Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
 July 20, 2012

Another Memo To Bishop Fellay:

Ratzinger/Benedict Really, Really, Really, Really, Really

Walter Kasper

by Thomas A. Droleskey

As demonstrated two days ago in Memo To Bishop Fellay: Ratzinger/Benedict Really, Really, Really, Really, Really Loves Gerhard Ludwig Muller, many members of the erroneous "resist but recognize" movement made a conscious decision in 2005 and thereafter to sing the old songs that I, among many others, sang for over two decades to excuse Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's multiple defections from Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals.

To be sure, I had become a "practical sedevacantist" by 1994 or so as I wrote an "open letter" that was published in The Wanderer opposing Wojtyla/John Paul II's permission for women to serve at the altar in the Protestant Masonic Novus Ordo worship service. I made up my mind then and there to avoid that hideous liturgical abomination as much as I could, especially on Sundays, although it would be another eight years before I left that mockery of Catholic worship for good on weekdays. It was by gradations thereafter that my articles in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos, which was started to give air to articles that were being rejected for publication in The Wanderer, that made it clear to readers that I could no longer reconcile the immutable truths of the Catholic Faith with the "teaching," such as it was, of the "Second" Vatican Council and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II.

There were several key "breaking" points, if you will, in the late-1990s, one of them coming with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) and another coming when Wojtyla/John Paul II  Another came on March 25, 2000, the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, when the man I thought to be the Successor of Saint Peter permitted himself to seated as an equal with the grand rabbi of the Talmudists and a Mohammedan imam in Jerusalem. The imam, though, had the personal integrity to leave during the ceremony as he recognized that he was giving public credibility to what he considered to be two false religions, something that Wojtyla/John Paul II did consistently throughout his false "pontificate."

Wojtyla/John Paul II's consistent protection of morally corrupt clergymen, including bishops and priests, both valid and invalid, and his utter lack of concern for the victims of clerical abuse caused me to write a blistering analysis of what of his governance of what I thought was the Catholic Church, a piece that was published on the Daily Catholic website and republished on various other websites, including one that I do not ordinarily mention by name because of its tendency to sensationalize the news and its failure to report equally on the scandals of clergy in the underground church in this time of apostasy and betrayal that are no less displeasing to God and harmful to souls than those that have occurred in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Nevertheless, however, it was not until the "election" of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on April 18, 2005. as Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's successor as the head of what I know now to be the counterfeit church of conciliarism that I began to take reexamine material on the the validity of the sedevacantist thesis that I had examined a year before. The rest, as they say, is history.

It has been astounding, therefore, to watch some of the very people who blistered me--and very rightly so as I admitted to several in person as early as 2002--for clothing Emperor Wojtyla in "Catholic" clothing even though I hated false ecumenism and had already written a scathing critique of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service turn around and attempt to clothe Emperor Ratzinger in the same manner.

Very Little Daylight Between Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kasper

One out-of-print book, The Great Facade, was filled with caustic references to the relentless attacks on the Catholic Faith. The coauthors of The Great Facade did not said that "Pope" John Paul II was responsible ultimately for Walter "Cardinal" Kasper's apostasies as the president of the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity (March 3, 2001, to July 1, 2010), noting that the "pope had not once corrected him for anything he had said:



The postconciliar Vatican has not been altogether straightforward regarding the Jews' need for conversion. either. The fashionable doctrine these days--again, contrary to all prior papal teaching--is the claim that the Old Covenant that God established with the Jews, far from having been superseded by the New Covenant of Christ and the Church, is in fact still in effect. Thus we have John Paul II telling a Jewish audience: "The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant , is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and second part of her Bible." "Jews and Christians," he went on to say, "as children of Abraham, are called to be a blessing to the world" by "committing themselves together for peace and justice among all men and peoples." Such statements seem impossible to reconcile with the Church's divine commandment to convert the Jews for the salvation of their souls. In fact, Cardinal Kasper, whom the Pope has also made the President of the Pontifical Council for Religious Relations with the Jews, has repudiated the conversion of Jews as explicitly as he has repudiated the return of the Protestant dissidents to the one true Church:


[T]he old theory of substitution is gone since the Second Vatican Council. for us Christians today the covenant with the Jewish people is a living heritage, a living reality.... Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God's irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.... Thus mission, in this strict sense, cannot be used with regard to Jews, who believe in the true and one God. Therefore--and this is characteristic--there does not exist any Catholic missionary organization for Jews. There is dialogue with Jews; no mission in this proper sense of the word towards them. (Address at 17th meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, New York, May 1, 2001, quoted in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade. Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 203-204.)

