Part Five
by
Thomas A. Droleskey
Apart from the many ways by which he blasphemed the honor and majesty and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity during his 2784 days as the universal public face of apostasy, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI regularly blasphemed many of the Fathers and the Doctors of Holy Mother Church by attempting to make them witnesses in behalf of conciliarism and its multiple defections from the Holy Faith (see
Attempting to Coerce Perjury), a "novelty" that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has maintained and perfected as a "tradition" in his own twisted right.
Notably, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI blasphemed the thirteen million martyrs of the first centuries of the Church by claiming on December 22, 2005, that they died as "martyrs for religious liberty." The first martyrs died as martyrs for the Catholic Faith precisely because they refused to acknowledge false religions or to place them on a level of equality with the one and only true religion, Catholicism, revealed by the true God of Divine Revelation. As has been noted in other installments of this ongoing series, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has continued his predecessor's penchant for distorting, misrepresenting and contradicting the truths of the Catholic Faith, making short work of genuine history as he does so.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI also blasphemed the memory of the English Martyrs, each and every single one of whom refused to give any credence to the liturgical books of the false Anglican that he, Ratzinger/Benedict, accepted as legitimate even though they were declared heretical by Pope Saint Pius V in Regnans in Excelsis, March 5, 1570 (see
Defaming The English Martyrs and
Still Defaming The English Martyrs), and that Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae, September 15, 1896, declared to be null and void. Jorge Mario Bergoglio really believes that Justin Welby, the layman posing as the "archbishop" of Canterbury in the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect, is a "bishop" and has a mission from Christ the King to serve souls in His Holy Name.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has dared to spit in the face of God by claiming in a Talmudic synagogue that Christians and Jews "pray to the same Lord," showing himself to be bereft of the Catholic Faith (see Saint Peter and Anti-Peter), thereby mocking a mockery of the work begun by the first pope, Saint Peter, on this very day as he preached to the Jews to seek with urgency their unconditional conversion to the Catholic Faith. Jorge Mario Bergoglio has gone so far as to actually pray from the blasphemous Talmud, something that is itself an act of apostasy (see No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, part one
One of Ratzinger/Benedict's greatest specialties, however, was his distortion of genuine history in order to effect a "communion" with the Orthodox that is premised upon a belief that the doctrine of Papal Primacy was understood "differently" in the First Millennium that it was by the the time of the [First] Vatican Council.
Ratzinger/Benedict has given his own very personal expression of support for this long held view of his in a general audience address two years ago, thereby placing his own "papal" stamp on that which is nothing other than a complete and total distortion of the history of the papacy in the First Millennium of the Church. Readers will see in a moment that "Pope" Benedict XVI's views are identical to those of Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, views that have migrated from his own Principles of Catholic Theology (published in 1982) to the "unofficial" The Ravenna Document, October 13, 2007:
Turning then to refer specifically to "the study of a crucial theme in dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox: 'the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the first millennium'", a study which will subsequently "also extend to the second millennium", the Holy Father recalled how he had asked Catholics to pray "for this delicate dialogue which is so essential for the entire ecumenical movement". (CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR THE UNITY OF ALL CHRISTIANS; this link may no longer work. it was a Vatican Information Service report on a general audience address of Ratzinger/Benedict.)
After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and the people of Constantinople as "very Christian and orthodox", although their concept of the Roman primary was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 198-199)
It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.
We, the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, are convinced that the above statement on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority represents positive and significant progress in our dialogue, and that it provides a firm basis for future discussion of the question of primacy at the universal level in the Church. We are conscious that many difficult questions remain to be clarified, but we hope that, sustained by the prayer of Jesus “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17, 21), and in obedience to the Holy Spirit, we can build upon the agreement already reached. Reaffirming and confessing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5), we give glory to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has gathered us together. (The Ravenna Document)
Future discussion of "primacy at the universal level in the Church?
Difficult questions remain to be clarified?
The Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, needs to help reach "an agreement" on Papal Primacy?
Apostasy.
