More than 30 Astounding and Amazing Heresies of Benedict XVI
from his 1982 book “Principles of Catholic Theology”
By Bro. Peter
Dimond, O.S.B.
The media is telling us that the newly “elected”
Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) is “God’s Rottweiler” of orthodoxy – a
veritable hammer of heretics. The
“conservative” members of the Novus Ordo are telling us that Benedict XVI is a
sign that God is still with the Vatican II “Church.” The false traditionalists are telling us that
Benedict XVI may be a sign of hope.
Well, I just completed a study of Benedict XVI’s 1982 book Principles of Catholic Theology – a book
written not in Ratzinger’s young days at Vatican II, but when he was a
“Cardinal” and Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The facts that will now be brought forward
will prove that the above statements about Ratzinger constitute some of the
most egregious lies that Satan ever inspired.
The facts that will now be brought forward will prove that Benedict
XVI’s claim to be the head of the Catholic Church is one of the greatest frauds
in human history. What we are dealing
with in Joseph Ratzinger – the man who is now known as Benedict XVI – is an
apostate and an enemy of the Catholic Church so profound that he ranks right
with Luther, Calvin, etc. Let the facts
prove the point.
Note: In this article the reader will see that I
have gone out of my way to give as much context as possible to the quotes from
Ratzinger, so that people can see that they are not in any way taken out of
context.
In this Article:
1)
RATZINGER LISTS THE POSITION THAT PROTESTANTS AND EASTERN SCHISMATICS SHOULD BE
CONVERTED AND BLUNTLY REJECTS IT
2)
RATZINGER SAYS THAT CATHOLICS CANNOT HOLD VATICAN I AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE “FORM”
OF THE PRIMACY AND AS BINDING ON ALL
3)
RATZINGER BLUNTLY DENIES VATICAN I AND THE DOGMA THAT POPES HAVE SUPREME
JURISDICTION
4)
RATZINGER DENIES THAT THE PAPACY WAS EVEN HELD IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM AND
TELLS US THAT THIS IS WHY WE CANNOT BIND THE SCHISMATICS TO BELIEVE IN IT
5)
RATZINGER SAYS THE VALIDITY OF THE MASS DOES NOT DEPEND ON WORDS BUT ON THE
COMMUNITY. HE ALSO SAYS THAT THOSE WHO
REGARD THE NOVUS ORDO AS INVALID ARE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH
6)
RATZINGER SAYS THAT WE CANNOT KNOW IF WHAT JESUS SAID IS TRUE
7)
RATZINGER AGAIN SAYS THAT CATHOLICS DON’T INSIST THAT PROTESTANTS CONVERT
8)
RATZINGER LABELS AS “HARSH” AND REJECTS THE DOGMATIC DEFINITION OF VATICAN I ON
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY, THAT THE POPE DEFINES DOGMA FROM HIS OWN AUTHORITY
9)
RATZINGER SAYS THE GREEK SCHISMATIC CHURCH IS A TRUE CHURCH EVEN THOUGH NOT
SUBJECT TO THE POPE
10)
RATZINGER PRAISES THE “GREATNESS” OF LUTHER’S “SPIRITUAL FERVOR”
11)
RATZINGER SAYS KRISHNA IS A SYMBOL OF CHRIST
12)
RATZINGER ADMITS THAT VATICAN II CONTRADICTS THE MAGISTERIAL TEACHING OF POPE
PIUS IX ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND FALSE RELIGIONS
13)
RATZINGER SAYS LUTHER’S POSITION ON THE CHURCH OF THE FATHERS IS CORRECT
14)
RATZINGER SAYS TRENT’S DOCTRINE ON THE PRIESTHOOD WAS WEAK AND DISASTROUS IN
ITS EFFECT
15)
RATZINGER SAYS THAT LUTHER’S DENIAL OF THE PRIESTHOOD DESERVES “WEIGHT”
16)
RATZINGER SAYS INFANT BAPTISM HAS NO VALUE OR PURPOSE
17)
RATZINGER TEACHES THAT THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE ON THE MASS IS CORRUPT TO THE CORE
18)
RATZINGER TEACHES THAT THE OLD COVENANT IS VALID
19)
RATZINGER SAYS THAT CATHOLIC DOGMA ON THE SACRAMENTS IS INTERMINGLED WITH
BORROWINGS FROM FALSE MYSTERY RELIGIONS
20)
RATZINGER SAYS THAT CHURCH TEACHING DOESN’T EXCLUDE THOSE WHO HOLD OPPOSING
VIEWS
21)
RATZINGER ADMITS THAT VATICAN II’S TEACHING IS NEW AND DIFFERENT
22)
RATZINGER SAYS THAT TRENT’S DOGMA ON THE PRIESTHOOD IS SOLELY AN ATTACK AGAINST
LUTHER
23)
RATZINGER TEACHES THAT PROTESTANTS HAVE THE EUCHARISTIC PRESENCE
24)
RATZINGER TOTALLY BLASPHEMES CHURCH TRADITION
25)
RATZINGER AGAIN SAYS THAT THE EASTERN SCHISMATIC CHURCHES ARE TRUE CHURCHES
26)
RATZINGER CONDEMNS TRADITIONALISM AS THE ANTITHESIS TO CATHOLICITY
27)
RATZINGER PREACHES THAT MAN IS GOD
28)
RATZINGER SAYS CHRISTIANITY ABSORBS FALSE RELIGIONS INTO ITSELF
29)
RATZINGER TOTALLY DENIES THE UNITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
30)
RATZINGER PRAISES THE ECUMENICAL MONASTERY OF TAIZE (MADE UP OF “CATHOLICS” AND
NON-CATHOLICS) AND SAYS MORE SHOULD BE FORMED
RATZINGER DEMONSTRATING HIS
FAMILIARITY WITH CATHOLIC TEACHING
OTHER QUOTES OF INTEREST
31)
RATZINGER DENIES THE RESURRECTION
CONCLUDING REMARKS
A HERETIC CANNOT BE A VALID
POPE
1) RATZINGER LISTS THE POSITION THAT PROTESTANTS AND EASTERN
SCHISMATICS SHOULD BE CONVERTED AND BLUNTLY REJECTS IT
On page 197 of his book, Ratzinger lists the whole range
of positions with regard to “ecumenical” dialogue with the Protestants and
Eastern Schismatics. In reading
Ratzinger’s list of the “maximum” demands, one can see how simple it is: there
is nothing to dialogue about because they need to convert! But we see that this is not what he or
ecumenism wants at all.
