| Editor: Brother Bruno Bonnet-Eymard | N° 109– October 2011 |
|
LIBER ACCUSATIONIS QUARTUS
FROM JOHN PAUL II TO BENEDICT XVI
In 1988, our Father, Georges de Nantes, wrote: « John Paul II conveys Judaism with his eye fixed on his chimera », that is: « the chimera of a universal brotherhood of the children of God for the year 2000 ».
It is quite simple:
« Christ’s Church, having cast herself, through a first act of infidelity, into the heresy of Religious Liberty to the dubious advantage of any and every religion whatever, now finds herself handed over to the only religion which once had a divine source, to the only one to have possessed some truth and some force, now used entirely against Her, who succeeded it in tears and in blood, the Blood of Jesus, their “Sign of contradiction”, the Catholic Church. » (CCR n° 206, January 1988, p. 7).
At the end of a year during which Fr. de Nantes had exhorted his “little flock” to multiply their prayers and sacrifices to obtain from God a “judgement” that would be a condemnation of this « heresy of Religious Liberty », the reply came in the form of a book written by Cardinal Lustiger, Archbishop of Paris, entitled God’s Choice. Aaron Lustiger, the Polish Jew, placed this choice in his own person and for all time in his people, in Judaism, the eternal Covenant, the Messianic race and religion, which had become the salvation of everyone… He expressed his Credo in “13 articles”.
Therefore, Fr. de Nantes concluded, « the evil has been consummated. God will leave us still some time to choose between His Christ and the Antichrist, between our fidelity to holy Church and return to the Synagogue, from which Jesus had freed us through His Cross. »
Our Father considered that, « through this book », the « two camps », had been well defined and would thus be « confronting each other for the supreme battle of the Apocalypse ». Twenty years later, Fr. de Nantes is dead and buried, fraudulently “excommunicated” by the bishop of Meaux, and we can say that the pontificate of Joseph Ratzinger, a Bavarian Christian who has become Pope Benedict XVI, marks the definitive (?) triumph of the choice of God… unless it is its absolute defeat.
In fact, what our Father called the « thirteen articles of Aaron Lustiger’s Jewish Credo » are being promulgated today from the height of the cathedra of Peter. It is not even a question of examining the legitimacy, let alone the infallibility of such a teaching, but only of noting a fact: Benedict XVI’s Credo is no longer the Catholic Credo. It is thus infallibly anathema. It consists in a quintuple denial: St. Peter denied his Master three times. Benedict XVI, his successor, denies Him five times.
FIRST DENIAL:
THAT OF BIBLICAL REVELATION
IN FAVOUR OF TALMUDIC JUDAISM
At the beginning of his commentary on the Gospel of St. Mark, Fr. de Nantes imagined a young pagan from Rome, enticed to a Christian meeting and listening for the first time to these accounts from the East, with the soul of a catechumen, of a sympathiser, of a proselyte enticed by some member of this community of Rome, at the time when St. Peter was still living, or perhaps after his martyrdom and the first persecutions of Nero.
For his part, Pope Benedict XVI, chooses to present a Jewish rabbi called Jacob Neusner, the contemporary author of a book that the Pope follows with enthusiasm. By an outrageous anachronism, he imagines this Jacob mingling in a group of disciples, Jewish as well, who are listening to the Sermon on the Mount in Galilee, two thousands years ago, and he compares Jesus’ words to those of Old Testament and the rabbinical traditions, « such as they are written down in the Mishna and the Talmud. In these books, he detects the presence of oral traditions that go back to the origins. These books provide the key to interpreting the Torah. » (Jesus of Nazareth, vol. I)
Here is the conclusion of this comparison:
« The rabbi accepts the otherness of the message of Jesus, and he withdraws without hatred appearing; » The holy man!
If Benedict XVI paid the slightest attention to the Third Secret of Our Lady of Fatima, he would worry about the eternal fate of this soul who « is withdrawing » instead of « making his way to God ».
Furthermore: « while maintaining the rigour of the truth, he always makes apparent the reconciling force of love. » (ibid.)
Thus, this “liberal” rabbi does better than Jesus, who came confessedly not to establish peace on earth, but division:
« From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three; a father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. » (Lk 12:51-53) »
By his perfidious “liberalism”, Benedict XVI, whose motto is precisely “cooperator of the truth”, manifests how much he « withdraws » from the One who claimed to be the Truth (Jn 14:6).
