Ratzinger Persists in His World of Contradiction and Paradox to the Very End

Well, just as I thought I had time to finish the article that was started about six days ago, Sharon told me about a story in The New York Times about the nonagenarian “new theologian,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Antipope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s having rebuked Walter “Cardinal” Brandmuller, one of the four signers of “the dubia,” for his public criticism of his antipapal successor, Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his, Ratzinger/Benedict’s, decision to resign the presidency of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. (By the way, I do not subscribe to The New York Times, which is nothing other than a gigantic propaganda machine of the adversary. However, anyone who clicks on its website is entitled to five articles a month for free. I availed myself of such a free article for purposes of this very brief commentary).

As I am sure that others will be attempting to read the tea leaves in the antipope emeritus’s letters and communications with Walter “Cardinal” Brandmuller, the purpose of this commentary is to make a few salient points about how Ratzinger/Benedict is heading toward his grave completely nonplussed about the fact that he contradicts himself repeatedly.

What do I mean?

Once again, I thank you for being such inquisitive readers.

Here is the answer: As one who hates the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas and who prefers opaqueness to clarity and complexity to simplicity, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict does not realize (and may not care!) how many times he contradicts himself in writings and in his speeches. This penchant for contradiction, which is, as noted recently in A Lifelong Refusal to Accept the Certainty of Domgatic Truth: Sixty-Seven Years of Priestly Apostasy, was noted by the New Oxford Review in 2011 as it assessed the contradictions contained in a book that Ratzinger/Benedict had written before he succeeded the Polish Phenomenologist, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, as the fifth in the current line of antipopes that began with the "election" of Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude:

In Cardinal Ratzinger’s Values in a Time of Upheaval, he muddies up his phrase [the dictatorship of relativism]; indeed, he reverses his position. He says, “The modem concept of democracy seems indissolubly linked to that of relativism.” Well, well! But then he backtracks: “This means that a basic element of truth, namely, ethical truth, is indispensable to democracy.” But then he backtracks again: “We do not want the State to impose one particular idea of the good on us. ... Truth is controversial, and the attempt to impose on all persons what one part of the citizenry holds to be true looks like enslavement of people’s consciences.” And he says this on the same page! 

Yes, we know: Some of our readers feel that the Pope is above all criticism; he cannot make a mistake, even in his previous writings. But what he has written here is contradictory and inscrutable. 

Ratzinger says, “The relativists ...[are] flirting with totalitarianism even though they seek to establish the primacy of freedom ...” Huh? 

So, what is he saying? “The State is not itself the source of truth and morality.... Accordingly, the State must receive from outside itself the essential measure of knowledge and truth with regard to that which is good. ... The Church remains outside’ the State. ... The Church must exert itself with all its vigor so that in it there may shine forth moral truth ...” 

Then he says, “Conscience is the highest norm [italics in original] and ... and one must follow it even against authority. When authority - in this case the Church’s Magisterium - speaks on matters of morality, it supplies the material that helps the conscience form its own judgment, but ultimately it is only conscience that has the last word.”

So the Church’s Magisterium will not “exert itself with all its vigor,” because “conscience has the last word.” Indeed, Ratzinger says that “one must follow the erring conscience.” Does the Church support relativism too? Pope John Paul II said in his Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, “Conscience is not an infallible judge” (n. 62; italics in original). 

What happened to a rightly formed conscience? The Catechism says, “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church” (n. 2039), and “One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience” (n. 1793). (A Contradictory Definition of Relativism. See also: Cardinal Ratzinger's Subjectivism.)

What does this have to do with Ratzinger/Benedict’s letters to Walter Brandmuller that were published in the German newspaper Bild?

Another fine question, good readers.

Let me provide the answer by pointing out a few passages from The New York Times article, starting with the antipope emeritus’s assertion that the very “position” of “Pope Emeritus” was not new even though he claimed nearly sixty-seven months ago that it was a “novelty”:

In an interview in October of last year with the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Cardinal Brandmüller expressed that frustration publicly.

