The Path to Peace: Fatima

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Pope Benedict XVI's Easter Message was very similar to his Christmas Message four months ago, a call for peace and for the strengthening" of "international organizations." There is not one word in the Pope's two messages on peace about the necessity of adhering to Heaven's Plan for Peace, Our Lady's Fatima Message. No, men can accomplish peace on their own without a pope consecrating Russia to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart and without the ultimate fruit of such a consecration being realized, the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Following the path of each of the conciliar popes, starting with Pope John XXIII in 1958, Pope Benedict XVI has shown himself to deviate substantially from the teaching of the Catholic Church on the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ. This teaching is not an "invention" of certain Nineteenth Century popes. It is the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church and thus protected by the charism of infallibility. No Catholic is free to dissent from the perennial teaching on the nature of the State and its relation to the Church that were merely enunciated, not innovated, by popes from Gregory XVI to Pius XI.

Indeed, Pope Pius XI wrote the following in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio on December 23, 1922:

Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism.

One of the rhetorical tricks used by Modernists is to say that those things about the Catholic past they dislike  in the doctrinal realm are "time-conditioned" and thus lose their relevance over the time. This is the same trick that is used by Modernists in the realm of Scriptural studies when they claim that Our Lord Himself was "time-bound" and could not possibly have meant the words He uttered to apply in our own days, if, of course, He actually said those things at all. Pope Benedict XVI has shown his contempt for the traditional formulations of defined dogmatic statements through the course of his priesthood. He was under suspicion for heresy, along with his cronies Karl Rahner and Henri de Lubac, during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. This is not just the view of a "radical, schismatic" traditionalist. Other individuals, apart from crazy old Droleskey, can see plainly how the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger used ambiguous and at times novel terms to put into question things that had been defined clearly in unmistakably Catholic terms by previous popes and dogmatic councils.

James Larson, who writes for Christian Order, a publication based in the United Kingdom, noted the following in an article that appeared in the February, 2004, issue of that publication (the full text of the article, which deals with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 2001 overturning of Pope Leo XIII's condemnations of the writings of Father Antonio Rosmini is appended below):

In recent articles I have explored Cardinal Ratzinger’s attacks in his private writings upon the perennial truths of Magisterial documents such as the Syllabus of Pius IX, the Syllabus and encyclical Pascendi of Pius X, and also the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission under Pius X. What is about to unfold is an examination into what I believe constitutes his first attack upon a previous document of the Magisterium in his official capacity as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF]. As we shall see, this effort is aimed at the very heart of our faith, and especially at the Church’s infallible dogma of Transubstantiation. . . .

I am certainly one of those who for most of his 23 years as a Catholic would have followed this line of thinking. It has therefore been a great shock for me to discover Cardinal Ratzinger’s astonishing heterodoxy. At least some of his books contain statements which are simply heretical. I believe that they all contain much "fuzziness" – that sort of convoluted writing which should set off an alarm in discerning readers who possess a good sense of the Catholic Faith. One of the primary characteristics of heterodox theologians and writers is that they treat with bewildering complexity and confusion the same subjects which in the past have been dealt with by Popes, Church documents, and good spiritual writers in commendable clarity and simplicity. Encountering such writing (or speaking), the red flags should go up for an orthodox Catholic, and stay up.

What is most disturbing about this situation is the failure of very intelligent and learned Catholics to discern this lack of orthodoxy on Cardinal Ratzinger’s part, despite the extent of his published writings. The covers of several of his books are replete with praise and recommendations from many of those authors, priests, theologians, and even cardinals, upon whom many of us have come to rely for guidance in our faith.

I have considered compiling these violations of Catholic teaching, and I may do so in the future. I have come to the conclusion, however, that far more important than a thorough cataloguing of these errors is a penetration of the agenda and the methodology at their root. It has occurred to me, in fact, that the reason the specific errors of Cardinal Ratzinger have gone largely undetected is a failure to understand the nature of this agenda, or that there even is such an agenda. . . . .

On my table there are 14 books by Cardinal Ratzinger (3 of them being interviews). I believe that the distortions and contradictions of Catholic doctrine which they contain are extensive and overwhelmingly destructive to the faith of       Catholics. . . .

Neither Cardinal Ratzinger or anyone else can make the Magisterium contradict itself on matters of faith and morals. But he and others possess many subtle means (including private statements and writings, and also non-doctrinal elements in magisterial documents) of making it appear that this is not only possible, but that it has already happened. Worse yet, they can make Catholics believe it is not only permissible but that it is also perfectly sane Christianity.

I personally have no idea whether these attacks upon Catholic truth are done out of ignorance or malice – whether the Cardinal is simply a benighted child of his times or some sort of conspiratorial mole. What I have certainly come to believe is that these errors must be exposed, and that a full enquiry into his personal orthodoxy is a must. This, of course, can only be conducted by the Pope. It is time for a clarion call for this enquiry from all who are faithful and can understand what is at stake. What we are witnessing is a direct assault upon our first love.