Once again, Kasper received no correction from the Pope or any Vatican dicastery [Thomas A. Droleskey interjection here: and neither has Kasper received any correction from Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI for saying similar things repeatedly in the course of the past three and one-half years!]. On the contrary, he has received only a promotion to his current position of authority. What can one conclude but that the Vatican has de facto abandoned the conversion of the Jews, and the return of the Orthodox and Protestants to Catholic unity. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade. Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 203-204.)

Yet it is that I was lambasted, albeit in a veiled manner, for stating on this site that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI approved the following letter that Walter Kasper sent to Rabbi David Rosen on February 17, 2008, following the release of Ratzinger/Benedict's reformulated Good Friday Prayer for the Jews to be used in the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that is called the "extraordinary form of the 'one' Roman Rite" in conciliarspeak:



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

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

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

Walter Kasper never received any kind of "papal" rebuke from Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI for writing this letter. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI would not dream of rebuking Kasper's letter to David Rosen as it expresses his own mind on the matter perfectly. After all, has Ratzinger/Benedict tried to convert adherents to the Talmud during any of his visits to synagogues in Cologne, Germany, and New York, New York, and Jerusalem and Rome? Has he?

Quite instead, of course, Ratzinger/Benedict has written and spoken in a similar vein throughout the course of his priestly life, both in his "official" capacity when the serving as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and as "Pope" Benedict XVI when addressing Jews and, of course, in his many "unofficial books, including Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, which was issued last year. Here is but a brief review to illustrate that there is little in the way of theological "daylight" between Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kasper. Both are apostates:

It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.” (Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 209.)

First it declares that “the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures of the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading, which developed in parallel fashion” (no. 22). It adds that Christians can learn a great deal from a Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in return, Christians may hope that Jews can profit from Christian exegetical research (ibid.). I think this analysis will prove useful for the pursuit of Judeo-Christian dialogue, as well as for the interior formation of Christian consciousness. (Joseph Ratzinger, Preface to The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible, May 24, 2001.)

5. Many lessons may be learned from our common heritage derived from the Law and the Prophets.  I would like to recall some of them: first of all, the solidarity which binds the Church to the Jewish people “at the level of their spiritual identity”, which offers Christians the opportunity to promote “a renewed respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament” (cf. Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish people and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 2001, pp.12 and 55); the centrality of the Decalogue as a common ethical message of permanent value for Israel, for the Church, for non-believers and for all of humanity; the task of preparing or ushering in the Kingdom of the Most High in the “care for creation” entrusted by God to man for him to cultivate and to care for responsibly (cf. Gen 2:15). (Ratzinger at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )

In this regard, the question of Israel's mission has always been present in the background. We realize today with horror how many misunderstandings with grave consequences have weighed down our history. Yet a new reflection can acknowledge that the beginnings of a correct understanding have always been there, waiting to be rediscovered, however deep in the shadows. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection. San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press, 2011, p. 44.)


Ratzinger/Benedict is saying in each of these remarks, which are just several from among many that he has made over the decades, that the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost kept a "correct understanding" of "Israel's mission" deep in the shadows as he pats himself on the back for being one of the "enlightened" Catholics to have "rediscovered" this "true meaning" in order to bring to the world's attention. 

This is worse than hubris.

This is blasphemy in the advance of heresy as it means that God the Holy Ghost failed Pope Eugene IV and the council fathers of the Council of Florence when Cantate Domino was issued on February 4, 1442:


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

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

It is possible for the likes of Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kasper to dismiss the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church with the mere wave of a hand as they, being but quintessential Modernists, believe in the "evolution of dogma" that they have repackaged variously under such labels as "living tradition" and the "hermeneutic of continuity."

