Church and World
Letter from Fr. Morgan, District Superior of Great Britain
My dear Brethren,
I recently received a dossier from the Anglican Church Commissioners containing some 180 representations opposing our application to purchase the redundant Church of St. George in Gorton, Manchester. The representations in question, from politicians, religious and civic groups, a number of individuals, generally expressed objections which I have tried to summarise in my letter of reply, which I include here for your interest and commend to your prayers:
Dear Sir,
Further to your letter of the 5th June 2009, I am happy to submit the following comments for the consideration of the Church Buildings (Uses and Disposals) Committee. With regard to the Society’s application to purchase the redundant church of St. George in Gorton, Manchester, a certain amount of opposition has been voiced based upon a number of misrepresentations. The aim of this letter is to summarise and to answer those same misrepresentations which have deflected attention from our bona fide application to acquire and restore this fine Edwardian Gothic church as a place for Christian worship
OBJECTION 1: “SSPX is anti-Semitic”
The phrase “anti-Semitic” is vague to say the least, but taken as ‘hatred for the Jews because of their race’ is something abhorrent to any Catholic. Our Lord and His Holy Mother were of the Jewish people, as were the Apostles. The Society rejects entirely the accusation that it hates Jews. The fundamental law of Christian charity is to love God above all things and to love one’s neighbour as oneself, regardless of ethnic background or skin colour.
In this country our congregations are from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds, including those of Jewish race. Also amongst the priests of the Society we are happy to have several priests who are also of Jewish stock. On a personal level, my own family took in Jews from occupied Holland during the Second World War. The Society’s church in Gateshead is in the centre of a Jewish district and we enjoy cordial and peaceful relations with the neighbouring community, and this has been commented upon favourably by the local police!
Obviously the Catholic religion differs with the Jewish religion, and fundamentally so with regard to the recognition of the Messiah in the Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But to have different and indeed opposing beliefs in no ways constitutes hatred for the people who hold these beliefs.
Similarly, to question the political agenda of the Jews in Israel or elsewhere cannot be termed “anti-Semitic,” otherwise the Ultra Orthodox Jews, who oppose the foundation of the State of Israel, would themselves deserve this description!
OBJECTION 2:“SSPX would cause division if it came to Manchester”
The Society has had a church in Manchester for 20 years and has never once been accused of causing civil unrest or disturbing the peace, let alone presenting a danger to the fabric of society! Such scare-mongering is entirely gratuitous and is unworthy of local community leaders.
Regrettably the claims of Manchester being a tolerant, just and harmonious city sound rather hollow in the context of the Society’s denunciation here by various groups and individuals. Our ordinary, churchgoing faithful are now the ones feeling harassed by the media-generated campaign to discredit us and our work.
OBJECTION 3 : “Bishop Williamson should not be allowed to purchase a church in Manchester”
There was never question of Bishop Williamson’s purchasing the church in Gorton. The Society’s formal offer for the church was made via an estate-agent months before the media storm surrounding Bishop Williamson’s regrettable remarks on Swedish Television. The Society’s Superior General has distanced himself from the private “revisionist” opinions voiced by Bishop Wiliamson, then sensationalised by the media around the word, and consequently it is entirely unjust that the Society as a whole be criminalised for some unguarded comments in this much-vaunted age of “freedom of speech”!
OBJECTION 4 : “Rome does not approve of the SSPX so neither should Manchester”
The Society of Saint Pius X was founded with ecclesiastical approval in 1970 for the maintenance of Catholic Tradition. In recent times Pope Benedict XVI has manifested good-will towards “Traditional Catholics” by allowing the universal celebration of the Traditional Mass, by lifting alleged censures affecting the Society’s four bishops, and by inviting the Society to talk with the Vatican on doctrinal issues in relation to Vatican II.
Consequently it is somewhat ironic that, in the name of good “ecumenical relations,” the Catholic diocese of Salford and the Anglican diocese of Manchester have both expressed their opposition to our purchasing a more suitable church in Manchester.
