Tags
#fakenarratives, #fakenews, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Dr. Curt Doolittle, Father Anthony Cekada, Fox News, Francis Effect, FrancisChurch - In Liquidation, Frankfurt School, FSSP, Genderism, George Soros, Germany, Giardia lamblia, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Havana, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Holy Year of Mercy, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Humanism, Isospora belli, Jacque Derrida, James O'Keefe, Jesuits, Jesus Christ, Joseph Ratzinger, Jozef Pilsudski, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Miracle on the Vistula, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Nassim Taleb, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, Net Neutrality, new springtime, New York Times, Nigel Farage, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Polish Bolshevik War 1920, Pontifical High Mass, Pope Pius VI, President Andrzej Duda, Project Veritas, r/K Selection Theory, Raymond Burke, Refugee Resettlement Watch blog, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "c"atholicZombie, s "theological structuring", s ABC News, s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s Ann Corcoran, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Associated Press, s Austria, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s Bio-History, s Boris Johnson, s BREXIT, s Card. Muller, s Cardinal Burke, s Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, s cardinal Walter Kasper, s Catholic Church, s Chapel of the Holy Trinity, s Pope Francis, Saul Alinsky, sCatholic Church in Poland, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Tags anal fissures, Tags Black Lives Matter, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, The Scholasticum, theological deconstructionism, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Work of Human Hands, Zombie, ZombieBishop, ZombieChurch
Oh well, that didn’t take long!
As they say, “those” observations about the Pope Benedict XVI LETTER™ didn’t age well…
As my readers know, our last post was titled Don’t Follow The Shiny Object… This post tried to dissuade my fellow Catholic writers and blogger from taking gratuitous potshots at His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, but look at the wider CONTEXT of what was happening around this LETTER™.
So today, your humble blogger will try to put Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI into some perspective, in order to better understand the contents and meaning of … you guessed it… the LETTER™.
Now this “Benedict is a Modernist, therefore…” theme is easy to construct. The main reason for this is that Pope Benedict has been a prolific writer for over 50 years, so there is much material that can be reviewed and which can be rightly criticized. Make that: “selectively” criticized and taken out of the WIDER CONTEXT.
Furthermore, what makes it easy for Pope Benedict’s critics is that Joseph Ratzinger has been on a “journey” from holding intellectual (politically correct according to the contemporary post-Modernist zeitgemäß, i.e. can mean “modern,” “suitable,” or even “appropriate,” and often carries all of these shades when applied to the Church) positions in his youth, which were squarely lodged in the neo-Modernist, Nouvelle Théologie camp, then descended into what can be called Rahnerism (German Hegelian Relativists). In about the late 1970’s, after sensory data clearly dictated to Ratzinger that the “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II was a colossal FAILURE, a middle-aged Joseph Ratzinger began changing his theological positions. These changes of position by Joseph Ratzinger were seen as a betrayal to the entire Rahnerist movement, hence the hatred of the “progressives” for Pope Benedict and his work.
Yet, the degree of this hatred and its severity, when observed through an objective prism, also allows us to gauge the degree to which the German Relativists see Raztinger’s mental “brain power” as a threat to their “socially constructed artificial” IDEOLOGY, i.e. that which is called the German Theological School.
So moving on, what we have seen over this period is Joseph Ratzinger being transformed (rebranded) by the #faketheologians, #fake“c”atholic media and their #fakenews media contacts, from a flaming Relativist and Rahnerist in the 1960’s to an arch-conservative “papal rottweiler” in the 1980’s and 1990’s, and on to a quasi-Thomist Restorationist as Pope Benedict XVI.
And all along, the less observant have been doing nothing more than “following the shiny object”.
Given the above, what is the official Deus ex Machina take on Joseph Ratzinger the theologian and the subsequent Pope Benedict XVI, you may ask dear and loyal reader?
Well, your humble blogger doesn’t accept the conventional wisdom that there is this “wide variance” in Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict “system of belief”. On the other hand, your humble blogger also doesn’t accept the self-refuting notion that Ratzinger’s “system of belief” was static (fixed) over the 50+ years of his writing, teaching and thinking. The true “Ratzingerian system of belief” has been dynamic and “subsists” somewhere in the middle of these two extreme views moving from left to right.
It is this “movement from left to right”, especially by someone with Ratzinger’s intellectual prowess that has the post-Modernists and neo-Modernists in a tizzy!