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, San
Francisco, 1982),
pp. 197-198: “Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that
are open to Christian ecumenism. The
maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are
immediately clear. On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East
recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition
of 1870 and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has
been accepted by the Uniate churches. On
the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the
1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a
primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque
from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church
would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally
invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism; the maximum
demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the Catholic Church
accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant
ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the
Church and thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure
of the Church, which would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to
Protestantism and their acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community
structures as the historical form of the Church. While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously
rejected by Christian consciousness, the fourth exercises a kind of fascination
for it – as it were, a certain conclusiveness that makes it appear to be the
real solution to the problem. This is
all the more true since there is joined to it the expectation that a Parliament
of Churches, a ‘truly ecumenical council’, could then harmonize this pluralism
and promote a Christian unity of action.
That no real union would result from this, but that its very
impossibility would become a single common dogma, should convince anyone who
examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not bring Church unity
but only a final renunciation of it. As
a result, none of the maximum
solutions offers any real hope of unity.”
I quoted the
entire passage without a break so that people can see that this is not being
taken out of context in any way.
Ratzinger specifically mentions, and
then bluntly rejects, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that
the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics must be converted to the Catholic Faith
(and accept Vatican I: “the full scope of the definition of 1870”). He specifically rejects it as the way to
unity. This is totally heretical and it
proves that he is a complete non-Catholic heretic!
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan. 6, 1928:
“… the union of
Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are
separated from it…”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov.
18, 1302:
“With Faith urging us we
are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic,
and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of
which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say,
define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity
for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
2) RATZINGER SAYS THAT CATHOLICS CANNOT HOLD VATICAN I AS THE
ONLY POSSIBLE “FORM” OF THE PRIMACY AND AS BINDING ON ALL
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 198: “Certainly, no one
who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of
primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections
and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined
historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for
him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all
Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling
before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic Patriarch
Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such
signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.”
This means that all Christians are not bound to believe
in the Papacy as defined by Vatican I in 1870!
This means that the “Orthodox” schismatics are free to reject the
Papacy! This is a blatant denial of
Vatican Council I.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap.
3, ex cathedra: "… all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true
vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and
declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the
sovereignty of ordinary power over all others… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate
and keep his faith and salvation." (Denz. 1826-1827)
Further, notice that Ratzinger admits that Paul
VI’s symbolic gestures with the schismatic Patriarch “were an attempt to
express precisely this” – that is to say, his gestures (such as kneeling before
the representative of the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras)
expressed that the schismatics don’t have to believe in the Papacy and Vatican
I! Consider this a smashing vindication
of all that we have said (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/)
with regard to John Paul II’s incessant gestures toward the schismatics: giving
them relics; giving them donations; praising their “Churches”; sitting on equal
chairs with them; signing common declarations with them; lifting the
excommunications against them.
We pointed out again and again that these actions
alone (not even considering his other statements) constituted a teaching that
the schismatics don’t have to accept the dogma of the Papacy. Countless false traditionalists and members
of the Novus Ordo denied this and tried to explain these gestures away as
either merely scandalous but not heretical or something else; but here we have
Ratzinger – now Benedict XVI, the new “head” of the Vatican II Church – admitting
“precisely” what we said. This is a
smashing vindication, and a crushing blow to the claims of the Vatican II sect…
and it gets worse.
3) RATZINGER BLUNTLY DENIES VATICAN I AND THE DOGMA THAT
POPES HAVE SUPREME JURISDICTION
For
long sections of his book, Ratzinger engages in detailed discussions of issues
dealing with the Eastern “Orthodox” (the schismatics), Luther, the Protestants,
etc. These discussions are fascinating
for our purposes, since they constitute a veritable position paper of his on these
topics. In his discussion concerning the
“Orthodox,” one discovers that he doesn’t even believe in the dogma of the
Papacy. It is important to remember that the Eastern Schismatics (the so-called
“Orthodox”) often readily admit that the Popes are the successors of St. Peter
as Bishops of Rome. Many of the
“Orthodox” also say that the Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is “the first among
equals” with a “primacy of honor”; but they deny – and in this consists
their chief heresy and schism – that the Popes have a primacy of supreme
jurisdiction from Christ to rule the entire Church.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium
Animos (# 7), Jan. 6, 1928, speaking of heretics and schismatics:
“Among them
there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of
honor or
even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to
arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful.”
Ratzinger
discusses the position of the schismatics, which rejects the primacy of supreme
jurisdiction of the Popes, and here is what he says:
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 216-217: “Patriarch
Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] spoke even more strongly
when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI] in Phanar: ‘Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first
among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’. It is clear that, in saying
this, the Patriarch [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] did not abandon
the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the west. Rather, he stated plainly what the East
understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church
– and it would be worth our while to
consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the
‘primacy of jurisdiction’ but confesses a primacy of ‘honor’ and agape, might
not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome
occupies in the Church – ‘holy courage’ requires that prudence be
combined with ‘audacity’: ‘The kingdom of God suffers violence.’”
This
is an astounding and explicit denial of the dogma of the Papacy and the
infallible canon below! He announces the
position of the schismatic Patriarch, which acknowledges no primacy of supreme jurisdiction
of the Pope, and he not only tells us that the position of the schismatic is
acceptable (as we saw already), but that the schismatic position may in fact be
the true position on the Bishop of Rome!
In other words, the Papacy (the supreme jurisdiction of the Popes over
the universal Church by the institution of Christ as successors of St. Peter)
may not exist at all! This is an
astounding, incredible and huge heresy!
