Monthly Archives: May 2022

Ratzinger: “The Petrine ministry…while preserving its substance as a divine institution, can find expressions in various ways according to the different circumstances of time and place.” PLUS: Bonus shifting of the Overton Window

(This is a crosspost-in-full of Mr. Mark Docherty’s piece at his blog, NonVeniPacem.  Fast and pray for Pope Benedict, the Papacy, and Holy Mother Church. -AB)

Surely by now, everyone reading this space has purchased their copy of (now archbishop) J. Michael Miller’s The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development and Mission of the Papacy.  This book was published in 1995 by Our Sunday Visitor, and is an expansion on +Miller’s 1979 doctoral thesis, which the Gregorianum published in 1980 under the title, The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology.
Screenshot 2019-06-15 at 08.06.32
Chapter 16 of this book is titled: “Facing the Future: 21 Theses on the Papal Ministry”
What might the future hold, in terms of the form and function of the Papal Ministry? Turn to page 357:

Thesis 14: In order to fulfill its specific mission, the Petrine ministry has assumed many different forms in the past and will continue to do so in the future

Because the people of God are on a pilgrimage, the pope must have the freedom to respond to new challenges, thereby revealing new facets of the Petrine ministry. We must be on guard, therefore, lest we too quickly identify contingent forms with what is dogmatically essential to the papal office. (Do you see here how the ministry is obviously distinct from the office?)
Miller immediately goes on to support this thesis with a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the CDF at the time:

“The Petrine ministry…while preserving its substance as a divine institution, can find expressions in various ways according to the different circumstances of time and place.” -Cardinal Ratzinger (as Prefect of the CDF), Communionis Notio, 28 May 1992, P.18

From the Latin: “quodque, salva substantia divina institutione definita, diversimode pro varietate locorum et temporum se manifestare potest”
I looked up the source, and indeed it is an official document of the CDF, signed by Ratzinger:
The topic at hand, obviously, is the possibility of changing the structure of the papacy, to meet the varying needs of the Church and its members, while maintaining the essential nature of the office.

This was Ratzinger’s dream, to somehow overcome the Petrine stumbling block for the sake of unity. And if changing the structure of the Petrine ministry was necessary, he was open to it.

(Ann adds: remember well that Ratzinger collected and edited the book of essays, one of which he wrote, on the future of the Papacy, “Dienst an der Einheit”, in which Ratzinger published Walter Kasper’s essay in which he said, “The present crisis of the papacy is one of legitimation.” As in, the Papacy is illegitimate as it stands, and it must be transformed. Ratzinger solicited, edited and published this under his banner.)

Back to the Miller book, page 358:
Ratzinger admits that “without a doubt there have been misguided developments in both theology and practice where the primacy is concerned.” A particular way of exercising the primacy might well have been the pope’s duty for the Church’s welfare at one time, without its being so in the future. In the words of Hermann Pottmeyer, “the present juridical and organizational form of the office of Peter is neither the best imaginable nor the only possible realization.”
Now let’s take a look at Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1997 book-length interview with Peter Seewald, Salt of the Earth:

Seewald: “Do you think that the papacy will remain as it is?”

++Ratzinger: “In its core it will remain. In other words, a man is needed to be the successor of Peter and to bear a personal final authority that is supported collegially. Part of Christianity is a personalistic principle; it doesn’t get vaporized into anonymities but presents itself in the person of the priest, of the bishop, and the unity of the universal Church once again has a personal expression. This will remain, the magisterial responsibility for the unity of the Church, her faith, and her morals that was defined by Vatican I and II. Forms of exercise can change, they will certainly change, when hitherto separated communities enter into unity with the Pope. By the way, the present Pope’s (JPII) exercise of the pontificate—with the trips around the world—is completely different from that of Pius XII. What concrete variations emerge I neither can nor want to imagine. We can’t foresee now exactly how that will look.”

Cardinal Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, Peter Seewald book-length interview, 1997, page 257

“I neither can nor want to imagine.”

Oh man, how unknowingly prophetic is that? Then again, if you self-fulfill your own prophesy, is that cheating?

“Forms of exercise can change, they will certainly change”

He’s not exactly on the fence about it, is he?

Now let’s move to the following year, and another document written by Cardinal Ratzinger in his official role as Prefect of the CDF, The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church, 18 November 1998:

At this moment in the Church’s life, the question of the primacy of Peter and of his Successors has exceptional importance as well as ecumenical significance. John Paul II has frequently spoken of this, particularly in the Encyclical Ut unum sint, in which he extended an invitation especially to pastors and theologians to “find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation”…

“The pilgrim Church, in its sacraments and institutions, which belong to this age, carries the mark of this world which is passing”.44 For this reason too, the immutable nature of the primacy of Peter’s Successor has historically been expressed in different forms of exercise appropriate to the situation of a pilgrim Church in this changing world…The Holy Spirit helps the Church to recognize this necessity, and the Roman Pontiff, by listening to the Spirit’s voice in the Churches, looks for the answer and offers it when and how he considers it appropriate.