Yet it is that this apostasy is shared entirely by Jorge Mario Bergoglio:
Russia’s Metropolitan
Hilarion Alfeyev and Pope Francis met yesterday morning on the occasion
of the presentation of the late Sergei Averintsev’s book “Word of God
and word of man”. Yesterday the high representative of the Patriarchate
of Moscow confirmed how quickly Orthodox faithful in Russia are picking
up and interpreting the signals that are being sent out by the current
Bishop of Rome. The presentation of Averintsev’s book took place at the
Russian centre for science and culture in Rome.
The Patriarchate of Moscow’s “foreign affairs
minister” spoke about the great Russian philosopher who died in Vienna
in February 2004 and looked into ways in which ecumenical dialogue
between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches could be re-tuned in the
years to come.
In the post-Soviet years, the great Christian
scholar Averincev had already foreseen the fatal failure of an idea of
Christian unity which he defined as “political” or “ideological”. That
is, unity in Christianity described by many adjectives - conservative,
liberal and so on – a unity that follows world rules and tends to grow
out of an opposition towards someone or something, the unity of a
“religion without faith, without belief”,” Hilarion explained. The
Metropolitan quoted Averintsev to stress that common paths are only
possible if there is unity in “Christian Christianity”. This
unity is possible when one remains faithful to the Sacraments and the
dynamics of the Christians faith, despite all differences. The unity of
those who see every word of the Creed as an expression of their own
faith.”
This is just as valid today. Real Christian unity
cannot be distorted, with unity being formed out of opposition or
motivated by “ideological, pragmatic or propagandistic” elements.
Eastern and Western Churches “which have their roots in Apostolic
Christianity” “have the very special mission of testifying “Christian
Christianity” together, “professing the truth of the Cross together.” But
his joint confession will only be fruitful if we learn to see one
another not as adversaries, as we did during the crusades, nor as
rivals, as often happens today, but as workers who work together in the
Lord’s vineyard.” When “we can learn to value the differences that
distinguish our various religious traditions and stop looking for
external uniformity.”
In his message, Hilarion sees the basic element of
shared apostolic faith as a propelling factor of today’s and tomorrow’s
ecumenical path. It is a “return to the sources” which
can be developed also thanks to Pope Francis’ work. The Russian
Metropolitan eloquently concluded his speech by extensively quoting two
points made by the current Bishop of Rome. The first quotation was of
the words pronounced by Pope Francis on the return flight from Rio after
World Youth Day, referring to Dostoevskij and the Orthodox Churches:
“In the Orthodox Churches, they have retained that pristine liturgy,
which is so beautiful. We have lost some of the sense of adoration. The
Orthodox preserved it; they praise God, they adore God, they sing, time
does not matter.”
The second quotation by Francis which Hilarion
referred to and emphasised, was a passage from the Pope’s interview with
Italian Jesuit journal Civiltà Cattolica. Hilarion quoted the bit where
the Bishop of Rome wanted “to learn” from the Orthodox Church about “the meaning of Episcopal collegiality and the tradition of synodality.”
A shared reflection on how the Church was
governed in the early centuries “will bear fruit in due time,” Pope
Francis said in the interview quoted by Hilarion. “In ecumenical
relations it is important not only to know each other better, but also
to recognize what the Spirit has sown in the other as a gift for us,”
the Pope said.
The extensive review of the institute of the Synod
of Bishops, which Francis ordered, is a concrete sign of his willingness
to recognise what the Holy Spirit sewed along the path of the Orthodox
Churches as a gift for the Catholic Church. This means
ecumenical dialogue can venture down new and unknown paths, away from
the tedious ritualistic ceremonies between the two Churches. (Metropolitan Hilarion on Francis and “Christian Christianity”. See the appendix below for a list of ways in which the Orthodox defect from Catholic doctrine.)
"Christian Christianity"?
Well, that means putting aside divisive little things
such as doctrine despite all of the mutual assurances to the contrary
given by Bergoglio an his ecumaniacal partners such as the forty-seven
year-old Hilarion, who is the Russian Orthodox equivalent of the now
retired Walter Kasper and
his successor, Kurt Koch, as the President" of the "Pontifical" Council
for Promoting the Unity of Christians.