Sadly, many "conservative" Catholics (say, at The Wanderer) want to ignore the heresies and errors that have been committed over the years by the current Holy Father, believing that the sheer force of their rhetorical flourish can positivistically make it appear as though the problem is not with the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger but with anyone and everyone who chooses to point out what he has said in his own words. What these unwitting apologists for Diabolical Disorientation do not understand is that there was no need to decipher with something approaching the theological equivalent of the Rosetta Stone the meaning of past dogmatic pronouncements and papal encyclical letters. Clarity, not ambiguity, was the keynote of these pronouncements and letters.

Take, for example, Pope Leo XIII's clear rejection of the State without Christ, the very reality that Pope Benedict XVI believes is the only means by which the State can be organized:

God alone is Life. All other beings partake of life, but are not life. Christ, from all eternity and by His very nature, is "the Life," just as He is the Truth, because He is God of God. From Him, as from its most sacred source, all life pervades and ever will pervade creation. Whatever is, is by Him; whatever lives, lives by Him. For by the Word "all things were made; and without Him was made nothing that was made." This is true of the natural life; but, as We have sufficiently indicated above, we have a much higher and better life, won for us by Christ's mercy, that is to say, "the life of grace," whose happy consummation is "the life of glory," to which all our thoughts and actions ought to be directed. The whole object of Christian doctrine and morality is that "we being dead to sin, should live to justice" (I Peter ii., 24)-that is, to virtue and holiness. In this consists the moral life, with the certain hope of a happy eternity. This justice, in order to be advantageous to salvation, is nourished by Christian faith. "The just man liveth by faith" (Galatians iii., II). "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews xi., 6). Consequently Jesus Christ, the creator and preserver of faith, also preserves and nourishes our moral life. This He does chiefly by the ministry of His Church. To Her, in His wise and merciful counsel, He has entrusted certain agencies which engender the supernatural life, protect it, and revive it if it should fail. This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime.

This is not a "time-conditioned" statement. This is a statement of irreformable Catholic truth. As a disciple of the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, Pope Benedict XVI believes that truth can contradict itself. He has stated that past magisterial statements cannot be the "final word" on certain subjects. He does not believe that it is necessary to seek the conversion of Jews, whose Old Covenant the Pope believes to be still in force, to save their souls, thereby placing him in direct contradiction to the first Pope himself, Saint Peter, and to the following dogmatic declaration of the Council of Florence, 1442:

The holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that 'no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels,' unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For the union with the body of the Church is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those who remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards from them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms, he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

Pope Benedict XVI does not believe that it is necessary to seek the conversion of Protestants to save their souls, thereby contradicting the work of canonized saints such as Saints Francis de Sales and Peter Canisius to seek the conversion of Protestants for fear that they might perish for all eternity if they died in their heretical and/or schismatic sects. The Holy Father has praised the work of Abbe Paul Couturier, the father of "spiritual ecumenism," whose belief in a federation of "Christian communities" was condemned, without his name being used, by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos in 1928. Anyone who does not want to face the truth about Pope Benedict XVI's embrace of Modernist ideas and formulations of the Faith is deceiving himself into thinking that the mind of the Holy Father is perfectly in conformity to the patrimony of the Church. It is not. He does not believe in the Faith as it has been handed down to us and as it has been taught to us always, everywhere and believed by everyone.

This statement of then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's proves his belief that there can be "new" interpretations and formulations of past dogmatic statements:

The text [of the Second Vatican Council] also presents the various forms of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching.  It affirms -- perhaps for the first time with this clarity -- that there are decisions of the Magisterium that cannot be a last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition.  Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications.

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

What apostolic or patristic authority can Father Johann Baptist Metz cite for his specious contention that dogmas once defined lose their substance once they have fulfilled the meaning of the historical context in which they were declared? None, that's what. None whatsoever. The only "authority" Father Johann Baptist Metz can cite for his novel approach of substituting Modernist thought for authentic Catholic doctrine is Georg Hegel's dialectical principle, the belief that truth contains within itself the seeds of its own contradiction, producing a clash between itself and its antithesis that results in the creation of a new idea, a synthesis.

For Metz and other proponents of the "New Theology," one era of history closes and a new era dawns as a result of the first era's own internal contradictions. Christendom, therefore, has come and gone, never to be recaptured. The Church must make her accommodation to the ever-evolving realities of our present day, content to pay lip-service to what was taught in the past but intent to obliterate, under the specious pretext of a "more profound understanding," the consistent meaning of what was taught perennially.

Pope Benedict XVI and his fellow travelers, including Father Johann Baptist Metz, are in clear conflict with this dogmatic definition of the First Vatican Council:

Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema.

It was precisely an alleged "advancement of knowledge" that caused Pope Leo XIII's condemnation of Father Antonio Rosmini to be overturned in 2001 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. It is precisely in the name of "a more profound understanding" that the Holy Father advances the conciliarist agenda of ecumenism, which reaffirms people unto their deaths in false religions that have the power to save no one, and the lie of the secular state. The Holy Father has no regard for the anathemas imposed by past popes and by dogmatic councils of the Church.