However, even this above explanation is much too simple…
What can be legitimately claimed about Joseph Ratzinger, the theologian and philosopher is that he is endowed with a staggering intellect. He is by far one of the most brilliant men, in terms of intellectual prowess of the 20th and 21st century. And the problem with brilliant people is that they have an ability to recognize OBJECTIVE REALITY when others around them can’t. And to the less intelligent IDEOLOGUES, this is a very dangerous PHENOMENON.
The reason why this is important to understand is that Joseph Ratzinger spent most of his clerical life in a relatively isolated environment. Therefore, certain key aspects of his life have an exaggerated meaning– hence the “wide variance” view. Understanding these aspects though, allows us to get a better handle on Ratzinger the man and his life’s work.
This isolated environment is one where the “spirit of the new springtime” crowd has complete control of the NARRATIVE. Actually, one can say that these people have a fanatical adherence to this “new springtime of the spirit of VII” NARRATIVE.
This fanaticism has allowed these people to have completely suppressed REALIST philosophy from the wider debate, not to mention Thomism from Catholic theology and from wider ECCLESIASTICAL affairs. And they did it in the most brutal manor. The manner in which they suppressed Realism/Thomist is by what can be called “poisoning the well”, i.e. linking it with Antisemitism.
To provide a good idea of how this was accomplished, here is John Lamont to explain who this mechanism worked in the post-Modernist liturgical movement: (see here)
Fr. van Hove’s abuse of Garrigou-Lagrange is a characteristic example of anti-Thomist propaganda. His attempt to discredit any revival of interest in Garrigou-Lagrange’s work raises questions in an inquiring reader’s mind. Why single out this particular Thomist as a target, especially if his work was ‘minor at best’?
The answer is that Garrigou-Lagrange played a crucial role in the battle over the revival of modernism in the mid-20th century. In a series of articles in the late 1940s,17 he called attention to the revival of modernist ideas, stated that these ideas were heretical, identified the principles of this neomodernism, and subjected the principles to devastating criticism. Other theologians did some of these things as well,18 but Garrigou-Lagrange was the only one to both thoroughly refute neomodernism, and to state that it was heretical and needed to be treated as such. His initiative was an important precursor to the later condemnation of neomodernism by the encyclical Humani Generis, as Fr. Van Hove states. But it is his intellectual contribution to the defence of the faith that is most significant for neomodernists today, because it makes his scholarly rehabilitation a danger to that school of thought.
So what we see is that the suppression of Thomism wan’t based on philosophical or rational grounds, but rather on emotionalism and propaganda. By assassinating (taking out of CONTEXT) Garrigou-Lagrange’s character, the neo-Modernist’s were able to stigmatize the most dangerous opponent of their IDEOLOGY, and by extension stigmatize Thomism, the foundational philosophical (Realist) infrastructure of Catholic theology (formation of vocations), in the process.
The other important aspect to understand “Ratzinger-the man” is that he is German. And for a German who had the misfortune to live in post-WWII Europe, there were certain logical, realist and rational positions that he as a post WWII Germans could not take. Here is a great post via the Radical Catholic blog titled Church in Crisis: Diaspora Germany, written by Markus Günther and appearing on December 29, 2014 in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the largest and most reputable newspapers in Germany. It provides us with CONTEXT: (see here)
On the night of December 13, almost exactly 50 years ago to the day, a student named Franz (Kamphaus) wandered through the streets of Münster. He could not sleep. He was too upset by the homily he had heard in the cathedral earlier that evening, delivered by a young priest and professor (Fr. Josef Ratzinger) only a few years older than himself, which interpreted Advent and Christmas in an entirely different, even revolutionary way: the old doctrine, according to which human history falls into a time of darkness and a time of salvation – namely, into the time before and the time after the birth of Christ – is one which no one today can take seriously, said the young theologian. Who, after the World Wars, after Auschwitz and Hiroshima, could still speak of the ‘Time of Grace’ which began 2000 years ago in Bethlehem? No, the dividing line between the darkness and the light, between captivity and salvation, does not divide history, but rather our own soul. Advent is not an event which takes place in the calendar, but rather in our hearts – or it founders there fruitlessly. That’s strong stuff, and one can easily understand why the young student had trouble finding sleep after this homily, and instead wanted to be alone to think it all through.
