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