First of all, from the “critical”, scientific perspective in which the Pope claims to place himself, the writing of the Mishnah dates from the 3rd or 4th century A.D and the Talmud from the 6th century A.D.! The whole question, therefore, is to know from what period those « oral traditions » to which Neusner refers can be dated. For example, in his eyes the crucial question seems to be that of the Sabbath today as it was yesterday. Now, what does the Old Testament say about it? « God rested on the seventh day, the account of the creation tells us. “On that day, we celebrate creation”, Neusner correctly concludes. Then he continues: “Not to work on the Sabbath day is more than accomplishing a rite with scrupulous obedience. It is a way to imitate God.” »
This is better than “the imitation of Jesus Christ”!
And our Holy Father the Pope sides with him?! Therefore, he does not understand that this allegation contradicts Our Lord who affirmed that He « is always at work », He and God His Father with whom He is but One (Jn 5:17)?
By agreeing with his friend Neusner, our Holy Father the Pope sides with « the synagogue official, who was indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, and who addressed the people present, saying: “There are six days, when work is to be done. Come and be healed on one of those days and not on the Sabbath!” »(Lk 13:10-14)
« We see that, in these discussions, there are fundamental questions concerning man and the good way to honour God that are at stake. »
Admittedly! And Jesus’ answer to these « fundamental questions concerning man (sic!) » puts an end to “dialogue”: « Hypocrites! Is there one of you who does not untie his ox or his donkey from the manger on the Sabbath and take it out for watering?This is thefundamental question concerning the ox and the donkey! And now for « man »: This daughter of Abraham whom Satan has held bound these eighteen years – was it not right to untie her bonds on the Sabbath day! » (Lk 13:15-16) »
There was nothing that could be said in reply. When He said this, St. Luke adds, « all His adversaries were covered with confusion, and all the people were overjoyed at all the wonders He worked. » (Lk 13:17)
Truly, it is an immense scandal as well as an unprecedented heresy and schism to see the Pope seriously wonder whether « the good way to honour God » consists in observing the Sabbath! This amounts to « emptying the Cross of Christ of its meaning » as St. Paul said, because it is tantamount to acting as though Jesus had not resolved the question two thousand years ago by dying on the Cross on Friday and rising from the dead on « the third day » – according to the Scriptures! – that is, on Sunday! Do not speak to us any longer about Saturday!
But neither Benedict XVI nor Rabbi Neusner are familiar with the Scriptures, or rather: their desire for “dialogue” leads them to read them through lenses that reduce them to what is indispensible to this dialogue, for example:
« Jesus’ resurrection took place “on the first day of the week”, the Pope writes. Consequently, for Christians, this “first day” – the beginning of the Creation – became the “day of the Lord”, towards which all the essential elements of the Old Testament Sabbath converge, through communion in the meal with Jesus. » (Vol. I, p. 134)
Exit the Holy Sacrifice of Mass on Sunday!
SECOND DENIAL:
THAT OF THE CHURCH
IN FAVOUR OF THE SYNAGOGUE
The blindness of Rabbi Neusner is equalled only by the denial that Benedict XVI makes in favour of the Synagogue.
The Jew ends up accusing Jesus of not observing the fourth Commandment: « Honour your father and your mother so that you may have a long life in the land that Yahweh your God has given to you. » (Ex 20.12) In fact, one day He was told that His Mother and His brothers were outside and wished to speak with Him. Here is His reply: « “Who is My mother? Who are My brothers?” And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers. For whoever does the will of My heavenly Father is My brother, and sister, and mother.” » (Mt 12:46-50)
The Pope does not even think to reply that Jesus « honours His Father » as no Son has ever done! He follows the rabbi in his antichristic impiety, i.e., entirely governed by his Pharisaic “inquiry”:
« Faced with this text, Neusner wonders: “Is Jesus not teaching us to violate one of the two commandments that concern social order?” » (vol I,)
The Pope does not prove him wrong: « Rabbi Neusner is quite correct in seeing in this commandment the centre of social order, which assures the cohesion of “the eternal Israel”, the real, living and present family of Abraham and Sarah, of Isaac and Rebecca, of Jacob, of Lea and of Rachel. It is precisely this family of Israel that Neusner sees threatened by Jesus’ message and the basis of its social order effaced by the primacy of His person. »
Yet, « the real, living and present family of Abraham and Sarah… » is the Catholic Church, the work of the Son of the Promise made to Abraham, accomplished in the Person of Jesus! This is already what Jesus replied to the Jews of Jerusalem who claimed to be the « posterity of Abraham » (Jn 8:33):
« You are from your father, the Devil. » (Jn 8:44)
We see from this that the Pope is no longer Catholic… and that he is “from the Devil”!
