Here is another report on the letter: Ratzinger, “Francis with no theological formation? A foolish prejudice” Letter from the Pope emeritus for the presentation of the LEV series on the theology of his successor: Bergoglio “is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation” there is “inner continuity between the two pontificates” Pubblicato il 12/03/2018 ANDREA TORNIELLI VATICAN CITY A “foolish prejudice”. With these firm words, Benedict XVI - from his retreat in the Vatican - labels those statements according to which his successor would not have theological stature while he, the theologian Pope, would have been only a theorist with no understanding of Christian life today. The statements of the Pope Emeritus, who also emphasizes the “inner continuity” of the two pontificates, are contained in a letter sent to the Prefect of the Secretariat for Communication, Dario Edoardo Viganò, who read some passages during the presentation of the series “Theology of Pope Francis”, published by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana (LEV), which took place on the evening of Monday 12 March at the Sala Marconi in Palazzo Pio. “I applaud this initiative - Benedict XVI writes - that wants to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice for which Pope Francis would be only a practical man without particular theological or philosophical formation, while I would have been only a theorist of theology with little understanding of the concrete life of a Christian today”. Ratzinger thanks for having received as a gift the eleven books written by eleven internationally renowned theologian s who make up the series edited by Don Roberto Repole, President of the Italian Theological Association. The small volumes - Benedict XVI adds - rightly show that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation and therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates, despite all the differences in style and temper”. This is not the first time that the Pope Emeritus makes his voice heard by expressing his being in harmony with his successor, even if he had never done so with such power. In October 2015, a theological conference on the doctrine of justification was held in Rome. On that occasion Archbishop Georg Gänswein read the text of an interview with Ratzinger by the Jesuit theologian Jacques Servais on “what is faith and how does one come to believe”, in which Pope Benedict quoted Francis speaking extensively about mercy, “Mankind today has this vague sensation that God cannot let the majority of humanity take the road of perdition. As such, the concerns people once had regarding salvation have for the most part disappeared. In my opinion, however, there is still a perception that we are all in need of grace and forgiveness, it just exists in a different way. I believe it is ‘a sign of the times’ that the idea of God’s mercy is becoming increasingly central and dominant - – starting with Sister Faustina, whose visions in various ways deeply reflect God’s image among today’s mankind and its desire for divine goodness”. Pope John Paul II - Ratzinger continued - “felt this impulse very strongly even though this was not always immediately apparent. But it is certainly no coincidence that his last book, which was published just before his death, talks about God’s mercy. Inspired by his experience of human cruelty right from his younger days, he states that mercy is the only true and ultimately efficient reaction against the force of evil. Only where there is mercy does cruelty cease to exist, do evil and violence cease to exist.” “Pope Francis - Benedict XVI continued, referring to his successor - fully shares this line. His pastoral practice finds expression in his continuous references to God’s mercy. It is mercy that steers us towards God, while justice makes us fearful in his presence. I believe this shows that beneath the veneer of self-confidence and self-righteousness, today’s mankind conceals a profound knowledge of its wounds and unworthiness before God. It awaits mercy”. On 28 June 2016, on the occasion of the 65th anniversary of Joseph Ratzinger’s priestly ordination, a ceremony was held in the Clementine hall in the presence of Pope Francis and his predecessor. Benedict, in the short final greeting, had returned to speak of mercy, “Thank you above all to you, Holy Father: your goodness, from the first moment of your election, in every moment of my life here, strikes me, and truly brings me, in an inner sense, more than in the Vatican Gardens, with their beauty, your goodness is the place where I live: I feel protected. Thank you also for your words of thanks, for everything. And let us hope that you will be able to continue with all of us on this path of Divine Mercy, showing the way of Jesus, to Jesus, to God”. http://www.lastampa.it/2018/03/12/v...-prejudice-rL1auNmEJgWt2CjwOH1swI/pagina.html
It is rather peculiar. It starts with the Emeritus Pope's comments about comparisons between him and Pope Francis which appear to have pigeon holed Pope Benedict as heavy on theory but light on pastoral practice and Pope Francis being the opposite. It's hardly surprising that such a comparison wouldn't meet with the approval of someone like Pope Benedict. Evidently, the author of the piece is keen to portray Pope Benedict as some kind of cheerleader for Pope Francis and his reforms because the bulk of the article is lifted from an interview which some Jesuit did with Pope Benedict three years ago, and finishes with quotes of Pope Benedict thanking Pope Francis for organising a celebration of the anniversary of Benedict's ordination. The piece appears to have been written to convince people that had Pope Benedict not resigned he would have wanted to do precisely what Pope Francis is doing. If the author were so confident of the message he is attempting to send, he wouldn't have to try so hard.
