The Real Architect of Prevost/Leo's Address to the Nestorians was Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI

Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV had himself quite a busy week of apostasy last week as he celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of the issuance of Nostra Aetate by the “Second” Vatican Council on October 28, 1965, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude. There might be a brief respite this month before the celebrations begin in earnest yet again with the joint sixtieth anniversaries of the issuance of the Gaudium et Spes, which Joseph “Cardinal’ Ratzinger called the Catholic Church’s “official reconciliation with the principles inaugurated by the events of 1789”—“events” that would become the basis of The Sillon and its condemnation by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, and Dignitatis Humanae, which is a direct contradiction of the Catholic Church’s consistent condemnation of the heresy of religious liberty that was premised upon the falsehood that non-Catholic religions have a “right from God” to propagate their false beliefs. Please, I do not want to get ahead of myself as I am loaded for bear when those own start to take place around the beginning of December after the beginning of Advent on Sunday, November 30, 2025, and then the transferred Feast of Saint Andrew the Apostle on Monday, December 1, 2025.

All right, enough of the anticipation of what is going to happen in four weeks.

What I want to do in this brief commentary is to examine Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV’s address to the “pope” of the Nestorian sect called the Assyrian Church of the East (by the way, the Nestorians do not like being called Nestorians as they still do not believe that Nestorius was a heretic) on Monday, October 27, 2025, the Vigil of Saints Simon and Jude. I will provide an extensive commentary following the text of Prevost/Leo’s address of six days ago:

Your Holiness,
Dear friends in Christ,

“Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph 1:2).  With these words of Saint Paul, I welcome Your Holiness as a beloved brother in Christ, and once again express gratitude for your presence at the inauguration of my pontificate.  I also warmly extend my greetings to the members of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.

These combined visits of the Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, together with the members of the Commission, constitute a beautiful custom established in recent years.  They bear witness to the fact that fraternal encounter and theological dialogue are mutually constitutive elements on the path toward unity.  The “dialogue of truth” is one expression of the love that already unites our Churches, while the “dialogue of charity” must also be understood theologically.

Your last visit, in 2024, marked the thirtieth anniversary of the official dialogue between our Churches.  The progress made over these years is significant, having faithfully followed the mandate and methodology established by our predecessors.  As affirmed in the 1994 Joint Declaration of His Holiness John Paul II and His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, “to be full and entire, communion presupposes unanimity concerning the content of the faith, the sacraments, and the constitution of the Church.”

This triptych provided the framework for the successive phases of our theological dialogue.  After reaching agreement on Christological faith and thus resolving a 1,500-year-old controversy, our dialogue advanced with the mutual recognition of sacraments, enabling a certain communicatio in sacris between our Churches.  I wish to express my deep gratitude to each of you, the theologians of the Joint Commission, for your invaluable contributions and shared efforts, without which these doctrinal and pastoral agreements would not have been possible.

Regarding the constitution of the Church – the current focus of the dialogue – the principal challenge lies in jointly developing a model of full communion, inspired by the first millennium, while thoughtfully responding to the challenges of our time.  As my predecessors have repeatedly emphasized, such a model should not involve absorption or domination; rather, it should promote the exchange of gifts between our Churches, received from the Holy Spirit for the building up of the Body of Christ (cf. Eph 4:12).  I look forward to the fruits of your ongoing theological dialogue on this matter, conducted “together, of course,” as Saint Pope John Paul II so earnestly desired in his Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (no. 95).

A Brief Interjection before returning to the text:

Not the first millennium mythology again?

This may be redundant, but I think it is important in the context of this commentary to explain the matter once again.

Heretics such as the conciliar “popes,” however, have been contending for over fifty years now that the decisions made at Holy Mother Church’s true general councils in Second Millennium are not binding upon the Orthodox as their representatives were not present at them, save for the Council of Florence. This means that dogmatic truths proclaimed under the infallible guidance of God the Holy Ghost do not apply to those whose representatives were not part of—or dissented from—their formulation and promulgation. Such a belief is heretical.

Yet it is that this heretical belief is at the cornerstone of what the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger wrote in Principles of Catholic Theology:

Turning then to refer specifically to "the study of a crucial theme in dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox: 'the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the first millennium'", a study which will subsequently "also extend to the second millennium", the Holy Father recalled how he had asked Catholics to pray "for this delicate dialogue which is so essential for the entire ecumenical movement". (Continue to Pray for the Unity of All Christians, a Vatican News Service report on Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's January 21, 2010, general audience address.)

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)

“Pope Benedict XVI” made sure that various parts of Principles of Catholic Theology got promulgated in one form or another with his direct approval. Thus it is that the Ravenna Document, October 13, 2007, which is one of those “unofficial” documents issued by a “satellite” commission, namely, Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, contains passages that are almost identical to those contained in Principles of Catholic Theology.

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)

Future discussion of "primacy at the universal level in the Church?

Difficult questions remain to be clarified?

God the Holy Ghost needs to help reach "an agreement" on Papal Primacy?

Apostasy.

Pope Leo XIII dealt with the false assertions contained in Principles of Catholic Theology and in The Ravenna Document while at the same time completely refuting Jorge Mario Bergoglio's October 1, 2016, contention that Catholics should not seek to conver the Orthodox, which was simply one of many times this lay Jesuit heretic has directly contradicted the mission that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gave to the Apostles before He Ascended to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal God the Father's right hand in Heaven on Ascension Thursday:

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. (Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 29, 1894. 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.) 

The conciliar “popes” have given Catholics and non-Catholics alike a distorted view of history and they have made it appear as though the new ecclesiology's concept of the "church as communion" has replaced the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church that there is no "Christian Church" outside of her. She is the one and sole embodiment of Christianity. The schismatic and heretical sects of Orthodoxy may have true sacraments because they possess true apostolic succession and have liturgical rites that that were used, at least for the most part, long before the Greek Schism of 1054. They do not have the Catholic Faith. Only those who adhere to the totality of the Deposit of Faith and are in full communion with a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter possess the Catholic Faith:

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

I return now to Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV's October 27, 2025, address to the Nestorians:

On this journey towards full communion, synodality presents itself as a promising path forward.  During Your Holiness’ visit in 2022, Pope Francis coined the expression later included in the Final Document of the recent Synod on Synodality of the Catholic Church, I quote: “The journey of synodality undertaken by the Catholic Church is and must be ecumenical, just as the ecumenical journey is synodal” (For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, Mission, 23).  In the spirit of that Synod, I sincerely hope that the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea will lead us to “put into practice forms of synodality among Christians of all traditions” and inspire us with new “ecumenical synodal practices” (ibid., 138-139).

May we continue this pilgrimage strengthened by the prayers of all the saints of our Churches, especially Saint Isaac of Nineveh, whose name was added to the Roman Martyrology last year  Through their intercession, may Christians in the Middle East always bear faithful witness to the risen Christ, and may our dialogue hasten the blessed day when we will celebrate together at the same altar, sharing in the same Body and Blood of our Saviour, “so that the world may believe” (Jn 17:21).

