Second Intervention of Prominent Italian Professor on Vatican II

cupom com desconto - o melhor site de cupom de desconto

On July 29, Catholic Family News published a report by Dr. Maike Hickson about an important intervention of Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli that was in reply to the recent criticisms of the Second Vatican Council by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano. In that report Dr. Hickson noted that in addition to the intervention published at the end of it Dr. Radaelli had written a longer essay on the topic. We are pleased to publish here an English translation of this second article. In this lengthier discussion, Professor Radaelli examines in greater detail the difference between Dogmatic Magisterium and Pastoral Magisterium before addressing Archbishop Vigano’s proposal to forget the whole Council.

Letters from Babylon


The Dogmatic Constitution Pastor æternus, v. Denz 3074, establishes:

“When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the
exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of
his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or
morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance
promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer
willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by
the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

In Vera e falsa teologia. Come distinguere
l’autentica “scienza della fede” da un’equivoca “filosofia religiosa”
[True and False Theology. How to Distinguish
the Authentic “Science of Faith” from an Equivocal “Religious Philosophy”
Monsignor Antonio Livi, former Professor of Logics and Gnoseology and twice
Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy at the Pontifical Lateran University, to
which he invited me to supplement during three years his courses with my
lessons of Formal Gnoseology, points out two decisive notions, which are basic
for faith. Here they are.

The first
one: « The
highest degree of pretension of truth is essential for Christian faith

The second
one: « The
dogmatic character is neither an accidental aspect nor an ‘ideological
superstructure’ of Christianity

In Il
Concilio Vaticano II. Una storia mai scritta
[Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story], Professor Roberto de
Mattei points out that « the Primate of
— L. J. Suenens, Archbishop of Malines-Bruxelles, Cardinal and
Moderator of the Council — launched … the
keyword “pastoral Council”:
“The Council should be, par excellence, a pastoral
(Léon-Joseph Suenens, Aux Origines du Concile Vatican II [The Roots of the Second Vatican Council], p. 8). John XXIII followed the direction drawn by
Suenens in the speech he pronounced on 11 September 1962, a month before the
opening of the Council
» (p. 193): « The pastoral form … turned itself into the
form of Magisterium par excellence
(idem, p. 201).

CONCLUSION. For the first time in history, an ecumenical Council — the Second Vatican
Council — doesn’t use the « highest degree » of Magisterium with which the
preceding twenty councils presided by a Pope had been opened. In this way, for
the first time in history, the « pretension of truth » required by the « dogmatic
of Christian faith is eluded.

whether or not there is a link between: 1) the essentiality, for faith, of the
highest degree of pretension of truth; 2) the fact that the ability to fulfill
such a pretension is given exclusively by the dogmatic degree; and 3) « Satan’s smoke » that Paul VI, in 1970,
discovered and denounced with extreme grief to have made its way, in great
quantity, « in the temple » of God
which is the Church, I let to the readers to guess.


*  *  *

Scriptum. Oh, I almost forgot:

He Has Almost Annihilated the Church

and Orphaned the World.

If This Is Not a Maxi-Snare, then What Is IT?

Of course, Father Schillebeeckx’s
words tend to perplex us: « Nous
l’exprimons d’une façon diplomatique
— thus the famous Dutch Dominican
reassures us —, mais après le Concile
nous tirerons les conclusions implicites
[TN — « We tell it diplomatically, but
after the Council we will draw the implicit conclusions
»] (Edward Schillebeeckx, su De Bazuin n. 16, 1965), said in other words:
“We express ourselves in a duplicitous, ‘diplomatic’ way, that is, so that our
concepts may seem to be Catholic to the Catholics and at the same time allow us
— who fixed a certain goal for ourselves — to use the necessary degree of
vagueness; however, when the Council will be over, we will draw the implicit
conclusions that please ourselves and that indeed we had planned”.

Such a Machiavellian thought has been intercepted and published by Romano Amerio in 1984, see Iota Unum, Ricciardi, p. 93. Thousands of copies of this book have been sold throughout all the world; however, it hasn’t surely been the only instrument that signalled the ignominious thought of the Dominican, which was in fact well spread since 1965 in all the ganglions of the Church, at all levels.