Some will say that it is rather brazen to write in this way about the Vicar of Christ. What authority can I cite for writing in this way? Well, let's try one of those "popes of the past," Pope Paul IV. He wrote the following in Cum Ex Apostolatus, February 15, 1559:

In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.

Yes, there are other parts of Cum Ex Apostolatus that might apply directly to Pope Benedict XVI. A conference featuring well-trained priests (and only priests) on Paragraph 6 of Cum Ex Apostolatus might be very illuminating.  Such a conference would not have to focus on the Holy Father's continued appointment of homosexualist bishops and his continued toleration of abominations as take place annually at the Los Angeles Religious Education Conference in Anaheim, California, where worship was offered to false gods last month. Such a conference would focus solely on Pope Benedict XVI's writings and talks, both before he assumed the pontificate a year ago and thereafter. You see, as Pope Paul IV made clear in Cum Ex Apostolatus, even a popes's writings as a private theologian can betray a deviation of the Faith in and of themselves. Mr. Larson, below, accused then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger of believing in the Lutheran heresy of consubstantiation. This is very serious. Serious theologians need to examine the current Holy Father's errors and possible heresies with clear and sober minds.

For present purposes, however, I hope that it is clear that a criticism of our current Holy Father, for whom we must pray every day without fail, is perfectly in line with the patrimony of the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict XVI has a long paper trail of writings that places him at odds with the Church's perennial teaching on a variety of subjects. Only those who want to suspend the exercise of rationality can deny this. We must resist error and refute falsehood. This is our duty as Catholics, even when it comes to the Supreme Pontiff, as Pope Paul IV noted in 1559. And it is fundamentally false that there can be any kind of "peace" in the world absent the restoration of Christendom, which itself will be the fruit of a pope's humble and docile obedience to the Mother of God's Fatima Peace Plan.

Pope Benedict XVI speaks of "world peace" and an end to terrorism without seeking to restore Christendom. It is clear that he rejects, completely and utterly, the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church as enunciated by Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio:

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail.

It is apparent from these considerations that true peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life. If this were done, then society being placed at last on a sound foundation, the Church would be able, in the exercise of its divinely given ministry and by means of the teaching authority which results therefrom, to protect all the rights of God over men and nations.

It is possible to sum up all We have said in one word, "the Kingdom of Christ." For Jesus Christ reigns over the minds of individuals by His teachings, in their hearts by His love, in each one's life by the living according to His law and the imitating of His example. Jesus reigns over the family when it, modeled after the holy ideals of the sacrament of matrimony instituted by Christ, maintains unspotted its true character of sanctuary. In such a sanctuary of love, parental authority is fashioned after the authority of God, the Father, from Whom, as a matter of fact, it originates and after which even it is named. (Ephesians iii, 15) The obedience of the children imitates that of the Divine Child of Nazareth, and the whole family life is inspired by the sacred ideals of the Holy Family. Finally, Jesus Christ reigns over society when men recognize and reverence the sovereignty of Christ, when they accept the divine origin and control over all social forces, a recognition which is the basis of the right to command for those in authority and of the duty to obey for those who are subjects, a duty which cannot but ennoble all who live up to its demands. Christ reigns where the position in society which He Himself has assigned to His Church is recognized, for He bestowed on the Church the status and the constitution of a society which, by reason of the perfect ends which it is called upon to attain, must be held to be supreme in its own sphere; He also made her the depository and interpreter of His divine teachings, and, by consequence, the teacher and guide of every other society whatsoever, not of course in the sense that she should abstract in the least from their authority, each in its own sphere supreme, but that she should really perfect their authority, just as divine grace perfects human nature, and should give to them the assistance necessary for men to attain their true final end, eternal happiness, and by that very fact make them the more deserving and certain promoters of their happiness here below.

It is, therefore, a fact which cannot be questioned that the true peace of Christ can only exist in the Kingdom of Christ -- "the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ." It is no less unquestionable that, in doing all we can to bring about the re-establishment of Christ's kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace.

Pius X in taking as his motto "To restore all things in Christ" was inspired from on High to lay the foundations of that "work of peace" which became the program and principal task of Benedict XV. These two programs of Our Predecessors We desire to unite in one -- the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Christ by peace in Christ -- "the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ." With might and main We shall ever strive to bring about this peace, putting Our trust in God, Who when He called Us to the Chair of Peter, promised that the divine assistance would never fail Us. We ask that all assist and co-operate with Us in this Our mission. Particularly We ask you to aid us, Venerable Brothers, you, His sheep, whom Our leader and Lord, Jesus Christ, has called to feed and to watch over as the most precious portion of His flock, which comprises all mankind. For, it is you whom the "Holy Ghost hath placed to rule the Church of God" (Acts xx, 28), you to whom above all, and principally, God "hath given the ministry of reconciliation, and who for Christ therefore are ambassadors." (II Cor. v, 18, 20) You participate in His teaching power and are "the dispensers of the mysteries of God." (I Cor. iv, 1) You have been called by Him "the salt of the earth," "the light of the world" (Matt. v, 13, 14), fathers and teachers of Christian peoples, "a pattern of the flock from the heart" (I Peter v, 3), and "you shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. v, 19) In fine, you are the links of gold, as it were, by which "the whole body of Christ, which is the Church, is held compacted and fitly joined together" (Ephesians iv, 15, 16), built as it is on the solid rock of Peter.

