I am not going to review this book page by page but, rather, sequentially, as I was struck by what I consider to be his bold and heterodox claims.
I am grateful he wrote so honestly about his theological ideas and I appreciate he was so bold in describing his problems with the historic Church for he clearly does not like it or appreciate what the Church has in done in the past.
Like many reformers/modernists he did appeal to the putative actions of the early Church as substantially better than what had developed over time but skipping back over more than a score of hundreds of years of history to a putative pristine and simpler time (that ought be resurrected in his opinion) is not a recipe for sound logic as that idea contains within it the assumption that The Holy Ghost had dozed off for 19 centuries as the Popes, Prelates, Priests and people had one off the rails and had taken decisions that supposedly frustrated the will of God.
Already, by page 21, he was complaining about the Holy Holocaust in St. Peter's that opened the Council; The mighty basilica, the grandeur of the ancient liturgy...all of this was impressive. Yet there was, on the other hand, an undeniable uneasiness, whose most obvious symptom was annoyance with the endlessly long ceremony...it did reveal something
deeper; namely. that the opening ceremony did not really involve all who were present, and it had little inner coherence. Did it make sense for 2,500 bishops not to mention the other faithful there, to be relegated to the role of mere spectators at a ceremony in which only the celebrants and the Sistine Choir had a voice?
...painfully revealing the dangerous archaism which had come to enshroud the Mass since Trent, so that the real meaning of its various parts were no longer intelligible?
He is a very polite professor but his reserve could not hide how much he disdained the ancient Holy Sacrifice of thee Mass, The Damasian-Gregorian-Tridentine Holy Holocaust which is over 1500 years old.
He, the other periti (theological advisors) and most of the Prelates had no use for that beautiful and ancient form of worship.
No, as we shall see Ratzinger and his ilk were fans of the protestants and their form of worship.
Page 223 He confesses, There were positive aspects even in the opening ceremony...Pope John when he disavowed all negative condemnations (Ratzinger, and many others active in the Council, had been identified by others as heterodox, modernist theologians *) and asked instead that the Council apply the medicine of compassion. Rather their efforts were to be directed toward a fundamental renewal of the universal church, in living dialogue with the present times and its needs.
In this book he never evinces an understanding that the world is our ancient and permanent enemy and so what in heavens name is the point of dialoguing with the enemy of those who oppose Jesus and His Church?
Wasn't that the fundamental error of Eve in her dialogue with the devil?
Ratzinger was clearly in love with the world of his time and he desired to serve the world, not Jesus.
Approvingly Ratzinger observes, The Pope signed his confession faith, "John, Bishop of the Catholic Church. No pretentious titles...
But when he abdicated/resigned the Papacy he created a pretentious title, Pope Emeritus, and wore white, and gave apostolic Blessings which The Prefect of the CDF Cardinal Mueller, warned him about because his title and actions were causing confusion amongst the faithful.
Did he change?
Nope, simple for thee but not for me seems to be his attitude.
On page 27, he displayed his pro-modernism plumage, We shall have occasion later to show in more detail how the anti-modernist neurosis which had again and again crippled the Church since the turn of the century here seemed to be approaching a cure.
Yes the actions of faithful Popes in opposing the manifest evils of modernism is considered by Ratzinger to be a mental illness that crippled the Church.
That is one of the reasons he vacated previous Papal Encyclicals having to do with modernism and the problems of Church - State relations.
Page 32, Ratzinger begins to tear into and eviscerate the Holy Holocaust in favor of its protestantising; The liturgy of the word had to be restored; the proclamation of the word once more had to call and speak to man. The dialogical nature of the whole liturgical celebration and its essence as the common derive of the People of God had to be once more fully emphasized....
There is and will be a stronger emphasis of the Word as an element of equal value with the sacrament.
Yes. That is what he believed. He thought reading from the Bible was equal to the action of Jesus- as both Priest and Victim - in the Holy Holocaust.
Has Pope Francis said anything that equals this Protestant ideology?
Maybe he has but I don't remember it.
This seems like a good time to end part 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Check with your doctor