The
fact that this man now claims to be
the Pope when he doesn’t even believe in the Papacy is surely one of the
greatest frauds in human history. Those
who obstinately hold that this non-Catholic is the Pope assist in perpetuating
that monumental fraud.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican
Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, Canon, ex
cathedra: “If anyone thus speaks,
that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church,
not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which
pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole
world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole
plenitude of this supreme power… let him
be anathema.” (Denz. 1831)
4) RATZINGER DENIES THAT THE PAPACY WAS EVEN HELD IN THE
FIRST MILLENNIUM AND TELLS US THAT THIS IS WHY WE CANNOT BIND THE SCHISMATICS
TO BELIEVE IN IT!
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 198-199: “…Nor is it
possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and,
consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling
before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic
Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to
point the way out of the historical impasse… In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with
respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived
in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras [the
non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch], on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the
Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him
as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who
presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial
content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”
This is another astounding heresy! Ratzinger again says that the schismatic
position of the non-Catholic Patriarch Athenagoras, which rejects the Papacy
and merely acknowledges the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter with a
primacy of honor BUT NOT OF SUPREME JURISDICTION, is sufficient! Further, Ratzinger says that the reason that
we cannot expect the “Orthodox” to believe in the Papacy (the primacy of supreme
jurisdiction of the Popes, not just a primacy of honor) is because it wasn’t even held in the first
millennium! Therefore, Ratzinger
holds that the primacy of supreme jurisdiction conferred by Jesus Christ
upon St. Peter and his successors is just a fiction, an invention of later
ages, not held in the early Church. He says that the schismatic position of
Athenagoras – holding that the successor of St. Peter possesses a mere primacy
of honor – is “the doctrine of the primacy
as it was known in the first millennium” and that “Rome need not ask for more”!
Notice how directly this apostate denies Vatican I, which defined that in all
ages the primacy of jurisdiction was recognized:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican
Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 2, ex
cathedra: “Surely no one has
doubt, rather all ages have known that
the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the apostles and pillar
of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Savior and Redeemer of the human race; and
he up to this time and always lives and presides and exercises judgment in his
successors, the bishops of the holy See of Rome, which was founded by him
and consecrated by his blood. Therefore, whoever succeeds Peter in
this chair, he according to the institution of Christ himself, holds the
primacy of Peter over the whole Church.” (Denz. 1824)
Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) totally rejects this
dogma and the entire Catholic Faith.
5) RATZINGER SAYS THE VALIDITY OF THE MASS DOES NOT DEPEND ON
WORDS BUT ON THE COMMUNITY! HE ALSO SAYS
THAT THOSE WHO REGARD THE NOVUS ORDO AS INVALID ARE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 377: “…we are witnesses
today of a new integralism
[read: traditionalism] that may seem to support what is strictly Catholic but in reality corrupts it to the core. It produces a passion of suspicions, the
animosity of which is far from the spirit of the gospel. There
is an obsession with the letter that regards the liturgy of the Church as
invalid and thus puts itself outside the Church. It is forgotten here that the validity of
the liturgy depends primarily, not on specific words, but on the community
of the Church; under the pretext of Catholicism, the very principle of
Catholicism is denied, and, to a large extent, custom is substituted for
truth.”
This paragraph is both fascinating and incredibly
heretical. First, he denounces a “new integralism” that is obsessed with the “letter” of the
liturgy (i.e., the form) in regard to validity.
He is obviously talking about Traditional Catholics, who oppose the
Novus Ordo and its change to the form (i.e., the letters) of the
Consecration. He says that this group
regards the “liturgy of the church as invalid” [the Novus Ordo] and “thus puts
itself outside the Church.” He then says
that the validity of the liturgy doesn’t depend on specific words but on the
community. This is an astounding heresy,
which devastates Catholic sacramental teaching.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8,
Nov. 22, 1439, "Exultate Deo":
"All these sacraments are made
up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the
person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing
what the Church does. If any of these is
lacking, the sacrament is not effected." (Denz. 695)
And this is precisely why Ratzinger approved the
notorious document that we covered in the Heresy of the Week a few years ago
that a schismatic Mass with no words of Consecration is valid and can be
attended!
All of this proves that Ratzinger doesn’t even have
a whiff of the Catholic Faith. He is an
apostate of unspeakable proportions; and he is extremely familiar with the
Catholic Faith he constantly rejects, of course. He proves this throughout the book. Anyone who reads his writings can easily
recognize that the man is extremely familiar with the Catholic Faith he
constantly rejects.
6) RATZINGER SAYS THAT WE CANNOT KNOW IF WHAT JESUS SAID IS
TRUE
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 359: “Granted, with
regard to the ultimate questions of who God is or what good is, we can never
achieve the degree of certainty we can achieve in the realm of mathematics and
technology. But when all knowledge that
does not take the form of technical knowledge is declared to be nonknowledge, then we are cut off from the truth. We
cannot, for instance, decide whether what Jesus said is true but can only
dispute whether or not he said it.
But that is ultimately an idle question.”
This
is one of the most astounding heresies I’ve ever seen. [Note: I read the book and these sections
carefully and these quotations are not taken out of context.] Not only does Ratzinger say that we cannot
decide whether what Jesus said is true, but he says that we can dispute if he even
said it. Perhaps what is most astounding
about this is not that the apostate Ratzinger actually believes this, but that
conservative members of the Novus Ordo can read a book like this and still say
that Ratzinger is “arguably the finest theologian of the modern era” (Fr. Peter
Stravinskas, back cover of Gospel, Catechisis, Catechism, by Joseph
Ratzinger).
7) RATZINGER AGAIN SAYS THAT CATHOLICS DON’T INSIST THAT
PROTESTANTS CONVERT
Building upon his theme of rejecting the “maximum
solution” of conversion, Ratzinger explicitly rejects converting the
Protestants again on page 202.
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 202: “But we can define
the required action even more clearly in terms of the above diagnosis. It
means that the Catholic does not insist on the dissolution of the Protestant
confessions and the demolishing of their churches but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confessions
and in their ecclesial reality.”
He doesn’t want the Protestant religions dissolved
and converted to Catholicism, but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened
in their confession of Protestantism.
