Joseph Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity
Father Matthias Gaudron FSSPX
The text was initially submitted as a letter to the editor for Deutsche Tagespost, but unfortunately not published there.
In the German daily post from 23 March 2018, Michael Karger raised the issue of the first publication of Joseph Ratzinger's "Introduction to Christianity". Undoubtedly, this book contains interesting food for thought and is an attempt to re-examine the Catholic faith of a time when the truths of faith were being thrown off as oppressive baggage. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the young Ratzinger was only partially successful with this attempt and there are statements in this book, which must be contradicted. Therefore, it is incomprehensible that Ratzinger has continued to publish this book unaltered as a Prefect of Doctrine and of the Faith and Pope. I pick out four points:
Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger
1. The supernaturalism of faith is little expressed in this work. On the contrary, faith and unbelief are put on a level that does not correspond to Catholic doctrine. The believer and the unbeliever share both "in doubt and in faith". No one can "completely dispel doubt, none whatsoever escape faith" (dtv edition, p. 19). It is true that the believer can know temptations against faith and hours of doubt. But his situation is still very different from that of the unbeliever. Thus, for the first time, the existence of God is fundamentally certainly already comprehensible by way of natural reason, as St. Paul teaches in Romans 1 and Vatican I has declared to be dogma. The Catholic faith in divine revelation is then something done by God Himself in man and gives the believer a supernatural certainty. It is the so-called "light of faith", the lumen fidei, which always gives the believer a final certainty through any doubts that may arise, that the faith is true and that one must cling to it. Therefore, there can never be any real reason for the believer to give up the faith, as I Vatican I taught again. Of all this not a word can be found in Ratzinger.
2. An extremely questionable attempt is then made to explain the deity of Christ. For Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus is "the man of the future", the human being who is the least closed in himself and "most relaxed" and thus becomes one with the infinite. It is even said: "If Jesus is the exemplary man in whom the true form of man, the idea of God with him, fully enters the light, then he can not be destined to be but an absolute exception, a curiosity." P. 169). It is one of the modernist methods to caricature traditional doctrine in order to reject this caricature. Of course, Jesus is not a curiosity, but he is an absolute exception, because there is no second person who can claim to be true God and true man. For this reason, the following statement, made in the name of Teilhard de Chardin, is untenable: "Faith sees in Jesus the man in whom, speaking of the biological scheme, the next evolutionary leap is done; the man in whom the breakthrough came from the limited nature of our humanity, from its monadic closure " (p. 194).
3. The descent of Christ into the underworld is thoroughly demythologized. From the catechism of the Catholic Church, this article of faith is explained as follows: "The dead Christ descended to the abode of the dead in his soul, which remained united with his divine person. He opened to the righteous who lived before him, the gates of heaven" (n. 637). There is nothing more in this for Joseph Ratzinger. Rather, for him the phrase means that "Christ has passed through the gate of our last solitude, that he has entered with his passion into this abyss of our abandonment. ... With that, hell is overcome, or more precisely: death, which used to be hell, is no longer " (p. 220).
4. After all, the "resurrection of the flesh" is "no resurrection of the body". There seems to be only some "ultimate connection between matter and spirit" in which the fate of man and the world is completed “ (p. 266). A resurrected body, as the Church has always taught him, does not seem to exist.
These few examples show that the "Introduction to Christianity" is not a work that one can unreservedly recommend to someone who wants to get to know the Catholic faith.
Text: Matthias Gaudron
Image: ZVAB (screenshot)
Trans: Tancred firstname.lastname@example.org
NO RESPONSE FROM FR. GLEIZE
At the SSPX-Vatican Doctrinal Talks, Fr. Jean Marie Gleize was 'Pope Benedict's man'. He did not oppose Fr. Luiz Ladaria s.j and Fr. Charles Morerod's New Theology based on phyiscally visible cases of the baptism of desire etc.
He was supporting Pope Benedict's false doctrines with the New Theology.It was possibly an innocent mistake on his part.
But after so many reports on on line over the last few years he still does correct himself or counter the accusations.
