ST PAUL EXHORTS US:
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold on to the traditions which you have learned."
2 Thessalonians 2:14
"The Five Wounds of the Liturgical Mystical Body of Christ"
"The Five Wounds of the Liturgical Mystical Body of Christ" according to Bishop Athanasius Schneider: 1. Mass versus populum. 2. Communion in the hand. 3. The Novus Ordo Offertory prayers. 4. Disappearance of Latin in the Ordinary Form. 5. Liturgical services of lector and acolyte by women and ministers in lay clothing.
The abuses of the sacred liturgy that followed the reforms of the Second Vatican Council are “strictly correlated” with a great deal of moral corruption that exists in the world today, says Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke.
In an exclusive interview with ZENIT on the sidelines of Sacra Liturgia 2013, a major international conference on the liturgy held in Rome at the end of June, the Vatican’s most senior American says poor liturgies have also led to “a levity in catechesis” that has been “shocking” and left generations of Catholics ill prepared to deal with today’s challenges.
In a wide-ranging discussion, Cardinal Burke, who serves as Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, also explains the importance of liturgical law, Pope Francis’ approach to the liturgy, and why the sacred liturgy is vital to the New Evangelization.
ZENIT: Your Eminence, what were your hopes for this conference?
Cardinal Burke: My hope for the conference was a return to the teaching of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council on the sacred liturgy. Indeed, [I was hoping for] a deepening and appreciation of the continuity of the teaching practised with regard to the sacred liturgy throughout the Church’s history, and which is also reflected in the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council – something that was obscured after the Council. I believe in large part that has been achieved.
ZENIT: Are we coming out of that period now?
Cardinal Burke: Yes, already Pope Paul VI after the Council in a very intense way, and then John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, laboured diligently to restore the true nature of the sacred liturgy as the gift of worship given to us by God and which we owe to God in the very way He teaches us how to worship. So it’s not man’s invention, it’s God’s gift to us.
ZENIT: How important is a sound understanding of the liturgy in today’s Church. How can it help evangelization?
Cardinal Burke: To me, it’s fundamental. It’s the most important area of catechesis: to understand the worship accorded to God. The first three commandments of the Ten Commandments are to do with this right relationship to God, especially with regards to worship. It’s only when we understand our relationship with God in offering worship that we also understand the right order of all the other relationships we have. As Pope Benedict XVI said in his wonderful magisterium on the sacred liturgy, and which he expressed so often, [it consists of] this connection between worship and right conduct, worship and law, worship and discipline.
ZENIT: Some argue the liturgy is mostly about aesthetics, and not as important as, say, good works done in faith. What is your view of this argument that one often hears?
Cardinal Burke: It’s a Communist misconception. First of all, the liturgy is about Christ. It’s Christ alive in his Church, the glorious Christ coming into our midst and acting on our behalf through sacramental signs to give us the gift of eternal life to save us. It is the source of any truly charitable works we do, any good works we do. So the person whose heart is filled with charity wants to do good works will, like Mother Teresa, give his first intention to the worship of God so that when he goes to offer charity to a poor person or someone in need, it would be at the level of God Himself, and not some human level.
ZENIT: Some also say that to be concerned with liturgical law is being unduly legalistic, that it’s a stifling of the spirit. How should one respond to that? Why should we be concerned about liturgical law?
Cardinal Burke: Liturgical law disciplines us so that we have the freedom to worship God, otherwise we’re captured – we’re the victims or slaves either of our own individual ideas, relative ideas of this or that, or of the community or whatever else. But the liturgical law safeguards the objectivity of sacred worship and opens up that space within us, that freedom to offer worship to God as He desires, so we can be sure we’re not worshipping ourselves or, at the same time, as Aquinas says, some kind of falsification of divine worship.
ZENIT: It offers a kind of template?
Cardinal Burke: Exactly, it’s what discipline does in every aspect of our lives. Unless we’re disciplined, then we’re not free.
ZENIT: As a diocesan bishop in the United States, how did you find the state of the liturgy in the parishes you’ve been in charge of? What, in your view, are the priorities for liturgical renewal in diocesan life today?
Cardinal Burke: I found, of course, many wonderful aspects - in both dioceses in which I’ve served - a strong sense of participation on the part of the faithful. What I also found were some of the shadows as Pope John Paul II called them, a loss of Eucharistic faith, a loss of Eucharistic devotion and certain liturgical abuses. And as a diocesan bishop I needed to address them and I tried as best I could. But in addressing them you always try to help both the priest and the faithful to understand the deep reasons for the Church’s discipline, the reasons why a certain abuse is not only unhelpful for sacred worship but is in fact blocking it or corrupting it.
ZENIT: It’s said love for the sacred liturgy and being pro-life go together, that those who worship correctly are more likely to want to bring children into the world. Could you explain why this is so?
Cardinal Burke: It’s in the sacred liturgy above all, and particularly in the Holy Eucharist, that we look upon the love which God has for every human life without exception, without boundary, beginning from the very first moment of conception, because Christ poured out his life as he said for all men. And remember he teaches us that whatever we do for the least of our brethren, we do directly for Him. In other words, he identifies himself in the Eucharistic sacrifice with every human life. So on the one hand, the Eucharist inspires a great reverence for human life, respect and care for human life, and at the same time it inspires a joy among those who are married to procreate, to cooperate with God in bringing new human life into this world.
ZENIT: Sacra Liturgia has been about liturgical celebration but also formation. What basis of liturgical formation do we need in our parishes, dioceses and particularly in our seminaries?
Cardinal Burke: The first important lesson that has to be taught is that the sacred liturgy is an expression of God’s right to receive from us the worship that is due to Him, and that flows from who we are. We are God’s creatures and so divine worship, in a very particular way, expresses at the same time the infinite majesty of God and also our dignity as the only earthly creature that can offer him worship, in other words that we can lift up our hearts and minds to him in praise and worship. So that would be the first lesson. Then to study carefully how the liturgical rites have developed down the centuries and not to see the history of the Church as somehow a corruption of those liturgical rites. In the true sense, the Church over time has come to an ever deeper understanding of the sacred liturgy and has expressed that in several ways, whether it be through sacred vestments, sacred vessels, through sacred architecture – even the care for sacred linens which are used in the Holy Mass. All of these are expressions of the liturgical reality and so those things have to be carefully studied, and of course then to study the relationship of liturgy with the other aspects of our lives.