Yes, we have been down this road before. Many times before.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself greeted the Greek
Orthodox Patriarch, Bartholomew, as follows on Friday, June 28, 2013,the
Feast of Saint Irenaeus and the Vigil of the Feast of Saints Peter and
Paul:
I am particularly pleased
to greet you with a warm welcome to the Church of Rome, which is
celebrating its patron saints Peter and Paul. Your presence in this
circumstance is a sign of the deep bond that unites the Church of
Constantinople and the Church of Rome in faith, hope and love. The
beautiful custom, which began in 1969, of exchanging delegations
between our Churches for their patronal feast days, is for me a source
of great joy: fraternal encounter is an essential part of the journey
towards unity. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude
to Your Holiness Bartholomew I and the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, who wanted to once again send a high level delegation. I
remember with fraternal affection the gesture of exquisite attention
shown to me by Your Holiness Bartholomew, when you honored me with your
presence at the celebration of the beginning of my ministry as Bishop of Rome.
I am also very grateful to Your Eminence, for your participation in
this event and I am happy to see you again on this occasion.
The search for unity among Christians is an urgency which, today more than ever, we cannot ignore. In our world, hungry and thirsty for truth, love, hope, peace and
unity, it is important for our own witness, to be finally able to
announce with one voice the good news of the Gospel and to celebrate the
Divine Mysteries of the new life in Christ! We know very well that
unity is primarily a gift from God for which we must pray without
ceasing, but we all have the task of preparing the conditions, of
cultivating the soil of the heart, so that this extraordinary grace can
be received.
A fundamental contribution to the search for full communion between
Catholics and Orthodox is offered by the Joint International Commission
for Theological Dialogue, co-chaired by Your Eminence, Metropolitan
Ioannis, and by my venerable brother Cardinal Kurt Koch. I sincerely
thank you for your valuable and tireless commitment. This
Commission has already produced many common texts and is now studying
the delicate issue of theological and ecclesiological relationship
between primacy and synodality in the life of the Church. It is
significant that today we are able to reflect together, in truth and
love, on these issues, starting with what we have in common, but without
hiding that which still separates us. This is not merely a theoretical
exercise, but one of getting to know each other's traditions in order to
understand, and sometimes also to learn from them. I refer for example
to the reflection of the Catholic Church on the meaning of episcopal
collegiality, and the tradition of synodality, so typical of the
Orthodox Churches. I am confident that the effort of shared
reflection, so complex and laborious, will bear fruit in due time. I am
comforted to know that Catholics and Orthodox share the same conception
of dialogue that does not seek a theological minimalism on which to
reach a compromise, but rather is based on the deepening of the one
truth that Christ has given to His Church, which we never cease to
understand better as we are moved by the Holy Spirit. For this, we
should not be afraid of encounter and of true dialogue. It does not take
us away from the truth, but rather, through an exchange of gifts, it
leads us, under the guidance of the Spirit of truth, to the whole truth
(cf. Jn 16:13). (Francis the Flexible to Orthodox delegation from Ecumenical Patriarchate.)
As demonstrated earlier in this commentary, each of these bits of apostasy is in perfect continuity with the
Modernity mind and heart of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who gave his
own personal expression of support for the supposedly "unofficial" The Ravenna Document,
which was issued by the Joint International Commission for Theological
Dialogue on October 13, 2007, on a number of occasions, thereby placing
his "papal" seal of approval on the document and providing an "official"
expression of the views on the primacy of the "Petrine Ministry" in
light of how it was supposedly exercised in the First Millennium before
the Greek Schism of 1054. There is no space between Ratzinger and Bergoglio on the matter of "communion" with the Orthodox. None whatsoever.
Pope Leo XIII dealt with two-headed "pope" monster's false assertions about the alleged "synodality" of the First Millennium in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894:
First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world. Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned. We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.
The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ's Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs. Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood. The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known. Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.
And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, "in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report"; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began. Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.
