Hey, Remember That Crazy “Papal Trinity” Hypothesis That Ratzinger Considered? Guess Who Else Cited It? Yep, Architect of the Bergoglian Antipapacy, Walter Kasper

Well, folks, it’s a day that ends in “y” so that means it’s time for another post on Cardinal Walter Kasper’s life’s work of trying to dissolve the Papacy.

Once again, the German readers are coming through.  May God reward them for their time and effort.

So, you might remember the “Thermonuclear…” post wherein Ratzinger’s opening section of his ARSH 1978 paper in the compendium “Dienst an Der Einheit”, “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” considers the hypothesis of a Papacy containing three members, because God is a Trinity, and thus a monarchical papacy is an intrinsically “Arian” structure.  This comes from a theologian of the early 20th century, Erik Peterson.

Well, guess who else is talking about this hypothesis in the very same book?  Yep.  Walter Kasper. As in the Cardinal Walter Kasper who is the head of the Sankt Gallen Mafia that pressured Pope Benedict to resign and installed his boy Jorge Bergoglio as Antipope, and is Antipope Bergoglio’s puppet master.  Except Kasper is MUCH friendlier to it. Imagine that.  I’m going to turn it over to the German readers now….

Dear Ann,

You will recall that Ratzinger on page 167 of the book “Dienst an der Einheit” referred to Erik Peterson’s obscure 1935 work “Monotheism as a political problem”, wherein Peterson surmised that the favour shown to Arianism by the emepror was due to the monotheistic model being a convenient theological corollary of the emperor’s political status. And also how Ratzinger mentioned that this idea was taken further by some, even as far as proposing a trinitarian model of the papacy (as in Solovyev’s writings), in contradistinction to an Arian “Monotheist” model. But it was still unclear why Ratzinger would have mentioned such an obscure work in the first place.

Guess who cites this exact same obscure work by Peterson, 64 pages earlier in “Dienst an der Einheit”, on page 103? Walter Kasper.

And Kasper has his own trinitarian model dreamt up. For Kasper, it is the Church, the Petrine Ministry and the Spirit that make up this “trinity”, even using the term “perichoresis” to describe this interaction.

Dienst an der Einheit, pages 103-4:

“Mir scheint, den Ausführungen über die Begründung des Petrusamtes, über seinen Dienst an der Einheit und seinen Dienst an Glauben liegt eine einheitliche Grundstruktur zugrunde. Es geht nicht mehr um die starre Einheit, von der die antike Metaphysik ausging: ein Gott – ein Reich – ein Kaiser. Diese unitarische Sicht wurde durch das christliche Trinitätsdogma aufgesprengt zugunsten einer Einheit in der Vielheit und einer Einheit durch gegenseitige Durchdringung (Perichorese) Diese trinitarische Logik und Grammatik liegt allem bisher Gesagten zugrunde. Sie begründet eine Einheit der Kirche in der Vielfalt von Kirchen, die durch die communio des eines Glaubens, der gemeinsamen Eucharistie und des brüderlichen Dienstes verbunden sind.”

“It seems to me that the explanation of the grounds of the Petrine ministry, its service to unity and its service to faith is based on a common basic structure. It is no longer about the rigid unity that gave rise to ancient metaphysics: one god – one kingdom – one emperor. This unitarian view was thrown open by the Christian Dogma of the Trinity in favor of unity in multiplicity and unity through mutual permeation (perichoresis). This trinitarian logic and grammar underlies everything that has been said so far. It establishes a unity of the Church in the diversity of churches connected by the communio of one faith, the common Eucharist and fraternal service.”

Perichoresis, as you no doubt know, is the term for the divine indwelling of each Divine Person in the other two.

Kaspar continues:

“Im einzeln bedeutet diese trinitarische Sicht: Kirche und Petrusamt sind zunächst pneumatologisch zu verstehen als Wirklichkeiten, die sich im Geist geschichtlich herausgebildet haben, nur im Geist Gottes verstanden werden können und im Geist auch immer wieder neu in charismatischer Weise verwirklicht werden müssen.”

“In detail, this trinitarian point of view means that the Church and the Petrine ministry are to be understood pneumatologically as realities that have developed historically in the spirit, can only be understood in the spirit of God, and must always be realized in the Spirit in a charismatic way.”

