It Is Never Advisable to Die as the Former Leader of a False Religion, part two

I. To "Pacify Spirits," Not to Reject the 'Second" Vatican Council 

One of the refrains that many of those who kept their mouths shut about the many ways that Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI offended Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during his seven years, ten months, nine days in the conciliar seat of apostasy are repeating at this time is that he “restored the Latin Mass.” The purpose of this commentary is to point out that the deceased antipope emeritus, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, knew full well that his “restoration” of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition would keep the mouths of his theretofore traditionalist critics shut about the “Second” Vatican Council and his own support of its even though he did not require them to show any fidelity to the council or its decrees when he issued Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007 (and abrogated by Jorge Mario Bergoglio on July 16, 2021.)

This silence continued for a short time during the first few months of the antipapal presidency of Jorge Mario Bergoglio until it became apparent to most in the resist-while-recognize crowd what was apparent to many of us within a few hours of the Argentine Apostate’s appearance on the balcony on the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, namely, that the lay Jesuit revolutionary was an enemy of the Catholic Faith. The Gallican “resisters” of Bergoglio began criticizing him as they had done with Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, heedless of the fact that, for the most part while noting few exceptions here and there, Senor Jorge has said and done as “Pope Francis” many of the same things that Vater Ratzinger said and did as “Pope Benedict XVI,” especially as it relates to the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, relations with Jews and Mohammedans, and religious liberty.

It is very important to emphasize at this juncture that Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI used Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, to extend a gesture of “fraternity” to traditional Catholics in the conciliar structuers only because they believed that an “attachment” to “some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition” was a matter of emotion, of sentimentality and had no relationship whatsoever to the integrity of the Holy Faith. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI said the following in Summorum Pontificum and in his accompanying Explanatory Letter:

In some regions, however, not a few of the faithful continued to be attached with such love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms which had deeply shaped their culture and spirit, that in 1984 Pope John Paul II, concerned for their pastoral care, through the special Indult Quattuor Abhinc Annos issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty of using the Roman Missal published in 1962 by Blessed John XXIII.  Again in 1988, John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, exhorted bishops to make broad and generous use of this faculty on behalf of all the faithful who sought it. (Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007.)

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The 'Ecclesia Dei' Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the 'usus antiquior,' will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal. (Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Explanatory Letter on Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007.)

Ratzinger/Benedict was, in essence, saying that an attachment to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition was a matter of aesthetics having nothing to do with the integrity of the Holy Faith and that more reverent stagings of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo  service would obviate the need for people to seek out reverence in “Tridentine Masses,” which ignored the simple fact that the Novus Ordo service is offensive to God and sacramentally invalid no matter how well it is staged.

Ratzinger/Benedict repeated this theme, thereafter, explaining in his letter to the conciliar “bishops” after the lifting of the “excommunications” of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer on June 30, 1988, that his goal was to “pacify the spirits” of traditionally minded Catholics, a “pacification” he stressed over and over again in subsequent years:

Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.

"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?

Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.

On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its development, retains its identity. Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy. In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc.... On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community, but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)

Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. In the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits is already taking placeI am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)

Ratzinger/Benedict’s supposed magnanimity to traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the mistaken belief that it is the Catholic Church and the conciliar entity has true sacramental rites, true bishops, true priests and continues to have true popes was based on sentiment towards those who have a “nostalgic” or “aesthetic” attachment to an “older” liturgy, not upon a desire to protect the inviolable integrity of the doctrines of the Holy Faith. Summorum Pontificum was bound to weaken over time as it was founded upon false premises that were not clear in the ever opaque, obscurantist, Hegelian mind of Antipope Benedict XVI. Ratzinger/Benedict repeatedly contradicted himself in the explanatory letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum in 2007 and then in the explanatory letter he issued in early 2009 to explain why he lifted the ban of excommunication that his predecessor, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, had imposed upon Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alonso de Galaretta in 1988 after they had been consecrated without a “papal” mandate by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and co-consecrated by Bishop Antonio Castro de Mayer, both of whom remain “excommunicated” to this day.

