I was listening to Restoration Radio tonight and this article was mentioned.

The point is,what is happening now is well planned and being very methodically carried out.

www.sodalitium.biz

Ratzinger PROTESTANT? AT 99%!
Don Francesco Ricossa

It would have gone unnoticed, except for the insiders, if the monthly "30 Days" and the weekly "On Saturday," related to Communion and Liberation, had not given prominence. A well-deserved prominence.
I wish to speak of the intervention that the "Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" Joseph Ratzinger held in Rome January 29, 1993 at the Center of the evangelical culture of the local community Valdese.


The full text of Ratzinger and the prof. Paul Ricca, Waldensian, you can read in the magazine "30 Days" n. February 2, 1993, p. 66-73, published under the title of drafting (but significant) of "Ratzinger, the prefect ecuмenical." This reading must be completed with the interview granted by the Lutheran theologian Oscar Cullmann in "The Sabbath" no. 8, February 20, 1993 p. 61-63, published under the title of drafting (and equally significant) for: "The son of Luther and his eminence."
For readers of "Sodalitium" present a summary of the ideas of the "Cardinal" Ratzinger (who made ​​a Bishop Guérard des Lauriers the honor of "excommunication") on the Church and ecuмenism. Anyone can verify the sources cited in the magazines. And see if Ratzinger is still Catholic or, as clearly appears, it no longer is.

Cullmann speaks through Ratzinger
When Pope St. Leo the Great, through his legates, he participated in the Council of Chalcedon, the Fathers of the Council said: "Peter speaks through the mouth of Leo."
Reading the intervention of Ratzinger at the Waldensians and the interview of Cullmann you can say that he speaks by the mouth of Ratzinger. The words are Ratzinger, the ideas of Cullmann. So it is no wonder that the Waldensians "agree to 99%, if not 100%" (RICH, "30 Days", p. 69).

But who is Cullmann?
Cullmann was born in 1902 in Strasbourg, home of the Protestant reformer Bucer to which he gladly refers ("The Sabbath," p. 61). Alsatian, he sees this as a "providential" because its population is in that place, half Catholic and half Protestant.
He studied theology "under the guidance of Loisy in Paris" (ARDUSSO. FERRETTI. SHEPHERD. PERONE. Contemporary theology. Edward Arnold 1980, p. 108). The exegete modernist excommunicated and was certainly not a good teacher. Still less was it the Bultmann, "the great demitizzatore of the Gospels" ("The Sabbath," page 63.), With whom he presented his thesis on "Formgeschichte." "Bultmann said it was the best presentation of his Formgeschichte" (p. 63). Then they separated "radically" from Bultmann, as he mediated reading the Bible through philosophy (existentialist) while Cullmann not accept any mediation. With this Cullmann does not abandon all the Protestant approach to Scripture, and even "the method of the history of forms" (Formgeschichte methode) Bultmann, according to which "the task of the exegete is to discover the essential core of the Bible: Cullmann finds him in history of salvation "(Ardusso, op. cit. p. 110).
He taught, among other things right to freedom of Protestant theology in Paris (1948-72) and the Waldensian Theological Faculty in Rome. He participated in the Second Vatican Council as an observer and Paul VI called him "one of my best friends" ("The Sabbath," p. 62). "During Vatican II Cullmann, host staff of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, helped to determine the orientation of biblical, historical and Christocentric theology reconcile (...) most recently Cullmann has proposed a model of 'community churches' in his book 'Unity through diversity' (Brescia, 1988), the model also appreciated by Cardinal Ratzinger In his speech to the Waldensian Church of Rome on 29 January "(p. 62). He met Ratzinger during the Council, esteeming "the best theologian among the so-called experts, the experts ... With a reputation for progressive pushed" (p. 63). Since then the two
are in correspondence, at first on exegetical problems, and later - Cullmann says - "the correspondence has expanded, especially in relation to the proposal of my model of" unity through diversity ", a proposal which, as we have already said, the Cardinal appreciated in private and in public "(p. 63). Cullmann is especially pleased by a letter in which Cardinal Ratzinger writes, "had always learned" from his studies, "even when they did not agree." And Cullmann says: "United in diversity" (p. 63).
"The work of Cullmann (...) is to be counted among those who have most contributed to the dialogue between Catholics and Protestants" (Ardusso, op. Cit., Page 112) while remaining firmly attached to the heresy he, explicitly denying the ' infallibility of the Catholic Church, and the primacy of jurisdiction of Peter and his successors (cf. Ardusso, op. cit., p. 112, "The Sabbath," p.
62). Then a bridge between Catholics and Protestants. To become Protestants, Catholics (making them believe, moreover, to remain Catholic, "united" yes, but ... "in diversity!").