Thus, firstly: The truths of dogmatic Magisterium
don’t need to be interpreted. On the contrary, by their very essence — since
the dogma is indefectible, that is, it doesn’t contain errors, whereas lack of
clarity, ambiguity or equivocity are errors — the
truths of dogmatic Magisterium must not and cannot be interpreted: they are
expressed by their very nature in a clear, univocal way, which is valid in
every time, place, condition: they are eternal

contrast, the truths of pastoral Magisterium do need an interpretation; let us
clarify, however, that we’re not talking about the pastoral Magisterium used
since the Second Vatican Council, but rather about the pastoral Magisterium per se, which has nothing to do with the
former, because it is not corroded by the modernist acid, how we will shall
soon see.

Magisterium is per se as necessary to
the Church as dogmatic Magisterium, on which it depends: the Church cannot do
without it. A precise relationship with their precise hierarchy strongly
vinculates the two spheres between them.

I show in a much more extensive way in Che cosa può cambiare e che cosa non può
cambiare nella dottrina della Chiesa
[What Can and What Cannot Be Changed in the
Doctrine of the Church
in Various Authors, Dogma e Pastorale. L’ermeneutica del
Magistero dal Vaticano II al Sinodo sulla famiglia
[Dogma and Pastoral. The Hermeneutics of the Magisterium from the Second
Vatican Council to the Synod for the Family
], Leonardo da Vinci, Rome 2015,
the Magisterium that we call “pastoral” has the task to define, show, teach and
implement those truths that — although they are connected to the dogma— don’t own the characteristics of
infallibility and indefectibility that must be believed de fide.

can be found in four different categories: 1) the theological results of the
dogmatic truths, e.g. the Catechism of
the Catholic Church
; 2) the canonizations established according to
canonical norms; 3) the liturgical and disciplinary legislation which oblige
the universal Church, e.g. the Institutio
Generalis Missale Romanum
and the Codex
Iuris Canonici
; 4) the approval of religious Orders and Congregations.

we can see, by their intrinsic qualities these four categories develop and
evolve in history and are then, by their own nature, subjected to
modifications, improvements, clarifications, although always in one precise and
rigorous direction, a direction rigorously held in all the two thousand years
of history of the Magisterium of the Church, with a strict, meticulous and
extremely faithful, logical and theological connection to the specific eternal
truths from which they emanate, in such a way that every possible doubt,
misunderstanding, misleading interpretation can be rapidly and solicitously
solved, clarified, judged, if need be eliminated.

Leia Também  In New Interview, Abp. Viganò Elaborates His Claim That We Face an 'Epochal Conflict'

unparalleled Bernard Bartmann clarifies the problem of the irreformability of
the ‘connected truths’ of ecclesiastical faith:

“The Church —
he explains — infallibly teaches Christian morals, and easily acknowledges
whether the rules of a religious order are in accordance with it or not.
However, she isn’t infallible when she judges the exterior appropriateness of
those rules, so that she may formulate a new judgement. Thus, the Church cannot
be mistaken when she judges on worship, on liturgical books, on the particular
duties of certains states (celibacy, breviary) or on the general disciplinary
prescriptions (fasting, holiday rest, institution and suppression of holidays).

In those matters it is not
possible for her to order and approve anything contrary to moral law. But her
judgement on  these formulae (sensus) is neither infallible nor an
immutable truth. On the contrary, it is possible for her to create, at another
time, better, more comprehensive and incisive formulae, in order to express the
same defined truths. […] Compare for example the formulae of the Council of
Chalcedon to those of the Council of Ephesus, the symbol of the Apostles with
that of Athanasius ((Bernard Bartmann, Manuale di teologia dogmatica [Textbook of Dogmatic Theology], Edizioni
Paoline, Alba 1952, pp. 63-64).”

classic example of the reformability and of the simultaneous deep and rigorous
care used in order to guarantee that the reform is performed with the highest
degree of purity — so that the Church, in her widest universality, and the
salvation of each soul may receive the most fertile graces — is the reform of
the Breviary allowed in 1536 by Pope Paul III, rejected with a rescript in 1558
by Paul IV and finally proscribed only ten years later by Saint Pius V: with
this example we want to demonstrate how such things « are the most important witness, in liturgical history, of the priority
attributed to the organic development of liturgy over the approval of the
competent authority. The prudential judgement with which Paul III promulgated
this reform in 1536 was an error eventually corrected thirty-two years later by
the fifth pope after him, because of the evident insatisfaction of the faithful
and at the request of the scholars
» (Alcuin
Reid, Lo sviluppo organico della
Liturgia. I principi della riforma liturgica e il loro rapporto con il
Movimento liturgico del XX secolo prima del Concilio Vaticano II
, Prefazione di Joseph Ratzinger, [The Organic Development of Liturgy. The
Principles of Liturgical Reform and their Relationship with the Liturgical
Movement of the XX Century before the Second Vatican Council. Preface
Joseph Ratzinger], Cantagalli, Siena 2013, p. 31). The direction to be held in
the “pastoral” teaching and acts on the truths connected to the dogma had been
abandoned with unwilling imprudence, but has been eventually recovered by
virtue of the suggestion of a holy Pope.

