Free Web space and hosting from 9k.com
Search the Web

Why the Post Conciliar Popes Are Not Valid (Anti-popes, False popes). John XXIII forced election in which Cardinal Siri was threatened and the conclave or choosing of the seat was fixed. John was a freemason and a manifest heretic. Heretics elected him, a freemason knighted him as a cardinal and not Pius XII. He was an infiltrator to subvert the church. He called a devil's council. He was anathematized by St. Pius V, the Council of Trent and various papal declarations existing as well as the Canon Law 1917.

Paul VI was a communist and freemason, infiltrator, he was not properly consecrated as a bishop and a non-catholic heretic anti-pope made him a cardinal. He gave the tiara away. He promulgated Vatican II and the New Devil's Mass. He was a manifest heretic. He permitted novelties and reforms that even the false council did not call for. The list goes on about why Paul VI is not and never legally, morally or spiritually sat on the chair of Peter other than his election by demons themselves. His was an illegal conclave also.

John Paul I chose the name of two masonic heretics that ruptured the church and drove the church into an eclipse by a new counterfeit church. Not enough is known in which he actually did damage. His predecessor took his name John Paul II and was the worst of the dogs in the Vatican claiming to be the Pope. His many heresies, masonic activity, communist sympathy and the thousands of evils he committed and permitted fill up an encyclopedia of notoriety.

Benedict XVI is a Jew and an undercover mason. He is a manifest heretic by his many sayings, writings and his agendas since Vatican II. We have compiled many other things in detail by various sources on this anti-pope who now is pretending to be the Pope. He is the first to be a bishop and a cardinal in 1977 under the new rites of consecration. His election was completely that of manifest heretics and illegal and invalid bishops and redhats.

The Astounding Heresy in Benedict XVI's Book The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood
*This is from a continuing study of Benedict XVI's books being researched by experts.

The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood by “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (Ignatius Press)

BENEDICT XVI SAYS THAT PROTESTANTISM IS NOT HERESY

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88: “The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy's characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine's: that an old schism becomes a heresy.

The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

Well, there you have it. Benedict XVI not only tells us that Protestants are not heretics, but that Protestantism itself is not heresy. This is clearly Benedict XVI's worst and most explicit heresy so far, besides his teaching that Christ may not be the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. This is such an incredible heresy that there is absolutely nothing that anyone on earth can say to defend this apostate. It is undeniable proof that he is not a Catholic.

Heresy is a rejection of a dogma of Catholic Faith. Protestantism is the rejection of many dogmas of the Catholic Faith. Protestantism is not only heresy, but the most notorious and destructive collection of heresies with which the Church ever had to contend. Protestantism rejects many dogmatic Councils of the Catholic Church, as well as dogmatic definitions on the priesthood, justification, the papacy, papal infallibility, the sacraments, Our Lady, etc., just to name a few. Protestantism is heresy in every single one of those areas. But Benedict XVI tells us that Protestants are not heretics and that Protestantism is not heresy. Incredible! This means that one can reject all the Councils and dogmas of the Catholic Church and it is not even heresy. This proves that Benedict XVI is without any doubt a complete heretic and not the Pope. Those who deny this are simply liars.

Pope Pius XI, Rerum omnium perturbationem (#4), Jan. 26, 1923: “The saint was no less a person that Francis de Sales, Bishop of Geneva and Doctor of the Universal Church. Like those brilliant examples of Christian perfection and wisdom to whom We have just referred, he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the [Protestant] Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind.”

A HERETIC CANNOT BE A VALID POPE

It is a proven fact that Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) is a non-Catholic heretic. The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic cannot be validly elected Pope, since a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church. Ratzinger, who is now Benedict XVI, is a non- Catholic Antipope whose election was utterly null and void.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6.
In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way...
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power....

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church...”
St. Robert Bellarmine: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456:

"Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as Pope] would be null and void."

More than 30 Astounding and Amazing Heresies of Benedict XVI from his 1982 book "Principles of Catholic Theology"

The media is telling us that the newly “elected” Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) is “God's Rottweiler” of orthodoxy – a veritable hammer of heretics. The “conservative” members of the Novus Ordo are telling us that Benedict XVI is a sign that God is still with the Vatican II “Church.” The false traditionalists are telling us that Benedict XVI may be a sign of hope. Well, I just completed a study of Benedict XVI's 1982 book Principles of Catholic Theology – a book written not in Ratzinger's young days at Vatican II, but when he was a “Cardinal” and Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The facts that will now be brought forward will prove that the above statements about Ratzinger constitute some of the most egregious lies that Satan ever inspired. The facts that will now be brought forward will prove that Benedict XVI’s claim to be the head of the Catholic Church is one of the greatest frauds in human history. What we are dealing with in Joseph Ratzinger – the man who is now known as Benedict XVI – is an apostate and an enemy of the Catholic Church so profound that he ranks right with Luther, Calvin, etc. Let the facts prove the point.

Note: In this article the reader will see that I have gone out of my way to give as much context as possible to the quotes from Ratzinger, so that people can see that they are not in any way taken out of context.

In this Article:

1) RATZINGER LISTS THE POSITION THAT PROTESTANTS AND EASTERN SCHISMATICS SHOULD BE CONVERTED AND BLUNTLY REJECTS IT

2) RATZINGER SAYS THAT CATHOLICS CANNOT HOLD VATICAN I AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE “FORM” OF THE PRIMACY AND AS BINDING ON ALL

3) RATZINGER BLUNTLY DENIES VATICAN I AND THE DOGMA THAT POPES HAVE SUPREME JURISDICTION

4) RATZINGER DENIES THAT THE PAPACY WAS EVEN HELD IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM AND TELLS US THAT THIS IS WHY WE CANNOT BIND THE SCHISMATICS TO BELIEVE IN IT

5) RATZINGER SAYS THE VALIDITY OF THE MASS DOES NOT DEPEND ON WORDS BUT ON THE COMMUNITY. HE ALSO SAYS THAT THOSE WHO REGARD THE NOVUS ORDO AS INVALID ARE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

6) RATZINGER SAYS THAT WE CANNOT KNOW IF WHAT JESUS SAID IS TRUE

7) RATZINGER AGAIN SAYS THAT CATHOLICS DON'T INSIST THAT PROTESTANTS CONVERT

8) RATZINGER LABELS AS “HARSH” AND REJECTS THE DOGMATIC DEFINITION OF VATICAN I ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY, THAT THE POPE DEFINES DOGMA FROM HIS OWN AUTHORITY

9) RATZINGER SAYS THE GREEK SCHISMATIC CHURCH IS A TRUE CHURCH EVEN THOUGH NOT SUBJECT TO THE POPE

10) RATZINGER PRAISES THE “GREATNESS” OF LUTHER'S “SPIRITUAL FERVOR”

11) RATZINGER SAYS KRISHNA IS A SYMBOL OF CHRIST

12) RATZINGER ADMITS THAT VATICAN II CONTRADICTS THE MAGISTERIAL TEACHING OF POPE PIUS IX ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND FALSE RELIGIONS

13) RATZINGER SAYS LUTHER'S POSITION ON THE CHURCH OF THE FATHERS IS CORRECT

14) RATZINGER SAYS TRENT'S DOCTRINE ON THE PRIESTHOOD WAS WEAK AND DISASTROUS IN ITS EFFECT

15) RATZINGER SAYS THAT LUTHER'S DENIAL OF THE PRIESTHOOD DESERVES “WEIGHT”

16) RATZINGER SAYS INFANT BAPTISM HAS NO VALUE OR PURPOSE

17) RATZINGER TEACHES THAT THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE ON THE MASS IS CORRUPT TO THE CORE

18) RATZINGER TEACHES THAT THE OLD COVENANT IS VALID

19) RATZINGER SAYS THAT CATHOLIC DOGMA ON THE SACRAMENTS IS INTERMINGLED WITH BORROWINGS FROM FALSE MYSTERY RELIGIONS

20) RATZINGER SAYS THAT CHURCH TEACHING DOESN’T EXCLUDE THOSE WHO HOLD OPPOSING VIEWS

21) RATZINGER ADMITS THAT VATICAN II'S TEACHING IS NEW AND DIFFERENT

22) RATZINGER SAYS THAT TRENT'S DOGMA ON THE PRIESTHOOD IS SOLELY AN ATTACK AGAINST LUTHER

23) RATZINGER TEACHES THAT PROTESTANTS HAVE THE EUCHARISTIC PRESENCE

24) RATZINGER TOTALLY BLASPHEMES CHURCH TRADITION

25) RATZINGER AGAIN SAYS THAT THE EASTERN SCHISMATIC CHURCHES ARE TRUE CHURCHES

26) RATZINGER CONDEMNS TRADITIONALISM AS THE ANTITHESIS TO CATHOLICITY

27) RATZINGER PREACHES THAT MAN IS GOD

28) RATZINGER SAYS CHRISTIANITY ABSORBS FALSE RELIGIONS INTO ITSELF

29) RATZINGER TOTALLY DENIES THE UNITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

30) RATZINGER PRAISES THE ECUMENICAL MONASTERY OF TAIZE (MADE UP OF “CATHOLICS” AND NON-CATHOLICS) AND SAYS MORE SHOULD BE FORMED

RATZINGER DEMONSTRATING HIS FAMILIARITY WITH CATHOLIC TEACHING OTHER QUOTES OF INTEREST

31) RATZINGER DENIES THE RESURRECTION
CONCLUDING REMARKS
A HERETIC CANNOT BE A VALID POPE

1) RATZINGER LISTS THE POSITION THAT PROTESTANTS AND EASTERN SCHISMATICS SHOULD BE CONVERTED AND BLUNTLY REJECTS IT
On page 197 of his book, Ratzinger lists the whole range of positions with regard to “ecumenical” dialogue with the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics. In reading Ratzinger’s list of the “maximum” demands, one can see how simple it is: there is nothing to dialogue about because they need to convert! But we see that this is not what he or ecumenism wants at all.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 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.” I quoted the entire passage without a break so that people can see that this is not being taken out of context in any way. Ratzinger specifically mentions, and then bluntly rejects, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics must be converted to the Catholic Faith (and accept Vatican I: “the full scope of the definition of 1870”). He specifically rejects it as the way to unity. This is totally heretical and it proves that he is a complete non-Catholic heretic!

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan. 6, 1928:
“... the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it...”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin... Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

2) RATZINGER SAYS THAT CATHOLICS CANNOT HOLD VATICAN I AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE “FORM” OF THE PRIMACY AND AS BINDING ON ALL

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 198:
“Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. 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 and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.”

This means that all Christians are not bound to believe in the Papacy as defined by Vatican I in 1870! This means that the “Orthodox” schismatics are free to reject the Papacy! This is a blatant denial of Vatican Council I.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra:
"... all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation." (Denz. 1826-1827) Further, notice that Ratzinger admits that Paul VI's symbolic gestures with the schismatic Patriarch “were an attempt to express precisely this” – that is to say, his gestures (such as kneeling before the representative of the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras) expressed that the schismatics don't have to believe in the Papacy and Vatican I! Consider this a smashing vindication of all that we have said (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com) with regard to John Paul II's incessant gestures toward the schismatics:
giving them relics; giving them donations; praising their “Churches”; sitting on equal chairs with them; signing common declarations with them; lifting the excommunications against them.

We pointed out again and again that these actions alone (not even considering his other statements) constituted a teaching that the schismatics don't have to accept the dogma of the Papacy. Countless false traditionalists and members of the Novus Ordo denied this and tried to explain these gestures away as either merely scandalous but not heretical or something else; but here we have Ratzinger – now Benedict XVI, the new “head” of the Vatican II Church – admitting “precisely” what we said. This is a smashing vindication, and a crushing blow to the claims of the Vatican II sect... and it gets worse.

3) RATZINGER BLUNTLY DENIES VATICAN I AND THE DOGMA THAT POPES HAVE SUPREME JURISDICTION

For long sections of his book, Ratzinger engages in detailed discussions of issues dealing with the Eastern “Orthodox” (the schismatics), Luther, the Protestants, etc. These discussions are fascinating for our purposes, since they constitute a veritable position paper of his on these topics. In his discussion concerning the “Orthodox,” one discovers that he doesn't even believe in the dogma of the Papacy. It is important to remember that the Eastern Schismatics (the so-called “Orthodox”) often readily admit that the Popes are the successors of St. Peter as Bishops of Rome. Many of the “Orthodox” also say that the Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is “the first among equals” with a “primacy of honor”; but they deny – and in this consists their chief heresy and schism – that the Popes have a primacy of supreme jurisdiction from Christ to rule the entire Church.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 7), Jan. 6, 1928, speaking of heretics and schismatics:

“Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful.”

Ratzinger discusses the position of the schismatics, which rejects the primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the Popes, and here is what he says:

“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.’”

This is an astounding and explicit denial of the dogma of the Papacy and the infallible canon below! He announces the position of the schismatic Patriarch, which acknowledges no primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the Pope, and he not only tells us that the position of the schismatic is acceptable (as we saw already), but that the schismatic position may in fact be the true position on the Bishop of Rome! In other words, the Papacy (the supreme jurisdiction of the Popes over the universal Church by the institution of Christ as successors of St. Peter) may not exist at all! This is an astounding, incredible and huge heresy!

The fact that this man now claims to be the Pope when he doesn’t even believe in the Papacy is surely one of the greatest frauds in human history. Those who obstinately hold that this non-Catholic is the Pope assist in perpetuating that monumental fraud.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, Canon, ex cathedra: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power... let him be anathema.” (Denz. 1831)

4) RATZINGER DENIES THAT THE PAPACY WAS EVEN HELD IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM AND TELLS US THAT THIS IS WHY WE CANNOT BIND THE SCHISMATICS TO BELIEVE IN IT!

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 198-199: “... 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 Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse... 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.”

This is another astounding heresy! Ratzinger again says that the schismatic position of the non-Catholic Patriarch Athenagoras, which rejects the Papacy and merely acknowledges the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter with a primacy of honor BUT NOT OF SUPREME JURISDICTION, is sufficient! Further, Ratzinger says that the reason that we cannot expect the “Orthodox” to believe in the Papacy (the primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the Popes, not just a primacy of honor) is because it wasn’t even held in the first millennium! Therefore, Ratzinger holds that the primacy of supreme jurisdiction conferred by Jesus Christ upon St. Peter and his successors is just a fiction, an invention of later ages, not held in the early Church. He says that the schismatic position of Athenagoras – holding that the successor of St. Peter possesses a mere primacy of honor – is “the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium” and that “Rome need not ask for more”! Notice how directly this apostate denies Vatican I, which defined that in all ages the primacy of jurisdiction was recognized:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 2, ex cathedra:
“Surely no one has doubt, rather all ages have known that the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the apostles and pillar of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race; and he up to this time and always lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors, the bishops of the holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood.

Therefore, whoever succeeds Peter in this chair, he according to the institution of Christ himself, holds the primacy of Peter over the whole Church.” (Denz. 1824)

Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) totally rejects this dogma and the entire Catholic Faith.

5) RATZINGER SAYS THE VALIDITY OF THE MASS DOES NOT DEPEND ON WORDS BUT ON THE COMMUNITY! HE ALSO SAYS THAT THOSE WHO REGARD THE NOVUS ORDO AS INVALID ARE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

“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.”

This paragraph is both fascinating and incredibly heretical. First, he denounces a “new integralism” that is obsessed with the “letter” of the liturgy (i.e., the form) in regard to validity. He is obviously talking about Traditional Catholics, who oppose the Novus Ordo and its change to the form (i.e., the letters) of the Consecration. He says that this group regards the “liturgy of the church as invalid” [the Novus Ordo] and “thus puts itself outside the Church.” He then says that the validity of the liturgy doesn’t depend on specific words but on the community. This is an astounding heresy, which devastates Catholic sacramental teaching. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, "Exultate Deo":
"All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected." (Denz. 695)

And this is precisely why Ratzinger approved the notorious document that we covered in the Heresy of the Week a few years ago that a schismatic Mass with no words of Consecration is valid and can be attended!

