THE ROOTS OF THE CRISIS: HISTORY OF LOST OPPORTUNITIES
Pope Benedict, the acute critic of Rahner, ascended to the papacy, where he would have all the expertise, intelligence, the authority and the power to act for the solution of the grave problem, he unfortunately did nothing and probably for those few allusive interventions that did, has brought upon the ire of rahneriani, that led him to abdicate and then to give up the Petrine ministry. The encyclical Light of Faith Pope Francis, completion of that begun by Benedict, repeats cliches and completely ignores the issue. Today the problem is therefore still open.
Catholic thought is in fact and in law by the conjunction of the Magisterium of the Church with that of theologians. The guide, the authentic interpretation and the guarantee of the truth of the doctrine of the faith is chaired by the Magisterium of the Pope. Task instead of theologians is to investigate the remaining issues advancing opinions or interpretative hypotheses or proposing new solutions, in order to promote the advancement of knowledge of the Word of God, submitting to the judgment of the Church of the discoveries and new theories.
Thel Teaching, in guarding, propose and interpret the data revealed and approve or reject the new doctrines of theologians, no mistake, as it enjoys the assistance of the Spirit of Truth promised by Christ to him until the end of the world. Instead the doctrines of theologians, especially when they fail to measure up to the Magisterium or they misunderstand the teachings, may be incorrect. But also a certain theological doctrine (theologically certain), albeit strictly deduced from principles of faith, can never claim to be considered in the Church as a truth of faith, because it is always simple human doctrine, as founded on faith. Only the Magisterium in fact it, with unerring judgment and irreformable, this grave task of determining and defining the truths of faith for Christ's mandate. However, it may happen that a new theological doctrine of interpretation or explanation of what has been revealed to be having so much importance or validity in the eyes of the Magisterium, these elevates the dignity of the dogma of the faith.
Altogether historic fact of Catholic thought therefore necessary to distinguish carefully the doctrinal pronouncements of the Magisterium in matters of faith or dogma - Pope alone or with the Council - the doctrines or opinions current among theologians, doctrines, given their debatable and uncertainty, may legitimately be conflicting with each other, without compromising any of them necessarily in the matter of faith or sound reason. Some theories may be more conservative or traditionalist, other more innovative or progressive: nothing wrong, nothing dangerous, nothing to worry about, nothing scandalous, but rather normal phenomenon, physiological and profitable, legitimate expression of freedom of thought, which results between the different currents or schools mutual enrichment, provided it does not break the fundamental unity, convergence and agreement on the essential truths and that does not come out of the bounds of true faith.
The regime or normal operating level ecclesial and collective thinking Catholic entails of law and fact, in history, a general agreement in principle between the positions of the Magisterium and the theologians, unless extraordinary painful and inevitable deviations, that are found in theologians rebels, usually characterizing the phenomenon or schism or heresy. This phenomenon was severe, macroscopic, widespread and impressive to say the tragic with the birth of Lutheranism. But in the history of the Church's Magisterium has always, all in all, managed to adjust, control and dominate the climate or the general situation, so as to ensure the overall team theological and faithful a certain uniformity, consistency and obedience to the Magisterium, while theologians, for their part, are always, whole, felt willingly to say proudly representatives of the Magisterium, so that the faithful who wanted to know the way of the Gospel and the Church's doctrine could always turn to the theologian, any theologian, and received from him the authoritative answer, clear, persuasive and safe; in short, he was the trusted and authoritative guide to walk in the truth of the Gospel and be in communion with the Church. Those who wanted to leave the Church would go openly, as indeed did the same Luther - going from Rome! —, and nothing remained treacherously and hypocritically pretending to destroy it from within to continue being Catholic and maybe boldly as a Catholic “advanced”. Thus the enemies of the Church, eventually discovered by good theologians or reported by the faithful, were promptly, without endless prevarications, declared as such by ecclesiastical, so were well known, and then the faithful were also less educated way to recognize them, to guard against and to stay away, as we distinguish the good from the poisonous mushrooms.
