St Peter's Basilica

St Peter's Basilica

Subscribe to EverythingCatholicBlog

Search This Blog

Sunday, 28 August 2016

The 6 Recent Anti-Popes: An Introduction to Sedevacantism!

Since 1958, at the false election of Angelo Roncalli, as John XXIII, the Catholic Church has had no popes till date. The Masonic forces finally found a way to infiltrate the Catholic Church and usurped the papacy! To know more about this apostate, John XXIII, click here to learn more about the Masonic command for the infiltration of the Catholic Church, click here.

Other antipopes have since occupied Rome since John XXIII. These are Govanni Montini (Anti Pope Paul VI), Albino Luciano (Anti Pope John Paul I), Karol Wojtyla (Anti Pope John Paul II), Josef Ratzinger (Anti Pope Benedict XVI) and now, Jorge Bergoglio (Anti Pope Francis).

These men who claimed to be popes in the Catholic Church are NOT even Catholics to start with and yet nearly  the whole world acknowledged them as popes due to lack of knowledge of integral Catholicism!

They are not Catholics because they do not hold the same faith as Catholics!

It is indeed urgent to restate again the true Catholic position on how to understand what is currently going on in the Catholic Church! The website has recently shown the necessity of sedevacantism and this is what is restated here for posterity.

The true Catholic position today is called “Sedevacantism”, which means that the seat of Peter, the See of Rome is vacant. Anyone who does not hold this position errs on the part of doctrine or is not Catholic altogether!

Many who knows about the state of the Church, as indeed being in the state of sedevacante and yet believe that the false Church at the Vatican is Catholic are NOT Catholics!

We know that the Church is in sedevacante due to false new doctrines being taught by the new false religion at the Vatican. So the following Video helps a new comer to understand one of such false teachings coming from the Vatican, in particular the false doctrine on ecclesiology,  that is the nature of the Church. The video is simple to understand.

Just Watch:

The first part of this video series puts before the viewer the Second Vatican Council’s new doctrine on the Church (ecclesiology), according to which the Church of Jesus Christ no longer is the Catholic Church, as taught by Pope Pius XII and all of his predecessors, but instead now “subsists in” it. This bizarre new teaching is typically known as communio ecclesiology, elements ecclesiology, “Frankenchurch”, or — our preferred term — patchwork ecclesiology, because it holds that the Church of Jesus Christ exists in elements:

The Catholic Church has all of them, but various other religions also have some of them and hence there exists a “partial communion” between them and the “Catholic” (i.e. Novus Ordo) Religion.
This video shows that the authentic and authoritative post-conciliar interpretation of the “subsists in” clause confirms that the doctrine has indeed changed and that the novel teaching is, by implication, heretical, for it creates a real distinction between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church, whereas the truth is that the two are absolutely identical.

In 1868, when convoking the First Vatican Council, Pope Pius IX was blissfully unaware of the “partial communion” Protestants supposedly enjoy with the Catholic Church:

"Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity. For, whereas such societies are destitute of that living authority established by God, which especially teaches men what is of Faith, and what the rule of morals, and directs and guides them in all those things which pertain to eternal salvation, so they have continually varied in their doctrines, and this change and variation is ceaselessly going on among them. Every one must perfectly understand, and clearly and evidently see, that such a state of things is directly opposed to the nature of the Church instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ; for in that Church truth must always continue firm and ever inaccessible to all change, as a deposit given to that Church to be guarded in its integrity, for the guardianship of which the presence and aid of the Holy Ghost have been promised to the Church for ever"

(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter, Iam Vos Omnes)

Here we can see that in no way could the Vatican II teaching be considered a “development” of doctrine because no authentic development can contradict prior teaching — it can only make it clearer. But it doesn’t get any clearer than saying that the Catholic Church is the Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Funny, but somehow everyone understands what the term “is” means in this context, whereas most people have trouble with “subsists in”. This is also evident from daily life: If you say that this woman is your mother-in-law, everyone understands what you are saying. But try telling your friends that your mother-in-law subsists in this woman, and see if they think you’ve made anything more clear. Good luck.

When analyzing Vatican II’s new ecclesiology, it is also helpful to look at the motive for changing the straightforward “is” into “subsists in”. The reason why the true Catholic doctrine was changed at Vatican II can be summed up in one word: ecumenism.

As Bishop Donald Sanborn has pointed out multiple times, one cannot practice Vatican II ecumenism while insisting that the Catholic Church alone is true Church of Jesus Christ and all other “churches” are heretical sects that have no right to exist.

Hence the teaching had to be muddied, and the perfect way to do that was to pretend that the new subsistit in formulation was somehow making the teaching of Pius XII “more precise”. Of course it did no such thing, and the ultimate proof of this is that all the heretical “Christian” sects that practice ecumenism with the Novus Ordo Religion would be absolutely horrified if the Vatican all of a sudden told them now that the Catholic Church alone is the true Church Jesus Christ, that their own “churches” are bogus, and that they must convert to Catholicism if they wish to be saved.