So what we see above is what we now would call the “musings” of a young, impressionable, albeit highly intelligent priest, trying to understand that which has happened around him since his seminary days. This national trauma that the German nation went through after the Second World War has a fundamental impact upon the psyche of not only the nation, but especially on those who could be considered as part of the national intelligentsia.
On a metaphysical level, the above two cases can be viewed as examples of what Dr. Jordan Peterson calls the twisting or TEARING of the FABRIC OF REALITY.
Hold that thought…
Today, we would call it the mistakes of the youth. And it is quite evident that young Josef Ratzinger made those. He made grave mistakes questioning the Immutable Doctrine of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The questioning of the Catholic doctrine was widespread among the post-war European elites and reached directly to the top. This is the reason why it was the Western Europeans who were instrumental in the calling of the “pastoral” council and rebelled against the Card. Ottaviani’s schema, forcing through the blueprint of destruction of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. And young Fr. Ratzinger played an instrumental part.
So what we later see is a middle-aged Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect for the Holy Office (CDF) and later Pope Benedict XVI, with this considerable baggage of his youth. Further, he is surrounded by individual who don’t have the intellectual wherewithal to recognize and understand the destruction that Vatican II has wrought. The reason could be that they were and still are blinded by their ambition.
And this is the environment in which Pope Benedict XVI is functioning in and living to this day.
Nota bene: Now, this doesn’t include the intrinsically disordered who have a vested interest in the post-conciliar church guided by the “god of surprises”.
Concluding, what we see is a man who has made mistakes in his youth. The mistakes he has made are far larger than most, if not all young men, in that he has aided and abetted in the destruction of the Catholic Church, i.e. the only means of salvation provided to man.
Now, this doesn’t mean that Josef Ratzinger/Pope Benedict believes in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but what he does understand is that the Catholic Church is special in that it has “maintained continuous operations and has been an ongoing concern” since Anno Domini 33 and that if the Institutional Church collapses, it will be in a large part due to him.
I will end here because I think that this is the point where we all, as Faithful Catholics should be able to agree.
It is also at this point where our views of Josef Ratzinger/Cardinal Raztinger/Prefect of CDF/Pope Benedict XVI would diverge.
Yet not wanting to cross this threshold today, your humble blogger needs to mention one very important aspect of Pope Benedict XVI’s accomplishments that stands out above all others. It comes in the form of what I consider the greatest sentence ever written outside those that appear in Holy Scripture.
This sentence on a philosophical level can and SHOULD be interpreted as one that tries to MEND the TEAR in what Dr. Peterson terms the “FABRIC OF REALITY”.
Here is that sentence and I would like all you dear readers to meditate on it for a day or two. Please think about the consequences that MUST arise from the proper course of action implied by this sentence!
In the next post, I will return and comment on the second part of the LETTER™.
So here goes:
“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”
And one more video by Dr. Peterson on the Nature of Reality and the consequences of “breaking the universal law”:
Pingback: Canon212 Update: Benedict Himself Outs Francis’ ‘Traddy’ Bot Flunkies – The Stumbling Block
Mark Wauck said:
I enjoy a bit of vituperation at times, and I think Mundabor does it well: Lettergate: Benedict Is Inexcusable.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Only God knows what is in fact TRUE.
But Mundabor comes pretty close…
LikeLike
Mark Wauck said:
“a middle-aged Joseph Ratzinger began changing his theological positions.”
For example? It has been a cause of astonishment that Ratzinger has never made a single revision to Introduction to Christianity–his first book that caused such a furor–and has even stated that he sees no reason to revise a thing that he said. And yet you maintain that he’s been changing his positions? Many have examined his thinking, but few see any change at all.
As Matthew Dowd says, and as I point out again, Bergoglio’s LetterGate–Continuity and Discontinuity, Ratzinger’s idea of continuity is not at all what V2Churchers think it is. For example, since you mention Thomism. You can find passages in which Ratzinger praises Aquinas for integrating Aristotelianism into Catholic thinking, but then he adds, that the Church’s need today is to integrate Catholic thinking to modern “philosophy”, by which he means the Neo-Gnostic ideologies of post-Kantian thought. For him, Aquinas was valid in his time, and his time is past. He opposes “rupture,” but continuity for him basically means “gradualism.”
I urge that anyone interested read my translation of Antonio Livi’s review essay of Heresy in Power (and related posts from January on my blog), which was published by the quite mainstream Ratzinger admirer, Sandro Magister. Livi is a quite eminent philosopher in Rome. Anyone who thinks he came to his position and lightly decided to go public with it at this juncture–that Ratzinger is and always has been a heretic–needs to reconsider.
