There's your problem; you believed Benedict to be a "champion of orthodoxy". Compared to the other post conciliar popes, perhaps he was; but not so much when syacked against his pre Vatican II brethren..

I understand the desperate human need for closure; to give a name to one’s pain; to end the cognitive dissonance associated with an untenable moral, physical, and metaphysical situation and to pronounce the sentence “Crucifige eum!” with conviction, finality and satisfaction. On the other hand, we need to resist the temptation to succumb to easy answers. The latest “easy answer” across the traditionalist Catholic blogosphere appears to be that Benedict was the “WORST. POPE. EVER.” A “liar from the beginning,” Benedict is now – in blindingly obvious hindsight, of course – a manifest crypto-modernist, a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” who, from the very beginning, marched under the borrowed banner of “ecclesiastical conservatism” for the express purpose of advancing the cause of the Alta Vendita. Yes, it’s all very clear now. We were all naïve dupes and we should have seen it coming. Now that we’re awake, though, we’re going to clean some house, I tell you! On to the Mater Ecclesiae with pitchforks and firebrands! Give me a break. Benedict, like all of us, was a man of his time. His priestly formation was during the period well after Pius X had attempted to stem the tide of modernism in the Church with Pascendi and the Oath Against Modernism, which efforts were already too little too late (as I suspect Pius X may have also feared). The modernist heresy had already taken root in the Church and continued to grow, albeit sub rosa, and those whose priestly formation was in the early 20th century were already being inculcated with subtle doubts and confusion about whether or not immutable truths of any kind (especially moral truths) even existed, all under the guise, of course, of “free and open” theological and philosophical debate. There were holdouts, of course, but not enough to stem the time of a heretical idea (modernism) whose time had come. In historical context, Benedict did pretty much what his priestly formation and ecclesial environment had predisposed him to do – namely, try to “square the circle” of modernism and traditional Catholic teaching with a “hermeneutic of continuity.” That this attempt turned out to be a manifest failure; that Ratzinger was a disappointingly ordinary example of human frailty; that he was not among those few human beings able and willing to stand athwart history yelling “STOP,” says more about our unrealistic expectations of human behavior than it says about Benedict’s motives, character, or intentions. Our soi-disant guardians of Catholic orthodoxy need to calm down, take a deep breath, and stop playing Stephen VI(I) to Ratzinger’s Formosus.

Historical footnote... the CDF did not exist at the Council - it was still the Holy Office and Cardinal Ottaviani was the Prefect. Paul VI converted the Holy Office into the CDF and dissolved the Index of Forbidden Books. In 1967, he abrogated the Oath Against Modernism.

Apologies. Formosus.

I understand the desperate human need for closure; to give a name to one’s pain; to end the cognitive dissonance associated with an untenable moral, physical, and metaphysical situation and to pronounce the sentence “Crucifige eum!” with conviction, finality and satisfaction. On the other hand, we need to resist the temptation to succumb to easy answers. The latest “easy answer” across the traditionalist Catholic blogosphere appears to be that Benedict was the “WORST. POPE. EVER.” A “liar from the beginning,” Benedict is now – in blindingly obvious hindsight, of course – a manifest crypto-modernist, a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” who, from the very beginning, marched under the borrowed banner of “ecclesiastical conservatism” for the express purpose of advancing the cause of the Alta Vendita. Yes, it’s all very clear now. We were all naïve dupes and we should have seen it coming. Now that we’re awake, though, we’re going to clean some house, I tell you! On to the Mater Ecclesiae with pitchforks and firebrands!

Give me a break. Benedict, like all of us, was a man of his time. His priestly formation was during the period well after Pius X had attempted to stem the tide of modernism in the Church with Pascendi and the Oath Against Modernism, which efforts were already too little too late (as I suspect Pius X may have also feared). The modernist heresy had already taken root in the Church and continued to grow, albeit sub rosa, and those whose priestly formation was in the early 20th century were already being inculcated with subtle doubts and confusion about whether or not immutable truths of any kind (especially moral truths) even existed, all under the guise, of course, of “free and open” theological and philosophical debate. There were holdouts, of course, but not enough to stem the time of a heretical idea (modernism) whose time had come. In historical context, Benedict did pretty much what his priestly formation and ecclesial environment had predisposed him to do – namely, try to “square the circle” of modernism and traditional Catholic teaching with a “hermeneutic of continuity.” That this attempt turned out to be a manifest failure; that Ratzinger was a disappointingly ordinary example of human frailty; that he was not among those few human beings able and willing to stand athwart history yelling “STOP,” says more about our unrealistic expectations of human behavior than it says about Benedict’s motives, character, or intentions.

