I've always been perplexed by this statement.I'm pretty sure everyone is.
I'm pretty sure everyone is.Without doubt the entire Papacy, and thus the Church, has had much to suffer. I sometimes wonder about certain translations that have come down to us. Do they convey the true significations?
But imo I think it is yet to come since so far, the good have not yet been martyred nor have various nations been annihilated, not literally anyway. This is of course presuming that these events are to occur at, or about the same time.
I've always read it as a reference to the assault on the papacy by the Church's enemies, the Holy Father being a generic phrase, and not necessarily a reference to a specific one. She wasn't talking about Wojtyla and Jorge. Some have tried to apply it to Cardinal Siri (the hidden pope) and others to Pius XII's last 5 years of debilitating and mysterious ailments, but I don't see it as referring to a concrete situation or a specific pope but rather to the papacy in general.Oops! I should have read all the posts first. Then I could have agreed with you. :)
What’s the proper interpretation of this? Has this pope already passed? Or is he yet to come?.
The Holy Father who "will have much to suffer" is the same Pope mentioned by Pius X in his prophetic vision.Hi Angelus,
https://greatmonarch-angelicpontiffprophecies.blogspot.com/p/st-pius-x-1835-1914.html
"I have seen one of my successors, by (the same) name, who was fleeing over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in some hiding place; but after a brief respite he will die a cruel death."
Pius X's name was Giuseppe (Joseph) Sarto. The Pope he is referring to is Joseph Aloysius Ratzinger. Ratzinger is the Pope who "fled" the papacy, and who prophetically said "Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves," in his 2005 Inauguration speech (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/homilies/2005/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050424_inizio-pontificato.html).
How do we know this? Because BXVI is the last pope listed by a "nickname" ("the Glory of the Olive") in St. Malachy's Prophecy of the Popes. No other previous papal claimants fit the profile.
Also, Conchita of Garabandal said, when she asked how many Popes there would be until "the end times," Our Lady told her there would be 4 more Popes, but one of them would reign for so short a time that he would not count. Conchita told that story right after the death of Roncalli. 4 Popes: Paul VI, JPI, JPII, BXVI. End times start with Bergoglio the Antipope, False Prophet, and, soon to be revealed as, the Antichrist.
Hi Angelus,
I enjoy your posts because I think you have some really good analysis of Sacred Scripture.
I'm perplexed by something, however...
are you aware that Benedict XVI is the most likely author of the fake Third Secret and
promoted the following heresies?
Saved by Faith alone
Jєωs should NOT be converted
Old Testament does not refer to Christ as prophesied Messiah
Praise for Islam who worship "the same god"
Denies the bodily resurrection of Our Lord
and on and on...
most of this in books he wrote while he was the acting "pope"!
I don't advocate for everything from this channel, but in the case of carefully docuмenting the outrageous heresies and apostasy of Benedict this video is the best thing available on the subject since it quotes directly from his books:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkPiaS1z6Vs&t=91s
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkPiaS1z6Vs&t=91s)He clearly wasn't even Catholic and in fact was an antichrist.
Hi Miser. Thanks for the kind words. I enjoy your posts as well.
I am familiar with that video and the claims about the "heresies" of Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. The simplest answer to your question is that I don't believe that he was a "heretic." I think the video exaggerates much of the "evidence" and doesn't use the proper standard to determine "heresy."
If you want to explore that more, Fr. Paul Kramer has written extensively on the topic in relation to Ratzinger and Bergoglio:
https://www.amazon.com/deceive-elect-catholic-doctrine-heretical/dp/1945658134/
Angelus, I didn't yet watch the video recommended by Miser, but I don't understand how a traditional Catholic can deny that the writings of B16 contain heresy. Here is a brief list of some of the many in table form, alongside of Church teaching.
https://www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofb16.htm
Angelus, I didn't yet watch the video recommended by Miser, but I don't understand how a traditional Catholic can deny that the writings of B16 contain heresy. Here is a brief list of some of the many in table form, alongside of Church teaching.
https://www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofb16.htm
The intrinsic relationship between celebration and adoration66. One of the most moving moments of the Synod came when we gathered in Saint Peter's Basilica, together with a great number of the faithful, for eucharistic adoration. In this act of prayer, and not just in words, the assembly of Bishops wanted to point out the intrinsic relationship between eucharistic celebration and eucharistic adoration. A growing appreciation of this significant aspect of the Church's faith has been an important part of our experience in the years following the liturgical renewal desired by the Second Vatican Council. During the early phases of the reform, the inherent relationship between Mass and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament was not always perceived with sufficient clarity. For example, an objection that was widespread at the time argued that the eucharistic bread was given to us not to be looked at, but to be eaten. In the light of the Church's experience of prayer, however, this was seen to be a false dichotomy. As Saint Augustine put it: "nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit; peccemus non adorando – no one eats that flesh without first adoring it; we should sin were we not to adore it." (191) In the Eucharist, the Son of God comes to meet us and desires to become one with us; eucharistic adoration is simply the natural consequence of the eucharistic celebration, which is itself the Church's supreme act of adoration. (192) Receiving the Eucharist means adoring him whom we receive. Only in this way do we become one with him, and are given, as it were, a foretaste of the beauty of the heavenly liturgy. The act of adoration outside Mass prolongs and intensifies all that takes place during the liturgical celebration itself. Indeed, "only in adoration can a profound and genuine reception mature. And it is precisely this personal encounter with the Lord that then strengthens the social mission contained in the Eucharist, which seeks to break down not only the walls that separate the Lord and ourselves, but also and especially the walls that separate us from one another." (193)The practice of eucharistic adoration67. With the Synod Assembly, therefore, I heartily recommend to the Church's pastors and to the People of God the practice of eucharistic adoration, both individually and in community. (194) Great benefit would ensue from a suitable catechesis explaining the importance of this act of worship, which enables the faithful to experience the liturgical celebration more fully and more fruitfully. Wherever possible, it would be appropriate, especially in densely populated areas, to set aside specific churches or oratories for perpetual adoration. I also recommend that, in their catechetical training, and especially in their preparation for First Holy Communion, children be taught the meaning and the beauty of spending time with Jesus, and helped to cultivate a sense of awe before his presence in the Eucharist.Here I would like to express appreciation and support for all those Institutes of Consecrated Life whose members dedicate a significant amount of time to eucharistic adoration. In this way they give us an example of lives shaped by the Lord's real presence. I would also like to encourage those associations of the faithful and confraternities specifically devoted to eucharistic adoration; they serve as a leaven of contemplation for the whole Church and a summons to individuals and communities to place Christ at the centre of their lives.Forms of eucharistic devotion68. The personal relationship which the individual believer establishes with Jesus present in the Eucharist constantly points beyond itself to the whole communion of the Church and nourishes a fuller sense of membership in the Body of Christ. For this reason, besides encouraging individual believers to make time for personal prayer before the Sacrament of the Altar, I feel obliged to urge parishes and other church groups to set aside times for collective adoration. Naturally, already existing forms of eucharistic piety retain their full value. I am thinking, for example, of processions with the Blessed Sacrament, especially the traditional procession on the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, the Forty Hours devotion, local, national and international Eucharistic Congresses, and other similar initiatives. If suitably updated and adapted to local circuмstances, these forms of devotion are still worthy of being practised today. (195)
Ratzinger laments that we have recently come to overemphasize what he calls a “mere sign of brotherly fellowship,” to the detriment of the element of sacrifice. He expresses concern that we have minimalized the Eucharist to a simple half hour of time during the week and have placed Eucharistic adoration “on the edge of things.” He tells us that instead, our days have been consumed with worldly thoughts and worldly business. In other words, we make very little sacrifice to partake in the Eucharist, particularly in the form of Eucharistic adoration.
| Calefactory.com false translation | Actual full quote from Ratzinger. Properly translated. Found this this book available on Kindle (https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Ratzinger-Collected-Works-Theology-ebook/dp/B01MXJ2I5W/) |
| "Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects." | "Eucharistic adoration or a quiet visit in church, if it is to make sense, cannot simply be a conversation with God who is thought to be present in a circuмscribed locality. Statements such as “God dwells here” and conversations with the “local” God that are justified in this way manifest a misunderstanding of both the Christian mystery and the concept of God that is necessarily repellant to the thinking of man who knows about God’s omnipresence. If someone wished to justify going to church on the grounds that one must pay a visit to the God who is present only there, then that would in fact be a reason that made no sense and would rightly be rejected by modern man. Eucharistic adoration is in truth related to the Lord, who through his historical life and suffering has become “Bread” for us; in other words, through his Incarnation and self-abandonment to death he has become the One who is open for us. Such prayer is therefore related to the historical mystery of Jesus Christ, to God’s history with men that moves toward us in the sacrament. And it is related to the history of God with men, it is related ot the whole “Body of Christ,” to the community of believers, in which and through which God comes to us. In this way praying in church and before the Blessed Sacrament is the “classification” of our relation to God under the mystery of the Church as the specific locality where God meets us. And finally, this is the purpose of our going to church at all: so that I in an orderly fashion may take my place in God’s history with men—only the setting in which I as as a man have my true human existence and which alone therefore also opens up for me the true space of my encounter with God’s eternal love. For this love does not seek merely an isolated spirit, which (as we have already said) would be a ghost compared with man’s reality; rahter it seeks man utterly and entirely, in the body of his historicity, and it gives him in the holy signs of the sacraments the guarantee of a divine answer in which the open question of being human arrives at its goal and comes to its fulfillment." |
I've given up trying to interpret anything related to Fatima.This may help. Somebody posted this on another thread.
