From Pope Benedict XVI: Conciliar documents: A compass to guide the ship of the church

[JReducation]

These were the Holy Father’s comments on Vatican II. Contrary to what many would like to extrapolate from an earlier statement in which he said, “This council was a modest council,” he does not mean that it’s insignificant or that it has no place in the life of the Church. It is clear from this statement that he was referring to the fact that this council did not defend or define any dogmas, not because it was modest, but it was modest because it did not define dogmas. However, it did make dogmatic statements based on dogmas previously defined and he is describing it as the compass that points the direction in which the Church needs to go.

I believe that the answers that people are asking are beginning to be answered. The Council cannot be ignored. The Council is essential to the life of the Church, not a mistake and it was deliberately planned and played out as planned by Bl. John XXIII.

Whether the bishops going into the Council came out as they went in is another story. Most likely they did not. This is par for the course. One goes into these things thinking one way and shifts position as one listens to others and reflects on what one has heard. The bold is my emphasis and the red are my comments.
*
Vatican City, 10 October 2012 (VIS) - “We have reached the eve of the day on which we will celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Vatican Council II and the beginning of the Year of Faith”, said Benedict XVI at the start of his catechesis during this morning’s general audience in St. Peter’s Square. “And it is about the great ecclesial event of the Council that I wish to speak”, he explained. Great ecclesial event is not the same as modest

“The documents of Vatican Council II are, even in our own time, a compass guiding the ship of the Church as she sails on the open seas, amidst tempests or peaceful waves, to reach her destination”. Vatican II, in which Pope Benedict participated as a young professor of fundamental theology at the University of Bonn, was, he said, “a unique experience” during which "I was able to witness the living Church … which places herself at the school of the Holy Spirit, the true driving force behind the Council. Error is not possible hereRarely in history has it been possible, as it was then, to touch almost physically the universality of the Church at a **moment of peak fulfilment of her mission **to carry the Gospel into all ages and unto the ends of the earth".

In Church history Vatican II was preceded by many other Councils such as Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon and Trent. I**n general though, they met to define fundamental elements of the faith, and particularly to the correct errors endangering that faith. This was not the case with Vatican Council II, because at that time "there were no particular errors of the faith to correct and condemn, nor were there specific questions of doctrine and discipline to be clarified. … **Important, because it does not take away from the power and importance of the Council. Pastoral decisions and plans are also essential to the life of the Church.The first question that arose during the preparation of this great event was how to begin, what task to give it. Blessed John XXIII in his opening address of 11 October fifty years ago gave some general guidelines: the faith had to speak with a ‘renewed’ and more incisive voice, because the world was changing rapidly, but it had to maintain its perennial message intact, without giving way or compromising. The world changed and with it its inhabitants, including Catholics. The Council is not responsible for the changes around it. It responded to them.

“The Pope”, Benedict XVI added, “wanted the Church to reflect upon her faith and upon the truths that guide her. But that serious and profound reflection … had to be the starting point for a new relationship between the Church and the modern age, between Christianity and certain essential elements of modern thought, not in order to seek conformity, but to show our world, which tends to distance itself from God, the requirements of the Gospel in all its greatness and purity”.Something that I said on another thread. The Council asks the world, “Who are you?” and asks itself "What is the Church?"

"The age in which we live continues to be marked by forgetfulness and deafness towards God. I believe, then, that we must learn the simplest and most fundamental lesson of the Council: that the essence of Christianity consists in faith in God, … and in the individual and community encounter with Christ Who guides our lives. … The important thing today, as was the desire of the Council Fathers, is for us to see - clearly and anew - that God is present, that He concerns us and responds to us. **And when faith in God is lacking our essential foundations give way because man loses his dignity. … *The Council reminds us that the Church … has the mandate to transmit God’s salvific word of love, so that the divine call which contains our eternal beatitude may be heard and accepted".

 

[JReducation]

The Pope then went on to mention the four conciliar Constitutions, describing them as “the four cardinal points of our guiding compass”: “Sacrosanctum Concilium” on the sacred liturgy, which speaks of the centrality of the mystery of Christ’s presence in the Church; “Lumen Gentium” which highlights the Church’s fundamental duty to glorify God; “Dei Verbum” on divine Revelation, which speaks of the living Word of God that unites and animates the Church throughout history, and finally “Gaudium et Spes” which deals with the way the Church transmits to the world the light it received from God. While not new dogmatic definitions, they are built on the Church’s infallible interpretation of dogma.