In 1977, about a year before he became "Pope" John Paul II, the Polish “cardinal” Karol Wojtyla stated explicitly that the Second Vatican Council’s teaching had changed the very nature of the Church: 

“The Church ... succeeded, during the second Vatican Council, in re-defining her own nature” (Wojtyla, Sign of Contradiction, p. 17).

Think about what Wojtyla is saying here: that the council defined a new church into existence, that the church of and after Vatican II is not the same church as the one prior. That’s what redefining the nature of the church means, for the nature makes a thing what it is.

In 2004, Bp. Donald Sanborn had a fiery debate with Novus Ordo theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi on precisely this partial-communion ecclesiology of Vatican II. You can watch the video for free at the following link:

We hope that this first video in the Introduction to Sedevacantism series will be helpful to many. Be sure to share it with friends and family, co-workers and fellow-parishioners. Ask them for their opinion of the video — that’s always a good conversation starter.

For those who are interested in “more”, we recommend the following two videos:

Presented by Malachy Mary Igwilo, on the feast Day of St. Augustine, 28th August, 2016

Related Links:

Saturday, 27 August 2016

The GREAT Miracle: Indeed Angels Transported Mother Mary’s House from Nazareth to Loreto, Italy!

 Science Confirms: Angels Translated the Holy House of Our Lady of Nazareth to Loreto
 Angelic Translation of the Holy House of Mary of Nazareth to Loreto (An Anonymous painting found in 17th Century in Mexico)

How did the Holy House take off from its foundations and reappear intact about 2,000 miles away, where it remains to this day?

Those who hate Mary should have a re-think and save their souls!

At a conference organized by the “Amici del Timone” Cultural Center in Staggia Senese, Italy, titled “The Story of the Incredible Move of the House of Mary of Nazareth to Loreto,” a topic was developed which challenges engineering.

Indeed, the Holy House, birthplace of Our Lady and where the Archangel Gabriel announced to her the Incarnation, has been for many centuries in the town of Loreto, in the Marche region of Italy, facing the Adriatic Sea.

However, the Annunciation took place in Nazareth, in the Holy Land, where the foundations of the Holy House remain to this day. When compared with the dimensions and characteristics of the Loreto House, they match perfectly; but the similarities and concordances do not end there.

How did the Holy House, where Mary received the annunciation from Angel Gabriel, take off, so to speak, from its foundations and reappear about 2,000 miles away, where it remains intact to this day?

According to historical evidence, the move took place in the thirteenth century; but how could it have been done given the poor technological resources of the time?

The move is attributed to an angelic action officially recognized by Popes and sustained by saints. However, such authoritative approvals are not intended to explain the material procedure, which carried an object the size of a house from one continent to another practically overnight.

This transfer, however, was confirmed by historical, documentary and archaeological evidence. Once again, for the astonishment of many, science confirms the Church.

Prof. Giorgio Nicolini, who devoted his life of study and research to the case, spoke at this conference. Based on these scientific evidences, he proved indisputably the veracity of the miraculous transfer.

During his lecture, Professor Nicolini demonstrated the existence of many documents and eyewitness accounts of the transfer, which science and human method cannot explain. He also established a chronology of the change of location.

1.  On May 9, 1291, the Holy House was still in Nazareth.

2.  On the night of May 9 to 10, 1291, it traveled nearly 2,000 miles and reached Tersatto (now Trsat), in the region of Dalmatia, in what is now a suburb of Rijeka, Croatia.

On that occasion, Nicolò Frangipane, feudal lord of Tersatto personally sent a delegation to Nazareth to ascertain whether the Holy House had indeed disappeared from its original place. The emissaries not only verified its disappearance but found the foundation on which the house was built and from which the walls had been taken away as a block.

Around these foundations in Nazareth, the Basilica of the Annunciation was built. In Loreto, the Holy House stands firmly, without its foundation, directly on the ground.

3.  On the night of December 9 to 10, 1294, the Holy House disappeared from Tersatto and landed “in various places” of Italy. For nine months it stayed on a hillside overlooking the port of Ancona, which thus came to be called “Posatora,” from the Latin “posat et ora” (to set down, or land, and pray).

A church was built on the site as a memorial, as was recorded at the time and signed by a priest “Don Matteo,” probably an eyewitness.

Two tombstones also commemorate this occurrence. One is from the same time period of the event and is written in old Vulgar Latin. The other, from the sixteenth century, is written in vernacular and is a copy of the older.

Posatora’s oldest tombstone already mentioned “Our Lady of Loreto,” making it clear that the inscription was done after the House’s departure from the site.

4.  In 1295, after nine months in Posatora, the Holy House moved to a forest that belonged to a woman called Loreta, near the town of Recanati. That is where the name Loreto comes from.

5.  Between 1295 and 1296, after spending eight months in this location the Holy House was miraculously transported to a farm on Mount Prodo belonging to two brothers of the Antici family.

