To elaborate on the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is our mission on Plinthos (Gk. "brick"); and to do so anonymously, so that, like any brick in the wall, we might do our little part in the strength of the structure of humanity almost unnoticed.
To the pessimists who insist on spreading the falsehood that the recent Consistory served only to let the cardinals experience “real” synodality—right there in the synodal hall, at the same tables and in the same format as the Synod on Synodality; to the dour souls who have failed to see how vital it has been for the Church that the cardinals at the round tables could share smiles without tears—it must be said that where smiles and debates have not reached, papers from on high have arrived.
Indeed, the hopes that part of the Church had placed in the Consistory—whose program included the long-awaited liturgical peace—have not been disappointed, even though this topic was ruled out from the very beginning for lack of time. The solution to the problem was entrusted to the cardinal to whom Pope Leo XIV has assigned the guardianship of tradition. A cardinal who is developing grand epistemological principles.
To begin with, Cardinal Roche seems to have discovered that worship has nothing to do with culture; that the decline of worship does not entail the weakening of culture. What a discovery, right? He has also discovered, in the exercise of his office as custodian of tradition (Traditionis custos), that one must discern (oh, holy discernment!) between “healthy” tradition and pathological tradition: the kind that is driven by the itch of a “pathological search for novelties” (he is referring, of course, to “traditionalist novelties” that the sickly lovers of tradition keep discovering in order to feed their pathology). Upon these two imposing pillars, His Eminence has constructed the edifice of the persecution of the obsessive reformers of the reform—an edifice he considers complete with Traditionis custodes, which, as he himself declares in his Consistory papers, issued from his own illustrious pen.
Roche has failed to notice that there is nothing more traditional than worship. That is why the first thing every new master sets about doing in his conquests is the destruction of worship and traditions: because tradition leads us to nostalgia for the past and distances us from the future. If tradition is not destroyed, there is no way to impose new ideas.
The fact is that, since there was no time to put the issue on the table, the Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship made up for that lack of time with his creative papers. However much one of the major aims of the Consistory was to train their Eminences in the practice of “listening,” Cardinal Roche brilliantly replaced that triviality with his carefully crafted documents.
Cardinal Roche states in his surreptitiously slipped-in text to the Consistory that “the reform of the liturgy ‘desired by the Second Vatican Council’ (not promulgated by the Council) is not only fully in tune with ‘the truest sense of tradition’ (so there exists a ‘less true’ sense of tradition: that of the traditionalists), but also constitutes an elevated form (the traditionalists’ is coarse and base) of placing oneself at the service of tradition.” He then goes on to explain this notion of pathological tradition opposed to “healthy tradition,” and that of “legitimate progress.” Indeed, the defenders of crusty, reactionary tradition do not know how to discern between “legitimate” and illegitimate progress—something the Consistory supposedly should have clarified. But that is no longer necessary, since the cardinal defender of “healthy tradition” has discerned it all by himself. The only thing this “healthy tradition” lacks, Roche says, is the appropriate formation in seminaries.
Pope Leo XIV is no stranger to these approaches; on the contrary, he is aligned with the document slipped in by the Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship. Indeed, in his address on January 8, he stated that “the Second Vatican Council rediscovered (if it ‘rediscovered’ it, that must be because something was lacking in its initial ‘discovery’) the face of God as Father, looked upon the Church in the light of Christ (it must have been looking at it with some other light before), and initiated an important liturgical reform by placing at the center the mystery of salvation and the active and conscious participation of the People of God.” It is clear that a wheel cannot function with two axles: the old one (that of the mystery of salvation) and the new one, that of the active and conscious participation of the People of God. Evidently, the new center of the liturgy (the participation of the People) has displaced the former center: that of the “mystery of salvation.”
It seems evident that Cardinal Roche’s report must be interpreted in the light of Leo XIV’s words spoken on January 8 (in the midst of the Consistory). The pope’s words on the matter have every appearance of attempting to shore up not only the aforementioned report, but also its author. In any case, it is an explicit papal stance very much in line with the document that seeks to make up for the removal of the liturgical topic from the Consistory’s program.
It is obvious that the underlying issue is the Second Vatican Council, which the Church has still not been able to bring to a close. The current liturgy was forged outside the Council and, in not a few respects, in direct opposition to it. But it is not only the liturgy that was so falsely “closed,” since after sixty years we are still grappling with the problem. We continue dragging along the only dogma proclaimed urbi et orbi by the Second Vatican Council: aggiornamento—a deceptive principle, impossible to close. Because the days keep passing, there is no way to finish the Church’s “updating.” And since in sixty years the world has turned upside down, we have found ourselves compelled to “open ourselves to the world and to welcome the changes and challenges of the modern age” (again, the pope’s words).
Yes, of course, the great dogma of aggiornamento has brought us to the centrality of the great issues that trouble the Church today—especially in the West. Evidently, Christ is no longer the center of interest of episcopal conferences, the Vatican, or the various synodal maneuvers. The bishops’ obsession is to attune themselves to the world, which is no longer the world of the Second Vatican Council. Today the obsession is to establish in the Church a synodality that grants full legitimacy to different inculturations—not only Amazonian and indigenist ones, but also those of the very latest Western culture, so firmly propped up by Fiducia supplicans. “For the moment.” There you have the new postmodern theological discovery: provisionality as the supreme norm. Since the world never stops turning, what seems perfect today is useless tomorrow. And the Church, so ready to open herself to the world and to welcome changes (yes, of course, changes and more changes) and the challenges of the modern age, has no choice but to dance to the rhythm set by the world. Thus aggiornamenti neither are nor can be forever. From the “updatings” (to the world) of the Second Vatican Council onward, there are no longer things that are definitive and for all time in the Church. From that point on, everything is “for the moment.” And if moments change, why shouldn’t principles change as well?
After reading the excellent 1966 book The Mind of the European Romantics by H.D. Schenk, on the key role of Christianity and especially Catholicism in the life and achievement of the greatest figures of the 19th century Romantic movement in literature and the arts I was left with the question, who were the greatest figures of that movement which can be held up as models to be studied and imitated today?
