Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass

[Stone]

Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass
Ratzinger’s Spurious Pretexts for Rejecting Scholasticism
Taken from here. [Emphasis mine]

Joseph Ratzinger thought that the rejection of Scholasticism was “a justified and necessary step”1 on the following grounds:

• He found its “crystal-clear logic” problematic;2
  
• It was too “rigid,” “too closed within itself;3
  
• It “had to get out of its armour,4
  
• It was possessed by an “evil spirit” which produced “a narrow Scholastic orthodoxy;”5
  
• “Too impersonal and ready-made;”6
  
• Too “far removed from the real world;”7
  
• It needed Vatican II to “take it out of its box and expose it to the fresh air of today’s life;”8
  
• Its rational approach to faith failed to produce certitude;9
  
• His own theological formation came only from “the Bible and the Fathers.”10
  

Always ‘wanted out of classical Thomism’

Given that all these criticisms were the stock in trade of mid-20th-century progressivist theologians, it is clear that Ratzinger was keen to join in the campaign of vilification of Scholasticism.

When we consider the reasons, listed above, why Ratzinger – in his own words – “wanted out of classical Thomism” (not that he was ever in it) with a view “to entering into a living conversation with contemporary philosophy,”11 the conclusion suggests itself that he was a revolutionary inciting others also to revolt against the Scholastic system.


Examples of Vatican II ‘thought control’

Let us examine each of Ratzinger’s points.

First, his objections to clarity: He makes this admirable and essential quality sound like something undesirable and worthless. Shortly after Vatican II, he published a work in German on the last session of the Council.12 In it, he mentioned the preparatory documents that had been thrown out – principally, it must be remembered, on his own insistence – precisely because they were based on Scholastic thinking drawn from the Manuals.

Congar, right, admits he met with Ratzinger to ‘discuss & agree upon a tactic against the theological schemata’

Paradoxically, he complained that the clear formulations expressed in these documents were imprisoned in the inner kernel of the Scholastic system, so that the more they shone with the light of clarity, the more they lost touch with reality. This would not, however, make any sense to a person trained in Scholastic methods of reasoning. To eschew clarity is to open the door to ambiguity, yet God created the human mind specifically to attain knowledge of the Truth by apprehending reality.

Reading Ratzinger’s publication, one is entitled to express astonishment that a Prelate, who served as Prefect of the CDF and rose to the position of Supreme Pontiff, represents a situation in which the opposite of what is normal or expected prevails – here one is reminded of Alice’s adventures in Through the Looking-Glass – and where clarity, objectivity and truth are to be avoided, and reality is discernible only in terms favored by progressivist theologians.

Well may it be said that the “New Theology” presents a “Looking-Glass” image of the Church, with everything reversed, whether it be the ends of marriage, the status of the clergy and laity, the objective and the subjective, or the whole of the Christian order in relation to the world. That is, of course, the revolutionary logic and legacy of Vatican II, which could only have been implemented once the Church had first rid herself of the “Manualist tradition.”

In the same publication, Ratzinger singled out for special criticism the teaching on marriage ethics based on the Natural Law which he (and other neo-modernists) believed to be an antiquated notion. His approach to the latter topic will be treated in more detail later.

Ratzinger’s critique of clarity is not without significance, considering that the key to the “success” of the new Vatican II documents (which replaced the original, clearly expressed ones) was precisely the fact that doctrine was not stated clearly in them, leaving the concept of reality open to diverse interpretations. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that in the post-Vatican II Church ‒ from which the “Manualist tradition” has been banished ‒ reality means something different to each person and to the same person at different points in his life. That is because the Church’s leaders no longer speak with an authoritative voice that brings with it any conviction apart from personal preference.

As for the negative connotation of Scholasticism as a “rigid” and “closed” system, again the mirror image pertains. There are no grounds for believing, as Ratzinger contended, that it is “far removed from the real world”; if it appears “rigid,” it is because it deals with truths that are immutable, and concepts that are true always, everywhere and for everyone; if it appears “closed,” it is only because its propositions are confined within the limits of logical reasoning and orthodox doctrine. The universality and rationality of Scholasticism are valuable assets, which is why it can be regarded as having been an important and influential intellectual movement in the history of Western thought.

The real problem is with the “New Theology” which is open to the influence of every passing philosophy in its bid to conform to modern trends of thought. And in the wake of this openness to a flood of unorthodox ideas, most of the Church’s spiritual leaders have closed their minds to the truths of the Catholic Faith as contained and explicated in the “Manualist tradition.”

Ratzinger: ‘No!’ to the erudition of St. Thomas for being ‘impersonal’

Equally misplaced is Ratzinger’s criticism of Scholasticism as “impersonal and ready-made.” A relevant point here is that most Catholics today know nothing of Thomistic Scholasticism – not least because they have had it taken away from them – and would not know how much credibility to grant to the allegations made against it, let alone how to counter such criticisms. So they are easily convinced that they must believe all that they are being told by Church leaders who have contributed to the demise of Scholasticism through their corrosive criticism and use of loaded terms.

The expression “impersonal” is one such term; it is commonly understood as lacking in personal warmth and empathy, even tending towards being inhumane in the face of human suffering. All the Conciliar Popes from John XXIII to Benedict XVI, followed by Francis, have capitalized on this interpretation in order to counteract the stern and “forbidding” image of the Church by softening the rigidities of the Moral Law and ending anathemas. This skewed outlook finds its expression in the philosophy of “Personalism,” and was introduced into Church life by John Paul II who himself was imbued with its false principles.

All the Vatican II documents were written from a “personalist” angle, and this approach is seen in the pastoral tone of the Council. Anything “ready-made,” such as precisely defined dogmas or lists of sins, is frowned upon. The flaw in the argument is that in order for the Christian way of life to make sense, we cannot do without “ready-made” absolute standards, and these are provided not only in the Divine and Natural Law as listed in the Decalogue, but also in the law of logical coherence and non-contradiction found in the Manuals.

After Vatican II, Catholics deprived of objective, absolute standards were thrown upon their emotions, and began to say “I feel” instead of “I believe,” “I choose” instead of “I obey,” “I want” instead of “I must conform to God’s Holy Law.” It is the triumph of the will over the intellect, and the primacy of emotion over Truth, and subjective fancy over reality.


