Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Let's move on now
to one of the most awaited speaker in this conference:
Mons. Brunero Gherardini,
ordinary professor of ecclesiology and ecumenism for 37 years
at the Pontifical Lateran University
and editor of "Divinitas" theological journal.
He was a member of the Pontifical St. Thomas Academy
and of the Pontifical Theological Academy.
He is one of the greatest expert on Lutheranism
and on Karl Barth's theology.
He's involved in the ecumenical dialog
with the communities of the Reformation
and their major exponents.
He's the author of numerous publications
of ecclesiology, mariology, and ecumenism.
Less known, but equally important, is his interest in mystics.
Especially worthy to be known and read are
his writings on Blessed Dina Belánger,
a very first-rank mystic,
especially in the field of mariology.
Lately he has come, so to speak, into the limelight
of the world's public attention, across the Alps and the Ocean.
His books have been translated in French and English
concerning the Second Vatican Council and tradition.
You can also find them here at the book stand.
He is the author of numerous papers,
strenuous defender of Catholic Truth,
with praiseworthy and punctual interventions,
theological and apologetic.
Today he will speak about the heart,
the fundamental theme of our conference.
He will speak about the pastoral character of the Second Vatican Council
and will present his evaluation.
Please, Monsignor!
Your Eminence and most reverend Excellencies,
dear confreres,
reverend sisters,
friends,
I am tempted to take my notes
and to conclude saying what is expected from me:
you've already heard it all,
for all has been said.
If I don't do it,
it's simply because,
- it may be, I don't know -
I actually hope
that somebody may perceive a nuance
or personal accentuation
in what I am about to say,
and that it may be added
to the many beautiful things that His Excellency said,
to compose the whole
in a more complete and richer vision.
To confirm, Excellency, of one of the many ideas you said,
I'd like to bring my experience
of old, in every sense, professor of ecclesiology
and tell you that that concept of representation,
at least from Odo Casel onward,
and notwithstanding his exaggerations,
is the current concept of sacramentality.
We cannot say something different
because in effect
all sacramentality,
and hence the Church as sacrament, the Church's sacrament, etc.,
are not a "zikaron" of the Old Testament;
they are, the Germans tell us,
a "vergegenwärtigen"
a re-presentation or rather
re-actualization
of the past mystery.
And this is sacramentality,
which is and is lived in the Church.
I come to my topic.
Once upon a time,
there was the so-called Arabian Phoenix.
Everyone talked about her
but no one had ever seen her.
And today there is an updated version
of the Arabian Phoenix
also much talked about,
but nobody
- except Your Excellency, who has given us evidence now -
nobody can tell what it may be.
Its name is Pastoral.
The word itself is certainly no problem,
since its derivation from "pascere",
a verb born from the Latin "pabulum",
that is pasture or also food.
It gives life to a family not very large,
but easily distinguishable in its components:
to pasture, first,
in the sense of herding
or also feeding.
Hence also "pastum,"
of which the Italian "pasto" is a literal translation,
which can also be translated as "food".
Furthermore, "pastor" (shepherd)
is he who leads to the "pabulum".
provides fodder,
or keeps the flock.
"Pastor" becomes in turn the father of "pastoricia ars,"
- in Italian "pastorizia", shepherding -
the art of tending animals.
It becomes also the origin of "pastura" (pasture, pasture-land),
meaning feeding in the open,
and the origin of "pasturale" or "pastorale,"
already present in late Latin
to describe the clothes, food, customs, language of a shepherd.
However, pasteurization is not derived from this root,
which is derived from the French "pasteuriser,"
which in turn is derived from "Pasteur,"
who is the inventor of pasteurization,
which is something completely different,
regarding some liquid foods and their preservation.
From the original headword,
Italian derives other entries,
widening thus the relation:
"pastora" (shepherdess),
"pastorella" (little shepherdess).
That is a woman, or a young girl
who leads the flock to the pasture.