United in prayer with Our Saviour, I now invite all of you to join me in praying together the Lord’s Prayer. Our Father…  Address of Leo XIV to Mar Awa III, Catholicos Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, and to the Members of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, 27 October 2025.)

Extensive Commentary:

The conciliar revolutionaries have perfected a “methodology” to make dogmatic condemnations “disappear” by claiming to have finessed various points by the use of linguistic gymnastics to claim in a positivist manner that a “mutual understanding” has erased any basis for what was most likely, they believe, a “mistaken” condemnation in the past.

This is precisely what happened thirty-one years ago when Karol Jozsef Wojtyla/John Paul II signed the following agreement with the Nestorians after the great “restorer of tradition,” Joseph Alois “Cardinal” Ratzinger, who believed that condemnations made by the Church’s general councils lose something of their authority when those being condemned were not present to object to the condemnation, meaning the God the Holy Ghost did not infallibly guide the Council Fathers in particular cases, including, it would appear, the Council of Ephesus in 1531:

As heirs and guardians of the faith received from the Apostles as formulated by our common Fathers in the Nicene Creed, we confess one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of the Father from all eternity who, in the fullness of time, came down from heaven and became man for our salvation. The Word of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit in assuming from the holy Virgin Mary a body animated by a rational soul, with which he was indissolubly united from the moment of his conception.

Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operations. But far from constituting "one and another", the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is the object of a single adoration.

Christ therefore is not an "ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour". In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of God" and also as "the Mother of Christ". We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.

This is the unique faith that we profess in the mystery of Christ. The controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord’s Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings.

Whatever our christological divergences have been, we experience ourselves united today in the confession of the same faith in the Son of God who became man so that we might become children of God by his grace. We wish from now on to witness together to this faith in the One who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, proclaiming it in appropriate ways to our contemporaries, so that the world may believe in the Gospel of salvation.

The mystery of the Incarnation which we profess in common is not an abstract and isolated truth. It refers to the Son of God sent to save us. The economy of salvation, which has its origin in the mystery of communion of the Holy Trinity–Father, Son and Holy Spirit–, is brought to its fulfilment through the sharing in this communion, by grace, within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which is the People of God, the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Spirit.

Believers become members of this Body through the sacrament of Baptism, through which, by water and the working of the Holy Spirit, they are born again as new creatures. They are confirmed by the seal of the Holy Spirit who bestows the sacrament of Anointing. Their communion with God and among themselves is brought to full realization by the celebration of the unique offering of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. This communion is restored for the sinful members of the Church when they are reconciled with God and with one another through the sacrament of Forgiveness. The sacrament of Ordination to the ministerial priesthood in the apostolic succession assures the authenticity of the faith, the sacraments and the communion in each local Church.

Living by this faith and these sacraments, it follows as a consequence that the particular Catholic churches and the particular Assyrian churches can recognize each other as sister Churches. To be full and entire, communion presupposes the unanimity concerning the content of the faith, the sacraments and the constitution of the Church. Since this unanimity for which we aim has not yet been attained, we cannot unfortunately celebrate together the Eucharist which is the sign of the ecclesial communion already fully restored.

Nevertheless, the deep spiritual communion in the faith and the mutual trust already existing between our Churches entitle us from now on to consider witnessing together to the Gospel message and co–operating in particular pastoral situations, including especially the areas of catechesis and the formation of future priests.

In thanking God for having made us rediscover what already unites us in the faith and the sacraments, we pledge ourselves to do everything possible to dispel the obstacles of the past which still prevent the attainment of full communion between our Churches, so that we can better respond to the Lord’s call for the unity of his own, a unity which has of course to be expressed visibly. To overcome these obstacles, we now establish a Mixed Committee for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. (Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, November 11, 1994.)

This “joint agreement” meant only this: that the Nestorian and Catholic teachings can be interpreted in a mutually satisfactory way so as to have stated that there is a common Christology even though the Nestorians still insist that their boy was wrongly condemned by the Council of Ephesus, whose anathemas, in effect, were rendered null and void by the so-called “Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.”

Moreover, the relevant point about the title of Our Lady as Theotokos or Christokotos is not a matter of semantics as to be a member of the Catholic Church one must believe that Our Lady is the Mother God and to honor her as such.

This was proven by the actual decision of the Council of Ephesus, meeting as it did under the infallible guidance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, whose declarations are appended below, and by the words of Pope Pius XI in Lux Veritas, October 11, 1931:

And, indeed, if the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary is God, assuredly she who bore him is rightly and deservedly to be called the Mother of God. If there is only one person in Christ, and this is Divine, without any doubt Mary ought to be called, by all, not the mother of Christ the man only, but Theotocos, or God-bearer. Let us all, therefore, venerate the tender Mother of God, whom her cousin Elizabeth saluted as "the Mother of my Lord" (Luke i. 43), who, in the words of Ignatius Martyr, brought forth God (Ad Ephes. vii. 18-20); and from whom, as Tertullian professes, God was born; whom the Eternal Godhead has gifted with the fulness of grace and endowed with such great dignity.

Nor can anyone reject this truth, handed down from the first age of the Church, on the pretext that the Blessed Virgin Mary did, indeed, supply the body of Jesus Christ, but did not produce the Word of the Heavenly Father; since, as Cyril already rightly and lucidly answered in his time (cf. Mansi, I.c. IV. 599), even as those in whose womb our earthly nature, not our soul is procreated, are rightly and truly called our mothers; so did she, from the unity of her Son's person, attain to divine maternity.

Wherefore, the impious opinion of Nestorius, which the Roman Pontiff, led by the Holy Ghost, had condemned in the preceding year, was deservedly and solemnly condemned again by the Synod of Ephesus. And the populace of Ephesus were drawn to the Virgin Mother of God with such great piety, and burning with such ardent love, that when they understood the judgment passed by the Fathers of the Council, they hailed them with overflowing gladness of heart, and gathering round them in a body, bearing lighted torches in their hands, accompanied them home. And assuredly, the same great Mother of God looked down from heaven on this spectacle, and smiling sweetly on these her children of Ephesus, and on all the faithful Christians throughout the Catholic world, who had been disturbed by the snares of the Nestorian heresy, embraced them with her most present aid and her motherly affection.

From this dogma of the divine maternity, as from the outpouring of a hidden spring, flow forth the singular grace of Mary and her dignity, which is the highest after God. Nay more, as Aquinas says admirably: "The Blessed Virgin, from this that she is the Mother of God, has a certain infinite dignity, from the infinite good which is God." (Summ. Theo., III. a.6.) Cornelius a Lapide unfolds this and explains it more fully, in these words: "The Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God; therefore she is far more excellent than all the Angels, even the Seraphim and Cherubim. She is the Mother of God; therefore she is most pure and most holy, so that under God no greater purity can be imagined. She is the Mother of God; therefore whatever privilege (in the order of sanctifying grace) has been granted to any one of the Saints, she obtains it more than all" (In Matt. i. 6).

