Author Topic: Re-visiting Fr. Gleize's ecclesiology on "Conciliar Church" as a movement. (Read 375 times)

Nishant Xavier · « **on:** October 18, 2019, 02:04:38 AM »

The Courrier de Rome of February 2013 (no. 363) published a study prepared by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, professor of ecclesiology at the Seminary St. Pius X of Ecône, regarding the validity of the expression ‘Conciliar Church’. The author organized his demonstration in the Scholastic manner: in part I he listed the pros and cons; in part II he provided the principles for the solution; in part III he responded to each argument listed in the first section. Readers will find here extensive excerpts from this work, and will doubtless be drawn to consult the original, published in Courrier de Rome. To facilitate comprehension for those unfamiliar with the Scholastic method, we have included, immediately after the introduction where Fr. Gleize outlines his approach, the bulk of the section on principles for solution. There follows one of the arguments against use of the expression ‘Conciliar Church’, and the author’s response to this argument, in light of the principles established for the solution. The headings and underlining have been added by DICI. Fr. Gleize’s original article included 46 footnotes that can be found in the original text in Courrier de Rome; only the numbers are maintained here. Can one speak of a conciliar Church? It was and is spoken of—with both enthusiasm and indignation. Some see the advantage of a realistic description; others fear a no less real exaggeration. Everyone believes they have sound reasons either to bless or reprove the use of this expression. The opposing arguments work in both directions. We will set forth the arguments here according to the tried and true method (I), before establishing the principles: it is from their perspective that we will then attempt to understand the matter in its true light (II). Lastly, we will distinguish between the true and the false in arguments that are usually only opposed in appearance (III). Principles for the solution 19. To the extent in which a ‘change of direction’21 since Vatican II has occurred, we use the term ‘conciliar Church’. This expression is commonly understood, not as a distinct object or substance, but rather as a new spirit, introduced into the Church at the time of the Council Vatican II, and which constitutes an obstacle the end of the Church, in other words the Tradition of its faith and morals. And when this countercurrent is said to be at work in the Church, by this is meant that those who are united in seeking an end contrary to that of the Church have not openly broken the link that joins them to the other members and to their head, in the inclination of principle to the true common good. In the specific case of the pope, who himself is a part of this countercurrent, this means he has not demonstrably ceased to be pope. Even if, in acting as he does, he presents an obstacle to the Church’s end and prevents Tradition, his power remains in itself inclined to this end and to Tradition.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