“The figure of ‘pope emeritus’ does not exist in the entire history of the church,” he said. “The fact that a pope comes along and topples a 2,000-year-old tradition bowled over not just us cardinals.”

He said that he had an interesting dinner party to celebrate a German carnival holiday on the day of the pope’s retirement in 2013. “We were just having our aperitif and were waiting for a missing guest when a journalist called with the question: Have you heard already? I thought the news was a carnival joke.”

Benedict, who is soft-spoken but can also be prickly, was not amused. He wrote in his letter to Cardinal Brandmüller that “Out of this conflation a new agitation is gradually being generated,” which he said could inspire more books like “The Abdication,” by Fabrizio Grasso, which argues that having one or more popes emeriti could fragment papal authority.

(In his book, Mr. Grasso wrote, “Even for those with little imagination, it’s not hard to imagine a possible near future with more than one emeritus pope and, consequentially, an exclusive papal club, which could be no other than a proto-parliament of the Vatican State.”)

Benedict wrote, “All this fills me with concern, and it was precisely because of this that the end of your F.A.Z. interview so unsettled me, because it would ultimately promote the same mood.”

The letter was his second in an exchange with Cardinal Brandmüller. The first, dated Nov. 9, 2017, was even sharper, coming as an immediate reaction to the German cardinal’s newspaper interview.

“Eminence!” he began. “You said that with ‘pope emeritus,’ I had created a figure that had not existed in the whole history of the church. You know very well, of course, that popes have abdicated, albeit very rarely. What were they afterward? Pope emeritus? Or what else?”

He cited the case of Pius XII, who feared capture by the Nazis and prepared a resignation in case that occurred.

“As you know, Pius XII had prepared a declaration in case the Nazis were to arrest him, that from the moment of the arrest he would no longer be pope but once again cardinal,” Benedict wrote. “In my case it would certainly not have been sensible to simply claim a return to being cardinal. I would then have been constantly as exposed to the media as a cardinal is — even more so because people would have seen in me the former pope.” (Antipope Emeritus Rebukes Signer of Dubia.)

Let me cut to the heart of this matter: Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes that contradictories can be true. This is what he was taught by Father Hans urs Von Balthasar, and it is what he believes. It is thus important to set the record straight on a few points before wrapping up this commentary as I am in need of sleep on a night when a baby copperhead snake had to dispatched to its nothingness after it was discovered on our kitchen floor.

First, Pope Saint Peter Celestine (Celestine V) did not consider himself a “pope emeritus” when he resigned as the Bishop of Rome on December 13, 1294. Saint Peter Celestine tried resuming his life as a simple hermit. He had considered himself an unfit administrator of Holy Mother Church and desired to live a simple life of prayer. It was in God’s Holy Providence that his renown for sanctity led Catholics to seek him out while in solitude, which prompted his successor, Pope Boniface VIII, to have him arrested and detained as a prisoner until he died on May 19, 1303. There was no concept of a “pope emeritus” at that time, and it is thus a contradiction of the facts for Ratzinger/Benedict to claim that he did not create something that had never existed before. In this instance, you see, Walter Brandmuller is correct. Ratzinger/Benedict is rewriting the facts of history.

Second, although he may not realize it, Ratzinger/Benedict is also rewriting his own history as his spokesflack, “Father” Federico Lombardi, S.J., said the following shortly after “Pope Benedict XVI’s” resignation speech on February 11, 2013:

Pope Benedict XVI will be known as "emeritus pope" in his retirement and will continue to wear a white cassock, the Vatican announced Tuesday, again fueling concerns about potential conflicts arising from having both a reigning and a retired pope.

The pope's title and what he would wear have been a major source of speculation ever since Benedict stunned the world and announced he would resign on Thursday, the first pontiff to do so in 600 years.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Benedict himself had made the decision in consultation with others, settling on "Your Holiness Benedict XVI" and either emeritus pope or emeritus Roman pontiff.

