You can also watch the movie here.

You can also watch the movie here.

.

We have come to the end of the 4th Rosa Mystica mission in the Philippines. Throughout our articles you were able to follow the work that has been done over the past ten days. The figures speak for themselves: 5.778 patients came to see us among whom 63 had x-rays, 94 had small operations and 430 had laboratory tests in our medical laboratory that came over just for them! Furthermore, this year we were mobile: Rosa Mystica covered three islands and cared for patients in 8 different places. That represents many months of preparation, a huge organization, important funds, almost 150 volunteers doing fieldwork accompanied by 3 priests- Father Daniel Couture, Father Philippe Marcille and Father François Castel- and lots of other things as well…!

During this mission we accumulated delays and material problems. Here are just some of them: the plane that was to take the team to Leyte was cancelled which led to long hours waiting and delays in the following day’s program. The medicine for this team arrived two days late. You can imagine how easy it was to make a prescription and tell the patients to come back not knowing whether the medicine would arrive…

Among the volunteers, several were ill; four of them spent several days in hospital as they were struck by Dengue Fever, a local disease…

But do not imagine that all those problems broke our troupe’s morale: Father Marcille was able to show us the positive angle by explaining that in spite of appearances, our woes were a good sign because if the devil was annoying us so much, it was because he considered there was too much good work being done by Rosa Mystica!

So, take heart! Jean-Pierre Dickès reminded us several times the aim of our expedition: we came to heal bodies but moreover, we came to heal souls.

Therefore, to avoid slipping into layman activism and layman humanitarian relief, we must always keep at heart the apostolic aim of the mission. Lots of associations do relief better than we do …For the volunteer, the mission is like an active retreat: by the poor he cares for and by the virtue of the charity he offers, he is in direct contact with our Savior: “Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, you do unto me”

We were often moved to see that mutual aid was really a two way deal : we came to give our time to help this underprivileged population; but how many times did we realize that we received more than what we gave : a child’s smile, a willing hand, a sandwich lovingly prepared for three volunteers who were fed up with rice, a “thank-you mam” from a toothless mouth, a long handshake with thankful eyes, a promise to make daily prayers for us and so on… we have many accounts!

Last of all, we would like to thank our readers, many of whom support this mission and thanks to them, Rosa Mystica exists! We entrust all our patients to your prayers so that with the help of grace they may keep a few scraps of the spiritual luggage we tried to bring them … Salamat pô!

Donations for ACIMASIA may be sent to :

Dr Jean-Pierre Dickès
2, route d’Equihen
62360 St-Etienne-du-Mont

The whole amount of donations is send to the mission without any deduction.
Volunteers are welcome all year round.

Rapprochement between Rome and Moscow
The Vatican Library is restored
Vatican City puts Euros into circulation

THE CHURCH IN THE WORLD

United Kingdom : Tensions surrounding the visit of Benedict XVI
Spain: The Bishops Speak Out Against the Abortion Law

DOCUMENTS

Vatican II :  a debate between Romano Amerio, Msgr. Gherardini and Msgr. Pozzo

Download here

A statue of John Knox (1514-1572), in Edinburgh (Scotland).

An actor playing John Knox (1514–1572), one of the chief 16th-century Scottish Protestant reformers, will head a special parade through Edinburgh, next 16 September. Organized by the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland itself, the event will mark the beginning of the four-day papal journey in Great Britain. The day coincides with the feast of St. Ninian, the earliest known Scottish saint. “We want the day to be joyous, charitable and inclusive,” Peter Kearney, a spokesperson for the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, told Ecumenical News International (ENI) last 27 July.

Four hundred and fifty years after the Protestant Reformation in Scotland and its break with the papacy in Rome, “It is a sign of a healthy nation that diversity within the Christian community is something to be celebrated as opposed to a source of division and struggle,” the Rev. John Christie, incoming Moderator of the [Presbyterian] Church of Scotland told ENI. “It is a gift to those of us of a Protestant persuasion that, by including this figure, the Catholic Church is contributing to the celebrations of the Reformation [sic].” (Sources: apic/eni/thescotsman—DICI No. 220 of 6 Aug. 2010)

Father Lombardi emphasized how “reinvigorated and smiling” Benedict XVI appeared at the Angelus on July 18, although observers had interpreted his unusual decision not to travel to the mountains for the summer holidays as a sign of fatigue and weakness.