All of this proves that Ratzinger doesn't even have a whiff of the Catholic Faith. He is an apostate of unspeakable proportions; and he is extremely familiar with the Catholic Faith he constantly rejects, of course. He proves this throughout the book. Anyone who reads his writings can easily recognize that the man is extremely familiar with the Catholic Faith he constantly rejects.

6) RATZINGER SAYS THAT WE CANNOT KNOW IF WHAT JESUS SAID IS TRUE

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 359: “Granted, with regard to the ultimate questions of who God is or what good is, we can never achieve the degree of certainty we can achieve in the realm of mathematics and technology. But when all knowledge that does not take the form of technical knowledge is declared to be nonknowledge, then we are cut off from the truth. We cannot, for instance, decide whether what Jesus said is true but can only dispute whether or not he said it. But that is ultimately an idle question.”

This is one of the most astounding heresies I've ever seen. [Note: I read the book and these sections carefully and these quotations are not taken out of context.] Not only does Ratzinger say that we cannot decide whether what Jesus said is true, but he says that we can dispute if he even said it. Perhaps what is most astounding about this is not that the apostate Ratzinger actually believes this, but that conservative members of the Novus Ordo can read a book like this and still say that Ratzinger is “arguably the finest theologian of the modern era” (Fr. Peter Stravinskas, back cover of Gospel, Catechisis, Catechism, by Joseph Ratzinger).

7) RATZINGER AGAIN SAYS THAT CATHOLICS DON'T INSIST THAT PROTESTANTS CONVERT

Building upon his theme of rejecting the “maximum solution” of conversion, Ratzinger explicitly rejects converting the Protestants again on page 202.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 202: “But we can define the required action even more clearly in terms of the above diagnosis. It means that the Catholic does not insist on the dissolution of the Protestant confessions and the demolishing of their churches but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confessions and in their ecclesial reality.”

He doesn't want the Protestant religions dissolved and converted to Catholicism, but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confession of Protestantism.

8) RATZINGER LABELS AS “HARSH” AND REJECTS THE DOGMATIC DEFINITION OF VATICAN I ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY, THAT THE POPE DEFINES DOGMA FROM HIS OWN AUTHORITY

In the following dogmatic definition of Papal Infallibility, please notice the bolded and underlined portion.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself [ex sese], but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. [Canon] But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 1839)

This dogma teaches that when a Pope defines a dogma ex cathedra he does so “from himself” (ex sese). The Pope doesn’t need the consensus of the Church or the bishops to define; he possesses the supreme power of jurisdiction himself, in which “the supreme power of the Magisterium is also comprehended” (Vatican I, Denz. 1832). To deny this is to reject dogma, Vatican I and Papal Infallibility. Guess what? Ratzinger specifically denies this dogma. He is literally giving us a course on how to deny Vatican I.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 234:
“Vatican Council I had said that the pope can make definitive decisions not only with the consent of the Church but also in his own right (‘ex sese’). Although many efforts were made during Vatican Council II to interpret this harsh and very ambiguous formula in such a way that its real meaning would be more readily apparent, they were not successful at that time because of disagreement among those concerned. It is my opinion that what was then only a wish is again being attempted in this section of the ‘Declaration’ [a post-Vatican II document]. It is no longer simply stated that the teaching ministry can make decisions on its own – ex sese. Now it is more accurately stated that, while the teaching ministry always acts against the background of the faith and prayer of the whole Church, ‘its office is not reduced merely to ratifying the assent already expressed by the latter...’”

Don't be confused by the ambiguity of the end of this quotation. The fact is that Ratzinger called Vatican I's infallible definition that the Pope defines from himself (ex sese) “harsh”; and he said that a post-Vatican II declaration is “more accurately stated” than the dogmatic definition of Vatican I! This latter statement is blatantly heretical because it means that the infallible teaching of Vatican I is less than perfectly accurate. The former statement that Vatican I is “harsh” and “very ambiguous” is smacking of heresy and shows his true schismatic colors.

9) RATZINGER SAYS THE GREEK SCHISMATIC CHURCH IS A TRUE CHURCH EVEN THOUGH NOT SUBJECT TO THE POPE

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 259:
“Even Luther looked to the Greek Church, which had remained a true church without being subject to the pope, and he, too, concluded that what was important was not the concrete, structured communion but the community behind the institutional one.”

This is totally heretical.

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “...We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.” (Denz. 570b)

10) RATZINGER PRAISES THE “GREATNESS” OF LUTHER’S “SPIRITUAL FERVOR” “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 263: “It is, consequently, all the more regrettable, I think, that the debate about office that is being carried on in the Church today relies, to a large extent, on the early Luther (this is by no means a thought that is expressed here for the first time) without recognizing the religious center that was most important to him: the call to forgiveness. That which in Luther makes all else bearable because of the greatness of his spiritual fervor, that which orders it to a Christian center – precisely that is being ignored.” Ratzinger praises the “greatness” of the “spiritual fervor” of arguably the worst heretic and enemy of the Catholic Church in history – a man who launched vicious attacks against Catholic dogma, the Papacy and even Our Lord's purity of soul. It's worthy of note, I think, that Ratzinger says this on page 263 of his book. This comes just two pages after Ratzinger quotes some of Luther's vicious attacks against the Catholic Church. Ratzinger’s statement praising the “greatness” of Luther’s “spiritual fervor” also comes two pages before Ratzinger uses the word “great” again in a positive way to describe St. Charles Borromeo:

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 265:
“In our century, we have seen a last impressive echo of St. Charles Borromeo's reform in the person of Pope John XXIII, whose edition of the great bishop's protocol for visitations is a legacy...”

Ratzinger speaks of Luther again on page 291, footnote 17:

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 291, footnote 17: “Instead of the great religious earnestness that Luther’s criticism of the Church manifests precisely because of this doctrine of justification, vague attitudes frequently appear that regard the ‘gospel’ all too often from the banal perspective of something ‘happy’...”

11) RATZINGER SAYS KRISHNA IS A SYMBOL OF CHRIST

St. Paul teaches us that the gods of the heathen are devils (1 Cor. 10:20). The same is taught in Psalm 95:5. Hinduism is a heathen religion which worships false gods (devils). That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 326: “Hinduism, for instance, preserves very impressive myths about the descent of the god Krishna. But because, in the last analysis, they are for it only images of the infinite that can never be confined in words, these histories can be extended, rewritten, enlarged by borrowings and varied in a number of other ways; there is, therefore, no problem about adopting the history of Jesus Christ as one of the descents of Krishna. Christian faith, on the other hand, holds firmly that, in Jesus, God really came into the world in a way that is historical, not symbolical. This does not mean that the Krishna- myths have no value. But the way in which a Christian can understand them is different from the fusion with Christ that occurs in Hinduism. For the Christian, Krishna is a dramatic symbol of Christ, who is reality, and this relationship is not reversible.” Krishna is defined as a “great deity or deified hero, worshipped as incarnation of Vishnu.” Krishna is a false god, an Antichrist. The Christian knows that Krishna is a symbol of the devil and Antichrist – the antithesis to the unique and true Incarnation of God, Jesus Christ. But the apostate Ratzinger tells us that Krishna is a symbol of Jesus Christ. This is total apostasy.

12) RATZINGER ADMITS THAT VATICAN II CONTRADICTS THE MAGISTERIAL TEACHING OF POPE PIUS IX ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND FALSE RELIGIONS

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus... As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789."

It is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states have a right, and indeed a duty, to prevent false religions from publicly propagating and practicing their false faiths. States must do this to protect the common good – the good of souls, which is harmed by the public dissemination of evil. This is why the Catholic Church has always taught that Catholicism should be the only religion of the state; and that the State should exclude and forbid the public profession and propagation of any other. This was Magisterially taught by many Popes, including in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, in which Pius IX condemned the opposite view.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 77:
“In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” – Condemned.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 78:

“Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” – Condemned. Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 55:
“The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.” – Condemned.

But Vatican II taught just the opposite. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty could literally have been added to the errors of the Syllabus condemned by Pope Pius IX.

Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 3:

“So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens. With equal certainty it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity.”

In the above quotation, Ratzinger is bluntly admitting that the two contradict each other, and that Vatican II is a “countersyllabus.” So, if you ever encounter those who attempt to say that Vatican II did not contradict Catholic dogma, quote Ratzinger against them. He says it again and again in his book, calling the teaching of Vatican II “the countersyllabus”!

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 385: "By a kind of inner necessity, therefore, the optimism of the countersyllabus gave way to a new cry that was far more intense and more dramatic than the former one."

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 391: "The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage."

This is just an astounding heresy!

13) RATZINGER SAYS LUTHER’S POSITION ON THE CHURCH OF THE FATHERS IS CORRECT

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 141:

“In many respects, a decision about the role of the Fathers seems, in fact, to have been reached today. But, since it is more unfavorable than favorable to a greater reliance upon them, it does nothing to lead us out of our present aporia. For, in the debate about what constitutes greater fidelity to the Church of the Fathers, Luther’s historical insight is clearly proving itself right.”

This is an astounding heresy. He says that Luther’s insight about fidelity to the Church of the Fathers is proving itself right! What is this insight? Well, on the page just before (p. 140), he quotes passages from Luther in which Luther denigrated the Church Fathers: “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 140:

“By contrast, Luther's attitude to the Fathers, including Augustine, was always more critical... It will suffice to quote one typical text:

‘...I myself wasted and lost much time on Gregory, Cyprian, Augustine, Origen... they all followed their own conceit...’”

So, one page after quoting Luther’s attacks on the Fathers, Ratzinger says that Luther's position in this regard is proving itself right. 14) RATZINGER SAYS TRENT’S DOCTRINE ON THE PRIESTHOOD WAS WEAK AND DISASTROUS IN ITS EFFECT

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 247-248: “The nature of the questions that originated with Luther and pointed the course for the Council of Trent cannot be studied in detail here. Suffice it to say that Luther saw in the link between sacerdos [priest] and sacrificium [sacrifice] a denial of grace and a return to the law... This position, which, with its passionate concern for the purity of Christian doctrine, points to the heart of Luther's urge to reform... The Council of Trent did not attempt here a comprehensive treatment of the problem as a whole. Therein lies the weakness of the text it promulgated, the effect of which was all the more disastrous since the Reform Decrees [of Trent], with their broad theological range, were not fully incorporated into the theology of the schools. The uneasiness about the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood as proclaimed by Trent that was recognizable even before Vatican Council II and that grew into an avalanche as a result of the bold ecumenical stance taken by that Council [Vatican II] has its historical foundation in the limited range of the Tridentine statement.”

Ratzinger is discussing the Catholic and Protestant views of the priesthood. He says that Trent's infallible Decree on the Priesthood was weak and disastrous in effect. He also says that the “uneasiness” about Trent’s teaching “grew” as a result of the “bold ecumenical stance” taken by Vatican II. He is thus admitting that Vatican II's teaching directly contributed to a rejection or a furthering from Trent’s infallible teaching.

15) RATZINGER SAYS THAT LUTHER'S DENIAL OF THE PRIESTHOOD DESERVES “WEIGHT”

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 248: “...the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood as proclaimed by Trent... For, in contrast to the biblically motivated force of Luther's attitude, the Tridentine statement [Trent’s statement] seemed too positivistic and ecclesiological... we must read Trent in the context of the whole ecclesial tradition and, in this way, recognize the magnitude of the question, which is by no means limited to the problem of sacrifice. If we do that, the Tridentine statement will not, of course, be nullified, but its context will, to a certain extent, change its perspective and so give Luther’s questioning the weight it deserves.”

He is saying that the arch-heretic Martin Luther's vicious attacks and denials of the Catholic dogma on the priesthood deserve weight. This is totally heretical.

16) RATZINGER SAYS INFANT BAPTISM HAS NO VALUE OR PURPOSE

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 43: “The conflict over infant baptism shows the extent to which we have lost sight of the true nature of faith, baptism and membership in the Church. Once we begin to understand again, it will be clear to us that baptism is neither the imposition of burdens about which we should have been allowed to make our own decision nor acceptance by a society into which we have been forced without being consulted in advance but rather the grace of that meaning which, in the crisis of self-doubting mankind, can alone enable us to rejoice in being human. It is obvious also that the meaning of baptism is destroyed wherever it is no longer understood as an anticipatory gift but only as a self-contained rite. Wherever it is severed from the catechumenate, baptism loses its raison d’etre [its reason to be]." This is an incredible, astounding and gigantic heresy! He is saying that infant baptism has no meaning or purpose! Some may wonder why, then, Ratzinger practices infant baptism? It is because he sees no problem practicing and going through the motions with something that, to him, has no meaning or purpose. In the same way, he poses as “the Pope” even though he doesn’t even believe in the primacy of the supreme jurisdiction of the Popes, as proven already. In the same way, he poses as the head of the Church of Jesus Christ when he doesn't even believe that Jesus’ words are necessarily true, as proven already. We must also remember that Ratzinger is a deliberate liar and a deceiver. In the early 1980's, Ratzinger said that the Third Secret of Fatima is about dangers to the Faith. But he completely contradicted this in the book The Message of Fatima in 2000. He is a wicked enemy of the Church and a complete apostate; and he has been an enemy of the Church since Vatican II. He attended Vatican II when he was a priest, and he was one of the most radical heretics at the Council. While at Vatican II Ratzinger didn't dress in a cassock or clerical collar, but in a suit and tie. Ratzinger lies, contradicts himself and wants to deceive. What he says above is a clear denial of infant baptism, since there is no catechumenate in infant baptism. He is a complete non-Catholic apostate!

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

17) RATZINGER TEACHES THAT THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE ON THE MASS IS CORRUPT TO THE CORE

On page 255 of his book, Ratzinger is discussing what he deems to be corrupt developments in the Middle Ages. Since he takes some time to develop his point, I must provide a lot of context to expose the incredible heresy that he utters in this context:

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 255-256: “The most crucial event in the development of the Latin West was, I think, the increasing distinction between sacrament and jurisdiction... From a theological standpoint, the critical effect of this separation of sacrament and jurisdiction seems to me to have been the resultant isolation of the concept of sacrament. The essential identity of Church and liturgical assembly, of Church and communion, was no longer evident. Like any other society, the Church was now, in a certain sense, a juridical instrument, a complex of laws, ordinances, claims. In addition, of course, she had also what was peculiarly her own: the fact that she was the situs of cultic acts – of the sacraments. But the Eucharist was just one of these – one liturgical act among others, no longer the encompassing orbit and dynamic center of ecclesial existence per se. In consequence, the Eucharist itself was fragmented into a variety of loosely related rites: sacrifice, worship, cultic meal. With the isolation of the sacrament there was linked a naturalization. The pneumatic [of the spirit] character of the remembrance that produced presence was dimmed; the linking of the whole sacramental event to the oneness of the one crucified and risen Lord was overshadowed by the emergence of a plurality of separate sacrificial rites – this, too, indubitably a product more of concrete situations than of theological considerations. The doctrine of the fruits of the Mass gave meaning to the stipend and led to the greatest possible emphasis on the unique fruits of each separate Mass, in which special fruits were granted that would not otherwise exist. The whole seems more like the ideological superstructure of a particular economic situation than like a genuine theological consideration that corrects and transforms human situations. I think we should be honest enough to admit the temptation of mammon in the history of the Church and to recognize to what extent it was a real power that worked to the distortion and corruption of both Church and theology, even to their inmost core. The separation of office as jurisdiction from office as rite was continued for reasons of prestige and financial benefits; the isolation of the Mass, its separation from the unity of memoria and, therefore, its privatization were products of the amalgamation of Masses and stipends. What Ignatius of Antioch strove to combat returned here with full force...”

