On 1 April 2017, OnePeterFive reported that Pope Francis chose Professor Anne-Marie Pelletier to write this year’s Via Crucis Meditations which will be read on Good Friday by the pope himself at the Colosseum in Rome. Pelletier was a speaker at the highly controversial May 2015 Day of Study at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome which had been organized by the German, French, and Swiss Bishops’ Conferences. As we then reported, this conference promoted progressively liberalizing ideas with regard to the “remarried” divorcees, as well as to the matter of homosexuality.
Pelletier herself made similar comments in her own presentation at that Day of Study, arguing that the Catholic Church should now make use of “her power to bind and to loosen,” thereby giving more scope now to those whose first marriages had somehow broken and who had then entered into a new civil bond. Pelletier then said, as follows:
But according to the New Testament, God Himself can dissolve a marriage – if the bond of the faithful with Him which has been concluded in baptism cannot at all be saved otherwise [sic]. Consequently, the Church has to make use of her power to bind and to loosen, and to do so in more cases than [were done] in the past – for the sake of the Faith. [emphasis added]
The French professor also argued that it was “a rather rigid interpretation” by the Church to have “interpreted the 6th Commandment expansively [sic] and in such a way that any sexual intercourse outside of a validly contracted marriage is judged as being licentious.”
In the face of such an heterodox speech, readers of OnePeterFive were astonished to learn that Pelletier was the first woman to receive, in 2014, the Ratzinger Prize, which was established in 2010 by Pope Benedict XVI, and with the further help of his own monetary donation. The Ratzinger Foundation which issues the yearly prize has a board that chooses the person to be awarded. This decision is, however, always made in cooperation with Pope emeritus Benedict XVI. Thus it is even more astonishing that, even after her scandalizing 2015 remarks critical of the traditional Catholic teaching on marriage, she would still be invited to contribute to a book initiated by the Ratzinger Foundation and honoring Benedict XVI himself.
Unfortunately, this is now the case.
As Radio Vatikan, the German branch of Vatican Radio, reports on 5 April, Anne-Marie Pelletier is one of the contributors to a book honoring Pope Benedict upon his 90th birthday. Radio Vatikan writes:
Internationally renowned theologians, biblical scholars, and philosophers honor the retired German pope: on the occasion of the 90th birthday of Benedict XVI on 16 April, the Vatican Publishing House (LEV) publishes the collection of essays which is entitled Cooperatores Veritatis and which has been initiated by the Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI Foundation.
Additional information can be found on the official website of the Vatican Foundation Joseph Ratzinger/ Benedict XVI where the following is stated with regard to this new publication:
The volume Cooperatores Veritatis. Scritti in onore del Papa emerito Benedetto XVI per il 90° compleanno, edited by Pierluca Azzaro and Father Federico Lombardi and published by the Vatican Publishing House, will be held on April, 6th at 5,30 p.m. at the Augustinian Patristic Institute of Rome (via Paolo VI, 25) […]
In order to celebrate the 90 years of the Emeritus Pope, the 13 scholars who had received Ratzinger Prize since 2011 offered their contribution – in a lot of languages and topics – and took part in this collective work.
The celebration volume – a proper “Festschrift” according to the German academic terminology – “is an original way to gather an international group of important scholars, who shared their views on Ratzinger’s thought” Father Lombardi wrote in the introduction to the work.
While it thus can be said that Professor Pelletier necessarily became a contributor to this book — in virtue of her being a Ratzinger Prize recipient — a certain atmosphere of scandal remains.
How is it that, in this time of turmoil within the Catholic Church — especially with regard to marriage — such an additionally confusing message has now to come to us from this unexpected direction?
One explanation could be that Pope Francis — who now as the new pope is ultimately in charge of this Ratzinger Foundation — himself might have effectively insisted upon her contribution, even (or especially) after her 2015 Day of Study remarks.