We have recalled those things intentionally, for they constitute an invitation to peace and reconciliation; and with all the more reason that in Our own days it would seem as if there were a more conciliatory spirit towards Catholics on the part of the Eastern Churches, and even some degree of kindly feeling. To mention an instance, those sentiments were lately made manifest when some of Our faithful travelled to the East on a Holy Enterprise, and received so many proofs of courtesy and good-will.
Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: "What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified? What will our defense be in the eyes of posterity? Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren."
Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.
Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation. On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God's bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased.
May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: "Make the schisms of the Churches cease," and "Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West. (Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894. See also the excellent discussion of the the history of what led up to the Greek Schism that is contained in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki's Tumultuous Times.)
Ratzinger and Bergoglio have distorted history to suit their perverted purposes of effecting a false "communion" with the Orthodox. Those in the Motu world, especially those who believe in "resignationism," must suspend all pretense of rationality to contend that their man "Benedict" is more "orthodox" that the "bad" Bergoglio. Each man is more [Greek] Orthodox than Catholic. Indeed, neither man is a Catholic as they defect from numerous points of Catholic doctrine, placing them outside of the the Catholic Faith.
Ratzinger issued a joint statement with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, Bartholomew I, on November 30, 2006, that referred to their "responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ" while Bergoglio referred to Bartholomew as my "brother" last year:
This fraternal encounter which brings us together, Pope Benedict XVI of
Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, is God’s work, and in a certain
sense his gift. We give thanks to the Author of all that is good, who allows us
once again, in prayer and in dialogue, to express the joy we feel as brothers
and to renew our commitment to move towards full communion. This commitment
comes from the Lord’s will and from our responsibility as Pastors in the Church
of Christ. May our meeting be a sign and an encouragement for us to share the
same sentiments and the same attitudes of fraternity, cooperation and communion
in charity and truth. The Holy Spirit will help us to prepare the great day of
the re-establishment of full unity, whenever and however God wills it. Then we
shall truly be able to rejoice and be glad. (Common declaration by Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I, November 30, 2006.)
First of all I thank my Brother Andrew [Bartholomew I] very much for what he said. Thank you very much! Thank you!
It is a cause for particular joy to meet today with you, delegates of
the Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox churches and ecclesial
communities of the West. Thank you for having wanted to take part in the
celebration that has marked the beginning of my Ministry as Bishop of
Rome and successor of Peter.
Yesterday morning, during Holy Mass, through your persons I
recognized as spiritually present the communities that you represent. In
this manifestation of faith, I seemed to experience in an even more
urgent way the prayer for unity among believers in Christ and together
to see somehow foreshadowed that full realization, which depends on the
plan of God and on our loyal collaboration. (Address
to Representative of the Schismatic and Heretical Orthodox Churches,
Protesant sects, Talmudists, Mohammedans and Other Infidels, Masons and
Pantheists.)
Tornielli: This coming January marks the 50th anniversary of Paul VI’s historic visit to the Holy Land. Will you go?
Bergoglio: “Christmas
always makes us think of Bethlehem, and Bethlehem is a precise point in
the Holy Land where Jesus lived. On Christmas night, I think above all
with the Christians who live there, of those who are in difficulty, of
the many people who have had to leave that land because of various
problems. But Bethlehem is still Bethlehem. God arrived at a specific
time in a specific land; that is where God’s tenderness and grace
appeared. We cannot think of Christmas without thinking of the Holy
land. Fifty years ago, Paul VI had the courage to go out and go there
and this marked the beginning of the era of papal journeys. I would also
like to go there, to meet my brother Bartholomew, the Patriarch of
Constantinople, and commemorate this 50th anniversary with him, renewing
that embrace which took place between Pope Montini and Athenagoras in
Jerusalem, in 1964. We are preparing for this.” (Never Be Afraid of Tenderness)
No heretic/schismatic has any "pastoral ministry" to
fulfill in the "Church of Christ" as the Church of Christ is the
Catholic Church and none other.