This is a total mockery of the Catholic Church. It is a total rejection of the indefectibility of the Church. It is a complete blasphemy against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Ratzinger asserts that the Church’s teaching on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and its liturgical rites are corrupt “even to the their inmost core.” Further, he teaches that the rites of the Church “dimmed” the presence of the Spirit and “overshadowed” the oneness of the crucified and risen Lord. Further, he asserts that the dogma of the fruits of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an invention that gave meaning to the stipend; that is to say, the dogma about the fruits of the Mass was simply invented to make money: the “ideological superstructure of a particular economic situation.” Finally, he asserts that the privatization of Masses was also the product of the stipend. Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) is an anathematized apostate who totally rejects and is condemned by the infallible Council of Trent. Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 22, On the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, ex cathedra: “The fruits of that oblation (bloody, that is) are received most abundantly through this unbloody one [the Mass]; so far is the latter from being derogatory in any way to Him.” (Denz. 940)

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 22, Can. 7, On the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 954)

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 22, Can. 8, On the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are illicit and are therefore to be abrogated: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 954)

18) RATZINGER TEACHES THAT THE OLD COVENANT IS VALID

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 95: "...Jesus did not present his message as something totally new, as the end of all that had preceded it. He was and remained a Jew; that is, he linked his message to the tradition of believing Israel. He did not abandon the Old Testament as something antiquated and now superseded."

The Old Testament/Covenant is superseded by the New and Eternal Testament. This is a dogma. Ratzinger rejects this dogma. The same heresy was taught by John Paul II and is taught consistently by Novus Ordo Bishops. Since he holds this heresy, Ratzinger wrote the Preface of the book entitled The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible. This book (2001) argues that the Jews’ wait for the Coming of the Messiah is justified and validated by the Old Testament. This means that just a few years ago Ratzinger denied that Jesus Christ is Messiah.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors."

19) RATZINGER SAYS THAT CATHOLIC DOGMA ON THE SACRAMENTS IS INTERMINGLED WITH BORROWINGS FROM FALSE MYSTERY RELIGIONS
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 108:
“The question of the relationship of faith and baptism has consequently become increasingly unanswerable for contemporary theology. Even Luther’s solution is not particularly convincing. Baptism is widely regarded as no more than a positive dispensation of God, who intended in this way to give faith a necessary and meaningful support – but, from the perspective of our century, we must ask if he did not, in fact, burden rather than support it. It is understandable, then, that for many exegetes the level of baptism and that of faith seem, in Pauline theology, to be two wholly distinct paths that are fundamentally incapable of meeting. What is genuinely Christian is strangely intermingled with what has been borrowed from the mystery religions. The fact that baptism took place long before Paul makes it even more difficult to separate what refers to Christianity as a whole from what refers solely to the sacraments.”

There are three interesting points about this paragraph: First, he says that “even Luther's” solution is not convincing on the subject of faith and baptism, as if Luther's heretical positions are normally convincing!

Second, he says that it is understandable that many exegetes find faith and baptism to be two distinct paths that are incapable of meeting. Okay, so the Catholic dogma which teaches that one is justified by faith through baptism is wrong, and the Protestant heresy that justification cannot come from baptism because it is by faith is correct!

St. Augustine (+405): “That is why [at Baptism] response is made that the little one believes, though he has as yet no awareness of faith. Answer is made that he has faith because of the Sacrament of faith [Baptism].” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3:1424.) Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra: “... the instrumental cause [of Justification] is the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the ‘Sacrament of Faith,’...” (Denz. 799)

Third, and worst of all, Ratzinger says that Catholic teaching on faith and baptism involves what is genuinely Christian strangely combined with that “borrowed from the mystery religions”!

20) RATZINGER SAYS THAT CHURCH TEACHING DOESN’T EXCLUDE THOSE WHO HOLD OPPOSING VIEWS

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 229: “The statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [a post-Vatican II document of 1973 called Mysterium Ecclesiae] belongs to the latter category. It proposes to meet the crisis by a positive presentation especially of those points of Church doctrine that are under dispute and to establish the identity of Catholicism, not by excluding those who hold opposing views, but by an official enunciation of the constituent elements of Catholicism...”

This is blatantly heretical. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views [e.g. heretics].” (Denz. 705)

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

21) RATZINGER ADMITS THAT VATICAN II'S TEACHING IS NEW AND DIFFERENT

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 230:
“It [a post-Vatican II document of 1973] deals, in six points, with three principal themes: the question of the oneness of the Church; questions related to the problem of ‘infallibility’; and questions about the priesthood in the Church. Even the first of these themes causes considerable ecumenical consternation, although, in dealing with a topic that was recognized as being especially explosive from an ecumenical point of view, the text purposely speaks only in quotations from Vatican Council II and exercises particular care not to use formulas of its own devising or those of earlier Church proclamations in order to avoid any suggestion that it might be reverting to positions held before the Council or that it was holding obdurately to any new postconciliar position.”

This is very interesting. First, notice that he calls it “the problem” of infallibility. He speaks in this way all the time, constantly referring to Catholic dogmas as “problems.”

Second, notice that he puts “infallibility” in quotation marks, as if it weren't a true concept. He does this frequently with things such as “original sin” (p. 93) and “the Apostles’ Creed”: “the baptismal creed of the Church of Rome, the so-called ‘Apostles’ Creed’” (Ratzinger, Gospel, Catechisis, Catechism, 1995, p. 33.). It clearly gives the impression that he doesn’t even believe in them. Third, and most importantly, Ratzinger explicitly indicates that the document to which he refers “exercises particular care not to use formulas of its own devising or those of earlier Church proclamations in order to avoid any suggestion that it might be reverting to positions held before the Council.” This proves that Vatican II's position on ecumenism – which deals with Faith and how Catholics view the Church and those outside of it – is different from that of “earlier Church proclamations.” This proves, from Ratzinger’s own words, that the Vatican II religion is a new faith, a new false religion contrary to that of earlier Church proclamations.

22) RATZINGER SAYS THAT TRENT'S DOGMA ON THE PRIESTHOOD IS SOLELY AN ATTACK AGAINST LUTHER

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 249:
“It follows that the Tridentine text [on the Sacrament of Order] can be correctly understood only if we read it, not as an exhaustive and positive presentation of the Catholic understanding of the priesthood, but as a polemical statement [a disputatious statement], the sole purpose of which was to formulate antitheses to Luther's main theses.”

This is not only gravely insulting to Trent, and revealing of the apostate mind of Joseph Ratzinger, it is blatantly heretical. It is heretical because Trent specifically declares that the purpose of its decree is for the faithful to know the Catholic truth on the priesthood.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 22, Chap. 4: “These are the matters which in general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the sacrament of order. It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of darkness of so many errors, and may adhere to it.” (Denz. 960)

We can see that the sole purpose of Trent's infallible decree was not to refute Luther and to form anti-theses to his heresies. That was certainly one purpose, but not the only purpose. Elucidating the teaching of the Church on the Sacrament of Order was another purpose. Ratzinger's statement is heretical and insulting to the teaching of the Magisterium, as if its highest decrees were only to be understood as school-yard children trading insults.

23) RATZINGER TEACHES THAT PROTESTANTS HAVE THE EUCHARISTIC PRESENCE

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 236: “Anyone who interprets the text [a post-Vatican II text] narrowly could conclude from it that the priesthood and, consequently, the Eucharist are being denied to Protestant churches. But the question of the priesthood is contested on both sides... If the Catholic Church sees a ‘too little’ in the Protestant churches, they, for their part, find a ‘too much’ in the Catholic Church. There is a lack of unity here that does not have to be regarded as irremediable and that shows signs of hope again and again in individual areas of misunderstanding... As regards the Eucharist, it is quite certain, not least because of the disagreement over the question of ministry, that here, too, there will be the same complaints about too much and too little. But the Catholic teaching here recalled to memory does not in any way deny that Protestant Christians who believe in the presence of the Lord also share in that presence.”

Speaking in the context of whether the Protestants have the Real Presence of the Eucharist, Ratzinger says that the Catholic teaching does not in any way deny that the Protestants who believe in the presence of the Lord share in that presence. Not once does he say that they are devoid of the Real Presence because they don’t have a valid Mass or a valid priesthood. In fact, he says that the position that they don’t have a valid priesthood or Eucharist (which is a dogmatic fact) is “narrow”! This proves again that Ratzinger is a complete and utter rejecter of the Catholic Faith.

24) RATZINGER TOTALLY BLASPHEMES CHURCH TRADITION

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 100: “Our topic seems to demand that we take a third step here and speak of the problem of tradition as it exists in the Church... This bearer of tradition in the case of Jesus is the Church... The Church's role as bearer of tradition rests on the oneness of the historical context and the communal character of the basic experiences that constitute the tradition. This bearer is, consequently, the sine qua non of the possibility of a genuine participation in the tradition of Jesus, which, without it, would be, not a historical and history- making reality, but only a private memory. The Church is tradition, the concrete situs of the tradition of Jesus, into which – let us admit – much human pseudotradition has found its way; so much so, in fact, that even, and even precisely, the Church has contributed to the general crisis of tradition that afflicts mankind.”

This is a repudiation of one of the two sources of Revelation, Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is guarded and transmitted infallibly by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. What Ratzinger says is impossible and blasphemous. It would make Our Lord a liar and the Church a defected, false religion of man. And note: Ratzinger is not talking about members of the Church or traditions that individuals personally adopted. He is speaking of the Church herself and her official traditions, the actual tradition of the Catholic Church. This is undeniable from the context above, where he addresses the Church's tradition in the context of official bearer of the tradition of Jesus and the “sine qua non” (without which there is not the absolutely essential element) for a participation in the tradition of Jesus. In that context, he blasphemes and rejects as human much of the Church’s tradition.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Sess. III, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.” (Denz. 1792)

25) RATZINGER AGAIN SAYS THAT THE EASTERN SCHISMATIC CHURCHES ARE TRUE CHURCHES

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 126: “As an Episcopal symbolum, the text is an instrument of unity for the whole Church... The ecumenical (‘catholic’) character is essential to it. Only the episcopacy of the whole Church can be the official channel for the formulation of such a text. It must be said that even after the schism of 1054 this includes also the episcopacy of the Eastern churches, for, as a legitimate episcopacy of churches that have preserved intact the heritage of faith, they continue to be an integral part of the Church as a whole.”

Ratzinger is discussing how a particular symbolum or creed must be the product of the entire Church. In this context, he says that the Bishops of Eastern schismatic sects are included in this because they have “preserved intact the heritage of the faith” and “continue to be an integral part of the Church as a whole.” This means that non- Catholic, schismatic Bishops are part of the Episcopacy of the true Church and that they have the true Faith. This is blatant heresy. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896 – Bishops

Separated from Peter and his Successors Lose All Jurisdiction: “From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from that Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone... No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

26) RATZINGER CONDEMNS TRADITIONALISM AS THE ANTITHESIS OF CATHOLICITY

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 389-390: "Was the Council a wrong road that we must now retrace if we are to save the Church? The voices of those who say that it was are becoming louder and their followers more numerous.... We must be on guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly."

Yes, Ratzinger, that means a lot coming from you; for we can all see the profound fidelity you have to Catholic dogma. We can all see that you are truly a pillar of orthodoxy – “Eastern Orthodoxy,” that is. For those who doubt that Ratzinger is speaking about traditionalist groups they should know that he goes on to discuss the Missal of Pius V on page 390.

27) RATZINGER PREACHES THAT MAN IS GOD

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 94: "The whole life of Jesus consisted in being an encounter, an exchange, with him whom he called Father. To believe in Jesus means, therefore, to believe that there is a truth from which man proceeds and which is most signally his own, which is his true nature." This means that to believe in Jesus is to believe in man's own nature. This means that man’s own nature is that he is God. Ratzinger is clearly possessed with the same spirit of Antichrist which possessed John Paul II and Paul VI. This spirit causes them to dissolve Jesus by preaching that each man is, in fact, Jesus. 1 John 4:2-3 – “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world...”

28) RATZINGER SAYS CHRISTIANITY ABSORBS FALSE RELIGIONS INTO ITSELF

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 30: “The sacrament, as the fundamental form of the Christian liturgy, embraces both matter and word, that is, it gives religion both a cosmic and a historical dimension and points to cosmos and history as the place of our encounter with God. In this fact lies the related insight that Christian faith does not simply abolish the early forms and stages of religion but rather purifies them and absorbs them into itself, thus bringing them for the first time to their full fruition."

29) RATZINGER PRAISES THE ECUMENICAL MONASTERY OF TAIZE (MADE UP OF “CATHOLICS” AND NON-CATHOLICS) AND SAYS MORE SHOULD BE FORMED!

The famous ecumenical Monastery of Taize is located in the south of Burgundy, France. The Taize community “is made up of over a hundred brothers, Catholics and from various Protestant backgrounds, from more than twenty-five nations.” [Taize]

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 304: “For more than a decade, Taize has been, without a doubt, the leading example of an ecumenical inspiration, emanating from a local center inspired by a particular ‘charism’. Similar communities of faith and of shared living should be formed elsewhere in which the foregoing of a communal reception of the Eucharist would, without ceasing to be a hardship, become comprehensible and in which its necessity would be understood by a prayer community that cannot answer its own prayer but is, nevertheless, calmly certain it will be answered.”

This is astounding heresy. He praises the non-Catholic Monastery of Taize; and he encourages similar communities to be formed, thus encouraging people to become non-Catholics.

30) RATZINGER TOTALLY DENIES THE UNITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 302-303: “The goal is not just the unity of the Church as such but first of all the consolidation of the ‘progressivists’, who will then, they believe, become the Church of the future.”

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 121: “...it is also ultimately through these factors that it becomes clear that the unity of the Church is not to be brought about by human effort but can be effected only by the Holy Spirit.”

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 148: “The canon of Holy Scripture can be traced back to them, or, at least, to the undivided Church of the first centuries of which they were the representatives.”

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 147: “The Fathers, we can now say, were the theological teachers of the undivided Church...”

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 127: “For our purposes, this fourth type of symbolum need not be further discussed since it forms no part of the history of the symbolum of the undivided Church.”

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 145-146: “The Fathers are the teachers of the yet undivided Church.” This is simply a total repudiation of one of the four marks of the Catholic Church: its unity.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 4), June 29, 1896:
"The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts." Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 4):
"Furthermore, the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution - a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it."
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5):
"There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts."
RATZINGER DEMONSTRATING HIS FAMILIARITY WITH CATHOLIC TEACHING

As stated already, while Ratzinger consistently utters the most astounding heresies he also demonstrates a profound familiarity with Catholic teachings. Here is just one quote to prove the point, for those who doubt:

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 239: “Anyone who inquires about the Church's teaching with regard to holy orders finds at his disposal a relatively rich supply of source materials; three councils have spoken extensively on the subject: Florence, Trent, and Vatican II. Mention should also be made of the important apostolic constitution of Pius XII (Sacramentum ordinis) of the year 1947.”

OTHER QUOTES OF INTEREST

Here are just some other quotes that are worthy of note in his book: “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, pp. 390-391: "What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it." “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 378: "Not every valid Council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis, many of them have been just a waste of time."

31) RATZINGER DENIES THE RESURRECTION

Much of Ratzinger’s book teaches exactly the brand of Modernist apostasy condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi. He holds that all Faith is basically each man's experience. The terminology he uses seems to be taken directly from the Modernist teaching condemned by Pius X. I want to focus on Ratzinger's teaching on the Resurrection. In his book, Ratzinger links every article of the Christian Faith to the Resurrection in a way that is false and exaggerated. “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 184: “From what has been said, it is clear that all Christian theology, if it is to be true to its origin, must be first and foremost a theology of Resurrection.”