Why, therefore, do the Reformers (Novatores) and not a few nonCatholics bitterly condemn our piety towards the Virgin Mother of God, as though we were withdrawing the worship due to God alone? Do they not know, or do they not attentively consider that nothing can be more pleasing to Jesus Christ, who certainly has an ardent love for his own Mother, than that we should venerate her as she deserves, that we should return her love, and that imitating her most holy example we should seek to gain her powerful patronage?

Here, however, We would not omit to mention a matter which has given Us no little consolation, namely that in the present time, even among the Reformers, some understand the dignity of the Virgin Mother of God better, and are led and moved to reverence her duly, and hold her in honour. This, when it comes from the inward and sincere conscience, and is not as sometimes happens effected to conciliate the minds of Catholics, bids Us hope that by the prayers and efforts of all the good, and by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, who cherishes a mother's love for her erring children, they may at length be brought back to the one true flock of Jesus Christ, and therefore to Us who, though unworthily, hold His place and His authority on earth.

But there is another matter, Venerable Brethren, which We think We should recall in regard to Mary's office of Maternity, something which is sweeter and more pleasing; namely that she, because she brought forth the Redeemer of mankind, is also in a manner the most tender mother of us all, whom Christ our Lord deigned to have as His brothers (Romans viii. 29). As Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, says: "Such a one God has given as one to whom by the very fact that He chose her as the Mother of His only begotten Son, He clearly gave the feelings of a mother, breathing nothing but love and pardon-such did Jesus Christ show her to be, by His own action, when He spontaneously chose to be under her, and submit to her as a son to a mother; such did He declare her to be, when, from the Cross, He committed all mankind, in the person of His disciple John, to her care and protection; and as such, lastly, she gave herself, when embracing with a great heart, this heritage of immense labour from her dying Son, she began at once to fulfil all a mother's duties to us all." (Encyclical Letter Octobri mense adveniente. September 21, 1892.) From this it comes that we are all drawn to her by a powerful attraction, that we may confidently entrust to her all things that are ours-namely our joys, if we are gladdened; our troubles, if we are in anguish; our hopes, if we are striving to reach at length to better things. From this it comes that if more difficult times fall upon the Church; if faith fail, if charity have grown cold, if private and public morals take a turn for the worse; if any danger be hanging over the Catholic name and civil society, we all take refuge with her, imploring heavenly aid. From this it comes lastly that in the supreme crisis of death, when no other hope is given, no other help, we lift up to her our tearful eyes and our trembling hands, praying through her for pardon from her Son, and for eternal happiness in heaven.

Let all, therefore, with more ardent zeal in the present necessities with which we are afflicted, go to her and beseech her with instant supplication "that, through her prayers to her Son, the erring nations may return to the Christian institutions and precepts, which are the firm support of public safety, and from which arises an abundance of much desired peace and of true happiness. Let them implore of her the more earnestly, what ought to be desired above all things by all the good, namely that the Church our mother may gain and tranquilly enjoy her liberty; which she always uses for the best advantage of men, and from which individuals and states have never suffered any losses, but have at all times experienced very many and very great benefits." (From the aforesaid Encyclical Letter.)

But one thing in particular, and that indeed one of great importance, We specially desire that all should implore, under the auspices of the heavenly Queen. That is to say, that she who is loved and worshipped with such ardent piety by the separated peoples of the East would not suffer them to wander and be unhappily ever led away from the unity of the Church, and therefore from her Son, whose Vicar on earth We are. May they return to the common Father, whose judgment all the Fathers of the Synod of Ephesus most dutifully received, and whom they all saluted, with concordant acclamations, as "the guardian of the faith"; may they all turn to Us, who have indeed a fatherly affection for them all, and who gladly make Our own those most loving words which Cyril used, when he earnestly exhorted Nestorius that "the peace of the Churches may be preserved, and that the bond of love and of concord among the priests of God may remain indissoluble." (Mansi, I.c. IV. 891.)

And would that that most happy day might speedily dawn upon us when the Virgin Mother of God, who is admirably depicted in the tessellated work of Our predecessor, Sixtus III, in the Liberian Basilica-which We Ourselves have had restored to its pristine beauty-may see all the sons separated from Us returning, that they may venerate her along with Us with one mind and with one faith. This will assuredly be for Us a source of the very greatest pleasure.

Moreover, We may well regard it as a happy omen, that it has fallen to Us to celebrate this fifteenth centenary: to Us, We say, who have defended the dignity and the sanctity of chaste wedlock against the encroaching fallacies of every kind (Encyclical Letter, Casti connubii, December 21, 1930), and who have both solemnly vindicated the sacred rights of the Catholic Church over the education of youth, and have declared and explained the manner in which it should be given, and the principles to which it should be conformed. (Encyclical Letter, Divini Illius Magistri, December 21, 1929.) For the precepts which We have set forth, concerning both these matters, have in the office of the divine maternity, and in the family of Nazareth, an excellent example proposed for the imitation of all. As Our predecessor, Leo XIII of happy memory, says: "Fathers of families indeed have in Joseph a glorious pattern of vigilance and paternal prudence; mothers have in the most holy Virgin Mother of God a remarkable example of love and modesty and submission of mind, and of perfect faith; but the children of a family have in Jesus, who was subject to them, a divine model of obedience, which they may admire, and worship and imitate." (Apostolic Letter, Neminem fugit, January 14, 1882.)

But in a more special manner it is fitting that those mothers of this our age, who being weary, whether of offspring or of the marriage bond, have the office they have undertaken degraded and neglected, may look up to Mary and meditate intently on her who has raised this grave duty of motherhood to such high nobility. For in this way there is hope that they may be led, by the help of grace of the heavenly Queen, to feel shame for the dishonour done to the great sacrament of matrimony, and may happily be stirred up to follow after the wondrous praise of her virtues, by every effort in their power.

If all these things prosper according to Our purpose, that is to say if the life of the family, the beginning and the foundation of all human society, is recalled to this most worthy model of holiness, without doubt We shall at length be able to meet the formidable crisis of evils confronting Us, with an effective remedy. In this way, it will come to pass that "the peace of God which passeth all understanding" may "keep the hearts and minds" of all (Phil. iv. 7), and that the much desired Kingdom of Christ, minds and forces being joined together, may be everywhere established.

We will not close this Encyclical Letter, Venerable Brethren, without mentioning a matter which will surely be pleasing to you all. Desiring that there may be a liturgical monument of this commemoration, which may help to nourish the piety of clergy and people towards the great Mother of God, We have commanded Our supreme council presiding over Sacred Rites to publish an Office and Mass of the Divine Maternity, which is to be celebrated by the universal Church. And, meanwhile, as an earnest of heavenly gifts, and a pledge of Our paternal affection, We impart the Apostolic Benediction, very lovingly in the Lord, to you, Venerable Brethren, one and all, and to your clergy and people. (Pope Pius XI, Lux Veritatis, December 25, 1531.)