6.  In 1296, after four months at this farm, the Holy House departed and landed on a public road on Mount Prodo connecting Recanati to Ancona, where it remains to this day.

The interior of the Holy House of Mary, Mother of God, as it is today in Loreto, Italy
The Interior of the Holy House of Mary as it is today at Loreto, Italy

Countless other elements attest to the historical truth of this inexplicable translation of the Holy House. Three churches were built in Ancona—two still existing—testaments that eyewitnesses saw the “flying” Santa Casa arrive in Ancona and stop in Posatora.

Moreover, in Forio, on Ischia Island, fishermen who traded with Ancona returned narrating the events that had taken place in 1295. Their reports led the city inhabitants to erect a basilica dedicated to “Santa Maria di Loreto.” They also saw the Holy House in Ancona with their own eyes.

Various bishops of the region approved the veneration of the miraculous translations. For centuries the Popes renewed the approvals until Urban VIII, in 1624, definitively established December 10 as the Feast of the Translation of the Holy House of Mary, Mother of God.

Several Popes, including Paul II, Julius II, Leo X, Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XI documented their recognition of the translation. These respective documents, beyond their religious aspect in which the Popes recognize the event as supernatural, are recognized as valuable documents by historical science.

Professor Nicolini strongly reprimanded the materialistic mentality, at times agnostic, atheistic or Protestant, which seeks to discredit the authenticity of the Holy House venerated in Loreto.

In a way, this opposition encouraged deeper studies, which ended up proving the Holy House actually came from the Holy Land. Proofs include the chemical composition of the material used to build the house, its shape, and many architectural details.

Glass on the floor for the Holy House allows pilgrims to observe the walls without foundations, still supported on the ground and partly in the air
Glass on the floor for the Holy House of Mary allows pilgrims to observe the walls without foundations still supported on the ground and partly in the air

Some, denying the angelic translation, went so far as to fabricate a story that a fanciful princely family from Epirus named “Angeli” had dismantled the house and transported it brick by brick at the request of the Crusaders facing the destructive advance of Muslims. That “family” then rebuilt the house in Loreto.

Such an operation, with the transportation conditions of the thirteenth century, would have been a more miraculous feat than the angelic translation.

The stones and bricks are kept together with a mortar whose physical and chemical composition is found only in Palestine and precisely in the region of Nazareth. They are nonexistent in the Marche region or anywhere else in Italy.

Moreover, if the house was dismantled and rebuilt in place after place along its journey—as claimed by its fanciful objectors—one cannot understand how it could possibly have maintained the exact geometric proportions of the Nazareth house, whose foundations, to this day, match perfectly the walls of Loreto.

Nor would it have been possible that nobody saw or heard the house being dismantled and later rebuilt, especially in the brief span of one night in the center of the shrine in Nazareth and then again in Croatia and Italy.

Even more inexplicable is the fact that the Holy House finally came to rest across an old dirt highway. On this road, the passage of animals and carriages naturally opened ruts in the center of the roadway, raising the roadsides, and forming ditches on both sides. Thus, the way the house landed, its three walls, with no foundation, are supported partly on ground and partly over open air. Today pilgrims can see this for themselves through a glass floor.

The Recanati City Hall, moreover, had already at that time forbidden the building of houses on public roads and had ordered demolished all buildings found to be in violation of the ordinance. How, then, could someone have rebuilt a house cutting across the road without anyone noticing?

Another great hurdle comes from the lack of means in those days to carry an entire house, even if dismantled brick by brick and stone by stone. It would weigh a few tons. Transport by road would have likely been unfeasible due the delay and the amount of chariots, animals and men it would require. Transportation by sea, while more feasible, would also have been too time-consuming and prone to loss due to storms.

More complicated still would be to cut the walls in segments and take them intact on a 2,000 mile journey and then glue them back together without leaving traces of the joints.

These material factors, Prof. Giorgio Nicolini explained, postulate the impossibility of such transportation with the technical means of the time.

From Professor Nicolini’s long and detailed demonstration it is clearly much more reasonable to believe the angelic translation resulting from a wondrous work of God, for Whom nothing is impossible, and Who has worked far greater miracles.

For human hands to have performed such a translation is to consider an event even more miraculous than that done by the work of angels.

We give glory to God for giving us, yet again, a material conformation of our faith.

The exterior of the Holy House of Mary, Mother of God, as seen today from within the Basilica in Loreto, Italy

The reconstructed exterior of the Holy House of Mary, as seen from within the Basilica in Loreto, Italy

Presented by Malachy Mary Igwilo, on the feast day of St. Joseph Calasanctius, 27th August 27, 2016

Saturday, 20 August 2016

The Catholic Church and her book, the Bible!

Image result for The Bible, Images 

To sum up what has been said: In the order of time, the Catholic
Church precedes the Scripture. There was no time when a visible
and speaking divine authority did not exist, to which submission
was not due. Before the coming of Jesus Christ, that authority
among the Jews was in the synagogue. When the synagogue
was on the point of failing, Jesus Christ himself appeared; when
this divine personage withdrew, he left his authority to his
Church, and with her his Holy Spirit. All the truths which we
believe to be divine, and which are the objects of our faith, were
taught by the Church, and believed by millions of Christians, long
before they were committed to writing, and formed what is
called the New Testament. 

