Boilerplate Ratzinger

by Thomas A. Droleskey

As most readers of this site know very well without being informed by me, the phrase "boilerplate" is used in common parlance to refer to a legal form or document that can be adapted for use by many disparate persons and/or businesses. One quick example that comes to mind is an old-fashioned rental or lease agreement for the renting or leasing of a house or an apartment. Landlords purchase what are known as "boiler plate" forms at office supply stores, merely filling in the blanks thereafter. Obviously, most of these forms are available online today and can be customized with desktop publishing to look as though they were prepared by a professional printer.

The phrase also refers to a standard form of expression that is used by bureaucrats to deal with multiple circumstances. One of the most famous anecdote that is told in this regard deals with a railroad passenger who complained about finding bedbugs in his Pullman car bed. The passenger got a letter from George Pullman himself apologizing for the bedbugs, finding, though, a note that the railroad tycoon had written to his secretary that got inserted by mistake into the envelope containing the letter of apology: "Send this guy the bedbug letter" (see The Bedbug Letter).

This particular commentary is named "Boilerplate Ratzinger" as the latest revelations about the false "pontiff"s" make the rounds on the internet contain nothing new about his insistence that what he thinks falsely is the Catholic Church "cannot take the salvation of Israel in its own hands Although this insistence is contained in his "unofficial" book, Jesus of Narazreth: Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, that defenders of the legitimacy of his "pontificate" will assure us does not bind the consciences of anyone and that the apostasies contained therein are "private" and do not affect his standing as a Catholic or his legitimacy as a putative Successor of Saint Peter, there is nothing really new about it at all. It is truly "boilerplate Ratzinger."  (For two other articles dealing with the "unofficial" book, please see Impressed With His Own Originality and Accepting "Popes" As Unreliable Teachers.)

Let me explain, if you would be so kind. In other words, indulge me, if only for a brief time as we have had a few more penitential experiences that have gotten our Lent off to a truly smashing start, supernaturally speaking, that is.

It was three years ago now that a great furor was caused by the release of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's revised Good Friday Prayer for the Jews to be used what he calls the "extraordinary form of the Roman Rite," more properly referred to as the modernized, streamlined version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 and 1962. Ratzinger/Benedict undertook this revision at the behest of the adherents of the Talmud after they complained personally to him that he had authorized in Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, a more "liberal" use of the 1962 Missal (that was in use, I will never tire of telling you, for only three short years before it was replaced by the Ordo Missae of 1965) that contained a version of the Good Friday Prayer that had been watered down by Roncalli/John XXIII to placate the ancient enemies of Christ the King. 

Far from being pleased with Ratzinger/Benedict's revision undertaken at their behest, many adherents of the blasphemous Talmud rent their garments and gnashed their teeth anew, complaining that the "pope" was undermining the "teaching" of the "Second" Vatican Council. One of the first to do so was Rabbi David Rosen, the Chairman of International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations, who wrote to Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, then the head of the "Pontifical" Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, who wrote back to Rosen as follows, prompting some in the "resist but recognize" movement to insist that Kasper was speaking only for himself, not for the "pope," and that anyone who said that he was so acting (yours truly was attacked in this regard in thinly veiled manner) was guilty of rash judgment:

Chief Rabbi David Rosen
Chairman
IJCIC
165 East 56th Street
New York, NY 10022 USA

Dear Rabbi Rosen,

Upon my return to Rome, I found your letter of 10 February 2008 regarding the prayer formulated for the extraordinary rite of the Good Friday liturgy. I well understand the sensitivities of some of the more traditional Jewish circles. However, if one reads exactly what is said in the reformulated prayer one sees nothing is withdrawn from Nostra Aetate; indeed, this text remains totally valid and fundamental for our Jewish-Christian relations. It is absolutely not the intention of anyone in the Roman Curia to step back and interrupt our fruitful dialogue, which for us is irreversible.

Yet we must not lose sight of the fact that this dialogue presupposes that both Jews and Christians maintain their identities and remain free to express their respective faiths. From the very beginning of our dialogue it was and it remains clear that notwithstanding all that we have in common there is a fundamental difference in Christology which is constitutive for both your Jewish and our own Christian identity. To give witness of our Christian faith, as is expressed in the reformulated prayer, is therefore in no way a return to the language of contempt but an expression of mutual respect in our respective otherness.

In reformulating the prayer of the now extraordinary liturgy, the Pope wanted to avoid formulations which were perceived by many Jews to be offensive, but he wanted at the same time to remain in line with the intrinsic linguistic and stylistic structure of this liturgy and therefore not simply replace the prayer for the prayer in the ordinary liturgy, which we must not forget is used by the vast majority of Catholic communities.