But then, we have also received some confusing messages from Joseph Ratzinger himself over the years. As OnepeterFive recently reported, it was Cardinal Ratzinger himself who, in 1972, considered that there might be an opening toward “remarried” divorcees with regard to Holy Communion:
Ratzinger himself displayed this interplay between critical thinking and obedience, being adventurous enough in his questioning to present in a 1972 essay an argument for Communion being given to the divorced and invalidly remarried – an immoral act (though he did not yet know it to be immoral, of course) – yet humble enough in his faith to later retract it in submission to the Magisterium. Concerning his essay’s suggestions about this immoral act, he explained in 1991, “Their implementation in pastoral practice would of course necessarily depend on their corroboration by an official act of the Magisterium to whose judgment I would submit [….] Now the Magisterium subsequently spoke decisively on this question in the person of [Pope John Paul II] in Familiaris Consortio” – and it spoke against Ratzinger’s 1972 argument, which he consequently edited out of future editions of the essay and consistently condemned in his future statements.
Then we also have the fact that several of the authors highly admired and promoted by Cardinal Ratzinger himself — such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, Adrienne von Speyr and Henri de Lubac — have come under increased criticism. Here we point to a recent OnePeterFive essay written by H. Reed Armstrong in which he shows that Hans Urs von Balthasar has made some troubling supportive comments about major promoters of the occultist worldview when writing a foreword to Valentin Tomberg’s 1985 book titled Meditations on the Tarot, a Journey into Christian Hermeticism. Armstrong also shows how de Lubac and some of his new doctrines had been in the 1940s and 1950s under papal criticism (to include disciplinary actions), especially for a “false mysticism.”
It was Joseph Ratzinger who, in 1990, helped to set up the Casa Balthasar in Rome which is a place of study especially attentive to the spirituality of von Balthasar, de Lubac, and von Speyr. As the official website of the Casa Balthasar says:
Casa Balthasar is a house of spiritual discernment and studies, located in Rome (Italy). It is intended primarily for young people of all nationalities who aspire to give themselves to the Lord in some form of consecrated life and who are convinced of the world’s need for radical Christian commitment.
Founded in 1990 under the patronage of Cardinal J. Ratzinger, it is a work of the Lubac-Balthasar-Speyr Association at the service of the universal Church, directed by Jacques Servais SJ.
The house draws its inspiration from Hans Urs von Balthasar, Adrienne von Speyr, and Henri de Lubac, three great teachers of the spiritual life for our time, deeply imbued with the Ignatian spirit of contemplation, discernment and social awareness. [second boldening added]
To add one other more disturbing and equivocal aspect of the Ratzinger legacy, we might mention that only a few months ago, OnePeterFive reported on the latest interview book published by Pope emeritus Benedict XVI (Last Testament: In His Own Words, 2016) which makes it clear that he himself (then as a counsellor to Cardinal Joseph Frings of Cologne) played a major, largely progressive, role during the Second Vatican Council in mildly helping to change the Council’s tone and atmosphere.
In his retrospective recent interview, Ratzinger then even admits to have had, as a young man,
A sort of an anti-Roman sentiment. Not in the sense that we denied the primacy – the obedience toward the pope – but, rather, that one had, after all, a certain inner reserve with regard to the theology made in Rome. In this sense, there was a certain distancing. [my emphasis]
Looking back, Benedict admits to have been glad when the original (and conservative) schemata of the Second Vatican Council were rejected (also, in part, due to his own role, as becomes clearer in this interview book):
We were then all very interested in seeing what the pope would do [after the vote which showed a slight majority in favor of the more traditionally prepared schemata]. And very glad that he said we will start all over again, even though the pure legal situation would have allowed us to preserve the old state. [my emphasis]
The original schema on the “Sources of Revelation” which Ratzinger considered to be “influenced by the anti-modernist way of thinking” and filled with a “frigid, yes, nearly shocking tone,” was subsequently rejected.
Moreover, Pope Benedict explains his progressive leaning when he tells the journalist that, during the Council, he himself was part of the “Progressives,” even though “then ‘progressive’ did not yet mean that one breaks out of the Faith, but, rather, that one learns to understand it better and lives it more correctly, out of the origins [which implies a criticism of the heretofore practice of the Catholic Faith].” Ratzinger continues:
At that time, I was of the opinion that that is what we all want. Famous Progressivists like Lubac, Daniélou et cetera thought alike. The change was palpable already during the second Conciliar year , but it became clearer only in the course of the following years.
