Aventuras mediáticas do Papa Francisco - o Bem, o Mal e a Consciência - por Nuno Serras Pereira

02. 10. 2013

‘Ai dos têm o mal por bem, e o bem por mal’ (Is 5, 20).

O Santo Padre, na entrevista que deu a Scalfari afirmou peremptório: “Cada um tem a sua ideia do Bem e do Mal e deve escolher seguir o Bem e combater o Mal (tal) como os concebe. Bastaria isto para melhorar o mundo”. Evidentemente esta afirmação é objectivamente falsa. Já na carta que enviou ao mesmo Scalfari quando escreve sobre a consciência afirma algo que pode ser verdade mas também pode ser falsidade, adiante veremos porquê, prestando-se por isso aos maiores equívocos, tendo como efeito a indução em grave erro da multidão daqueles que têm uma ideia muito diferente daquilo que a dela Igreja prega. Por isso é que S. João Paulo II ensinou: “Não basta dizer ao homem: ‘segue sempre a tua consciência’. É necessário acrescentar imediatamente e sempre: ‘pergunta-te se o que a tua consciência diz é verdadeiro ou falso e procura incansavelmente conhecer a verdade’. Se esta necessária precisão não fosse feita, o homem arriscar-se-ia a encontrar na sua consciência uma força destruidora da sua humanidade verdadeira em vez do lugar santo onde Deus lhe revela o seu verdadeiro bem.” (Sublinhados meus).

A concepção que Marx, Engels, Lenine, Estaline, Mao, Pol-Pot tinham do Bem é responsável por monstruosidades horrendas; e a do Mal levou-os a combater Deus, o Cristianismo a Lei Natural e o que mais se sabe. Hitler concebia os judeus como um Mal, e o resultado como sabemos está entre as coisas mais abomináveis e pavorosas da história da humanidade; e entendia que era um Bem as guerras tremendas que desencadeou. Obama acha que é um Bem impor o controlo demográfico, o aborto, o pseudocasamento “gay”, a ideologia do género desde a mais tenra infância, a supressão da liberdade religiosa e de consciência, não só no seu país como na política internacional (coisas que aparentemente não incomodam excessivamente sua Santidade – foi notória a indiferença papal pública, patente em relação aos cristãos e demais pessoas de boa-vontade, crianças, jovens e velhos agredidos e presos em França pelas forças policiais, somente porque se manifestavam pacificamente contra o “casamento” entre pessoas do mesmo sexo, sendo que parece terem levado um “raspanete” na entrevista às revistas jesuítas) e as suas palavras a Scalfari dão a impressão que o incentivam a prosseguir nesse caminho e a combater o Mal que nós somos e representamos. Terá o Papa (nunca pensei que algum dia viria a escrever isto, mas enfim, uma vez que Francisco I não gosta de lisonjeiros e aduladores mas de quem fale com franqueza di-lo-ei) consciência das consequências destas graves imprecisões? O Santo Padre já disse várias vezes que normalmente o que em primeiro lugar lhe vem à cabeça não é bom – não será melhor, apesar dos muitos aspectos positivos nessas entrevistas, repensar este modo de se comportar? 

Depois da segunda grande guerra, conta o então Cardeal Ratzinger, nas conversas entre teólogos era consenso praticamente geral que os nazis, mesmo os SS, tinham o Céu garantido, uma vez que seguiam as suas consciências. Claro que Joseph Ratzinger nunca acolheu, sem mais, esta tese e explica-o num dos seus livros. O pecado não consistiu em ter seguido a sua consciência errónea, mas sim no terem ofuscado e ignorado a Lei natural inscrita nos seus corações, a verdade do seu ser pessoas, a sinderésis, que se torna presente à consciência para a iluminar. Como escrevi há muito:

“A consciência verdadeira é o núcleo mais secreto, o sacrário do homem, onde este se encontra a sós com Deus, para escutar a Sua voz e acolher a verdade do seu ser, a sua estrutura interna, a sua identidade, isto é, a lei inscrita por Deus no seu coração, à qual é chamado a obedecer e segundo a qual será julgado. Podemos dizer que a consciência é: 1. um “ouvido”, uma instância de acolhimento, que escuta a verdade; 2. um “olhar”, isto é, um juízo, lançado sobre a realidade que a) percebe o bem a fazer e o mal a evitar e b) avalia (ajuíza) a bondade ou maldade de uma acção realizada; 3. uma força que move e empuxa a realizar o bem e a evitar o mal.” 

Mas para que não haja dúvidas demos a palavra a Bento XVI:

“No pensamento moderno, a palavra ‘consciência’ significa que em matéria de moral e de religião. A dimensão subjectiva, o indivíduo, constitui a última instância de decisão. O mundo é dividido nos (em dois) âmbitos objectivo e subjectivo. Ao objectivo pertencem as coisas que se podem calcular e verificar por meio da experimentação. A religião e a moral são subtraídas a este método e por isso são considerados como (pertencendo ao) âmbito do subjectivo. Aqui não existiriam (não se dariam), em última análise critérios objectivos. A última instância que pode decidir seria portanto o sujeito, e com a palavra ‘consciência’ exprime-se, precisamente, isto: nesta instância somente cada um é que pode decidir, o indivíduo com a sua intuição e experiências. 

(Ora) “… a ‘consciência’ significa a capacidade de verdade do homem: a capacidade de reconhecer mesmo nos âmbitos decisivos da sua existência – religião e moral – uma verdade, ‘a’ verdade. A consciência, a capacidade do homem reconhecer a verdade, impõe-lhe com isso, ao mesmo tempo, o dever de encaminhar-se para a verdade, de procura-la e de a ela se submeter onde a encontrar. Consciência é a capacidade de verdade e obediência a ela, que se mostra ao homem ao homem de coração aberto. … ”.

Para afirmar a identidade entre o conceito que a Igreja tem da consciência e moderna compreensão subjectiva da mesma muitos gostam de referir as palavras do Bem-aventurado (Cardeal) Newman “… segundo a qual ele – no caso de ter de fazer um brinde – teria primeiro brindado à consciência e depois ao Papa. Mas nesta afirmação, ‘consciência’ não significa a obrigatoriedade última da intuição subjectiva. (Pelo contrário é) “… expressão da acessibilidade e da força vinculante da verdade: é nisso que se funda o seu primado. Ao papa pode ser dedicado o segundo brinde, porque a sua missão consiste em exigir a obediência à verdade”.

