Newsletter of the District of Asia

 April - December 2008

On the Authority of the Second Vatican Council:
Infallible or not?

By Fr. Pierre Marie O.P.
(A slightly abridged translation of an article in Sel de la Terre, n. 35, pp.32-63)


The Thesis: It seems that the Council was indeed infallible:

Letter of Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre, June 29, 1975

“You permit the case of St. Athanasius to be invoked in your favor. It is true that this great Bishop remained practically alone in the defense of the true faith, despite attacks from all quarters. But what precisely was involved was the defense of the faith of the recent Council of Nicea. The Council was the norm which inspired his fidelity, as also in the case of St. Ambrose. How can anyone today compare himself to St. Athanasius in daring to combat a council such as the Second Vatican Council, which has no less authority, which in certain respects is even more important than that of Nicea?”
“One must clarify first of all that Vatican II is based on the same authority as Vatican I and as the Council of Trent: that is the pope and the college of bishops in communion with him. Concerning the content, we must also recall that Vatican II falls in close continuity with the two previous Councils and that it re-iterates them on certain decisive points. (…) It is impossible to side ‘for’ the Council of Trent and Vatican I and ‘against’ Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II, denies the authority which upholds the other two Councils and abolishes it in its very principle. [This applies also for what is called ‘traditionalism’, in its extreme forms.] Here, any partisan choice destroys the whole, [the very history of the Church], which can only exist as an undivided unity.”

(French edition, 1985, pp. 28-29 with the following remark: “Words … in brackets have been added on the manuscript of the present book.” in Sel de la Terre, n. 35, p.33)

However these two texts are private texts, not acts of the Magisterium

Further objection: But, an ecumenical Council gathering the pope and all the bishops of the world is infallible, according to Vatican I:

“By Divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in Tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal Magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed.” DzS 3011

Therefore, Vatican II must be infallible.

Arguments against the Thesis:

A. Official Texts stating that Vatican II is a pastoral Council, therefore not an infallible one.

1. Popes and Cardinals : their intention is clear before, during and after the Council

a) John XXIII, Opening Address, Oct. 11, 1962
“The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. [...] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.”
(Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)

b) Paul VI, Sept. 29, 1963, Discourse at the Opening of the Second Session (He quotes many passages of, thus confirming, John XXIII’s Opening Discourse) “But while stressing in that manner the higher goal of the Council, you have join to it another more urgent goal and actually of a more beneficial nature, a pastoral one, declaring: ‘The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church’, but rather that this doctrine ‘be deepened and exposed in a manner corresponding to the needs of our time.’ (In Sel de la Terre, n. 35, p. 35)

c) Paul VI, Sept. 9, 1963 Letter to Cardinal Tisserant, Dean of the Sacred College and Member of the College of the Presidents of the Council. “When revising the schemas, we were careful to highlight the pastoral character of this Council. It is indeed necessary that the certain and immutable doctrine of the faith, which has been declared or defined by the supreme magisterium of the Church and by the previous Ecumenical Councils, especially the Council of Trent and the First Council of the Vatican, and to which we must faithfully submit ourselves, be exposed in a manner that corresponds to our time, and that today’s men have an easier access to the truths which must be embrassed and to the salvation to be received which Christ has obtained for us.” (In Sel de la Terre, n. 35, p. 36)

d) Cardinal Tisserant, Sept. 9, 1964, from Acta Synodalia

“We must also restate that this ecumenical Council, as the sovereign pontiff John XXIII has stated many times, has no intention to pronounce itself on new doctrinal issues; but its specific goal consists in giving to the pastoral zeal of the Church a new boost, so that it becomes more active and more fruitful in the dioceses, in parishes and in all mission territories, and also among all religious families and lay associations.” (In Sel de la Terre, n. 35, p.36)

e) Cardinal Felici, General Secretary of the Council, Declaration of March 6,1964 and reiterated Nov. 11, 1964, Monitum. The Theological Commission of the Council made a declaration, a nota previa (preliminary note), concerning the theological note of Vatican II on March 6, 1964. Pope Paul VI had it read by the Council’s General Secretary, Pericle Cardinal Felici, who was the Prefect of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, to the Council’s members on November 16 of that year. It was intended to assure them that it was not an infallible council, before they gave their approval to the first conciliar text, that on the Church, Lumen Gentium. The declaration was published as an addendum to that text. It says that as the Council was intended to be “pastoral”, it should not be understood to be infallibly defining any matter unless it openly says so.

“In view of the Conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so. Other matters which the Sacred Synod proposes as the doctrine of the supreme teaching authority of the Church, each and every member of the faithful is obliged to accept and embrace according to the mind of the Sacred Synod itself,which becomes known either from the subject matter or from the language employed, according to the norms of theological interpretation.”

(Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 98
f) Paul VI, Dec. 7, 1965, at the last General Meeting
“Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. [...] But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not intending to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.”
(Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58)
g) Paul VI, December 8, 1965, Closing Speech of the Council
And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family. [.] We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquility and peace of all men. [.] Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.”
(Brief ‘In Spiritu Sancto’, Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 738-9)
h) Paul VI, Jan. 12, 1966, General Audience
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility but has strengthened its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary Magisterium; this ordinary and truly authentic Magisterium must be accepted with docility and sincerity by all faithful, according to the spirit of the Council, concerning the nature and the goal of each document.”
i) Paul VI, Aug. 6, 1975, General Audience
“Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.
k) Cardinal Ratzinger, July 1988, Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato
“Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onwards, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. [...] The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.”
l) Archbishop Lefebvre, Intervention during the Council, read on Dec. 1, 1962
He proposed two versions of each document, one dogmatic, one pastoral. It was opposed violently: “The Council is not a dogmatic Council, but a pastoral one; we do not want to define new dogmas, but seek to expose the truth in a pastoral way.” This proposition (which before the Council had been approved by the majority in the Preparatory Commission) was rejected.
(I Accuse the Council, Angelus Press, p.6)

m) Others

John Cardinal Heenan of England stated as follows.

“It deliberately limited its own objectives. There were to be no specific definitions. Its purpose from the first was pastoral renewal within the Church and a fresh approach to the outside.

(Council and Clergy, 1966)

Bishop Butler of England publicly spoke on the matter twice.

“Not all teachings emanating from a pope or Ecumenical Council are infallible. There is no single proposition of Vatican II - except where it is citing previous infallible definitions - which is in itself infallible.”
(The Tablet Nov. 26, 1967)

Bishop Rudolf Graber of Germany wrote as follows:

“Since the Council was aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence refrained from making dogmatically binding statements or disassociating itself, as previous Church assemblies have done, from errors and false doctrines by means of clear anathemas, many questions took on an opalescent ambivalence which provided a certain amount of justification for those who speak of the spirit of the Council.”
(Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, 1974)

B. Theological Considerations

Question: Did Vatican II not fall under one of the infallible modes of the Magisterium as defined by Pope Pius IX:

“By Divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in Tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal Magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed” DzS 3011

Solution 1. Yes: Vatican II pronounced a solemn judgment (Thesis of: Sacerdotium USA, Sub Tuum Praesidium France)

Argument: Dignitatis Humanae gave a true solemn definition of Religious Liberty (cf. nn. 1,2,9,12,15)

n.1: “This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice. To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church-the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.

n.2: The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God

n.9: What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously. (…) In particular, religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith.

n.12: In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation. Throughout the ages the Church has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received from the Master and from the apostles.

n.15: Each and every one of the things set forth in this Declaration has won the consent of the fathers of this most sacred Council. We, too, by the apostolic authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the Venerable fathers in approving, decreeing and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in Synod be published to God's glory.”

(Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 673 – 696) dignitatis-humanae_en.html (But the last part of n.15 quoted above is not online)


1. The Allocution of Paul VI on Jan. 12, 1966 (above, text 1, h) is diriment: there was no infallible definition at the Council: “it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority”.

2. Vatican II was an act of the Supreme Magisterium - of the Supreme Magisterium,for the sake of the argument, granted - in its supreme degree – no, cf Paul VI Jan. 11, 1966 (above text 1, h):”this ordinary and truly authentic Magisterium”

3. Vatican II simply exposed the doctrine, which is the act of the Ordinary Magisterium. The solemn Magisterium, in its supreme act, judges the doctrine in definitive sentences.CIC (1917)

Can 1323, 1. All these things must be believed which are contained in the written or handed down Word of God proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

2. To pronounce such a solemn judgment belongs both to the Ecumenical Council and to the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra.

3. Nothing is to be understood as declared or dogmatically defined unless it is explicitly established.

Solution 2. Yes: Vatican II was an act of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium (O.U.M.)
(Thesis of Cassiciacum)

Argument: The O.U.M. consists of the pope acting with all the bishops. Such was Vatican II. Therefore, it was infallible.


  1. 1. “Universal” also includes the element of time. Although, we must clarify that the element of time is a condition for the Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium, it is not mentioned for the whole of the bishops dispersed worldwide.
    (cf. Sel de la Terre, n. 34, pp. 47-48)

  2. There was no unanimity in the votes.

  3. However the best answer is from the efficient cause: The O.U.M. consists in fact of the whole of the episcopacy dispersed:
    DzS 1514: (The Church’s teaching on original sin) “is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere (ubique diffusa) hath always understood it.” (Council of Trent, Sess. V, n.4)
    DzS 2879: “This submission that must be manifested by the act of divine faith (…) must also be extended to what the ordinary Magisterium of the Church spread in the whole universe (per orbem dispersae) transmits as being divinely revealed.” (Pius IX to the Archb. of Munich, 1863)
    a) The reason of common sense for this element of ‘dispersion’ is that when all the bishops are gathered together there can be influences, pressures by the media, pressure groups, etc. (eg. DH was voted 6 times...),
    b) The theological reason here is that the O.U.M. is only infallible in its definitions. (eg. The Council of Florence said that the matter of Holy Orders was the tradition of the instruments (DzS 1326). If Pius XII changed that in 1947 (DzS 3858) it shows that Florence was not infallible, as not being a definition but rather a practical instruction.

