Rorate Caeli

Vatican Council II: An Open Discussion



Vatican Council II: An Open Discussion, by Monsignor Brunero Gherardini

by Brother André Marie August 18th, 2009

According to The Latin Mass magazine (subscribe here), Italy has just witnessed the publication of a soon-to-be blockbuster on Vatican II. Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, a renowned 85-year-old theologian of the Roman school, has descriptively entitled his work Vatican Council II: An Open Discussion. The volume is published by Casa Mariana Editrice, a publishing house connected to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, and it boasts a forward by Bishop Mario Oliveri (of the Albenga and Imperia diocese) and an introduction by Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, the former secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, who is now the Archbishop of Colombo and Metropolitan of the Church in Sri Lanka.

The web site of the Society of Scholastics, on whose Board of Advisors the author sits, says that Monsignor Brunero Gherardini resides “at the Vatican as a Canon of St. Peter’s Basilica, he is the secretary for the Pontifical Academy of Theology, professor emeritus at the Pontifical Lateran University, and the editor of Divinitas magazine.” Divinitas is a respected Roman journal of theology.



Alessandro Zangrando, the Rome Correspondent for The Latin Mass, gives us a sneak preview by way of some excerpts from the book, which he says has reportedly reached the Pope’s desk, and is soon to be published in English.


Monsignor Gherardini laments a “misguided ecumenism, in search of what unites, rather than of what divides. … We entered into a new spirit of conciliation, adaptation, resignation, wary of other people’s preconditions, almost as though we believed, perhaps without admitting it, that the truth was on the other side. Should somebody ask me whether modernism was ultimately let into the very fabric of the Council’s documents to the point that the Fathers themselves were infected by it, my answer would be yes and no. No, because the supernatural spirit is not at all absent from the Council thanks to its open profession of the Faith in the Trinity, the Incarnation, the universal redemption of the Word, along with its deep conviction about the universal calling to sanctity, its acceptance [of] and faith in the sanctifying effect of the sacraments, its particularly high regard for the liturgical and Eucharistic worship, the sanctifying role of the Church and a theologically nourished devotion to Mary. My answer is also yes, because modernistic ideas still can be found in several Council documents, notably in Gaudium et Spes, and a few prominent Council Fathers were openly sympathetic to old and new modernitsts. They wished to have a Church in a pilgrimage toward the Truth, like every other pilgrim, a friend and ally of every other researcher, endorsing even in the field of sacred studies, the same critical methodology applicable to every other science. In short, their Church was to be a kind of research laboratory rather than a dispenser of Truths from on high.”


The book ends by requesting that the Supreme Pontiff, “clarify definitively every aspect and contents of the last Council. Such omnia reparare [reparation of everything] could be accomplished through a great papal document, which would go down in history as a sign and witness of the vigilant and responsible exercise of His ministry as the Successor of Peter.”


I would think that the arrival of such a book is an occurrence of major import. First, it is authored by a weighty and respected theologian, who is a priest in good standing with the Church — not a man that can be taken as a spokesman for a movement, a mere controversialist, or an “interested party” in the debate. Second, its forward and preface are by two seated diocesan ordinaries (one, a former Roman curial official who may well return to the Holy See one of these days). Third, it is published by a publishing house attached to a vibrant and young branch of the Franciscan Order, raised to Pontifical Right status by none other than Pope John Paul II. That Order itself boasts some accomplished theologians (such as the American, Father Peter Damien Fehlner, FI). Finally, if Mr. Zangrando’s contacts are correct, and the book is indeed on the Pope’s desk, the Roman Pontiff may choose to respond positively to the just-quoted respectful appeal made to his authority, or at least pave the way for his successor to do this.


If the passages provided by The Latin Mass are any indication, Vatican Council II: An Open Discussion may also provide a wonderful catalyst for the Rome-SSPX dialogue.

38 comments:

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Archbishop Lefebvre's criticism of Vatican II becomes more and more vindicated each day.

M.A. said...

"The book ends by requesting that the Supreme Pontiff, “clarify definitively every aspect and contents of the last Council."

Perhaps because he is considered too polemic, the theologian Abbe de Nantes's similar appeal has been ignored for many years. Sooner or later the supreme authority of the Church will have to invoke her infallibility to make a definitive statement on the documents of VII.

