|
CARDINAL RATZINGER: A PREFECT WITHOUT FAITH
AT THE CONGREGATION FOR THE FAITH
CARDINAL RATZINGER THE "THEOLOGIAN"
Pope
Paul VI's discretion and persistence most effectively
handed over supreme control and power to the "new theology"
in the Catholic world. There is absolutely no room for doubt
on this score. However, the triumph of this "new theology"
has not meant a triumph for the Catholic Faith. The German
theologian Dormann, referring to the last Council (The
Theological Way of John Paul II and the Spirit of Assisi)
writes, "Never before has a Papal encyclical, written barely
fifteen years previously, been repudiated in so short a time
and so completely by those very persons whom it condemns,
as Humani Generis (1950)." The Jesuit and "new theologian"
Henrici has given us a portrait of the present situation:
"Nowadays, when theological professorships are in the
hands of our Concilium colleagues, almost all of the
theologians who have been named bishops in the last few years
have come from the ranks of Communio (a more moderately
progressive journal)…Balthasar, De Lubac, and Ratzinger,
the founders [of Communio], have all become cardinals"
(30 Days, December 1991).
Presently, in the Church-affiliated universities, including
Pontifical universities, the founding fathers of the "new
theology" are being studied; doctoral theses are being prepared
on Blondel, De Lubac, and Von Balthasar.
The Osservatore Romano as well as Civilta Cattolica
praise these modernists and their ways of "thought" and the
Catholic press falls in line: Everyone falls into line
with the one occupying Peter's throne.
At the
present time, a "new theologian" holds the exalted position
of President of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
formerly known as the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office:
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
For convenience's
sake, let us distinguish between Ratzinger the "theologian"
and Ratzinger the Prefect. Actually, in this case, such a
distinction is not valid; for we are not dealing here with
debatable questions, but with matters of Faith. On the other
hand, a Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith who doesn't
have the Faith himself would simply go against common sense,
besides the fact that Ratzinger the Prefect is in complete
accord with Ratzinger the "theologian."
Ratzinger
the "theologian's" work, Einfuhrung in das Christentum,
which was published in France under the title La Foi Chretienne,
hier et aujourd'hui (The Christian Faith, Yesterday
and Today) is considered to be his fundamental work. Its
Italian version (Introduzione al Christianismolezioni sul
Simbolo Apostolico), which is already in its eighth printing,
is on sale in Catholic bookstores. It was edited at the Queriniana
de Brescia, exclusive editors of the "new theology" literature.
Here is
how Ratzinger's fundamental work is presented in his The
Ratzinger Report: with Vittorio Messori: "A kind of school
book, continually re-edited, which has formed a whole generation
of clergy and laity, drawn as they were, by absolutely "Catholic"
thinking while also being absolutely open to the new climate
of Vatican II." We must, at this point, stop to consider some
fundamental notions, enough at any rate to get an exact idea
of the "theology" of the present Prefect of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith.
A FRIGHTFUL PROBLEM
It is of
Divine and Catholic Truth, that God became man and more precisely,
the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, Who is God as
is the Father and the Holy Ghost; that He (the Second Person)
took on a human nature and that therefore, in Our Lord Jesus
Christ, there are two natures (the human and the divine) united
in one Divine Person. This union is called the hypostatic
union. Which the Church has always and everywhere put forward
for our belief and which She has defended against heresy (for
example in the Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople
V).
What are
we to say, therefore, when we are obliged to face the fact
that the present Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith
professes quite the contrary in his books of theology - that
in Jesus, it is not God Who became man, but rather, man who
became God? As a matter of fact, in Ratzinger's mind, just
who is Jesus Christ? He is that "man in whom the definitive
reality of man's being is manifested, and who, by that very
fact, is God at the same time."
What does
this mean - if not that man, in his "definitive reality" is
God and that Christ is a man, who is, or better yet, became
God by the sole fact that in Him has come to light that "definitive
reality of man's being"? (La Foi Chretienne, hier et aujourd'hui
p.126).
