Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

November 25, 2010

Nothing New Under Benedict's Sun

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Unwilling to believe that their "pope" is guilty of so grave an error of moral theology as to endorse the use of a certain prophylactic in order to "prevent" the spread of a certain social disease that can be contracted principally by means of unchaste behavior in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, some defenders of all things Benedict are trying to shoot the messenger, "papal" spinmeister "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., for making it appear, they assert gratuitously without an ounce of proof, that he, Lombardi, "misunderstood" Ratzinger/Benedict when the latter confirmed the remarks that he had made to German journalist Peter Seewald that have been published in a book entitled Light of the World.

One of those who is grasping at straws is Dr. John M. Haas, the President of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who was quoted as follows in The New York Times on Tuesday, November 23, 2010, before changing his tune the next day, Wednesday, November 24, 2010:

Indeed, Dr. Haas, of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, could barely countenance Father Lombardi’s comments broadening the debate to women.

“I don’t think it’s a clarification it’s a muddying of the waters,” Dr. Haas said. “My opinion is that the pope purposely chose of a male prostitute to avoid that particular debate.”

And if Benedict was in fact opening that debate? “If the pope said that, in my opinion as a moral theologian, I think the pope’s wrong,” Dr. Haas added. (After Remarks, Vatican Confirms Shift.)

Vatican City, Nov 23, 2010 / 06:36 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Remarks by the Vatican spokesman intended to clarify the Pope's meaning on the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS have only caused further confusion, a leading U.S. moral theologian said.

Dr. John Haas suggested the spokesman might have misunderstood the Pope’s meaning when he told a press conference Nov. 23 that the Pope would condone condom use not only by male prostitutes, but also by women and even “transsexuals.”

As controversy over the condom issue continued for a fourth day in media reports and in comments from international agencies dealing with the AIDS crisis, Haas told CNA, “We ought to let the Pope speak for himself.”

The controversy began Nov. 20 when the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano broke an embargo and published excerpts from "Light of the World,” a new book based on conversations between Pope Benedict XVI and German journalist Peter Seewald.

L'Osservatore Romano ran only two paragraphs of the Pope's comments on condom use and the global AIDS crisis, although the original discussion in the book is more than two pages long.

The paper quoted Pope Benedict as reaffirming the stance he took in 2009 during his trip to Africa, where he said that condoms are not the answer to the AIDS crisis. In fact, his full answer reaffirmed the Church's negative judgment against condom use, which he said was “of course” not a “real or moral solution” to AIDS or other problems.

However, the Pope also observed that condom use in some circumstances, although not justified, may indicate an individual's awareness that sex has moral meaning and consequences. This, in turn, the Pope said, might lead the person to a greater sense of moral responsibility.

He cited the example of a male prostitute using a condom. The Pope said “this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.”

Although the Pope stressed again that condoms are not “the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection,” his remarks set off a media firestorm, with major news outlets reporting a “shift” and even a “U-turn” in Church thinking on this issue.

The storm had begun to die down by Nov. 23, the book’s official release date.

But in a Vatican press conference called to celebrate the book’s release, papal spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, reignited the controversy.

The translation of the Pope's interview – originally conducted in German – was questioned. Despite the word “prostitute” being used in masculine form in German and English, the Italian translation suggested the Pope might have been referring to female prostitutes.

Asked about this by reporters, Father Lombardi said that it makes no difference whether Pope Benedict was referring to a male or female prostitute.

“I asked the Pope personally if there was a serious or important problem in the choice of the masculine gender rather than the feminine, and he said no,” Father Lombardi said. 

The Pope’s main point, he added, was that condom use by prostitutes might represent “the first step of responsibility in taking into account the risk to the life of another person with whom one has relations.”

“Whether a man or a woman or a transsexual does this, we’re at the same point,” Fr. Lombardi said. “The point is the first step toward responsibility, to avoid posing a grave risk to another person.”

Media reaction to Fr. Lombardi’s remarks was swift, with nearly every major news agency reporting that the Pope believes that condom use – even in heterosexual relations – is a lesser evil than transmitting HIV to one's partner.

This confusion on a fundamental matter of Church moral teaching is hardly helpful, Dr. Haas told CNA. (Theologian says papal spokesman caused more confusion.)


Boy, if only the "pope" knew, huh? What incredible self-delusion. What willing suspension of rationality.