Or "pastorecchio"
or "pastorizio,"
from the Latin "pastoricius,"
which is a variant of "pastorale."
Or "pastorello" (little shepherd),
the masculine diminutive of "pastore,"
together with "pastorella,"
the feminine diminutive of "pastora."
But it is also the poem
recited by children before the nativity scene on Christmas.
At the plural, "pastorelli"
is or was used
to mean the boys that at the beginning of the 14th century
formed a crusade.
"Pastoral" soon became part of the ecclesiastical jargon
to characterize three of the letters of Saint Paul,
or the activity and teaching of evangelizers,
or episcopal insignia
such as ring, crosier, letters.
More recent
(but not modern)
is the use of the word "pastoral" in reference to theology.
Mentioning it is insufficient to understand which kind of theology:
we must add "with a non-dogmatic meaning."
In fact, originally it meant anti-dogmatic.
Apart from the ecclesiastical jargon,
any educated person
will easily relate "pastoral" to the nymphs of Arcadian poetry;
to poetry composition of Provençal origin,
having love as subject;
to the Vergil's Eglogues;
to "Aminta" (a pastoral drama) of Torquato Tasso
and to music of a simple and tender kind,
whose specific characterization is the Sixth Symphony of Beethoven.
All this is interesting up to a certain point.
We are interested in knowing
if this word is present and how in Vatican II.
After such a broad semantic spectrum,
any allusion to the unknown and unseen Arabian Phoenix
may appear unsustainable because of evident contradiction.
Yet, the hypothetical "may"
is neutralized by the absence from the conciliar documents
- I say in all 16 conciliar documents -
of a sufficient reason adequate to justify it.
I say "sufficient reason,"
because if I said that in the Council documents
the word "pastoral" is not present,
I would display crass and unforgivable ignorance of Vatican II.
Not only is the word there,
but it's there in abundance;
indeed in a such abundance
that it characterizes Vatican II
for what it is, that is a pastoral council.
Vatican II does in fact speak several times of this aspect,
which it intended to give to himself
through the word "pastoral."
It speaks of pastoral action.
I won't tell you
(when it is all published, you'll find everything in the footnotes),
so as not waste time, I won't even mention, the referred documents.
Anyway, Vatican II speaks of pastoral action.
To this general vision,
it immediately adds something more precise: pastoral activities.
It identifies various pastoral necessities
because of which advocates the institution of,
and the mutual cooperation among,
various pastoral subsidies.
It duly lists among such subsidies the planning and organization of
- I quote -
"courses, conferences, centers with their libraries
specifically designed for pastoral studies,
to be entrusted to eminently qualified persons."
In order to extend to the widest area pastoral sensitivity
and any related pastoral knowledge,
Vatican II makes it an obligation for the priests and bishops
to study on their own or at an inter-diocesan level the best system
"to ensure that priests, particularly after several years since their ordination,"
pursue the required in-depth study of pastoral methods.
And, given that a strong contribution to the apostolic action
can also come from the lay ranks,
the Council invites the bishops and the clergy in general
to choose the aptest people
"priests endowed with the necessary qualities and sufficiently formed,"
who may in turn provide lay persons with an adequate formation
and eventually entrust them with special pastoral action tasks.
And so that "the unity of intent among priests and Bishops
may render their pastoral action ever more fruitful,"
the clergy is urged to hold periodical meetings
that should be extended to other members of Church organizations
"in order to deal with pastoral issues."
It's not over.
Episcopal Conferences of individual nations
are warmly encouraged
to take to heart and foster
the pastoral training of the clergy
by means of "Pastoral Institutes
in cooperation with purposely chosen parishes,
periodical conferences,
appropriate pastoral workshops."
Not to be omitted,
a call to "the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority"
to establish an Institute
"for liturgical pastoral care"
with "experts in liturgy, music, sacred art, and pastoral care."
These data prove that the Arabian Phoenix
is at home in Vatican II,
but Vatican II does not say who or what she may be.
