Pure Modernism from the Bavarian New Theologian: Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI

The only real challenge to writing this brief article is having to write it on a notebook computer resting on a cooling pad while using an external keyboard to type these words. Other than that, however, this article will be as short and to the point as I am capable of doing, and brevity is required by the late hour at which is being written on a wonderfully penitential day featuring computer problems galore and a flat tire that went flat four hours after being repaired.

The old German Modernist by way of the papally condemned “new theology,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who had promised to remain “hidden from the world” eight years, five months ago when he helicopter off to a figurative Elba—Castel Gandfolo—before returning the confines behind the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River a month later to begin the experiment of his own invention, the “office of Pope Emeritus,” has given his own umpteenth interview since promising to “remain hidden from the world.”

The news report below is short. My commentary will be detailed:

FREIBURG GERMANY — Retired Pope Benedict XVI has criticized representatives of the Catholic Church in his home country, Germany.

"As long as only the ministry, but not the heart and the spirit, speak in official church texts, the exodus from the world of faith will continue," he wrote in response to questions submitted by the magazine Herder Korrespondenz. The German church news agency KNA reported his remarks.

The monthly magazine Herder Korrespondenz sent questions to retired Pope Benedict to mark the 70th anniversary of his becoming chaplain in a Munich parish 70 years ago. Most of the statements referred to his memories from that time.

The 94-year-old has lived largely in seclusion in a former monastery in the Vatican since his resignation in 2013.

The retired pope said that in the church's hospitals, schools and in the Catholic charity, Caritas, "many people are involved in key positions who do not support the inner calling of the church and thus often obscure the mission of this institution." This was particularly evident in announcements and public statements, he wrote. KNA reported he said a distinction must be made in the church between "believers and unbelievers."

Comment:

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI remains as spiritually blind now as he was seventy years ago after receiving his seminary training effused with the teaching of the “new theology” that had been condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 150, just ten and one-half months before his own ordination. This Modernist by way of the late Hegelian named Father Hans Urs von Balthasar cannot see any connection between the rise of unbelief within the structures and institutions of what he thinks is the Catholic Church and the very Modernist principles, starting with dogmatic evolutionism, that were the foundation of the work he helped to guide at the “Second Vatican Council.”

Joseph Alois Ratzinger worked with a Lutheran “observer” at the “Second” Vatican Council to devise the heretical statement that the “Church of Christ subsists within the Catholic Church” that became the linchpin of Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, and thus of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “new ecclesiology.”

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. (Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964.)

Despite all of the efforts made by defenders of all things conciliar to try to explain how the passage from Lumen Gentium above was not a contradiction of Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis, it is nevertheless the case that Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “new ecclesiology” of “full communion” and “partial communion” received its official sanction in Lumen Gentium. The seeds were thus planted for a wider and more “generous” application of the “new ecclesiology that Ratzinger himself defended in an interview with the Frankfort Allgemeine newspaper on September 22, 2000, forty-seven days after the issuance of Dominus Iesus on August 6, 2000, the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Indeed, the then “Cardinal” Ratzinger boasted that Lumen Gentium recognized that there were other “churches” outside of the Catholic Church:

Q. On the other hand, Eberhard Jüngel sees something different there. The fact that in its time the Second Vatican Council did not state that the one and only Church of Christ is exclusively the Roman Catholic Church perplexes Jüngel. In the Constitution Lumen gentium, it says only that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him", not expressing any exclusivity with the Latin word "subsistit".

A. Unfortunately once again I cannot follow the reasoning of my esteemed colleague, Jüngel. I was there at the Second Vatican Council when the term "subsistit" was chosen and I can say I know it well. Regrettably one cannot go into details in an interview. In his Encyclical Pius XII said: the Roman Catholic Church "is" the one Church of Jesus Christ. This seems to express a complete identity, which is why there was no Church outside the Catholic community. However, this is not the case: according to Catholic teaching, which Pius XII obviously also shared, the local Churches of the Eastern Church separated from Rome are authentic local Churches; the communities that sprang from the Reformation are constituted differently, as I just said. In these the Church exists at the moment when the event takes place. . .

Q. In short, why cannot the "otherness" of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be compared to the diversity of ecclesial communities? Is Jüngel's not a fascinating and harmonious formula?

A. Among the ecclesial communities there are many disagreements, and what disagreements! The three "persons" constitute one God in an authentic and supreme unity. When the Council Fathers replaced the word "is" with the word "subsistit", they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by "is" (to be) is far broader than that expressed by "to subsist". "To subsist" is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.  (Answers to Main Objections Against Dominus Iesus.) 