To be continued


1. Lorenzo Prezzi and Marcello Matte, ‘Interview with Cardinal Ratzinger’, 30 Days, April 1994, p. 62.
2. J. Ratzinger, Milestones, p. 44.
3. Ibid.
4. J. Ratzinger, Salt of the earth : Christianity and the Catholic Church at the end of the millennium, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997, p. 73.
5. J. Ratzinger, The Nature and Mission of Theology: Essays to Orient Theology in Today’s Debates, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995: “After the evil spirit of a narrow Scholastic orthodoxy has been driven out, in the end seven much more wicked spirits return in its place.”
6. Lorenzo Prezzi and Marcello Matte, op. cit., p. 62.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. J. Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance, trans. Henry Taylor, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004, p. 136
10. Benedict XVI with Peter Seewald, Last Testament, p. 134.
11. Ibid., p. 78.
12. J. Ratzinger, Die letzte Sitzungsperiode des Konzils (The Last Session of the Council), Cologne: J.P. Bachern, 1966, pp. 25-26.

[Stone]

Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass
Scholasticism vs Personalism & Subjectivism
Taken from here. [Emphasis mine]

Following from the previous article (above), this brings us to the next point in Ratzinger’s list of objections – that Scholasticism is out of touch with real life as it is lived in modern times, and that we need a “living,” not a dead theology to address today’s issues. This notion, incidentally, has become a shibboleth among contemporary adherents of the “New Theology.” Their innovations in doctrine are often qualified by the word “living”: a living Magisterium, a living Gospel, a living Ethics, a living Evangelization etc. all presented in contra-distinction to previous Church teaching now considered “dead.”

Fr. Jean Danielou, a perito at Vatican II

A prime example of this outlook is provided by Ratzinger’s colleague, Jean Daniélou SJ, who was an advisor at Vatican II and was later raised to the cardinalate. He stated in the Jesuit journal, Études, that Scholasticism represents a “rupture between theology and life.” 1 The main thrust of his argument – with which Ratzinger was in complete agreement – was that Scholasticism was alien not only to the contemporary philosophical trends but also from the daily life of the People of God. He criticized it for being too objective and for not paying enough attention to the subjective side of human nature. His conclusion was that Scholasticism is incapable of offering them anything of spiritual value, and that what was needed in its place was a theology “entirely engaged in the building up of the body of Christ.” 2 based on “dialogue.”

But the whole point of Scholasticism was to explicate reality, “what is” and “what is not,” and to elucidate the difference between truth and error in doctrine, right and wrong in morality. It is necessarily of enduring value in our age as much as it has always been in the past because it directs the everyday decisions and actions of people’s lives. One cannot come across anything more relevant than that.

Concerning Ratzinger’s dismissal of neo-Scholasticism as a “failure,” it seems that he shared the modernists’ scepticism about the possibility of attaining certitude concerning the Faith:

“It is my view that the neo-scholastic rationalism that was trying to reconstruct the praeambula Fidei, the approach to Faith, with pure rational certainty, by means of rational argument that was strictly independent of any faith, has failed.”3

The praeambula Fidei (the preambles of Faith) are, according to Aquinas, truths about God that can be known using natural reason. In the pre-Vatican II Scholastic tradition, they were presented in strictly demonstrable, propositional form (syllogisms), and formed the basis for Catholic Apologetics. But this approach was rejected by some theologians of the 19th and 20th centuries who preferred a Biblical and personalistic approach.


Newman rewarded by Benedict XVI for undermining Scholasticism

Card. Newman was among the first of these theologians to cast doubt on the efficacy of the Scholastic method to explain the truth, arguing in A Grammar of Assent for a wider, more “personalist” interpretation of the praeambula Fidei to include the evidence of the lived experiences of the majority of Catholics. He evidently felt that most ordinary Catholics lacked the capacity to grasp the reasoning behind the Church’s system of Apologetics even when explained to them by their Pastors in sermons and catechisms. This opinion was as patronizing as it was offensive: it suggests that Catholics in general, being untrained in Scholastic theology, are so bereft of reasoning powers that they are incapable of understanding what lies outside their own lives and feelings.

Card. Newman was against Scholasticism

This line of thinking leads naturally to the conclusion that they must only be given explanations of the Faith that are “meaningful” and relevant to their everyday experiences. It also facilitates the rise of subjectivism within modern Church teaching, and explains the unwarranted importance given to depth psychology in the Vatican II documents.

It was an approach to the Faith that commended itself to modernists and progressivists, including Pope Benedict who raised Newman to the status of a canonized “Saint.”

The Scholastic Method Ably Defended

But this is a misunderstanding of the nature of Scholasticism and was ably refuted by an early 20th century Jesuit theologian, Fr. John O’Fallon Pope:

“Scholastic Theology does not seek to rationalize Faith by undermining or supplanting its formal object and by explaining its material object away, but to strengthen Faith by indirectly confirming it, by showing how compatible it is with our rational nature, and by enhancing and multiplying the inducements to believe.” 4

Pope Pius XII denounced those who dismiss Scholasticism as being “devoid of true certainty because it is based on theological reasoning,” and went on to demonstrate that “this philosophy, acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakeable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality and finality, and finally the mind’s ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth”. (Humani generis, 1950, §§ 17, 29)

Ratzinger, however, appealed for support to the theologian, Karl Barth, who represented the classical Protestant view on this issue:

“Karl Barth was right when he rejected philosophy as a basis for faith that is independent of faith itself; for in that case, our faith would in the end be based on changing philosophical theories.” 5

But the premise of this argument is false because it misses the point. First, no one can be expected to be intellectually convinced of the rationality of the faith by merely circular reasoning (“Faith Alone”). That way leads to fideism. (Karl Barth maintained his commitment to this fundamental tenet of the Protestant Reformation). In order to demonstrate the objective truth of Catholic doctrine by an appeal to reason, it is necessary to have a rational, scientific explanation that is independent of faith itself. For this purpose, the pre-Vatican II Church had not made indiscriminate use of changing philosophical theories, but of the particular science of Aristotelian metaphysics.

Thomism must ‘be made the basis of sacred science’

Pius X explained that Thomistic Philosophy must “be made the basis of sacred science” i.e. theology:

“We will and ordain that … on this philosophical foundation the theological edifice is to be solidly raised.” (Pascendi, 1907, §§ 45, 46)

In the same breath, the Pope warned of the grave consequences of neglecting metaphysics:

“Let professors remember that they cannot set St. Thomas aside especially in metaphysical questions without grave detriment.”