GOD IS MAN AND MAN IS GOD
Moreover,
the problem is put clearly before us and is affirmatively
resolved by Ratzinger himself who asks: "Do we, then, still
have the right to re-absorb Christology [that part of theology
devoted to the study of Christ and His work] into theology
[the methodical study of those truths revealed by God]? Must
we not rather passionately acclaim Jesus as man and consider
Christology as [a form of] Humanism, an Anthropology? Or could
authentic man, simply because of the fact of being completely
and authentically man, be God and could God be, precisely,
authentic man? Could it be possible that the most radical
humanism and the Faith in the God of Revelation merge together
here to become one and the same thing?" (p.130).
The answer
is that the struggle concerning these questions, and which
continued throughout the first five centuries of the Church,
"has, in the ecumenical Councils of that period, resulted
in an affirmative [sic!] answer to all these questions" (p.140).
The main
question, without misrepresenting the author's idea, could
be put in the following words: authentic man, precisely by
the fact that he is fully such, is God, and consequently,
God is an authentic man.
A COHERENT "CHRISTOLOGY" IN ITS HERESY
Ratzinger's entire Christology is developed in a coherent
manner around this fundamental thesis. It would also be quite
difficult to give a different explanation to those statements,
which, in his book Christian Faith, Yesterday and Today, are
to be found time after time, and amongst which we will now
quote the following in fairness to the author as well as to
our present study.
"The heart
of this Christology [based on the Scriptural texts of St.
John] of the Son would be as follows: 'The fact of being a
servant is no longer presented as an action, behind which
the person of Jesus would remain confined in itself; it penetrates
the whole existence of Jesus so that His very being is service.
And precisely because this whole being is service only, it
is a filial being. In this sense, it is only here that the
changes in value due to Christianity have come to term; only
at this point does it become unmistakably clear that he who
puts himself entirely at the service of others, who commits
himself to total unselfishness as well as to voluntary self-deprivation,
that is the true man, the man of the future, where man and
God are at one" (p.152).
"The being
of Jesus is pure actuality of relations 'from' and 'for.'
And by the very fact that this being is no longer separable
from its actuality, it coincides with God; it becomes at the
same time exemplary man, man of the future through whom we
are able to perceive just how little man has begun to be himself
[that is to say, God]" (p.153).
It was
the "primitive Christian community" which for the first time
applied Psalm 2 to Jesus: "Thou art my Son, this day have
I begotten thee. Ask of me and I will give thee the gentiles
to be thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth
for thy possession." This application - Ratzinger tells us
- was simply to explain the conviction that: "He who has placed
the sense of human existence, not in a self-affirming power,
but rather in an existence radically consecrated to others,
as proven by the Cross, it is to Him alone that God has said:
'Thou art my son, this day - that is to say, in this situation
[on the Cross] - I have begotten thee' and he concludes: "The
notion of son of God...through the explanation of the resurrection
and of the Cross through Psalm 2, came in this manner and
under this form into the confession of Faith in Jesus of Nazareth"
(p.147).
And that
will be quite sufficient for us for the moment.
THE REVERSAL
To Ratzinger's
way of thinking then, Jesus is not God because of His being
the natural Son of God, born of the Father before all ages,
"begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father," because
His person shares from eternity the infinite Divine Nature
and therefore possesses its infinite perfection. Ratzinger's
concept of Jesus, on the contrary, is that of a man who "came
to coincide with God" when on the Cross he incarnated "being
for others," the "altruist by automasia."
What distinguishes
Him, from other men, lies only in the degree of human development
attained by Him and does not depend on that gulf separating
man from God, the Creator from the Creature. Ratzinger rejects
the Church's Christology, labelling it as "a triumphalist
Christology having simply no use for the man [sic!] crucified
and servant, ready to invent once again, in his place, the
myth of an ontological God" (p.152).
To the
"triumphalist Christology" which creates a "myth of an ontological
God," Ratzinger opposes his "Christology of service" which
he claims to have found in St. John and wherein the word "Son"
would only convey the meaning of a "perfect servant."
On the
other hand, the man Jesus, who by his perfect service, has
come to "coincide with God" reveals to man that man is becoming
God, and therefore there exists an essential identity between
man and God.
UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR CONFIRMATION
Ratzinger's concept of Christ as the "last man," as we
find confirmed in unmistakably clear terms (beginning on p.158),
indeed represents the Cardinal's thought on the matter. Here
Ratzinger falsifies or "twists" the interpretation of another
passage of Holy Scripture (St. Paul to be exact), paying no
heed whatsoever to Catholic exegesis in those passages concerning
Dogma which must strictly adhere to the meaning always taught
by Holy Mother Church:
"And on
the other hand, what a difference in perspective is to be
seen as we consider St. Paul's idea according to which Christ
is the 'last man' [last Adam] (1 Cor.15: 4-5), the definitive
or ultimate, who introduces man to that future which belongs
to man, a future consisting in not simply being man, but to
be one with God" (p.158).
And immediately
after, he continues under the title "Christ, The Last Man":
"And here we have reached the point where we may attempt to
summarize the meaning of the Creed: ‘I believe in Christ
Jesus, the only Son of God, our Lord.’ After all these
reflections of ours, we should be able, first of all, to make
this affirmation: the Christian Faith acknowledges the exemplary
man in [the person of] Jesus of Nazareth. Here we have, so
it seems, the best way of interpreting the Pauline concept
of the 'last Adam' mentioned above [which on the contrary,
simply signifies the 'second Adam' the head of redeemed humanity,
in contrast to the 'first Adam']. But it is precisely in his
condition or status as exemplary man, as a classic example
of man, that he transcends human limitations. It is only by
this fact that he is the truly exemplary man" (p.158).
And this
would be the motive for his theory: "That which makes man
is his open-mindedness, his opening on All, on the Infinite.
Man is man by the fact that he tends to go infinitely beyond
himself; consequently, he will be more man in the measure
that he will be less withdrawn into himself, less 'limited'
[beschrankt]. But then - let us repeat - that one is the most
[perfect] man, truly man, he who is the most unlimited [ent-schrankt],
who not only comes into contact with the infinite, but is
one with it: Jesus Christ the Infinite Himself. In Him, the
process of humanization (the evolutionary development of human
characteristics) has truly reached its ultimate development"
(p.159).
THE "CREDIT" DUE TO TEILHARD
Moreover,
in order to eliminate any possible lingering doubts on his
thought as well as the "sources" of his "theology," Ratzinger
appeals to that boldest and most dreadful of the "new theologians,"
Teilhard de Chardin, the "apostate" (R. Valneve) Jesuit:
"It is to Teilhard de Chardin's great credit that he has rethought
the whole issue of these relationships based on today's vision
of the world,...to have made them accessible once again" (p.160).
There follow
numerous quotations from Teilhard's writings. It will be sufficient
to cite the last one as an example, which also serves as a
conclusion: "The cosmic drift is moving 'in the direction
of an incredible near mono-molecular state...where each ego
is destined to reach its paroxysm in some mysterious super-ego.'
True, man in as much as he is an ego, does represent an end,
but the direction of the being's movement, of his own existence,
reveals him to be an organism destined or intended for a super-ego
which incorporates him without dissolving him; only through
the integration will the form of the future be able to become
a reality in which man will have finally attained the goal
and summit of his being [the perfect "humanization," incorrectly
called "deification" or supernatural]" (p.162).
This monistic-pantheistic
delirium seems to constitute for Ratzinger - incredible as
it may sound, but nevertheless true - the essence of...St.
Paul's Christology!
"It will
be readily admitted that this synthesis, elaborated as it
has been, based on today's view of the world and couched in
terms doubtlessly overly biological, is nevertheless faithful
to Pauline Christology whose profound meaning is now well-perceived
and brought to a higher level of intelligibility: faith sees
in the man Jesus in whom has been realized in some way - biologically
speaking - the following mutation of the process of evolution
...from that point, faith sees in Christ the beginning of
a movement which integrates more and more that humanity previously
divided in the being of a single Adam, of a single 'body,'
into the being of future man. It [this Faith] will see in
Christ the movement towards this future of man wherein he
is to be totally 'socialized,' incorporated into the Unique"
(pp.162-163).
All this
constitutes a complete reversal of the Catholic Faith; it
is no longer God who was made man, it is rather man who has
emerged as God in Jesus Christ.
THE "SOURCES"
How could
Ratzinger end up with such a doctrinal turnabout? Cardinal
Siri gives us the explanation in Gethsemane-Reflections
on the Contemporary Theological Movement. That "cosmic
monism" or "anthropocentric idealism" or "fundamental anthropocentrism"
whereby Ratzinger lays waste and dissolves theology, constitutes
that certain and inevitable outlet of De Lubac's error concerning
the "supernatural" implied in the natural where the "supernatural"
necessarily coincides with human nature's maximum development.