direction to be held is indicated by the monk Saint Vincent of Lerins in such a
precise way that it has been adopted by the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius at the end of Chapter 4, De fide et ratione: « [Nos credimus
solum] quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est
[“(We only believe in) what has been believed
always, everywhere and by everyone
”] »
(Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium primum, 23, n. 3, see also Denz 3020).

four categories of truths are tightly connected to the dogma by the divine side
and to history by the human side. It is precisely because of this connection to
the world that they cannot be per se directly infallible and indefectible but rather all the Popes of the Church
under whose rule they have found the proper way to develop strived to make them
obey — in the most rigorous, logical, rational and theological relationship — a
univoque link that possesses the highest moral commitment, supported in that by
a theology which is deeply and willingly immersed in a sound metaphysical
atmosphere, an atmosphere that — as it is taught by the last great exponents of
the Roman School, Monsignor Gherardini and Monsignor Livi — has always
represented the most insuperable barrier even against the least historicist —
that is to say, modernist, that is, heretical — infiltration.

infiltration represents today the hardest and most challenging archenemy of
Catholic doctrine, as it is demonstrated by the recent conceited lecturings
pronounced by extemporary theologians such as Francesco Arzillo and the likes
or as the obstinately innovator (thus heretical) Cardinals hidden under fake
“conservative” clothes such as Walter Brandmüller and the likes.

having thus exposed the DIRECTION always held and followed by the Church, let’s
now start illustrating the COUNTER-DIRECTION elaborated and followed by the
modernists since the Second Vatican Council.

Since the
Second Vatican II we witness by contrast a completely different attitude: As we
said, what would be an objective limitation of the truths formulated and taught
with pastoral Magisterium turns itself into a breach, an opportunity, a
potentiality which — even though those truth are connected to the dogma and so
are tightly bound by the moral link identificated by Saint Vincent of Lerins so
well that it has been even included in a Dogmatic Constitution such as the Dei Filius—, in the hands of the
modernists, turns those truths into a Trojan Horse, into a stratagem, into the
picklock used to penetrate into the Gate Tower of the Church — let’s call it
like that —, into the Sancta Sanctorum of
the evangelical doctrine, in order to seize it and, after having conquered it
in such a surreptitious way, rebuild it piece by piece at one’s own
convenience, that is, according one’s own deceitful modernistic intentions, but
without letting anybody notice such extremely shrewd ruse.

Indeed, who
is ever going to notice those armies of solicitous workers who — disguised not
only as Bishops, Cardinals Prefects and Popes, but also as Monsignors,
scholars, parish priests, theologians who claim to be very simple but very
committed to the faithful — will erect — with the most placid, friendly,
lovely, inclusivist and engaging methods — stones made of paper, rocks made of
plastic, pillars made of cottonwood instead of the rightful, solid and well
squared stones chiseled around the rock of the cornerstone mentioned by Eph 2:20?

having been unleashed by the conciliar “aggiornamento”, every kind of
dilettantism will be deemed acceptable, provided that it doesn’t propose
arguments or reasonings or logical deductions and inductions, but rather only
seductions based on suggestive, authoritative arguments à la Nouvelle Théologie,
on reassuring goals of universal pacification, as Amerio, De Mattei,
Gherardini, Guarini, Livi, Mazza, Pasqualucci, Spadafora, Vassallo and myself
point out in dozens of books, articles, courses, round tables, conferences.

cupom com desconto - o melhor site de cupom de desconto

In the
hands of Cardinal Suenens, Pope Roncalli and all the neoterics who still follow
them, the fallibility and the possible defectiveness — allowed by the
impossibility for those degrees of truths to be enunciated at the highest
degree of entelechy of Magisterium, which is given exclusively by a papal locutio ex cathedra — are no longer
instruments that require from those who use them the highest moral and
intellectual commitment in order to make every teaching and every act with
which, each time, the peregrine Church keeps up with peoples and nations,
centuries and languages, science and knowledge, adhere to the truth in every
single point, but rather a fulgurant, splendid, dazzling split to accomplish
that “culture of meeting”, that “culture of dialogue” which will allow them to
finally fulfill the dream of all the fake placid, the fake peaceful and the
utterly hypocrite meek ones of the world, who are actually only willing to be
let in peace.