Those who "rule and nurture the people of God"
are exhorted to incarnate the Good Shepherd
who gives his life for his sheep
and to follow "the example of those priests who, even in our own time,
did not hesitate to sacrifice their own lives for their flock."
Briefly, while exhorting the clergy
to become, day after day,
the instrument of an increasingly effectual service to the people of God,
Vatican II declares explicitly
that its goals are pastoral
and aims at "the internal renewal of the Church,
the dissemination of the gospel throughout the whole world,
and the establishment of a relationship based on dialogue with it."
Such a goal evidently responds
to an idea of pastoral.
From such a goal
a concept of pastoral can be drawn.
But Vatican II does not tell.
It is left to us.
It is a task left to us.
I can say that this definition is deduced from Vatican II,
but Vatican II does not tell.
What do I deduce?
A definition that I could define as such:
relationship based on dialogue with the world
by a Church renewed in her methods
of evangelization and apostolate.
I say it.
On the base of what Vatican II says,
but I say it, for Vatican II does not tell.
Facing such a definition,
I must add
that, though a bit vaguely,
the Arabian Phoenix begins to give herself away.
Such insistence is not surprising.
To the contrary,
from a highly positive point of view,
it attests to docility and fidelity
to the guidelines that Pope Roncalli,
on the 11th of October, 1962,
presented to the Council fathers
at the official opening of the great conciliar Assembly:
though doctrine ranked first among the Council's tasks,
he diversified its methodology as compared to the past.
Previously the Church had not eschewed firm and severe condemnation.
Today she prefers to strictness the medicine of mercy.
According to Pope Roncalli, then,
most of all to a mankind fettered by so many hardships.
the Church ought to show
the good, benevolent, patient countenance of a Mother,
She ought to foster human progress
by expanding the scope of charity,
to spread serenity,
peace, concord, and love.
In this way the contours of the Arabian Phoenix,
though they remain hazy,
merge with those of the good, patient, and loving Mother
As if to confirm Roncalli's orientation,
Paul VI in his homily of the 7th of December, 1965,
for the Ninth Session of the Council,
declared that the Church takes to heart,
along with the kingdom of heaven,
- notice all the nuances! -
along with the kingdom of heaven,
mankind and the world;
indeed, the Church exists in function of mankind and the world,
for the bond between Catholic religion and human life is an intrinsic one,
to the point that Catholic religion can be called
the very life of man and mankind
thanks to her sublime doctrine,
to her maternal care with which she accompanies man
towards his last end,
to the means she gives him to achieve such an end.
And so on.
An umpteenth declaration
of pastoral intent
- I say "intent". I carefully weigh my words. -
An umpteenth declaration of merely pastoral intent that,
since it remains within the boundaries of generic statements,
does not yet unveil the countenance
or the features of the Arabian Phoenix.
On the pastoral character of the Council, however,
no doubts and no questions.
Vatican II was not
- only because it was not to be -
a dogmatic Council
and, all things considered, not even a disciplinary one.
It was, because it wanted to be and declared to be,
only a pastoral council.
Yet, in spite of many interventions by in- and outsiders,
the true significance of its declared pastoral character
is still lost in the fog.
Why is it still lost in the fog?
Because however we handle it,
turning it this way or that,
this question always brings this back into sight:
we are before an undefined concept.
They talk a lot about it.
They turn around the concept.
They give some explanation,
never a definition.
Not long ago, I indicated the multifaceted pastoral role of the Council.
"Pastoral" as a qualifying adjective
or in connection with a noun,
really occurs dozens of times.
Yet, not one single occurrence gives,
if not a definition as I've just mentioned,
at least a hint of a description or an explanation.
I realize that, through a critical analysis of various declarations,
one can
- I gave you a demonstration -
one can get the general idea;
this idea, however, could not be a direct
expression of the Council's teachings.
"Gaudium et spes" is the most cogent example.
It is even characterized as "pastoral constitution."