ZENIT: You’re known for celebrating the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Why did Pope Benedict make this freely available and what role does it have to play in the Church of the 21st century?
Cardinal Burke: What Pope Benedict XVI saw and experienced, also through those who came to him, who were very attached what we now call the Extraordinary Form - the Traditional Mass - was that in the reforms as they were introduced after the Council, a fundamental misunderstanding took place. Namely, this was that the reforms were undertaken with the idea there had been a rupture, that the way in which the Mass had been celebrated up until the time of the Council was somehow radically defective and there had to be what was really violent change, a reduction of the liturgical rites and even the language used, in every respect. So in order to restore the continuity, the Holy Father gave wide possibility for the celebration of the sacred rites as they were celebrated up until 1962, and then expressed the hope that through these two forms of the same rite – it’s all the same Roman rite, it can’t be different, it’s the same Mass, same Sacrament of Penance and so forth –there would be a mutual enrichment. And that continuity would be more perfectly expressed in what some have called the “reform of the reform”.
ZENIT: Pope Francis is a different person to Benedict XVI in many ways, but it’s hard to believe there are substantial differences between them on the importance of the sacred liturgy. Are there any differences?
Cardinal Burke: I don’t see it at all. The Holy Father clearly hasn’t had the opportunity to teach in a kind of authoritative way about the sacred liturgy, but in the things he has said about the sacred liturgy I see a perfect continuity with Pope Benedict XVI. I see in the Holy Father, too, a great concern for respecting the magisterium of Pope Benedict XVI and his discipline, and that is what Pope Francis is doing.
ZENIT: This conference is reflecting on the 50 years since the opening of the Second Vatican Council, and 50 years ago this December its constitution on the sacred liturgy was promulgated. You’ve already mentioned how liturgical renewal was not as the Council desired, but how do you see things progressing in the future? What do you envision, especially among young people?
Cardinal Burke: Young people are going back now and studying both the texts of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council with its serious texts on liturgical theology which remain valid also today. They’re studying the rites as they were celebrated, striving to understand the meaning and various elements of the rite and there’s a great enthusiasm for that and a great interest in it. All of it, I believe, is directed to a more intense experience of God’s presence with us through the sacred liturgy. That transcendent element was most sadly lost when the reform after the Council was, so to speak, side-tracked and manipulated for other purposes – that sense of transcendence of Christ’s action through the sacraments.
ZENIT: Does this mirror the loss of the sacred in society as a whole?
Cardinal Burke: It does indeed. There’s no question in my mind that the abuses in the sacred liturgy, reduction of the sacred liturgy to some kind of human activity, is strictly correlated with a lot of moral corruption and with a levity in catechesis that has been shocking and has left generations of Catholics ill prepared to deal with the challenges of our time by addressing the Catholic faith to those challenges. You can see it in the whole gamut of Church life.
ZENIT: Pope Benedict said once that the crises we see in society today can be linked to problems of the liturgy.
Cardinal Burke: Yes he was convinced of that and I would say, so am I. It was, of course, more important that he was convinced of it, but I believe that he was absolutely correct.
Archbishop Robert J. Dwyer in July 1971 the Catholic Archbishop of Portland, Oregon, had this to say about the New Mass in his Archdiocesan weekly back in 1971. We quote the late Archbishop Robert J. Dwyer (who attended every session of Vatican II) with a longing in our hearts for a return to the days when Catholic bishops were still men of faith. "We are in a veritable landslide of vulgarization. What was intended by Vatican Council II as a means of making the liturgy more easily understood by the average Christian, has turned out to be something more like an orgy of stripping it of all sense of holiness and reverence, bringing it down to the level of commonness where the very people for whom the changes were made now only yawn out of sheer boredom with the banality of the result. What was the great poetic style of the Bible has been transmogrified and cheapened into some of the most graceless, flat, plodding prose ever inflicted upon undeserving dullards. Matters are bad enough now, but wait until the new Order of the Mass is released as compulsory for a revelation of what crimes can be committed by men in committee! It might have been thought, in the interest of ecumenism, that consideration could have been given to strengthening the old Douai-Challoner text with the great style, the ‘organ roll’ of the King James version. But no! In the minds of those commissioned by hierarchy to do the work, the great object or target, manifestly, was to denude the liturgy of its last claim to literary dignity…With polite pious acquiescence, the Bishops received the results with no more than an occasional feeble, almost only grunted protest. Thusly, do we lose a priceless cultural inheritance....... " http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0131-bishopdwyer.htm
I have always been drawn to and fascinated with the figure of St Mary Magdalene who St Gregory the great associates with Mary of Bethany as the repentant sinner. Tertullian in the 200's says that they (the penitent woman and Mary Magdalene) are one and the same. St Augustine and St Jerome do so as well. St. Luke tells about a “sinner” who washes Jesus’ feet with her tears, anoints them with ointment, and dries them with her hair. Christ says that her sins are forgiven and that her faith has saved her. However, in the Christian East, there is no identification of St Mary Magdalen, St Mary of Bethany, and the Sinful Woman as one and the same. Liturgically and hagiographically, they are three quite distinct ladies. Most of us when we have fallen into sin are too taken by pride to draw near to Jesus. St Mary Magdalene did not allow human respect, fear of reproach or being publicly shamed to keep her from her Lord. She had sought love "in all the wrong places" and been thrown to the wayside like refuse perhaps by some of the very people who denounced her presence and condemned her. She could say: "I will rise, and will go about the city: in the streets and the broad ways I will seek him whom my soul loveth: I sought him, and I found him not. The watchmen who keep the city, found me: Have you seen him, whom my soul loveth? When I had a little passed by them, I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him and I will not let him go."Song 3,2-5.8,6-7 She stood by Jesus side seemingly fearlessly through thick and thin even to at the foot of the cross. She represented at the foot of the cross those of us who have had much to be forgiven. She is the first to see the resurrected Lord in fact a Dominican Father this morning on television said, "if it were not for her faith and announcing to the disciples the resurrection, I too would not have this faith today.". According to French tradition when the faithful were scattered by persecution the family of Bethany found refuge in Provence. The cave in which St. Mary lived for thirty years is still seen, and the chapel on the mountaintop, in which she was caught up daily, like St. Paul, to "visions and revelations of the Lord." When her end drew near she was borne to a spot still marked by a "sacred pillar," where the holy Bishop Maximin awaited her; and when she had received her Lord, she peacefully fell asleep in death.