One can see that the then “Cardinal” Ratzinger had explained the Latin word subsistit had been chosen at the “Second” Vatican Council precisely because it signified that the “Church of Christ” was an entity larger than the Catholic Church herself.

Ratzinger was so bold as to project this heretical belief upon Pope Pius XII, who did not believe that the Eastern Orthodox churches were part of the one Church of Christ that is the Catholic Church, implying that there was a possibility that Papa Pacelli had gotten it wrong, that he might not have agreed with what Ratzinger contended was the “Catholic teaching” contained in Lumen Gentium. He even went so far as to assert that Protestant sects became part of the “Church of Christ” at the moment, which he called “the event,” of their being founded by this or that heretic. That is not what Pope Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis.

Is it any wonder, therefore, why there are “unbelievers” in the ranks of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s institutions?

Of course not, especially when one considers that Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not believe that doctrine has been revealed by God Himself but that it “develops from faith,” a bold contention that is of the essence of Modernism and condemned forcefully by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.

Before quoting from Saint Pius X, however, permit me to provide you with the precise quote out of the ninety-four year-old heretic’s own mouth concerning the nature of doctrine:

The retired pope wrote that "people should be brought out from the cover of their ministry" in the Catholic Church in Germany. He expected a "real personal testimony of faith" from the church's spokespeople, he added, without naming names.

In the text, he also referred to his "Freiburg speech," held during his visit to Germany in 2011, which triggered a broad response and some criticism. In the speech, he emphasized that the church must set itself apart from its surroundings and in a certain sense become "unworldly."

The retired pope said that perhaps he had not chosen the term "unworldly" wisely.

"The term of becoming 'unworldly' indicates the negative part of the movement I am referring to, namely, stepping out of the speech and constraints of a time into the freedom of faith." The positive aspect of this approach had not been sufficiently expressed, he said.

In the text, the former pope also described a "flight into pure doctrine" as unrealistic. Rather, doctrine must "develop in and from faith, not stand beside it." That was because a "doctrine that would exist like a nature reserve separated from the daily world of faith" would be "a renunciation of faith itself." (Retired Pope Benedict criticizes church in Germany, says mission obscured.)

Comment and Extensive Discussion:

This is pure, unadulterated Modernism that, as noted above, was condemned as such by Pope Saint Pius X one hundred fourteen years ago:

14. Thus far, Venerable Brethren, We have considered the Modernist as a philosopher. Now if We proceed to consider him as a believer, and seek to know how the believer, according to Modernism, is marked off from the philosopher, it must be observed that, although the philosopher recognizes the reality of the divine as the object of faith, still this reality is not to be found by him but in the heart of the believer, as an object of feeling and affirmation, and therefore confined within the sphere of phenomena; but the question as to whether in itself it exists outside that feeling and affirmation is one which the philosopher passes over and neglects. For the Modernist believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the reality of the divine does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the views of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. The following is their manner of stating the question: In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God’s existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the Rationalists, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer.

How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate.

15. There is yet another element in this part of their teaching which is absolutely contrary to Catholic truth. For what is laid down as to experience is also applied with destructive effect to tradition, which has always been maintained by the Catholic Church. Tradition, as understood by the Modernists, is a communication with others of an original experience, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula. To this formula, in addition to its representative value they attribute a species of suggestive efficacy which acts firstly in the believer by stimulating the religious sense, should it happen to have grown sluggish, and by renewing the experience once acquired, and secondly, in those who do not yet believe by awakening in them for the first time the religious sense and producing the experience. In this way is religious experience spread abroad among the nations; and not merely among contemporaries by preaching, but among future generations both by books and by oral transmission from one to another. Sometimes this communication of religious experience takes root and thrives, at other times it withers at once and dies. For the Modernists, to live is a proof of truth, since for them life and truth are one and the same thing. Thus we are once more led to infer that all existing religions are equally true, for otherwise they would not survive. . .  .

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: “Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text…to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science…these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid.”¹⁰

18. This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther¹¹ and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers.