8) RATZINGER LABELS AS “HARSH” AND REJECTS THE DOGMATIC
DEFINITION OF VATICAN I ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY, THAT THE POPE DEFINES DOGMA
FROM HIS OWN AUTHORITY
In
the following dogmatic definition of Papal Infallibility, please notice the
bolded and underlined portion.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican
Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra
[from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor
and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he
explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church...
operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His
Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman
Pontiff from himself [ex sese],
but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. [Canon] But if
anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid:
let him be anathema.” (Denz. 1839)
This dogma teaches that when a Pope defines a dogma
ex cathedra he does so “from himself” (ex sese). The Pope
doesn’t need the consensus of the Church or the bishops to define; he possesses
the supreme power of jurisdiction himself, in which “the supreme power
of the Magisterium is also comprehended” (Vatican I, Denz. 1832). To deny this is to reject dogma, Vatican I
and Papal Infallibility. Guess what? Ratzinger specifically denies this
dogma. He is literally giving us a
course on how to deny Vatican I.
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 234: “Vatican Council I had said that the pope
can make definitive decisions not only with the consent of the Church but also
in his own right (‘ex sese’). Although many efforts were made during
Vatican Council II to interpret this harsh and very ambiguous formula in such a
way that its real meaning would be more readily apparent, they were not
successful at that time because of disagreement among those
concerned. It is my opinion that what
was then only a wish is again being attempted in this section of the
‘Declaration’ [a post-Vatican II document].
It is no longer simply stated
that the teaching ministry can make decisions on its own – ex sese. Now it is more
accurately stated that, while the teaching ministry always acts against
the background of the faith and prayer of the whole Church, ‘its office is not
reduced merely to ratifying the assent already expressed by the latter…’”
Don’t be confused by the ambiguity of the end of
this quotation. The fact is that
Ratzinger called Vatican I’s infallible definition that the Pope defines from
himself (ex sese)
“harsh”; and he said that a post-Vatican II declaration is “more accurately
stated” than the dogmatic definition of Vatican I! This latter statement is blatantly heretical
because it means that the infallible teaching of Vatican I is less than
perfectly accurate. The former statement
that Vatican I is “harsh” and “very ambiguous” is smacking of heresy and shows
his true schismatic colors.
9) RATZINGER SAYS THE GREEK SCHISMATIC CHURCH IS A TRUE
CHURCH EVEN THOUGH NOT SUBJECT TO THE POPE
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 259: “Even Luther looked to the Greek Church, which had remained a true church without being
subject to the pope, and he, too, concluded that what was important was
not the concrete, structured communion but the community behind the
institutional one.”
This
is totally heretical.
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place
whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe
that all those who in baptism have
received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will
withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one
alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately
separated from the faith of this Roman Church.
In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to
you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and
outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.” (Denz. 570b)
10) RATZINGER PRAISES THE “GREATNESS” OF LUTHER’S “SPIRITUAL
FERVOR”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 263: “It is,
consequently, all the more regrettable, I think, that the debate about office
that is being carried on in the Church today relies, to a large extent, on the
early Luther (this is by no means a thought that is expressed here for the
first time) without recognizing the religious center that was most important to
him: the call to forgiveness. That which in Luther makes all else
bearable because of the greatness of his spiritual fervor, that
which orders it to a Christian center – precisely that is being ignored.”
Ratzinger
praises the “greatness” of the “spiritual fervor” of arguably the worst heretic
and enemy of the Catholic Church in history – a man who launched vicious
attacks against Catholic dogma, the Papacy and even Our Lord’s purity of
soul. It’s worthy of note, I think, that
Ratzinger says this on page 263 of his book.
This comes just two pages after Ratzinger quotes some of Luther’s
vicious attacks against the Catholic Church.
Ratzinger’s statement praising the “greatness” of
Luther’s “spiritual fervor” also comes two pages before Ratzinger uses the word
“great” again in a positive way to describe St. Charles Borromeo:
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 265: “In our century, we
have seen a last impressive echo of St.
Charles Borromeo’s reform in the person of Pope John XXIII, whose edition
of the great bishop’s protocol for
visitations is a legacy...”
Ratzinger
speaks of Luther again on page 291, footnote 17:
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 291, footnote 17: “Instead of the great religious earnestness
that Luther’s criticism of the Church manifests precisely because of this
doctrine of justification, vague attitudes frequently appear that regard the
‘gospel’ all too often from the banal perspective of something ‘happy’...”
11) RATZINGER SAYS KRISHNA IS A SYMBOL OF CHRIST
St.
Paul teaches us that the gods of the heathen are devils (1 Cor. 10:20). The same is taught in Psalm 95:5. Hinduism is a heathen religion which worships
false gods (devils). That is the
teaching of the Catholic Church.
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 326: “Hinduism, for instance, preserves very
impressive myths about the descent of the god Krishna. But because, in the last analysis, they are
for it only images of the infinite that can never be confined in words, these
histories can be extended, rewritten, enlarged by borrowings and varied in a
number of other ways; there is, therefore, no problem about adopting the
history of Jesus Christ as one of the descents of Krishna. Christian faith, on the other hand, holds
firmly that, in Jesus, God really came into the world in a way that is
historical, not symbolical. This does
not mean that the Krishna-myths have no value.
But the way in which a Christian can understand them is different from
the fusion with Christ that occurs in Hinduism.
For the Christian, Krishna is
a dramatic symbol of Christ, who is reality, and this relationship is
not reversible.”
Krishna is defined as a “great deity or deified
hero, worshipped as incarnation of Vishnu.”
Krishna is a false god, an Antichrist.
The Christian knows that Krishna is a symbol of the devil and Antichrist
– the antithesis to the unique and true Incarnation of God, Jesus Christ. But the apostate Ratzinger tells us that
Krishna is a symbol of Jesus Christ.
This is total apostasy.
12) RATZINGER ADMITS THAT VATICAN II CONTRADICTS THE
MAGISTERIAL TEACHING OF POPE PIUS IX ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND FALSE RELIGIONS
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the
text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with
the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the
Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus…As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church
under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new
phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central
Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should
exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after
1789."