The “Common Christological Declaration” by the representatives of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and those of the Assyrian Church of the East is worthless as it was an effort to bury the decisions of the Council of Ephesus into obscurity so as to forge a false unity based on the blithe acceptance of that which had been condemned solemnly five hundred sixty-three years previously.

What is my proof for saying that the Nestorians still adhere to Nestorianism?

Well, first of all, the Assyrian Church of the East still only accepts the first two general councils as legitimate and rejects everything thereafter, including, of course, the Council of Ephesus, which is why the so-called “Common Christological Declaration” of eleven years ago was and remains an effort to make this venerable council just disappear into irrelevance.

Also, many within the Assyrian Church of the East believe that Nestorius was “misunderstand” by Saint Cyril of Alexandria and thus by the Council of Ephesus:

A short evaluation of the Council of Ephesus of 431AD would bring us to the conclusion that the Council of Ephesus of 431AD was guided also by the personal enmity of Cyril against Nestorius, rather than the Christological issue which was evidently the cause according to the “official version.” Moreover, the help of the Pope of Rome given to Cyril resulted in the ultimate victory.

It appears that unless and until one is able to produce the documents redeeming

1) the lack of authority in Cyril of Alexandria to convene the Council in spite of the protests of the Imperial Commissioner,

2) the absence of right intention in Cyril of Alexandria who presided over it,

3) the irregularity of the procedure of the Council when the accuser himself was the judge,

4) the absence of the patriarchs or authorised representatives of Constantinople and Antioch,

5) the incompleteness of the Council as the anticipated joint session of the Council could not take place even after the union of 433AD,

6) the lack of form in the manner of conducting it and,

7) the lack of integrity of the sayings of Nestorius cited,

the validity of the Synod of Ephesus of 431AD as an ecumenical Council of the universal church and its subsequent acceptance by the Church of the East remains doubtful.

The reasons for the refusal of recognition to this Council by the Church of the East are many. The Church of the East was neither invited nor present in this Council. The Council of Cyril was declared null and void, as per the oder of the Imperial Commissioner in June 431AD and the repeated orders of the Emperor till the “political” settlement, and such a settlement did not affect the Persian Church as it was beyond the jurisdiction of Theodosius II. Moreover, the Council of Cyril did not settle any issue, but, on the contrary, created more problems as seen the Eutychian heresy which was a development of the mia physis thought of Cyril of Alexandria. Aoart from the dangerous use of the ambiguous title Theotokos, the Christology of the Church of the East was much similar to that of the Council of Chalcedon, two decades later.

These factors demand a change of outlook by the other churches in regard to the recognition of the council of Ephesus of 431. Individuals have come out with statements in sympathy with, and in favour of, the stand of the Church of the East. Adolf Harnack and many others challenged the propriety of calling the Council of Ephesus the ecumenical council[1].

The French Roman Catholic theologian, Pére J. Mahe, who made a fresh examination of the writings of Theodoret, was led to the conclusion that the two Christologies of Antioch and Alexandria, in spite of notable differences, were alike perfectly orthodox[2]. If Theodoret, who wrote against the twelve anathematisms of Cyril against Nestorius, was considered orthodox in the Council of Chalcedon, Nestorius also would have been considered orthodox if he had been present. What is required is not individual opinions, but official statements by the Churches.

The Necessity for a “Nestorian Christology” Today

The relevance of Nestorianism for today is the appreciation of the humanity of our Lord. Such an emphasis was necessary at the time of Nestorius became of the influence of the Appollinarians. It is just as relevant today. G.L. Prestige says:

           “Redemption requires a human response and human appreciation, God Himself supplied a perfect human agent to lead the response and a perfect human instrument to convey the means of appropriation[3].”

Donald Baille argues that if the human nature of Jesus Christ lacks a human person (a human centre, subject and principal of identity) it is incomplete[4]. Cyril C. Richardson in his article “A Preface to Christology,” states that only Nestorians can answer the question “Wherein lies the reality of Jesus’ temptation? Wherein is His human freedom?[5]”

The Christology of the Church of the East is relevant to modern times because of its teaching of perfect human nature. The Nestorian Christ is one who was subject to the conditions of life of the first century, tempted, triumphant and obedient and thereby being a perfect example to mankind of every nation for all times.

The necessity for a “Nestorian” Christology becomes inevitable when we think of the greatest position ascribed to Virgin Mary in the Roman Catholic Church. The fear expressed by Nestorius against the use of Theotokos should not be ignored. It is one of the positive contributions of Nestorius to have exposed the ptoential danger of this title.

As far back as our records of history go there was nobody to speak against this title before 428AD though it was used by certain individuals. Perhaps it would have become the standard expression of all Christians if Nestorius did not wage such a crusade against this title. Till the Reformation in the 16th century, the Church of the East was the only Church which shared the concern of Nestorius against the use of Theotokos. Since the Reformation, however, many churches share this attitude and thus the position taken by the Church of the East singularly, down through the centuries, is vindicated.

In these days, when the announcement such as the “Immaculate Conception of Mary,” Assumption of Mary to Heaven, Proclaiming Mary as the Queen of Heaven, are made, the Christians have begun to open their eyes to the dangers of the over-emphasis of the imprtance of Mary. The opposition to excessive Mariology demonstrated at the Vatican II and the opposition to a seperate Schema on Mary from many bishops at the Council show that even in the Roman church some at least are beginning to see the dangers of the title of Theotokos. Therefore, the position explained by Nestorius and consistently maintained by the Church of the East, deserves the appreciation of Christians.

Now many protestants have reocognised that the fears expressed by Nestorius against the use of the title Theotokos were genuine. This justifies the stand that the “Nestorian” Christology is relevant for today. The “Image of Nestorius” has changed considerably in the recent years. Bethune Baker proved that Nestorius was not a Nestorian![6] Wigram could see the Christological formula of the Church of the East as free from any charges of heresy[7]. (Is the Theology of the Assyrian Church Nestorian? – Church of Beth Kokheh Journal.)

Unfortunately for the author of this article from 1994, “His Beatitude” Dr Mar Aprem Mooken, the Council of Ephesus met under the infallible guidance of God the Holy Ghost, who directed the Council Fathers, led by Pope Celestine I, to adopt Saint Cyril of Alexandria’s anathemas against Nestorius as written:

1. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.

2. If anyone does not confess that the Word from God the Father has been united by hypostasis with the flesh and is one Christ with his own flesh, and is therefore God and man together, let him be anathema.

3. If anyone divides in the one Christ the hypostases after the union, joining them only by a conjunction of dignity or authority or power, and not rather by a coming together in a union by nature, let him be anathema.

4. If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.

5. If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth, being by nature one Son, even as “the Word became flesh”, and is made partaker of blood and flesh precisely like us, let him be anathema.

6. If anyone says that the Word from God the Father was the God or master of Christ, and does not rather confess the same both God and man, the Word having become flesh, according to the scriptures, let him be anathema.

7. If anyone says that as man Jesus was activated by the Word of God and was clothed with the glory of the Only-begotten, as a being separate from him, let him be anathema.