St. Paul would explain later on: « For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the freeborn woman. The son of the slave woman was born according to the flesh, the son of the freeborn through a promise. Now this is an allegory. These women represent two Covenants. One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. She represents Sinai – since Sinai is in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery along with her children. » (Ga 4:21-25) The same goes for Jews and Arab Muslims today!
Neusner is well and truly from that Jerusalem. He is enslaved, and it is not the proclamation of religious freedom by the Second Vatican Council that will set him free. On the contrary, he is more than ever a prisoner of the « present Jerusalem », by the will of Pope Benedict XVI!
All that it would take for him to deliver his friend would be to cast Vatican II into the fire and to preach St. Paul who cites the Old Testament and not the Mishnah or the Talmud, let alone Nostra ætate!
« The Jerusalem above, however, is free, and she is our mother. For it is written: “Rejoice, you barren one who bore no children; break forth into shouts of joy, you who were never in labour; for more numerous are the children of the forsaken one than of her who has a husband.” Now you, my brethren, like Isaac, are children of the promise, and as at that time the child of the flesh persecuted the child of the Spirit, so it is also now. » (Ga 4:26-29)
Do you understand? Once the parallelism has been established between Ishmael and the Jews on the one hand, and Isaac and the Christians on the other, Paul draws two new applications from it.
First, we who are not Jewish, who therefore are not of the race of Abraham, we are « children of the promise », children of God.
As for the Jews, they are « children of the flesh », since they do not recognise Jesus, Son of Mary, and persecute Christians just as Ishmael, according to certain Jewish traditions, « persecuted » Isaac. There is nothing new under the sun! St. Paul transposes: the Jews persecute Christians by wanting those who come from paganism to be circumcised. Now, according to the Bible, Sarah, who saw in Ismael a rival for her son, demanded that Hagar be driven away (Gn 21:9):
« “Drive out the slave woman and her son! For the son of the slave woman shall not share the inheritance with the son" of the free woman. Therefore, brethren, we are children not of the slave woman but of the free woman. » (Ga 4:30-31)
Thus: the Jews who do not want to convert, out with them!
Will Benedict XVI listen to what follows? « When Christ freed us, He meant us to remain free; so stand firm therefore and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery » (Ga 5:1), on the pretext of “religious freedom”!
From the “Council of Jerusalem” (49 A.D.) to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) exclusively, the Church was free. She ruled sovereignly over a Christian society. The Second Vatican Council, however, put her back under the yoke, by a denial of Christendom.
THIRD DENIAL:
THAT OF CHRISTENDOM
IN FAVOUR OF MASDU
Here we find the explanation of the Pope’s refusal to consecrate Russia, which the Most Blessed Virgin Mary explicitly demanded at Fatima. In the eyes of the Pope, this demand is… diabolical, yes indeed! Benedict XVI identifies it with the third temptation by which the Devil offers Jesus domination over the world.
According to him, what is the « true content » of this third temptation? The Pope observes that, « in history, it continually takes a new form ». The very first form was that of « the Christian Empire… » after Constantine’s conversion!
Practically speaking, it amounts to mistaking the motto of St. Pius X, Omnia instaurare in Christo, with the third temptation of Jesus in the desert. It amounts to saying that the reign of the Capetians, in the kingdom of St. Louis was the reign of the Devil and that Joan of Arc was a witch… Here, in the writings of the Pope, one can discern the tip of the Devil’s tail. For, according to him, « concrete political and social structures have been sent from the immediate sphere of the sacred, from the legislation of divine law, to the liberty of man… » (vol. I.)
This means to democracy, which banishes all other sacred authority from political, economical and social life. According to Benedict XVI, this abdication of « divine law » in favour of « the liberty of man » goes back to evangelical times. Nevertheless, it has remained misunderstood until the time of the “Enlightenment”, which the Church condemned up until the Second Vatican Council, which finally “canonised” them.