JUNE 26, 2017
Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
June 24, 2017
Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
Gleize makes another mistake
September 16, 2016
Report on Gloria TV, in Italian, by 'Isole de Patmos' also recognises this theological problem, an objective error, among the 'Lefebvrists'
Fr.Jean Marie Gleize makes a doctrinal error in a book published by the SSPX
SSPX PRIOR AT ALBANO,ITALY SAYS WE DON'T KNOW ANYONE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE AND THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE
SSPX PRIESTS IN ALBANO,ITALY DISAGREE WITH U.S WEBSITE: THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
NOVEMBER 18, 2013
Fr.Jean Marie Gleize says Vatican Council II contradicts outside the church there is no salvation: no such Council text cited
NOVEMBER 15, 2013
Fr.Jean Marie Gleize who made an objective error in ecclesiology protests the beatification
Irrelevant ? He is not commenting on the massive explosion at home.He cannot respond theologically to what I have written. He cannot correct me and neither does he agree with me.
No contradiction or clarification from Fr.Gleize : SSPX in a crisis too
There is no comment from the SSPX on the report : Fr. Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong. 1
There is no denial or official statement yet. This is like a bad dream for them. They do not want to talk about it. It is a crisis. They do not know how to handle it. How can they say that they were wrong all along about Vatican Council II (Cushingite) and there is a Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) without the false premise. So the popes from John XXIII to Paul VI were not heretics since Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is not heretical.
They are facing the same crisis as the sedevacantists.
Bishop Donald Sanborn in a crisis 2
During the doctrinal talks with the Vatican Fr. Gleize made an objective error and so he could not see the doctrinal mistake of the Vatican side.
In the article he has written on the Remnant Newspaper website he has made errors. He has been repeating these Cushingite errors since 2009 and refuses to address this issue.There is no denial or explaination from him. He is repeating a standard error of the traditionalists and sedevacantists who are line with the Masons and liberals on these points. I repeat the four points here.
1. The religious liberty of Dignitatis Humanae and the positive secularism of Gaudium et Spes are condemned by Quanta Cura of Pius IX.-Fr.Jean Marie Gleize
Lionel: False. DH is not a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).So it is not a break with the past ecclesiocentrism.Upon the old ecclesiology was based the non separation of Church and State and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.
Since there is known salvation outside the Church for Fr.Gleize, as there is for Pope Benedict,Dignitatis Humanae has to be a rupture with EENS (Feeneyite) and the past ecclesiology of the Church.He is a liberal on this issue, without knowing it.It is his irrational theology which creates new doctrine. It is approved by the magisterium.
With Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) Gaudium et Spess 22 are not exceptions to the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology of the Church. He interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So there is a rupture with Tradition.
2.The new ecumenical ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium is condemned by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis and Humani Generis because of the absolutely false principle which would like to establish a real distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.
Lionel: With Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) Lumen Gentium 16,14 and 8 does not contradict Mystici Corporis etc. So there is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II.
Since Fr.Gleize only knows of Vatican Council II( Cushingite)there is a rupture with Tradition.
He refers to a 'false principle' but he does not know what is the false principle specifically He knows that Vatican Council II( Cushingite) is rupture with the past, and one can agree with him.However he has to switch to Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which supports the old doctrines of the Church.
3. The ecumenism of Unitatis Redintegratio is condemned by Pius XI inMortalium Animos.
Lionel: No.It is not condemned with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).UR 3 is hypothetical and so it is not an explicit exception, or relevant, to the dogma EENS.
Fr.Gleize needs to explore Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and then his perspective will change...
4.The collegiality of Lumen Gentium, in that it denies the unicity of the subject of the Primacy, falls under the condemnation of Vatican I.
Lionel: This is his Cushingite interpretation. If there is unity of doctrine and theology with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite), collegiality is not a problem.There will only be unity when Vatican Council II and EENS is interpreted without invisible cases confused as being visible. 1
Like the liberal Fr.Charles Morerod, Fr.Jean Marie Gleize was interpreting Vatican Council II in particular and all magisterial documents in general with irrational Cushingism philosophy and theology.Instead of using Feeneyite philosophy and theology and exposing the errors of Bishop Morerod, doctrinally, he remained 'on the other side'.He was a liberal.
Did Pope Benedict XVI permit Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead the SSPX side in doctrinal talks with the Vatican since he knew that he was a liberal who held there was known salvation outside the Church and so interpreted Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism instead of the traditional Feeneyism, which the pope also rejected ? He had accepted the New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger as did Archbishop Lefebvre.
The SSPX-Vatican doctrinal talks were a failure. Both sides were interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism. The Vatican would accept the non traditional conclusion and the SSPX would reject the rupture with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
So the talks became a simple formality. Neither of the two sides could say precisely what was the specific change in doctrine, other than it was visible that Vatican Council II( Cushngiite) was a rupture with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.
Fr.Jean Marie Gleize who teaches Ecclesiology at Econe and was the leader of the SSPX group of theologians was 'Pope Benedict's man'.The talks were not going to get any where.