I remember first reading about the tradition of Sts Mary, Martha and Lazarus coming to Provence in National Geographic as a boy. It was fascinating to me that almost 80 generations of people in the south of France passed this tradition from one generation to the next. I watched a documentary on EWTN this morning on this very theme. I saw a parallel between St Mary Magdalene and St Mary of Egypt in both seeking after lives of grevious sin to live lives of compuction in communion with their great love Jesus. There exists a tradition that both of them were clothed only in their hair since their clothing had long since disintegrated. Also the comparison of the last communions of both of them. St Mary Magdalene going to St Maximin close to her death and collapsing in his arms before being given viaticum. St Mary of Egypt met St Zosima asking him to bring her holy communion.
St Mary Magdalene give us a true spirit of repentence and metanoia. Grant us through thy intercession to live our lives in deep compunction and conversion of heart. The shrine cave grotto of Sainte Baume where St Mary Magdalene is said to have lived the last 30 years of her life in Provence.
It would appear that even in Communist Vietnam that Catholics are unified "Una Voce" as Catholics of all languages, cultures and ethnicities have always been with Latin. Until there is a restoration of an authentic romanità, a Roman character or essence Catholics shall continue in vain to restore their idenitity.
I had my first holy communion in 1973. As a boy, I had no recollection of the pre-1970 liturgy. The Mass in 1973 was completely in the vernacular. However, it was clear to me that the demolition of the high altar and communion rail and the placing of a cheap, table-like structure in the sanctuary somehow didn't make sense. I knew from the beautiful vestments in the sacristy (which we never used), from old missals and hymn books etc that something had gone terribly wrong. When I questioned it all, I was told that we were returning to the simplicity of primitive, early Church practices. Everything from table altars, Mass facing the congregation, Mass only in the vernacular, communion in the hand etc was introduced as an "early, primitive Christian practice". We were "returning to our roots" we were told.... It was then at that early age that I began to read Sacrosanctum Concilium for myself. It seemed obvious to me at the time that the Fathers of the Council could never have envisioned what came to be known as the Novus Ordo (at least not from reading Sacrosanctum Concilium). It wasn't until adulthood after reading works by Mgr Klaus Gamber that I learned this "return to early Christian practice" was indeed not completely true and according to Pius XII's "Mediator Dei" was not in thinking with the Church.
CWR: Speaking about older rites, what about the worship of the early Church? There was much talk of going back to its “purer” forms after the Council. Where do we stand with that today?
Dom Reid: Cardinal Ranjith spoke of this issue in his keynote address, decrying “a kind of false archaeologism which echoed the slogan: ‘let us go back to the liturgy of the early Church.’” His Eminence continued: “In this theme was a hidden understanding that only what happened in liturgy in the first millennium of the Church was valid. This was supposed to be part of the process of aggiornamento. Mediator Dei indicates that this view is in error when it states: ‘the liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity’ [MD 61]. Moreover, since information on the liturgical practice of the early centuries is not so clearly attested to in the written sources available to us from that era, the danger of a simplistic arbitrariness in defining these practices is greater and runs the risk of being pure conjecture. Besides, it is not respectful of the natural process of growth of the traditions of the Church over the subsequent centuries. Neither is it in consonance with the belief in the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church down the centuries. It is also highly pedantic and unrealistic.”
Of course, today we know that what scholars 50 years ago thought was the liturgy of the early Church is not necessarily what scholars hold now. The clearest example of this is the so-called Eucharistic prayer of Hippolytus, which was assumed to be the earliest example of a Roman anaphora and was accordingly used as the basis for the creation of Eucharistic Prayer II promulgated by Paul VI. Today scholars recognize that these assumptions were inaccurate, which is embarrassing to say the least. So too the assumption that the early Church celebrated the Eucharist “facing the people” in the manner that became popular in the 20th century has been shown to be false. These are the dangers and limitations of archaeologism—as opposed to respecting the organic development in the liturgy in history.
From the excellent 'GLORIA.TV' a foreshadow of what is to come for all Catholic priests in the western world who speak out against such things. Father Karl Tropper is right about many things of course:
Is it the right way to express such outlandish opinions about homosexuality and Islam, especially in the Church? KARL TROPPER: Who will say otherwise, if I do not? All priests should do that. The bishops in Austria and Germany are failures, and do not see what is brewing. In 50 years, Vienna will be a Muslim city, the Votive Church a large mosque. Back to current case: Why does the Catholic Church have such a hard time with homosexuality? KARL TROPPER: It is tremendously wrong. And it is perverse. The diocese announced in previous years regarding consequences toward you. The diocesan bishop had given a written warning in the previous year. Did he also rebuke you in this particular case? KARL TROPPER: He said I must not write such things. But in this particular case I was even received notice from the Prosecutor (Note: There were two reports of incitement, both cases were dismissed by the prosecutor). You will no longer go out with your opinions to the public? TROPPER KARL: I only go outside accompanied with a lawyer. With the attorney for the sermon in the church? ... KARL TROPPER: One can also write something. You have no fear of legal consequences for the church? KARL TROPPER: What have I done wrong? They insult minorities, fulminate against other religions. and Do not apologize? KARL TROPPER: No, why? Because you incite? KARL TROPPER: no. Do not you think that with such statements many churchgoers are afraid? KARL TROPPER: All right, nobody needs to come to church.
Procession Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Chile
This is the prayer of St. Simon Stock, to whom the Scapular devotion with its promise was given. It has for seven centuries been called a prayer to the Blessed Mother which has never been known to fail in obtaining her powerful help.
O beautiful Flower of Carmel, most fruitful Vine, Splendor of Heaven, holy and singular, who brought forth the Son of God, still ever remaining a Pure Virgin, assist me in this necessity.
O Star of the Sea, help and protect me! Show me that thou art my Mother.
O Mary, Conceived without sin, Pray for us who have recourse to thee!
Mother and Ornament of Carmel, Pray for us! Virgin, Flower of Carmel, Pray for us! Patroness of all who wear the Scapular, Pray for us! Hope of all who die wearing the Scapular, Pray for us! St. Joseph, Friend of the Sacred Heart, Pray for us! St. Joseph, Chaste Spouse of Mary, Pray for us! St. Joseph, Our Patron, Pray for us! O sweet Heart of Mary, be my Salvation!
