Triumphalism? Embarrassment? Or Remembering?

http://www.grassrootsfilms.com/clip/trailer_God_in_the_streets_large.html

Then-Joseph Ratzinger: "Corpus Christi also brings to mind the issues raised by the liturgical renewal with all its theological insights. Is it right, we had to ask ourselves, to have this annual celebraton of the Eucharist in the form of a state visit of the Lord of the world, with all the outward signs of triumphal joy? We were reminded that the Eucharist was instituted in the upper room - and somehow this must be a normative factor. The signs of bread and wine, chosen deliberately by the Lord, show that the Eucharist is meant to be received as food. Therefore the correct way of showing gratitude for the institution of the sacrament is actually to celebrate the Eucharist; here we celebrate his death and Resurrection and are built up by him into the living Church. Anything else seemed to be a misunderstanding of the Eucharist. Then we had a horror of everything that looked like triumphalism: it seemed irreconcilable with the Christian awarenes of sin and with the tragic situation of the world. So it was that Corpus Christi became an embarrassment. The standard textbook on liturgy which appeared between 1963 and 1965 does not even refer to Corpus Christi in its treatment of the Church's year. Somewhat shamefacedly it offers us a page under the heading 'Eucharistic Devotions;' in its embarrassment it makes the curious suggestion that the Corpus Christi procession should conclude with communion of the sick, this being the only functional rationale for a procession with the Host" (See A.G. Martimort (ed), The Church at Prayer, 2 vols. (New York 1968 and 1973).

"The Council of Trent had been far less inhibited. It said that the purpose of Corpus Christi was to arouse gratitude in the hearts of men and to remind them of their common Lord. Here, in a nutshell, we have in fact three purposes: Corpus Christi is to counter man's forgetfulness, to elicit his thankfulness, and it has someting to do with fellowship, with that unifying power which is at work where people are looking to the one Lord. A great deal could be said about this; for with our computers, meetings and appointments we have become appallingly thoughtless and forgetful.

"Psychologists tell us that our rational, everyday consciousness is only the surface of what makes up the totality of our soul. But we are so hounded by this surface awareness that what lies in the depths can no longer find expression. Ultimately man becomes sick for sheer lack of authenticity; he no longer lives as a subject: he exists as the plaything of chance and superficiality" (J. Ratzinger, "Feast of Faith" Ignatius [1986] 129).

Quantum potes, tantum aude

(Dare to give all the praise you can).

Fear not for damage to secularity. The greater the piety and the gift of self to God, the greater the autonomy and freedom of the person. The greater the responsible freedom, the less the secularism, and the greater the secularity.

Take a look and a listen!

http://www.grassrootsfilms.com/clip/trailer_God_in_the_streets_large.html

RAC

Corpus Christi 2007

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that those who believe in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting." John 3:14

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself." John 12:32

History

Bishop Robert de Thorte of Liege ( Belgium) established this feast of the Blessed Sacrament in the year 1246 at the suggestion of St. Juliana of Mont Carvillon. Juliana, a Belgian nun, from age 16 onwards, often had a vision during her prayers of a full moon in brilliant light, while a part of its disc remained black. Finally, Christ told her the meaning of this vision. The moon represented the liturgical year; the black spot indicated the lack of a festival in honor of the Blessed Sacrament. She was to tell the Church hierarchy that God wished the establishment of such a feast.


In 1230 Juliana revealed this secret to a small group of theologians and, as a result, she had to suffer scorn and ridicule. But the bishop of Liege eventually listened to her. A diocesan synod in 1246 decided in her favor and prescribed such a feast for the churches of Liege. Some years later, Jacques Pantaleon, archdeacon of Liege, was elected Pope, taking the name Urban IV (1261-1265). On September 8, 1264, six years after Juliana's death, he established for the whole Church that feast in honor of the Holy Eucharist. It was to be celebrated with great solemnity on the Thursday after Pentecost week, and indulgences were granted to all who would receive Holy Communion or attend special devotions in addition to hearing Mass.