Earlier in the text Kasper takes pains to deny that the monarchial nature of the Petrine Office is ius divinum, and also seeking to deny the jurisdictional nature of the papacy, instead claiming it has more to do with Roman Law than with the Gospel.

Tying things together, I immediately went to the J. Michael Miller dissertation, which is titled, remember, “The Divine Right (ius divinum) of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology”, to see if anything was said about this business of the Papacy being monarchical not because Christ instituted it that way (ius divinum), but trying to say the Papacy was based on Roman Law and the fact that Rome happened to be the imperial capitol, and then whether or not the Roman Primacy was affected when the imperial capitol moved from “Old Rome” to Constantinople (“New Rome”).  Folks, the entire first chapter is a discussion of this.  And, of course, every Pope affirmed that the Pope was the Bishop of Rome and held exclusive Primacy because Christ established it thus (ius divinum), quite to the chagrin of the Byzantine Court.  You can hear Miller’s teeth grinding at this, and in fact the rest of his dissertation has as its point the “need” for the Church to evolve away from the notion of the Petrine Office as “ius divinum”.  Remember, in his conclusion, Miller explicitly states on page 285, “First, ecumenical dialogue might well gain in clarity if the term “ius divinum” is abandoned in the future.”

This is important because Kasper recently referred to his puppet, Antipope Bergoglio, as “the first post-Constantinian pope”.  Back to the Germans….

Dear Ann,

I came across this interview with Kasper on the kath.net website from 21 Feb, 2018 . The relevant parts are translated below. In it, he implicitly denies papal jurisdiction, compares Bergoglio to Christ, and effectively denies both the priesthood and the Eucharistic sacrifice.


“Francis was the first ‘post-Constantinian Pope’ because he came not from the area of the ancient Roman Empire, but from the southern hemisphere. In doing so, he ushers in a new era for the Church: a church, ‘in missionary departure, a poor church for the poor.'”

What Kasper means here is the jettisonning of the idea of the universal jurisdiction of the papacy, something which he has in his other writings associated with Roman Law, not with Divine relevation. You also have to wonder what on earth Kasper would know about a poor Church.

“Like all prophets and Jesus himself, the Pope (sic) causes offense and is misjudged. His reforms of the Curia and other institutions are not his main concern,” Kasper said. “That is often misunderstood.”

“The Pope’s (sic) administration is a ‘pontificate of great prophetic perspectives’ that Francis himself will not be able to complete. Kasper, who already met the Pope as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, hopes ‘that his impulses will be effective beyond this pontificate’. ‘I am grateful for this pontificate,’ said the cardinal.”

[On ecumenism]

“According to the step-by-step principle of Pope Francis (sic), the churches should now ‘take the steps that are possible,’ said the cardinal. In his view, there is ‘theologically more possible than we are currently doing’. With the Evangelical Lutheran church, for example, he says that ‘in the Eucharistic and official doctrine it is not entirely unanimous, but it is very, very close.‘”

Now, let’s jump back again to Kasper in “Dienst an Der Einheit”, which Ratzinger edited, remember, talking about Roman primacy and the monarchical nature of the Papacy:

Dienst an der Einheit, pages 89-90

Die eigentliche Diskussion nach dem Konzil betraf nicht primär die Frage einer angemesseneren Verteilung der Jurisdiktion zwischen Papst und Bischöfen. Die nachkonziliare Diskussion frage viel grundsätzlicher, als das Konzil es getan hatte, nach dem theologischen Sinn und der theologischen Berechtigung von Jurisdiktion überhaupt. Sie stellte den Jurisdiktionsprimat nicht erst in seiner konkreten Ausübung, sondern in seiner tiefsten Wurzel in Frage.

Beim Jurisdiktionsprimat des Papstes verknoten sich die allerverschiedensten Probleme:

“The actual discussion after the [Second Vatican] Council did not primarily concern the question of a more appropriate distribution of jurisdiction between Pope and bishops. The post-conciliar discussion questioned much more fundamentally than the Council had done, regarding the theological meaning and the theological justification of jurisdiction in general. It questioned the primacy of jurisdiction not only in its concrete exercise, but in its deepest root.

