I was recently asked to comment on the theory that Benedict XVI, in these latter years of his life, has come to see the errs of his former, all-too-modernist, ways and is taking a turn in the direction of authentic tradition.
Where is the evidence for such a proposal? As far as I can tell, there simply isn’t any. In fact, as his face-to-face meeting with Christ the King draws ever nearer, all indications are that he is doubling down on his allegiance to the Council that effectively “dethroned” Him.
On January 15, the book co-authored by Benedict and Cardinal Sarah in defense of priestly celibacy (From the Depths of Our Hearts), the same that created such a stir in conciliar Rome over the past two weeks, was published.
The Society of St. Pius X, to its great credit, wasted no time in publishing a thorough, well written, review of Benedict’s contribution to the text.
According to the review (the writer of which is unnamed), Benedict wrote that he felt it necessary to “present the priest of the New Testament as one who meditates on the Word, and not as an artisan of worship.”
Make no mistake, when Ratzinger speaks of “an artisan of worship,” there is no other way for a Catholic to receive such a comment; he is referring to the most profound worship that mankind can possibly render to God, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, an action that is absolutely central to who the priest is in the very depths of his being.
Now, where would Benedict ever get the idea that the priest should principally be presented as one who “meditates on the Word” as opposed to (“and not as”) him who offers the true Sacrifice of the Cross, with the implication being that doing so represents a return to sources [hint, hint] in this case, the New Testament?
Well, from the Almighty Council, of course!
Since no one can be saved who does not first believe, priests, as co-workers with their bishops, have the primary duty of proclaiming the Gospel of God to all. (Decree on the Life and Ministry of Priests of Vatican II, Art. 4)
You see, it is the Council’s erroneous opinion (and evidently Ratzinger’s as well) that the priest’s “primary duty” is no longer to offer the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass for the benefit of both the living and the dead; rather, the conciliar priest (unlike the Catholic priest) is called to be more like his Protestant counterpart (albeit presumably celibate), a man best presented and understood as a proclaimer (and meditator upon) the Word.
This is just one example of how BXVI’s latest essay reveals his stubborn adherence to the utterly false and failed “hermeneutic of continuity” approach to Vatican Council II.
And where does such intransigence lead? The SSPX reviewer informs us:
The Pope-emeritus writes: “The crucifixion of Jesus is not in itself an act of worship.” The reason he gives is absurd: “The Roman soldiers who executed him are not priests. They carried out an execution; they absolutely did not think they were carrying out an act relating to worship.”
As the reviewer rightly states, “To deny that the Cross is an act of worship is incomprehensible.” Indeed it is! Unless, of course, the person stating as much is a fully committed member of the institution about which Archbishop Lefebvre rightly stated:
We are talking about a counterfeit version of the Church, and not the Catholic Church. It does not teach any longer the Catholic faith. It teaches something else … It is no longer the Catholic Church. (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Spiritual Conference given in Écône, June 21, 1978)
The review continues:
After describing the worship aspect of the Last Supper and denying that of the Cross, he writes: “In all this, there is never a direct question of the priesthood.”
In light of this, the reviewer points out:
Once again it goes against the holy Council of Trent which affirms (canon 2): “If anyone says that by these words: ‘Do this for a commemoration of me’ (Lk. 22:19; I Cor 11:24), Christ did not make the apostle priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests might offer His own Body and Blood: let him be anathema” (Dz. 949).
By all means, follow the hyperlink provided above and read the entire review. You might also forward it to any sincere persons you may know who are seriously considering wasting their money and time on the book, From the Depths of Our Hearts.
For those interested in a defense of priestly celibacy rooted in Catholic tradition, please see HERE.
Louie,
I want comment on what you wrote. Not that there is nothing to comment on but because there is other, more important question.
Are you Sedevacantist or are you not?
A) Yes, I’m Sedevacatist
B) No, I’m not Sedevacantoist
C) I do not know
Please.
wont 🙂
M.C.,
I want to comment on what you wrote. Not there is nothing to comment on but because there is another, more important question.
Are you New Order or are you not?
A) Yes, I’m New Order.
B) No, I’m not New Order.
C) I do not know.
Please.
I will answer after Louie, if you please.