Lombardi said he didn't know why Benedict had decided to drop his other main title: bishop of Rome.

In the two weeks since Benedict's resignation announcement, Vatican officials had suggested that Benedict would likely resume wearing the traditional black garb of a cleric and would use the title "emeritus bishop of Rome" so as to not create confusion with the future pope.

Benedict's decision to call himself emeritus pope and to keep wearing white is sure to fan concern voiced privately by some cardinals about the awkward reality of having two popes, both living within the Vatican walls.

Adding to the concern is that Benedict's trusted secretary, Monsignor Georg Gaenswein, will be serving both pontiffs -- living with Benedict at the monastery inside the Vatican and keeping his day job as prefect of the new pope's household.

Asked about the potential conflicts, Lombardi was defensive, saying the decisions had been clearly reasoned and were likely chosen for the sake of simplicity.

"I believe it was well thought out," he said.

Benedict himself has made clear he is retiring to a lifetime of prayer and meditation "hidden from the world." However, he still will be very present in the tiny Vatican city-state, where his new home is right next door to the Vatican Radio and has a lovely view of the dome of St. Peter's Basilica.

While he will no longer wear his trademark red shoes, Benedict has taken a liking to a pair of hand-crafted brown loafers made for him by artisans in Leon, Mexico, and given to him during his 2012 visit. He will wear those in retirement, Lombardi said. (Vatican says retired Pope Benedict XVI will be called 'emeritus pope'.) 

Imagine this, please.

Just imagine the time, energy, effort and thought that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI put into arriving at this decision. He was very conscious of establishing an “innovation,” based in the conciliar heresy of “episcopal collegiality” that he hoped would serve as a model for all future directors of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to follow. He desired to establish a new “tradition.”

This just showed once again that Ratzinger/Benedict’s worldliness. Indeed, even his personal tastes betray this worldliness as a man who has an attachment to the “finer” things of life to display that he was a "man of the times." 

Designer sunglasses.

Designer shoes.

Specially designed baseball caps.

True, members of the “papal” entourage denied years ago that their boss at the time wore Gucci sunglasses and Prada shoes. They also asserted that he knew nothing about the reassignment of a known pederast, "Father" Peter Hullermann, when he was the conciliar “Archbishop” of Cologne, Germany, on January 15, 1980, even though he was at the meeting and personally approved the move.

Ratzinger/Benedict also commissioned, discreetly, you understand his own custom cologne (see Cologne De Soufre).

This is the stuff of personal sanctity, of a man who was going to retreat quietly and live a life of prayer and meditation?

A man of humility would simply retire back to his home country to live in seclusion as monk as he dressed in simple black clerical garb.

Not Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. He wanted to establish a “precedent.” He wanted to be known as the man who established the "title" of “Pope Emeritus” as he thought up a completely new title, that of “His Holiness Benedict XVI” rather than “His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.”

This leads us to the second (and final) point that I desire to make about the antipope’s rebuke of his countryman and supporter. Walter Brandmuller, namely, that Ratzinger/Benedict, despite his protestations on February 11, 2013, has not withdrawn from the public eye even though he made a point of telling Brandmuller that he had done so:

With ‘pope emeritus,’ I tried to create a situation in which I am absolutely not accessible to the media and in which it is completely clear that there is only one pope,” he wrote. “If you know of a better way, and believe that you can judge the one I chose, please tell me.”

After Cardinal Brandmüller apparently begged Benedict’s forgiveness and explained how much pain his resignation had caused him and like-minded conservatives, the pope emeritus wrote the second letter. He concluded it by saying, “Let’s pray, as you did with the end of your letter, that the Lord comes to the aid of his church. With my apostolic blessing I am, Your Benedict XVI.” (Antipope Emeritus Rebukes Signer of Dubia.)