Ratzinger did not have and Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not have such a "pastoral ministry"
in the Catholic Church as each is an apostate who has separated himself
from the bosom of Holy Mother Church.
Yes, one must believe in everything taught by Holy
Mother Church as it is been defined and understood from time immemorial
or he is simply not a Catholic.
Who says so?
Well, perhaps it would be good to take a look at the following sources:
With reference to its object, faith cannot be
greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard
to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very
same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of
truths. All are equal in this because everyone
must believe all the truths of faith--both those which God Himself has
directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church.
Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other
Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not
Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de
Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful
of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she
has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she
regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who
held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There
can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the
whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison,
infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by
Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who
were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the
Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of
doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius,
Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their
times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to
a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the
very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in
all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic
or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies,
which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one
single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church
who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been
so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or
been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
"For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one
Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in
the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one
Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And
therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered -
so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that
those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the
unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine
Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
In order to justify their defections from the Catholic Faith, Ratzinger/Benedict and Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis have given Catholics and non-Catholics alike a distorted view of history and in order to make it as though the new ecclesiology's concept of the "church as communion" has replaced the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church that there is no "Christian Church" outside of her. She is the one and sole embodiment of Christianity. The schismatic and heretical sects of Orthodoxy may have true sacraments because they possess true apostolic succession and have liturgical rites that that were used, at least for the most part, long before the Greek Schism of 1054. They do not have the Catholic Faith. Only those who adhere to the totality of the Deposit of Faith and are in full communion with a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter possess the Catholic Faith:
Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
Neither Ratzinger or Bergoglio believe that "believers" have to agree on everything taught by the Catholic Church. It is enough for there to be that nebulous "Christian Christianity" referred to by Bergoglio seven months ago now.
The Orthodox hold a particular appeal to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio as "Greek theology" is said to go back to "original sources" without the supposed distorted "filter" of the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas that the two-headed "pope" monster contends has corrupted both the meaning of Sacred Scripture and the writing of the early Church Fathers
Pope Pius XII made short work of this "re-reading" of "original sources" without relying upon the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas that was used by the Fathers of the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent and the [First] Vatican Council.
The following passages from Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis,
August 12, 1950, describe--and condemn--the entirety of the intellectual
work of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his successor, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis. Both Ratzinger and Bergoglio have used "vague notions" and outright heresies to appeal for "unity"
with the schismatic and heretical Orthodox churches without forcing them
to accept the dogmatic pronouncements of the Second Millennium that
were made without their "participation" and that were "distorted" by
Scholasticism as a result:
Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue
so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed
and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common
talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy
magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in
order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this
so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some
formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the
flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is
supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed
shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used
by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they
call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid
of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.
Unfortunately these advocates of
novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect
of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself,
which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology.
This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to
progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non-Catholics
consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified
theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred
Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate
and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has
been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred
Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and
interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee
also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly
"to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions
are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little
known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the
Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and
constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by
some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they
profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The
Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of
dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early
sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church
must be explained from the writings of the ancients. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
Thus stand condemned both Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis insofar as their willingness to do anything other but seek the unconditional conversion of the Orthodox to the the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there is no true social order.
Resignationism, anyone?
Utter, delusional nonsense.
There is no "space" between Joseph Ratzinger and Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
Obviously, we must, as always, spend time in prayer before Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, using the shield of Our Lady's Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel and the weapon of her Rosary to protect us from the contagion of apostasy and betrayal that is all around us. We must also, of course, make reparation for our own many sins by offering up all of our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices and humiliations and penances and mortifications and fastings to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must pray to her, the Spouse of God the Holy Ghost, to cooperate with the Seven Gifts and the Twelve Fruits of the Holy Ghost so that we can be instruments, unworthy though we may be, of planting the seeds for the restoration of Holy Mother Church and of the Social Reign of Christ the King so that everyone in the whole will exclaim with hearts consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Raymond of Pennafort, pray for us.