Since for Gleize too EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century since there was a 'development' with Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).Neither would Pope Benedict or Fr. Gleize would say in March 2016 that Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) however would not be a development with the dogma EENS as it was known to the magisterium in the 16th century.The pope through this interview in Avvenire publically announced the heresy and no one from the SSPX raised an objection.
No one is commenting even now.
Bishop Fellay knows there is something wrong.
The dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation has been changed surreptitiously by confused ideas ( Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 87).Bishop Fellay does not seem aware of the difference between Feeneyism and Cushingism in the interpretation of magisterial documents including Vatican Council II.May be Fr. Jean Marie Gleize too does not understand it.At the Remnant they are unable to do discuss this and no comments are allowed.
The suspicion has always been there of a "paper tiger" in the CDF. He was known as JPIIs "Rottweiler", maybe falsely. He was known to have been a supporter of de Chardin in whom now we have a pope incarnate who is Chardin resurrected "body and soul".---When then Archbishop Raymond Burke was removed as the ordinary in St. Louis and "kicked out of the limelight" in 2008. no one appeared to believe that P. Benedict would so such a horrible thing. Recently, "Uncle Joe" stated that the new pontiff is only an extension of his own pontificate. If he thought that Francis was leading the Church astray, he would have been morally obligated to speak out by now. That "ship has sailed".
The Faithful have the right to question Our Holy Father, who no doubt, does not have free range in The Vatican.
How can you say that P. Francis "does not have free range" in the Vatican? As a Navy veteran, he is a captain who walks the bridge in complete control.
No one but you would give a tinker's damn, Lionel.
This obsessive compulsion is driven by the deviant need of some to think all's well with their sand pit when they have thrown out the people who upset their little ideological play group.
He is a 'paper tiger' O.K but so are the traditionalists including the big names in the movement.
The Traditionalists are not proclaiming the Faith, the same as other Catholics in general.They are afraid of the Leftist laws which do not allow them to testify to their Faith and want them to lose their Catholic identity.
So the Traditionalists propagandize the Traditional Latin Mass 's liturgy but not the old understanding of the Faith.
It is the TLM with the New Ecumenism and not the Old.
It is the New Evangelisation and not traditional Mission based on no salvation outside the Church.
It is the New Theology based on allegedly visible for us baptism of desire etc instead of outside the Church there is no salvation and there are no known exceptions of the baptism of desire, which contradict the Old Theology.
So Summorum Pontificum has not had the effect on the Church as was supposed, there is no noticeable revival.
Since obviously freedom was not granted by the Jewish Left to , to offer the TLM with the Old Theology and Ecclesiology,the Old Ecumenism and traditional doctrines on Mission and salvation and other religions.
Meanwhile traditionalists like Christopher Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei speak at conferences on safe subjects and in a vague and general way.They do not affirm outside the Church there is no salvation and the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation, in specific subjects and situations, even thought there are so many opportunities to do so.
They protect themselves.
This is also a priority for conservative Catholics who attend Mass in the vernacular.
In the past Fr. Chad Ripperger has called this 'positivism towards magisterialism'.Presently we see that the Magisterium is teaching false doctrines and calling for obedience.The 'magisterium' also teaches these new doctrines with an irrational theology to remain politically correct with the Left -but so does Fr. Ripperger.
At the course for exorcists underway in Rome the priests will exorcise Muslims but not tell them,nor say in public , that they must convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.It would be the same with the traditionalist exorcist Fr. Ripperger and his religious community in the USA.On their websites and in their books they will not proclaim the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( EENS) .
Cardinal Burke has said that the problem in the Church is poor catechesis but he is not going to teach Catholics that the Church teaches outside the Church there is no salvation and 'all' need 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) to avoid the fires of Hell ( for salvation).
So it is very convenient for Bishop Bernard Fellay to criticize Vatican Council II and interpret it only with the false premise(references to invisible people in the present times must be interpreted as being personally known people). The Left appreciates this.He cannot say in public that Vatican Council II indicates all Jews and Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox Christians, are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church with Catholic faith(AG 7, LG14) and that LG 8, LG 16 etc are not exceptions.
Instead Bishop Bernard Fellay and politically- correct- with -the- Left Bishop Athanasius Schneider, will state the opposite.For them LG 8 etc will be exceptions to traditional EENS and they are not going to affirm Ad Gentes 7 in public.