And those truths would have
remained to the end of the world, pure and unaltered, had that
primitive state continued; that is, had it never seemed good to
any of the apostolic men, as it did to St. Luke, to commit to
writing what they had learned from Christ. He did it, he says,
that Theophilus, to whom he writes, might know the verity of these
words in which he had been instructed.

A Catholic, therefore, never forms his faith by reading the
Scriptures; his faith is already formed before he begins to read;
his reading serves only to confirm what he always believed; that
is, it confirms the doctrine which the Church had already taught
him. Consequently, if these books had not existed, the belief in
the facts and truths of Christianity would have been the same;
and it would not be weakened if those books were no longer to

As the Catholic Church made known to the Christians those
facts and truths long before they were recorded in writing, she
alone could afterward rightly decide, and infallibly state, what
books did, and what did not, contain the pure doctrine of Christ
and his apostles; she alone could and did know what books
were, and what were not, divinely inspired; she alone could and
did make that inspiration an object of faith; she alone can, with
infallible authority, give the true meaning, and determine the
legitimate use of the Holy Scriptures. 

Although the Scripture, the
true word of God, is not to us a rule of faith, taken independently
of the teaching authority of the pastors of the Church, the
successors of the apostles, yet it is not inferior to the Church in
excellence and dignity. It is inspired, holy, and divine. Hence, it is
the custom of the Church to erect a throne in the middle of
councils, on which she places the Sacred Books as presiding
over the assembly, occupying, as it were, the first place, and
deciding with supreme authority. When celebrating Mass, she
wishes that the faithful, during the reading of the Gospel, should
all rise, and remain standing, to show their reverence for the
sacred truths. 

We venerate the Scriptures as a sacred deposit
bequeathed to us by the kindest of parents, containing truths of
the highest moment, practical lessons of saving morality, and
facts of history relating to the life of our divine Saviour, and the
conduct of his disciples, eminently interesting and instructive.
For all this we are very grateful.

Besides, the Scriptures come forward with a powerful aid, to
support, by the evidence of the contents, both the divine
authority of the Church, and the divine truths of the faith which
we have received from her, applying that aid to each article, and
giving a lustre to the whole. So Theophilus, when he read that
admirable narration which St. Luke compiled for him, was more
and more confirmed in the verity of things in which he had been
instructed. (St. Luke, 1: 1-4)

For those, however, who reject the divine authority of the
Church, the holy Scriptures can no longer be authentic and
inspired writings— they are for them no longer the word of God;
for they have no one who can tell them, with divine certainty,
what books are, and what are not, divinely inspired; they have
no one who, in the name of God, can command them to believe
in the divine inspiration of the writers of those books. Explaining
them, as they do, according to their fancy, and translating them
in a way favorable to their errors, they have, in the Scriptures,
not the Gospel of Christ, but that of man or the devil, calculated
only to confirm the ignorant in their errors, and the learned in
their pride and self-sufficiency. 

We read, in the Gospel of St.
Matthew and of St. Luke, that Satan hid himself under the shade
of the Scripture when he tempted our divine Saviour. He quoted
passages from holy Scripture, in order to tempt him to ambition
and presumption. But he is answered: "Begone, Satan; it is
written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." Satan, being
overcome, left for a time. But not long after, under the mask of
Arius, Nestorius, Pelagius, Luther, Calvin, John Knox, Henry VIII.,
and a host of other heresiarchs, he renewed his attacks on
Jesus Christ, in the person of the Catholic Church. This demon is
heresy, which hides itself under the shade of Scripture. 

Were Satan to utter blasphemies, he would be known at once, and men
would flee from him in horror. So he deceives them under the
appearance of good; he repeats passages from holy Scripture,
and men naturally listen to him, and are apt to believe and follow
him. But the good Catholic answers him: “Begone, Satan! It is
written, he that will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a
heathen and the publican.” (Matt. 28:16.) This is the great, the
infallible, and the only rule of faith, that leads to him who gave it,
—Jesus Christ.

Culled from The Catholic Dogma: Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Omnino Salvatur
 Seen at:

Presented by Malachy Mary Igwilo, on the feast Day of St. Bernard, within the Holy Octave of Asumption 20th August 2016

Wednesday, 17 August 2016

Benedict XVI (Josef Ratzinger) is one of the most dangerous men alive today!

Image result for Joseph Ratzinger

Sometime ago, Benedict XVI (Josef Ratzinger) who claimed to be pope was interviewed in a rare interview and he “lamented” the state of the “modern Church”! In fact he said “the Church is in crisis”!