The answer, of course, as in any age, is, the Saints!, the canonized Saints and declared Doctors of the Church from that period and within that movement of human culture.
Here is my spontaneous short-list, on which I might enlarge in the future.
Saint John Henry Newman, Doctor of the Church, particularly for his thought on the historical development of Christian/Catholic doctrine.
Yesterday I watched Pope Leo XIV's first 22 December Christmas Address to the Roman Curia. Listening to the Holy Father's vague address, filled with unclear and too cliche and ambiguous to be helpful religious platitudes--"mission," "shepherding," and "communion,"--I found myself nostalgic for the abundantly clear and doctrinally rich mission statements of Pope Benedict XVI's Christmas Addresses to the Roman Curia, beginning with his first, in 2005, an unambigious response to the relativism of our time: a true missionary, a true shepherd and a true promoter of Catholic communion, calling out the wolves and committing to getting rid of them!
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE ROMAN CURIA OFFERING THEM HIS CHRISTMAS GREETINGS
Thursday, 22 December 2005
Your Eminences, Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate and in the Presbyterate, Dear Brothers and Sisters,
"Expergiscere, homo: quia pro te Deus factus est homo - Wake up, O man! For your sake God became man" (St Augustine, Sermo, 185). With the Christmas celebrations now at hand, I am opening my Meeting with you, dear collaborators of the Roman Curia, with St Augustine's invitation to understand the true meaning of Christ's Birth.
I address to each one my most cordial greeting and I thank you for the sentiments of devotion and affection, effectively conveyed to me by your Cardinal Dean, to whom I address my gratitude.
God became man for our sake: this is the message which, every year, from the silent grotto of Bethlehem spreads even to the most out-of-the-way corners of the earth. Christmas is a feast of light and peace, it is a day of inner wonder and joy that expands throughout the universe, because "God became man". From the humble grotto of Bethlehem, the eternal Son of God, who became a tiny Child, addresses each one of us: he calls us, invites us to be reborn in him so that, with him, we may live eternally in communion with the Most Holy Trinity.
Our hearts brimming with the joy that comes from this knowledge, let us think back to the events of the year that is coming to an end. We have behind us great events which have left a deep mark on the life of the Church. I am thinking first and foremost of the departure of our beloved Holy Father John Paul II, preceded by a long period of suffering and the gradual loss of speech. No Pope has left us such a quantity of texts as he has bequeathed to us; no previous Pope was able to visit the whole world like him and speak directly to people from all the continents.
In the end, however, his lot was a journey of suffering and silence. Unforgettable for us are the images of Palm Sunday when, holding an olive branch and marked by pain, he came to the window and imparted the Lord's Blessing as he himself was about to walk towards the Cross.
Next was the scene in his Private Chapel when, holding the Crucifix, he took part in the Way of the Cross at the Colosseum, where he had so often led the procession carrying the Cross himself.
Lastly came his silent Blessing on Easter Sunday, in which we saw the promise of the Resurrection, of eternal life, shine out through all his suffering. With his words and actions, the Holy Father gave us great things; equally important is the lesson he imparted to us from the chair of suffering and silence.
In his last book "Memory and Identity" (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2005), he has left us an interpretation of suffering that is not a theological or philosophical theory but a fruit that matured on his personal path of suffering which he walked, sustained by faith in the Crucified Lord. This interpretation, which he worked out in faith and which gave meaning to his suffering lived in communion with that of the Lord, spoke through his silent pain, transforming it into an important message.
Both at the beginning and once again at the end of the book mentioned, the Pope shows that he is deeply touched by the spectacle of the power of evil, which we dramatically experienced in the century that has just ended. He says in his text: "The evil... was not a small-scale evil.... It was an evil of gigantic proportions, an evil which availed itself of state structures in order to accomplish its wicked work, an evil built up into a system" (p. 189).
Might evil be invincible? Is it the ultimate power of history? Because of the experience of evil, for Pope Wojty³a the question of redemption became the essential and central question of his life and thought as a Christian. Is there a limit against which the power of evil shatters? "Yes, there is", the Pope replies in this book of his, as well as in his Encyclical on redemption.
The power that imposes a limit on evil is Divine Mercy. Violence, the display of evil, is opposed in history - as "the totally other" of God, God's own power - by Divine Mercy. The Lamb is stronger than the dragon, we could say together with the Book of Revelation.
At the end of the book, in a retrospective review of the attack of 13 May 1981 and on the basis of the experience of his journey with God and with the world, John Paul II further deepened this answer.
What limits the force of evil, the power, in brief, which overcomes it - this is how he says it - is God's suffering, the suffering of the Son of God on the Cross: "The suffering of the Crucified God is not just one form of suffering alongside others.... In sacrificing himself for us all, Christ gave a new meaning to suffering, opening up a new dimension, a new order: the order of love.... The passion of Christ on the Cross gave a radically new meaning to suffering, transforming it from within.... It is this suffering which burns and consumes evil with the flame of love.... All human suffering, all pain, all infirmity contains within itself a promise of salvation;... evil is present in the world partly so as to awaken our love, our self-gift in generous and disinterested service to those visited by suffering.... Christ has redeemed the world: "By his wounds we are healed' (Is 53: 5)" (p. 189, ff.).
All this is not merely learned theology, but the expression of a faith lived and matured through suffering. Of course, we must do all we can to alleviate suffering and prevent the injustice that causes the suffering of the innocent. However, we must also do the utmost to ensure that people can discover the meaning of suffering and are thus able to accept their own suffering and to unite it with the suffering of Christ.
In this way, it is merged with redemptive love and consequently becomes a force against the evil in the world.
The response across the world to the Pope's death was an overwhelming demonstration of gratitude for the fact that in his ministry he offered himself totally to God for the world; a thanksgiving for the fact that in a world full of hatred and violence he taught anew love and suffering in the service of others; he showed us, so to speak, in the flesh, the Redeemer, redemption, and gave us the certainty that indeed, evil does not have the last word in the world.
The World Youth Day has lived on as a great gift in the memory of those present. More than a million young people gathered in the City of Cologne on the Rhine River and in the neighbouring towns to listen together to the Word of God, to pray together, to receive the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist, to sing and to celebrate together, to rejoice in life and to worship and receive the Lord in the Eucharist during the great meetings on Saturday evening and Sunday. Joy simply reigned throughout those days.