In light of the above clarifications, I would again appeal to the Church Commissioners to consider our application based upon its merits as opposed to the manipulations of “public opinion”. I enclose a petition of several hundred names, all collected in just one day, in support of our application, and my colleagues and I look forward to the opportunity of speaking further on this matter at the Church Buildings Committee meeting on 15th July 2009.
Yours sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Paul Morgan
Superior SSPX-GB
(District Newsletter, July 2009)
Another Letter from Fr. Morgan
My dear Brethren,
Given recent media reports many of you will have heard by now of the Church of England Commissioners’ decision to reject our application to purchase a disused church in Manchester following an official meeting held on 15th July in Church House, Westminster. The two reasons given for this refusal were firstly because the application was not of a local nature(!), and secondly because of a possible negative impact on local community relations. A full report has yet to be published.
The (Anglican) Church Buildings Committee was composed of Church Commissioners, ecclesiastics, lawyers and other officials, a total of some 15 individuals. Parties against and for the proposed scheme were able to speak before the committee. Two officials from the Anglican Diocese of Manchester spoke against the draft “Pastoral Scheme” allowing us to acquire the property, as did a representative of the Jewish community in his capacity as vice-chairman of the Council of Christian Jews (Manchester Branch). Speaking in favour of the scheme was myself and Mrs Beryl Hartley, one of the faithful from our Manchester congregation, who delivered a courageous and comprehensive refutation of the accusations levied against us.
Following each party’s intervention against and for the scheme (in that order), committee members then presented questions, and in my own case these ranged from enquiries about Bishop Williamson to issues regarding Vatican II, the Ecclesia Dei Commission’s new place under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the forthcoming doctrinal discussions between Rome and the Society.
Of particular interest was the statement made by the Jewish spokesman who opposed the sale, not primarily for reasons to do with revisionist history and the Holocaust question, but rather because of the Society’s opposition to Vatican II and specifically the conciliar decree on Non-Christian religions, Nostra Aetate. Furthermore he went on to say that the Jewish community could not be at peace or live without fear as long as the Society of Saint Pius X remained in this country! In turn I was able to express my protest at these intolerant and inflammatory words which smacked of that same language of persecution which the Jews themselves denounce so whole-heartedly when it concerns them. Had I been the one to utter such a threat doubtless I would have been arrested on the spot for hate crimes...
The obvious question which presents itself is why the Jewish community is purportedly so concerned about the Second Vatican Council and the Society’s opposition to the conciliar errors.
To answer this we must understand that the Jewish lobby was highly instrumental in the composition of Nostra Aetate, and had, particularly since the Second World War, sought to “purify” the Church of its ‘inherent anti-Semitism’ which, it continues to claim, stems from the Gospels and the early Fathers!
The leading spokesman of the influential Jewish lobby was one Jules Isaac who said that Auschwitz was the logical outcome of Christianity because the Church’s traditional teaching–that the Jews were guilty of Deicide–necessarily [led to] persecution against the Jewish people. With impunity he wrote large works in which he described “the Evangelists as liars, the Fathers and the great saints of the Church as scurrilous pamphleteers, perverters of the truth and torturers, and in which he called upon the Church to recognise, abjure and make amends for her criminal wrongs towards the Jews.” Finding a sympathetic ally in the person of Cardinal Bea and the Secretariat for Christian Unity, secret negotiations took place between the Cardinal and the leaders of great American Jewish organisations, and in particular the B’nai B’rith (Jewish Freemasonry), in order to influence the Council into issuing a decree aimed at rehabilitating Judaism.
Whilst the text of the draft decree as introduced in 1964 was not ratified by the pope, and was subsequently modified when it went to the vote in October 1965 so as to include the other main “world religions,” it minimised the part played by the Jews in Our Lord’s Passion and Death by absolving the Jewish people of any responsibility for the decision of their leaders, whilst inferring that the Church herself was somehow responsible for anti-Semitism over the course of time. Taken as a whole, the document gave rise to a spirit of indifferentism towards the true religion and the whole supernatural order.
In spite of some 250 bishops at the Council voting against the decree, the large majority–1,763 bishops–supported it, and immediately newspapers ran such headlines as, “Jews Not Guilty”, or “Jews Exonerated in Rome.”