The Holy Father hastens to add: « It is true that in the meantime this liberty has been completely stripped of God’s perspective and communion with Jesus. » Stripped in order to be attached to whom, to what? He does not say, but we know to whom: to the « Prince of this world », through his henchmen. In what form? Precisely in the form of these Satanic powers that are hidden beneath « the liberty of man »:
« Liberty for universality and thus for the just secularity of the State has transformed itself into something absolutely profane, into “secularism”, for which forgetfulness of God and the exclusive attachment to success seem to have become the constitutive elements. » (Vol. I)
« Liberty for universality » used to be, from St. Paul on, liberty for “Catholicism”. The word “Catholic”, however, never flows from the Pope’s pen, except once in the preface: « a Catholic theologian has labelled my book… » (Vol. II, p. XV), as brilliant! Thus he has well and truly denied Catholicism, the basis of Christendom in favour of what he calls a « justifiable secularism ».
What is the « justifiably secular character of the State »? It is the State without God. What is the difference with « secularism »? There is none whatsoever! It is one abstraction after another, which do not in any way contradict the men concealed behind these high sounding words.
Let us continue our reading: « For the believing Christian [not for the “Catholic”], the precepts of the Torah [not the Commandments of the Church] remain a reference on which he keeps his eyes focused. »
For example this reference: « Do not look on such a man with pity. Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. » (Dt 19:21)
« For him [the « believing Christian »], it is above all searching for the will of God in communion with Jesus that remains a guiding line for reason; failing which, reason always runs the risk of blinding or of being blinded. »
You have read correctly: « for reason »! Once again we are at poles apart from St. Paul.
FOURTH DENIAL:
THE CROSS OF CHRIST IS REDUCED TO NOTHING
IN FAVOUR OF REASON
« The language of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those of us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will reject.” Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? » (1 Co 1:18-20)
Unlike St. Paul who « resolved to know nothing among you, but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. » (1 Co 2:2), we can say that Benedict XVI « wants to know » likewise the people of Israel, and Israel suffering. For example, he attributes the « cry of anguish » of Psalm 22 to it, rather than to the Messiah. Innocent Israel, the victim of vexations and persecutions for more than four thousand years, is the suffering Messiah, according to our Holy Father the Pope! In the face of the crucified Jesus there appears, to the eyes of all, the unjustly persecuted son of Israel.
This interpretation reduces to nothing (1 Co 1:17) the fact that Jesus appropriated this psalm on the Cross, in accordance with the original, Messianic sense of the text: « My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? » (Mk 15:34 ; Mt 27:46)
The complaint, however, suddenly changes into thanksgiving and praise: « You have answered My prayers! I shall proclaim Your Name to My brethren, praise You in full assembly! » (Ps 22:22-23)
The reason for this cry of victory is revealed in the fourth song of the Suffering Servant: « It was Yahweh’s good pleasure to crush Him with pain. If He gives His life as an expiatory sacrifice He shall see a posterity and length of days, and the work of Yahweh shall prosper in His hands. » (Is 53:10)
It sufficed for the early Church to re-read Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 to understand that Jesus’ complaint was not an expression of despair and that His final cry before death was not one of horror; it was rather His triumphal shout as He made the final assault:
« The paroxysm of His human distress was also the paroxysm of His divine victory! » (G. de Nantes, The affliction of God, CCR n° 112, April 1979, p. 20)
By considering the Jews to be the “Suffering Servant” in defiance of the texts and of historical truth, and by obstinately dissociating them from all responsibility in the death of Christ, Benedict XVI excludes them from the fruits of this victory of the One whom they had pierced. In fact, according to the Pope, not only was St. Matthew mistaken, but he deceived us by writing that « all the people » replied to Pilate: « His blood be on us and on our children! » (Jesus of Nazareth, t. II, p. 187)
Now, by these inspired words, which St. Matthew surely faithfully recorded by virtue of the “inerrancy” with which he was endowed, the Jews unknowingly called down upon them and their children, the fruits of the redemption for which this Blood was the price. This is what the Jews who heard St. Peter on Pentecost day understood; and they converted! Benedict XVI, however, does not want the Jews to convert! He replaces this will, which was traditional in the Church up to him with a Protestant theory of “justification”, and by a “new evangelisation”.
1° LUTHERAN « JUSTIFICATION ».
Our Holy Father the Pope conceives « Jesus’ death as reconciliation (atonement) and salvation » for everyone, whether he is converted or not. (Vol. II, p. 228).
First, by giving the word “atonement” as equivalent to that of “reconciliation”, the Pope confuses the sacrifice, the very work of Jesus offering His life in « atonement », and the fruit of this work, the « reconciliation » that once again makes our God favourable towards us.