Let us note in passing that his warning was almost universally ignored after Vatican II, and was often paid lip service to in some seminaries before the Council. As for the Council itself, it makes no mention of metaphysics in any of its documents.

Besides, it was not just any philosophy in contention. The pre-Vatican II Popes were unanimous in their view that sound theology must be based on sound philosophy. Pope Leo XIII, for example, quoting his 16th century predecessor, Sixtus V, commended Scholasticism as the quintessential science of theological reasoning that ensures a correct understanding of the Faith in harmony with what the Church has always taught:

“The knowledge and use of so salutary a science, which flows from the fertilizing founts of the sacred writings, the Sovereign Pontiffs, the holy Fathers and the Councils, must always be of the greatest assistance to the Church, whether with the view of really and soundly understanding and interpreting the Scriptures, or more safely and to better purpose reading and explaining the Fathers, or for exposing and refuting the various errors and heresies.” (Aeterni Patris, 1879, § 15)

No wonder that Protestant theologians shunned that kind of Scholasticism and Catholic ecumenists have been eager to bury it.

The ‘Ressourcement’ Theologians Rely Only on Their Own Opinions

Finally, we come to the last reason why Ratzinger eschewed Scholasticism: He was part of the progressivist group of theologians who formed the “ressourcement” movement which based theology directly on the Bible and the Church Fathers. This involved rethinking and reformulating the Faith by reinterpreting the Bible and the Church Fathers. The futility of such an exercise undertaken in contra-distinction to Scholasticism is evident from the fact that it gives no guarantee of certitude, no “safe” criteria by which we may judge the orthodoxy of the new interpretations of the Bible and the Fathers.

We cannot rely on the “ressourcement” movement, however, as a source of certitude, as it furnished only the personal insights and opinions of progressivist theologians. Their subjectivist approach has succeeded only in confirming people in their own personal beliefs and sowing doctrinal confusion and theological disorientation. Instead of an intellectually rigorous approach, they have given us woolly-minded and sentimental concepts in which everything – even Revelation itself – has to be seen from a “dialogue” point of view. In our day, however, “dialogue” is simply a camouflage for downplaying the unique claims of the Catholic Church, and is used as a replacement for proselytism and condemnation of doctrinal errors.

When we reflect that no other period of Church History has witnessed a concerted, hostile reaction to Scholasticism supported by her own leaders, we are prompted to look behind the pretexts given by progressivist theologians to find the real reasons for their rejection of Scholasticism: They were convinced, in their hubris, that they were capable of forging a new and better truth than that expressed in the Manuals.


To be continued

Footnotes:

1. Jean Daniélou SJ, "Les orientations présentes de la pensée religieuse," Études, vol. 249, 1946, p. 6.
2. Ibid., p. 17.
3. J. Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance, p. 136.
4. J J. O’Fallon Pope, SJ, “A Plea for Scholastic Theology.” Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 5, n. 18, 5. Jan. 1904, p. 177. Fr. O’Fallon Pope (1850-1934) was Master of Campion Hall, University of Oxford, from 1900 to 1915.
5. Ibid.

[Stone]

Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass

Ratzinger’s Anti-Scholastic Legacy

Taken from here. [Emphasis mine]

Ratzinger was one of the progressivist theologians of the 20th century who sought alternative explanations for the Eucharistic Presence that would enable them to move beyond the strictures of Thomistic Metaphysics so as to satisfy the requirements of the modern world and especially the demands of the Ecumenical Movement. In order to achieve these aims, the perennially valid formulations of the Council of Trent would have to be discarded on the grounds that they are incomprehensible in the world of modern science and “ecumenical fraternity.”

Before looking at Ratzinger’s contribution to aggiornamento in the area of Eucharistic theology, a timely reminder of an almost forgotten papal encyclical is in order – Mysterium Fidei (1965) issued by Paul VI just before the closing of Vatican II. In it, he stated that “it is not permissible … to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent had to say about the marvellous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ.” (§ 11)

To illustrate his point about the necessity of using the correct terminology “regarding faith in the most sublime things” he quoted the stern warning of St. Augustine (City of God, X, 23) on this matter:

“But we have to speak in accordance with a fixed rule, so that a lack of restraint in speech on our part may not give rise to some irreverent opinion about the things represented by the words.” (§ 23)

The problem for Ratzinger (who claimed to be a devotee of St. Augustine) was that using fixed formulas was not acceptable: he preferred, as we shall see, to let his imagination range freely over ways to describe the “Mystery of Faith” that would appeal to modern man.

Here the wisdom of St. Augustine puts the lie to Vatican II’s false dichotomy between true doctrine and the language in which it is expressed. The correct wording was always considered essential by the Church so as to guarantee the true meaning of transubstantiation, as Mysterium Fidei affirms:

“And so the rule of language which the Church has established through the long labor of centuries, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and which she has confirmed with the authority of the Councils, and which has more than once been the watchword and banner of orthodox faith, is to be religiously preserved, and no one may presume to change it at his own pleasure or under the pretext of new knowledge. Who would ever tolerate that the dogmatic formulas used by the ecumenical councils for the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation be judged as no longer appropriate for men of our times, and let others be rashly substituted for them? In the same way, it cannot be tolerated that any individual should on his own authority take something away from the formulas which were used by the Council of Trent to propose the Eucharistic Mystery for our belief”. (§ 24)

We will now consider to what extent – or whether at all – Ratzinger met the requirements of Mysterium Fidei on the subject of transubstantiation. One might be tempted to think that all is well because he used the term transubstantiation on more than one occasion as, for example in his 2003 book, God is Near Us.1

How he wanted this to be understood, however, is shrouded in confusion, for only two pages earlier he had referred the reader to Edward Schillebeeckx’s Die Eucharistische Gegenwart (1967) in support of his argument. Schillebeeckx proposed “transignification” – which was specifically condemned by Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei (§ 11) – to replace transubstantiation because he believed that the “ontological dimension … may indeed be open to an interpretation that is different from that of Scholasticism.”2

Therein lies the rub. The word substance in Scholastic Metaphysics has a different meaning from the same term used in modern physics. So, even when progressivist theologians use the word transubstantiation, there is no guarantee of conformity with Catholic doctrine. In their lexicon it could and often does mean that what changes during the Consecration is not the substance (understood in Scholastic terms) of the bread and wine, but their meaning for the recipient.