In addition, the Vatican Television Center posted on the Internet brief footage taken at Castel Gandolfo of Benedict XVI at his desk, working on his third volume. The pope is then shown taking a walk in the gardens accompanied by his personal secretary, reciting the Rosary in German.  Finally the viewer sees the pope throwing bread to the goldfish in a pond in the gardens of his summer residence.  (Sources : apic/imedia – DICI no. 220 dated August 7, 2010)

Archbishop Julián Barrio Barrio, the ordinary of Santiago de Compostela, announced the upcoming visit of the pope on November 6, and described it as historic, because “it will be the first time that a supreme pontiff comes to Santiago de Compostela specifically to pay homage to Saint James in the year of his jubilee.” Although John Paul II did visit in 1982, a jubilee year, the archbishop explained, the pope had gone that year to Santiago de Compostela as part of his pastoral visit to Spain. “This time, Benedict XVI wished to expressly pray at the tomb of the apostle on this specific occasion.”

The Holy Father will be welcomed at the international airport of Lavacolla by the Spanish royal family and by the civil and religious authorities. The Supreme Pontiff, after arriving in the city by car, “will enter the cathedral by the door of Azabachería,” explained Archbishop Barrio Barrio. “He will stop to pray for several minutes in the communion chapel and over the location where, according to tradition, the mortal remains of the Apostle James are found. He will then address those present in the cathedral, including many sick people,” and will attend the spectacular incensing by the “botafumeiro”, the gigantic censer suspended from the vaulted roof of the cathedral. Afterward Benedict XVI will go to Plaza Obradoiro to celebrate Mass. At the end of the liturgy, he will travel to Barcelona.  (Sources : VIS/L’Osservatore Romano – DICI no.220 dated August 7, 2010)

The smallest state in the world, which has minted coins since its formation in 1929, indirectly entered the Euro zone at the same time as 12 other European states on January 1, 2002, in accordance with the agreements signed with Italy, which is itself a signatory of agreements with the European Union. On March 1, 2002, the first coins, bearing the image of John Paul II, were released, sparking a rush among collectors. Initially the Vatican had been authorized to mint as much as 670,000 euro in currency per year, and since 2008, up to 1.074 million euro.

The Vatican thus has minted 2 million 50-cent pieces, for a total value of one million Euro. Since mid-July, several shops within the precincts of the Vatican have been in possession of coins with the image of Benedict XVI and bearing the inscription Città del Vaticano 2010 and have made change by giving as many as two 50-cent pieces per client.

By minting coins of only one face value, the State avoids a loss of interest in complete series among collectors worldwide—a significant move, since the sale of Vatican coins by the Philatelic and Numismatic Office of the Vatican is a godsend for the small state. To cite one statistic, the last series of Vatican Euro, having a face value of 3.88 euro, sold for 30 euro. Circulated since May 11, 2010, among collectors, 94 thousand sets were minted. Furthermore, since 2004, the Vatican has issued each year a commemorative two-euro piece, which is especially prized. On the other hand, the state does not issue any bills. (Sources : apic/imedia – DICI no. 220 dated August 7, 2010)

To begin with, the foundation mainly helped from a political and economical point of view but missionary work got quickly under way. Before the missionaries arrived, the local tribes worshipped “Opo” (the lord) who was, in fact, the volcano. Their faith was shattered by its eruption and destruction. How could this destroyed volcano be god? Little by little, they came to ask for catechism and to be baptized. Today, 80% are baptized and married. To do so, they gave up traditional polygamy. Even though they were evangelized by a protestant group “Born again”, they want to become Catholics.

When Sister Eva asked them why, they replied “because you are alive and your devotion has shown us that God loves us”.

Msgr. Pozzo’s analysis of the influence of the para-council

Msgr. Pozzo intends to prove that, concerning two controversial points (the first being the unity and uniqueness of the Catholic Church, along with the question of the expression subsistit in from Lumen Gentium 8, and the other—the relations between the Catholic Church and other religions, including ecumenical and interreligious dialogue) “the authentic proclamation of the Church, with regard to its absolute claim, has not been modified substantially with the teaching of Vatican II.”

Hence one can only wonder why the conciliar documents, which in Msgr. Pozzo’s view are so clearly in conformity with Tradition, have given rise to a contrary interpretation on this point.  The Roman prelate asks the question and answers:  “What is the origin of the interpretation of discontinuity or of rupture with Tradition?  It is what we may call the conciliar, or more precisely, para-conciliar ideology which took hold of the Council from the beginning and superimposed itself on the proceedings.  By this expression we do not mean something concerning the documents of the Council, nor the intention of the participants, but rather the general framework of interpretation in which the Council was placed and which acts as a sort of internal treatment [conditionnement intérieur] affecting our subsequent reading of the facts and the texts.  The Council is not the same thing as the para-conciliar ideology, but the story about that ecclesial event and about the mass media has served in large part to mystify the Council, and that is precisely the para-conciliar ideology.  In order to show all the consequences of the para-conciliar ideology as an historical event, one would have to examine the Revolution of 1968, which was based on the principle of breaking with the past and radical change in history.  In the para-conciliar ideology, the 1968 Movement meant a new paradigm for the Church in breaking with the past.”