Once more, when asked by the journalist Peter Seewald about his actual influential role, Benedict admits his desire for change at the time and that, even though he does have now some slight qualms of conscience, he still thinks that the change was necessary:
One does indeed ask oneself whether one did it the right way. Especially when the whole thing [after Vatican II] went off the rails, this was certainly a question that one raised. Cardinal Frings later had very strong qualms of conscience. But I always had the consciousness that what we had factually said and implemented was right and that it also needed to happen. In itself, we acted correctly – even if we certainly did not correctly assess the political effects and the factual consequences. [my emphasis]
Fifty years later, the Catholic Church is in a disastrous situation. Vocations in the West are plummeting — so that, in Germany, the Diocese of Munich received in 2016 only one new candidate seminarian — and both the knowledge and the practice of the Faith are diminishing. The Catholic Church is being currently eroded by aggressive forms of moral relativism (and multiculturalism) and Islamism, as Professor Roberto de Mattei just recently said in Washington, D.C.
Some thus believe that it is time for a sort of spring cleaning in the Catholic Church. It is time to make an honest assessment of how we got to where we are now, without still trying to preserve the reputations and honoring approbations of certain people. Why is it that still those who wished to preserve the Catholic Faith in its entirety — with all of its traditional devotions, prayers, practices and liturgies — now still have to defend themselves? Where is the “burden of proof,” the “Onus Probandi“? Why is it not so that those who actually helped to change the Catholic Faith in so many facets within the last decades should be now on the bench, instead, to explain and justify themselves? Why do some people, for example, endorse von Balthasar’s having written a foreword to an occultist book — and rebuke those who criticize him for it — instead of letting von Balthasar justify himself (or have his followers do it) for “dabbling in the occult and hermeticism”? Such a thing is only further confusing the minds of Catholics. In a time of an immense increase of the penetration and larger problem of occultism, may we not ask the question whether this dabbling and select approval were not themselves a gravely culpable act, at least by way of negligence?
Moreover, Robert Hickson has just published an essay on Catholicism.org in which he analyzes some of Cardinal Ratzinger’s own 1982 words about the traditionalists who had tried to resist the novelties coming out from Rome. Ratzinger wrote such things also in the 1987 English translation of his 1982 original German:
Among the more obvious phenomena of the last [post-Conciliar] years [1965-1982?] must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of the mystery [sic], is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these [more traditionalist] movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1987), pp. 389-390–my emphasis added)
Is it so that we traditional Catholics have still to be so thoroughly and so firmly resisted? Is it not getting more and more clear that the wholesome growth in the Catholic Church which is taking place is largely linked to Catholics who are loyally returning to Tradition — also to the Traditional Gregorian-Tridentine Mass? Is it not so that those who helped to “modernize and update” the Catholic Church some fifty years ago should now themselves make a candid examination of conscience, realizing that, once one opens up an equivocal, deliberately ambiguous discussion about one aspect of Catholic dogma or “irreformable doctrine” and morals, other decompositions of Catholicism will follow and will tend to unravel the whole edifice?
(To give here a small, but apt, example. The promoter of female priests and of married priests, Bishop emeritus Erwin Kräutler, made in 2016 the following significant comparison. With regard to the question of women priests, Bishop Kräutler first responds with the answer: “Nothing at all is here impossible!” He compares this possible change with some of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council: “The Second Vatican Council made several decisions which would have been considered to be heretical around the time of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870). Let us only think of the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965) on Religious Freedom.” [emphasis added])
These varied questions that I have posed here certainly come from someone who is not a specialist in such matters. I thus now invite others who are much more soundly formed and erudite than I to continue this proposed discussion. But, for sure, we have to ask these “searchlight” questions, candidly, and without false loyalties. The salvation of souls is often at stake, and our final loyalty should be first and ultimately to Our Lord Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. It seems that the doctrinal confusion has been creeping and seeping into the Catholic Church for quite some time now. While some of the protagonists of the last fifty or sixty years might have kept up certain essential parts of Catholic doctrine and morals, they might have slipped or drifted too far and too laxly in other areas.
Here, I would like to add one last question. How is it that, in 2000, the Vatican would declare that the Protestant and Orthodox churches are still, somehow, members of the Catholic Church, while these same churches do not abide by Our Lord’s specific teaching on marriage? Neither its indissolubility nor its sacramentality, for instance?