Apart from keeping order, the police had nothing to do - the Lord had gathered his family, tangibly overcoming every frontier and barrier, and in the great communion between us, he made us experience his presence.
The motto chosen for those days - "We have come to worship him!", contained two great images which encouraged the right approach from the outset. First there was the image of the pilgrimage, the image of the person who, looking beyond his own affairs and daily life, sets out in search of his essential destination, the truth, the right life, God.
This image of the person on his way towards the goal of life contained another two clear indications. First of all, there was the invitation not to see the world that surrounds us solely as raw material with which we can do something, but to try to discover in it "the Creator's handwriting", the creative reason and the love from which the world was born and of which the universe speaks to us, if we pay attention, if our inner senses awaken and acquire perception of the deepest dimensions of reality.
As a second element there is a further invitation: to listen to the historical revelation which alone can offer us the key to the interpretation of the silent mystery of creation, pointing out to us the practical way towards the true Lord of the world and of history, who conceals himself in the poverty of the stable in Bethlehem.
The other image contained in the World Youth Day motto was the person worshipping: "We have come to worship him". Before any activity, before the world can change there must be worship. Worship alone sets us truly free; worship alone gives us the criteria for our action. Precisely in a world in which guiding criteria are absent and the threat exists that each person will be a law unto himself, it is fundamentally necessary to stress worship.
For all those who were present the intense silence of that million young people remains unforgettable, a silence that united and uplifted us all when the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament was placed on the altar. Let us cherish in our hearts the images of Cologne: they are signs that continue to be valid. Without mentioning individual names, I would like on this occasion to thank everyone who made World Youth Day possible; but especially, let us together thank the Lord, for indeed, he alone could give us those days in the way in which we lived them.
The word "adoration" [worship] brings us to the second great event that I wish to talk about: the Synod of Bishops and the Year of the Eucharist. Pope John Paul II, with the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia and the Apostolic Letter Mane Nobiscum Domine, gave us the essential clues and at the same time, with his personal experience of Eucharistic faith, put the Church's teaching into practice.
Moreover, the Congregation for Divine Worship, in close connection with the Encyclical, published the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum as a practical guide to the correct implementation of the conciliar Constitution on the liturgy and liturgical reform. In addition to all this, was it really possible to say anything new, to develop further the whole of this teaching?
This was exactly the great experience of the Synod, during which a reflection of the riches of the Eucharistic life of the Church today and the inexhaustibility of her Eucharistic faith could be perceived in the Fathers' contributions. What the Fathers thought and expressed must be presented, in close connection with the Propositiones of the Synod, in a Post-Synodal Document.
Here, once again, I only wish to underline that point which a little while ago we already mentioned in the context of World Youth Day: adoration of the Risen Lord, present in the Eucharist with flesh and blood, with body and soul, with divinity and humanity.
It is moving for me to see how everywhere in the Church the joy of Eucharistic adoration is reawakening and being fruitful. In the period of liturgical reform, Mass and adoration outside it were often seen as in opposition to one another: it was thought that the Eucharistic Bread had not been given to us to be contemplated, but to be eaten, as a widespread objection claimed at that time.
The experience of the prayer of the Church has already shown how nonsensical this antithesis was. Augustine had formerly said: "...nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit;... peccemus non adorando - No one should eat this flesh without first adoring it;... we should sin were we not to adore it" (cf. Enarr. in Ps 98: 9 CCL XXXIX 1385).
Indeed, we do not merely receive something in the Eucharist. It is the encounter and unification of persons; the person, however, who comes to meet us and desires to unite himself to us is the Son of God. Such unification can only be brought about by means of adoration.
Receiving the Eucharist means adoring the One whom we receive. Precisely in this way and only in this way do we become one with him. Therefore, the development of Eucharistic adoration, as it took shape during the Middle Ages, was the most consistent consequence of the Eucharistic mystery itself: only in adoration can profound and true acceptance develop. And it is precisely this personal act of encounter with the Lord that develops the social mission which is contained in the Eucharist and desires to break down barriers, not only the barriers between the Lord and us but also and above all those that separate us from one another.
The last event of this year on which I wish to reflect here is the celebration of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago. This memory prompts the question: What has been the result of the Council? Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken? What still remains to be done? No one can deny that in vast areas of the Church the implementation of the Council has been somewhat difficult, even without wishing to apply to what occurred in these years the description that St Basil, the great Doctor of the Church, made of the Church's situation after the Council of Nicea: he compares her situation to a naval battle in the darkness of the storm, saying among other things: "The raucous shouting of those who through disagreement rise up against one another, the incomprehensible chatter, the confused din of uninterrupted clamouring, has now filled almost the whole of the Church, falsifying through excess or failure the right doctrine of the faith..." (De Spiritu Sancto, XXX, 77; PG 32, 213 A; SCh 17 ff., p. 524).
We do not want to apply precisely this dramatic description to the situation of the post-conciliar period, yet something from all that occurred is nevertheless reflected in it. The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?
Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or - as we would say today - on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.
On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.
The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.
These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council's deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague.
In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.
The nature of a Council as such is therefore basically misunderstood. In this way, it is considered as a sort of constituent that eliminates an old constitution and creates a new one. However, the Constituent Assembly needs a mandator and then confirmation by the mandator, in other words, the people the constitution must serve. The Fathers had no such mandate and no one had ever given them one; nor could anyone have given them one because the essential constitution of the Church comes from the Lord and was given to us so that we might attain eternal life and, starting from this perspective, be able to illuminate life in time and time itself.
Through the Sacrament they have received, Bishops are stewards of the Lord's gift. They are "stewards of the mysteries of God" (I Cor 4: 1); as such, they must be found to be "faithful" and "wise" (cf. Lk 12: 41-48). This requires them to administer the Lord's gift in the right way, so that it is not left concealed in some hiding place but bears fruit, and the Lord may end by saying to the administrator: "Since you were dependable in a small matter I will put you in charge of larger affairs" (cf. Mt 25: 14-30; Lk 19: 11-27).