8. If anyone dares to say that the man who was assumed ought to be worshipped and glorified together with the divine Word and be called God along with him, while being separate from him, (for the addition of “with” must always compel us to think in this way), and will not rather worship Emmanuel with one veneration and send up to him one doxology, even as “the Word became flesh”, let him be anathema.

9. If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, as making use of an alien power that worked through him and as having received from him the power to master unclean spirits and to work divine wonders among people, and does not rather say that it was his own proper Spirit through whom he worked the divine wonders, let him be anathema.

10. The divine scripture says Christ became “the high priest and apostle of our confession”; he offered himself to God the Father in an odour of sweetness for our sake. If anyone, therefore, says that it was not the very Word from God who became our high priest and apostle, when he became flesh and a man like us, but as it were another who was separate from him, in particular a man from a woman, or if anyone says that he offered the sacrifice also for himself and not rather for us alone (for he who knew no sin needed no offering), let him be anathema.

11. If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving and belongs to the Word from God the Father, but maintains that it belongs to another besides him, united with him in dignity or as enjoying a mere divine indwelling, and is not rather life-giving, as we said, since it became the flesh belonging to the Word who has power to bring all things to life, let him be anathema.

12. If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema. (The Council Of Ephesus – 431 A.D.)

As Pope Pius XI noted in Lux Veritas, Nestorius himself refused the summons to appear at the Council and was condemned as follows:

The judgment against Nestorius

The holy synod said: As, in addition to all else, the excellent Nestorius has declined to obey our summons and has not received the holy and God-fearing bishops we sent to him, we have of necessity started upon an investigation of his impieties. We have found him out thinking and speaking in an impious fashion, from his letters, from his writings that have been read out, and from the things that he has recently said in this metropolis which have been witnessed to by others; and as a result we have been compelled of necessity both by

the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow servant Celestine, bishop of the church of the Romans, to issue this sad condemnation against him, though we do so with many tears.

Our lord Jesus Christ, who has been blasphemed by him, has determined through this most holy synod that the same Nestorius should be stripped of his episcopal dignity and removed from the college of priests. (The Council Of Ephesus – 431 A.D.)

This does not just get wiped away in a common declaration engineered by the same man, Joseph Alois “Cardinal” Ratzinger, who once proposed to Archbishop Marvel Lefebvre to make a general statement in agreement with the documents of the “Second” Vatican Council in order to have the Society of Saint Pius X regularized by the conciliar authorities:

As this tirade ended, Joseph Ratzinger gave in: "Let us find a practical solution. Make a moderate declaration on the Council and the new missal a bit like the one that Jean Guitton has suggested to you. Then, we would give you a bishop for ordinations, we could work out an arrangement with the diocesan bishops, and you could continue as you are doing. As for a Cardinal Protector, and make your suggestions."

How did Marcel Lefebvre not jump for joy? Rome was giving in! But his penetrating faith went to the very heart of the Cardinal's rejection of doctrine. He said to himself: "So, must Jesus no longer reign? Is Jesus no longer God? Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy. We can no longer trust this lot!" To the Cardinal, he said:

"Eminence, even if you give us everything--a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries--we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.

"For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything. He is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; the priest is another Christ; the Mass is the triumph of Jesus Christ on the cross; in our seminaries everything tends towards the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. But you! You are doing the opposite: you have just wanted to prove to me that our Lord Jesus Christ cannot, and must not, reign over society. (His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2004, pp. 547-548.) 

The same man who proposed that Archbishop Lefebvre make a “moderate declaration” about the “Second” Vatican Council was the one who engineered the 1994 “Common Christological Declaration” on the 1999 joint declaration with the Lutherans on Justification and who used his variation of the historical-critical method to accept the Assyrian Church of the East’s Anaphora of Addai and Mari of the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East that does not contain any actual words of consecration within its text. The fact that this Anaphora, which was rejected by the authority of the Catholic Church in the Sixteenth Century when the Chaldeans (the former Nestorians) were reunited with Rome and once again in 1902 when news reached Rome that many priests of the Chaldean Rite were still using the old Assyrian Anaphora of Addai and Mari without the words of consecration, mean nothing to Ratzinger, who issued the following declaration of “validity” that had been rejected by the Catholic Church five centuries ago:

The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative. As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision. This conclusion rests on three major arguments.

In the first place, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is one of the most ancient Anaphoras, dating back to the time of the very early Church; it was composed and used with the clear intention of celebrating the Eucharist in full continuity with the Last Supper and according to the intention of the Church; its validity was never officially contested, neither in the Christian East nor in the Christian West.

Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found "true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist" (U.R., n. 15). Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found "true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist" (U.R., n. 15).

Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.

4. Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist

Considering the liturgical tradition of the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East, the doctrinal clarification regarding the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, the contemporary context in which both Assyrian and Chaldean faithful are living, the appropriate regulations which are foreseen in official documents of the Catholic Church, and the process of rapprochement between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East, the following provision is made:

1. When necessity requires, Assyrian faithful are permitted to participate and to receive Holy Communion in a Chaldean celebration of the Holy Eucharist; in the same way, Chaldean faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, are permitted to participate and to receive Holy Communion in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist.

2. In both cases, Assyrian and Chaldean ministers celebrate the Holy Eucharist according to the liturgical prescriptions and customs of their own tradition.

3. When Chaldean faithful are participating in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the Assyrian minister is warmly invited to insert the words of the Institution in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, as allowed by the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East.

4. The above considerations on the use of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari and the present guidelines for admission to the Eucharist, are intended exclusively in relation to the Eucharistic celebration and admission to the Eucharist of the faithful from the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East, in view of the pastoral necessity and ecumenical context mentioned above.

Rome, July 20th, 2001 Guidelines for Chaldean Catholics receiving the Eucharist in Assyrian Churches

This was pure positivism as to say that the words of consecration are implicitly present in a supposed “institute narrative” when they are not there are all is to stand reality on its hand.

The Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI never considered himself bound by anything about the preconciliar era that he found “troubling” even though those “troubles” had been issued by Holy Mother Church’s general councils and/or by individual popes in the course of their ordinary magisterium. Ratzinger/Benedict thus made short work of both papal infallibility and of Holy Mother’s absolute immunity form error and heresy that was summarized as follows by Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925:

Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

The Catholic Church is incapable of being touched by any kind of error, no less heresy, yes, even in her Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

Conciliarism’s embrace of propositions condemned by Holy Mother Church as the circumstances of time required was noted by an “ultra-progressive” conciliar revolutinonary, “Father” Gregory Baum, S.J., shortly after “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s “rehabilitation” of Father Antonio Rosmini-Serbati’s condemned propositions was promulgated on July 1, 2001:

Today the situation is different. First, according to Ratzinger, serious research has shown that if Rosmini’s ambiguous and obscure passages are interpreted in the light of his own philosophical work, which is, of course, the only honest way of reading a philosophical text, then their meaning is not contrary to the Catholic tradition. Second, in his encyclical Faith and Reason of 1998, John Paul II has welcomed philosophical pluralism in the church and, in fact, mentioned with great respect Antonio Rosmini among several Catholic thinkers of the 19th century. That is why, at the present time, lifting the condemnations decreed in 1887 is justified.

