Wed 23rd Jul 2014 | Last updated: Wed 23rd Jul 2014 at 16:03pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Benedict XVI’s third book on Jesus to be published before Christmas

By on Friday, 21 September 2012

Copies of Benedict XVI's second volume on display at a bookshop in Rome (CNS)

Copies of Benedict XVI's second volume on display at a bookshop in Rome (CNS)

The third volume of Pope Benedict XVI’s book Jesus of Nazareth should be published before Christmas, the Vatican has said.

The volume, focusing on the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s infancy and childhood, will be the third and final volume in the series of books the Pope has written “to make known the figure and message of Jesus”, the Vatican said in a statement today.

The statement announced a Vatican publishing house agreement with the Italian publisher Rizzoli to handle sales of the rights to the book in languages other than Italian and the German original.

Herder, the Pope’s longtime German publisher, will handle the original German-language text.

The Vatican’s plan is to release the book simultaneously in the world’s major languages, including English, in time for Christmas.

The first volume of Jesus of Nazareth, covering the period from Jesus’s baptism to his Transfiguration, was published in 2007. The second volume, looking at his passion and death, came out in 2011.

  • Just_a_simpleton

    Excellent news. That will make choosing some Christmas presents so much easier!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Difficult to work this Pope out, exactly. So many things he has written contradict Catholic doctrine (Heaven, the Ascension, the writing of the Gospel of St. John, the Assumption), yet his book in this series was very powerful.

    It’s a schizophrenia these Modernists and neo-Modernists suffer from, even the conservative ones like this Pope. 

  • John Wall

     Check “Seal of Confession” by Jon Brownridge.

  • JabbaPapa

    Pope Benedict XVI is not a modernist.

  • teigitur

    On a par with the Holy Father’s publications?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7UO272UB3UDIPP7X6QIHGDIEK4 Herman U. Ticke
  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Yes, but the Papolatrists commenting on this site don’t want to hear about it.

  • Nat_ons

    Modern is not the same as Modernist – even in a conservative pope. Benedict XVI is modern in his perspective, in this, he does not need a antiqued lacquer in his scholarship .. yet this is redolent with the Faith of Ages. The Modernist dismisses the past as irrelevant to today (in each successive ‘now’); even if s/he does layer ancient sources in her/his work, these are mere counterpoints to make her/his ‘relevance’ to the present stand out in greater clarity.

    Sadly, as can be seen with the very few questionable ideas found in voluminous works of Bishop Mueller of the CDF, the modern trend in scholarship - since the mid-20th century - has been to soft-focus previous hardlines. A more orthodox, if recently ignored, procedure to draw out nuance is simply to qualify a statement - so as to clarify it without losing the difficult truth (or allow confusion with erroneous uses of common terms). This qualifying character is disliked in American English editorial circles as it may lead to long sentences, with subordinate clauses, or (worse still) adjectives; a better example than I could hope to provide is at Go To Thomas (ite ad Thomam) .. I doubt it would impress present scholars, but future Catholics might like to consider the influence of the Angelic Doctor.

    iteadthomam.blogspot.com/

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    You really ought to inform yourself about his opinion on certain aspects of Catholic teaching which totally contradict the Faith as always handed down. I’ve mentioned some of them above.

    I myself would describe him as a “conservative neo-Modernist”. His appointment of a similar man (indeed, his ex-pupil) Muller, with similar opinions, is therefore entirely consistent. 

    The crisis that the Church is in now (fundamentally doctrinal) cannot be solved by such men. I myself wrote off Benedict XVI two or three years ago.  

  • Just_a_simpleton

    How you describe Pope Benedict and whether you ‘wrote him off’ is totally irrelevant.  The arrogance of such a remark is astounding. 

    I hope the day will never come when I regard myself as more Catholic than the Pope.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Be astounded. 

    I am astounded too – that a Pope of Holy Mother Church could write some of the things that he has written. And then actually read please what he has written about the subjects above (and others) and think about why I and many others think what we do.

  • Mdkpubs

    Benedict Arnold, I mean Carter, your arrogance and lack of knowledge of Catholicism is astounding, as is your lack of understanding if this pontiff. One winders if there isn’t some intellectual clamp suppressing yoyr reason and understanding.

  • Mdkpubs

    What faithful Catholics who actually know Catholic Doctrine don’t want to hear is someone acting like an authority who doesn’t even know the meaning of modernist or neo-modernist, much less the actual doctrine. This pope is waaaaaaaaay over your head. Your arrogance won’t let you see what others humbly see.