These Gospel parables express the dynamic of fidelity required in the Lord's service; and through them it becomes clear that, as in a Council, the dynamic and fidelity must converge.
The hermeneutic of discontinuity is countered by the hermeneutic of reform, as it was presented first by Pope John XXIII in his Speech inaugurating the Council on 11 October 1962 and later by Pope Paul VI in his Discourse for the Council's conclusion on 7 December 1965.
Here I shall cite only John XXIII's well-known words, which unequivocally express this hermeneutic when he says that the Council wishes "to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion". And he continues: "Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us...". It is necessary that "adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness..." be presented in "faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another...", retaining the same meaning and message (The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., p. 715).
It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.
However, wherever this interpretation guided the implementation of the Council, new life developed and new fruit ripened. Forty years after the Council, we can show that the positive is far greater and livelier than it appeared to be in the turbulent years around 1968. Today, we see that although the good seed developed slowly, it is nonetheless growing; and our deep gratitude for the work done by the Council is likewise growing.
In his Discourse closing the Council, Paul VI pointed out a further specific reason why a hermeneutic of discontinuity can seem convincing.
In the great dispute about man which marks the modern epoch, the Council had to focus in particular on the theme of anthropology. It had to question the relationship between the Church and her faith on the one hand, and man and the contemporary world on the other (cf. ibid.). The question becomes even clearer if, instead of the generic term "contemporary world", we opt for another that is more precise: the Council had to determine in a new way the relationship between the Church and the modern era.
This relationship had a somewhat stormy beginning with the Galileo case. It was then totally interrupted when Kant described "religion within pure reason" and when, in the radical phase of the French Revolution, an image of the State and the human being that practically no longer wanted to allow the Church any room was disseminated.
In the 19th century under Pius IX, the clash between the Church's faith and a radical liberalism and the natural sciences, which also claimed to embrace with their knowledge the whole of reality to its limit, stubbornly proposing to make the "hypothesis of God" superfluous, had elicited from the Church a bitter and radical condemnation of this spirit of the modern age. Thus, it seemed that there was no longer any milieu open to a positive and fruitful understanding, and the rejection by those who felt they were the representatives of the modern era was also drastic.
In the meantime, however, the modern age had also experienced developments. People came to realize that the American Revolution was offering a model of a modern State that differed from the theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution.
The natural sciences were beginning to reflect more and more clearly their own limitations imposed by their own method, which, despite achieving great things, was nevertheless unable to grasp the global nature of reality.
So it was that both parties were gradually beginning to open up to each other. In the period between the two World Wars and especially after the Second World War, Catholic statesmen demonstrated that a modern secular State could exist that was not neutral regarding values but alive, drawing from the great ethical sources opened by Christianity.
Catholic social doctrine, as it gradually developed, became an important model between radical liberalism and the Marxist theory of the State. The natural sciences, which without reservation professed a method of their own to which God was barred access, realized ever more clearly that this method did not include the whole of reality. Hence, they once again opened their doors to God, knowing that reality is greater than the naturalistic method and all that it can encompass.
It might be said that three circles of questions had formed which then, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, were expecting an answer. First of all, the relationship between faith and modern science had to be redefined. Furthermore, this did not only concern the natural sciences but also historical science for, in a certain school, the historical-critical method claimed to have the last word on the interpretation of the Bible and, demanding total exclusivity for its interpretation of Sacred Scripture, was opposed to important points in the interpretation elaborated by the faith of the Church.
Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.
Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.
These are all subjects of great importance - they were the great themes of the second part of the Council - on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.
It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within. On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.
Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.
It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.
The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.
The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one's own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God's grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all.
At the same time, she assures peoples and their Governments that she does not wish to destroy their identity and culture by doing so, but to give them, on the contrary, a response which, in their innermost depths, they are waiting for - a response with which the multiplicity of cultures is not lost but instead unity between men and women increases and thus also peace between peoples.
The Second Vatican Council, with its new definition of the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought, has reviewed or even corrected certain historical decisions, but in this apparent discontinuity it has actually preserved and deepened her inmost nature and true identity.
The Church, both before and after the Council, was and is the same Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic, journeying on through time; she continues "her pilgrimage amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God", proclaiming the death of the Lord until he comes (cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 8).
Those who expected that with this fundamental "yes" to the modern era all tensions would be dispelled and that the "openness towards the world" accordingly achieved would transform everything into pure harmony, had underestimated the inner tensions as well as the contradictions inherent in the modern epoch.
They had underestimated the perilous frailty of human nature which has been a threat to human progress in all the periods of history and in every historical constellation. These dangers, with the new possibilities and new power of man over matter and over himself, did not disappear but instead acquired new dimensions: a look at the history of the present day shows this clearly.
In our time too, the Church remains a "sign that will be opposed" (Lk 2: 34) - not without reason did Pope John Paul II, then still a Cardinal, give this title to the theme for the Spiritual Exercises he preached in 1976 to Pope Paul VI and the Roman Curia. The Council could not have intended to abolish the Gospel's opposition to human dangers and errors.
On the contrary, it was certainly the Council's intention to overcome erroneous or superfluous contradictions in order to present to our world the requirement of the Gospel in its full greatness and purity.
The steps the Council took towards the modern era which had rather vaguely been presented as "openness to the world", belong in short to the perennial problem of the relationship between faith and reason that is re-emerging in ever new forms. The situation that the Council had to face can certainly be compared to events of previous epochs.
In his First Letter, St Peter urged Christians always to be ready to give an answer (apo-logia) to anyone who asked them for the logos, the reason for their faith (cf. 3: 15).
This meant that biblical faith had to be discussed and come into contact with Greek culture and learn to recognize through interpretation the separating line but also the convergence and the affinity between them in the one reason, given by God.
When, in the 13th century through the Jewish and Arab philosophers, Aristotelian thought came into contact with Medieval Christianity formed in the Platonic tradition and faith and reason risked entering an irreconcilable contradiction, it was above all St Thomas Aquinas who mediated the new encounter between faith and Aristotelian philosophy, thereby setting faith in a positive relationship with the form of reason prevalent in his time. There is no doubt that the wearing dispute between modern reason and the Christian faith, which had begun negatively with the Galileo case, went through many phases, but with the Second Vatican Council the time came when broad new thinking was required.