The reformulated text no longer speaks about the conversion of the Jews as some Jewish critics wrongly affirm. The text is a prayer inspired by Saint Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 11, which is the very text that speaks also of the unbroken covenant. It takes up Paul's eschatological hope that in the end of time all Israel will be saved. As a prayer the text lays all in the hands of God and not in ours. It says nothing about the how and when. Therefore there is nothing about missionary activities by which we may take Israel's salvation in our hands.

I cannot see why this prayer should present any reason to interrupt our dialogue. On the contrary, it is an opportunity and a challenge to continue the dialogue on what we have in common and what differentiates us in our Messianic hope.

I am happy that after some perplexities we now hear more and more voices from the Jewish world seeing things in a realistic way, and I do hope that this letter can be a contribution to overcome the misunderstandings and grievances.

Yours sincerely,

Walter Cardinal Kasper
President (Cardinal Kasper's Letter to Rabbi Rosen)

 

It was curious, at least to me, that some of the very same people who held Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's feet to the fire for not reining in Kasper after having made almost identical remarks about the salvation of the Jews in the past were self-righteously adamant, if not downright arrogant, in their insistence that Kasper was acting unilaterally when he wrote to David Rosen three years ago and that no one should infer that the noted Modernist from Germany, Walter Kasper, was expressing the mind of the "pope" on this matter. (See the appendix below for material about how John Paul II had been criticized for indemnifying Kasper for making the same kind of remarks during his own false "pontificate" that he made before his retirement under Ratzinger/Benedict.) Indeed, Kasper continued to reiterate the essence of the message that he sent, on his own volition the defenders of all things Benedict tried to convince us at the time, to David Rosen in L'Osservatore Romano on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, without "Pope" Benedict XVI correcting him once:

"The new formulation of the prayer ... doesn't say anything truly new, but just expresses what until now was assumed to be obvious," Kasper wrote in the Italian-language article.

The reference to saving Israel was "eschatological", a reference to a branch of theology dealing with the destiny of all humanity at the end of the world.

Kasper said the Catholic Church, unlike some evangelical Churches, did not have an institutionalized directive to convert Jews although Catholics are always encouraged to express their faith openly while showing respect.

Last week, the Vatican issued a statement on the prayer saying it "in no way intends to indicate a change in the Catholic Church's regard for the Jews". ( http://www.reuters.com/article)

Kasper had said the exact same thing on Vatican Radio on February 7, 2008. He had, as quoted above, written the exact same thing to Rabbi David Rosen on February 13, 2008. The article that appeared in L'Osservatore Romano on April 9, 2008, had appeared in Germany about a month before. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did not know about or approve of Kasper's "private views"? Absolutely preposterous. To use the phrase of a former colleague of mine for whom I pray every day without fail, "Patently absurd."

Here is a report on what Ratzinger/Benedict himself has said in his "unofficial" book that contains his usual boilerplate apostasy concerning the salvation of the Jews:

After excerpts from the second volume of the pope’s book on Jesus made the rounds last week, featuring his rejection of the idea that “the Jews” killed Christ, the full text adds another point with important implications for Christian/Jewish relations -- in effect, that Christianity “must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews.”

The comment comes in Benedict XVI’s book Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week, the full text of which was released today.

While the pope does not affirm a theory propounded by some theologians holding that the Jews will be saved independently of Christ, experts say, he does clearly suggest the church should not be targeting Jews for conversion efforts.

“Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time, when the number of Gentiles is full,” the pope writes. The historical duration of this “proper time,” Benedict says, cannot be calculated.

In terms of the proper Christian attitude in the meantime, Benedict approvingly quotes Cistercian abbess and Biblical writer Hildegard Brem: “The church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God.”

Although Benedict XVI stipulated in the first volume of his book that he writes as a private theologian rather than authoritatively as head of the Catholic church, his comments inevitably carry weight as indications of the way Benedict is likely to approach these questions as pope.

The question of conversion has long been among the most explosive in the arena of Catholic/Jewish relations. Still today, perceptions in the Jewish world that Christians are targeting them for missionary efforts produce sharply negative reactions.

Benedict XVI acknowledges that the question of “Israel’s mission” in God’s plan has a painful past.

“We realize today with horror how many misunderstandings with grave consequences have weighed down our history,” he writes. Yet, the pope says, “the beginnings of a correct understanding have always been there, waiting to be rediscovered, however deep the shadows.”

The key to that correct understanding, Benedict writes, lies in the Biblical notion of the “times of the Gentiles.”

The charge given by Jesus to carry the Gospel to the ends of the earth, Benedict says, implies a sequence: first the “full number” of the Gentiles comes to the faith, and only then the Jews. He quotes St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s advice to one of his predecessors, Pope Eugene III, that “a determined time has been fixed” for the conversion of the Jews “that cannot be anticipated.”

Benedict says that in the early church, the urgency of evangelization wasn’t based so much on the idea that every human being had to know Christ in order to be saved, but rather on a “grand conception of history,” according to which the Gospel had to reach all the nations in order for the world to fulfill its destiny.