It is a dogma of the
Catholic Church that states have a right, and indeed a duty, to prevent false
religions from publicly propagating and practicing their false faiths. States must do this to protect the common
good – the good of souls, which is harmed by the public dissemination of
evil. This is why the Catholic Church
has always taught that Catholicism should be the only religion of the state;
and that the State should exclude and forbid the public profession and propagation of any other. This was Magisterially taught by many Popes,
including in Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, in which Pius IX condemned the opposite
view.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 77:
“In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic
religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all
other cults whatsoever.” – Condemned.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 78:
“Hence in certain
regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have
public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” – Condemned.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 55:
“The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the
Church.” – Condemned.
But Vatican II taught just the opposite. The teaching of Vatican II on religious
liberty could literally have been added to the errors of the Syllabus condemned
by Pope Pius IX.
Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 3:
“So
the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common
good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens. With equal certainty it exceeds the limits
of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious
activity.”
In the above quotation,
Ratzinger is bluntly admitting that the two contradict each other, and that
Vatican II is a “countersyllabus.” So,
if you ever encounter those who attempt to say that Vatican II did not
contradict Catholic dogma, quote Ratzinger against them. He says it again and again in his book,
calling the teaching of Vatican II “the countersyllabus”!
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 385: "By a kind of
inner necessity, therefore, the optimism
of the countersyllabus gave way to a new cry that was far more
intense and more dramatic than the former one."
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 391: "The task is
not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to
deepen its true intention in the light of present experience. That
means that there can be no return to the Syllabus,
which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and
a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage."
This
is just an astounding heresy!
13) RATZINGER SAYS LUTHER’S POSITION ON THE CHURCH OF THE
FATHERS IS CORRECT
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 141: “In many respects,
a decision about the role of the Fathers seems, in fact, to have been reached
today. But, since it is more unfavorable
than favorable to a greater reliance upon them, it does nothing to lead us out
of our present aporia. For, in the debate about what constitutes greater fidelity to the Church of
the Fathers, Luther’s historical insight is clearly proving itself right.”
This is an astounding heresy. He says that Luther’s insight about fidelity
to the Church of the Fathers is proving itself right! What is this insight? Well, on the page just before (p. 140), he
quotes passages from Luther in which Luther denigrated the Church Fathers:
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 140: “By contrast,
Luther’s attitude to the Fathers, including Augustine, was always more
critical… It will suffice to quote one typical text: ‘…I myself wasted and lost
much time on Gregory, Cyprian, Augustine, Origen… they all followed their own
conceit…’”
So, one page after quoting Luther’s attacks on the
Fathers, Ratzinger says that Luther’s position in this regard is proving itself
right.
14) RATZINGER SAYS TRENT’S DOCTRINE ON THE PRIESTHOOD WAS
WEAK AND DISASTROUS IN ITS EFFECT
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 247-248: “The nature of
the questions that originated with Luther and pointed the course for the
Council of Trent cannot be studied in detail here. Suffice it to say that Luther saw in the
link between sacerdos [priest] and sacrificium [sacrifice] a denial of grace
and a return to the law… This position, which, with its passionate
concern for the purity of Christian doctrine, points to the heart of
Luther’s urge to reform… The Council of
Trent did not attempt here a comprehensive treatment of the problem as a
whole. Therein lies the weakness of
the text it promulgated, the effect of which was all the more disastrous
since the Reform Decrees [of Trent], with their broad theological range, were
not fully incorporated into the theology of the schools. The
uneasiness about the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood as proclaimed by Trent
that was recognizable even before Vatican Council II and that grew into an avalanche as a result of the bold ecumenical stance
taken by that Council [Vatican II] has its historical foundation in the
limited range of the Tridentine statement.”
Ratzinger is discussing the Catholic and Protestant
views of the priesthood. He says that
Trent’s infallible Decree on the Priesthood was weak and disastrous in
effect. He also says that the
“uneasiness” about Trent’s teaching “grew” as a result of the “bold ecumenical
stance” taken by Vatican II. He is thus
admitting that Vatican II’s teaching directly contributed to a rejection or a
furthering from Trent’s infallible teaching.
15) RATZINGER SAYS THAT LUTHER’S DENIAL OF THE PRIESTHOOD
DESERVES “WEIGHT”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 248: “…the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood as
proclaimed by Trent… For, in contrast to the biblically motivated force of
Luther’s attitude, the Tridentine statement [Trent’s statement] seemed too
positivistic and ecclesiological… we must read Trent in the context of the
whole ecclesial tradition and, in this way, recognize the magnitude of the
question, which is by no means limited to the problem of sacrifice. If we do that, the Tridentine statement will
not, of course, be nullified, but its
context will, to a certain extent, change its perspective and so give
Luther’s questioning the weight it deserves.”
He is saying that the arch-heretic Martin Luther’s
vicious attacks and denials of the Catholic dogma on the priesthood deserve
weight. This is totally heretical.
16) RATZINGER SAYS INFANT BAPTISM HAS NO VALUE OR PURPOSE
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 43: “The conflict over infant baptism shows the extent to which we have lost
sight of the true nature of faith, baptism and membership in the
Church. Once we begin to understand
again, it will be clear to us that baptism is neither the imposition of burdens
about which we should have been allowed to make our own decision nor acceptance
by a society into which we have been forced without being consulted in advance
but rather the grace of that meaning which, in the crisis of self-doubting
mankind, can alone enable us to rejoice in being human. It is obvious also that the meaning of baptism
is destroyed wherever it is no longer understood as an anticipatory gift but
only as a self-contained rite. Wherever it is severed from the
catechumenate, baptism loses its raison
d’etre [its reason to be]."
This is an incredible, astounding and gigantic
heresy! He is saying that infant baptism
has no meaning or purpose! Some may
wonder why, then, Ratzinger practices infant baptism? It is because he sees no problem practicing
and going through the motions with something that, to him, has no meaning or
purpose. In the same way, he poses as
“the Pope” even though he doesn’t even believe in the primacy of the supreme
jurisdiction of the Popes, as proven already.
