For those who would like to clearly understand the basis and extent of Ratzo's heresies, the SSPX, Asia branch, has republished in English translation a series of articles, entitled "They Think They've Won!", originally published in the Italian magazine "si si no no" in August of 1994, which clearly covers this entire subject.

I very strongly suggest that those of us who have been more than a little mystified by Ratzo's ambiguous and confusing language read this series, especially Part 6.

Here is the link to the site:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/index.htm

Over the years, we have gotten a lot of very valuable material for our project from "si si no no". If my memory is correct, this magazine was originally started by an Italian pilot and good Catholic, Arai Danielle. Whoever translated the above series has done both an excellent job, and a great service to all of us.

Please read it.

A bit more information: Part 6 covers many aspects of Ratzo's heresies. The article is 14 pages long, and is well worth printing off and keeping in one's library. It even explains why and how Ratzo can be considered by those who don't really understand his true position to be some sort of "restorer" of Catholic Tradition while at the same time being, in fact, its primary destroyer.

Again, please read this article.

Please also keep in mind what I have said from the beginning: that I believe, with St. Robert Bellarmine, that it is impossible for a True Pope to ever be an heretic...or an apostate. From this, it must necessarily follow that neither Ratzo, nor any of his immediate predecessors, was ever a True Pope, but must only be and have been anti-popes from the first moment of their defective "elections". This includes Roncalli.

This is the link to the italian website of "Sì sì no no": http://www.sisinono.org/home.

I am pleased that they have been translated many articles from "Sì sì no no". This catholic paper, close to the SSPX, is good and useful in particular as regards the history of the "Second" Vatican "Council" and criticism of his errors. On the contrary, it is disastrous when it speaks of the theology of the Magisterium, and of infallibility.

Ken, many thanks for this. I only wish we had a printer so that I could print this out and really study it. It is hard for me to comprehend lengthy articles reading them on the computer. I will, however, give it the old college try!!

Apparently, the Abbe DeNantes (sp?) characterized Ratzo as a Lutheran.

After having waded painfully through Jesus of Nazareth Part II, I can understand why.

Ken, I think the Novus theology is essentially Lutheran in its very heart. The reason I say this is that the key error of Luther was to deny the reality of the sanctification of the soul by grace, making it consist merely of God averting His eyes, so to speak, from the sins of the justified. This has many profound implications, of course.

The doctrine of the Novus is similar, and can be seen in Wojtyla's doctrine that all men are united to God merely by virtue of the Incarnation, which doctrine does away with the whole economy of grace and leads necessarily to universal salvation; and obviously "salvation" in that context cannot imply real perfection of the soul but only a kind of "legal" justification, a purely external change of status before God.

The practice of the Novus displays this spirit in countless ways. The downplaying of the gift of faith, and the irrelevance with which clarity and accuracy in doctrine are treated, the virtual disappearance of the sacrament of Penance, the lack of interest in conversions, etc., all speak of the notion that man is saved by something other than personal cooperation with grace, producing a real and profound alteration in the condition of the human soul.

I'm not very familiar with Ratzinger's own works, but he certainly comes across as an absoluely classical Modernist, separating the Christ of history from the Christ of theology (which is really just a way of denying the historical reality of the life of Christ). And he quite explicitly adopted something similar to the Lutheran heresy in his work on the "accord" that was signed in 1999 between the Vatican and the Lutherans. In that case he stated that good works are not necessary for salvation, but only external fruits of faith and grace, obligatory yet not necessary. This cannot be understood in any sense compatible with Catholic doctrine, only with Lutheran doctrine, and the Lutherans were indeed content with it. Ratzinger also certainly holds the Lutheran ecclesiology, as Fr. Ricossa points out here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... catname=15

I saw a quote recently which I thought clever, it went something like "If I am arrested and charged with being a Catholic, will there be sufficient evidence to convict me?" I don't think there can be more than one plausible answer in Ratzinger's case. Terrifying.

My wife (and to a lesser extent, I) have been studying Ratzo's works. Thank God she has a far less "emotional" response to his idiocy than I.