We must pray very hard for the upcoming doctrinal talks with the Society.

Paul Haley said...

I've heard it said many times: "it's more than just the Mass" when referring to the wake left by the 2nd Vatican Council. And, true as that statement may be, it is also true that the study attached to the letter of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to Pope Paul VI dealing primarily with the Mass has never been answered definitively - at least to my knowledge.

So, we are faced today with the prospect that doctrinal discussions may soon begin between the SSPX and the Holy See covering far more than just the Mass which may be described as the tip of the iceberg, theologically speaking. And hovering over such discussions is the prospect of a Reform of the Reform but no clear answer as to what that means.

In my judgment the discussions must begin with the Mass because as we pray the Mass we reveal what we believe - lex orandi, lex credendi. And what Mass am I talking about? The Mass which for centuries nourished the Faith of millions and produced such an extraordinary number of saints and martyrs - the Traditional Latin Mass.

You see, it is impossible for me to believe that, if the TLM was not suppressed and replaced with a "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent," that we would be in the mess we are in today.

Would we have seen a decline in the Faith so much in evidence following Vatican II and present to this very day? If seminary formation had not been changed to accommodate the views of heterodox theologians, would we be in the same fix that we are today? Methinks not. Of course, there were other players in this drama like Dr. William Coulson and Dr. Carl Rogers, explained in my website under the document "Another Perspective" at http://phaley.faithweb.com and the impact of these theories throughout Society is enormous.

So what are we to expect from such an Open Discussion? Will the views of orthodox theologians be respected and will the abuses be identified and eliminated in practice and belief? Will the SSPX and others of like mind be accepted as full and equal partners in this endeavor or will they continue to be marginalized as lacking canonical status and faculties? Questions abound; answers are not forthcoming - at least not at this time. Pray that the Holy Spirit will take charge of these discussions.

Anonymous said...

I continue to stand by my prediction that Archbishop Lefebvre will one day be declared a Saint for his opposition to the Modernist errors introduced as a result of VII.

Iakovos said...

Problems remain: 1) the Council itself will never be declared as "wrong", "misguided", etc., and, 2) Archbishop Lefebvre's claim if the the state of the Church after the Council is worse than before, then the Council itself must be at fault, will never have ecclesial traction. Why? First of all it merely a valid syllogism, but not a true one necessarily. It is, rather, a non sequetor. 3) As long as the good Cardinal views the Council through the eyes of Rome's history and politics since Trent, then what is labeled Modernist or Liberal in the official documents of Vatican II, seen through loyal reformers of the Church and certainly the Eastern Churches, as the real fresh air and restoration of the Church before the entanglements with Imperial powers, legalism, Cartesianism, Jansenism, that crept into the daily life of the Church -- again, to the loyal sons of the Pope of Rome, and it must be remembered to a large number of Eastern Rite Catholics as well as not a few Orthodox leaders of good will, the Council itself and not its interpreters is one of the greatest and potentially most healing event in the history of the Church. 4) Anyone who reads of the history of the First Seven Councils and the history of the Council of Trent, will find as fact that after each of these Councils for anywhere from 50 - 100 years, and even up to now in some cases, confusion, where things became even worse for a while, schism, heresy, and so on. Likewise, in this regard, Vatican II is no different. The dust has not yet settled. And for some it may never be clear. 5) But this is no occasion to further divisions, to settle in to entrenched opinions that only cause noise in the soul and accomplish nothing. On both side, so called traditionalists like many of the SSPX must come to understand that the church so many of them long for never existed, even in the better days after Trent, or under Pius XII, while Catholics lead astray who do not yet recognize that their up to date church experience may be in danger of becoming more of a nice belief rather than a transforming faith in the love and unity of the Holy Trinity. These times are really the best of times -- for a true Christian, how could it be otherwise?

Anonymous said...

As time goes on, I understand why traditionals are held in such disdain by the "conciliar" churchmen; they know we are right.

Anonymous said...

Madonna of Ta' Pinu writes:

It is as the Scriptures have foretold. The dragon of old rages more furiously as he sees his end imminently about to pass.

I disagree with Iakovos although I certainly see the human impasse that he does. Vatican 2 will be declared wrong and misguided in many key prudential areas, although where it reiterated dogma it can never be declared wrong.