Until God’s plan comes to fruition, Benedict says, the “particular task” of the disciples of Christ is to carry the faith to the Gentiles, not to the Jews.

The question of whether including Jews in the church’s missionary efforts is legitimate has long been a debated point in Catholic circles.

Almost ten years ago, the late Cardinal Avery Dulles was critical of a joint statement from the National Council of Synagogues and the Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference to the effect that “targeting Jews for conversion to Christianity” is “no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”

Dulles replied that the church cannot curtail the scope of the gospel without betraying itself: “Once we grant that there are some persons for whom it is not important to acknowledge Christ, to be baptized and to receive the sacraments, we raise questions about our own religious life,” he wrote.

Subsequently, the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine issued a clarification in 2009 that most experts regarded as largely upholding the position taken by Dulles. Its conclusion was, “The fulfillment of the covenants, indeed, of all God’s promises to Israel, is found only in Jesus Christ.”

Capuchin Fr. Thomas Weinandy, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat for Doctrine, cautioned that Benedict XVI’s lines on Judaism in the new book do not endorse a “two-covenant” theology, meaning that Christianity and Judaism represent two parallel paths to salvation, so that Jews are saved without any reference to Christ.

At the same time, Weinandy said, the pope’s words do clearly indicate that “there’s no specific program that the Catholic church has to convert Jews, which is in God’s time.”

Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a Jewish scholar whose Biblical writings have been praised by Benedict XVI, said the pope’s conciliatory statements about Judaism in Jesus of Nazareth are all the more powerful because they’re grounded in scholarship rather than mere inter-faith diplomacy.

“He’s talking about truth, not about convenience,” Neusner said. (New book confirms: Benedict XVI is his own best spokesperson.)

 

Walter Kasper's apostasy is Joseph Ratzinger's apostasy. There is no distinction. Anyone who has claimed this in the past is guilty of a grievous error or of being intellectually dishonest. There is no middle ground. Both men believe the exact same apostasy concerning the salvation of the Jews.

Sure, the Catholic Church has no "organized mission" to convert the Jews. She also has no "organized mission" to convert, say, Presbyterians or Anglicans or Lutherans or Buddhists or Hindus or Mohammedans or Mormons or Baptists or your garden variety, run-of-the mill naturalists who love to fill the minds of Catholics (and others) with all manner of empty blatherings while convincing their adherents to empty their wallets to "learn" the "truth" about the world today.

The Catholic Church does have an a direct commission from her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of all men to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order:

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28: 18-20.)

Who says that Jews are not included in this direct commission given the Eleven by Our Lord as He ascended into Heaven on Ascension Thursday? Apostates, that's who.

If the likes of Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kasper are correct, which, of course, is truly patently absurd, then the first pope himself, Saint Peter, must have been in error when he sought the conversion of the Jews on Pentecost Sunday immediately after the descent of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, in tongues of flame upon Himself and the other Apostles and Our Lady and those others gathered in the same Upper Room in Jerusalem where Our Lord Himself had instituted the Holy Priesthood and the Holy Eucharist just fifty-three days before:

Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words. For these are not drunk, as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day:

But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And upon my servants indeed, and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will shew wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire, and vapour of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord come.

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he should be holden by it. For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved.

For this my heart hath been glad, and any tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present day. Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne.

Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses. Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear. For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy enemies thy footstool.

Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.

They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need. (Acts 2: 14-41.)

The Old Covenant ended when Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ breathed His last breath on the wood of the Holy Cross and the curtain in the Temple in Jerusalem was torn in two from top to bottom. Over. Done with. Finished. Ended. The dispersal of the Jews in the year 70 A.D. following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans was a public ratification by God of the fact that the Old Covenant indeed had been superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Lord at the Last Supper and and consummated as He, the Paschal Lamb Who takest away the sins of the world, shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to redeem us. To assert that "Christianity must concern herself with the conversion of the Jews" is to slap Our Lord in the face figuratively as the Holy Faith Itself is denied publicly before men.

For Ratzinger/Benedict to be correct, therefore, pope after pope, missionary after missionary, saint after saint must have been wrong when they spoke to Jews about the necessity of converting to save their souls.

Saint Justin Martyr, for example, must have been wrong when he wrote the following in the Second Century:

CHAPTER XXV -- THE JEWS BOAST IN VAIN THAT THEY ARE SONS OF ABRAHAM.