Then, I’ll go ahead and make my comment. There is something wrong with your question. No Catholic becomes anything other than a Catholic because the Pope dies. I understand bandying these labels about just for ease of conversation, to have a general starting point to know where each party is coming from but… this is not what you are doing here. You are trying to back this Catholic man into a corner to label himself something other than simply Catholic in the hopes of slandering him and vilifying him publicly, UNLESS he’ll slink back into your stupid ridiculous asinine weak simpering recognize and resist camp. I hope that he tells you to pound sand.
Pardon me, maybe you are now a Benevacantist instead of a recognize and resist. Unfortunately, both are New Order and not Catholic.
Louie and all—I’m wondering why the authors of SSPX reviews are not named. It is a Society priest? If so, who not name him? It is a secular writer in their employ? Can someone shed some light on this question. Why is it a secret?
This term of “Sedevacantist” is used to distract and smear, to avoid the matters in issue – it is used in an attempt to intimidate and silence or to obliquely, vaguely discredit a person who raises issues that some want to be suppressed, not discussed honestly and rationally and in the light of the unchanging and unchangeable Holy Faith. A distraction, and an attempt to avoid examining much of the Apostasy that has been propounded by the apparent leaders of the Church, with impunity, for the past sixty years. Oh Lord, come make haste to help us.
“SSPX RELUCTANT TO FAULT BERGOGLIO, QUICK TO ATTACK POPE BENEDICT”
https://fromrome.info/2020/01/27/sspx-reluctant-to-fault-bergoglio-quick-to-attack-pope-benedict/
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.benoit-et-moi.fr%2F2020%2F2020%2F01%2F29%2Fles-opposants-tradis-de-benoit-xvi%2F
Well, the bad guys have sure got us chasing our tails. It would be comical if it weren’t so eschatological.
I went on Louie’s recommended link for the SSPX’s explanation for the defense of priestly celibacy and unfortunately the SSPX’s defense comes up seriously short on the truth on the real and clear teachings on the doctrines of perfect and perpetual continence for married clergy in the Catholic Church.
Priestly celibacy is rooted in theological foundations, Scripture and Tradition. It is not just my opinion. IT IS WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES!! “If you are to follow Me you will leave all, wife,, family ect. Christ was celibate. He had one bride the Church not two brides. The priest configures Christ. He is supposed to configure Christ not only for the priests benefit himself but for the benefit of the faithful who are to recognize Christ in the sacrament of holy orders. The priest does not just represent Him as the protestants ministers do. This is what distinguishes us from the heresies of protestantism. Many church councils have documentation proving over and over again that married clergy were and are required to live as brother and sister with each other.
The wife is required to agree to live as brother or sister if she truly believes her husband is being called to the priesthood. If she says no to continence (ie not having sex) the man cannot be ordained and this indicates that he was not called because his wife did not also receive the chrism by God to be continent. ALL married clergy are required to be continent.
The SSPX seems to think the Eastern Rite gets a pass on this for their married clergy. I believe the SSPX is accepting of the Eastern Rite getting some kind of a pass on continence for their married clergy not only because it is what the Eastern Rite does but because I think I recall that the SSPX has assisted in ordinations for the Eastern Rite ordinations in the past. I could be wrong on this but I recall reading this some years ago.
It was a huge mistake on the hierarchy’s part to look the other way on this thorny issue of the requirement of continence for the Eastern Rite over the last hundred years. We are paying dearly for it to this day. WHAT A SERIOUS MISTAKE is all I can say!
The SSPX has also been known to have had no problems with NFP when it has promoted the acceptance of the sinlessness of separating in thought, word, and deed the planning to have exclusive recourse to the infertile in order to try their best to separate sex from procreation to avoid having children. To their credit they do seem to be backpedaling a bit on NFP somewhat recently which is good to see. Even the Remanent is revisiting their stance on NFP. I still have hope. I haven’t given up.
Anyone who wavers on this option that NFP so clearly promotes, will have no backbone to truly properly defend priestly celibacy. I see it time and time again. The two go clearly hand in hand. NFP and the rejection of the requirement of perfect and perpetual continence for married clergy are the two poisons that have so wickedly redefined marriage and the priesthood and this is why our Church is in the throws of appearing to collapse.