From 1992 to 1998, Lu Nan, a Chinese documentary photographer, undertook an unauthorized project where he traveled throughout China photographing the "Underground Church". Lu Nan faced arrest and prosecution for taking these photos. The project is entitled "On the Road. Chinese Catholic Church 1992-1998".
May these deeply moving photos become a meditation for each one of us....My faith has been strengthened and I've been deeply edified by these photographs. These people bear a invaluable witness to the Catholic faith under circumstances none of us can imagine. My God grant us all the grace to be able to bear such witness for Christ and our Catholic faith if need be. I have always heard that the faith blossoms and flourishes under persecution. The blood of untold martyrs in China is the seedbed of the Church there. Part of my own heritage on my mother's side were made up of Chinese Catholics who went to Hawaii in the 19th Century. It is to these ancestors really that I owe my Catholic faith I received through my mother. We must pray for our persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ who suffer greatly at the hands of an atheistic government. I pray that the "underground catacomb Church" shall grow as a leaven within Chinese society. I pray that those who attend the schismatic "official Patriotic Church" will be given the grace and strength to reject the false notion that one can be truly Catholic in so doing.
Our Lady of Sheshan pray for China and for the persecuted Catholics there!
The Cardinal Kung Foundation is an excellent resource regarding the underground catacomb Catholics of China.
The complete set of photographs can be viewed here with a description
(Roberto de Mattei) The Church has a new Pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the first non-European Pope, the first Latin American Pope, the first Pope called Francis. The mass media are trying to guess what will be the future of the Church during his Pontificate, by looking at his past as a cardinal, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires and as a simple priest. Which “revolution” will he bring about? Hans Küng has called him “the best possible choice” (La Repubblica, 14 March 2013). But it is only after he has made his principal appointments and after his first programmatic speeches that it will be possible to predict the line’s of Pope Francis’ pontificate. It is true for every Pope what Cardinal Enea Silvio Piccolomini said in 1458 when he was elected with the name of Pius II, “Forget Enea, welcome Pius.“
History never repeats itself exactly but the past helps us to understand the present. In the 16th century, the Catholic Church went through an unprecedented crisis. Humanism, with its immoral hedonism, had infected the Roman Curia and even the Pontiffs themselves. Against this corruption there emerged Martin Luther’s Protestant pseudo-reform which was dismissed by Pope Leo X, a Medici, as “a quarrel between monks“. The heresy had started to fizzle out when, on Leo X’s death in 1522, the first German Pope was elected, Adrian Florent from Utrecht who took the name Adrian VI. The brevity of his reign prevented him from bringing his projects to fruition, in particular – as the historian of the Popes, Ludwig von Pastor, writes – “the gigantic war against the mass of abuses which deformed the Roman Curia and nearly the whole Church.“ Even if he had reigned for longer, the evil in the Church was too entrenched, according to Pastor, “for one single Pontificate to bring about that great change which was necessary. All the evil which had been committed over many generations could be corrected only by long and uninterrupted work.”
Adrian VI understood the gravity of the evil and the responsibility for it of the men of the Church. This is clear from an instruction which the Nuncio, Francesco Chieregati, read out in the Pope’s name at the Diet of Nuremberg on 3 January 1523. As Ludwig von Pastor says, this is a document of extraordinary importance not only for understanding the reformist ideas of the Pope but also because it is a text which was unprecedented in the history of the Church.
After rebutting the Lutheran heresy, Adrian deals (in the last and most noteworthy part of the instruction) with the reformers’ desertion of the supreme ecclesiastical authority.
“You are also to say,” so run Chieregati’s express instructions, “that we frankly acknowledge that God permits this persecution of His Church on account of the sins of men, and especially of prelates and clergy; of a surety the Lord’s arm is not shortened that He cannot save us, but our sins separate us from Him, so that He does not hear. Holy Scripture declares aloud that the sins of the people are the outcome of the sins of the priesthood; therefore, as Chrysostom declares, when our Saviour wished to cleanse the city of Jerusalem of its sickness, He went first to the Temple to punish the sins of the priests before those of others, like a good physician who heals a disease at it roots. We know well that for many years things deserving of abhorrence have gathered round the Holy See; sacred things have been misused, ordinances transgressed, so that in everything there has been change for the worse. Thus it is not surprising that the malady has crept down from the head to the members, from the Popes to the hierarchy. We all, prelates and clergy, have gone astray from the right way, and for long there is none that has done good; no, not one. To God, therefore, we must give all the glory and humble ourselves before Him; each one of us must consider how he has fallen and be more ready to judge himself than to be judged by God in the day of His wrath. Therefore, in our name, give promises that we shall use all diligence to reform before all things the Roman Curia, whence, perhaps, all these evils have had their origin; thus healing will begin at the source of sickness. We deem this to be all the more our duty, as the whole world is longing for such reform. The Papal dignity was not the object of our ambition, and we would rather have closed our days in the solitude of private life; willingly would we have put aside the tiara; the fear of God alone, the validity of our election, and the dread of schism, decided us to assume the position of Chief Shepherd. We desire to wield our power not as seeking dominion or means for enriching our kindred, but in order to restore to Christ’s bride, the Church, her former beauty, to give help to the oppressed, to uplift men of virtue and learning, above all, to do all that beseems a good shepherd and a successor of the blessed Peter. Yet let no man wonder if we do not remove all abuses at one blow; for the malady is deeply rooted and takes many forms. We must advance, therefore, step by step, first applying the proper remedies to the most difficult and dangerous evils, so as not by a hurried reform to throw all things into greater confusion than before. Aristotle well says: ‘All sudden changes are dangerous to States.’ (…)“.
Adrian VI’s words help us to understand how the crisis in the Church today can have its origins in the doctrinal and moral failings of the men of the Church in the half century which followed the Second Vatican Council. The Church is indefectible but her members, even the supreme ecclesiastical authorities, can make mistakes. They should be ready to recognise their faults, including publicly. We know that Adrian VI had the courage to undertake this revision of past errors. How will the new Pope confront the process of doctrinal and moral self-destruction by the Church, and what will be his attitude towards the modern world, impregnated as it is by a profoundly anti-Christian spirit? Only the future will answer these questions but it is certain that the causes of the obscurity of the present lie in our most recent past.