It is the same with Fr. John Zuhlsdorf. There is a crisis in the Church for him and he will proclaim the solution is the liturgy and rituals of Mass in Latin , without the theology and doctrines of the Latin Mass of the missionaries in the 16th century.
Traditionalists are not proclaiming the Faith and are propagandizing the Traditional Latin Mass(TLM) without the theology and doctrines of the TLM in the 16th century.Summorum Pontificum has allowed only limited freedom.-Lionel Andrades
When will Father Matthias Gaudron, of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) comment on this when it is relevant to the SSPX-Vatican Reconciliation.
APRIL 19, 2017
Pope Benedict XVI could have interpreted Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in March 2016 with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism: he chose heresy and the hermeneutic of rupture
DECEMBER 8, 2017
Pope Benedict's entire false theology is pegged on there being known salvation outside the Church.When in reality we do not know any such case http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/pope-benedicts-entire-false-theology-is.html
MARCH 15, 2017
Pope Benedict XVI means there is known salvation outside the Church when he states 'when they can be saved even without it?” '. He is a Cushingite. He assumes invisible cases are visible
JUNE 22, 2016
Objectively heretical writings of Pope Benedict XVI ?
Pope Benedict's Avvenire interview contradicts the SSPX General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/pope-benedicts-avvenire-interview.html
When Pope Benedict 'breaks his silence' it usually is to please the Masons?
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and Pope Benedict XVI made a factual error : Analysis http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/cardinal-luiz-ladaria-sj-and-pope.html#links
Pope Francis is not free and neither was Pope Benedict.By being non controversial they are maintaining the peace with the Jewish Left, the synagogue of Satan.
But them so are the SSPX and conservative Catholics like Church Militant TV etc.
APRIL 21, 2018
Bishop Bernard Fellay is not affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and the Social Reign of Christ the King due to worldly prudence.SSPX priests in Italy have to follow 'the official policy'
APRIL 21, 2018
The St.Benedict Centers need to clarify that there are no practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus for us in 2018. No physically visible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I in the past
APRIL 21, 2018
Fr.Chad Ripperger and FSSP priests still not permitted by the Vatican to affirm the traditional teaching on salvation : positivism towards magisterialism
APRIL 22, 2018
Maike Hickson and Steve Skojec cannot comment either way for or against and can get no help from the cardinals and bishops at the Vatican. They cannot show me where I am wrong and neither can they agree with me
That along with some of his other works were listed on Opus Dei’s version of The Index of Forbidden Books (Guia Bibliografia : Bibliographical Guide) until he became Pope Benedict XVI!
He was also wrong on Vatican Council II too.But it was not known to the trditionalists and most of the Church.
APRIL 24, 2018
Vatican Council II is not how Christopher Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei interpret it (Graphics)
The psychopathology treatment takes years but mostly ends in failure.
If you interpret Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth in other religions) as referring to known or unknown people in the present times you have two interpretations of Vatican Council II : If you interpret the baptism of desire as referring to invisible or visible people saved outside the Church in the present times you have two interpretations of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
You are denying the infallibility of the popes ex cathedra who defined EENS in three Church Councils.
Like the present liberal Magisterium you are saying that what was once an 'infalllible teaching' is no more infallible and you have the support of the Left and the Vatican.-Lionel
To return to Catholic doctrinal sanity in the country the Polish President Andrzej Duda must affirm common sense and what is common knowedlge by stating that :"There are no physically visible cases of the BOD,BOB and I.I in 2018" and " LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, NA 2, UR 3, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical cases.
Thanks for this. Benedict XVI was an is far less dangerous to Catholic faith than the Argentine plotter, but in his works like this or Jesus of Nazareth where he posited that maybe the Jews did not call a curse on themselves in Matthew's Gospel, have a distinctly Modernist tinge. In the certain way, Benedict offered some danger as his supple intellect is something far superior to Bergoglian peasant cunning and coarseness. Frank doesn't seem to mind if he contradicts himself between one interview and the next, only how to advance his current scheme, while Benedict would offer a consider explanation of how his thought evolved. Still, the book is surely worth reading.
Did he do it intentionally or was he confused like every body else in the Church?
JULY 20, 2017
Did Pope Benedict intentionally not tell Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that Vatican Council II was not a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS ?
JANUARY 26, 2018
Pope Benedict needs to recant and end the doctrinal deception in the Church
JANUARY 2, 2018
The new Catholic faith in salvation and morals of Pope Benedict, Cardinal Muller and Rocco Buttiglione
JANUARY 2, 2018
Pope Benedict praised Cardinal Muller for defending a false 'faith'
Post a Comment