For, this is what the CDF document Dominus Jesus — signed by Cardinal Ratzinger himself and even likely largely written by him — had actually said in 2000:
Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist [e.g. Orthodox churches], are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church. […] On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, [e.g. Protestant churches] are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. [emphasis added]
How is it that we fight this combat now within the Catholic Church, defending Christ’s Own Words on marriage, when all along other Christian churches were disobeying Him, and for many a year, but were ecumenically declared by the Catholic Church to be somehow still in good standing with God? Do we perhaps now have to deal with this spreading relativism about marriage because we did not earlier resist the then-increasing relativism concerning the membership in the Church — and even about the very nature of the Church herself (i.e., de Ecclesia)?
Do these Words of Christ still objectively matter or not?
Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word [My Will, My Commandments], and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him. (John 14:23) [emphasis added]
The article has been updated with the link to Robert Hickson’s recent article “The Incarnation and Grace.“
Update 9 April: The Ratzinger Foundation has made a statement in which it expresses its gratitude for the fact that Professor Pelletier has been chosen to write the Via Crucis Meditations for this year’s Good Friday thus further supporting a woman who undermines Christ’s teaching on marriage. The statement says: “Professor Pelletier, an important scholar of contemporary French Catholicism, received the Ratzinger Prize in 2014. The Joseph Ratzinger –Benedict XVI Vatican Foundation is grateful to know that the estimated professor was entrusted with such an important task.”
Dr. Maike Hickson, born and raised in Germany, studied History and French Literature at the University of Hannover and lived for several years in Switzerland where she wrote her doctoral dissertation. She is married to Dr. Robert Hickson, and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits.
Her articles have appeared in American and European journals such as Catholicism.org, LifeSiteNews, The Wanderer, Culture Wars, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Apropos, and Zeit-Fragen.
News of this sort is coming fast and furious. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg of what’s in store for us. I can hardly process one day’s bad news and another outrage is upon us. It’s increasingly difficult to see Pope Francis as anything but a threat to the Faith.
He is SURELY a threat to the faith. No doubt about it.
It is all a GIGANTIC mess.
Pope John XXIII’s Opening Address to V2 : …” The church has always opposed errors regarding the faith and, in the
past, did so “with the greatest severity. Nowadays, however, the spouse
of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than of
severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by
demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by
condemnations.” Why are Catholic Liberals always optimists? That V2 policy of mercy has been naive & disastrous enabling every destructive heresy to be broadcast in the name of freedom supported by a misleading spirit of Christian fraternity. CDF may have been merciful to dissenting authors, but it showed NO MERCY to the lalty, being too slow to act, with no official mechanism ever put in place to warn the laity. Renegade Bishops and theologians have done whatever they wanted in seminaries and catechesis, with the occasional exception. It’s very difficult to imagine any of the Apostles fanning out of the Holy Land with a laissez-faire attitude. We are living in a time when men will not tolerate sound doctrine and they are calling evil good, and good evil. Did Jesus not say (Matthew)” If the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into the pit”. Jesus reminds us we have a level of responsibility regarding who we choose to listen to, and who we choose to follow.
Folks, Joseph Ratzinger is not the problem. It is true that he was a progressive during Vatican II. However as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as Pope he did an incredible amount of good. He gave us Sommorum Pontificum and single handedly dismantled liberation theology. Further, there is no one in the world today – and I mean no one — who has done more to combat relativism. Even more fundamentally, he better than any churchman of our times fortified the defense of the faith at the intellectual level against secular attack.
He appears to have realized the error of his youthful ideas and repudiated them as he grew in age and wisdom. And may God bless him for it.
Thank you for a very sober survey of Joseph Ratzinger’s record. As an addition to your list of revealing citations to Ratzinger’s work, I would propose the following:
“Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature which the individual is presented with as his church, and in which he lives as a believer, not a heretic.” Joseph Ratzinger, The Open Circle: The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood (1966) at 125.
Doesn’t that sound eerily like Kasper? Or perhaps Francis? Isn’t that typical of their approach? They don’t want to simply say that what once was heresy now is truth. Instead they invent (out of thin air apparently) an entirely new category called “positive ecclesial nature” which mysteriously (or perhaps more precisely magically) “develops” out of heresy, but which on the other hand is not “truth,” because their starting point is that “heresy cannot later … become truth.” So if it once was heresy, and cannot become truth, then doesn’t simple logic require that it remain heresy? Perhaps because I haven’t done doctoral work in Theology, I’m just not able to understand something that is neither true nor false (heresy) but rather has a “positive ecclesial nature” which is neither.