Its content was certainly only roughly traced in the conciliar texts, but this determined its essential direction, so that the dialogue between reason and faith, particularly important today, found its bearings on the basis of the Second Vatican Council.
This dialogue must now be developed with great openmindedness but also with that clear discernment that the world rightly expects of us in this very moment. Thus, today we can look with gratitude at the Second Vatican Council: if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.
Lastly, should I perhaps recall once again that 19 April this year on which, to my great surprise, the College of Cardinals elected me as the Successor of Pope John Paul II, as a Successor of St Peter on the chair of the Bishop of Rome? Such an office was far beyond anything I could ever have imagined as my vocation. It was, therefore, only with a great act of trust in God that I was able to say in obedience my "yes" to this choice. Now as then, I also ask you all for your prayer, on whose power and support I rely.
At the same time, I would like to warmly thank all those who have welcomed me and still welcome me with great trust, goodness and understanding, accompanying me day after day with their prayers.
Christmas is now at hand. The Lord God did not counter the threats of history with external power, as we human beings would expect according to the prospects of our world. His weapon is goodness. He revealed himself as a child, born in a stable. This is precisely how he counters with his power, completely different from the destructive powers of violence. In this very way he saves us. In this very way he shows us what saves.
In these days of Christmas, let us go to meet him full of trust, like the shepherds, like the Wise Men of the East. Let us ask Mary to lead us to the Lord. Let us ask him himself to make his face shine upon us. Let us ask him also to defeat the violence in the world and to make us experience the power of his goodness. With these sentiments, I warmly impart to you all my Apostolic Blessing.
For the first time, after eight years, the Holy See has once again published the statistical data on attendance and participation in Audiences and Liturgical Celebrations under Pope Francis. The totals had previously been kept under wraps by order of Pope Francis.
The published figures show a continuous decline in the number of participants during the Francis pontificate and in comparison to his predecessors. In 2013, the year of his election, the total number of participants was still close to seven million. In 2014, it fell slightly to about 6.6 million, but already in 2015 it fell to around 3.2 million. Early on, critics of the Bergoglian pontificate had drawn attention to this decision of the faithful "voting-with-their-feet." By 2017, the figure continued to decline to 2.7 million. During the COVID years, the Bergoglian court could conveniently hide behind the alleged ‘state of emergency’—one that governments, including the Vatican’s own, meaning Francis himself, had helped to create in the first place.
In the last two years of his pontificate, 2023 and 2024, only about 1.7 million believers registered.
The data released by the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household includes General Audiences, Jubilee Audiences, Special Audiences, Liturgical Celebrations and the Angelus Prayer. The year 2025 is very fitting for a direct comparison with the pontificate of his successor Leo XIV, since it should have especially led pilgrims to Rome as a Holy Year:
Up until Pope Francis’s hospitalization on 14 February 2025, over 250,000 participations were recorded. After the election of Pope Leo XIV in May 2025, the numbers increased significantly, a total of 3,176,620 participations were counted for 2025. The difference is more than double.
Under Francis, it became increasingly common for pilgrims to Rome not to feel automatically drawn to attend a papal event. The full meaning of this separation has yet to become clear.
The monthly statistics show that under Pope Francis, especially in the early months, comparatively few visitors were present, while the figures under Pope Leo XIV rose significantly. The breakdown by type of event shows that especially the Angelus Prayer and the Liturgical Celebrations were heavily attended, while Special Audiences and Audiences to which Francis attached great importance, while he completely refrained from Liturgical Celebrations in the last two years, have comparatively lower numbers.
The publication marks the return of a long-standing tradition of the Holy See to make the exact documentation of the attendance figures in ecclesiastical events publicly available. The previous secrecy had caused controversy.
Here is the angelic concert of the Sistine Chapel Pontifical Choir for the 500th anniversary of the birth of Palestrina (born sometime in the year between 3 February 1525 and 2 February 1526 and died on 2 February 1594), the greatest composer of liturgical music of all time! Magnificent!
As I watched, I was struck, however, by the necktie worn by the men, which seemed odd. Here is the assessment of that use.
In that January 3, 2026 Christmas Concert, the men of the Sistine Chapel Choir (the Cappella Musicale Pontificia Sistina) wore neckties under their traditional liturgical robes.
This specific visual
combination is rare, as the choir’s standard practice for major
liturgies is to wear collared shirts that are not visible or specialized
ecclesiastical collars that do not require ties. However, for this
non-liturgical concert dedicated to "children without peace," the adult
male members wore:
Red Cassocks: The standard formal choir robe.
White Surplices: Worn over the cassocks.
Neckties: Dark, formal neckties visible at the neckline, worn with crisp collared shirts beneath the vestments.
Video Evidence: The official Vatican recording of the January 3rd event confirms this modern formal dress for the men's section of the choir.
This
hybrid attire likely reflects the "concert" nature of the event, which,
while held in the presence of Pope Leo XIV, was a musical performance
rather than a formal mass.
Summary of Dress for the Jan. 3 Concert
Adult Men: Traditional red/white robes with visible shirts and neckties.
Boys' Choir (Pueri Cantores): Standard red cassocks and white surplices without visible ties.
Context: Christmas Concert "for children without peace".
Why the Change? While
the choir uses traditional vestments for Papal Masses and solemn
liturgical celebrations, they occasionally adopt formal secular attire
(suits and ties) for: International tours. Studio recordings or specific non-liturgical concerts. Events where they are performing as a musical ensemble rather than participating in a religious rite.
AI is very categorical in its responses and most often quite wrong. I have fact checked AI repeatedly and caught it in countless lies. Not at all to be trusted! The more the internet and social media and our information sources rely on AI the more we will be controlled by lies.
AI is the most prolific source of misinformation in the world today, beating all the propaganda in all the media outlets of the world. It blatantly and repeatedly lies in response to very clear and precise questions.
Beware of liars and the Father of Lies: Satan, the Devil!