Goodbye Council of Florence, Goodbye [First] Vatican Council

There is no need to belabor Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's career-long warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than an direct attack on the nature of God Himself.

What I would like to do, for reasons that will be made clear in the next section of this relatively brief article, is to demonstrate how the now retired Walter Kasper believes in the precise evolution of dogma as does Ratzinger/Benedict. Kasper used this false, condemned Modernist concept on May 24, 2003, to wave a fond farewell to the doctrine of Papal Primacy as reiterated by the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council and to wave another fond farewell in in direction of Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae, September 15, 1896, that declared Anglican clerical orders null and void, pleasing the audiences of Anglicans he was addressing no end:


As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained. The Catholic view is different from such an individualistic and mechanical approach. Its starting point is the collegium of the apostles as a whole; together they received the promise that Jesus Christ will be with them till the end of the world (Matt 28, 20). So after the death of the historical apostles they had to co-opt others who took over some of their apostolic functions. In this sense the whole of the episcopate stands in succession to the whole of the collegium of the apostles.

To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain but of collegial membership in a collegium, which as a whole goes back to the apostles by sharing he same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission. The laying on of hands is under this aspect a sign of co-optation in a collegium.

This has far reaching consequences for the acknowledgement of the validity of the episcopal ordination of another Church. Such acknowledgement is not a question of an uninterrupted chain but of the uninterrupted sharing of faith and mission, and as such is a question of communion in the same faith and in the same mission.

It is beyond the scope of our present context to discuss what this means for a re-evaluation of Apostolicae Curae (1896) of Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican orders null and void, a decision which still stands between our Churches. Without doubt this decision, as Cardinal Willebrands had already affirmed, must be understood in our new ecumenical context in which our communion in faith and mission has considerably grown. A final solution can only be found in the larger context of full communion in faith, sacramental life, and shared apostolic mission.

Before venturing further on this decisive point for the ecumenical vision, that is a renewed communio ecclesiology, I should speak first on another stumbling block or, better, the stumbling block of ecumenism: the primacy of the bishop of Rome, or as we say today, the Petrine ministry. This question was the sticking point of the separation between Canterbury and Rome in the 16th century and it is still the object of emotional controversies.

Significant progress has been achieved on this delicate issue in our Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues, especially in the last ARCIC document The Gift of Authority (1998). The problem, however, is that what pleased Catholics in this document did not always please all Anglicans, and points which were important for Anglican self-understanding were not always repaid by Catholic affection. So we still have a reception problem and a challenge for further theological work.

It was Pope John Paul II who opened the door to future discussion on this subject. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995) he extended an invitation to a fraternal dialogue on how to exercise the Petrine ministry in a way that is more acceptable to non-Catholic Christians. It was a source of pleasure for us that among others the Anglican community officially responded to this invitation. The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity gathered the many responses, analyzed the data, and sent its conclusions to the churches that had responded. We hope in this way to have initiated a second phase of a dialogue that will be decisive for the future of the ecumenical approach.

Nobody could reasonably expect that we could from the outset reach a phase of consensus; but what we have reached is not negligible. It has become evident that a new atmosphere and a new climate exist. In our globalized world situation the biblical testimonies on Peter and the Petrine tradition of Rome are read with new eyes because in this new context the question of a ministry of universal unity, a common reference point and a common voice of the universal church, becomes urgent. Old polemical formulas stand at odds with this urgency; fraternal relations have become the norm. Extensive research has been undertaken that has highlighted the different traditions between East and West already in the first millennium, and has traced the development in understanding and in practice of the Petrine ministry throughout the centuries. As well, the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.

These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy. This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches. But there is at least a wide consensus about the common central problem, which all churches have to solve: how the three dimensions, highlighted already by the Lima documents on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), namely unity through primacy, collegiality through synodality, and communality of all the faithful and their spiritual gifts, can be brought into a convincing synthesis. (A Vision of Christian Unity for the Next Generation.)