While it is tempting to imagine that Ratzinger’s thinking radically evolved since 1966, it’s probably more accurate to say that Ratzinger never was and is not now a Traditionalist. He was and remains a modernist. His ‘right wing’ modernism (what we call ‘conservatism’) starkly contrasts with the progressive or ‘left wing’ modernity of Kasper and Francis. All three, however, are firmly rooted in the Nouvelle Theologie movement of 1960s, whose motto “return to the sources” (‘Ressourcement’) was less a research program than it was a marketing slogan.
No madam, that is not an “interpretation”, as if it were some mere opinion. That is a doctrine – held de fide – and is infallibly held as a primary object of divine revelation, which has been held universally at all times and in all places. So therefore it “must be firmly accepted and held” and that anyone who rejects it “sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church” (Canon 750, § 2). This is a “professor” who is remarkably ignorant of the Catholic Faith as it has been handed down to us from time immemorial.
Maybe she should re-read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:
27] You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery.  But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Well you know the serpent is always there to ask : Did God say?
A LOT of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. And a lot of Pope Benedict’s conservative reversion left out. For example, we all know both he and JPII helped to stop the attempts at a third Vatican Council immediately after the Second V.C..
The other thing is that most Catholics today (baby boomers) DON’T anything about what happened at VII or who wrote what forward for what book and so on. I read a great book about the Blessed Mother called ‘Mary, The Church at the Source’ written by both Balthazar and Ratzinger and loved it. Nothing shady or dubious about it.
As a historian myself, context is everything. There were German bishops and priests who did support Nazism in Germany and Italy and those who supported Mussolini in Italy. Europe has an a very old history. Even the problems of a country like Ireland can’t be explained simply with a Catholic vs. Protestant narrative. It’s MUCH deeper than that. WWII had a profound effect on both JPII and Benedict XVI. That kind of horror both during the war and subsequent violence of vengeance and retaliation during the cross-migration of displaced peoples back to their native countries is a history not known to many. Jews continued to be scapegoated in Poland and Germans were blamed for it all.
Beyond the insidious influence of both the Communists and Freemasons to whatever effect they had, there also had to be a more base human apathy to anything resembling a top-down empirical authority with power invested to one person at the top. That’s just how human politics and society works. When kings, Queens, Lords and Emperors abuse their power, the people subjected to them will want the opposite of such authoritarianism. No? But these days we are at a crossroads where the governments of the people have too become corrupt and so we seek a benevolent ruler type to fight against the NWO and globalists.
I love 1P5 and they along with a few other outlets like The Remnant, coupled with this disastrous papacy have helped my conversion to the TLM. But Benedict XVI did play a part as well in my conversion from atheism with no Christian baptism or upbringing into the One True Catholic Faith. It does me no good to point my finger at him and blame him retroactively. For me, he was the conservative pope who always resisted liberalism and then even legalized the TLM. We have enough to worry about with Francis, stop kicking an old man in the last years of his life. Without the internet, both JPII and Benedict would be flawless on the basis of their writings and exhortations, etc, etc. You can’t uncanonize JPII and Benedict is a living saint compared to Francis. Let’s move on.
Personally, I blame The Beatles. …I hate The Beatles.
I’m sure Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant, agrees with you re the Beatles:
No mate; it was the Stones! It woz all cos a’ da Stones!
There is enough ‘fake news’ to choke a horse in our post Christian era. If our secular news is jam packed with it, what’s to make anyone think that our Church news is not? To tell you the truth, I take EVERYTHING with a huge grain of salt anymore. Sad that we cannot completely trust and especially with our Church news, but that seems to be the way it is in 2017. Yes, Ratzinger was part and parcel of the tragic outcome of Vat ll, but he didn’t show much modernism when he was sitting in the Chair of Peter. He displayed quite the opposite. Was it an ‘evolution of faulty modernist thinking’ on his part that his ‘conscience’ tugged at him a little too forcefully, and his eyes were opened? Or was he just good at hiding his true colors? I’m not sure we’ll ever really know, but I can tell you this much; With Benedict at least we didn’t see his claws out and bearing his teeth every other day, threatening to tear apart the Church of Christ. With Francis? NOT SO MUCH.