Leia Também  A CURE International concedeu $ 2,79 milhões em fundos de subsídios das Escolas e Hospitais Americanos da USAID

In other
words, after the denial of the basic, distinctive and abysmal aut aut which has always divided the
Revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ as it has been taught by the Church from
every other religious notion and phantasy — including both the monotheism of
Talmudic Judaism and the monotheism of Islam and including the many protestant
hereticalities —, the goal to make friends with everyone and to especially try
to become no one’s enemy — in a general, soft, smooth et et scheme, belonging to a continuum of approximation toward God of which the Church would just be the final edge —
is pursued. 

Romano Amerio was the first one
to notice the existence of a device that counterfeited doctrine in the
deceitful way described by Father Schillebeeckx. First, at § 14 of Iota unum, he writes: « the law of
historical conservation of the Church
», through which « the Church isn’t lost in the event that she doesn’t
match the truth, but rather in the event that she loses the truth
emphasis is of the Author’s), then in §§ 330-1 he illustrates the first
rudiments of the method utilized by modernist neoterics precisely using that
law: let us mismatch the relationship between
Church and truth so that we reach our goals and the Church isn’t lost, she
doesn’t die completely.

remains of the Lord’s commandment, when He says to us: « Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’
Anything more is from the evil one
(Mt 5:37)? Do great hermeneuts such as
Arzillo, Brandmüller, Ratzinger, O’Malley, Schillebeeckx et alii still acknowledge this commandment, that they persistently
misinterpret? Do they acknowledge at least the reason why it is so imperative,
the reason why there is the (divine)
need to be blunt, clear and neat: « Anything more is from the evil one »?

Thus, as it
can be understood, the issue is language, and the discipline on which Professor
Livi made me teach my courses, Formal Gnoseology, allows like no other to
approach the heart of that shady device, as after all even the Jesuit Father
O’Malley did by affirming categorically: « The Second Vatican Council is a linguistic
(John W.
O’Malley, Che cosa è successo nel
Vaticano II
[in the anglophone world What
Happened at Vatican II
], Vita e pensiero, Milan 2010, p. 313).

difference lays in the fact that the Jesuit exalts the language of the Council
as a theological apotheosis, while the writer, by contrast, in his Il domani – terribile o radioso? – del Dogma [The Future Terrible or Radiant? of Dogma] (Aurea Domus, Milan 2013),
points out in two hundred and fifty pages the infinite snares and tricks used
by the novator to reach the goal of saying without saying, that is, as it is
pointed out by Amerio, to hide under the clothes of a general truth a partial
counter-truth not clearly expressed. This scheme is abundantly illustrated in
my aforementioned essay.

Did any of
those who frown at my severe words with regard to the Popes of the Council ever
read it? Did they ever ponder it and then find arguments which could
demonstrate with neat clarity the fallacy of mines, which are contained in that
pages since seven years ago, and have been then retaken and signaled again in
my successive works, in every single one of them, works that I don’t enumerate
in order not to provide to anybody further pretexts to laugh at the auto-quotes
to which the desert that surrounds me forces me?

However, if
nobody beside me takes into account — either for or against it — the
philosophical, metaphysical and theological horizon through which I achieve the
point to denounce the mega-snare elaborated by the aforementioned Popes — and
when I say “nobody” I mean not even those who I considered very close to me in
faith; I don’t mention anybody only in charity towards all — what should the
most miserable Catholic faithful ever do if he has not the opportunity to quote
anybody but doesn’t wish to remain alone in faith, at the same time trying to
alert his fellow believers, those who are far from faith, the Pastors, the very
same heretics, and, if possible, the whole Church?