The Conference of the Waldensian
Formerly lecturer at the Waldensian Faculty of Theology in Rome, Oscar Cullmann knows the Waldensians settled in Rome. Is it he who proposed them to his "disciple" Ratzinger as a good audience to expose their ideas and launch areas.
The theme of the meeting of 29 January between Ratzinger and Professor. Rich (Protestant Waldensian) was twofold. First of ecuмenism in general and of the Papacy, as a result, that of testimony. More precisely: that ecuмenical solution to the question of the Papacy, how to revive ecuмenism in crisis, how to give a common witness.
It seems to me not to betray the thought of Ratzinger in the following paragraphs summarizing, comment on them except in greater detail below;
1) Ecuмenism is necessary, fundamental, indisputable.
2) The Papacy is their problem.
3) Ecuмenism has an ultimate end: "The unity of the churches in the Church."
4) The ultimate goal will be achieved in ways still unknown to us.
5) Ecuмenism also has a proximate end, "an intermediate stage" model of which is "unity in diversity" of Cullmann.
6) This intermediate step is accomplished by a continuous "back to basics" ...
7) ... encouraged by a reciprocal purification among the churches.

Ecuмenism
"Ecuмenism is irreversible," he likes to say Karol Wojtyla. Joseph Ratzinger goes further: "God is the first agent of the ecuмenical cause 'and' l 'Ecuмenism is first of all a fundamental attitude, a way of living Christianity.'s Not a particular area, next to other sectors. The desire for unity, commitment to the unit belongs to the structure of the same act of faith because Christ came to gather together the children of God who are scattered abroad "(" 30 Days ", p. 68).
"Ecuмenism" (or "meeting of Christians." Pius XI) is not conceived as a "return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ, from whom, precisely, one day had the unfortunate idea to detach" (Pius XI , Letter Enc. Mortalium Animos, of 01.06.1928), nor is it a method, or an initiative, among others, the activity of the Church. It is the foundation of Christian life and constituent element of the faith. You can not be faithful without being ecuмenist (Ratzinger), you can not be faithful if you ecuмenicalists (Pius XI): "Who then holds hand him to the trial and has these ideas, for this very reason, to manifest consequence, moves away from the religion revealed by God "(Pius XI, Mortalium Animos).
Clearly, the Waldensian Rich exposes the problem (without any contradiction that Ratzinger): "The crisis of ecuмenism is essentially due to the fact that the churches have not changed enough reason to ecuмenism. (...) Why ecuмenism certain demands, with the patience he spoke of Cardinal Ratzinger, profound changes. At a certain point, or change the church or ecuмenism is in crisis. (...) It is understood that this applies to all the churches "(" 30 Days ", p. 71). In short, the Church or perish, and live ecuмenism, or the Church lives and perishes ecuмenism (as substantially change, for the Church, is to perish). Now ecuмenism is irreversible, then the "Church" (as it is now, especially as it was before the Council) must perish. This raises the question of the Papacy, that needs to change with the Church, or perish.