Nadir, I suggest that you not trust that source. I will give just one example, the first one in that Calefactory list (the others are also false), the accusation that "Ratzinger denies the Real Presence."
Here is what he wrote as Pope BXVI in the Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis.html):
Here is a summary (https://www.corpuschristiphx.org/blog?month=202309&id=234658267&cat=931661708&pg=1&title=Cardinal+Ratzinger%26%238217%3Bs+Eucharistic+Homilies+Part+1%3A+Eucharistic+Adoration+%26+Sacred+Nature) of some of his homilies from the 1970s and 1980s:
Read what the man actually said, not quotes taken out of context by people with an agenda. Here is the direct comparison:
Calefactory.com false translation Actual full quote from Ratzinger. Properly translated. Found this this book available on Kindle (https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Ratzinger-Collected-Works-Theology-ebook/dp/B01MXJ2I5W/) "Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects." "Eucharistic adoration or a quiet visit in church, if it is to make sense, cannot simply be a conversation with God who is thought to be present in a circuмscribed locality. Statements such as “God dwells here” and conversations with the “local” God that are justified in this way manifest a misunderstanding of both the Christian mystery and the concept of God that is necessarily repellant to the thinking of man who knows about God’s omnipresence. If someone wished to justify going to church on the grounds that one must pay a visit to the God who is present only there, then that would in fact be a reason that made no sense and would rightly be rejected by modern man.
Eucharistic adoration is in truth related to the Lord, who through his historical life and suffering has become “Bread” for us; in other words, through his Incarnation and self-abandonment to death he has become the One who is open for us. Such prayer is therefore related to the historical mystery of Jesus Christ, to God’s history with men that moves toward us in the sacrament. And it is related to the history of God with men, it is related ot the whole “Body of Christ,” to the community of believers, in which and through which God comes to us. In this way praying in church and before the Blessed Sacrament is the “classification” of our relation to God under the mystery of the Church as the specific locality where God meets us. And finally, this is the purpose of our going to church at all: so that I in an orderly fashion may take my place in God’s history with men—only the setting in which I as as a man have my true human existence and which alone therefore also opens up for me the true space of my encounter with God’s eternal love. For this love does not seek merely an isolated spirit, which (as we have already said) would be a ghost compared with man’s reality; rahter it seeks man utterly and entirely, in the body of his historicity, and it gives him in the holy signs of the sacraments the guarantee of a divine answer in which the open question of being human arrives at its goal and comes to its fulfillment."
The point Ratzinger was making is that God is "omnipresent." Therefore, God is not ONLY present Sacramentally in the churches. That is a Catholic dogma. To say otherwise is heresy.
Get the Ratzinger book I linked to from Amazon above. Check it for yourself. Don't trust confirmed liars.
Pope Benedict XVI carries on and progresses the conciliatory work of his predecessor with regard to Jєωιѕн-Catholic conversation. He not only addressed the first letter in his pontificate to the Chief Rabbi in Rome but also gave an assurance at his first encounter with a Jєωιѕн delegation June 9, 2005 that the Church was moving firmly on the fundamental principles of [Vatican II’s] Nostra Aetate and he intended to continue the dialogue in the footsteps of his [post-Conciliar] predecessors.Likewise, when Pope Benedict visited the ѕуηαgσgυє in Rome, Rabbi David Rosen, director of the American Jєωιѕн Committee’s Interreligious Affairs was ecstatic, and understood better than many Catholics the true revolutionary nature of such acts.
In reviewing the 7 years of his pontificate we find that he has in this short space of time taken all those steps which Pope John Paul took in his 27-year pontificate: Pope Benedict XVI visited the former cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ Auschwitz–Birkenau on May 28, 2006; during his visit to Israel in May 2009 he too stood before the Wailing Wall, he met with the Chief Rabbinate of Jerusalem and prayed for the victims of the Shoah in Yad Vashem; and on January 17, 2010 he was warmly received by the Jєωιѕн community in Rome in their ѕуηαgσgυє. His first visit to a ѕуηαgσgυє was of course made already on August 19, 2005 in Cologne on the occasion of World Youth Day, and on April 18. 2008 he visited the Park East ѕуηαgσgυє in New York.
So we can claim with gratitude that no other pope in history has visited as many ѕуηαgσgυєs as Benedict XVI."[1]
Nostra Aetate was designed to be only the beginning of something much bigger. It is the culmination of more than two decades of work by modernist-leaning theologians who were determined to side-step traditional theology and establish a new basis of relations between Catholics and Jєωs."[4]The key text of Nostra Aetate on this point is in the docuмent’s fourth chapter:
Given this great spiritual heritage common to Christians and Jєωs, it is the wish of this sacred Council to foster and recommend a mutual knowledge and esteem… the Jєωs should not be presented as rejected by God or accursed, as though this follows from Scripture… The Church… deplores all hatred, persecution and other manifestations of anti-semitism, whatever the period and whoever was responsible."Of course, no Catholic may favor the mistreatment of Jєωs (https://sspx.org/en/anti-semitism-not-catholic) or of anyone else. This is a given. What’s troubling, however, is the ambiguity contained in the phrase, “The Jєωs should not be presented as rejected by God or accursed, as though this follows from Scripture.”
Our common spiritual inheritance is particularly significant at the level of our faith in a single God, one, good and merciful, who loves men and leads them to love Him, the master of history and of the destiny of mankind, who is our Father and who chose Israel, the cultivated olive-tree onto which has been grafted the wild-olive branch of the gentiles."Pope John Paul II also spoke of a joint undertaking with the Jєωs as “a close collaboration to which we are called by our common heritage, namely the service of man.”[12]
Attentive to the same God who has spoken, hanging on the same word, we have to witness to one same memory and one common hope in Him who is the master of history. We must also accept our responsibility to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah by working together for social justice, respect for the rights of persons and nations and for social and international reconciliation… To this we are driven, Jєωs and Christians, by the command to love our neighbor, by a common hope for the Kingdom of God and by the great heritage of the Prophets. Transmitted soon enough by catechesis, such a conception would teach young Christians in a practical way to cooperate with Jєωs, going beyond simple dialogue."[15]Thus in this 1985 docuмent, the Vatican—with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Head of the CDF—is officially inviting Catholics to cooperate with Jєωs to prepare for the coming of the Messiah.
This idea, totally alien to Catholicism, is a traditional concept of Jєωιѕн theology in its view of the role of 'the religions derived from Judaism.' One official indication of this is the declaration made by the Grand Rabbinate of France on April 16, 1973, in which it is recalled 'the teaching of the greatest Jєωιѕн theologians, for whom the mission of the religion derived from Judaism [Catholicism being one of them—Ed.] is to prepare humanity for the advent of the messianic era announced by the Bible.' In its directives of May/June 1985 Rome has thus allotted to Catholicism the place and the role assigned to it by Jєωιѕн theology."[16]It is worth pausing to consider a recent statement from SSPX Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in this regard. In a speech in France this past September, he affirmed that Pope Benedict insisted in a June 30, 2012, handwritten letter to Bishop Fellay, “I confirm to you in fact [that], in order [for you] to be truly ‘reintegrated’ into the Church, it is necessary to truly accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium.”[17]
Jєωs and Christians should accept each other in profound inner reconciliation, neither in disregard of their faith nor in denying it, but out of the depth of faith itself. In their mutual reconciliation, they should become a force for peace in and for the world. Through their witness to the one God, who cannot be adored apart from the unity of love of God and neither in disregard of their faith, nor in denying it, but out of the depth of faith itself. In their mutual recognition, they should become a force for peace in and for the world…, they should open the door into the world for this God so that His will may be done…"[23]By all appearances, we cannot help but conclude that Benedict sees Jєωs and Christians having a “common mission” to bring God to mankind and peace to the world. We never see any mention of the need of Jєωs to convert to the Church for salvation. Rather, we are left to draw the opposite conclusion.
By the fact that the indiscriminate freedom of all forms of worship is proclaimed, truth is confused with error, and the Holy and Immaculate Spouse of Christ is placed on the same level as heretical sects and even as Jєωιѕн faithlessness."[24]For what did Our Lord say to the Jєωs who do not accept Him?
You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sin. For if you do not believe that I am He [the Son of God], you will die in your sin." (John 8:23-24)Contrariwise, the new post-conciliar program effectively says, “If you do not believe that I am He, you are still faithful to the Covenant in your own way.” This new approach is the polar opposite of the words of Christ Himself.