The shepherds, with their doctrine, fidelity to the Pope, prudence and love for the flock, knew unmask these impostors, these antichrists, For false Christs and false prophets, these wolves in sheep and put them up against the wall. We recall in this regard the wonderful encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis St. Pius X. Today heretics succeed done under the nose and no one notices, no one gives thought, no one intervenes, indeed receive praise and achieved success, teaching assignments and those who dare to point out that the emperor has no clothes, is at least teased say the least.
I theology, once, as priests and religious, by virtue of their mandate ecclesiastical, were humbly and diligently aware of their mission and therefore of their grave responsibility before God, to superiors, to the Church and to the souls of their delicate office of Doctors of the Catholic truth, nor passed to anyone for the head to create doctrines subjective and arbitrary, as does the good doctor, which feels representative of medical science, and you might look good from inventing personal practices without scientific basis. Instead, unfortunately, from the years of the immediate post council began a very serious phenomenon of cleavage between the Magisterium and theologians. Many bishops, naively and enthusiastically convinced of the advent of a “New Pentecost”, relaxed their vigilance replacing the bonhomie to perspicacity, respect for human zeal brave, their own interests to defend the flock against wolves, gooders to the goodness and mercy for exchanging weakness.
I theology, especially those who were experts of the Council (1), their part is mounted head and, there methods protesting, began to be believed, independently and against the Magisterium, as custodians of God's Word and unappealable infallible interpreters of Holy Scripture, as well as the documents of the Second, that conversely distorted in the modernist sense. At this point we have the roots of the crisis which we suffer today. These consist in this: the subversive and revolutionary movement of theologians, The result has passed into history as “Sixty-eight of the dispute”, was traded by many in the people of God and among themselves pastors and theologians as a doctrinal revolution brought about by the same Council, which would change the data of faith until then considered immutable, especially about the superiority of Christianity over other religions, on the concept of Revelation and of the Church and about the condemnation of the heresies of the past, condemnation that would barred.
Then Actually the new doctrines conciliar, correctly interpreted, beyond some expression not entirely clear, were not at all a break or denial of the dogmas traditional, but on the contrary their explanation and exposition in a modern language, suitable to be understood by the man of today, neither approach the council to modernity was to be understood in the manner modernistic as uncritical subjection to modern errors, but rather to the proposal of a healthy modernization or, as was said, “updating” the thought and life of Christians, that collectsgoes to theuce the immutable word of God can be as valuable in modernity.
Instead arose two tendencies ecclesial and doctrinal who saw in the doctrines of the Council a break or change compared to the traditional doctrine and convictions of the past, inspired by a total intake of modernity: one of Lefebvre, which, on the pretext that the council are not new solemn dogmatic definitions, denied the infallibility of doctrines council accused of being infected with liberalism, Enlightenment rationalist, Indifferentism, Secularism, filoprotestantesimo and anthropocentrism, all errors that had already been condemned by the Church in the nineteenth century and in previous centuries, especially the First Vatican Council and that of Trento.
The other stream which appeared and still appears to many with the chrism of officialdom and interpreter of’ modernization reconcile, is one that has long been called or self-proclaimed “progressive”, title seen by many as highly positive and coveted, while this current calls with contempt “conservative”, “traditionalist” the “an integrist”, or more recently “fundamentalist” the current lefevriani, in which, however, includes indiscriminately all those who do not accept his modernism. For many years this current, very strong today in the Church, mainly due to the contribution of Rahner, thrived rubbing of Mr title of progressive, reference to the value of the undoubted progress, the new and modern, but in reality for its excesses increasingly discovered and impudent, typical of those who try the false security of being in command, has increasingly revealed as modernist, and then clear falsification of the true teachings of the Second, which they promote the modern, certainly not endorse modernism, heresy already condemned by St. Pius X.