Pope Urban IV commissioned both Saints Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas to compose the texts of the Mass and the Divine Office for the new feast. It is said that when St. Bonaventure read what his friend St. Thomas had come up with, he burned his own composition. Thomas Aquinas composed five beautiful hymns to the Holy Eucharist: “Adoro Te Devote” (“I adore Thee devoutly”), “Lauda Sion” (“Laud, O Zion”), “Pange Lingua” (“Sing, my tongue”), “Sacris Solemniis” (“At this our Solemn Feast”) and “Verbum Supernum” (“The Word of God”).


Pope Urban IV presented the following reasons for establishing Corpus Christi as a universal feast: “1) that the Catholic doctrine receive aid from the institution of this festival at a time when the faith of the world was growing cold and heresies were rife; 2) that the faithful who love and seek truth and piety may be enabled to draw from this source of life new strength and vigor to walk continually in the way of virtue; 3) that irreverence and sacrilegious behavior towards the Divine Majesty in this adorable Sacrament may, by sincere and profound adoration, be extirpated and repaired; 4) to announce to the Christian world His will that the feast be observed.”

Canon Law


Canon 944 §1,2: "Wherever in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop it can be done, a procession through the streets is to be held, especially on the solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ, as a public witness of veneration of the Blessed Eucharist. It is for the diocesan Bishop to establish such regulations about processions as will provide participation in them and for their being carried out in a dignified manner."


Canon 1246 §1: "… the following holy days are to be observed: the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension of Christ, the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, the feast of Mary, the Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the feast of St. Joseph, the feast of the Apostles Sts. Peter and Paul, and the feast of All Saints." Notice that Corpus Christi is mentioned along with Holy Days of Obligation.

The Importance of the Feast Today:
Loss of the Sense of God

The Temptation of Christ: “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread” (Mt. 4, 3). Benedict XVI comments: “'If you are the Son of God’ – we will hear these words again in the mouths of the mocking bystanders at he foot of the Cross – ‘If you are the Son of God, come down from the Cross’" (Mt. 27, 40).

The Ultimate Question Today: Does God exist? Benedict comments: “And we make this same demand of God and Christ and his Church throughout the whole of history. ‘If you exist, God,’ we say, ‘then you’ll just have to show yourself. You’ll have to part the clouds that conceal you and give us the clarity that we deserve. If you, Christ, are really the Son of God, and not just another one of the enlightened individuals who deep appearing in the course of history, then you’ll just have to prove it more clearly than you are doing now. And if the Church is really supposed to be yours, you’ll have to make that much more obvious than it is at present.’”[1]

Benedict builds the argument of the primacy of the worship of the invisible God in faith above and before solving the social problem. Wasn’t this the point of the Exodus from the abundance of bread in Egypt to the desert of Sinai and receiving the Torah and faith? And it was then, and only then, stripped of bread in the desert in the act of obedience that is faith that God feeds the people with the manna and water from the rock (that was Christ). Wasn’t this also the point of the Sermon on the Mount when the people come to hear the words of Christ, and then, having been fed with the word, they are fed to satiety with the five loaves and two fish? The point is: seek first the kingdom of God and the rest will be added.

Benedict comments: “Is there anything more tragic, is there anything more opposed to belief in the existence of a good God and a Redeemer of mankind, than world hunger? Shouldn’t it be the first test of the Redeemer, before the world’s gaze and on the world’s behalf, to give it bread and to end all hunger? During their wandering through the desert, God fed the people of Israel with bread from heaven, with manna. This seemed to offer a privileged glimpse into how things would look when the Messiah came: Did not, and does not, the Redeemer of the world have to prove his credentials by feeding everyone? Isn’t the problem of feeding the world – and, more generally, are not social problems – the primary, true yardstick by which redemption has to be measured? Does someone who fails to measure up to this standard have any right to be called a redeemer? Marxism – quite understandably – made this very point the core of its promise of salvation: It would see to it that no one went hungry anymore and that the ‘desert would become bread.’