The Papacy, "the greatest obstacle to ecuмenism"
Paul VI dixit. He remembers with pleasure, the heretic Rich: "The Papacy, you know, is a crucial point of the ecuмenical question, because on the one side based Catholic unity and the other, to express myself a little 'brutally mpedisce unit Christian [read: ecuмenism author's note]. This has acknowledged it very bravely, I must say, Pope Paul VI in a speech in 1967, when, in fact, he said (I think it's the only one that the Pope has said) that the Papacy is the greatest obstacle to ecuмenism. A noble speech [Telling a heretic! nda], among other things, not only for that, but for the whole. Here we are then, with the Papacy, in front of a real impasse "(" 30 Days ", p. 70). So, if a dogma of the Faith (only the Rich recalls that it is a dogma) that, moreover, "is the foundation of Catholic unity" is an obstacle, rather it is an obstacle to ecuмenism, Pope Paul VI Ratzinger and we should all conclude that ecuмenism must perish. Why is it impossible that a truth revealed by Christ to establish the unity willed by Christ may be the obstacle ... to the unit! [In fact, the Papacy, there is no obstacle, but it is the only way to have part of the unity of the one Church: "No one is in this one Church of Christ, no one perseveres if you do not recognize and accept the authority and power of Peter and his legitimate successors "(Pius XI, Mortalium Animos)].
Ratzinger knows it and can not speak as freely as his "colleague" (as he calls the Rich).
At first, therefore, notched: "I think that the Papacy is undoubtedly the most palpable symptom of our problems, but it is well understood only if it is framed in a broader context. So I think, dealt with immediately [as it was also in the "ladder" of the meeting nda] does not allow an easy way out ("30 Days", p. 66). " In short, if you talk of Vatican I, the ecuмenical utopia dies at birth, misunderstandings are dispelled, Cullmann himself would not agree more, the true Catholics would eat the leaf. So, it leads the bush and throws the formula Cullmann: "Unity in Diversity" (we will return).
Eventually, however, has to get to the problem of the Papacy. And what do you propose? Not the primacy of jurisdiction that faith gives to the Pope
"According to our faith," said Ratzinger, "the ministry of unity entrusted to Peter and his successors" ("30 Days", p. 68). But what is this "ministry of unity?" Ratzinger does not say. For the Church consists in the primacy of jurisdiction (authority) of the Pope on all individual believers.
For Cullmann would at best (his goodness!) In a primacy of honor (which is heresy: DS 2593): "I consider the service a Petrine charism of the Catholic Church, from which we should learn Protestants" - he told " The Saturday "- but then goes on:" The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and as such he could be granted a chair in the "community churches" I propose. Personally I would see her role as a guarantor of unity. Could be accepted if I did not have the jurisdiction over all Christendom but a primacy of honor "(" 30 Days ", p. 62).
For Rich, there are three possibilities: "Either the Papacy remains and will (...) more or less what it is today (...) and then we have to think that, in fact, the unit will be that there will be a final gift given when Christ will return [ie, "We under the Pope? Never ever! "Nda]. Second possibility is that the Papacy changes. Changes in a sort of ecuмenical conversion of the Papacy. (...) So far I have been in the service of Catholic unity, from now on, I put myself at the service of Christian unity (...) [Pope = president of a new church ecuмenist author's note].
The third hypothesis was that as the Pope remains what it is, but it is not intended as the center and focus of Christian unity, but simply as a center of Catholic unity. (...) The churches could (...) recognize each other as churches of Jesus Christ, really joined together and really different from each other, giving himself a regular appointment at a council truly universal (...) [Pope = the head of a Christian church between the others united in a council ecuмenical nda] ("30 Days", p. 70-71).
For Ratzinger, what is the role of the Pope? I said, he is silent, or rather not reiterates the Catholic faith (first hypothesis of Rich), and gives a glimpse of the third hypothesis as an intermediate step and the second as a destination finale.Per the meanwhile, recalls that "the churches" ( heretical and schismatic nda) "should not change much in them, almost nothing, in the case of a unity with Rome" ("30 Days", p. 68) "and that, in substance," this "is true not only for the churches Orthodox, but also for those born in the Reformation "(" 30 Days ", p. 69) to the point where he studied with Lutheran friends, various possible models for a" Ecclesia Catholica confessionis Augustanæ "(" Catholic Church of the Augsburg Confession, " it follows that the Protestant heresies of the "Augsburg Confession", a sort of "belief" Protestant dall'eresiarca Melanchthon presented to Charles V) (cf. "30 Days", p. 68).
All this does not resemble the proposals (heretical) of Cullmann and Rich (second version)? We would have a Church led by "Papa", with a branch "orthodox" who is "orthodox" and a Protestant branch that is Protestant. On the other hand, for Ratzinger, the "orthodox" (and, mutatis mutandis, the Protestants) "have a different way of guaranteeing the unity and stability in the common faith, different from what we have in the Catholic Church of the West "(ie, to the" orthodox ", liturgy and monasticism) (" 30 Days ", p. 68).
Now, who does not see that liturgy and monasticism at the "Orthodox" (as the Bible among Protestants) are not sufficient to ensure the unity and faith? In fact, despite the liturgy, monasticism and the Bible they are schismatics (no units) and heretics (without faith)! Want to reduce the dogmas of faith and action to preserve them with the condemnation of error (we institutionalized in the Holy Office Prefect of which he is the Pope) to the specific characteristics of the Catholic Church = not universal, but of a western branch (and Roman), is abhorrent! And there are some quotes the theologian "orthodox" Meyendorff (which criticizes universalism in its Roman form, but also critical, as he says, as regionalism was formed in the history of the Orthodox churches. "Ratzinger in" 30 Days "page . 68) that give the "prefect ecuмenical" a license to Catholicism. Meyendorff, in the end, it proposes the aberration of Rich: churches, all churches, including the Catholic, must radically change to ensure ecuмenism.
In short, Pius XI had put his finger on it when he wrote (apparently he was talking about Cullmann): "Some admit and concede that Protestantism, for example, too hastily jettisoned some leaders of faith and rites of external worship that On the contrary, the Roman Church still believes. But immediately add that even though this has done things that have come to corrupt the ancient religion, adding and proposing for belief doctrines not only alien from the Gospel but contrary to them, as they hurry to say, the primacy of jurisdiction attributed to St. Peter and his successors in the faith of Rome. There are also those who have let go grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor, or until a certain jurisdiction or power certain: there are many, however, require only tell you that this is done by consensus of the faithful, and not by divine right. There are those who even has the wishful thinking to see at the head of these congresses, shall we say, colorful, the Pope himself! On the other hand, for non-Catholics who fill their mouths with these sermons of fraternal union, you find many, but no one goes to the boss to submit and obey the teachings, under the command of the Vicar of Christ "(Pius XI, Mortalium Animos ). As you can see, from 1928 to the present, the Protestants have not taken a single step forward, and we had to see something other than the presence of the "Pope" to "colorful congress" of non-Catholics.