"In revealing the Father," De Lubac writes, "and in being
revealed by Him [Jesus Christ] completes man's self-revelation…Through
Christ a person reaches adulthood, man definitively emerges
from the universe" (Henri de Lubac, Catholicism, pp.295-296).
This is
nothing but Ratzinger's "Christology" in its embryonic state.
Cardinal Siri rightly questions: "What can be the meaning
of such an affirmation? Either Christ is only man, or else
man is divine" (Gethsemane, p.60). We should also add
that the "supernatural" which finds its explanation simply
in nature (or that which is simply natural) is also to be
found in the center of Blondel's "new philosophy," which seeks
to explain the man's participation in the divine nature as
a "return, so to speak, of God to God in us" (Letter
to De Lubac, April 5, 1932).
Cardinal
Siri points out that de Lubac's error (as well as that of
Blondel) ultimately develops and matures in Karl Rahner,
S.J., who wonders "if it is possible to try to discover
the hypostatic union (that union between the human and divine
natures in Christ) along the lines of the absolute perfecting
of that which is man" ("Nature and Grace in the Thought of
Karl Rahner," quoted in Gethsemane, p.79). The affirmative
answer to all of this, before being found in Ratzinger, is
to be found in Rahner himself, who "completely twists the
Church's thought and Faith concerning the mystery of the Incarnation
of the Word of God in Jesus Christ as recorded in Tradition
as well as in Holy Scripture" (Gethsemane, p.85).
|
|
|
Karl Rahner
and Jospeh Ratzinger during Vatican II
|
Ratzinger
also falsifies the Church's thought and Faith exactly in the
same sense, as does Rahner. Moreover, Ratzinger was and still
is, in spite of distancing himself on occasion from his positions,
Rahner's disciple {Ratzinger was indeed Rahner's faithful
collaborator during the Council; see R. Wiltgen, The Rhine
Flows into the Tiber).
In Rahner's
works, Cardinal Siri writes, "there clearly appears a fundamental
anthropology which not only coincides with de Lubac's thought,
but even goes beyond it to the extent of transforming, in
the conscience of the followers of the new theology, those
very articles of Faith such as those of the Incarnation and
the Immaculate Conception" (Gethsemane, p.78). Again:
"When one acts, thinks, and expresses oneself in such ways
as to favor theories such as the one of essential identity
between God and man [this is precisely the postulate upon
which Ratzinger has based his own "Christology"], then one
is no longer treading the path of truth but rather has locked
himself into the rut of error [of heresy]…These are
the dire consequences of having started out with an [erroneous]
concept concerning a great mystery, such as the mystery of
the supernatural, artificially presented [by De Lubac and
his followers] as being part and parcel of Catholic doctrine…
Gradually, all the principles, all the criteria, as well as
all the fundamental truths of the Faith have been called into
question and are crumbling away" (Gethsemane, pp.74,
82).
A RETURN TO MODERNISM
Cardinal
Siri re-echoed Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., who, as
early as 1946, had already figured out and summarized the
"new theology's" Christology:
"Thus does
this new Christology suppose that the material world has evolved
towards the spirit, and the spiritual world has evolved naturally,
so to speak, toward the supernatural order as well as towards
the plenitude of Christ. Thus the Incarnation of the Word,
the Mystical Body and the Universal Christ are to be understood
as moments or stages of Evolution…This is all that remains
of Christian Dogmas in that theory which seeks to destroy
our Creed in the same measure that it favors Hegelian evolutionism"
(La Nouvelle Theologie: ou va-t-elle?). And
the famous Dominican theologian immediately sounded the alarm:
"Where is the New Theology leading us to? It is taking us
in a straight line right back to modernism by way of whims,
errors and heresy" (Nouvelle Theologie).
Ratzinger
maintains, while repeating his "masters"' old party-line,
that this monistic-pantheistic delirium, quite apart from
"Pauline Christology" (as interpreted by Teilhard de Chardin),
can be found in the "most ancient professions of Faith" as
well as in St. John's Gospel and would make "clear" to us
the true "meaning" of the Dogmas of Ephesus, 431 A.D., and
of Chalcedon, 451 A.D. This affirmation constitutes in itself
another heresy. If this were so, we would be obliged to say
that the Church, in spite of its divinely promised infallibility,
had lost its memory and forgot the real meaning of St. Paul's
doctrine, St. John's Gospel, as well as the earliest professions
of Faith, of Christological dogma and, indeed, of all of Divine
Revelation itself!