"Those who justify themselves, and say they are sons of Abraham, shall be desirous even in a small degree to receive the inheritance along with you; as the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of Isaiah, cries, speaking thus while he personates them: 'Return from heaven, and behold from the habitation of Thy holiness and glory. Where is Thy zeal and strength? Where is the multitude of Thy mercy? for Thou hast sustained us, O Lord. For Thou art our Father, because Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel has not recognised us. But Thou, O Lord, our Father, deliver us: from the beginning Thy name is upon us. O Lord, why hast Thou made us to err from Thy way? and hardened our hearts, so that we do not fear Thee? Return for Thy servants' sake, the tribes of Thine inheritance, that we may inherit for a little Thy holy mountain. We were as from the beginning, when Thou didst not bear rule over us, and when Thy name was not called upon us. If Thou wilt open the heavens, trembling shall seize the mountains before Thee: and they shall be melted, as wax melts before the fire; and fire shall consume the adversaries, and Thy name shall be manifest among the adversaries; the nations shall be put into disorder before Thy face. When Thou shall do glorious things, trembling shall seize the mountains before Thee. From the beginning we have not heard, nor have our eyes seen a God besides Thee: and Thy works, the mercy which Thou shall show to those who repent. He shall meet those who do righteousness, and they shall remember Thy ways. Behold, Thou art wroth, and we were sinning. Therefore we have erred and become all unclean, and all our righteousness is as the rags of a woman set apart: and we have faded away like leaves by reason of our iniquities; thus the wind will take us away. And there is none that calleth upon Thy name, or remembers to take hold of Thee; for Thou hast turned away Thy face from us, and hast given us up on account of our sins. And now return, O Lord, for we are all Thy people. The city of Thy holiness has become desolate. Zion has become as a wilderness, Jerusalem a curse; the house, our holiness, and the glory which our fathers blessed, has been burned with fire; and all the glorious nations have fallen along with it. And in addition to these [misfortunes], O Lord, Thou hast refrained Thyself, and art silent, and hast humbled us very much.'"

And Trypho remarked, "What is this you say? that none of us shall inherit anything on the holy mountain of God?"

CHAPTER XXVI -- NO SALVATION TO THE JEWS EXCEPT THROUGH CHRIST.

And I replied, "I do not say so; but those who have persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not repent, shall not inherit anything on the holy mountain. But the Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts. Assuredly they shall receive the holy inheritance of God. For God speaks by Isaiah thus: 'I, the Lord God, have called Thee in righteousness, and will hold Thine hand, and will strengthen Thee; and I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out them that are bound from the chains, and those who sit in darkness from the prison-house.' And again: 'Lift up a standard s for the people; for, lo, the Lord has made it heard unto the end of the earth. Say ye to the daughters of Zion, Behold, thy Saviour has come; having His reward, and His work before His face: and He shall call it a holy nation, redeemed by the Lord. And thou shalt be called a city sought out, and not forsaken. Who is this that cometh from Edom? in red garments from Bosor? This that is beautiful in apparel, going up with great strength? I speak righteousness, and the judgment of salvation. Why are Thy garments red, and Thine apparel as from the trodden wine-press? Thou art full of the trodden grape. I have trodden the wine-press all alone, and of the people there is no man with Me; and I have trampled them in fury, and crushed them to the ground, and spilled their blood on the earth. For the day of retribution has come upon them, and the year of redemption is present. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I considered, and none assisted: and My arm delivered; and My fury came on them, and I trampled them in My fury, and spilled their blood on the earth.'"( Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: Dialogue with Trypho.)

 

Pope Eugene IV and the Council Fathers of the Council of Florence, which was guided infallibly by God the Holy Ghost, must have been wrong when they issued Cantate Domino, February 4, 1442:

It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. . . .

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)

 

For Ratzinger/Benedict, of course, he can just wave his "papal" hand and pretend as though this solemn, infallible dogmatic pronouncement of the Catholic Church has become "obsolete" according to his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity." He does so, however, by blaspheming God the Holy Ghost, Who direct the work of the Council of Florence.

Similarly, those who composed the official liturgy of the Catholic Church must have been wrong to have included in the Breviary the following praise of the work of Saint Vincent Ferrer, O.P., to seek the conversion of the Jews and of Mohammedans living in southern France and in the Iberian Peninsula at the end of the Fourteenth and the beginning of the Fifteenth Centuries:

He exposed the perfidy of the Jews, and refuted the false doctrines of the Saracens, but with so much earnestness and success, that he brought a great number of infidels to the faith of Christ, and converted many thousand Christians from sin to repentance, and from vice to virtue. God had chosen him to teach the way of salvation to all nations, and tribes, and tongues; as also to warn men of the coming of the last and dread day of judgment, He so preached, that he struck terror into the minds of all his hearers, and turned them from earthly affections to the love of God.

 

Perhaps it is useful to point out yet again that the logic of Ratzinger/Benedict's beliefs about the salvation of the Jews means that the Mother of God herself must have been wrong to have sought the conversion of the Catholic-hating Jew named Alphonse Ratisbonne as she appeared to him in the Church of San Andrea delle Fratte on January 20, 1842, as she appeared on the Miraculous Medal that he wore around his neck as a dare. And Pope Pius IX must have been wrong when he approved of Father Maria-Alphonse Ratisbonne's plan to move to Palestine to seek the conversion of his own people in an organized manner. 

