The headline quote, from American Cardinal Dulles, is from 1955. So we know for a fact that the idea of an “expanded petrine ministry,” as glowingly described by Abp Ganswein in his speech at the the Gregorianum, is at least (now 70) years old. We also know that the Germans ran with this idea, led by Rahner, Kung, Neumann, and yes, Ratzinger. HERE. (click this link!!)
So Pope Benedict did NOT dream up the idea of a papal diarchy in 2012-2013. Nope. Instead, he was part of an a elite team of theologians who came up with it and developed it. Each of them had particular slant on it, if you will.
It’s important to understand the false premise which is necessary to arrive at such bad theology. At the time, there was a strong undercurrent, described in Abp Miller’s book, where the ontology (essential nature) of divine structures were called into question. Specifically, the question was this: Can structures within the Church change to meet the changing needs of the faithful, even if said structures were directly divinely instituted, either by God the Father or by Christ. And yes, this would include structures as important as the papacy itself. A further question was whether the structures could merely be changed, or could they be entirely eliminated… as part of an ecumenical effort to over come stumbling blocks, of our “separated brethren.”
Said another way, these men were proposing the God of Surprises. There is always the possibility (sarcasm) that the Third Person of the Holy Trinity might swoop down and abrogate or alter things, EVEN THINGS THAT WERE DIRECTLY INSTITUTED BY THE FIRST OR SECOND PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY. This means everything goes, everything is on the table, nothing whatsoever can be looked at as rock solid, not even Matthew 16:18.
CHA CHA CHA CHA CHANGES. IT’S THE GOD OF DAVID BOWIE.
These men knew they were flouting the doctrine of immutability. So they had a plan for that too. Click on the link, go read what Ann had to say, buy the Miller book and do your own research.
An American and a German. What a shock. Imagine a Pacelli or Sarto ever dreaming up some nonsense like this.
I’m personally convinced that the elite German theologians quietly thought they knew better than Jesus.
I’m faithful. What are my “changing needs?”
Correct me if I’m wrong: how does Ratzinger’s attempt to bifurcate the papacy escape heresy? Is it because it can’t happen or he “resigned” under duress? Deo Gratias.
Good question Darla. And why did lightning strike the Vatican on the day of his announcement?
Because Benedict can be found quoted or selectively quoted as talking out of both sides of his mouth.
That’s the problem and the modernist’s slippery habit of affirming what they deny, and denying what they affirm; unable to clearly say, “yes”, or, “no.”
The only way to nail them is to get them to completely pick a side under a scrutinizingly legal trial or public confrontation without room to maneuver. Something our public relations age never allows in order to maintain respectable appearances and not upset the stock market price.
The only thing we can guarantee is that the words on the paper invalidate his resignation, but thus far he is only gravely SUSPECT of heresy, not a confirmed heretic.
This is why every Catholic needs to study the actual Galileo Trial, and understand how and why the Church condemned heliocentrism and learn the process behind it – academics, philosophers and theologians were always studying and theorizing new subject matter, much of it later condemned, but it didn’t necessarily mean the men who proposed them were unfaithful or ever lost membership in the Church. Copernicus’ works were published after his death. They were condemned, but not Copernicus himself. We don’t know how Copernicus would’ve behaved if confronted. Therefore there is no judgement against him personally.
Galileo was playing with Copernicus’ works he knew were condemned, but he thought he figured something truthful out which at the time seemed convincing. The authorities agreed to hear him out. In the end his propositions were still condemned, after which Galileo, despite his protest, was forced to choose, and he chose submission to the Pope in spite of his attachment to his findings. Galileo, later in life came around and embraced the condemnation of his errors as wise, refusing to pursue the topic again when asked to by new subversives.
We lost the chance to confront Benedict publicly while he was still alive, something many were screaming for. So we’ll never know absent some crystal clear evidence and not second hand hearsay from his demonstrably unreliable caretakers.
Under Canon law his attempt lands under a false resignation, not heresy. Ergo he was always pope, whether he wanted to be or not.
Heresy involves dogma, the office of the pope involves Canon law.