19. At this point, Venerable Brethren, the way is opened for us to consider the Modernists in the theological arena — a difficult task, yet one that may be disposed of briefly. It is a question of effecting the conciliation of faith with science, but always by making the one subject to the other. In this matter the Modernist theologian takes exactly the same principles which we have seen employed by the Modernist philosopher — the principles of immanence and symbolism — and applies them to the believer. The process is an extremely simple one. The philosopher has declared: The principle of faith is immanent; the believer has added: This principle is God; and the theologian draws the conclusion: God is immanent in man. Thus we have theological immanence. So, too, the philosopher regards it as certain that the representations of the object of faith are merely symbolical; the believer has likewise affirmed that the object of faith is God in himself; and the theologian proceeds to affirm that: The representations of the divine reality are symbolical. And thus we have theological symbolism. These errors are truly of the gravest kind and the pernicious character of both will be seen clearly from an examination of their consequences. For, to begin with symbolism, since symbols are but symbols in regard to their objects and only instruments in regard to the believer, it is necessary first of all, according to the teachings of the Modernists, that the believer does not lay too much stress on the formula, as formula, but avail himself of it only for the purpose of uniting himself to the absolute truth which the formula at once reveals and conceals, that is to say, endeavors to express but without ever succeeding in doing so. They would also have the believer make use of the formulas only in as far as they are helpful to him, for they are given to be a help and not a hindrance; with proper regard, however, for the social respect due to formulas which the public magisterium has deemed suitable for expressing the common consciousness until such time as the same magisterium shall provide otherwise. Concerning immanence it is not easy to determine what Modernists precisely mean by it, for their own opinions on the subject vary. Some understand it in the sense that God working in man is more intimately present in him than man is even in himself; and this conception, if properly understood, is irreproachable. Others hold that the divine action is one with the action of nature, as the action of the first cause is one with the action of the secondary cause; and this would destroy the supernatural order. Others, finally, explain it in a way which savors of pantheism, and this, in truth, is the sense which best fits in with the rest of their doctrines. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Doctrine comes from God Himself, not from our “inner faith experience” as the Modernists, Ratzinger included, contend.

Remember, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is a dogmatic evolutionist. He believes that it is impossible for human beings to formulate doctrines precisely because of the subjective, time-bound considerations concerning when they were written and of the supposed inability of human language to convey its meaning adequately. In other words, what Ratzinger/Benedict calls “doctrine” is really quite indeed a product of the “faith experience” and whose understanding must by necessity change as the “experiences” of men in “different ages” change:

1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute. 

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes." (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

1990: "The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time."

(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.

These are all subjects of great importance - they were the great themes of the second part of the Council - on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.  

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.

Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom,has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one's own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God's grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

What was that Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis about how the "new theologians" deny that the true meaning of doctrines may be known and understood with metaphysical certitude?

Let me remind you:

34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

For the likes of men such as the conciliar revolutionaries to be correct, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity not only hid the true meaning of doctrines for over nineteen hundred years, He permitted true popes and the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty true general councils to condemn propositions that have, we are supposed to believe, only recently been "discovered" as having been true. Blasphemous and heretical.

Very interestingly insofar as the latest "synthesis" developed by Ratzinger/Benedict is concerned, that infamous December 22, 2005, address to the conciliar curia contained the following passage about the "necessity" of seeking a "new way" to "understand" what he alleged to be the Catholic Church with the "faith of Israel":

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.  (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005)

No event of secular history can cause the Catholic Church to breathe new life into a false religion that is hated by God.

The events of World War II have been used by various adherents of the Talmud to demonstrate their deeply held belief that the spilling of Jewish blood is more horrible a crime than the spilling of the blood of others. Indeed, the Zionists in Israel have treated the Palestinians, who were thrown out of their own homes and had their property seized from them in 1948 and have been subjected to all manner of degrading conditions since that time, as the same sort of subhumans as the Jews and others, especially the Poles, were treated by the Nazis. The exploitation of the crimes of the Nazis during World War II has resulted in an endless effort to impose "guilt" on anyone and everyone who dares to proclaim the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in public, no less hold to everything that He has revealed to us in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and has entrusted to the infallible teaching authority of His Catholic Church for Its explication and eternal safekeeping.

Ratzinger/Benedict has made numerous heretical statements that contradict the consistent, immutable teaching of the Catholic Church that the Old Covenant God made with Moses was superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and that he ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday as the earth quaked and the curtain in the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom:

“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.” (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 209.)