20. Therefore, there are not two Churches; there is only within the Church an antagonistic movement fighting the Church from within, working to neutralize the Church for its own advancement by impeding the accomplishment of the Church’s end. The most illuminating parallel is sin, which impedes the fulfillment of nature by presenting multiple obstacles to the accomplishment of its end, but without ever destroying nature in its inherent inclination to this end. The Angelic Doctor explains in this way how it is true to say that evil cannot destroy the good completely22. Evil is indeed a deficiency in the sense of the deprivation of a good. But it must be kept in mind that there are two sorts of deprivation. One is a state of total deprivation that leaves nothing and removes everything, such as blindness in relation to sight, total darkness in relation to light, death in relation to life. There is another deprivation that is always partial and limited, never removing everything, and this is how sin deprives man of his end and his perfection, not making them totally impossible, but distancing him from them little by little by accuмulating obstacles. This deprivation leaves something in existence, which is precisely the aptitude and fundamental inclination of man towards his end. “From which it follows,” concludes St. Thomas, “that a third possibility can exist, like a middle ground, between the good and its total absence.” To apply these principles to ecclesiology, we would say that an exclusively binary concept, or a sic et non approach, would not provide a sufficiently precise account of the current situation in the Church. There is indeed a third term between the good of the Church and the total evil that would be its disappearance or its replacement by a sect or another, totally different, Church. This intermediary solution is precisely the one designated by the expression ‘conciliar Church’. It is equivalent to the sin of the modernist and liberal ideology that has entered minds inside the Church. This sin diminishes and corrupts the good of the Church, in the sense that it impedes the Church’s accomplishing its end, but it leaves the inherent inclination of the Church to this end intact withal. This diminishment of the good, St. Thomas23 continues, cannot be understood as a subtraction, as for quantities, but by the weakening or progressive decline of a tendency. This decrease in capacity is explained by the inverse process of its development. Capacity is developed by dispositions which continually prepare the subject better and better to receive its perfection. Inversely, capacity is diminished by contrary dispositions: the more numerous and intense they are, the more they hinder the subject from receiving its perfection. In this way, if these opposing dispositions can be indefinitely multiplied, the inherent aptitude of the subject to receive its perfection can be in itself indefinitely diminished or weakened. However, this aptitude will never be totally destroyed; its root, the substance of the subject, will remain. For example, if opaque objects were indefinitely interposed between the sun and the air, the air’s capacity to receive light would be indefinitely diminished; but it would not lose this capacity, because air is translucent by nature. In the same way sin could build upon sin, and weaken the soul’s aptitude for grace more and more, since sins are obstacles interposed between us and God. However, they never destroy the aptitude for grace entirely, because it is inherent in the nature of the soul. The reality of the conciliar Church is, therefore, the reality of a falsified concept of the Church which has seized the minds of Churchmen. This falsified concept engenders a persistent counter-government, which paralyzes or halts the normal functioning of Catholic society, by hindering the Church from attaining its end. It interposes in this way obstacles between the Church and its good, but without ever being able to eliminate the inherent inclination of the Church to this good. 21. We know, moreover, by faith that because of divine promises, this countercurrent will never be able to take over the Church entirely, no matter how invasive it may be. Why a counter-church within the Church, and not simply another Church? Because the pope, although he may be complicit in the subversion, or even its leader, remains, until indubitable proof to the contrary, the earthly representative of the only Supreme Head of the Church. This Head is Christ, and His representative, as long as he claims the title, cannot constitute the head of another Church. Whatever obstacles the pope may set in the path of the normal exertion of the papacy and the accomplishment of the Church’s end, the inherent inclination to this exertion and this end remain in the papacy, as Christ willed it, depending on His own power. There is here a fundamental principle, of which Cajetan reminded the schismatics of his times in these words, “Christ instituted St. Peter not as His successor, but as His vicar24”—which is why the institution of the papacy took place the day after the Resurrection, and was carried out by Christ, immortal from then on, living forever. A supreme Head who will live forever has no successor. At the limit, He may have a vicar. And He remains the Master, whatever the wanderings of His vicar. Only this supreme Head would be able to depose His vicar and exclude him from the Mystical Body, and nothing in Revelation authorizes us to believe that Christ would have decided to take such an exceptional measure in order to protect His Church from the contamination of modernism. Rather, we have reason to believe that Divine Providence will not allow such contamination to the point of the extinction of the Church. The Gospel does not say the gates of hell will not attack the Church; it says precisely that whatever the virulence of their attack, the gates of hell will not prevail25.

Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel (1914-1975)