Christians and Jєωs share to a great extent a common spiritual patrimony, they pray to the same Lord,[25] 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."[26]Yet we know that Jєωs and Christians do not worship the same God. Jєωs reject the Trinitarian God. They reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Messiah. It is St. John, the Apostle of Love, who writes: “He who honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father, who hath sent Him.” (John 5:23)
respectfully urges that any potential rehabilitation of the SSPX include the requirement that the Society publicly reject their decades of hatred [sic], and that as an expression of their affirmation of Nostra Aetate, be required to remove all anti-Semitic rhetoric from both their online and their print publications."[30]We cannot too quickly wilt before the charge of “anti-semitism” or “anti-Judaism” until we know exactly how these potboiler terms are defined. Keep in mind this same ADL, in line with Jєωιѕн historian Jules Isaac, consider St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John Chrysostom, the saints, popes and Fathers of the Church, and the Holy Gospel writers themselves as “anti-Semitic”.[31]
The race of man after its miserable fall from God, the Creator and the Giver of Heavenly gifts, ‘through the envy of the devil,’ separated into two diverse parts, of which the one steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the other for those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth.Emphasis added. Quotation taken from Msgr. Fenton The Catholic Church and Salvation, p. 135. Yet as Michael Davies explains in Pope John’s Council, Vatican II, especially the Council docuмent Gaudium et spes, effectively abandoned the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. Davies writes,
The one is the Kingdom of God on earth, the true Church of Jesus Christ; and those who desire from their heart to be united with it so as to gain salvation must of necessity serve God and His only-begotten Son with their whole mind and with an entire will.
The other is the kingdom of Satan, in whose possession and control are all whosoever follow the fatal example of their leader and of our first parents, those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal law, and who have many aims of their own in contempt of God, and many aims also against God.
This twofold kingdom St. Augustine keenly discerned and described after the manner of two cities, contrary in their laws because striving for contrary objects; and with subtle brevity he expressed the efficient cause of each in these words: ‘Two loves formed two cities: the love of self, reaching even to contempt of God, an earthly city; and the love of God, reaching even to contempt of self, a Heavenly one.’ At every period of time each has been in conflict with the other..."
Gaudium et spes is pervaded by the notion that all men are basically men of good will, seeking the truth and anxious to do good. Far from the notion of conflict between the City of God and the City of Man [as set forth, as we have just seen, in the writings of St. Augustine and Pope Leo XIII—Humanum Genus], the Council Docuмent Gaudium et spes envisages a future where the two cities work together for the common good of mankind." Pope John’s Council (https://sspx.org/en/media/books/pope-johns-council-2058), pp. 184-85.7 See “The Meaning of the Word ‘Church’,” Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, October, 1954.
We consider it our primary duty to be that of promoting, with prudent but encouraging action, the most exact fulfillment of the norms and directives of the Council. Above all we must favor the development of Conciliar attitudes. First one must be in harmony with the Council. One must put into effect what was started in its docuмents; and what was ‘implicit’ should be made explicit in the light of the experiments that followed and in the light of new and emerging circuмstances." Quoted from Petter Hebblethwaite, “Pope John Paul II,” in Adrian Hasting, Modern Catholicism: Vatican II and After (London: Oxford University Pres, 1991), p. 447 Emphasis added.12 Quoted from “The Jєωιѕн Question in the Church”, Jean Madiran. Published in the French journal Itineraires, March 1986. Published in English by Hamish Fraser’s Approaches, “Supplement to Approaches No. 93, [not dated], p.4.13. Ibid., p. 4.
Theime noted that Paul had indeed prophesied that ‘All Israel will be saved,’ but only after the ‘full number’ of Gentiles had come into the Messianic Kingdom. If the salvation of Israel was certain, then missionary activities should focus on those whose salvation was not certain. This new reading had already become popular in the emerging Christian-Jєωιѕн dialogue in France, where Jules Isaac was arguing that the meaning of mission had to shift in a post-h0Ɩ0cαųst world." From Enemy to Brother, p. 203. Young Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was a correspondent with Karl Theime. More on this large topic in future issues of CFN.20 “Letter to England to Summon the Second Crusade, 1146”. From Bruno Scott James, trans., The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (London: Burns Oates, 1953). From the webpage: Council of Centers on Jєωιѕн-Catholic Relations.
It is injurious to say that God would consider with equanimity all religions while one teaches truth and one teachers error, when one promises the good and one promises the evil. To say this would be to affirm that God would be indifferent to good and evil, to what is honest and shameful." De Revelatione, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, [Paris: Galbalda, 1921], Tome 2, Quoted from “Christians, Muslims and Jєωs: Do we all Have the Same God?”, Fr. Francois Knittel, Christendom, November, December, 2007.26 “Papal Address at ѕуηαgσgυє in Rome: ‘May These Wounds Be Healed Forever’”, Pope Benedict XVI, Zenit, Jan. 17, 2010.
the permanent and latent source of anti-Semitism is none other than Christian religious teaching of every description and the traditional tendentious interpretations of Scripture."Since Jules Isaac rejected Jesus Christ as Messiah, he necessarily rejected the New Testament as the inspired, infallible Word of God. To him, the Gospels are fallible human writings that can be critiqued, corrected, or condemned. He is particularly virulent against the Gospel of Matthew:
It is a veritable competition as to who can make the Jєωs appear most hateful. Richly chequered and pathetic as is the narrator of the fourth Gospel [St. John], the palm goes to Matthew; his unerring hand unleashed the poisoned arrow that can never be withdrawn." Jules Isaac: Jesus et Israel, p, 571. Quoted in Judaism and the Vatican, Vicomte Leon de Poncis, (first printed 1967, reprinted by Christian Book Club of American, Palmdale, CA, 1999), p. 4.32 Details of this evening of Jєωιѕн-Catholic dialogue are published “The Gospel According to Non-Beleivers, Part I”, J. Vennari, Catholic Family News, May, 2000.
[color=#7[/size]
Here is more docuмentation of the outrageous heresies of Benedict including the denial of the Bodily Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ!
https://novusordowatch.org/2016/03/deniers-of-the-resurrection/
https://novusordowatch.org/benedict-xvi/
This may help. Somebody posted this on another thread.
https://padreperegrino.org/2023/09/mtsolf/ (https://padreperegrino.org/2023/09/mtsolf/)
What is the Third-Secret of Fatima?
What is the Third Secret of Fatima? The full Third Secret has not been released by the Vatican, but even many moderate Catholics today know it's more than the shooting of Pope John Paul II or a LARPing tale of future-crossbows on a Vatican hill. Last week, I blogged here on Malachi Martin regarding the Jesuits, so I decided to quote him on Fatima today, too. Although I have seen Martin's quotes in more places than one, they are nicely compiled in one spot by Gloria TV. So, I simply reproduce their article here:
Father Malachi Martin (reader of the Third Secret of Fatima) Interview with Bernard Janzen 1992, The Kingdom of Darkness:
Janzen: In our discussion earlier you just touched on the subject of Satan's assault on the papacy. Perhaps we could have a brief discussion about that.
Martin: [...] what I think is fatally necessary for every Catholic to know, and that is the fate of the papacy and the coming stress and danger that we shall be without the strength of the papacy.
Bernard: Is it ever possible that the cardinals at a future conclave could elect a heretical pope?
Martin: [brief pause over the sensitive nature of the question] You know...they have elected men in the past who had heretical ideas. Two or three. They have never elected yet an apostate...an apostate. [...] An apostate has rebelled against the very fundamental of faith and rejected God and Christ. We have apostates now who are papabili [men who could be elected pope]. Yes, we could have an apostate. But in that day, then we are into something terrible. We're into something which, Bernard, is something that, if you think on it, in full knowledge of the meaning of your terms, is nightmarish. It would test the faith of St. Catherine of Sienna. It would test the faith of the greatest saint. It would try the patience of Job. It would be a black day; a day on which you can clothe every window in black and put out the lights and dress in sackcloth & ashes and pray that you're spared because your faith is going to be battered to pieces...if that happens. 'cause then, they have the prize and everything goes underground. And we are indeed on our way to becoming what Paul VI, in his misery, called, in 1978, an infinitesimally small part of humanity. Completely marginalized and pushed to the side and forgotten as a quaint group of people as interesting as Tibetan astrologers on a modern campus.
———————————————————————-
Father Malachi Martin Interview with Art Bell on May 4, 1998
Martin: The prophecy of Fatima is not a pleasant docuмent to read – not pleasant news. It implies – it doesn't make any sense unless we accept that there will be, or that there is in progress – a wholesale apostasy amongst clerics and laity in the Catholic Church, that the institutional organization of the Roman Catholic Church – that is, the organization of parishes, dioceses, archbishops and bishops and cardinals and the Roman bureaucracies and the chanceries throughout the world – unless that is totally disrupted and rendered null and void, the third secret makes no sense, and number two, the other salient characteristic about it is that it means intense suffering for believers.