The pope’s jurisprudential primacy ties together the most diverse problems:

Der Terminus Jurisdiktion ist ursprünglich im römischen Recht zu Hause; im kanonischen Recht wurde er nicht etwa abgeschwächt, sondern viel mehr erweitert. Aus bloßer Gerictsgewalt wurde eine hoheitliche Gewalt, die Gesetzgebung, Rechtsprechung und Verwaltung einschließt. Kann ein solcher Begriff, so fragte man, geeignet sein, die brüderliche Grundstruktur der Kirche und den Dienstcharakter, der allen kirchlichen Ämtern nach dem Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil eigen ist, auszudrücken? Kommt ein Jurisdiktionsprimat, wie er vom Ersten Vatikanischen Konzil definiert wurde, nicht von vornherein einem Angriff gegen die christliche Freiheit gleich?

The term jurisdiction is originally at home in Roman law; In canon law, it was not weakened, but much more expanded. A mere court power became a sovereign power, including legislation, jurisdiction, and administration. Can such a concept, it was asked, be appropriate to express the fraternal structure of the Church and the ministry characteristic of all ecclesiastical ministries after the Second Vatican Council? Is not a primacy of jurisdiction, as defined by the First Vatican Council, equal to an a priori attack on Christian freedom?”

Dazu kommt ein Zweites: Das Mehr an Jurisdiktion bein Papst ist nicht durch ein Mehr an sakramentaler Ordination begründet. Sakramental betrachtet, ist der Papst Bischöf wie jeden andere Bischöf auch. Der Jurisdiktionsprimat des Papstes setzt also die Unterscheidung von Rechtswirklichkeit und sakramentaler Lebenswirklichkeit voraus – eien Unterscheidung, die sich in dieser Deutlichkeit erst in der lateinischen Kirche des 2. Jahrtausends herausgebildet hat und die bis heute nicht in einer befriedigenden Weise theologische geklärt ist…

“In addition, there is a second: The excess of jurisdiction in the Pope is not due to an excess of sacramental ordination. Sacramentally, the Pope is bishop like any other bishop. The primacy of the pope’s jurisdiction thus presupposes the distinction between legal reality and the sacramental reality of life – a distinction which has emerged in this clearness only in the Latin church of the second millennium and which has not yet been resolved in a satisfyingly theological way.”

Schließlich verbanden sich mit dem kirchenrechtlichen Begriff der Jurisdiktion im Lauf der Geschichte immer wieder Vorstellungen von der Monarchie als der vollkommensten Staatsform; im Vorfeld und im Umkreis des Ersten Vatikanums verband sich damit, wie die Forschungen vom H.L. Pottmeyer und E. Weinzierl aufgezeigt haben, eine ausgesprochen antineuzeitliche und antidemokratische Authoritäts- und Gehorsamsphilosophie. Man wollte dem, wie man meinte, alles auflösenden nihilistischen Prinzip der neuzeitlichen Autonomie das katholisches Prinzip der Authorität und des Gehorsams entgegenstellen. Gerade dieser letzte Gesichtspunkt macht verständlich, weshald die allgemeine Amts- und Autoritätskrise der letzten beiden Jahrzehnten in der Krise des Petrusamtes ihre letzte Zuspitzung fand. Eine Neubesinnung auf den theologischen Sinn von Jurisdiktion und damit auch des Jurisdiktionsprimats ist deshalb unumgänglich.

“In the end, ideas about the monarchy as the most perfect form of government were repeatedly associated with the canonical concept of jurisdiction throughout history; in the run-up to and around the First Vatican Council, as the researches of H.L. Pottmeyer and E. Weinzierl have shown, these ideas were joined to a decidedly anti-modern and anti-democratic authority and obedience philosophy. It was intended to oppose, as it was thought, the destructive nihilistic principle of modern autonomy to the Catholic principle of authority and obedience. It is precisely this last point that makes it understandable why the general bureaucratic and authority crisis of the last two decades found its culmination in the crisis of the Petrine ministry. A new way of thinking about the theological meaning of jurisdiction and thus also of the primacy of jurisdiction is therefore inevitable.”

But remember, there’s nothing to see here, folks, and you are stupid, insane and a schismatic if you think that there is.  Also, if you think there is anything anyone can do about this, you are a bad person who doesn’t pray and doesn’t trust God and is lacking in humility.  Or something.


“Halt die Klappe, Leibeigene!”

And furthermore I consider that islam must be destroyed.