There are several things about those writings that bother me very much: to put it as simply as I can, it is the "damnedest" (and I use that term advisedly) mixture of truth, half-truth, and down-right lies I have ever heard or read. It literally sounds like Satan speaking. And there is so much of it. He must have spent 80% or more of his time doing nothing but writing.

I can only read or hear a few passages before I get completely infuriated at the whole thing and at him, mainly, I think, because he is so subtle and ambiguous he cannot fail to convince those who have not been blessed with the graces God has obviously given us to see the truth.

I insist that Ratzo is the worst heretic with which our poor Church has ever been afflicted.

He is that "operation of error to believe lying because they WILL NOT hear the truth..."

How anyone who is the least bit familiar with his writings could, even for a moment, consider him to be the true Pope is simply beyond my understanding. That there are many such people simply boggles my mind. I think it is a great mystery.

In my opinion, he is the devil's own.

We have found your father-in-law's collection of writings to be an immense help in contradicting Ratzo's subtle, and not so subtle, errors and ambiguities.

Here is what I consider to be one of the most clearly stated points which directly address Ratzo's heresies and their origin:

"And it is the work of the Father of Lies to convey a falsehood by stating a truth!" Patrick Henry Omlor "Questioning the Validity....", paragraph 142, last sentence.

This fits Ratzo's writings to perfection.

"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).

Look carefully at the above quote from Ratzinger taken from Part VI of the above articles, They Think They Have Won. The divinity of Christ is therein denied by saying it is ONLY in being a classic, exemplary man that he (Christ) goes beyond (transcends) being a man -- NOT by being God. Rather like a classic car being more than "just a car", but how much more? It's still just an old car with style, isn't it. To Ratzinger, Christ is just a man with classic styling, but God? Not even close. Well, not until you get to Ratzinger's "definition of God" as really just another way of saying "a classic, exemplary man" or similar wordings. Sort of denies God as God, doesn't it? Ratzinger also repeats himself rather boorishly by saying it is by his being an exemplary man and only by this fact (of his being an exemplary man) is he the truly exemplary man. Did you get that? Rather like my saying my toothbrush is a great toothbrush only by the fact of it being precisely a great toothbrush that it is a truly great toothbrush. Modernist truth isn't very satisfying, but it does confuse enough to satisfy the confusers and that's all that counts, to them.

Gold.

Yes, it strikes one as a psychological effect of avoiding truth by disguising one's own unbelief. If enough words are piled up among which are many sacred ones (e.g. "Christ" and "God" etc.) which carry with them definite doctrinal impressions, even though the whole does not make sense, the general feeling is that some kind of tribute is being paid to God and His revelation, and that satisfies the sinful, heretical, "conscience".

Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth: and a door round about my lips. Incline not my heart to evil words; to make excuses in sins.

In my quest for the truth, I have had the opportunity to talk to a few priests. It took me awhile to catch on. I would ask a question which they would "answer". At the moment, it sounded good, but, after pondering the answer at a later time, I discovered they hadn't really answered me at all. I also later found out that although they used the same Catholic terminology as I did, their Catholic words had different meanings attached to them than mine. I would interpret their answer as authentic Catholic teaching, but it wasn't really at all.

A modernist is a very interesting creature, is he not? Ah, yes. Truly so. He is like a child who never grows up, playing in his sandbox as a full grown man. A ridiculous sight which must be seen to be appreciated, I can assure you, and one not to be missed!

He accommodates you and any truth you bring to him "marvellously" as he has no need to stand his ground, for his ground is merely shifting sands which he moulds around your needs as sand around your feet in one moment and which he then moulds again later into sand-castles to please someone else. If you actually succeed in annoying him (which is not impossible, but he tries to smile even as froth escapes his gnashing teeth) he will impishly toss a bit of sand into your eyes, pretending he only meant to swat a fly.