  • John Wall

     Nowhere near! I was just referring to the Christmas present choosing. An easy read with food for thought.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Personal attacks mean nothing to me. My skin’s more than thick enough, and my reading is more than deep enough. 

    Debate / discuss or desist.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    You want a definition of neo-Modernist as opposed to Modernist? 

    Here it is: http://iteadthomam.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/modernism-vs-neo-modernism-what-is.html

  • JabbaPapa

    Sorry, I specialised in Rabelais.

    No Papefigue will ever ratiocinate my trinch away to nothing.

  • JabbaPapa

    A Modernist is someone who falsely imagines that Revelation is immanent instead of being transcendental.

  • JabbaPapa

    I’ve mentioned some of them above

    Not good enough — obviously.

    As always, your own personal opinions as to what constitutes orthodoxy are insufficient evidence for the denunciation of the Holy Father.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Not my “personal opinions” in fact Jabba. Stand by – I will post one example at the top of the thread. Will look up my exact references.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    For Jabba et al: 
    - – - - 
    There is no space here nor the proper format for a full treatment of my summary below. A much fuller treatment can be found in “Christian Order”, Vol. 49, No. 11 (November 2008). 

    In brief, Benedict XVI ascribes the actual writing of the Gospel of St. John to “presbyter John”, a different man, and on very flimsy evidence. This teaching is a flat contradiction to the decision of the Pontifical Biblical Commission under Pope St. Pius X, a decision which the latter declared to be binding on all the faithful “in the same way as to the Decrees which appertain to doctrines issued by the Sacred Congregations and approved by the Sovereign Pontiff” (indeed, the PBC was, until Vatican II (!), officially part of the Magisterium). 

    This of course presents Benedict XVI with an immediate problem. It was solved by him in 1990 in the CDF document “Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian”, in which Ratzinger talked about “essentializing” the Magisterium and consigned with this phrase ” .. the pontifical statements of the last century regarding freedom of religion and the anti-Modernist decisions of the beginning of this century, especially the decisions of the then Biblical Commission” to oblivion. 

    You see how they free themselves up to express publicly their heterodox beliefs?

    It presents us all with another problem. That is, if St. John did not write the Gospel attributed by the Church to him for 2,000 years, then the Church’s constant teaching that Revelation is complete with the death of the last Apostle is thrown out. 

    The Pope of course understands this. He writes, “This also has some fundamental implications for the concept of inspiration. The Gospel emerges from human remembering (PURE MODERNISM – BC) and presupposes the communion of those who remember …..”.

    Again, this is in direct opposition to the constant teaching of the Church and to the specific teaching of Pope St. Pius X, whose Proposition No. 21 in the “Syllabus Condemning the Errors of Modernism” condemns the opinion that “Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic Faith, was not completed with the Apostles”. 

    By denying constant Catholic teaching, Pope Benedict allows the possibility that Revelation, the very “Deposit of the Faith” can be added to. 

    I increasingly believe that Vatican II and the post-Vatican II Hierarchy, steeped in condemned and heterodox opinions, preside over a new religion. It’s difficult to call it Catholicism.   

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    That’s certainly part of it. Benedict XVI ….

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7UO272UB3UDIPP7X6QIHGDIEK4 Herman U. Ticke

    This is (more-or-less) my position too.
    I was educated before the outbreak of Vatican 2
    and I have slowly and bemusedly come to the 
    conclusion that the Novus Ordo constitutes
    an entirely new (and rapidly evolving ) religion
    which has different sacraments, morals and 
    (choice of) doctrines from the religion that
    my Godparent swore me to uphold.
    (When I was baptised, that is. )

    Many people will not accept this because
    they have a vague sense that this
    “could never happen.”  
    It could, (there is no theological reason
    to discount it. ) and according to 2 Thessalonians
    (and Leo 13th) it must and will.

    A small group will keep the sacraments, the doctrines
    the morals and the Apostolic succession of valid Orders
    but this is the case at the present time.
    The chapel I attend fulfils these criteria.