Who could have envisioned such a time when traditional views are being expressed so openly by the Maestro who served under 5 Popes, and more of these erudite discussions on the subject of Vatican 2 versus (versus as opposed to in continuity with) traditional ecclesiastical practices are being published. Certainly the dragon smells the fire at his tail.

May the Immaculate Virgin of the Assumption continue to crush his head with Her Sacred heel. No else can accomplish this great task but Our Heavenly Mother and Queen.

May the Collegial Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart take place very soon.

In JMJ, lover of Our Lady of Ta' Pinu

Peter said...

TLM can't return currently as a mainstream form of worship because (among other things) the traditional calendar does not include saints canonised after 1962 (or 1965), which is a clear "rupture" for the hegelian party...

Let's take part in the SSPX Rosary Crusade. Let's pray to the Holy Mother of God for Her intercession in the doctrinal talks. God's grace is powerful, if only the Holy Father will be willing and courageous enough, we may soon witness the beginning of the end of the crisis.

Anonymous said...

MAJOR NEWS:

Bishop Slattery of Tulsa has restored Novus Ordo Mass versus solem orientem. Go here, moderators, and make an article out of it:

http://dioceseoftulsa.org/eoc/eoc200909.pdf

I note that he's 69 years old and intends to celebrate all N.O. Masses versus solem orientem in his CATHEDRAL. Obviously, this is a signal for his priests to follow suit.

P.K.T.P.

Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. said...

Dear Mr. Palad,

Thank you for the kind reprint. God bless you and your wonderful work at Rorate Caeli. I look forward to your translation of the (presumably Italian) article, and feel gratified that you thought mine a "conversation starter."

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Brother Andre Marie, M.I.C.M.

Paul Haley said...

P.K.T.P. said:

Bishop Slattery of Tulsa has restored Novus Ordo Mass versus solem orientem. Go here, moderators, and make an article out of it:

http://dioceseoftulsa.org/eoc/eoc200909.pdf

I note that he's 69 years old and intends to celebrate all N.O. Masses versus solem orientem in his CATHEDRAL. Obviously, this is a signal for his priests to follow suit.

It is also no coincidence that the Benedictine Monks decided to build a Monastery near Clear Creek, OK, as pointed out in this link: http://deacbench.blogspot.com/2007/09/monastery-in-oklahoma-ok.html

The following extract from the link explains Bishop Slattery’s involvement: “The Benedictine community arrived from Fontgombault, France, in 1999 at the invitation of Bishop Edward J. Slattery of Tulsa, Okla.

It is also no coincidence that the Benedictines follow the traditional liturgy and rule of St. Benedict as do the Monks from Fontgombault, France. Moral of the story: "when in search of a home, find a sympathetic pastor".

Peter Kim said...

"I continue to stand by my prediction that Archbishop Lefebvre will one day be declared a Saint for his opposition to the Modernist errors introduced as a result of VII." - Anonymous

I doubt it will happen in the future. Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated because he illicitly ordained four bishops, not because he staunchly defended truth against heretical Modernism.

His illicit action was no more than that of modernist. Actually, by incurring excommunication, he made many beautiful TLM illicit Mass. I cannot say that his violation of canon law was better than illicit liturgical abuses in NOM.

I do not consider Archbishop Lefebvre as an authentic traditionalist. His illicit action rather brands him a modernist.

Tracy Hummel said...

For those of you who read French, see the following: http://www.dici.org/?p=11757

Anonymous said...

One might opine that Vatican II was the effect from, not the cause of, necessarily, of the "modern spirit" culminating in the disasterous 1960's. But why was a Council even necessary at such a critical juncture for the Church and the world? And why did said council want rapprochement with a world disintegrating into sin and death?

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0107-conlee

Mary said...

I read the Italian article. It sounds like his questions are similar to the ones the SSPX raises. He lists things that need to be clarified; I found myself writing in the margins "SSPX talks!" so hopefully everything will work together. Gherardini wrote a letter of a few pages to the Holy Father which I guess is part of the book. It's neat because he says something like, "Your Holiness, you are probably wondering why I am telling you these things you know better than I. I do wonder too. Usually, I don't put myself forward very much or get in debates and I am sorry for taking up your time. But we really need some clarity on this subject."