Wanting to express ourselves in the language sports, we could say that the local ecclesiastical authority and also at the top was taken “counterattack”. After the climate of dialogue and peaceful confrontation intra and Extra ecclesial created by the extraordinary charisma of St. John XXIII, it was widely spread belief in the Episcopate and in many theological circles that now no longer existed or heresies, if there theologies which marked a departure from the official doctrine of the Magisterium, it was mostly questionable doctrines or expressions of theological pluralism or maybe some attempts’ bold innovation to watch with interest and benevolence. In fact things were not nearly so. Starting from the immediate post-modernist tendency council, taking advantage dell'immeritata confidence that he learned from a cunningly tear episcopate naively optimistic, began compact and bold to come to light, secure impunity and even with the halo of progressivism, almost to implement a plan international precedent, coming particularly from the Protestant tradition, secretly developed previously.
The few that signaled the impending danger, like Maritain, the von Hildebrand, the de Lubac and Danielou, certainly not suspected of conservatism or closed to new, characters were seen as troublemakers, birds of ill omen, nostalgic Inquisition, damper that, as they say, breaking eggs in the basket. Those “doomsayers”, catastrophic and discouraging, from which St. John XXIII had ordered to shop. Yet there he realized the imprudence which had fallen, lowering his guard, as if they were missing the consequences of original sin, and now the Church and theology had started a new era of all men of good will, all intimately solicited in the preconscious (Anticipation) experience divine athematic pre-conceptual, all cristianthe anonymous yearning for God, all object of divine mercy, according to the honeyed formulas rahneriane. Born that “gooders destructive” and that false mercy recently denounced by the Pope in his address to the synod of bishops.
The Council was undoubtedly a progressive approach, in the sense of wanting to bring to the Church a new push or a new impetus to the future, using the values of the modern world: the Council, rather than on the need to preserve or recover or restore lost, pointed on the duty to go ahead, to renew and advance, changing what was no longer suitable or no longer needed to the new times or the new requirements, that it was intended to prepare and meet in an eschatological horizon. No wonder, therefore,, if the current very large Fathers and experts who appeared better interpreter of the Council was the one that was agreed to call “progressive”, while those that were resistant to the new or did not understand him or too insisted sull'immutabile and tradition, they began to call them with an accent of endurance and not of admiration, “Conservatives” the “Traditionalists”.
Among the latter emerged, as we know, since the early years of the post council the famous figure of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which soon began to attract a following, up to found the equally famous Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), still exists and thrives. Monsignor Lefebvre, supporter not entirely lit the sacred tradition, that he thought the council had betrayed, along with a few others, Instead of seeing the heresies denounced by the Holy Office in the theology of the modernists, instead had the great naivety to find them just the same council, who then accused of terrible mistakes already condemned by the Popes of the nineteenth century, as liberalism, rationalism and indifferentism.
More recently, Eighties, Romano Amerio has joined the list of alleged errors of the Council “mutation of the concept of Church”. According to his disciple Enrico Maria Radaelli, the council would instead “overturned” The Church. Paul Pasqualucci, on the other hand, note the presence of '”anthropocentrism”. Monsignor Brunero Gherardini instead sees a contradiction in the documents of the Second Vatican with. The historian Roberto De Mattei then deny the infallibility of the doctrines of the Council under pretext that in them there is no dogma defined according to the rules set out by the First Vatican Council. All of them confuse the doctrines of the Council with the modernism born after it. It is harmful confusion which, if one part involves a straight definition of modernism according to the criteria offered by St. Pius X, other charges of modernism just that Vatican II that, on closer, it is the wise antidote with his proposal of a healthy modernity in the light of the Gospel, the doctrine of the Church and of St. Thomas Aquinas, as did, for example, Jacques Maritain.