O Bem-aventurado Newman di-lo magistralmente, na sua carta ao Duque de Norfolk: “O sentido do que é recto e do desordenado - elemento primeiro da religião - é tão delicado, tão vacilante, tão facilmente confundido, obscurecido, pervertido, tão subtil nos seus métodos argumentadores, tão impressionável por factores educativos, tão influenciado pelo orgulho e pela paixão, tão flutuante e instável no seu percurso, na luta pela existência no meio dos diversos exercícios e triunfos da razão: um sentido, em suma, que é a mais elevada das sabedorias, mas a menos luminosa. Por isso a Igreja, o Papa, a Hierarquia são - no projecto divino - o auxílio que Deus providencia para satisfazer esta nossa necessidade tão urgente.”

Estas são as razões pelas quais S. João Paulo II ensinou, referindo-se a toda a humanidade: “O Magistério da Igreja encontra-se entre os meios que o amor redentor de Cristo providenciou para evitarmos este perigo de erro (da consciência errónea). Em Seu nome, o Magistério possui uma autoridade verdadeira e própria para ensinar”. Foi por isto que o Senhor, depois de ter dito que toda a autoridade Lhe tinha sido dada no Céu e na terra, determinou e ordenou: “Ide, pois, e ensinai a todas as nações; … Ensinai-as a observar tudo o que vos prescrevi.”

Falta-me o tempo para comentar a afirmação do Santo Padre ao dizer que não tinha nenhuma intenção de converter o seu interlocutor. Recordo tão-somente que isso está muito longe do que S. Francisco de Assis viveu, pregou e ensinou; e parece estarem em contraste nítido, não só com a Tradição viva da Igreja, como com as primeiras palavras de Jesus, no início da Sua vida pública, tal como nos é relatado no Evangelho, segundo S. Marcos: “Completou-se o tempo e o Reino de Deus está próximo: arrependei-vos e acreditai no Evangelho.”

À honra e glória de Cristo Ámen.

Archbishop DiNoia, Ecclesia Dei and the Society of St. Pius X

The native New Yorker, secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, discusses his new role and the challenges he expects.

In NCR

by Edward Pentin

In a bid to keep talks on course to a possible reconciliation, Pope Benedict XVI has appointed American Archbishop J. Augustine DiNoia as vice president of the commission charged with helping to bring the Society of St. Pius X back into full communion with Rome.

The 68-year-old Dominican and Bronx, N.Y., native, until now secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, becomes vice president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. He spoke with Register correspondent Edward Pentin June 27 about his new position, some of the obstacles involved in bringing the society back into full communion, and his hopes for a successful resolution.

As Archbishop DiNoia had not yet begun work at the commission, he preferred not to comment on reports of a leaked letter from the SSPX that said the society found the doctrinal preamble “clearly unacceptable.” The document is supposed to form the basis for reconciliation with Rome.

 

What was your reaction when you were appointed? Did it come as a surprise?

It was a surprise, but, then, these things are always a surprise. Being appointed here [as secretary at the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments] was a surprise.

 

What stage has the Vatican reached in its talks with the SSPX?

To be honest, I don’t know. I have a steep learning curve in terms of the issues as they have developed in the dialogue. When I came here, I studied the history of the reform and took a close look at the council, so I’ve learned a lot about the objections that come from that world. I’ve read books by Romano Amerio and Roberto de Mattei on the [Second Vatican] Council, and, of course, I’ve been studying the Council for years; so, in that sense, I have a framework out of which I can talk with them about their problems.

Another factor of great importance, autobiographically for me, is that I had lived my entire religious life, until I came here to Rome, in a Dominican priory, mostly in Washington or in New Haven, Conn. In those places, the hermeneutic of continuity and reform, if I may put it that way, was lived. I never experienced the Council as a rupture. It’s interesting — only as I’ve begun to read this traditionalist literature and interpretation have I begun to understand that, in a certain sense, there are problems that are real. But if you cease to believe that the Holy Spirit is preserving the Church from error, you cut your moorings.

The councils cannot — whatever their interpretations may be by the left or right, or whatever the intentions of the authors were of the council documents — be led into error. All of the documents stand. Schism is not the answer. So I’m sympathetic to the society, but the solution is not breaking off from the Church.

 

That being the case, why do you think some Catholics have decided to stick to “frozen” tradition, as it were, rather than coming into full communion?

I don’t honestly know; I can only speculate. To say why people are traditionalist I’d have to say it depends on their experiences. The [reform of the] liturgy has been a factor; it was a terrible revolution and shock for people. Many of these people feel abandoned, like the Church left them at the dock with the ship. So the reasons are very complicated and vary from one type of traditionalism to another and from countries, cultures and contexts in which they have arisen.

Another issue is there’s a failure to recognize a simple fact of the history of the Church: that all theological disagreements need not be Church-dividing. So, for example, the Jesuits and Dominicans had a tremendous disagreement in the 16th century about the theology of grace. In the end, the Pope forbade them to call each other heretics, which they had been doing. The Pope said, “You may continue to hold your theological opinion,” but he refused to give a doctrinal determination, saying the Jesuits or Dominicans were right. Now, this is a very interesting example, because it shows that Catholicism is broad enough to include a tremendous amount of theological diversity and debate. Sometimes the Church will act, but only when it sees people slipping into heresy and therefore breaking off from communion.

 

You’ve worked closely with Pope Benedict XVI in the past. How important is this reconciliation for him?

The Pope hopes for reconciliation — that’s the Pope’s job. The ministry of Peter is above all to preserve the unity of the Church. So, apart from whatever personal interest Pope Benedict might have, he shares his concern with John Paul II. As you know, he has been involved in this from the beginning.

The Pope is bending over backwards to accommodate them, but he’s not going to give in on the issue of the authenticity of the teaching of Vatican II as a series of acts of the magisterium.

 

The Society of St. Pius X stresses the Second Vatican Council promulgated no infallible and irreformable teaching. It was pastoral and not dogmatic. If that is so, why is it important that they agree with it?

There’s enough that’s dogmatic in it. The sacramentality of episcopal ordination, to take one example, is a development of the teaching of the episcopacy, so it is doctrinal.

Traditionally, the doctrines were stated as canons with anathemas. There aren’t any of those, but it’s certainly full of the ordinary magisterium and a restatement of it. It’s doctrinally rich. But did it seek to clarify what Trent left open or that Vatican I left open with regards to Scripture and Tradition?

There are doctrinal developments here and there. And the society thinks, of course, that the whole teaching on religious liberty is a departure from the tradition. But some very smart people have tried to point out it’s a development that is consistent.

What I’ve tried to argue is that all they have to do is to say there’s nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition and that every text, or every part of it that is controversial, should be read in context of the Council — and read it in light of the Tradition. It seems to me, despite their difficulties, they should be able to do that.