Saint Emerentiana, pray for us.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Appendix
Various Ways in Which the Orthodox Defect From the Deposit of Faith Entrusted to the Catholic Church
1. Papal Primacy.
2. Papal Infallibility.
3. The doctrine of Original Sin as defined dogmatically by the Catholic Church. The ambiguous doctrine of the Orthodox was noted by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, when discussing the Greek rejection of Limbo that is, of course, shared by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act.
This is what the Orthodox still believe, which makes them fit "partners" for "ecumenical dialogue" with Ratzinger/Benedict, who has told us in his own murky way that he is of one mind with them on the matter of Original Sin, which he called in 1995 an "imprecise" term (!). Here is a statement on Original Sin from the Orthodox Church in America:
With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West may be outlined as follows:
In the Orthodox Faith, the term "original sin" refers to the "first" sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the "consequences" of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word "original" may be seen as synonymous with "first." Hence, the "original sin" refers to the "first sin" in much the same way as "original chair" refers to the "first chair."
In the West, humanity likewise bears the "consequences" of the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term "Original Sin" here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.
In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.
One might look at all of this in a completely different light. Imagine, if you will, that one of your close relatives was a mass murderer. He committed many serious crimes for which he was found guilty and perhaps even admitted his guilt publicly. You, as his or her son or brother or cousin, may very well bear the consequences of his action - people may shy away from you or say, "Watch out for him - he comes from a family of mass murderers." Your name may be tainted, or you may face some other forms of discrimination as a consequence of your relative’s sin. You, however, are not personally guilty of his or her sin.
There are some within Orthodoxy who approach a westernized view of sin, primarily after the 17th and 18th centuries due to a variety of westernizing influences particularly in Ukraine and Russia after the time of Peter Mohyla. These influences have from time to time colored explanations of the Orthodox Faith which are in many respects lacking. (Orthodox Church in America, Questions and Answers on Original Sin)
This is not Catholic doctrine. This matter cannot be "bridged" by concerts of music composed by Russians.
4. The Filioque, that God the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
5. The doctrine of Purgatory as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church.
6. The doctrine of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church.
7. The doctrine of Our Lady's Assumption body and soul into Heaven as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church.
8. The doctrine of the indissolubility of a sacramentally valid, ratified and consummated marriage; the Orthodox hold that a person can marry up to three times following two divorces. Here is the Orthodox "consensus" (as there is no ultimate ecclesiastical authority within Orthodoxy to decide doctrinal matters) on the issue:
Marriage is one of the sacraments of the Orthodox Church. Orthodox Christians who marry must marry in the Church in order to be in sacramental communion with the Church. According to the Church canons, an Orthodox who marries outside the Church may not receive Holy Communion and may not serve as a sponsor, i.e. a Godparent at a Baptism, or as a sponsor at a Wedding. Certain marriages are prohibited by canon law, such as a marriage between first and second cousins, or between a Godparent and a Godchild. The first marriage of a man and a woman is honored by the Church with a richly symbolic service that eloquently speaks to everyone regarding the married state. The form of the service calls upon God to unite the couple through the prayer of the priest or bishop officiating.
The church will permit up to, but not more than, three marriages for any Orthodox Christian. If both partners are entering a second or third marriage, another form of the marriage ceremony is conducted, much more subdued and penitential in character. Marriages end either through the death of one of the partners or through ecclesiastical recognition of divorce. The Church grants "ecclesiastical divorces" on the basis of the exception given by Christ to his general prohibition of the practice. The Church has frequently deplored the rise of divorce and generally sees divorce as a tragic failure. Yet, the Orthodox Church also recognizes that sometimes the spiritual well-being of Christians caught in a broken and essentially nonexistent marriage justifies a divorce, with the right of one or both of the partners to remarry. Each parish priest is required to do all he can to help couples resolve their differences. If they cannot, and they obtain a civil divorce, they may apply for an ecclesiastical divorce in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church. In others, the judgment is left to the parish priest when and if a civilly divorced person seeks to remarry.
Those Orthodox jurisdictions which issue ecclesiastical divorces require a thorough evaluation of the situation, and the appearance of the civilly divorced couple before a local ecclesiastical court, where another investigation is made. Only after an ecclesiastical divorce is issued by the presiding bishop can they apply for an ecclesiastical license to remarry.