Saint John Bosco must have been wrong when, as a teenager, he sought the conversion of a Jewish schoolmate:

There were in John's class, at the school in Chieri, several Jews who were in difficulties about their Saturday's work. For them it was the Sabbath, when all work was forbidden. But the older boys used to laugh at them as if it were an extra vacation day. John, who saw that it was a question of conscience, used to send them a list of the work given out, with the explanations. In consequence, they vowed him an eternal friendship, and one of them, who used to frequent the restaurant where John worked, became very intimate with him. One day this young fellow, whose name was Jonas, got mixed up in a school scrape and, anxious about the consequences, came to consult his friend.

"If you were a Christian," said John, "I should take you straight off to Confession, but that can't be done."

"Why not? We can go to Confession if we like."

"Perhaps, but you have no Sacrament of Penance, no power to forgive sins, no guarantee of secrecy."

"I will go to a Catholic priest if you like."

"You can't unless you are baptized and believe in Jesus Christ."

"What would they say at home?"

"If God calls you to this, He will protect you."

"What would you do if you were in my place?" asked the young Jew.

"I would begin to study the catechism," said John.

The advice was taken; John prayed. Light and conviction came to Jonas, but the catechism was discovered. Irate parents took it to the Rabbi and accused John of betraying the friendship and ruining the soul of their son. Both friends had a good deal to suffer; there were even threats of violence. Jonas had to leave home, but he stood firm in his determination to become a Catholic. In the end, friends came to his assistance, the young Jew was baptized and the tumult died down. Several others followed him into the Church. (F. A. Forbes, Saint John Bosco, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, pp. 25-27.)

 

Popes and missionaries and saints and ordinary Catholics understand that they must advance and serve as no impediment to salvation of each soul whom God's Holy Providence places in their paths. For Ratzinger/Benedict to be correct, my good and disappearing readership, then it must be the case, protestations of conciliar apologists to the contrary, that Jews are saved independently of Our Lord as he does not believe that the salvation of their souls is at all imperiled by their persistence in a false religion that He specifically repudiated for the entire world to see with, as mentioned before, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D.

Perhaps even more to the point than anything else is the simple fact that it was the prayers from Heaven of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr that won the conversion of the man who presided over his stoning, the Catholic-hating Jew named Saul of Tarsus, who believed that it was his solemn duty before God to persecute the infant Church, after giving a discourse to Jews that has been given by no conciliar "pope" when addressing adherents of the Talmud in their synagogues or when they have assembled in the Vatican to lobby in behalf of their Christophobic concerns. Here is the end of Saint Stephen's discourse that resulted in the end of his earthly life and his birth unto eternal joy:

You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them who foretold of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

Now hearing these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed with their teeth at him.

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. and he said: Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

And they crying out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and with one accord ran violently upon him. And casting him forth without the city, they stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, invoking and saying: Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

And falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, saying: Lord Jesus, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep in the Lord. And Saul was consenting to his death. (Acts 7:1-59)

 

 

As I have noted repeatedly on this site, the counterfeit church of conciliarism forbids the sort of "proselytism" undertaken by Saint Stephen in the discourse recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. Unlike the conciliarists, Saint Stephen was not interested in learning what the Jews believed. He knew what the Jews believed, and he knew that they had to convert to be saved. He was willing to suffer a brutal death by stoning rather than to be silent about the necessity of proclaiming the Holy Name at all times and in all places without any exception whatsoever. Saint Stephen, therefore, taught us about the solemn obligation that we have to seek the conversion of all others to the true Faith, and to do so with boldness, understanding that authentic Charity seeks the good of others, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of their immortal souls by means of belonging to the true Church that the God-Man Himself created upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

After all, it was Our Lord Himself Who sought the conversion of of Saul on Tarsus while the latter was on his way to Damascus to persecute more Catholics. Why is the example of Our Lord Himself not good enough for a man who believes, albeit falsely, to be His Vicar on earth when dealing with Talmudists who deny His Sacred Sacred Divinity to this very day? It is because Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is an apostate.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not act and speak as a Catholic when it comes to the salvation of the souls of non-Catholics. He speaks as an apostate in full violation of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church that was enshrined in her Canon Law of 1917 and was summarized very cogently by Bishop George Hay over a century before the issuance of that code:

The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)

Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

 

Ah, yes, the hour is late yet again. Those who want to see that no one can believe and say and do the things that Ratzinger/Benedict believes and says and does and remain a member of the Catholic Church will do so. Those who do not will persist in their stubborn insistence that the Catholic Church can be headed by a man who is at war with the One Whose Vicar He believes Himself to be. This is not possible:

The divine Spirit has been sent to secure unity to the bride of Christ; and we have seen have faithfully He fulfils His mission by giving to the members of the Church to be one, as He Himself is one. But the bride of a God, who is, as He calls Himself, the truth, must be in the truth, and can have no fellowship with error. Jesus entrusted His teachings to her care, and has instructed her in the person of the apostles. He said to them: 'All things whatsoever I have heard of My Father, I have made known to you.' And yet, if left unaided, how can the Church preserve free from all change, during the long ages of her existence, that word which Jesus has not written, that truth which He came from came from heaven to teach her? Experiences proves that everything changes here below; that written documents are open to false interpretations; and that unwritten traditions are frequently so altered in the course of time, as to defy recognition.