Before I comment on this, let me say that it is true that in 1 Corinthians 15:17 St. Paul says: “And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is in vain, for you are yet in your sins.” St. Paul is expressing the fact that the Resurrection proved that Our Lord had the power over death; it was the most profound proof of His Divinity. If it were not true, then the whole Christian Faith would not be true. In the same way, it is true that to reject any dogma of the Catholic Faith is to reject the entire Faith since they all come from the same guarantor, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“...But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

But Ratzinger is saying something more in the above paragraph than what St. Paul taught. Ratzinger is wrapping up more into the Resurrection then one can. He is saying that the origin of all Christian dogmas is the Resurrection:

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 184: “From what has been said, it is clear that all Christian theology, if it is to be true to its origin, must be first and foremost a theology of Resurrection. It must be a theology of Resurrection before it is a theology of the justification of the sinner; it must be a theology of Resurrection before it is a theology of the metaphysical Sonship of God. It can be a theology of the Cross but only as and within the framework of a theology of Resurrection.”

First of all, we know that this is not true because the apostles believed that Our Lord was the Son of God before the Resurrection (Mt. 16:16; Mt. 14:33). The miracles that Our Lord worked in the sight of the Apostles before the Resurrection proved that He was the Son of God. So why is Ratzinger endeavoring to show that the origin of every dogma is in the Resurrection – something that is clearly false – even the origin of the dogma that Jesus is the Son of God? Why is he so concerned with wrapping up the origin of everything in the Resurrection? I didn’t understand why, until I got to page 186.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 186:
“Thus the Resurrection cannot be a historical event in the same sense as the Crucifixion is. For that matter, there is no account that depicts it as such, nor is it circumscribed in time otherwise than by the eschatological expression ‘the third day.’”

Now we see why Ratzinger was so concerned with arguing that all Catholic dogmas have their “origin” in the Resurrection! It was so that when he denied that the Resurrection is even historical he could knock out the entire Christian Faith in one fell swoop! This is the kind of snake or, to speak more precisely, the kind of rat from the pit of hell with which you are dealing. He wants to dismantle one's entire Faith in Jesus Christ and Catholicism, and he does so in a calculated fashion, luring you in so that he can dump you over the edge. There is a reason why the devil – with God's permission – has chosen him to head the Vatican II sect at this stage in history. Since Ratzinger is a Modernist apostate, he denies that the miracles of Jesus are actually historical.

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (#9), Sept. 8, 1907: “We will take an illustration from the Person of Christ. In the person of Christ, they [the Modernists] say, science and history encounter nothing that is not human. Therefore, in virtue of the first canon deduced from agnosticism, whatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine, must be rejected.”

We can see that Pius X pinpointed the apostasy of Ratzinger. He explained that the Modernists reject that any miracles of Our Lord are truly historical: “[the Modernists say] whatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine, must be rejected.” Modernist apostates, such as Ratzinger, hold that the origin of Faith is contained in an original experience.
Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (#15), Sept. 8, 1907: “By the Modernists, tradition is understood as a communication to others, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula, of an original experience.”

In other words, for the Modernists the origin of Faith is in a person’s not-truly-historical experience. It is an “experience” (not really historical) that is made up or contrived to satisfy the inner religious sense of man. In the case of Christianity, it would be (according to the Modernists) the non-historical event of the Resurrection.

Look at this quotation and see Ratzinger precisely expressing the Modernist apostasy!

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 184: “The sentence ‘Jesus has risen’ thus expresses that primitive experience on which all Christian faith is grounded; all further confessions of Jesus as the Messiah, of the ‘Christ-ness’ of Jesus, however strongly an understanding of the previously uncomprehended message of the historical Jesus as it is later remembered may be operative here. ‘Jesus has risen’ – this sentence is thus, above all, the true articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae by which the structure of faith and theology are chiefly to be determined.” Around that non-historical “experience,” all other aspects of the Faith are basically made up and colored in. The founding of the Church, Our Lord being the Son of God, etc. didn’t really happen according to the Modernists; but they were all painted around this original, non-historical experience (the made-up Resurrection). That is why the apostate Ratzinger says that all Christian Faith has its “origin” in the Resurrection.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 184: “From what has been said, it is clear that all Christian theology, if it is to be true to its origin, must be first and foremost a theology of Resurrection. It must be a theology of Resurrection before it is a theology of the justification of the sinner; it must be a theology of Resurrection before it is a theology of the metaphysical Sonship of God. It can be a theology of the Cross but only as and within the framework of a theology of Resurrection.”

Make no mistake about it, you are dealing with a serious devil here inside Ratzinger, who is now Antipope Benedict XVI and heading the Vatican II sect. Here are just a few more quotes where Ratzinger is revealing the flavor of his Modernist, apostate doctrine that all faith is each man’s “experience”:

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 154: “This is, in essence, the principle of ‘salvation history’: salvation comes through history, which, therefore, represents the immediate form of religious experience.”

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 354: “The real medium, the primordial experience of all experiences, is that man himself is the place in which and through which he experiences God...”

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 360: “Without experience, there is no understanding; that is true also in the human sphere. Only experience of God can yield knowledge of God.”

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 351:
“...it will be the task of religious education to open the door to this place of experience that is the Church and thus to encourage participation in the experience she has to offer.” In Pascendi, Pius X also condemned the Modernists' teaching on experience and Tradition. Basically, the Modernists say that Tradition is ever-changing because it is based on ever-new experiences.

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (#15), Sept. 8, 1907: “But this doctrine of experience is also under another aspect entirely contrary to Catholic truth. It is extended and applied to tradition, as hitherto understood by the Church, and destroys it.“

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 88:

“As for speech... it fulfills its function of preserving history only if it is open to the ever new experiences of new generations and so maintains its ability to give expression to the tradition that is continually in the process of formation, to the purification of tradition and hence to the history that is still to be made.”

Ratzinger just taught exactly what Pius X condemned as the Modernist teaching on Tradition and experience. Finally, the Modernists teach that all Faith begins with the religious sense, which is (according to them) the divine within each man. Thus, the Modernists are really teaching that each man is God: he divine is to be found within each man. Pius X explains their octrine in this regard and condemns it:

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (#7), (Denz. 2074), Sept. 8, 1907: “[According to the Modernists]... ‘the need of the divine in a soul prone to religion, according to the tenets of fideism, with no judgment of the mind anticipating, excites a peculiar sense; but this sense has the divine reality within itself, and somehow unites man with God.’ This sense, moreover, is what the Modernists call by the name of faith, and is for them the beginning of religion.” Here is Ratzinger teaching exactly what Pius X condemned as the Modernist teaching on Faith and the religious sense: “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 345: “Let us conclude by repeating in different words what we have said above: the way to faith begins in sensory experience, and sensory experience as such is the sine qua non of faith and is capable of transcendence.”

This is why Ratzinger says that people don’t come to the Faith because they believe it to be true:

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 154: “...the human individual entrusts himself directly to the faith of the Church, not because he has come, through historical proofs, to the conviction that the events recorded in the New Testament are the indisputable center of all history, but because he finds in a world formed by and filled with faith a firm basis that gives his life meaning, salvation and shelter... the concrete presence of Christian history gives form and freedom to his life and is, therefore, accepted as salvation.’”

CONCLUDING REMARKS

I said at the outset that Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) is an enemy of the Faith on a par with Luther. All of these heresies from Ratzinger come from just one book.

Benedict XVI hates the Church and the doctrine of the Church. In our view, Benedict XVI does not have the charism to attract and deceive the pagan world that John Paul II had. However, he has a stronger charism and pull with the so-called “conservatives” and false traditionalists. In this way, he may have a more disastrous and evil effect in keeping people in – and luring people back to – the Vatican II sect. As the apostasy and the apostate Vatican II sect continue, it will be an ever-growing test of people’s Faith. They will ask themselves: could this really be happening? How long will this continue? They will see the apostasy in front of them, and have the ability to see that this is not the Catholic Church, but they will see the buildings, the structure and the externals of the apostate Church (which has stolen the buildings of the Catholic Church) and they will be tempted to rejoin it or stay in it. They will stifle their recognition of the apostasy, and convince themselves that it is not actually a new religion. They will stay in the false Church or re-enter it and deny Jesus Christ. I believe that, in the coming days, many weak souls will lose the Faith and enter back into the apostate Vatican II sect.

Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist... the Church will be in eclipse… Who will be the victor if God does not shorten the length of the test?... It is time; the sun is darkening; only faith will survive.”

Luke 18:8 “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?”

Benedict XVI, with his reputation as a “traditionalist,” is the man who is just right for the devil’s job of keeping these souls in – and leading them back to – the apostate Vatican II sect, which is eclipsing the true Church which has been reduced to a small, but still visible, remnant. Benedict XVI has deceived the false conservatives and traditionalists that he is a pillar of orthodoxy – something that the facts in this article prove is such a lie that almost no words can describe how much of a lie it is – and he may do other conservative things with the goal of deceiving people. He may even excommunicate some pro-abortionists or possibly make the Latin Mass more widely available – all in order to keep people in and lure people back to the Vatican II apostasy and the counterfeit Vatican II Church. And while he throws in a few conservative statements or actions, he will, of course, proceed full speed ahead with preaching and implementing the Vatican II apostate religion.

I have shown that Benedict XVI is a deliberate deceiver, who will attempt to lure you in so that he can attack your Faith. Expect this to continue. For instance, in his funeral speech for John Paul II he mentioned the spreading of “sects,” as if he is opposed to Protestantism and regards it as a heresy. This is a deliberate lie meant to deceive; for it is a fact that he encourages the spread of Protestantism, doesn’t hold that they should convert, and that he doesn’t even believe in Jesus. So, while he says something such as this in order to deceive people (which really shouldn’t deceive anyone of strong Faith), he promotes the same heresies with regard to the Protestants and is preparing a visit to the Jewish Synagogue in order to validate the denial of Jesus Christ. Be prepared for this evil melange of truth with apostasy: a few conservative statements or actions mixed in with his consistent preaching of the Vatican II apostasy. And when he does a conservative thing or two, the useful heretics will forget all about the fact that he is an apostate and jump right in the barque of the devil, which hates and is opposed to the barque of Peter.

In this article, it has been proven that Ratzinger (Benedict XVI): doesn’t believe that Jesus’ words are necessarily true; encourages the formation of non-Catholic Monasteries, such as the Monastery of Taize; denies that “Orthodox” need to believe in the Papacy; denies that the primacy of supreme jurisdiction was even held in the first millennium; teaches that Protestants shouldn’t be converted but strengthened in their Confessions; praises Luther; teaches that Krishna is a symbol of Jesus Christ; teaches that Trent’s doctrine on the priesthood was weak and disastrous in effect; teaches that Luther’s attack on the priesthood deserves “weight”; says the Church doesn’t exclude those who hold opposing views; admits that Vatican II’s teaching is new and different; holds that Catholic dogma on the Mass is corrupt to the core; teaches that Protestants have a Eucharistic presence; asserts that the validity of the Mass doesn’t depend on words, and that those who deny the validity of the New Mass are outside the Church; says that Catholic dogma on faith and baptism is intermingled with borrowings from the mystery religions, and that faith and baptism cannot be reconciled; totally blasphemes Church Tradition; says that non-Catholic, Eastern Schismatic “churches” are true churches; condemns traditionalism as the antithesis to Catholicity; admits that Vatican II’s teaching is a countersyllabus of Pius IX’s Magisterial teaching; preaches that man is God; teaches that the Old Covenant has not been superseded; says Christianity absorbs false religions into itself; says that infant baptism has no value or purpose; totally denies the unity of the Catholic Church; denies the Resurrection and preaches Modernist apostasy.

A HERETIC CANNOT BE A VALID POPE

It is a proven fact that Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) is a non- Catholic heretic. The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic cannot be validly elected Pope, since a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church. Ratzinger, who is now Benedict XVI, is a non- Catholic Antipope whose election was utterly null and void.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way...
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power....
10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate. + I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church...”

St. Robert Bellarmine: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON BENEDICT XVI

Benedict XVI's Post-Election Heresies (more to be added in the future)
-An Analysis of Benedict XVI's Visit to the Synagogue
-Benedict XVI's heresy in the Lutheran temple
-Benedict XVI rejects the ecumenism of the return - converting Protestants
-Pope Pius VI on Ambiguity and the Deceptive Methods of Benedict XVI
THE HERESIES IN BENEDICT XVI’S BOOKS: THE MOST HERETICAL BOOKS ARE LISTED HIGHER

-More than 30 Astounding and Amazing Heresies of Benedict XVI from his 1982 book Principles of Catholic Theology (Benedict XVI denies the Papacy; that Protestants need to convert; and much more)
-The Astounding Heresy in Benedict XVI's The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood (Benedict XVI says that Protestantism is not heresy!)
-The Astounding Heresies in Benedict XVI’s God and the World (Benedict XVI denies that Christ is necessarily the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament; calls into doubt the stone tablets of the Exodus account; teaches that Jews are not excluded from salvation; endorses Cremation; denies the necessity of infant baptism; and more)
-The Astounding Heresy in Benedict XVI’s Milestones (Benedict XVI teaches that the Jewish reading of Scripture that Christ is not the Messiah is a valid position)
-The Astounding Heresy in Benedict XVI’s 1986 Book In the Beginning (Benedict XVI teaches that the term Original Sin is false)
-The Astounding Heresies in Benedict XVI’s 1990 Book Co-Workers of the Truth (Benedict XVI denies that Christianity is the only path to salvation; denies the unity of the Church completely; and more)
-The Astounding Heresies in Benedict XVI’s Truth and Tolerance (Christian Belief and World Religions) (Benedict XVI teaches that Islam represents greatness; that Christianity may not be the true religion; that there are pagan saints; and more)
-The Astounding Heresies in Benedict XVI’s 2002 Book Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith (more than Ten Major Heresies, including that the Protestant “Eucharist” is a saving Eucharist; that a non-Catholic sect belongs to the Catholic Church; that Protestantism saves; and more)
-The Astounding Heresies in Benedict XVI’s Salt of the Earth (teaches that there is a noble Islam; that pagan religions are high and pure; that all paths lead to God; that he respects Hans Kung’s denial of Jesus Christ; that large numbers of people are saved outside the Church)
-The Heresies in Benedict XVI's Book Introduction to Christianity (denies the Resurrection to the Body and criticizes the Apostles’ Creed)

-The Heresies in Benedict XVI's 1981 Book Feast of Faith (teaches that the Lutheran view of the Mass can be synthesized with Catholic teaching; teaches Modernist worship; insults Trent’s Decree on the Eucharist; etc.)
-The Astounding Heresy in Benedict XVI’s 1993 Book The Nature and Mission of Theology (admits that Church teaching against Modernism and Religious Liberty have been replaced)
-The Heresy in Benedict XVI’s 1995 Book A New Song for the Lord (teaches that Scripture’s creation account is based on pagan creation accounts)

-The Heresy in Benedict XVI’s The Ratzinger Report (teaches that Eastern schismatics and heretics have authentic doctrine)
-The Heresies in Benedict XVI’s Gospel, Catechesis, Catechism and Many Religions – One Covenant (teaches that Jews should not deny their faith)
-The Heresies in Benedict XVI’s God is Near Us (teaches that we do not eat the flesh of the Lord; and approves of “for all” in the Consecration)
*Below is a tiny sampling of some of the astounding heresies from Benedict XVI covered in the articles above*

BENEDICT XVI SAYS THAT PROTESTANTISM IS NOT HERESY

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88: “The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

Well, there you have it. Benedict XVI not only tells us that Protestants are not heretics, but that Protestantism itself is not heresy. This is clearly Benedict XVI’s worst and most explicit heresy so far, besides his teaching that Christ may not be the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. This is such an incredible heresy that there is absolutely nothing that anyone on earth can say to defend this apostate. It is undeniable proof that he is not a Catholic.