There is no fuzziness here. No ambiguity. No concessions to a "healthy secularity." Only a fidelity to the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church. This is what we need to hear again from a Successor of Saint Peter. This is what we need to hear again from every bishop and priest. This is what we need to have taught in our schools and religious education programs. This is what we need to have implanted firmly in our hearts, consecrated as they must be to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. We need to the Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ. We need the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

To this end, therefore, we must pray and make many sacrifices, yes, even in this Easter season of rejoicing. We must be assiduous about building up the Reign of Christ the King in our lives so as to be some small instrument in undoing the effects of our sins upon ourselves and upon the Church Militant here on earth. For one of the ways we can restore the Social Reign of Christ in the world is to make sure that He reigns completely in our hearts, minds, bodies and souls.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great, pray for us.

Saint Jerome, pray for us.

Saint Augustine, pray for us.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Saint Charles Borromeo, pray for us.

Saint Robert Bellarmine, pray for us.

Saint Louis IX, King of France, pray for us.

Saint Henry, pray for us.

Saint Wenceslaus, pray for us.

Saint Canute, pray for us.

Saint Edward the Confessor, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us.

Saint Maximilian Mary Kolbe, pray for us.

Blessed Emperor Charles, pray for us.

Blessed Jacinta, pray for us.

Blessed Francisco, pray for us.

Sister Lucia, pray for us.

February 2004

A seminal critique, deserving the widest
possible circulation and consideration.

Rosmini’s Rehabilitation
and the Ratzinger Agenda

~ When To Be Is Not To Be ~

JAMES LARSON

Recognizing that most readers probably are not familiar with the name Rosmini, I shall begin by asking them to persevere. In recent articles I have explored Cardinal Ratzinger’s attacks in his private writings upon the perennial truths of Magisterial documents such as the Syllabus of Pius IX, the Syllabus and encyclical Pascendi of Pius X, and also the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission under Pius X. What is about to unfold is an examination into what I believe constitutes his first attack upon a previous document of the Magisterium in his official capacity as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF]. As we shall see, this effort is aimed at the very heart of our faith, and especially at the Church’s infallible dogma of Transubstantiation.

Shattered Trust

One of the most difficult things for the human heart to suffer is a shattering of trust. This is especially true when the person who is the subject of our trust has been integral to our deepest religious beliefs. Probably no one reading this article needs to be told of the almost unlimited number of such cases involving bishops, priests, nuns, brothers, lay teachers, etc. which have occurred among the Catholic faithful in the last 35 years. During this period of devastating chaos many Catholics have felt deep solace in the belief that they could still place their trust in a "few good men", who have been given by God to protect the universal Church from the attacks of its enemies. If we were to take a poll as to who these good men were in the estimation of orthodox Catholics, certainly first place would go to Pope John Paul II. Almost surely, second place would be awarded to Cardinal Ratzinger.

I am certainly one of those who for most of his 23 years as a Catholic would have followed this line of thinking. It has therefore been a great shock for me to discover Cardinal Ratzinger’s astonishing heterodoxy. At least some of his books contain statements which are simply heretical. I believe that they all contain much "fuzziness" – that sort of convoluted writing which should set off an alarm in discerning readers who possess a good sense of the Catholic Faith. One of the primary characteristics of heterodox theologians and writers is that they treat with bewildering complexity and confusion the same subjects which in the past have been dealt with by Popes, Church documents, and good spiritual writers in commendable clarity and simplicity. Encountering such writing (or speaking), the red flags should go up for an orthodox Catholic, and stay up.

What is most disturbing about this situation is the failure of very intelligent and learned Catholics to discern this lack of orthodoxy on Cardinal Ratzinger’s part, despite the extent of his published writings. The covers of several of his books are replete with praise and recommendations from many of those authors, priests, theologians, and even cardinals, upon whom many of us have come to rely for guidance in our faith.

I have considered compiling these violations of Catholic teaching, and I may do so in the future. I have come to the conclusion, however, that far more important than a thorough cataloguing of these errors is a penetration of the agenda and the methodology at their root. It has occurred to me, in fact, that the reason the specific errors of Cardinal Ratzinger have gone largely undetected is a failure to understand the nature of this agenda, or that there even is such an agenda. It is to remedy this situation that the following is offered:

The Rosmini Rehabilitation

On 1 July, 2001, the CDF issued a NOTE on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees Concerning the Thought and Work of Fr. Antonio Rosmini Serbati. The Note was signed by Cardinal Ratzinger and confirmed by Pope John Paul II. Its decision reads as follows:

"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, following an in-depth examination of the two doctrinal Decrees, promulgated in the 19th century, and taking into account the results emerging from historiography and from the scientific and theoretical research of the last ten years has reached the following conclusion: The motives for doctrinal and prudential concern and difficulty that determined the promulgation of the Decree Post obitum [issued by the Holy Office and confirmed by Pope Leo XIII on 14 Dec, 1887] with the condemnation of the "40 Propositions" taken from the works of Anthony Rosmini can now be considered superseded. This is so because the meaning of the propositions, as understood and condemned by the Decree, does not belong to the authentic position of Rosmini, but to conclusions that may possibly have been drawn from the reading of his works."