It must be said that in the Pope’s mind the word “atonement” does not refer to « reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference », by which God Himself, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is offended, but only to the reparation of a « distortion » that tarnishes an « image of God »:
« God’s relationship to the world », which was the fruit of the first creation was not broken but only « distorted by sin. » (II, p. 230).
« The hermeneutic of continuity » is really the key to Benedict XVI’s whole thought, according to which Israel cannot recognise Christ as its Messiah before the hour fixed by God. Thus there are two revelations of the Messiah: the one of a “hidden Messiah” perceived only by the Christians, and the other of a “glorious Messiah” known by the Christians to be the same Jesus Christ, but not having manifested His glory, He is still awaited by Israel, who thus, in its way, works for the world’s “redemption” conceived as an earthly redemption:
« For the Jews, the question that incessantly recurs, and it is an absolutely legitimate question, is the following: but what did Jesus, your “Messiah”, bring? He did not bring universal peace and He did not overcome the poverty in the world. So how can He be the true Messiah, since this is precisely what we expect from a true Messiah? » (Vol. I)
What does the Pope reply to this blasphemy? Nothing!
Until such time as the « poverty in the world » has been overcome, Israel remains the people of God, the bearer of mankind’s salvation, the historic figure of the Messiah. Israel is also the incarnation of God, or rather, it is the root. Judaism first, then Christianity are living, and holy branches of the same trunk, according to Benedict XVI. Israel cannot recognise Christianity before the time fixed by God. The Church at least can and should recognise Israel as the “eldest son”, and Judaism an external and all-embracing eternal covenant.
Thus it is that through an amazed “discrimination”, Benedict XVI holds the Jews apart, by separating them from the rest of humankind, by excluding them from Christian preaching on the grounds that « Israel retains its own mission. Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it “as a whole” at the proper time, when the number of the Gentiles is complete. » (Vol. II, p. 46) »
2° « NEW EVANGELISATION ».
It results from the same “hermeneutic”, according to which there is no break in the “continuity” between the natural order of the first Creation with its own proper demands, and the supernatural order of predestination to grace and to divine glory considered as the effect of an absolute, unconditional and universal love excluding all damnation, of God for man who is created in His image:
« The reality of evil and injustice that disfigures the world and at the same time distorts the image of God – this reality exists, through our sin. » Note that there is no question of “offence”, let alone of outrage or blasphemy. It is only question of a “distortion” that tarnishes an “image of God”…?!
« It cannot simply be ignored; it must be eliminated.. Here, however, is it not a case of a cruel God demanding the infinite. »
What is it then? Is it the “elimination” of an « evil », of an « injustice that disfigures the world and at the same time distorts the image of God? » Put this way, there is really no reason to make sin a drama requiring reparation!
Here is the answer of the Pope:
« It is exactly the opposite [the opposite of what?]: God Himself becomes the locus of reconciliation, and in the person of His Son takes the suffering upon Himself [what is this “suffering”?]. God Himself grants His infinite purity to the world. God Himself “drinks the cup” of every horror [?] to the dregs and thereby restores rights [the rights of the first creation, in other words: the “rights of man”? In any case, it is not a question of “grace”, which is absent from this entire discourse] through the greatness of His love, which, through suffering, transforms the darkness [into what? Into light?]. » (Vol. II, p. 232).
We are far from the supernatural mystery of Redemption, which is a combat of light against darkness and not a « transformation » of darkness. The very recognisable error of the Pope has a name: it is the old heresy of apocatastasis, according to which all will end well for everyone in God, because God is not “cruel”, but good.
How? Through what “alchemy”? It is quite simple, in two steps… inspired by the will to come to an understanding with post-biblical, antichristic “Judaism”:
1. Israel is God’s chosen people, and has been for four thousand years and for ever. This choice divides humanity in two human races: the Jews and the others, we the goyîm, the pagans.
2. Jesus is the Saviour of the goyîm by virtue of His very Judaism and His exact practice of the Law. The Incarnation of the Word of God began before Him, continued with Him (and beside Him?) according to God’s eternal Covenant with His people extends God’s Gift to all men.
« The Logos Himself, the Son, becomes flesh; He takes on a human body. In this way a new obedience becomes possible, an obedience that surpasses all human fulfilment of the Commandments. The Son becomes man and in His body bears the whole of humanity back to God. Only the incarnate Word, whose love is fulfilled on the Cross, is perfect obedience. In Him not only does the critique of the Temple sacrifices become definitive, but whatever longing still remains is also fulfilled: His incarnate obedience is the new sacrifice, and in this obedience He draws us all with Him and at the same time wipes away all our disobedience through His love. » (pp. 234-235) How simple it is!