In the same way, he poses as the head of the Church of Jesus Christ when
he doesn’t even believe that Jesus’ words are necessarily true, as proven
already. We must also remember that
Ratzinger is a deliberate liar and a deceiver.
In the early 1980’s, Ratzinger said that the Third Secret of Fatima is
about dangers to the Faith. But he
completely contradicted this in the book The
Message of Fatima in 2000. He is a
wicked enemy of the Church and a complete apostate; and he has been an enemy of
the Church since Vatican II. He attended
Vatican II when he was a priest, and he was one of the most radical heretics at
the Council. While at Vatican II
Ratzinger didn’t dress in a cassock or clerical collar, but in a suit and
tie. Ratzinger lies, contradicts himself
and wants to deceive. What he says above
is a clear denial of infant baptism, since there is no catechumenate in infant
baptism. He is a complete non-Catholic
apostate!
Pope Paul III, The
Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says
that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to
baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of
sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed
by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the
necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of
baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be
anathema.” (Denz. 791)
17) RATZINGER TEACHES THAT THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE ON THE MASS
IS CORRUPT TO THE CORE
On
page 255 of his book, Ratzinger is discussing what he deems to be corrupt
developments in the Middle Ages. Since
he takes some time to develop his point, I must provide a lot of context to
expose the incredible heresy that he utters in this context:
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 255-256: “The most
crucial event in the development of the Latin West was, I think, the increasing
distinction between sacrament and jurisdiction… From a theological standpoint,
the critical effect of this separation of sacrament and jurisdiction seems to
me to have been the resultant isolation of the concept of sacrament. The essential identity of Church and
liturgical assembly, of Church and communion, was no longer evident. Like any other society, the Church was now,
in a certain sense, a juridical instrument, a complex of laws, ordinances,
claims. In addition, of course, she had
also what was peculiarly her own: the fact that she was the situs of cultic
acts – of the sacraments. But the
Eucharist was just one of these – one liturgical act among others, no longer
the encompassing orbit and dynamic center of ecclesial existence per se. In consequence, the Eucharist itself was fragmented into a variety of loosely related
rites: sacrifice, worship, cultic meal.
With the isolation of the sacrament there was linked a
naturalization. The pneumatic [of the spirit] character of the remembrance that
produced presence was dimmed; the
linking of the whole sacramental event to the oneness of the one crucified and
risen Lord was overshadowed by the emergence of a plurality of separate
sacrificial rites – this, too, indubitably a product more of concrete
situations than of theological considerations.
The doctrine of the fruits of
the Mass gave meaning to the stipend and led to the greatest possible
emphasis on the unique fruits of each separate Mass, in which special
fruits were granted that would not otherwise exist. The
whole seems more like the ideological superstructure of a particular economic
situation than like a genuine theological consideration that corrects and
transforms human situations. I think we
should be honest enough to admit the temptation of mammon in the history of the
Church and to recognize to what extent it was a real power that worked to the distortion and corruption of both
Church and theology, even to their inmost core. The separation of office as jurisdiction from
office as rite was continued for reasons of prestige and financial benefits;
the isolation of the Mass, its separation from the unity of memoria and,
therefore, its privatization were
products of the amalgamation of Masses and stipends. What Ignatius of Antioch strove to combat
returned here with full force…”
This
is a total mockery of the Catholic Church.
It is a total rejection of the indefectibility of the Church. It is a complete blasphemy against the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass. Ratzinger asserts
that the Church’s teaching on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and its liturgical
rites are corrupt “even to the their
inmost core.” Further, he teaches
that the rites of the Church “dimmed” the presence of the Spirit and
“overshadowed” the oneness of the crucified and risen Lord. Further, he asserts that the dogma of the
fruits of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an invention that gave meaning to
the stipend; that is to say, the dogma about the fruits of the Mass was simply
invented to make money: the “ideological
superstructure of a particular economic situation.” Finally, he asserts that the
privatization of Masses was also the product of the stipend. Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) is an anathematized
apostate who totally rejects and is condemned by the infallible Council of
Trent.
Pope Pius IV, Council
of Trent, Sess. 22, On the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, ex cathedra: “The
fruits of that oblation (bloody, that is) are received most abundantly through
this unbloody one [the Mass]; so far is the latter from being derogatory in any
way to Him.” (Denz. 940)
Pope Pius IV, Council
of Trent, Sess. 22, Can. 7, On the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, ex cathedra:
“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the
Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety
rather than the services of piety: let
him be anathema.” (Denz. 954)
Pope Pius IV, Council
of Trent, Sess. 22, Can. 8, On the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, ex cathedra:
“If anyone says that Masses in which the priest alone communicates
sacramentally, are illicit and are therefore to be abrogated: let him be
anathema.” (Denz. 954)
18) RATZINGER TEACHES THAT THE OLD COVENANT IS VALID
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 95: "…Jesus did not
present his message as something totally new, as the end of all that had
preceded it. He was and remained a Jew;
that is, he linked his message to the tradition of believing Israel. He
did not abandon the Old Testament as something antiquated and now superseded."
The Old
Testament/Covenant is superseded by the New and Eternal Testament. This is a dogma. Ratzinger rejects this dogma. The same heresy was taught by John Paul II
and is taught consistently by Novus Ordo Bishops. Since he holds this heresy, Ratzinger wrote
the Preface of the book entitled The
Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible. This
book (2001) argues that the Jews’ wait for the Coming of the Messiah is
justified and validated by the Old Testament. This means that just a few years ago
Ratzinger denied that Jesus Christ is Messiah.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate
Domino, 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly
believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the
Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred
rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify
something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that
time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased,
and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after
the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to
them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save
without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that
after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could
have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for
salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they
cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All,
therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe
circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it
declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate
in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these
errors."