We shall be quoting further from this document, but let us now turn to some of the condemned propositions (they are to be found in Denzinger 1891ff.). Please keep in mind that, despite the impression which may be give by the last sentence in the above quote, all of the following are taken from Rosmini’s works. They are his words, and not conclusions which someone else has drawn from reading these works. We will begin with some of those which deal with the relationship between God and His creation: between Infinite Being and finite being. Again, I ask for perseverance. Heterodox philosophers are not known for the clarity of their propositions. I can assure the reader, however, that after a short period of suffering and possible vertigo, clarity shall return:

#4 "Indeterminate being, which without doubt is known to all intelligences, is that divine thing which is manifest to man in nature."

#6 "In the being which prescinds from creatures and from God, which is indeterminate being, and in God, not indeterminate but absolute being, the essence is the same."

#12 "There is no finite reality, but God causes it to exist by adding limitation to infinite reality. – Initial being becomes the essence of every real being. – Being which actuates finite natures, and is joined with them, is cut off by God."

#18 "The love by which God loves Himself even in creatures, and which is the reason why He determines Himself to create, constitutes a moral necessity…."

#19 "The Word is that unseen material, from which, as it is said in wisdom 11:18, all things of the universe were created."

Despite some characteristic "fuzziness" and convoluted phrasing, there is no doubt that we are here dealing with clear statements of pantheism. There is simply no way that anyone can say that finite reality comes to exist through a limiting of infinite reality, and that the essence of the being which is in God and the being which is in creatures are the same, without this constituting pantheism.

Nor is there any way that one can say that the love which "determines" God to create constitutes a moral necessity, without violating the non-dependence of God or the absolute gratuitousness of His relationship to creatures. Finally, it is impossible that these statements, considering their objective content, could be placed in any larger "system" or context which would clear them of their heretical content.

Rosmini’s Erroneous System

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia renders a very good explanation of the Rosminian system of ontology (the philosophical study of the nature of being). Rosmini postulates three types of being: Absolute, ideal, and real. Absolute Being is identical with God’s Nature and outside of man’s immediate experience. The other two types of being are within man’s experience, and are named ideal being and real being.

Ideal being is universal, simple, immutable, eternal, and indeterminate. Real being is determinate, contingent, temporal, and almost infinitely manifold and varied. Real being is, in fact, what we experience in all the varied, individual things of our world. What makes the Rosmini system fuzzy and difficult to understand is his concept of "ideal being." The Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

"Ideal being [in the Rosmini system] is not God, but we may call it, says Rosmini, an appurtenance of God, and even Divine, for its characteristics are not those of created finite things, and its ultimate source must be in God."

All creation, according to Rosmini, is therefore a creation "out of" God (or "from the Word" as proposition #19 above would have it). It is a "limiting" of that unlimited "ideal being" (also called "initial" being) which is "in" God. This is pure pantheism, and a clear denial of creation ex nihilo.

On the other side of the Rosmini coin, all our perceptions of real things involve a direct knowledge and contact with "ideal being" which is an "appurtenance" of God, is in God, and therefore may be called Divine. This constitutes the heresy of "ontologism", the belief that human intelligence has a direct intuitive knowledge of God or "the Divine" in its knowledge of created things.

Further Heresies

Rosmini’s errors were certainly not limited to ontology or cosmoslogy. The following constitutes a Trinitarian and Christological heresy:

#26 (in part): "The Word, insofar as it is the loved object, and insofar as it is the Word, that is the object subsisting in itself, known by itself, is the person of the Holy Spirit."

It is difficult for us to imagine a seminary-trained priest of the 19th century proclaiming that Christ is the Holy Spirit. To do so is simply to deny the real distinctions between the Three Divine Persons which is integral to belief in the Trinity.

Another Christological heresy:

#27: "In the humanity of Christ the human will was so taken up by the Holy Spirit in order to cling to objective Being, that is to the Word, that it (the will) gave over the rule of man wholly to Him, and assumed the Word personally, thus uniting with itself human nature. Hence, the human will ceased to be personal in man, and, although person is in other men, it remained nature in Christ."

This would appear to be simply a repetition of the Monothelite heresy of the seventh century, which taught that the union of the Divine and human natures in the one Divine Person of Christ only involved the possession and activity of one will – the Divine. Under such an erroneous "Christology" the obedience of Christ to the Cross would have meant nothing – His human nature being only an "un-willing" victim of the Divine Will.

We conclude with his Eucharistic heresies:

#1919: "We think that the following conjecture is by no means at variance with Catholic doctrine, which alone is truth: In the Eucharistic sacrament the substance of bread and wine becomes the true flesh and true blood of Christ, when Christ makes it the terminus of His sentient principle, and vivifies it with His life; almost in that way by which bread and wine truly are transubstantiated into our flesh and blood, because they become the terminus of our sentient principle."