It is said that the Council’s acceptance of the decree was due to many bishops’ being ignorant of the part played by Jules Isaac and the powerful Jewish lobby, as well as to their ignorance regarding the wider Jewish question.
When the Society comes to discuss this particular decree with Rome, albeit initially away from the public gaze, one wonders if there might be an even greater furor than there was in January of this year following the infamous Swedish interview...
Wishing you every grace and blessing through Mary Assumed into Heaven,
Fr. Paul Morgan
(District Newsletter, Aug. 2009)
Indulgences for the Year of the Priest
In a Decree published on May 12, 2009, the Major Penitentiary, James Francis Cardinal Stafford, “in express conformity with the wishes of the Supreme Pontiff,” granted the following indulgences, valid between June 19, 2009, and June 19, 2010:
Plenary Indulgence for Priests
Every priest who devoutly recites at least Lauds or Vespers in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament (exposed or reposed in the tabernacle) and offers himself with a ready and generous heart for the celebration of the Sacraments–especially the Sacrament of Penance–after the example of St. John Mary Vianney, may gain the plenary indulgence under the usual conditions. This indulgence may also be applied to the souls of deceased priests.
Plenary Indulgence for the Faithful
On June 19, 2009, and June 19, 2010, as well as on August 4, 2009 (the sesquicentennial of St. John Vianney’s death), and on the first Thursday of each month (or any other day established by the local Ordinary for the benefit of the faithful), any of the faithful may gain the plenary indulgence under the usual conditions, if, in any church or chapel, they “devoutly attend the divine Sacrifice of the Mass and offer prayers and any other good works which they have done on that day to Jesus Christ the Eternal High Priest, for the priests of the Church, so that He may sanctify them and form them in accordance with His Heart.”
Special provision is made for the home-bound: “The elderly, the sick, and all those who for any legitimate reason are confined to their homes” may gain the same indulgence, provided that “on the above-mentioned days they recite prayers for the sanctification of priests and confidently offer the illnesses and hardships of their lives to God through Mary, Queen of Apostles,” and that they have the intention of fulfilling the usual conditions as soon as possible, at home or wherever their impediment detains them.
Partial Indulgence for Priests
All priests may gain a partial indulgence every time they “devoutly recite the duly-approved prayers to lead a holy life and to carry out in a holy manner the offices entrusted to them.” This indulgence may also be applied to the souls of deceased priests.
Partial Indulgence for the Faithful
All of the faithful may gain a partial indulgence every time they “devoutly recite five Our Fathers, Hail Marys, and Glorias, or other expressly approved prayers, in honor of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, that priests be preserved in purity and holiness of life.”
(DICI, No.196, June 2009)
Thirteen New Ordinations
On June 19, the Feast of the Sacred Heart, 13 new priests–including two Benedictines and one Dominican–were ordained by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais at the Seminary of Winona in the US. On June 27, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta ordained three new priests at the seminary of Zaitzkofen in Germany; and Bishop Bernard Fellay ordained seven priests for the SSPX and one Capuchin friar in Ecône on June 29. At the end of the year, two priests are due to be ordained at the seminary of Goulburn in Australia, and four at La Reja in Argentina. And one more priest might be ordained in Zaitzkofen, thus bringing to 27 the number of priests ordained this year for the SSPX, versus 16 last year.
German bishops, and more specially Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller of Regensburg, the diocese in which the seminary of Zaitzkofen is located, and Bishop Heinz Josef Algermissen of Fulda, wrote to the pope to ask him how they should react to these ordinations, which they considered as a provocation. Bishop Robert Zollisch, President of the German Bishops’ Conference, even spoke of “an affront to the unity of the Church.”
Bishop Mülller had warned that, as long as the issue of the canonical status of the SSPX had not been resolved, ordinations were not authorized and were consequently liable to disciplinary penalties. “Our bishop is expecting an advice from Rome concerning the response to be made,” declared Jakob Schotz, a diocesan spokesman at the end of June. “But he feels quasi certain that it will end with excommunications against the priests and the bishop who ordains them.” Bishop Müller even went to Rome to advocate his viewpoint.