I won't spend too much time because it would take forever
if I wished to point out the subtle contradiction
between these two words: "constitution" and "pastoral."
Let's forget about it.
"Gaudium et spes" is all an ideal and positive ferment
in favor of man, of his freedom and dignity,
of his presence in the family,
in society,
in cultural endeavors,
and in the world,
for the purpose of conferring upon private and public life
breath and dimensions on a human scale.
The association of the word "pastoral" with "constitution" in the heading
- I can say this -
is the most novel of all novelties in the whole Vatican II;
aside from being questionable.
And so was for the Council Fathers themselves,
who, before giving their approval,
discussed about ten
- if I remember well -
other proposals
and other possible definitions of this constitution.
The only justification for associating those words
is found in the note
that follows the title of this unusual document
called "pastoral" both because
"on the basis of doctrinal principles,
it aims at expounding the attitude of the Church
towards the world and the people of today."
- I have the habit of quoting literally,
lest I am accused of inventing or stressing something mine. -
and because attitude and doctrinal principles
intersect and complement each other.
Well!
The inference should be that such an attitude
is always the application and the practical expression
of doctrinal principles.
To understand which ones, however, is still a problem:
what are these doctrinal principles that put in action?
Maybe, and without "maybe",
sociological principles,
political principles,
economical principles,
but, at least explicitly,
- I underline this reservation, "at least explicitly" -
no evangelic principles.
The reference to man and the world
recalls the intrinsic limitations of both entities,
- philosophers would say their "finitude" -
their being created,
and their living in time;
their dynamic qualities,
their unceasing evolution
threatened, as if by Damocles's sword,
by an always possible regression.
All this highlights their variable condition,
their contingent condition,
but also the problems inherent
in the practical application
of those doctrinal principles
hat are for the most part absolute and unchangeable.
The 'Note', too, acknowledges such perplexities
and points them out.
It points them out, but does not solve them.
It even complicates matters when it establishes that
"the Constitution shall be interpreted
according to the general norms of theological hermeneutics,
taking into consideration"
- Notice: "taking into consideration." -
"the changing circumstances
and their intrinsic links"
- Intrinsic! -
with the matters in question."
Truly,
should pastoral care consist of this merry-g-round of yes-and-no,
any definition of it would be totally impossible.
For it would be the definition of contradiction.
It is stated that we must apply to contingent situations
unquestionable doctrines.
But should such application make doctrine contingent,
or should it render the contingent unquestionable and absolute,
it would twist either element
in an open and striking contradiction:
"yes" arm-in-arm with "no."
I understand why, from the Council halls on,
"Gaudium et spes" was the most debated and the most hindered text.
Its submission to committees and subcommittees was of little avail,
and likewise its passage through as many as four successive formulations:
the difficulty,bordering on "hybris,"
lies in the simultaneous assertion of "yes" and "no."
Perhaps - I repeat - this unresolved perplexity
is at the root of the problematic nature that still,
after roughly half a century of post-Conciliar age,
and one hermeneutic after the other,
accompanies every discourse on pastoral.
In practice such perplexity is employed to legitimize
just about everything and its opposite.
Both conciliar hermeneutics,
often analyzed by the Holy Father
and that His Excellency has mentioned,
the one, which considers Vatican II a new way of being Church,
that is a rupture,
and the other that, to the contrary, links the Council
to the living Tradition of the Church,
are legitimized by this unsolved difficulty.
As long as this difficulty remains unsolved,
both the partisans of this and of that will be right.
In fact, in both hermeneutics, Vatican II
- First! -
acquires at the doctrinal level
- In both! Although rupture and continuity seem contradictory -
acquires all the values and the appearance of a dogmatic council:
the former interpretation turns it into a super-Council,
the latter into a doctrinal summary of all previous councils.
- Second! -
At the pastoral level,
the Council appears as undefined container
because of its pastoral nature itself,
a sort of free hitter.
For pastoral reasons,
the Council is granted everything,
and to say simultaneously "yes" and "no."