Here again we have a proof of our Lord's watchful love. In order to realize the wish He had to see us one, as He and His Father are one, He sent us His Spirit; and in order to keep us in the truth, He sent us this same Spirit who is called the Spirit of truth. 'When the Spirit of truth is come,' said He, 'He will teach you all truth.' And what is the truth which this Spirit will teach us? 'He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.'

So that nothing of what the divine Word spoke to men is to be lost. The beauty of His bride is to be based on truth, for 'beauty' is the splendour of truth.' Her fidelity to her Jesus shall be of the most perfect kind; for if He be the truth, how could she ever be out of the truth? Jesus had said: 'I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever; and He shall be in you.' It is by the Holy Ghost, then, that the Church is ever to possess the truth, and that nothing can rob her of it; for this Spirit, who is sent by the Father and the Son, will abide unceasingly with and in her.

The magnificent theory of St. Augustine comes most appropriately here. According to his teaching--which, after all, is but the explanation of the texts just cited--the Holy Ghost is the principle of the Church's life; and He, being the Spirit of truth, preserves and directs her in the truth, so that both her teaching and her practice cannot be other than expressions of the truth. He makes Himself responsible for her words, just as our spirit is responsible for what our tongue utters. Hence it is that the Church, by her union with the Holy Ghost, is so identified with truth, that the apostle did not hesitate to call her 'the pillar and ground of the truth'. The Christian, therefore, may well rest on the Church in all that regards faith. He knows that the Church is never alone; that she is always with the holy Spirit who lives within her; that her word is not her own, but the word of the Spirit, which is the word of Jesus.

Now, this word of Jesus is preserved in the Church by the Holy Ghost, and in two ways. He guards it as contained in the four Gospels, which the evangelists wrote under His inspiration. It is by His watchful care that these holy writings have been kept free from all changes during the past ages. The same is to be said of the other books of the new Testament, which were also written under the guidance of the same Spirit. Those of the old Testament are equally the result of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost: and, although they do not give us the words spoken by our Saviour during His mortal life, yet do they speak of Him, and foretell His coming, and contain, moreover, the primitive revelations made by God to mankind. The Books of sacred Writ are replete with mysteries, the interpretation of which is communicated to the Church by the Holy Ghost.

The other channel of Jesus' word is tradition. It was impossible for everything to be written; and even before the Gospels were composed, the Church was in existence. Tradition, like the written word itself, is from God; but unless the Spirit of truth watch over and protect it, how can it remain pure and intact? He therefore fixes it in the memory of the Church, He preserves it from any change: it is His mission; and thanks to the fidelity wherewith He fulfils His mission, the Church remains in possession of the whole treasure left her by her Spouse.

But it is not enough that the Church possesses the word, written and traditional: she must also have the understanding of that word, in order that she may explain it to her children. Truth came down from heaven that it might be communicated to men; for it is their light, and without it they would be in darkness, knowing not whither they are going. The Spirit of truth could not, therefore, be satisfied if the word of Jesus were kept as a hidden treasure; no, He will have it thrown open to men, that they may thence draw life to their souls. Consequently, the Church will have to be infallible in her teaching; for how can she be deceived herself, or deceive others, seeing it is the Spirit of truth who guides her in al things and speaks by her mouth? He is her soul; and we have already had St. Augustine telling us that wen the tongue speaks, the soul is responsible.

The infallibility of our holy mother the Church is the direct and immediate result of her having the spirit of truth abiding within her. It is the promise of the presence of the holy Spirit. The man who does not acknowledge the Church to be infallible, should, if he is consistent, admit that the Son of God has not been able to fulfil His promise, and that the Spirit of truth is a Spirit of error. But he that reasons thus, has strayed fro the path of life; he thought he was denying a prerogative to the Church, whereas, in reality, he was refused to believe God Himself. It is this that constitutes the sin of heresy. Want of due reflection may hide the awful conclusion; but the conclusion is strictly implied in his principle. The heretic is at variance with the Holy Ghost, because he is at variance with the Church; he may become once more a living member, by humbly returning to the bride of Christ; but at present he is dead, for the soul is not animating him. Let us again give ear to the great St. Augustine: 'It sometimes happens,' he says, 'that a member--say a hand, or a finger, or foot--is cut from the human body; tell me, does the soul follow the member that is thus severed? As long as it was in the body, it lived; now that it is cut off, it is dead. In the same manner, a Christian is a Catholic so long as he lives in the body (of the Church); cut off, he is a heretic; the Spirit follows not a member that is cut off.