“A good Christian knows—and knows it from his Catechism—that true Religion consists in the true faith; it consists in Revelation, which concluded with the death of the last Apostle and is entrusted to the Church, which is its interpreter and guardian.” (Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani)
Today, December 12, on the liturgical memorial of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the Americas and of Mexico, we entrust to Her—who is Mediatrix of all graces and Mother of the Church—this supplication which we, the People of God, address to the Supreme Pontiff, raising prayers to God to ask for Her intercession, protection, and guidance for the Pope, so that he may lead the Church with wisdom, divine illumination, and strength, especially in difficult times such as these, and for peace and concord within the Church, invoking upon Her divine support.
When has it ever been like this…?
This is an expression meant to say that although in the recent or distant past there have been difficulties, misunderstandings, and various kinds of “unease”—and this can happen with regard to any subject—nevertheless, things have never reached this point! Yes… anyone in the Catholic Church today finds it difficult to hide the embarrassment when seeing, hearing, or learning certain things that truly clash even with sensitivities far removed from what is considered, or above all believed, to be “sacred.” In matters of faith, one cannot play seesaw, nor can one believe in revealed truths only to then interpret them according to one’s own opinion. In her great humility and wisdom, the Church has always held that the truths of faith themselves are the precious treasure to be safeguarded.
These truths are not to be kept in a safe as if they were jewels at risk of being stolen. Very often, precisely with regard to precious objects, this happens: they are kept locked away, without giving anyone the possibility of admiring them. What purpose do they serve, if not to lose their splendor? On the contrary, the Church makes the revealed truths of faith the object of her proclamation, her witness, and even her suffering unto martyrdom, if necessary. Yet she always safeguards them with respect and love. The Church has also always wished to create an “ad hoc” body to do this. Over the centuries it has taken on various names, up to the current one, namely the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Certainly, within the internal organization of the Church and in relation to the person of the Pope, it is the reality that requires the greatest responsibility, seriousness, and respect, precisely because of the “matter” it deals with. Sacred history, as made by the Church, has offered us wonderful pages concerning this body. The temptation is always to think and say that in the past they made mistakes, and that only today are we capable of correctly interpreting and concretely implementing the right way to help the People of God treasure the deposit of faith. If that were so, we would be overly proud, and surely those who come after us would not be slow to point it out.
With these reflections, as the People of God, we ask you, Holy Father, to turn your gaze to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. In these first months of your pontificate, you have offered us the image of a man of God who listens, discerns, and, when necessary, intervenes even by revisiting at the root positions previously taken. Everyone appreciates the delicacy with which you seek to “adjust,” without clamor, certain decisions of your predecessor. This is undoubtedly very beautiful and offers an image of true Christian charity. Now, Holy Father, welcoming the “sense” of so many among the People of God, we ask you, for the good of the Church and also of the person concerned, to replace the current prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Fernández.
We do not wish to enter into the merits of the motivations that led Pope Francis to want him in that role. However, we cannot pretend nothing is happening regarding the fact that from the very beginning, when it was announced that he would be the prefect, very many people expressed their disapproval, particularly in his homeland, Argentina. There have been too many pronouncements in these years, since he became prefect, imbued with ambiguity; this has necessarily required continual new interventions to clarify, to deepen, to revise what had previously been said. Moreover, in light of what was known from the beginning and has returned to the forefront in recent days, Cardinal Fernández, due to a personal inclination toward a certain literary style, is certainly not the most suitable person to hold this role. Those who remain silent, who do not speak out, are not necessarily in agreement with this person and his style. Quite simply, we are witnessing a resignation on the part of many regarding this person and this issue, but the unease exists and remains. Cardinal Fernández may do well, and even better, on another front, but not on this one. Holiness, we ask this for the good of the Church, not out of resentment toward the person of the cardinal. The embarrassment is now great, and it is clear that even he is embarrassed, because his empathy was probably greater with Pope Francis.
Finally, Holiness, before the Jubilee ends, we ask of you a great act of courage that would become a great testimony of faith, of spiritual fatherhood, and of true fraternity. In past years, many priests and bishops have become rigid precisely over issues concerning the interpretation of the faith and its applications. Many of them have suffered censures up to excommunication. What more beautiful gesture could there be, before the end of the Jubilee, than to announce your desire to meet them all, listening to what they have to say? They are pastors who have given their lives out of love for Christ, the Gospel, and the faith. They have accepted humiliations and condemnations. We beg you, Holiness… make this act of true mercy. Many of the burdens that were laid upon these sacred ministers could have been avoided simply by listening to them and speaking with them. It was not done then, but it can be done now. What a great message the holy People of God would receive!
Holiness, we reaffirm our love for the Church, for your person, and for the extraordinary mission that God has entrusted to you.
May the Lord bless and protect you always, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Regina Crucis!
This, the most famous homily of Pope Saint Paul VI, apparently has no official English translation by the Vatican, to this day! It was duly published in the original Italian and in the official Spanish translation (below) by the Vatican newspaper L'osservatore Romano in the weekly edition of 30 of June - 1 of July 1972, and those texts are also not accessible online! What is more, the Vatican website today does not provide this homily in any language! Nor does it appear in the official documents of the Vatican Acta Apostolica Sedes (AAS). This homily is listed in the vatican.va chronological list of Paul VI's homilies, but what is give is a cheap summary of this masterful discourse! Indeed, as asserted by Pope Saint Paul VI, the Enemy has many earthly agents who sow confusion, and censor the truth to try to remain unexposed. Below is my translation. --Plinthos
Homily "Be Strong in the Faith" – Saint Paul VI
Mass of June 29, 1972, commemorating the ninth anniversary of his coronation as Pope on June 30, 1963, after being elected on June 21, 1963. L’Osservatore Romano, June 30 – July 1, 1972. (Spanish edition, July 9, 1972, pp. 1–2)
We must thank you and all those who, absent from Rome, are present in spirit, for your attendance at this rite which aims to have a twofold intention. The first—and it is sufficient—is to honor Saints Peter and Paul, especially since we are in the basilica where we find ourselves, over the tomb and relics of the Apostle Peter; to honor these princes of the apostles and to honor Christ in them, and to feel led by them to Christ, for we owe them this great inheritance of faith. And, moreover, the other intention is that we cannot be insensitive to commemorating the ninth anniversary of our election—as successor of Peter—to the Roman Pontificate and, we say it trembling, to the position of visible representative on Earth, vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
We thank you from the heart, also, because this presence assures us of what is most alive and ardent in our desires: your adherence, your fidelity, your communion, your unity in prayer and in faith, and in the constitution of this mysterious visible and earthly society called the Church, and for feeling ourselves here particularly as Church, united in Jesus Christ as in one body; also because we trust that this presence signifies help, prayer, indulgence for the one speaking to you and also prayer for Us, for our office, for the mission that the Lord entrusted to Us for the good of the Church and the world. And this prayer will truly serve Us as a great support to humbly and strongly fulfill our difficult task.