The nota of July 2001 is an important ecclesiastical document because it applies the historical-critical method to the understanding of the magisterium. Yet has Ratzinger’s “attentive reading” demonstrated that lifting the condemnation does not involve the magisterium in an internal contradiction? I do not think so.

He has shown that the condemnation of Rosmini’s propositions in 1887 was justified in terms of the church’s pastoral policy and hence could be lifted without inconsistency later. Yet he does not raise the truth question. The readers of the condemnation of 1886 were made to believe that these propositions were erroneous: They were not told that they were erroneous only when read from a neo-Thomist perspective and that their true meaning should not be pursued at that time because Pope Leo XIII wanted neo-Thomism to become the church’s official philosophy.

The nota demonstrates that the condemnation of 1886 exercised a useful ecclesiastical function, not that it was true. Ratzinger’s explanation reveals that the Holy Office showed no respect for the truth at all. Its intentions were tactical and political. The Holy Office at that time saw itself as a servant of the church’s central government and judged ideas in terms of their ecclesiastical implications, not their truth.

Still, the nota is an important document since it is the first time an ecclesiastical statement wrestles with a question that has troubled Catholics for a long time. How are we to interpret apparent contradictions in the magisterium?

Here is a famous example. In the bull Unam Sanctam of 1302, Pope Boniface VIII wrote these words: “We declare, we set forth, we define that submission to the Roman pontiff is necessary for the salvation of any human creature.” And the Council of Florence solemnly declared in 1442 that outside the Catholic church there is no salvation, neither for heretics nor schismatics, even if they should live holy lives or shed their blood in the name of Christ. Vatican Council II appeared to proclaim an entirely different doctrine. We read in Gaudium et Spes that since Christ has died for all humans and since the destiny of humanity is one, we are to hold that, in a manner known to God, participation in the mystery of redemption is offered to every human being.

We are bound to ask with Ratzinger whether there is an internal contradiction in the magisterium. Were the solemn declarations of Boniface VIII and the Council of Florence wrong? The words of Boniface were so emphatic, “we declare, we set forth, we define,” that the reader may wonder whether Vatican Council II has made a mistake. At the same time, the declarations of Boniface and the cardinals in attendance at the Council of Florence were hard to reconcile with the teaching of the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries who believed that God’s redemptive Word, incarnate in Christ, was operative wherever people sought the truth. There may have been good church-political reasons for Boniface and the cardinals of the Council of Florence to make these harsh declarations, yet — I would argue — these declarations were wrong. The magisterium has made mistakes. The church, guided by the Spirit, is forever learning.

Ratzinger’s document has sent theologians off into a new area of research. (Ratzinger explains how condemnation was right then, wrong now)

Left unaddressed by Baum’s analysis was the simple fact that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, cannot contradict Himself. Alas, those impressed with Georg Friedrich Hegel, Teilhard de Chardin, and Hans Urs von Balthasar believe, at least minimally, that the “Spirit” can contradict Himself as men grasp to understand “Him” better over time. Pure Modernism, of course.

Baum’s “analysis,” although supportive of conciliarism, is nevertheless interesting because it does raise the issue of contradiction.

Yes, those of us who have come to realize that the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and that its “magisterium” has no authority to contradict anything taught by the Catholic Church realize that the “overturning” of Pope Leo XIII’s 1887 condemnation of forty of Antonio Rosmini’s propositions by Joseph Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on July 1, 2001, had no binding force whatsoever. It is always useful, however, when true conciliar revolutionaries such as Gregory Baum point out the plain truth that “contradiction” can be part of the Faith, an important component element of the Modernist mind. Baum recognized that, in effect, the Council of Florence’s Unum Sanctum had been overturned in a de facto sense.

Then again, you see, Father Antonio Rosmini-Serbati was, apart from providing a useful justification of the conciliar revolutionaries’ embrace of Modernism, an apostle to the poor, and that, according to the likes of Jorge Mario and Robert Francis Prevost all that is needed to save one’s soul. They really do believe that “outside the poor there is no salvation” just as much as they reject the Catholic doctrine of outside the Church there is no salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus).

To attack the nature of dogmatic truth is to attack the nature of God, and to do that is to attack His very existence and that He has revealed anything so definitive that cannot be understood differently by different generations as befits supposedly different “circumstances” in which men live, and this is how the conciliar revolutionaries can “redefine” Original Sin and Special Creation and thus come to put the lower species, plants and inert matter on the plane of equality with the human being. To “redefine” life is to debase man as the zenith of God’s creative work and thus to debase Our Lord, the Incarnate Word, and His Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross as being nothing other than an expression of “love” that had nothing to do with paying back the debt of Adam’s sin.

Rosmini’s rehabilitation in 2001 was merely a prelude to his “beatification,” which occurred on November 18, 2007, after his cause had been approved by the man who rehabilitated him, Ratzinger/Benedict.

Thus, Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV’s address to the leader of the Assyrian Church of the East was the continuation of the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s Hegelian sleight of hand by means of his “hermeneutic of continuity” which was and will ever remain dogmatic evolutionism disguised in gobbledygook and poppycock. Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict has been dead for nearly three years, but his wretched legacy of dogmatic evolutionism continues to corrupt minds and hearts to this day.

Today, November 2, 2025, is, being a Sunday, not the Commemoration of All Souls this year but the Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost within the Octave of All Saints.

The Epistle read at Holy Mass today reminds us that we are fighting not against the forces of this world but against the principalities and powers of the netherworld:

Brethren: Be strengthened in the Lord, and in the might of his power. Put you on the armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. Therefore take unto you the armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice, And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace: In the high places: or heavenly places. That is to say, in the air, the lowest of the celestial regions; in which God permits these wicked spirits or fallen angels to wander. In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. And take unto you the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God). (Ephesians 6: 10-17.)

Although the reflection on this passage found in Appendix A from The Liturgical Year is full of truly profound insights as to how we are to protect ourselves from all the pernicious influences of any type of naturalism in our words, thoughts, and actions, suffice it to remind readers for the moment that we must beg Our Lady always to stand fast in the truth as we implore her also to maintain the breastplate of justice that is Sanctifying Grace.