Msgr. Pozzo concluded that we must use “the hermeneutic of reform in continuity” recommended by Benedict XVI “to address controverted questions, thus freeing, so to speak, the Council from the para-council that has become mixed up with it, while preserving the principle of the integrity of Catholic doctrine and of complete fidelity to the deposit of faith handed down by Tradition and interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church”.

At the end of this presentation, one question remains:  can the para-council denounced by the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission be identified with the post-conciliar period?  One is tempted to answer in the affirmative, considering that this para-council supposedly endeavored to conform the documents composed between 1962 and 1965 to the spirit of the May 1968 Revolution.  But he says also that “the conciliar, or more precisely, para-conciliar ideology … took hold of the Council from the beginning and superimposed itself on the proceedings.”  Didn’t this superimposition “from the beginning” have any influence on the composition of the conciliar documents?  Msgr. Pozzo thinks that the para-conciliar ideology affected neither the documents of the Council, nor the intention of their authors, but merely supplied “the general framework of interpretation in which the Council was placed and which acts as a sort of internal treatment affecting our subsequent reading of the facts and the texts”.  The para-conciliar ideology would then be an external framework conditioning from within our reading of the documents!  It appears simpler to see here an influence foreign to Tradition acting directly on their composition.

The testimony of Bishop Lefebvre

This is what Bishop Marcel Lefebvre said straight out in Ils l’ont découronné [They have uncrowned Him]:  “It is certain that we, the 250 Council Fathers belonging to the Coetus [Coetus Internationalis Patrum, the group of conservative bishops founded by Bishop Lefebvre, Bishop Carli and Bishop de Proença-Sigaud—editor’s note], tried by all the means at our disposal to prevent the liberal errors from being expressed in the documents of the Council;  this means that we were able, all the same, to limit the damage, to change certain statements that were inexact or tendentious, to add a phrase to correct a tendentious proposition or an ambiguous expression.

“But I must admit that we did not succeed in purging the Council of the liberal and modernist spirit that imbued most of the schemas.  Indeed, the ones who composed them were precisely those experts and Fathers who were tainted by that spirit.  Now, what do you expect?  When a document as a whole is composed in the wrong spirit, it is practically impossible to expurgate that spirit;  the whole thing would have to be completely rewritten in order to give it a Catholic spirit.

“What we were able to do, through the modi [modifications, revisions] that we proposed, was to have some further points added to the schemas, and this is quite evident:  you need only compare the first schema on religious freedom with the fifth draft that was written—for that document was rejected five times and was brought forward again five times—to see that we succeeded nonetheless in attenuating the subjectivism that infected the earlier versions.   The same goes for Gaudium et spes;  you can see very clearly the paragraphs that were added at our request, and which are present, I would say, like patches sewn onto an old habit:  the whole thing doesn’t gel;  the logic of the original draft is no longer there;  the additions made to attenuate or counterbalance the liberal statements sit there like foreign bodies….

“But the vexing thing is that the liberals themselves systematically employed this method in the text of the schemas:  first a statement of an error or an ambiguous formula or a dangerous guideline and then, immediately before or after it, a contrary statement meant to reassure the conservative Council Fathers.”  (Ils l’ont découronné, Clovis, pp. 193-194).

Romano Amerio and his disciple Enrico Maria Radaelli denounce “an abysmal rupture in continuity”

The reader can find an echo of Bishop Lefebvre’s testimony in the third volume of the Complete Works of Romano Amerio, which has just been published in Italy by Lindau under the title Zibaldone.  Like the work of the same name by the poet Giacomo Leopardi, it is a collection of “brief thoughts, aphorisms, stories, citations from the classics, moral dialogues, and commentaries on events of the day,” as the Vaticanist Sandro Magistro wrote on July 12 at his website www.chiesa.espresso .  Magistro presents Amerio’s book as follows:

“From this strongly critical analysis, which he also applied to Vatican Council II, Amerio drew out what Enrico Maria Radaelli, his faithful disciple and editor responsible for the publication of his master’s works, calls the ‘great dilemma at the heart of Christianity today’.  The dilemma is whether there has been continuity or rupture in the Magisterium of the Church before and after Vatican II. …

“Precisely this, in fact, in the view of Amerio and Radaelli, is the cause of the crisis in the conciliar and postconciliar Church, a crisis that has brought it extremely close to its ‘impossible but nearly accomplished’ perdition: having tried to give up on a commanding Magisterium, on dogmatic definitions ‘unequivocal in language, certain in content, compulsory in form, as one would expect that at least the teachings of a council would be’.