Gideon Ertner said...

Iakovos,

You ought to put more breaks between paragraphs so your pieces are easier to read.

You have a very good point in saying that Vatican II is only problematic when viewed through a particular hermeneutic, viz. that of the struggle between Liberals and Conservatives during the last 200 years of Western Christianity.

We of course should attempt to transcend this polemic, and I think that is what our present Holy Father is trying to do. But it is not easy when the Liberals to a great extent are in control of the debate and constantly pulling in their direction. This must elicit a firm response, which cannot avoid being framed as Conservative in character (even if it is merely orthodox), to get the theological debate back on track.

However we should also avoid inappropriate and counterproductive measures such as those that St. Pius X employed against Modernism, which did not solve anything. The solution to the ills of Western Christendom is, in my analysis, to recultivate in the minds of the faithful a sense of the sacred and a notion of the existence of objective truth, both of which were largely lost already 150 years ago.

Peter said...

Peter Kim:

1. Archbishop Lefebvre ordained the 4 bishops precisely because he was unable to exercise his ministry due to its traditional character. Just like he was suspended for refusal of saying the new Mass.

2. He was not excommunicated by Rome, merely there was a declaration that he has incurred ipso facto excommunication. It's entirely different thing.

3. He was genuinely convinced that he had to do that, just listen to what he was saying those days. Canon 1323 makes him not guilty. Every honest trial will show that.

Of course it doesn't mean that there will be a public rehabilitation. Human ingratitude has no limits, people who were quiet when the church was being devastated and faithful deceived surely will begin to paint themselves as defenders of Tradition.

Iakovos said...

Gideon Ertner said to Iakovos:

"You ought to put more breaks between paragraphs so your pieces are easier to read."

You are so right -- even more, I should carefully edit. I am a "modernist" I fear, in regard to being caught up in haste and untidiness.
Thank you for your reminder.

Peter Kim said...

Peter:

What is the canonical basis that support the consecration of the four bishops? Did Archibishop Lefebvre assume a pope? I think the ordination of the four bishops was not only illicit but also invalid. Strictly speaking, We cannot call them "bishops", as we cannot adore invalidly consecrated bread and wine as Our Lord's Body and Blood. His revolutionary action was not at all in line with Holy Tradition.

In the canon law 1323, what specific cases can be applied to Archbishop Lefebvre?

1. Someone with imperfect use of reason
2. Someone temporarily lacking the use of reason because of drunkenness or some similar mental disturbance
3. Someone who, while not altogether losing the use of reason, acts in the heat of passion, without having deliberately provoked that passion
4. Someone not yet sixteen years old
5. Someone who acts out of grave fear, necessity or serious inconvenience when the act is intrinsically evil or tends to harm souls (if the act committed in these circumstances is not intrinsically evil or harmful to souls, then there is no penalty)
6. Someone who acts in lawful self-defence but without due moderation (if due moderation was used, then there is no penalty)
7. Someone who reacts against grave and unjust provocation by another
8. Someone who erroneously but culpably thought the circumstances mentioned in parenthesis above under numbers 5 and 6 existed, circumstances that according to canon 1323 exempt from all penalty
9. Someone who was inculpably unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or precept against which he offended
10. Someone who acted with grave but not full imputability.

His illegitimate action was rather in line with abortion which also incurs automatic excommunication. The persons who are involved in abortion could be exempted from latae sententiae under the above exceptional cases, but you cannot deny the fact that abortion itself is intrinsically evil action.

Picard said...

Peter Kim:

But that´s exactly the difference:

Whilst abortion is intrinsically evil, a consecration of a bishop is not.

It was only forbidden by the Pope - but that does not change the nature of an act, so here the act of consecrating a bishop - this act is intrinsically good or neutral.

Something that is intrinsically evil is evil independent of someones allowness or forbidding.

The allowness or forbiddance does not change the evilness of an intirinsically evil act.

But in the case of Archbishop Lef. the assumed evilness is not intrinsically by the nature of the act (i.e. consecrating a bishop), but only extrinsically by forbiddance of the act.

This forbiddance is not infallible, it can be just or unsjust, therefore valid or invalid.

If unjust it is null and void and Msgr. Lef. would be totally justified.

But even if just or not so claer if or if not, there can be circumstances that excuse Archbf. Lef.