19) RATZINGER SAYS THAT CATHOLIC DOGMA ON THE SACRAMENTS IS
INTERMINGLED WITH BORROWINGS FROM FALSE MYSTERY RELIGIONS
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 108: “The question of
the relationship of faith and baptism has consequently become increasingly
unanswerable for contemporary theology. Even Luther’s solution is not particularly
convincing. Baptism is widely
regarded as no more than a positive dispensation of God, who intended in this
way to give faith a necessary and meaningful support – but, from the
perspective of our century, we must ask if he did not, in fact, burden rather
than support it. It is understandable, then, that for many exegetes the level of baptism
and that of faith seem, in Pauline theology, to be two wholly distinct paths
that are fundamentally incapable of meeting. What
is genuinely Christian is strangely intermingled with what has been borrowed
from the mystery religions. The
fact that baptism took place long before Paul makes it even more difficult to
separate what refers to Christianity as a whole from what refers solely to the
sacraments.”
There
are three interesting points about this paragraph: First, he says that “even Luther’s”
solution is not convincing on the subject of faith and baptism, as if Luther’s
heretical positions are normally convincing!
Second,
he says that it is understandable that many exegetes find faith and baptism to
be two distinct paths that are incapable of meeting. Okay, so the Catholic dogma which teaches
that one is justified by faith through baptism is wrong, and the Protestant
heresy that justification cannot come from baptism because it is by faith is
correct!
St. Augustine (+405): “That is why [at Baptism]
response is made that the little one believes, though he has as yet no
awareness of faith. Answer is made that he
has faith because of the Sacrament of faith [Baptism].” (Jurgens,
The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol.
3:1424.)
Pope Paul III, Council
of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra: “… the
instrumental cause [of Justification] is the Sacrament of Baptism, which is
the ‘Sacrament of Faith,’…” (Denz.
799)
Third, and worst of all,
Ratzinger says that Catholic teaching on faith and baptism involves what is
genuinely Christian strangely combined with that “borrowed from
the mystery religions”!
20) RATZINGER SAYS THAT
CHURCH TEACHING DOESN’T EXCLUDE THOSE WHO HOLD OPPOSING VIEWS
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 229: “The statement of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [a post-Vatican II document of
1973 called Mysterium Ecclesiae]
belongs to the latter category. It proposes to meet the crisis by a
positive presentation especially of those points of Church doctrine that are
under dispute and to establish the identity of Catholicism, not by excluding
those who hold opposing views, but by an official enunciation of the
constituent elements of Catholicism…”
This
is blatantly heretical.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,”
1441:
“Therefore the Holy Roman
Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the
Church, whoever holds opposing or
contrary views [e.g. heretics].” (Denz. 705)
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church
has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers,
who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would
recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her
authoritative Magisterium.”
21) RATZINGER ADMITS THAT VATICAN II’S TEACHING IS NEW AND
DIFFERENT
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 230: “It [a post-Vatican
II document of 1973] deals, in six points, with three principal themes: the
question of the oneness of the Church; questions related to the problem of
‘infallibility’; and questions about the priesthood in the Church. Even the first of these themes causes
considerable ecumenical consternation, although, in dealing with a topic that
was recognized as being especially explosive from an ecumenical point of view, the text purposely speaks only in
quotations from Vatican Council II and exercises particular care not to use
formulas of its own devising or those of earlier Church proclamations in order
to avoid any suggestion that it might be reverting to positions held before the
Council or that it was holding obdurately to any new postconciliar
position.”
This is very interesting. First, notice that he calls it “the problem”
of infallibility. He speaks in this way
all the time, constantly referring to Catholic dogmas as “problems.”
Second, notice that he puts “infallibility” in quotation
marks, as if it weren’t a true concept.
He does this frequently with things such as “original sin” (p. 93) and
“the Apostles’ Creed”: “the baptismal
creed of the Church of Rome, the
so-called ‘Apostles’ Creed’”
(Ratzinger, Gospel, Catechisis, Catechism,
1995, p. 33.). It clearly gives the
impression that he doesn’t even believe in them.
Third, and most
importantly, Ratzinger explicitly indicates that the document to which he
refers “exercises
particular care not to use formulas of its own
devising or those of earlier Church
proclamations in order to avoid any suggestion that it might be reverting
to positions held before the Council.” This proves that Vatican II’s position on
ecumenism – which deals with Faith and how Catholics view the Church and those
outside of it – is different from that of “earlier Church proclamations.” This proves, from Ratzinger’s own words, that
the Vatican II religion is a new faith, a new false religion contrary to that
of earlier Church proclamations.
22) RATZINGER SAYS THAT
TRENT’S DOGMA ON THE PRIESTHOOD IS SOLELY AN ATTACK AGAINST LUTHER
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 249: “It follows that the Tridentine text [on the Sacrament of
Order] can be correctly understood only if we read it, not as an exhaustive and positive presentation of the Catholic
understanding of the priesthood, but as a polemical statement [a
disputatious statement], the sole
purpose of which was to formulate antitheses to Luther’s main theses.”
This
is not only gravely insulting to Trent, and revealing of the apostate mind of
Joseph Ratzinger, it is blatantly heretical.
It is heretical because Trent specifically declares that the purpose of
its decree is for the faithful to know the Catholic truth on the
priesthood.
Pope Pius IV, Council
of Trent, Sess. 22, Chap. 4: “These are the matters which in general it
seemed well to the sacred Council to
teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the sacrament of order. It has, however, resolved to condemn the
contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of
faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the
Catholic truth in the midst of darkness of so many errors, and may adhere
to it.” (Denz. 960)
We can see that the sole purpose of Trent’s
infallible decree was not to refute Luther and to form anti-theses to his
heresies. That was certainly one purpose, but not the only
purpose. Elucidating the teaching of the
Church on the Sacrament of Order was another purpose. Ratzinger’s statement is heretical and
insulting to the teaching of the Magisterium, as if its highest decrees were
only to be understood as school-yard children trading insults.
23) RATZINGER TEACHES THAT PROTESTANTS HAVE THE EUCHARISTIC
PRESENCE
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 236: “Anyone who interprets the text [a
post-Vatican II text] narrowly could conclude from it that the
priesthood and, consequently, the Eucharist are being denied to Protestant
churches. But the question of the
priesthood is contested on both sides… If the Catholic Church sees a ‘too
little’ in the Protestant churches, they, for their part, find a ‘too much’ in
the Catholic Church. There is a lack
of unity here that does not have to be regarded as irremediable and that
shows signs of hope again and again in individual areas of misunderstanding… As regards the Eucharist, it is quite
certain, not least because of the disagreement over the question of ministry,
that here, too, there will be the same complaints about too much and too
little. But the Catholic teaching here recalled to memory does not in any way deny
that Protestant Christians who believe in the presence of the Lord also share
in that presence.”
Speaking in the context of whether the Protestants
have the Real Presence of the Eucharist, Ratzinger says that the Catholic
teaching does not in any way deny that the Protestants who believe in the
presence of the Lord share in that presence.
Not once does he say that they are devoid of the Real Presence because
they don’t have a valid Mass or a valid priesthood. In fact, he says that the position that they
don’t have a valid priesthood or Eucharist (which is a dogmatic fact) is
“narrow”! This proves again that
Ratzinger is a complete and utter rejecter of the Catholic Faith.
24) RATZINGER TOTALLY BLASPHEMES CHURCH TRADITION
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 100: “Our topic seems to
demand that we take a third step here and speak of the problem of tradition as it exists in the Church... This
bearer of tradition in the case of Jesus is the Church… The Church’s role
as bearer of tradition rests on the oneness of the historical context and the
communal character of the basic experiences that constitute the tradition. This bearer is, consequently, the sine qua
non of the possibility of a genuine participation in the tradition of Jesus,
which, without it, would be, not a historical and history-making reality, but
only a private memory. The Church is tradition, the
concrete situs of the tradition of Jesus, into
which – let us admit – much human pseudotradition has found its way; so much
so, in fact, that even, and even precisely, the Church has contributed to the
general crisis of tradition that afflicts mankind.”
This is a repudiation of one of the two sources of
Revelation, Sacred Tradition. Sacred
Tradition is guarded and transmitted infallibly by the Magisterium of the
Catholic Church. What Ratzinger says is
impossible and blasphemous. It would
make Our Lord a liar and the Church a defected, false religion of man. And note: Ratzinger is not talking about
members of the Church or traditions that individuals personally adopted. He is speaking of the Church herself and her
official traditions, the actual tradition of the Catholic Church. This is undeniable from the context above,
where he addresses the Church’s tradition in the context of official bearer
of the tradition of Jesus and the “sine qua non” (without which there is
not/the absolutely essential element) for a participation in the tradition of
Jesus. In that context, he blasphemes
and rejects as human much of the Church’s tradition.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Sess. III, Chap. 3, ex
cathedra: “Further, by divine and
Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in
the written word of God and in tradition,
and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or
in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.” (Denz. 1792)
25) RATZINGER AGAIN SAYS THAT THE EASTERN SCHISMATIC CHURCHES
ARE TRUE CHURCHES
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 126: “As an Episcopal
symbolum, the text is an instrument of unity for the whole Church… The
ecumenical (‘catholic’) character is essential to it. Only the episcopacy of the whole Church
can be the official channel for the formulation of such a text. It
must be said that even after the schism of 1054 this includes also the
episcopacy of the Eastern churches, for, as a legitimate episcopacy of
churches that have preserved intact the heritage of faith, they continue to
be an integral part of the Church as a whole.”
Ratzinger is discussing how a particular symbolum or creed must be the product of
the entire Church. In this context, he
says that the Bishops of Eastern schismatic sects are included in this because
they have “preserved intact the heritage of the faith” and “continue to be an integral
part of the Church as a whole.” This
means that non-Catholic, schismatic Bishops are part of the Episcopacy of the
true Church and that they have the true Faith.
This is blatant heresy.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896 – Bishops Separated from Peter and his
Successors Lose All Jurisdiction: “From this it must be clearly understood
that Bishops are deprived of the right
and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors;
because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the
whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice
itself; and for this very reason
they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they
are exiled from that Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter
alone… No one, therefore, unless in
communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine
that he who is outside can command in the Church.”
26) RATZINGER CONDEMNS TRADITIONALISM AS THE ANTITHESIS OF
CATHOLICITY
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 389-390: "Was the Council a wrong road that we
must now retrace if we are to save the Church?
The voices of those who say that it was are becoming louder and their followers
more numerous…. We must be on guard
against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a
sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly."
Yes, Ratzinger, that means a lot coming from you;
for we can all see the profound fidelity you have to Catholic dogma. We can all see that you are truly a pillar of
orthodoxy – “Eastern Orthodoxy,” that is.
For those who doubt that Ratzinger is speaking about traditionalist
groups they should know that he goes on to discuss the Missal of Pius V on page
390.
27) RATZINGER PREACHES THAT MAN IS GOD
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 94: "The whole life
of Jesus consisted in being an encounter, an exchange, with him whom he called
Father. To believe in Jesus means, therefore, to believe that there is a truth from which man proceeds and which
is most signally his own, which is his
true nature."
This means that to believe in Jesus is to believe
in man’s own nature. This means that
man’s own nature is that he is God.
Ratzinger is clearly possessed with the same spirit of Antichrist which
possessed John Paul II and Paul VI. This
spirit causes them to dissolve Jesus by preaching that each man is, in fact,
Jesus.
1 John 4:2-3 – “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come
in the flesh, is of God: And every
spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of
whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world…”
28) RATZINGER SAYS CHRISTIANITY ABSORBS FALSE RELIGIONS INTO
ITSELF
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 30: “The sacrament, as
the fundamental form of the Christian liturgy, embraces both matter and word,
that is, it gives religion both a cosmic and a historical dimension and points
to cosmos and history as the place of our encounter with God. In this fact lies the related insight that Christian faith does not simply abolish the
early forms and stages of religion but rather purifies them and absorbs them
into itself, thus bringing them for the first time to their full
fruition."
29) RATZINGER PRAISES THE ECUMENICAL MONASTERY OF TAIZE (MADE
UP OF “CATHOLICS” AND NON-CATHOLICS) AND SAYS MORE SHOULD BE FORMED!
The famous ecumenical Monastery of Taize is located in the south of