THERMONUCLEAR SUBSTANTIAL ERROR: In 1978 Joseph Ratzinger considered hypothesis that a monarchical Papacy was intrinsically “Arian” in nature, and the Papacy should reflect the Trinity, a “Pope-Troika” consisting of One Catholic, One Protestant and One Orthodox, “through which the papacy, the chief annoyance of non-Catholic Christendom, must become the definitive vehicle for the unity of all Christians.”

St. Vincent Ferrer came through.  Quickly.  Less than 24 hours after my post enjoining his prayers went up, this stupefying citation with translation landed in my email box from the German readership.

Here is the trail of breadcrumbs:

-I posted a screen cap and citation from the opening of Chapter 8 of J. Michael Miller’s doctoral thesis citing Walter Kasper.  The quote was, “The present crisis of the papacy is one of legitimation.”  

-This quote of Kasper’s was drawn from a work called “Dienst an der Einheit”, page 83.

-“Dienst an der Einheit”, which means, “Service to Unity”, is a collection of papers edited by…wait for it… JOSEPH RATZINGER.  So Kasper’s quote was EDITED BY RATZINGER.

One of the contributuions to “Dienst an der Einheit” is a paper written by Joseph Ratzinger himself, titled “Der Primat des Papstes und die Einheit des Gottesvolkes” which is in English, “The Primacy of the Pope and the Unity of the People of God.”

Here now blockquoted is the original German and English translation (translated by hand by a fully bilingual German reader – NOT an algorithmic translation) of the opening section of this paper, found on pages 165-167:

 

Der Primat des Papstes und die Einheit des Gottesvolkes

The Primacy of the Pope and the unity of the People of God.

  1. I. Der spirituelle Grund von Primat und Kollegialität
    (The spiritual basis of primacy and collegiality)

Das Thema Papsttum gehört nicht zu den populären Themen der Nachkonzilzeit. Es hatte ein gewisses Maß an Selbstverständlichkeit, solange ihm in politischen Raum die Monarchie entsprach. In dem Augenblick, in dem der monarchische Gedanke praktisch erloschen und durch die demokratische Idee abgelöst ist, fehlt der Primatslehre das Bezugsfeld in unseren allgemeinen Denkvoraussetzungen. So ist es gewiß kein Zufall, daß das Erste Vatikanum von der Primatsidee, das Zweite aber von dem Ringen um den Begriff der Kollegialität beherrscht wurde.

The topic of the papacy is not one of the popular themes of the post-conciliar era. It had a certain measure of implicitness as long as it corresponded to the monarchy in political space. At the present moment, when the idea of monarchy has practically died out and been replaced by the democratic idea, the doctrine of primacy lacks the frame of reference in our general presuppositions. So it is certainly no coincidence that the First Vatican Council was dominated by the primacy idea, but the Second by the struggle for the concept of collegiality.

Dem ist freilich sofort hinzuzufügen, daß das Zweite Vatikanum die Kollegialitätsidee, mit der es Impulse aus dem Lebensgefühl der Gegenwart aufnahm, so zu umschreiben suchte, daß darin der Primatsgedanke enthalten ist. Heute, da wir ein wenig Erfahrung mit der Kollegialität, mit ihrem Wert und auch mit ihren Grenzen gewonnen haben, müssen wir wohl gerade an dieser Stelle wieder ansetzen, um die Zusammengehörigkeit scheinbar gegenläufiger Traditionen besser zu begreifen und so den Reichtum der christlichen Gestalt zu wahren.

It should, however, be immediately added that Vatican II sought to rewrite the idea of collegiality, with which it received incentives from today’s attitude to life, in such a way that it contained the idea of primacy. Today, as we have gained a little experience of collegiality, of its value, and also of its limits, we need to start again at this point in order to better understand the unity of seemingly contradictory traditions, thus preserving the richness of the Christian expression.

1. Kollegialität als Ausdruck der Wir-Struktur des Glaubens

Collegiality as an expression of the we-structure of the faith

In Zusammenhang mit der konziliaren Debatte hatte seinerzeit die Theologie versucht, Kollegialität über das bloß Strukturelle und Funktionale hinaus als Ausdruck eines bis in die innersten Wesensgründe des Christlichen zurückreichenden Grundgesetzes zu erfassen, das sich daher in je verschiedener Weise auf den einzelnen Ebenen der praktischen Verwirklichung des Christlichen darstellt: Es ließ sich zeigen, daß die Wir-Struktur zum Christlichen überhaupt gehört. Der Glaubende steht als solcher nie allein: Gläubigwerden heißt, aus der Isolation heraustreten in das Wir der Kinder Gottes; der Akt der Zuwendung zu dem in Christus offenbaren Gott ist immer auch Zuwendung zu den schon Gerufenen.

In connection with the conciliar debate, theology had tried at that time to grasp collegiality beyond the merely structural and functional, as the expression of a fundamental law reaching back into the innermost essence of the Christian, which therefore presents itself in different ways on the individual levels of the practical realization of the Christian: It could be shown that the we-structure belongs to the Christian in general. The believer, as such, never stands alone: Believing means stepping out of isolation into the We of the children of God; the act of devotion to the God revealed in Christ is always also devotion to those already called.