#1921: "In the sacrament of the Eucharist by the power of words the body and blood of Christ are present only in that measure which corresponds (a quell tanto) to the substance of the bread and wine, which are transubstantiated; the rest of the body of Christ is there through concomitance."

We should note, before going on, that Rosmini uses the word "transubstantiated" in a manner that does not correspond with Catholic doctrine. In no way is he speaking of that conversion of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, which conversion the Council of Trent defines as Transubstantiation. His use of the word is therefore a matter of blatant intellectual deception.

Holy Office Condemnations

Rosmini himself gave little sign of obstinacy to Church discipline during his life. Although the above condemnations were issued approximately 32 years after he died, and the majority of the condemned propositions occur in works published posthumously, two of his works were condemned in 1849, six years before his death, which decision Rosmini immediately accepted.

In 1854 all of his published works were examined and the case was dismissed with, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "nothing disparaging to the author." This, of course, did not constitute an endorsement of the orthodoxy of the author’s then published works, and certainly not of those works published posthumously, from which most of the condemned propositions are taken. It was upon further examination of his works published both before and after his death that the Holy Office (with the confirmation of Leo XIII) finally issued the condemnations of the 40 propositions.

CDF U-turn

There is absolutely no question that the propositions which we have examined (and others as well) are not reconcilable with Catholic doctrine. What, therefore, can it possibly mean when the CDF Note makes the following statement?

"The motives for doctrinal and prudential concern and difficulty that determined the promulgation of the Decree Post obitum with the condemnation of the "40 Propositions"…can now be considered superseded. This is so because the meaning of the propositions, as understood and condemned by the Decree, does not belong to the authentic position of Rosmini, but to conclusions that may possibly have been drawn from the reading of his works."

All the propositions condemned are admittedly taken from Rosmini’s own statements and works. We have the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia that these teachings are indeed part of the "Rosmini system". Further, there exists a publishing group called Rosmini House in Durham, UK, dedicated to the publishing of Rosmini’s teachings. A study of these teachings to be found on their website [www.rosmini-in-english.org] certainly confirms that they are an integral part of his system of thought.

We have every right, therefore, to question the validity of the CDF statement that the obvious meanings of many of these propositions do not belong to "the position of Rosmini."

The most astounding thing about the CDF document is that immediately after making the above statement, we then read the following assertion:

"At the same time the objective validity of the Decree Post obitum referring to the previously condemned propositions, remains for whoever reads them, outside of the Rosminian system, in an idealist, ontologist point of view and with a meaning contrary to Catholic faith and doctrine."

In other words (according to the reasoning of the CDF document): What Rosmini said, he did not really say. But what Rosmini said that he did not really say is condemned outside of what he really said if interpreted in the obvious sense which he obviously meant but which is not really a part of what he said.

All of this would seem to be Orwellian Newspeak at its worst. When confronted with such apparent confusion and violations of simple intelligence we must certainly seek the deeper reasons, which I believe are profoundly disturbing.

Heart of the Matter

In past issues of CO I have dealt with the reality and concept of being, and the war that is being conducted against it. In Thomistic ontology, the flaming swords which guard the gate to being, and therefore to all reality, are the Principle of Contradiction and the Principle of the Excluded Middle. These are the logical principles inscribed in our hearts and minds by God which are the foundations of all our perception of reality. These principles simply say that a thing either is or it is not, that a thing cannot both be and not be, and that we do not have a third alternative – something, as it were, in the middle between being and non-being. To dismiss either of these two metaphorical angels guarding the door of being is to swing wide open the doors of Hell, and to surrender ourselves to intellectual insanity – with moral and emotional insanity a short distance down the road.

For any orthodox Catholic, these Principles of Being are intimately tied to the inerrancy of the Magisterium and the necessary conviction that, because the Magisterium is a true expression of God’s unchangeable being and truth, something cannot at one moment be taught as essential truth, and at some future time be taught as false. Or its corollary: that something cannot at one time be condemned as error, and subsequently be taught as free from error. Satan’s strategic plan against all Catholics must therefore include the attempt to make us believe that the Church’s Magisterium has violated this principle of reality, and that we must therefore accept the fact that the Magisterium can and has contradicted itself in its fundamental nature as guardian of the truth.

There is no question but that the CDF rehabilitation of Rosmini has given the definite impression that this is exactly what has been done by the Magisterium (even though, as we have seen, it has not actually been done since it leaves intact the condemnation of these propositions if they are interpreted in what we have shown to be their obvious "idealist, ontologist" – in other words, pantheistic – point of view).

The CDF attributes the 19th century condemnation of these 40 Propositions of Rosmini primarily to the renewal of Thomism promoted by Pope Leo XIII. According to the Note, this subjection of all studies to Thomistic philosophy and theology was a provisional or temporary policy adopted by the Church "to oppose the risk of an eclectic philosophical approach." And further, "The adoption of Thomism created the premises for a negative judgement of a philosophical and speculative position, like that of Rosmini, because it differed in its language and conceptual framework from the philosophical and theological elaboration of St. Thomas Aquinas."