From the first rising of lefebvrismo Paul VI took him with an attitude very severe, while remained mild and indulgent towards rahnerismo. This behavior is not fair unfortunately remained in Pontiffs following up the current. Benedict XVI tried an approach to lift the excommunication Lefebvrians with their bishops and with the famous motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. In truth the rahnerismo was felt even in the liturgy with the phenomenon of the desecration of the sacred and secularization, consequence of the false concept rahneriano priesthood and the denial of the sacrificial character of the Mass. Vice versa, theologians who identified with the current general and equivocally that “progressive”, gathered around the journal Concilium, still exists. But when it became clear the misunderstanding and appeared that some “Progressives” in fact they were modernists, then there was the separation of one from another: one part, progressives really honest and faithful to the Council and to the Church, as Ratzinger, von Balthasar, Shortcut, de Lubac and Danielou, became aware of criptomodernisti, as Küng, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Schoonenberg and other. So it was that the true progressives separated by seconds founding the magazine Communio. As for Ratzinger, realizing the modernist tendency of Rahner, abbandono e lo lo crítico severamente in Principles of Catholic Theology (2) of 1982, a year after he was appointed Prefect of the CDF from San Giovanni Paolo II.
In 1966 Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, pro-prefect of the Holy Office, now become the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, along with the Secretary, the most learned christologist Pietro Parente, letter sent un'allarmata (3) the presidents of episcopal conferences denouncing in 10 points a number of serious errors that were snaking among theologians called “Progressives”. To many this serious complaint appeared to be exaggerated or a kind of cold shower; other, already infected by modernism, must have caused irritation and appeared to be a brake or a reactionary unbearable condemnation of the new theology promoted by the Council.
The new Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), led by Cardinal Franjo Šeper, unspoken truth proof enough energy to cope with the serious problems reported by Cardinal Ottaviani and Monsignor Parente, did then Cardinal. These, with the insight and courage that had characterized previous years, wrote in 1983 a golden book (4), that could have been the text of the papal encyclical, indicating the heresies of many theologians, as Küng, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, 3,625 seater Tata Steel, Hulsbosch and other. Unfortunately only a small part and so too bland CDF censured these authors, which in the majority could proceed unhindered to spread their errors, protected by powerful forces filoprotestanti and philo, perhaps clandestinely They penetrate the Church itself.
Since the early years of the post council there was a host of good theologians and prelates, which is premurarono to comment on the texts of the Council in the line of the Magisterium, showing their continuity with the previous Magisterium, defending them from the accusation of modernism, and removing them from the manipulation of the modernists. Among these there were theologians and prelates Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, Jacques Maritain, Yves-Marie-Joseph Congar, Henri de Lubac, Jean Daniélou, Father Raimondo Spiazzi, Jean Guitton, Jean Galot, the Dominican theologians of Rome, Florence and Bologna, and Alberoni College of Piacenza to the Servant of God Father Tomas Tyn in recent years. Unfortunately,, their work in the decades meritevolissima, not entirely ignored by the Holy See, was almost overwhelmed by the two opposing parties of Lefebvre and the modernists, the first with a short-sighted and obstinate attachment traditionalism exceeded, seconds, strong of success, with a gradual climb to positions of power in the Church, beginning with the win in Sixty journalists, youth, the laity, the lower clergy and religious and gradually going up to the conquest of the upper levels of the episcopate and in more recent years by penetrating in the same college of cardinals.
The disturbing signs of what we have had recently at the Synod of Bishops, so that the best part of the College of Cardinals, headed by cardinals Gerhard Ludwig Müller and Leonard Raymond Burke, has felt the urgency to intervene in defense of the Magisterium of the Church and the Pope, but it does not seem to have shown towards them sufficient gratitude for the valuable work undertaken by them.