History also teaches us that Giulio de Medici succeeded Adrian VI and took the name of Clement VII (1523 – 1534). During his Pontificate, on 6 May 1527, there occurred the terrible sack of Rome, perpetrated by Lutheran mercenaries (Landsknechte)of the Emperor Charles V. It is difficult to describe the devastation and sacrileges committed during this event which proved to be more terrible than the sack of Rome in 410. Men and women of the Church were targeted for especial cruelty: nuns were raped, priests and monks were killed or sold as slaves, churches, palaces and houses were destroyed. The massacres were swiftly followed by famine and plague. The inhabitants of Rome were decimated.
The Catholic people interpreted the event as a punishment they deserved for their own sins. It was only after the terrible sack that life in Rome changed profoundly. The climate of moral relativism dissolved and the general poverty stamped austerity and penitence onto the city. It was this new atmosphere which made possible that great religious rebirth, the Catholic Counter-Reformation of the 16th century. (Roberto de Mattei)
Card. Burke interjected. He spoke about the tradition of keeping a male sanctuary as key to continuing the proper idea of what Monsignor was talking about. The ministers were simply extensions of the priesthood and as such they should be male. Wherein he made the caveat of a cloistered convent, but was clear to make the distinction that the female nun would not enter the sanctuary, but remain at the rail. As lunch and the afternoon wore on, we broke for Solemn Vespers at 3pm. We continued the conversation afterwards, wherein Card. Burke spoke about the need to recommit to proper liturgical catechesis. He spoke about posture. He spoke about language. He spoke about mentality. And he spoke about form. Remember, this was early 1995. Card. Burke spoke about how the Novus Ordo was broken. That it didn’t have a foothold in the Church because it was not rooted in tradition, but rather that it was a wholly new endeavor started in the 1960s. He was quick to distinguish between validity and licitness though. To be valid is to understand that there isn’t a complete break with the 2000 year history of the Church, he would go on to say, but that the actions were not consistent with the laws set forth in the rubrics. And that made it illicit. And that is why he liked going to St. Agnes, because the Mass was said licitly. There was no deviation from the rubrics. Mass was ad orientem. Mass was sung. Mass was Solemn. Mass was in Latin. Mass was ceremonially licit. AND the communicants still received at the rail, on their knees and without the use of their hands. --at this point, I would like to interject that St. Agnes has kept the traditions of the Church alive based upon actual implementation of the Council, as it happened. Monsignor’s Bandas and Schuler thought it best to implement the changes as they happened and to stay consistent. First by Bandas’ leadership then through Schuler’s, after being weekend assistant to Bandas and eventually pastor, in 1969.--
During his first homily, Pope Francis quoted Bloy: “When one does not confess Jesus Christ, I am reminded of the expression of Léon Bloy: ‘He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil.’ When one does not confess Jesus Christ, one confesses the worldliness of the devil.”
'' The council is that it begins in the Church as a harbinger of a day of most splendid light.'' So 'John XXIII opened the Second Vatican Council on 11 October 1962. Unfortunately, the years that followed were less shining than what was hoped for, reception of the council has been more 'difficult than had been hoped, but the exaltation of a certain spirit of reconciliation has characterized the life of the Church for nearly fifty 'years.
The same Paul VI monstrously 'alarmed at the post-conciliar situation, then John Paul II and now Benedict XVI have more' times warned against erroneous interpretations.There 'a risk, however,' that the debate over Vatican II remains only in specialized fields, while the nature of these important abuses and doctrinal and pastoral drifts may be known by all, to this purpose the testimony of some great personalities' can' be useful.
This book then proposes not a theological treatise, nor 'historical, but a kind of investigation with which to bring out the role of some'' sentinels'' in the post-conciliar era who have been a lone voice. Personalities 'often counter-labeled with too much ease': Eugenio Corti, Romano Amerio, Guareschi, S. Pio of Pietrelcina, P. Tomas Tyn, Don Divo Barsotti, P. Cornelio Fabro, Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, are the sentinels'''' dashed by various authors in this brief survey.
The speech of Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005 opened a very important debate on the theme of the so-called hermeneutic of the Council, an important fact especially considering that until now it rarely went beyond the celebratory tone of the event. There' is a risk, however, that this debate will remain confined to a specialized field, while the nature of the pastoral and doctrinal tendencies are important that need to be known by all, considering the consequences on the life of the Church and faith.
That is why this book is thought to play a kind of investigation from which to bring out the role of some "sentinels" that have been a lone voices, personalities often counter-labeled too easily. authentic witnesses, however uncomfortable, it is still an example that deserves the attention and to be heard, a voice that everyone can hear - even the "non-experts" - to understand a little 'better the facts.
Eugenio Corti, Romano Amerio, Guareschi, St. Pio of Pietrelcina, Father Tomas Tyn, Don Divo Barsotti, Father Cornelio Fabro, card. Giuseppe Siri, Msgr. Brunero Gherardini and Mgr. Marcel Lefevbre, are the "sentinels" dashed by various authors in this brief survey published by Edizioni Cantagalli. The authors have pointed out some thoughts of these personalities without claiming to exhaust a full portrait, but only to bring out their voice against those abuses that have characterized a certain period of life of the Catholic Church.
To have a little sample taste 'taste of the survey conducted some songs that relate to the figure of Don Divo Barsotti, considered by many as a great mystic of 900.
In 1988, during an interview with Antonio Socci, Barsotti forthrightly expressed his point of view:
"Perhaps the council did not stress enough the essential strangeness of the Church to the world."In 1996, the journal Rogate Ergo, he had this to say: "We can not accept the liturgical reform as it has been introduced (...) It does not mean anything this vulgar language (...) The problem is not to understand on an intellectual level, but make a real encounter with Christ. And I do not see in today's Liturgy something that stimulates this meeting. "
In several places in the spiritual diaries of Don Divo Barsotti testify that the theme of "reception" of the Council has been very troubling for him: in 1967 he was concerned about the excessive length and the language of the documents, in 1979 he was annoyed by the continuous referring to Council for wanting to change everything in 1983 he condemns the overly optimistic view of human history, in 1985, cares for those who have claimed "that" their "Council could be the new foundation of everything."
