The crush of “information” in an age of instant communications would appear to be a leading cause of temporary insanity in the case of many Catholics.
Although some have permitted themselves to wrapped up in the insanity of “resignationism,” which contends that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is without legal force as he was “forced” to resign, the truth of the matter is that the current Antipope Emeritus knew full well what he was doing when he resigned the conciliar “Petrine Ministry” on Monday, October 11, 2013, the Feast of the Apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes, and left the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River on February 28, 2013, at 8:00 p.m., Rome time, as his resignation became effective. Ratzinger/Benedict meant to establish a precedent that would be followed by his successors in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
Although this photograph was taken during Ratzinger’s “papacy,” he has had much more time now to tickle the ivories with his brother George, making them the German version of The Liberace Boys
This is what I wrote on February 14, 2013:
Moreover, as noted two days ago in Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now, Ratzinger/Benedict’s resignation sets what will be considered as a mandatory precedent for all future executive directors of the Occupy Vatican Movement. And if God does not intervene to put an end the chastisement represented by the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism, the “papal” resignation might even lead to calls for “papal” “term limits” and for “re-election” by the conciliar college of colleges over four or eight years. After all, wouldn’t this be in line with the “episcopal collegiality” that false “pontiff” praised yesterday as he termed this deviation from the Holy Faith to be an essential part of his new ecclesiology? (Living In Fantasyland To The Very End, part one.)
Ratzinger/Benedict has long desired to “reform” what he refers to as the “Petrine ministry” along the lines of how he believes the papacy functioned in the First Millennium. He wrote the following in Principles of Catholic Theology thirty-two years ago now:
After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and the people of Constantinople as “very Christian and orthodox”, although their concept of the Roman primary was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 198-199)
Perhaps inspired by his handpicked prefect of the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II became the first conciliar “pope” to speak of a “rethinking” of the “Petrine Ministry” after over twenty years of little “papal” acts that whittled away at the notion of the papacy as a monarchy (the taking off the Papal Tiara by Montini/Paul VI, who also genuflected before Athenagoras, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople; “episcopal collegiality” as envisioned by the “Second” Vatican Council and practiced by the conciliar “popes;” Luciani/John Paul I’s “installation” service as opposed to a coronation; endless acts of “papal” inferiority when visiting Talmudic synagogues and Mohammedan mosques and Protestant churches; Ratzinger/Benedict’s removal of the tiara from his “papal” coat of arms, replacing it with a mitre). Wojtyla/John Paul II wrote the following in Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995, a heretical document that is the antithesis of Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:
Whatever relates to the unity of all Christian communities clearly forms part of the concerns of the primacy. As Bishop of Rome I am fully aware, as I have reaffirmed in the present Encyclical Letter, that Christ ardently desires the full and visible communion of all those Communities in which, by virtue of God’s faithfulness, his Spirit dwells. I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. For a whole millennium Christians were united in “a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life … If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator“.
In this way the primacy exercised its office of unity. When addressing the Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Dimitrios I, I acknowledged my awareness that “for a great variety of reasons, and against the will of all concerned, what should have been a service sometimes manifested itself in a very different light. But … it is out of a desire to obey the will of Christ truly that I recognize that as Bishop of Rome I am called to exercise that ministry … I insistently pray the Holy Spirit to shine his light upon us, enlightening all the Pastors and theologians of our Churches, that we may seek—together, of course—the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned“.
This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out by myself. Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea “that they may all be one … so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Jn 17:21)? (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995.)
Leaving aside all of the references to “imperfect communion” that have been discussed on this site before and was assessed years ago by Bishop Donald Sanborn in Communion: Ratzingers’s Ecumenical One-World Church, one can see a close connection between Wojtyla/John Paul II’s revisionist history about how the papacy functioned in the First Millennium and that of the then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Cardinal” Ratzinger.
This revisionist history and heretical view of Papal Primary was also reiterated by the “unofficial” Ravenna Document on October 13, 2007, a document that was cited by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on numerous occasions between that time and the day his resignation became effective a year ago yesterday (so much for the “unofficial” part, huh?):
It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.