Truth is no problem for him for there is no problem which he cannot solve without the Truth. How can this be, one asks naively? Because for the modernist, that creature more determined to survive by sucking the live-blood out of you than a tick, problems do not require solutions, they just need rephrasing to appear not to be problems anymore. Ah, I can feel your uneasiness as it's hard to imagine someone so twistedly comfortable, so let us take a simple example:

Crossing the Threshold of Hope - that work worthy of the Iscariot by John-Paul II (that most admirable of all modernists, to be sure, who never found a problem he could not dismiss if only you would but believe in "him", instead of "you know who"). Look in the index at the end of his book and you will find neatly entered in its alphabetical place under the letter H, "Hell, problem of". Straight-away, one is amazed that he actually even writes the word, hardly ever found on his lips or in his voluminous writings. But don't you see, he had to mention it here, because for the modernist hell is what he needs most fervently to dismiss and send into utter oblivion, never to disturb his sleep again. Making hell "go away" is his only hope and not crossing it's threshold is hope, indeed! I regret that that last sentence does not make much sense to you, my clear-thinking Catholic friends, but please take a modernist's comfort, if you will just this one time, in a reprobates most earnest prayer -- that hell is not a reality, but merely "problem of". Ah, a problem, how comforting to them. No need for a solution, rather let us examine the problem from the modernists' perspective, the reprobates' self-assurance and will to deftly and even most respectfully ridicule the very thought of a punishing God for there we find no end to the modernists' ingenuity. But beware, good Christian, of this hellish trap for by "essentially" (a word abhored by any self-respecting modernist, and they are all most self-respecting to their self-credit) telling hell to "go to hell" the sand-box of our immature big playboy turns into quicksand most unexpectedly and just when he was having the most fun!
And what is most fun? Why, sucking the life of faith from good souls like ticks on a host, of course. It is the modernists' greatest earthly pleasure to see a true Christian humbly renounce his "error" and take theirs up instead! To paraphase scripture as only a Sultan could, "there is more joy in a harem over one Christian who renounces his faith into the arms of countless virgins than in the most esteemed assayun who obediently gives his life by jumping off a cliff at the dropping of his master's hankerchief".

But I digress. Let us return to our modernist friend and his likely musings on "the problem" of hell: Hell, it would seem, is a most disproportionate punishment, is it not? I mean, we are condemned as criminals to the praise of all if we were to so much as put a lady into a hot oven and leave her there even only until she slowly roasts to death, never mind for all eternity! How could a loving God possibly do that which he most condemnedly forbids us to do? Right is right, right? Of course! Punishment, at best (we don't really want any punishment, but keep that quiet!) is meant to be corrective, is it not? What is corrective about an eternal punishment which does not, cannot, will not bring correction, but merely more punishment? Is that even just? Why, such a God is perverse and as our God is real and most tender, full of mercy, always willing to forgive an injury, there MUST be something wrong with a belief in an eternity being assigned in a hell amid endless flames of real fire, torturers, devils, horrible cries of despair and teeth-gnashing hatred of God. Anyone who says otherwise is a traitor to God's mercy, a rebel against God's love, a reveler in torture and hatred of those who were merely weak, who for a single delight now have to pay with an eternity utterly unspeakable -- so don't speak of it! Jamais! Never! Hell! How unjust to use that as a pretext to increase Sunday contributions and especially to have so MANY leave us everything, land and spoils!, in exchange for our prayers to assure their salvation or release them from that boiling pot of hellish stew they call purgatory. Ah well, have I properly stated the modernist's case that hell is now hardly a problem any more? You will say that the words of Our Lord are directly opposed to all this, perhaps? Without doubt! But he might say few things are so perfectly perfect as not to admit of an even higher perfection which can only come with exertion, with real effort. With Scripture (the true Moderist will capitalize "Scripture" sometimes, merely to feign a humble deference to the word) we must realize that those most holy words in Scripture are almost always the exact words spoken, almost always most true and worthy of belief in every way. Most rare is it otherwise, but alas, there seem to be a few "problems" there, as well. Why, just look at the synoptic gospels! Unfortunately and even disturbingly I can show you where even those to not agree but clearly contradict each other! We must be content to be so blessed as to know almost everything is true in Scripture. Almost everything is more than you deserve to know, so rest content. And be assured that when we tell you those words were likely added later concerning a supposed eternity of hell-fire, it in no way means we should not believe in the 99% which concerns the infinite mercy of God and all else we love in Scripture!

The modernist is pleased to speak of God as man and man as God. The language he uses is amusing, is it not. His reasoning is delightful to one given to delights.