We have now reached the heart of the problem. What is at stake here is Thomism, and all that it teaches us about God, man, and the nature of being. I fully believe that the real reason behind the Rosmini rehabilitation is the agenda to implement alternatives to Thomistic philosophy and theology. And as I have said in previous writings, the central point of contention in this war against Thomism, and against both the being of God and man, is the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Embarrassed by an ontological teaching concerning being, substance, and accidents – a teaching which directly contradicts the reductive philosophy of modern analytical science – these men are intent on establishing an alternative to Thomistic ontology, and to the doctrine of Transubstantiation which "incarnates" this philosophy into Catholic doctrine and belief. The Holy Spirit indeed does prevent any magisterial document from outright contradiction of the defined doctrine of Transubstantiation (or any other doctrine), but It does not necessarily protect us from the confusion generated by non-doctrinal elements in documents such as this Note, even though they be issued by the teaching office of the Church.

The Ratzinger Agenda

Readers of my War Against Being may remember Cardinal Ratzinger’s words quoted from his press release that accompanied the CDF document titled Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian (24 May1990), in which he says that this document "states – perhaps for the first time – that there are magisterial decisions which cannot be the final word on a given matter as such but, despite the permanent value of their principles, are chiefly also a signal for pastoral prudence, a sort of provisional policy."

There certainly is no problem with the notion that not all that is contained in documents issued by the Magisterium constitute doctrinal statements. Papal encyclicals, for instance, contain things which are not doctrinal, not subject to the criteria of infallibility, and therefore susceptible to change. We have just witnessed what may be the most classic case of this sort of non-binding teaching in the non-sense of the CDF Note. The problem, however, is that Cardinal Ratzinger, in his private writings, is applying this criteria of being "provisional" and "capable of being superseded" to doctrinal formulations of the Magisterium of many previous Popes (as I have very clearly documented in War Against Being). And in the Note which we have been examining, he seems to be trying to make it appear as though this superseding of doctrine is possible within the Magisterium itself.

Again, I believe that the ultimate target in all of this is the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

In the year 2000 there appeared (in German) Cardinal Ratzinger’s book God and the World, Believing and Living in Our Time (English edition Ignatius Press, 2002). The Work actually consists of conversations with journalist Peter Seewald. In their discussion of the Real Presence, Mr. Seewald makes the following statement concerning Cardinal Ratzinger’s proclaimed belief in Transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist: "But anyone can see that the wine remains wine…". Cardinal Ratzinger’s reply is as follows:

"But this is not a statement of physics. It has never been asserted that, so to say, nature in a physical sense is being changed. The transformation reaches down to a more profound level. Tradition has it that this is a metaphysical process. Christ lays hold upon what is, from a purely physical viewpoint, bread and wine, in its inmost being, so that it is changed from within and Christ truly gives himself in them"[emphasis mine].

In the seven pages of the interview which deal with the Eucharist, Cardinal Ratzinger uses the word "transubstantiation" or "transubstantiated" four times. Like Rosmini, however, he uses the word in a fashion which violates its meaning. While repeatedly using the word, he is personally contradicting the Church’s defined doctrine of Transubstantiation – that the entire substance of the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, only the accidents (appearances) remaining – and is instead embracing consubstantiation (the belief that Christ is in, under, or with the bread) under the guise of transubstantiation.

It only makes sense, therefore, that on the previous page of this book the Cardinal states that "Luther held out (against Calvin, etc.) in favour of transubstantiation here, with great emphasis…". The Cardinal has simply changed the meaning of the word transubstantiation so that it is similar to the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation. The notion that Luther held on to the belief in Transubstantiation is a total absurdity. He detested both St. Thomas and the doctrine of Transubstantiation. In his Large Catechism he writes: "What then is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine…". As the Lutheran Formula of Concord states: "Just as in Christ two distinct unchanged natures are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth in the appointed administration of the Sacrament (#37)." The Lutheran formulation for the real presence is "in pane, sub pane, cum pane" – "in the bread, under the bread, with the bread (#38)."

The Ratzinger Effect

Neither Cardinal Ratzinger or anyone else can make the Magisterium contradict itself on matters of faith and morals. But he and others possess many subtle means (including private statements and writings, and also non-doctrinal elements in magisterial documents) of making it appear that this is not only possible, but that it has already happened. Worse yet, they can make Catholics believe it is not only permissible but that it is also perfectly sane Christianity.

Arch-Modernists like Gregory Baum immediately seized on the Rosmini rehabilitation to reinforce that very line of thinking and to bolster the heretical view of a fallible Magisterium. "We are bound to ask with Ratzinger," wrote the supercilious Baum, "whether there is an internal contradiction in the magisterium. Were the solemn declarations of Boniface VIII and the Council of Florence [regarding extra ecclesiam, nulla salus] wrong?" And having encouraged such questions, the Cardinal can hardly complain about the heresy they engender, or the loss of faith among Catholics which is the inevitable fruit of the filtering down of these errors. Baum concludes: "I would argue – these declarations were wrong. The magisterium has made mistakes. The church [sic], guided by the Spirit is forever learning" [National Catholic Reporter, 25/1/02]. May we not safely assume that this conclusion which the Modernist has greeted with conscious rejoicing, is also being assimilated viscerally by the average Catholic?