We feel authorized to yield the floor to Saint Peter himself and to beg him to say one of his words among the many beautiful ones he left us in the two canonical epistles that we preserve in the body of Sacred Scripture, and we choose those that speak of you. Saint Peter speaks of the community, the nascent Church, in the first letter—strange, yet expressive—that he sent from Rome to the churches of the East, to the churches of Asia Minor, as informed exegetes say, and which, according to his custom, he wrote not to make new doctrinal communications—as Saint Paul usually did—but to exhort. One feels the pastor who wants to incite, encourage, and give awareness of what the Christian people is and what it must do. In this first letter of Saint Peter, with profound clarity and sharpness, the entire range of new sentiments that must have life and burst forth with impetus from the Christian heart is touched upon. Among the many words that the letter contains, we present these to you for your meditation, with a brief commentary; Saint Peter says:
“You are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Who in time past were not a people: but are now the people of God. Who had not obtained mercy; but now have obtained mercy.” 1 Peter 2:9-10
Here is what We submit for a moment to your reflection.
Royal Priesthood
These are words that have been much studied in recent years, especially because they have been the axis of the doctrine of the Council in its main chapter, that is, in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, where precisely this picture of the people of God is described.
Yes; we tell you that in this moment proper to prayer, poor as we are, the Lord inspires us to understand things. We imagine having before Us, almost extended in panorama, the entire Holy Catholic Church, and we see it—with the characteristics that Saint Peter indicates—in a unity; gathered in this principle—Christ—for this end: to glorify him; for this benefit: to be saved; for this transfiguration, almost for this metamorphosis that is initiated in each of those who compose this community of a supernatural order, by the discovery of the vocation in each of the components of this great human mass, of this great sea of Humanity, in which each one is personally called as a member of the multitude, personally called—according to what the Apocalypse says about the last day—to receive a new name.
If I remember correctly, the Lord says in the text, that we are all called to exercise, to compose, a royal priesthood. Here there is a reminiscence of the Old Testament—that of Exodus—when God, speaking to Moses before giving him the Law, says: "I will make of this people a priestly and royal people." Saint Peter takes up this so great, so exalting word, and applies it to the new people of God, heir and continuer of the Israel of the Bible, to form a new Israel, the Israel of Christ. Saint Peter says: "It will be the priestly and royal people who will glorify the God of mercy, the God of salvation."
We know that this word has sometimes been misunderstood, as if the priesthood were one single order, that is, as if it were communicated to all those inserted into the Mystical Body of Christ, to all who are Christians. In a certain sense it is true, and we usually call it the common priesthood, but the Council tells us—and Tradition had already taught us—that there exists another degree, another state of priesthood: the ministerial priesthood, which has particular and exclusive faculties and prerogatives, precisely of the ministerial priesthood.
But let us pause on what concerns everyone: the royal priesthood. Here we should ask ourselves what priesthood means, but the explanations would never end, and therefore we limit ourselves and content ourselves with this: priest means capacity to render worship to God, to communicate with Him, to seek Him always in a new depth, in a new discovery, in a new love. This impulse of Humanity toward God, which has not been sufficiently reached nor sufficiently known, is the priesthood of one who is inserted into the only Priest who, after the advent of the New Testament, is Christ. It is that the Christian is endowed, by that very fact, with this quality, this prerogative of being able to speak to the Lord in true terms, as from son to father.
What Distinguishes the Christian
Audemus dicere: we can truly celebrate before the Lord a rite, a liturgy of common prayer, a sanctification of even profane life, which distinguishes the Christian from the non-Christian. This people is different, although it may be confused in the great tide of Humanity. It has its distinction, its unmistakable characteristic. Saint Paul defined himself as segregatus, separated, distinct from the rest of Humanity, precisely for being invested with prerogatives and functions that those who do not possess the supreme fortune and excellence of being members of Christ do not have.
Then we must consider that we, those called to be children of God, to participate in the Mystical Body of Christ, who are animated by the Holy Spirit and made temples of the presence of God, must carry out this colloquy, this dialogue, this conversation with God in religion, in liturgical worship, in private worship, and we must extend the sense of sacredness even to profane actions. "Whether you eat or drink," said Saint Paul, "do it for the glory of God." And he says it repeatedly in his letters, as if to reclaim for the Christian the capacity to infuse something new, to illuminate, to sacralize also temporal, external, ephemeral, profane things.
Desacralization
We are exhorted to give to the Christian people, called the Church, a truly sacred sense. And by affirming it thus, we feel that we must restrain the wave of profaneness, desacralization, secularization, which rises, which oppresses and which wants to confuse and overflow the religious sense in the secret of the heart—in exclusively secret private life, or also in the external manifestations of life—of all personal interiority, or even make it disappear. It is affirmed that there is no longer any reason to distinguish one man from another, that exists that can establish such a distinction. Even more: one must return to man his authenticity; one must return to man his true being, which is common to all others.
But the Church, and today Saint Peter, calling the Christian people to self-awareness, tell it that it is the chosen people, distinct, acquired by Christ, a people that must exercise a particular relationship with God, a priesthood with God. This sacralization of life today must not be erased, expelled from customs and from our life, as if it should no longer belong. We have lost religious habits, we have lost many other external manifestations of religious life. Regarding this, there is much to discuss and much to concede, but it is necessary to maintain the concept, and with the concept also some sign of the sacrality of the Christian people, that is, of those inserted into Christ, the High and Eternal Priest.
