Pope Benedict XVI, A Modernist Who Meant To Leave You…?

Pope Benedict XVI, A Modernist Who Meant To Leave You…?

Posted by Laramie Hirsch on Wednesday, March 8, 2017

null
Hey guys, guess what?

Quite a few Traditionalist Catholics are quick, these days, to consider the idea that Pope Benedict XVI was somehow kicked out of the papacy, perhaps by blackmail. A lot of us Traditionalists considered him to be a good pope, and to this day a lot of us remember him fondly.

Shortly after he announced his retirement, I read Charles Coulombe’s book: The Legacy of Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict was a big favorite of Coulombe’s, as he seemed to be an intellectual leader who was unafraid to tackle the world’s problems head-on:
[T]he truth is that the soon-to-be-retired Pontiff (and, no doubt, his successor) inhabits an entirely different mental universe than those who seek to form current public opinion. Partly, of course, this is because Benedict and those who share his beliefs see reality as something immutable: regardless of how polite one may or may not wish to be, good is good, evil is evil, and we are all bound to seek out the unchanging Will of God and attempt to follow it. For their opponents, morality and indeed existence itself is a great cosmic marshmallow–moldable to one’s feelings or convenience at this moment, for however long one needs them to be in this particular state.

Indeed, the West’s morality certainly seems squishy when measured up against any kind of rock-solid Christian standard. I wonder if men from today would even last a week in the pinnacle of Christendom’s golden era. And Pope Benedict XVI seemed a hard-edged hope of restoration for a lot of us “triumphalist Traditionalists.”

However, the pope was not quite successful. There were many reforms and house cleanings that simply never took place. For example, I can remember how disappointed I was to learn that the sexual deviancy problems within the Church would never be resolved under him. Also, there were many Freemasonic figures within the Church who were never outed or laicized. And finally, he never really seemed to hammer home the idea that Vatican II was rife with problems.

Coulombe shares these disappointments:

Of the four areas we have looked at–the internal reconciliation of the Church, her cleansing of the aberrations that have grown up within her, reunion with those Christian bodies closest to her, and warning the planet’s powerful of the consequences of their actions–none have come to fruition. But they are seeds that have been planted–and, internally, at least, the Church is in far better shape than she was at the start of the Pontificate. That is most certainly Benedict’s doing.

But it is important to remember that for Benedict, the institutional health of the Church is only a means whereby her spiritual Communion may be extended and made manifest to all. That Communion in itself is, for him, the way in which fallen man may be incorporated into Christ, the Savior alike of individuals and societies. That this has not been for him mere airy theory but the basis of effective and practical action may be his greatest legacy.

So, Pope Benedict failed in most of his attempts, but at least he laid down the seeds for Catholics in the future. Internal seeds that would later come to fruition and bring the Church into a better state of being. Right?

But then, Pope Francis was elected as our new leader, and we are now quite the liberal NGO. We’d have thought that Pope Benedict would be aghast at the undoing of his work. We’d have thought that Pope Benedict would be outraged that the next in line would be raking up the seeds Benedict planted and ripping out every pro-Benedict Church official within his arm’s reach.

And yet, Pope Benedict stated the following about Pope Francis in his book, Last Testament:

“When I first heard his name, I was unsure. But when I saw how he spoke with God and with people, I truly was content. And happy.”

Surely, Pope Benedict was forced to say this! Surely, the book was not written by him! Surely, he had a gun held to his head as he was writing this out!

Possibly. Or, perhaps Pope Benedict was pro-modernism all along.

Last time I spoke on this subject, I entertained the notion that Pope Benedict was pushed out of the Chair of Peter and supplanted. Pope Benedict was the victim. He “fled for fear of the wolves.” He ran off, under pressure, being the innocent Traditionalist intellectual that he was.

What if Pope Benedict was happy to free himself of the office? What if leaving the papacy (while holding onto the garments and the title) was a relief? What if he was just a temporary replacement for an even bigger, shinier, better change that was still yet to come for the Church? What if Pope Benedict is truly happy with what Pope Francis is doing?

What if Pope Benedict was a traitor all along? What if he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing? What if “getting out of Dodge” was a part of the plan all along, and Pope Francis’ job was to rush in and make changes to the Catholic Church within a 4-year timespan? Is it that outrageous? Even Church Militant TV blames Pope Benedict for failing Traditionalist Catholics.

So, this week, let’s entertain an opposite notion from last month’s post: Bergoglio Is Not The Pope…? In this month of March, let us consider the possibility that Pope Francis is the pontiff, after all (not an antipope)–and that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is lovin’ it. I have permission from Hilary White to post the following excerpt from her awesome blog: What’s Up With FrancisChurch? The article is titled, Hermeneutic of Whatity?

* * * * *

[L]et’s look for a moment at the underlying assumption here: that Ratzinger is a spokesman for the “conservative” wing of the Church, and consider that we still have a big problem of idolizing him. It’s time this stopped.

Taken it on its face, however, and putting this together with what the former pope has said and written in the past, we can safely say that the more fun “conspiratorial” theory – that someone is writing his lines for him – gets rather remote on the list of possibilities. Occam, and all that. It is entirely possible that the man we used to call Pope Benedict does think this.

