SMOKING GUN: The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, starring Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger

Pasting this straight from, in two posts. Make sure you scroll well past the photos at the bottom of the first post and go on to the full German translation in the second post.
Hold on tight, folks.

The Words “Ministry” and “Office” Are Not Synonyms in Any Language, Including Karl Rahner’s German

Pope Benedict’s partial attempted renunciation speech of 11 February, ARSH 2013:

I am well aware that this office [munus], according to its spiritual essence, ought to be exercised not only by acting and speaking, but no less than by suffering and praying.  Moreover, in the world of our time, subjected to rapid changes and perturbed by questions of great weight for the life of faith, there is more necessary to steer the Barque of Saint Peter and to announce the Gospel a certain vigor, which in recent months has lessened in me in such a manner, that I should acknowledge my incapacity to administer well the ministry [ministerium] committed to me.  On which account, well aware of the weightiness of this act, I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals on April 19, 2005, so that on February 28, 2013, at 20:00 Roman Time [Sedes Romae], the see of Saint Peter be vacant, and that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those whose duty it is [ab quibus competit].

An OFFICE and its MINISTRY or ADMINISTRATION are two different things.  Let’s take a couple of examples to understand why these words are NOT synonyms, and have never been considered such.
For the first example, let’s look at the American OFFICE of the Presidency.  When President Reagan was shot and taken into surgery wherein he lost over half his blood volume, he did not lose the OFFICE of the Presidency.  Even in an induced coma he was still 100% the sole occupant of the OFFICE of the Presidency.  What did happen is that the ADMINISTRATIVE authority passed to Vice President Bush (Alexander Haig’s claims to administrative authority notwithstanding) who immediately returned to Washington D.C., and ADMINISTRATIVE authority remained with Bush until Reagan regained consciousness.  In this period, Vice President Bush did NOT become the President, he was merely the person with Administrative authority, and was still “Mr. Vice President”.  Because, of course, there can never be two Presidents of the United States (Hillary Clinton’s claim to being co-President during Bill Clinton’s administration notwithstanding.)
Note that adMINISTRATION and MINISTRY have the same root, the Latin MINISTERIUM.
President Reagan, while temporarily unable to exercise the ADMINISTRATION of the OFFICE of the Presidency, did NOT lose his OFFICE, nor was his OFFICE conferred upon anyone else.  ADMINISTRATIVE authority temporarily passed to Vice President Bush, who remained Vice President even while holding temporary ADMINISTRATIVE authority.  Vice President Bush became neither President nor co-President in ARSH 1981.
The second example is the assasination attempt of Pope John Paul II a few weeks later in ARSH 1981.
Like Reagan a few weeks earlier, Pope JPII was rushed into surgery wherein he lost most of his blood volume after being shot, and went into cardiac arrest on the operating table wherein he had to be resuscitated.  While Pope JPII was incapacitated by anesthesia/induced coma, he was incapable of carrying out the Papal MINISTRY because… he was in a coma.  But he did not lose the OFFICE of the Papacy.  The OFFICE remained with him and him alone, and would have remained with him no matter how long he was comatose.
If you think about it, you will realize that many DOZENS of Popes have been rendered unable to perform the Petrine MINISTRY for various lengths of time – usually at the end of their lives – but retained the OFFICE until they died.  As we all know, some people get old and their death is near-instant, that is they “drop dead”.  Pope John Paul I died this way.  He dropped dead.  But, many times, the end stage of life is not sudden.  Many people “go downhill” and are bedridden and unconscious for a period of time before they expire.  Cancer, organ failure, neurodegenerative diseases, even surviving an incapacitating stroke.  Do we honestly believe that this has NOT happened to previous Popes?  Of course it has happened.  Many, many times.  The Vatican simply did not publicly announce these things up until just a few decades ago.  Popes were rarely seen, and even more rarely heard.  The era of the “highly visible Pope” began, more or less, with Pope Pius XII, and was taken into overdrive by Pope JPII himself. When a Pope would near death or merely fall gravely ill, the day-to-day running of the Vatican continued apace even though the Pope was no longer able to administer the Petrine MINISTRY. The OFFICE remained his until he died.  If he recovered such that he was able to resume the Petrine MINISTRY, he would do so as the sole holder of the Petrine OFFICE.
Let it also be noted that a Pope could also lose his ability to exercise the Petrine MINISTRY by virtue of being imprisoned – but an imprisoned Pope would still retain 100% the OFFICE of the Papacy.  An imprisoned Pope would remain Pope until he died.  If he were to be liberated from imprisonment, he would then resume the Petrine MINISTRY as the holder of the Petrine OFFICE.
So, we can clearly see and easily understand that these two terms are DIFFERENT THINGS, and are NOT SYNONYMOUS.
The notion that Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger is “too stupid” to be aware of this difference is laughable.  If an American convert gal with a degree in Animal Husbandry (but definitely NOT Latin) can see and understand this, then it goes without saying that Joseph Ratzinger does too.  To argue otherwise would be to argue that Ann Barnhardt is more intelligent than Jospeh Ratzinger.  And do we REALLY want to do that?  I mean, if you really, really want to, go ahead, but I would strongly advise against it.
But wait, there’s more….
We KNOW that Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger had heard of the false hypothesis of bifurcation of the Papacy into a collegial, synodal office precisely by having a sitting Pope renounce the MINISTRY but not the OFFICE, thus resulting in an “active” and a “contemplative” Pope simultaneously.
How do we know this?  Because Pope Benedict’s good friend and mentor, to whom he looked up tremendously, KARL RAHNER, proffered EXACTLY this false notion in ARSH 1974 in his work “Vorfragen zu einem okumenischen Amtsverstandnis”.  In the opening pages of this work, Rahner advocated the dissolution of the Petrine OFFICE such that multiple people could simultaneously exercise the Petrine MINISTRY.
Karl Rahner was greatly admired by Ratzinger, and they were close friends.  Rahner died a liberal, but Ratzinger drifted back toward orthodoxy as he grew older and saw the damage done by the very heterodoxy that he, Rahner and all of the other “Nouvelle Theolgie” (New Theology) proponents of the 20th Century inflicted upon the Church, with its zenith at Vatican II.
Pullquote from the Wiki page on the Nouvelle Theologie, with hyperlinks intact:

“The theologians usually associated with Nouvelle Théologie are Henri de LubacPierre Teilhard de ChardinHans Urs von BalthasarYves CongarKarl RahnerHans KüngEdward SchillebeeckxMarie-Dominique ChenuLouis BouyerJean DaniélouJean MourouxHenri Bouillard, and Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI)

Here is what I need, and perhaps my German readers can help with this.  I need the exact passage from Rahner’s “Vorfragen zu einem okumenischen Amtsverstandnis” and its English translation.  While I can see the book available online, even if I bought it, I couldn’t read it and find the passage because I speak ZERO German.  The German language is just squiggles on a page to me. I can see numerous references to it by others, but I can’t find the text itself.
But remember folks, there is NO EVIDENCE of Substantial Error or that Pope Benedict XVI intended to “fundamentally transform the Papacy into a collegial, synodal office” along the lines of OFFICE vs MINISTRY, and to even discuss such a thing is “grasping at straws” due to an inability to accept that Vatican I “might have been wrong”, and that Our Lord’s promise to Peter was a “pretty useless guarantee”. And also, SHUT UP. YOU’RE INSANE. </sarcasm>
As always, I hope this helps.
Here are some pictures of Rahner and Ratzinger together over the years, including at Vatican II:

Second post:

And the Germans Come Through IN SPADES….

Here’s the Smoking Gun, folks….
First read the post immediately below.
Now, from the German readership:

Dear Ann,
peace of Christ be with you. The complete work is not online but is discussed with citations at

Scroll down a little over quarter the way down, on the right there is a heading “Gewaltenteilung?”   This is the section I am posting below with the English Translation. The sections between RAHNER and /RAHNER are his own words.



Noch weiter geht Karl Rahner in seinem kürzlich erschienen Buch “Vorfragen zu einen ökumenischen Amtsverständnis”. Er veranschaulicht am Beispiel der Papstwahl, dass es einen Träger einer für die Kirche äußerst wichtigen Entscheidung geben müsse, der nicht der Papst sein kann und seine Vollmacht auch nicht vom Papst herleitet, weil es zu dieser Zeit ja keinen Papst gibt. Könnte ein solcher Träger nicht auch zu Lebzeiten des Papstes in Aktion treten? Rahner denkt an ein institutionalisiertes Gremium, das eine “brüderliche” Mahnung zur Amtsführung des Papstes aussprechen kann:

RAHNER: “Ist sicher jedvede Art von “Gewaltenteilung” auf höchster Ebene in der Kirche der Lehre des I. Vatikanum eindeutig zuwider? Könnte eine solche Gewaltenteilung nicht genausogut iure humano in der Kirche denkbar sein, wie der Papst durch Konkordate eine ihm an sich zustehende Bischofsernennung mit einem weltlichen Machtträger teilt?”   (/RAHNER  Quaestiones Disputatae 65, Freiburg i.Br. 1974 ´, page 26 f)

Die Kirche als Ganze ist nach Rahner der eigentliche und ursprüngliche Träger aller Gewalten, die in den jeweiligen Einzelträgern gegeben sind. Daraus zieht er eine zweite, noch erstaunlichere Konsequenz: Man könnte fragen, ob die Kirche

RAHNER:  “wesensnotwendig als einen solchen Träger ihrer Vollmacht immer nur einen einzeln bestellen kann oder unter Umständen auch eine kleine Gruppe ( “synodal”) zu einem solchen Träger machen könnte, die natürlich jene Vollmacht tragen würde, die das I. Vatikanum der einzelnen Person des Papstes zuerkennt.”  /RAHNER Quaestiones Disputatae 65, Freiburg i.Br. 1974 ´, page 29

Muss die “monarchische” Form des Bischofsamtes und Papsttums, die sich ja offenbar im zweiten Jahrhundert erst herausbildete, die einzig mögliche bleiben?