“The result, according to Amerio and Radaelli, is that Vatican Council II is full of vague, equivocal assertions that can be interpreted in different ways, some of them even in definite contrast with the previous magisterium of the Church (emphasis ours).  And this ambiguous pastoral language is said to have paved the way for a Church that today is ‘overrun by thousands of doctrines and a hundred thousands nefarious customs.” In her art, music, and liturgy as well.

“What should be done to remedy this disaster? Radaelli’s proposal goes beyond the one made recently – on the basis of equally harsh critical judgments – by another respected defender of the Catholic tradition, Thomist theologian Brunero Gherardini, 85, canon of St. Peter’s Basilica, professor emeritus of the Pontifical Lateran University, and editor-in-chief of the journal Divinitas.

“Monsignor Gherardini advanced his proposal in a book released in Rome last year, entitled: Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II. Un discorso da fare. [The English edition, entitled The Ecumenical Vatican Council II:  A Much Needed Discussion, was published this year by Casa Mariana Editrice.]  The book concludes with an “Appeal to the Holy Father”.  He is asked to have the documents of the Council reexamined, in order to clarify once and for all “whether, in what sense, and to what extent” Vatican II is or is not in continuity with the previous Magisterium of the Church. …

“So then, in his afterword to Zibaldone by Romano Amerio, Professor Radaelli welcomes Monsignor Gherardini’s proposal, but “only as a helpful first step in clearing away many, too many misunderstandings.”  Indeed, clarifying the meaning of the conciliar documents is not enough, in Radaelli’s opinion, if such a clarification is then offered to the Church with the same ineffective style of suggestive rather than commanding “pastoral” teaching that entered into use with the council.

“If abandoning the principle of authority and a policy of endless discussion (‘discussionism’) are the sickness of the conciliar and postconciliar Church, getting over it – Radaelli writes – requires doing the opposite. The high-ranking bishops of the Church must put an end to the discussion with a dogmatic, ex cathedra proclamation that is infallible and obligatory. It must anathematize those who do not obey, and bless those who obey.

“And what does Radaelli expect the supreme authority of the Church to decree? Like Amerio, he is convinced that in at least three cases there has been “an abysmal rupture in continuity” between Vatican II and the previous Magisterium: where the council declares that the Church of Christ ‘subsists in’ the Catholic Church instead of saying that it ‘is’ the Catholic Church; where it asserts that ‘Christians worship the same God worshiped by the Jews and Muslims’; and in the Declaration on religious freedom, Dignitatis humanae.”

Is the hermeneutic of reform-in-continuity an adequate remedy?

At the end of his article, Sandro Magister shows that the critique of the council by Romano Amerio and Msgr. Gherardini is hardly acceptable in the pope’s view.  “In Benedict XVI, both Gherardini and Amerio-Radaelli see a friendly pope. But there is no chance that he will grant their requests.  On the contrary, both on the whole and on some controversial points, Pope Joseph Ratzinger has already made it known that he does not share their positions at all.

“For example, in the summer of 2007 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a statement on the continuity of meaning between the formulas ‘is’ and ‘subsists in’ (subsistit in), affirming that ‘the Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change [the previous doctrine on the Church], rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.’

“As for the Declaration on religious freedom, Dignitatis humanae, Benedict XVI himself has explained that, although it departed from previous ‘contingent’ guidelines of the Magisterium, it did so precisely to ‘recover the deepest patrimony of the Church’.

“The speech in which Benedict XVI defended the orthodoxy of Dignitatis humanae is the one that he gave to the Vatican Curia shortly before the first Christmas of his pontificate, on December 22, 2005, precisely to maintain that there is no rupture between Vatican Council II and the previous Magisterium of the Church, but rather ‘reform in continuity’.

And Sandro Magister concludes:  “Until now Pope Ratzinger has not convinced the Lefebvrists [sic], who remain in a state of schism precisely on this crucial point.  (Does acknowledging the existence of a discontinuity or rupture with regard to Tradition constitute per se a schism?  Isn’t it instead the rupture itself that can be called a schism? — Editor’s note.)  But – according to what Radaelli and Gherardini write – neither has he convinced some of his children who are ‘very obedient in Christ’.”

On the one hand, Monsignor Pozzo proposes liberating the Council from the para-council, and on the other hand, Amerio and Radaelli demand that the Roman Magisterium stop being “pastoral” so as to be clearly dogmatic.  This is the heart of the debate about Vatican II, which Msgr. Gherardini calls “a much needed discussion”.  Indeed, it is imperative.  (DICI no. 220 dated August 7, 2010)