But the
sad truth is quite different: Ratzinger makes use of, often
quite literally, as we have shown, the same old arguments
of those "masters" of the "new theology." In so doing, he
is simply rejecting, the "philosophy of being" in favor of
the philosophy of "becoming." Thus is Ratzinger caught in
the act of repudiating both Catholic Tradition and the Magisterium
as he "quietly" (to use one of his favorite terms) "continues
to go his way on the path of whims, error, and heresy." This
path, in fact, is nothing else but that highway back to that
modernism previously condemned by Pope St. Pius X which
"recognizes in Jesus Christ nothing more than a man" even
though "of a very high nature such as had never before been
seen nor will ever be found in the future."
On the
other hand, this same Modernism sees a God in man, since "the
principle of faith is immanent [intrinsic] in man...this principle
is God" and therefore "God is immanent in man." (Pope St.
Pius X, Pascendi).
Through
necessity (since we have here but one article to oppose to
an entire book replete with whims, errors and heresies) we
have limited our attention to Ratzinger's Christology. The
reader, however, will readily understand that once this fundamental
point of Christology has been thus so distorted and falsified,
everything else will also suffer contamination: soteriology
[that branch of theology concerned with the doctrine of salvation
through Christ]: the vicarious satisfaction for sins is considered
by modernism to be simply an unfortunate medieval invention
of St. Anselm of Aosta (1033-1109)! Mariology [that
branch of theology treating of the Blessed Virgin Mary, particularly
in her relationship to the Incarnation and Redemption]: the
virginal Conception is quite foggy at best, and in order to
remain consistent, no mention at all is made of the Blessed
Virgin's Divine Maternity, and so on through all the other
articles of the Creed. All of this is to be found in Ratzinger's
book, The Christian Faith - Yesterday and Today which
would have been more correctly entitled Introduction to
Apostasy.
THE PREFECT
But perhaps
Ratzinger the Prefect (of the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith) later denied or refuted Ratzinger the
theologian? Not at all; in fact, quite the contrary. His "theological"
works continue to be reprinted unchanged. (The Italian version
of The Christian Faith - Yesterday and Today, has already
reached its eighth edition.) Ratzinger the Prefect has never
yet corrected or withdrawn one iota of his writings. On these
"theological works," new generations of clerics will be formed
in complete ignorance of Catholic theology and will, in the
future, distort the most elementary truths of the Catholic
Faith.
Ratzinger
the Prefect goes even farther: he sponsors and collaborates
officially in the review Communio, the press organ
of "those who think they have won," that same Communio
which he founded together with his friends De Lubac and Von
Balthasar. On May 28, 1992, Ratzinger, fortified by his prestige
as Prefect of the Faith, was able to celebrate the twentieth
anniversary of Communio in Rome, in the great amphitheater
of the Gregorian University, in the presence of a multitude
of cardinals as well as the professors of Roman theological
faculties. Communio was printed in several languages,
and since it is under the patronage of the prefect for the
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it serves
to indicate, unofficially but clearly, to the clergy of various
countries the line of belief, action, and conduct wanted by
"Rome."
PARTY PLOYS
Is it simply
by chance that as soon as vacancies occur in episcopal sees,
they are just as quickly filled by Communio collaborators?
Il Sabato (June 6, 1992), in an article celebrating
Communio’s twentieth anniversary, remarked: "Twenty
years have passed. Communio has won the day [in the
struggle for modernism]." At least, this is true regarding
the ecclesiastical supremacy in the Church. To those three
"dissident" theologians - Ratzinger, De Lubac, Von Balthasar,
- the Church has now bestowed the most coveted and prestigious
of awards: the red hat of the cardinalate.
"To the
most highly-skilled Communio collaborators went the
episcopal promotions! Prominent amongst these are the Germans
KarI Lehmann and Walter Kasper, the Italian
Angelo Scola, Eugenio Corecco from Switzerland,
the Austrian Christoph von Schonborn, Andre-Jean
Leonard from Belgium, and Karl Romer from Brazil.