Pope Emeritus Benedict spent much of his career as a theologian debating and fighting against Cardinal Kasper and his "initiatives". Anyone who studies these issues will know that. That is all we need to know about his positions on the issues being discussed in the Church today. Other than that I think Fr. Benedict is trying to be a good "ex-Pope" and support the validity, etc. of his successor. This is not the first time he has gone out of his way to lend support to the man he views as his legitimate successor. I would not read too much into this or take this to mean that suddenly he has changed his position on any of the issues he fought against. For better or ill Fr. Benedict has taken the position of being meek and humble under Pope Francis and to either support him or stand in the background. Fr. Benedict is no fool though. He is careful with his words. It is important to notice the things he does not mention. The major issues that are shaking the Church right now. Not a peep about supporting those initiatives. This strikes me more as a polite expression of etiquette when presented with a gift rather than some overwhelming backing of the current agenda. I wouldn't worry about this at all or give it too much concern. If Fr. Benedict is one thing he is a polite gentleman.
Maybe the theology as presented in the books is orthodox. The books were edited by the President of the Italian Theological Association who would have been smart enough to omit some of the more peculiar pronouncements of Pope Francis.
The timing seems highly appropriate! It marks the fifth anniversary of the election of Pope Francis. And what better time for the Pope Emeritus to show his continuing support for Francis.
I was curious how forum members would react to this news. Praetorian seems to view it as a 'non event' having little meaning other than a 'polite' word of support to his successor. Yet the Pope Emeritus' words are much stronger than that. He confirms that Pope Francis is continuing the teachings of his own pontificate and in a stroke, undermines the endless criticisms of Francis although it is clear that those criticisms will continue. I think it is an unexpected development as Benedict made it clear from the moment of his resignation that he would not get involved in commenting on the day to day workings of his successor's pontificate. And no, Praetorian, I'm not 'worrying' about all this It fills me with hope that the criticisms of Pope Francis might now reduce a little and cause the critics to be a little more circumspect. It is worth highlighting one paragraph from the Pope Emeritus' letter: “these small volumes rightly show that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation and they help [people] therefore to see the internal continuity between the two pontificates, even with all the differences of style and temperament.”
Fake letter or not, I for one do not need anyone to tell me how the performance of the papacy of Pope Francis has gone. It is the most divisive papacy and in a very long time. Any papacy which is divisive on the teachings of Christ and the teachings of his Church is not of God. God unites in unchanging truth. Satan divides and confuses the truths of the Gospel.