Regarding inter-religious dialogue he expressed his concerns over the meeting in Assisi in 1986 when John Paul II expressed directly to the concern that "you may not make more difference," and so "the people can no longer realize what is specific of Christianity. "
In 1970, when he was called to preach the annual retreat to Paul VI, quoting those who "attuarono" the Council of Trent: Charles, Philip, Ignatius, Francis Xavier, Teresa, John of the Cross, and say, "Woe to us if we break the bond that unites us to the Church of all time. I can not recognize the Church of today if this is not the Church of the Council of Trent, if not the Church of Francis and Thomas, of Bernard and Augustine. I do not know what to do with a Church that is born today. " (Christian Roots n. 70 - December 2011)
On 29 June 1975 he was ordained priest by Pope Paul VI. He often spoke out against Communism, and said this opposition he felt for dictatorship had been the reason for his vocation to the priesthood, as he would later say in a homily on Fatima in 1987: “my vocation is due to Communism, thanks be to God”.
In 1987 he began teaching Moral Theology at the Dominican "Studium" in Bologna, where he had been sent after his ordination to the priesthood.
Fr. Týn died on 1 January 1990 in Neckargemünd, Germany, close to his family. His tombstone bears the words from Psalm 42 recited at the feet of the altar in the Latin Mass: Et introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam'.'
The cause for his canonisation was initiated in 1991 by Carlo Caffarra, Cardinal Archbishop of Bologna.
Here, dear sisters, I again have the pleasure to be here among you to say a few words on the theme chosen very appropriately with great depth, that is the situation of the post-conciliar church. You know it's a theme that is dear to the Holy Father who convened a synod specifically to treat this rather important and highly topical matter. Thus, invigorated and refreshed by the prayer of holy rosary we are going to deal with this theme to tell the truth which is not at all easy. I think that is within reach of all, a matter of common experience, the fact that there is a certain discomfort for the good souls, the souls that tend to remain truly Christian, who love holy tradition - without this love for tradition there is no' Christianity - without a doubt such souls suffer under some deleterious aspects of this era which we call post-conciliar. what caused all this, perhaps the council? 'This is the question we need to ask.
My answer tends to tell you precisely, perhaps surprisingly, that is not directly the fault of the council, but of strange, outlandish interpretations thereof. In this I can not completely agree with the writings of two bishops whom you know, Msgr. Lefebvre and Bishop. De Castro Mayer, who had the pastoral care, understandably so, to highlight some challenging aspects of some of the teachings of the Council, particularly in the field of ecumenism and in terms of religious freedom, the two issues that we will discuss. These two bishops rightly see that some expressions of these conciliar documents seem to contradict Catholic tradition in this matter.
There is no doubt that by studying exactly the letter of the council thesis there could also exist this chance to interpret in contrast to Catholic tradition, and there is no doubt that so few, unfortunately many of the modernists, have thus interpreted just the conciliar texts. But is this how the council wished to be interpreted? I would say definitely not. The council continually proposes the need to reconnect to the Catholic tradition of all time and the same Pope John XXIII who convened the council insists that the council needs to be added to a series of previous councils, and very often the conciliar texts have the words " 'vestiges Concilii Tridentini et vaticani first prementes' "ie pressing, just following the vestiges, the footsteps, the traces of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, we teach this or that. For example, in Dei Verbum : the teaching on historical authenticity of the Gospels basically reiterates the traditional doctrine of the church teaching on the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff affirming the doctrine of Vatican I, with extremely uplifting terms. So you see certainly - directly at least - is not the fault of the council all this upheaval that has happened post-conciliar era.
So here already approaching us is an intuition, a solution that can then be proposed at the end of this discourse, that is, the solution would be this: to remain faithful to the council against distortions of the post-conciliar period: very simple in essence. You see you do a service to neomodernists when some good souls, traditional (be it traditional is a good thing because tradition, does not mean only clerical fringes of society, but also anthropologists suspected of clericalism, just to cite or G Duncan ...... or ......... so many others, basically saying that the tradition is the root in which man lives, even where he is born, by his nature it is thus, then to be free means to be rooted in tradition, it is harmful to the soul in all aspects, the soul destined to eternal salvation, both from a strictly psychological viewpoint. You see, in essence, attachment to tradition is good for both spiritual and supernatural life is a natural asset. it's also a question of mental hygiene, if you will , in this sense we want to be faithful to tradition in every sense, both the ecclesiastical and the cultural one in the widest sense of the Christian West). But those good souls who want to cultivate, & maintain in our era and hand down to posterity the authentic Catholic tradition, these souls do this conspicuous service within the modernist tendencies of the church/ And what is this thesis of neomodernism? That is the argument that the council is a break with the past.
We must never allow this mentality, we must always reiterate that, as to the letter of the council, that the council does not want to be anything other than a continuation of the tradition of all time and the council tells us this in no uncertain terms. You see it is useless to invoke these gentlemen this elusive "spirit of the council" against the letter of the same and against any canonical interpretation of these texts. I remember our dear father .......... , a professor of canon law always told us so: id quod voluit, legislator dixit, quod taquit, noluit , which is what the legislator wanted to say, I really said, what has been silent , did not want to say it. Okay, dear, this was the authentic interpretation of the conciliar texts a. So basically it is useless to say that these gentlemen say: okay the letter of the council is that the gospels are really historians, but, however, the spirit of the council says...and so on. The spirit of the council simply does not exist, or at least you could say it in German which is a Geist , that is not a spirit, but rather a wicked malevolent one then we must be extremely careful not to misinterpret the council, although there are certain times in which some conciliar texts could also lend itself to false interpretation.