Heresy is a rejection of a dogma of Catholic Faith. Protestantism is the rejection of many dogmas of the Catholic Faith. Protestantism is not only heresy, but the most notorious and destructive collection of heresies with which the Church ever had to contend. Protestantism rejects many dogmatic Councils of the Catholic Church, as well as dogmatic definitions on the priesthood, justification, the papacy, papal infallibility, the sacraments, Our Lady, etc., just to name a few. Protestantism is heresy in every single one of those areas. But Benedict XVI tells us that Protestants are not heretics and that Protestantism is not heresy. This means that one can reject all the Councils and dogmas of the Catholic Church and it is not even heresy. This proves that Benedict XVI is without any doubt a complete heretic and not the Pope. Those who deny this are simply liars.

Pope Pius XI, Rerum omnium perturbationem (#4), Jan. 26, 1923: “The saint was no less a person that Francis de Sales, Bishop of Geneva and Doctor of the Universal Church. Like those brilliant examples of Christian perfection and wisdom to whom We have just referred, he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the [Protestant] Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind.”

BENEDICT XVI DENIES THAT OUR LORD MUST BE SEEN AS THE MESSIAH PROPHESIED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

“Cardinal” Joseph 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 and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. 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 just denied that the Old Testament points unequivocally to Christ. He just denied that Jesus is unequivocally the Christ – the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. He just said that there are perfectly good reasons for not believing that that the Old Testament refers to Christ as the prophesied Messiah. Benedict XVI just denied the entire Christian Faith.

Jesus Christ, John 5:39, 45-47 – “Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me... Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father: the one who will accuse you is Moses, in whom you have placed your hope. For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

John 8:23-24-“And he said to them [the Jews]: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore, I said to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.”

BENEDICT XVI LISTS THE POSITION THAT PROTESTANTS AND EASTERN SCHISMATICS SHOULD BE CONVERTED AND BLUNTLY REJECTS IT

On page 197 of his book, Ratzinger lists the whole range of positions with regard to “ecumenical” dialogue with the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics. In reading Ratzinger’s list of the “maximum” demands, one can see how simple it is: there is nothing to dialogue about because they need to convert! But we see that this is not what he or ecumenism wants at all.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 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.”

I quoted the entire passage without a break so that people can see that this is not being taken out of context in any way. Ratzinger specifically mentions, and then bluntly rejects, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics must be converted to the Catholic Faith (and accept Vatican I: “the full scope of the definition of 1870”). He specifically rejects it as the way to unity. This is totally heretical and it proves that he is a complete non-Catholic heretic! Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan. 6, 1928:

“... the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it...”

BENEDICT XVI ADDRESSES OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION AND COMPLETELY REJECTS IT

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 24:
“Q. But could we not also accept that someone can be saved through a faith other than the Catholic?
A. That’s a different question altogether. It is definitely possible for someone to receive from his religion directives that help him become a pure person, which also, if we want to use the word, help him please God and reach salvation. This is not at all excluded by what I said; on the contrary, this undoubtedly happens on a large scale.”

This is a total rejection of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Benedict XVI says that there is “undoubtedly” salvation outside the Catholic Faith on a “large scale,” while the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that there is undoubtedly no salvation outside the Church. He also directly contradicts Hebrews 11:6 by telling us that people can please God without the Catholic Faith.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5 on Original Sin: “...our Catholic faith, ‘without which it is impossible to please God’ [Heb. 11:6]...” (Denz. 787)

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved... I now profess and truly hold...”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

BENEDICT XVI SAYS THERE IS A NOBLE ISLAM

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 244: “And, to prescind from the schism between Sunnites and Shiites, it [Islam] also exists in many varieties. There is a noble Islam, embodied, for example, by the King of Morocco, and there is also the extremist, terrorist Islam, which, again, one must identify with Islam as a whole, which would do it an injustice.”

This is total apostasy. Islam is a false religion which rejects the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity. The Catholic Church officially teaches that Islam is an abomination – an abominable sect of the devil, a false religion comprised of infidels (unbelievers).

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Session 19, Sept. 7, 1434:
“Moreover, we trust that with God’s help another benefit will accrue to the Christian commonwealth; because from this union, once it is established, there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”

St. Francis Xavier, May, 1546: “The evil [of Islam] was introduced by some Mahometan caicizes (ministers of religion), who came from Mecca in Arabia, where the accursed body of Mahomet is honored with great superstition.”

St. Francis of Assisi (+ c. 1210): [To the Muslims] “We have come to preach faith in Jesus Christ to you, that you will renounce Mohammad, that wicked slave of the devil, and obtain everlasting life like us.”

In fact, the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches that Muslims are infidels, which means unbelievers.

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312:
“It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens [i.e., the followers of Islam, also called Muslims] live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place... This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all.. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet... Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”

Antipope John Paul II Preached that Man is God – the Doctrine of Antichrist

Our Lady Prophesied that Rome would lose the Faith and become the Seat of Antichrist
Antipope John Paul II Preaches:

Each Man Must Take Possession of the Incarnation
The Gospel is the Good News of Man
Man is the Christ, the Son of the Living God
The Truth About Man is that he is Christ
And the Word became Flesh in Every Man
The Incarnation is the Truth About Man
The Mystery of the Word Made Flesh in the Mystery of Man
Mary is Blessed because she had faith in Man
Every man is the Christ Child Born on Christmas
The Epiphany is the Manifestation of Man
Man is the Way
Man is the Truth
Man is the Life
Each Man is the Eucharist
Each Man is the Crucified Christ
Man is Indeed God
Man is the Man from Above
Man's true reality is that he is God
Man is the Messiah
The New Evangelization
Man must discover that he is God
The Rosary of Man
The Unsearchable Riches of Christ are Everyone’s Property
Man is the Risen Christ
Antichrist Revealed

1. Our Lady Prophesied that Rome will become the Seat of Antichrist On Sept. 19, 1846, the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared in La Salette, France, and foretold that:

“Rome will lose the faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist... the Church will be in eclipse.”

Our Lady specifically predicted that Rome would lose the Catholic faith, fall into apostasy from the true Church of Christ and become the Seat of the Antichrist. But what is Antichrist?

2. Antichrist defined

In all of Sacred Scripture, the word Antichrist is only mentioned four times. The word Antichrist is not mentioned at all in the Apocalypse and it is not mentioned by St. Paul (who only uses the terms “son of perdition” and “man of sin”). The word Antichrist is only mentioned by St. John the Apostle in his epistles.

Therefore, in looking for the definition of Antichrist, we must first look to St. John’s epistles, not the Apocalypse; because St. John uses and defines the word Antichrist and the Apocalypse does not. Out of the four times that St. John uses the word “Antichrist,” he only defines it twice. The two definitions that St. John gives for Antichrist are the most important pieces of evidence that exist in identifying who the Antichrist actually is, because Sacred Scripture is the inspired, infallible and inerrant Word or God. Therefore, Sacred Scripture’s definition of Antichrist is infallibly the correct one.

1 John 2:22 – “Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.”

1 John 4:2-3 – “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh...”

Both definitions of Antichrist deal with a denial of the truth about who Jesus Christ is. The truth about Our Lord Jesus Christ and the truth about the Most Holy Trinity are the very foundations of the Christian religion. They are the most important truths in the universe.

This is why the early Councils of the Catholic Church condemned with the utmost vigor even the slightest deviation from the truth about Jesus Christ or the Trinity. And this is why the greatest enemies of Jesus Christ in history were not those men who caused Christ's followers temporal harm, but those who were most effective and blasphemous in attacking the truth about Jesus Christ – which is the very foundation of one’s eternal salvation.

Thus, in defining “Antichrist,” Sacred Scripture refers to a specific attack on the truth about Jesus Christ, a specific attack on the truth about the God-man. Sacred Scripture refers specifically to the dissolving of Jesus (1 John 4:2-3) and the denial that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22). These two things serve as the distinguishing characteristic of the Antichrist, according to Sacred Scripture, and these two things clearly refer to an attack on the truth of the Incarnation of the Son of God.

One of the first and most notorious men in Church history to pervert the doctrine of the Incarnation was the 5th century heretic Nestorius, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431. The case of the heretic Nestorius is incredibly important in identifying the Antichrist, as we will see, because Nestorius’ heresy was the specific heresy which fits the Bible’s definition for Antichrist.

Nestorius was the heretic who tried to dissolve Jesus (1 John 4:2-3), and he did so by perverting the truth of the Incarnation.

Pope Pius XI, Lux Veritatis (#37), Dec. 25, 1931: “...all these, no less than Nestorius, make a temerarious attempt to ‘DISSOLVE CHRIST,’...”(1)

Pope Pius XI here confirms that Nestorius’ heresy was the specific doctrine of Antichrist – it was an attempt to dissolve the Person of Jesus Christ, which is the mark of Antichrist, according to Scripture. Keep this fact in mind (that Nestorius’ doctrine of the “dissolving of Jesus” was the specific doctrine of Antichrist as described by Sacred Scripture), as it will become especially relevant soon.

But what was this doctrine of Nestorius? How did Nestorius “DISSOLVE” Jesus and in so doing become what St. John defines as “Antichrist”? In order to understand Nestorius’ doctrine, we must very briefly repeat the Catholic truth of the Incarnation.

The Catholic Church teaches that the eternal Word – the Son of God – the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity – assumed a human nature and truly became a man. St. John 1:14: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”

Our Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Word made flesh. He is truly God and He is he is also truly man. He is one Christ – One Divine Person with two natures.

Pope St. Leo the Great, Council of Chalcedon, 451, ex cathedra:
“... we all with one voice teach the confession of one and same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body... one and same Christ.. a single person and subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ...”(2)

But Nestorius rejected that Our Lord Jesus Christ is one person. Nestorius blasphemously dissolved Jesus into two persons. Nestorius blasphemously held that the Son of God did not become man in the Incarnation, but rather that the Son of God united himself in a certain way with a man named Jesus. WE REPEAT, NESTORIUS DID NOT HOLD THAT THE SON OF GOD BECAME MAN IN THE INCARNATION, BUT RATHER THAT THE SON OF GOD UNITED HIMSELF IN A CERTAIN WAY WITH A MAN NAMED JESUS. Does this sound familiar?

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis #13: “... by his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, in a certain way united himself with EACH MAN.”(3)

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, July 2, 1986: “... the Son of God, incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary, ‘has in a certain way united himself with each man.’”(4)

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, April 8, 1987: “... by his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in a certain way with EACH PERSON.’”(5)

Antipope John Paul II, Letter to Families (# 2): “... the Son of God, who in the Incarnation ‘united himself in some sense with every man.’”(6)

And by holding that the Son of God did not become man, but rather united Himself with a man named Jesus in the Incarnation, Nestorius dissolved or divided Our Lord Jesus Christ into two persons.

Pope St. Leo the Great, Dogmatic Letter to Flavian, 449: “Let Nestorius, therefore, be anathematized... he made one person of the flesh, and another of the Godhead, AND DID NOT PERCEIVE THAT THERE WAS BUT ONE CHRIST...”(7)

And by dissolving or dividing Our Lord Jesus Christ into two persons, Nestorius’ Antichrist doctrine logically resulted in the worship of two Christs, and introduced, as a consequence, THE WORSHIP OF MAN!

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “The holy synod of Ephesus... has pronounced sentence against the heresy of Nestorius... and all those who might later... adopt the same opinions as he held... They express these falsehoods against the true dogmas of the Church, OFFERING WORSHIP TO TWO SONS, trying to divide that which cannot be divided, AND INTRODUCING TO BOTH HEAVEN AND EARTH THE OFFENCE OF THE WORSHIP OF MAN. But the sacred band of heavenly spirits worship along with us only one lord Jesus Christ.”(8)

In this incredible quotation, the dogmatic Second Council of Constantinople teaches that the blasphemous dissolving of Jesus into two persons by Nestorius’ view of the Incarnation, resulted in the worship of two sons, and introduced as a consequence THE WORSHIP OF MAN. We repeat, NESTORIUS’ HERETICAL VIEW OF THE INCARNATION RESULTED IN THE WORSHIP OF TWO SONS, AND INTRODUCED AS A CONSEQUENCE THE WORSHIP OF MAN. This was the very doctrine described by St. John as the doctrine of the Antichrist. Does it sound familiar?

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 10), March 4, 1979: “IN REALITY, THE NAME FOR THAT DEEP AMAZEMENT AT MAN'S WORTH AND DIGNITY IS THE GOSPEL, THAT IS TO SAY: THE GOOD NEWS. IT IS ALSO CALLED CHRISTIANITY.”(9)

Yes, Antipope John Paul II preaches the heresy of Nestorius – the very doctrine of the Antichrist. He preaches the dissolving of Jesus in the Incarnation, which results in the worship of multiple Christs and the worship of man! Here in his very first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, Antipope John Paul II explicitly defines the Gospel, the Good News and Christianity as the deep amazement at man. The Gospel is the Life of Jesus Christ! By saying that the deep amazement at each man is the Gospel, the Good News and Christianity, Antipope John Paul II is clearly indicating that each man is Jesus Christ whom Christians worship. And this worship of each man as Christ springs from Antipope John Paul II’s teaching that the Son of God united Himself with each man in the Incarnation!

Furthermore, while the similarity between Nestorius and Antipope John Paul II is undeniable, there is a crucial difference between the two. There is a crucial difference between the preliminary Antichrist, Nestorius, and Antipope John Paul II. The difference is that Antipope John Paul II’s preaching is six billion times worse. Nestorius dissolved Jesus into two (resulting in the worship of two Christs), while Antipope John Paul II dissolves Jesus into six billion, which results in the worship of six billion Christs.

Antipope John Paul II, General Audience, Jan. 25, 1984: “Christ, the Son of God, by becoming flesh, assumes the humanity of every man... At this point he becomes united with every person... In the Encyclical Redemptor Hominis I wrote that ‘the name for that deep amazement at man’s worth and dignity is the Gospel, that is to say, the Good News. It is also called Christianity.”(10)

Here we have Antipope John Paul II illustrating his dissolving of Jesus (his doctrine of the Antichrist) and his worship of man with cause and effect precision. He tells us that because the Son of God was united with each man in the Incarnation, that is, because the Son of God was dissolved into each man in the Incarnation, the name for Christianity is the deep amazement at each man; because by virtue of that event every man is Jesus Christ. Every man is truly Son of God and truly man. We will prove in this article that this doctrine of the Antichrist, that each man became the Son of God in the Incarnation and is therefore Jesus Christ, is what Antipope John Paul II preaches to the world.

3. Each man must take possession of the Incarnation

Just prior to defining Christianity as the deep amazement at man in his first encyclical Redemptor Hominis, Antipope John Paul II wrote the following:

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 10): “The man who wishes to understand himself thoroughly ... he must ‘appropriate’ and assimilate the whole of the reality of the Incarnation and Redemption in order to find himself. If this profound process takes place within him, he then bears fruit not only of adoration of God but also of deep wonder at himself.”(11)

To appropriate something is to “take possession of it.”(12) To assimilate something is to absorb it. Therefore, Antipope John Paul II is saying here that man must take possession of the Incarnation (that is, he must take possession of the fact that God became man) in order to find himself. This means that man must understand that he is a God-man in order to find himself.

And when this happens in man, according to Antipope John Paul II, man will not only possess adoration of God, “but also of deep wonder at himself”, because he will learn that he too is Christ, the Son of God who has become man. And this is why Antipope John Paul II defines Christianity as the deep amazement at each man in the very next paragraph of this encyclical (quoted already).