Very thought-provoking article. Have we been wrong about Pope Benedict all along? Is the article unfair to good Pope Benedict? Not for the faint-hearted. Monday, March 12, 2018 Et Tu, Benedict? (Some Final Thoughts on Joseph Ratzinger) Written by Hilary White Editor's Note: In a March 11th letter to Msgr. Dario Vigano, prefect of the Secretariat for Communications, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI reportedly offers an impassioned defense of Pope Francis against the claim that he lacks theological and philosophical formation. In no uncertain terms, this letter bearing Benedict's signature affirmed that “there is an internal continuity between the two pontificates.” This gives rise to a number of grave questions that need to be answered. Our thanks to Remnant columnist, Hilary White, for addressing the most pertinent of these here below. MJM Recently an editor of a “conservative” Catholic magazine asked me if I would be interested in contributing a piece about the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, five years on. I declined, telling him that I was morally certain that anything I had to say about it would not be in keeping with his editorial policies. It’s been five years, and I’ve noticed that there are a lot fewer people talking about what a “courageous” act it was to give up the pontificate. The consequences of that act have been so outlandish – even for people who are mostly OK with Francis – that very few people are still willing to make polite noises about it. In fact, five years after the resignation of Pope Benedict the Catholic faithful mostly want to know why; why would a pope – a man with decades of up-close-and-personal experience of the “filth” in the Curia and throughout the church – suddenly just decide to quit? Why would he choose to walk away knowing that his task was not completed? At the time and since then, particularly in light of what has been happening, it seems one of the most bizarre aspects of this whole bizarre situation that the reasons offered have been so trivial, so inappropriately, so disproportionately petty. These absurd responses to serious questions of grave import have raised the inescapable suspicion that Benedict simply did not take the papacy as seriously as the rest of us did. We cannot help but wonder if these trivialised responses reveal some deep flaw that we had never suspected before. Could we have been wrong about him? And if so, could we have been this wrong? For reasons, all we heard at the time was, essentially, “I’m tired.” There was some implication that he didn’t feel up to international travel anymore, so couldn’t make it to World Youth Day and similar events. The trivialising of the resignation seemed to go hand in hand with the modern concept of the pope-as-pop-star, something we had thought Benedict was too serious a man, too serious a Catholic, to believe himself. Of all people, we had assumed that Benedict XVI took the papacy seriously. And since then, as all the poisons that had been lurking for fifty years in the NewChurch mud are busily hatching out, many Catholics want to know why we hear nothing from him? This man whom we had believed a “champion of orthodoxy,” whom we thought we knew. Error, even heresy and blasphemy are pouring daily out of the mouth of his successor, who has, literally, turned the Vatican into a den of thieves, and we hear nothing but the occasional, carefully worded statement on how fine everything is. How content he is with his decision and how happy with his current life. After three years of systematic dismantling of everything he had attempted to do in his pontificate, we got this from an apparently utterly insouciant Ratzinger, addressed to Francis: “Your goodness is my home and the place where I feel safe.” Everyone who had ever read anything he had written were amazed he was capable of producing such maudlin drivel, but the video doesn’t lie: So strange was this new tone that speculation started circulating that he was under some kind of external compulsion, not free to speak his mind. But this is not what we see. There he is, manifestly happy and reading it out loud. “Perhaps it was written for him.” Well, why repeat it then? Why, if he has any qualms, allow himself to be trotted out on such occasions, to read this blatant propaganda? If it is a deception, why participate in it? In fact, all the hopeful commenters on blogs and other social media who keep telling me how much they “miss” him have failed to respect him in one way; they won’t take him at his word. Some insist that his resignation was under some sort of coercion and so isn’t valid. But we have repeatedly heard from him that he was under no constraint, that he had resigned freely. And indeed, far from being an isolated “prisoner of the Vatican,” Benedict has received many guests all of whom report that, though frail, he appears content and never utters a word of criticism. We have yet to hear any report of any notes begging for rescue hidden under a lunch table placemat. There’s no doubt that this is an extremely strange and frankly fishy situation; something doesn’t add up, it’s true. All the questions have gone ignored, or have received frivolous, jokey responses: Why did you resign? Ratzinger: “I was a bit tired and didn’t feel up to partying with the kids at World Youth Day.” If you’re not pope, why do you still wear the white? Ratzinger: “Oh, there wasn’t a black cassock that fit me.” Why do you continue to call yourself Benedict XVI if you are no longer pope? Ratzinger: “Well, I’m an ‘emeritus,’ you see…” And where did this “emeritus” business come from? Does it have any precedent in Catholic history? What does it mean canonically and doctrinally? Ratzinger: “…” What was all that rubbish from Ganswein about there being a divided “munus” – with an active member and a “contemplative member”? Doesn’t that just mean there are two popes now? Ratzinger: “…” And perhaps most agonising of all: “How can you just sit there smiling, issuing bland platitudinous nonsense, while this lunatic drives the sheep off a cliff?” A few days ago, my friend Steve Skojec, of the traditionalist/restorationist website One Peter Five, summed up the consternation of those of us who still feel a lingering affection for (the man we used to call) Pope Benedict. Steve summons up in this brief post all the anger and all the crushing disappointment most of us probably still feel reluctant to express out loud: Five years ago today, Pope Benedict XVI abdicated the papacy. And through the abandonment of his duty to shepherd the Church, he made way for the worst papacy of all time – one he steadfastly refuses to oppose in word, deed, or even the subtlest gesture. You may love him for various reasons, you may miss him by contrast, but you may not excuse the responsibility he has. He walked away from his family, leaving the door open to an abusive stepfather, and he watches his children beaten and led astray not just in silence, but in apparent contentment. And still, he was the best of the post-conciliar popes, which is why he’s the only one who won’t be canonized. (cont.)