 

What do you say to the argument that if the Council documents are neither infallible nor unchangeable then they are therefore not binding?

To say they are not binding is sophistry. The Council contains swathes of the ordinary magisterium, which is de fide divina [of divine faith].

Now, the pastoral constitution “On the Church in the Modern World” [Gaudium et Spes] makes comments about the nature of culture which, generally speaking, everyone now believes was overly optimistic. Well, that’s not de fide divina. It’s not precise; it’s very imprecise. But the Council’s full of the ordinary magisterium. When I worked at the [U.S.] bishops’ conference and I was discussing, say, Veritatis Splendor, people would ask me: “Is it infallible?” I would say, “The more important question is: Is it true?”

What I meant was: The overemphasis is on infallibility. This is why John Paul II and Benedict XVI decided not to define anything infallibly anymore because you see what happens is: People say: “I only have to believe what’s been infallibly defined.” Now, that is very little. So that’s why there’s a distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. The extraordinary magisterium is what the Church defines, and it almost always involves settling disagreements that probably have been defined. The Church would perhaps have never said Mary was the Mother of God if Nestorius hadn’t denied it. But with the ordinary magisterium there’s huge amounts of what we believe that’s de fide divina that’s never been defined. That’s why people have talked about the ordinary magisterium, trying to get out of this reductionist reading that says you only have to believe what’s infallible. So, no, the Council does have binding teaching. The Fathers are writing as bishops of the Church in union with the Pope; that’s why the Council is so important.

 

Yet Cardinal Ratzinger stressed the Council should not be seen as a kind of “superdogma.”

It did not seek to define infallibly any doctrines; that’s what he’s saying, but he’s not saying it doesn’t contain great amounts of the ordinary magisterium.

If you take the dogmatic constitutions, they are called dogmatic constitutions — Divine Revelation [Dei Verbum], Lumen Gentium, those two surely, but other ones, too.

 

What would the Society of St. Pius X bring that would positively impact the Church if they reconcile?

The traditionalists that are now in the Church, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, have brought what the Pope has insisted upon: that in the solemnity of the way in which they celebrate the liturgy, especially in the area of the liturgy, they are a testimony to the continuing liveliness of liturgical tradition previous to the Council, which is the message of Summorum Pontificum. The thing is: They [SSPX] can’t say that the Novus Ordo is invalid, but their celebration of the 1962 Missal is something that remains attractive and nourishes faith, even of those who have no experience of it. So that’s a very important factor.

I’ve tried to find an analogy for this. Let’s say the American Constitution can be read in at least two ways: Historians read it, and they are interested in historical context: in the framers, intentions of the framers, the backgrounds of framers and all of that historical work about the Constitution. So, you have a Constitution you can study historically and shed a great deal of light on the meaning of it.

However, when the Supreme Court uses the Constitution, when it’s read as an institutional living document upon which institutions of a country are based, it’s a different reading. So what the framers thought, including not only experts upon whom they’re dependent — they are parallel to the bishops, and the experts are parallel to the periti [theologians who serve participants at an ecumenical council].

Those documents have an independence from all of them. I often say that what Council Fathers intended doesn’t matter because it’s how you apply it today that matters. It’s a living document.

 

Yet it’s the way it has been applied that’s the problem, isn’t it?

What’s very important for theologians, people in charge to understand is that the Council has been interpreted in wildly destructive and discontinuous ways. I’m reading a book by Louis Bouyer, who wrote a book -– in 1968 — called The Decomposition of Catholicism. Then there’s Xavier Rynne, who shaped the Western world’s understanding of the Council by writing those articles in The New Yorker.

The Pope has written brilliantly about this many, many times, but, you see, in part, the traditionalists are reacting justly against the outlandish interpretations of the Council by the progressivists.

 

What else positive can they bring?

If they are accepted by the Church and restored to full communion, they will be a sort of living witness to the continuity. They can be perfectly happy being in the Catholic Church, so they would be a living testimony to show that the continuity before and after the Council is real.

 

But that’s only if they comply with the Vatican’s conditions?

It’s more than that. It’s not like an edict — stop on red; go on green — because membership and full communion involves faith that the Holy Spirit is preserving the Church from error and that communion with the See of Peter is part of the reality of being in full communion. It’s not accidental.

So, if they comply, it has to be with the necessary requirements of being fully Catholic, not simply what the Pope says or what I say. … They have to say: “Yes, I do believe the Church is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit.” Then I can say, “Okay, then; you’re a Catholic.”

The society has been fed by people who use the word “error.” “Error” is a vague word in the Catholic tradition. There are many different levels of error. Sometimes it means you’ve fallen into heresy; sometimes it means that you are rash.

 

Your new position is as vice president of Ecclesia Dei, but it’s not clear who you are replacing.

There was a vice president for a while, Msgr. Camille Perl. However, what they’ve done is fill a position which I believe has been empty for three years. I’m not sure when Msgr. Perl went into pensione.

 

Some have argued that you have been brought in to help prepare a canonical structure for the SSPX should they reconcile. Is this based on the extensive work you did in helping to create the Anglican ordinariate?

I don’t know; the Pope didn’t tell me why he chose me. I was involved in the ordinariate from the beginning. I was under secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, involved in discussions that led to formation of the ordinariate, but I am not a canonist. I didn’t have a direct role in the composition of the constitution, but, yes, I have experience, perhaps of dialogue.

The Anglicans who came to Rome seeking full communion would often come and see me. So I guess I must have some kind of gift that attracts them to me [laughs].

 

How much is a perceived weakening of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the Church) a major part of the problem, as some traditionalists assert? Has today’s understanding of the dogma contradicted its earlier teaching?

I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasised the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. … [Karl] Rahner had a disastrous effect on this with his “anonymous Christianity.” But the Council does not alter the teaching of the Church.

 

And yet they argue it does?

This is a very good example of two of the things we’ve mentioned: the danger of reading this as it’s been read by Rahner, instead of in the light of the whole Tradition.

 

They claim that salvation is hardly proclaimed anymore.

Ralph Martin agrees with that. We do have a crisis, because the Church has been infected with the idea that we don’t have to worry or be anxious or we don’t sufficiently take the mandate to proclaim Christ seriously. But it’s not because of Vatican II, but bad theology. That’s why Dominus Iesus  was part of the response to all of that theology of religion. There is no question that the necessity of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus has a long history. But they were talking about heretics, not nonbelievers. That formula addresses the problems of heresies. It has its history.

The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.