There is no Hell, no earthly fight of the Church, the strength of God against the Satanic forces. Jesus’ fight against sin in order to wrest all souls from Hell is absent from the Pope’s teaching. It is this fight, however, that induces Him to become man and allows Himself to be numbered among slaves, criminals and those condemned by the common law to crucifixion. It is a fight to death, an appointment with Satan to vanquish him and wrest his victims from him. All his victims.
For Christ the Son of God wills the salvation of all men. That, however, was not given Him; He had to win it once and for all on the Cross and at every moment of every day, thousands of times, whenever the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered. In fact, no one, neither Angel nor Pope, can strike these words out of Scripture: « He who does not eat My flesh and drink My Blood, does not have life within him. » (Jn 6:53) For he has « no part with me » (Jn 13:8), he does not partake in the banquet of salvation, which is the inseparable consequence of sacrifice. It is but one: to receive communion in the Body and Blood of Jesus our Redeemer, by a real and sacred manducation in the faith, in order to benefit from His Passion and to receive the salvation of the Cross.
It is not so for Joseph Ratzinger: « After centuries of antagonism, we now see it as our task to bring these two ways of rereading the biblical texts – the Christian way and the Jewish way – into dialogue with one another, if we are to understand God’s will and His word aright » (vol. II, pp. 33-34), within the “unique covenant” in which « the whole person becomes “word-like” ».
To support this new thought, the Pope manipulates the Greek and the Masoretic versions of Psalm 40 to establish the « continuity » between the worship of the crucified Jesus and that of the Torah.
In the Letter to the Hebrews, Psalm 40 is quoted in the Greek version « as a dialogue between the Son and the Father in which the Incarnation is accomplished and at the same time the new worship of God is established: “Sacrifices and offerings You have not desired, but a Body have You prepared for Me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings You have taken no pleasure. Then I said, Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God, as it is written of Me in the roll of the book” (Hb 10:5-7; cf. Ps 40:6-8). »
Then, the Pope points out the difference between this quotation and the Hebrew text: « Whereas in the Letter to the Hebrews we read; “a Body have You prepared for Me”, the psalmist had said: “but You have given me an open ear.” » (p. 233)
This is important because the Hebrew text maintains « the idea of spiritual sacrifice, or “sacrifice in the manner of the word”, was formulated: prayer, the self-opening of the human spirit to God, is true worship. The more man becomes “word” [note the diabolical inversion of the mystery of the Word of God become man!] – or rather: the more his whole existence is directed toward God –the more he accomplishes true worship.
« In the Old Testament, from the early Books of Samuel to the late prophecy of Daniel, we find constantly new ways of wrestling with this idea, which becomes linked more and more closely with love for God’s guiding word, the Torah. » (vol. II, pp. 233-234)
That, however, was « in the Old Testament », to be more specific, before the Incarnation of this Word! This is how the Torah, the Law, is substituted for the Word become flesh, for Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, by the Talmudic teaching of our Holy Father the Pope!
Yet Benedict XVI is not unaware that it is « Pharisaism, which acquired a new centre in the rabbinic school of Jamnia » after the ruin of Jerusalem that it alone survived, « and there developed its own particular way of reading and interpreting the Old Testament after the loss of the Temple, centred on the Torah. » Well, this is what he considers as an authorised source « to understand God’s will and His word aright »?!
He perfectly distinguishes it from the Biblical revelation:
« Only then did it become possible to speak of “Judaism” in the strict sense, he writes, as a way of viewing the canon of Scripture as revelation and reading it anew in the physical absence of Temple worship »… and without Christ, about whom these same writings do not cease to speak.
Even if, to do so, it means modifying the Hebrew text of the Holy Scriptures for the purpose in hand, as the comparison with the manuscripts of Qumrân has permitted us to discover. The case of the Greek version of Psalm 40 is undeniable: « a body have You prepared for Me » is a prophecy of the Incarnation of the Word; modified by the rabbis of Jamnia to read « but You have given me an open ear ». It is cunningly perverse!
Historically, « Judaism in the strict sense » is an antichristic religion…
Thus, so is Benedict XVI’s religion as well…
That being the case, we must not be surprised at the denials of his last chapter on the resurrection of the Lord.
It is more than a denial: it is a negation.
CHAPTER IX
FIFTH DENIAL:
THAT OF CHRIST’ RESURRECTION
The Pope plunges us into deep perplexity: « What actually happened? Clearly, for the witnesses who encountered the risen Lord, it was not easy to say. » Yet, they related quite simply how they saw, heard and touched Him, how He ate with them… Well, no! « They were confronted with what for them was an entirely new reality, far beyond the limits of their experience. » (p. 242)
That is enough to make you lose faith in the school of a Lutheran:
« Rudolf Bultmann raised an objection against Resurrection faith by arguing that even if Jesus had come back from the grave, we would have to say that “a miraculous natural event such as the resuscitation of a dead man” would not help us and would be existentially irrelevant » So…
« Now, the Pope continues, it must be acknowledged that if in Jesus’ Resurrection we were dealing simply with the miracle of a resuscitated corpse, it would ultimately be of no concern to us. »
Stop! There is no “corpse” because if Jesus died according to the law established by God in punishment for original sin, when His soul was torn from His Body, the bond of this very holy Body, pierced for our salvation, with the divine Person who consecrated it wholly to Himself, is not broken. This relic is sacred, it did not experience the corruption of the tomb; it will always be the sacrament of universal redemption. Thus, once raised from the dead, He will never again be subject to death. This is our Catholic faith.
This is why Christian life consists in adoring, loving, contemplating this divine Body marked with all the stigmata of His cruel Passion according to the evidence provided by His Holy Shroud kept in Turin.
The Pope, however, excluded this troublesome piece of evidence in the preceding chapter (p. 243).
Here, he goes even further, but I do not know whether one reader out of a thousand will see how cunningly he denies the physical resurrection of the Body of Christ by linking it with the necessity of dying later on, as though it were impossible for Christ to take possession of His Body once again like Lazarus and to be immortal from then on…
The Body of Christ is raised from the dead by the power of the second Person of the Holy Trinity to which it was hypostatically united until death. Thus it will never again be subject to death. In the same way, the Father will save us from all dangers, even from the tomb, He will raise us.
It is a prodigious hope based on the death and burial of Christ! This hope is dashed by Benedict XVI in his commentary on the Gospel accounts:
« The mythological language (sic!)expresses, on the one hand, the Lord’s closeness, as He reveals Himself in human form, and, on the other hand, His otherness, as He stands outside the laws of material existence. » (pp. 267-268)
Does St. Luke mention that the risen Jesus ate fish in the presence of the Apostles?
« Most exegetes take the view that Luke is exaggerating here in his apologetic zeal, that a statement of this kind seems to draw Jesus back into the empirical physicality that had been transcended by the Resurrection. Thus Luke ends up contradicting his own narrative, in which Jesus appears suddenly in the midst of the disciples in a physicality that is no longer subject to the laws of space and time. » (p. 269)
Not only does he accuse St. Luke of lying and of contradicting himself, thus manifesting that he does not believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, but the Pope persists in denying the fact, namely that Jesus ate fish precisely to prove the physical presence of His human Body, which the Pope denies!
There is no remedy for such blindness!
What is the resurrection, according to Joseph Ratzinger? « We could regard the Resurrection as something akin to a radical “evolutionary leap”, in which a new dimension of life emerges, a new dimension of human existence » (p. 374)
It is an « evolutionary leap »… like that of a gorilla that becomes man, according to Darwin…
« Essential, then, is the fact that Jesus’ Resurrection was not just about some deceased individual coming back to life at a certain point, but that an ontological leap occurred, one that touches being as such, opening up a dimension that affects us all, creating for all of us a new space of life, a new space of being in union with God. » (p. 274)
These expressions that are taken from evolutionary jargon mean that the resurrection of Christ made Him a being that is essentially different from what He was before His resurrection.
Question: if He does not have exactly the same kind of body as He had before dying, what kind of “flesh and bones” does He have? Is the Sacred Heart of Jesus really a human Heart, the same one that was pierced by the spear of the Roman soldier, and that beats anew?
According to Ratzinger: no! He says so in black and white:
« In this sense, it follows that Resurrection is not the same kind of historical event as the birth or crucifixion of Jesus. It is something new, a new type of event. »
This affirmation contradicts the pure and simple truth: according to the Catholic Faith based on the historical facts, the Son of God formed a body and a soul in the womb of the Virgin Mary; then He died according to the law established by God as punishment for original sin, in the wrenching of His soul from His Body. On the « third day », this soul once again took possession of its Body.