Who is the real Joseph Ratzinger? I have had long-time Vatican watchers say to me, more than once, “Maybe it’s really just that he wasn’t who we thought he was.” I suspect there is a lot more to this than most people might imagine. I think we made the mistake of believing the press. We were delighted that the bitterly anti-Catholic media hated and feared him. We failed to recall that they know nothing at all about Catholicism. What the papers never told us was that as a young priest and theologian Joseph Ratzinger was known as a “progressive,” as the term was understood in 1962. This reputation was cemented during his work as the peritus, the theological advisor, of one of the Council’s most influential of the bishops of the progressive camp, Cardinal Josef Frings of Cologne. Frings’ claim to fame in that great drama was a speech criticising the CDF – and its prefect Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani – for the “conservatism” in the “schema,” the documents prepared by the CDF for guiding the bishops’ discussions. After this speech, there was an uprising among the bishops of the preparatory committee who demanded that the schema – that had taken years to develop – be abandoned. This was done, over Ottaviani’s futile objections, and new documents were rapidly cobbled together by a coalition of German and French “progressives” who rejoiced that they had, in effect, seized control of the Council from that moment, before it had even started. It has since been revealed that it was Joseph Ratzinger – the maverick “progressive” academic theologian Frings had brought to Rome as his secretary – who wrote that speech. Cardinal Henri de Lubac, writing in 1985, recalling that drama, said: “Joseph Ratzinger, an expert at the Council, was also the private secretary of Card. Frings, Archbishop of Cologne. Blind, the old Cardinal largely utilized his secretary to write his interventions. Now then, one of these interventions became memorable: it was a radical criticism of the methods of the Holy Office. Despite a reply by Card. Ottaviani, Frings sustained his critique. “It is not an exaggeration to say that on that day the old Holy Office, as it presented itself then, was destroyed by Ratzinger in union with his Archbishop. “Card. Seper, a man full of goodness, intiated the renovation. Ratzinger, who did not change, continues it.” Ratzinger’s reputation as a “progressive” is not based on one incident, nor was it restricted to his early work. It went unnoticed in the shouting over his running of CDF, that he had written in 1982, a call for the Church “never to return” to the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX. In his book Principles of Catholic Theology, Ratzinger proposed the question, “Should the Council be revoked?” and in response recommended the “razing of the bastions” of the Catholic Church in relation to the modern world: The duty is, therefore, not to suppress the Council, but to discover the real Council and delve deep into what it truly wants with regard to what has happened since then. This implies that there is no possible return to the Syllabus, which could well have been a first step in the combat against Liberalism and the nascent Marxism, but which cannot be the last word. Neither embraces nor the ghetto can resolve the problem of [relations with] the modern world for the Christian. Hence, the 'razing of the bastions' that Hans Urs von Balthasar called for already in 1952 was in effect an urgent duty. It was necessary for her [the Church] to raze the old bastions and confide only in the protection of the faith, the power of the word that is her unique, true, and permanent strength. But to raze the bastions cannot signify that she no longer has anything to protect, or that she can live owing to different forces than those that engendered her: the water and the blood that poured from the open side of her crucified Lord. His was the thesis – a mainstay of “conservative” ideology – that the “real” Council, if only implemented properly, would be the salvation of the Church and the world, a theme he never left. How ironic it must have seemed to those who remembered this history that Ratzinger would himself be given the office he had “destroyed” and would gain the media-generated reputation as an “arch-conservative”. And it starts to suggest an answer, or at least a line of inquiry, about why so little was actually accomplished in his long tenure. With the “arch-conservative” “Rottweiler” Ratzinger in CDF, why do we have the situation we have today? What did he do to stop the