II. Muting Criticism of Ratzinger/Benedict's Letter to Chinese Catholics

The former Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s most consistent and courageous critics were, at least for the most part, rendered mute when “Pope Benedict XVI” issued his letter to Chinese Catholics that formalized the sellout of underground Catholics in Red China (that was completed eleven years later by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, see  A Betrayal Worthy of the AntichristRed China: Still A Workshop For The New EcclesiologyStill Selling The Rope After All These Years, part twoNeville Bergoglio's Appeasement of the Chicom MonstersDoubly Betrayed by Jorge and His False Church, Bergoglio the Red Surrenders Faithful Catholics to Their Persecutors, and Vanquished by Our Lady: Comrade Bergoglio) a week before the much-anticipated issuance of Summorum Pontificum.

Interestingly, however, Ratzinger’s letter to Chinese Catholics contradicted Summorum Pontificum on how to understand human history, which Ratzinger/Benedict said in his letter to Chinese Catholics, July 30, 2007, was indecipherable even though he noted in his explanatory letter to Summorum Pontificum was fully understandable:

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

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

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

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

Remember, Ratzinger/Benedict wrote the following in his Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China:

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

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

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

Ratzinger/Benedict, a disciple of the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, an Hegelian who believed in the heresy of "universal salvation" that contradicts the plain words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, daring to impute "ignorance" to Our Lord on the matter of the time of His Second Coming to judge the living and the dead on the Last Day (see Father Regis Scanlon, O.F.M., Cap., The Inflated Reputation of Hans Urs von Balthasar), was as blithe to his contradictions as he blithe to the fact that errors can in no way serve as the foundation of personal sanctity or of social order, as an article in Si, Si, No, No made clear:

Up to the very end of his conference, Card. Ratzinger resolutely continues on this road of agnosticism and now logically comes to the most disastrous of conclusions. He writes:

In conclusion, as we contemplate our present-day religious situation, of which I have tried to throw some light on some of its elements, we may well marvel at the fact that, after all, people still continue believing in a Christian manner, not only according to Hick's, Knitter's as well as others' substitute ways or forms, but also according to that full and joyous Faith found in the New Testament of the Church of all time.

So, there it is: For Card. Ratzinger, "Hick, Knitter, and others" who deny the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, His Church, His sacraments, and, in short, all of Christianity, continue "despite everything" "believing in a Christian manner," even though they do so using "substitute forms of belief"! Here, the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith leaves us wondering indeed, just what it is he means by "believing in a Christian manner."

Moreover, once the "preambula fidei" have been eliminated, that "full and joyous Faith of the Church of all time" which seems [for Card. Ratzinger] to be no different from modern-day apostasies other than by its style and total character, is utterly lacking in any rational credibility in comparison with and in relation to what he refers to as "substitute ways or forms" of faith. "How is it," Card. Ratzinger wonders, "in fact, that the Faith [the one of all time] still has a chance of success?" Answer: 

I would say that it is because it finds a correspondence in man's nature…..There is, in man, an insatiable desire for the infinite. None of the answers we have sought is sufficient [but must we take his own word for it, or must we go through the exercise of experiencing all religions?]. God alone [but Whom, according to Card. Ratzinger, human reason cannot prove to be truly God], Who made Himself finite in order to shatter the bonds of our own finitude and bring us to the dimension of His infinity [...and not to redeem us from the slavery of sin?] is able to meet all the needs of our human existence.

According to this, it is therefore not objective motives based on history and reason, and thus the truth of Christianity, but only a subjective appreciation which brings us to "see" that it [Christianity] is able to satisfy the profound needs of human nature and which would explain the "success" [modernists would say the "vitality"] of the "faith" ["of all time" or in its "substitute forms," it is of but little importance]. Such, however, is not at all Catholic doctrine: this is simply modernist apologetics (cf. Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi), based on their affirmed impossibility of grasping metaphysical knowledge (or agnosticism or skepticism), which Card. Ratzinger seemed to want to shun in the first part of his address.

Now we are in a position to better understand why Card. Ratzinger has such a wide-open concept of "theology" and of "faith" that he includes everything: theology as well as heresies, faith and apostasy. On that road of denial of the human reason's ability of attaining metaphysical knowledge, a road which he continues to follow, he lacks the "means of discerning the difference between faith and non-faith" (R. Amerio, op. cit., p.340) and, consequently, theology from pseudo-theology, truth from heresy:

All theologies are nullified, because all are regarded as equivalent; the heart or kernel of religion is located in feelings or experiences, as the Modernists held at the beginning of this century (Amerio, op. cit., p.542).