Dr. John M. Haas, however, is no stranger to confusion as he is confused about the very principles of bioethics which he asserts is his field of expertise. Dr. Haas supports the removal of vital organs from living human beings for purposes of transplantation, an immoral proposition in violation of the Fifth Commandment's injunction against the direct, intentional killing of innocent human life that has been thoroughly demolished by Dr. Paul Byrne in his interview with Mrs. Randy Engel on the myth that is brain death and discussed in Triumph of the Body Snatchers. Dr. Haas also supports the plan of the conciliar philanthropist Thomas Monaghan to bring a pro-euthanasia, pro-eugenics laboratory, Jackson Laboratory, into Ave Maria, Florida. As Mrs. Engel has reported, Jackson Laboratory has also created mice with human genes, thus demonstrating that just because one says that he is a "Catholic" "bioethicist" does not mean that the assertion is true. (Please read Mrs. Engel's in-depth reporting on the scandal created by Thomas Monaghan's "invitation" to Jackson Laboratories to settle in Ave Maria, Florida: Jackson Laboratories' past in eugenics,

A U.S. Coalition for Life Commentary by Randy Engel Part II and Randy Engel on Jackson Labs and Ave Maria Town, part III.)

Lost upon the cerebral processes of Dr. John M. Haas, it appears, is the simple fact that the "pope" whose words, he asserts, have been "misunderstood" by spinmeister Lombardi also chose "Archbishop" Rino Fisichella to present Light of the World to the public in his own behalf despite the fact that Fisichella tried to justify the murder of preborn twin babies of a nine year-old girl in Brazil who had been assaulted by a relative. Fisichella made it appear as though the girl's life was endangered, which was not the case, stating that doctors had a "choice" to save the life of the mother or the children, a claim that was factually erroneous and heinously immoral as it is never permitted to commence a direct attack, no less a fatal attack, upon any innocent human being for any utilitarian reason. This was the man, Dr. Haas, that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI chose to "present" Light of the World.

Ratzinger/Benedict does not believe that such a grievous error as committed by Fisichella on the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment is worthy of rebuke or removal from authority. Nor does the conciliar "pope" believe that the public heresy committed by "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch, the conciliar "archbishop" of Freiburg, Germany, and the president of the conciliar "bishops'" conference in his native land, has been worthy of public rebuke or removal after having denied in a television that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins. The only thing that can get one in real trouble with Ratzinger/Benedict is to dispute the now "accepted" version of the nature and extent of the crimes committed by agents of the nihilistic Third Reich of Adolf Hitler. Go ask Bishop Richard Williamson, soon to be severed from the Society of Saint Pius X, about the "tolerance" that the "pope" who so tolerant of deviations in Faith and Morals on the part of his "approved" bishops shows to anyone who dissents on a matter mere secular history.

Ratzinger/Benedict has been "tolerant" of doctrinal deviations of Protestant so-called "theologians" who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, going so far as to assert that they continue "believing in a Christian manner" nevertheless:

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; the ironic part of this citation is that it appears on a website of the Society of Saint Pius X whose leaders have been absolutely silent concerning their "pope's" promotion of the use of a prophylactic to reduce the spread of a certain social disease, to say nothing of their silence every time that Ratzinger/Benedict has gone into a place of false worship or esteemed the symbols of false religions or given "joint blessings" with the non-ordained "clergy" of false religions.)


Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is also oblivious to the doctrinal effects of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception, entirely unconcerned that a motion picture, Nativity Story, whose world premiere he authorized to take place in the Paul VI Audience Hall in the Vatican itself, portrayed Our Lady as a sulky, moody and rebellious teenager. He has as little regard for saving the Mother of God, Whose Divine Maternity was mocked in that motion picture, by the way, from this kind of blasphemous portrayal as he has for the honor and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity by esteeming symbols of false religions and calling places such as mosques and synagogues and a mountain, Mount Hiei in Japan, where the hideous anti-Catholics known as Buddhist worship their devils, as "sacred." Why is it not possible, therefore, for this "pope" to have made the comments that "Father" Federico Lombardi reports that he made to him to confirm the statements he, Ratzinger/Benedict, had made to Peter Seewald?

Unfortunately for defenders of all things Benedict such as Dr.John M. Haas, their unwillingness to believe that the man they think is the "pope" could hold the beliefs that were reported by "Father" Federico Lombardi on Tuesday, November 23, 2010, ignores Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict's lifelong war against Catholicism that he, Ratzinger/Benedict rationalizes by means of his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity." This warfare against Catholicism was demonstrated in several places in Light of the World, including his view of Judaism that considers the binding, dogmatic statements of our true popes and true councils, each of which met under the infallible guidance and protection of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, as nothing to be bothered about at all.