In a declaration dated June 13, Fr. Stephan Frey, superior of the seminary of Zaitzkofen, expounded on the state of necessity in which the Church in Europe finds itself today:
“An emergency requires and justifies corresponding emergency measures. Is there an emergency in the Church today? We refer to an appendix attached to this declaration, in which representative statements from popes, cardinals, bishops, and theologians are documented. Pope Paul VI, for example, speaks of the ‘self-destruction of the Church,’ Pope John Paul II speaks of ‘silent apostasy.’ Additionally we give two numerical examples: In 1950 in Germany, 13 million Catholics regularly attended Sunday Mass. Today it is less than 2 million–a reduction of more than 85 percent. The number of priestly ordinations in German dioceses in 2008 reached a record low of less than 100.
“It is a question of the existence or the dissolution of Christianity in Europe. Should the ordination of these new priests, who have been formed on the solid foundations of Catholic tradition and who are so necessary for the survival of the Church, be postponed? Instead, as true vocations become more and more uncommon, should we not, with great devotion, thank God for the grace of such vocations? There can be no talk of an insult to the unity of the Church and most certainly not of a rebuff of the outstretched hand of the Holy Father, for whom we pray daily.”
For Bishop Müller–who said so to KNA agency–“the state of emergency” does not exist in any way, objectively speaking. According to him there is no oppression of the Church coming from the outside, as could have been the case in Czechoslovakia in the days of the Iron Curtain. Besides, it would not belong to the SSPX to define such a state of emergency if it existed. With genuine or feigned candor, the bishop of Regensburg takes into account persecution only as coming from exterior enemies, such as the communists during the Cold War. But Paul VI, who was hardly to be suspected of excessive traditionalism, spoke of self-destruction, which means that there are destructive agents in the very bosom of the Church.
Our Comment
A year ago, an interview was published in which the superior general of the SSPX clearly declared: “If the decree of excommunication is withdrawn, it becomes possible to make the experiment of Tradition according to the wish of Archbishop Lefebvre. Namely, it will be possible to judge the fruits of Tradition at last ‘de-diabolized.’ I do mean that Tradition should be judged upon its ‘fruits,’ i.e., its results and not upon the infamous labels too easily given it.”
To put it in a nutshell, the bishops do not want a de facto exemption which would enable us to “make the experiment of Tradition”! If they are usingagain the old defamatory labels–more and more outdated–it is because they fear that the young priests ordained in 2009, in their ministry with souls, will provide the opportunity to judge the tree of Tradition upon its fruits.
(DICI, No.198, July 2009)
Pope Benedict Laicizes Priest Connected to Alleged Medjugorje Apparitions
Pope Benedict XVI has approved the laicization of Fr. Tomislav Vlasic, a priest leading the claims that the Virgin Mary has been appearing in the Bosnian town of Medjugorje. The priest has reportedly decided to leave the priesthood and his religious order.
The action follows an investigation into concerns surrounding the alleged apparitions, the Mail Online reports.
When the apparitions allegedly began in 1981, Fr. Vlasic was named as the “creator” of the phenomenon by the local Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, Pavao Zanic.
Fr. Vlasic became the “spiritual advisor” of the six children involved in the supposed apparitions. The children now say that the Virgin Mary has visited them 40,000 times over the last 28 years.
On January 25, 2008, Fr. Vlasic was suspended by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
An inquiry was made into allegations that he exaggerated stories of the Virgin Mary’s appearance, taught “dubious doctrine,” manipulated consciences, engaged in “suspect mysticism,” and disobeyed legitimately issued orders. He was also investigated for sexual immorality after he allegedly made a nun pregnant, the Daily Mail says: “Fr. Vlasic was sent to a monastery in Lombardy, Italy, and was forbidden to communicate with anyone without the permission of his superior. He was also required to take a course of theological-spiritual formation and make a solemn profession of faith.”
On Sunday it emerged that Fr. Vlasic has chosen to leave the priesthood and his religious order.
Pope Benedict approved of his laicization in March, thus removing his priestly status.
According to the Daily Mail, several of the alleged Medjugorje seers now live in wealthy conditions and own expensive cars. One seer, Ivan Dragicevic, has married a former American beauty pageant queen.