So what?

No, really… so what?

We have to ask seriously whether there’s a chance we simply fell for the media’s interpretation of him, that he was “Ratzinger the Vatican II liberal, peritus of Frings” all along. I don’t know. Throughout that time, we were being told what a “conservative” he was, along with the secular media who hated him, by people with the kind of theology degrees held by the author of this Crux piece. Not what theology degrees were, let’s say.

I didn’t read his scholarly theology. I read a few of his popular works after 2005. Before that, I read some of his CDF documents on new reproductive technologies. I read book-length interviews with him. He sounded pretty good to me, I guess, when I was first working things out. But I’ve also talked to people with serious, classical theological training – the kind that’s hard to get these days – and they have always been warning that “Ratzinger the Rottweiler” of the media and the Ratzinger of academia are not the same.

Or maybe the distinction between “conservative” and “liberal” is being shown to have been essentially meaningless all along. He had better manners, was more cultured, more soft-spoken, more likeable than most of the other neo-modernists. He certainly would never spend his pontificate being the bulldozing wrecking ball his successor has been. We liked him more.

What is clear is that the things we think we know about Benedict’s thoughts are entirely and exclusively being filtered through other people. If Georg Ganswein wants to tell us what he thinks the former-pope is thinking about things, fine, but let’s not imagine it means we know anything more than what Georg Ganswein thinks

But I do know two things with moral certainty: his resignation, though perfectly valid, was the opening of the gates to the orcs who are now in control of the citadel. Whatever comes of this long-term – and I maintain that it is part of a great “clarification” if not a “great purification” willed by God – I reserve judgement yet on whether it was cowardice, stupidity or laziness or lack of concern or flat-out collusion. But whatever does come to light, I also know that the next person who starts drooling on about what a “courageous” act it was, is going to get the back of my hand upside the head.

The theory that Benedict is still pope is simply not borne out by the evidence, either in Canon Law, by the theology or by any other metric the Church runs on. In answer to the many people who have asked me, yes. Ive heard it. (And heard it and heard it and heard it…) I have done some research that didn’t involve looking things up on the internet or just deciding for myself after a single glance at the ’83 Code of Canon Law. I’ve consulted with theology and Canon law people who are not neo-modernists, not ill-trained and not remotely fond of either Benedict or Francis, and the answers I’ve had have been pretty firm and unanimous.

And no, there’s no “conspiracy of silence.” The reason no one serious is addressing it is because it isn’t a serious question. I think at some point, as things get worse, and more and more ordinary people come to think this, someone responsible is going to have to address it publicly, just so we don’t have to keep hearing about it. (And hearing about it… and hearing about it…)

So, for the question about why Benedict resigned, more evidence will, I’m sure, come to light in the coming years, but right now I’m not really all that interested. I think we have more immediate things to think about. Indulging in fantasy, wish-fulfillment, lazy and half-baked “research,” or facile (“easy”) conclusions, is not helpful. I think it’s rapidly becoming irrelevant why he resigned. He resigned. It was valid. He’s not the pope.

The resignation was a terrible, terrible idea. It was damaging. It was selfish and incredibly hubristic, but it was valid. He might be deluded by his nominalism into thinking he cam make up new things with the power of his brain, and the Church of our time so confused that we haven’t figured it out yet, but let’s give him at least one benefit of the doubt: the man is smart enough to know what the words “I resign the papacy” mean. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the pope. It sucks. It seems on the face of it to be something close to catastrophic. But it’s true.

But this leads me to the other thing I know: that the time for idolizing Ratzinger is well past. It’s not nice to think about, but our love was apparently misplaced. And I’m going to be giving a sharp smack on the nose with a rolled-up copy of Amoris Laeitia to all those who are still mooning about the internet, droopily sighing over how much they “miss” him.

* * * * *

Will we ever find out? Only time will tell, it seems.

null
Cheers!

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2017/03/09/pope-benedict-xvi-a-modernist-who-meant-to-leave-you/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

3 comments on “Pope Benedict XVI, A Modernist Who Meant To Leave You…?

  1. Let us remember that it was the then Cardinal Ratzinger who in 1988 as intermediary between the SSPX and the Papacy delayed, and thus for all practical purposes denied, the aging Archbishop Lefevbre’s request for a traditional bishop to lead the Society in Traditional doctrine and dogma subsequent to his passing. Let us also remember the pictures of him in a business suit at Vatican II and his close association with Jung and the protestant theologians at the same Vatican II. Does a leopard change his spots? And, even more, let us recall as Pope Benedict XVI his issuing of the moto proprio, Summorum Pontificum, and his failure to give it the teeth that it required in the by-then modernist church. Let us remember still his failure to cut off the head of the snake known to us as the sexual deviancy involved in the scandal involving the clergy up to and including cardinals. And finally, let us recall with utmost dismay and incredulity his decision to resign from the papacy while still retaining the trappings of the Office and his silence as his successor seeks to destroy the Church we have known for centuries, Count me as one who is not a fan of Josef Ratzinger.