A whole troop of bishop-theologians whose influence in the
Church goes way above and beyond their own diocesan jurisdictions.
A real 'think tank' of Karol Wojtyla's Church."
Is it simply
by coincidence if "the theological chairs are presently dominated
by Concilium’s fellow workers?" (30 Giorni,
December 1991).
Is it not
Ratzinger the Prefect who leaves them undisturbed? And all
this corresponds perfectly to the' modernists' concept of
authority as described by St. Pius X in Pascendi and
which Msgr. Montini also outlined in his interview with Jean
Guitton (cf. Courrier de Rome July- August 1993).
As far as the modernists are concerned - St. Pius X declares
-the doctrinal evolution of the Church "is like a result from
the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress,
the other towards conservation." The conserving force exists
in the Church and is found in Tradition; Tradition "is represented
by religious authority" while the progressive force is there
to stimulate evolution.
It is therefore
"logical," according to modernistic logic, that those Concilium
ultra-progressives as well as Communio moderates should
have divided the tasks among themselves, the Concilium
collaborators acting as the progressive force laying claim
to the universities, the field of theological research, religious
authority as well as ecclesiastical supremacy.
No room,
therefore, for self-delusion: today, there actually exists
no struggle whatsoever between liberal Catholics and conservative
Catholics; the true "conservatives" have been effectively
wiped off the official ecclesiastical map.
The sham
struggle is between modernists who have gone to the very limits
of their erroneous principles and their cousins, the moderate
modernists who wish to go in the same direction albeit more
slowly; it is not at all a question of a fight to the death,
but rather of insignificant skirmishes, or more exactly, "of
party maneuvers or ploys."
ROME NOW OCCUPIED BY "NEW THEOLOGIANS"
Ratzinger
the Prefect, the driving force behind the modernists' express
train, has filled Rome with "new theologians" who have set
up shop in the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith in particular, as well as in other commissions under
his presidency. And so it is that, in order to “promote
sound doctrine” under the prefecture of Cardinal Ratzinger,
there is to be found among others, in that very same Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, a bishop Lehmann who rejects
the bodily resurrection of Christ (cf. Courrier de Rome
July-August 1993, "Bishops without Faith"). But for Ratzinger
also, Jesus is "the one who died on the Cross and who, in
the eyes of the Faith [sic!] has risen again" (The Christian
Faith-Yesterday and Today, p.146).
Also it
is to be noted that in the same Congregation is a certain
George Cottier, O.P., a "great expert" in Freemasonry
and "advocate of dialogue between the Church and masonic lodges,"
a certain Albert Vanhoye, S.J., for whom “Jesus
was not a priest" (but He is not priest any more for Ratzinger,
nor for his "master" Karl Rahner), and Marcel Bordoni,
for whom remaining resolutely attached to the Christological
dogma of Chalcedon constitutes an intolerable unchangeableness
(sad to say, Ratzinger also shares this same view).
Ratzinger
the Prefect is also President ex-officio of the Pontifical
Biblical Commission, which was revived after a long period
of stagnation. Two modernist secretaries have been engaged
in this Commission; first, Henri Cazelles, Sulpician,
a pioneer of neo-modernist exegesis, whose Introduction
to the Bible was formerly severely criticized and reproved
by the Roman Congregation for Seminaries (cf. Courrier
de Rome, June-July 1989). He was succeeded by the above-mentioned
Albert Vanhoye, S.J., as secretary to that same Commission
amongst whose members are to be also found Gianfranco Ravasi,
who relentlessly attacks Holy Scripture as well as the Faith
itself, openly and without restraint. Guiseppe Segalla,
another member, repudiates St. John's Gospel as he assails
it with the most outrageous and unwarranted criticism (cf.
si si no no, IV #11:2).
Another
group, the International Theological Commission, is under
Ratzinger's presidency. Amongst its members who are chosen
on his proposition are Walter Kasper for whom those Gospel
texts "where mention is made of a risen Christ whom one is
able to touch with one's hands and who has meals with His
disciples" are but "trivial affirmations, quite unworthy of
serious consideration...which represent a danger of justifying
an 'overly-rosy' paschal faith" (but neither does Ratzinger
himself show any liking for a "markedly literal and terrestrial
representation of the resurrection" (Christian Faith-Yesterday
and Today p.219).