———————————————————————–
Father Malachi Martin Interview with Art Bell on July 13, 1998 (the very Anniversary of the Third Secret of Fatima)
Bell: Alright, here we go. Just a couple of things I want to quickly read. One from a friend in Australia, Father, who says, "I had a Jesuit priest tell me more of the third secret of Fatima years ago in Perth. He said, among other things, the last pope would be under control of Satan. Pope John fainted thinking it might be him. We were interrupted before I could hear the rest." Any comment on that?
Martin: Yes...uh...it sounds as if they were reading – or being told – the text of the third secret.
Bell: Oh my.
Martin: It sounds like it. But it's sufficiently vague to make one hesitate. It sounds like it.
Bell: Father, is there any circuмstance under which you can imagine, that you would feel free to reveal the secret?
Martin: Yes. Yes. If there was a total collapse at the center.
Bell: And you anticipate that, don't you?
Martin: I anticipate it as a possibility, Art. I can't predict, but I anticipate it as a possibility, certainly, yes. I do.
"Malachi personally confirmed to me in 1997 that the "pope" who will lead the apostasy in the Church will be a heretic and an antipope." – Father Paul Kramer, Facebook quote, May of 2016
"We're facing.. what we may have to face, finally.. the False Pope." – Fr. Malachi Martin, Detroit, Michigan circa 1989? [November 1992?]
"In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church begins at the top." – Cardinal Luigi Ciappi (Personal Theologian to Popes Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II) from a 1995 personal letter to Professor Baumgartner of Salzburg, Austria; Father Gerard Mura, "The Third Secret of Fatima: Has It Been Completely Revealed?", the periodical Catholic, (published by the Transalpine Redemptorists, Orkney Isles, Scotland, Great Britain) March 2002
"The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism." "Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church." – Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, p. 88-90, p. 79
Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who read the Third Secret, made reference to one of its themes during an allocution to the members of the Marian International Academy he declared, "It suffices to cast a rapid glance at what is happening at this moment in the world, in order to recognize that without the intervention of the Mother of all mercy near the All-Powerful, the world risks becoming pagan once more, a paganism more deplorable than the first paganism, because it is aggravated by apostasy. We are witnessing a veritable deluge of sins, a deluge which leaves behind it a nauseating quagmire, infected by immorality, lies and blasphemy..." – 15 December 1960 – Allocution de S. Em. Le cardinal Ottaviani à l'Académie Mariale Internationale, "Docuмentation Catholique," 1961, col. 244
1963 – In a public admonition to his spiritual sons amidst the Second Vatican Council Padre Pio said: "Due to the rampant injustice and abuse of power, we have reached a compromise with atheistic materialism [Communism], a denial of the rights of God. This is the punishment foretold at Fatima ... All the priests who support the possibility of a dialogue with the negators of God and with the Luciferian powers of the world [Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ] are mad, have lost their faith, no longer believe in the Gospel! In so doing they betray the word of God, because Christ came to bring on earth perpetual covenant only to men of heart [good will], but did not join with the men thirsty for power and dominion over the brothers ... The flock is dispersed when the shepherds ally with the enemies of the Truth of Christ. All the forms of power made deaf to the will of the authority of the heart of God are rapacious wolves that renew the passion of Christ and make the Madonna shed tears ... " – Published in "Avvenire" August 19, 1978; See also partial quote in "The Fourth Secret of Fatima" 2006 by Antonio Socci
"The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church." – Pope Paul VI, October 13, 1977 in a formal address marking the 60th Anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun as quoted in the Milan-based daily Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, p. 7 of its issue dated October 14, 1977
"The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against the apostasy in the Church." "I would not be surprised if the Third Secret alluded to dark times for the Church: grave confusions and troubling apostasies within Catholicism itself...If we consider the grave crisis we have lived through since the Council, the signs that this prophecy has been fulfilled do not seem to be lacking..." – Cardinal Silvio Oddi, to Italian journalist Lucio Brunelli in the journal Il Sabato, Rome, March 17, 1990
"Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. – Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), Paragraph #675 – The Church's ultimate trial
"Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist." – Selected excerpt taken from Our Lady of La Salette's Secret to Mélanie Calvatin on 19 September 1846. (Approved apparition) Final version published in 1879 at Lecce, Italy, with the imprimatur and approval of Bishop Salvatore Luigi Zola, C.R.L., the Bishop of Lecce
"I cannot reveal anything about what I have learned at Fatima about the Third Secret, but I can say that it has two parts: the one concerns the Pope. The other, logically – although I should say nothing – should be the continuation of the words: 'In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.'" – Father Joseph Schweigl 1952 (Pope Pius XII sent him to interrogate Sr. Lucia on September 2, 1952); Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, The Whole Truth About Fatima: The Third Secret, Vol. III, p. 710, p. 337-338
November 11, 1984 – Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger affirmed that the Third Secret concerns, "a radical call for conversion; the absolute importance of history; the dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore of the world. And then the importance of the 'novissimi' (the last events at the end of time). If it is not made public — at least for the time being — it is in order to prevent religious prophecy from being mistaken for a quest for the sensational (literally: 'for sensationalism'). But the things contained in this 'Third Secret' correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and has been said again and again in many other Marian apparitions" – Ecco perche la fede e in crisi in the review, Jesus, p. 79
"I believe that there is a connection between that which is announced in the first part of the Secret, which concerns wars and sufferings which would be everywhere, and the second part which concerns the persecutions and a type of breakdown of the faith. Because where the ellipsis (the three dots, "...") was placed, it means "Here is the third part, which is not revealed" and then the conclusion "In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved etc." This suggests to me that there is a relationship between faith and the third part of the Secret. Therefore, it is something that relates to the Church. It is some kind of universal crisis which affects the whole Church and all of humanity." – Father Jose dos Santos Valinho (nephew of Sr. Lucia); This public statement was made on the 14th of February, 2003 broadcast on the program ENIGMA, which was transmitted prime time, nationwide on RAI, the National TV Network of Italy, The Fatima Crusader, Issue 74, p.76
Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed the need for a "Year of Faith" that seeks to awaken humanity at a critical moment. "In vast areas of the earth the faith risks being extinguished, like a flame without fuel," the pope warned, "We are facing a profound crisis of faith, a loss of a religious sense which represents one of the greatest challenges for the Church today ... The renewal of faith must, then, be a priority for the entire Church in our time." – Pope Benedict XVI, Vatican City, 27 January 2012 from his address to the participants in the plenary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
———————————————————————-
Act bravely, my Brethren; take courage, and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.
The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death.
Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.
There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.
Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.
Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head [Jesus Christ], these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish [physically] rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.
Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer. – Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi [London: R. Washbourne, 1882], pp. 248-250;
Malachi Martin: "God Could Have Incarnated as a Cow;” "Priests Should Have
Been Female"
"One of the big deficiencies in Christianity is there is no theology of women at all. Although the one
thing Jesus needed, the one thing he needed, having decided to become human, the only thing he
needed was a woman, and logically all priests should have been female, you know. But male chauvinists
got in the way. And as some theologian said, you know --and this is a sideline but let me finish it. As you
know it's theologically possible for God to have become a cow if he decided. He could be incarnated as a
cow. But even if he had been incarnated in a cow, we men would have taken over, that's the extent. But
we've no theology of woman and no theology of love, really human love, because it involves the essence
of woman and I don't think we know that theologically." (Malachi Martin, December 7, 1973, Firing Line,
interviewed by Skull and Bones Bill Buckley)
Hey Angelus,
....
Benedict does NOT believe the Jєωs need Jesus for salvation.
...
Miser, please provide citations for these outlandish claims.
Hi Cera,
I used to listen to all the interviews with Malachi M. with great interest. Sadly, I've learned more about this man who cannot possibly be any kind of Christian. :(
I've posted before for you the interview where he declared that the Roman guard sodomized Our Dear Lord Jesus Christ. :(
Well, here is more information to consider when listening to words of the blasphemous Malachi and also
Fr Nix (who got his start from Opus Dei and has connections to Chabad).
First the scoundrel and outrageous blasphemer Malachi:
Who knows what happened to "Maurice Pinay" after his well researched blog "Call Me Jorge" was taken down. God bless him for his work and protect him from the persecutors! I hope he is okay both in body and soul!
In any case, here he quotes from an interview Malachi had with Skull and Bonesman, masquerading as trad cat, William Buckley:Malachi Martin: "God Could Have Incarnated as a Cow;” "Priests Should Have
Been Female"
"One of the big deficiencies in Christianity is there is no theology of women at all. Although the one
thing Jesus needed, the one thing he needed, having decided to become human, the only thing he
needed was a woman, and logically all priests should have been female, you know. But male chauvinists
got in the way. And as some theologian said, you know --and this is a sideline but let me finish it. As you
know it's theologically possible for God to have become a cow if he decided. He could be incarnated as a
cow. But even if he had been incarnated in a cow, we men would have taken over, that's the extent. But
we've no theology of woman and no theology of love, really human love, because it involves the essence
of woman and I don't think we know that theologically." (Malachi Martin, December 7, 1973, Firing Line,
interviewed by Skull and Bones Bill Buckley)
Miser, show me a quote in which Ratzinger ever said what is bolded above.