The tea-leaf readers will have fun, I am sure, discerning the "real meaning" of Ratzinger’s prayer “that the Lord comes to the aid of his church.” However, I am not reading any tea leaves here as I am no more concerned about what the Girondist/Menshevik conciliar revolutionary thinks about the state of a false religious sect than I am about some “conservative” Anglican “bishop’s” reaction might be to the latest bit of heresy from whichever layman is serving as the Anglican “archbishop” of Canterbury.

For present purposes, though, what I want to point out is that Ratzinger/Benedict receives visitors, and he has put out a book, Final Conversations, with his favorite journalist, Peter Seewald.

How has the antipope emeritus withdrawn entirely from the media when he permits a member thereof to conduct a book length interview with him?

Entirely means entirely.

Then again, words don’t exactly have clear meaning for the lover of opaqueness, complexity and contradiction, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who has also written an article trying to synthesize the true teaching of the Catholic Church about Judaism with the false teaching, put forward first by Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II in Mainz, Germany, on November 17, 1980, that the Old Covenant was not superseded by the New and Eterna Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday. “Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI” has not “entirely withdrawn” from the world or from the media.

It must be remembered that such contradictory statements are nothing new as it was within a span of one week span in 2007 that Ratzinger/Benedict told us that history was “indecipherable” and that we needed to “learn the lessons of the past.”

The then reigning conciliar antipope wrote the following to his infamous letter to Catholics in Red China that was released on June 30, 2007:

History remains indecipherable, incomprehensible. No one can read it. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China, June 30, 2007.)

If this expression of Kantian immanentism is correct, then true pope after true pope who referred to the lessons of history dared to venture into the realm of the "indecipherable," the "incomprehensible." How can one claim to learn any lessons from history when it is alleged to be "indecipherable" and "incomprehensible"?

For the lies of Bergoglio and Ratzinger/Benedict to be correct, therefore, Pope Gregory XVI, writing in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, had to be wrong when he taught us the lessons of history about the effects produced by "liberty of conscience" that is one of the prime constituent elements of Modernism and thus of the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

Pope Pius IX himself must have been wrong when he used history in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1862, to condemn the falsehood that is "religious liberty:"

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? For this reason, men of the kind pursue with bitter hatred the Religious Orders, although these have deserved extremely well of Christendom, civilization and literature, and cry out that the same have no legitimate reason for being permitted to exist; and thus (these evil men) applaud the calumnies of heretics. For, as Pius VI, Our Predecessor, taught most wisely, "the abolition of regulars is injurious to that state in which the Evangelical counsels are openly professed; it is injurious to a method of life praised in the Church as agreeable to Apostolic doctrine; it is injurious to the illustrious founders, themselves, whom we venerate on our altars, who did not establish these societies but by God's inspiration." And (these wretches) also impiously declare that permission should be refused to citizens and to the Church, "whereby they may openly give alms for the sake of Christian charity"; and that the law should be abrogated "whereby on certain fixed days servile works are prohibited because of God's worship;" and on the most deceptive pretext that the said permission and law are opposed to the principles of the best public economy. Moreover, not content with removing religion from public society, they wish to banish it also from private families. For, teaching and professing the most fatal error of "Communism and Socialism," they assert that "domestic society or the family derives the whole principle of its existence from the civil law alone; and, consequently, that on civil law alone depend all rights of parents over their children, and especially that of providing for education." By which impious opinions and machinations these most deceitful men chiefly aim at this result, viz., that the salutary teaching and influence of the Catholic Church may be entirely banished from the instruction and education of youth, and that the tender and flexible minds of young men may be infected and depraved by every most pernicious error and vice. For all who have endeavored to throw into confusion things both sacred and secular, and to subvert the right order of society, and to abolish all rights, human and divine, have always (as we above hinted) devoted all their nefarious schemes, devices and efforts, to deceiving and depraving incautious youth and have placed all their hope in its corruption. For which reason they never cease by every wicked method to assail the clergy, both secular and regular, from whom (as the surest monuments of history conspicuously attest), so many great advantages have abundantly flowed to Christianity, civilization and literature, and to proclaim that "the clergy, as being hostile to the true and beneficial advance of science and civilization, should be removed from the whole charge and duty of instructing and educating youth." (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

Moreover, if history is "indecipherable" and "incomprehensible," as Ratzinger/Benedict contended in his Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China of June 30, 2007, what business did have a week later trying to "teach" us about alleged "missed opportunities" to prevent or heal schisms in the past?

Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows. (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum")

If history is "indecipherable" and "incomprehensible, as Ratzinger/Benedict contended in his Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China on June 30, 2007, then how was it possible on July 7, 2007, to "decipher" that "not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity?"

If “no one can read” history, then how could Ratzinger/Benedict have claimed to know that “not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity”?

Obviously, the contention made on June 30, 2007, was completely contradictory of the statement issued just seven days later. Ratzinger/Benedict's statement about the “incomprehensible” and “indecipherable” nature of a history that “no one can read” also made it impossible for him to “know” the alleged “historical circumstances” that he contended, contrary to right reason and Catholic dogma, that make specific dogma formulae and papal pronouncement “obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time.”

Oh, I am not quite finished demonstrating antipope emeritus Ratzinger/Benedict’s penchant for self-contradiction as he did so on three different occasions when he said that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service represented a rupture with the Immemorial Mass of Tradition before writing in Summorum Pontificum that no such rupture had taken place:

What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. Weabandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved history, he showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical development; as a man who looked at history form the inside, he saw in this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves intimately with its mystery. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Preface to the French language edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)

The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.

But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Milestones.)

In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum," July 7, 2007.)

Mine eyes glaze over at the stupendous amount of illogic and inconsistency that exists in the thought-processes, such as they are, of a man who lives in a world of paradox, complexity and contradiction.

Mind you, this is not to mention the fact that the the conciliar concept of the papacy is heretical as it is premised upon the falsehood of episocpal collegiality, not upon an acceptance of the following dogmatic teaching on Papal Primacy that was promulgated by Pope Pius IX and the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council on July 18, 1870:

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [51]

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Chapter 3, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.)

Conciliarism's evolving falsehoods about the papacy extend not only to episopal collegiality but to "other Christian chuches and ecclesial communities," which, perhaps aided and abetted by his trusted lieutenant, Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, "Saint John Paul" championed in Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995:

Whatever relates to the unity of all Christian communities clearly forms part of the concerns of the primacy. As Bishop of Rome I am fully aware, as I have reaffirmed in the present Encyclical Letter, that Christ ardently desires the full and visible communion of all those Communities in which, by virtue of God's faithfulness, his Spirit dwells. I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. For a whole millennium Christians were united in "a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life ... If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator".

In this way the primacy exercised its office of unity. When addressing the Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Dimitrios I, I acknowledged my awareness that "for a great variety of reasons, and against the will of all concerned, what should have been a service sometimes manifested itself in a very different light. But ... it is out of a desire to obey the will of Christ truly that I recognize that as Bishop of Rome I am called to exercise that ministry ... I insistently pray the Holy Spirit to shine his light upon us, enlightening all the Pastors and theologians of our Churches, that we may seek—together, of course—the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned".

This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out by myself. Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea "that they may all be one ... so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (Jn 17:21)? (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995.)

Leaving aside all of the references to "imperfect communion" that have been discussed on this site before and was assessed years ago by Bishop Donald Sanborn in Communion: Ratzingers's Ecumenical One-World Church, one can see a close connection between Wojtyla/John Paul II's revisionist history about how the papacy functioned in the First Millennium and that of the then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Cardinal" Ratzinger that was reviewed recently in A Lifelong Refusal to Accept the Certainty of Domgatic Truth: Sixty-Seven Years of Priestly Apostasy.