This brought tears of joy to many people’s eyes especially those who are deceived into believing that Benedict XVI is a holy “pope” and a conservative Pope! Indeed some people of note, in particular, “Fr” Paul Kramer(author of the Devil’s Final Battle) believes that Benedict XVI is still the pope despite his resignation.

Others like the SSPX and other Pseudo-Catholics of the traditional bent think that he is a great lover of the Tridentine Mass, the true Mass of the Catholic Church because of the publication of his cunning document, Sumnorum Pontificum! They even call him “the Rottweiler of the faith”. They believe that he worked hard to protect the faith while he was in the “Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith” under the apostate John Paul II

Many other people, in particular the Novus Ordo intelligentsia regards Benedict XVI as a “great theologian”. It is owning to this false "greateness" that he was named "Cardinal" by John Paul II of unfortunate memory.

All these people have one thing in common- they are deceived by Benedict XVI. Also, they are not Catholics in the sense that they are not able to see the true personality of such a figure as Benedict XVI. Even if these groups are Catholics, they are so rusty as not to notice that Benedict XVI is a silent killer of the faith!

So if you are a Catholic and knows Benedict XVI by his works and deeds, then you must be offended when Benedict XVI says there is a crisis in the Church! He is one of those who eclipsed the Catholic Church! So we cannot just ignore Benedict XVI. We must labor to reveal to the people who this killer is, who kills the soul though false doctrines.

I am not here to insult Benedict XVI or to gossip about him. I am going to quote from the utterances and writings of this man to prove that he is one of the most dangerous living person in as much as his works sends millions to hell!

I am going to select some of Benedict XVI’s damning writings, which are easily verifiable if one wishes to understand who Benedict XVI is- an apostate anti pope who is never a Catholic and those who follow him, insisting that he was/is pope are not Catholics themselves!

Anti Pope Benedict XVI in the Blue Mosque in Istambul Turkey 2006
Benedict XVI praying with Muslims thereby becoming a heretic since inter-cultus is forbidden by the Church

Benedict XVI is regarded a theologian. He became prominent as a modernist theologian at Vatican II, appearing there not in priestly robes like others but as a business man in suit and tie. He was a periti (consultant) to a German Bishop and he ensured that the council is what it is meant to be- a robber council!

Pretenses are part of the character of Benedict XVI. After the council, when the evil they planned started to manifest its ugly fruits, Benedict XVI pretended to condemn the Council by saying that “at the Second Vatican Council, we were told many lies and half-truths”. An uncritical observer can through this outburst think that Benedict XVI was against the council. He was not. How can he be when it was his brain child?

But the true color of Benedict XVI is within his many books written as a “theologian”. This is indeed part of the reason he is not really known for who he is. Nearly all lay people have no interest in theology and so only like minds of Benedict XVI read his works which are filled with modernist verbiage! He would have been banished forever if his fellow Masons have not high jacked the official Church! So he rose to become a pretender pope with thousands of heretical writings and utterances following him around. 

This is surely one way of knowing that Benedict XVI is not even a Catholic to begin with because a heretic cannot be pope. He was already under suspicion of heresy before the council but as soon as Roncalli became anti-pope John XXIII, the issue of Benedict XVI’s heresies was forgotten and he was personally invited to wreak havoc on the Church with others by John XXIII.

Anti Pope Benedict XVI in a synagogue in Cologne Germany 2005
Benedict XVI "praying" at a Synagogue making himself a heretic

Benedict XVI denies Christianity as the universal truth

In his book Truth and Tolerance, Benedict XVI set out to enthrone religious indifferentism by diminishing Christianity and glorifying other religions! But let us look at his denying Christianity as truth.

Benedict XVI,  Truth and Tolerance, 2004, pp. 163-164:

 “At the beginning of the last century, Ernst Troeltsch formulated in philosophical and theological terms this inner withdrawal of Christianity from its original claim to universality, which could only rest upon a claim to be true.  He had arrived at the view that cultures cannot be transcended and that religion is closely associated with these cultures.  Christianity is then merely the side of God’s face that is turned toward Europe.”

Here we see how B16 laid the foundation for calming that Christianity is not universal by quoting a fellow modernist, Ernst Troeltsch. He did not stop here he went on to agree with this man he quoted to show that Christianity is just for Europe and should abandon all claim of universality.

Benedict XVI, Truth and Tolerance, 2004, pp. 176-177:

“Has the claim of Christianity to be the religio vera [the true religion], then, been overtaken by the progress of enlightenment?  Is it bound to step down from its claim and take its place in the Neoplatonic or Buddhist or Hindu view of truth and symbol, tocontent itself – as Troeltsch suggested – with showing the side of God’s face that is turned toward the Europeans?  Will it even have to go a step farther than Troeltsch, who still thought that Christianity was the appropriate form of religion for Europe, whereas today it is precisely Europe that is doubting this appropriateness?  This is the real question that the Church and theology have to ask themselves.  All the internal crises in Christianity we can observe at present arise only in a quite secondary sense from institutional problems.  The difficulties with institutions and with personalities in the Church ultimately arise from the enormous impact of this question.  No one will expect this question, which is making such fundamental demands on us at the end of the second millennium, to be answered here in any way conclusively.”

