 Mr. Chairman, my dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, when I reflect on the history of Christianity, three key words stands out for me. Incarnation, kinosis, and parousia. Incarnation, the self-revealing God, Logos, become flesh, sarks, and enters the material of the word history, humanity. The word history, humanity, and culture become the agent of the Logos, the form of God's self-communication. In the Hebrew Bible, the creation story, the word and men are a parable and image of God. Creation is similar to God, precedes the story of the fall, which amends the previous one. The word and mankind are dissimilar from God. They are the mixed image. The outcome is the paradox, proclaimed by Christian theology. The word and mankind are similar to and dissimilar from God. We now see God in the mirror of the world, in nature, history, and humanity, only partially, like in a riddle. We will not see God fully until we see God face to face in Eschatto. The historical word will not truly reflect God until it is whole at the moment that history is fulfilled, the moment of Parousia, the second coming of Christ as Saint Paul told. Similar, the New Testament, the Christmas mystery, the incarnation of the Logos is complemented and amended, protected from too naive, a notion of divine and human identity, the Logos and flesh, by the Easter message of the cross, the mystery of Canosis, God's self-empting, surrender and self-destruction. He, who was God equal, destroyed himself, taking the form of a servant and became obedient unto death on the cross. The outcome is again a paradox. The message of resurrection and redemption, defeat means victory. Those who give and sacrifice their lives will obtain them. Those who wish to keep their lives for themselves will lose them. Resurrection is the mysterious answer to the painful question of the dying Jesus. Oh God, why have you abandoned me? What was the point of it all? Resurrection isn't the happy end of the Easter story. Victory over death is not evident to all people. It can only be accessed and experienced through faith, love and hope. The history of Christianity is the history of a search for the beloved one who is conceived and surprises as in the song of songs, often appearing in a form of a stranger, like on the road to a mouse, who appears in the anonymity of the least of his present and anonymity that will only come to an end at the moment of their last judgment. Yes, throughout the history of Christianity, the Christmas mystery of incarnation merges with the Easter mystery of kenozes. Christ is present in the manifest life of the church in the liturgy and in the carigma, preaching, proclamation and indeed in the visible institutions of the church and baptized word. But we must not forget about the other dim and mysterious form of God that disrupts our notion that we are capable to fully grasping the meaning of incarnation with the tools of our own reason, imagination and previous experience. Christ is present in his church and his truth. He himself as the fullness of truth is present in the carigma and the proclamation of the church. But at the same time, Christ divinely transcendence the historically conditioned institutions of the church and its verbally articulated proclamations and teachings at a specific time and in a particular culture and social space. The Second Vatican Council accepted a very important truth about the church when it choose the expression subsisted in to replace the previously proposed word asked. The church of Christ is identical with the Catholic church when defining the relationship between the church of Christ in its eschatological fullness and the Catholic church in its historical form. This means that the church of Christ subsists in the Catholic church. But the fullness of the crisis church is not entirely exhausted in the Catholic church as we know it from historical experience. It is not fully contained in it without any remainder. There is space for others beyond the borders of Catholic church institutions. There are many authentic gifts of the spirit that are part of the fullness of crisis church that we find in other churches and Christian communities. That is why the Christian churches and communities should be regarded as communion as viatorium, pilgrim communities that should come together and enrich each other on the journey through history by sharing experience and exchanging gifts. I think we can seek an answer to the complex question of the relationship between truth and pluralism by applying the concept of subsisted in analogously to the relationship of the truth that is Christ to the truth as taught by the church. In the church doctrine, truth subsists but is always necessary to add that the culturally and historically conditioned forms of church doctrine do not contain the fullness of truth. There is always scope for father seeking, for questions and interpretations the door can open for anyone who knocks on it with a sense of desire for the truth because the spirit that leads to the fullness of truth bloat where it listed. Likewise, church doctrine subsists sometimes implicitly more than anything else in the religious consciousness of individual believers but no single believer owns its fully and the religious consciousness of individuals and groups of believers do not contain solely the defined phase of the church. There is room in the hearts and minds of believers for critical questions. Likewise, there must be space in the face of the church for meditative silence, for quiet repose in the cloud of unknowing, for the unending paths of seeking and the humble endurance of questions that remain open such as the question of the origin and meaning of evil misterium iniquitatis. So long as we treat God's truth with the arrogance of the monopolistic owners, we forget that Christ alone is permitted to say, I am the truth and every moment of history we are disciples on the path of following the Lord we are pilgrim community, communion viatorum and fullness of truth is an eschatological objective. The work of crisis spirit, which is our mystacoc on the journey remains an unfinished project. The spirit of the Lord undoubtedly speaks through the verbally formulated doctrine of the church but also through the size too deep