The entirety of conciliarism's teaching on ecclesiology, including Papal Primacy makes a mockery of the very institution of the papacy by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ with these words that he uttered to Simon bar Jona, Saint Peter, as the Fisherman was made the Visible Head of the Catholic Church on earth:

[13] And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? [14] But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. [15] Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

[16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; andupon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [20] Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. (Matthew 16: 13-20.)

Bishop Richard Challoner's commentary on the three underlined phrases found in the Douay-Rheims Bible that he translated from the Latin Vulgate explains in no uncertain terms that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is false as it has propagated heresies and errors that are impossible for the Catholic Church to be associated with in any way, not even by the slightest tarnish of error as Pope Gregory XVI in Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834, and that the conciliar "popes" have been manifest heretics for all the world to see:

[18] Thou art Peter: As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

[18] Upon this rock: The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.

[18] The gates of hell: That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.

[19] Loose upon earth: The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted. (Bishop Richard Challoner Commentary on Matthew 16: 18, 19.)

The papacy is a monarchy. While true popes have consulted with others, they have done so as prudence dictates, not because it is required by the nature of the office that Our Lord Himself instituted upon the Rock of Saint Peter, our first pope.

Behold the numberless contradictions that exist in a false religious sect that is of its very perverse nature a contradiction and corruption of Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals.

Those who want to get themselves worked up in a tizzy about Ratzinger/Benedict’s letter to Walter Brandmuller can do so. However, the fact that remains that the counterfeit church of conciiarism is the SS Titanic and that the antipope emeritus and his antipapal successor simply live on different decks of a ship that is going to sink of its own falsehood and wickedness sooner or later.

The one hundred seventy-third anniversary of Our Lady’s apparition in La Salette, France, was observed two days ago, that is, on September 19, 2018, the Feast of Saint Januarius and his Companions. Although some in fully traditional circles discourage Catholics from reading the message of Our Lady of La Salette as the Holy See had prohibited its publication a century ago, the Holy See did not proclaim on the authenticity of the message itself, which had been approved for publication by Bishop Salvatore Luigi Zola, who served as the Bishop of Lecce, Italy, from June 22, 1877, to April 27, 1898. There can be no doubt, at least in this writer's mind, that the message of Our Lady of La Salette, who appeared to Maximim Giraud and Melanie Calvat one hundred seventy-six years ago today, that is, on September 19, 1846, prophetically describes the situation facing the Church Militant on earth during this time of unbelievable apostasy and betrayal:

"The earth will be struck with plagues of all kinds;" [Mélanie added here: "Besides pestilence and famine, which will be widespread"] "there will be wars up to the last war, which will then be waged by the ten kings of the Antichrist, kings who will all have a common design and will be the sole rulers of the world. Before this happens, there will be a sort of false peace in the world; people will think only of amusing themselves; the wicked will indulge in all kinds of sin; but the children of Holy Church, children of the true faith, my true imitators, will grow in the love of God and in the virtues dearest to me. Happy the humble souls lead by the Holy Ghost! I shall battle along with them until they reach the fullness of maturity.

"Nature begs vengeance on account of men, and she shudders with dread, awaiting what must happen to the crime-stained earth.

"Tremble, earth, and you who profess to serve Jesus Christ, while interiorly you adore yourselves, tremble; for God will hand you over to His enemy, because the holy places are in a state of corruption; many convents are no longer houses of God, but pastures for Asmodeus and his own.

"It will be at this time that the Antichrist will be born of a Hebrew nun, a false virgin who will be in communication with the ancient serpent, master of impurity; his father will be a bishop (Ev.). [We spell out the word "bishop" here. In the French text appear only the first two letters of évèque, the French word for bishop, but there is little doubt that this is the word they stand for, because in Mélanie's first draft of the message the whole word is spelled out.]