22. Two contemporary theologians, both appalled by the ‘conciliar revolution’ and the mass subversion that followed, are here to give us confirmation of this exegesis. (…) Here Fr. Gleize quotes Fr. Julio Menvielle, before referring to Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel: 23. “No pope will be able to betray the Church to the extent of explicitly teaching heresy with the fullness of his authority […] but Revelation nowhere indicates that a pope, when he exerts his authority without the protection of infallibility, will not play into the hands of Satan and encourage heresy up to a certain point28.” […] “The modernist system, or more accurately the modernist device and procedures, offer the pope an entirely new occasion of sin, an opportunity to equivocate with his mission with which he has never yet been presented. […] This destructive consequence has followed: apostolic Tradition in matter of doctrine, morals, and worship has been neutralized, although not obliterated, without the pope, officially and openly, having had to deny all of it and proclaim apostasy. […] The pope has never said, and has never needed to say, “Everything that was taught, everything that was done before Vatican II, all doctrine and worship established before Vatican II, I hereby strike with anathema.” However, the result is plainly to be seen… To arrive where we stand, it was enough that the pope, without taking measures against the previous tradition of the Church, allowed modernism free rein29.” Free rein: not blocking the countercurrent inside the Church, but nourishing it. Conclusion on principles for solution The expression ‘Conciliar Church’ is therefore legitimate, but within certain limits. As with all rhetorical language, it expresses reality in succinct and concrete terms, more convenient to the speaker’s mind or more accessible to the listener’s. There is both the advantage of a synoptic shortcut and the disadvantage of a formulation that like all of its type cannot (and does not pretend to) express all aspects. Such expressions remain circuмstantial, in the sense that their premises are known or commonly agreed on in a given context, but unknown or hotly disputed in another. Prudence therefore suggests use of the expression according to the context. A shortened expression, such as ‘conciliar Church’, may present the advantage of summarizing all the necessary implications and allowing the speaker or the listener to avoid listing all the factors involved every time it is mentioned. But the same expression may present the disadvantage of disconcerting someone who is unaware of the complexity of the problem, or even of scandalizing him by suggesting an entirely false approach to the issues at stake. For a new—and inevitable—factor has entered the scene since the death of Archbishop Lefebvre: time. Time, indeed, has passed. Referring to the conciliar Church within the context of a subversion that is recent and obvious to everyone entails no risk. Several decades later, when the encroachments of the revolution have become more or less the norm, and have taken on the convincing guise of resolute conservatism—it could lead to misunderstandings and even mislead the one using it. It is enough (but essential) to instruct with greater care and to explain the meaning of the expression and all the ideas involved, before making use of the term to summarize them. The expression of ‘conciliar Church’, if properly understood through proper explanation, maintains its advantage, which is the translation in accessible terms of a double reality: that of the unprecedented crisis currently ravaging the Church and also that of our assurance of the promises of indefectibility. An argument against the expression “conciliar Church” and the response 11. Eleventh, Bishop Fellay9 recently stated that the contemporary Church, as represented by the Roman authorities, remains the true Church, one, Catholic, holy, and apostolic. “When we say extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, out of the Church, no salvation, it is indeed to the Church of today that we refer. That fact is absolutely certain. We must cling to it. […} Going to Rome does not mean we agree with them. But Rome is the Church, and the true Church10.” He speaks further of “the Church, which is not an idea, which is real, which stands before us, which we call the Roman Catholic Church, the Church, with its pope, its bishops, debilitated as they may be11.” Therefore, the official Church cannot be referred to today as a conciliar Church distinct from the Catholic Church.

Bishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991)

34. To the eleventh argument, we answer that Archbishop Lefebvre nevertheless affirmed on several occasions the reality of what he called the ‘conciliar Church’, and it seems most unlikely that his successor would have had the intent to contradict him. Bishop Fellay’s remarks, therefore, mean no more and no less than that the representatives of the hierarchy retain possession of their power, even if they are filled with errors that lead them to act against the good of the Church. In the Paris sermon that the eleventh argument also refers to, Bishop Fellay also stated with regard to Vatican II, “This council was a determined effort to do something new. Not just something superficially new, but profoundly so, in opposition, in contradiction to what the Church had previously taught and even condemned.” Comparing the novelty that entered the Church with the cockle sown by the enemy in God’s field, Archbishop Lefebvre’s successor concluded, “This council sought harmony with the world. It allowed the world into the Church, and now we are faced with disaster.” And at Flavigny, Bishop Fellay clarified his thoughts in words that are an accurate reflection of Archbishop’s Lefebvre’s. After emphasizing the fact that the Catholic Church is the Church of today, contemporary and concrete, the Superior General of the SSPX added, “However, it is made up of an entire organization. One the one hand we must call this organization holy, and on the other it shocks and scandalizes us to the extent that we wish to say, ‘We want no part with those people. It is impossible that these two aspects should go together! Men of God, who lead Christians, the children of the Church, to loss of the Faith? It does not make sense.’ And obviously these errors must be rejected with horror.” The emphasis on the concrete reality of the contemporary Church is only intended to show that in spite of everything, the Church holds the promise of eternal salvation. “In rejecting what is wrong, we must not reject everything. The Church remains one, holy, Catholic and apostolic. […] When we reject the evil found in the Church, we must not conclude that it is no longer the Church. Large parts of it are no longer the Church, true. But not all of it!” These words do not contradict those we quoted in response to the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh arguments. In different terms, they express the same idea to which the Society of St. Pius X has always referred with the expression ‘conciliar Church’: the dual concept of the invasion of liberal and modernist ideas in the Church, and the fundamental indefectibility of that same Church. And the same dual concept is expressed in the metaphor of an invalid, as used by Bishop Fellay at the last Congress of Courrier de Rome: “The Catholic Church is our Church. We have no other. There is no other. The Good God has allowed it to become diseased. For this reason we try to avoid contagion ourselves. But for all that we are not trying to form another Church. […] The disease is a disease; it is not the Church itself. It is within the Church, but the Church remains itself. […] Certainly, we must fight the disease. But this diseased Church is indeed the Church founded by Our Lord. It alone holds the promise of eternal life. To it alone has been promised that the gates of hell will not prevail42.” We can therefore speak of a ‘conciliar Church’, in order to indicate that among the leaders of the Church and among many of its faithful there is an orientation or a spirit that are foreign to the Church and obstruct its good."