Death for the modernist is a merely natural affair, really. Most tragic, to be avoided at ALL costs, but the saddest and most gloomy of all phenomenon of which they have and of which even they must admit of certain proof -- rather like taxes, you know. At worse, it brings one to heaven and at even worse, to nothingness (after all, the modernist isn't really much more sold on heaven than he is on hell, he just finds the former a nicer thing to think about from time to time amid his other amusements in life).

And so, it finally happens. Do you think he pays any attention to that voice which then speaks: "I know you not. Depart from me, ye accursed, into the everlasting fires prepared for the devil and his angels". The greatest emotion in the modernist (as seen from God's perspective in that moment) is the utter horror, the cringing angst, the vehement hatred of something called Truth, after all. The Truth that there really is a God who is not merely a most exemplary man.

Epilogue: The life-sucking tick who took pleasure in seeing good souls fall away into embracing their god (who was really the devil) of exemplary man, is now treated well, as a tick. It takes a hammer or a torch to really do them in properly. Of course, another way is to flush them down the toilet. An eternity might not be necessary, but it is fitting to that kind of tick, the modernist here-tick.

Pax Christi !

Regarding benedict, one of the quotes of his that really gives me dismay is the following;




One will never find a Catholic Theologian, let alone a pope, or saint, write this way about the Blessed Sacrament.

In Xto,
Vincent

Vince: Your quote is a minor heresy of Ratzo's.

Among other things, he has written the following: "...salvation is achieved through faith alone."

I can provide references if necessary.

Ken, would you mind posting the source for this? I am trying to collate quotes by Ratzinger without actually sifting through all of his voluminous writings. Much thanks.

Given this quote can we be sure be beleive in the Catholic Real Presense of Christ in the Holy Eucahrist?

In Xto,

Of course he doesn't! He doesn't even really believe Christ is God. When he talks the way you have quoted, what he is pointing out is that all of us are "God", or will become "God", which is part of that Teilhardian heresy of the "great cosmos".

In his view, Christ is the "perfect man" (but not God) who "becomes one with God", just like all the rest of us.

What a crock!

He is very subtle, and very dangerous, since as with all other modernists, he twists the meaning of traditional language to mean something entirely different from what we expect it to mean.

He is the consumate modernist. I repeat: how anyone at all, after reading his writings, can regard him as the Pope is simply beyond my comprehension. It is literally a great mystery to me how anyone could believe him to be the Pope.

He is another, and possibly the worst, of the Precursors of Antichrist.

When I read his writings or have them read to me by my Wife, it is as if Satan himself is speaking. The subtle half-truths, the hidden lies, etc. I get a terrible, dark, foreboding feeling when this happens. I get infuriated, because I know that many people will be fooled by his lying words. I hate liars.

I will try to dig it out as soon as I can, Thomas.

At the moment we are in a minor crisis, but I will get it to the forum as soon as I can. However, from memory (which isn't the best) I believe it is in his "Jesus of Nazareth II"

Ken, please don't mince words. Kindly tell us what you really think about him!

The one refrain I used to hear over and over again is that no matter how absolutely convincing the heresy was that I simply do not have the authority to depose the pope.

I say that this is what I used to hear because I have completely given up trying to make the case with those who use that excuse to believe the unbelievable. They simply will not hear; furthermore, they don't want to hear. They are comfortable with their position. The ones I know have a nearby SSPX chapel they can attend; others live near an indult Conciliar parish. It's not "that bad" where they are and are happy to go along since they get to have the smells and bells of tradition--and, in some cases, even a large portion of Catholic teaching.

It was after talking with these people that I finally truly understood what Christ meant when he said, "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

Yes. Yet we are not "deposing the pope": he has done it himself by his heresies. We are simply observers of a fact.



Yes. I have followed this in my dealings with those folks too. I think one reason they think what they do, in addition to those you have so adroitly listed above, is that they are truly ignorant of much of their Faith, and of what truly constitutes the Church and its Magisterium.



And, "...let him who reads, understand..."

On the other hand, we must not deny the great and undeserved gifts of the incredible graces God has given us to see. I pray constantly that He would give similar gifts to those who won't or can't see, and that I never lose those by any despicable action on my part.