Although I am with Louie on the importance of putting Christ back as the King and Sovereign Lord of the world we must however not neglect to look at the foundation our Lord chose to build the Church on, the priesthood and marriage.
The scourge against marriage through the acceptance of NFP/contraception and the push to further promote and accept non continence for married clergy are indeed the two elephants in the room that have been chipping away at It’s foundation.
Sounds like there is a need for a Dubia to be presented to another bishop in white!
I think my question is simple and honest. I expect answer in the same manner.
I wont comment on your speculations until Louie answer.
Anastasia, I agree with 99 percent of what you are saying and I made post about Trent & different Church councils here Marie Tageye
January 15, 2020 https://akacatholic.com/hypocrite-alert-benedict-and-sarah-speak-out/ (and the bad Canon Roca who way back in the 1800’s was undermining it.)
regarding the requirements on celibacy for the Roman Rite from various true Church Councils from very early on. And I agree with you about NFP. I was under the impression that Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII allowed it for only the life of the mother being in jeopardy. However I think people follow doctors on this issue and should rely on God’s providence.
I do think however, that it was not just in the last 100 years that Byzantine Rite Priests were allowed to marry ONLY once before they became an actual priest in the seminary or before (if the wife died they could not re-marry). I think that this has been the case for well over 800 years. Now in the Byzantine Rite as in the Schismatic Orthodox the Bishops were never allowed to marry but the priests were allowed as I said. If I am wrong on this can you give me a document??
M.C.
The answer to your question is YES. Yes, Ratzinger and False Francis are both Sedevacantists.
They both have turned away from the Chair of Peter, to worship in demonic mosques and synagogues.
“Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God.”. (Apostle James 4)
Ratio, If he were a true pope you would need no “Dubia”. Catholics do NOT need to correct a true pope un doctrine for the universal Church this is a misnomer of the R&R camp. You are so supposed to follow a true pope. Anyway Ratzinger said that he resigned “of his own free will “. Not only do YOU have a modernist as Pope with a false hermeneutic of continuity ” (which is a lie because it is an apostate rupture) but you don’t trust him and you believe he is a liar or at least one with “no spine”. Regardless he is totally impotent as is his false Conciliar Concentric Circle subsistent church of “sustainable development”. The UN code for “population control” land and sea control and “carbon taxes” so wake up and smell the poison.
Charmaine,
You hit the nail on the head. Sort of like good cop bad cop when they are both “bad cops” but the SSPX has to deal with the current clown in the ring holding the whip of power so they ingratiate themselves or at least the men at the top of the SSPX. For some strange reason they are attracted to the snake charmers. They will soon get bit if they don’t pull back.
my2cents,
Why are some of our names secret?? They don’t want to be harassed by people who disagree with there exposé of the “powers that be”. Why should anyone be surprised at the level of infiltration in ANY traditional Catholic group? The goal for the anti-Christ system is to destroy the Catholic faith. We know the outcome because we believe that the Church will be here when Christ returns but many compromise with the “system”. Even SSPX priests have admitted there is a compromise, however even Archbishop Lefebvre waffled back and forth one day the Conciliar Popes were NOT the popes the next day they were “bad” popes. I do think that he would be disappointed at there direction today. But even Lefebvre said if his society was not of God then it would in the end fail.
Melanie, Good point about the “eschatological” tail chasing. When the “Shepherd has been struck” the sheep run into each other bleating, nudging and scared not knowing where to go or what to do, in search of at least a few sheep dogs that might lead them to the Shepherd someday.
Melanie, I like your multiple choice questions. I got a good laugh.
Joseph a Christian,
So true about turning the Chair of Peter into their own “abominable throne of impiety”. and here is another Woe for folks that Jesus said,
“Woe to you when men shall bless you: for according to these things did their fathers to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26)
Marie,
“Dubia” are not to correct a pope.
(Plus other errors from your post).
I understand that your only goal is to spread… emotions, but want you to realize that.
Marie, I think you may have misconstrued my reasoning for posting the above link (along with the one below), as they were meant to demonstrate that the anonymous author of the SSPX article was being deceptive with his criticism of Pope Benedict’s contribution on the priestly celibacy issue; and did so by way of deliberately manipulating his words to mean something other than what he wrote. And then for good measure proclaimed they were deserving of anathemas put forth at the Council of Trent.