explosion of neo-modernism – that burned like an unchecked wildfire throughout the Catholic world through the reign of John Paul II? What did “silencing” by Ratzinger’s CDF do to stop Hans Kung becoming a celebrity “priest-theologian,” courted by the media for his loathing of Catholicism? Kung, who was never removed from the priesthood despite his manifest heresy? Can we think of any other names who were corrected even to this degree? Precious few. But we can certainly think of many, many who spent their lives and vocations blatantly denying and undermining the Catholic Faith – academic theologians, religious, priests, bishops and cardinals around the world – with never a peep of protest from Rome. Moreover, the scandalous pack of frauds we currently have in the episcopate is entirely the product of the “arch-conservative” John Paul II and the “Rottweiler” Benedict XVI pontificates. Why did we think that Ratzinger, in this crucial role of CDF prefect, was a bulwark of orthodoxy? Is it simply that we have moved so far away from the ancient Faith that we no longer have a realistic notion of the Faith ourselves to make a comparison, to make an objective judgement? The “progressive” destroyer of Ottaviani inheriting his office and the epithet “arch-conservative”… Indeed, Ratzinger himself maintained that he had never changed his theological opinions. He was to say that it was his old academic colleagues like Kung and Kasper who had moved further to the ideological “left” after the 1960s while he stayed in place. Perhaps now, as an answer that fits our apparently contradictory puzzle pieces, we can finally accept his word on this. Perhaps the world of Catholic academic theology had become so corrupted that a man called “progressive” in 1963, but whose ideas remained the same, would look like a “champion of traditional Catholic orthodoxy” by 2005. Is this why he resigned? Is it simply that his conception of the Church, of the papacy, was never what Catholics believed about it? Perhaps a hint at the answer comes from La Stampa in 2015 which published some of the memoirs of Silvano Fausti, SJ, who had been confessor and spiritual guide of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the godfather of the “liberal” European Catholic Church, and alleged leader of the “Sankt Gallen Mafia” that Cardinal Danneels admitted conspired for years against Pope Benedict. Fausti said that Benedict met with Martini at the bishops’ palace of Milan in June 2012. Martini, Fausti said, urged Benedict to resign the papacy. Apparently at the time of his election in 2005, Martini had said it would be his main task to reform the Curia. By 2012, this had proved impossible. Why would Benedict take advice from a man like Martini – the “godfather” of the “liberal wing” of European Catholicism? I think the question would not even occur to a man like Ratzinger. They were esteemed academic colleagues. They were brothers of the episcopate. They were members of the club. Any appearance of ideological division between them was, in essence, a product of the media narrative. Why wouldn’t the pope take the advice of his most respected and senior cardinal? Continue here: https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/in...edict-some-final-thoughts-on-joseph-ratzinger
Ah, so now the Pope Emeritus is about to be demonized like anyone else who supports Pope Francis is he??
I am anxious to hear comments on this article. In the secular world there have been researchers on the internet exposing things about many so called icons: George hw Bush and Billy Graham and worst of all Justice Scalia. Are we now to hear the real story about BXVI? And how can we trust it? We have only our eyes our ears and our experiences right in front of us. Deceptions within deceptions?? How deep does this corruption go? How much is fake news? One’s head spins. And maybe that was the whole point. Satan’s clever ploy. Diabolical disorientation indeed!
I don't think it is unfair to question so long as we are willing to be honest with ourselves. I think it is naive to think one can divide up into camps of so called liberal and conservative and have any faith at all in such a pipe dream being some kind of moral divining rod. Kind of like saying we simply should not question something we know to be against the teachings of God simply because a prelate of the Church says it is ok. Look at the actions of these men and whether or not they vigorously adhere to the teachings of the Church. If they did not at some point did they ever renounce their actions or correct them?