 

Some traditionalists say secular humanism frequently wins over dogmatic assertions in the modern Church. To give an example: The Holy Father has said he wouldn’t have lifted the excommunication on Bishop [Richard] Williamson had he known about his anti-Semitism. But while anti-Semitism is heinous, traditionalists say that such views aren’t a dogmatic position. And yet Catholic politicians can freely speak against the dogma and remain in full communion with the Church. What do you say to such an argument?

That’s a trap. Edward Norman, in his very good book Secularization, says there’s no question that what he calls internal secularization, secular humanism, has definitely invaded parts of the Church. They [SSPX] are probably right about that, and I could give them a longer list of examples than they could probably make themselves.

However, to try and defend Williamson on this basis is disgusting and odious. Is a politician the same thing as a bishop? Give me a break. It’s garbage; it’s sophistry.

Do they want a blanket excommunication of everyone who’s pro-choice? And yet here is a person, a bishop, who openly proclaims a position which the Church is desperately trying to suppress in the Church itself, which is anti-Semitism.

 

In the CDF statement that accompanied your appointment, it said your experience “will facilitate the development of certain desired liturgical provisions” in the celebration of the 1962 Roman Missal, commonly known as the Tridentine rite. Could you explain this in more detail?

There are two things: In the calendar, there are a lot of saints they [SSPX] would like to add, but the Roman Missal is fixed. There’s got to be a dialogue between them and the Congregation for Divine Worship on how to incorporate elements of the Roman calendar and how it has developed over the last 50 years. And then the prefaces: The old Roman Missal of 1962 has a very limited number of prefaces, and they are also interested in incorporating some of the prefaces. But because it’s the 1962 edition, who can revise the 1962 edition of the Missal?

In effect the Novus Ordo, the current Roman Missal, is a revision of the 1962 Roman Missal. So the issue is: How can they do this? I don’t know, but the job has to be done. We already had two meetings, between representatives of the congregation and representatives of Ecclesia Dei, to discuss how that could be done.

 

Mention was made of your good relations with the Jewish community. How good are those relations?

I’ve had long and warm relationships with various Jewish leaders from the time I was in the United States, working at the bishops’ conference, which has continued all along. They have come to see me every year. I don’t know if they’ve said anything in public, but on the phone they’re very happy. They know I’m sensitive to their concerns.

 

Nostra Aetate (a document believed by many to have helped foster better Jewish-Catholic relations) is a problem for the SSPX.

Yes, but remember: If you take the constitution exactly, as a jurist, there’s the broad and the strict, and that’s a disagreement that can be held by two justices simultaneously. So again, if they want to take a stricter reading of those conciliar texts, they’re perfectly free to do so theologically. But it doesn’t mean they have to be outside the Church, and they should argue against people based on theology.

If they believe Nostra Aetate is being badly interpreted, then they have to get into the battle to correctly interpret it. Rather than walk away from the field, they have to play the game.

 

Could a reconciliation be timely, given the problems in the Church and culture?

It’s my instinct; remember that until Benedict said in December 2005 in his address to the Curia, in which he made his famous discourse about hermeneutic of continuity, you couldn’t even talk about these things. So Benedict has liberated us for the first time.

You can now criticize [theologians Cardinal Henri-Marie] De Lubac, [Cardinal Yves] Congar, [Father Marie-Dominique] Chenu. And many young people are writing dissertations and books that were somehow impossible before. So I would say that the dominant progressivist reading of the Council is in retreat. It’s never been in retreat before. But insistence on continuity — they have to embrace that too.

Traditionalists have to be converted from seeing the Council as rupture and discontinuity.

This is a distinction [historian Roberto] de Mattei makes. The Council was experienced as a rupture, but doctrinally and theologically it has to be read in continuity — otherwise you must just as well throw in the towel.

 

Do you think SSPX fears their concerns won’t be safeguarded if they reconcile?

How will they not be safeguarded? Who’s telling them what to do? The only thing I’m telling them is: Vatican II is not a departure from Tradition.

 

Are you optimistic or pessimistic about reconciliation?

I’m neither; I just don’t know. I think it will be an act of grace.

In fact, I’m going to ask the Dominicans to start praying. I hope it’ll happen. The Pope doesn’t want this to continue — another sect, another division. 

 

Edward Pentin is the Register’s Rome correspondent. He blogs at NCRegister.com.

Cartas de obispos lefebvristas revelan pugnas internas ante negociaciones con el Vaticano

ROMA, 11 May. 12 / 06:38 pm (ACI).- Una reciente filtración de cartas reveló las pugnas internas entre los cuatro obispos de la Fraternidad Sacerdotal San Pío X (lefebvristas) en relación a las negociaciones de esta organización con el Vaticano para su posible ingreso a la plena comunión de la Iglesia Católica.

Las cartas corresponden a abril de este año, poco antes de que el superior de la organización, Bernard Fellay, remitiera al Vaticano su segunda respuesta al Preámbulo doctrinal que les fue entregado en 2011 para ingresar a la plena comunión de la Iglesia Católica. La primera que entregaron en enero había sido considerada "insuficiente".

A la fecha, se espera el pronunciamiento de la Santa Sede con relación a la respuesta de los lefebvristas presentada en abril, sobre la que el Padre Federico Lombardi, director de la Sala de Prensa del Vaticano, dijo que era "alentadora".

Por su parte y en un comunicado de la Casa General de la Fraternidad San Pío X, emitido el 11 de mayo, se calificó de "pecado grave" la filtración de la correspondencia entre sus obispos.

Los documentos comprenden una primera carta remitida por tres obispos –entre los que estaba Richard Williamson, conocido por negar el holocausto judío– a Mons. Fellay, el 7 de abril, en la que afirmaron que un "acuerdo doctrinal es imposible con la Roma actual" por lo que se oponen formalmente a un "acuerdo práctico" con la Iglesia Católica.

Al referirse a la actitud de los principales líderes lefebvristas, más favorables a un acuerdo con la Santa Sede, los obispos señalaron que están "conduciendo a la Fraternidad a un punto del que no podrá dar marcha atrás, a una profunda división sin retorno, y si llegan a un acuerdo de esas características, a poderosas influencias destructivas que no soportará".

En su respuesta, Mons. Fellay criticó la "falta de visión sobrenatural y realismo" de quienes lo criticaron.

Tras afirmar que Benedicto XVI es el legítimo Papa y que el Señor habla por su boca, Fellay cuestionó que "si expresa una voluntad legítima respecto a nosotros, que es buena, que no es contraria a los mandamientos de Dios, ¿tenemos el derecho de desatender o rechazar esa mano tendida?".