This is simply apostasy of the highest order. Apostolic succession is not "an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles"? The perpetually binding nature of Apostolicae Cenae needs to be re-evaluated? No member of the Catholic Church is free to assert such things and remain a Catholic in good standing (see Number 9, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

The dogmatic decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are historically conditioned? Oh, please do not even attempt to say that Kasper is not reflecting the exact view of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on the "time-conditioned" nature of past dogmatic decrees and/or papal encyclical letters. Ratzinger/Benedict has told us in his very words that he believes this precise thing, a proposition that has been condemned by that Vatican Council and to which he, Ratzinger, had to swear against in The Oath Against Modernism.

Ah, but this is why, you see, Walter Kasper, who received the "Lambeth Cross" award from the Anglicans on January 25, 2011, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, of all does, does not believe that there is any need to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of Anglicans to the Catholic Church, who he clearly believes have true bishops and true priests. It is simply up to the Lambeth Committee to chart its own "direction," to determine, in Kasper's words, whether Anglicans belongs more "to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox," which leads to the second major error in Kasper's recent remarks: that the patriarchies of the East constituted a separate "church" prior to the Greek Schism of 1054. No such "church" existed.

Lost in all of this willingness to subject immutable truths to the "historical-critical" method of Hegelian analysis is the fact that one is either a Catholic who assents to all of the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith, or he he is not. How absurd is it to ask Protestants to determine whether they belong to the Protestantism in which their sects had their origins? The Anglican "church" has no right from God to exist. It is a false religion. Its adherents are in need to be converted unconditionally to the Catholic Church. Those who have been received recently into the ranks of the counterfeit church of conciliarism from the Anglican sect were not required to make any kind of abjuration of error. All they had to do was to attest to their agreement with the conciliar church's so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, a document that has many problems (see The New Catechism: Is it Catholic? and my own Piracy, Conciliar Style)

One will see the apostate view of dogmatic truth expressed by Walter Kasper in 2003 is the exact one that is held by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who made his lifelong embrace of the evolution of dogma part of his "papal" "teaching" when he addressed the members of his curia on December 22, 2005:


It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within. On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.

It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005)


Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Walter Kasper are of one and the same apostate mind.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Soon?

Why is all of this relevant now? Isn't this "old" news.

No, it is very relevant.

Yes, you see, at a time when Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of Saint Pius X is pretending that it is everyone other than Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who, he would like to convince us, is trying to "restore" Tradition in the Catholic Church, who is responsible for the continuation of the conciliar revolution, the fact of the matter is that the man whom the Society of Saint Pius X "recognizes" as a true Successor of Saint Peter but "resists" in order to "convert" him on various points likes and respects men such as Gerhard Ludwig Muller and Walter Kasper. Walter Kasper has been invited to speak at the annual meeting, called the "Ratzinger Schulerkreis," of Ratzinger/Benedict's former doctoral students that will take place soon at the summer residence of popes, Castel Gandolfo.


VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's former doctoral students will meet in late August to discuss ecumenical relations involving Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans, the Vatican press office confirmed.

Each year the scholars choose a topic to discuss in-depth, and they invite speakers to make presentations at the closed-door meetings, usually held in Castel Gandolfo, a hilltop village where the pope spends his summer vacation.

One of this year's speakers will be German Cardinal Walter Kasper, president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the Vatican said July 16.

The summer's meeting was expected to touch on "Harvesting the Fruits: Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue," a book compiled by Cardinal Kasper and published in 2009.

The book summarized the results of 40 years of official Catholic dialogues with the Anglican Communion, the Lutheran World Federation, the World Methodist Council and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.

The three dozen students who did their doctoral dissertations in Germany under the direction of then-Father Joseph Ratzinger have met regularly since the late 1970s in an annual gathering known as the "Ratzinger Schulerkreis" (Ratzinger student circle).

Previous meetings have also had had an ecumenical focus. The group discussed Christian mission from an ecumenical perspective in 2009, and two Protestant professors from Germany offered their reflections in 2008 on the historicity of the New Testament and on Christ's own understanding of his passion and death.
(Ratzinger's former students to discuss relations with Anglicans, Lutherans.)