Though the Church would prefer that all Orthodox Christians would marry Orthodox Christians, it does not insist on it in practice. Out of its concern for the spiritual welfare of members who wish to marry a non-Orthodox Christian, the Church will conduct a "mixed marriage." For this purpose, a "non-Orthodox Christian" is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or one of the many Protestant Churches which believe in and baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity. This means that such mixed marriages may be performed in the Orthodox Church. However, the Orthodox Church does not perform marriages between Orthodox Christians and persons belonging to other religions, such as Islam , Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any sectarian and cult group, such as Christian Science, Mormonism, or the followers of Rev. Moon. (The Stand of the Orthodox Church on Controversial Issues.)
9. The absolute prohibition against the use of any form of contraception whatsoever. This is from the website of the Greek Orthodox Church in America:
General agreement exists among Orthodox writers on the following two points:
-
since at least one of the purposes of marriage is the birth of children, a couple acts immorally when it consistently uses contraceptive methods to avoid the birth of any children, if there are not extenuating circumstances;
-
contraception is also immoral when used to encourage the practice of fornication and adultery.
Less agreement exists among Eastern Orthodox authors on the issue of contraception within marriage for the spacing of children or for the limitation of the number of children. Some authors take a negative view and count any use of contraceptive methods within or outside of marriage as immoral (Papacostas, pp. 13-18; Gabriel Dionysiatou). These authors tend to emphasize as the primary and almost exclusive purpose of marriage the birth of children and their upbringing. They tend to consider any other exercise of the sexual function as the submission of this holy act to unworthy purposes, i.e., pleasure-seeking, passion, and bodily gratification, which are held to be inappropriate for the Christian growing in spiritual perfection. These teachers hold that the only alternative is sexual abstinence in marriage, which, though difficult, is both desirable and possible through the aid of the grace of God. It must be noted also that, for these writers, abortion and contraception are closely tied together, and often little or no distinction is made between the two. Further, it is hard to discern in their writings any difference in judgment between those who use contraceptive methods so as to have no children and those who use them to space and limit the number of children.
Other Orthodox writers have challenged this view by seriously questioning the Orthodoxy of the exclusive and all-controlling role of the procreative purpose of marriage (Zaphiris; Constantelos, 1975). Some note the inconsistency of the advocacy of sexual continence in marriage with the scriptural teaching that one of the purposes of marriage is to permit the ethical fulfillment of sexual drives, so as to avoid fornication and adultery (1 Cor. 7:1-7). Most authors, however, emphasize the sacramental nature of marriage and its place within the framework of Christian anthropology, seeing the sexual relationship of husband and wife as one aspect of the mutual growth of the couple in love and unity. This approach readily adapts itself to an ethical position that would not only permit but also enjoin sexual relationships of husband and wife for their own sake as expressions of mutual love. Such a view clearly would support the use of contraceptive practices for the purpose of spacing and limiting children so as to permit greater freedom of the couple in the expression of their mutual love. (For the Health of Body and Soul: An Eastern Orthodox Introduction to Bioethics.)
These are not minor matters. And this all going to be "bridged" by means of appeals to the "heart"? Preposterous.
A mutual dislike of Scholasticism and a desire to "re-read" the Church Fathers without the "filter" provided by Saint Thomas Aquinas links Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "New Theology" and the ambiguous doctrinal views of the Orthodox. I explored this in an article seventeen months ago now:
The following passages from Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, describe--and condemn--the entirety of the intellectual work of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is using his "vague notions" and outright heresies to appeal for "unity" with the schismatic and heretical Orthodox churches without forcing them to accept the dogmatic pronouncements of the Second Millennium that were made without their "participation" and that were "distorted" by Scholasticism as a result:
Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.
Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.
Such is not the foundation of any kind of true reconciliation between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, admitting that the counterfeit church of conciliarism can indeed "live" with these differences in the name of a false notion of "unity" and "love."