Louie wrote: “The Society of St. Pius X, to its great credit, wasted no time in publishing a thorough, well written, review of Benedict’s contribution to the text.” — Well, it’s abundantly clear that Louie is on his own Benedict-bashing mission and won’t pass up an opportunity to use something (or someone) when it suits his purpose. Louie was aware, in advance of publishing this blog post, that a credible defense was made against this diabolical hit job, but he merrily went along with the falsified review, truth be damned. There are consequences to his choice.
Charmaine, how do you know that your author has the correct interpretation of Ratzinger’s words? Isn’t it possible that you are being deceived as well?
“Charmaine”, climbs back out of the abyss, again…..,
Oh’ and the ever so wonderful, “Charmaine”, and yet again. Where is your dear friend in recognizing and resisting, JPeters, you perfectly blinded and ignorant fool, on your own sure as certain path to your very own personal eternity with your Prince, Lucifer, you hideous wretch? Or have you parted ways now, as he recently opined about his distaste of Lucifer’s own, “SSPX”, now distancing himself from it.
Let’s cut to the chase you miserable, pseudo-intellectual, miscreant fool from the abyss. Do you fully and freely assent, as willfully, from the very operation of your will, in your higher soul, as made for you by the One Who simply IS, in His very Own divine likeness and image as Almighty God, thus made precisely as perfectly to conform to His Intellect and Will alone, and not to Lucifer’s, with your very own perfectly free will to choose, to the, “Solemnly Promulgated”, by “His Holiness Pope Paul VI”, on November 21, 1964, constitutional document which is known as, “Lumen Gentium”,—“Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”??? YES or NO?, dear Charmaine. YES or NO? Everything, as every possible thing that comes from your darkened and hideous intellect, deceived by your Prince, revolves around this one answer. “You will KNOW them by their fruits.” As now rhetorically queried, what are your, “fruits”, darkened Charmaine??? I pray you submit to the living, divine, perpetual, as unending and unchanging, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which is Jesus the Christ through His Holy Ghost now present in this world, Teaching, Governing, and Guiding, His tiny flock yet present in this scorched and barren, hideous world unto the Last Day of His glorious Second Coming. The Holy Magisterium is Perfect, inviolable, immutable, unending and unchanging thus, you perfectly miserable fool. In caritas.
Hi Marie,
I don’t think it is fair to compare those who visit Louie’s blog with members of the SSPX who write articles/reviews with the SSPX permission. The SSPX is speaking as an organization founded to combat the errors of Vatican 2 and to “restore all things in Christ”. Members of this Society (whether priest or layperson) should have the armor of Truth and not be afraid of harassment. If this were so, they are revealing a serious weakness and could not possibly have the courage and perseverance needed to fulfill their mission. Perhaps, I have misunderstood your comment. If what you say is correct, however, then the SSPX is showing serious signs of cowardice.
I will. If I recall, the council, way back then, began the crisis about the doctrines on continence and this act is what certainly added to their schism. I think people think it was only the Eastern Rite’s stance on not beleiving they need to be under the Papacy in Rome was the big deal breaker for the breakup however the Pope at the time was very vocal on their stance on continence for married clergy. I will get the reference from The book “Apostaolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy”?on this for you soon.
That is the truth, Anastasia. Thank you for defending the essence of priesthood and marriage, respectively. God bless and protect you and your family. Your sister in Christ, Lynda
Here is the reference from “Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy” by Father Christian Cochini.
“The brief historical landmarks that it was necessary to recall help us better understand the schismatic climate that prevailed at the deliberations of (year) 691. Although the intention was to reform the abuses and errors of its time, the Council of Constantinople meant to do so in its own way, distancing itself from Rome and flaunting its disagreement with the Latin traditions. “There is no doubt as to the early separatist spirit of the Trullan legislation, as has been rightly pointed out; The council’s rulings are intended to pose as Byzantine, which is why those canons are so forcefully directed against both the Latins and Armanians, not on issues of principle, to be sure, but, aside from orthodox principles of faith, on issues of clerical and liturgical discipline.” (Footnote 328, Joannou, I, 1, p.98.) And on the part of Rome, for the first time in history, there was a formal disavowal of the Eastern discipline, Pope Surgius (year 687-701), though he was of Syrian descent, declaring that he would rather die than approve of certain canons that were “against the order of the Church”. (footnote 329- For a detailed history of the Quinisext Council, cf. Hefele-Leclercq, III, 1, pp. 560ff.)