Yes, at a time the Society of Saint Pius X issues a statement professing its adherence to what it calls the "constant magisterium" of the Catholic Church while recognizing Ratzinger/Benedict as its true and legitimate visible head on earth while holding out the hope for continued "discussions" with conciliar authorities (see SSPX 2012 General Chapter Statement), Ratzinger's former doctoral students are going to "discuss" relations with Anglicans and Lutherans, listening intently, of course, to the apostasies of none other than Walter Kasper.

What's to discuss?

What's to discuss?

All non-Catholics, including Protestants and the Orthodox, must convert to the Catholic Faith unconditionally. There's nothing to "discuss." There's nothing to "understand."

Then again, of course, life becomes complex with the truths of the true Faith are replaced with an apostate rejection of what the current conciliar "pope" calls disparagingly the "ecumenism of the return:"


We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

"On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return:  that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!

"It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity:  in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature." (Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English.)

This is quite a contrast from the solemn discharge of papal duty exercised by Pope Pius IX in Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868:


"It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd." (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

Anyone who thinks that the "popes" of the counterfeit church of concilairism have maintained the teaching of the Catholic Church "exactly the same" as Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ"instituted it" is not thinking very clearly. "Pope" Benedict XVI and Walter "Cardinal" Kasper do not have any fear of having to render an account to Christ the King for not having pointed out and prepared the way for Protestants to attain eternal salvation as he believes that they, although barred from the "common celebration of the Eucharist," are bearing witness to Our Lord in the world and thus stand together with Catholics in fighting the rising tide of secularism that is the direct and inevitable result of Martin Luther's own diabolical revolution against the Divine Plan that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church.

There is no getting around the simple fact that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict, far from being deceived or manipulated by the likes of Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, is, despite a few differences here and there on some matters, shaped by the spirit of Modernism that seeks to "re-examine" every tenet of the Catholic Faith and to "update" it according to their own personal predilections.

Yes, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI really, really, really, really, really loves Walter "Cardinal" Kasper.

The Members of the Ratzinger Schulerkreis Should Invite Father Luigi Villa, not Walter Kasper

Father Luigi Villa, who wrote a very thorough examination of the heterodoxy of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II prior to the latter's "beatification" by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, on Sunday, May 2, 2011, Low Sunday, has published another study that provides a wealth of information for those who want to see the apostasy of the "Second" Vatican Council and expressed in the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" in one coherent body of work. Here is an excerpt from Father Villa's treatment of the false ecumenism that will be under study by members of the Ratzinger Schulerkreis soon:



The term “Ecumenism” is a Greek word (oikumène) that means “all the inhabited world.” Indeed, today this word means it is the duty of all Christians to not only restore their union with the only Church founded by Jesus Christ through Peter, but also it is the duty of these “errants,” to Catholic truth to convert as the Church had always desired with Her preaching and prayers.

Instead, in this ecumenism of Vatican II, a union is sought based on the common characteristics of each confession, in order to reach solidarity and peace, considered to be the supreme good.

In fact, the “Decree on Ecumenism” teaches that while, for the world, the division of Christians is a reason for scandal and an obstacle to the preaching of the Gospel to all men, it also teaches that the Holy Spirit does not refuse to use  other religions as instruments of salvation. It is an error, however, that is repeated in the document “Catechesi Tradendae” (On Catechesis In Our Time) by John Paul II.

Although the Decree was corrected it seems by the Holy Father’s own hand, Father Congar chose to be its ‘sponsor,’ stating that the Papal changes did not change any of the text, and would not have prevented anything that had already been decided. Indeed, from that Council forward everything was allowed, so much so that Cardinal Willebrands dared to state that now the Council had rediscovered Luther’s deepest intuitions!