Consequently, the nucleus of the doctrine of faith concerning the competencies of the primacy cannot be determined by looking for the least number of functions exercised historically. Therefore, the fact that a particular task has been carried out by the primacy in a certain era does not mean by itself that this task should necessarily be reserved always to the Roman Pontiff… (ahem, you mean like delegating the Governance role without relinquishing the Office, per Canon 131.1?)

In any case, it is essential to state that discerning whether the possible ways of exercising the Petrine ministry correspond to its nature is a discernment to be made in Ecclesia, i.e., with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and in fraternal dialogue between the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, according to the Church’s concrete needs. But, at the same time, it is clear that only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal Church.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,Prefect, CDF, Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church (published in L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 18 November 1998, page 5-6) HERE

But wait! There’s more:

Screenshot 2019-11-06 at 15.20.20

It’s 2008 and Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI. This collection of essays, in various forms, goes back to 1987. The 2008 edition was translated by our new friend, Archbishop Miller. Turn straight to page 38 to read Benedict waxing poetic about the idea of not one, not two, but THREE members in an expanded Petrine ministry. He literally uses the term “papal troika.”

Screenshot 2019-11-06 at 10.45.21

***Talk about shifting the Overton Window. How about having a book published after you’ve become pope, introducing the radical idea of a papal troika as being plausible, and then pulling back to the slightly less radical idea of a diarchy, making the latter seem positively moderate by comparison.***

(Ann adds: German academicians assure me that this trick of introducing a radical thesis by first outlining something far more radical, and then pulling back into the author’s now-seemingly-mild-by-comparison proposition is a very common tactic among German academics, especially theologians.)

But remember, there is absolutely zero evidence that Pope Benedict ever once, even for a moment, considered the idea of altering the structure of the papacy, you stupid layperson.

Happy Feast of St. Joan of Arc

Today is the Feast of St. Joan of Arc.

Ste. Jeanne d'Arc, Jules Bastien-Lapage, ARSH 1879 Ste. Jeanne d’Arc, Jules Bastien-Lapage, ARSH 1879

“Consider this unique and imposing distinction. Since the writing of human history, Joan of Arc is the only person, of either sex, who has ever held supreme command of the military forces of a nation at the age of seventeen.”

Louis Kossuth

-*-

To arrive at a just estimate of a renowned man’s character one must judge it by the standards of his time, not ours. Judged by the standards of one century, the noblest characters of an earlier one lose much of their lustre; judged by the standards of today, there is probably no illustrious man of four or five centuries ago whose character could meet the test at all points. But the character of Joan of Arc is unique. It can be measured by the standards of all times without misgiving or apprehension as to the result. Judged by any of them, judged by all of them, it is still flawless, it is still ideally perfect; it still occupies the loftiest place possible to human attainment, a loftier one than has been reached by any other mere mortal.

When we reflect that her century was the brutallest, the wickedest, the rottenest in history since the darkest ages, we are lost in wonder at the miracle of such a product from such a soil. The contrast between her and her century is the contrast between day and night. She was truthful when lying was the common speech of men; she was honest when honesty was become a lost virtue; she was a keeper of promises when the keeping of a promise was expected of no one; she gave her great mind to great thoughts and great purposes when other great minds wasted themselves upon pretty fancies or upon poor ambitions; she was modest and fine and delicate when to be loud and coarse might be said to be universal; she was full of pity when a merciless cruelty was the rule; she was steadfast when stability was unknown, and honourable in an age which had forgotten what honour was; she was a rock of convictions in a time when men believed in nothing and scoffed at all things; she was unfailingly true in an age that was false to the core; she maintained her personal dignity unimpaired in an age of fawnings and servilities; she was of a dauntless courage when hope and courage had perished in the hearts of her nation; she was spotlessly pure in mind and body when society in the highest places was foul in both – she was all these things in an age when crime was the common business of lords and princes, and when the highest personages in Christendom were able to astonish even that infamous era and make it stand aghast at the spectacle of their atrocious lives black with unimaginable treacheries, butcheries, and bestialities.

She was perhaps the only entirely unselfish person whose name has a place in profane history. No vestige or suggestion of self-seeking can be found in any word or deed of hers. When she had rescued her King from his vagabondage, and set his crown upon his head, she was offered rewards and honours, but she refused them all, and would take nothing. All she would take for herself – if the King would grant it – was leave to go back to her village home, and tend her sheep again, and feel her mother’s arms about her, and be her housemaid and helper. The selfishness of this unspoiled general of victorious armies, companion of princes, and idol of an applauding and grateful nation, reached but that far and no farther.