The shrine at Medjugorje has attracted an estimated 30 million pilgrims. Millions of Catholics hope the Vatican will one day legitimize the alleged apparitions.
(Catholic News Agency, July 27, 2009)
“The New Priests”
The novel Les Nouveaux Prêtres (The New Priests), published by French author Michel de Saint-Pierre in 1964, describes the new generation of clerics who, at the height of the conciliar storm, “identified opening to the world with a conversion to secularization,” according to the recent and belated admission made by Archbishop Jean-Louis Bruguès, Secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education. To open the Church to the world, as John XXIII wished, was it not to expose it to the danger of espousing its spirit?
What are the results of this conversion today? Before the Council, in 1956, 825 priests were ordained in France; 12 years after the end of the Council, in 1977, 99 were ordained for all of France. During the pontificate of John-Paul II, the annual average number of ordinations was between 100 and 140. Since 2004, this average number has often been less than 100 ordinations per year. There remain 15,000 diocesan priests in France; only 10% of them are less than 45 years old. The average age of the remaining priests in many dioceses is around 75 years old. Such is secularization in progress!
The Year for Priests which Benedict XVI has just opened is placed under the patronage of the Curé of Ars. The French daily La Croix merely considers him as “a 19th-century country priest, whose popular fervor advocated the spirit of sacrifice and the fight against the devil,” and wonders: “What can the example of John Marie Vianney and his figure of a typical Council of Trent priest bring us? How can young priests draw from him answers to the challenges of today’s urbanized and secularized society?” The answer of the Curé of Ars is the same as that already given by St. Paul to the Romans (12:2): nolite conformari huic sæculo, “be not conformed to this world,” if you wish to transform it under the action of divine grace.
(DICI, No.198, July 2009)
Roma Aeterna: Between Extreme Solutions
“In order to remain truly within the Church,” Archbishop Lefebvre used to say, “one must be able to make the necessary distinctions in order to stay on the sure path.” Presented with so many contradictions between faith and obedience over the last 40 years, faithful Catholics have had to learn to make distinctions in order to persevere in their fight against modernism and for the salvation of souls. And yet, our critics object, is not this need to make distinctions merely self-delusion and blind stubbornness, a spirit which will rather lead us off the sure path, and into schism and heresy?
No, it is none of these things. Though we are today habitually ready to disobey the modernist authorities in order to keep the Faith, the spontaneity of our reactions proceeds not from a lack of Catholic spirit, but from a well-formed Sensus Fidei–a sense of what truly is Catholic–which is ever on red alert thanks to the bitter experience of the last 40 years. Our wariness of whatever comes from the recent popes and bishops is no knee-jerk reaction. It proceeds not from the spirit of schism and heresy, but from its very opposite, the spirit of Eternal Rome and of St. Thomas Aquinas, the spirit which informs the mind of the Catholic Church: “Prove all things: hold fast that which is good.”1
It is this Catholic spirit which helped the Archbishop keep the Faith in the post-conciliar pandemonium. In remaining objective in the face of so much subjectivity, we are not thereby succumbing to the spirit of private judgment. We are doing so because the Catholic Faith is objective truth, revealed by God and kept by grace. And in holding fast to Tradition, we are not defending some party line at all costs, but seeking to do justice to that objective truth.
It is this spirit of distinction which keeps us moored at all times to reality. Part of reality is that Benedict XVI is the Pope. He has freed the Mass of All Time and confirmed that it was “never abrogated.” He has taken a number of initiatives to restore the sense of the sacred to the liturgy, as well as other small steps in the traditional direction, most of them related somehow to the liturgy. He has lifted the excommunications–invalid in our eyes–inflicted on the SSPX bishops in 1988, and, even though he has done this for ecumenical reasons, he has thereby accomplished an act of justice. All these things are in harmony with our Faith and the objective spirit of judgment it creates within us, a spirit wholly different to the private judgment of Protestantism, and so we agree with them.