This Nativity, this Crucifixion and this Resurrection were verifiable, physical and historical events, which took place respectively…
In Bethlehem, in the year 1 of our era, on 25 December,
In Jerusalem, on Friday, 7 April of the year 30,
In Jerusalem, on Sunday, 9 April of the year 30.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
If Christ’s Body and Blood made an « evolutionary leap into a new dimension » the dogma of transubstantiation according to which, at the consecration during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the entire substance of the bread is changed into the entire substance of the Body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into His Precious Blood, ceases to exist. This dogma no longer has any consistence or raison d’être.
Nor does the visit to the Blessed Sacrament either: « Eucharistic adoration or quiet visiting in church can, reasonably, not simply be thought of as conversation with the God who is thought present in a locally-circumscriptive manner, Ratzinger taught in a conference held at the time of the Council.
« Statements such as “God dwells here” and colloquy with God who is imagined to be locally present, the basis for this affirmation, express a misunderstanding of the Christological event as well as the idea of God, which necessarily repels the thinking man who knows about the omnipresence of God. If one were to justify “going to church” on the grounds that one must visit the God who is present only there, this would indeed be a justification which would make no sense and would rightfully be rejected by modern man. » (Die sakramentale Begründung christlicher Existenz, the sacramental foundation of Christian existence, the transcript of an excerpt of a four-hour lecture given by Fr. Ratzinger in Salzburg, Austria, in 1965)
THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
In the encyclical Pascendi, St. Pius X underscored that the Modernists deal with Holy Scripture as though no one had ever studied these books before them and as though no one had ever interpreted them correctly. In his book The Christian Faith yesterday and today, Joseph Ratzinger shows himself to be a perfect Modernist:
« It is thus clear (!) that the essence of faith in the resurrection does not consist in the idea of a restitution of bodies, such as we generally imagine, even though the Bible currently uses this representation full of imagery. » (p. 252, French edition of an Introduction to Christianity. Fifty-two editions of this book were published in eight languages between 1968 and 2007)
« It is thus clear » that our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, denies the next to last article of our Credo:
« Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum... I look for the resurrection of the dead. »
« According to the biblical message of the resurrection », which is correctly interpreted by me, Ratzinger, « the essential content of this message is not the representation of a restitution of bodies to souls after a long intermediary period. » (p. 255)
What is the reason for such a peremptory denial? It is because « this resurrection would seemingly imply a new heaven and a new earth » (p. 251). Precisely! According to the teaching of St. Peter, « we await new heavens and a new earth » (2 Pt 3:13)!
Joseph Ratzinger does not hesitate to consider this idea as « perfectly absurd, absolutely contrary to our understanding of matter and its properties, and thus inexorably mythological ».
So much for St. Peter. What about St. Paul?
« Paul, let us repeat once again, does not teach the resurrection of bodies, but that of persons, and this does not consist in a reconstitution of “bodies of flesh”, i.e., biological combinations, which he expressly declares impossible (“what is corruptible cannot become incorruptible”), but according to a new mode of resurrected life, such as is prefigured in Our Lord. » (p. 259)
According to Benedict XVI, this « new mode »:
1. is not the retaking of possession of the Body of Christ by His soul, but an evolutionary leap into a new dimension of existence;
2. is not an historical event such as His Nativity or His Crucifixion. In fact, the resurrection of Christ occurred outside of time and space, that is nowhere.
According to him, « when one believes in the “communion of saints”, the idea of the anima separate (of the separated soul about which the scholastics speak) is finally outmoded. » (p. 254)
Thus, it is « outmoded » to pray for the souls of Purgatory, or to pray to the saints of Heaven who are not yet reunited with their bodies!
THE “SECRET” OF OUR LADY
Fortunately, Our Lady comes to our assistance by Her great “Secret” of 13 July 1917 in which Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta saw with their very eyes « the demons and the souls. The latter were like transparent burning embers, black or bronzed, having human form. »
« You have seen Hell where the souls of poor sinners go, Our Lady said to them with goodness and sadness. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I am going to say to you is done, many souls will be saved. »
The Secret ends with the vision of the Holy Father praying « for the souls of the corpses he met on his way ».
We understand better and better the reason for the obstinate opposition of Cardinal Ratzinger, become Benedict XVI, to Our Lady of Fatima. Here at last comes true what is said about Her: « The Woman will crush the head of the Serpent » and also: « You alone shall conquer heresies throughout the whole world »