Glory, then, be to the holy Spirit, who has conferred upon the bride the 'splendour of truth!' With regard to ourselves: could we, without incurring the greatest of dangers, put limits to the docility with which we receive the teachings which come to us simultaneously from 'the Spirit and the bride,' who are so indissolubly united? Whether the Church imitates what we are to believe, by showing us her own practice, or by simply expressing her sentiments, or by solemnly pronouncing a definition on the subject, we must receive her word with submission of heart. Her practice is ever in harmony with the truth, ad it is the Holy Ghost, her life-giving principle, that keeps it so; the utterance of her sentiments is but an aspiration of the same Spirit, who never leaves her; and as to the definitions she decrees, it is not she alone that decrees them, but the Holy Ghost who decrees them in and by her. If it be the visible head of the Church who utters the definition, we know that Jesus prayed that peer's faith might never fail, that He obtained it from the Father, and that He gave the Holy Ghost the mission of perpetuating the precious prerogative granted to Peter. If it be the sovereign Pontiff and bishops, assembled in council, who proclaim what is the faith on any given subject, it is the Holy Ghost who speaks by this collective judgment, make truth triumph, and puts error to flight. It tis this divine Spirit that has given to the bride to crush all heresies beneath her feet; it is He that, in all ages, has raised up within her learned men, who have confuted error whensoever or wheresoever it was broached.

So that our beloved mother the Church is gifted with infallibility; she is true, always and in all things; and she is indebted to Him who proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. But there is another glory which she owes to Him. The bride of the thrice holy God could not but be holy. She is so; and it is from the Spirit of holiness that receives her holiness. Truth and holiness are inseparably united in God. Hence it is hat our Saviour, who has willed us to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, and, creatures as we are, would have us take the infinite good as our model, prayed that we might be sanctified in the truth. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Paschal Time Book III: Volume 9, pp. 393-399.)

 

Availing ourselves of the Sacrament of Penance on a weekly basis, especially during this Lenten season of penance, and spending time before Our Beloved in His Real Presence will, in addition to offering up all of our daily prayers and penances and sufferings and humiliations and calumnies and mortifications to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, help to plant least a few seeds for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and the vanquishing of the friends of Antichrist such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Remember, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI rejects the Social Reign of Christ the King just as much as do adherents of the Talmud. They are one and the same in rejecting the Sacred Rights of Christ the King. We, therefore, must continue to beseech Our Lady to help us to usher in the day when all men and women will utter the cry popularized by the Cristeros in Mexico and the brave Catholics of Spain during the Spanish Revolution, a cry that has never been heard being uttered from the lips of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the cry that was uttered by Father Miguel Augustin Pro, S.J,, on November 23, 1927, as he was put to death by the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico:

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Consolation, 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.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

Material From The Great Facade Concerning "Cardinal" Ratzinger and "Cardinal" Kasper on the Jews during the "reign" of John Paul II

Cardinal Ratzinger himself began backpedaling almost immediately at the September 5 [2000] press conference itself. According to the Italian bishops' newspaper Avvenire, when asked whether DI [Dominus Iesus] taught that the Jews could not be saved without faith in Christ, Ratzinger offered the following non-answer: "Every Catholic theologian recognizes the salvific role of that people." Granted that "salvation is of the Jews," as our Lord taught us (John 4:22), but as He says immediately afterward: "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth"--that is, the Messiah has arrived and shall be adored by those who worship truly. Having rejected the Messiah, however, what "salvific role" does modern Israel play today? When pressed on whether an individual Jew could be saved without recognizing Christ, the Cardinal replied that "it is not necessary that he recognize Christ the savior, and it is not given to us to explore how salvation, the gift of God, can come even for him." Ratzinger went on to say that "Christ is a reality that changes history, even for those who do not recognize him." Are we to take from this that Christ saves the Jews whether they recognize him or not, simply because His existence "changes history"?

However, it appears that at the same press conference Ratzinger gave a more nuanced answer, apparently in response to another questioner:

[We]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it. However...Christian history affects us all, even those who are opposed or cannot encounter Christ. This is a reality that transforms history; it is something important for others, without violating their conscience.

Now, which is it--that a Jew need not recognize Christ in order to be saved, or that a Jew need not recognize Christ if there is an "insurmountable impediment"? Note also that Cardinal Ratzinger here repeats the suggestion that the mere presence of Christ in history "affects" Jews who reject him. What does this mean? One thing all these remarks mean is a diminution of the impact of DI's teaching that Christ is the sole mediator of the only way of salvation for all men--a teaching DI itself nuances nearly to the point of irrelevance.