A very important constituent element of arming ourselves with the breastplate of justice is to have a heart consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary that is ever ready—and I do mean ever ready—to forgive others without hesitation and to will their good, both temporally and eternally, which is the very point of one of my own favorite passages from the Gospel, the Parable of the Unjust Stewart that is read today at Holy Mass on this Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost:

At that time, Jesus spoke to His disciples this parable: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king who desired to settle accounts with his servants. And when he had begun the settlement, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. And as he had no means of paying, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. But the servant fell down and besought him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will pay you all!’ And moved with compassion, the master of that servant released him, and forgave him the debt. But as that servant went out, he met one of his fellow-servants who owed him a hundred denarii and he laid hold of him, and throttled him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ His fellow-servant therefore fell down and began to entreat him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will pay you all.’ But he would not; but went away and cast him into prison until he should pay what was due. His fellow-servants therefore, seeing what had happened, were very much saddened, and they went and informed their master of what had taken place. Then his master called him, and said to him, ‘Wicked servant! I forgave you all the debt, because you entreated me. Should not you also have had pity on your fellow-servant, even as I had pity on you?’ And his master, being angry, handed him over to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. So also My heavenly Father will do to you, if you do not each forgive your brothers from your hearts. (Matthew 18: 23-35.)

Yes, we must forgive those who sin against without any limit whatsoever. There is nothing that anyone says about us or does to us that is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Passion and Death and that caused those Seven Swords of Sorrow to be plunged through and through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother. Indeed, if we are truly honest with ourselves, as most of us are not most of the time (!), we might realize that our sins deserve far, far worse than what we are actually permitted to suffer in this mortal vale of tears.

Moreover, what we are called to suffer in this life is our passageway to eternity, being thus given numerous opportunities to help make reparation for our sins by offering up all of our sufferings to God through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Even though a soul may die in a state of Sanctifying Grace, you see, it still owes a debt for each forgiven Mortal Sin and for each Venial Sin (and its general attachment to sin) after death if it has not paid back that debt by the embrace of suffering during life. Purgatory is thus proved by this passage from Saint Matthew's Gospel. How very Providential it is to have this passage from the Gospel according to Saint Matthew read on a November 2^nd when it is the day before the Commemoration of All Souls.

May our continued dedication to Our Lady through her Most Holy Rosary help us to forgive all others, to pray for all others, including, of course, for the conversion of the conciliar revolutionaries, and to maintain a deep and faithful devotion to the Holy Poor Souls of the Church Suffering in Purgatory.

Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary and of All Saints, 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.

All the Saints, pray for us.

Appendix A

Reflections on the Epistle in The Liturgical Year

The early beginnings of man’s union with his God are, generally speaking, deliciously calm. Divine Wisdom, once he has led his chosen creature, by hard laborious work, to the purification of his mind and senses allows him (when the sacred alliance is duly concluded) to rest on his sacred breast, and thoroughly attaches the devoted one to Himself, by delights which are an ante-dated heaven, making the soul despise every earthly pleasure. It seems as though the welcome law of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 24:5) were always in force, namely, that no battle and no anxiety must ever break in upon the first season of the glorious Union. But this exemption from the general taxation is never of long duration; for combat is the normal state of every man here below. (Job 7:1)

The Most High is pleased as seeing a battle well fought by his Christian soldiers. There is no name so frequently applied to Him by the Prophets as that of the God of Hosts. His divine Son, who is the Spouse, shows himself here, on this earth of ours, as the Lord who is mighty in battle. (Psalm 23:8) In the mysterious nuptial Canticle of the forty-fourth Psalm, he lets us see him as Most Powerful Prince, girding on his grand Sword, (Psalm 44:4) and making his way, with his sharp arrows, through the very heart and very thick of his enemies, (Psalm 44:6) in order to reach, in fair valiance and beautiful victory the Bride he has chosen as his own. (Psalm 44:5) She too, just like him—she, the Bride, whose beauty he has vouchsafed to love, (Psalm 44:12) and wills her to share in all his own glories (Psalm 44:10) —yes, she too advances towards him, in the glittering armor of a warrior, surrounded by choirs (Song of Solomon 4:4, 7:1) singing the magnificent exploits of the Spouse, and she herself terrible as an army set in array. (Song of Solomon 6:9) The armor of the brave is on her arms and breast; her noble bearing reminds one of the tower of David with its thousand bucklers. (Song of Solomon 4:4)

United to her divine Lord, warriors the most valiant stand about her; they merit that privilege by their well-proved sword and their skill in war; each one of them has his sword quite ready, because of the night surprises, which the enemy may use against this most dear Church. (Song of Solomon 3:7-8) For until the dawn of the eternal day, when the shadows of this present life are put to flight (Song of Solomon 4:6) by the light of the Lamb, (Apocalypse 21:23) who will then have vanquished all his enemies—yes, until that day, power is in the hands of the rulers of the world of this darkness, says St. Paul, in today’s Epistle; and it is against them that we must take to ourselves the armor of God, which he there describes; we must wear it all, if we would be able to resist, in the evil day.

The evil days, spoken of by the Apostle last Sunday, (Ephesians 5:16) are frequent in the life of every individual, as likewise in the world’s history. But for every man, and for the world at large, there is one evil day, evil beyond all the others: it is the last day, the day of judgment, the day of exceeding bitterness, (Libera Me) as the Church calls it, on account of the woe and misery which are to fill it. We talk of so many years as passing away, and of centuries succeeding each other; but all these are neither more nor less than preparations hurrying on the world to the Last Day. Happy they who, on that Day, shall fight the good fight, (2 Timothy 4:7) and win victory! or who, as our Apostle expresses it, shall stand, while all around them is ruin, yea, stand, in all things, perfect! They shall not be hurt by the second death; (Apocalypse 2:11) wreathed with the crown of justice, (2 Timothy 4:8) they shall reign with God, (Apocalypse 20:6) on his throne, together with his Son. (Apocalypse 3:21)

The war is an easy one, when we have this Man-God for our Leader. All he asks of us is what the Apostle thus words: Be strengthened in the Lord, and in the might of his power! It is leaning on her Beloved that the beautiful Church is to go up from the desert; and thus supported, she is actually to be flowing with delights, (Song of Solomon 8:5) even in those most sad days. The faithful soul is out of herself with love when she remembers that the armor she wears is the armor of God, that is, the very armor of her Spouse. It is quite thrilling to hear the Prophets describing this Jesus, this Leader, of ours, accoutred for battle, and with all the pieces we too are to wear: he girds himself with the girdle of faith; (Isaiah 11:5) then he puts the helmet of salvation on his beautiful head; (Isaiah 59:17) then, the breast-plate of justice; (Wisdom 5:19) then, the shield of invincible equity; (Wisdom 5:20) and finally, a magnificently tempered sword, the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. (Apocalypse 2:16) We should almost think we were here having a list of our own arms; well, yes, but they are his, first; and the Gospel shows him to us as entering, Himself, on the great battle, that he might show us how to use these same divine arms, which he puts upon each of us, if we will be his soldiers.