"At birth he will vomit blasphemies, he will have teeth; in a word, this will be the devil incarnate; he will utter terrifying cries, he will work wonders, he will live only on impurities. He will have brothers who, although not incarnate devils like himself, will be children of evil; at the age of twelve, they will be noted for the valiant victories they will win; soon they will each be at the head of armies, assisted by legions from hell.

"The seasons will be changed, the earth will produce only bad fruits, the heavenly bodies will lose the regularity of their movements, the moon will reflect only a feeble reddish light; water and fire will lend convulsive motions to the earth's sphere, causing mountains , cities, etc., to be swallowed up.

"Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.

"The demons of the air, together with the Antichrist, will work great wonders on the earth and in the air, and men will become ever more perverted. God will take care of His faithful servants and mend of good will; the Gospel will be preached everywhere, all peoples and all nations will have knowledge of the Truth.

"I address a pressing appeal to the earth: I call upon the true disciples of the God living and reigning in the heavens; I call upon the true imitators of Christ made man, the one true Savior of men; I call upon my children, my true devotees, those who have given themselves o me so that I may lead them to my Divine Son, those whom I bear as it were in my arms, those who have lived in my spirit; finally, I call upon the Apostles of the Latter Times, the faithful disciples of Jesus Christ who have lived in contempt of the world and of themselves, in poverty and humility, in contempt and silence, in prayer and mortification, in chastity and in union with God, in suffering, and unknown to the world. It is time for them to emerge and come enlighten the earth. Go, show yourselves to be my dear children; I am with you and in you, provided your faith is the light enlightening you in these evil times. May your zeal make your famished for the glory and honor of Jesus Christ. Do battle, children of light, you, the few who see thereby; fir the time of times, the end of ends, is at hand.

"The Church will be eclipsed, the world will be in consternation. But there are Enoch and Elias, they will preach with the power of God, and men of good will will believe in God, and many souls will be comforted; they will make great progress by virtue of the Holy Ghost and will condemn the diabolical errors of the Antichrist.

"Woe to the inhabitants of the earth. There will be bloody wars, and famines; plagues and contagious diseases; there will be frightful showers of animals; thunders which will demolish cities; earthquakes which will engulf countries; voices will be heard in the air; men will beat their heads against the walls; they will call on death, yet death will constitute their torment; blood will flow on all sides. Who could overcome, if God doesn't shorten the time of trial? At the blood, tears and prayers of the righteous, God will relent; Enoch and Elias will be put to death; pagan Rome will disappear; the fire of Heaven will fall and consume three cities; the whole universe will be struck with terror, and many will allow themselves to be seduced because they didn't adore the true Christ living in their midst. It is time; the sun is darkening; Faith alone will survive.

"The time is at hand; the abyss is opening. Here is the king of the kings of darkness. Here is the beast with its subjects, calling itself the savior of the world. In pride he will rise skyward to go up to Heaven; he will be stifled by the breath of St. Michael the Archangel. He will fall and the earth -which for three days will be in constant change- will open its fiery bosom; he will be plunged forever with all his followers into hell's eternal chasms. Then water and fire will purify the earth and consume all the works of men's pride, and everything will be renewed; God will be served and glorified." (The Message of Our Lady of La Salette.)

Remember these words of the late William C. Koneazny, the founder of the Catholic Rendezvous (see A True Catholic Rendezvous): Our Lady will come and throw the bums out!”, and that includes all the conciliar revolutionaries, no matter if they be of Ratzinger/Benedict’s Girondist/Menshvik school or of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Jacobin/Bolshevik school.

Let us, therefore, trust in Our Lady, whose Immaculate Heart was pierced by Seven Swords of Sorrow, to help us to promote Catholic dogmatism over the madness of conciliarism’s world of contradiction and paradox, of “encounter” and “dialogue” as we remain perfectly calm in the storms around us by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, eager to suffer and to suffer even some more as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, she who is Our Immaculate Queen.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

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 Matthew the Apostle, 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 Balthazar, pray for us.