Der theo-logische Akt ist als solcher immer ein ekklesialer Akt, dem auch eine soziale Struktur eignet. Die Initiation ins Christliche ist daher konkret immer auch Sozialisation in die Gemeinde der Gläubigen hinein, ist Wir-Werdung, die das bloße Ich überschreitet.

As such, the theo-logical act is always an ecclesial act that also lends itself to a social structure. The initiation into the Christian is therefore always concrete socialization in the community of believers, is We-Formation, which is beyond the mere self.

Dem entsprach dann, daß die Jünger-Berufung Jesu sich in der Figur der Zwölf darstellt, die die Chiffre des alten Gottes-Volk-Gedankens aufnimmt, dem ja auch wiederum wesentlich ist, daß Gott eine gemeinsame Geschichte schafft und an seinem Volk als Volk handelt.

This corresponded to the fact that the disciples’ calling by Jesus is represented in the figure of the Twelve, which takes up the cipher of the old conception of God’s people, to whom it is once again essential that God creates a common history and acts on his people as a people.

Nach der anderen Seite zu zeigte sich als der tiefste Grund für diesen Wir-Charakter des Christlichen, daß Gott selbst ein Wir ist: Der Gott, den das christliche Credo bekennt, ist nicht einsames Selbst-denken des Gedankens, ist nicht absolutes und unteilbar in sich geschlossenes Ich, sondern ist Einheit in der trinitarischen Relation des Ich-Du-Wir, so daß das Wir-Sein als die göttliche Grundgestalt allem weltlichen Wir vorangeht und Gottebenbildlichkeit sich von vornherein auf solches Wir-Sein verwiesen findet.

On the other hand, as the deepest reason for this we-character of the Christian, it has become apparent that God Himself is a We: The God, whom the Christian Credo professes, is not solitary self-thinking of thought, is not absolute and indivisible in a self-contained ego, but is unity in the Trinitarian relation of the I-Thou-We, so that We-Being, as the divine basic form, precedes all worldly We’s, and the likeness of God finds itself referenced from the outset to such a We-being.

In diesem Zusammenhang rückte damals ein zuvor weithin vergessener Traktat von E. Peterson über “Monotheismus als politisches Problem” neu in Bewußtsein, in dem Peterson zu zeigen versucht hatte, daß der Arianismus deshalb politische, von den Kaisern begünstigte Theologie war, weil er zur politischem Monarchie die göttliche Entsprechung gewährleistete, während das Obsiegen des trinitarischen Glaubens die politische Theologie zersprengte und Theologie als Rechtfertigung von politischer Monarchie aufhob.

In this context, a previously largely forgotten treatise by E. Peterson on “Monotheism as a Political Problem,” again attracted attention, in which Peterson had attempted to show that Arianism was a political theology favored by the emperors, because it provided the divine equivalent of the political monarchy, whereas the triumph of the Trinitarian faith shattered political theology and overturned theology as a justification for political monarchy.

Peterson hatte seine Darlegung an dieser Stelle abgebrochen; jetzt wurde sie aufgenommen und zu einem neuen Entsprechungsdenken weitergeführt, dessen Grundansatz lautete: Dem Wir Gottes muß kirchliches Handeln im Modell des Wir entsprechen. Dieser allgemeine, vielfältig ausdeutbare Ansatz wurde vereinzelt bis zu der Aussage vorangetrieben, demgemäß folge die Ausübung des Primats durch einen einzigen Menschen, den Papst in Rom, eigentlich einem arianischen Modell.

Peterson had broken off his analysis at this point; now it was taken up and continued into a new analogical thought, the basic idea being that the We of God must correspond to ecclesiastical agency according to the We model. This general, multi-faceted approach has occasionally been advanced to the point that according to it, the exercise of primacy by a single man, the pope in Rome, actually follows an Arian model.

Entsprechend der Dreipersönlichkeit Gottes müsse auch die Kirche durch ein Dreierkollegium geleitet werden, dessen drei Inhaber zusammen der Papst seien. Dabei fehlte es nicht an findigen Spekulationen, die (etwas unter Anlehnung an Solowjews Geschichte vom Antichrist) herausfanden, daß auf diese Weise ein römischer Katholik, ein Orthodoxer und ein Christ aus dem Bereich der reformatorischen Bekenntnisse zusammen die Papst-Troika bilden könnten.

According to the triune nature of God, the church must be led by a triumvirate, whose three occupants together are the pope. It was not lacking in resourceful speculation, which (somewhat following Solovyov’s story of the Antichrist) found that, in this way, a Roman Catholic, an Orthodox and a Christian from the Reformation confessions together could form the Pope-Troika.