    If this isn’t it what is?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7UO272UB3UDIPP7X6QIHGDIEK4 Herman U. Ticke

    This is (more-or-less) my position too.
    I was educated before the outbreak of Vatican 2
    and I have slowly and bemusedly come to the 
    conclusion that the Novus Ordo constitutes
    an entirely new (and rapidly evolving ) religion
    which has different sacraments, morals and 
    (choice of) doctrines from the religion that
    my Godparent swore me to uphold.
    (When I was baptised, that is. )

    Many people will not accept this because
    they have a vague sense that this
    “could never happen.”  
    It could, (there is no theological reason
    to discount it. ) and according to 2 Thessalonians
    (and Leo 13th) it must and will.

    A small group will keep the sacraments, the doctrines
    the morals and the Apostolic succession of valid Orders
    but this is the case at the present time.
    The chapel I attend fulfils these criteria.

    If this isn’t it what is?

  • Charles Martel

     The great fallacy rears its fatuous head again: that it is an impossibility that anyone may be more Catholic than the Pope. It is, in fact, absolutely possible according to Catholic doctrine. Haven’t you ever heard of the consensus among theologians that a Pope may even, as a private doctor (i.e. theologian), hold and teach error? If the day comes when you realise that – on some particular point of doctrine -  you are more catholic than the Pope, then you don’t have to panic: Our Lord’s promises still hold. However, you have a duty to speak out as a loyal son of the Vicar of Christ, while praying for him to return to Catholic Truth. Papolatry has done huge damage to the Church, even though its proponents were slapped down by Vatican I’s very limited scope for infallibility. Sadly, anyone who dares to question any aspect of the Pope’s policy or private teachings gets gunned down as a ‘protestant’ or a ‘dissenter’. One only needs to read Joanna Bogle’s blog http://joannabogle.blogspot.jp/ to see the complete incoherence of this position. Her full-in-the-panting-heart-of-Rome loyalty to the Pope goes so far as to deny any possible misjudgements in his appointments of bishops / curial officials, which is utterly unhistorical and can only bring our Faith into disrepute. I wish she would read more of the excellent Fr Tim Finigan, who dared to speak up against the Pope’s homosexual condom gaffe.

  • Sweetjae

    Benedict though i lean more to your position but the persons involved named John the Apostle (evangelist) and John the presbyter-elder is highly debatable for centuries, which could be one and the same person or two distinct persons.

    St.Jerome who lived in A.D. 300s said: “It appears through this catalogue of names that the John who is placed among the disciples is not the same as the elder John whom he places after Aristion in his enumeration. This we say moreover because of the opinion mentioned above, where we record that it is declared by many that the last two epistles of John are the work not of the apostle but of the presbyter.”

    Jerome’s attribution of the Second and Third Epistle of John echoes the text of these books, in which the writer refers to himself “ho” presbyteros, which can be translated as “the presbyter, “the elder”, “the ancient”, “the old”, the same word used by Bishop Papias.

    The point my making is, it doesnt matter who wrote who, the Divine Insspiration and Revelation of Scripture is not based upon being written by the 12 Apostles only, good examples of St. Luke and St. Mark, both were not of the original 12, but rather it had been the Authority of the Church at the Council of Hippo in 400 A.D. that declared and decidedly said so, is good enough for me.

  • brendan

    With respect to “the Pope’s homosexual condom gaffe” may I suggest to Charles Martel that he take up any reputable pre Vatican II book of moral theology or pastoral theology and look up the question of the lesser of two evils.  
    If a person is determined to do evil then it is preferable that he choose a lesser evil to a greater.  For example, as in the case of a prostitute (male or female) or a Don Juan, etc., such person intends to repeatedly offend against chastity or the sixth commandment.  But such a person will very likely become infected with serious infectious diseases, some of which such as AIDS or sifilis, can cause death.  Most moral and pastoral theologians in the old days would have no hesitation in saying that if the person decides to limit the damage he is doing by using condoms, that his option is more moral than if he goes ahead recklessly and runs the risk of spreading serious and even deadly illnesses.  There was nothing new or strange about what His Holiness said.  There was no gaffe.  Our problem today is that apparently even priests don’t know enough theology to comment on such matters and it is left to the media to present a distorted picture.

  • Sweetjae

    Pope Benedict didnt deny nor contradict the “Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic Faith, was not completed by the Apostles”…rather the Divine Inspiration and Revelation of Scripture is NOT based on being written solely by the original 12 Apostles but by the Authority of the Catholic Church at the Council of Hippo. Sts. Luke and Mark are not from the list of the 12 yet their writtings are part of Divine Revelation in the form of Holy Scripture. Public Revelation is indeed completed by the death of the Last Apostle, meaning as the last public eye-witnesses and hearers of the Divine Revelation which is Jesus Christ in the the form of flesh.