equivocal language well illustrated by Father Schillebeeckx allowed — thanks to
its amnesia and to all its ambiguities — at least seven serious and deep
heretical elements to penetrate into the Church: I define them as such in order
not to mistake them with the authentic heresies, manifest and formal, that the
very same shrewd device Suenens-Roncalli — then adopted and used by their successors
Montini, Wojtyla and Ratzinger — has been able to formulate in a refined and
surreptitious way.

seven heretical elements have to do with seven crucial spheres of faith, each
one more cardinal and decisive than the other:

the first one has
to do with Christ’s regality over the world and the public right that emanates
from it, which has to be acknowledged to the Catholic Church, Mater et Magistra of the world;

the second has
to do with the public rights of the Catholic Church — the only depositary of
the Triune God’s Revelation — which are equated to those of the thousands of

the third has
to do with the spurious ecumenism which derives from it;

the fourth has
to do with religious freedom;

the fifth has
to do with ecclesiology;

the sixth has
to do with matrimonial morals and in general with sexual morals and what
derives from it;

the seventh has
to do with the notion of the Mass and the liturgical acts that derive from it.

particular, the second heretical element won’t be solved until a Pope doesn’t
establish firmly with a locutio ex
the principle according to which « if God is not Triune, He even isn’t », as I argued in my Il Mistero della Sinagoga bendata [The Mystery of the Blindfolded Synagogue],
Ist ed. Effedieffe, Milan 2002; IInd ed. completely
revised, pro manuscripto, Aurea
Domus, Milan 2011.

We must
then add to these seven serious fields of heresy of the Church — begotten and
well fed by the Council — those whose eloquent expansion has been allowed and
caused by the very same Council just because of the fatal embrace between the
conciliar Church and the wicked and atheistic historicism. At the first row of
the latter we find the hereticalities that emerge from the books of Monsignor
Joseph Ratzinger, especially Introduzione
al Cristianesimo
[Introduction to
] and then from his encyclicals written in his capacity as a
Roman Pontiff, as I point out in Al cuore
di Ratzinger. Al cuore del mondo
the Heart of Ratzinger. At the Heart of the World]
whose completely revised
version, bearing the new title Al cuore di Ratzinger. È lui il Papa, non l’altro [At
the Heart of Ratzinger. He is the Pope, not the Other
], will be published
in September. (So we will also understand the reasons why the Argentine is
called like that: let’s be patient.)

It is necessary that everyone
who is now participating to the ongoing debate become well aware of the fact
that up to now, since sixty years ago, there hasn’t been a single Prelate who
has been willing to question the Second Vatican Council in the due terms, that
is both in its formal wholeness and in each one of the heretical elements that
infest it, which is to say at least in the seven points indicated here,
excepted — as is known —, in their times, the Bishops Lefebvre and De Castro
Mayer, although they had not been able to gather the needed support to reject
first of all precisely the form with
which the Council had been opened, since at that time the formal issue had not
even come up.

Leia Também  Fotos da semana

to now all, I insist: all the
Bishops, Cardinals and Prefects of the Holy Roman Church, prone to the
directives of the aforementioned Popes, have neither considered the extremely
clear linguistic aspects that are here once more identified in their most
blatant evidence, nor, especially, the severe admonition shot with a
flamethrower, in his times and forever, by Saint Paul: « But 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! As we
have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other
than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!
» (Gal 1:8-9).

at last, a courageous man has taken the field; however, it is necessary for
everyone to be perfectly aware of the true issues at stake: who are the real
fighters, why are they fighting, with which weapons and, finally, with which
goals they are doing it. It is the “War of the Forms”, or, in other words, it
is the war of the flesh against the Spirit, of the world against Christ.

with the political jargon, enough with duplicity, enough with the underwater
navigation. The right start has been
given by Archbishop Monsignor Carlo Maria Viganò, former Apostolic Nuncio to
the United States,
on 4 July, to John-Henry Westen, Director of LifeSite News:

“Anyone with common sense can see that it is an absurdity to
want to interpret a Council, since it is and ought to be a clear and unequivocal
norm of Faith and Morals.

Secondarily, if a magisterial act
raises serious and reasoned arguments that it may be lacking in doctrinal
coherence with magisterial acts that have preceded it, it is evident that the
condemnation of a single heterodox point in any case discredits the entire

If we add to this the fact that the
errors formulated or left obliquely to be understood between the lines are not
limited to one or two cases, and that the errors affirmed correspond conversely
to an enormous mass of truths that are not confirmed, we can ask ourselves
whether it may be right to expunge the last assembly from the catalog of
canonical Councils.