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 10), March 4, 1979: “The man who wishes to understand himself thoroughly ... he must ‘appropriate’ and assimilate the whole of the reality of the Incarnation and Redemption in order to find himself...

NAME FOR THAT DEEP AMAZEMENT AT MAN’S WORTH AND DIGNITY IS THE GOSPEL, THAT IS TO SAY: THE GOOD NEWS. IT IS ALSO CALLED CHRISTIANITY.”(9)

Moreover, Antipope John Paul II repeats his important message (about taking possession of the Incarnation in order to find man) numerous times in his writings (Catechesi Tradendae # 61; Veritatis Splendor # 8), since, as we have already shown, it is the foundation for his entire Gospel of Antichrist.

So at least three times in his writings, Antipope John Paul II teaches that man must take possession of the Incarnation in order to find himself. And immediately after the first time he mentions this in Redemptor Hominis, Antipope John Paul II confirms his real meaning by defining Christianity as the deep amazement at each man, confirming that this worship of each man flows directly from the Incarnation.

4. The Gospel is the Good News of man

Antipope John Paul II defines the Gospel as the deep amazement at man in his first encyclical and numerous other times. But Antipope John Paul II also defines the Gospel as the Good News of Jesus Christ. He defines it both ways because his message is the doctrine of Antichrist: that every man is Jesus Christ.

Antipope John Paul II, Address, March 7, 1983: “The Gospel is a person: it is Jesus Christ.”(13)

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, June 1, 1980: “Not only is the Gospel message addressed to man, but it is a great Messianic message about man; it is the revelation to man of the complete truth about himself...”(14)

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 13): “Jesus himself is the ‘Good News,’ ... he proclaims the ‘Good News’ not just by what he says or does, but by what he is.”(15)

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, June 4, 1997: “The Gospel, by proclaiming the Good News of Jesus, announces also the Good News of man... Antipope John Paul II, On Christ’s Lay Faithful (# 7), Dec. 30, 1988: “...Jesus Christ himself, is the ‘good news’...”(17)

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, May 9, 1988: “The Gospel is the revelation of God... And it is also the revelation of the truth about man, about his dignity... We call it Good News or ‘Good Tidings’...”(18)

Antipope John Paul II is preaching to the world that man and Jesus are one and the same, and that the Gospel is the truth about Jesus and also the truth about each man. The next quotation, in fact, is particularly revealing.

Antipope John Paul II, Address to Members of U.S. Congress, Jan. 8, 2001: “In the years of my ministry, but especially in the Jubilee Year just ended, I have invited all to turn to Jesus in order to discover in new and deeper ways the truth of man ... To see the truth of Christ is to experience with deep amazement the worth and dignity of every human being, which is the Good News of the Gospel ... (cf. Redemptor Hominis, n. 10).”(19)

First of all, notice the reference to Redemptor Hominis 10 that Antipope John Paul II makes. Redemptor Hominis 10 is where Antipope John Paul II originally defined the Gospel and Christianity as the deep amazement at man.

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 10), March 4, 1979: “IN REALITY, THE NAME FOR THAT DEEP AMAZEMENT AT MAN’S WORTH AND DIGNITY IS THE GOSPEL, THAT IS TO SAY: THE GOOD NEWS. IT IS ALSO CALLED CHRISTIANITY.”

Secondly, just before giving that reference, Antipope John Paul II says that to see the truth of Christ is to experience with deep amazement the worth and dignity of every human being. In other words, TO SEE THE TRUTH OF CHRIST IS TO EXPERIENCE EVERY MAN, according to Antipope John Paul II, and this is the Good News of the Gospel. This means that every man is Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:8-9 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”

5. Man is the Christ, the Son of the Living God

In the 16th Chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel is recorded one of the most important events in the history of Christianity.

“And Jesus came into the parts of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and others Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am. Simon Peter answering said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

In this dramatic moment in salvation history, St. Peter professed the truth that lies at the heart of the Gospel. He professed correctly that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

in his very first homily, Antipope John Paul II addressed these words spoken by St. Peter about Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Antipope John Paul II, Very First Homily, Forever Marking the Beginning of his Pastoral Ministry, Sunday, Oct. 22, 1978: “‘1. You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ (Mt. 16:16). These words were spoken by Simon, son of Jonah, in the district of Caesarea Philippi...These words mark the beginning of Peter’s mission in the history of salvation...

“2. On this day and in this place these same words must again be uttered and listened to: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Yes, Brothers and sons and daughters, these words first of all....please listen once again, today, in this sacred place, to the words uttered by Simon Peter. In those words is the faith of the Church. In those same words is the new truth, indeed, the ultimate and definitive truth about man: the Son of the living God – ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”.(20)

In his first ever homily as Antipope in 1978, in the very speech which will forever mark the beginning of his pastoral ministry, Sunday, Oct. 22, 1978, Antipope John Paul II proclaims to the world that MAN is the Christ, the Son of the Living God! He even says that this is a “new truth” – a new truth which is here to reveal. “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” spoken by St. Peter about Our Lord Jesus Christ are the words which describe the truth about man, according to Antipope John Paul II.

And it is no accident that Antipope John Paul II makes this proclamation in his very first homily as Antipope. He was here to preach man in the place of Christ, so he was setting forth his Antichrist doctrine from the very beginning.

Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi Apostolatus, Oct. 4, 1903: “While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God.” (21)

The distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man in the place of God, is the distinguishing mark of Antipope John Paul II. He is here to substitute the Gospel of Jesus Christ with a gospel of man as Christ; he is here to substitute the truth about Jesus Christ with the truth about man.

6. The Truth about man is that he is Jesus Christ

In Antipope John Paul II’s writings, one will find countless references to man. But in his writings one will also find countless references to “the truth about man” and “the whole truth man.” We now know what Antipope John Paul II is saying when he refers to this quote “truth about man.” It is that the truth about man is that he is Jesus Christ.

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 17, 1991: “Dear brothers and sisters, look to Christ, the Truth about man...’”(22)

Here Antipope John Paul II explicitly tells us that Christ is the Truth about man. This means that the truth about man is that he is Jesus Christ.

Antipope John Paul II, General Audience, Feb. 22, 1984: “... so that consciences can be freed in the full truth of man, who is Christ...”(23)

In issue 5 of our magazine, we quote many other texts where John Paul II indicates, sometimes in a very crafty way, that the “truth about man” is that he is Christ. We refer you to those texts, as we must move on.

7. And the Word became flesh in every man

In John 1:14 we read about the Incarnation of the Son of God, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” Here is what Antipope John Paul II has to say about these words.

Antipope John Paul II, Encyclical on the Holy Ghost (# 50): “The Word became flesh.’ The Incarnation of God the Son signifies the taking up into unity with God not only of human nature, but in this human nature, in a sense, everything that is ‘flesh’: the whole of humanity ...”(24)

Here Antipope John Paul II quotes the words of John 1:14, and says that the Word becoming flesh means the taking up of all flesh, the whole of humanity. This literally means that the Son of God became all flesh, the whole of humanity. And this is why Antipope John Paul It says the following:

Antipope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (# 104): “It is precisely in the ‘flesh’ of every person that Christ continues to reveal himself … so that rejection of human life, in whatever form that rejection takes, is really a rejection of Christ.”(25)

Here Antipope John Paul II confirms his doctrine as he set it forth in the Encyclical on the Holy Ghost #50. Because the Word became flesh in all of humanity, it is in the flesh of EVERY PERSON that Christ reveals himself. Every person is the Word made flesh, according to Antipope John Paul II. Notice how he even puts the word “flesh” in quotation marks, indicating specifically that every person is “the Word made flesh” of John 1:14.

8. The Incarnation is the Truth about Man

Antipope John Paul II, Homily in St. Louis, Jan. 27, 1999: “In the Incarnation, God fully reveals himself in the Son ... The Incarnation also reveals the truth about man.”(26)

This means that man is the Incarnate Word.

Antipope John Paul II, Angelus Address, Jan. 4, 1981: “The coming of God to the world, the birth of God in a human body, is a penetrating and dazzling truth. It is a way along which man, as he walks, rediscovers himself.”(27)

This means that each man discovers that he is God in a human body.

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 14, 1999: “By fixing our gaze on the mystery of the Incarnate Word... man discovers himself.”(28)

Here Antipope John Paul II blatantly asserts that by looking at the God-man man discovers Himself.

9. The mystery of the Word made flesh is the mystery of man

Antipope John Paul II, Address, Jan. 14, 1999: “And ‘in reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.”(29)

Antipope John Paul II has uttered this statement hundreds of times. He is telling us that it is only in the MYSTERY of the Word made flesh – that is to say, only in the mystery of the God-man – that the mystery of each man becomes clear, because each man is the God-man, according to the doctrine of Antichrist which he preaches. Notice that Antipope John Paul II does not say that it is in the teaching of the Word made flesh that makes the mystery of man clear, but rather in the mystery of the Incarnate Word – the mystery of the God-man Himself – Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Antipope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (# 2), August 6, 1993: “In fact, it is only in the mystery of the Word Incarnate that light is shed on the mystery of man.”(30)

Antipope John Paul II, Encyclical on Faith and Reason (# 12): “...only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light.”(31)

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Oct. 25, 1991: “In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear...”(32)

10. Mary is Blessed because she had faith in Man

In Luke 1:45 Elizabeth speaks to Mary:
“And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.”

In Luke 1:45 we read that Elizabeth praised Mary for her faith in the Lord. Here is what Antipope John Paul II says about this event.
Antipope John Paul II, Homily, May 31, 1980: “On the threshold of the house of Zachariah, Elizabeth said to Mary: Blessed are you, you who believed (Luke. 1:45). Let us do honor to maternity, because faith in man is expressed in it... IT IS NECESSARY TO BELIEVE IN MAN, from the beginning. BLESSED ARE YOU, MARY, YOU WHO BELIEVED.”(33)

Luke 1:45 tells us that Mary believed the Lord. Here, in a homily commenting on Luke 1:45, Antipope John Paul II tells us that Mary believed in man from the beginning. He is clearly saying that the Lord whom Mary believed is each man.

11. Every man is the Christ Child born on Christmas
Just as Antipope John Paul II declared that man is the Christ, the Son of the Living God in his very first homily, and just as he declared that Christianity, the Good News and the Gospel are the deep amazement at each man in his first encyclical, so too did this Antichrist have a message for the world in his very first Christmas address as Antipope.

Antipope John Paul II, Urbi et Orbi, Dec. 25, 1978: “I am addressing this message to every human being, to man in his humanity. Christmas is the feast of man.”(34)

The definition of Christmas is the following: “Christmas – Christ's Mass, the common English name for the feast of the birthday of our Lord...”(35)

Christmas is the feast of Jesus Christ's birth. So, why do we find Antipope John Paul II, in his first Christmas address, proclaiming to every human being that Christmas is “the feast of man”? It is precisely because is totally Antichrist, who is here to preach man in the place of Christ. And this Antichrist continued to preach his message about Christmas for many years to come.

Antipope John Paul II, Urbi et Orbi, Dec. 25, 1979: “Christmas is the feast of all the children of the world – all of them...”(36)

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 25, 1993: “Christmas is the feast of every human being....”(37)

Antipope John Paul II, Urbi et Orbi, Dec. 25, 1978: “Accept the full truth concerning man that was uttered on Christmas night; accept this dimension of man that was opened for all human beings on this Holy Night...”(38)

No truth concerning man was uttered on Christmas night. The only truth that was uttered concerned the birth of the Savior: “For, this day, is born to you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David” (Luke. 2:11). If Christmas night also brought forth the “full truth concerning man,” as the Antichrist says, then the full truth concerning man is that he is Jesus Christ.

Antipope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (# 1): “... for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord’ (Lk. 2:10-11). The source of this ‘great joy’ is the birth of the Savior; but Christmas also reveals the full meaning of every human birth...”(39)

Antipope John Paul II, Urbi et Orbi, Dec. 25, 1978: “If we celebrate with such solemnity the birth of Jesus, it is to bear witness that every human being is somebody unique and unrepeatable.”(40)

Here Antipope John Paul II admits that the solemn celebration of Christmas is simply to bear witness to every human being.

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 25, 1985: “The Lord’s birth is the light of the Meaning: the light of the rediscovered meaning of all things. And above all the meaning of man...”(41)

In this incredible homily on Christmas, 1985, Antipope John Paul II declares that the Lord’s birth is the meaning of man, bluntly telling us that man is the Lord who is born on Christmas.

12. The Epiphany is the Manifestation of Man

The word “Epiphany” means a manifestation of God. Even Antipope John Paul II acknowledges this.

Antipope John Paul II, Angelus Address, Jan. 2, 1983: “As is well known, Epiphany means the manifestation of Jesus to the people, the revelation of the Messiah awaited for centuries...”(42)

But watch how this Antichrist also defines that every baby is an epiphany of God.

Antipope John Paul II, Angelus Address, Jan. 11, 1998: “Every baby who comes into the world is an ‘epiphany’ of God...”(43)

This clearly means, by his own definition, that every baby who comes into the world is God.

In Apocalypse 3:14, Our Lord Jesus Christ calls himself the “Amen,” the faithful and true witness. Antipope John Paul II says that each man is the Amen.

Antipope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio (# 30), Nov. 22, 1981: “... the Church stands for life: IN EACH HUMAN LIFE she sees the splendor of that ‘Yes,’ that ‘Amen,’ who is Christ Himself.”(44)

13. Man is The Way

In John Chapter 14 we read the following:
“Thomas saith to Jesus: Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith to him: I am the Way...”

In one of the most striking verses in all of Sacred Scripture, Jesus Christ tells us that He (Jesus) is the Way. What does Antipope John Paul II tell us?

Antipope John Paul II, address, Feb. 9, 2001: “The human being is the way...”(45)

Antipope John Paul II, Encyclical On Human Work (# 1), September 14, 1981: “... man ‘is the primary and fundamental way... it is necessary to return constantly to this way...”(46)

Antipope John Paul II, Address in Poland, June 14, 1999: “Man is the primary and fundamental way...”(47)

Antipope John Paul II, address, April 7, 1998: “... man is the first way...”(48)

Antipope John Paul II, June 21, 2002: “... in the Encyclical Redemptor Hominis, I wanted to repeat that the human person is the primary and principal way...”(49)

Antipope John Paul II, Letter to Families (# 1), Feb. 2, 1994: “... man is the way...”(50)

Jesus Christ told us very clearly He (Jesus) is the Way. Antipope John Paul II tells us that man is the Way.

Antipope John Paul II preaches that man is the Way when Jesus alone is the Way, precisely he is Antichrist, and he preaches man in the place of Christ.

And there is no doubt that Antipope John Paul II is fully aware that he is putting man in the place of God when he preaches that man is way. He is fully aware of the fact that Jesus Christ alone is the Way. Yes, this man who speaks 14 languages fluently, who is the most seen person in history of the world, who has traveled more miles than anyone in history, and spoken to more people than anyone in history, is fully aware that Jesus Christ is the Way.

Antipope John Paul II, Catechesi Tradendae (# 5), Oct. 16, 1979: “It is Jesus who is ‘the way, and the truth, and the life,’ (Jn. 14:6) ...”(51)

Antipope John Paul II, Catechesi Tradendae (# 22): “... Christ, who is ‘the way...”(52)

Antipope John Paul II, On the Lay Faithful (# 34), Dec. 30, 1988: “Christ is for you ‘the Way...”(53)

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, April 8, 2001: “For Jesus alone is the Way...”(54)

Antipope John Paul II knows very well that Jesus alone is the Way, and yet he also preaches over and over again that man is the Way. Antipope John Paul II is preaching to us that there is no contradiction between the two statements – that man and Christ are interchangeable because they are the same.