Your welcome Lynda and thank you for your support as always. May God continue to bless you.
M.C.
Your words are deceitful, you slander a daughter of Christ.
Marie has posted many well sourced statements, where she thorougly explained her thesis. She has also put the truth first, willing to be corrected by another Catholic’s statement.
Jesus Is The Truth.
Christ is Priest and Sacrefice, He offered Himself to God the Father on the Cross.
Joseph a Christian,
Your words are deceitful, you slander a daughter of Christ.
I don’t know what sede are smoking, but what you are smoking, clogs your mind. You response is highly emotional and has no merit. Not at all. I do not slander anyone, I recognized goal of M.T. post and pointed to one of errors she made. That’s all.
Let’s quickly run again through post of this daughter of Christ.
MT: If he were a true pope you would need no “Dubia”.
False
MT: Catholics do NOT need to correct a true pope un doctrine for the universal Church this is a misnomer of the R&R camp.
I do not know precisely what R&R is. And not sure what misnomer she exactly refers to. What she implies is that true pope can never make doctrinal error.
False.
MT: You are so supposed to follow a true pope.
I do have, not supposedly at all, just have to follow. Except when I should not.
MT: Anyway Ratzinger said that he resigned “of his own free will “.
So what? Does why did she chose to trust B16 on this particular one? Utilitarian or hypocrisy?
MT: Not only do YOU have a modernist as Pope with a false hermeneutic of continuity ” (which is a lie because it is an apostate rupture)
Hermeneutic of c. is not a lie. It is an attempt to align V2 with tradition. Rest of what is there are emotions.
MT: but you don’t trust him and you believe he is a liar or at least one with “no spine”.
Again: emotions with little sense.
MT: Regardless he is totally impotent as is his false Conciliar Concentric Circle subsistent church of “sustainable development”.
False. You may hold opinion that he is very ineffective and express it as ‘impotent’, so let it be.
She stated her opinion. What for? To spread hatred, to make sure that nobody dares to think anything positive about B16.
MT: The UN code for “population control” land and sea control and “carbon taxes” so wake up and smell the poison.
She is going off the track. I suppose she is overwhelmed with emotions.
— —
I don’t agree with her. Her words were posted to express her filings about B16 and, supposedly, to pass those emotions to others.
I only wanted to point it out, that later, when emotions settle, she can see how her post was received and analyze if this was her real goal. (And other things like to let her reflect that emotions can take over when mind can’t support will, and to examine her will etc. with a goal to make her return to the Church.)
Tell me, Joseph the Christian, where do you see slander? How did I deceive you?
M.C.
You wrote to Marie,” I understand that your ONLY goal is to spread… emotions,”
Your words are deceitful and you slander a daughter of Christ. I gave the reasons in my last comment, numerous posts of Marie’s have been sourced, based on Church law, and she’s been open to correction. This is not the behavior of a person who’s “only goal is to spread emotion.”
This is the behavior of one who is seeking the truth.
Your pride and stubbornness has you so blind, you obnoxiously insulted me, while falsely calling me a sede.
The numerous homosexual and blasphemous false bishops have caused immense confusion and destruction. I’m not a sede, I am a Catholic here also seeking truth.
Jesus Christ Is King Of All bishops.
Joseph a Christian,
Your words are deceitful and you slander a daughter of Christ. I gave the reasons in my last comment, numerous posts of Marie’s have been sourced, based on Church law, and she’s been open to correction. This is not the behavior of a person who’s “only goal is to spread emotion.”
This is the behavior of one who is seeking the truth.
I replied only to that single post of MT.