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #1 on:** October 18, 2019, 02:11:45 AM »

From: https://fsspx.news/en/content/23744

For an example, we may say +Athanasius, +Burke etc represent the Catholic Church, and Kasper, Marx etc represent the Conciliar Church. Because it is certain that the Catholic Hierarchy comprises of Bishops appointed to episcopal office by the Pope, it is certain that the entire "Conciliar Church"'s Hierarchy could not have defected, otherwise the Catholic Church has defected. At least some Bishops, therefore, within that Hierarchy, represent the Catholic Hierarchy of the Church, while in others a tendency to heresies and novelties impedes it to a greater or lesser extent. Interview with Fr. Gleize: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3501

TWO ROMES, TWO CHURCHES: EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH FR. JEAN-MICHEL GLEIZE
Exclusive Interview with Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize by the Angelus Press

The Angelus: Father, you recently offered an explanation saying that the expression “Conciliar Church” does not signify an institution distinct from the Catholic Church, but rather a “tendency” within it. (See the February 2013 issue of Courrier de Rome, cited in part by DICI.) Wouldn’t the logical consequence of this theory be then that the Traditionalist movement should rejoin the official structure of the Church, so as to fight, from within, the conciliar “tendency” and thus to bring about the triumph of Tradition?
Fr. Gleize: I ask you in turn: what do you mean by “official structure”? Logically, this expression makes a distinction with some other structure that would be non-official: where is it, in your view? For my part, it seems to me that there is the Church and there is her visible structure; and in the Church’s structure there is the good spirit and the bad spirit, the latter having taken hold of the minds of the leaders and wreaking havoc under the pretext of government by the hierarchy. If there is an official structure to which we do not belong and which we should rejoin, then either it is the visible hierarchy of the Catholic Church and we are schismatics, and as such outside the visible Church; or else it is a visible hierarchy other than that of the Catholic Church and we are the Catholic Church inasmuch as it is distinct from the conciliar Church; but then where is our pope? Is our pope the Bishop of Rome, and who is the Bishop of Rome in our Tradition?

The Angelus: We often hear the authorities of the Society say that it is necessary to “help the Catholic Church reclaim her Tradition.” Don’t you think that this sort of statement could leave the faithful confused? For the Catholic Church could not exist without her Tradition; she would no longer be the Catholic Church.
Fr. Gleize: If you consider the Church figuratively as a person, then your question makes sense. But the Church is not a person like you or me; she is a society, and then things are not that simple. “To help the Church reclaim her Tradition” is an expression in which the whole is taken for the part, that is, those men of the Church who are infected by the bad spirit. This figure of speech is legitimate, and a person of good will does not misinterpret it. In the past, the popes have indeed spoken about “reforming the Church.” Now the Church as such does not need to be reformed. Therefore the popes meant not the Church per se, but certain persons in the Church.
The Angelus: But Father, do you really think that we can talk about a “tendency” in order to describe the modernism that is wreaking havoc in the Church, since the liberal and Masonic ideas of Vatican II are, so to speak, institutionalized by the reforms affecting all aspects of the life of the Church: liturgy, catechism, ritual, Bible, ecclesiastical tribunals, higher education, Magisterium, and above all, canon law?

