Very problematic Cardinal Ratzinger and Benedict XVI quotes

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 248: “Besides, I reckon as one of the important results of ecumenical conversations particularly the realization that the question of the Eucharist cannot be restricted to the problem of ‘validity.’  Even a theology along the lines of the concept of [apostolic] succession, as is in force in the Catholic and in the Orthodox Church, should in no way deny the saving presence of the Lord in the Evangelical Lord’s Supper.”
 


Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 229: “I have become still more clearly aware that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church belong to one another and that none of the doctrinal questions that appear to divide us is insoluble.”


 
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 251: “The fact that the burdensome question of [apostolic] succession does not detract from the spiritual dignity of Evangelical Christianity, or from the saving power of the Lord at work within it, has been very nicely elucidated in the Decree on Ecumenism, especially in number 23, so it seems to me.”


 
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 232: “The two codes of canon law of the Catholic Church and her Ecumenical directory show that under certain conditions admission to Communion between East and West is permissible or even positively recommended.  And agreement is about to be concluded between the ‘Assyrian’ and the ‘Chaldean’ Churches about mutual admission to Communion in wide areas of the diaspora, where very often only one of the two has a priest available.  This case needed special studies to be made, because the Anaphora of Addai and Mari most commonly in use by the Assyrians does not include an institution narrative.  But these difficulties were able to be overcome, and thus in general, despite many problems, there are now and again little bits of encouragement that give us hope.”


Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 377: “…we are witnesses today of a new integralism [read: traditionalism] that may seem to support what is strictly Catholic but in reality corrupts it to the core.  It produces a passion of suspicions, the animosity of which is far from the spirit of the gospel.  There is an obsession with the letter that regards the liturgy of the Church as invalid and thus puts itself outside the Church.  It is forgotten here that the validity of the liturgy depends primarily, not on specific words, but on the community of the Church; under the pretext of Catholicism, the very principle of Catholicism is denied, and, to a large extent, custom is substituted for truth.”


Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 250: “The question about the biblical basis of the doctrine of the primacy of the two Vatican Councils is a classical point of controversy that has been a matter of debate for a long time and certainly needs to be debated further.”



Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 258: “…I tried to outline a model of ecumenism of which the acceptance of division, and drawing close to one another even while separated, was an essential element.  In that sense I could accept slogans like ‘unity through diversity’, ‘unity in diversity’, and a ‘reconciled diversity.’”
 


Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 273: “It is true that Islam, too, regards itself as a son of Abraham and has inherited from Israel and the Christians the same God, yet it walks by another path, which requires different standards for dialogue.”


Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 232: “I have always thought, and now even more so, that what stands between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches is far less questions of doctrine than the memory of old hurts that alienate us from each other: the power of the confused tangles of history seems to be stronger than the light of faith that ought to be transforming them into forgiveness.”


Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 203: “We will of course be unable to avoid seeing all the series of movements that failed or that led to lasting division: Montanists, Cathars, Waldensians, Hussites, the Reformation movement of the sixteenth century.  And we will probably have to talk about there being faults on both sides that left division here in the end.”


On March 14, 2010, Benedict XVI gave a homily from the pulpit of Rome’s Lutheran Church to Lutheran “Pastor” Kruse and the Evangelical Lutheran Community: “Dear Brothers and Sisters, I would like to offer my warm thanks to the whole Community, your leaders, and in particular to Pastor Kruse, for having invited me to celebrate this Laetare Sunday with you… Dear Pastor Kruse, you have interpreted St. Paul’s Message of hope for us… It is wonderful that today, Laetare Sunday, we can pray together, sing the same hymns, listen to the same word of God, explain it and seek to understand it together; that we look to the one Christ whom we see and to whom we wish to belong and that, in this manner, we are already witnessing that he is the one, the One who has called us all and to whom, in the deepest way possible, we all belong… Dear friends, once again I would like to thank you for extending this invitation to me, for the cordiality with which you have welcomed me, and also for your words, kind Ms. Esch.  Let us give thanks for having been able to pray and sing together. (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 24, 2010, p. 6.)

Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts…  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.” (Benedict XVI, God and the World, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000, p. 209.)

Cardinal Ratzinger, Milestones, 1998, pages 53-54: “I have ever more come to the realization that Judaism… and the Christian faith described in the New Testament are two ways of appropriating Israel’s Scriptures, two ways that, in the end, are both determined by the position one assumes with regard to the figure of Jesus of Nazareth.  The Scripture we today call Old Testament is in itself open to both ways…” (Benedict XVI, Milestones, Ignatius Press, 1998, pp. 53-54. )


Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, pages 150-151: “…their [the Jews] No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God.  They are not excluded from salvation…” (Benedict XVI, God and the World, p. 209)

Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, pages 150-151: “…their [the Jews] No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God.  They are not excluded from salvation…” (Benedict XVI, God and the World, p. 209.)

Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, pp. 197-198: “Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism.  The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear.  On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches.  On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism; the maximum demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the Catholic Church accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the Church and thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure of the Church, which would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism and their acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community structures as the historical form of the Church.  While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously rejected by Christian consciousness, the fourth exercises a kind of fascination for it – as it were, a certain conclusiveness that makes it appear to be the real solution to the problem.  This is all the more true since there is joined to it the expectation that a Parliament of Churches, a ‘truly ecumenical council’, could then harmonize this pluralism and promote a Christian unity of action.  That no real union would result from this, but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not bring Church unity but only a final renunciation of it.  As a result, none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.” (Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, Ignatius Press, 1982, pp. 197-198. )

Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 198: “Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely this…” (Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 198.)

Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 216-217: “Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] spoke even more strongly when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI] in Phanar: ‘Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’.’  It is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the west.  Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church – and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the ‘primacy of jurisdiction’ but confesses a primacy of ‘honor’ and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church – ‘holy courage’ requires that prudence be combined with ‘audacity’: ‘The kingdom of God suffers violence.’” (Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 216-217.)

Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 198-199: “… In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.  When the Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch], on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium.  Rome need not ask for more.” (Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 198-199.)

Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?... 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!” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 8.)

Benedict XVI, Ecumenical Message to Schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople, Nov. 26, 2005: “This year we commemorate the 40th Anniversary of 7 December 1965, that day on which Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, dissatisfied with what had occurred in 1054, decided together at Rome and Constantinople ‘to cancel from the Church’s memory the sentence of excommunication which had been pronounced.’” (L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 7, 2005, p. 4.)

Benedict XVI, Address during ecumenical Vespers service, Sept. 12, 2006: “Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ!  We are gathered, Orthodox Christians, Catholics and Protestants – and together with us there are also some Jewish friends – to sing together the evening praise of God… This is an hour of gratitude for the fact that we can pray together in this way and, by turning to the Lord, at the same time grow in unity among ourselves… Among those gathered for this evening’s Vespers, I would like first to greet warmly the representatives of the Orthodox Church.  I have always considered it a special gift of God’s Providence that, as a professor at Bonn, I was able to come to know and to love the Orthodox Church, personally as it were, through two young Archimandrites, Stylianos Harkianakis and Damaskinos Papandreou, both of whom later became Metropolitans… Our koinonia [communion] is above all communion with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit; it is communion with the triune God, made possible by the Lord through his incarnation and the outpouring of the Spirit.  This communion with God creates in turn koinonia among people, as a participation in the faith of the Apostles…” (L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 20, 2006, p. 10. )

Benedict XVI, Joint Declaration with Patriarch Bartholomew, Nov. 30, 2006: “This fraternal encounter which brings us together, Pope Benedict XVI of Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, is God's work, and in a certain sense his gift.  We give thanks to the Author of all that is good, who allows us once again, in prayer and in dialogue, to express the joy we feel as brothers and to renew our commitment to move towards full communion. This commitment comes from the Lord's will and from our responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ… As far as relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople are concerned, we cannot fail to recall the solemn ecclesial act effacing the memory of the ancient anathemas which for centuries had a negative effect on our Churches.” (www.zenit.org, Zenit news report, Nov. 30, 2006. )

I have a few I might want to add.

All of these quotes are publically available and most are published by Ignatius Press. Almost all of these books are available at Barnes and Noble bookstore. I don't know why one gets upset when I post them here.

Eventually the Church is going to have to deal with these quotes, in fact maybe they are already dealing with some of them in their talks with the SSPX.

RashaLampa wrote:All of these quotes are publically available and most are published by Ignatius Press. Almost all of these books are available at Barnes and Noble bookstore. I don't know why one gets upset when I post them here.

Exactly. Don't sweat it.

RashaLampa wrote:Eventually the Church is going to have to deal with these quotes, in fact maybe they are already dealing with some of them in their talks with the SSPX.

Hope so! But they (SSPX) mustn't have had much of an effect on the Pope's conscience in light of some recent actions.

Just so you realize the quotes, especially the ones regarding the Orthodox (as well as the "Balamand Decree" which was crafted by some Vatican prelates along with the Eastern Orthodox) is creating a lot of confusion and in REAL LIFE situations, not just with "trads" on forums.

Case in point:

I have several Ukrainian friends and frequently go to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. One of my friends (a Greek Catholic) has a good friend who was in a Catholic religious order but then LEFT. He later became a priest of the Kiev Patriarchate Orthodox Church because seminarian there is a lot easier than the Catholic seminaries.
He is now a married Orthodox priest with his own parish. This confusion that is coming out of certain bishops in the church keeps men like this in their error. After all we can't call the Orthodox "schismatics" any more so what is the problem?

Right after the fall of Communism it was common for many young men who were rejected by the Catholic seminary to enter the Orthodox seminary (sometimes they were ordained in only 2 years) get ordained and then "re-convert" to the Catholic Church as priests. Of course, later on the bishops figured this out and placed safeguards against this (they could only come back as layman or they needed to bring their whole parish and things like that). If the issue of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus were CLEAR in these young men's minds they probably would not leave the religion which their forefathers suffered for so they could gain ordination, a parish (and therefore a stead income), and a wife.

Anyway, so let's start to chip away at these quotes!