for words. It is also present in the pain and longing that pervades creation and our hearts. Christianity has been embodied in culture, society and history and dream lies at the foundations of European Christianity. It is said that on one night before a battle the emperor Constantine had a dream in which he saw the sign of the cross and heard the words through the sign, you will be victorious. Next morning, Constantine ordered crisis monogram with the cross to be fixed to the standards of his troops and he did indeed defeat his enemy in the ensuing battle. So the emperor convinced himself that a God of Christians the cross as a protective amulet was a reliable guarantor of a powerful victory, the triumph of power. In gratitude he said Christianity on the path of freedom and soon afterwards on the path of triumph and power. I asked myself over and over again what would have happened to Christianity, the church and Europe and the word if the emperor had understood his dream differently. If he had had his disposal more intelligent dream interpreters who would have offered him a profounder hermeneutics of the sign of the cross. 15th century's after, emperors Constantine another dream, enter European history, a madman carrying a lighted lantern arrived in a marked place in the full light of day and cried out that he was seeking God. God is dead, God remains dead. God was simply a projection of people's wishes and fears. Religion was an illusion. Religion was opium of the people. Didn't the three great prophets of the 19th century, Nietzsche, Freud and Marx all express the same experience just in different words namely that God no longer serves as a tool of power, not as Christianity as a triumphalist, triumphalist ideology. Didn't those three mages from the West bring us the royal gift of a deeper understanding of emperor Constantine's dream? A different hermeneutics of the symbol of the cross. Also smelly, beautiful and profound things have been written about the cross by the great see-logians, mystics and saints and all those individual Christians and many local churches have endured the barn of the cross. It seems that only now in the period of letter day modernity has Christianity of the West been able to experience the good Friday of history when the cry of the abundant crucify Christ was heard in the darkness of God's silence. No longer were they individuals who enter the dark night, God's hiddenness, gradually become a collective historical experience in many countries with a thousand year old Christian culture to understand Constantine's dream. One must understand the meaning of the cross, loss can be gain and gain loss. Victory can be defeat and defeat victory. The cross and suffering can be Cairo's, the right or opportune moment. Isn't what some call secularization and others the death of God? Say the dark night of God's hiddenness. Cairo's, the opportune moment. And isn't it as such a royal gift to the cradle of a new, canotic Christianity, a space for a deeper and more mature face does not face and church need in certain sense to endure weakness, suffering and death in order to experience resurrection and be believable witnesses to the victory over death. If the God who guarantees military victories and is a reliable ally of the powerful is really dead, if the Christianity as Europe's ideology is dead, need Europe and the church become a mausoleum of the dead God, or should they become the battle hem of a new understanding of the gospel? The history of Christianity and the history of the church, faith and theology have not, are not and will not be definitive one way highway of progress, but rather a drama of alternate decline and revival of strength and return and dynamic current of continual recontextualization and reinterpretation of the message and trusted to them. Perhaps the pontificate of Pope Francis will mark the beginning of a new chapter in the history of Christianity, a new reading of the gospel, the promise of an open ecumenical Christianity for the planetary age, the present transition from one historical form of Christianity to another, like similar transitions in the past, could well involve crisis, tensions and conflicts and the gift of discernment of spirits will probably be of greater need than ever. The reforms of the Second Vatican Council would have been unthinkable and unthinkable without the efforts of the great theologians of the 20th century. It strikes me that the reforming pontificate of Pope Francis also urgently needs the support of the painstaking war of today's theologians. It needs a new theology of which an essential part will be chiralogy, the art of reading the sign of the times. In other words, a theological hermeneutics, a critical interpretation of contemporary culture, which is the context of our face life. One of the evident signs of our times is return of religion, expressed in the title of one popular book that says God is back. But God is back in what form? Which God is back? The religion then is returning has surprised both the proponents of the secularization theory and the representatives of traditional religions. It is returning in a form that is different from the religion that existed before the era of secularization. Indeed, even present day fundamentalism, which swears by fidelity to tradition is far from being good old time religion, but is a typically modern phenomenon, a modern reaction to modernity. Psychoanalysis has shown us that the displaced and suppressed content of our minds resurface from the subconsciousness in a different form. Likewise, religion, which was suppressed in modern times by the process of secularization is resurfacing in a new form, rather than a return of religion or return to religion, it would be more appropriate to speak of transformation of religion. In the present time, this transformation takes three main forms, the transformation of religion into a political ideology. The transformation of religion and theology into philosophical hermeneutics and phenomenology. And the transformation of religion into spirituality. Whereas the latter two transformations of religion chiefly concern Western culture and would seem to vindicate the theory that the post-modern era is a post-secular one, the politicization of religion is a global