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!
“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, (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. 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. ; 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. , 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, .”
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, , 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, (#10), Jan. 6, 1928:
“… the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…”
Pope Boniface VIII, , 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, (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. 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, , 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra:
“… … Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others… .” (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. ; but they deny – and in this consists their chief heresy and schism – that the Popes have a primacy of from Christ to rule the entire Church.
Pope Pius XI, (# 7), Jan. 6, 1928, speaking of heretics and schismatics:
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, (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, he who presides in love’ . Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops 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 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, , Sess. 4, Chap. 3, Canon, :
“, 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… .” (Denz. 1831)
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (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…. [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch], on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, .”
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 , is sufficient! Further, Ratzinger says that the reason that we cannot expect the “Orthodox” to believe in the Papacy (the primacy of , not just a primacy of honor)
Therefore, Ratzinger holds that the primacy of 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. 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, , Sess. 4, Chap. 2, :
“ , chief and head of the apostles and pillar of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, , the Savior and Redeemer of the human race; , the bishops of the holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. .” (Denz. 1824)
Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) totally rejects this dogma and the entire Catholic Faith.
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 377:
“…we are witnesses today of [read: traditionalism] that may seem to support what is strictly Catholic . It produces a passion of suspicions, the animosity of which is far from the spirit of the gospel. 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”:
“: namely, things as the matter, , and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. .” (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, (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. . 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 , 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, (1982), p. 202:
“But we can define the required action even more clearly in terms of the above diagnosis and the demolishing of their churches .”
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, , 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; . [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 he does so “ The Pope doesn’t need the consensus of the Church or the bishops to define; he possesses the supreme power of jurisdiction , 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, (1982), p. 234:
“at that time because of disagreement among those concerned. It is my opinion that what was then only a wish is again being attempted in this section of the ‘Declaration’ [a post-Vatican II document]. , 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 () “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, (1982), p. 259:
“ 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, , Sept. 20, 1351:
“…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that , 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, (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 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, (1982), p. 265:
“In our century, we have seen a last impressive echo of reform in the person of Pope John XXIII, whose edition of protocol for visitations is a legacy…”
Ratzinger speaks of Luther again on page 291, footnote 17:
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 291, footnote 17: “ 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, (1982), p. 326:
“. 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. , 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, , 1982, p. 381:
“, a kind of counter syllabus… and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution 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 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, , Dec. 8, 1864, # 77:
“In this age of ours .
Pope Pius IX, , Dec. 8, 1864, # 78: “Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that .
Pope Pius IX, , Dec. 8, 1864, # 55:
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 # 3:
“, 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 .”
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, , 1982, p. 385:
“By a kind of inner necessity, therefore, to a new cry that was far more intense and more dramatic than the former one.”
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, , 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. , 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, (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. .”
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, (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, (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. … , points to the heart of Luther’s urge to reform… since the Reform Decrees [of Trent], with their broad theological range, were not fully incorporated into the theology of the schools. that was recognizable even before Vatican Council II and [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, (1982), p. 248: “… … 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 of sacrifice. If we do that, the Tridentine statement will not, of course, be nullified,
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, , 1982, p. 43:
“, 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. [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 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, , On Original Sin, Session V, :
“If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; , 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: (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 that he utters in this context:
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (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, . With the isolation of the sacrament there was linked a naturalization. – this, too, indubitably a product more of concrete situations than of theological considerations. in which special fruits were granted that would not otherwise exist. 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 . 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, . 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 “.” 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 “
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, , 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, , 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: .” (Denz. 954)
Pope Pius IV, , 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, , 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. .”
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 . . 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, , 1441, :
, 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, , and the sacraments of the New Testament began; as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, . 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 , unless someday they recover from these errors.”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 108:
“The question of the relationship of faith and baptism has consequently become increasingly unanswerable for contemporary theology. . 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. . . 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 “ Luther’s” solution is not convincing on the subject of faith and baptism, as if Luther’s heretical positions are normally convincing!
Second, he says that it is understandable that many exegetes find faith and baptism to be two distinct paths that are. 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. [Baptism].” (Jurgens, Vol. 3:1424.)
Pope Paul III, , Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, :
“… (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 “”!