Fr. Gleize: You were right to say “so to speak.” This is indeed evidence (at least unconscious) that here again things are not that simple. Do not forget, in any case, that I am not the first to speak about tendencies to describe the current situation of the Church occupied by modernism. Recall the 1974 Declaration, which Archbishop Lefebvre wanted to make the Charter of the Society: Archbishop Lefebvre speaks precisely about a “Rome with a neo-Modernist, neo-Protestant tendency, which clearly manifested itself in the Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms that resulted from it.” Archbishop Lefebvre does not mean that there are two Romes or two Churches diametrically opposed to one another, as two mystical bodies and two societies would be. He means that there is Rome and the Church, the one Mystical Body of Christ, of which the visible head is the pope, Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ. But there are also bad tendencies that have been introduced into this Church because of the false ideas that are wreaking havoc in the minds of those who are in power in Rome. Incidentally this is the argument repeated in the recent February issue of Courrier de Rome. Yes, the reforms are bad; but the result of them is to instill these tendencies (which remain at the status of tendency) into the things that are reformed: thus we have a new Mass, new sacraments, a new Magisterium, a new canon law. And therefore a new Church also. But these expressions mean to point out the corruption that is wreaking havoc within the Church, not another distinct, separate Church. For example, in the examination that took place on January 11-12, 1979, in response to the questions posed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Lefebvre spoke about the new Mass as follows: “This rite in itself does not profess the Catholic faith as clearly as the old Ordo missae and consequently it may promote heresy....What is astonishing is that an Ordo missae that smacks of Protestantism and therefore favens haeresim [is promoting heresy] could be promulgated by the Roman Curia.”1 You will note that all his words are carefully weighed: “not...as clearly as”; “may promote”; “smacks of Protestantism”; “favens, promoting.” These are the words of a wise man, the words of a man who pays attention to what he says. Archbishop Lefebvre also said: “I never denied that these Masses said faithfully according to the Novus Ordo were valid; nor did I ever say that they were heretical or blasphemous.”2 Careful, therefore! Let us be firm, but let us not be simplistic. The bad tendencies become more or less encrusted on the life of the Church, yet we cannot say that there are always and everywhere new institutions completely foreign to the Church. In all the examples that you mention, it is a question of innovations devised by men of the Church. But the power that they employed (quite abusively) to impose those novelties is one thing, and the visible hierarchy to which they belong is another. The liberal and Masonic ideas of Vatican II have been “institutionalized,” if you want to use that term, but let us reflect on what we mean by that formula: precisely these are new ideas which are at the outset of new tendencies. Ideas have enormous consequences, but they are subtly inoculated in people’s minds, they are not an institution, as an entire separate Church can be. Because otherwise, everybody would see it and everybody would say it, don’t you think? How can we explain the fact that many people, whom we can certainly suppose are nevertheless somewhat thoughtful and well-meaning, continue to think that the Church remains the Church, even though disorder prevails in it extensively.

The Angelus: No doubt, but these tendencies are not Catholic! They cause people to lose the faith and separate them from the Church. We are not the ones who left the Catholic Church; they are, even though they succeeded in taking command of the official structure. We are therefore confronting a structure, an institution different from the Catholic Church. If that were not the case, we would be members of it!
Fr. Gleize: If I follow your logic to the end, I must conclude that the conciliar Church exists therefore as a schismatic sect formally different from the Catholic Church. Therefore, all its members are materially at least schismatic, including all those who have rejoined it; they are outside the Church; one cannot give them the sacraments until they have publicly recanted; the conciliar popes are anti-popes; if we are the Catholic Church either we have no pope (and then where is our visible character?), or else we have one (and then who is it and is he the Bishop of Rome?).

The Angelus: As for the place of the pope in all this, we certainly must admit that there is a mystery here, a mystery of iniquity.
Fr. Gleize: No doubt, but a mystery is a truth that surpasses reason; that the Church should be habitually deprived of her head is an absurdity and contrary to the promises of indefectibility. One of the reasons the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X could rely on to reject the sedevacantist hypothesis was that “the matter of the visibility of the Church is too essential to its existence for God to be able to do without it for decades; the reasoning of those who assert the non-existence of the pope places the Church in an insoluble situation.”3 Actually, your reasoning is more or less equivalent to sedevacantism. This is nothing new; but it is an old error that was already condemned by the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X. Pardon me if I disappoint you, but I will not run the risk of trying to be wiser than Solomon! The 40 years of Archbishop Lefebvre’s episcopate matter, if not in the sight of men, at least in the sight of God. Archbishop Lefebvre was a great man, a great bishop, because he was a man of the Church.