My guess.
a great Kenard is the “Vatican’s” claim that demands of a new and different world is forcing it to consider new policies and structures. The premise is absolutely false.
I’ve just finished reading the Bible and if anything is to be taken away, it is that there is “nothing new under the sun”.
Today’s characters are different, content of the culture is different, tools and resources like internet are new and different.
But
The underlying issues of idolatry, perversion, cruelty, etc. Or in each and every book of the New and Old Testament.
So if the premise is wrong, the “solutions“ and rationale cannot be right. Synodality, shared Petrine See, women priests are void of any truth and integrity.
Better that we stop hoping that these are just misguided men after so many instances and accept them for having some level of evil motivation.
I’ve said it before. I will say it again. Ratzinger was evil. Helped usher in Vatican 2, then somehow rebranded himself as conservative (sort of like Bill Clinton becoming an immigration and fiscal hawk in the mid 90s, it was all about power) and then as a big F U to the Church tried to half ass resign, putting a foot in the door for the antichurch to blossom. And here we are.
Every awful idea in the world from 1517 on has been German. They are a loathsome people who exist to destroy things .
Benedict is quoted as saying almost exactly the same thing in his book, “Salt of the Earth.”
Maybe these Germans were closet Mormons. Their “god” changes things all the time.
People are calling Benedict evil. He wasn’t. He was just 1) too smart for his own good and 2) convinced that because the novelties he favored were reasonable from certain perspectives, they amounted to actual insight valuable enough to add to the deposit of faith. It’s not even necessarily pride, just bad judgement.
What most people don’t get about VHIQ and UHIQ is that thinking at that level is about perspectives and models. Even with the hard data-points of Solemnly Defined Doctrines, most anything can be made to be justified just by looking at it from the right… perspective.
And looking at things from different perspectives, assembling Models, attaining Insight (true or false) is almost intoxicating. And it’s really easy to dismiss objections – particularly by people who aren’t terribly smart – as them simply Not Understanding. Not being intelligent or schooled enough to see things from the right Perspective, which (obviously) you have.
This is especially tempting when the people who are right, and who are seeing something you don’t see – because everyone has their own intellectual blind spots – are not as smart as you are. Who can’t even see your Perspective and respond to your argument as constructed, rather than parroting old data you’ve already incorporated into your Perspective and Explained (or explained away).
To speak metaphorically but give a concrete example, Tradition would be like a picture of the front of a house; defined doctrines would be like individual parts of the house listed on a set of architectural plans. Benedict and a bunch of other folks tried to walk around the side of the house to see it from a different perspective, but fell prey to an optical illusion, a foreshortening, that made them think there was another part of the house nobody had seen before – when it was really a disconnected building off in the distance that only looked like it was a part of the house.
What objections sounded like to them: People who replied to their announcement of the new portion of the building – “That annex isn’t visible from the front of the house!!! Nobody’s ever talked about it before! The house has a Pillar in the front, and Windows in the front, not a building jutting out!” Yes, thank you, we KNOW it doesn’t look like it’s there from the front, that’s why we went to the side to see if it was there in the first place. You’re totally missing the point.
This is why “by their fruits ye shall know them” is so important. There is no corrector like Reality.
Ridiculous. Evil is a choice. Ratzinger chose evil.
Reducing the Church to models is evil too. It treats it as academic.
There’s no such thing as being “too smart for your own good”. That’s an excuse. Christian morality is clear. Ratzinger played with tradition because of his arrogance because he believed he was smarter than everyone else.
Indeed, Ratzinger often referred to the laity as the little people.
And frankly, I don’t even think he was that smart. But that’s irrelevant. He was smart enough to straddle the fence and be a conservative or a modernist when he needed to be.
And he was a coward too.
Please explain to me why you are so insistent he chose evil. Isn’t that presumptive uncharitable, especially when from his behavior and statements unwitting self-deception – error – is perfectly logical and explanatory.
You do not understand what I mean by models. I am talking about a level of thought, not a mode of thought. And yes, he probably was a coward on some level.
Brother, I understand exactly what you’re saying. He was intoxicated by his ability to academically study the faith. To study it as a science. To use it almost as a toy his big brain could mess around with.