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 229: “The statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [a post-Vatican II document of 1973 called ] belongs to the latter category. , but by an official enunciation of the constituent elements of Catholicism…”
This is blatantly heretical.
Pope Eugene IV, , “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and , which is the Church, [e.g. heretics].” (Denz. 705)
Pope Leo XIII, (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers,
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (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 ’; 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, 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”: “” (Ratzinger, , 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 “.” 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, (1982), p. 249:
“It follows that can be correctly understood only if we read it, ,
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, , Sess. 22, Chap. 4:
“These are the matters which in general it seemed well to the sacred Council . It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following manner, 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 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, (1982), p. 236:
“. 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. and that shows signs of hope again and again in individual areas of misunderstanding… , 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 .”
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, (1982), p. 100:
“Our topic seems to demand that we take a third step here and speak of … … 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 concrete situs of the tradition of Jesus, .”
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 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, , Sess. III, Chap. 3, ex cathedra:
“Further, the written word of God and in , and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed .” (Denz. 1792)
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (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. can be the official channel for the formulation of such a text .”
Ratzinger is discussing how a particular 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, (#15), June 29, 1896 – :
“From this it must be clearly understood that ; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. ; , whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from that Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone… .”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), pp. 389-390:
“ 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…. “
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, , 1982, p. 94:
“The whole life of Jesus consisted in being an encounter, an exchange, with him whom he called Father. , therefore, and which is most signally his own, .”
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: , of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world…”
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, , 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 , 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 , from more than twenty-five nations.”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 304:
“For more than a decade, , emanating from a local center inspired by a particular ‘charism’. in 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, (1982), pp. 302-303:
“ but first of all the consolidation of the ‘progressivists’, who will then, they believe, become the Church of the future.”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 121: “…it is also ultimately through these factors that it becomes clear that but can be effected only by the Holy Spirit.”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 148:
“ of which they were the representatives.”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 147: “ ”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 127: “For our purposes, this fourth type of symbolum need not be further discussed .”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), pp. 145-146: “ ”
This is simply a total repudiation of one of the four marks of the Catholic Church: its unity.
Pope Leo XIII, (# 4), June 29, 1896:
Pope Leo XIII, (# 4):
“Furthermore, , as the principle of its constitution – .”
Pope Leo XIII, (# 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. “
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, (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 () of the year 1947.”
Here are just some other quotes that are worthy of note in his book:
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, , 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, , 1982, p. 378:
Much of Ratzinger’s book teaches exactly the brand of Modernist apostasy condemned by Pope St. Pius X in . 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, (1982), p. 184:
“From what has been said, it is clear .”
Before I comment on this, let me say that it is true that in 1 Corinthians 15:17 St. Paul says: “.”
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, (# 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 the .”
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 of all Christian dogmas is the Resurrection:
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 184:
“From what has been said, it is clear. It must be a theology of Resurrection before it is a theology of the justification of the sinner; . 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 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 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, I got to page 186.
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 186:
“. 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, (#9), Sept. 8, 1907:
“We will take an illustration from the Person of Christ. In the person of Christ, .”
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, (#15), Sept. 8, 1907:
“By the Modernists, tradition is understood as a communication to others, ”
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, (1982), p. 184: “ ; 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 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, (1982), p. 184:
“From what has been said, it is clear. It must be a theology of Resurrection before it is a theology of the justification of the sinner; . 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, (1982), p. 154:
“This is, in essence, the principle of ‘salvation history’: .”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 354: “The real medium, , is that man himself is the place in which and through which he experiences God…”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 360:
“Without experience, there is no understanding; that is true also in the human sphere. .”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 351:
In , 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, (#15), Sept. 8, 1907:
“But is also under another aspect entirely contrary to Catholic truth. , as hitherto understood by the Church, and destroys it".
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 88:
“As for speech… it fulfills its function of preserving history only if it is open to, 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, (#7), , 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; , and somehow unites man with God.’ .”
Here is Ratzinger teaching what Pius X condemned as the Modernist teaching on Faith and the religious sense:
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, (1982), p. 345:
“Let us conclude by repeating in different words what we have said above: 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, (1982), p. 154:
“…, 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