Benedict XVI was no different (Modernist revolutionary)...

Benedict XVI was no different

 (Modernist revolutionary)...

JAMES LARSON 

Commentary by Fr. Paul Kramer

The Ratzinger Agenda

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

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Cardinal Ratzinger, in his private writings, is applying this criteria of being "provisional" and "capable of being superseded" to doctrinal formulations of the Magisterium of many previous Popes (as I have very clearly documented in War Against Being).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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ratzinger Effect

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

Archbishop Lefebvre speaking
of Cardinal Ratzinger:"
—ah, the Cardinal is an artful dodger!"

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

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

Papal Enquiry

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

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

  

Pope Benedict Masonic Handshakes?... 

ADDENDUM

The Ratzinger Eucharistic Heresy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2004/features_feb04_bonus.html

Vatican II NewChurch needs to be theologically
qualified the same as the Russian/Greek
Orthodox church; it is heretical/schismatic.

  “Cardinal Ratzinger is against infallibility. The pope is against infallibility by his philosophical formation. Understand me rightly! – We are not against the pope insofar as he represents all the values of the Apostolic See which are unchanging, of the See of Peter, but we are against the pope insofar as he is a modernist who does not believe in his own infallibility, who practices ecumenism. Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church. We are the ones that are excommunicated while and because we wish to remain Catholic, we wish to stay with the Catholic Pope and with the Catholic Church – that is the difference.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview, One Year after the Consecrations, 1989)

Fr. Paul Kramer adds (Facebook November 10th, 2014): 

Ratzinger's Protestant "Real Presence"
“The transformation happens, which affects the gifts we bring by taking them up into a higher order and changes them, even if we cannot measure what happens. When material things are taken into our body as nourishment, or for that matter whenever any material becomes part of a living organism, it remains the same, and yet as part of a new whole it is itself changed. Something similar happens here. The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different.” – Cardinal Ratzinger, God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life (Ignatius Press, 2003), p. 86.

Archbishop Lefebvre on these modernist heretics:
The See of Peter and the posts
of authority in Rome are being
occupied by anti-Christs.

 The Catholic doctrine is that from a purely physical point of view, the bread & wine appear the same; but they do not remain the same, because only the accidents of bread & wine remain, while the substance changes, and thus a different physical reality results which only appears the same. Ratzinger says from a purely physical point of view they remain the same -- he says the bread & wine are still there, but they are brought "into a new order".
Ratzinger's doctrine is quite explicitly the doctrine of CONSUBSTANTIATION: Ratzinger says that "nature in a physical sense" is NOT changed. According to Catholic doctrine, the NATURE of bread & wine is SUBSTSANCE & ACCIDENTS, which is PHYSICALLY CHANGED by TRANSUBSTANTIATION into a different NATURE (physis, φύσις) -- no longer the φύσις of bread & wine, but the physical reality of only the accidents of bread & wine, without their substance; and under the appearance of bread & wine is the substance of Christ's Body & Blood.

Archbishop Lefebvre on these modernist heretics:“Rome has lost the Faith,
my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy.
These are not words in the air.
It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy…
They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987)

 Benedict XVI - " “[We] are in agreement that a Jew - and this is true for believers of other religions - does not need to know or to acknowledge Christ is the Son of God in order to be saved.” This is HERESY.  St. Peter & the Apostles taught the OPPOSITE in Acts 2.
Source: http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/P010_Judaism_3.htm