We, the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, are convinced that the above statement on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority represents positive and significant progress in our dialogue, and that it provides a firm basis for future discussion of the question of primacy at the universal level in the Church. We are conscious that many difficult questions remain to be clarified, but we hope that, sustained by the prayer of Jesus “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17, 21), and in obedience to the Holy Spirit, we can build upon the agreement already reached. Reaffirming and confessing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5), we give glory to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has gathered us together. (The Ravenna Document)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI put his “papal” seal of approval on The Ravenna Document just forty-one days after its issuance on the ninetieth anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal:
This year we thank God in particular for the meeting of the Joint Commission which took place in Ravenna, a city whose monuments speak eloquently of the ancient Byzantine heritage handed down to us from the undivided Church of the first millennium. May the splendour of those mosaics inspire all the members of the Joint Commission to pursue their important task with renewed determination, in fidelity to the Gospel and to Tradition, ever alert to the promptings of the Holy Spirit in the Church today.
While the meeting in Ravenna was not without its difficulties, I pray earnestly that these may soon be clarified and resolved, so that there may be full participation in the Eleventh Plenary Session and in subsequent initiatives aimed at continuing the theological dialogue in mutual charity and understanding. Indeed, our work towards unity is according to the will of Christ our Lord. In these early years of the third millennium, our efforts are all the more urgent because of the many challenges facing all Christians, to which we need to respond with a united voice and with conviction. (Letter to His Holiness Bartholomaios I, Archbishop of Constantinople, Ecumenical Patriarch, on the occasion of the feast of St. Andrew, November 23, 2007.)
So much for the “unofficial” nature of The Ravenna Document.
Walter “Cardinal” Kasper, then the president of the “Pontifical” Council for Promoting Christian Unity, had mouthed the same Modernism when he addressed an assembly of the members of the schismatic and heretical Anglican sect in the United Kingdom on May 24, 2003:
It was Pope John Paul II who opened the door to future discussion on this subject. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995) he extended an invitation to a fraternal dialogue on how to exercise the Petrine ministry in a way that is more acceptable to non-Catholic Christians. It was a source of pleasure for us that among others the Anglican community officially responded to this invitation. The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity gathered the many responses, analyzed the data, and sent its conclusions to the churches that had responded. We hope in this way to have initiated a second phase of a dialogue that will be decisive for the future of the ecumenical approach.
Nobody could reasonably expect that we could from the outset reach a phase of consensus; but what we have reached is not negligible. It has become evident that a new atmosphere and a new climate exist. In our globalized world situation the biblical testimonies on Peter and the Petrine tradition of Rome are read with new eyes because in this new context the question of a ministry of universal unity, a common reference point and a common voice of the universal church, becomes urgent. Old polemical formulas stand at odds with this urgency; fraternal relations have become the norm. Extensive research has been undertaken that has highlighted the different traditions between East and West already in the first millennium, and has traced the development in understanding and in practice of the Petrine ministry throughout the centuries. As well, the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.
These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy. This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches. But there is at least a wide consensus about the common central problem, which all churches have to solve: how the three dimensions, highlighted already by the Lima documents on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), namely unity through primacy, collegiality through synodality, and communality of all the faithful and their spiritual gifts, can be brought into a convincing synthesis. (A Vision of Christian Unity for the Next Generation.)
One way to effect this “reinterpretation” is to “demythologize” what most people think is the papacy today by an act of “papal” resignation.
As has been noted on this site in the past, however, the Ratzinger-Wojtyla-Kasper contention about how the papacy functioned in the First Millennium in false.
Pope Leo XIII explained this very succinctly in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 29, 1894:
First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world. Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned. We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.
The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ’s Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs. Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood. The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known. Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.
And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, “in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report”; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began. Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.
We have recalled those things intentionally, for they constitute an invitation to peace and reconciliation; and with all the more reason that in Our own days it would seem as if there were a more conciliatory spirit towards Catholics on the part of the Eastern Churches, and even some degree of kindly feeling. To mention an instance, those sentiments were lately made manifest when some of Our faithful travelled to the East on a Holy Enterprise, and received so many proofs of courtesy and good-will.
Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: “What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified? What will our defense be in the eyes of posterity? Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren.”
Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.
Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation. On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God’s bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased. May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: “Make the schisms of the Churches cease,” and “Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West. (See also the excellent discussion of the the history of what led up to the Greek Schism that is contained in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki’s Tumultuous Times.)
Hegelian revisionists must deny history and Catholic doctrine both at the same time in an effort to build yet another story to the One World Ecumenical Church.
Yes, the conciliar “popes” have been whittling away at the last great Catholic bastion that they have sought to raze, a supposedly “triumphalistic” notion of Papal Primacy that does not correspond to the conciliar “orientation” in the direction of collegiality and service as opposed to monarchy and rule.
Pope Saint Pius X warned us about such men in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:
It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles? (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, No. 38)
His “papal” resignation last year proved again that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was and remain truly an Anti-Saint Peter and an Anti-Pope Pius X. He was and remains a figure of Antichrist as Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not reign over us “collegially” and “democratically.” He reigns over us monarchically as Our King and Judge. Any true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter understands this. That the conciliar “popes” reject it is yet just another sign that they are apostates and committed agents of the adversary, deceiving Catholics and non-Catholics alike that almost every aspect of the Catholic Faith is negotiable except, of course, conciliarism itself and its commitment to the Talmudic agenda.
“Pope” Benedict XVI was considering resigning from the conciliar “Petrine Ministry” long before he did so last year.
It was on April 28, 2009, that Ratzinger/Benedict prayed at the tomb of Pope Saint Celestine V, who had resigned from the papacy on December 13, 1294, after a reign of five months, eight days, in the Church of Santa Maria di Collemaggi in Aquila, Italy, after an earthquake had devastated the area and badly damaged the church itself. Ratzinger/Benedict even left his woolen pallium that was placed on his neck during his “installation” as the “Petrine Minister” on Sunday, April 24, 2005, on Saint Celestine’s tomb. This was taken at that very time as a sign that the then eighty-two year German Modernist by way of the “new theology” was considering resigning from his office as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Ratzinger/Benedict returned to Aquila just a year later during the holy year that he had proclaimed in honor of Saint Celestine’s eight hundredth birthday, praying before his relics in Sulmona Cathedral on July 4, 2010. The thought of resigning had long been on the mind of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s successor as the universal public face of apostasy.
Moreover, everything about Ratzinger/Benedict’s “post-’papacy” has been ad hoc. The whole thing has been a gigantic experiment in conciliar “innovation” and “novelty,” starting with how he was going to be addressed and what he was going to wear:
Pope Benedict XVI will be known as “emeritus pope” in his retirement and will continue to wear a white cassock, the Vatican announced Tuesday, again fueling concerns about potential conflicts arising from having both a reigning and a retired pope.
The pope’s title and what he would wear have been a major source of speculation ever since Benedict stunned the world and announced he would resign on Thursday, the first pontiff to do so in 600 years.
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Benedict himself had made the decision in consultation with others, settling on “Your Holiness Benedict XVI” and either emeritus pope or emeritus Roman pontiff.
Lombardi said he didn’t know why Benedict had decided to drop his other main title: bishop of Rome.
In the two weeks since Benedict’s resignation announcement, Vatican officials had suggested that Benedict would likely resume wearing the traditional black garb of a cleric and would use the title “emeritus bishop of Rome” so as to not create confusion with the future pope.
Benedict’s decision to call himself emeritus pope and to keep wearing white is sure to fan concern voiced privately by some cardinals about the awkward reality of having two popes, both living within the Vatican walls.
Adding to the concern is that Benedict’s trusted secretary, Monsignor Georg Gaenswein, will be serving both pontiffs — living with Benedict at the monastery inside the Vatican and keeping his day job as prefect of the new pope’s household.