Ultimate goal: the unity of the Church
But back to Ratzinger. In order not to approach the problem of the Papacy, he began the speech by ecuмenism. In it "the ultimate aim is, of course, the unity of the churches in the Church only" ("30 Days", p. 66.) Is "the unity of the Church of God to which we tend" ("30 Days", p . 67). The end toward which we wish to address Ratzinger, is false from the start. If the "Church is unique," that we are to do "churches"? This "one Church" is, or is not, the Catholic Church? Either the Catholic Church is one of the "churches" that should, in the future, join (increasingly) in the "One Church"? In the first case (= one Church Catholic Church): the goal is already achieved, the Church is already "a", ecuмenism has no purpose except to abjuration, by heretics and schismatics from their mistakes, and the "churches" are only seven and cliques that do not have to join but disappear.
In the second case (Church only union = more or less close to the "churches" more or less different) Ratzinger propina the error condemned by Pius XI in "Mortalium Animos": "At this point it is worthwhile to identify and Get off of half the error, in which the question is based and from which the ideas and initiatives of many non-Catholics, relating to the union of the Christian churches. Proponents of it habit to have to pull out every now and then Jesus says, "all may be one ... you will make a fold and one shepherd" (John xvii, 21, X, 16), and almost that in these words the desire and the prayer of Jesus sian remained without effect. they think that the unity of faith and of the regime - distinctive notes of the Church - it is basically never existed before now, and does not exist today, you may well want to and maybe even reach with a little common good will, but in the meantime, as things stand, it is an idea and nothing else. They add: the Church itself, that is, by its nature, is divided into parts, ie made ​​up of several churches or distinct communities, which, separated as they are, I agree only a few head of doctrine, but in the rest divariano and each has its rights "(cf. Encyclical prohibited, and Marine. Rome 1972, p. 81-82).
The "prefect ecuмenical" can be explained? For him, the only Church of Christ exists, and it is the Catholic Church, or not?