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 10, 1989: “... make straight the way of the Lord and of man, WHICH is the path of the Church.”(55)

In addressing this incredible homily, we must recall the words of St. John the Baptist in the Gospel. St. John the Baptist preached before Christ’s coming:

John 1:23 “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord.”

But Antipope John Paul II tells us to make straight the way of the Lord AND OF MAN. His meaning is blatantly obvious! His meaning is that man is the Lord. In fact, notice the final phrase in this incredible quotation from the Antichrist. He does not tell us to make straight the WAYS of the Lord and of man, which ARE the path of the Church. Rather he says, “make straight THE WAY of the Lord and of man, WHICH IS the path of the Church.” They are a single way, according to Antipope John Paul II.

Antipope John Paul II, Letter to Families (# 23): “May we always be enabled to follow the One who is ‘the way, and the truth, and the life’ (Jn. 14:6).”(56)

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 13), March 4, 1979:
“Jesus Christ is the chief way for the Church.”(57)

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 22): “For in this the Church also recognizes the way for her daily life, WHICH IS EACH PERSON.”(58)

14. Man is the Truth

In John 14:6, Our Lord Jesus Christ identifies Himself not only as the Way, but also as the Truth.
“I am the Way, and the Truth...” (Jn. 14:6)
Jesus Christ tells us that He is the Truth. What does Antipope John Paul II tell us?

Antipope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (# 84): “Pilate’s question: ‘What is truth?’ reflects the distressing perplexity of a man who often no longer knows who he is...”(59)

Here this Antichrist tells us that Pilate's question “what is truth” reflects the perplexity of a man who no longer knows WHO HE IS!

Antipope John Paul II is here attempting to put his satanic gospel of hell right in our face. He is trying to put it right in our face that man is the truth – that each man is really the Christ that Pilate couldn't recognize, and that Pilate himself (when he failed to perceive the truth that was in his very presence, the truth that is Our Lord Jesus Christ) failed to perceive who man is.

Besides “the Truth,” one of Our Lord Jesus Christ’s primary titles is “the Word.”

John 1:1- “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Antipope John Paul II acknowledges this fact in his Encyclical on the Holy Ghost # 36.

Antipope John Paul II, Encyclical on the Holy Ghost (# 36), May 18, 1986: “...the Word, the eternal Son.”(60)

But watch how Antipope John Paul II applies this title of Our Lord to man in the very next paragraph of this encyclical.

Antipope John Paul II, Encyclical on the Holy Ghost (# 37): “Here we find ourselves at the very center of what could be called the ‘anti- Word,’ that is to say the ‘anti-truth.’ For the truth about man becomes falsified: who man is...”(61)

In the Encyclical on the Holy Ghost #36, Antipope John Paul II told us that Jesus Christ is the Word, the Eternal Son. Here, in #37 of the same encyclical, Antipope John Paul II tells us that the “anti- Word” and the “anti-truth” are a falsification of the truth about man – a falsification about who man is. This clearly means that man is the Word, the Truth, the Son of God.

15. Man is the Life

In John 14:6, Our Lord Jesus Christ identifies Himself not only as the Way and the Truth, but also as the Life.

“I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life...” (Jn. 14:6)

Jesus Christ tells us that He is the Life. St. John the Evangelist confirms this truth by describing Our Lord Jesus Christ as “the word of life” and the “life eternal” in his first epistle.

1st John Chapter 1 - “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life. “For the life was manifested; and we have seen and do bear witness, and declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father, and hath appeared to us.”

In this profound passage of Sacred Scripture, St. John identifies that Jesus Christ is the Life Eternal, as Our Lord Himself told us. But what does Antichrist say? In fact, what does Antichrist say about the very passage of Sacred Scripture that we just quoted (the first chapter of St. John’s first epistle)?

Antipope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (# 30), March 25, 1995: “The deepest and most original meaning of this meditation on what revelation tells us ABOUT HUMAN LIFE was taken up by the Apostle John in the opening words of his First Letter: ‘That which was from the beginning, which we have heard... concerning the Word of life – the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us ...”(62)

Here Antichrist is quoting word for word the opening passage of St. John’s first epistle, where St. John describes hearing and seeing Jesus Christ: the Word of Life. He tells us that this passage about Our Lord Jesus Christ is actually what revelation tells us about HUMAN LIFE! It is not possible for Antipope John Paul II to preach that man is Jesus Christ any more clearly!

And Antipope John Paul II knows exactly what he is saying when he attributes this verse about Our Lord to man, because just 50 paragraphs later in the same encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, Antipope John Paul II again quotes the same verse of Scripture, this time with the correct meaning!

Antipope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (# 80.1): “’That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes ... concerning the Word of life...’ Jesus is the only Gospel: we have nothing further to say or any other witness to bear.”(63)

So, in one encyclical, Antipope John Paul II quotes the opening words of St. John’s first epistle two different times; and once he says that it tells us about human life, and once he says it tells us about Jesus Christ. But, as we have shown, in the preaching of Antichrist this is no contradiction. In his preaching, to speak of the “Life eternal” is to speak of man, and to speak of man is to speak of the “Life eternal.”

16. Each man is the Eucharist

Antipope John Paul II, Angelus Address, May 29, 1983: “The thought of the Eucharist was present at every meeting, not only because there is contained in the Eucharist that which the life of every man has most deeply....”(64)

Our Lord Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is contained in the Eucharist. Antipope John Paul II says that what is contained in the Eucharist the life of every man has most deeply. This clearly means that each man has the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ because each man is Christ.

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 20): “The Eucharist is the Sacrament in which our new being is most completely expressed ...”

17. Each man is the Crucified Christ

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, June 11, 1982: “When we look at the cross, we see in it the passion of man: the agony of Christ.”(65)

Antipope John Paul II, Address, March 28, 1982: “My pastoral visit, so near to Holy Week, thus becomes a meditation on the ‘Passion of Christ’ and on the ‘Passion of Man.’”(66)

Antipope John Paul II, On the Meaning of Suffering (# 20): “Man, discovering through faith the redemptive suffering of Christ, also discovers in it his own sufferings...”(67) Man does not discover his own sufferings in Christ’s sufferings, because man is not Christ. But this is what Antichrist John Paul II is preaching.

Antipope John Paul II, Speech in the Colosseum, April 10, 1998: “As we contemplate Christ dead on the Cross, our thoughts turn to the countless injustices and sufferings which prolong his passion in every part of the world. I think of the places where man is insulted...”(68)

When we contemplate Christ dead on the Cross, we don’t think of the places where man is insulted, because man is not the Crucified Christ.

Antipope John Paul II, General Audience, Jan. 12, 1994: "Even though St. Paul reminds us that 'Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him' (Rom. 6:9), death still continues to be a part of human existence. We are witnesses to a process of death in the Balkans, and, unfortunately, powerless witnesses at that. Christ continues to die amid the tragic events taking place in that part of the world, and that was the subject of our shared reflection. Christ continues his agony in so many of our brothers and sisters: in men, women and children, in the young and in the old, in so many Christians and Muslims, in believers and non-believers."(69)

Antipope John Paul II begins by admitting that Christ will never die again (Rom. 6:9). He then tells us that death continues to be part of human existence. He then tells us that Christ continues to die, in Christians and Muslims, in believers and non-believers. His train of thought is not difficult to follow: Though Christ will never die again, man still dies – thus Christ dies because man is Christ. He even stresses that Christ continues to die in Muslims and non- believers, which definitely shows that he preaches that man is Christ.

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Oct. 1, 1999: “He, Emmanuel, God-with -us, was crucified in the concentration camps and the gulags; he knew affliction under bombardment in the trenches; he suffered wherever the inalienable dignity of man, of every human being, was humiliated, oppressed and violated.”(70)

The term Emmanuel (God with us) is very specific. It applies to one Person. Our Lord Jesus Christ is Emmanuel (Isaias. 7:14; Mt. 1:23). And Our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified once for our sins. By describing each man as Emmanuel, Antipope John Paul II is specifically indicating that each man is God with us.

It is quite obvious that Antipope John Paul II preaches that every man is the crucified Christ, the Savior of the World. But there is one place in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae that is particularly interesting on this topic, as it demonstrates the deception and subtlety that Antichrist uses in his diabolical preaching.

Antipope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (# 50.2), speaking of the darkness on Good Friday: “But the glory of the Cross is not overcome by this darkness; rather, it shines forth ever more radiantly and brightly, and is revealed as the center, meaning and goal of all history and of every human life.”(71)

Here, Antipope John Paul II says that the glory of the Cross is revealed as the meaning of EVERY HUMAN LIFE. Keep this in mind as we read the next quote from Evangelium Vitae.

Antipope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (# 50.3): “Jesus is nailed to the Cross... It is thus, at the moment of his greatest weakness, that the Son of God is revealed for who he is: on the cross his glory is made manifest.”(72)

Here, Antipope John Paul II tells us that the by glory of the Cross the Son of God is revealed for who He is. But he just told us, one paragraph before this, that the glory of the Cross is the meaning of EVERY HUMAN LIFE. This means, by way of logical equation, that the Son of God = the meaning of every human life. To illustrate this, we will look again at his words.

The glory of the Cross is the meaning of every human life (Evangelium Vitae # 50.2).

The glory of the Cross reveals the Son of God (Evangelium Vitae # 50.3).

Conclusion: The Son of God is the meaning of every human life.
18. Man is indeed God

Antipope John Paul II, Ecclesia in America (# 29): “Prayer leads Christians little by little to acquire a contemplative view of reality... to contemplate God in every person ...”(73)

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, August 10, 1985: “Today, in consecrating your cathedral, we ardently desire that it become a ‘true temple of God and man....’”(74)

This quotation proves that Antipope John Paul II preaches the worship of man as God, by calling for the transformation of the Temple of God into a Temple of God and MAN.

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Aug. 9, 1980: “... the first and principal intention of every organization and every state: respect and love for man!”(75)

Antipope John Paul II, Address, April 13, 1979: “... the conscience of all humanity, which proclaims the cause of man as the main purpose of all progress.”(76)

Antipope John Paul II, Address to University Teachers, Sept. 9, 2000: “Each of you could say, with the ancient philosopher: ‘I am searching for man!’”(77)

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Jan. 1, 1986: “It is necessary for man to be sure of man.”(78)

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, June 21, 1986: “Yes! Man! The Church does not rest as long as man is threatened in his dignity....”(79) Antipope John Paul II, Message to Conference on Culture, March 10, 1986: “... the East and the West could be combined to develop a truly universal and humanitarian outlook based on faith in man.”(80)

Antipope John Paul II, Angelus Address, April 20, 1980: “... man is offended and humiliated: man, the sublime creature of God, who cannot, who must not, be offended.”(81)

Remember, just as Nestorius preached that Jesus Christ is two persons: the Son of God and a man named Jesus, so does Antipope John Paul II preach that every man is two persons: the Son of God and a mere man (Nestorianism applied to every man). This is why he can speak in one sentence about man being a creature of God while at the same time he indicates that man is God who cannot, who must not be offended.

19. Man is the Man from Above

In John 8:23 we read the following, “And he (Jesus) said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sin.”

In this profound verse of St. John's Gospel, Our Lord Jesus Christ describes Himself as the one from above. He describes man as the one from below. Keep this in mind as we read the following words of Antipope John Paul II.

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, March 30, 1982: “Looking at himself, man discovers also – as Christ says in the dialogue with the Pharisees – what is ‘from below’ and what is ‘from above.’ Man discovers within himself (this is a constant experience) the man ‘from below’ and the man ‘from above’ not two men, but almost two dimensions of the same man, the man that is each one of us: of you, he, she.”(82)

Here, Antipope John Paul II tells us with almost astonishing boldness that each man is the man from above and the man from below! But in the very passage that Antipope John Paul II is commenting on (Christ’s dialogue with the Pharisees in John 8:23), Jesus defines Himself as the one “from above” and man as the one “from below.” It is undeniable that Antipope John Paul II is saying that each man – each one of us – is also Christ, the man from above of Jn. 8:23.

20. Man's True Reality is that he is God

Antipope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (# 36): “When God is not acknowledged AS GOD, the profound meaning of man is betrayed...”(83)

This literally means that the profound meaning of man is that he is God.

Antipope John Paul II, Address to French Ambassador, Oct. 24, 1998: “Humanism is a common ideal for all the French; it states that nothing is more beautiful nor greater than man...”(84)

Antipope John Paul II, Urbi et Orbi, Dec. 25, 1985: "What is grace? Grace is precisely the manifestation of God. God's opening of himself to man. God, while remaining in the inscrutable fullness of his divine Being, the Being One and Three, opens himself to man, makes himself a Gift to man, whose Creator and Lord he is. Grace is God as "our Father". It is the Son of God as the Son of the Virgin. It is the Holy Spirit, at work in the human heart with the infinite abundance of his gifts. Grace is Emmanuel: God with us. God in our midst. Grace is God for us through Bethlehem night, through the Cross on Calvary, through the Resurrection, through the Eucharist, through Pentecost, through the Church - Christ's Body. Grace is, also, man, the new man, created anew."(85)

Antipope John Paul II tells us that grace is God and that grace is also man.

Antipope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (# 58): “The importance of this interior dialogue of MAN WITH HIMSELF can never be adequately appreciated. But it is also a dialogue of man with God...”(86)

Here, Antipope John Paul II says that a dialogue of man with himself is a dialogue of man with God. Antipope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (# 10): “What man is and what he must do becomes clear as soon as God reveals himself.”(87)

Here, Antipope John Paul II tells us in sly fashion that “what man is” becomes clear as soon as God reveals Himself, which means that what man is... is God Himself revealed.

Antipope John Paul II, Encyclical on the Holy Ghost (# 47): “... it is the reality of God that reveals and illustrates the mystery of man....”(88)

The reality of God is that God is! Therefore, Antipope John Paul II is saying that man's mystery is revealed in the fact that God is, which means that man is God.

Antipope John Paul II, General Audience, Sept. 15, 1982: “Jerusalem can become also the city of man ...”(89) Antipope John Paul II, Address to Bishops of Rwanda, Sept. 17, 1998: “their blood will be a gospel seed... They will help you not to despair of man...”(90)

Antipope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (# 3): “Therefore every threat to human dignity and life must necessarily be felt in the Church’s very heart; it cannot but affect her at the core of her faith in the redemptive Incarnation of the Son of God....”(91)

Here Antipope John Paul II says that every threat to human dignity cannot but affect faith in the Incarnation. Why would that be? Well, if every man became God in the Incarnation, as Antipope John Paul II preaches, then every threat to man affects faith in the Incarnation.

Antipope John Paul II, Urbi et Orbi, March 31, 1991: “Let respect for man be total... Every offense against the person is an offense against God...”(92)

Antipope John Paul II, World Day of Prayer for Peace (Assisi, Italy), Jan. 24, 2002: “To offend against human beings is, most certainly, to offend against God.”(93)

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, June 24, 1988: “... God wishes to encounter in man the whole of creation.”(94)

Here Antipope John Paul II indicates that in man one can find the whole of creation.

Antipope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (# 21): “... the eclipse of the sense of God and of man...”(95)

Antipope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (# 23): “The eclipse of the sense of God and of man...”(96)

Antipope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (# 24): “... the eclipse of the sense of God and of man....”(97)

In paragraphs 21 to 24 of Evangelium Vitae, Antipope John Paul II makes three statements regretting the loss of the sense of God AND MAN in society. Keep this in mind as we read the next quote.

Antipope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (# 22): “By living ‘as if God did not exist,’ man not only loses sight of the mystery of God, but also of the mystery of the world and the mystery of his own being.”(98)

Here, Antipope John Paul II explains that by living as if God does not exist man loses sight of the mystery of his own being. This equates man's being with God. And this is why in the very same section of this encyclical he speaks three times of the eclipse of the sense of God and man. He is preaching to us that to eclipse man is to eclipse God, because they are the same.