English Translation:

Separation of powers?
Karl Rahner goes even further in his recent book “Preliminary Questions on an Ecumenical Understanding”. He uses the example of the papal election to illustrate that there must be a holder of a decision that is extremely important for the Church, who can not be the Pope and who does not derive his authority from the Pope, because at that time there is no Pope. Could not such a bearer come into action during the Pope’s lifetime? Rahner thinks of an institutionalized body that can issue a “fraternal” warning to the Pope’s administration:

(RAHNER) “Is it certain that any kind of separation of powers at the highest level of the Church was opposed by Vatican I? Could not such a separation of powers be conceivable iure humano in the Church, just as the pope, by means of concordats, shares episcopal appointments, which he alone is entitled to, with a world power?”

(/RAHNER page 26 f)
According to Rahner, the church as a whole is the real and original bearer of all powers that are given to the respective individual bearers. From this he draws a second, even more astounding consequence: One might ask if the Church
(RAHNER) “essentially as such a bearer of its supreme authority can only ever commission one individual at a time or, under certain circumstances, make a small group (” synodal “) such a bearer, who would of course carry the authority which Vatican I confers only upon the individual person of the Pope.” (/RAHNER , page 29)
Must the “monarchical” form of episcopacy and papacy, which evidently evolved in the second century, remain the only possible one?



Now here’s a beauty for you Ann. Rahner was not even the first to come up with this crackpot idea. One Johannes Neumann came up with the idea in 1968. Neumann was a canon lawyer at the University of Tübingen

Now, who was appointed Chair of Dogmatic Theology at Tübingen in 1966? You only get one guess ;+)

(Joseph Ratzinger!!!)

Here is what the above article says of Neumann’s ideas (same page, 204) First the German, then the English.

In die gleiche Richtung gehen die Vorstöße des Tübinger Kirchenrechtlers Johannes Neumann, die synodalen Traditionen der Kirche wieder neu zur Geltung zu bringen. Seine Vorschläge zur Neuordnung des Petrusamtes : 

1. Ein Bischofsrat, der mit dem Papst zusammen die eigentliche primatiale Führungsspitze der Kirche bildet;

2. Die Frage, ob das Petrusamt nur durch eine Person verwaltet sein darf;

3. Neuordnung der Papstwahl: das Wahlgremium müßte die Gesamtkirche in echter Weise repräsentieren. (

English Translation:

In the same direction are the efforts of the Tubingen church lawyer Johannes Neumann to bring new validity the synodal traditions of the church . His proposals for the reorganization of the Petrine Office:
1. A council of bishops, together with the pope, forming the actual primatial leadership of the church;
2. The question of whether the office of Peter may only be administered by one person;
3. Reorganization of the papal election: the electoral body would have to represent the universal Church in a genuine way. (Johannes Neumann, A Constitution for Freedom, Word and Truth 23 (1968) pp. 387-400.)


Anyway, that’s all I’ve got. Enjoy!

God be with you always,


13 thoughts on “SMOKING GUN: The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, starring Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger”

  1. “Rahner died a liberal, but Ratzinger drifted back toward orthodoxy as he grew older…” Yet resorted to using his old pal’s heretical formula for tampering with the Papacy, is what is being presented here. So the dilemma this puts me in (as one who holds to the position that Benedict XVI is still the one true pope) — if I were to share this information with other “trads” who aren’t all that fond of Ratzinger to begin with, they would rightly see this as the novelty that it is and feel justified in their indifference (“Ratzinger is just as much of a heretic as Bergoglio; what difference does it make?”). And the photos being used as evidence of their close friendship just invites even more contempt for Joseph Ratzinger; hardly inspiring anyone to embrace the truth that he is indeed the one and only reigning pope. So I don’t see this really helping “our case”, so to speak.

    1. Anyone who shows “indifference” toward the question of who is pope already has a lot of other problems in their faith life, I suspect. It doesn’t matter that Benedict being pope doesn’t solve all our problems. Of course he is a modernist with a sprinkling of Tradition, acquired as he aged and saw the destruction wrought by the libs. It doesn’t matter who we want to be pope; all we are after is the truth. As I said, anyone expressing indifference to the truth is already in a bad way.

      1. And do we just ignore the recent review of Antonio Socci’s book: “The Secret of Benedict XVI: Why He Is Still Pope” that was posted 12/20 on IP5? This would seem to provide answers as to why Benedict remains silent vs. what the Veri Catholici Twitter acct. is speculating. Could Benedict not have used the Rahner formula knowing it would invalidate his resignation, and therefore *heroically* save the Papacy from truly falling into the hands of the enemy? The Fatima component cannot be ignored.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.