"El Papa nos ha hecho saber que la preocupación de arreglar nuestra situación para bien de la Iglesia estaba en el corazón de su Pontificado, y asimismo que sabía bien que para él y para nosotros era más fácil mantener la situación en su estado actual".

El líder de la Fraternidad Sacerdotal San Pío X subrayó que "para el bien común de la Fraternidad, preferiríamos con mucho la situación actual de un statu quo intermedio, pero es manifiesto que Roma ya no lo admite".

Fellay también señaló que "hay un cambio de actitud en la Iglesia, ayudado por los gestos y los actos de Benedicto XVI hacia la Tradición".

"Este nuevo movimiento, que tiene menos de diez años, se va reforzando. Alcanza a un buen número (aunque aún una minoría) de jóvenes sacerdotes, de seminaristas, e incluso ya de un pequeño número de jóvenes obispos que se distinguen claramente de sus predecesores, que nos muestran su simpatía y su apoyo, pero que todavía están bastante apagados por la línea dominante en la jerarquía de apoyo al (Concilio) Vaticano II".

Para el líder lefebvrista "no hemos buscado un acuerdo práctico. Eso es falso. En cuanto a la cuestión crucial entre todas, la posibilidad de sobrevivir en las condiciones de reconocimiento de la Fraternidad por Roma, no llegamos a la misma conclusión que vosotros".

Como un síntoma de la división interna entre lefebvristas, el obispo Fellay lamentó no haber contado con el apoyo y consejo de quienes le escribieron "para sobrellevar este momento tan delicado de nuestra historia".

Cardenal Piacenza: Nunca es lícito separar la Escritura de la Tradición

LOS ÁNGELES, 05 Oct. 11 / 12:41 pm (ACI/EWTN Noticias)

En la homilía de la Misa que presidió el 4 de octubre por el día de San Francisco de Asís en la arquidiócesis de Los Ángeles, la más grande de Estados Unidos, el Prefecto de la Congregación para el Clero en el Vaticano, Cardenal Mauro Piacenza, señaló que el mundo de hoy necesita urgentemente sacerdotes santos en los que nada de lo humano pueda un día oscurecer la belleza y la fascinacion del Señor.

ACI Prensa da a conocer en esta nota algunos extractos de esta homilía y de otros tres discursos que pronunció el Cardenal Piacenza durante su estadía en la ciudad de Los Ángeles, en los que meditó sobre la identidad del sacerdote, la centralidad de las Escrituras, la importancia vital de la Eucaristía, y la urgencia de la santidad.

En su homilía de la Misa que celebró en el Seminario Arquidiocesano, el Purpurado meditó sobre el ejemplo de San Francisco de Asís, quien "incendió el mundo de fervor misionero y reorientó la mirada y el corazón de los fieles hacia lo esencial: ¡Jesús de Nazareth, el Verbo eterno hecho Hombre, muerto y Resucitado!"

El Cardenal dijo que "la experiencia de la vocación es siempre la de una gran predilección, inmerecida, nunca fruto de esfuerzos humanos, sino don gratuito de la misericordia de Dios. En la vocación todos nosotros hemos sido ‘tomados por Cristo’, envueltos en su designio de amor, ¡abrazados en una historia que será eterna!"

"Esta inserción en la vida divina, iniciada en el santo bautismo, y para nosotros extraordinariamente renovada por la vocación sacerdotal, tiene el sabor de la totalidad. ¡Cristo lo da todo y lo pide todo!"

Esta entrega total del sacerdote, explicó, se da en la Cruz como muestra el ejemplo de la vida de San Francisco, cuyo memorial se celebra cotidianamente en la Eucaristía que debe ser "el verdadero centro de la vida de un seminario y de un seminarista".

"Sin esta centralidad eucarística orante, que supera cualquier otro medio formativo, no hay auténtica formación sacerdotal. ¡Por eso es tan importante una auténtica y correcta vida litúrgica! El hombre de la Eucaristía se forma en la escuela de la Eucaristía".

Por ello, alentó, "debemos implorar con insistencia para cuantos se preparan hoy al Ministerio Sacerdotal aquella radicalidad y aquel fervor que tuvo San Francisco".

El Cardenal alentó luego a los seminaristas a vivir intensamente el tiempo de formación en el seminario, con mucho trabajo "a menudo fatigoso, sobre uno mismo, para que nada de nuestra humanidad pueda un día oscurecer la belleza y la fascinacion del Señor!"

El seminario, continuó, es el tiempo de la preparación de la Verdad, "no de las opiniones de un teólogo u otro, sino de la Verdad que Dios nos ha revelado sobre Sí mismo y que, en las diferentes épocas de la historia, permanece siempre inmutable, como Cristo, que es el mismo ayer, y hoy y siempre!"

La Palabra de Dios en la vida del sacerdote

El 3 de octubre, el Cardenal Piacenza dedicó una conferencia a los seminaristas titulada "La Palabra de Dios en la vida del sacerdote" en la que meditó sobre la exhortación apostólica post-sinodal Verbum Domini.

En español, el Cardenal explicó la importancia del Concilio Vaticano II para la vida de la Iglesia Católica, que debe ser comprendido como un hecho vital que no genera ruptura. "Siempre es bueno recordar que la única auténtica hermenéutica del gran acontecimiento conciliar es la de la continuidad y de la reforma", indicó.

"No existen dos Iglesias católicas, una preconciliar y una postconciliar; ¡si así fuera, la segunda sería ilegítima!", precisó luego.

El Purpurado vaticano dijo luego que esta perspectiva es importante para entender la función de las Sagradas Escrituras en la vida de todo presbítero. La Palabra de Dios, dijo, "es una persona, no un libro. Es necesario reconocer que el Cristianismo mantiene, respecto a los escritos en los cuales se inspira, una relación única, que ninguna otra tradición religiosa puede tener".

Estas Escrituras, explicó también el Cardenal, no puede separarse de la Tradición: "Nunca es lícito separar la Escritura de la Tradición; como tampoco es lícito separarlas de la interpretación que de ellas ha dado y da el Magisterio de la Iglesia. Separaciones de este tipo conllevan siempre gravísimas consecuencias espirituales y pastorales".

"Una Escritura sin Tradición sería un libro histórico y la historia nos habla del pensamiento de los demás, mientras que la Teología quiere hablar de Dios", precisó.

El Cardenal indicó además que "el tríptico Escritura-Tradición-Magisterio, en realidad, desde el punto de vista estrictamente histórico, debería configurarse como: Tradición, entendida como lugar en el cual la Escritura nace, Escritura y Tradición vinculada a la Escritura; todo, autorizadamente interpretado por el Magisterio, es decir, por los legítimos Sucesores de los Apóstoles".