We cannot see how this position of Card. Ratzinger can escape that solemn condemnation proclaimed at Vatican I: "If anyone says...that men must be brought to the Faith solely by their own personal interior experience...let him be anathema" (DB 1812). (Cardinal Ratzinger)

Actually, there is an explanation for Ratzinger's statement on June 30, 2007, that history is "indecipherable" and his exercise in deciphering history just seven days later by daring to state that true popes did not "do enough" "to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity." Ratzinger/Benedict did and said those things that he believed he “had” do or say to accomplish a given end. As a pure subjectivist, Ratzinger/Benedict simply did and said whatever he wanted to if he believed he could “reconcile” his words and actions with "elements" of the Catholic Faith by means of his "hermeneutic of continuity.”

It was expedient for Ratzinger/Benedict to appeal to the "indecipherability" of history on June 30, 2007, in order to overlook—or to "purify the memory" about—the crimes committed by the Red Chinese government and its Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association against the persecuted Catholics of the underground Church in Red China. Ratzinger/Benedict waned to forge a "unity" between the schismatic and heretical rump church that is a tool of the Communist Red Chinese government and the underground Church in China at the expense of truth, willing to jettison a complete adherence to principles of Faith and any discussion at all of Pope Pius XII's condemnation of the actions of the renegade bishops in Red China in Ad Sinarum Gentem, October 7, 1954, and Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958, and Pope Pius XII's plea for prayers for the Church in Red China, Meminisse Iuvat, June 14, 1958, none of which were referenced in Ratzinger/Benedict's Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China, of June 30, 2007. Indeed, there were no references at all in any of that letter's fifty-six footnotes to any "preconciliar" document. Talk about "purification of memory."

It was also expedient for Ratzinger/Benedict to appeal his own understanding of history, that which had termed "indecipherable" ("who can read it") on June 30, 2007, in his Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum" on July 7, 2007, as doing so made it appear to conciliar "bishops" opposed to any "liberation" of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 and 1962 that he, Ratzinger/Benedict, wanted to prove himself better in the "eyes of history," shall we say, than Pope Leo IX, who did not "do enough" to prevent the Greek Schism in 1054, and better than Pope Leo X, who excommunicated the hideous drunkard named Martin Luther in the Papal Bull Exsurge Domini, June 15, 1520, and better than Pope Saint Pius V, who excommunicated the bloodthirsty Queen Elizabeth I in Regnans in Excelsis, March 5, 1570. Ratzinger/Benedict believed his own understanding of dogmatic truth and of a "reconciled diversity" might have "saved the day" in the past, which is why it was necessary to make "reference" in his Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum" to a word that he called indecipherable in his Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China.

Summorum Pontificum was thus an effective muzzling device for Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Career-long critics of his in the “resist while recognize” movement when he as “Cardinal Ratzinger” ignored his lifelong warfare against the very nature of dogmatic truth (which is nothing other than warfare against the very nature of God Himself) and ignored each of his serial violations of the First Commandment as he personally esteemed the symbols and the places of “worship” of one false religion after another.

III. "Restoring the Latin Mass" Provides No Excuse to Offend God in Matters of Catholic Doctrine

The Immemorial Mass of Tradition is not about one's aesthetic "likes." It is about giving the Most Blessed Trinity fitting worship as the Holy Faith itself is conveyed flawlessly, without any defect or ambiguity whatsoever.

How was it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church” to accept a menorah as a symbol of the "perennial validity of God's covenant of peace?

How was it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a copy of the Koran, which blasphemes Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by denying His Sacred Divinity and is heretical in that it does that God is a Trinity of Persons, which was represented by the American conciliar "bishops" as "the revered word of God, proclaiming God’s message of peace"?

Would Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God in the very Flesh, say what Ratzinger/Benedict said in May of 2008 when he, the false "pontiff," received yet another copy of the Koran, this time in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican, called this work of blasphemy a "dear and precious book." Would Our Lord speak in such a way about a book that denies His Sacred Divinity? Restoring the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church?

How was it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept the "metallic cube" representing the principles of Jain?

How was it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a brass incense burner (talk about a grain of incense!) with the word "Om" on it in order to "esteem" the Hindu religion?

How was it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a bell used in the false worship of Buddhism?