Concrete it is No.5 of c.1323: *necessity* and *serious inconvenience*

And that the consecrations were not only illicit but invalid is totally digressive - even the Vatican recognizes them as illicit but valid!
[And it´s also clear by moral-theological/canonistical principles for validity together with the circumstances.]

Picard said...

And btw, Peter Kim, you cited c. 1324, not 1323 (only what you put in brackets/parnathesis referred to c.1323).

But doesn´t change anything essentially.

Jack. said...

Peter Kim

As lay person who attends SSPX Mass's I'd like to ask you the following Questions

1) On what grounds to you consider the consecration of Bps Felly, Williamson, Tisser de mallas and De Gallereta invalid? (I assume you still consider them merely priests)

2) Why do you call Mgr Lefebvre a modernist? he and Cardinals Ottivanti, Siri and Baccai were amongst the few that saw the V2 documents for what they reallly were 'ambigous mumbo-jumbo that could be interpreted any way one chose, for that alone the four of them should be raised to the alter.

3) Do you not think that being relentlesly persecuted and threatend with suspension by heretics whilst the supreme pontif neglects his flock in in favour of giving his bodyguards the slip in order to go skiing is reason enough to justify Econe? not to mention that Sancta Marcel knew his his time on earth was short?

Brother Anthony

I second your comment Br, it was a cocknamie council that should be erased from the memory of Holy Mother Church and of interest only to some future historian concerned with the 4th Great Crisis of the Church.

Peter Kim said...

I think Archbishop Lefebvre's action was like to have illegitimate children out of wedlock. It is good to have more human lives carried into this world as God ordered to do in Genesis. But it should be done so in a moral and legitimate way, which is necessary to ensure the benefit and happiness of the descendents (only Issac could inherit blessings God had promised).

Archbishop Lefebvre needed bishops to inherit his mission but he brought them into this world in an illegitimate way.

Picard said...

Peter Kim:

But as I showed it is only a question of positiv law or better: an concrete order/command.

So not neccesarily illegitimate, but only (at first glance / prima facie) illicit.

But such a illicit or apparently illicit act can be justified and therfore legitimate.

But even if this act would not have been justified and therefore was illegitimate, that would make Msgr. Lef. a disobedient man and a sinner -- but NOT a modernist.

Not every sinner is a modernist.

And disobedience and modernism are different kinds of shoes [different kettle of fish, as you say in English, I think], you know.

And for sure the consecrations were valid. (Read the Vatican´s statements!!).

So please let us not mix up all things - that´s neither serious nor helpfull.
It´s absurde to call Msgr. Lef. a modernist -- call him disobedient, speak of illicit consecrations, all right, but to call him a modernist is absurde -- as absurde as to state the consecrations would have been invalid.

Peter Kim said...

1) I do not think it is valid to consecrate bishops without Pope’s authorization. If Chinese government and Church appoint bishops without approval of Holy Father, can you say they are validly consecrated bishops? I have not read any Vatican’s statement giving authorization to the “bishops” yet. Please give me a link to the statement you mentioned.

2) I am not talking about Archbishop Lefebvre’s zeal to defend truth against modernism. I do not doubt it. I was just amazed how his “action” was so revolutionary and progressive as that of Martin Luther or dissenting modernistic theologians. He behaved like a soccer player who violated rules out of anger and was kicked out of playground. We have to be in the playground to fight a good fight and win the legitimate victory. Freemasons who have successfully infiltrated into the Church know it better.

3) I have great sympathy to SSPX for the suffering under the widespread misinterpretation of Vatican II. Actually, the whole Church has been suffering. And Pope Benedict XVI has been trying to recover what was lost during that time and kindly inviting SSPX to be a strong support for his masterplan of rebuilding the Church. I wish SSPX can play a more influential role in the Church by responding to the Holy Father's call for the full union.

dcs said...

I do not think it is valid to consecrate bishops without Pope’s authorization.

You are mistaken. In fact, the current Major Archbishop of Kiev, Lubomyr Cardinal Husar, was consecrated by Josyf Cardinal Slipyj without the Pope's authorization.

It might be illicit in most circumstances, but it is definitely not invalid.

If Chinese government and Church appoint bishops without approval of Holy Father, can you say they are validly consecrated bishops?