In its work, the Biblical Commission could not ignore the contemporary context, where the shock of the Shoah has put the whole question under a new light. Two main problems are posed: Can Christians, after all that has happened, still claim in good conscience to be the legitimate heirs of Israel's Bible? Have they the right to propose a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they not instead, respectfully and humbly, renounce any claim that, in the light of what has happened, must look like a usurpation? The second question follows from the first: In its presentation of the Jews and the Jewish people, has not the New Testament itself contributed to creating a hostility towards the Jewish people that provided a support for the ideology of those who wished to destroy Israel? The Commission set about addressing those two questions. It is clear that a Christian rejection of the Old Testament would not only put an end to Christianity itself as indicated above, but, in addition, would prevent the fostering of positive relations between Christians and Jews, precisely because they would lack common ground. In the light of what has happened, what ought to emerge now is a new respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. On this subject, the Document says two things. First it declares that “the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures of the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading, which developed in parallel fashion” (no. 22). It adds that Christians can learn a great deal from a Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in return, Christians may hope that Jews can profit from Christian exegetical research (ibid.). I think this analysis will prove useful for the pursuit of Judeo-Christian dialogue, as well as for the interior formation of Christian consciousness. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Preface to The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible.)

“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.” (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 209.)

To the religious leaders present this afternoon, I wish to say that the particular contribution of religions to the quest for peace lies primarily in the wholehearted, united search for God.  Ours is the task of proclaiming and witnessing that the Almighty is present and knowable even when he seems hidden from our sight, that he acts in our world for our good, and that a society’s future is marked with hope when it resonates in harmony with his divine order.  It is God’s dynamic presence that draws hearts together and ensures unity.  In fact, the ultimate foundation of unity among persons lies in the perfect oneness and universality of God, who created man and woman in his image and likeness in order to draw us into his own divine life so that all may be one. ("Pope" Benedict XVI, Courtesy visit to the President of the State of Israel at the presidential palace in Jerusalem, May 11, 2009.)

9. Christians and Jews share to a great extent a common spiritual patrimony, they pray to the same Lord, they have the same roots, and yet they often remain unknown to each other.  It is our duty, in response to God’s call, to strive to keep open the space for dialogue, for reciprocal respect, for growth in friendship, for a common witness in the face of the challenges of our time, which invite us to cooperate for the good of humanity in this world created by God, the Omnipotent and Merciful. (Ratzinger/Benedict at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )  

Pope Pius XII summarized the immutable Catholic truth concerning the fact that Judaism was superseded by Catholicism on Good Friday:

29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

The perennial truths of the Catholic Faith do not change. It is blasphemous to assert that the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, would direct Holy Mother Church without change for nineteen hundred years before authorizing a series of "reversals" starting in 1962 and continuing thereafter to the present time.

As Pope Pius XI noted in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, God has revealed His doctrines to us, and we profess our faith in what God has revealed. Doctrine is not the product of the “faith experience:”

For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.  (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928,)

The retired antipope, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, has never accepted this. He believes that Protestants truly "love" Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ because they are said to have a "relationship" with Him even though they do not know Him or accept Him as He has revealed Himself to men exclusively through His Catholic Church. Ratzinger/Benedict believes that the Orthodox are fellow "believers" even though they reject the Catholic Church's doctrinal definitions of Original Sin, Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility and Purgatory and reject as well the dogma of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception as defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854.

As Pope Pius XI noted in Mortalium Animos and as Pope Leo XIII noted in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, this is not so. No one is a true follower of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who dissents in any way, shape, or form from anything contained in the Deposit of Faith.

Wake up, resignationists.

Wake up.

Look at Catholic truth rather than continue being mired in falsehoods and delusions that cause you to chase down one rabbit hole after another and/or to push that Sisyphus-like boulder up a hill repeatedly only to have it come crashing down upon you time and time again.

Joseph Alois Ratzinger was never "Pope Benedict XVI" as he has been in a state of revolt against the Holy Faith, starting with the very nature of God and of His Holy Truth, throughout the course of his seminary years and, of course, during his seventy years of priestly life.

Continue to pray Our Lady’s Rosary daily, imploring also her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ with the prayer that the late Bishop Robert Fidelis McKenna, O.P., prayed every day after Low Mass in the Dominican Rite at Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel in Monroe, Connecticut:

“O Lord, grant us a true pope.”

Pay no attention to the conciliar robber barons.

Sure, of course.

Pray for their conversion, but pray also that we shall be converted on a daily basis from our own sins and lukewarmness and from, God forbid, any and all smugness about seeing the truth clearly as it is more easy to give up than it is to persevere to the end, and for this we need the help of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Our Lady told us that her Immaculate Heart would triumph in the end. We must simply do our part as her Divine Son through that same Immaculate Heart by planting the seeds for the restoration that is to come by our own patient endurance of the crosses we are asked to bear to make reparation for our sins and to give honor and glory to the Most Blessed Trinity in all things and at all times.

Vivat Christus Rex!

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 Martha, pray for us.

Pope Saint Felix II, pray for us.

Saints Beatrice and Simplicius and Faustinus, pray for us.