How will the Church of the future?
Unfortunately, I fear that we have already explained. The ultimate goal (the union of the churches in the Church) Enel future, the distant future ... and unknown.
"This, then, the purpose, the aim of every ecuмenical work: get to the real unity of the Church [which now does not exist? That is only apparent? Unreal? Nda], which implies plurality in forms that we can not even define "(" 30 Days ", p. 66). And elsewhere: "I would not dare suggest for the moment for the future of concrete achievements, possible and thinkable" ("30 Days", p. 68).
Rich has protestanticamente, much appreciated these expressions of Ratzinger. Why coincide with his thinking. After recalling the eight centuries of struggle between Catholics and Waldenses, Rich adds, then, "why are we together? We are together because if it is true that we know who we are, and who we were good enough, we do not know yet who will be instead. And the same confidence in the cardinal not to propose models, that is, in fact, in not knowing, that attitude is precisely that, after all, binds us "(" 30 Days ", p. 69). States, Waldensian and followers of Vatican II, the Church in not knowing comesarà! (Because, as Rich says, or change churches or ecuмenism dies). It is recognized that a Protestant Church in the idea of a future unknown distance. But a Catholic? How do you reconcile this with the indefectibility of the Church? What other model of the Church can offer to the Protestants than that desired by Christ founded on Peter? How can a "cardinal" does not know how to be the Church, as Christ founded it for two thousand years?
It seems that Ratzinger has the conception of the Church of God that Teilhard: The Church does not exist ... yet it is evolving ... to his Omega point, the final goal of ecuмenism.

Unity in diversity
The Church, therefore, will be one (in diversity). In the future. God only knows when. And in the meantime? In the meantime, there is a "split time" ("30 Days", p. 66): "unity in diversity". "This model - says Ratzinger - I think you could express with the well-known formula of" reconciled diversity ", and on this point I feel very close to the ideas formulated by Oscar Cullmann dear colleague" ("30 Days", p. 67) . What is the model-Cullmann we have already seen. How do you propose Ratzinger we will see below. Suffice it to say that Rich got it at once: "I want to begin declare - he replied - that, compared to what he said now Cardinal Ratzinger, I agree to 99% if not 100%. In fact, I am pleased and I am pleased. On this basis you can build: the concept of reconciled diversity, as you know, is the matrix of the Lutheran "(" 30 Days ", p. 69). Ratzinger therefore it does lead to an unknown church plurimorfa from a foundation of Lutheran matrix.

Back to basics.
But how it's done, concretely, this "reconciled diversity"? It is not, Ratzinger warned, "to be happy with the situation we have," to resign to be statistically different (p. 68).
It should, instead, dynamically, to persevere "in going together, respecting each other in humility, even where compatibility in doctrine or practice of the church is not yet obtained, is the willingness to learn from each other and let the other correct , in joy and gratitude for the spiritual riches of the other, in a permanent essentialization of their faith, doctrine and practice, again and again to purify and nourish the Scripture, keeping his eyes fixed on the Lord ... "(" 30 Days ", p. 68).
How many contradictions in a few lines!
How can you "go together" if you think and act differently?
How can the "Chair of Truth", the Church of Christ, learning (anything that
would not know already) and even be correct by heretics? How can you "respect" the heresy and schism, that is the sin? since it is as heretical and schismatic sects that the Protestant or "orthodox" stand by us.
And finally, what does "essentialize" (permanentemente!) faith? The idea is at the heart of Ratzinger's thought (and not only): "the search for the wesen, the essence of Christianity, is a typical search of German theology for over a century in this part. Just think of the works of L. Feuberbach (1841), by A. Harnack (1900), Adam K. (1924), Romano Guardini (1939), Schmans M. (1947), and the recently proposed K . Rahner about a synthetic formulation of the Christian message. Similarly, the attempts mentioned above, the search for the essence of Christianity, Ratzinger clearly leads the imprint of the time in which she was born, that time is now widely referred to as "post-Christian age of faith," characterized not much from the denial of this or that other truths of faith, but rather by the fact that the faith as a whole seems to have lost its bite, its ability to interpret the world, in front of other visions that seem to come if nothing else most operational effectiveness "(Ardusso, op. cit., p. 457).
In fact, any attempt to "essentialize" faith threatens to destroy the Faith. Against ecuмenicalists already Pius XI wrote: "Also, for what it is for the truth to be believed, it is not lawful means to introduce the distinction between saying and not fundamental key points, each to be believed at all, others are free and that you can allow the assent of the faithful. The supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause for the authority of the detector, God, and this cause does not allow for distinctions of that sort. All true Christians, then with the same faith with which they believe the dogma of the SS. Trinity, they believe the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and as the incarnation of the Lord, so also all'infallibile magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, in that sense, of course, in which it was defined by Vatican Council. Due to the fact that these truths have been laid down by the Church and solemnly defined at different ages, and some in recent times, therefore, the same can not be said to be less certain and less to be believed: not God revealed them all? "(Mortalium Animos).
Ratzinger does not clearly explain what would be the essentials of the faith, and what it's "superstructure" (in Ardusso op. Cit. P. 458, it would be essential to "stand as the church of the faith to the total service of the men freed by structures that obscure the genuineness of the face ").
In its reply, the final states, however, that his "thinking coincides with that of Professor Rich" ("30 Days", p. 72) on the "word" essentialism. " We really need to go back to the center, the essential, or, in other words: the problem of our time is the absence of God and therefore the prime duty of Christians [assembly: Catholics and non-Catholics, author's note] is witness to the living God "( "30 Days", p. 73). Of course, Christians of all kinds (or almost!) Will agree on the minimum that is the existence of God, "the reality of judgment and eternal life" (p. 73), and this "imperative" , by force, "joins" because "all Christians are united in faith in this God who revealed himself, incarnate in Jesus Christ" ("30 Days", p. 73). (For the condemnation of the idea of a common witness again see Mortalium Animos).