Yes, they are validly (but illicitly) consecrated bishops.

Jack. said...

Peter Kim

1) I can't comment on Bishops of the Patriotic Chinese Catholic Church because I don't know if they have valid lines of succession and/or weather the correct form, matter and intention was used at the consecration, As for the SSPX Bishops Mgr Lefebrve had valid lines, used the correct form & matter + his intention was quite clear !!, Incidently Bishop Rifan of Campos was not re-conscecrated in 2002 so I assume the Vatican Regards Bps Tisser De Malliras and Williamson as valid Bishops.

2) A better example would be a man who breaks the rules in order to preserve them.

Jack. said...

Sorry for the double post I ment Lionel Rangel when talking about Campos (incidently he was co-consecrator of Rifan)

Peter Kim said...

dcs:

So bishops are qualified to consecrate another bishop even without Pope's authorization if he decide it is urgent and necessary? I did not know that bishops have the faculty. Is it defined in any Church document?

Btw, Archbishop Lefebvre was not governed by the Eastern canon law nor suffering under the ruthless Chinese regime. He was living in free Europe and bound by the Roman canon law.

dcs said...

So bishops are qualified to consecrate another bishop even without Pope's authorization if he decide it is urgent and necessary? I did not know that bishops have the faculty. Is it defined in any Church document?

It would be valid but illicit. Think of it this way, a priest who is forbidden to celebrate Mass still celebrates Mass validly (but illicitly) even though he does not have the faculty. Likewise a bishop who is forbidden to consecrate other bishops still does so validly.

Peter Kim said...

Thanks for letting me know. Then, I expect it is going to be really messy in the worst possible case.

If government-appointed Chinese bishops who did not get apostolic mandate consecrate another illegitimate bishops and ad infinitum, then there will be a huge cluster of illegitimate bishops without Holy Father's authorization.

Pope Benedict XVI's compendium had stressed that the Vatican does not recognize the BCCC (Bishop's conference of Catholic Church in China). Still all of them are valid bishops!

However, I doubt excommunicated bishops can consecrate valid bishops.

dcs said...

However, I doubt excommunicated bishops can consecrate valid bishops.

No, excommunicated bishops can indeed consecrate valid bishops, just as an excommunicated priest can celebrate Mass.

Peter Kim said...

Let me give you some cases:

"On 24 September 2006 Milingo ordained four men as bishops without a papal mandate. All four men were married at the time of their ordination.

For this act (illegal episcopal consecrations have occurred before, as in the case with Marcel Lefebvre), the Holy See declared Milingo automatically excommunicated.

on December 11, 2006, in Washington, the archbishop ordained four married men as priests." - Wikipedia

Are you saying those eight men are valid bishops and preists?

Alexander said...

Iakovos wrote:

4) Anyone who reads of the history of the First Seven Councils and the history of the Council of Trent, will find as fact that after each of these Councils for anywhere from 50 - 100 years, and even up to now in some cases, confusion, where things became even worse for a while, schism, heresy, and so on. Likewise, in this regard, Vatican II is no different. The dust has not yet settled. And for some it may never be clear.

One cannot compare the old councils to a modern one in this way. Why? Because of Mass media that exists today; radio, TV, publications, internet, etc. As a result the time period of 50-100 years must somehow be shorter now because of modern communication.

dcs said...

Are you saying those eight men are valid bishops and preists?

Assuming form and intention were both there, yes.

Dan Hunter said...

Peter Kin,

If Pope Benedict XVI believes that the four FSSPX bishops are in fact bishops, as he has said, then that is good enough for me.

Unless you have some information that His Holiness is not privy to.

Peter Kim said...

Dear dcs:

Thanks for the answer. It is amazing how God works through human. It is so mysterious. Human may make serious faults, but God still does not remove what he once consecrated permanently. I could only say that it is God's great steadfastness and mercy on frail human nature.

Dear Mr. Hunter:

I do not have any extra information on FSSPX. I will no longer raise any question on the four bishop's vailidity. I pray the FSSPX could respond soon to the Holy Father's cordial invitation to rebuild the Church together in full union.

Mary said...

If you would like some help translating I'll roll up my sleeves if you'd like. I already looked up some words on the article that I believe you're referring to.