Despite Ratzinger stating a different doctrine, Paul VI made him a Cardinal

Ratzinger took advantage of the development of lexical semantics in modern times to justify getting rid of Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents that had served the Church for centuries, suggesting that they were no longer serviceable:

“In the course of the development of philosophical thought and natural sciences, the concept of substance has essentially changed (‘essenzialmente mutato’), as has the conception of what, in Aristotelian thought, had been designated by ‘accident.’ The concept of substance, which had previously been applied to every reality consistent in itself, was increasingly referred to what is physically elusive: to the molecule, to the atom and to elementary particles, and today we know that they too do not represent an ultimate ‘substance,’ but rather a structure of relationships. With this arose a new task for Christian philosophy. The fundamental category of all reality in general terms is no longer substance, but rather relationship.”3

As is customary with neo-Modernist “explanations,” confusion reigns. The Aristotelian categories belong to the Church’s “perennial philosophy” and have never “essentially changed,” so they are still valid and useful for today and in the future. They remain unaffected by whatever advances are made in the domain of science.


Martin Buber’s Personalism & the ‘theology of relationship’

Ratzinger’s emphasis on a theology of “relationship” rather than of “being” as a means of explaining the nature of God illustrates the dangers of departing from Scholastic Metaphysics. He described God in “personalist” terms as a relationship, but without directing the human intellect to knowing Him as the source of Truth, or the necessity of first bringing our minds in tune with objective reality before we can experience any true relationships with God or one another.

Martin Buber, anarchist & utopian

We see here a similarity with the “relationship theory” of the Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber, whom Ratzinger, in his own words, “revered very much … as the great representative of Personalism, the I-Thou principle.”4 He stated on several occasions that Buber exerted a profound influence on him. Let us examine what kind of influence this was.

Buber was a religious anarchist with utopian ideas for a radical revolution in society along communistic lines. His ideas, transposed to the political sphere, made him hugely popular among Left-wing, liberal Catholics. His great appeal was that he rejected all power-relationships and structures exercising authority in the sense that there should be no moral domination of one person over another. One could say that in some respects Buber’s spiritual anarchism went hand in glove with the Vatican II-inspired image of the “inverted pyramid.” As a result of co-opting Buber’s philosophy of Personalism, Ratzinger allowed socialist and anarchist ideas to infiltrate the Catholic Church.


A new Eucharistic theology

If we were wondering why, whenever Ratzinger broached the question of transubstantiation in his own theological writings, he failed to give an adequate account of the concept as required by Mysterium Fidei, the explanation comes from a firsthand source – his own words:

“We can note with gratitude that in the past century we have been given a new and far-reaching starting point, also from an ecumenical perspective, for an in-depth theology of the Eucharist, which certainly still needs to be further meditated, lived and suffered.”5 [Emphasis added]

The reference to a new starting point for Eucharistic theology is difficult to square with his previously touted “hermeneutic of continuity,” and is an admission of doctrinal change for the sake of “ecumenism.” It is obvious that this theology did not come from Tradition. His reference to the past century locates the source of the new ideas in the “New Theology” which brought Neo-Modernism into the Church and installed it in a place of honor at Vatican II.

This made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for anyone who adopted the new Eucharistic theology – and Ratzinger did so, as he said, “with gratitude” – to pass on the Church’s traditional teaching about the Eucharist in a recognizably Catholic way, even if they inwardly accepted it.

For example, in the following passage taken from his book, God Is Near Us, Ratzinger gives the following account of what happens at the Consecration:

“There is something new there that was not before. Knowing about a transformation is part of the most basic Eucharistic faith. Therefore it cannot be the case that the Body of Christ comes to add itself to the bread, as if bread and Body were two similar things that could exist as two ‘substances,’ in the same way, side by side. Whenever the Body of Christ, that is, the risen and bodily Christ, comes, he is greater than the bread, other, not of the same order.

“The transformation happens, which affects the gifts we bring by taking them up into a higher order and changes them, even if we cannot measure what happens. When material things are taken into our body as nourishment, or for that matter whenever any material becomes part of a living organism, it remains the same, and yet as part of a new whole it is itself changed. Something similar happens here. The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different.”6

Ratzinger’s God is Near Us blends Lutheranism with Catholicism

He stops short, however, of saying exactly in what the difference consists. We can see how he typically advances towards the truth then, as one does in a sailboat, repositions his sails to alter course, tacking backwards and forwards between Catholic and Lutheran positions, but never manages to reach the whole truth. The only certainty that can be gleaned from this mishmash of confused and confusing ideas is that, whatever boat the future Pope was sailing in, it was not the Barque of Peter; he was steering it towards the shoals of “ecumenism” without articulating a coherent account of the central truth of transubstantiation. The reformulation of words in the passage is of the greatest significance. None of the words used by Ratzinger in relation to the Eucharist, such as transubstantiation, transformation, change, conversion etc, is used in a way that has been traditionally understood. They only retain the outer cover of the traditional meanings.

This is clearly the case in the following excerpt from a book written by Pope Benedict in his twilight years, which he requested to be published after his death:

“Transubstantiation, not consubstantiation, means transformation, conversio and not just addition. This statement extends far beyond the offerings and fundamentally tells us what Christianity is: it is the transformation of our lives, the transformation of the world as a whole into a new existence.”7

According to this model which smacks of Teilhardianism and Vatican II’s idea of the Eucharist as the “sacrament of the world,” the emphasis is no longer on the Real Presence but has shifted to the people and their role in transforming themselves and the world.


To be continued


1. J. Ratzinger, God Is Near Us, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003, p. 87.
2. Edward Schillebeeckx, The Eucharist, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968, p. 84.
3. Benedict XVI, Che Cos’è il Cristianesimo?, p. 130 (online version)
4. Benedict XVI, Last Testament, p. 99.
5. Benedict XVI, Che Cos’è il Cristianesimo?, p. 133.
6. J. Ratzinger, God Is Near Us, p.86.
7. Benedict XVI, Che Cos’è il Cristianesimo?, p. 132.

[Stone]

Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass

Ratzinger’s Lutheran Doctrine on the Real Presence

Taken from here. [Emphasis mine - Italics in the original.]

“Nam et loquela tua manifestum te facit”: (Matt.26:73) (Even your speech gives you away)

Ratzinger’s objection to the “crystal clear” language of Scholasticism, coupled with his inveterate scorn for the “Manualist tradition,” suggests an intention (shared by all the neo-modernists) to detach himself not only from the form of Catholic theology, but also from its substance. That intention was deftly camouflaged in Pope John XXIII’s Opening Speech of the Council with his well-known platitude:

“The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented, with the same meaning and judgment, is another.”