“Vatican Council II”, Benedict XVI concluded, “is a powerful appeal to us to make a daily rediscovery of the beauty of our faith, to understand it deeply through a more intense relationship with the Lord, and to live out our Christian vocation to the full”. *

This is a much different perspective that what extreme liberals and extreme traditionalists hold regarding the Council. It’s a very balanced point of view held by the Pontiff and one of the best systematic theologians of our time.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

I truly believe I am blessed to live in an era where two Popes who have reigned during my mortal life will be declared Saints. Blessed John Paul II is one, and I firmly believe if he keeps his current course that Benedict XVI could become one as well.

The man is brilliant and has a pastoral touch (look no further than his handling of brinign back the Anglicans).

 

[RPRPsych]

What an excellent couple of posts! Thank you very much for this, Brother. (Did I mention that I’m a silent, but long-standing, fan of all your writings here?)

As someone who personally has experienced everything from the “Spirit of Vatican II” to “Vatican II was the Devil’s Workshop”, it’s wonderful to see a balanced perspective on this issue.

The Second Vatican Council was the Church’s way of engaging the modern world, and I firmly believe that it will be vindicated by history.

God bless our Pope!

 

[Boulder257]

This is a much different perspective that what extreme liberals and extreme traditionalists hold regarding the Council. It’s a very balanced point of view held by the Pontiff and one of the best systematic theologians of our time.

 

[JReducation]

I truly believe I am blessed to live in an era where two Popes who have reigned during my mortal life will be declared Saints. Blessed John Paul II is one, and I firmly believe if he keeps his current course that Benedict XVI could become one as well.

The man is brilliant and has a pastoral touch (look no further than his handling of brinign back the Anglicans).

I lived through Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI. Got you beat.

What an excellent couple of posts! Thank you very much for this, Brother. (Did I mention that I’m a silent, but long-standing, fan of all your writings here?)

Why thank you. That’s very kind of you to say.

As someone who personally has experienced everything from the “Spirit of Vatican II” to “Vatican II was the Devil’s Workshop”, it’s wonderful to see a balanced perspective on this issue.

I lived through the Spirit of Vatican I in the religious life. It was horrible. People don’t know how horrible it was. Being a religious prior to Vatican II was like living under a repressive regime. Then came the Spirit of Vatican II. We went from repressive to chaotic. Finally, we’re getting both councils right.

The Second Vatican Council was the Church’s way of engaging the modern world, and I firmly believe that it will be vindicated by history.

God bless our Pope!

I believe that the Council was the Church’s way of engaging itself. We often forget that the people who attended that council were the transition generation. This was the generation that gave birth to the Baby Boomers. They were kind of lost in this rapidly changing world after World War II and they were giving birth to a new generation born in the 1950s and beyond, which was out of sync with the past world and there was no new world order to define it. What do you pass on to your children if everything that you knew was in shambles either by war, economic progress, the rise of technology, the explosion of Communism and Capitalism. The list goes on. Those people who were at the Council were all born before World War II. That world had been shattered. They had no clue how they fit in, when the rising world, did not have a real compass.

The Council tried to help them transition and give them something to pass on to their children, meaning us.

Whether it was transmitted correctly or not is not the fault of the Council. Many things besides religion were incorrectly transmitted, just look at the arts.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

I lived through Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI. Got you beat.

Why thank you. That’s very kind of you to say.

I lived through the Spirit of Vatican I in the religious life. It was horrible. People don’t know how horrible it was. Being a religious prior to Vatican II was like living under a repressive regime. Then came the Spirit of Vatican II. We went from repressive to chaotic. Finally, we’re getting both councils right.