Damit schien, unmittelbar aus der Theo-logie, dem Gottesbegriff, die Schlußformel der Ökumene gefunden, die Quadratur des Kreises geleistet, durch die das Papsttum, Hauptärgernis der nicht-katholischen Christenheit, zum definitiven Vehikel für die Einheit aller Christen werdem müßte.*SEE FOOTNOTE

Thus, directly from theology, the concept of God, the complimentary close of ecumenism, seemed to have squared the circle, through which the papacy, the chief annoyance of non-Catholic Christendom, must become the definitive vehicle for the unity of all Christians.

*FOOTNOTE (*(Derlei war gelegentlich in mündlichen Äußerunger zu hören, die sich vergröbernd auf Ausführungen von H. Mühlen beziehen mochten, bes. in dessen Werk Entsakralisierung, Paderborn 1971, 228 ff.; 240 ff.; 376-396; 401-440.Obwohl Mühlens eigene Darlegungen beeindrückend und weiterführend sind, scheinen sie mir von der Gefahr eines neuen Entsprechungsdenkens nicht frei, das die ekklesiologische Anwendbarkeit der trinitarischen Aussage überdehnt.)

*FOOTNOTE (This was occasionally heard in oral remarks, which sought to refer in an unrefined manner to H. Mühlen’s work, especially in his work Entsakralisierung, Paderborn 1971, 228 ff.; 240 ff.; 376-396; 401-440.Although Mühlen’s own expositions are impressive and advanced, they do not seem to me to be free from the danger of a new analogical thought which overstretches the ecclesiological applicability of the trinitarian statement.)

———————————————————-

So, he we have proof of Joseph Ratzinger, like his German and Nouvelle Theologie colleagues and peers of the day, positing RADICALLY SUBSTANTIALLY ERRONEOUS IDEAS about the Petrine Office, casually referring to it as an “annoyance”, and echoing Kasper’s words that the papacy suffered a “crisis of legitimation”.  The driving point was that the papacy MUST be “radically and fundamentally transformed” by some sort of expansion into a “collegial, synodal office”.  He we see Joseph Ratzinger taking this SUBSTANTIALLY ERRONEOUS MADNESS so far as the say that the Petrine Ministry could eventually include NON-CATHOLICS and thus become the “definitive vehicle for the unity of all Christians.”  But first, it has to be “expanded” into a “collegial, synodal ministry”.

Joseph Ratzinger accepted the Papacy in April 2005 AS IT IS, EVER WAS, AND DESPITE HIS WARPED SUBSTANTIAL ERRORS OF WHAT IT MIGHT “BECOME”.

THIS is what Canon 188 was written to protect against.  THIS is why the “substantial error” clause is there.  So that when this MADNESS was attempted or even approached, that it would FAIL SPECTACULARLY.  Why?  Because the CHURCH IS INDEFECTIBLE.  Because the Petrine Office is SUPERNATURALLY PROTECTED.  Because the very act of attempting to execute such madness would nullify the attempt in and of itself, and the situation would just keep reverting to the status quo – the Papacy as established by Christ.

There is absolutely NOTHING that Pope Benedict XVI or anyone else can ever, ever do to successfully effectuate this abject madness described by Ratzinger above or anything remotely related to it, because Canon Law itself is standing like a monolith protecting Holy Mother Church and the Petrine Office from this.  They can drive headlong into that monolith as hard as they like, but they will never, ever so much as leave a SCRATCH on Holy Mother Church, Indefectible, nor can they EVER “fundamentally transform” the Petrine Office, Divinely Instrituted by Jesus Christ Himself, and thus IMMUTABLE.

Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger is the one and only living Pope, whether he likes it or not.  The illegitimacy of his attempted “transformation and expansion” of the Papacy in February ARSH 2013 was completely and totally null, and he remains, per Canon 188, the one and only living Pope.

This madness MUST end here, and be resisted with every fiber of our being.  Every journalist, blogger, priest and bishop of good will should be bombarded with communiques every day from every mere pew sitter, to DEMAND that the illegitimacy and SUBSTANTIAL ERROR of Pope Benedict’s attempted action in February 2013 be fully exposed and acknowledged, and that Antipope Bergoglio be immediately removed, the Bergoglian Antipapacy totally nullified, and Bergoglio be repatriated to Argentina, hopefully to face civil charges for financial, political and child abuse-enabling crimes.

Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger should be given either the option to repent and resume his exercise of the Petrine Office, OR be asked to live out his earthly life in prayer and seclusion, with an emergency “state of suspense” regency established to pay the electricity bills and other bare necessities of the Vatican City State.  While Popes CAN validly resign, at this point I think that there would be too much suspicion and uncertainty surrounding a resignation now submitted by Pope Benedict, that the path forward IN PRUDENCE is CLEARLY that NO CONCLAVE should be called until Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger has died, in God’s good time.  That just seems like common sense to me.  Let there be NO AMBIGUITY NOR CONFUSION.

There will certainly be more to be said about this.

I hope this helps.

St. Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.
St. Catherine of Siena, pray for us.
St. Athanasius, pray for us.
St. Peter, pray for us.
Holy Family, pray for us.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us.

And furthermore I consider that islam must be destroyed.