    Just hold yourself with this outright condemnation of the Pontiff based on your opinion of things……very serious offense against the Office of Peter and the Church whose authority derives from Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

  • Sweetjae

    Mr. Carter this is “good” thing with you, anybody who disagree with your elucidation of tradition you called modernist, neo-protestants, papolatrists etc. Who is rather following men or God here? Catholics who give assent and obedience to ALL, I say ALL the duly convened Councils of the Church OR catholics who only give assent to Councils they think as orthodox according to their idea of orthodoxy?

  • Nat_ons

    This same dubious accusation – which is not the same as proof (let alone the faith taught in magisterial authority) – was laid against the Angelic Doctor. I doubt you would dare to lay the accusation of ‘heretic’ against Aquinas, even in some of his less than ‘traditional’ ideas. That you may write off this or that theologian, even awesome ones, is for you to explain; nonetheless, to dismiss a Master of the Faith, on our own reading, does not make it a magisterial anathema (suggesting, perhaps, only a degree of presumption).

    I have greater difficulty with the common interpretations of pontifical teaching on the ‘People of God’ ecclesiology, as expressed by the Fathers at Vatican II, John Paul II and even the awesome Benedict XVI.
    Of course the type is of itself inspired by the Holy Ghost, even if formed – like all custom in the life of faith – through the revealing memories of men .. slowly; hesitantly; for the most part, lately.
    My qualms do not make the magisterial teaching wrong, dubious or heretical, they merely give reason for me to pause in my assessment; for human expression is conditional.

    “It follows that the separated churches (#23) and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.” Unitatis Redintegratio, 1.
    (#23 Con. Lateranesnse IV (1215) Constitutio IV: Mansi 22, 990; Con. Lugdenense II (1274), Professio fidei Michaelis Palaeologi: Mansi 24, 71 E; Con. Florentinum, Sess. VI (1439), Definitio Laetentur caeli: Mansi 31, 1026 E.)

    If this means of salvation is interpreted as apart from the witness of Faith in Sacred Tradition – indicated by the qualifiers listed – being made to seem an addition to Christ’s name, it is heresy.

    If the term ‘means of salvation’ is set squarely in the hermeneutic of continuity – in the one witness of the same Faith – and is taken to mean, wholly, a derivative effect dependent on the fullness of grace and truth, it cannot be in error.

    If, however, I set up my own polemical opinion as the measure of Truth witnessed in the Magisterium – even when the later seems insufficiently well expressed – I make myself judge on the Spirit (I embrace a spirit of division); yet when I seek to set it in context with Tradition: His gift is the measure.

    “Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us.” 2 Tim 1 : 13-14.

  • Sweetjae

    A closet sede, perhaps, Mr. carter? Going in that direction? A follower of now-going-to-be-expelled-soon-from-SSPX, Bishop Williamson? Why I’m not surprised at all? Disobedience breeds disobedience, anyways there are 4 sects split from the SSPX already….a group that breeds pride and disobedince!

  • Sweetjae

    Even though there is no new public revelation, the Church can progress in
    deepened understanding of the original deposit of faith–thus the
    Immaculate Conception, for example, was not mentioned in the first
    centuries, was even denied by many in Middle Ages, but could be defined in
    1854. This progress is the result of the growing light of the Holy Spirit.
    At the Last Supper Jesus promised Him to lead the Church into all truth.

    Jesus Christ saved the world by obedience–cf. Rom. 5:19. St. Margaret Mary says He told her: “Not only do I desire that you should do what your Superior commands, but also that you
    should do nothing of all that I order without their consent. I love
    obedience, and without it no one can please me.”

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Authentic development of doctrine does NOT allow for innovations! When will you get this into your head?

  • Sweetjae

    Mr. Benedict Carter, did you read the words of Jesus Christ about obedience to St. Margaret above?
    You always say Faith supercedes Obedience, so sorry but i think you are wrong rather without humility and obedience there is NO faith, Scripture and St. Paul attested to that fact, how can one have faith IF one doesn’t have obedience to accept it in the first place? Humility is the key to Love, Hope and Faith!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Benedict XVI states explicitly that they are different people. He therefore openly denies that St. John wrote the Gospel.

  • Sweetjae

    Excellent!

  • Sweetjae

    My answer is still stands in my last sentence above.