Paul VI, which went the very serious task of enforcing the decrees of the Council, soon found herself in front of a difficult situation, that he himself, as it had to confess a decade after the Second, not included (5). Modernists Dutch, with incredible timeliness, already published in 1966, developed under the influence of Schillebeeckx, with the permission of Cardinal Bernard Jan Alfrink, the famous “Dutch Catechism”, published in Italy in 1969, that was a huge success. The Catechism, certainly not deprived of quality, but it has remained to this day the manifesto of modernist Church, contained numerous heresies and serious doctrinal deficiencies, Paul VI was compelled to correct by a special commission of cardinals in 1968. Evidently this catechism was the implementation of a great secret plan already drawn up during the years of the Second, during which many experts guidance modernist cunningly concealed and unfairly their heresies under a correct external behavior, indeed sometimes giving a contribution doctrinal commendable during the work of the Council. Their disease in them remained in incubation and then came clearly to light only since the years of the immediate post council (6). Meanwhile he was gaining more and more support the thought of Karl Rahner, which had been one of the most influential experts of the Council, adviser to Cardinal Franz König. Rahner on the principle of identity of being with being thought, that confuses being as such with the divine being.
This pantheistic view the human being is reduced to the divine; the divine (the “grace”) enters into the definition of the human, but retaining a historical aspect (“man is transcendence and history”), relativized the concept of human nature, human knowledge and the natural law, the Hegelian model, while the divine being is essentially human. Christ then is the divine summit of man and God is necessarily Christ. Hence the pantheistic confusion of grace with God, understood as constitutive of man. Every man is essentially and necessarily in grace. It can neither be bought nor lost. Sin does not take away the grace but cancels itself, because it is inconsistent. Christ saves not as redeemer (mythical concept), but as a factor of the passage of man to God and God becoming man. Faith is not doctrine or conceptual knowledge, but encounter with God, self-awareness and experience of God pre-conceptual and athematic (Anticipation). It involves on the level of a fundamental option for God, act of supreme freedom, for which everyone is saved regardless of the acts categorical, Empirical and finished, own free will, cognitive and moral, good or bad, that arise in terms of changing history and its. Hence the relativity and mutability of the dogma, inevitably uncertain and fallible, unlike the experience of faith still saving, that experience is the becoming of God in history.
With the emergence of these ideas Rahner, line of this Catechism Dutch, even character-Enlightenment rationalist, assumed an accent clearly pantheistic Hegel-Heidegger in “Foundations of Faith” ie Rahner, published in Germany in 1976 and in Italy in 1977. This time no commission of cardinals had the courage and wisdom to condemn this pseudo-catechism (7), worse than the previous. Modernists, become increasingly powerful, began to silence the Holy See itself. In fact, Paul VI did not take any measure. There was no authoritative refutation by some members of the Holy See or theologian in sight. Even the CDF, led by Cardinal Seper, did nothing. Rahner was too afraid. To tell the truth, the serious mistake pastoral of the Holy See was in my opinion to let prevent the Dutch Catechism, forgetting the providential and timely care of the Church of the Reformation Tridentine, which, immediately after the Council of Trent and almost as his final document and summary, published the famous and useful Catechism of Trent, which basically is still valuable.
Paul VI, in the course of his pontificate, proposed us or by themselves or through the CDF considerable body of doctrine, that in addition to developing the doctrines of the Council, also refutes the false interpretations and sentencing errors arising, but has never been able to tackle head and explicitly the problem of rahnerismo. Indeed Rahner appointed member of the International Theological Commission, from which shortly after, disappointed because you could see rejected his ideas, he came up with annoyed tone and arrogant accusing her of conservatism. Paul VI with many essays and acute interventions against secularism, the spirit of dispute, the immanentismo, the antropocentrismo, false carismatismo, Liberalism, false news, dogmatic relativism and evolutionism, the desecration of the liturgy, laxity and moral subjectivism, he shot several times towards the target, but without center it never completely, so i rahneriani, with the audacity and hypocrisy that characterizes them, have always felt safe and allowed to continue in their ideas and in their costumes.