Again,
we have Bishop Christoph Schonborn, O.P., editorial secretary
for the new Catechism and who, to mark the first anniversary
of Von Balthasar's death, sang the praises of the deceased's
ecumenical super-Church, the non-Catholic "Catholic" in St.
Mary's Church in Basle, Switzerland (cf. Von Balthasar, Figura
e Opera, ed. Piemme, pp. 431 ff.). Also Bishop Andre-Jean
Leonard, "Hegelian... bishop of Namur, in charge of St Paul's
Seminary where Cardinal Lustiger of Paris sends his
seminarians” (30 Giorni, December 1991, p.67).
WITH (AND WITHOUT) DISCRETION
What is
to be said about the more discreet, yet very effective publicity
methods used by Ratzinger the Prefect in promoting the "new
theology"? No sooner had Walter Kasper been named bishop of
Rottenburg-Stuttgart than Ratzinger wrote to him, "You represent,
in these stormy times, a precious gift from Heaven" (30
Giorni, May 1989). Urs von Balthasar died in June 1988,
on the very eve of receiving the "well-deserved honorary distinction
of the cardinalate." Ratzinger the Prefect personally delivered
the funeral oration (at the cemetery in Lucerne, Switzerland)
in which he praised the deceased to the skies as he bestowed
upon the departed cleric the honor of theologian probatus."
On this
occasion, he went on to say, "That which the Pope wishes to
express by this mark of gratitude, or rather, this manifestation
of honor, remains valid. It is not longer a case of ordinary
persons, of private individuals, but [it is] the Church itself
in its official [sic!] ministerial responsibility which tells
us that he [Von Balthasar] was, in fact, a sure and trustworthy
guide on our journey towards the springs of living water as
well as a witness to the Word through which we may learn of
Christ and life itself” (quoted in Von Balthasar, Figura
e Opera, pp.457 ff.).
Furthermore, Ratzinger the Prefect heads up the group
sponsoring the opening, in Rome, of a "center dedicated to
the formation of candidates to the consecrated life," a formation
"inspired by the life and works of Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs
von Balthasar and of Adrienne von Speyr" (30 Giorni
August-September 1990).
Finally,
and in order to keep this study within limits, Ratzinger the
Prefect presented the press with an "Instruction on the Theologian's
Ecclesiastical Vocation," wherein he underscores the fact
that this document "affirms - maybe for the first time ever
with such clarity - that there are decisions [which have been
made in the past] of the Magisterium which are not to be considered
as the final word on a given subject as such, but serve rather
as a mooring in the problem, and above all, also as an expression
of pastoral prudence, a kind of temporary disposition" (L'Osservatore
Romano, June 27, 1990. p.6). And Ratzinger provided several
examples of such temporary dispositions, which are now considered
"outdated in the particularities of their determinations":
1. those
"Papal declarations of the last century on religious liberty,"
2. "the
anti-modernist decisions of the Pope at the beginning of
this century,"
3. "the
[papally approved] decisions of the Biblical Commission
of that same time period."
In short,
those three very same ramparts which the Sovereign Pontiff
had set up against Modernism in the social, doctrinal, and
exegetical domains.
Must anything
else be added to prove that Ratzinger the Prefect is in perfect
accord with Ratzinger the "theologian"? Yes, we do owe it
to our readers to point out the fact that Elio Guerriero;
chief editor of Communio (Italian edition) is in perfect
agreement with us on this score. In order to illustrate the
new theology's victorious march in his journal Jesus
(April, 1992), he wrote, "Anyway, in Rome we must bring to
your attention the work done by Joseph Ratzinger, both as
a theologian and as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith." The only thing left of Ratzinger the "restorer"
is the myth.
THE MYTH OF THE "RESTORER"
It is not
difficult to see what gave rise to this myth. In his Preface
to Introduzione al Cristianismo (1968 Italian
edition of Ratzinger's book Einfuhrung in das Christentum)
for example, Ratzinger writes, "The problem of knowing exactly
the content and meaning of the Christian Faith is presently
shrouded in a nebulous halo of uncertainty, thick and dense
as has never been seen before in history." And this because
"those who have followed at least in some small way the theological
movement of the last decade and have kept a certain distance
from the herd of unthinking souls who consider anything new
as being always and automatically better," have been quite
anxious to know if "our theology ...has not gone in the direction
of an interpretation reducing the rightful claims and demands
of our Faith which seemed overly oppressive, for the simple
reason that since nothing of any great importance seemed to
have been lost and so many things still remained, the new
theologians could immediately dare to go still one step further"
(p.7).