Miser, please provide citations for these outlandish claims.
Malachi Martin: "God Could Have Incarnated as a Cow;” "Priests Should Have
Been Female"
"One of the big deficiencies in Christianity is there is no theology of women at all. Although the one
thing Jesus needed, the one thing he needed, having decided to become human, the only thing he
needed was a woman, and logically all priests should have been female, you know. But male chauvinists
got in the way. And as some theologian said, you know --and this is a sideline but let me finish it. As you
know it's theologically possible for God to have become a cow if he decided. He could be incarnated as a
cow. But even if he had been incarnated in a cow, we men would have taken over, that's the extent. But
we've no theology of woman and no theology of love, really human love, because it involves the essence
of woman and I don't think we know that theologically." (Malachi Martin, December 7, 1973, Firing Line,
interviewed by Skull and Bones Bill Buckley) LOLFixed it for you.....
Glory be to God!
smh
No matter what I do, the post above puts the strike through formatting in the words I post.
I've tried to remove them with all the usual methods to no avail.
Deo Gratias! St Michael defend us!
LOL
Glory be to God!
smh
No matter what I do, the post above puts the strike through formatting in the words I post.
I've tried to remove them with all the usual methods to no avail.
Deo Gratias! St Michael defend us!
BENEDICT XVI PROMOTES THAT JEWS SHOULD NOT BE CONVERTED
Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth – Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, 2011, p. 45: “Hildegard Brem comments on this passage as follows: ‘In the light of Romans 11:25, the Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God, ‘until the full number of the Gentiles come in’ (Rom 11:25).”
Maybe that is why he wears this hat???
(https://i.imgur.com/yUYORZi.png)
Benedict XVI quotes approvingly from Hildegard Brem, who teaches that the Church should not convert Jews. Benedict XVI doesn’t contradict the teaching, but promotes it and agrees with it. This is complete and total apostasy. On the next page, he even expands upon the point. He declares that the Jews retain their own “mission.”
Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth – Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, 2011, p. 46: “Moreover, we have seen that the nucleus of Jesus’ eschatological message includes the proclamation of an age of the nations, during which the Gospel must be brought to the whole world and to all people: only then can history attain its goal.
In the meantime, Israel retains its own mission. Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time, when the number of Gentiles is complete. The fact that that historical duration of this period cannot be calculated is self-evident and should not surprise us.”
According to him, the Jews don’t need to be converted because they retain their own mission and are “in the hands of God.” Of course, this is a denial of Jesus Christ, the Gospel, the Catholic faith, and many dogmas. That’s also why we saw him encourage the Chief Rabbi of Rome in his “mission.”
Benedict XVI, Address to Chief Rabbi of Rome, Jan. 16, 2006: “Distinguished Chief Rabbi, you were recently entrusted with the spiritual guidance of Rome’s Jєωιѕн Community; you have taken on this responsibility enriched by your experience as a scholar and a doctor who has shared in the joys and sufferings of a great many people. I offer you my heartfelt good wishes for your mission, and I assure you of my own and my collaborators’ cordial esteem and friendship.”
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/jesus-of-nazareth-holy-week-anti-pope-benedict-xvi/
You can find more on this topic here:
https://novusordowatch.org/2018/11/benedict16-no-mission-to-jews-just-dialogue/
14. It must therefore be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.Bearing in mind this article of faith, theology today, in its reflection on the existence of other religious experiences and on their meaning in God's salvific plan, is invited to explore if and in what way the historical figures and positive elements of these religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation. In this undertaking, theological research has a vast field of work under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium. The Second Vatican Council, in fact, has stated that: “the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a participation in this one source”.43 The content of this participated mediation should be explored more deeply, but must remain always consistent with the principle of Christ's unique mediation: “Although participated forms of mediation of different kinds and degrees are not excluded, they acquire meaning and value only from Christ's own mediation, and they cannot be understood as parallel or complementary to his”.44 Hence, those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith.15. Not infrequently it is proposed that theology should avoid the use of terms like “unicity”, “universality”, and “absoluteness”, which give the impression of excessive emphasis on the significance and value of the salvific event of Jesus Christ in relation to other religions. In reality, however, such language is simply being faithful to revelation, since it represents a development of the sources of the faith themselves. From the beginning, the community of believers has recognized in Jesus a salvific value such that he alone, as Son of God made man, crucified and risen, by the mission received from the Father and in the power of the Holy Spirit, bestows revelation (cf. Mt 11:27) and divine life (cf. Jn 1:12; 5:25-26; 17:2) to all humanity and to every person.In this sense, one can and must say that Jesus Christ has a significance and a value for the human race and its history, which are unique and singular, proper to him alone, exclusive, universal, and absolute. Jesus is, in fact, the Word of God made man for the salvation of all. In expressing this consciousness of faith, the Second Vatican Council teaches: “The Word of God, through whom all things were made, was made flesh, so that as perfect man he could save all men and sum up all things in himself. The Lord is the goal of human history, the focal point of the desires of history and civilization, the centre of mankind, the joy of all hearts, and the fulfilment of all aspirations. It is he whom the Father raised from the dead, exalted and placed at his right hand, constituting him judge of the living and the dead”.45 “It is precisely this uniqueness of Christ which gives him an absolute and universal significance whereby, while belonging to history, he remains history's centre and goal: 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end' (Rev 22:13)”.46
As I figured, the best you can do it dig up an obscure passage where Ratzinger quotes another writer within the context of a much broader topic. That is not "heresy." And definitely not "apostasy." It is him using a quote from another author.
Keep living in your bizarre phantasy world where Benny wasn't a heretic. Even Bishop Tissier, upon having analyzed his writings, concluded that he was a heretic "worse than Luther".
Spelling of "phantasy" was deliberate. Look it up.
Then prove it. Give the exact quote of Ratzinger teaching something that contradicts a dogma of the Catholic Faith.
:laugh1: Entire books have been written on the subject.
September 5, 2000, in an interview given to Zenit: "[W]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…”"
Ratzinger's book God and the World, 2000: "…their [the Jews'] No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation…"
We could fill 5 pages on this forum with his heresies:
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/anti-pope-benedict-xvi/
Here's Bishop Tissier's booklet, nearly 78 pages long, including a chapter called "A denial worse than Luther's".
https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/Sel%20de%20la%20Terre/Faith%20Imperiled%20by%20Reason/tissier.pdf
So, you think Cardinal Ratzinger changed his mind on September 5, 2000, just after he had published Dominus Jesus (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html) on August 6, 2000?
Here, again, is that Cardinal Ratzinger taught and officially promulgated on August 6, 2000:
"...one can and must say that Jesus Christ has a significance and a value for the human race and its history, which are unique and singular, proper to him alone, exclusive, universal, and absolute. Jesus is, in fact, the Word of God made man for the salvation of all."
:facepalm: So Ratzinger saying that Jesus Christ has a unique and singular "significance and value" for the human race contradicts the notion that Jews can be saved without believing in Him? Can you even read?
13. The thesis which denies the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ is also put forward. Such a position has no biblical foundation. In fact, the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and only Saviour, who through the event of his incarnation, death and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfilment, and which has in him its fullness and centre, must be firmly believed as a constant element of the Church's faith.
As I figured, the best you can do it dig up an obscure passage where Ratzinger quotes another writer within the context of a much broader topic. That is not "heresy." And definitely not "apostasy." It is him using a quote from another author.Did you even read the quotes Novus Ordo Watch posted in the last link Miser P posted? They are all Ratzinger's OWN WORDS.
Did you even read the quotes Novus Ordo Watch posted in the last link Miser P posted? They are all Ratzinger's OWN WORDS.
Here's just one:
That’s why the missionary mandate is universal — with one exception: A mission to the Jews was not intended and not needed for the simple reason that they alone among all peoples [already] knew the “unknown God.” With regard to Israel, therefore, there is no mission but [only] dialogue about whether Jesus of Nazareth is “the Son of God, the Logos” whom Israel and, without knowing it, [all of] humanity has been awaiting in accordance with the promises made to His People. To take up this dialogue once more is the task this hour puts before us.
:facepalm: So Ratzinger saying that Jesus Christ has a unique and singular "significance and value" for the human race contradicts the notion that Jews can be saved without believing in Him? Can you even read?It's this repeated blindness by Bennyvacantists that continues to confirm my belief that Ratzinger's resignation was all part of the Modernist plan to have a good cop-bad cop scenario.
Then prove it. Give the exact quote of Ratzinger teaching something that contradicts a dogma of the Catholic Faith.
There are lists and lists of heresies from “shirt and tie” at Vatican II, Father Ratzinger, but heretics can also display their manifest heresy by actions:
(https://i.imgur.com/xODC74m.jpg)
Giving “Holy Communion” to the famous Protestant Brother Schutz.