Asked about the potential conflicts, Lombardi was defensive, saying the decisions had been clearly reasoned and were likely chosen for the sake of simplicity.
“I believe it was well thought out,” he said.
Benedict himself has made clear he is retiring to a lifetime of prayer and meditation “hidden from the world.” However, he still will be very present in the tiny Vatican city-state, where his new home is right next door to the Vatican Radio and has a lovely view of the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica.
While he will no longer wear his trademark red shoes, Benedict has taken a liking to a pair of hand-crafted brown loafers made for him by artisans in Leon, Mexico, and given to him during his 2012 visit. He will wear those in retirement, Lombardi said. (Vatican says retired Pope Benedict XVI will be called ‘emeritus pope’.)
Quite unlike Saint Peter Celestine, however, “Pope” Benedict XVI did not resume wearing a black cassock or remain “hidden from the world.” The life of the “two-headed ‘pope’” monster is still evolving as Ratzinger/Benedict makes his way back into public view on a more regular basis, starting with his “surprise” appearance in the Basilica of Saint Peter last Saturday, February 22, 2014, the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in Antioch, as nineteen apostates were raised to the conciliar college of non-cardinals. As I noted six days ago now in Will “Coercionism” Accompany “Resignationism”?, it would not surprise me in the least if Jorge Mario Bergoglio permitted his predecessor to say a few words at the “canonization” of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on Low Sunday, April 27, 2014.
Insofar as Ratzinger/Benedict’s decision to wear a white cassock, suffice it to say that what he wrote recently in a letter to Vaticanologist Andrea Tornielli of La Stampa is not inconsistent with “Father” Federico Lombardi’s announcement about his then-superior’s “post-’papal” attire and title. This is what Tornielli reported the Antipope Emeritus wrote to him by way of squelching speculation that his resignation last year was invalid:
In the letter he sent to us, the Pope Emeritus answered some questions regarding his decision to keep his papal name and continue dressing in white. “I continue to wear the white cassock and kept the name Benedict for purely practical reasons. At the moment of my resignation there were no other clothes available. In any case, I wear the white cassock in a visibly different way to how the Pope wears it. This is another case of completely unfounded speculations being made,” he wrote. (Vatican Insider, La Stampa)
It must be remembered that Ratzinger/Benedict is a master of self-contradiction and paradox. Federico Lombardi made it clear last year that the now retired universal public face of apostasy had given great thought to his attire and the way in which he would be addressed in retirement. In this regard, you see, readers should recall that Ratzinger/Benedict has been known to contradict himself within the same paragraph:
In Cardinal Ratzinger’s Values in a Time of Upheaval, he muddies up his phrase [the dictatorship of relativism]; indeed, he reverses his position. He says, “The modem concept of democracy seems indissolubly linked to that of relativism.” Well, well! But then he backtracks: “This means that a basic element of truth, namely, ethical truth, is indispensable to democracy.” But then he backtracks again: “We do not want the State to impose one particular idea of the good on us. … Truth is controversial, and the attempt to impose on all persons what one part of the citizenry holds to be true looks like enslavement of people’s consciences.” And he says this on the same page!
Yes, we know: Some of our readers feel that the Pope is above all criticism; he cannot make a mistake, even in his previous writings. But what he has written here is contradictory and inscrutable.
Ratzinger says, “The relativists …[are] flirting with totalitarianism even though they seek to establish the primacy of freedom …” Huh?
So, what is he saying? “The State is not itself the source of truth and morality…. Accordingly, the State must receive from outside itself the essential measure of knowledge and truth with regard to that which is good. … The Church remains outside’ the State. … The Church must exert itself with all its vigor so that in it there may shine forth moral truth …”
Then he says, “Conscience is the highest norm [italics in original] and … and one must follow it even against authority. When authority – in this case the Church’s Magisterium – speaks on matters of morality, it supplies the material that helps the conscience form its own judgment, but ultimately it is only conscience that has the last word.” (A Contradictory Definition of Relativism.)
Cardinal Ratzinger’s belief that the conscience can disobey the objective Moral teaching of the Church clearly admits, as did Descartes, that the soul comes first, and God only afterwards.