We do know that Pope Benedict made these comments about the Church less than a year ago. Pope Benedict XVI: The Church is a boat ‘on the verge of capsizing’. On July 15, 2017, Pope Benedict XVI sent a message that was read aloud at the funeral of Cardinal Joachim Meisner, in which he said that the Church is a boat“on the verge of capsizing”. https://veritas-vincit-internationa...-xvi-the-church-is-on-the-verge-of-capsizing/
How content the evil one must be to hear such shocking sad comments about the holy father Benidict Have you read Jesus of Nazareth and marvelled at the gift the lord bestowed upon us?The letters on Love Hope and Charity he wrote as pope! Not to mention salt of the earth and the follow up light of the world. At this time of great confusion even treachery perpetrated by senior clericsI plead with you do not fall into this great darkness. Awaken and respond to our holy Mothers call. Pray pray pray. Pope Francis the legitimate authority and vicar of Christ is in need of our prayers as he himself requests. The cardinals who speak out remind us to pray and acknowledge this truth. Never do they speak of rebellion or rejection of his reign. Remember all things work towards the good for those who love the lord! Simon do you love me? Change the name to your own... feed my sheep. When you were naked I clothed you, hungry I gave you food, sick I cared for you... most holy and Immaculate Heart this night I pray dearest lady Queen of Peace to protect us from the snares of evil. Guide us to the Sacred Heart be our refuge!!!
I think it appears to be true that Pope Benedict is offering a strong support for Pope Francis and that they must be taken very, very seriously indeed. Pope Benedict is as a former Pope and huge theologian and a man of great sanctity someone to be taken very seriously indeed. Let's take this to prayer and not answer too quickly but take it to the Lord in much prayer and thought over Easter. Let us be prayerfully tranquil in these times of huge unease and confusion. I confess I am utterly perplexed. But maybe this is the price we pay for thinking and being alive to events. We will see what we will see. Our Lady Seat of Wisdom guide us. Much, much , much time needed for thought and prayer. A time of prayerful silence? To seek Light from above?
My my it seems the "watchers" are getting whiplash these days. Those older reports of same relationship: According to Lifesite: Pope Benedict XVI sent a sobering message at the funeral of Cardinal Joachim Meisner today, saying he was moved at the dubia cardinal’s ability to “live out of a deep conviction that the Lord does not abandon His Church, even when the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing.” The Church “stands in particularly pressing need of convincing shepherds who can resist the dictatorship of the spirit of the age and who live and think the faith with determination,” Pope Benedict said in a message read by Archbishop Georg Gänswein, his personal secretary and head of the papal household. Because of this “pressing need,” Meisner “found it difficult to leave his post.” “What moved me all the more was that, in this last period of his life, he learned to let go and to live out of a deep conviction that the Lord does not abandon His Church, even when the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing,” the pope emeritus concluded. Meisner, who was 83, was one of the four cardinals who sent Pope Francis a dubia, consisting of five questions, asking if Amoris Laetitia is aligned with Catholic morality. Translated from a German report by Pewsitter.com: Speaking at a March 16th conference in Limburg, Germany, the long-time Vatican correspondent Andreas Englisch has delivered an explosive allegation: In contradiction of public appearances, Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI “are in complete disagreement” and “never speak to one another.” The Pope Emeritus has apparently stated that he only appears in public “at the explicit request of Pope Francis.” What is shown on these occasions, Englisch continues, is “only the pretense of friendship.” No official transcript of the press conference is yet available, but Giuseppe Nardi, another well-known Vaticanist who was in attendance, says that Englisch continued his statements by describing Pope Francis as a “strong personality” who “gets what he wants,” and that he has little in common with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI but “uses him when necessary for the optics. =================================================================== And one of the reasons allegedly given by Pope Benedict for his resignation was that he wasn't strong enough to keep control over even the personal apartment's privacy of personal papers....as they were taken and released to the media. One idea that I keep in mind is that the man is in a situation of a kind of complete control over what he says (and what he doesn't). And there are allegedly reasons why he didn't retire to his beloved Germany and with his dear brother. Perhaps his main intention now is just to keep the Church from an outright and open schism while he lives. Things seem to be taking on a similar control over communications, real or unreal, as were those so called statements coming from Sr. Lucia at various times and for "different" purposes of those in charge of things at the top.