Todo esto, afirmó, evita "prudentemente algunas unilateralidades ilegítimas".

Para leer, conocer y adherirse a las Sagradas Escrituras, el sacerdote debe leerlas teniendo siempre en cuenta el aspecto neumático, es decir, de la participación esencial del Espíritu Santo.

"Si Cristo es la plenitud de la Revelación y toda la existencia de Cristo está en el Espíritu, entonces la misma Revelación es un evento neumático: la Tradición la anima el Espíritu, la Escritura la inspira el Espíritu y el Magisterio, en la tarea de interpretar autorizadamente Escritura y Tradición, la guía el Espíritu", dijo el Cardenal.

El Prefecto aseguró luego que con la lectura de las Escrituras en el Espíritu, "se debe evitar todo enfoque meramente positivista o limitado al historicismo, que no permita la comprensión del significado real del texto".

"Las Escrituras, si nos acercamos a ellas prescindiendo de su dimensión neumática, se quedan como mudas y, en lugar de hablar de Dios y hacer que escuchemos Su Voz, narran simplemente una historia".

Tras resaltar la importancia de la Liturgia de las horas en la vida del sacerdote, el Cardenal Piacenza explicó que los presbíteros "por el ministerio que se nos ha encomendado, no somos solamente, con todos nuestros hermanos, oyentes de la Palabra, sino también autorizados anunciadores e intérpretes de esta".

Por ello, dijo, "no podemos anunciar lo que no conocemos y no hemos hecho nuestro; por tanto, la posibilidad del anuncio está estructuralmente vinculada al conocimiento de las Escrituras y a la familiaridad e identificación con el pensamiento de Cristo".

En este proceso, explicó, no hay "mecanicismos" sino una vida profunda interior profunda que permita hacer vida a Cristo, su mensaje, que también sirven para transformar la cultura cotidiana.

"Nada, como el anuncio de la Palabra, genera cultura. Es decir, genera un modo nuevo de concebir la vida, las relaciones, la sociedad e incluso la política. Un modo que, cuanto más evangélico es, más se descubre profunda y sorprendentemente correspondiente al corazón humano", explicó el Cardenal Mauro Piacenza.

Hombres de la Eucaristía

El mismo lunes 3 de octubre, el Prefecto de la Congregación para el Clero presidió una Misa en la que participaron los sacerdotes de Los Ángeles de lengua española, a quienes les recordó que el presbítero debe tener como centro de su vida a la Eucaristía.

El Purpurado explicó que "cualquier comprensión diferente del ministerio, aunque tienda a ilustrar aspectos relativos a éste, corre el riesgo de resultar una reducción substancial. El sacerdote es y debe ser principalmente el hombre de la Eucaristía, según el sentido amplio que tiene este gran Sacramento y, por lo tanto, ciertamente, no debe reducir el ministerio a una función cultual".

La identidad sacerdotal, dijo luego, nace también y principalmente del Bautismo. Por su ser presbítero, se le pide más que al laico "¡porque al sacerdote se le da mucho más! Y no se trata de volver a formas de clericalismo, que en el pasado hirieron la comunión eclesial, sino de ponerse a la escucha de modo sencillo, honrado y fiel de lo que Cristo mismo estableció para Su Iglesia: el modo concreto que Él ha elegido para permanecer a lo largo de los siglos como Presencia salvífica al lado de los hombres".

El sacerdote, como administrador de sacramentos como la Reconciliación, debe brillar siempre por su ejemplo, ya que "¡No puede haber nada, en el Sacerdote, que no haga referencia a la Redención!

Así, cada sacerdote debe llegar a ser "de modo cada vez más perfecto ‘imágenes vivas’ de Cristo Buen Pastor. Esto es lo que espera el pueblo Santo de Dios de nosotros, esto es lo que espera el Señor de nosotros: que le hagamos presente en el mundo, a Él y su salvación".

Sacerdotes santos

El 4 de octubre el Cardenal Piacenza dirigió también un discurso en italiano a los seminaristas de Los Ángeles, en el que explicó que lo más urgente en el mundo de hoy, es la santidad de cada fiel.

En su alocución el Cardenal explicó la primacía de Dios en la vida de las personas debe plasmarse en la vida de oración, de la intimidad divina, "primado de la vida espiritual y sacramental. ¡La Iglesia no necesita administradores sino hombres de Dios! (...) ¡La Iglesia necesita hombres creyentes y creíbles, de hombres que, acogida la llamada del Señor, sean Sus motivados testimonios en el mundo!"

"La Iglesia –prosiguió– necesita sacerdotes que, en las tempestades de la cultura dominante, cuando la ‘barca de no pocos hermanos es golpeada por las olas del relativismo’ sepan en efectiva comunión con Pedro, tener firme el timón de la propia existencia, de las comunidades confiadas a ellos y de los hermanos que piden luz y ayuda para su camino de fe".

El Cardenal se refirió luego a la importancia esencial de la formación intelectual, que debe estar orientada a "transmitir los contenidos ciertos de la fe, argumentándolos racionalmente" que debe ir acompañado del ejemplo de sacerdotes santos.

En esta formación resulta vital el conocimiento del Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica, uno de los grandes frutos del pontificado de Juan Pablo II, así como el Concilio Vaticano II, interpretándolo correctamente y no con "el llamado ‘espíritu’ del Concilio, que tanta desorientaciòn ha generado en la Iglesia, sino con lo que realmente el evento conciliar dijo, en sus textos a la Iglesia y al mundo".

Tras explicar nuevamente que no existe una "Iglesia preconciliar o postconciliar", el Cardenal exclamó que "¡la verdadera prioridad y la verdadera modernidad, queridos, es la santidad! ¡El único posible recurso para una auténtica y profunda reforma es la santidad y nosotros necesitamos reforma!"

"¡Para la santidad no hay un seminario, sino aquel de la gracia de Nuestro Señor y de la libertad que se abre humildemente a su acción plasmadora y renovadora!", concluyó.

Para leer los discursos completos puede ingresar a: http://www.aciprensa.com/Docum/documentos.php?id=26

Religious Freedom - Why I do not agree with Gherardini, De Mattei, Rhonheimer

by Basile Valuet, O.S.B.

In Chiesa.espressonline.it

In the debate over the hermeneutic of Vatican II, I have been courteously invited to explain why I am in disagreement with three authors in particular.