The work wrought by Joan of Arc may fairly be regarded as ranking with any in history, when one considers the conditions under which it was undertaken, the obstacles in the way, and the means at her disposal. Caesar carried conquest far, but he did it with the trained and confident veterans of Rome, and was a trained soldier himself … but Joan of Arc, a mere child in years, ignorant, unlettered, a poor village girl unknown and without influence, found a great nation lying in chains, helpless and hopeless under an alien domination, its treasury bankrupt, its soldiers disheartened and dispersed, all spirit torpid, all courage dead in the hearts of the people through long years of foreign and domestic outrage and oppression, their King cowed, resigned to its fate, and preparing to fly the country; and she laid her hand upon this nation, this corpse, and it rose and followed her. She led it from victory to victory, she turned back the tide of the Hundred Years’ War, she fatally crippled the English power, and died with the earned title of Deliverer of France, which she bears to this day.

And for all reward, the French King whom she had crowned stood supine and indifferent while French priests took the noble child, the most innocent, the most lovely, the most adorable the ages have produced, and burned her alive at the stake.

-Samuel Langhorne Clemens

Saint Joan of Arc, pray for us.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the United States Military. Don’t be fooled by the “Top Gun” smoke and mirrors. THIS is what the USMIL is.

Memorial Day makes me sadder every year.

At this point, I really don’t know what the Chinese are waiting for.

Language warning here, folks.

I’m sure her court martial for insubordination and conduct unbecoming has already been scheduled for the 34th of Never.

Remember my axiom: the person who is actually in charge is the person who cannot be fired or disciplined.

Behold your Commander-in-Chief:

Here’s your Uvalde School District police chief. If I didn’t know better, I’d say that was the face of a popular and ambitious young priest in the Roman Queeria. He’s got the “come hither, Monsignore” pinched-lip smirk down pat.

I’ve seen more than enough of these pinched-lipped smirks in men to be … triggered. Nahmsayin?

This evil POS gave the order to “stand down”.

On a totally unrelated note, have you guys noticed how many sex perverts there are in the FBI? And how the FBI clearly and undeniably protects and cultivates sex perverts?

He said it would happen… and it is.

And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold.

Et quoniam abundavit iniquitas, refrigescet caritas multorum.

Matthew 24: 12

How did a totally impoverished drop-out of ambiguous sexuality who couldn’t hold a job as mop boy at Wendy’s buy $5000 worth of rifles and holographic sights?

On a totally unrelated topic, have you guys noticed how many sex perverts there are in the FBI? And in Federal “law enforcement” in general? It’s weird.

Nice lip gloss. $5000 if it’s a penny. 👆🏻

Anyway, the EOTech holographic sight alone is $800 or so, plus installation.

The question IS NOT “how did he get guns?” He bought them.

The question is, WHERE DID HE GET THE MONEY?

Question-Suggestion: Are there homeschooling resources and products for dual-mother tongue (English-Spanish) kids…?

…because I suspect interest in homeschooling among Latino parents in the former U.S. is going to surge. If children already speak Spanish, they should learn Spanish grammar and literature in addition to English in their homeschooling environments.

Are there homeschooling curricula for Bilingual kids?

If not, SOMEONE SHOULD JUMP ALL OVER THAT, because people are going to be asking for it.

Toes and Footprints… and HOPE.

The Ascension, Master of the Heisterbacher Altar with Stefan Lochner, ARSH 1440, Bamberg, Staatsgalerie

Today is the Feast of the Ascension, 40 days after Easter.  I love the images of the Ascension in which only Our Lord’s toes are shown as He zooms up to Heaven.  Some images show Our Lord’s footprints remaining on the Mount of Olives, as does the image above.  I also love how the stunned awe of the Apostles is captured in their faces in this altarpiece, especially the Apostle in green on the left.

There is an excellent and exhaustive blog post dedicated to Toes and Footprints HERE, which I recommend.

The Ascension is the Second Glorious Mystery of the Rosary, and the fruit of this mystery is HOPE. In these dark days, we need all the hope we can muster. And then some.

Remember the Toes!

Happy Feast!

The Papacy Is…

You HAVE read J. Michael Miller’s ARSH 1979 dissertation, “The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology” of course, HAVEN’T YOU?  It is a Rosetta Stone-esque synthesis of the massive Teutonic Theological Academy’s writings in the mid-20th century on the “need” to “fundamentally transform” the irrelevant, illegitimate and expired Monarchical model of the Papacy by essentially dissolving the Petrine Office into a collegial, synodal Petrine Ministry or Function.  Why?  To appease the Lutherans (and Anglicans to a lesser degree) of course! And to conform the Papacy to the new, modern, democratized world!