I believe that the Council was the Church’s way of engaging itself. We often forget that the people who attended that council were the transition generation. This was the generation that gave birth to the Baby Boomers. They were kind of lost in this rapidly changing world after World War II and they were giving birth to a new generation born in the 1950s and beyond, which was out of sync with the past world and there was no new world order to define it. What do you pass on to your children if everything that you knew was in shambles either by war, economic progress, the rise of technology, the explosion of Communism and Capitalism. The list goes on. Those people who were at the Council were all born before World War II. That world had been shattered. They had no clue how they fit in, when the rising world, did not have a real compass.

The Council tried to help them transition and give them something to pass on to their children, meaning us.

Whether it was transmitted correctly or not is not the fault of the Council. Many things besides religion were incorrectly transmitted, just look at the arts.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

First, I just want to say that I try not to look at modern art, lest I lose all faith in humanity.

Excellent posts/commentary Brother JR.

I agree 100% with that word you used: engage. When one reads the Conciliar documents, if there’s one thing that is constant, it’s a spirit or attitude of addressing and engaging the world: it’s bringing the best of our faith to bear in every sphere of life, especially those that are vitally important for society, and imbuing them with the spirit and principles of the Gospel as much as we can and as often as we can, whether our confreres want to consider it or not (but need to): I don’t mean being pushy here, I mean not being silent when something is desperately wanting, such as some principle of truth taught in Our Lord’s Gospel that, if ignored, cannot but result in hardship, error, confusion or what-have-you for the individual or society.

Vatican II extended the Church’s involvement in the world and the things (especially then) happening in the world. By doing so it as-it-were forces the world to acknowlege or at least consider the substance of what the Faith has to say about the world and humanity in general: the Church has something to say and to teach that needs to be considered if mankind wants to live in authentic peace, justice and brotherhood.

 

[Melchior_1]

I agree 100% with that word you used: engage. When one reads the Conciliar documents, if there’s one thing that is constant, it’s a spirit or attitude of addressing and engaging the world: it’s bringing the best of our faith to bear in every sphere of life, especially those that are vitally important for society, and imbuing them with the spirit and principles of the Gospel as much as we can and as often as we can, whether our confreres want to consider it or not (but need to): I don’t mean being pushy here, I mean not being silent when something is desperately wanting, such as some principle of truth taught in Our Lord’s Gospel that, if ignored, cannot but result in hardship, error, confusion or what-have-you for the individual or society.

Vatican II extended the Church’s involvement in the world and the things (especially then) happening in the world. By doing so it as-it-were forces the world to acknowlege or at least consider the substance of what the Faith has to say about the world and humanity in general: the Church has something to say and to teach that needs to be considered if mankind wants to live in authentic peace, justice and brotherhood.

I love what you wrote here, which can be summed up in two words:

New Evangelization.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I love what you wrote here, which can be summed up in two words:

New Evangelization.

I want to do more study on this (the New Evangelization)- I never thought of connecting the two but now it seems rather obvious! Thank you for pointing it out to me,

 

[RPRPsych]

I lived through the Spirit of Vatican I in the religious life. It was horrible. People don’t know how horrible it was. Being a religious prior to Vatican II was like living under a repressive regime. Then came the Spirit of Vatican II. We went from repressive to chaotic. Finally, we’re getting both councils right.

I think this observation is spot-on! Even though I’m too young to testify to it, my mother (inter alia) had direct experience of being trained and taught by religious who lived out the “Spirit of Vatican I”, and even as a child, she realized that they obviously had issues. But it’s always great to hear it confirmed by someone who’s really lived through it.

But the need to find a balance between two alternatives has always been part of the Church’s mission, as you rightly pointed out:

St. Paul, in the epistle to the Romans, pointed out the flaws with both the Jewish and Gentile ways of life, and shows us how the Christian faith is a more excellent way.

Pope Leo XIII, in Rerum Novarum, pointed out the flaws with both socialism and extreme forms of capitalism, and showed us what the alternative could be.

The Second Vatican Council, in Dei Verbum, pointed out the flaws with both “over-literal” and “over-liberal” interpretations of Scripture, and showed us where the true Catholic position lay.

So it makes a lot of sense that the Church has taken some time to find balance between Vatican Councils I and II themselves - both of which were proclaiming truths, but which emphasised different aspects of the truth. The best things in life often take time. The chaos is temporary and man-made, because God is a God of order and not of confusion.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I think this observation is spot-on! Even though I’m too young to testify to it, my mother (inter alia) had direct experience of being trained and taught by religious who lived out the “Spirit of Vatican I”, and even as a child, she realized that they obviously had issues. But it’s always great to hear it confirmed by someone who’s really lived through it.