It would seem, on the other hand, that faithful and even militant Catholics cannot comprehend what is seen so easily by the enemy. How many "orthodox" Catholics have read the above-quoted passage from Cardinal Ratzinger on the Real Presence and have not blinked an eye or uttered a protest? The obvious answer to this question begs another: How close are we all to that mental and moral insanity which concludes that "To be is not to be"?

Papal Enquiry

On my table there are 14 books by Cardinal Ratzinger (3 of them being interviews). I believe that the distortions and contradictions of Catholic doctrine which they contain are extensive and overwhelmingly destructive to the faith of Catholics.

I personally have no idea whether these attacks upon Catholic truth are done out of ignorance or malice – whether the Cardinal is simply a benighted child of his times or some sort of conspiratorial mole. What I have certainly come to believe is that these errors must be exposed, and that a full enquiry into his personal orthodoxy is a must. This, of course, can only be conducted by the Pope. It is time for a clarion call for this enquiry from all who are faithful and can understand what is at stake. What we are witnessing is a direct assault upon our first love.

ADDENDUM

The Ratzinger Eucharistic Heresy

Having just read Cardinal Ratzinger’s most recently published book, God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life (Ignatius Press, 2003), I offer the following quote from one of its chapters titled The Presence of the Lord in the Sacrament:

"The transformation happens, which affects the gifts we bring by taking them up into a higher order and changes them, even if we cannot measure what happens. When material things are taken into our body as nourishment, or for that matter whenever any material becomes part of a living organism, it remains the same, and yet as part of a new whole it is itself changed. Something similar happens here. The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different (p. 86)." [emphasis mine]

Those who read my article concerning the Rosmini rehabilitation in the February CO are familiar with my contention that the real reason behind this "superseding" of the 40 condemned propositions of Rosmini (which occurred under Pope Leo XIII) is the attempt to supersede the metaphysics of St. Thomas and, especially, to change the meaning of the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation. Condemned proposition #29 (Denz. #1919) from Rosmini’s writings reads as follows:

"We think that the following conjecture is by no means at variance with Catholic doctrine, which alone is truth: In the Eucharistic sacrament the substance of bread and wine becomes the true flesh and true blood of Christ, when Christ makes it the terminus of His sentient principle, and vivifies it with His life; almost in that way by which bread and wine truly are transubstantiated into our flesh and blood, because they become the terminus of our sentient principle."

The similarities between these two passages are absolutely extraordinary. They should leave no doubt in our minds that the real agenda behind the Rosmini rehabilitation is the attempt to change our whole metaphysical understanding of reality by changing the way we understand the Eucharist.

In order to understand this agenda and its methodology it is extremely important to understand that it is being done from within classical terminology. Cardinal Ratzinger continues to use the terms "transubstantiation", "substance", and "change of substance", but is now employing these terms is ways that are meant to totally change the way the Church has previously used them.

And since the one place wherein the understanding of these terms is solemnly defined is the dogma of Transubstantiation, then the primary object of this "war against being and substance" is precisely this dogma.

Finally, it is equally important, if we are to successfully defend the traditional dogma, to understand that Transubstantiation necessitates a real physical change in the nature of bread and wine (the reader will note in the italicised portion of Cardinal Ratzinger’s quote that he specifically denies any such "physical" change).

In Thomistic Metaphysics (and absolutely integral to the traditional understanding of Transubstantiation) all physical properties or accidents inhere in a substance. Substance, in other words, is not some sort of real being "way down there" or "way out there", underneath and distinct from physical reality. It is absolutely integral to the real physical existence of any physical substance, whether it be bread or the Body of Christ. It is this substantial being which is truly "physically" changed through the miracle of Transubstantiation, the accidental properties of being alone remaining.

It is precisely this meaning of substance which Cardinal Ratzinger denies because he has succumbed to the secular world-view that all physical reality is reducible to quantified particles (molecules, atoms, etc.). He must therefore make "substance" and "substantial change" into realities which are "metaphysical" in a sense which is totally opposed to the Thomistic understanding, and also to the traditional understanding of the Eucharistic change of substance. In my Rosmini article I quoted the following from Cardinal Ratzinger’s God and the World, Believing and Living in Our Time (Ignatius Press, 2000):

"But this (transubstantiation) is not a statement of physics. It has never been asserted that, so to say, nature in a physical sense is being changed. The transformation reaches down to a more profound level. Tradition has it that this is a metaphysical process. Christ lays hold upon what is, from a purely physical viewpoint, bread and wine, in its inmost being, so that it is changed from within and Christ truly gives himself in them."

Since he does not believe that physical reality is really changed, then Cardinal Ratzinger must also refuse to believe that the entire substance of the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, the accidents alone remaining. And he also therefore believes, like Luther, that instead of Christ alone being there in His Substance, He is rather there now in the Bread and Wine.

In other words, Cardinal Ratzinger has embraced the heresy of consubstantiation.