Since the publication of DI was supposed to be the occasion for clarifying confusion about Christ and salvation, why not end a long period of postconciliar confusion by stating forthrightly what the Church always taught before the Council: "Yes, objectively speaking, a Jew must come to Christ and be baptized in order to be saved, just like everyone else in the human race; for Christ is God and He commissioned His Church to make disciples of all nations. This is what the Catholic Church has always taught and always will teach." Instead, Cardinal Ratzinger immediately focused on "insurmountable impediments." And what is an "insurmountable impediment" in the first place? Is this notion something even broader than the ever-expanding category of "invincible ignorance"? Cardinal Ratzinger gave no indications. However, if one of Rabbi Toaff's own predecessors as chief rabbi of Rome, Rabbi Israel Zolli, was able to follow God's grace into the Roman Catholic Church immediately after World War II, then why not Rabbi Toaff himself or any other Jew alive today--especially after thirty-five years of "Jewish-Christian" dialogue," which was supposed to engender greater understanding of the Church on the part of Jews?

Or is the mere fact of being a Jew, immersed in Jewish religion and culture, and facing ostracism if one converts, now to be considered an "insurmountable impediment" to conversion? If so, then no Jew from St. Paul to the present day has ever been subjectively obliged to join the Church; nor has anyone else in religious, emotional or cultural circumstances that would make conversion difficult. But this would mean that the only people obliged to become Catholics are those who would not find conversion unduly burdensome. Everyone else has an "insurmountable impediment." That is the very thesis being promoted by some of the more liberal exponents of "invincible ignorance," who speak of "unconscious psychological blocks" and other elaborate pseudo-scientific excuses for not becoming a Catholic that have proliferated since Vatican II. There is very little place for the power of God's grace in this kind of semi-Pelagian thinking. We are not here contending that Cardinal Ratzinger himself actually teaches anything like this, but in view of the veiled nature of his remarks it is difficult to know what he is teaching. A clarification of DI's "clarifications" is already urgently needed. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 369-372.)

n late 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a book entitled The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible that confirmed the radical (but non-Magisterial) drift of Rome's position vis-a-vis the Jews. The book argues that the Jews' continued wait for the Messiah is validated and justified by the Old Testament. "The expectancy of the Messiah was in the Old Testament," papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls explained, "and if the Old Testament keeps its value, then it keeps that as a value, too. It says you cannot just say all the Jews are wrong and we are right." Asked by reporters whether his statements might be taken to suggest that the Messiah may not in fact have come, Navarro-Valls replied, "It means it would be wrong for a Catholic to wait for the Messiah, but not for a Jew." The latest position of the Vatican apparatus (not be confused with the Church's constant Magisterium) is, in essence, that the Jews are perfectly entitled to live as if Christ has never come. They wait for "their" Messiah and we wait for ours. So much for the objective truth of the matter?

Cardinal Ratzinger put it this way: "The difference consists in the fact that for us he (sic) who will come will have the same traits of the Jesus who has already come." The same traits of that Jesus (is there more than one?)--and only "for us"? Would it make the slightest bit of sense to say that, for us, the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has the same traits of that Cardinal Ratzinger who occupies the offices of the CDF. What is to account for this apparent dread aversion to the simple, straightforward declaration that the Messiah for everyone, not just "for us," is Jesus Christ crucified in the flesh, and none other than He?

To say the least, the Cardinal's novel locution obscures the fact that that when Christ returns it will be as clear to the Jews as it is to everyone else in the world that this is the One Whom the Pharisees rejected when He walked amongst His people 2,000 years ago--the God Incarnate,Who said to the Pharisees, "Before Abraham was, I am," and Who sternly admonished them that "you shall not see me henceforth till you say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Matt. 23:38-39).

Evidently, we are to assume that the Holy Catholic Church was mistaken in the teaching of her traditional Good Friday liturgy. Now we are told that it is suddenly no longer a question of a hardening of the heart or or blindness, but merely a difference of opinion about whether there will be one or two comings of the same Messiah? The Cardinal's implication that the whole question of Jewish conversion can be reduced to the observation that Christ's return will represent His Second Coming for us but only a first coming for the Jews, with no eternal consequences arising from "the difference," dispenses with the entire tradition of the the Church.

The response of the neo-Catholic establishment this time was a stony silence. One can hardly blame them; every Catholic instinct must recoil in revulsion at this most recent (and almost unbelievable) display of cowardice. Jewish commentators delightedly hailed as a marvelous innovation. "This is a total novelty," said Chief Rabbi Joseph Levi of Florence. Rabbi Alberto Piatelli, a professor and Jewish leader in Rome, remarked: "This is something altogether new. . . . It recognizes the value of the Jewish position regarding the wait for the Messiah, changes the whole exegesis of biblical studies, and restores our biblical passages to their original meaning. I was surprised." And so yet another "surprise" is added to the mountain of surprises we have only attempted to sketch in this book. Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Press, 2002 , pp. 206-207.)