But the need to find a balance between two alternatives has always been part of the Church’s mission, as you rightly pointed out:

St. Paul, in the epistle to the Romans, pointed out the flaws with both the Jewish and Gentile ways of life, and shows us how the Christian faith is a more excellent way.

Pope Leo XIII, in Rerum Novarum, pointed out the flaws with both socialism and extreme forms of capitalism, and showed us what the alternative could be.

The Second Vatican Council, in Dei Verbum, pointed out the flaws with both “over-literal” and “over-liberal” interpretations of Scripture, and showed us where the true Catholic position lay.

So it makes a lot of sense that the Church has taken some time to find balance between Vatican Councils I and II themselves - both of which were proclaiming truths, but which emphasised different aspects of the truth. The best things in life often take time. The chaos is temporary and man-made, because God is a God of order and not of confusion.

 

[JReducation]

I think this observation is spot-on! Even though I’m too young to testify to it, my mother (inter alia) had direct experience of being trained and taught by religious who lived out the “Spirit of Vatican I”, and even as a child, she realized that they obviously had issues. But it’s always great to hear it confirmed by someone who’s really lived through it.

Not to derail my own thread, but I always wonder what people are looking at when they lament that the secular seminaries and religious houses of formation today are empty. First, they’re no more empty than they were during the mid 1800s. Vocations go in cycles. When something catastrophic happens, people respond with religious fervour. The greatest number of religious communities are a result of the French Revolution.

After WW I and WW II, there was a vocation explosion. Seminaries and religious houses of formation had standing room only. However, forty years later, people are suing the Church because those men who entered the seminaries during the 1950s and early 60s sexually molested them. The number of reported cases drops dramatically after 1975. For a man to be a priest in 1975, he had to have been born no later than 1950, because the old code of law said that you had to be at least 25 yrs old to be ordained.

The people who report having been beaten, humiliated, neglected and treated cruelly by sisters in Catholic schools are all over age 50. This would place them in Catholic schools 1970 and before. These sisters entered during the vocation explosion after WW II.

Those who taught heresy and wrote suspiscious theological books did so between 1960 and 1985. Theology begins to settle down after 1985. That creative wing of theologians is now in its 70s or even 80s. This is not the group that entered seminaries after Vatican II. This is the group that entered before Vatican II.

What was happening? There was a vocation explosion. The dioceses and religious communities saw numbers, but did a poor job at screening and observing these incoming men and women.

We must always avoid the temptation to forget the past. This can happen both ways. We can deceive ourselves into believing that nothing good existed before year X. That’s not true. Before Vatican II there were many very good things in the Church. The most important of all was the catechesis was very solid. That went down the tubes when people tried to write new catechisms, but over emphasized love and community at the expense of morality and dogma. This is horrible. People like me are still trying to correct this in our parishes. I teach religious education to grade 6 and I refuse to use the book. I use my notes from the seminary. I teach them OT Christology. The book is OT, but it presents the OT like Disney, all of the great miracles: the creation, the flood and rainbow, parting the Red Sea, Jonah and the whale, etc. Well, Disney has already filmed those stories. But Disney and this religious education book have left Jesus out of the OT. So I don’t use it. Finally, someone asked me why and I explained. The Rel. Ed Director, who is a wonderful person, looked at my book and saw what I saw. She has decided to shelve this book for one recommended by the bishops.

We have to resist the temptation to believe that everything before Vatican II was better than today. That’s just as bad and as false. I’ve already spoken about the abuses of human beings. But let’s not ignore that bishops and pastors were feudal lords. When the Holy Fathers spoke about collegiality they knew what they were talking about. They were talking about a greater involvement between bishops and the pope. Bishops are more closely involved with the Holy See today than ever before in history. At the same time, the Holy See respects the seat of the bishop. It tries to work cooperatively with them, rather than ride over them or do as in the past, “No news is good news.” The singularity of the diocesan bishop is preserved, while at the same time, the primacy of Peter is more than a warm fuzzy feeling with a picture of the pope on the wall. There is ongoing communication between the Holy See and the dioceses around the world, via the nuncio or directly.