The 1974 could perhaps be an opportunity to solve the problem of rahnerismo with good condemnation of his mistakes and the indication of the true path of renewal and progress of theology. But unfortunately Paul VI also lost this opportunity, which was given by a major conference on St. Thomas Aquinas in the seventh centenary of the death, organized by the Dominicans, which had the support of well 1500 Scholars from around the world. For this occasion clearly emerged on the world scene International Theological the great figure of the most learned and wise Father Cornelio Fabro, who elaborated (8) the design of the beautiful letter “Light Church” Pope Father Vincent de Couesnongle, Master of the Order of Preachers, dedicated to recommend, with a wealth of suitable topics, the studio, the deepening and spreading of the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as its use for the comparison with modern culture, in accordance with the provisions of the Second (9).
In the same year 1974 Fabro published The anthropological turn of Karl Rahner (10), an investigation of the roots acute epistemological and metaphysical thought of Rahner, powerful one studio, in which the theologian Stigmatine demonstrated irrefutably, texts at hand, making use of his exceptional knowledge and of St. Thomas and of German, the abominable although fascinating imposture with which Rahner, falsifying the same texts Thomistic, claimed submit Aquinas, Doctor of the church, as conforming to Hegel, whose idealism has been repeatedly condemned by the Church. What clearer tacit message sent to Paul VI of the absolute necessity not to keep your feet on two brackets, but the fact that the statement of the truth can not fail to result in the condemnation of error and in this case the clear and unequivocal statement that the renewal and progress of theology ordered by the council did not have to move from Rahner but by St. Thomas? But nothing came from Paul VI. The opposition of good theologians not discouraged. Aware of their responsibility towards the souls and loyal to their duty of fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church, continued to report dangerous errors Rahner, although unfortunately, as was to be expected, the rahnerismo not backward, and indeed strengthened to date. The history of this terrible struggle within the Church I briefly told in my book on Rahner (11), that must be updated for example with the persecution made to the Franciscans of the Immaculate, in which it is not difficult to see the revenge of rahneriani for international theological Congress antirahneriano the Franciscan 2007 (12).
With the election of St. John Paul II had the impression that the papacy was able to take the situation in hand. The Pope in 1981 replaced as head of the CDF, Cardinal Seper with the great theologian Joseph Ratzinger, and an immediate result you began to notice a more decisive stance against errors Schillebeeckx and condemnation of the errors of liberation theology. Ratzinger was able to hit some followers of Rahner, but the same Rahner, who died in 1984, remained untouched. The rich teaching of John Paul II undoubtedly corrected many errors Rahner, but he did so only allusive and generic, merely expose sound doctrine, without going into the merits of the questions accurately, how does the good doctor who takes an accurate and precise disease, in order to affix the appropriate remedy.
Large enterprise of the Pope was the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992. Although this undoubtedly was indirectly a robust antidote errors Rahner, though of course he could not be appointed. Interesting how then Pope Benedict XVI pointed to the Catechism as a criterion to discern the errors of theologians. The Pope would have had two great chances to tackle head, once and for all, the vexed question and gangrenous: le due Encicliche great Splendor del 1993 e Fides et Ratio del 1998. Only in the first there is a hint to the distinction Rahner, without that Rahner is appointed, between “transcendental” and “categorical”, which is expressed in moral in '”fundamental option” and in “acts categorical”. Thus, still in the years 2004-2005, the year before the death of the Pope, the struggle between rahneriani and antirahnriani revived to great: with a congress of opponents in Germany 2004 (13), which followed, almost polemical response, a conference in his favor at the Lateran University, during which the only voice that was heard in strong opposition was Monsignor Antonio Livi.