2704. The Recipient of the Eucharist.—(a) Those Who May Receive Communion.—According to divine law, every living person who has received Baptism of water is capable of receiving the Eucharist, infants and the insane not excluded. Ecclesiastical law requires other conditions, which are justified by considerations of respect for the Blessed Sacrament or other good reason. Communion may not be given, first, to those who have not the use of reason (i.e., to infants and the perpetually insane), nor to those who are unable to understand the essential truths of religion and morality (i.e., to those who have always been deaf and dumb or blind, and who are uninstructed); for, on the one hand, the Sacrament is not necessary for these persons, and, on the other hand, there is great danger of irreverence if it be given them. Secondly, Communion may not be given to those who cannot receive without grave peril of unbecoming treatment of the Sacrament, as in the case of those who cough or vomit continually or frequently, or of those who are delirious, or unconscious, or insane, But if the danger is certainly slight (e.g., if the person can swallow an unconsecrated host without spitting it out), Communion may be given, at least the Viaticuм or Easter Communion. Next those persons are denied Communion who cannot receive without scandal (e.g., those who are infamous, such as prostitutes or defamers, persons intoxicated or insufficiently dressed). Finally, no one may receive Communion who has already received it that day, lest the Sacrament become common and be taken without due preparation; but exception is made when it is necessary to communicate a second time in order to comply with the divine law of receiving Viaticuм or of saving the Host from profanation (Canons 853-858).
Jorgeiswill be the Antichrist
Benny was aTradPope, and the Church Crisis started with Vatican II and will culminate with Jorge.
Jorge's election was invalid because Ratzinger wasn't dead and buried first.
Close. Thank you. I fixed your errors.
Now fix your errors.
Jorge is or is not the Antichrist, there is no "will be" except that he will be manifested as such.
All three of the propositions above are utterly absurd.
Ratzinger is a heretic for countless things he said, wrote and did BEFORE he was ever pope, which he never publicly abjured.
1) He authored the Vatican lie “revealing” the 3rd secret of Fatima.
2). Said the new mass and gave communion in the hand countless times.
3) Was JP2’s right hand man as JP2 prayed with heretics and had the Assisi abomination in 1986.
4) Prayed with rabbis and visited synogogues, putting Catholicism as 2nd fiddle to Joos.
5). Pushed the “subsists in” heresy to increase heretical ecuмenism.
6). Was head of Doctrine as JP2 pushed the “Theology of the body” heresies.
7). Was a theologian who attended V2 and never apologized for any of such heresies.
8). He was chief negotiator with +ABL and tried to prevent the 88 consecrations from ever happening. He’s hated the sspx from day 1.
9). Consecrated a bishop in 77; we don’t even know if he was a bishop.
10). Created the abominable World Youth Days and took part in countless heresies being taught, new mass blasphemies and untold perversions.
The list goes on and on. He never apologized for any of the above. He’s a heretic to the nth degree.
Not one of those things you mention is a "heresy" as the word is defined by the Roman Catholic Church.
Then take your own advice and ignore me. Why are you so obsessed with me, following me around the forum and insulting me? I will continue to pray for you.
:facepalm: There are dozens of examples where he denies the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church. There are dozens of other cases in his pre-"Pope" days in books that he never recanted where he questioned several clearly-defined dogmas.
Why do you keep claiming that the fact that Ratzinger didn't have a funeral invalidates Bergoglio's election? In doing so, you discredit everything you write. I've even explained to you that there are a couple of much more solid reasons that you could be appealing to, such as the St. Gallen Mafia collusion, that's pretty much been admitted.
(a) It is called “error,” that is, positive assent given to error, or dissent from truth.Every single V2 pope is guilty of this to the nth degree, on many, many topics.
Hence, those who merely act or speak as if they do not believe, but who internally do believe, are not heretics,Nobody knows anyone's "internal forum" except God. So we can put aside this condition, else no one in history could be labeled as such.
although in the external forum they may fall under the presumption of heresy.Yes, all the V2 "popes" are presumed heretics. Especially Benedict.
Every single V2 pope is guilty of this to the nth degree, on many, many topics.
Nobody knows anyone's "internal forum" except God. So we can put aside this condition, else no one in history could be labeled as such.
Yes, all the V2 "popes" are presumed heretics. Especially Benedict.
I just listed 10 things above. If you don't think such actions are heretical, then your orthodoxy is in question. "Ecuмenical prayer" with all kinds of religious groups, is a total heretical action, condemned by multiple councils. Both Ratzinger and JP2 took part in Assisi 1986 (and also in all the 'prayer services' with joos). Total heresy, similar to 'Tower of Babel' pre-antichrist stuff.
956. Communication in Worship.—Communication with non-Catholics (as was said above in 882) is either religious or non-religious. It is clear that communication in non-religious matters does not contain a profession of error, but the same cannot be said of communication in religious services, since these are not only acts of worship, but also expressions of faith in the creed of a certain religion. We must distinguish, however, between private and public communication.
(a) Communication is private, when a Catholic and non-Catholic offer together the Lord’s Prayer or other similar prayer as a private devotion, not as an act of official worship. Private devotion is not the expression of a sectarian creed, and, if there is nothing false in it and no danger of scandal or perversion from communication between Catholic and non-Catholic in such devotion, this kind of communication is not unlawful. In the following paragraphs there will be question of public communication.(b) Communication is public, when the rites performed are the official services of the Catholic Church or of some non-Catholic sect (e.g., the Mass, the Lord’s Supper of the Lutherans, the Evensong of the Anglicans, the prayer-meeting of other sects). Thus, public communication takes place either when non-Catholics take part in Catholic worship, or Catholics take part in non-Catholic worship.957. Participation of non-Catholics in Catholic services is either by mere presence, or by reception or performance of Catholic rites.(a) Mere presence consists in a purely material attendance at a service, as when non-Catholics assist at Mass and sit, rise and kneel with the congregation or remain seated throughout. There is no objection whatever to this kind of participation; on the contrary, non-Catholics should be invited to Catholic sermons and services, and made to feel welcome, for in what better way can the divine command of working for their conversion be complied with? Only excommunicated persons are excluded from the offices of the Church (Canon 2269, Sec.1). It is also allowed that Catholic bishops and clergy accompany a non-Catholic ruler to the church, and assign him and his escort an honorable place therein.(b) Reception of Catholic rites is had when non-Catholics, without performing any liturgical function, receive some spiritual favor through the rites of the Church, as when a non-Catholic receives a priest’s blessing.(c) Performance of Catholic rites exists when a non-Catholic exercises some office in a liturgical function of the Catholic Church, as when a Protestant acts as sponsor at a Catholic Baptism.958. Cases of reception of Catholic rites by non-Catholics permitted by law are the following:(a) Reception of Sacramentals.—Since the purpose of these rites and objects is to implore graces and temporal favors with a view to the illumination and salvation of the recipient, and since our Lord Himself blessed and cured even the pagans, the Church permits blessings and exorcisms to be conferred on non-Catholics (Canons 1149, 1152). Similarly, blessed candles, palms, ashes and other real sacramentals may be given to them. Examples: The Church has permitted priests to visit the homes of Mohammedans to bless and pray over the sick, and also to bless the houses of schismatics, provided they were summoned and avoided all communication in prayer.(b) Reception of Sacraments.-Since it is possible that the salvation of a dying person may depend on absolution, good moralists, relying on decisions of Roman Congregations, hold that conditional absolution may be given to a heretic or schismatic who is dying and unconscious, or even to one such who is dying and conscious, provided he is in good faith and contrite, and danger of scandal has been removed.(c) Reception of Fruits of the Mass.—Since Christ died for all, there is nothing in the nature of things to prevent the application of Mass to any persons who are living or in Purgatory; and from Canon 809 it appears that Mass may be offered for any living person, and also for any deceased person about whose salvation we may entertain hope. Hence, neither the divine nor the ecclesiastical law forbids the application of Mass for heretics, schismatics, or infidels. The Church also permits Mass to be said privately, all scandal removed, for excommunicated persons. Under these same conditions, then, Mass may be said for non-Catholics, both living and dead (Canon 2262, Sec.2, n. 2).(d) Reception of the Suffrages of the Church.—Since God wishes all to be saved and public peace to be maintained (I Tim., ii), and since the Church desires that Ordinaries and pastors should have at heart the conversion of non-Catholics (Canon 1350), public prayers for the prosperity of non-Catholic rulers and officials—likewise sermons, missions and other works for the conversion of unbelievers—are not only allowed, but recommended and required.959. Non-Catholics have not the same right as Catholics to receive the rites of the Church, and hence when they are admitted to them, there are certain restrictions to be observed.(a) Restrictions as to Sacred Things.—As admission of non-Catholics to sacramentals, etc., is a favor, not a right, it should be confined to cases allowed by the Church. Thus, it is forbidden to grant indulgences or to give the nuptial blessing to non-Catholics, and only in very exceptional cases may any ceremonies be permitted at mixed marriages (Canons 1102, 1109). Non-Catholics may not receive the Pax; may not be invited to take part in the solemn services of receiving ashes on Ash Wednesday, palms on Palm Sunday and candles on Candlemas Day; may not receive ecclesiastical burial (Holy Office, June 8, 1859). Children sent by their parents to non-Catholic services may not be confirmed (Holy Office, August 28, 1780); a Catholic priest is not allowed to supply for a non-Catholic minister, by accompanying the body of a non-Catholic from the home to the graveyard, even though the body be not brought to Church, nor the bell tolled (Holy Office, January 26, 1886). It is not permissible to lend a Catholic church to non-Catholics for their services.