The error is now within the Church. It is supported even by the highest Catholic authorities. Their current of thought, Progressivism, is nothing more than the exaltation of the self. Its most malicious ingredient is Immanentism, the error that the soul contains a divine immanence: “The principle of immanence essentially states that the first thing we know is ourselves and that all our knowledge of external reality is judged in light of it” (8). Because self has been placed first as “the last word,” at the highest level of the Church, this should be a clarion call to Catholics to pray to Our Lady of Good Success for all who have succumbed to Progressivism, and also for all who are trying to maintain their Catholic faith in the increasingly more dominant Progressivist heresy. (Cardinal Ratzinger’s Subjectivism)
In other words, don’t try to find any logic, coherency or consistency in the rationale as to why the Antipope Emeritus chose to continue wearing a white cassock and a white zucchetto. Ratzinger/Benedict’s body of written work and his speeches contain multiple contradictions of Catholic truth and of the most basic elements of logic as they cleave to condemned propositions of Modernism and the faulty non-Scholastic “reasoning” contained in the condemned methods of the “new theology.”
Don’t spend a lot of time trying to reconcile anything Ratzinger says at one time as opposed to something he said earlier. Remember, he is the man who said in 2007 that there had been no rupture in the liturgy after having said in 1985 and 1999 that such a rupture had taken place. Contradiction is just part of the Modernist fog in which this blaspheming heretic lives.
Although it is certainly true that Jorge Mario Bergoglio will wear simple priestly garments, if that, once he resigns (if does not die as “Pope” Francis) when he is assured that his Jacobin/Bolshevik agenda is incapable of being reversed, Joseph Alois Ratzinger’s “style,” though innovative (he did remove the miter from the “papal” coat of arms), is one that he considers “dignified” and “proper.” He is very conscious now of setting a precedent for future retired “popes,” not Bergoglio or anyone else of the “ultra-progressive” ilk will follow the example being set by the resigning trend-setter who was supposed to remain “hidden from the world,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
On matters of substance, however, it must be remembered that there is no space between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, something that I attempted to make clear in my seven part series and in a number of subsequent articles.
Indeed, Ratzinger’s close personal associate and secretary, “Archbishop” George Ganswein has made this point very clear in behalf of the man he still serves while serving as the prefect for the “papal household” under Jorge Mario Bergoglio:
Q. Do the Pope and the Pope emeritus interact frequently?
Ganswein: There is an excellent relationship. The ways in which they interact are various. They telephone, they write, they meet, they eat together. Pope Francis has been a guest for lunch in the monastery several times. Once, after Christmas, the Pope emeritus was also in Santa Marta.
Q. The are some who contrast them.
Ganswein: It is a favorite game, especially for some journalists. Which does not please me. I have the grace of living with one and working with the other. And I can thus allow myself to say that I know both very well. I do not see them as opposed, but as complementary. It is obvious that the style, the gestures, and even the form of government of Pope Francis are different from those of Pope Benedict. But an opposition cannot be established only based on this. Doing things in a different way does not mean doing them in an opposite way. One must always have in mind that which the Pope emeritus wrote to professor Hans Küng and repeated to Andrea Tornielli, when he expressed “identity of views and heartfelt friendship” regarding Pope Francis.
Q. Also in the liturgy the sensibilities are different.
Ganswein: That is true, this is an objective fact, and it is not an offense to say so. But even in this case, I repeat, doing things in a different way does not mean doing them in an opposite way. (Yes, Francis’ and Benedict’s liturgical sensibilities are different, it’s not an offense to say so.)
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
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. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
There is no wiggle room here at all.
If one even “privately” dissents from one article contained in the Catholic Faith while holding, however tenuously, to others, he has expelled himself from the bosom of Holy Mother Church by virtue of violating the Divine Positive Law.
Saint Francis de Sales had noted this same point over two hundred eighty years before:
With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this, because everyone must believe all the truths of faith–both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel of the Sorrows of Our Lady, pray for us.