So B16 is not here debunking the claims of Ernst Troeltsch. He is agreeing with it and demanding that the Church needs to answer. So, all the affirmation of the Church that one, anyone, needs to be Catholic to be saved and therefore stating that the Church is universal does not matter to B16.

This makes him a heretic par excellence!

In this same book, B16 did not hesitate to suggest that Islam is a great religion and other false religions as being with marvelous elements. But he is not able to bring himself to state the facts of Christianity, Catholicism!

Benedict XVI , Truth and Tolerance, 2004, p. 204:

In Hinduism (which is actually a collective name for a whole multitude of religions) there are some marvelous elements – but there are also negative aspects: involvement with the caste system; suttee [self immolation] for widows, which developed from beginnings that were merely symbolic; offshoots of the cult of the goddess Sakti – all these might be mentioned to give just a little idea.  Yet even Islam, with all the greatness it represents, is always in danger of losing balance, letting violence have a place and letting religion slide away into mere outward observance and ritualism.”

So Benedict XVI (Josef Ratzinger) is suggesting that a false religion has marvelous elements which should be copied then? And so he is worried that Islam, a great religion should not lose balance!

Again we see who B16 is: a heretic per excellence!

Compare this B16 admiration for Islam with what a true pope said:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Session 19, Sept. 7, 1434:

“Moreover, we trust that with God’s help another benefit will accrue to the Christian commonwealth; because from this union, once it is established, there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”

Benedict XVI did not stop with these above heresies, he went on to suggest that pagans can be saints!

Benedict XVI, Truth and Tolerance, 2004, p. 207:

“The fact that in every age there have been, and still are, ‘pagan saints’ is because everywhere and in every age – albeit often with difficulty and in fragmentary fashion – the speech of the ‘heart’ can be heard, because God’s Torah may be heard within ourselves

Apart from this book, the one book written by Benedict XVI containing most abominable heresies is Principles of Catholic Theology. There are hundreds of teachings by Benedict XVI (Josef Ratzinger) that out rightly contradict the teachings of the Church and the ordinary magisterium of many previous popes as we can see from this list of 31 heresies from this book:


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! 

Look at the true teaching of the Church as elucidated by Pope Pius XI:

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.


“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 and heretical denial of Vatican Council I. 

Now look at the dogmatic definition of Vatican 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 I have said with regard to John Paul II’s in this blog comcerning his 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.

I pointed 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.


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. Followers of "Fr" Paul Kramer and the SSPX should indeed take note!

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)


“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.


“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.


“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 non knowledge, 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, SSPX included, 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).


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.


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 jurisdictionhimself, 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 successfulat 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.


“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 popeand he, too, concluded that what was important was not the concrete, structured communion but the community behind the institutional one.”

This is totally heretical coming from a man who claimed to be pope!
 Here is how a true pope countered this heretic, Ratinger:
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)


“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’…”


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.


“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!


“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.


“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.


“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.


“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 posed 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 posed as the head of the Church of Jesus Christ when he doesn’t even believe that Jesus’ words are necessarily true, as proven already above.  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!

This is how Trent Counters Ratzinger:

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 Adamneeding 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)

So, here we have it, Ratzinger is anathema!


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 lenghty quote 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 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 as follows: 

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)


“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.

Now listen to a true pope: 

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.”


“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 areincapable 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 thathe 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”!

“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.”


“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.


“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 Josef 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.


“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.


“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)


“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 itselfand 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.”


“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 CatholicityWe 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.


“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…”


“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.”


The famous ecumenical Monastery of Taize is located in the south of Burgundy, France.  The Taize community “is made up of over a hundred brothers, Catholics and from various Protestant backgrounds, from more than twenty-five nations.” 

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 304: 

“For more than a decade, Taize has been, without a doubt, the leading example of an ecumenical inspiration, emanating from a local center inspired by a particular ‘charism’.  Similar communities of faith and of shared living should be formed elsewherein which the foregoing of a communal reception of the Eucharist would, without ceasing to be a hardship, become comprehensible and in which its necessity would be understood by a prayer community that cannot answer its own prayer but is, nevertheless, calmly certain it will be answered.”

This is astounding heresy.  He praises the non-Catholic Monastery of Taize; and he encourages similar communities to be formed, thus encouraging people to become non-Catholics.


“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 302-303: 

The goal is not just the unity of the Church as such but first of all the consolidation of the ‘progressivists’, who will then, they believe, become the Church of the future.”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 121: “…it is also ultimately through these factors that it becomes clear that the unity of the Church is not to be brought about by human effort but can be effected only by the Holy Spirit.”

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 148: 

The canon of Holy Scripture can be traced back to them, or, at least, to the undivided Church of the first centuries of which they were the representatives.”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 147: “The Fathers, we can now say, were the theological teachers of the undivided Church…
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 127: “For our purposes, this fourth type of symbolum need not be further discussed since it forms no part of the history of the symbolum of the undivided Church.”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 145-146: “The Fathers are the teachers of the yet undivided Church.