The Angelus: Thank you, Father Gleize.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** October 18, 2019, 06:28:14 AM »

What a waste of time. This term "Conciliar Church" is not meant to be some kind of technical ecclesiological term but is just used to describe what we see, a rupture of this new institution from the old.

SSPX ecclesiology has always been horrific, so I'm stunned to hear of a dedicated "professor of ecclesiology" at Econe.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** October 18, 2019, 06:30:30 AM »

Quote

Bishop Fellay recently stated that the contemporary Church, as represented by the Roman authorities, remains the true Church, one, Catholic, holy, and apostolic. “When we say extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, out of the Church, no salvation, it is indeed to the Church of today that we refer. That fact is absolutely certain. We must cling to it.

This is absolutely unbelievable. We have +Fellay on record saying that there's no salvation outside the Novus Ordo establishment. He's just consigned Arcbishop Lefebvre to the fires of hell.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** October 18, 2019, 06:32:36 AM »

Quote

To the eleventh argument, we answer that Archbishop Lefebvre nevertheless affirmed on several occasions the reality of what he called the ‘conciliar Church’, and it seems most unlikely that his successor would have had the intent to contradict him.

Oh, there's no doubt but that he's contradicting +Lefebvre. This article absolutely proves +Fellay's rupture with +Lefebvre.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** October 18, 2019, 06:36:50 AM »

Quote

One the one hand we must call this organization holy, and on the other it shocks and scandalizes us to the extent that we wish to say, ‘We want no part with those people. It is impossible that these two aspects should go together! Men of God, who lead Christians, the children of the Church, to loss of the Faith? It does not make sense.’

Uhm, no, it absolutely does not make sense. So here we have +Fellay admitting that his own ecclesiology is nonsensical. We "must call this organization holy." In other words, we're forced to pay lip service to this mark of the Church even when the evidence directly contradicts it. So he renders this term "holy" absolutely meaningless. I mean, it says so right there in the Catechism that the Church is "holy" ... so we MUST say that, I guess, even if it's not actually true. Hey, +Fellay, how about putting your brain into gear? If this institution is not in fact holy, then the conclusion must be that it's not the Catholic Church. Instead, they call it holy when it is not, living in an absolute state of cognitive dissonance.

That's the best way to describe the R&R position ... one of complete cognitive dissonance. It's this cognitive dissonance which makes them bifurcate the Church into being two contradictory things at the same time.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 18, 2019, 06:37:19 AM »

This article is the best case I've seen yet for exposing the SSPX for the theological shipwreck that it is.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** October 18, 2019, 06:45:04 AM »

This article is absolutely riddled with ecclesiological heresy, and it's a direct contradiction of Archbishop Lefebvre, who consistently stated that this Conciliar Church represents a complete rupture from the Catholic Church.

Author Topic: Re-visiting Fr. Gleize's ecclesiology on "Conciliar Church" as a movement. (Read 375 times)

Nishant Xavier

Re-visiting Fr. Gleize's ecclesiology on "Conciliar Church" as a movement.

Nishant Xavier

Re: Re-visiting Fr. Gleize's ecclesiology on "Conciliar Church" as a movement.

Ladislaus

Re: Re-visiting Fr. Gleize's ecclesiology on "Conciliar Church" as a movement.

Ladislaus

Re: Re-visiting Fr. Gleize's ecclesiology on "Conciliar Church" as a movement.

Ladislaus

Re: Re-visiting Fr. Gleize's ecclesiology on "Conciliar Church" as a movement.

Ladislaus

Re: Re-visiting Fr. Gleize's ecclesiology on "Conciliar Church" as a movement.

Ladislaus

Re: Re-visiting Fr. Gleize's ecclesiology on "Conciliar Church" as a movement.

Ladislaus

Re: Re-visiting Fr. Gleize's ecclesiology on "Conciliar Church" as a movement.