  4. Another good argument, taken from the material cause: The matter of infallibility is Faith and Morals. It is not enough just to say that a doctrine is conformed to Revelation (eg. DH quoted above). The O.U.M. must teach the doctrine as an immutable teaching, necessarily linked to Divine Tradition (vs. modernists). Now it doesn't.

Solution 3. Yes: Vatican II is the Authentic Magisterium.

Argument: And to such Authentic Magisterium one owes the internal religious assent, as in CIC 1983:

“Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”


  1. It seems that the present Roman authorities attribute this kind of authority to the Council as they asked Archbishop Lefebvre to present his Dubia on religious liberty. Had it been a dogma, he would have been condemned as heretic.

  2. Since such simply Authentic Magisterium of the Church is not infallible, the assent required is not absolute, but only morally certain and conditional. However a certain respectful opposition is allowed, as St Thomas teaches on the issue of correcting one’s superior on matter of Faith: Summa Theologica 2-2, q.34, a.4, ad 2m.

Solution 4: No: Vatican II is simply the Magisterium … of Vatican II !

Argument: Vatican has an authority of its own.

  1. Gaudium et Spes 11:
    “This Council, first of all, wishes to assess in this light (of faith) those values which are most highly prized today and to relate them to their divine source. Insofar as they stem from endowments conferred by God on man, these values are exceedingly good. Yet they are often wrenched from their rightful function by the taint in man’s heart, and hence stand in need of purification.
    What does the Church think of man? What needs to be recommended for the upbuilding of contemporary society? What is the ultimate significance of human activity throughout the world? People are waiting for an answer to these questions. From the answers it will be increasingly clear that the People of God and the human race in whose midst it lives render service to each other. Thus the mission of the Church will show its religious, and by that very fact, its supremely human character.” _gaudium-et-spes_en.html

  2. Paul VI Allocution on Dec. 7, 1965
    “Secular humanism, revealing itself in its horrible anti-clerical reality has, in a certain sense, defied the Council. The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the Council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it. The attention of our Council has been absorbed by the discovery of human needs (and these needs grow in proportion to the greatness which the son of the earth claims for himself). But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the Council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind.

    (Original Latin:) Humanitatis illud laicum atque profanum studium, immani qua est magnitudine, tandem aliquando prodit, idemque ad certamen, ut ita dicamus, Concilium lacessivit. Religio, id est cultus Dei, qui homo fieri voluit, atque religio - talis enim est aestimanda - id est cultus hominis, qui fieri vult Deus, inter se congressae sunt. Quid tamen accidit? Certamen, proelium, anathema? Id sane haberi potuerat, sed plane non accidit. Vetus illa de bono Samaritano narratio excmplum fuit atque norma, ad quam Concilii nostri spiritualis ratio directa est. Etenim, immensus quidam erga homines amor Concilium penitus pervasit. Perspectae et iterum consideratae hominum necessitates, quae eo molestiores fiunt, quo magis huius terrae filius crescit, totum nostrae huius Synodi studium detinuerunt. Hanc saltem laudem Concilio tribuite, vos, nostra hac aetate cultores humanitatis, qui veritates rerum naturam transcendentes renuitis, iidemque novum nostrum humanitatis studium agnoscite: nam nos etiam, immo nos prae ceteris, hominis sumus cultores.

    And what aspect of humanity has this august senate studied? What goal under divine inspiration did it set for itself? It also dwelt upon humanity’s ever twofold facet, namely, man’s wretchedness and his greatness, his profound weakness—which is undeniable and cannot be cured by himself—and the good that survives in him which is ever marked by a hidden beauty and an invincible serenity. But one must realize that this Council, which exposed itself to human judgment, insisted very much more upon this pleasant side of man, rather than on his unpleasant one. Its attitude was very much and deliberately optimistic. A wave of affection and admiration flowed from the Council over the modern world of humanity.” (Original Latin of last sentence:) Multum enim studii atque admirationis in nostrae aetatis homines Concilium contulit.
“Vatican II was right to wish a revision of the relations between the Church and the world. Because there are some values which, although born outside the Church, may, if examined and amended, find their place in her vision. In those years, we fulfilled that duty, however the person who would think that these two realities can meet or even identify themselves without conflict would show that he doesn’t understand the Church nor the world.”
(in Sel de la Terre n. 35, p.56)


