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) |