1. BRUNERO GHERARDINI

The competency of Msgr. Brunero Gherardini (from this point forward, "G.") is recognized. And I read with pleasure his essay on ecumenism that appeared in 2000 (1). Nonetheless, in November of 2010, I published in the magazine "La Nef" both an extended (2) and a summary (3) analysis of his book "Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II. Un discorso da fare [Vatican Council II. It's Time to Talk]" (4), in which I formulated the following criticisms:

1. De iure, G. mistakenly believes that it should be enough that Vatican Council II did not employ its infallibility for one to reject the doctrines that it enunciated. This means forgetting that the non-definitive magisterium is due the religious assent, internal and external, of the will and the intelligence (5). This authentic magisterium enjoys the assistance of the Holy Spirit (6).

2. De facto, G. rejects some formal teachings of Vatican II (of "Lumen Gentium" [LG], "Nostra Aetate," "Gaudium et Spes" [GS] and "Dignitatis Humanae" [DH]) (7). Moreover, he does not demonstrate the effective presence of errors in the contemporary magisterium: what he denounces as error is not so (thus for GS 24), and I have also caught him in flagrante delicto of false accusations issued against "Unitatis Redintegratio" and against the responses of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith of June 29, 2007. He has not been able to respond to any of my arguments (8).

2. ROBERTO DE MATTEI

The errors of G. are partly responsible for the book by Professor Roberto de Mattei (from this point forward, "DM") (9), director of the wonderful magazine "Radici Cristiane." What a shame! His praiseworthy intention of contrasting the dominant historiography of the school of Bologna (10) did not content itself with precisely establishing the facts on the basis of the documents. The work is certainly brimming with data, some of it never published before. Sometimes, however, he is deficient in the exposition of the facts.

This is the case with the "Carli" petition that asked for an explicit condemnation of communism in "schema XIII" (11). Gratitude is due to DM for having cited "in extenso" the note of November 15, 1965 to Archbishop Felici, secretary general of the Council, with which Paul VI weighed the pros and cons of such a condemnation. But (p. 502) DM gives strong emphasis to only one of the arguments that Paul VI delineates. He overlooks the pope's fear of the pernicious effect of a condemnation for the faithful who were living under communism (12), a reason similar to that of the "silence" of Pius XII over the Holocaust. DM denies (p. 500) the good faith of Msgr. Glorieux (who discarded this petition), without even mentioning the justifications provided by this prelate (AS V/3, 611-620) (13).

He seems to have difficulty with Latin grammar. This must have made it uncomfortable for him to go through the "Acts and preparatory documents" and the "Synodal acts of Vatican Council II." Of these two official collections, of a total of 66 volumes "in quarto", he uses 8 and 28 volumes respectively, or 55 percent. He makes reference to them about 466 times, referring to blocks that run from 1 to 5 pages, more rarely 10 (14), which amounts to a maximum of 3-5 thousand pages out of a total of about 50 thousand. DM almost never cites the written and oral presentations of the conciliar drafting commissions, although these explained to the Fathers the meaning of the texts to be voted on. He also forgets that the councils of the past were always a theater of maneuvers, enriched by very lively controversies.

On pages 469-470, he cuts short the list of the juridical limitations indicated by DH 7, § 3 for the exercise of the right to religious freedom (RF). Against RF again, DM, citing the speech by Pius XII of December 6, 1953, forgets the following passage: "Could it be that in certain circumstances, He [God] does not give men any mandate, does not impose any duty, does not even give any right to impede and repress that which is erroneous and false? A look at the reality gives an affirmative answer." So in these circumstances, repression is an injustice, going against a right, that of the follower of the error not to be impeded. Whence the absence of absurdity in a negative right like that of DH.

DM claims only to be an historian (p. 591), but he enters into the field of theology when, citing G., he poses (p. 15) the erroneous equation: non-definitive Magisterium equals non-obligatory (16). In this field, he also commits the error of affirming that one must adhere to Tradition rather than to the Magisterium. But in the motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei," John Paul II, addressing the whole Church, condemned this view of things (17). In reality, it is the Magisterium that tells us what is contained in the divine-apostolic Tradition (18).

So I adhere on the whole to the refutation of DM's book made by Massimo Introvigne (19). I dare to suggest to Professor DM that he adhere to the historical data, in which he shows himself rich in talent. "The history of the Council never written" would be the one in which the historian made a painstaking examination of the pre-preparatory, preparatory, and synodal acts of Vatican II.

3. MARTIN RHONHEIMER

With the reverend professor Martin Rhonheimer (from this point forward, "R."), I find myself "on the other side of the barricade." R., in "The Hermeneutic of Reform and the Freedom of Religion" (20), comes to the defense of the conciliar teaching of RF, in function of a certain view of the "hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity" (Benedict XVI, speech to the curia, December 22, 2005) (21). R. never saw my thesis (22) defended at the faculty of theology of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross (where he himself teaches philosophy). In fact, he believes that it was published in Paris, and does not realize that it is composed of 6 volumes, not 3 (cf. his note 3, p. 346). He cites nothing from it, and falls into a misunderstanding (p. 347) about what I mean by the "right to tolerance" (what does he know about it?). It is not clear, moreover, how R. could think that the relations of the Church (a supernatural reality) and the state could fall under his faculty of philosophy. He does not say anything about the explanations of the drafting commission of DH on the maintenance of the traditional Catholic doctrine of the popes until Leo XIII, concerning the moral duty of the public authorities with regard to the true religion and the one Church of Christ ("Acta Synodalia," IV/VI, p. 719), nor of the notes of DH 1, nor of the references of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 2105-2109 to the Magisterium from Pius VI to Leo XIII. He seems unaware that the commission explicitly admitted the compatibility of the concept of the confessional Catholic state with DH, as long as RF is respected (23).

He says (erroneously), on page 351, that the previous popes did not want to present their condemnations of freedom of conscience and of worship as definitive. And he paradoxically affirms, on page 356, that "Pius IX understood his condemnation of religious freedom as a necessity of a dogmatic nature." Here is one significant passage from "Quanta Cura":

"... And against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church and of the holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert 'the best condition of society is that in which the civil authorities are not recognized as having the duty to repress with the sanction of punishments the violators of the Catholic religion, except as required for the public peace."

This citation should invite R. to review the entirety of his position. And DH does not contradict this text, because according to DH 7, § 3 those who violate the rights of the Catholic religion can and must be repressed even if they do not disturb the public peace, with all the more reason if, as in the 1789 declaration of rights (which, whether or not R. likes it, Benedict XVI does not at all rehabilitate), this peace is defined in relation to civil law, an expression of the general will. It is sufficient that they disturb public morality or go against the rights of others, that which, by hypothesis, is the case.