21. Man is the Messiah

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Sept. 12, 1982: “And the meaning of human life, the meaning it has in the eternal plan of love, cannot be understood except through that ‘Messianic contest’ which Jesus of Nazareth carried on one day with Peter and which he continues to carry on with every man and with all of mankind. Christianity is the religion of the ‘Messianic contest’ with mankind and for mankind.”(99)

Here Antipope John Paul II says that Peter and all of mankind carried on and continue to carry on a “Messianic contest” with Jesus Christ. The word Messiah means “the savior.” A “Messianic contest” is, therefore, a contest between saviors! What this homily of Antipope John Paul II means is that there exists a competition between every man and Jesus Christ about who is the Savior! And only in this Messianic competition can the meaning of human life be understood, according to Antichrist, because every man is the Messiah.

Antipope John Paul II, General Audience (or Urbi et Orbi), Dec. 25, 1987, speaking of Mary, the Mother of God: “Within her is the world which awaits its God. Within her is the creature completely opened before its Creator. Within her is the history of every human being everywhere on earth...”(100)

Antichrist Antipope John Paul II tells us that within the Mother of God is the history of every human being. But within Mary there was only Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God. By saying that every human being everywhere on earth was in the womb of the Mother of God, this Antichrist is indicating that every human being everywhere on earth is Jesus Christ.

22. The New Evangelization

Antichrist wants to evangelize the world to man, making everything more human, because all of humanity is Christ according to his gospel.

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, May 15, 1982: “Education... is intended to ‘humanize’ man.”(101)

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, July 7, 1980: “The true apostle of the Gospel is he who humanizes and evangelizes at the same time...”(102)

And in trying to convert the world to man as Christ, this Antichrist often explicitly equates becoming more human with becoming more divine; that is to say, he explicitly equates becoming more like man with becoming more like God.

Antipope John Paul II, Address to the Slovenians, May 18, 1996: “In this way you will help change the world; you will make it more human and thus more divine.”(103)

Here Antipope John Paul II says that to be more like man is thus (therefore) to become more like God, indicating that man is God.

Antipope John Paul II, Incarnationis mysterium (# 2): “... the Church opens to all people the prospect of being ‘divinized’ and thus of becoming more human.”(104)

Here again, Antipope John Paul II explicitly says that to become more divine is thus (therefore) to become more human, therefore equating God with man.

Antipope John Paul II, Address to Portuguese Bishops, Nov. 30, 1999:
“In fact, by his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man… the Christian way of life not only gives meaning to what exists, but also opens ‘to all people the prospect of being divinized and thus of becoming more human’.”(105)

Here again Antipope John Paul II equates being divinized with becoming more human, and he bases it again on the Incarnation.

23. Man must discover that he is God

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, March 6, 1988: “Yes, God is ‘jealous’ for that divine element which exists in man ... ‘You shall not have other gods before me. You shall love your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ Otherwise, you, man, shall not discover yourself!”(106)

Antipope John Paul II quotes the first commandment about worshiping God and he says that if you don’t worship God you will not discover yourself!

Antipope John Paul II, Angelus Address, March 7, 1982: “What value, then, does Christ’s call to conversion and belief in the Gospel have? What meaning do reconciliation with God and penance have in the ongoing mission of the Church? However and also perhaps above all the call is addressed to man, to every man, that he may again find himself! That he may believe in himself.”(107)

This is an amazing angelus address, even for one thoroughly possessed by the spirit of Antichrist. In it Antipope John Paul II asks: “What is the meaning of reconciliation with God”; and “What is the value of conversion and belief in the Gospel”? He answers his own questions by stating that above all it is for man to find himself and believe in himself! Therefore, conversion, belief in the Gospel, and reconciliation with God equal man finding himself and believing in himself. Man is God, according to the doctrine of Antichrist.

Antipope John Paul II, Ecclesia in America (# 67): “... Jesus Christ, the human face of God and the divine face of man.”(108)

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Feb. 26, 2000: “In revealing himself on the Mountain and giving his Law, God revealed man to man himself.”(109)

There you have it! Here Antipope John Paul II says that by revealing Himself on Mt. Sinai, God revealed man to man himself!

24. The Rosary of Man

Antipope John Paul II, Document on the Rosary, Oct., 2002: “Anyone who contemplates Christ through the various stages of his life cannot fail to perceive in him the truth about man.”(110)

This means that Christ is the truth about man.

Antipope John Paul II, Document on the Rosary, Oct., 2002: “It could be said that each mystery of the Rosary, carefully meditated, sheds light on the mystery of man.”(111)

25. The Unsearchable Riches of Christ are everyone's property

Ephesians 3:8 “To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ.”

St. Paul says in Ephesians 3:8 that he was given the grace to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ to the Gentiles. St. Paul is referring to the attributes of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Christ's attributes as the Son of God are unsearchable and unfathomable. But Antipope John Paul II tells us that these unsearchable riches of Christ are actually the property of each man.

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (#11), March 4, 1979: “... in short, helping everyone to get to know ‘the unsearchable riches of Christ,’ since these riches are for every individual AND ARE EVERYBODY'S PROPERTY.”(112)

26. Each man is the Risen Christ

Antipope John Paul II, Address to International Symposium on Jan Hus, Dec. 17, 1999: “In contemplating the truth about man, we turn inevitably to the figure of the risen Christ. He alone teaches and embodies completely the truth of man ....”(113)

Antipope John Paul II could hardly be more blunt. He says that to contemplate the truth about man is to turn inevitably to the risen Christ. The truth about man, therefore, is that man is the Risen Christ.

Antipope John Paul II, Regina Caeli, April 28, 2002, On the Risen Christ: “His radiant countenance of glory fully reveals to us the truth of God and the truth of man.”(114)

This again proves our point, that Antipope John Paul II is totally possessed by the spirit of Antichrist; that he preaches the exact doctrine of Antichrist; and that one of his main goals is to replace the truth about Christ (the most important truth in the universe) with the truth about man.

Antipope John Paul II, Address to Missionaries of Precious Blood, September 14, 2001: “And at the moment of Easter this joy came to its fullness as the light of divine glory shone on the face of the Risen Lord, whose wounds shine forever like the Sun. This is the truth of who you are, dear Brothers...”(115)

27. Antichrist Revealed

Read God's infallible definition of Antichrist in Sacred Scripture:

1 John 4:2-3 – “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.”

Notice that Antichrist is a spirit that was in the world in St. John's time. That means that Antichrist has been around since the time of Christ. Antichrist is a spirit that occupies different people since the time of Christ and until his Second Coming; but there will be a unique manifestation and personification of that spirit at the end of the world – at the time of or just before the Second Coming – which will be a major sign of the end. And what does God's word say about this spirit and personification of Antichrist? It is a spirit that dissolves Jesus, and denieth that Jesus is the Christ.

1 John 2:22 – “Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.”

We proved that Antipope John Paul II's distinguishing teaching is this very thing; his distinguishing teaching is that the Son of God was dissolved into every man in the Incarnation, making every man Christ, thus dissolving Jesus and denying that Jesus is the Christ. At the very least, one can say that Antipope John Paul II was totally possessed with the spirit of Antichrist and preached exactly the doctrine of Antichrist. And, up to his time, no one ever before exemplified and personified the spirit of Antichrist like Antipope John Paul II; it came out of him with astounding diabolical precision.

We have proven in this article that Antipope John Paul II preached that every man is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. He declared this in his very first homily, and has preached it for the last 25 years. He dissolved Jesus in the Incarnation (1 John 4:2-3) and he denied that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22).

His dissolving of Jesus results in the worship of every man as the Son of God, which he preaches and proclaims to the world, in many and varied ways. Antipope John Paul II preaches exactly the doctrine of Antichrist – this is a fact. He is totally possessed with the spirit of Antichrist – there is no doubt about it.

What is also fascinating is how Antipope John Paul II's own Catechism defines the Antichrist.

Antipope John Paul II, New Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 675:
“The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo -messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.”(116)

Antipope John Paul II's own Catechism could not have described him better! It accurately pinpoints that the deception of Antichrist is a false or pseudo-messianism in which MAN replaces the Son of God come in the flesh! This religion of Antichrist is not only preached by Antipope John Paul II as his distinguishing mark, but it is actually practiced in the liturgy of his Vatican II church. The new mass of the Vatican II counterfeit church puts man in the place of God by having the priest face man instead of God during the liturgy, and by orienting the entire worship toward man instead of toward God. The New Mass, the liturgy of Antipope John Paul II's counterfeit Catholic Church, is attempting to indoctrinate the masses into idolatry and the worship of man, just as Antipope John Paul II preaches it to the people in his encyclicals and speeches.

Therefore, those who are attending the New Mass must come out of it if they want to save their souls. Those who accept Antipope John Paul II as a Catholic, or his false Vatican II church as the Catholic Church, must acquaint themselves with the relevant facts and change their position. Those who do not totally reject Antipope John Paul II and the false Vatican II sect will perish forever. And those who are donating money to priests or organizations which hold that Antipope John Paul II is the Pope must cease immediately if they don't want to perish in Hell with those who preach the doctrine of Antichrist. All must return to the traditional Catholic Faith and the profession of all its dogmas.

Permission is granted to make copies of this article, as long as our names, address, phone numbers and website are given.

Endnotes

* The first time any source is cited in these endnotes, its complete information is given, including publisher, year, etc. The second and following times a given source is cited, only the title and page number are given.

* L'Osservatore Romano is the official Newspaper of the Vatican. 1) The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 471.
2) Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed and Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 86.
3) The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 5 (1958-1981), p. 254.
4) L' Osservatore Romano, Baltimore, MD (PO Box 777), July 21, 1986, p. 6.
5) L’Osservatore Romano, May, 11, 1987, p. 15.
6) L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 23, 1994, p. 5.
7) The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 468.
8) Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 110.
9) The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 5 (1958-1981), p. 252.
10) L'Osservatore Romano, Jan. 30, 1984, p. 3.
11) The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 5 (1958-1981), pp. 251-252.
12) The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985, p. 34.
13) L’Osservatore Romano, April 11, 1983, p. 11.
14) L'Osservatore Romano, June 16, 1980, p. 9.
15) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1996, pp. 504-505.
16) L'Osservatore Romano, June 18, 1997, p. 4.
17) Christifideles Laici, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of John Paul II, Dec. 30, 1988, Pauline Books and Media, p. 22.
18) L’Osservatore Romano, May 30, 1988, p. 7.
19) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 10, 2001, p. 3.
20) L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 2, 1978, p. 1.
21) The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 6.
22) L'Osservatore Romano, Jan. 8, 1992, p. 9.
23) L'Osservatore Romano, Feb. 27, 1984, p. 1.
24) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 316.
25) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 893.
26) L'Osservatore Romano, Feb. 3, 1999, p. 8.
27) L'Osservatore Romano, Jan. 12, 1981, p. 2.
28) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 12, 2000, p. 7.
29) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 27, 1999, p. 8.
30) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 675.
31) Fides et Ratio, Encyclical Letter of John Paul II, Sept. 14, 1998, Pauline Books and Media, p. 21.
32) L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 11, 1991, p. 2.
33) L’Osservatore Romano, June 16, 1980, p. 3.
34) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 1, 1979, p. 1.
35) A Catholic Dictionary, edited by Donald Attwater, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1997, p. 95.
36) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 7, 1980, p. 1.
37) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 5, 1994, p. 3.
38) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 1, 1979, p. 1.
39) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 792.
40) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 1, 1979, p. 1.
41) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 6, 1986, p. 2.
42) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 3-10, 1983, p. 2.
43) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 14, 1998, p. 1.
44) Familiaris Consortio, Apostolic Exhortation of John Paul II, Nov. 22, 1981, Pauline Books and Media, p. 48.
45) L'Osservatore Romano, March 21, 2001, p. 6.
46) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 167.
47) L’Osservatore Romano, June 30, 1999, p. 7.
48) L’Osservatore Romano, April 22, 1998, p. 3.
49) L’Osservatore Romano, July 3, 2002, p. 10.
50) L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 23, 1994, p. 5.
51) Catechesi Tradendae, Apostolic Exhortation of John Paul II, Oct. 16, 1979, Boston, MA: Pauline Books and Media, p. 6.
52) Catechesi Tradendae, pp. 19-20.
53) Christifideles Laici, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of John Paul II, Dec. 30, 1988, Pauline Books and Media, p. 85.
54) L'Osservatore Romano, April 11, 2001, p. 2.
55) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 22, 1990, p. 6.
56) L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 23, 1994, p. 16.
57) The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 5 (1958-1981), p. 254.
58) The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 5 (1958-1981), p. 270.
59) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 743.
60) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 299.
61) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 300.
62) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, pp. 819-820.
63) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 869.
64) L’Osservatore Romano, June 6, 1983, p. 2.
65) L’Osservatore Romano, July 5, 1982, p. 12.
66) L’Osservatore Romano, April 5-12, 1982, p. 7.
67) Salvifici Doloris, Apostolic Letter of John Paul II, Feb. 11, 1984, Pauline Books and Media, p. 32.
68) L’Osservatore Romano, April 15, 1998, p. 4.
69) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 19, 1994, p. 19.
70) L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 6, 1999, p. 5.
71) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 838.
72) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 838.
73) Ecclesia in America, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of John Paul II, Jan. 22, 1999, Pauline Books and Media, p. 49.
74) L'Osservatore Romano, Sept. 2, 1985, p. 3.
75) L'Osservatore Romano, Sept. 1, 1980, p. 4.
76) L’Osservatore Romano, April 17, 1979, p. 11.
77) L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 13, 2000, p. 2.
78) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 6, 1986, p. 6.
79) L’Osservatore Romano, August 4, 1986, p. 10.
80) L’Osservatore Romano, March 17, 1986, p. 2.
81) L’Osservatore Romano, April 28, 1980, p. 2.
82) L'Osservatore Romano, May 10, 1982, p. 6.
83) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 825.
84) L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 11, 1998, p. 4.
85) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 6, 1986, p. 1.
86) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 722.
87) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 681.
88) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 312.
89) L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 20, 1982, p. 7.
90) L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 30, 1998, p. 7.
91) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 793.
92) L’Osservatore Romano, April 2, 1991, p. 1.
93) L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 30, 2002, p. 6/7.
94) L’Osservatore Romano, Aug. 29,1988, p. 10.
95) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 810.
96) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 812.
97) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 813.
98) The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 812.
99) L'Osservatore Romano, Oct. 11, 1982, p. 3.
100) L'Osservatore Romano, Jan. 4, 1988, p. 1.
101) L’Osservatore Romano, July 5, 1982, p. 4.
102) L’Osservatore Romano, August 4, 1980, p. 8.
103) L’Osservatore Romano, June 5, 1996, p. 9.
104) L’Osservatore Romano, Special Insert – Incarnationis mysterium, Dec. 2, 1998.
105) L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 15, 1999, p. 9.
106) L'Osservatore Romano, March 21, 1988, p. 5.
107) L'Osservatore Romano, March 15, 1982, p. 2.
108) Ecclesia in America, p. 48.
109) L'Osservatore Romano, March 1, 2000, 2.
110) L'Osservatore Romano, Oct. 23, 2002, p. 5.
111) L'Osservatore Romano, Oct. 23, 2002, p. 5.
112) The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 5, p. 253.
113) L'Osservatore Romano, Dec. 22, 1999, p. 3.
114) L'Osservatore Romano, May 1, 2002, p. 1.
115) L'Osservatore Romano, Sept. 19, 2001, p. 10.
116) The Catechism of the Catholic Church, by John Paul II, St. Paul Books and Media, 1994, no. 675.