In fact, Vatican Council II proclaimed “a true union of the Spirit” with the heretical sects (see “Lumen gentium”, 14) and “a certain communion, though still imperfect, with them.” (“Decree on Ecumenism”, 3)

This Ecumenical unity however contradicts Leo XIII’s Encyclical “Satis Cognitum”, which teaches that Jesus did not found a Church that embraces a generically similar plurality of communities, but which are distinct and not bound by ties forming a “sole Church.” In the same way, this Ecumenical unity is contrary to Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical“Humani Generis” that condemns the idea of reducing the need to belong to the Catholic Church to any kind of formula whatsoever.

Now those who followed this process that seems to have implemented the Pauline Prophecies (Thess. 2, 2.3 and following) to the letter, cannot help but notice that in the “new Teachings”, the most innovative Vatican II documents (especially the “Nostra Aetate”, the “Dignitatis Humane” and the“Gaudium et Spes”) have practically replaced the previous Councils and even the Holy Scripture, especially the Gospels which are referred to less and less.

With this premise, it is also worth recalling that the Catholic doctrine of “justification” was repudiated by the October 31, 1999 “Joint Declaration” in Augusta (Germany).

The most serious and profound cause of the Catholic Church’s disastrous state is undoubtedly the Ecumenical spirit permeating all the vital nerve centers of ecclesiastical life. One sees this in our writings on this theological theme. Now here we see how the Protestant Revolution in the Church marches on; after the new social doctrine, the new Mass, the new Canon Law, the new Marian doctrine (... )with the new doctrine on the “justification of the Faith” which was drawn up with Pope John Paul II. (see the 12/09/1999 “Osservatore Romano”) (Father Luigi Villa, Th.D., Vatican II: About Face.)

Obviously, what Father Villa believes is the Catholic Church is but her counterfeit ape, a false church that is of the devil. While Father Villa is correct in stating that there will have to be a formal declaration of this matter at some point in the future, we do not suspend our rationality when faced with that which we know to be of anti-Christ. Even Father Villa, who seems to be cautiously treading the waters of formally expressing the conciliar pretenders to be the non-Catholics that they are, says that Catholics must flee from the whiff of heresy. This is true. Catholics must also recognize that it is impossible for any kind of error to taint Holy Mother Church in any way, which is why the recent statement posted on the Society of Saint Pius X's official website makes a mockery of the following clear statements of our true popes concerning the impossibility of error being associated with her"

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)


Please note that Pope Gregory XVI wrote that the truth can be found in the Catholic Church without "even a slight tarnish of error."

Please note that Pope Leo XIII stressed that the Catholic Church "makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the command which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity."

Please note that that Pope Pius XI explained that the Catholic Church brings forth her teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men."

Anyone who says that this has been done by the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has made its "reconciliation" with the false principles of Modernity that leave no room for the confessionally Catholic civil state and the Social Reign of Christ the King, is not thinking too clearly (and that is as about as charitably as I can put the matter). If the conciliar church has brought forth its teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men," why, as has been noted on this site repeatedly, especially in recent months, is there such disagreement even between the "progressive" conciliarists and "conservative" conciliarists concerning the proper "interpretation" of the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath? Or does this depend upon what one means by "ease and security"?


Perhaps the matter can be summarized even more simply:

O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God, in three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost: I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead.  I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.  Amen.


The counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church. Period.

This is, of course, a chastisement for our sins, for our own infidelities, for our own lukewarmness, for our own lack of steadfastness in prayer, especially to the Mother of God. We need to pray many Rosaries of reparation now that these additional offenses have been given to God by the false "pontiff." whose "unofficial" words deceive Catholics and non-Catholics alike just as much as his "official" words and deed, We need, therefore, to make much reparation for these sins as we seek always to make reparation for our own sins as we entrust to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary the needs of the present moment.

We must, of course, continue to remember that this is the time that God has appointed from all eternity for us to be alive. He has work for us to do. Let us do this work with courage and valor as we never count the cost of being humiliated for the sake of defending the integrity of Faith, as we never cease our prayers for the conversion of all people, including those who adhere to all false religions and for the likes of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his fellow conciliarists, to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.


Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!


Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Jerome Emiliani, pray for us..

Saint Margaret, pray for us. .

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.