Once again, though, this is nothing new. There is really nothing new under this "Anti-Saint Peter's" sun. He is saying now what he has believed and said for years. A simple perusal of the pages of The Great Facade, a few passages from which are pasted in Appendix A below, reveals that the passage below from Light of the World is thoroughly consistent with what the false "pontiff" has written ont he subject of Judaism throughout his priestly career:

I must say that from the first day of my theological studies, the profound unity between the Old and New Testament, between the two parts of our Sacred Scripture, was somehow clear to me. I had realized that we could read the New Testament only together with what had preceded it, otherwise we would not understand it. Then naturally what happened in the Third Reich struck us as Germans, and drove us all the more to look at the people of Israel with humility, shame, and love.

In my theological formation, these things were interwoven, and marked the pathway of my theological thought. So it was clear to me – and here again in absolute continuity with John Paul II – that in my proclamation of the Christian faith there had to be a central place for this new interweaving, with love and understanding, of Israel and the Church, based on respect for each one's way of being and respective mission [. . .]

A change also seemed necessary to me in the ancient liturgy. In fact, the formula was such as to truly wound the Jews, and it certainly did not express in a positive way the great, profound unity between Old and New Testament. For this reason, I thought that a modification was necessary in the ancient liturgy, in particular in reference to our relationship with our Jewish friends. I modified it in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jews, and not only of the pagans. But also in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense, but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united. For this reason, the arguments used polemically against me by a series of theologians are rash, and do not do justice to what was done. (English translation of Text from L'Osservatore Romano's excerpts from Light of the World as found on the website of Italian Vaticanologist Sandro Magister .)


Notice how Ratzinger/Benedict has arrived at his view of Judaism. His view of Judaism comes from his own theological formation and the "pathway" of his own "theological thought," not from a firm adherence to the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, which remained entirely uncontradicted during his seminary days during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. This is pure Modernism. Modernists must base their beliefs upon personal experiences and feelings first. Doctrines that "disagree" with "their" conclusions must have become obsolete because the language used to express them contains only "contingent" truths that are subject to later modification. This is what the young Joseph Ratzinger was taught as a seminarian by professors enamored of the "new theology," professors who chafed at the condemnation of that "new theology" issued by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, that put the lie their "contingent truth" apostasy just as surely as had Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

15. Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

We have thus reached one of the principal points in the Modernist's system, namely, the origin and the nature of dogma. For they place the origin of dogma in those primitive and simple formulas, which, under a certain aspect, are necessary to faith; for revelation, to be truly such, requires the clear knowledge of God in the consciousness. But dogma itself, they apparently hold, strictly consists in the secondary formulas .

To ascertain the nature of dogma, we must first find the relation which exists between the religious formulas and the religious sense. This will be readily perceived by anyone who holds that these formulas have no other purpose than to furnish the believer with a means of giving to himself an account of his faith. These formulas therefore stand midway between the believer and his faith; in their relation to the faith they are the inadequate expression of its object, and are usually called symbols; in their relation to the believer they are mere instruments.

Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

13. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense -- with some modification when needful -- should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the .secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. "Blind'- they are, and "leaders of the blind" puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which "they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself." (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)


One of the keys to understanding the complex, paradoxical mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who rejects the "crystal-clear" certainty of Scholasticism, is that dogmatic formulae and/or papal pronouncements that are no longer "relevant" to the personal experience of the believer and to the historical circumstances of "modern man" have outlived their usefulness and need to be "re-thought." This is why he can regard such formulae and pronouncements "so lightly and in such open disrespect" as he has "no consideration or praise for anything but for the religious sense and for the religious life," meaning the sense of one's own personal, subjective experience and judgment. (The subject of Ratzinger/Benedict's personal warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth has been documented many times on this site, including in Witness Against Benedict XVI: The Oath Against Modernism on September 1, 2010, the one hundredth anniversary of the issuance of The Oath Against Modernism that young Joseph Ratzinger swore to uphold but has done nothing but contradict throughout his priestly life.