  • Sweetjae

    When do you consider an Authentic doctrinal development? When you approve as such, Mr. carter? I have given you good example of the doctrines of Assumptions, Immaculate Conceptions and other Marian Dogmas as doctrinal developments, would you do the same otherwise?

  • Sweetjae

    So to you St. Jerome is also a heretic and modernist?

  • Sweetjae

    The saying of “small group” or “remnant church” also comes from the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Sedevacantists, Conclavists, Old Catholics, SSPV etc, etc……just remember this my old friend, OUTSIDE Peter are just protestants! Be careful to the extreme Left and Right, you can be fall by both sides of the road ditch.

  • Sweetjae

    Oh by the way, Mr. Carter the latter is a true Modernist thinking!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    I refer you to my post above.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Developed doctrine only applies to those teachings that were always and everywhere held by the faithful back to the time of the Early Fathers, even if the teaching was not made explicit until later.

    It does NOT apply to doctrinal innovations, i.e.to new teachings that have never been held always and everywhere by the faithful back to the times of the Early Fathers. 

    To whit: that Revelation did not finish with the death of the last Apostle; that there is no physical Heaven, that the Evangelists did not actually write the Gospels.

  • brendan

    I see a variety of opinions above which have in common the idea that the Pope is trying to change Catholic doctrine.  As one who was over thirty when Vatican II opened I have no hesitation in saying that I find nothing in the writings of either Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger or Benedict XVI which in any way conflict with the the Maynooth catechism I learned – though the Pope’s writings greatly enhance the catechism.  Might I suggest to those who think the Pope has gone astray that they read Frank Sheed’s “Theology and Sanity” (1948) (and top it off with his “Theology for Beginners” 1958) and follow that up with reading Hunt’s “Understanding the Bible”, which is an explanation of Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu”.  With all that under one’s hat, one will be able to read “Lumen Gentium” and “Dei Verbum” of Vatican II with greater appreciation. And then let the dissatisfied explain precisely what they find wrong with Pope Benedict’s theology rather than using terms such as “modernism”.  Fundamental to modernism is the notion that there is no permanent truth.  Fundamental to Benedict’s teaching is the idea of Absolute Truth, which, ultimately, is God.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Excellent post.

  • JabbaPapa

    In brief, Benedict XVI ascribes the actual writing of the Gospel of St. John to “presbyter John”

    One google search is sufficient to debunk this preposterous notion.

    The Pope has basically written a *theoretical* treatment of this subject, whereby he posits this “presbyter John” as the literary executor, or if you like secretary, of the Apostle — but at no point does he claim that the Gospel of John has been written by this theoretical figure !!!

    The thing here to understand is that before the invention of printing, and also before those of the typewriter, word processor, and the personal computer, it was *extremely* common for authors to have secretaries who fully participated in the writing of their works — indeed, more than one of the Epistles of Paul explicitly refer to this situation between Paul and his own secretaries.

    Now, as it happens I would actually disagree with the Pope’s analysis here, mainly because recent research on the genesis of the texts of the New Testament actually dates them to between AD 35 and AD 65 — rather than the far later dates that were postulated in the 19th and 20th century scholarship — so that there is no real need to devise any such theories.

    Whatever your opinion though, this is a literary theory — it is not “modernist” in the slightest, given that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Faith.

    ______

    This of course presents Benedict XVI with an immediate problem. It was
    solved by him in 1990 in the CDF document “Instruction on the Ecclesial
    Vocation of the Theologian”, in which Ratzinger talked about
    “essentializing” the Magisterium

    Where on EARTH do your sources get their interpretations from ???

    … essentialising the Magisterium indeed !!!!

    In fact :

    34. Dissent is generally defended
    by various arguments, two of which are more basic in character. The first lies
    in the order of hermeneutics. The documents of the Magisterium, it is said,
    reflect nothing more than a debatable theology. The second takes theological
    pluralism sometimes to the point of a relativism which calls the integrity of
    the faith into question. Here the interventions of the Magisterium would have
    their origin in one theology among many theologies, while no particular theology,
    however, could presume to claim universal normative status. In opposition to
    and in competition with the authentic magisterium, there thus arises a kind of
    “parallel magisterium” of theologians.