This is simply a total repudiation of one of the four marks of the Catholic Church: its unity.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 4), June 29, 1896: 

The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 4): 

“Furthermore, the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution – a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5): 

“There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts.


Those who will say that Ratzinger does not know what he is saying should note that Ratzinger knows Catholic doctrines and then repudiates it!

As stated already, while Ratzinger consistently utters the most astounding heresies he also demonstrates a profound familiarity with Catholic teachings.  Here is just one quote to prove the point, for those who doubt:

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 239: 

“Anyone who inquires about the Church’s teaching with regard to holy orders finds at his disposal a relatively rich supply of source materials; three councils have spoken extensively on the subject: Florence, Trent, and Vatican II.  Mention should also be made of the important apostolic constitution of Pius XII (Sacramentum ordinis) of the year 1947.”


Here are just some other quotes that are worthy of note in his book:
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, pp. 390-391: 

“What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it.”

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 378: 

Not every valid Council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis, many of them have been just a waste of time.”


Much of Ratzinger’s book teaches exactly the brand of Modernist apostasy condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi.  He holds that all Faith is basically each man’s experience.  The terminology he uses seems to be taken directly from the Modernist teaching condemned by Pius X.  I want to focus on Ratzinger’s teaching on the Resurrection.  In his book, Ratzinger links every article of the Christian Faith to the Resurrection in a way that is false and exaggerated.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 184:

 “From what has been said, it is clear that all Christian theology, if it is to be true to its origin, must be first and foremost a theology of Resurrection.”

Before I comment on this, let me say that it is true that in 1 Corinthians 15:17 St. Paul says: “And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is in vain, for you are yet in your sins.”  

St. Paul is expressing the fact that the Resurrection proved that Our Lord had the power over death; it was the most profound proof of His Divinity.  If it were not true, then the whole Christian Faith would not be true.  In the same way, it is true that to reject any dogma of the Catholic Faith is to reject the entire Faith since they all come from the same guarantor, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: 

“…But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and theformal motive of faith.”

But Ratzinger is saying something more in the above paragraph than what St. Paul taught.  Ratzinger is wrapping up more into the Resurrection then one can.  He is saying that the origin of all Christian dogmas is the Resurrection:

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 184: 

“From what has been said, it is clearthat all Christian theology, if it is to be true to its origin, must be first and foremost a theology of Resurrection.  It must be a theology of Resurrection before it is a theology of the justification of the sinner; it must be a theology of Resurrection before it is a theology of the metaphysical Sonship of God.  It can be a theology of the Cross but only as and within the framework of a theology of Resurrection.”

First of all, we know that this is not true because the apostles believed that Our Lord was the Son of God before the Resurrection (Mt. 16:16; Mt. 14:33).  The miracles that Our Lord worked in the sight of the Apostles before the Resurrection proved that He was the Son of God.  So why is Ratzinger endeavoring to show that the origin of every dogma is in the Resurrection – something that is clearly false – even the origin of the dogma that Jesus is the Son of God?  Why is he so concerned with wrapping up the origin of everything in the Resurrection?  I didn’t understand why,until I got to page 186.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 186: 

Thus the Resurrection cannot be a historical event in the same sense as the Crucifixion is.  For that matter, there is no account that depicts it as such, nor is it circumscribed in time otherwise than by the eschatological expression ‘the third day.’”

Now we see why Ratzinger was so concerned with arguing that all Catholic dogmas have their “origin” in the Resurrection!  It was so that when he denied that the Resurrection is even historical he could knock out the entire Christian Faith in one fell swoop!  This is the kind of snake or, to speak more precisely, the kind of rat from the pit of hell with which you are dealing.  

He wants to dismantle one’s entire Faith in Jesus Christ and Catholicism, and he does so in a calculated fashion, luring you in so that he can dump you over the edge.  There is a reason why the devil – with God’s permission – has chosen him to head the Vatican II sect at this stage in history.

Since Ratzinger is a Modernist apostate, he denies that the miracles of Jesus are actually historical.

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (#9), Sept. 8, 1907: 

“We will take an illustration from the Person of Christ.  In the person of Christ, they [the Modernists] say, science and history encounter nothing that is not human.  Therefore, in virtue of the first canon deduced from agnosticism, whatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine, must be rejected.”

We can see that Pius X pinpointed the apostasy of Ratzinger.  He explained that the Modernists reject that any miracles of Our Lord are truly historical: “[the Modernists say] whatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine, must be rejected.”  Modernist apostates, such as Ratzinger, hold that the origin of Faith is contained in an original experience.

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (#15), Sept. 8, 1907: 

“By the Modernists, tradition is understood as a communication to others, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula, of an original experience.