And because he was just too darned smart, he couldn’t help himself. So he really shouldn’t be blamed for destroying the modern church.
Like Ratzinger you seem high on your own supply. What Ratzinger did, as all Germans do, is try to upend order, try and push ideas they come up with because it is a manifestation of their will.
It’s ego, vanity, and a perversion.
Ratzinger was evil. He’ll be known as the worst pope in history whose arrogance and cowardice opened the gates to Hell.
I am not at all claiming “he couldn’t help himself” or “he couldn’t have known better”. I am saying there is a difference between making a mistake and committing a crime.
Should he have corrected his mistake? Or rather, is he guilty of not correcting his mistake? That entirely depends on his ability to realize it was a mistake at all, whether he did ever connect the dots between ‘the results of the last 50 years’ and ‘my pet theories’. And since, unlike God, I don’t read hearts and minds, I can’t say whether or not it was so.
I can say that I sympathize with his difficulty. It’s difficult to correct a wrong position if the only critiques you hear are wrong about the why, even if they’re right about the what. Especially if the critics demonstrate they don’t even understand what you’re saying to begin with.
As for being a bad pope – this-and-that are two different things. Benedict certainly appears to have had a streak of quitting, we might say cowardice, and that of itself is enough for him to be a terrible Pope. Though, again, God is the judge, not I. Appearances are often deceptive. They are always reductionist.
Yes well too smart for his own good appears to be one of the excuses the Benedict-splainers use to side-step any conversations about potential heresy..he was a victim of his massive, German intellect… Another is that he wasn’t explicit in his denial of defined doctrine. But you wait until Pope Leo blesses an iceberg and it could be heresy and apostasy explicitly all in one.
As AB once said, the higher the IQ the more colossal the errors. Something like that. She was correct.
Another thought on your observation. I don’t know if he ever used the term ‘little people’. I saw him once in St. Peters walking and he seemed humble enough. What I’m sure of is he and guys like rahner thought they could improve just a little bit on the decisions of the carpenter from Nazareth. The results are perfectly captured in the Sorcerer’s Apprentice in fantasia. (Pre gay Disney).
Exactly. This is the difference between Ratzinger and Bergoglio. Ratzinger thought that in response to legitimate concerns / critiques / problems – that he could address these by development, adding his preferred perspective / answer into the Deposit of Faith. The “Hermaneutic of Continuity”; denying nothing, only looking at things differently.
This was his error and the arrogance of his school. Just because one arrives at a satisfactory answer / perspective doesn’t make it the correct answer / perspective. And even if it is correct, it may not be safe to teach it broadly.
Bergoglio on the other hand absolutely KNEW that he wanted to Change / Deny the Faith. Hermaneutic of Rupture.
I see Ratzinger critiqued all the time for being Hegelian. This is simple-minded. The Hegelian Dialectic is an artificial construction laid out along a line – thesis – antithesis – synthesis. We might say 1 -1 0.
Reality is not one dimensional.
This is why I use the metaphor of walking around the side of a building. Tradition is a house. The traditional perspective is a picture showing the front of the house. 2-D, not 1-D, representing 3-D. Ratzinger tried to answer by looking at the house from a different angle, but was mistaken about what he saw. Bergoglio tried to burn down the house.
I would agree with the statement that Ratzinger was indeed too smart for his own good, and too willing to dabble in theological speculations that only ended up confusing things. But the Ratzinger of 1960 is not the Ratzinger of 1986 or the Benedict of 2007. I think he grew a great deal. And I suspect he was forced out of the papacy. But all that is murky, for all of us. Who can pretend to know? Pray always, stay close to the sacraments.
I agree with you Mike! For years I’d heard how Ratzinger/Benedict 16 was a “brilliant theologian”.
After reading his “Salt of the Earth” book, I thought, this guy is nuts/evil!
I believe now, that when people are called brilliant by the consensus media… to look for a subversive agenda.
Truly holy people aren’t labeled as anything good here in this world.
May God richly bless all the Catholics who adhere to the one true faith.
Your metaphor of the house is well done. Thank you.
Thank you, Mark, much appreciated.