I do not say these things dear ex propriis , that is, for my modest authority, I tell you in perfect communion with the reigning pontiff John Paul II and what a joy to hear the Pope always sustained by the Holy Spirit, who never abandons his holy Church, what joy to hear the Pope worried about the continuity with tradition, for a truly Catholic culture and faith, even to the present day, and so for a true interpretation of the council. I always remember these wonderful words of the Holy Father who has given us so much hope, hope that actually in hand, despite all the difficulties, is coming true; speaking of the Pope, in his first speech after his enthronement, speaking to the cardinals he said that the council has not been applied, in spite of all the talk that there has been, that the council would bring very great fruit if it was perfectly put into practice and if we all strive to live it quite literally, in spite of all this, the Supreme Pontiff said with a lot of courage, therefore, be a brave dear daughters, the council has not been applied, we must return to the council, the council must be re-read, apply it according to the requirements of the letter, according to the true and authentic interpretation of the church. Just today as I was about to tell you about these things, the council, Referring to that speech to the cardinals of the Holy Father, but the Holy Father came to my aid, - you know dear daughters, while turning on the radio, sometimes it happens that on the radio there is some good news about the Holy Father -, well, reporting a speech in Belgium where he is currently visiting, it is just the latest news, the Holy Father says: the post-conciliar era of the council was misinterpreted (words coraggiosissime), it has been misapplied, poorly studied creating confusion among the faithful. See how the Holy Father , aware of what is going on among the Christian people, and then the council has created the confusion, not the council itself, you can see the thinking of the Holy Father in this case, the council was not directly to blame, we will see perhaps indirectly some small fault, indirectly again, some small fault could also have it, but it is not directly the fault of the council.
Who then is to blame? It is the fault of those who have misinterpreted the post-conciliar era, misapplied, poorly studied and therefore have created confusion among the faithful. Therefore, we are in perfect communion with the Roman Pontiff, et si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos ?
If God is for us, who can ever be against us? You see dear ones. Then making us stronger than this and also for the wonderful words of Cardinal Ratzinger Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, deputy guardian by the Pope, right from the Apostolic See, the guardian of the holy Catholic truth, Cardinal Ratzinger very authoritatively in an interview to Jesus magazine, which is otherwise unreliable to tell the truth, but in this interview could not get anything done because the cardinal himself gave the answers, well, the cardinal said that you can not, most importantly, we will be back at the end, because the problem as we see will be the interpretation of the council, the cardinal said in fact that you can not create a rift between a church claiming pre-conciliar and one post-conciliar church.
You see you can not do so, such a split is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Catholic faith. It's so easy, what you see is a disheartening that it takes a Prefect of the Sacred Congregation, and a dignity, it takes a Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to remind Christians that the church was not founded by the council Vatican II, but was founded by our Lord Savior Jesus Christ with His divine authority. You see dear daughters, but we already knew that from the catechism, it's worrying that some Christians have forgotten in the meantime, so that it takes just a statement of the prefect of this Congregation in the field so to speak of the common catechism. Once, when we lived in a little happier times than today, the Sacred Congregation intervened only to difficult issues, high theology, but now it must intervene as a matter of basic catechism at the level of first grade, okay this speech? Because this was taught to the children, the little question: who founded the Catholic Church? Our Lord Jesus Christ with His divine authority. We all knew it, however it seems that this truth has been lost in the meantime. So we are glad that the Cardinal has pointed this out, but we are also a bit 'dejected that you had to bother Cardinal Ratzinger himself to recall to our minds this simple truth.
You see I do not willingly tell concrete stories of real life, this strange style, is rather a 'part of the post-conciliar style, so-called pastoral style, not doctrinal, then you tell the particular facts, from experience, do not do it willingly, because I think both that my experience is not very significant, both because I think that even if it were relevant, it is difficult to communicate it, because what you live, you always live individually. However, to give a little 'idea of my impact with the conciliar texts, it happened a bit' as well. I was in France in the terrible year, 1968, a year of tremendous memory, there were strikes everywhere, the trains did not work, then we were Czech students in France there to study and had to go back by bus. So on this occasion there was a student colleague of mine who was a good Catholic, fortunately there was good agreement between us and him with a certain risk, because you know that in the East literature, even of the council, because this is a good sign, is considered a very subversive literature, so one was not without risk carrying it with him ( the documents of the council to our parish priest.) As the journey was long, I asked him if he lent me a few of 'these texts, so that I could delight myself to read them and he told me: you'll see that you like them so much because they are written in Latin, and you know you'll be happy with that . I must say that I liked it a lot because when the church speaks its language, the Latin language, then it is always a joy for all of us Christians. So I took these conciliar documents and read them with great joy, it was a beautiful thing. I said that luxury is something extraordinary that the church can teach peacefully, without condemning the heresies. You know dear daughters generally councils were convened to condemn the bad doctrines that raged in different periods of church history, so that there was always an appendix with a summary of the heretical sentences that begin: you quis dixeri t, if anyone dared to say Then follows the sentence unedifying, then eventually there is the clause "anathema sit", let him be excommunicated from the church. Well, then there was a series of convictions in the councils, even in the papal magisterium. Now that the Church has had this serenity is a great joy to know, a pastoral council is in fact a kind of luxury that rarely the church can afford and as naive as I was, you have to understand dear daughters because the ecclesiastical life of the West came very rarely in our country (Czechoslovakia), that is, behind the Iron Curtain, so I said: Blessed are those Christians in the West, while we poor things are a little bit under pressure, these Christians have a wonderful freedom, they are all rooted in their faith, their tradition, it is a splendor, then the Pope, the bishops gathered in this great assembly in Rome can teach peacefully without defining the Christian people, because they trust Christians, their maturity, in the sense of the letter of invitation of John XXIII and this is a good thing.
Then later when I heard, in the novitiate that I was still very naive, in the novitiate of Frankfurt in Germany, there was a priest who explained these post-conciliar developments, he then had to say something really shocking, shocking, then I realized what were the dangers in post-conciliar era and what shocked me most was that my brothers in the novitiate were greatly fascinated by this "courageous" speech. What did he say this reverend? He said that we finally got rid of the tradition, finally there is the sunset ot the Tridentine era, finally the church is all redone and all new, in fact a completely different church. In short, I was reminded of my catechism and I was rather 'scared, because I do not think someone can establish a new church, I've always heard from scripture that no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ our Lord.