phenomenon. In his 1991 bestseller, Larry Banj de Dier, God's vengeance, Jill Keppel noted that politicization is not restricted to Islam, but is a reaction of all three major monotheists to the mystical religions, to the crisis of liberal democracy in the last quarter of the 20th century. And then even other religions are politicized. I have seen it in Japan, the Shintoism is going back and in Africa, the religious nationalism and Buddhism also. And I spoke with an Indian ambassador in Prague and he told me when I returned home to Calcutta, it was always the streets were packed by people. And when I returned every Sunday morning, the Calcutta was absolutely empty. And it was the time when in the television was a serial about the Indian mythology. And all Indians were looking at it and after all the artists, they played God's, the candidate to the parliament and won. So also he said no part in India cannot be without religious symbols. So this return of religion into politics is a global phenomenon. The entire culture revolution of 1968 and the whole of the second enlightenment in the 1960s were the culmination of the secularization process in the West and also the end of modernity. The conservative wave of the 1970s coincided with the beginning of the post-modern era and the deepening of the globalization process. The Czech philosopher Radim Palos called 1969, the year that humans landed on the moon and the microprocessor were invented as the symbolic beginning of the global age. If he studied the recent political awakening with the Roman Catholic Christianity, we discover that it's a multifaceted phenomenon full of contradictions. On one hand, there were the left-wing currents inspired by the liberation theology and on the other, conservative attempts in the spirit of the American evangelical religious right. It was the time I was speaking about this morning when the church was too consecrated, too concentrated on the criminalization of abortions and the sign of orthodoxy was to be against the contraception and homosexual and gay couples and so on. I think they are important thing but they are not the only important and I think the answer of this word for this concentration of the sexual ethics was look at yourself and then was the scandals with the misusing of children and so on. I think it was the answer, the natural answer for this concentration of the sexual ethics and when Pope Francis has courage to say it was the neurotic obsession with such of things, so this scandals in the media slowly calmed. But another aspect of the political involvement of Roman Catholics is the part played by them in human rights movements in the communist countries and important contribution made by the Catholic church to the peaceful transition of both left wing and right wing authoritarian regimes to democracy and civil society in Spain, Chile, Argentina, Poland, the Philippines and many other countries. Since the enlightenment the relationship of religion to politics has been perceived chiefly as a relationship between the state and the church. The separation of state and church was regarded as a final ideal solution protecting the freedom of civil society from the danger of church domination and the freedom of the churches and religion from the absolutist state power. Today's situation is different however, the nation states have lost their monopoly of politics and the churches have lost their monopoly of religion. The relationship between religion and politics needs to be considered afresh. An interesting phenomenon is the use of religious language by secular politicians. It seems that in very dramatic political situations when emotions are extremely powerful the secular language is unable to express them and politicians instinctively resort to religious concepts. The enemy is the great Satan. Its fear of influence is the empire of evil, et cetera. The secular world underestimated however, the potential energy that religious symbols conceal. Religion can be a force for healing in international relations but it can also become a weapon. It transforms political conflicts into a destructive apocalyptic war between good and evil. First in people's mind and then in political reality. I think this misuse of religious language is generally in my seminar about the psychology of religion I'm always explained when I visited the last match in Isoke in Nagano. It was the great screen in one Prague square and at the end the people were kneeling and reaching the hands to heaven and then were crying in Prague, Hasek. It was the Isoke man. Hasek is not man, he's God. So this people's theology, I don't know what they mean by that. But sometimes when the emotions are so strong and the secular language and the secular gesture are not able to express it and the people spontaneously reach to the religious language but it is not the neutral language, it's the language which is full of power. These religious symbols are full of power, especially in the political life. I ask myself whether the use of religious language for political phenomena and for political conflicts between different ethnics and interest groups is not one of the main reasons for a religion's presence in politics nowadays. That would mean that instead of talking about politicization of religion, we should be talking about sacralization of politics, the radicalization of political conflicts through the power of religious symbols. I can only do briefly with two other forms of the return of religion. Whereas up to about the middle of the last century, any mention of God in academia was often looked upon rather like the mention of sex in Victorian society. We don't speak about such of things, this is a private thing. In recent decades, there is a talk of a religious turn in post-modern philosophy. A major step away from traditional philosophy of religion and from theology cultivated within the traditional metaphysics was when Paul Ricard made a distinction between the first and second naivety. We cannot return, however, to the pre-modern world of the pre-critical relationship to religion. We must pass through the desert of rational criticism, deconstruction, only then will a post-critical new relationship to religious symbols present itself to us by means of interpretation. And as a step