But if the substance of the Faith has no essential relation to the way it is presented, i.e., to the language in which it is expressed, as John XXIII’s aphorism seems to imply, we cannot even begin to talk about the “same meaning and judgment” because there would be no objective linguistic criteria with which to establish what is true or not true. We would simply lose the capacity to transmit with certainty the ontological truth about “being” (“what is”) – especially the Supreme Being (“I Am”, Exodus 3:14) – and its meaning.

John XXIII opening Vatican II

This is precisely where Scholasticism comes in – to provide the Church with a universal standard of expression with which she can present the immutable Truth in a logical and coherent manner regardless of time or place. With the demise of Scholasticism, it is obvious that we have become the mere playthings of theologians and reformers who wish to impose their own meanings through the use of language calculated to manipulate our minds.

It was common practice among progressivist theologians at the Council, including Fr. Ratzinger, to reject the original schemas which had been prepared by their conservative counterparts. In reformulating the language of the schema on the Constitution of the Church, for example, Ratzinger showed his determination not to keep to the same meaning as the original document:

“The new text describes the relationship between the Church and non-Catholic Christians without speaking of ‘membership.’ By shedding this terminological armour, the text acquired a much wider scope.” 1

As a theologian, Ratzinger shared much in common with his fellow neo-modernists of the Vatican II era in his aversion to the “fixed formulas” of Scholasticism on a whole range of substantial truths of Catholicism relating to the concept of “being.” These included the traditional teaching on the Real Presence, the nature of the Church as a monarchical institution, Revelation as definitively closed, the indissolubility of marriage and other defined dogmas which are unacceptable especially to Protestants. Ratzinger’s scepticism on all these issues is documented at various points throughout these articles.

Because of the seriousness of the subject, and the desire to be scrupulously accurate, we will take the original source of Ratzinger’s statements as written in the German versions, before they were somewhat laundered in later translations. The emphasis will be placed not on what he himself personally believed – this is difficult to ascertain because of the ambiguities and circumlocutions of his style – but on the content of his statements and how he presented them.


The Real Presence

Of all the areas of Catholic doctrine in which the absence of Scholastic thinking is most keenly felt, it must surely be the doctrine of the Real Presence. When Paul VI published his Encyclical Mysterium Fidei in 1965, he recognized that there was a crisis of belief in the Eucharist, especially in the Real Presence. He laid the blame in large part at the door of those who in spoken and written word “spread abroad opinions which disturb the faithful and fill their minds with no little confusion about matters of faith.” (§ 10)

The situation could not be more ironic: one of the theologians in question, a young academic named Fr. Joseph Ratzinger (who would eventually become one of Paul VI’s successors) was at that time busy spreading confusion about the Real Presence with subtle and convoluted theories. In 1966, Ratzinger wrote the following:

“Eucharistic adoration or the silent visit in a church cannot reasonably be just a conversation with the God who is thought [sic] to be locally present in a confined space. Statements like ‘God lives here’ and the conversation with the God who is thought [sic] to be locally present in this way express a misunderstanding of the Christological mystery such as the concept of God, which necessarily repels the thinking person who knows about God’s omnipresence.

"If one wanted to justify going to church by saying that one had to visit the God who is only present there, then this would in fact be a reason that made no sense, and would be rightly rejected by modern people.” 2

Paul VI made Ratzinger a Cardinal although he spread doubts on the Real Presence

The whole passage raises a question which should never occur to a true Catholic: Is Christ really present in the tabernacle, or just thought by some to be there? In other words, is the Real Presence just a figment of some people’s imagination? These remarks, first published in 1966, inevitably caused a certain amount of scandal amongst the faithful, and there was a backlash of outraged criticism of their author. Nowadays, they are more likely to be greeted with shrug of indifference.

In response, Ratzinger tried to justify himself in a later publication, God is near us, by saying that there had been “a misapprehension” by his critics, and that his remarks do not deny the Real Presence or oppose adoration.3 However, in the normal understanding of his words, they certainly seemed to imply both.

Fr Faber, a champion & defender of the Real Presence

Furthermore, the passage ignores what the Church has taught about the unique status of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. It has always been believed that, although God is everywhere (and had been so before the Incarnation), He is sacramentally present in the Eucharist in the fullness of His corporeal nature (Body and Blood) as well in His spiritual nature (Soul and Divinity).

The 19th-century Oratorian priest, Fr. Frederick William Faber, for example, had no difficulty in accepting the presence of the “Eternal, Incomprehensible, Almighty Word who is everywhere and yet fixed there,” yet Who chooses to reside in “the quiet modesty of the Blessed Sacrament.” 4 It is not just modern man who rejects this teaching – the initial complaint (John 6:61) against it has been reiterated since Our Lord’s times: “This is intolerable language. Who could accept it?”


Transubstantiation is not a subject for ‘dialogue’

Pope Benedict XVI later reformulated the doctrine of transubstantiation in terms that not only eviscerated the Eucharist of its meaning but, on more than one occasion, strayed into the Protestant camp, if his words are to be judged according to the solemn definition of the Council of Trent.

During his tenure of the papal office, for instance, he wrote a trilogy on Jesus of Nazareth (reviews here and here), making a point of publishing it under his own name; he explained the reason in the Preface to Volume 1: It was “in no way a magisterial act, but rather an expression of my personal search ‘for the face of the Lord.’ (Ps 27:8)” 5 (N.B. the numbering of the Psalm does not correspond to the traditional Douay-Rheims edition of the Bible, but adopts the Protestant version for “ecumenical” reasons).

He wanted it to be known that he was only speaking as a simple believer, Joseph Ratzinger, a Christian, to anyone who might wish to listen, adding that “everyone is free to disagree with me.” So, having eschewed the papal Tiara, he now laid aside his papal mitre. In this capacity, he dropped the following bombshell:

“The so-called institution account, that is, the words and gestures with which Jesus gave Himself to the disciples in bread and wine, forms the core of the tradition of the Lord’s Supper.” 6 [Emphasis added]

Ratzinger's notion of Eucharist is Lutheran - Above, Luther giving communion to John the Steadfast

The formulation is undeniably Lutheran, being an expression of consubtantiation, which posits that Christ is substantially present with and in the bread and wine.7 In case of any doubt about the precise words that Ratzinger used, one can refer to the original German version which shows an exact correspondence with the correct English translation as given above.8

It is interesting to note that when the official translation was produced by the Vatican Secretariat of State, someone must have baulked at reproducing the heretical content of the original German version. So the italicized words were changed to “in the form of bread and wine.” This “improved” though still inadequate version may not sound as bad as the original, but, to do justice to Trent and Mysterium Fidei, the correct terminology is “under the appearances of bread and wine.”

Still, the theology behind the original version is of Lutheran inspiration, which has clearly influenced the creation of the Novus Ordo Mass. Some Catholic priests who have converted from Protestantism have been known to point out the similarities, to their dismay, as have many Lutherans, to their delight.

As for the ordinary faithful who attend the Novus Ordo Mass, the effects of discarding the correct terminology have been devastating for the continuity of the Faith. It has become second nature among so-called Eucharistic ministers charged with distributing Communion during Mass to discuss – and even squabble over – whose turn it is to “give out the bread” or “do the wine.” Some of the officially approved Communion hymns sung during the Novus Ordo Mass speak of “sharing bread and wine” and “Let us break bread together” and “drink wine together.”


To be continued


1. Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, New York: Paulist Press, p. 66.
2. J. Ratzinger, Die Sakramentale Begründung Christlicher Existenz (The Sacramental Foundation of Christian Existence), Kyrios: Freising-Meitingen, 1966, pp. 26-27.
3. J. Ratzinger, God is Near Us: the Eucharist, the Heart of Life, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003, p. 91, Footnote 11.
4. Frederick William Faber, The Blessed Sacrament, or, the works and ways of God, Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1855, p. 125.
5. J. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth Part 1, From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, trans. Adrian Walker, New York and London: Doubleday, 2007, p. xxiii.
6. J. Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, Part 2, Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, trans. Philip Whitmore, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011, p. 115.
7. According to the Lutheran Formula of Concord § 38, their concept of the real presence is understood to be “in pane, sub pane, cum pane”, (in the bread, under the bread, with the bread).
8. J. Ratzinger, Jesus von Nazareth: Beiträge zur Christologie (Contributions to Christology), Part 2, Freiburg: Herder, 2008, p. 135: “Der sogenannte Einsetzungsbericht, das heißt die Worte und die Gesten, mit denen Jesus in Brot und Wein sich selbst den Jüngern gab, bildet den Kern der Abendmahls-Überlieferung.”

[Stone]

Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass
A Predictable Crisis of Eucharistic Faith

Taken from here. [Emphasis mine.]

The widespread loss of belief in the Real Presence has been amply documented in the well-known 2010 Pew Survey of Religious Knowledge in the United States, which asked participants what they thought “best described the Catholic teaching” on this issue. This revealed some unsurprising results.

The large majority of self-described Catholics believed that the consecrated species were just symbols of Christ’s Presence among them, and half of them were not even aware of the Church’s official teaching regarding Transubstantiation. More recent follow-up surveys showed no significant improvement in the situation.

A progressivist Eucharistic Adoration; another here; below, a cold barren side chapel in a Novus Ordo church

Realizing that there was a growing sense of unease among the faithful that there was something wrong with the liturgical reforms, Joseph Ratzinger (as Pope Benedict) reversed himself on the subject of visits to the Blessed Sacrament, and started to produce documents praising this ancient practice together with other forms of Eucharistic adoration. An example can be found in Sacramentum Caritatis (2007) §§ 67-68.

But by then it was too little, too late. After two generations of post-Vatican II reforms, it is almost impossible to erase errors that have become entrenched in the minds of the Catholic faithful, clergy and laity alike, or to shake them out of their now ingrained habits of thought.

We can see an example of the latter in the reform of Friday abstinence from meat which was made no longer obligatory: When attempts were made to restore it decades later, many Catholics, long accustomed to thinking of Tradition as part of a dead past, found the theology on which it was based incomprehensible, and simply ignored it.

Similarly with the half-hearted attempts to re-introduce Benediction or Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in some parishes, these initiatives have become hostages to fortune. They cannot be guaranteed to succeed to any significant extent in renewing Eucharistic fervor, for the clergy have generally lost a sense of the sacred.

This cannot simply be reinstated automatically or wished into existence without creating an atmosphere of confusion and incoherence among priests and people who have grown accustomed through lifelong practice to treating the Sacrament with disrespect.

In the modern-style Benediction, there is no consistent arrangement in liturgical practice, so that its connection with Tradition is lost and the ceremony is robbed of its significance. It is often improvised in a variety of methods and languages, with or without a monstrance, using a large or a small Host, and even performed in the presence of people talking to one another while engaged in an entirely unrelated activity.

Similarly with Exposition, the arrangements are not conducive to adoration. In some churches the monstrance is placed in an unadorned room on a low coffee table, on the same level as the people. No kneelers are provided. The people sit on chairs that are arranged in two rows so that they can directly face one another instead of the Blessed Sacrament.

Such is the nonchalance surrounding the modern practice that, when the last person leaves, the exposed Sacrament is left unattended. This scenario, which is now accepted practice, would have deeply shocked pre-Vatican II Catholics, yet is often reported as happening, especially in city centre churches.


Ratzinger’s contribution to the crisis

The Foreword of volume 2 of the trilogy, Jesus of Nazareth, confirms where Ratzinger’s true interests lie – not in upholding Catholic doctrine in clearly comprehensible terms, but in crafting new formulations that mislead Lutherans into thinking that their idea of the Eucharist is fundamentally compatible with Catholic doctrine, or at least not too distant from it.

A significant point to note is how Benedict treats non-Catholic ecumenists as equals, even friends, in religion, with the implication that they do not need evangelization in Catholic doctrine. With reference to the Lutheran theologian, Joachim Ringleben, who had recently published a scholarly book entitled Jesus, Ratzinger described it as an “ecumenical companion” to his own, and gave it equal theological weight:

“It is my hope that these two books, both in their differences and in their essential common ground, can offer an ecumenical witness that, at the present time and in its own way, can serve the fundamental common task of Christians.”

Benedict XVI in Erfurt greeting Protestant Nikolaus Schneider after presenting Luther as a model

This joint venture in “ecumenism” is an example of how the “New Evangelization” adopted after Vatican II replaced the traditional evangelization which emphasizes Truth over heresy.

Still on the subject of the two books, Ratzinger stated that “despite the differing theological viewpoints, it is the same faith that is at work” and that “a profound unity emerges in the essential understanding of the person of Jesus and His message.” But it is not a question of differing “viewpoints.” In conflating Catholic and Protestant beliefs, he was inviting us to believe that what are in reality two opposing concepts of the Faith are simply two different perceptions of the same reality.

His presuppositions are not supported by any evidence that Protestants actually believe in Christ as He is in reality i.e. in the Blessed Sacrament. Although some Protestants believe in what they term the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist, it is not meant in the same sense as understood in Catholic teaching. Besides, how this “profound unity” is possible between Catholics and Protestants, when Protestants are not even united among themselves, was never explained. It seems that Ratzinger simply wished it into existence.

The root of the problem here, as with much of Ratzinger’s theology, lies in the abandonment of Scholastic metaphysics: Having consciously expunged it from his early philosophical education, he had no further use for it in his intellectual career. This fact, coupled with Vatican II’s policy of “ecumenism” (which he himself helped to devise at the Council) explains how easy it was for him to give undue credence to the work of Protestant theologians, and to view the believe of non-Catholics in unrealistically favorable terms.


Corpus Christi

In this spirit, Ratzinger made the following defamatory remark about Trent, blaming it for offending Protestants and thus causing them to cast aspersions on the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist:

“The Council of Trent concludes its remarks on Corpus Christi with something that offends our ecumenical ears and has doubtless contributed not a little toward discrediting this feast in the opinion of our Protestant brethren. But if we purge its formulation of the passionate tone of the 16th century, we shall be surprised by something great and positive.”1

Ratzinger’s harsh criticism contains a rebuke to the Catholic Church for her “passionate” defence of her own Faith, while conciliating Protestants who were, and still are, equally passionate in their condemnation of Catholic devotion to the Blessed Sacrament as nothing other than superstition and idolatry.


A reality check

The salient feature of Ratzinger’s ecclesiastical career, illustrated in his various official roles – Council peritus, Professor, Archbishop, Cardinal, Prefect and Pope – is that he was always searching for a “new synthesis” of religious expression incorporating insights from sources outside Catholicism. He would then combine the disparate elements to form something new that, whatever else it might be, would, by definition, not be Catholicism.

His decision to reject the Scholastic system as “too narrow” for him to spread his intellectual wings outside the confines of Catholic particularism had unfortunate consequences. It prevented him from consistently upholding the truth and defending the integrity of the Catholic Faith.

Pope Pius XI had taught in Mortalium animos (1928) that there is “one law of belief and one faith of Christians,” and that we should keep “the teachings of Christ whole and uncorrupted.” Ratzinger believed in a fabled “profound unity” among all who call themselves Christian. He was adamant that there should be no requirement for conversion to the Catholic Church after the historic rifts that split Christendom:

“This unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!”2

In these “ecumenical” times, it seems to have been forgotten that the law of belief (lex credendi) is absolute, and admits of no compromise or ambivalence.

Ratzinger, however, started out from a distorted ideological perspective. He was part of an elite clique of theologians – including De Lubac, von Balthasar, Congar and Küng – who adopted positions originally forged in the modernist years and condemned by Pope Pius X. All his colleagues in the “New Theology” shared his aversion to Scholasticism which was a formidable obstacle to the incursion of heretical ideas into the Church. They succeeded in breaking down “ramparts” and erecting new ones out of their own heads to shore up their “New Theology.”

Ratzinger once described his own efforts at the Council to outwit the Scholastic theologians and prevent the original schema on the Constitution of the Church from seeing the light of day. One of his objections concerned the distinction that had always been made between those who were members of the Church, and those who were not.

But when truth conflicts with “ecumenism,” clarity and honesty are cast aside, and the distinction that he acknowledged was “hallowed by long usage in Catholic theology” would have to be muted. With reference to the original schema that had been drawn up with the linguistic precision and rigorous conceptual analysis of the Scholastic system, he explained:

“By shedding this terminological armor, the [replacement] text acquired much wider scope. This made possible a much more positive presentation of the way Christians are related to the Church as well as a positive Christian status for Christians separated from Rome.”4

The battle between Scholasticism and the Neo-Modernism was thus engaged at an official level in the early stages of the Council. Considering Ratzinger’s part in the demise of Scholasticism and his dedication to promoting a false ecumenism one has to ask oneself why anyone would want to surrender a highly efficient method of communicating the Truth for a mess of ecumenical pottage.


To be continued

1. J. Ratzinger, The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986, p. 130. The original German edition was Das Fest des Glaubens: Versuche zur Theologie des Gottesdienstes, Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag, 1981. It is highly significant that the publishing house, Johannes Verlag, was owned by Ratzinger’s colleague, Fr. Urs von Balthasar.
2. Benedict XVI, "Apostolic Journey to Cologne on the occasion of World Youth Day Ecumenical Meeting," August 19, 2005. In the same speech, Benedict clarified his reason for pursuing “ecumenism”: “I wished consciously to follow in the footsteps of two of my great Predecessors: Pope Paul VI, who over 40 years ago signed the conciliar Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio, and Pope John Paul II, who made that Document the inspiration for his activity.”
3. J. Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, New York: Paulist Press, 1966, p. 66.
4. Ibid.

[Stone]

Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass

Ratzinger’s Role in the Rejection of Vatican II Original Documents

Taken from here. [Emphasis mine.]

Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was the personal assistant of Card. Frings of Cologne who was not only a member of the Central Preparatory Committee of the Council, but also President of the West German Episcopal Conference (which, as we have seen in a previous article, was[color=#71101s] the most militant of all the European groups pressing for radical revolution in the Church[/color] from the 1950s).

This piece of background information will be useful to keep in mind when we consider that Card. Frings gave Prof. Ratzinger the task of assessing the original drafts for their suitability to be forwarded to the Council, and of preparing written material that the Cardinal could present orally during the voting sessions.

Card. Frings took Ratzinger under his wings

There is enough evidence from various sources to show that whatever statements the Cardinal made during the Council sessions, he was mostly following (from memory because of his failing eyesight) a script written by the Prof. Ratzinger. Examples are provided by biographers, Peter Seewald and Norbert Trippen.1 The latter identified numerous instances from documentary evidence of Card. Frings’s interventions at the Council as having been written by Ratzinger.

But the clinching piece of evidence comes from Ratzinger himself who described in some detail, without showing any awareness of the comic nature of the situation, the procedure that took place at the German-speaking Anima College in Rome to prepare Frings for his role at the Council. According to his own account, the elderly Cardinal was subjected to several sessions in front of the young Ratzinger, in which he had to memorize a text drawn up and read out to him by Ratzinger, and rehearse it well before delivering it at the Council.2

So, in the interests of transparency, it would be more accurate to attribute Frings’s statements in the aula to the influence of Fr. Ratzinger, even if not everything he said was memorized exactly word for word, and allowing for perhaps some additional twists inserted by the Cardinal himself. To give some examples:


1. Schema on the Sources of Revelation

Fr. Ratzinger rejected the original draft of the schema on the Sources of Revelation in 1962, after it had been approved by the Central Preparatory Commission and Pope John XXIII. To replace it, at least in part, he recommended the schema De Verbo Dei presented by his fellow-progressivist, Card. Bea, President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.

No sound reason for the substitution was given, only the arbitrary judgement by Ratzinger that the new text “deals with the same subject, but in a better way.”3 It is now clear that what he meant by “better” was “more Protestant,” for his own work on the subject of Revelation was an attempt to achieve a reconciliation between Catholic and Lutheran positions.

Card. Augustin Bea, S.J.

The original schema had followed the de Fide teaching of the Church, clearly set out in the Manuals that there are two distinct fonts of Revelation: Scripture and Tradition, by which is meant that the content of the Church’s doctrine is derived from those two sources. But Ratzinger contended that there is only one source of Revelation, the Word of God continually speaking throughout the ages in a never-ending dialogue between God and man.

The new formulation appealed strongly to the neo-modernists who readily accepted Ratzinger’s arguments that the Council of Trent had an “incomplete” conception of Revelation and that its decree was the result of a “compromise” between opposing forces in the debating sessions.4

He concluded that while Revelation, in its “historical and material content,” may be closed, it is nonetheless still open to further interpretation by “theological work today, with its new insight.” In other words, Revelation is both closed and open, and is subject to change. This is a typical example of the use of sophistry to allow two contradictory statements to be true at the same time, and leeway for a reinterpretation of Revelation by an elite cadre of academic theologians (including himself) to be imposed on the rest of the Church.

Where does that leave the content of the Church’s doctrine otherwise known as the Deposit of the Faith? Evidently out in the cold, for it is hardly ever alluded to today. It is not difficult to see how this happened. Neo-modernists have no interest in the actual content of Revelation which consists of supernatural truths proposed to the intellect, and which must be accepted on the authority of God revealing.

Ratzinger saw Revelation as a “speech act” of God that requires a “dialogue partner” (man) before it can be considered “real.” Revelation, it seems, can only attain the status of reality if it comes with “active participation.” This implies that man himself is a constituent part of Revelation, with a determining role in its interpretation and application to changing circumstances of life.

Fr. Ratzinger’s expression reveals both insolence & a strong determination to destroy Tradition

His hypothesis that Revelation receives its validity from man’s response is a superficially plausible but fallacious argument drawn from his own “Personalist” philosophy. St Thomas Aquinas taught that supernatural truth (of which Revelation is composed) exists independently of the person seeking to know it, and that it has an objective, intrinsic value completely outside of human consciousness.

It is not the response of man that gives Revelation its value; it is the truth of Revelation that gives value to man; but it can only do so if it is independent of man. There is, therefore, no “personal” approach to the divinely revealed message available in this life other than to accept those truths that the Church locates either in Scripture or Tradition and that she presents to us as infallibly true in her Ordinary or Universal Magisterium.

In rejecting the original schema on the Sources of Revelation, Ratzinger tried to justify his departure from Catholic orthodoxy on the following grounds:

“The text was … utterly the product of the ‘anti-modernist’ mentality that had taken shape about the turn of the century. The text was written in a spirit of condemnation and negation ... [it] had a frigid and even offensive tone to many of the Fathers … the content of the text was new to no one. It was exactly like dozens of text-books familiar to the Bishops from their seminary days: and in some cases, their former professors were actually responsible for the texts now presented to them.”5

This tells us all we need to know about the anti-traditional basis of Vatican II’s “New Theology” which is represented in all the revised schemata. Ratzinger, as we can see from the above quote, was adamant that the anti-modernist crusade of Pope St. Pius X should be overturned and defeated. His objection to the “spirit of condemnation and negation” (which Pope John XXIII later attributed to the “prophets of doom”) is ironic, considering that he himself employs the same spirit in his own rejection and condemnation of the pre-Conciliar Manuals.

Fr. Henri de Lubac was the main leader of the New Theology & ressourcement, the return to the sources

It is obvious from his reference to a “frigid and even offensive tone to many of the Fathers” that he was concerned only with defending the opinions of the progressivists Bishops at the Council who, by definition, discounted the teaching of the approved Manuals insofar as they reflected the orthodoxy and discipline of the reigning Magisterium. Let us not forget that defending the interests of the progressivists entails trouncing the position of the traditionalist Fathers who had produced the first schemata (and who were greatly shocked by the reformed versions).

Adding insult to injury, he then proceeded to make disparaging remarks about the “Manualist” seminary formation of the traditional Bishops, suggesting that they had been indoctrinated with rigid and antiquated theories.

It seems that this was an oblique way of accusing the teaching of the Magisterium (reflected in the approved theological Manuals) of having taught faulty theology about Revelation in seminaries for centuries.

This impression is strengthened by the fact that Ratzinger was a follower of 20th-century ressourcement theologians led by Fr. Henri de Lubac SJ. Their methodology was to bypass the Manuals and go directly to the Bible and the early Fathers, interpreting them in Protestant style according to their own lights. No wonder the results of their academic research were often opposed to Catholic teaching.


To be continued


1. Peter Seewald, Last Testament, p. 132; Norbert Trippen, Kardinal Frings, vol. 2.
2. J. Ratzinger, ‘Kardinal Frings und das II Vatikanische Konzil’, in Dieter Froitzheim (ed.), Kardinal Frings: Leben und Werk, Cologne: Wienand, 1979, p. 203.
3. Josef Frings/Joseph Ratzinger, Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II: Appendix prima, September 1962, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1983, p. 76: “maior pars schematis De Verbo Dei quondam a Cardinali Bea propositi supponendum videtur, quod eandam materiam meliore tamen modo, tradit.”
4. Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger, Revelation and Tradition, trans. W.J. O’Hara, New York: Herder and Herder, 1966, pp 65-66.
5. Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, New York: Paulist Press.