In other words, for the Modernists the origin of Faith is in a person’s not-truly-historical experience.  It is an “experience” (not really historical) that is made up or contrived to satisfy the inner religious sense of man.  In the case of Christianity, it would be (according to the Modernists) the non-historical event of the Resurrection.

Look at this quotation and see Ratzinger precisely expressing the Modernist apostasy!

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 184: “The sentence ‘Jesus has risen’thus expresses that primitive experience on which all Christian faith is grounded; all further confessions of Jesus as the Messiah, of the ‘Christ-ness’ of Jesus, however strongly an understanding of the previously uncomprehended message of the historical Jesus as it is later remembered may be operative here.  ‘Jesus has risen’ – this sentence is thus, above all, the true articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae by which the structure of faith and theology are chiefly to be determined.”

Around that non-historical “experience,” all other aspects of the Faith are basically made up and colored in.  The founding of the Church, Our Lord being the Son of God, etc. didn’t really happen according to the Modernists; but they were all painted around this original, non-historical experience (the made-up Resurrection).  That is why the apostate Ratzinger says that all Christian Faith has its “origin” in the Resurrection.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 184: 

“From what has been said, it is clearthat all Christian theology, if it is to be true to its origin, must be first and foremost a theology of Resurrection.  It must be a theology of Resurrection before it is a theology of the justification of the sinner; it must be a theology of Resurrection before it is a theology of the metaphysical Sonship of God.  It can be a theology of the Cross but only as and within the framework of a theology of Resurrection.”

Make no mistake about it, you are dealing with a serious devil here inside Ratzinger, who is now Antipope Benedict XVI and heading the Vatican II sect.  Here are just a few more quotes where Ratzinger is revealing the flavor of his Modernist, apostate doctrine that all faith is each man’s “experience”:

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 154: 

“This is, in essence, the principle of ‘salvation history’: salvation comes through history, which, therefore, represents the immediate form of religious experience.”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 354: “The real medium, the primordial experience of all experiences, is that man himself is the place in which and through which he experiences God…”

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 360: 

“Without experience, there is no understanding; that is true also in the human sphere.  Only experience of God can yield knowledge of God.”

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 351: 

“…it will be the task of religious education to open the door to this place of experience that is the Church and thus to encourage participation in the experience she has to offer.”

In Pascendi, Pius X also condemned the Modernists’ teaching on experience and Tradition.  Basically, the Modernists say that Tradition is ever-changing because it is based on ever-new experiences.

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (#15), Sept. 8, 1907: 

“But this doctrine of experience is also under another aspect entirely contrary to Catholic truth.  It is extended and applied to tradition, as hitherto understood by the Church, and destroys it".

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 88: 

“As for speech… it fulfills its function of preserving history only if it is open to the ever new experiences of new generations and so maintains its ability to give expression to the tradition that is continually in the process of formation, to the purification of tradition and hence to the history that is still to be made.”

Ratzinger just taught exactly what Pius X condemned as the Modernist teaching on Tradition and experience.

Finally, the Modernists teach that all Faith begins with the religious sense, which is (according to them) the divine within each man.  Thus, the Modernists are really teaching that each man is God: the divine is to be found within each man.  Pius X explains their doctrine in this regard and condemns it:

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (#7), (Denz. 2074), Sept. 8, 1907:

 “[According to the Modernists]… ‘the need of the divine in a soul prone to religion, according to the tenets of fideism, with no judgment of the mind anticipating, excites a peculiar sense; but this sense has the divine reality within itself, and somehow unites man with God.’  This sense, moreover, is what the Modernists call by the name of faith, and is for them the beginning of religion.”

Here is Ratzinger teaching exactly what Pius X condemned as the Modernist teaching on Faith and the religious sense:

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 345: 

“Let us conclude by repeating in different words what we have said above: the way to faith begins in sensory experience, and sensory experience as such is the sine qua non of faith and is capable of transcendence.”

This is why Ratzinger says that people don’t come to the Faith because they believe it to be true:

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 154: 

“…the human individual entrusts himself directly to the faith of the Church, not because he has come, through historical proofs, to the conviction that the events recorded in the New Testament are the indisputable center of all history, but because he finds in a world formed by and filled with faith a firm basis that gives his life meaning, salvation and shelter… the concrete presence of Christian history gives form and freedom to his life and is, therefore, accepted as salvation. ’”

From this lengthy expose, it is indeed certain that Ratzinger, AKA "Pope Benedict XVI" is a child of the Devil, an apostate, who is out to send many millions of Souls to hell, to his Master, Satan!

The man is still alive and is showing no sign of repentance. he stays at the back ground and continues to deceive and plot against the remnant Church.

Those who continue to respect Benedict XVI should be shamed after reading this. But still we have to pity those who will read it and dismiss it. These are the people Ratzinger loves the most- those who stays with Novus Ordo religion agreeing to be damned in it rather than becoming Catholics.

May God grant us more Conversions. Amen

Presented by Malachy Mary Igwilo, on the feast day of St. Hychinth within the Holy octave of Assumption of Mary into heaven 17th August 20116