOT” THE TRUTH IS NOT “TO LOSE” IT.
THE MODERNIST: GOT IT. NOW I KNOW HOW TO PROCEED.
(Turner to top)
With the bifurcation identified by Amerio: “to match not” is not to “to lose” – as Prof. de Mattei indicates in his Il Concilio Vaticano II. Una storia mai scritta – two very perspicacious Pastors, cardinal Tisserant and Pope Roncalli – the former having suggested it to him, the latter having carried it out – accomplished « Satan’s masterstroke », impressing to the Vatican II the second category of magisterial teaching instead of the first, ‘pastoral’ instead of ‘dogmatic’, as should have been, given the presence of a Pope and therefore for the Pope to be able to express himself – had it been necessary – to the fullness or entelechy of pronunciation, as it had happened in the previous twenty ecumenical Councils, ex-lege, even if in two of them (Lyons II and Laterano IV) the dogma had not been expressed, because it had not been necessary.
With such an escamotage, the Pope could take advantage of a freedom of expression that the dogmatic pronunciation would never have allowed to him. Hence in Iota Unum Amerio could find, in the formulas used by the ‘pastoral’ Council, those « ambiguities » that characterised it and that unequivocally denounced its modernist and self-destructive nature.
3. FREEDOM FOLLOWS THE TRUTH AS THE HANDMAID HER QUEEN.
IF SHE DOESN'T FOLLOW HER,
SHE STRIPS HER DOWN, ROBS HER, KILL HER.
(Turner to top)
This is a crime of omission, committed by all the Popes who came in succession on Peter's Throne after Pius XII, in addiction to that of the ideological falsehood of having purposely used the degree of teaching just inferior to the dogmatic one – that of ‘pastoral magisterium’, or ‘ordinary and authentic’ – exactly for its two precise characteristics:
1), of being non dogmatic, that is of being at all infallible and unreformable, so as to have the prerogative of calling not God into question, reassuring its users about their own life, well knowing that one does not with impunity call God to countersign an own assertion if it is not more than true (in the dogmatic pronouncement God is called into question by use of the pontifical pluralis maiestatis, the “We” of the two Subjects: papal and divine);
2), nevertheless of being able to still demand anyway, from the whole Church and each of her follower, a strong obedience, as is at all events that of ‘religious deference’ in front of assertions the Church holds as ‘related truths’ – namely truths directly descending from the dogma – as they always were the truths as taught before the Modernism took the throne where it would never have been possible through lawful means.
The synthesis of these two characteristics let us maintain what all those Popes after Pius XII, who for their disguised Modernism should have been expelled from the Church – instead of canonised – knew all too well: and the synthesis is that they could have never come into contradiction with the dogma of the papal infallibility proclaimed by Pius IX, because this would have happened only if they exposed themselves to the highest entelechy to them and them alone possible, the dogmatic level, or ex-cathedra, where the Potestas clavium resides, which however they take great care not to access, the cowards, with the newfound catch.
Never has the Church found herself to a point so close to death as in these last dramatic decades following the Vatican II: from and by herself she took away the dogma, the magisterium of the dogma and the liturgy of the dogma (that of the so called “ancient” Rite, in fact the only perennial and holy one, for the reasons dr. Guarini will explain us next).
And all this the Pastors of the Church have done in full presence of all three conditions that determine the severity of a sin – here those of omission and of ideological falsehood – in the persons of the Popes and their advisors (cardinals and prefects of the Curia) starting from the origin of the deviance, the second Vatican Council. And the three conditions are: “full knowledge” and “deliberate consent” for the matters of omitted and falsified acts, and “grave matter” for the matter, the hiding, or circumvention, or “oblivion” of the dogma.
In Iota unum’s Epilogue (p. 661) the Luganese notices: « The novelties of Vatican II are lightings upon part of the catholic doctrine which correspond to the oblivion of other parts. The oblivion covers the dogma of predestination under the truth of the universal calling; that of hell under the truth of divine mercy », and so on for seven more examples, v. p. 661 Lindau.