Those who have not read Saint Peter and Anti-Peter should do so to see for themselves the apostate statements that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI made when he visited the synagogue in Rome, Italy, on Sunday, January 18, 2010. One can see that from Ratzinger/Benedict's remarks delivered to those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that there is nothing "new" in this quote from Light of the World. Only those who have been hiding under a rock or who are trying to project their own fondest desires for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth into the mind of their "pope," something I did for far, far too long with Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II (see Singing the Old Songs) can be "shocked" as this concise summary of a view that he has expressed repeatedly as "Benedict XVI," including in his famous December 22, 2005, Christmas address to the members of his Roman curia:

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)


This is one of the reasons that Ratzinger/Benedict is so adamant about not having anyone within the ranks of his false church put into question any of the particular details of the crimes of the Nazis that were the result of the systematic de-Catholicization of Europe brought out by the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that was wrought by the Protestant Revolution and which leaders of Talmudic organizations exploited for their own purposes to promote secularism in Europe and to ghettoize Holy Mother Church. He cannot have anyone "dissent" from the very rationale that he has used to justify defining "in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel" that contradicts the consistent, immutable teaching of the Catholic Church as reiterated by true councils and true popes from time immemorial:

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.)

28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [28] "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body.


Did God the Holy Ghost permit the Catholic Church to be "wrong" on the matter of the invalidity of the Old Covenant prior to the "Second" Vatican Council? Can God change His Mind? Can God contradict Himself after the better part of over two millennia? Anyone who asserts this is an apostate of the first order. Such an apostate is Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. One should note that Ratzinger/Benedict told Peter Seewald that his views are in "continuity" with those of his predecessor, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, which demonstrate nothing other that both are apostates as both men have ignored binding doctrinal statements such as those cited above. This proves only that they have expelled themselves from the bosom of Holy Mother Church. Who says so? Pope Leo XIII, that's who:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).


Only an apostate, that is, one who is bereft of the sensus Catholicus, can think that to pray for the conversion of the Jews is to "wound" them.

Did Saint Peter, the first pope, "wound" the Jews when he preached as follows on Pentecost Sunday following the descent of God the Holy Ghost upon him and the other Apostles and Our Lady in tongues of flame in the same Upper Room in Jerusalem where Our Blessed Lord and Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had instituted the Holy Priesthood and the Holy Eucharist fifty-three days before?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Did Saint Vincent Ferrer, O.P., "wound" the Jews as he sought their conversion in the Iberian Peninsula and southern France at the end of the Fourteenth Century and the beginning of the Fifteenth Century?

Did the Mother of God herself "wound" the Jews as she sought the conversion of the Catholic-hating Alphonse Ratisbonne at the Church of San Andrea delle Fratte in Rome on January 20, 1842?

Did Pope Saint Pius X "wound" the founder of International Zionism, Theodore Herzl, when he spoke as follows to him on the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle, January 25, 1904?

POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?

POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.

HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].

POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.


Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not want to seek the conversion of the Jews as he believes that they have their "path" to salvation, that a Jewish reading of Scripture is a "possible" one, meaning that God was so obscure in His Divine Revelation that it is "difficult" to see that the Old Testament points the way unequivocally to the New Testament, an assertion that is nothing other than blasphemous:

In its work, the Biblical Commission could not ignore the contemporary context, where the shock of the Shoah has put the whole question under a new light. Two main problems are posed: Can Christians, after all that has happened, still claim in good conscience to be the legitimate heirs of Israel's Bible? Have they the right to propose a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they not instead, respectfully and humbly, renounce any claim that, in the light of what has happened, must look like a usurpation? The second question follows from the first: In its presentation of the Jews and the Jewish people, has not the New Testament itself contributed to creating a hostility towards the Jewish people that provided a support for the ideology of those who wished to destroy Israel? The Commission set about addressing those two questions. It is clear that a Christian rejection of the Old Testament would not only put an end to Christianity itself as indicated above, but, in addition, would prevent the fostering of positive relations between Christians and Jews, precisely because they would lack common ground. In the light of what has happened, what ought to emerge now is a new respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. On this subject, the Document says two things. 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.)

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.)


His Excellency Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, the Superior-General of the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, wrote the following about Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's blasphemy contained in God and the World:

What blasphemy! According to Ratzinger, divine revelation is obscure and there are perfectly good reasons for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ! What he is saying in reality is that God has failed inasmuch as the divinely inspired prophecies aren't sufficiently clear enough. This is the reason that Pope St. Pius X, knowing this evil tenet of modernism, explicitly stated in the Oath Against Modernism that miracles and prophecies are the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion, and that they are well adapted to all eras and all men. (Adsum, December 2007.)