  2. While people can change and convert, even neo-Catholic modernists involved with Rahnerism and phenomenology in their youth, the jury is still out on the real reasons for the abdication and retirement of Pope Benedict. That anti-Catholic Illuminati puppets in American liberal politics were collaborating on conspiratorial plans for a progressive socialist “Catholic Spring” in the orbit of the tentacles and funding of George Soros, Hillary and her flying monkeys, does not quite put the mind to ease on these questions. Even leaving Bella Dodd’s claims and those of Alice von Hildebrand on Communist infiltration of the Church aside, there is too much evidence about homosexual, Communist, and secret society infiltration of the Church in the 20th century, including the strange death of Pope John Paul I and the clergy sex molestation scandals, to rule out sinister and unsavory explanations for the origins of the strange Bergoglian pontificate and its neo-Gnostic and Jacobin march to deconstruct the Catholic Church. Not everything happens by coincidence in church history.

    Benedict was not always silent about the progressive dissent from Church teachings that Bergoglio now directs in his progressive modernist regime. What changed?

  3. In another twist on the story. This was posted on Britebart !

    www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/03/08/italian-archbishop-suggests-pope-benedict-xvi-resigned-obama-pressures/

    Italian Archbishop Suggests Pope Benedict XVI Resigned Under Obama ‘Pressure’

    An Italian archbishop close to Pope Benedict XVI has claimed that the Obama administration may have been complicit in the “tremendous pressures” that led the former pope to resign in 2013.
    It is “no coincidence” that some Catholic groups “have asked President Trump to open a commission of inquiry to investigate whether the administration of Barack Obama exerted pressure on Benedict,” said Archbishop Luigi Negri in an interview Monday, citing other revelations by Wikileaks regarding efforts by the Democratic Party to sway the direction of the Catholic Church in the United States.
    “It remains shrouded in mystery for now,” he said to news outlet Rimini 2.0, “but I am sure that those responsible will be found out.”
    The archbishop was making reference to a letter written by a group of American Catholics to President Trump last January requesting that the administration conduct an investigation into a possible Soros-Obama-Clinton conspiracy behind the resignation of Pope Benedict.
    The letter stated specifically that “we have reason to believe that a Vatican ‘regime change’ was engineered by the Obama administration.”
    Approximately a year after an e-mail conversation released by Wikileaks, the authors contended, “we find that Pope Benedict XVI abdicated under highly unusual circumstances and was replaced by a pope whose apparent mission is to provide a spiritual component to the radical ideological agenda of the international left.”
    In startling revelations last October, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta was found to have created phony “Catholic” organizations in order to use Church leaders to push a liberal agenda in congress and to promote the agenda of the Democratic Party.
    In the midst of the hundreds of John Podesta’s emails released by Wikileaks, one contained a report by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a faux Catholic association founded by Podesta to provoke a revolution in the Catholic Church.
    The executive director of the organization, Christopher J. Hale, referred to the group’s “grueling preparation for Pope Francis’s apostolic trip to the US.”
    Along with efforts to infiltrate the Church hierarchy, the organization’s collusion with the Obama administration was also made apparent in Hale’s report.
    “I spoke to the White House yesterday and they assure us the media’s moniker calling us ‘God Squad’ isn’t just sweet nothings, but actually a fair assessment of the substantial difference we’re making in this conversation,” he wrote.
    Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput described a meeting with two members of the other “Catholic” organization that Podesta claims to have founded—Catholics United. In a published essay, the archbishop depicted a methodology eerily similar to that employed by Catholics in Alliance.
    Chaput said that the two men were “obvious flacks for the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party—creatures of a political machine, not men of the Church,” who showed remarkable “talents of servile partisan hustling.”
    In a separate statement, the head of the U.S. Bishops Conference, Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, issued an indictment of the Clinton team, calling them out for interfering in the Church’s self-governance for “short-term political gain.”
    Kurtz suggested that Podesta’s actions in creating “Catholic” lobby groups for the Democratic Party constituted a breach of religious freedom, “one of the founding principles of our republic,” which ensures the right of faith communities to “preserve the integrity of their beliefs and proper self-governance.”
    In his interview Monday, Archbishop Negri said he has visited Pope Benedict “several times” since the pontiff’s resignation in 2013. Negri resigned last month as archbishop of Ferrara-Comacchio, a post assigned him by Pope Benedict, upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 75.
    Archbishop Negri did not lay all the blame for Benedict’s resignation on the Obama administration, but said he was “certain that the truth will emerge one day showing grave liability both inside and outside the Vatican.”
    In the interview, Negri was also critical of Pope Francis for failing to answer the dubia—or “questions”—made by four Cardinals regarding certain teachings in the Pope’s letter Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) that seem unclear to many in the Church.
    “Amoris Laetitia needs clarification, unfortunately, the current leader of the Church still remains silent,” he said. “I think that the Holy Father should respond, although he seems to have decided to the contrary.”
    Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter 
    Read More Stories About:
    Big Government, Faith, National Security, Archbishop Charles Chaput, Archbishop Luigi Negri, barack obama, Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, Vatican

Leave a Reply