The latest zinger by Francis? “Christ became the Devil for us on the cross”.. IF this one is true, I’m wondering if there are any reasonable, faithful Bishops in the Vatican that are trying to figure out how to commit him? They have to be wondering what good a formal correction would do, and maybe what really needs to happen, is to have him evaluated medically and mentally. Would LOVE to be a fly on the wall.
HORRIBLE!!! When did he say THAT???
Was he mistranslating 2 Corinthians 5: 21?
21] Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him.
 Sin for us: That is, to be a sin offering, a victim for sin.
He took that scripture and went even farther with it. There is no official English translation of the morning homily he said that in (I think it was on April 6?” but the italian is pretty unequivocal. He said Jesus became the devil for us.
Sorry Margaret, haven’t been back here since yesterday, but yes Jafin is right.
Btw, I agree with your original post. That zinger packed a wallop, though.
WOW. I agree with you and stand tall 909. If they did find him non compos mentis, then his supporters would say that this is a power grab. O dear God, please end the crisis the Church!
Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us! Since we have no defense, we sinners offer this supplication to You, our Master: Have mercy on us!
Troparion, Tone 6
Is there a link to this?
I wish I was doubting your word. Sadly I am not. Just wanting to add to my case as I am surrounded by PF fans.
I don’t put much credence into anything this site says other than when they’re facts (it’s one of the supreme sedevacantist websites) but it’s the only place I’ve seen in English. http://novusordowatch.org/2017/04/francis-christ-made-himself-devil/
So, take most of it with a grain of salt. The English version is on the Vatican Radio site, but it’s a series of excerpts and it skips this line. That’s here. http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/pope-francis/homilies
It’s shocking, though not surprising that Vatican Radio skips the line.
BBC/CNN would be proud.
1P5 has an article on the matter now too. 🙂
I could not find an english translation either. But if he has said that, it is appalling!
I would like to mention that there is a wealth of information regarding Vat II and its preparations. ‘Traditionalism’ did not begin in the 21st century. Many people (my mother and many others) had small newspapers in the 70s, 80s & 90s discussing the goings-on. There were also many who were known farther afield: Michael Davies, Walter Matt (originally of The Wanderer, and then The Remnant, capably continued by his son Michael), John Vennari who is being buried today (Catholic Family News). Chris Ferrara is an excellent chronicler as well. You could not lose by searching for Michael Davies’ Short History of the Roman Mass, or Liturgical Time Bombs, both available inexpensively on Kindle. His Trilogy of Vat II may be available in hard cover. H. J. A. Sire released an excellent book in 2016: Phoenix from the Ashes, which is a very meaty history of so much of the damage of the past several decades.
I mention these because there is information available from when these topics were covered as news. It would help concerned Catholics to better understand the chronology of the attempted destruction of tradition.
I don’t think I want to read this book. Seems like an opportunity to reach more Catholics by inserting evil into it. It also seems like they Masonic powers that be in the Vatican are using pope Benedict to further their own corrupt agenda like heretical tentacles reaching out to anything Catholic that moves.
Stars falling from heaven has been interpreted as consecrated religious, the priesthood (such as a third swept away by the tail of the red dragon) falling away from the faith. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, with the authority to bind and loose.
Who is to say that this “star” in Rev 9:1 isn’t the pope, who, with the authority given him through his office, opens the abyss?
“Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology” . This quote shocks those of us who saw Pope Benedict as a lover of the full Catholic faith. Just as this text stands, it does not explain how such a meek man could express this “irritated” attitude towards integralists, unless of course he has his own definition of “integralists” ; Ratzinger says he was a “progressive” but then he redefines “progressive” in his own way. If Ratzinger in 1982 was strongly against Traditionalists, how are we to understand him? How are we to understand Summorum Pontificum? Did Benedict have his own definition of what he thought a Pope should be ? Did he see his Papal role as enabling all groups even the Traditionalists within the Church to flourish?
From the time of V2, Ecumenism was embraced widely in the Church. The 5 principles of Ecumenism include being strongly opposed to proselytising and defence of doctrine because it is seen as an obstacle to a future unity based on love.
I can’t understand why he didn’t know in 1972 that Communion for the divorced/remarried was peremptorily prohibited. I have been under the impression that this prohibition is a timeless teaching of the Church, only simply reiterated in Familiaris Consortio (in 1984). I can’t imagine that before 1984 it was allowed. If someone can clear up my misunderstanding I would be grateful. Thank you.