    Certainly, it is one of the
    theologian’s tasks to give a correct interpretation to the texts of the
    Magisterium and to this end he employs various hermeneutical rules. Among
    these is the principle which affirms that Magisterial teaching, by virtue of
    divine assistance, has a validity beyond its argumentation, which may derive
    at times from a particular theology. As far as theological pluralism is
    concerned, this is only legitimate to the extent that the unity of the faith
    in its objective meaning is not jeopardized. Essential bonds link the distinct
    levels of unity of faith, unity-plurality of expressions of the faith, and
    plurality of theologies. The ultimate reason for plurality is found in the
    unfathomable mystery of Christ who transcends every objective systematization.
    This cannot mean that it is possible to accept conclusions contrary to that
    mystery and it certainly does not put into question the truth of those
    assertions by which the Magisterium has declared itself. As to the
    “parallel magisterium”, it can cause great spiritual harm by
    opposing itself to the Magisterium of the Pastors. Indeed, when dissent
    succeeds in extending its influence to the point of shaping a common opinion,
    it tends to become the rule of conduct. This cannot but seriously trouble the
    People of God and lead to contempt for true authority.

    The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith herein condemns relativism ; condemns any other authority than the Magisterium in theological and doctrinal matters ; condemns modernism ; condemns the so-called “parallel magisterium” of the theologians (which is of course what your source is worried about, because his own position is thereby condemned) ; it clearly and unambiguously states that the teachings of the Magisterium are true in their essential meaning rather than in various personal interpretations that may be made thereof, which is a DIRECT attack upon all forms of modernism, conservative or reformist ; and as for the “essential” binding into a unity of Magisterium of the various individual or collective works from various sources, this is nothing other than a clear and uncompromising statement of the Catholic Orthodoxy.

    and THIS : “and consigned with this phrase ” .. the pontifical statements of the
    last century regarding freedom of religion and the anti-Modernist
    decisions of the beginning of this century, especially the decisions of
    the then Biblical Commission” to oblivion.”

    … is COMPLETE rubbish !!!!

    In fact, the document both implicitly and explicitly reaffirms the value of all licit theological discourse, including of course these very pontifical statements and that Biblical Commission.

    Dear Benedict, I think that you still fail to realise that extreme conservative traditionalism is a form of modernism.

    ____________

    You see how they free themselves up to express publicly their heterodox beliefs?

    It is heterodox to accuse the Holy Father of heterodoxy — to put it bluntly.

    ____________

    It presents us all with another problem. That is, if St. John did not
    write the Gospel attributed by the Church to him for 2,000 years, then
    the Church’s constant teaching that Revelation is complete with the
    death of the last Apostle is thrown out.

    1) “if St. John did not
    write the Gospel attributed by the Church to him for 2,000 years” is a false premise, because only some 19th and 20th century modernists and Protestants and atheists up to this very day have ever claimed any such thing, but in fact the Pope has never claimed that at all

    2) Revelation is in fact an Attribute and a possession of God, and it exists transcendentally, outside of any such an-made concerns as you put forward

    If you claim that the entire body of Revelation has been provided to the Church, in an intelligible and unchangeable manner, you are implicitly reducing Revelation into something that can be both understood and controlled by the intelligence of man — which is EXACTLY the claim of Modernism itself as a heresy.

    ____________

    The Pope of course understands this. He writes, “This also has some
    fundamental implications for the concept of inspiration. The Gospel
    emerges from human remembering (PURE MODERNISM – BC) and presupposes the
    communion of those who remember …..”.

    This most certainly is NOT modernism, dear Benedict — I have, again, NO IDEA where you get these very strange ideas from.

    The Evangelists remember the teachings of Jesus, and they have written them down in the Gospels, as well as the History of His actions in this world and of His glorious Resurrection, so that the memory of these things has been preserved in our Church throughout the Millennia.

    ____________

    Again, this is in direct opposition to the constant teaching of the
    Church and to the specific teaching of Pope St. Pius X, whose
    Proposition No. 21 in the “Syllabus Condemning the Errors of Modernism”
    condemns the opinion that “Revelation, constituting the object of
    Catholic Faith, was not completed with the Apostles”.

    Again, this is RUBBISH, and again we see the pernicious effect of assuming that the diametric opposite of the errors denounced in the Syllabus must necessarily constitute doctrine.

    To claim that Revelation was not completed with the Apostles is an Error — but this does NOT require that ONLY the statement that Revelation was completed with the Apostles can be accurate.

    The entirety of what our Lord the Christ desired to be revealed to His Church, through the Prophets and His Apostles, was provided to His Apostles — but this does NOT mean that Revelation is some kind of “dead letter” !!!! To claim it as such would be equally erroneous !!!