Undoubtedly there is to be horrified to see the success of Rahner, if he was celebrated in the most prestigious of Roman Pontifical Universities. It is the sign of a dramatic situation, that more and more urgently asking to be healed, especially considering the disastrous consequences of the ideas of Rahner in the field of morality and ecclesial life. In this climate of heated battle and I thank the Lord I'm amazed how with the permission of my superiors, which also are grateful, I could publish my book on Rahner, which has had some success, although I refer the deaf war that rahneriani make him and the contempt of which the cover. Yet I am always here, ready to correct any errors of interpretation and reasons and listen to his defense. But no one shows up.
Benedict XVI, the acute critic of Rahner, ascended to the papacy, where he would have all the expertise, intelligence, the authority and the power to act for the solution of the grave problem, he unfortunately did nothing and probably for those few suggestive interventions that did, has brought upon the ire of rahneriani, that led him to abdicate and then to give up the Petrine ministry. The encyclical Light of Faith Pope Francis, completion of that begun by Benedict, repeats cliches and completely ignores the issue. Today the problem is therefore still open. Pope Francis never speaks of Rahner. But do not believe that is the best solution. Rahner is well-known and followed. His serious errors, who continue to give, have been demonstrated for fifty years from a huge array of scholars and the Magisterium of the Church in the past fifty years, in the condemnation of many mistakes, still glimpse the shadow left of rahnerismo, not absent, for example, in the current gooder emerged even at the last synod of bishops. It is not, therefore, come the time to “put on, as they say, the tables”? Why pretend to ignore what everyone knows? There are still some stragglers self-styled progressives who have not yet figured out where it comes from evil? If it is as clear as it is clear its origin and nature, moreover, given that there are remedies, why not acknowledge it frankly a good time and decided to treat him, having regard to its harmful consequences, after a diagnosis precise and detailed? Maybe that evil shall go alone?
Fontanellato, 21 November 2014
Entrance Sunday of Advent
The authors of the Island of Patmos promote the protection of the heritage of good singing and Latin liturgical
1. It is said that Don Giuseppe Dossetti claimed that “the council had made him”. Not to mention the fire that have become part of the mainstream press on the part played by secularist Rahner at the Council.
2. German edition Erick Wewel Verlag, Munich 1982, French edition Téqui, Paris 1985.
3. Letter to the venerable prelates Conferences, in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, The documents of the Second Vatican Council from the moment of the completion of the second (1966-1985), Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1985.
4. The crisis of truth and the Second Vatican Council, Po Institute of Graphic Arts, Rovigo 1983.
5. “We expected a new spring, and came a storm”.
6. Wrong, therefore, those historians, as De Mattei, who argue, on line Lefebvre, that these experts would give an address at the Council modernist. And’ possible, indeed it is likely that some modernist theses have emerged during the debates, which greatly worried Paul VI, but they then disappeared at the time of the final documents. So too is the wrong interpretation of the Council given by the School of Bologna, for which it should be, in official documents, track one “spirit” l’ “event” that goes beyond the letter retrivamente conservative , and that does not consist merely in his modernist ideas. It is also wrong to see the card.Kasper in the Council of “contradictions” “unresolved tensions” between elements fissisti and traditional exceeded and”new”, evolving, that is no more than that modernism, for which he sympathizes. The valuable contribution given by the Council in collaboration with Rahner Ratzinger is illustrated by Peter Paul Saldanha in his work as Revelation “self-communication of God”, The Urbaniana University Press, Rome 2005.
7. Rahner himself did not have the nerve to call him “catechism”, but in practice it is evident that it intends to propose an initiation into the faith nonetheless affected by Gnosticism Protestant and antithetical to the Catholic.
8. Me personally communicated in confidence.
9. Training, 16 the most serious of education, 10.
10. Rusconi editions, Milan.
11. Karl Rahner. The Second betrayed, Editions Faith&Culture, Verona 2009, II and.
12. These have been published in Karl Rahner. A critical analysis, edited by Father Serafino Lanzetta, Published By Cantagalli, Siena, 2009.
13. These have been published in Karl Rahner. Critical approximations, edited by David Berger, Publisher Franz Schmitt, Siegbug 2004