4. IT IS SPELLED “BUONAIUTI”. IT IS PRONOUNCED “RATZINGER”.
(Turner to top)
But with Spe Salvi Benedetto XVI, not only “forgets” the dogma, but replaces it, as I point out first in La Chiesa ribaltata and now in this article [which I am showing], titled: “Qualcuno nella Chiesa si è accorto che nell’Enciclica Spe salvi Papa Ratzinger ha cancellato l’Inferno?” (“Has anyone in the Church realized that in the encyclical Spe Salvi Pope Ratzinger eliminated Hell?”, reading is recommended, especially in paragraph 3 and 4, così da potersi rendere conto de visu quanto sia stata con ogni evidenza forzata da Benedetto XVI la forma pastorale di insegnamento di un Papa alla Chiesa universale, pur essendo insegnamento ‘ordinario e autentico’, quindi tale da poter pretendere da ogni fedele quel ‘religioso ossequio’ che in altri termini non è altro che la cattolica e ossequiosa obbedienza.
The principle is always the same: “to forget”, or to replace, is all the same, the important thing is not “to lose”, but to limit ourselves to “match not”, so never to dogmatize, never to anathematize.
If with this it appears that men stand accused of particularly severe faults, whom the Church has then canonised, rather remember that:
1), the magisterium of canonization is fallible – as recalled also by the late lamented mons. Gherardini – thus, if the Church will have to tumble some saints off her own altars, the scandal will be huge, but, from a canonical point of view, that doesn’t pose any problem;
2), conversely – a crucial detail – the infallible and unreformable magisterium of the Church, the dogma, in the Holy Scripture, establishes that cited principle by which the divine Word is always and in all cases of more value than any talking human who utters it, even if he were a canonised Pope.
This principle, fixed by St. Paul, is so superior to any other, that even if the entire Church – again withdrawing from the dogmatic level – taught a lie, as it happened with Arianism, the entire Church will have to later make amends, as it happened then as well, although with great struggles, difficulties, misunderstandings, and battles.
I am sure that some Pastor, at least by way of those two miserable yet public books of mine that discuss them denouncing their danger – books provided to dozens of bishops and cardinals of reliable faith – will soon find numerous, strong and specifically very rigorous arguments against the heretical Theodicy as taught in Spe Salvi and Lumen Fidei – both ‘ordinary and authentic’ magisterium, and as such recognised as ‘true and sure’ – so as to relieve all faithful, whichever degree of responsibility they had in the Church, from the wrongful obligation to ‘religious deference’ they should pay them.
It is since my Afterword to Iota unum, published in 2009, then in each of my following works, that I report what Amerio alone nailed as the reckless and deplorable escamotage elaborated by the modernist Pastors in order to open for themselves the door to power as suggested by Bonaiuti, and let us not ask ourselves how it is that, of thousands of theologians, academics, thomists, monsignors, bishops and cardinals who read the book (7.000 copies in three editions, plus 7 translations into the main languages of the West), nobody noticed the issue and the subtle but shameful consequences that it enabled.
Nobody noticed the issue and the consequences that it enabled, because they all knew both the former and the latter, but nobody had to disclose them in public: they are the dirty, hidden, machiavellian, cowardly mean through which the perverted Pastors risen to Peter's Throne after rigorous Pius XII have found the way of flooding the Church with the « smoke of Satan », that is Modernism, without anybody noticing it.
5. IF THE DOGMA DOESN’T RETURN TO HIS THRONE,
THE CHURCH DIES. AND – NOBODY BELIEVES THAT-
CIVILIZATION WITH HER.
(Turner to top)
In closing, a question: how is it that, specifically, in front of a papal document of such gravity as Spe salvi, which, as easy as it is to demonstrate, annihilates fundamental realities including the concept of sin as ‘offence against God’, Hell, the Purgatory, the grace etcetera, no one from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith, no catholic media outlet, how is it that, as I was saying, none of them neither did consider, at least until now, the duty of refuting, correcting and censoring in a catholic manner the arguments brought up by yours truly in his books against those aberrant theses, particularly in La Chiesa ribaltata, in Street Theology and now in Al cuore di Ratzinger. Al cuore del mondo? Why?
Is this the way to defend, in order, God, the Revelation, the Church, and one of his already distinguished and so meritorious Pastor?
Let us not debunk anything and expose anybody – they answer – so nobody will notice that there is something to debunk and someone to expose, and everything goes on in peace and carefree indolence for all.
Upon this exactly the destinies of the Church are decided: either silence or the word. But whoever believes he’s going to defeat the Word, the Logos, with his silence, I say he underestimates it, v. I Ts 5,2: « The day of the Lord will come like a thief at night ». And that is the way She will vanquish them. Long live Amerio. Long live the Logos. Long live the dogma.
Thank you!
Enrico Maria Radaelli |