How was it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" for a putative Roman Pontiff to call a mosque, a place of diabolical worship, or a mountain revered by the devil-worshipers known as Buddhists as "sacred"?

How was it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" for an alleged Successor of Saint Peter to enter into synagogues and to treat the false, blasphemous religion of Talmudic Judaism as a valid means of sanctification and salvation for its adherents? Was Bishop George Hay wrong when he wrote that the Catholic Church's attitude about the places of false worship, including the synagogue, will always be the same? Was Pope Pius XI wrong to insist on the same doctrine?

How was it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" for an alleged Sovereign Pontiff to give an audience in October of 2007 so that they could lobby him for either the elimination or for the change of the Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews as found in the 1962 Missal whose use he had "liberalized" just three months previously?

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did indeed revise the prayer and mandated its use, although he pleased neither the Jews nor many traditional Catholics by so doing. Far from being a "papal masterstroke," the revised prayer was a concession to the ancient enemies of Christ the King and His true Church that they can make demands to have a say in the liturgical life of the Catholic Church. Some "papal masterstroke."

Summorum Pontificum silenced most of the people in the “resist while recognize” movement to the point where at least some within their number clung to the delusion that their beloved “restorer of tradition” never really resigned an office he never held authentically in the first place, namely, the papacy. Perhaps these “resignationists” have become sedevacanists now.

Fundamental principles of Catholic ecclesiology do not matter to those steeped in the emotionalism of believing that the “restoration” of a modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition was justification enough to ignore statements such as the following made by Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

As I begin to speak, I would like first of all to say how deeply grateful I am that we are able to come together.  I am particularly grateful to you, my dear brother, Pastor Schneider, for receiving me and for the words with which you have welcomed me here among you.  You have opened your heart and openly expressed a truly shared faith, a longing for unity.  And we are also glad, for I believe that this session, our meetings here, are also being celebrated as the feast of our shared faith.   Moreover, I would like to express my thanks to all of you for your gift in making it possible for us to speak with one another as Christians here, in this historic place.

As the Bishop of Rome, it is deeply moving for me to be meeting you here in the ancient Augustinian convent in Erfurt.  As we have just heard, this is where Luther studied theology.  This is where he was ordained a priest.  Against his father’s wishes, he did not continue the study of Law, but instead he studied theology and set off on the path towards priesthood in the Order of Saint Augustine.  And on this path, he was not simply concerned with this or that.  What constantly exercised him was the question of God, the deep passion and driving force of his whole life’s journey.  “How do I receive the grace of God?”: this question struck him in the heart and lay at the foundation of all his theological searching and inner struggle.  For Luther theology was no mere academic pursuit, but the struggle for oneself, which in turn was a struggle for and with God.

“How do I receive the grace of God?”  The fact that this question was the driving force of his whole life never ceases to make a deep impression on me.  For who is actually concerned about this today – even among Christians?  What does the question of God mean in our lives?  In our preaching?  Most people today, even Christians, set out from the presupposition that God is not fundamentally interested in our sins and virtues.  He knows that we are all mere flesh.  And insofar as people believe in an afterlife and a divine judgement at all, nearly everyone presumes for all practical purposes that God is bound to be magnanimous and that ultimately he mercifully overlooks our small failings.  The question no longer troubles us.  But are they really so small, our failings?  Is not the world laid waste through the corruption of the great, but also of the small, who think only of their own advantage?  Is it not laid waste through the power of drugs, which thrives on the one hand on greed and avarice, and on the other hand on the craving for pleasure of those who become addicted?  Is the world not threatened by the growing readiness to use violence, frequently masking itself with claims to religious motivation?  Could hunger and poverty so devastate parts of the world if love for God and godly love of neighbour – of his creatures, of men and women – were more alive in us?  I could go on.  No, evil is no small matter.  Were we truly to place God at the centre of our lives, it could not be so powerful.  The question: what is God’s position towards me, where do I stand before God? – Luther’s burning question must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too, not an academic question, but a real one.  In my view, this is the first summons we should attend to in our encounter with Martin Luther.

Another important point: God, the one God, creator of heaven and earth, is no mere philosophical hypothesis regarding the origins of the universe.  This God has a face, and he has spoken to us.  He became one of us in the man Jesus Christ – who is both true God and true man.  Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric: “What promotes Christ’s cause” was for Luther the decisive hermeneutical criterion for the exegesis of sacred Scripture.  This presupposes, however, that Christ is at the heart of our spirituality and that love for him, living in communion with him, is what guides our life. (Meeting with representatives of the German Evangelical Church Council in the Chapter Hall of the Augustinian Convent Erfurt, Germany, September 23, 2011.)