According to Benedict XVI, Pius IX was taking aim at the "radical liberalism" of the 19th century, but not at other forms of the organization of society, rising from a further evolution of liberalism. The discontinuity between Vatican II and Pius IX stems from the fact that RF is not the "freedom of conscience" condemned in the 19th century: it did not have either the same foundation, or the same object, or the same limitations, or the same goal. So it will always remain true that the liberalism condemned by Pius IX was condemnable (R. does not see this), but it will not always remain true that the theories or the states of law that we have before us are the ones that Pius IX condemned (R. grasps this perfectly). If a change of situation cannot change the natural law, it can nevertheless make a principle of the natural law (let's call it P1: it is not contrary to the natural law that the state should repress religious error), valid in a previous situation of ius gentium (in which RF is not yet recognized in reciprocal form), no longer apply in the same way in a new situation of ius gentium (in which RF is mutually recognized), and make another principle be applied now (P2: the modern state does not have penal competency, not even delegated, in religious matters). In this way, if one wishes to have a truth that is valid in every situation, one is obligated to formulate a principle P3, more general, which combines P1 and P2, and which DH has made an effort to formulate: it is contrary to the natural law that the state - in any age - should repress religious error, unless, in the circumstances considered, it disturbs the just, objective public order. Could R. discuss this with me, but after perusing the synthesis of my doctoral dissertation? (24).

_____________

Dom Basile Valuet has developed the arguments of this text in a more extensive one, also written expressly for www.chiesa:

À propos du débat sur l’herméneutique du Vatican II
____________

NOTES


(1) "Una sola Fede, una sola Chiesa. La Chiesa cattolica dinanzi all’ecumenismo", Castelpetroso, Casa Mariana Ed., 2000, 334 pp.

(2) Cf. www.lanef.net

(3) "La Nef", no. 220, November 2010, pp.16-17.

(4) Frigento, Casa Mariana Editrice, 2009, 264 pp.

(5) Cf. "Lumen Gentium" (LG), 25; Code of Canon Law, canons 752 and 1371, § 1. Msgr. Gherardini moreover passes in silence over the statements of Paul VI and John Paul II that recall the authority of Vatican II (here are some of the dates of these: 12/07/1965; 01/12/1966; 09/21/1966; 05/24/1976; 10/111/1976; 12/23/1982; 07/20/1983; 07/02/1988, etc.).

(6) Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 892.

(7) This is not only a matter of the argumentations of these teachings, nor of their literary context, nor of their historical context, and therefore of their contingent aspects.

(8) Cf. B. Gherardini, "Concilio Vaticano II. Il discorso mancato", Lindau, Torino, 2011, 48-49.

(9) R. de Mattei, "Il Concilio Vaticano II. Una storia mai scritta", Lindau, Torino, 2010, pp. 632. We have not been able to read anything but the first edition of this, and space prevents us from dwelling on the article "Un Concilio può anche commettere degli errori. Replica alle critiche di 'Avvenire' et de 'L’Osservatore Romano'", Rome, May 5 2011, which does not add anything new.

(10) Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, in "Ma una storia non ideologica si può scrivere. Il Concilio Vaticano II nella lettura di Roberto de Mattei", "L’Osservatore Romano," April 14 2011, complains that DM exploited his work for this purpose.

(11) The author could have cited Jean Madiran, "L’accord de Metz: ou pourquoi notre Mère fut muette," Versailles, "Via romana", 2006, 75 pp. This is about an agreement reached in 1962 between Cardinal Tisserant and Metropolitan Nikodim (who died in the arms of John Paul I, not of John Paul II): the Council would not mention communism, and the patriarchate of Moscow would be able to send observers.

(12) AS VI/4 (1999), pp. 619-620. This volume of the AS is never cited by DM.

(13) DM even suspects Cardinale Tisserant of having encouraged Glorieux in this direction, which seems to be disproved by a letter (cf. AS V/3, 619-620).

(14) A hundred pages two or three times over, or even entire volumes.

(15) It is worthwhile to reread Saint Francis de Sales here ("Traité de l’amour de Dieu", l. II, chap. XIV, p. 106): "[…] ès conciles généraux, il se fait des grandes disputes et recherches de la vérité, […], mais, […] la détermination étant prononcée, chacun s’y arrête et acquiesce pleinement, non point en considération des raisons alléguées en la dispute et recherche précédente, mais en vertu de l’autorité du Saint-Esprit."

(16) In this regard, the arguments of Cardinal Scheffczyk cited on p. 542 backfire against him.

(17) John Paul II, apostolic letter motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei", 4.

(18) Cf. also the letter from John Paul II to Cardinal J. Ratzinger of April 8, 1988 "In questo periodo": "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" (AAS), 1988, pp. 1121-1125. DM takes a risky position and pushes far beyond his subject when he affirms (note 1, p. 367): "The teaching of the Church, reiterated up until Pius XII, is that in concelebration the Sacrifice of the Mass is unique and is not multiplied according to the number of celebrants." All the more so in that he refers to two texts of Pius XII (AAS, 1954, 669; and 1956, 717) which, precisely, affirm explicitly that there are as many actions of Christ who offers himself as there are true celebrant priests, as confirmed for me in 2001 by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith with an official letter further corroborated by a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger. Finally, the S.C. of rites declared on March 20, 1960: "Sacramental concelebration is that in which the celebrant priest, or better the main celebrant, together with other priests who assist him, carries out the Sacrament. So there are as many Masses or Sacrifices as there are concelebrant priests" (Latin original: AD, I – III, pp. 256-259). A position that was already common at the end of the 19th century, as Cardinal Gasparri noted.

(19) "Vaticano II. Non semplice continuità, ma 'riforma nella continuità'".

(20) "Nova et Vetera", 85/4 (Oct.-Dec. 2010), pp. 341-363. Cf. also his contribution to this site, www.chiesa: "More on the 'hermeneutic of reform'. A clarification," more clear and concise.

(21) Italian original: AAS, 2006, especially p. 50.

(22) "La liberté religieuse et la Tradition catholique. Un cas de développement doctrinal homogène dans le magistère authentique," preface by Cardinal Stickler, Le Barroux, 6 vol. (II ed., 1998, pp. 3050; III ed., May 2011, pp. 2524).

(23) For the sake of simplicity I omit the references, which are amply supplied in my two books.

(24) "Le droit à la liberté religieuse dans la Tradition de l’Église", preface by Cardinal Medina, Le Barroux, I ed., 2005; II ed., May 2011, pp. 676.