But the need to find a balance between two alternatives has always been part of the Church’s mission, as you rightly pointed out:

St. Paul, in the epistle to the Romans, pointed out the flaws with both the Jewish and Gentile ways of life, and shows us how the Christian faith is a more excellent way.

Pope Leo XIII, in Rerum Novarum, pointed out the flaws with both socialism and extreme forms of capitalism, and showed us what the alternative could be.

The Second Vatican Council, in Dei Verbum, pointed out the flaws with both “over-literal” and “over-liberal” interpretations of Scripture, and showed us where the true Catholic position lay.

So it makes a lot of sense that the Church has taken some time to find balance between Vatican Councils I and II themselves - both of which were proclaiming truths, but which emphasised different aspects of the truth. The best things in life often take time. The chaos is temporary and man-made, because God is a God of order and not of confusion.

Bingo

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Lormar]

Brother Jay, God bless you for taking the time to explain. You have no idea how it helps me.

Maybe we can keep this thread going throughout the Year of Faith in order for us to discuss the council documents you mention or anything else about Vatican II. Also, maybe it will help others here as well as myself, if you can show how the SSPX is not quite right in their understanding of the documents.

 

[IbnFiktur]

What an excellent couple of posts! Thank you very much for this, Brother. (Did I mention that I’m a silent, but long-standing, fan of all your writings here?)

Ditto. Thanks for yet another that doesn’t disappoint.

 

[JReducation]

This morning, the Holy Father and His Beatitude, Bartholomew I, preached on the opening of the year of faith and had some interesting observations on Vatican II. The statements are very long, but I’m sure that you can find them on the Vatican website. I’ll only cite parts of their statements.

“Today, fifty years from the opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, we begin with great joy the Year of Faith”, said Benedict XVI during the course of a Mass celebrated this morning in St. Peter’s Square. Concelebrating with the Pope were cardinals, patriarchs and major archbishops of the Eastern Catholic Churches, Synod Fathers who are currently participating in a synodal assembly on the new evangelisation, presidents of episcopal conferences from all over the world, and a number of Council Fathers from Vatican II. Also present at the celebration were Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and His Grace Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury and primate of the Anglican Communion Anti Ecumenism group, pay attention to this major public action by the Holy Father. It’s meant to send a message..
*
“In order to evoke the Council”, the Holy Father said, "this celebration has been enriched by several special signs: the opening procession, intended to recall the memorable one of the Council Fathers when they entered this basilica; the enthronement of a copy of the Book of the Gospels used at the Council; the consignment of the seven final Messages of the Council, and of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No question here about the place of those documents and the CCC in the Churchwhich I will do before the final blessing. These signs help us not only to remember, they also offer us the possibility of going beyond commemorating. They invite us to enter more deeply into the spiritual movement which characterised Vatican II, to make it ours Attention SSPX and friends and to develop it according to its true meaning." Attention liberals and creative thinkers*

*“Today’s Gospel tells us that Jesus Christ, consecrated by the Father in the Holy Spirit, is the true and perennial subject of evangelisation. … This mission of Christ, this movement of His continues in space and time, over centuries and continents. It is a movement which starts with the Father and, in the power of the Spirit, goes forth to bring the good news to the poor, in both a material and a spiritual sense. Corporal works of mercy and the spiritual works of mercy are of equal importance to the mission of the Church *The Church is the first and necessary instrument of this work of Christ because it is united to Him as a body to its head”.

"Vatican Council II did not wish to deal with the theme of faith in one specific document. It was, however, animated by a desire, as it were, to immerse itself anew in the Christian mystery so as to re-propose it fruitfully to contemporary man. … In his opening speech Blessed John XXIII presented the principal purpose of the Council in this way: “What above all concerns the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine be safeguarded and taught more effectively. … Therefore, the principal purpose of this Council is not the discussion of this or that doctrinal theme, a Council is not required for that, … [but] this certain and immutable doctrine, which is to be faithfully respected, needs to be explored and presented in a way which responds to the needs of our time”. Some people call presenting the faith according to the needs of the times, “Modernism”. The popes call it a necessity. Maybe the popes’ understanding of Modernism is more accurate than that of other people.