The sentence will be issued by history and by the ‘sensus fidei’ of the Christian people
even before it is given by an official document.”

This would
require a providential sensibilization of all the Cardinals and Bishops of the
Church, starting from refined and committed Cardinals such as Brandmüller, who
— amending the various flaws in the Monsignor Schneider’s words about the
doctrinal corrections made by the Magistery throughout history — has started
showing again what was expected by him, since his solidity as an historian is
beyond dispute.

Good: It
would now be proper that all the great Prelates of the Church become aware of
the fact that it is about time to correct form, language and doctrines
generated by the Second Vatican Council and that if the Lord permitted us to
arrive to this point without anyone making these due corrections, it is only because
it was necessary for them to open their eyes after all of them fell into the
trap they refused to see — because they loved it with their own hearts,
prepared it with their own hands, fell into it with their own feet —, and
realize that what they then defended tooth and nail wasn’t anything but an
enormous, seducing, enchanted spell which hid a great hole from which, had it
not been for the infinite mercifulness of God, nobody would have been able to
come out.

Call it as
you wish. I believe I know its name…

Finally, to keep on talking about the Great
Venerable Old Man, I would suggest not to sadden the debates with darts such as
« Radaelli detests Ratzinger », which
not only degrade the arguments by shifting them to an emotive and childish plan
but also forget that « de internis neque
Ecclesia iudicat
» [« not even the
Church judges about the inner thoughts of men
»], and “neque Ecclesia” means that it is absolutely not fair to judge the
feelings present in the heart of a man: Neither a spiritual Director — were he
the very same Pope — could do it, and that’s really saying something.

It would be
rather proper if the participants to the debates, rather than judge so rashly,
showed to have a little bit of knowledge on the matter, in this case on my
works about the august Subject whom we are talking about, in order to be able
to demonstrate to have read at least the final paragraphs of Al cuore di Ratzinger, or at least its
titles, or at least the titles of its supplementary booklets, the second of
which goes straight to the point: Amare
Ratzinger. Io lo salvo, voi lo uccidete. Non fatelo. Ma anzi: salviamolo tutti
[Loving Ratzinger: I Save
Him, You Kill Him. Don’t Do It. But rather: Let’s Save Him Together

Maybe not
everybody understood it, but this is the only goal that I resolved to reach
three years ago. Would you like to take a try?

Enrico Maria Radaelli 

*  *  *

cuore di Ratzinger. È lui il Papa, non l’altro
, pro manuscripto, Aurea Domus, Milan
2020, will be available in September this year in the bookstores: Àncora (Milan
and Rome), Coletti (Rome), Hoepli (Milan), Leoniana (Rome), San Paolo (Milan).
Alternatively, it can be ordered to the author from his website:

are the five supplementary articles written to complement the essay on Ratzinger:

1) Il
Ratzingerismo. Sfumature o reticenze? Cinque casi esemplari
Nuances or Reticence?
pp. 40;

2) Amare
Ratzinger: io lo salvo. Voi lo uccidete. Non fatelo. Ma anzi: salviamolo tutti
[Loving Ratzinger: I Save Him. You Kill Him. Don’t Do It. But rather:
Let’s Save Him Together
], pp. 32;

3) Scegli:
Ratzingeriano o Cattolico?
[You Choose: Ratzingerian or
pp. 36;

4) Qualcuno
nella Chiesa si è accorto che nell’Enciclica Spe salvi Papa Ratzinger ha
cancellato l’Inferno con una molto eretica Apocatastasi?
[Did Somebody in the Church Notice that in the Encyclical Spe Salvi Pope
Ratzinger Erased Hell with a Very Heretical Apocatastasis?
pp. 32;

5) La
sorgente spiega alla foce come mai l’acqua del fiume è avvelenata. In margine agli
“Appunti” del Cardinale Ratzinger
[The Spring
Explains to the Estuary why the River’s Water is Poisoned. On the Margins of
Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Notes”
], pp. 36 in four-color printing.

The five booklets can be ordered to the Author, as it
is indicated in his website

Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli

International Science and Commonsense Association (ISCA)
Department of Metaphysics of Beauty and Philosophy of Arts,
Research Director and Professor of Formal Gnoseology

English translation by Antonio Marcantonio

cupom com desconto - o melhor site de cupom de desconto