“’If you are the Son of God’ – what a challenge! Should we not say the same thing to the Church? If you claim to be the Church of God, then start by making sure the world has bread – the rest comes later. It is hard to answer this challenge, precisely because the cry of the hungry penetrates so deeply into the ears and into the soul – as well it should. Jesus answer cannot be understood in light of the temptation story alone. The bread motif pervades the entire Gospel and has to be looked at in its full breadth.”[2]

By Giving Bread First, the West Has Created Poverty: The "Third World"

By giving bread first, and not God, the West has created what we understand to be the “Third World.” Benedict XVI says: “The aid offered by the West to developing countries has been purely technically and materially based, and not only has left God out of the picture, but has driven men away from God. And this aid, proudly claiming to ‘know better,’ is itself what first turned the ‘third world’ into what we mean today by that term. It has thrust aside indigenous religious, ethical, and social structures and filled the resulting vacuum with its technocratic mind-set. The idea was that we could turn stones into bread; instead our ‘aid’ has only given stones in place of bread. The issue is the primacy of God. The issue is acknowledging that he is a reality, that he is the reality without which nothing else can be good. History cannot be detached from God and then run smoothly on purely material lines. If man’s heart is not good, then nothing else can turn out good, either.[3] And the goodness of the human heart can ultimately come only from the One who is goodness, who is the Good itself.” He goes on: “We live in this world, where God is not so manifest as tangible things are, but can be sought and found only when the heart sets out on the ‘exodus’ from ‘Egypt.’ It is in this world that we are obliged to resist the delusions of false philosophies and to recognize that we do not live by bread alone, but first and foremost by obedience to God’s word. Only when this obedience is put into practice does the attitude develop that is also capable of providing bread for all.”[4]

The Celebration of Corpus

John Paul II restored the procession of Corpus Christi from the Lateran Basilica through the streets of Rome to St. Mary Major on June 10, 2004. He said: “We will carry the Divine Sacrament in procession to the Basilica of St. Mary Major. Looking at Mary, we will understand better the transforming power that the Eucharist possesses. Listening to her, we will find in the Eucharistic mystery the courage and energy to follow Christ… and to serve him in the brethren.”

Benedict followed this up in 2006 referring to the cosmic realities of flour and water that make up the bread that becomes the Body of Christ. It is the power of God that totally transcends our strength and ability. He said: “During the procession and in adoration we look at the consecrated Host, the most simple type of bread and nourishment, made only of a little flour and water. In this way, it appears as the food of the poor, those to whom the Lord made Himself closest in the first place.

The prayer with which the Church, during the liturgy of the Mass, consigns this bread to the Lord, qualifies it as fruit of the earth and the work of humans.
It involves human labor, the daily work of those who till the soil, sow and harvest [the wheat] and, finally, prepare the bread. However, bread is not purely and simply what we produce, something made by us; it is fruit of the earth and therefore is also gift.

"We cannot take credit for the fact that the earth produces fruit; the Creator alone could have made it fertile. And now we too can expand a little on this prayer of the Church, saying: the bread is fruit of heaven and earth together. It implies the synergy of the forces of earth and the gifts from above, that is, of the sun and the rain. And water too, which we need to prepare the bread, cannot be produced by us.”[5]

We produce neither wheat, flour, sun or water in order to make bread. “The bread is fruit of heaven and earth together. It implies the synergy of the forces of eartht and the gifts from above, that is, of the sun and the rain. And water too, which we need to prepare the bread, canot be produced by us.” Benedict commented at the beginning of 2006 : “The essential problem of our times, for Europe and for the world, is that although the fallacy of the Communist economy has been recognized, its moral and religious fallacy has not been addressed. The unresolved issue of Marxism lives on: the crumbling of man’s original uncertainties about God, himself, and the universe. The decline of a moral conscience grounded in absolute values is still our problem, and left untreated, it can lead to the self-destruction of the European conscience, which we must begin to consider as a real danger – above and beyond the decline predicted by Spengler.”[6]

Joseph Ratzinger: “What Corpus Christi Means to Me"

“What does Corpus Christ mean to me? Well, first of all it brings back memories of special feast days when we took quite literally that Thomas Aquinas put so well in one of his Corpus Christi hymns: Quantum potes tantum aude: dare to do as much as you can, giving him due praise, In fact, these words also recall something Justin Martyr said as early as the second century. In his description of the Christian liturgy he writes that the one who presides at the Eucharistic celebration, i.e., the priest, is to offer our prayers and thanksgivings ‘as much as he is able.’ This is what the entire community feels called to do at Corpus Christi: dare to do what you can. I can still smell those carpets of flowers and the freshness of the birch trees; I can see all the houses decorated, the banners, the singing; I can still hear the village band, which indeed sometimes dared more, on this occasion, than it was able! I remember the joie de vivre of the local lads, firing their gun salutes – which was their way of welcoming Christ as head of state, as the Head of State, the Lord of the world, present on their streets and in their village. On this day people celebrated the perpetual presence of Christ as if it were a state visit in which not even the smallest village was neglected….
[The Council of Trent] said that the purpose of Corpus Christi was to arouse gratitude in the hearts of men and to remind them of their common Lord. Here, in a nutshell, we have in fact three purposes: Corpus Christi is to counter man’s forgetfulness, to elicit his thankfulness, and it has something to do with fellowship, with that unifying power which is at work where people are looking to the one Lord. A great deal could be said about this; for with our computers, meetings and appointments we have become appallingly thoughtless and forgetful.”[7]