I do not read all MT writes. I intended to but when she was caught changing meaning of quotes to have it her way (I don’t know if this was intentional or she was fed with this by somebody else) and when she did not answer simple questions to examine truthiness of her calins, I gave up. Reading her post is like exposing oneself to propaganda. She does know a lot, but I do not trust her objectivity. In other words I do not see her behavior as one’s seeking the truth.
We simply have different opinions, JaC.
Your pride and stubbornness has you so blind, you obnoxiously insulted me, while falsely calling me a sede.,/i>
Pride and stubbornness are my vices I fight with but they were not the reason I called you ‘sede’. The reason is that you, to my knowledge, reject present and past few popes thus you hold position that Seat of Peter is Vacant.
You seem to be a snowflake type. Reality hurts, hugh?
I’m not a sede, I am a Catholic here also seeking truth.
Naming yourself simply ‘Catholic’ is misleading. I’d even say: very misleading.
What about if I say: a person who calls himself Catholic but reject popes and for whom Seat of Peter is vacant. Better? Not offended so much?
— —
ok. maybe it was mistake to call out MT. I do not follow MT as you do but putting a name to what she is doing is not a ‘slander’. I dont see a point to extend this any longer.
I simply wait for Louie’s response to my question.
The picture associated with this post is of a tombstone indicating that the Hermeneutic of Continuity is dead. Wrong, it was never alive. It was all a figment of Ratzinger’s mind.
Tom A–The born and died dates are the same. I would believe that to mean it never existed. Just another red herring thrown out to the Faithful to distract from the True Faith. Everything about the N.O. “church” is so pathetic.
I guess it was stillborn then.
Melanie–Sadly, most N.O. catholics don’t know what the term New Order means. They only know that the diocesan church they attend is “The Catholic Church”. Learning the truth only confuses them. Bring up the pre-V2 Holy Roman Catholic Church is like discussing pre-historic times. Too many years since The Revolution to turn back the clock. Of course, I’m speaking of “most” not all. There is still hope and the battle must wage.
MC: “I think my question is simple and honest. I expect answer in the same manner. I won’t comment on your (Melanie’s) speculations until Louie answers.”
I’m not following….why can’t you respond to Melanie’s questions before Louie responds to yours?
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/laughingindisbelief/2020/02/vatican-boys-choir-defects-to-japan/
CAN THINGS GET ANY WORSE?
Does anyone know if the above article is true.
I think it’s more like the Herman Munster of continuity.
I’ve got no response to my question.
Why?
Let’s quickly sort possibilities.
A – Louie did not see my question. He was occupied with something else, has emergency in the family, unexpected travel, etc.
I think not.
B – Louie did see my question and decided not to answer.
Why?
a – I’m not worth of his time or question is not worth of his time. This kind of things.
I think not.
b – Louie is Sedevacantist but does not want to admit to that at the open. ( Many potential reasons. fe. he is ashamed, he doesn’t want to be misunderstood, he wants people think that he is still Catholic (meaning not Sede) to have better pervasive position, etc.)
c – He is Catholic but doesn’t want to admit that for unknown reasons. Maybe to keep his Sede audience on Aka to convert them or is afraid to become object of sede attacks. Dunno.
—
From what I’ve read, I lean to opinion that he is somewhere between ‘b’ and ‘c’. To be more precise, he seems to be much closer ‘b’ with a thin string attached to ‘c’. I may be wrong though, I may get that impression from combox. That is why I asked – couple times already.
In not answering, Louie, regardless of his position, acts like Bergolio AKA ‘Francis’. I just hope the underlying reason is different.
My question is part of a process described in quotes used by Louie in next post (Mrshall/Grant): Titus 3:10-11, Mt. 18:15-17.
To be clear. I do not see holding position that Bergolio was the pope but but for his acts lost the Office, as equal to sede claiming that from some date in the past there is no more popes. If somebody says that seat is vacant due to activity of B. he is simply in error because one can not vacant an office, he doesn’t have. If somebody is sede he is, potentially, heretic.
I guess, I will hold on on AKA for little longer and gather more data. (I know, I don’t have to :-/ )
—
Now, to answer Melanie’s question:
B)
and 2Vermont’s:
I’m not following….why can’t you respond to Melanie’s questions before Louie responds to yours?
I didn’t want to sidetrack. That question was, and still is, quite important to me. Or rather an honest answer to my question.