What do you think?
Rate this book
Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Xxth Century
A study of changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th century. New low-cost paperback version.
786 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1996
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 10, 2012
As a Catholic scientist, I was pleased to see this book treat science and religion from its very outset, e.g.: "In any event, we have two condemned propositions: 'Catholicism is compatible with modern civilization' ([Pope] Pius IX) and 'Catholicism is incompatible with true science' ([Pope] Pius X). From a comparison of the two condemnations, it becomes clear that modern civilization and true science do not correspond." (pages 40-41).
The only concern I have with this book is that it has not yet received the nihil obstat nor the imprimatur. Maybe in the future a bishop will overview it and see if it is free of doctrinal error.
The only concern I have with this book is that it has not yet received the nihil obstat nor the imprimatur. Maybe in the future a bishop will overview it and see if it is free of doctrinal error.
possible-purchase
July 26, 2021This book has been recommended in several articles I have read recently, as an excellent survey of all the Catholic Church lost in the last century.
March 8, 2011
the best analysis what happened to Church after Vatican 2....very easy , clear, unaffected read....u ll know what "smoke of satan entered the Church " means..
June 11, 2014
Powerful, meticulously-detailed, incisive analysis - by a man who is clearly a complete master and authority on these grave and urgent issues.
I have a bit more about this book at my own traditional Catholic website, which I hope may be of interest or help to anyone who cares about the crisis in the Church today.
Link here: http://corjesusacratissimum.org/2010/...
I have a bit more about this book at my own traditional Catholic website, which I hope may be of interest or help to anyone who cares about the crisis in the Church today.
Link here: http://corjesusacratissimum.org/2010/...
September 4, 2019
8/10.
Might put up more detailed review in time. Book is panoramic and difficult to summarize.
Might put up more detailed review in time. Book is panoramic and difficult to summarize.
September 13, 2020
The one book every informed Catholic today needs to read to understand the crisis of the Church and what they took from us.
August 28, 2020
A collection of philosophical exposition of the doctrines of the Church
July 4, 2026
Published originally in 1996 this is an old book, so it does not go beyond events in pope John Paul II’s pontificate. What it does is it provides a snapshot of the Church between 1965 and 1995, through the eyes of someone born in 1905 and who is (very) concerned at the attitudes and developments taking place around him.
The book combines a colloquial observation with scholarly background information, showing considerable erudition in places. For example, the author comments on the commonly known fact that the emperor of Austria tried to veto the papal election of Pius X in 1903. He then cites the (not commonly known) fact that the opinions of emperors have been ignored many times previously, such as when Julius III was elected (1550), and Marcellus II (1555) and Innocent X (1644) (p74).
The range of topics is enormous, hence the almost 800 page length of the book. Topics are dealt with in numbered paragraphs. It deals with many issues of Vatican II, the purpose, the procedures, questions of whether there was a conspiracy, and what the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ is. Those sections were particularly interesting as the author was a witness of the events at Vatican II.
Then the book roamed more generally over issues such as rebel theologians, Feminism, Sacraments, War, Situation Ethics, The Moon Landings, the theology of work and many more topics. In places the criticism is subtly waspish, such as noting Paul VI’s support for the de-latinization of the liturgy in the Church after 1965, while he was simultaneously complaining to the Mayor of Rome in January 1970 about cutting Latin from school curricula as an ‘offence… and a self-inflicted mutilation of…culture…’ (p612)
Spread among the sections, there were also short pieces on individual theologians, identifying saints and ‘villains’ like (allegedly) Cardinal Bea (#246) who undermined the Church by his work on Ecumenism, and Patriarch Maximos IV who undermined the Church’s teaching on the indisolubility of marriage (#178).
In places there were issues of factual accuracy. For example, US Sister Mary Mansour was described by the book as a ‘director of a state abortion clinic.’ (#144). But that isn’t quite right. She was employed as a state official, and part of the official duties of her role was an oversight of abortion services. Whether that makes a difference to the spirit of the wider point which the author was making is a different matter, but it is still important to be factually accurate in how matters are presented.
In some places the author over-simplified issues. For example he wrote passionately and eloquently about the importance of Latin and the way it should not have been reduced, as it has been. One of the points which showed the value of Latin, he insisted, was its universality, as a common tongue for the whole Church (#278). But that isn’t quite right. Even at the Second Vatican Council itself, where all the (Latin rite) bishops delivered speeches in Latin and engaged in the documents through Latin, the orthodox patriarchs present at the Council made the point that they themselves have never learned Latin, as their Churches used different langauges. So they delivered speeches to the Council in French. Strictly speaking Latin has only ever been universal in the sense that it was universal for the Western European Patriarchate (ie the Latin rite). When other parts of the Church used Latin it was because they arose from missionary activity from that patriarchate. But the Eastern Patriarchs in communion with Rome do not have a tradition of Latin usage. So it isn’t accurate to suggest that there has ever been a single universal language like Latin, for the whole (Catholic) Church.