Mutual purification.
But as it is, practically, the continued "essentialism" (Congar - remember Rich - called "resourcing")?
For Ratzinger, this process, positive, comes from other "churches." The Catholic Church would be so ... continually purified by heretical sects. So, waiting for the unit (multiform), it is good that there is diversity (reconciled).
"'Expedient et haereses them," says St. Paul. Perhaps we are not yet ripe for the unit and all we need thorn in the flesh, which is the other in its otherness, to wake us up from a half Christian, an understatement. Maybe it's our duty to be the plug for one another. And is there a duty to let purify and enrich the other. (...) Even in the historical moment in which God does not give us the perfect unity, we recognize each other, the Christian brother, we recognize the sister churches, we love the community of others, we meet together in a process of divine education in which the Lord uses different communities for each other, to make us able and worthy final unity "(" 30 Days ", p. 68).
So, according to Ratzinger, God wants the "heresies" (while only allowing as permits evil), and indeed, God willing, temporarily, the divisions, the different communities, because the other perfections. The Catholic Church would be "awakened" "purified," "enriched" and no longer "half" because of heretical sects that you serve the Lord. And vice versa, the Catholic Church would play the same role in relation to other churches. All dialectically, marching toward the indefinite future unity of a Church that will be unknown to this process.
Model, but only one model, the future of this Church is the primitive Church, which had joined "the three fundamental elements: Sacred Scripture, regula fidei, the sacramental structure of the Church" ("30 Days", p. 66) and, for the Anyway, it was very different. It was also united under the guidance and government of the Pope? And, despite the diversity of local, did not have the same faith, which does not happen with the Protestants and the Orthodox?
Ratzinger asks us to join a church unknown future modeled on an ancient church distorted to give up, in fact, the Church of Christ, eternal and unchanging.

Conclusion: Pius XI judges Ratzinger.
If Ratzinger did not know to which model should be the future of these churches "thorn-in-the-flesh" that "essenzializzano" with each other, I'll tell Pius XI. The Pope spoke in that encyclical that Ratzinger himself dared to declare conformity with the Vatican (!), "Mortalium Animos."
The theory ecuмenist, or pancristiana as it was then, "paves the way to naturalism and atheism" (p. 79) to prepare "a claim that the Christian religion is a thousand miles away from the one Church of Christ" "is the way to neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism "" is nonsense and stupidity. " But do not throw all the blame on Ratzinger. He is the faithful interpreter of Vatican II, on the other hand as Karol Wojtyla. Is that the foreign body
you have to eject and the healthy forces of the Church, the bride of Christ, undoubtedly reject. As for us, we want to belong to the Catholic Church and the heterodox speculations of Oscar Cullmann and his disciple (otherwise joined together and different) Joseph Ratzinger.


from Sodalitium n. 33 April 1993

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/restorationradio/2014/02/21/francis-watch-ii-the-revolution-speeds-up