What Catholic
who loves the Church and who is suffering such a heartache
in the midst of the present universal crisis would not wholeheartedly
agree with these affirmations? Already in this Preface, which
has remained unchanged since 1968, we find sufficient matter
to give rise to that popular myth of Ratzinger the "restorer."
But just
what does he oppose to this progressive onslaught and demolition
of the Faith being perpetuated by present-day (new) theology?
His opposition consists in a general absolution of this very
same "theology" concerning which - he declares - "one cannot...honestly
...affirm that, taken as a whole, it has taken this kind of
direction." By way of "corrective action," he suggests the
repudiation of Catholic Tradition along with the Church's
Magisterium by which the new theology of the last few decades
has succeeded in shrouding "the content and meaning of the
Christian Faith. For the deplorable tendency of this new theology
to reduce the Faith, Ratzinger remarks, "We will surely not
find the solution by insisting on remaining attached to the
noble metal of fixed formulas of former times and which, in
the final analysis, turn out to be simply a heap of metal
which weighs heavily upon our shoulders instead of favoring,
by virtue of its worth, the possibility of reaching true liberty
[which in this way, has underhandedly replaced the truth]"
(Preface to Introduzione al Cristianismo, p.8). The
fact that his foreword is certainly heading in the same direction
as contemporary "theology" seems to have completely escaped
Ratzinger. Long ago, Pope St. Pius X noted that all modernists
are in no way able to draw from their erroneous premises truly
inevitable conclusions. (cf. Pascendi).
Ratzinger
is always the same: those excesses or abuses from which he
keeps a "respectful" distance (often by cutting remarks) he
never opposes with Catholic truth but only with some other
apparently more moderate error which, however, in the logic
of error, nevertheless leads inevitably to the same ruinous
conclusions.
In his
book Entretien Sur La Foi (Discourse on the Faith),
Ratzinger labels himself as a "well-balanced progressive."
He favors a "peaceful evolution of [Catholic] doctrine" without,
however, "solitary breakaways ahead of the flock," yet "without
nostalgia nor regret for times irretrievably past"; meaning,
of course, quietly leaving behind the Catholic Faith (pp.
16-17). Although he shrinks back from extreme "progressivism,"
Ratzinger cares even less for Catholic Tradition: "We must
remain faithful to the present day of the Church [l'aujourd'hui
de l’Eglise], not to its past [non a l'hier],
nor its future [ni au demain]" (Entretien sur la
Foi, p.32).
For this
reason, a Catholic who cherishes the Catholic Faith and loves
the Church is able to favor or subscribe to a number of Ratzinger's
central affirmations, but, on closer observation of what this
"restorer" proposes in place of the current universally-deplored
"abuses," he will find himself unable to approve even a single
sentence. And this is because the downward neo-modernist path
leads us down the same slippery slope, even though it does
so more gradually, it still ends up with the very same complete
rejection of Divine Revelation, that is, in apostasy. No doubt
about it: the writings of Ratzinger the "Theologian" are there
for all to see, demonstrating an undeniable proof of this
flagrant apostasy.![]()
Hirpinus (to be continued)
![]()
Translated from Courrier de Rome,
September 1993
GLOSSARY
ALTRUIST
A person
having consideration for other people without any thought
of self as a principle of conduct.
AUTOMASIA
The substitution
of an epithet for a proper name e.g. “the iron duke”,
use of a proper name to express a general idea, e.g. “a
Solomon”.
CONCILIUM
An extremely
progressive theological journal.
EXEGESIS
An explanation
or commentary on the meaning of a text, especially of the
Scared Scriptures.
MONISTIC
From monism,
a view which reduces all reality to a simple principle or
substance.
PANTHEISM
A theory
that God and the universe are identical.
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Kansas City, MO 64109
translated from the Italian
Fr. Du Chalard
Via Madonna degli Angeli, 14
Italia 00049 Velletri (Roma)
|