is the Richard Kurnitz's anateism to believe again after the criticism, to accept the philosophical criticism of religion and to believe again in a deeper way, this anateism. In my old books, I speak similar about ways as the courage to enter the cloud of mystery as the art of living with mystery, living in midst of life's paradoxes and preserving in an open space of questions for which no answers will be found in this world. God often comes to us as a question and there are questions that are so good that it's pity to spoil them with answers. Unlike the impatient and superficial answers of dogmatic anateism, fundamental religion and emotional religiosity, we pour hallelujah, which amount to ways of having done with God met your face is patient in the face of mystery. Let us move on to the third transformation of religion, the increasing emphasis on spirituality, partially mysticism as religious experience. The bargaining interest in spirituality since the 1960s has been a reaction both to the cold rationality of technological civilization and to the spirituality in speed offerings of the Christian churches. The Christian churches, the mysticism was closed in the monasteries, it was too dangerous for lay Christians, for lay Christians was the morality enough and the ritual enough and now it's the third for the religious experience for mysticism and so on. The ways of syncretic linking of oriental mysticism and psychotherapy with their new age is on the decline and spirituality is seeking new paths. Among Christian thinkers, the most influential are authors of spiritual literature like Thomas Merton, Annenouven, Anselm Green and others. A theology growing on the source of Christian mysticism is capable of speaking to people beyond the church's visible borders. There are many people who could be described as seekers who generally say of themselves that they don't believe in organized religion, but are spiritual people. I think there are many seekers now, also among those who interpret themselves as believers, they are not only the dwellers in the treasure of faith, but also the believers as seekers on the way, the belief that faith for them is the way and also among those so-called Atheists, they are our non-believers. There are many people, they are seekers and also between them, they are the people like Martin Luther spoke about simil justus et peccator. I think there are many simil fidelis and infidelis, the people they are praying in the night, but in the everyday life they are living without God and the people they are going to the church on Sunday but in their nights they are full of anxiety and despair and for many people it's the day life, the life, the space for pace and not the night. And for the others is the night side of the world, the moment for belief and not the everyday life. There are many people, could be described as seekers who generally say of themselves, they are spiritual people. Some of that group are former practicing Christians who parted ways with churches either having formerly left the church or remaining a passive membership but have not ceased it to be believers in their own way. These people now constitute a diffuse church in the West. One is possibly more numerous than the church of practicing Christians. Pope Benedict, evident the Pope Francis said that Jesus said that a pastor, good pastor, must leave the 99 sheeps and to seek the one which is lost. And he said now the good pastor must leave the only sheep and to seek the 99 lost. Pope Benedict has evidently realized that where the church to identify solely with practicing Christians and where to concentrate on them alone, it would soon become a sect. That is why he has urged it, the church to do like the Jews did in the temple of Jerusalem and open a court of Gentiles for those who do not fully identify with the teaching and the practice of the church but nevertheless have an ear for religion and for spirituality. Pope Francis pontificate would seem to be creating scope not only for Pious pagans but also for the ex-Catholics. In a sense, the future of the church and the future of Western civilization in general largely depends on whether the church will realize that another task awaits it in addition to pastor care for disciplined parishioners who have been termed dwellers and in addition to classical missionary activity namely the survey accompanying spiritual seekers in delt. This differs from classical missionary activity that seeks to bring seekers into the church and to squeeze them into the existing institutional and intellectual boundaries of the church. Instead, it seeks to extend those boundaries and enrich the treasure of the church with the experience of those who don't walk with us. New ecclesiology should be based on Jesus' firm response to the disciples' wish for a monopoly of the truth. Who isn't against us is for us. And new ecclesiology should be hypnotic in character and abandon any nostalgia for mass church. It should abandon notion of the church as a sect creating a counter-culture against contemporary society. And also the model of a church as an uncritically conformist in its attitude to major society. I'm now working on a book which will have a title, Afternoon of Christianity. It's an idea inspired by the Tsege-Yung, Tsege-Yung said, the human life is like a day. The use is the morning. Then came the midday crisis and then is the afternoon as the opportunity to go deeper. And I think I can apply this for the history of Christianity. The morning it was anti-modernity, the time to build the institutional structures, the doctrinal structures, and then with secularization came this midday crisis. And now we are on the threshold of the afternoon of Christianity. This struggles between the progressive and conservative. It is always the agenda of the morning. And now it is the struggle about the institutional structure, doctrinal structures, but I think there are something more important and we should spend the afternoon of the church history to going deeper. And so for the church to have an open door, Christians must have open minds. New evangelization will only be truly new if it's preceded and accompanied by a humble silence and attentive listening, the contemplative reading of the signs of the types. Thank you.