And this point it becomes imperative ...
I may be wrong, for Haven's sake!
I am a poor soul like ...
not like you, who are all above,
like a man is always.
I may be wrong, but at this point it is imperative to provide
an objective and unprejudiced assessment
of the overall quality of Vatican II,
a council that was hastily and naively
limited to the pastoral sector.
And at this point as well,
I beg you to allow me
to address you a request,
of which maybe there is no need, for I see you so attentive that
nothing escapes you, not even a nuance.
But if it were possible to increase your attention,
I implore you.
I say this to everybody present.
I say this to some in particular,
whom I'd like to be present, but I don't know if they are.
I ask this because especially recently,
often contradictory judgments have been passed on myself.
I don't care for this.
I care for another aspect of these judgments,
which I call unfounded.
Some pity me.
Some deeply hurt me,
if I could say it, I'd say "to the bone,"
insinuating that I am a double-crosser.
It is a treacherously equivocal judgment.
To those who pity me,
to those who say to me:
"Why in the world would you do such thing?
Just get along! And at your age!"
I answer as Giuseppe Parini in "The Fall:"
Thou art human, not just.
To those accusing me of double-crossing,
with which to cover an opinion of mine
- I don't know where they got it from -
an opinion of mine on Vatican II as "to be completely rejected,"
I- n quotes because that is the statement,
a Tuscan, as I am, would not say so, a Tuscan would say "thrown away."
I quote as it appears -
"to be completely rejected,"
I say the words of a great XVI century preacher:
Set out the bowls of your ears,
so that I, with the ladle of my eloquence,
my pour the soup of truth in them.
And the truth is that in my not so short life
I never
- I wonder if anyone perceives
all the strength of this adverb.
It excludes even a single time as an exception.
And I repeat it, I underline it, I cry it out!
Never!
I never said or wrote a single word to gain other people's favor.
Excuse me! If I had done it, if!
Third conditional sentence: counterfactual.
I had done it, I would not likely be here
or not in the conditions I am.
I have the pride,
the steadfastness to assert it,
to preserve straightforwardness and consistency,
which are for me like the apple of my eye.
Nobody can mistake for double-crossing
a correct and respectful analysis.
Correctness and respect are part of my consistency.
But from here to double-crossing, it is impossible to go.
According therefore with such consistency,
I have recently asserted
that Vatican II is to be evaluated
on several levels that it approached.
In a recent publication, I distinguished three levels.
Today, to specify my idea better,
I present four.
For levels at which Vatican II arrives
and on which it settles down
and not just skims over.
All four of them are Vatican II.
Those familiar not only with "Gaudium et spes",
but with all sixteen conciliar documents,
are well aware that the variety of its topics
and their respective methodologies of each document
situate Vatican II on four, as I said,
qualitatively distinct levels,
from one another and from all the rest.
There is a generic level.
which I could define "phenomenic",
for it pertains to the Council as such, as a fact, as a phenomenon.
There is a specific level,
"specific" because the Council directly and willingly situated itself in it,
and it is its pastoral aspect.
There is a third level,
which I define as an appeal (or appeals) to other councils.
There is a fourth level, which is that of innovation.
One word for each level.
At the generic level,
Vatican II truly meets all the requirements
to be an authentic Council of the Church,
the twenty-first in a long series,
before the twenty that preceded it.
From this generic of phenomenic level,
a conciliar magisterium follows.
It is a council, hence a conciliar magisterium follows.
By calling "conciliar magisterium,"
I call it at the same time
a solemn magisterium,
a supreme magisterium.
However, "solemn" and "supreme" do not imply by themselves ...
- there may be reasons to modify at least partially this judgment -
by themselves they do not imply the dogmaticalness and infallibility
of the teachings of Vatican II.
It only means that these teachings,
whatever be their nature,
are at least at this level: solemn and supreme.
That some may also be dogmatic and infallible needs to be proved:
by itself, it only means this.
At that level! It is the first and there are three more!
The second level is specific of Vatican II.
It is the pastoral level.
The word by itself should justify
the very broad interests,
not few of which exceed the Catholic faith and theology,
of Vatican II.
For example,
the mass media,
technology,
hyper-efficiency of contemporary society,
politics,
peace,
war,
socioeconomic life,
- not Life, which is Gospel, which is truly Life. -
socioeconomic life,
ecology,
and so on.
This level also belongs to the conciliar teaching
and is therefore solemn and supreme,
but cannot claim,
within the bounds of the examples I made,
this conciliar teaching cannot claim
an infallible and dogmatic value,
"Because of the contradiction which consents not."
our good father Dante would say.
For the simple reason that the matter is neither infallible nor irreformable.
Let us move to the third level,
which is, as I define it, the "level of the appeals."
There are several in all the 16 documents of Vatican II.
Some of them, and in few documents, are direct.
Others are indirect and implicit.
But there are indeed many.
We read sometimes these appeals in these words, more or less:
"Lumen gentium" 1:
"urging on with the argument of previous councils;"
"Lumen gentium" 18:
"pressing on the tracks of the First Vatican Council;"
"Dei Verbum" 1:
"treading in the footsteps of the Tridentine Council and Vatican I."
These are examples, and there are more,
of appeals or direct referrals.
Those indirect or implicit are much more frequent.
They are more or less these:
the nature of the Church,
her hierarchical structure,
the apostolic succession,
the universal jurisdiction of the Pope,
the incarnation of the Word,
redemption,
the infallibility of the Church,
the infallibility of ecclesiastical magisterium,
eternal life for the good and eternal damnation for the wicked.
And so on.
In this respect,
that is in this third sector,
at this third level,
Vatican II is endowed with unquestionable dogmatic validity,
Can we then say that is a dogmatic council?
I'd say that with a grain of salt,
with some reservation.
I say that it is endowed with unquestionable dogmatic validity,
although it remains essentially a pastoral council as it defined itself to be.
There remains a dogmatic character as a reflection.
A reflection because it is deduced
from previous definitions or assertions of ecumenical councils.
Hence, the conclusion is clear.
Within this area of referrals and appeals,
there is the dogmatic character of the Council,
even if the Council continues to be non dogmatic.
The last, fourth, level,
is that of innovations.
If one looks at the spirit that guided the Council,
one could say that the whole Council was fourth-level.
The whole Council is a novelty.
But I want to come to something more precise,
to draw the evaluation,
which the base on which I place myself suggests.
Truly, this fourth level appears as the spirit moving the Council itself,
which gives a special characteristic to the Council itself,
and makes radically innovative.
Even where,
and it does it more than once,
it attempts to fix its roots in the continuity of Tradition.
Some innovations are such that present no difficulty
for him who knows how to read, especially with an eye on the sources.
They present no difficulty.
They are truly innovations,
for the sources tells us something else.
There is an attempt to fix the novelties in the sources,
but if this was successful, it must be shown.
It is a debate we must have.
It would have been great, if we had had it.
What are these yet unresolved margins,
of innovations which do not take their sap
from the sources?
"Collegiality of bishops."
Take the text,
and read the notes which should sustain
the concept of collegiality.
They'll tell you about communion.
Letters of communion.
Bishops would exchange letters of communion
to be good brothers in exercising pastoral action,
but "not" to govern the Church together,
which is the concept of collegiality.
The sources tell us something different.
Here there is no rooting in the sources.
"The absorption of Tradition in Holy Writ."
There is a council - and what a council! - that tells us of two sources.
There is no reason why there should be only one source.
"The limitation of biblical inspiration and inerrancy."
This is uncommonly grave.
Uncommonly grave! I don't insist to avoid saying too much.
The Catholic Faith is at stake here!
The Catholic Faith as defined in a Catholic way.
I add,
(those who won't listen, don't let them listen), but I add:
"The strange relations with the Jewish and Islamic world."
"The strain on the so-called religious freedom."
It is all too plain that there is a level,
and it is this, which I called the fourth,
where we cannot perceive at all the dogmatic character,
which would be infallible and irreformable.
I conclude. I beg your pardon for taking so long. I conclude.
Adhesion to Vatican II,
for the what I've just said,
is qualitatively articulated.
Inasmuch as all four distinct levels express conciliar teaching,
all four require of individual believers and Catholic-Christian communities
the duty of an adherence
that shall not necessarily be always "of Faith."
Such adhesion only goes to the truths of the third level,
and only inasmuch as they derive from other assuredly dogmatic Councils.
A religious and respectful reception is due to the other three levels,
as long as some of their assertions do not collide
- as I've shown to you -
do not collide with the perpetual actuality of Tradition
by reason of an obvious break from the formula
"with the same sentiments and the same consensus."
In such a case dissent,
especially if calm and reasoned,
- I underline "reasoned." I am thinking of what His Excellency was saying -
determines neither heresy nor error.
As regards the second, pastoral level,
one must truly think that the Council Fathers
were not aware of the mortgage paid by themselves to Enlightenment
by opening up the Council to a pastoral role
that from the very beginning,
according to the Enlightenment thought on which it depended,
had given a trip to God in order to replace Him with man
and even, at times, to identify God with man.
For those who don't know, but I think that all should know, I add:
It was the eighteenth-century pastoral care
- the eighteenth century is the century of Vatican II -
It was the eighteenth-century pastoral care
that bypassed
the motivations, sources, contents, and methods of dogmatic theology
and opened wide the gates of the theological fortress
to the primacy of anything natural, rational, temporal, sociological, political!
By saying this, I do not mean at all
that the pastoral model of Vatican II
is the same as the pastoral model of the eighteenth century.
Enough water has passed beneath the bridge.
But one would be naive or misinformed if,
in order to deny their identity,
he denied any relationship between the two.
There is no identity, OK,
but there is a relationship.
If one denies the relationship,
he shows that he didn't understand the points of the question.
In Vatican II the pastoral model
remained rooted in the Enlightenment.
I mean the model.
All my words are carefully chosen.
The model was that of the Enlightenment,
albeit with different expressions and motivations.
It was Paul VI who rescued it from the quicksands of Enlightenment
when, at the opening of the second conciliar period,
he transferred that pastoral model from an Enlightened to a Romantic sphere.
However, it is not necessary to be uncommonly versed in history
to understand that we are before different nuances of the same base.
The period the created the Enlightenment
created also Romanticism:
the former stressing a rational concern, a rational premise,
the latter stressing a call to sentimentality
and to the invincible strength of the human spirit.
But the movement is the same.
And Paul VI did this:
he moved from one sector to another,
while the thing remained the same.
What did he say?
I quote literally also this time.
It was at the opening of the second conciliar period,
when, to describe the pastoral model,
he said that Vatican II had assumed it to make...
- I go slowly: I want these words to stick to your mind -
"a bridge to the contemporary world"
that would convey to it
"its inner vitality..."
- this is totally Romantic! -
"its inner vitality...
as a life-giving event
and an instrument of salvation for the world itself."
I make an exception this time.
Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Number 55,
1963, page 854-855.
Thus the Arabian Phoenix became a bridge,
a coefficient of life,
an instrument of salvation;
yet without losing its relationship with the Enlightenment.
It was modernized with a Romantic attitude or spirituality,
- still that was the model -
through the Neo-Modernistic inspiration of its proponents.
Not by chance, from a pastoral theology thus understood,
a strong secularization began,
which subsequently triumphed in the present post-conciliar stage,
And if on ignorance of its precedents,
depends the uncertain notion of its pastoral nature;
on its original relationship with them,
would depend the absurdity of the dogmaticalness
of a self-styled merely pastoral council.
Thus, the Arabian Phoenix unveils her true features.
All things considered,
it would have been better to keep them secret still.
Thank you!