But it is this same Pope Benedict XVI–and not merely his predecessor–that patently believes it consistent with being the Vicar of Christ to enter a mosque (in 2006), remove his shoes, and pray in this temple of a false religion, notwithstanding the confusion and scandal that this has brought. He believes that the teaching of the “distinction between Church and State” as understood by Vatican II is “a great progress of humanity,” despite the break it represents with Tradition.2 He clearly believes that his work as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 to 2005 can be reconciled with Catholic truth, for he has not reversed any of the questionable decisions which he issued in that capacity even in recent years: the rehabilitation (2001) of the thought (and not merely the personal virtues) of Antonio Rosmini, whose beatification he approved in 2007;3 the declaration of the validity of an anaphora (or canon) used by the oriental Nestorians which does not contain the words of consecration;4 his justification in 2000 (albeit nuanced) for referring to the schismatic Orthodox groups as “Sister-Churches”;5 his essential approbation (and more recent praise as Pope) of the Joint Declaration on Justification with Lutherans in Augsburg, Germany, in 1999.6
Then there is his approval–now as Pope–of the International Theological Commission’s document “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptised,”7 his constant encouragement of the charismatic movement (which tries unsuccessfully to reconcile the errors of Protestant Pentecostalism with the Faith), and his recent praise (2008) for the Ravenna Document, an exploration by Catholic and schismatic Orthodox theologians of a way in which the papacy might become less of an obstacle to ecumenism.8
In every instance faithful Catholics sense a contradiction with what the Church has always taught. Not private judgment, but Faith–that supernatural gift of God which enables us to believe without doubting whatever He has revealed–has brought us to this conclusion in each case, and there is thus a difficult contradiction to resolve. Those whose message is simpler seem to have it easier. It is less complicated to turn a blind eye to the contradiction by saying, for example, “Benedict XVI is the Pope, and therefore everything’s OK.” Similarly, one could avoid having to resolve it by proclaiming that “All of these things are bad, but that’s OK since Benedict XVI is not really the pope.” But neither approach is faithful to reality, and, simple though these messages may be, sooner or later they lead to still greater contradictions. Then one has either to make new distinctions or to resist the known truth.
And so we make all the distinctions necessary to prove that Pope Benedict can be infallible (and that he might well one day use that infallibility), and yet not to deny that his words and deeds cause great harm to souls. This is not as simple at first glance as the conservative or sedevacantist positions, but it does square up with reality and the teaching of the Church. And by making such distinctions we do not have to live in a permanent contradiction.
But once we have been forced to make a distinction and choose faith over obedience, then it is not up to us to resolve these contradictions either. Clearly it is up to the Magisterium, and more specifically to the Pope himself, ultimately to resolve this crisis. Our role lies in the clear, uncompromising confession and handing down of what is certain, the Catholic Faith, and in drawing to the attention of the Holy Father and the hierarchy the contradictions that they have created to it and which they must resolve. In this we are truly the greatest supporters of the papacy, in which we fully–though unfashionably–believe, and the greatest enemies of the modern errors and doubts which have seen it paralysed and subdued. In making such a stand, as the Archbishop declared in 1974, “we are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.”
And never has it been more imperative for us not to yield through weariness of the fight to the temptation of a purely diplomatic solution to our anomalous situation than at the present moment, when the Pope himself has declared, in his letter of 10 March, that in our regard “the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature.” It is now no longer possible even for those who wish to practise blind obedience to the unproblematic pope they have created in their imaginations to deny that it is doctrine, and not merely the permission to say the Mass that is the crux of the matter. And so the work is beginning, perhaps long and difficult, whereby the voice of Tradition will be heard again in Rome, and the doctrinal nature of the crisis will have to be resolved by Rome itself. Each one of us must accompany that theological labour by unwavering fidelity to the truth and humble perseverance in our crusade of prayer. We do not know how long it will take, but we do have Our Lord’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, and Our Lady’s promise that in the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph.
1 I Thessalonians 5:21.
2 Address during his visit to the Italian Embassy to the Holy See on 13/12/08. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081213_autorita-ambasciata_en.html.
3 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010701_rosmini_en.html.
4 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html.
5 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html.
6 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html.
7 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html.
8 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html.
Current Issue