Corpus Christ and The Kingdom of God

The praise given to Christ in the Eucharist has to do with the Kingdom of God. “The kingdom of God is not a concept, a doctrine, or a program subject to free interpretation, but it is before all else a person with the face and name of Jesus of Nazareth, the image of the invisible God.”[8] The Kingdom of God is the activity of the living Person of Jesus Christ, loving us (grace) and therefore empowering us to make the sacrificial gift of ourselves in work. As other Christs, we become the kingdom in the creation of a secular (secularized) society of men. Benedict says: "When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God, he is quite simply proclaiming God, and proclaiming him to be the living God, who is able to act, concretely in the world and in history and is even now so acting. He is telling us: ‘God exists’ and ‘God is really God,’ which means that he holds in his hands the threads of the world. In this sense, Jesus’ message is very simple and thoroughly God-centered. The new and totally specific thing about his message is that he is telling us: God is acting now – this is the hour when God is showing himself in history as its Lord, as the living God, in a way that goes beyond anything seen before. ‘Kingdom of God’ is therefore an inadequate translation. It would be better to speak of God’s being-Lord, of his lordship.”[9]


[1] Ratzinger-BenedictXVI, “Jesus of Nazareth” Doubleday (2007) 30.
[2] Ibid 32.
[3] See here the major theme of John Paul II’s “Veritatis Splendor.” Since only God is good, the human person – created in the image of the divine Persons – perceives what is “good” in the ontological tendency of his very being to act in this way, and not in that. This consciousness that is ontologically grounded in the relational dynamic of the person is the grounding of all ethics and what has hitherto been called “natural law” although it is neither from “nature” nor a “law.” It is more aptly called the “law of the person.”
[4] Ibid 34.
[5] Benedict XVI, The Square at St. John Lateran, Thursday, June 15, 2006.
[6] Benedict XVI, “Europe and Its Discontents,” First Things, January 2006, 20.

[7] J. Ratzinger, “Feast of Faith,” Ignatius (1986) 127-129.
[8] John Paul II, “Redemptoris Missio,” #18,
[9] Ratzinger-Benedict XVI, op. cit 56-57.

Preliminaries to Reading Josef Ratzinger-Benedict XVI's "Jesus of Nazareth"

Precis: Jesus Christ as Person is the unique revelation of the Father. Revelation only takes place in other persons when they experience the "I" of Christ by a subjective identification with Him. Since He is act of relation to the Father that reveals itself as prayer, only the person who enters into this prayer of Christ interiorly and subjectively experiences who He is and can be said "to know" Him in His divinity as "Son of the living God" (Mt. 16, 16).

Sacred Scripture is not revelation but the "objetification," or reduction of it in concepts and symbols. Its meaning, then, can be found only within the personal experience of Christ. The empirical scientific investigation of Scripture as literary reality should be fully deployed since Christ is a fully historical reality in space and time, but His inner identity as Son revealing the Father can only come from another horizon and another center of gravity.

This is the burden of the Ratzinger-Benedict XVI "Jesus of Nazareth."