    We are, all of us, in a dynamic and living relationship with Revelation — and to treat Revelation as being some sort of definitive corpus that is entirely intelligible to historical human consciousness is a straightforwardly modernist Error.

    I’m quite unhappy with the English translation of the following, but :

    Pope Pius X Pascendi Doiminici Gregis :

    27. Still continuing the consideration of the evolution of
    doctrine, it is to be noted that Evolution is due no doubt to those stimulants
    styled needs, but, if left to their action alone, it would run a great risk of
    bursting the bounds of tradition, and thus, turned aside from its primitive
    vital principle, would lead to ruin instead of progress. Hence, studying more
    closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as resulting from
    the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other
    towards conservation.
    The conserving force in the Church is tradition, and
    tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in
    fact; for by right it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition,
    and, in fact, for authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life,
    feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on
    the contrary, which responds to the inner needs lies in the individual
    consciences and ferments there – especially in such of them as are in most
    intimate contact with life. Note here, Venerable Brethren, the appearance
    already of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity a
    factor of progress in the Church. Now it is by a species of compromise between
    the forces of conservation and of progress, that is to say between authority
    and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The
    individual consciences of some of them act on the collective conscience, which
    brings pressure to bear on the depositaries of authority, until the latter
    consent to a compromise, and, the pact being made, authority sees to its
    maintenance.

    I’d actually recommend reading this document in the French, a language far more suited than English (or even Latin) to the examination of such abstracts.

    Here we plainly see that Modernism is composed of two forces — the conservative, passive force, and the reformist active one.

    Pope Pius X is, briefly, positing a state of affairs whereby doctrine will be subjected to these opposing forces, which are very clearly political and worldly in nature.

    That is the nature of Modernism.

    Radical conservatism is, in other words, as directly modernist as the worst kind of revisionist or relativist liberalism — though in its defense, conservatism does not actively prevent (normally) a properly religious understanding of the Doctrine of the Faith.

    One is reminded here of the doctrine of the Mass, whereby our Church has declared that a priest, even though he himself might be far from the Faith, if he correctly performs the liturgy of the Mass, will effectuate through the Grace of his Sacrament and that of the Liturgy itself, the Miracle of transubstantiation and Eucharist.

    This is the saving Grace of the conservatives who seek to reduce the understanding of Revelation to their own intellectual horizon only.

    ____________

    By denying constant Catholic teaching, Pope Benedict allows the
    possibility that Revelation, the very “Deposit of the Faith” can be
    added to.

    He has of course done NEITHER of these things — and you are falsely accusing our Holy Father of things that he is not guilty of in the slightest.

    Which is shameful.

    ____________

    I increasingly believe that Vatican II and the post-Vatican II
    Hierarchy, steeped in condemned and heterodox opinions, preside over a
    new religion. It’s difficult to call it Catholicism.

    That is most likely because you have been paying undue and illicit attention to some schismatic declarations by some clerics and theologians and many often quite uninformed but very activist lay persons who are not in full communion with our Church.

    Rebellion can only breed heresies ; and whilst those who you are listening to have not gone so far at the present time, mainly because they simultaneously condemn some extremely serious abuses and heresies that reside in radical liberalism, that are far far worse than their own errors and mistakes, there are nonetheless many either in the SSPX or who are faithful to the SSPX who do not realise that they themselves are attainted with modernist concepts and ideas.

    ____________

    It remains, however, UTTERLY illicit to attack the Pope as you have done.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Both Pope Paul VI and this Pope too have talked about a “remnant Church”. Hoist by your own petard.

  • JabbaPapa

    Indeed !!!

  • JabbaPapa

    Rubbish, Benedict !!!

    He stated that he agreed with the opinion that it does not fundamentally matter whether there were one or two New Testament authors named John.

  • JabbaPapa

    And I REALLY have to state here, and VERY clearly, that the claim that the Church has become a different religion is OVERTLY heretical in nature.

    And it is deeply schismatic to post such teachings on the internet like this, because you encourage your fellow Catholics towards the same schism and heresy.

    You are CONFUSING your own personal interpretation of the Doctrine with the nature of the Doctrine — which is a completely and very basically modernist approach towards the nature of the Magisterium itself.

    Please, dear Benedict, DON’T let your Faith be contaminated by these Errors and false doctrines !!!!