And there began my troubles with the council because at first I was all happy about this fact, you could say the spiritual luxury of the Church which teaches serenely pastoral without defining doctrinally, you also know I do not like to have to excommunicate anyone, it is just a job which is very unpleasant and also the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not like, even to the Holy Office of blissful and blessed memory did excommunicate anyone. But you see this illusion, it must be said, this optimistic illusion a claim of maturity of today's Christians is a myth that has absolutely collapsed: okay, my dear? Then you have to be serious and understand that the Christian laity and not only them but even more the clergy, even the higher clergy, and Lord forgive me, you should never speak ill of the princes of the people as the bible says, even though sometimes the higher clergy it is said with all due respect and pray the Lord to keep his hand over them, is involved in these bad interpretations of the council. Then you have to actually go to this seriousness, which makes us understand that there has never been a mature laity and clergy in fact, unfortunately, How can the Church could afford this luxury of teaching without defining doctrinally and pastorally without taking disciplinary action where it is necessary. Why is this? Simply because of the original sin that we all know, so you see this optimism is a bit 'too rosy to be Catholic, okay? There is this noble savage in civilized man, it is not good, we are born sinners and that is the Catholic realism with which every issue must be addressed. There should be no haughtiness which is typically modernist according to which we see every day today, unlike those poor christians of past ages, see that there is pride in this, today we are mature, we now have figured it all out. The People who built a church like the one where we just now prayed the Holy Rosary were certainly far more spiritually advanced in Christianity than the rest of us who build horrible churches of concrete, you understand? You see, dear? Just the same testimony of historical documents is more than eloquent in this regard, this should make us very, very humble about the past centuries who have much to teach us and we have very little to teach them.
When we take a 'look at some questions, some questions, some fundamental issues dealt with at the council and they seem to cause a rupture with the past. The first problem is regarding the great silence of the council. What is this silence? That omission that is close to your heart, dear daughters, silence on communism, the Council has not acted in this regard, strangely, very strangely, much has been said about it is as if the council of Nicaea had never uttered the word Arianism ,do you know what I mean? This council convened, after that of Jerusalem, of the apostles, 320 AD, convened to combat this heresy that the second hypostasis, the person of the Word, is a creature of the Father, then the mediator between the Father Creator and the created, always only creature, the creature as the most perfect of all, to defeat this heresy the Council of Nicaea was convened. Well it is as if in a time full of an ugly heresy the church threatened by a doctrine so insidious, because then the Arians as opposed to our silly heresies of today, I always say every age has the heresies it deserves, well, Arian heresy is extremely elaborate philosophically, it is rough and coarse, then it is as if in a time when this thought was rampant completely unreliable but at the same time very refined, it is as if that council convened to defeat it but never said the word Arianism. Here this kind of silence is really worrying. Why? Even in this regard I do not mean to be stupid, but I say it just Referring to what he said the same Pope John XXIII in the notification letter that now I will read in Latin, and translate as well, even though there would be no need. What is important, dear daughters, what is very important is this, that the council should always be interpreted in the light of the Magisterium of the Popes, this is just a basic point, you see I say it because we are going to read this passage from the letter of John XXIII. The council can not be interpreted by any authority except that of the Pope. The bishops, however enjoy a great authority in the church and are the successors of the apostles, they really are pastors of their dioceses, bishops, neither individually or in synod can never rise above the Roman Pontiff. You see, dear, as you well know, you have learned well your catechism and also studied the monarchic structure of the church, then you know that the Pope is the ' episcopus episcoporum , that is in excess of any council. I must say with some regret that they were heretics, unfortunately, some of my compatriots who initiated the so-called conciliar heresy, at the Council of Constance, John Huss who took the punishment he deserved and could not have turned out differently for the peace of the holy church of God, we are in the fifteenth century at the Council of Constance, and then the council of Basel. The ugly mess of that is that unfortunately there was a schism in the Western church, there were three popes and no one knew who was the legitimate Pope. Even in our holy order two saints, St. Vincent Ferrer and S. Catherine of Siena each opted for another pope, through no fault of their own, because they actually did not know who should really be obeyed. Then it appeared that none of the three was legitimate. You had to lay down all three and there was no authority that could do so if not that of the emperor. Fortunate thing you know the monarchic structure of the Middle Ages. So the emperor has called this synod in which these three popes were deposed and was elected a new one, except that this fact of deposition of the popes schismatics caused a disturbance of the church, so that it was thought that one could appeal to the council against the Roman Pontiff, and then the successive popes have always struck with appropriate anathemas conciliarists of this thesis who appeal against a pope to a general council. In fact, in our Basilica of San Domenico there is a whole list of propositions why you can not give absolution sometimes, you have to resort to holy see, among them there are those who appeals - against the Supreme Pontiff - to a future council.
See how the Popes took very seriously this Conciliar heresy, but today has quiet conciliarists, it is said: the council is for me to interpret myself. No, instead of warning that the council must be interpreted in light of the Magisterium of the Popes. So when we read this passage from John XXIII it is for reasons of interpretation, that of authentic interpretation. Now John XXIII in the notification letter that was to establish the basic Schemas of the council as well as the spirit and the address of the council, a letter entitled "Humanae salutis" of the year 1961 says they arrived at such a point that "ut Denique healthy novum atque quod est hominum formidolosum existimandum secta Deum be Altior blackberries veluti military ordered to constiterit multos for Populos pervaserit. " I will try a translation: it has come to such a point that something new and very terrifying (to be considered this terrifying new fact), was founded a sect of men who deny God, a sect of atheists, (the allusion is clear to the Supreme Pontiff), organized, orderly is in Latin, organized as a military way. You see militant atheism, see is a clear reference to Marxism and communism, was able to invade many nations. John XXIII is faced with this fact really depressing of communism, there is no need to say atheistic communism because communism is essentially atheist is a pleonasm to say "godless communism", then communism is atheist and has managed to organize with all the instruments of power and invade many nations, not only militarily, but also spiritually, something terrifying, says the Supreme Pontiff, something horrible. See how John XXIII had that supernatural sense of to detect danger.
In light of this it is said the Pope remains appalled at the stunned silence of the council, does not speak. The "Gaudium et Spes" which should deal with the church in this world, makes no mention of it (Communism). Why is that? So here myself I do not know, but feel certain about some things, these items are from the importance they have, because you may not know, but they say that maybe there was a compromise pseudo eucumenico, that is, to ensure the presence observers of the church (the church with small c, this time) to the eastern schismatics, that of Moscow, to ensure their presence at the council had to give up condemning the communist sect has mentioned the fact of Pope John XXIII. I do not know if it is true, you may think that there was some reason. You know well what "church" (in quotation marks), it is, of the Moscow Patriarchate which is an atheistic propaganda tool. You can also reach these extremes. The famous writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn says it clearly in his open letter to the Patriarch ...... There was no need to surrender to such gentlemen, its instruments of power against atheists.
Then we know the historical development ..... (interruption of the tape, the other side of the cassette)