This will also tell us that we must feel a great religious fervor. Currently, there is a part of the studies of Humanity—the so-called sociology—that disregards this contact with God. On the contrary, the sociology of Saint Peter, the sociology of the Church, when studying men, highlights precisely this sacral aspect, of conversation with the Ineffable, with God, with the divine world, and this must be affirmed in the study of all human differentiations.
However heterogeneous the human race may appear, we must not forget this fundamental truth that the Lord confers on us when he gives us grace: we are all brothers in the same Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, Scythian or barbarian, man or woman. We are all one in Christ; we are all sanctified; we all participate to this degree in the supernatural elevation that Christ conferred on us, and Saint Peter reminds us of it; it is the sociology of the Church that we must not make disappear or forget.
Defections
Returning to look at that panorama to which we alluded—the great plane of human life, the entire Church—what do we see? If we are asked what the Church is today, can it be calmly confronted with the words that Peter left us as inheritance and meditation? Can we be at ease? Can we not see the Church in an ideology that obliges us to some reflection, to some attitude, to some effort and to some virtue that becomes characteristic of the Christian?
We think again in this moment—with immense charity—of all our brothers who abandon us, of many who are fugitives and forget, of many who perhaps never managed to have awareness of the Christian vocation although they have received baptism. We would very truly like to extend our hand to them and tell them that the heart is always open, that crossing the threshold is easy. We would very much like to make them participants in the great and ineffable fortune of our happiness, that of being in communication with God, which takes nothing away from us of the temporal vision and the positive realism of the external world. Perhaps it obliges us to renunciations, to sacrifices, but while it deprives us of something, it multiplies its gifts. It imposes renunciations on us, but it provides us abundantly with other riches. We are not poor, we are rich, because we have the wealth of the Lord.
Now, we would like to say to these brothers—from whom we feel the tear in the bowels of our priestly soul—how much we have them present, how much—now and always, and more and more—we love them, and how much we pray for them, and how much we strive with this effort that pursues and surrounds them to make up for the breach that they themselves make of our communion in Christ.
Doubt, Uncertainty, Unease
Then there is another category, and to it we all somewhat belong. And I would say that this category characterizes the Church of today. It would seem that through some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God. There is doubt, uncertainty, problems, unease, dissatisfaction, confrontation. There is no longer trust in the Church; more trust is placed in the first profane prophet—who comes to speak to us from some newspaper or some social movement—to follow him and ask him if he has the formula for true life; and, on the contrary, we do not realize that we are already owners and masters of it.
Doubt has entered our consciences and it has entered through windows that should have been open to the light: science. But science is made to give us truths that do not distance us from God, but make us seek Him even more and celebrate Him with greater intensity. On the contrary, from science has come criticism, doubt regarding everything that exists and everything we know. Scientists are those who most pensively and painfully lower their foreheads and end up teaching: "I don't know, we don't know, we cannot know." It is true that science tells us the limits of our knowledge, but everything it provides us positively should be certainty, should be impetus, should be enrichment, should increase our capacity for prayer and hymn to the Lord; and, on the contrary, behold, teaching becomes an arena of confusion, of plurality that no longer agrees, of sometimes absurd contradictions.
Progress is exalted only to then be able to demolish it with the strangest and most radical revolutions, to deny everything that has been conquered, to return to being primitive after having so exalted the progresses of the modern world.
Also in us, those of the Church, this state of uncertainty reigns. It was believed that after the Council a day of sun would come for the history of the Church. On the contrary, a day of clouds has come, of storm, of darkness, of searching, of uncertainty, and one feels fatigue in giving the joy of faith. We preach ecumenism and we distance ourselves more and more from others.
The Devil’s Intervention
How has all this happened? We confide our thought to you: there has been a power, an adverse power. Let us say its name: the Devil. This mysterious being who is in Saint Peter's own letter—on which we are commenting—and to whom allusion is made so many times in the Gospel—on the lips of Christ—the mention of this enemy of man returns. We believe in something preternatural that has come into the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council and to prevent the Church from bursting forth in the hymn of jubilation for having full awareness of Herself once again.
Precisely for this reason, we would like to be able, now more than ever, of exercising the function that God entrusted to Peter to confirm the brothers in the faith. We would like to communicate this charism of certainty that the Lord gives to the one who represents him, even unworthily, on this earth. And to tell you that faith—when it is founded on the word of God, accepted and placed in conformity with our own human spirit—gives us a truly sure certainty. Whoever believes with simplicity, with humility; he knows he is on the good path; he feels that he has an interior testimony that confirms us in our difficult ideology and comforts us in the difficult conquest of truth.
The Lord manifests Himself as light and truth to the one who accepts Him in his word, and His word does not become an obstacle to truth and to the path toward being, but the rung by which we can ascend and truly be conquerors of the Lord, who comes to meet us and gives himself today through this methodology, this path of faith that is a foretaste and guarantee of the definitive vision.
Strong in the Faith
And then We see the third aspect, which we like so much to contemplate, the great extension of believing Humanity. We see a great number of humble, simple, pure, upright, strong souls, who believe, who are—according to what Saint Peter says at the end of his epistle—“fortes in fide” ("strong in faith"). 1 Peter 5:9 And we would like this strength of faith, this security, this peace, to triumph over the obstacles that life—our own experience and the phenomenology of things—place before us, and that we may always be strong in the faith.
Brothers, we do not say strange, difficult, or absurd things. We would only like you to experience an act of faith, in humility and sincerity; a psychological effort that tells us to ourselves that we try to perform a conscious action. Is it true? Is it not true? Do I accept? Do I not accept? Yes, Lord, I believe in your word; I believe in your Revelation; I believe in the one whom You have given me as witness and guarantee of this Your Revelation, to feel and taste, with the strength of faith, the anticipation of the blessedness of the life that has been promised to us with the faith.
Cf. Paul VI's November 15, 1972 Wednesday Audience on the last petition of the Pater Noster"Deliver Us From Evil" in which he continues to speak of the role of the devil in the world. Español.
%2010.51.46%E2%80%AFa.%C2%A0m..png)