And also, if we’re going to be perfectly blunt, because the Freemasons need the Papacy destroyed in order to bring their “one world religion” and one world government, together referred to as the “New World Order”, to fruition.  The number one target of the Freemasons since their formation in London in ARSH 1717 has been the Papacy.  All wars and revolutions instigated by Freemasonry over the past 300 years have had as a key objective the elimination of monarchy from the face of the earth, precisely as a stepping stone to the REAL GOAL of eliminating the Papacy. American Revolution. French Revolution. Italian Revolution. World War I.  Etc.

Perhaps it would help to define some terms.  So, some definitions, just for those who might not have actually read or watched anything I have presented on the topic of the Bergoglian Antipapacy, but are reading this:

THE PAPACY IS IRREVERSIBLE:  This means that the Papacy can not be ABOLISHED.  In reading the Miller dissertation, and then the rest of the Teutonic Academic writings of the late 20th century, one sees the argumentation of the far-left, with Hans Kung and Johannes Neumann at Tubingen in the 1960s (contemporaneously with Ratzinger) at the forefront, that the Papacy could and should be ABOLISHED ENTIRELY, that the Papacy is “reversible”.  The total abolition (reversal) of the Papacy is what the question of Irreversibilty addresses.  It has NOTHING to do with Papal resignations. Relative “moderates” such as Walter Kasper and Karl Rahner argued that total abolition would be too aggressive a play, and that the Papacy should rather be “demythologized” by being gradually essentially dissolved from an Office into a broad collegial synodal ministry, which is essentially the Lutheran model.  This is referred to as the Hypothesis of Dissolution.

THE PAPACY IS IMMUTABLE:  This means that the Papacy cannot be changed from the Monarchical form established by Jesus Christ Himself.  The Teutonic Theological Academy of the late 20th century from Walter Kasper to Karl Rahner to Joseph Ratzinger broadly agreed that the Papacy was mutable, that is, CHANGEABLE, and should be changed to “update” it and make it “relevant to a modern, democratized world” and to appease schismatics.  This error of “demythologization” is the soil from which Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger’s Substantial Error of February ARSH 2013 grew, and is how it came to pass that he proffered an attempted PARTIAL resignation with the intention of “fundamentally transforming the Petrine Office into a collegial, synodal, shared ministry consisting of an active member and a passive, contemplative member”, which thus rendered the attempt invalid by the law itself per Canon 188, thus resulting in the See never being vacated.  Thus, per Canon 332.2 which states that the College of Cardinals have NO AUTHORITY with regards to Papal Resignations, the only determiner of validity being Canon Law itself, a completely invalid, non-canonical, UNREAL, faux-conclave was what what was convened in March of ARSH 2013, and spewed forth from its deepest bowels Antipope Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Petrine OFFICE:  The Petrine Office (munus) is a state of BEING.  Joseph Ratzinger IS the Pope.  George Washington WAS the first President of the United States.  When Queen Elizabeth dies, Price Charles WILL BE the King of England.  In order to resign an OFFICE, one must resign BEING the Officeholder.  One cannot resign an Office by declaring that one will no longer exercise a specific activity that derives from that Office.  One cannot resign the Presidency by declaring that one will no longer exercise the duties of Commander in Chief, but will continue to come to the White House every day, be called “Mr. President”, deliver the State of the Union address, and issue Presidential pardons.

Petrine MINISTRY: The Petrine Ministry (ministerium) is a collection of ACTIVITIES that are derivative of the Petrine Office.  The exercise of the Petrine Ministry (sometimes called “Petrine FUNCTION” by the Teutonic Theological Academy) is NOT required in order to hold the Petrine Office.  We know this from logic, because a man who is stricken with illness (as most men are at the end of life), in a coma (as Pope JPII was in the hours after he was shot), or imprisoned (as numerous Popes have been) and are thus totally incapable of carrying out the MINISTERIAL ACTIVITIES of the Papacy, such as teaching, legislating, adjudicating and presiding, DO NOT LOSE THEIR OFFICE.  It is impossible – IMPOSSIBLE – to argue honestly that “Office” and “Ministry” are synonymous, MOST ESPECIALLY IN THE LEGAL SENSE, because the two words belong to two completely different categories: BEING (office), and DOING (ministry).  This is why Canon 332.2 explicitly states that a Papal resignation MUST resign the MUNUS, which is at its root simply a recapitulation of the Natural Law (aka COMMON SENSE). Saying, “I’m not going to answer the phone anymore, I’ll stand aside so someone else can do that, but I’ll still be here…” is NOT resigning. In the case of the Papacy, no valid resignation, NO VALID CONCLAVE POSSIBLE. Period.

Click on the image below to purchase for only ten bucks or so the electronic version of the Miller Dissertation.  Because, WHY WOULDN’T YOU???

I hope this helps.