"In the light of these words, we can understand what I myself felt at the time: during the Council there was an emotional tension as we faced the common task of making the truth and beauty of the faith shine out in our time, without sacrificing it to the demands of the present or leaving it tied to the past: Hermaneutic of continuity. The Church was not born in 1963, nor did it stop growing in 1963. the eternal presence of God resounds in the faith, transcending time, yet it can only be welcomed by us in our own unrepeatable today. Therefore I believe that the most important thing … is to revive in the whole Church that positive tension, that yearning to announce Christ again to contemporary man."

“I have often insisted on the need to return, as it were, to the “letter” of the Council - that is to its texts - also to draw from them its authentic spirit, and why I have repeated that the true legacy of Vatican II is to be found in them”. Stop spinning the documents of Vatican II to fit your agenda.

 

[JReducation]

"The Council did not formulate anything new in matters of faith, nor did it wish to replace what was ancient. The Church believes today what it believed yesterday Rather, it concerned itself with seeing that the same faith might continue to be lived in the present day, that it might remain a living faith in a world of change. The language of the Church changes to speak to a changing world. The content remains. … **In the years following, however, many embraced uncritically the dominant mentality, placing in doubt the very foundations of the deposit of faith, which they sadly no longer felt able to accept as truths. ** **No such thing as "the Church no longer believes . . . ***

I’ll post more on this later. But the opening remarks are very interesting and certainly speak to the dialogue between traditionalists, liberals and the Vatican.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[RPRPsych]

"The Council did not formulate anything new in matters of faith, nor did it wish to replace what was ancient.* The Church believes today what it believed yesterday Rather, it concerned itself with seeing that the same faith might continue to be lived in the present day, that it might remain a living faith in a world of change. The language of the Church changes to speak to a changing world. The content remains. … **In the years following, however, many embraced uncritically the dominant mentality, placing in doubt the very foundations of the deposit of faith, which they sadly no longer felt able to accept as truths. ** **No such thing as "the Church no longer believes . . . **

I’ll post more on this later. But the opening remarks are very interesting and certainly speak to the dialogue between traditionalists, liberals and the Vatican.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thanks once more for the helpful “editorial comments”!

It’s heartening to see that the Church continues to serve the Lord, our God, without swerving “to the right or to the left”, regardless of what some might say.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks once more for the helpful “editorial comments”!

It’s heartening to see that the Church continues to serve the Lord, our God, without swerving “to the right or to the left”, regardless of what some might say.

Just these introductory remarks are like arrows shot out of a bow. He’s speaking to the two extremes and telling them that the Council is to be accepted, but on its own terms, not what we want to add to it or delete from it.

This certainly clarifies what he said to the SSPX about accepting the Council in its entirety and what he said to the LCWR about the fidelity expected of women religious. The Council is not a buffet. It is an event in the life of the Church and one can’t sweep it under the carpet, annul it, ignore it, or manipulate it for one’s ideologies. What it said has to be accepted as the Council Fathers said it.

After we have accepted it, then we can discuss how to better word some statements in order to make them clearer and which statements continue to be applicable 40 years later and which are no longer applicable. But you can’t begin by rejecting something that is a part of the Church’s teaching Magisterium or by taking it out of historical context. The Council built on what came before and will serve as the stage for what comes later. Even when there is discontinuity with what came before, there had to be a reflection and dialogue on those points. Therefore, that’s still building. It’s like anything else. We look at what came before and we identify what still works and what no longer works, because the situation no longer exists. That’s not a rejection of the past. That’s a careful analysis of the past and present.

On the flip side, to begin at the Council, when the Council itself calls us to go back to the roots, contradicts itself.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[M-Dent]

An **[essay by Pope Benedict XVI on L’Osservatore Romano](http://www.osservatoreromano.va/por...nedito-del-Papa-per-lo-speciale.html&title=It was a splendid day, Benedict XVI recalls&locale=en). ** I found it has some interesting notes/critiques.

 

[TrueLight]

I’m just happy that the Holy Father, during the past week, sees it fit to clarify certain things.

He loves the people entrusted to his care.