Let me close by quoting from Ratzinger’s “Spirit of the Liturgy,” a book published in 2000 and widely admired by so-called Traddies. He is speaking approvingly of Teilhard’s ideas, including the idea of the “divinization of matter.” Does that sound like a Catholic idea to you? And it wasn’t some slip of the tongue in 2000, never to be repeated. He repeated his admiration of Teilhard–dating back to V2 and before, at Aosta after becoming pope, and he once again referred to “cosmic transubstantiation” after abdicating. I call THAT “continuity”:
“Against the background of the modern evolutionary world view, Teilhard de Chardin depicted the cosmos as a process of ascent, a series of unions. From very simple beginnings the path leads to ever greater and more complex unities, in which multiplicity is not abolished but merged into a growing synthesis, leading to the Noosphere, in which spirit and its understanding embrace the whole and are blended into a kind of living organism.
“Invoking the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, Teilhard looks on Christ as the energy that strives toward the Noosphere and finally incorporates everything in its ‘fullness.’ From here Teilhard went on to give a new meaning to Christian worship: the transubstantiated Host is the anticipation of the transformation and divinization of matter in the Christological ‘fullness.’ In his view, the Eucharist provides the movement of the cosmos with its direction; it anticipates its goal and at the same time urges it on.” (7)
LikeLike
Michael Dowd said:
“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”
This is a most slippery sentence.
—Sacred for generations=great for us? Does he mean no longer sacred for us (Popes?). What the common people believe we must respect but not consider sacred?
—“and it (sacred for earlier generations) cannot be all of sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful”. In order words, we must not be precipitous in changing doctrine because some might consider it heretical.
I will stick with Hilary White who doesn’t think there is a dimes worth of difference between Pope Benedict, Pope Francis and the other Vatican II Popes. It looks like the Sedevacantists may have been right all along. https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3786-et-tu-benedict-some-final-thoughts-on-joseph-ratzinger
LikeLike
Jacqueline said:
The quote was, “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too…” – YOU left out “remains sacred” and only repeated “great for us”. YOU are twisting this holy defense of this faithful Holy Father, seemingly defending the Latin Mass. Some today would like to consider it harmful, and to forbid it, indeed it is
forbidden in many parts of the world. +St. Joseph, pray for and protect this victim in the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI, who remains at the side of Our Crucified Lord, Your Beloved Son Jesus Christ, Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Eucharistic King. Fiat!
LikeLike
Michael Dowd said:
Easy Jacqueline, I was just taking a shot at translating what I thought was a slippery sentence particularly this part … “What earlier generations held as sacred…..cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.” In order words, we must not be precipitous in changing doctrine because some might consider it heretical. Does this say that Benedict has no major issue with Francis heresies though he needs to be cautious in promulgating them because uneducated folks still believe. Maybe I’m wrong. Hope so. Benedict is most mysterious. On that I’m sure.
LikeLike
Jacqueline said:
Peace to you, Mr. Dowd, and rest assured, there are many uneducated folks who still believe, myself included, praying with certitude for the Church, for our Holy Father and for you.
LikeLike
Julia Augusta said:
Should we not hold Ratzinger (and Bergoglio) to a higher standard than the average Catholic? The answer is yes.
Therefore, if Ratzinger believes that something he has said and something Bergoglio has said, contradicts the Magisterium of the Church, Ratzinger should come out and say it. Why leave the sheep in doubt? Why lead them astray?
Unless Ratzinger doesn’t think he has done anything wrong . . . hence, the silence, the obfuscation, the beating around the bush.
I do not understand these men. Souls are at stake. Their primary job on earth is to save souls. Period. Don’t they believe in the the Four Last Things? Don’t they believe that when they die, they will be judged more harshly than the average Catholic who has not spent years studying theology?
Or is the Four Last Things a medieval superstition to these hip-and-with-it modernists?
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Hi Julia:
Yes, you are correct.
As to what these men believe, it is hard to say.
I don’t think that it is a purely “cognizant” process that is guiding them. They are blinded by ambition.
Souls appear not to be their primary concern…
What appears to be the primary concern is that the Pope Benedict camp doesn’t want a split in the Institutional Church, while the Francis camp is doing everything they can to provoke the split…
It’s the best that I can figure out for now…
LikeLike