1) Ratzinger’s “Habilitation” Thesis: The Content: “I had ascertained that in Bonaventure (as well as in theologians of the thirteenth century) there was nothing corresponding to our conception of ‘revelation,’ by which we are normally in the habit or referring to al the revealed contents of the faith: it has even become a part of linguistic usage to refer to Sacred Scripture simply as ‘revelation. Such an identification would have been unthinkable in the language of the High Middle Ages. Here, ‘revelation’ is always a concept denoting an act. The word refers to the act in which God shows himself, not to the objectified result of this act. And because this is so, the receiving subject is always also a part of the concept of ‘revelation.’ Where there is no one to perceive ‘revelation,’ no re-vel-ation has occurred, because no veil has been removed. By definition, revelation requires a someone who apprehends it. These insights, gained through my reading of Bonaventure, were later on very important for me at the time of the concilar discussion on revelation, Scripture, and tradition. Because, if Bonaventure is right, then revelation precedes Scripture and becomes deposited in Scripture but is not simply identical with it. This in turn means that revelation is always something greater than what is merely written down. And this again means that here can be no such thing as pure sola scriptura (‘by Scripture alone’), because an essential element of Scripture is the Church as understanding subject, and with this the fundamental sense of tradition is already given. At the moment, however… Michael Schmaus… saw in these theses…(however, to this day I still affirm the contrary)… a dangerous modernism that had to lead to the subjectivization of the concept of revelation.”[1]

2) The Ratzinger summary of the argument from J. R. Geiselmann (Die Heilige Schrift und die Tradition (Freiburg, 1962): “Catholic dogma also derives all its content from Scripture; therefore, Scripture as material principle is complete. However, if this were true, then it would ultimately mean the same as if one were to look on the Bible also as the formal principle. A controversy over this issue is no longer worth the trouble. Geiselmann’s conclusion, however, is false in two respect. When pushed, one can describe Scripture as the encompassing material principle of Catholic theology in the sense that all dogmas must be linked back to Scripture. But the real question is, what kind of connection is it? The eager ones at that time wanted to deduce from the so-called material completeness of Scripture the notion that in the future every dogma musts be proven from the Bible. But then one had logically to apply the requirement also to the past, that is, to all existing dogmas. If in a further step one finally understands ‘prove’ to mean the consensus of exegetes, then it is clear that from then on there could be no more dogma. To this extent the issue of the material principle is a meaningless tautology in which the real question is obscured – namely how does one come to a knowledge of what Scripture means; who is the actual subject of Scripture, its current bearer?... The fascination with which Geiselmann’s thesis was spread at the time shows how dangerous it is to make oneself dependent on theological insights and methods popular at a given moment…. A crude version of Geiselmann’s position, for which one cannot hold the Tubingen professor responsible, has moreover worked its way into the Church’s consciousness. From then on it has largely been held that also in the Catholic Church only what can be proven from Scripture is valid. It seems to me that this thesis has contributed significantly to the post-conciliar crisis of the Catholic consciousness, which has become no longer sure of the Church’s continuity with its past and which has felt compelled to question whether everything previous to the Council has ceased to be valid….

“The schema [from Vatican II on Divine Revelation] spoke the ‘two sources of revelation,’ by which it meant Scripture and tradition. This expression can suffice, the cardinal [Frings] remarked, if one understands it strictly on the epistemological level: we experience what revelation is from Scripture and tradition. In this sense Frings confirmed the twofold character of the sources.

“According to the comment of the Archbishop from Cologne [Frings], however, the formula is completely false if one looks at it on a metaphysical level for there the sequence is reversed: revelation does not flow from Scripture and tradition, but both flow from revelation, which is their common source. Now, on first hearing, one can be inclined to consider this a learned game of semantics, and so it appeared to most of the council Fathers, who did not know what to do with it and who wanted, insofar as they knew of the controversy, to count Frings on the side of Geiselmann. But in reality a crucial issue is at stake. For if one does not hold clearly that revelation precedes it objectifications in Scripture and tradition, remaining always greater than they, then the concept of revelation is reduced to the dimensions of the historical and simply human. From what is divine and great, which can arise in no human form but exceeds and bursts into something greater, there comes about a collection of texts and customs which are then themselves revelation (italics and underline mine).