Why should we have to encounter Martin Luther with anything other than total rejection?

To paraphrase from Pope Saint Pius X's Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, what is this strange respect for false religions and errors of all kinds?

Like Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI four centuries after him, Martin Luther believed that the Gospel had been “corrupted” by certain Church Fathers and then by Saint Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism, and he believed that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ could be understood fully without the infallible teaching authority of His spotless mystical spouse here on earth, Holy Mother Church.

Ah, who cares about all this “stuff”?

After all, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI “restored the Latin Mass,” right?

Where was the shock and outrage when Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI praised the results of separation of Church and State in Portugal one hundred one years after Pope Saint Pius X had condemned such a separation in the country that Our Lady favored with her apparitions in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, between May 13, 1917, and October 13, 1917?

From a wise vision of life and of the world, the just ordering of society follows. Situated within history, the Church is open to cooperating with anyone who does not marginalize or reduce to the private sphere the essential consideration of the human meaning of life. The point at issue is not an ethical confrontation between a secular and a religious system, so much as a question about the meaning that we give to our freedom. What matters is the value attributed to the problem of meaning and its implication in public life. By separating Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church, to which the two concordats of 1940 and 2004 would give shape, in cultural settings and ecclesial perspectives profoundly marked by rapid change. For the most part, the sufferings caused by these transformations have been faced with courage. Living amid a plurality of value systems and ethical outlooks requires a journey to the core of one’s being and to the nucleus of Christianity so as to reinforce the quality of one’s witness to the point of sanctity, and to find mission paths that lead even to the radical choice of martyrdom. (Official Reception at Lisbon Portela International Airport, Tuesday, May 11, 2010.)

Apostasy. "By separating Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church"?

Pluralism strengthens sanctity within the soul? Guess again.

Pope Saint Pius X specifically condemned the very separation of Church and State in Portugal that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI praised on May 11, 2010:

2. Whilst the new rulers of Portugal were affording such numerous and awful examples of the abuse of power, you know with what patience and moderation this Apostolic See has acted towards them. We thought that We ought most carefully to avoid any action that could even have the appearance of hostility to the Republic. For We clung to the hope that its rulers would one day take saner counsels and would at length repair, by some new agreement, the injuries inflicted on the Church. In this, however, We have been altogether disappointed, for they have now crowned their evil work by the promulgation of a vicious and pernicious Decree for the Separation of Church and State. But now the duty imposed upon Us by our Apostolic charge will not allow Us to remain passive and silent when so serious a wound has been inflicted upon the rights and dignity of the Catholic religion. Therefore do We now address you, Venerable Brethren, in this letter and denounce to all Christendom the heinousness of this deed.

3. At the outset, the absurd and monstrous character of the decree of which We speak is plain from the fact that it proclaims and enacts that the Republic shall have no religion, as if men individually and any association or nation did not depend upon Him who is the Maker and Preserver of all things; and then from the fact that it liberates Portugal from the observance of the Catholic religion, that religion, We say, which has ever been that nation's greatest safeguard and glory, and has been professed almost unanimously by its people. So let us take it that it has been their pleasure to sever that close alliance between Church and State, confirmed though it was by the solemn faith of treaties. Once this divorce was effected, it would at least have been logical to pay no further attention to the Church, and to leave her the enjoyment of the common liberty and rights which belong to every citizen and every respectable community of peoples. Quite otherwise, however, have things fallen out. This decree bears indeed the name of Separation, but it enacts in reality the reduction of the Church to utter want by the spoliation of her property, and to servitude to the State by oppression in all that touches her sacred power and spirit. (Pope Saint Pius X, Iamdudum, May 24, 1911.)

"Gay marriage" and the surgical execution of children were already "legal" in Portugal when Ratzinger/Benedict XVI visited in 2010. Some “new area of freedom for the Church,” eh?


Where was the shock and outrage when Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI gave a “joint blessing” with the layman, Rowan Williams, then posing as the Anglican “archbishop” of Canterbury in Westminster Cathedral, Westminster, England, on Friday, September 17, 2010?