A peculiarity with the book is the way that the translator sometimes seems to be engaging against the author in places. For example on page 50 the author asserts that Vatican II’s decree on Religious Liberty ‘removed Catholic doctrine from the ordinary path canonized and always maintained by the Church.’ That remark is footnoted to a comment by the translator which refers readers to paragraph 2109 of the Catechism where Vatican II’s comments are integrated into Church teaching.
Overall, this is certainly an interesting book, but it is a long book and it could definitely have been a bit shorter. The author makes some thought provoking points, but his passion for the points he is making means that in places the points are not presented as carefully as accuracy requires.
The book combines a colloquial observation with scholarly background information, showing considerable erudition in places. For example, the author comments on the commonly known fact that the emperor of Austria tried to veto the papal election of Pius X in 1903. He then cites the (not commonly known) fact that the opinions of emperors have been ignored many times previously, such as when Julius III was elected (1550), and Marcellus II (1555) and Innocent X (1644) (p74).
The range of topics is enormous, hence the almost 800 page length of the book. Topics are dealt with in numbered paragraphs. It deals with many issues of Vatican II, the purpose, the procedures, questions of whether there was a conspiracy, and what the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ is. Those sections were particularly interesting as the author was a witness of the events at Vatican II.
Then the book roamed more generally over issues such as rebel theologians, Feminism, Sacraments, War, Situation Ethics, The Moon Landings, the theology of work and many more topics. In places the criticism is subtly waspish, such as noting Paul VI’s support for the de-latinization of the liturgy in the Church after 1965, while he was simultaneously complaining to the Mayor of Rome in January 1970 about cutting Latin from school curricula as an ‘offence… and a self-inflicted mutilation of…culture…’ (p612)
Spread among the sections, there were also short pieces on individual theologians, identifying saints and ‘villains’ like (allegedly) Cardinal Bea (#246) who undermined the Church by his work on Ecumenism, and Patriarch Maximos IV who undermined the Church’s teaching on the indisolubility of marriage (#178).
In places there were issues of factual accuracy. For example, US Sister Mary Mansour was described by the book as a ‘director of a state abortion clinic.’ (#144). But that isn’t quite right. She was employed as a state official, and part of the official duties of her role was an oversight of abortion services. Whether that makes a difference to the spirit of the wider point which the author was making is a different matter, but it is still important to be factually accurate in how matters are presented.
In some places the author over-simplified issues. For example he wrote passionately and eloquently about the importance of Latin and the way it should not have been reduced, as it has been. One of the points which showed the value of Latin, he insisted, was its universality, as a common tongue for the whole Church (#278). But that isn’t quite right. Even at the Second Vatican Council itself, where all the (Latin rite) bishops delivered speeches in Latin and engaged in the documents through Latin, the orthodox patriarchs present at the Council made the point that they themselves have never learned Latin, as their Churches used different langauges. So they delivered speeches to the Council in French. Strictly speaking Latin has only ever been universal in the sense that it was universal for the Western European Patriarchate (ie the Latin rite). When other parts of the Church used Latin it was because they arose from missionary activity from that patriarchate. But the Eastern Patriarchs in communion with Rome do not have a tradition of Latin usage. So it isn’t accurate to suggest that there has ever been a single universal language like Latin, for the whole (Catholic) Church.
A peculiarity with the book is the way that the translator sometimes seems to be engaging against the author in places. For example on page 50 the author asserts that Vatican II’s decree on Religious Liberty ‘removed Catholic doctrine from the ordinary path canonized and always maintained by the Church.’ That remark is footnoted to a comment by the translator which refers readers to paragraph 2109 of the Catechism where Vatican II’s comments are integrated into Church teaching.
Overall, this is certainly an interesting book, but it is a long book and it could definitely have been a bit shorter. The author makes some thought provoking points, but his passion for the points he is making means that in places the points are not presented as carefully as accuracy requires.
December 2, 2021
It's foundation is broken. The author doesn't seem to realise that the Church being divine, cannot substantially change and that therefore the thing he's talking about is not the Church. He deals a lot with 'Pope' Paul VI never stating what must be obvious to one who's done so much research... John XIII, Paul VI and thier successors were not true pope's... but imposters. The Council was false and the Abomination masquerading as the Church is a sham of Satan.
This is yet another piece of propaganda in the SSPXs diabolical arsenal. Meant to deceive the Faithful into contnuing to believe that the AntiChurch of the AntiChrist is the Catholic Church of Christ.
This is yet another piece of propaganda in the SSPXs diabolical arsenal. Meant to deceive the Faithful into contnuing to believe that the AntiChurch of the AntiChrist is the Catholic Church of Christ.
September 23, 2026
There’s a good reason no one except Lefevre endorsed it.
August 1, 2014
Amerio wrote a piece of journalism that has long been out of favor because it was only published by Angelus Press. Nevertheless, as St. Teresa of Avila said: I'm not afraid of the devil. I am afraid of the people who are afraid of the devil. Read Father Z's interesting blog on it and don't stress.
February 9, 2016
A very objective and interesting study of one of the biggest events within the Catholic Church.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews