So, when Ratzinger was appointed to the "Holy Office" under JP2, he was re-invented as God's Rotweiller, a staunch defender of orthodoxy, when he was never anything of the sort. If you want to accept the less-conspiratorial view, he was one who simply felt that the V2 revolution had proceeded too quickly, that they were rushing the Hegelian dialectic. He believed in the more patient "boil the frog" approach. BTW: keep an eye out for how they play the Hegelian dialectic, swinging from liberal to conservative to even more liberal, etc. They do this to shift the perception of liberal vs. conservative to the left. So, now, after years of employing this tactic, people believe that JP2 was the most orthodox pope since St. Pius V ... despite the fact that he was the greatest purveyor of religious indifferentism ever to sit on the See of Peter (putting Bergoglio and his pachamama episode to utter shame).
But it is my opinion that this re-invention of Ratzinger was a deliberate setup for what was to follow, where he would succeed Wojtyla, where his mission (from his handlers) would be to re-absorb that pesky Trad movement, which is all that stood in the way of their total destruction of Catholicism. So Ratzinger spoke in Latin to the cardinals, issued his
Motu, and nearly succeeded in reabsorbing SSPX ... were it not for that troublesome interview given by one Bishop Richard Williamson. That scuttled the re-unification, as the Jews got all up in arms about it. Once it was clear that he had failed in his mission to re-absorb SSPX, he was told to step down and make way for Jorge. BTW, the
Motu was really smoke and mirrors. It merely shifted (vs. the Wojtyla "Indult") from "forbidden unless permitted" to "permitted unless forbidden" ... still leaving the ultimate decision with the bishop (except in the case of private Masses).
While Ratzinger was head of the "Holy Office", he slapped his old buddy Hans Kung on the wrist. Kung received a sternly-worded rebuke and was told he could no longer teach "Catholic" theology. Recall that this guy was a FLAMING OPEN HERETIC ... without any question ... explicitly and consciously denying numerous Church dogmas. But he was not excommunicated and not laicized (unlike Pavone). AND he was allowed to continue teaching at Tubingen, as the university simply transferred him on paper to a different department, so instead of "Catholic Theology," he kept teaching his same heresies in the "Ecuмenical" theology department ... the same content, except they simply re-labeled the classes with a different class and section number.
So for all the bluster, Kung got a stern rebuke and a slap on the wrist from God's Rottweiler. It was a show, a show to build the image among Catholics that this guy was St. Pius V re-incarnated. Same thing applied to Charlie Curran in the US during the same time period, slap on the wrist and title change. Recall that these are guys who taught open heresy ... without any question, without any possibility to salvage them by some "hermeneutic of continuity" gymnastics.
In any case, Ratzinger remained friends with the apostate Kung:
https://magill.ie/archive/benedict-xvi-year-later-former-friendsHans Kung and Joseph Ratzinger were colleagues and friends at the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's. Both theologians, both liberal. But Kung was later "silenced" by the Church and Ratzinger became the Church "enforcer". Now as Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger again has befriended his former friend.
As the article admits, this incident helped propel Ratzinger's image into that of the Church "enforcer". I would have loved to be a fly on the wall (or listen to some bug planted by a foreign government) to listen to the two, who spoke for 4 hours, talking heresy and rejoicing in the undermining of the Church. I doubt Ratzinger felt that Kung needed "conversion," as he remained priest in good standing with the Church (while Pavone gets laicized).
Oh, what most people don't know, is that Kung got Ratzinger his job teaching at Tubingen (where Kung already was) and took Ratzinger under his wing, serving as his protege.
Among other heresies, Kung openly rejected the dogma of papal infallibility, held that women should be ordained to the diaconate, and promoted over-the-top religious indifferentism (Kung criticized Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" because the latter held that Christ was still necessary for salvation, even if acting without the knowledge of the one being saved -- sadly, similar to +Lefevre's soteriology).
Here we have Cardinal Kasper "the friendly Ecuмenist" attesting to the fact that there's "no substantial difference" between the theology of Jorge Bergoglio and Ratzinger, something that the Bennyvacantists are in denial about:
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/10/19/kasper-sees-no-substantial-difference-between-benedict-and-francisAs one of the major protagonists of the Francis papacy — and arguably of the Catholic Church since Vatican II — German Cardinal Walter Kasper argues, “there is no real substantial difference between Pope Benedict and Pope Francis.”
“They are different personalities of course, different backgrounds,” said Kasper. “One is European, the other comes from Latin America. [But] if you read exactly what they write, it’s the same line and substance.”
Here the Dimonds put out a video over an hour in length detailing the heresies of Joseph Ratzinger ... and of course Bishop Tissier wrote a book on the subject.
Topic: Benedict nearing death? (Read 11705 times)