However, in Pastor Aeternus, Vatican I taught:

“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.” (DzS 3070)

And Syllabus, n. 80, condemned the following statement:

“The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”

4. Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology

“If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. [...] Let us be content to say that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.”
(Principles of Catholic Theology, 1987, pp. 381-2, Ignatius Press 1987)

5. Cardinal Ratzinger, to the Bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.
“This ‘pastoral’ Council is neither pastoral nor does it come from the Catholic Church: it doesn’t feed men and Christians with the evangelical and apostolic truth, and moreover, never has the Church spoken thus. We cannot listen to this voice because it is not the voice of the Spirit of Christ. The voice of Christ, our Shepherd, we know; this voice we ignore. It may be sheepskin, but the voice is not of the Shepherd, perhaps of the world.
Dixi. I have spoken.

(In Sel de la Terre, SiSiNoNo Congress 1996. Bishop Fellay actually quoted an intervention of Archbishop Lefebvre, (of Sept. 9, 1965 in I accuse the Council, p. 80), simply by substituting the word ‘Council’ to the original word ‘Constitution’ (ie.GS)

7. Archbishop Lefebvre

“We believe we can say, by following closely the internal and external critique of Vatican II, ie., by analyzing the texts and studying what leads to it and what flows from it, that, turning its back to Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council. The tree is judged by its fruits.”
(Interview with the Figaro, August 2, 1976, in Sel de la Terre, n. 35, p.62.)


We have examined the various opinions on the authority of the Council. The first two we reject as non probable, the third may have a certain likelihood but we prefer the fourth which sees in the Council the first act of the ‘Conciliar Church’. This ‘Conciliar Magisterium’ is not protected by Divine authority (not falling under any category of the infallible Magisterium), nor has it any human authority (by virtue of the errors which have been introduced in it subversively). Consequently, far from having any authority, it deserves the distrust of good Catholics.


Additional Text

The Modernist Magisterium
By Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

To a Living Tradition corresponds a new Magisterium, the Conciliar Magisterium.
From a spiritual conference, Ecône, January 13, 1976

(The spoken style has been kept)

Since they cannot lean on Tradition, since what they are asking is not in conformity to Tradition, then, I would say, they have established in the Church a new Magisterium, or in other words, a new conception of the Magisterium of the Church, a conception which is moreover a modernist conception. Because, as St Pius X explained beautifully in his encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis, this corresponds perfectly to the conception of a Church which is a living Church. Obviously the Church is alive, with a living Magisterium, no doubt that this Magisterium is alive, but nevertheless it cannot be a Magisterium which is in contradiction with previous teaching. It must be a clarification, an explanantion of the dogmas of faith, but not a change, like the change of something transforming itself, like a life which has substantial changes. Now this is the conception that they now have in the Church, and it is why Mgr. Benelli is asking us to be faithful to the Conciliar Church. Mr. Salleron expresses that very well. His conclusion is wonderful, his conclusion really needs to be read, it corresponds so well to reality!

“In his letter of 25/6/76 to Archbishop Lefebvre, Mgr. Benelli invokes the necessary fidelity to the Conciliar Church. Consciously or not, the use of this expression is very meaningful: a bishop no longer acts in a Christian manner by the fact that his faith is the Catholic faith and that he obeys the law of the Church. From now on, in order to be Christian, he must be faithful to the Conciliar Church. What is this fidelity? What is precisely this absolute innovation of a Conciliar Church, distinct from the Catholic Church? We are still waiting for an answer, but we notice the novelty, we notice a that a Magisterium which is getting more and more badly defined, makes its own will the supreme norm of religious life. (Louis Salleron, Itinéraires, no. 209, Jan. 1977, pp. 86-87 – Emphasis ours – Ed.).

That is capital, this last sentence is absolutely fundamental: “we notice the novelty, we notice that a Magisterium which is getting more and more badly defined, makes its own will the supreme norm of religious life.” That is precisely what we are colliding with! And it is always about this that we are told: “Obey, obey, you owe the pope obedience, and if you do not obey the pope, then you are not in the true faith; look at Vatican I.” But the Holy Father is at the service of faith, as we all are at the service of faith, because we are at the service of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The first duty of a bishop, the first duty of a pope, the first duty of a priest, is to be at the service of faith. Faith is not at his service, he cannot command faith, we cannot make up the faith, not even the pope can make up the faith. He can define certain things, which are however already in the Church, already in Tradition, he can define them, clarify them, but he cannot do with it whatever he wills, he cannot say today: “This was said yesterday, but now we say the opposite.” In matters of faith, that is not possible. (Vu de Haut, no. 13, Autumn 2006, pp.51-52)



Home | Newsletters | Library | Vocations | History | Links | Search | Contact