This armor consists of many parts, because of its varied uses and effects; and yet, whether offensive or defensive, all of them have one common name—and that name—is Faith. Our Epistle makes us say so. And our Jesus, our Leader, taught it us, when to the triple temptation brought against him by the devil on the mount of Quarantania, he made answer to each temptation by a text from the sacred Scriptures. (Matthew 4:1-11) The victory which overcometh the world is our Faith, says St. John. (1 John 5:4) When St. Paul, at the close of his career, reviews the combats he had fought through life, he sums up all in his telling word: I have kept the faith. (2 Timothy 4:7) The life of Paul, in that, should be life of every Christian, for he says to us: Fight the good fight of faith! (1 Timothy 6:12) It is Faith which, in spite of those fearful odds enumerated in today’s Epistle as being against us—it is Faith that ensures the victory to men of good will. If in the warfare we must go through we were to reckon the chances of our enemies by their overwhelming forces and advantages, it is quite certain that we should have little hope of winning the day; for it is not with men like ourselves, it is not, as the Apostle puts it, with flesh and blood, that we have to wrestle, but with enemies we can never grapple with, who are in the high places of the air around us and are, therefore, invisible, and most skilled and powerful and wonderfully up in all the sad secrets of our poor fallen nature, and turning the whole weight of their advantages to trick man and ruin him, out of hatred for God. These wicked spirits were originally created, that, in the purity of their unmixed spiritual nature, they should be a reflex of the divine splendor of their Maker; and now, having rebelled by pride, they exhibit that execrable prodigy of angelic intelligences spending all their powers in doing evil to man, and in hating truth.

How, then, are we—who, by our very nature, are darkness and misery—to wrestle with these spiritual principalities and powers, who devote all their wisdom and rage to produce darkness, so as to turn the whole earth into a world of darkness? “By our becoming Light,” answers St. John Chrysostom. (Chrysostom, Homily 22) The light, it is true, is not to shine upon us in its own direct brightness until the great day of the revelation of the sons of God; (Romans 8:19) but meanwhile, we have a divine subsidy which supplements sight; that subsidy is—the Revealed Word. (2 Peter 1:19) Baptism did not open our eyes so as to see God, but it opened our ears so as to give us to hear him, when he speaks to us; now he speaks to us by the Scriptures and by his Church; and our Faith gives us, regarding Truth thus Revealed, a certainty as great as though we saw it with the eyes of either body or soul or both. By this child-like docility, the just man walks on in peace, with the simplicity of the Gospel within him. Better than breastplate or helmet, the shield of faith protects us, and from every sort of injury; it blunts the fiery darts of the world, it repels the fury of our own passions, it makes us far-seeing enough to escape the most artful snares of the most wicked ones. Is not the word of God good for every emergency? and we may have it as often and as much as we please. Satan has a horror of the Christian who, though he may be weak in other respects, is strong in this divine word. He has a greater fear of that man than he has of all your schools of philosophy and all its professors; he has got accustomed to the torture of such a man’s crushing him beneath his feet and with a rapidity (Romans 16:20) which is akin to what our Lord tells us he himself witnessed: I saw Satan, like lightning, falling from heaven: (Luke 10:18) it was on the great battle day (Apocalypse 12:7) when he was hurled from paradise by that one word MICHAEL—exquisite word, which was given to the triumphant Archangel to be his everlasting noble name! and he himself, by that word of God, and by that victory for God, was made our model and our defender. We have already explained to our readers why it is that these closing weeks of the Church’s Year are so full of the grand Archangel St. Michael. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost.)

Appendix B

Reflections on Today’s Gospel in The Liturgical Year

We are all of us, in fact, that negligent servant, that insolvent debtor, whose master might, in all justice, sell him, with all he has, and hand him over to the torturers. The debt contracted with God, by the sins we have committed, is of that nature as to deserve endless tortures; it supposes an eternal hell, in which the guilty one will ever be paying, without ever cancelling his debt. Infinite praise, then, and thanks to the divine Creditor who, being moved to pity by the entreaties of the unhappy man, who asks for time and he will pay all—yes, this good God grants him far beyond what he prays for—he, there and then, forgives him the debt. He puts but this condition on the pardon, as is evident from the sequel—he insists, and most justly, that he should go and do, in like manner, towards his fellow-servants, who may perhaps owe something to him. After being so generously forgiven by his Lord and King, after having his infinite debt so gratuitously cancelled, how can he possibly turn a deaf ear to the very same prayer which won pardon for himself, now that a fellow-servant makes it to him? is it to be believed that he will refuse all pity towards one whose only offense is that he asks him for time, and he will pay all?

“It is quite true,” says St. Augustine, “that every man has his fellow-man a debtor—for who is the man, that he has had no one to offend him? but at the same time, who is the man that is not debtor to God, for all of us have sinned? Man, therefore, is both debtor to God, and creditor to his fellow-man. It is for this reason that God has laid down this rule for thy conduct—that thou must treat thy debtor as He treats his … We pray every day; every day, we send up the same petition to the divine throne; every day, we prostrate ourselves before God and say to him: Forgive us our debts, as we forgive them that are debtors to us. (Matthew 6:12) Of what debts speakest thou? Is it, of all thy debts? or of one or two only? Thou wilt say: Of all. Do thou, therefore, forgive thy debtor, for it is the rule laid upon thee, it is the condition accepted by thee.” (Augustine, Sermon 83)

“It is a greater thing,” says St. John Chrysostom, “to forgive our neighbor the trespasses he has committed against us, than to condone him a sum of money; for by forgiving him his sins, we imitate God.” (St Chrysostom, On Ephesians, Homily 17:1) And after all, what is the injury committed by one man against another man, if compared with the offense committed by man against God? Alas! we have all got the habit of that second; even the just man knows its misery seven times (Proverbs 24:16) over and, as the text probably means, seven times a day; so that it comes ruffling our whole day long. Let this, at least, be our parallel habit—that we contract a facility in being merciful towards our fellow-men, since we, every night, have the assurance given us, that we shall be pardoned all our miseries, on the condition of our owning them. It is an excellent practice not to go to bed without putting ourselves in the dispositions of a little child, who can rest his head on God’s bosom, and there fall asleep; but if we thus feel it a happy necessity to find in the heart of our heavenly Father (Matthew 6:9) forgetfulness of our day’s faults, yea, more an infinitely tender love for us his poor tottering children—how can we, at that very time, dare to be storing up in our minds old grudges and scores against our neighbors, our brethren, who are also his children? Even supposing that we had been treated by them with outrageous injustice or insult, could these their faults bear any comparison with our offenses against that good God whose born enemies we were, and whom we have caused to be put to an ignominious death? Whatsoever may be the circumstances attending the unkindness shown us, we may and should invariably practice the rule given us by the Apostle: Be ye kind one to another! merciful! forgiving one another, even as God hath forgiven you, in Christ! Be ye imitators of God, as most dear children! (Ephesians 4:32, 5:1) What! thou callest God thy Father, and dost thou remember an injury that has been done thee? “That,” says St. John Chrysostom, “is not the way a son of God acts in! The work of a son of God is this—to pardon one’s enemies, to pray for them that crucify him, to shed his blood for them that hate him. Would you know the conduct of one who is worthy to be a son of God? he takes his enemies, and his ingrates, and his robbers, and his insulters, and his traitors, and makes them his brethren and sharers of all his wealth!” (Chrysostom, On Ephesians, Homily 14:3) (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B. The Liturgical Year, Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost.)