“If I equate revelation with the text so that the boundaries of the one perfectly coincide with the boundaries of the other, then it cannot grow and develop; then there is nothing living but rather something dead – having settled down in illo tempore. Then revelation is delivered up to historicism; it is subjected to human criteria. If, on the contrary, it is true that Scripture is the objectification of revelation which precedes it, which cannot be fully caught in any human word, then exegesis must look beyond the letter and read the text in connection with what is alive, must understand it in such a connection with life. Exegesis then certainly needs the historical method and its care, but this is not the whole. For it is further true that what is living, revelation itself, is Christ, that Christ is still alive, and that he did not only live in illo tempore, then it is clear that the subject of revelation is precisely this Christ himself and that the is such through his Body with which he binds us irreversibly to that beginning in illo tempore and at the same time leads us forward to his ‘full maturity’”[2] (underline mine)

3) Theological Epistemology: If the Person of Christ is the revelation of the Father (“No one has at any time seen God. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed;” Jn. 1, 18; “No one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and him to whom the Son chooses to reveal him,” Mt. 11, 27), then Ratzinger’s “theological epistemology” becomes critical, and the presupposition of the exegesis that he does in “Jesus of Nazareth.”

To wit: “Thesis 3: Since the center of the person of Jesus is prayer, it is essential to participate in his prayer if we are to know and understand him.
“Let us begin here with a very general matter of epistemology. By nature, knowledge depends on a certain similarity between the knower and the known. The old axiom is that like is known by like. In matters of the mind and where persons are concerned, this means that knowledge calls for a certain degree of empathy, by which we enter, so to speak, into the person or intellectual reality concerned, become one with him or it, and thus become able to understand (intellegere = ab intus legere)….

“In Thesis 1 we saw that prayer was the central act of the person of Jesus and, indeed, that this person is constituted by the act of prayer, of unbroken communication with the one he calls ‘Father.’ If this is the case, it is only possible really to understand this person by entering into this act of prayer, by participating in it. This is suggested by Jesus’ saying that no one can come to him unless the Father draws him (Jn. 6, 44(. Where there is no Father, there is no Son. Where there is no relationship with God, there can be no understanding of him who, in his innermost self, is nothing but relationship with God, the Father – although one can doubtless establish plenty of details about him [historico-critical method]. Therefore a participation in the mind of Jesus, i.e., in his prayer, which … is an act of love, of self-giving and self-expropriation to men, is not some kind of pious supplement to reading the Gospels, adding nothing to knowledge of him or even being an obstacle to the rigorous purity of critical knowing. On the contrary, it is the basic precondition if real understanding… is to take place.”[3]

Conclusion

“Jesus of Nazareth” has to be read understanding that Benedict XVI is doing an exegesis of the Old and New Testaments within the context of the revelation of the Person of Christ that is his from his own prayer life ("like is known by like"). He understands (intellegere: ab intus legere) Jesus Christ from within himself where to be = to be in relation (the Trinitarian metaphysic of Person as relation: self-gift) and makes an interpretation of the texts of both Testaments in the wholes and in their parts bathed in that light of revelation, and therefore the “meaning” of the texts.

N.B. "Now, it is true that this leads to the great question that will be with us throughtout this entire book: What did Jesus actually bring, if not world peaqce, universal prosperity, and a better world? What has he brought?

"The answer is very simple: God. He has brought God. He has brought the God who formerly unveiled his countenance gradually, first to Abnraham, then to oMoses and the Prophets, and then in the Wisdom Literature - the God who revealed his face only in Israel, even though he was also honored among the pagans in various shadowy guises. It is this God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the treue God, whom he has brough to the nations of the earth.

"He has brought God, and now we know his face, now we can call upon him. Now we know the path that we human beings have to take in this world. Jesus has brought God and with God the truth about our origin and destiny: faith, hope, and love. It is only because of our hardness of heart that we think this is too little. Yes indeed, God's power works quietly in this world, but it is the true and lasting power. Again and again, God's cause seems to be in its death throes. Yet over and over again it proves to be the thing that truly endures and saves. The earthly kingdoms that Satan was able to put before the Lord at that time have all passed away. Their glory,their doxa, has proven to be a mere semblance. But the glory of Christ, the humble, self-sacrificing glory of his love, has not passed away, or will it ever do so" (44).

[1] J. Ratzinger, “Milestones, Memoirs 1927-1977)” Ignatius (1998) 180-109.
[2] J. Ratzinger, Cardinal Frings’s Speeches During the Second Vatican Council: Some Reflections Apropos of Muggeridge’s ‘The Desolate City’,” Communio Sp[ring 1988, 136-138.
[3] J. Ratzinger, “Behold the Pierced One,” Ignatius (1986) 25-27.