(b) Restrictions as to Persons.—As superstition and irreverence have to be avoided, the sacramentals may not be administered or given at all to non-Catholics about whose good faith and purpose there is doubt.(c) Restrictions as to Mode.—The Church, while she wishes to help and benefit non-Catholics, must avoid anything that would cause scandal or have the appearance of equal recognition of believers and unbelievers. Thus, when Mass is offered for outsiders, the same publicity and pomp is not permitted as when there is question of Catholics.960. As regards the performance of Catholic rites by non-Catholics, the Church disapproves of every kind of such participation, but does not refuse to tolerate the more remote kind, when there is grave necessity and no scandal is caused.(a) By more remote participation we understand such as scarcely differs from passive assistance (e.g., to act as witness at a marriage), or such as carries with it no recognition as an official of the Church (e.g., to act as substitute or temporary organist). Hence, the Church has permitted this kind of participation in particular cases, when the authorities decided that there was urgent necessity and no scandal. Examples: Moralists hold that, when a heretic or schismatic has been designated as sponsor at Baptism and cannot be refused without grave offense, he may be allowed to act as witness. The Holy Office has also declared that heretics should not be used as witnesses at marriage, but may be tolerated as such by the Ordinary, when there is a grave reason and no scandal (August 18, 1891); that a non-Catholic organist may be employed temporarily, if it is impossible to secure one who is a Catholic, and no scandal is caused (February 23, 1820); that in certain special circuмstances girls belonging to a schismatical sect might be allowed to sing with the Catholics at church functions, especially at Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament (January 25, 1906).(b) Proximate participation is the exercise of functions connected with a sacred rite (e.g., to act as server at Mass), or that imply a recognition of the religion of the one who participates (e.g., to act as representative of some sect at a funeral and receive liturgical honors). The Church has always refused to tolerate this kind of participation. Examples: Non-Catholics may not act as sponsors at Baptism or Confirmation under pain of invalidity of sponsorship (Canons 765, 795), nor chant the Office in choir (Holy Office, June 8, 1859), nor be employed as singers of the liturgical music (Holy Office, May 1, 1889), nor carry torches or lights in church ceremonies (Holy Office, November 20, 1850). Likewise, non-Catholics may not become members of Catholic confraternities, nor assist at Catholic services as official representatives of some sect or sectarian society.961. Participation of Catholics in non-Catholic services may happen today in so many ways, and it is so difficult at times to draw the line between lawful and unlawful communication, that it is well before considering these cases to state the general rules that apply here.(a) It is lawful to perform an act from which two effects follow, one good and the other bad, if the act in itself is good or indifferent, if there is a sufficiently grave reason for performing it, if the evil effect is not intended, and if the evil effect be not prior to the good effect (see 104).(b) Circuмstances vary in different localities and countries, and communication that would signify unity of belief in a place where Catholics and non-Catholics are very unequal numerically might be very harmless in a place where there is no great numerical difference. Offense to non-Catholics should not be given needlessly.(c) In doubtful cases the decision whether or not a particular kind of communication is lawful or unlawful pertains to the Ordinary (Canon 1258).962. Participation of Catholics in non-Catholic services is either active or passive. (a) Participation is active when one takes a part or fulfills some function in an act that is an official expression of the worship and belief of a sect, even though this takes place outside a church, or is not open to the general public.(b) Participation is passive, if one merely assists as a spectator, and not as a worshipper, at something pertaining to non-Catholic worship.963. Sacred things in which communication is possible are of three classes:(a) the chief acts of divine worship (i.e., Sacrifices, Sacraments, sacramentals);(b) the secondary acts of divine worship (such as prayers, processions, vows, oaths, the Divine Office, hymn singing, scripture reading, etc.). In the Protestant denominations some one or other of these is, as a rule, the central or distinctive service, although some have other proper features of their own, such as the silent meeting of the Quakers, the seance of the Spiritualists, the march of the Salvation Army, the charity kiss of the Dunkards;(c) places (e.g., churches, lodge rooms, cemeteries), times (e.g., days of feast or fast), and objects (e.g., images, badges, aprons, banners, robes), pertaining to divine worship.964. It is unlawful for Catholics in any way to assist actively at or take part in the worship of non-Catholics (Canon 1258). Such assistance is intrinsically and gravely evil; for (a) if the worship is non-Catholic in its form (e.g., Mohammedan ablutions, the Jєωιѕн paschal meal, revivalistic “hitting the trail,” the right hand of fellowship, etc.), it expresses a belief in the false creed symbolized; (b) if the worship is Catholic in form, but is under the auspices of a non-Catholic body (e.g., Baptism as administered by a Protestant minister, or Mass as celebrated by a schismatical priest), it expresses either faith in a false religious body or rebellion against the true Church.965. It is unlawful for Catholics to simulate active assistance in the worship of non-Catholics, for, while the non-Catholic rite would be avoided, something which appeared to be that rite would be done, and thus profession of faith in it would be given.(a) Hence, it is not lawful to do an indifferent act which bystanders from the circuмstances will have to conclude is an act of false worship. Thus, Eleazar would not eat lawful meat which was put before him in order that he might pretend to eat the meat of sacrifice after the manner of the heathen (II Mach., vi).(b) It is not lawful to accept a false certificate of participation in false worship. Hence, the early Church condemned as apostates the Libellatics (i.e., those Christians, who, to protect themselves in time of persecution, obtained by bribery or otherwise a forged or genuine magistrate’s certificate that they had sacrificed to the heathen gods).966. It is unlawful for Catholics to assist passively at non-Catholic worship, unless there are present the conditions requisite for performing an act that has two results, one good and the other evil (see 104); for even passive assistance frequently involves sin.(a) Hence, the assistance itself must be really indifferent, that is, it must be a merely passive presence without any active participation in the service. Examples: A person who stands in the rear of a Quaker meeting house as an onlooker assists passively; but one who sits quietly among the others present, as if in meditation, assists actively. A person who sits in a pew during a revival in order to see what is going on, assists passively; but, if he joins with the congregation in bowing, groaning, etc., he assists actively.(b) The evil effect that may result from assistance (such as scandal and danger of perversion) must not be prior to the good effect; otherwise, evil would be done for the sake of good. Examples: Titus, a non-Catholic, goes to Mass as a spectator, with his Catholic friend Balbus. He then asks Balbus to assist as a spectator at the services of his denomination, and thus see for himself that the latter is better. Balbus, in order to be courteous, consents. Here Balbus aims to show politeness, which is good, but the means he uses—namely, the impression he gives that he is not convinced of the superiority of his own religion—is bad.(c) The evil effect (i.e., remote danger of perversion, unavoidable scandal) must not be intended or approved, but only permitted. Example: Caius, a Catholic public official, has to attend funerals and weddings in Protestant churches as a mark of the public respect for notable persons. He knows that a few will take scandal at his action, but he wishes only to do his duty as an official, and not to offend anyone (see on Scandal).(d) The cause of assistance must be in proportion to the kind of assistance. Hence, a greater reason is required for assistance on several occasions than on one, for assistance at infidel than at heretical services, for assistance at the primary than at the secondary act of worship, for assistance by a priest than for assistance by a layman, etc. Example: Graver reason would be necessary to justify assistance at a non-Catholic funeral, if there were signs of anti-Catholicism manifested (e.g., flower designs and regalia of a hostile sect placed on the coffin), than if the service contained nothing offensive.967. Cases of communication in false sacrificial rites are as follows: (a) Active participation is had in such acts as the slaying and offering of victims, the burning of incense before idols, the eating of sacrificial banquets; (b) Passive participation is had when one merely watches the rite of sacrifice without taking any part therein.968. Cases of communication in the Sacrifice of the Mass are as follows: (a) Active participation is had in such acts as taking the part of deacon in a schismatical Mass, assisting at a schismatical Mass with the intention of hearing Mass formally (i.e., of offering it with the priest). If on Sunday, one is where there is only a schismatical church, one is excused from the obligation of hearing Mass, and may not hear Mass in that church (Holy Office, December 5, 1608; August 7, 1704). (b) Passive participation is had when one is present merely as a spectator, kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament, but giving no other signs of religious devotion. This is permissible under the conditions mentioned above (see 966), if there is no scandal, or danger of perversion (Holy Office, April 24, 1894).969. Cases of participation in the Sacraments or sacramentals, real or reputed, are as follows: (a) Active participation takes place when one receives a Sacrament from a non-Catholic minister, or offers one’s child to receive a Sacrament from such a minister, or contracts marriage in the presence of such a minister, or acts as sponsor at a non-Catholic baptism or confirmation or as the religious witness at a non-Catholic marriage, or answers in public non-Catholic prayers, or takes ashes blessed by schismatics. (b) Passive participation is had when one merely looks on at the administration of a Sacrament or sacramental by a non-Catholic minister, without signs of approval or union in what is being done.970. There are certain cases that seem to be active participations in Sacraments with non-Catholics, and yet are permitted by the Code. In reality, however, there is no active communication in those cases.