The Servant of God Tomáš Týn was a Dominican theologian born in Brno, Czechoslovakia on 3 May 1950, where he was brought up as a Catholic and an admirer of Saint Dominic. He was allowed to study in France, and later moved to Germany to begin his novitiate with the Dominicans on 28 September 1969 in Warburg in Westphalia, where his family came to escape the dictatorship in their country. He studied philosohpy and theology in at the studio Domenicano of Bologna, and was awarded a doctorate in theology from the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum in 1978 with a dissertation entitled L'azione divina e la libertà umana nel processo della giustificazione secondo la dottrina di s. Tommaso d'Aquino.
On 29 June 1975 he was ordained priest by Pope Paul VI.[2] 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”.[3]
In 1987 he began teaching Moral Theology at the Dominican "Studium" in Bologna, where he had been sent after his ordination to the priesthood.
He was in epistolary correspondence with the then Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who would later become Pope Benedict XVI. His first letter was written on 4 August 1985, feast of St. Dominic. Tomáš Týn wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger to pay him a compliment for his book The Ratzinger Report and to discuss the problems faced by the Church.
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.
The Servant of God Father Tomas Tyn and Vatican II (Part I)
The Servant of God Tomáš Týn was a Dominican theologian born in Brno, Czechoslovakia on 3 May 1950, where he was brought up as a Catholic and an admirer of Saint Dominic. He was allowed to study in France, and later moved to Germany to begin his novitiate with the Dominicans on 28 September 1969 in Warburg in Westphalia, where his family came to escape the dictatorship in their country. He studied philosohpy and theology in at the studio Domenicano of Bologna, and was awarded a doctorate in theology from the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum in 1978 with a dissertation entitled L'azione divina e la libertà umana nel processo della giustificazione secondo la dottrina di s. Tommaso d'Aquino.
On 29 June 1975 he was ordained priest by Pope Paul VI.[2] 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”.[3]
In 1987 he began teaching Moral Theology at the Dominican "Studium" in Bologna, where he had been sent after his ordination to the priesthood.
He was in epistolary correspondence with the then Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who would later become Pope Benedict XVI. His first letter was written on 4 August 1985, feast of St. Dominic. Tomáš Týn wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger to pay him a compliment for his book The Ratzinger Report and to discuss the problems faced by the Church.
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.
The post-conciliar Church
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)
(More. ..)