Quite unlike Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who has such "respect" for a false religion that is hateful in the sight of true God of Divine Revelation, Saint John Chrysostom explained the true teaching of the Catholic Church about this abolished, superseded religion while we pray for the conversion of the Jews that is so near and dear to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:

Let that be your judgment about the synagogue, too. For they brought the books of Moses and the prophets along with them into the synagogue, not to honor them but to outrage them with dishonor. When they say that Moses and the prophets knew not Christ and said nothing about his coming, what greater outrage could they do to those holy men than to accuse them of failing to recognize their Master, than to say that those saintly prophets are partners of their impiety? And so it is that we must hate both them and their synagogue all the more because of their offensive treatment of those holy men." (Saint John Chrysostom, Fourth Century, A.D., Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews)

Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. "You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of wild beast", but "of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance". But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons.

(2) But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of God says so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?

(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place. (Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews)


Who says that Jews and Christians pray to the same God? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

9. Christians and Jews share to a great extent a common spiritual patrimony, they pray to the same Lord, they have the same roots, and yet they often remain unknown to each other.  It is our duty, in response to God’s call, to strive to keep open the space for dialogue, for reciprocal respect, for growth in friendship, for a common witness in the face of the challenges of our time, which invite us to cooperate for the good of humanity in this world created by God, the Omnipotent and Merciful. (Ratzinger at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )


Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is the same now as he has been throughout his priestly life. Apart from the plain evidence he has given us by means of his words and actions, how do we know this? Ah, he has told us himself in so many words in an interview with reporters from a German television station in 2006:

I've been taken apart various times: in my first phase as professor and in the intermediate phase, during my first phase as Cardinal and in the successive phase. Now comes a new division. Of course circumstances and situations and even people influence you because you take on different responsibilities. Let's say that my basic personality and even my basic vision have grown, but in everything that is essential I have remained identical. I'm happy that certain aspects that weren't noticed at first are now coming into the open. (Interview with Bayerische Rundfunk (ARD), ZDF, Deutsche Welle and Vatican Radio.)


God the Holy Ghost has warned us in Sacred Scripture of these days and of men such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. The Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity inspired Saint Paul the Apostle, who had once persecuted Holy Mother Church with ferocity as he presided over the stoning of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr, to write the following words about these times and the men who seek to deconstruct Catholic Faith, Morals and Worship at every turn:

I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.     (2 Timothy 4: 1-4.)


Let those who have the eyes of Faith see the truth that is before their very eyes: that the Catholic Church cannot give us any of the errors of this day, and that no true pope has ever acted or spoken as have the conciliar "popes."

Although I make the effort to provide readers of this site with the sharp contrasts between Catholicism and conciliarism, no amount of "argumentation" we can have with others will "prove" anything as those insistent on ignoring the plain truth can put up a thousand or more different defense mechanisms to assuage themselves that they do not need to reassess their false beliefs that a Catholic can hold to the view of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict and remain a Catholic in good standing, no less hold the office of the Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth. One either sees this or he does not. All we can do in the midst of the madness of this time is to pray fervently for the needs of Holy Mother Church as we seek to make reparation for our own many sins, including the sins that some of us committed by swatting away the truth when it was presented to us by saying, "Oh, this isn't 'official,' this doesn't 'mean' anything, we can resist and recognize a true pope, we can 'sift' what he says and does, things will get better with the next 'pope," you wait and see."

To embrace the truth of our ecclesiastical situation is not the path to popularity or worldly success or financial support (see Wear Your Catholic Stripes Well and We Must Suffer Well If We Want to Go to Heaven and Understood By God Alone). We cannot care about such things. We must care about being faithful to what we know is true without for one single, solitary moment thinking that we are any better than those who castigate us as they keep their mouths firmly shut when God is offended as the false "pontiff" esteems the symbols of false religions and contradicts our true popes concerning religious liberty and the separation of Church and State and when they adopt a utilitarian view of morality that is without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church. We live in a time of unparalleled confusion, which is why we must bear our own suffering well as we pray for those who believe that we, not the conciliar revolutionary who lives in the Apostolic Palace, are the principal threats facing the Holy Faith today.

We need to pray many Rosaries of reparation now that these additional offenses have been given to God by the false "pontiff." 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 need 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 the Talmud and 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! Vivat Christus Rex!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!


Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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 Catherine of Alexandria, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


In Continuity With Himself: Material From The Great Facade on the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger's View of Judaism

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

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

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


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

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

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


© Copyright 2010, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.