(a) Canons 886 and 905 allow the faithful to receive communion and absolution according to a Rite different from their own, so that one who belongs to the Latin Rite may lawfully receive in Communion a Host consecrated according to the Greek Rite, or go to confession to an Oriental priest. But in these Canons there is question of different Rites within the Catholic Church, not of those of non-Catholics.(b) Canons 742 and 882 allow those who are in danger of death to receive Baptism and absolution from an heretical or schismatical minister, and theologians apply the same principle to Extreme Unction and the Viaticuм. But there is no communication in non-Catholic ceremonies in these cases, for the Sacraments belong to the Catholic Church, and for the sake of the dying she authorizes non-Catholic ministers to act as her representatives, provided there is no scandal or danger of perversion.971. Cases of participation in non-sacramental rites are as follows:(a) Oaths and Vows.—Participation is active when one swears in words or by other signs which, according to local usage, manifest belief in the creed of some sect; it is not active, when the manner of the oath does not signify adherence to a false creed; Example: If one is required to swear, by touching or kissing the non-Catholic Bible, as a sign of approval of Protestantism or Masonry, one may not consent. But, if the Government presents a non-Catholic Bible with no thought of Protestantism, there is no approval of Protestantism in the one who swears on that Bible, although, if the custom is not general, there might be scandal if no protest were made. A Catholic may bring his own Bible with him, or ask for a copy of the Catholic Bible.(b) Services—Participation is active when one marches in an Anglican procession, plays the organ or sings at Y.M.C.A. services, joins in the prayers or responses offered in a Protestant church, etc. (Holy Office, July 6, 1889). Participation is passive if one looks on during a rare visit, or listens by radio to the musical program broadcast from Protestant services, or if one is obliged to attend non-Catholic services habitually, not as a profession of faith, but as a matter of civil duty or of domestic discipline, as happens with soldiers or with inmates of public institutions. Participation is not active if one adores the Blessed Sacrament carried in a schismatical procession which one meets by chance and unavoidably. Examples: Titus belongs to the honorary guard of a state ruler, and has to accompany the latter to non-Catholic services on certain state occasions. Balbus is tutor in a non-Catholic family, and is expected to take his charges to their church and back home on Sundays. Claudia is a maid in a non-Catholic family, and is ordered to hold one of the children while it is being baptized by the non-Catholic minister. In all these cases the presence at the services is purely passive, since the intention of the Catholic present is not to perform any religious duty, but only some civil or domestic service (see IV Kings, v. 18). But, on the other hand, the martyrs during the reigns of Elizabeth and her successors refused to attend the Anglican services, because this was required by law as a sign of conformity to the Established Church—that is, an active presence was prescribed.
:jester:
Ratzinger is a heretic for countless things he said, wrote and did BEFORE he was ever pope, which he never publicly abjured.http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/RazResArt.pdf
1) He authored the Vatican lie “revealing” the 3rd secret of Fatima.
2). Said the new mass and gave communion in the hand countless times.
3) Was JP2’s right hand man as JP2 prayed with heretics and had the Assisi abomination in 1986.
4) Prayed with rabbis and visited synogogues, putting Catholicism as 2nd fiddle to Joos.
5). Pushed the “subsists in” heresy to increase heretical ecuмenism.
6). Was head of Doctrine as JP2 pushed the “Theology of the body” heresies.
7). Was a theologian who attended V2 and never apologized for any of such heresies.
8). He was chief negotiator with +ABL and tried to prevent the 88 consecrations from ever happening. He’s hated the sspx from day 1.
9). Consecrated a bishop in 77; we don’t even know if he was a bishop.
10). Created the abominable World Youth Days and took part in countless heresies being taught, new mass blasphemies and untold perversions.
The list goes on and on. He never apologized for any of the above. He’s a heretic to the nth degree.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/RazResArt.pdf
Ratzinger also had a bizarre if not heretical take on the Resurrection , ambiguously at times denying it was truly a physical event. I think B Sandborn does well in dissecting it
Not exactly. Ratzinger stated St Lukke was "exaggerating" by having Christ eat the fish. I'd say that might be a bit of a denial of the flesh.
What is radically new about the “theophany” of the risen Lord is that Jesus is truly man: he suffered and died as a man and now lives anew in the dimension of the living God. He appears now as true man and yet as coming from God—as being God himself. So two qualifications are important. On the one hand, Jesus has not returned to the empirical existence tha is subject to the law of death, but he lives anew in fellowship with God, permanently beyond the reach of death. On the other hand, it is important that the encounters with the risen Lord are not just interior events or mystical experiences—they are real encounters with the living one who is now embodied in a new way and remains embodied. Luke emphasizes this very strongly: Jesus is not, as the disciples initially feared, a “ghost” or a “spirit”: he has “flesh and bones” (Lk 24:36-43).
What a ghost is, what is meant by the apparition of the “spirit” as opposed to the apparition of the risen Lord, can best be seen in the bibilcal account of the medium of Endor, who at Saul’s behest conjures up the spirit of Samuel from the underworld (cf. 1 Sam 28:7-19). The “spirit” that she calls forth is a dead man dwelling among the shadows in the underworld, who from time to time can be summoned forth, only to return to the realm of the dead.
Jesus, however, does not come from the realm of the dead, which he has definitively left behind: on the contrary, he comes from the realm of pure life, from God; he comes as the one who is truly alive, who is himself the source of life. Luke underlines quite dramatically how different the risen Lord is from a mere “spirit” by recounting that Jesus asked the still fearful disciples for something to eat and then ate a piece of grilled fish before their eyes.
Most exegetes take the view that Luke is exaggerating here in his apologetic zeal, that a statement of this kind seems to draw Jesus back into the empirical physicality that had been transcended by the Resurrection. Thus Luke ends up contradicting his own narrative, in which Jesus suddenly in the midst of the disciples in the physicality that is no longer subject to the laws of space and time.
I think it is helpful here to consider the other three passages in which the risen Jesus is presented participating in a meal.
Immediately before the text just mentioned is the Emmaus story. It ends with Jesus sitting down to table with the disciples, taking the bread, giving thanks and praise, breaking the bread, and giving it to the two of them. At this moment their eyes are opened, “and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight” (Lk 24:31).
...
[Ratzinger then goes on for pages refuting the wrong interpretation of the "exegetes."]
Here is what he (Ratzinger)has said concerning the Resurrection of 1 0 Christ:
• It is not the resuscitation of a corpse.
Yes, the Resurrection of Jesus was not like the resurrection of Lazarus.
• It is an evolutionary leap into a new dimension of human existence.
Yes, there had been nothing like the Resurrection of Jesus in prior history. It was a unique event. A progression. An evolution.
• It is not ["the same kind of"] historical event like the birth of Christ or His crucifixion.
You left some words out of Ratzinger's sentence. You left out as well the 3+ paragraphs of explanation of what he meant by that.
• It is outside of space and time, i.e., it did not happen in a specific place and at a specific time, and is something which cannot be sensed by the senses.4
Because his "glorified body" can move through doors and walls.
• Our Lord’s eating of the fish was an exaggeration of St. Luke, in which he contradicts himself. • The appearance of Christ to St. Paul was “light.”
Incorrect interpretation of what Ratzinger said. Most "exegetes" said that and Ratzinger was disagreeing with them.
• The appearances of Christ to the other disciples are “real encounters with the living one who is now embodied in a new way.”
Yes, Jesus was in his "glorified body," a body that could move through doors and walls and could disappear and reappear in other locations.
• The witnesses to the Resurrection of Christ “experienced a real encounter, coming to them from outside, with something entirely new and unforeseen, namely the self revelation and verbal communication of the risen Christ.” (p. 275)
What is heretical about that?
"The well known eminent theologian and ardent antiModernist Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P., writing nearly a hundred years ago, said this: “Among the modernists, E. Le Roy [an ardent disciple of Henri Bergson, a famous evolutionist] proposed a similar theory, for he denied the ‘reanimation of the corpse’ as impossible, and taught that Christ rose in a certain sense, inasmuch as He did not cease to act after His death, and to the extent that His soul in another life retained a certain virtual matter.” This description sounds remarkably close to what Ratzinger says.
Ratzinger's position is nothing like E. Le Roy's. Ratzinger did not deny that Jesus was reanimated. Ratzinger said that his "glorified body" was different from the bodies of Lazarus, Jairus's daughter, the widow's son, etc. Jesus's "glorified body" could move through walls, but he was definitely not a "ghost."
As I said, it's not worth arguing this. Angelus has hitched his wagon to a pre-determined narrative where Benny was the pope and Jorge the first antipope (soon to become Antichrist), and he's simply not open to objectively looking at the evidence, so you're wasting your time posting it.