Our soi-disant guardians of Catholic orthodoxy need to calm down, take a deep breath, and stop playing Stephen VI(I) to Ratzinger’s Formusus.

As long as one keeps their head in the sand, they will find no answers. Ratzinger/Benedict was and is as much of a Modernist heretic as Bergolio. The only difference is that Ratzinger, like the rat/Judas he is, was clever like the serpent able to convince you he was "orthodox".

Wake up to reality.

Well, well. It's nice to see someone connecting the dots. I don't feel so alone.

I wish the Remnant would not use gray type. I see that some text on this page is black, but the body of the article is gray. It's less easy to read.

Agreed - and the new format isn't helpful. On my laptop it's displaying so badly I can't find anything, half the site seems to have disappeared (intended?) and the comments are squeezed into such a narrow box that some lines are only 5 or 6 words long, making reading it quite difficult! I can't see a reason for it because there's a blank space down the right hand side of the page which is just wasted. It was fine as it was - why change it?

I believe Hilary White and others will have to address the topic of Sedevacantism, because as Catholics are waking up, they are being tempted by it. As neo-Catholicism is collapsing, those confused, are now despairing and falling for the dangerous heresy of Sedevacantism. Another error existing as a false answer during this current crisis and apostasy predicted by Scripture and Fatima.

"I would not say that the pope is not the pope. But neither would I say that you cannot say the pope is not the pope" Abp. Lefebvre, 1979

"It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait". Abp. Lefebvre 1986

Lefebvre said this about JPII over 30 years ago. Do you really believe, given all that Bergoglio has done, that Lefebvre, were he alive today wouldn't lean towards sedevacantism? So please, spare us all the heresy of sedevacantism nonsense.

No Lefebvre will not be a Sedevacantist today. It has been a long time since 1979 and the fruits, heresy, and chaos of Sedevacantism is more clear today. Lefebvre would have been were he always would have been, leading the SSPX resistance against the Modernism in the Church and the Popes.

Can you show me exactly where sedevacantism is identified as a heresy?

The Church has not yet officially commented or addressed the issue of Sedevacantism. In the future, I do believe a holy Pope, and a restored Church, will declare Sedevacantism to be a heresy of our age. So it's a heresy in reality, that has yet to be officially defined. Sedevacantism is a heresy against the attributes of the Church. Everyone knows about the four marks, but there are also three attributes: Visibility, Infallibility, and Indefectibility. Sedevacantism is a denial of the indefectibility and visibility of the Church.

With Infallibility are you saying everything the pope says must be adhered to and not questioned because he is infallible? That is so far from the teaching on that subject it's borderline heresy itself. The conditions for infallibility are extremely narrow and rarely used. The last infallible teaching of the Church was 1950, re: The Assumption of Mary. Unless you're saying the pope is the Church in all ways, which itself is the error of papolatry.

I am talking about the three attributes of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has the attribute of Infallibility. The Church herself is infallible. I was talking about the attributes of the Church, not the papacy or papal Infallibility. The Catholic Church has four marks and three attributes.

What happens during interregnums? Sedevacantism is not a denial of indefectibility. Saying a Pope can issue heretical documents is a denial of indefectibility.

Of course there are intrregnums. That is a given. You can't have had an interregnum since 1958, when there have been six conclaves and six valid elections.

Well thats your opinion that they were valid.

I agree wholeheartedly with this sadly very logical and comprehensive analysis. "The wolves eating the sheep," indeed. But my dirty Sicilian mind, which has never failed me to date, also leads me to suspect that there's something more to this whole debacle. I believe Ratzinger was blackmailed, either due to his own (hidden so-far-unknown) shenanigans, or that of his brother, or both. Don't forget there was a pedophile ring scandal in the Domspatzen, the famous German choir led by Fr. Georg Ratzinger (1964-94 when most of the abuse went on), involving some 231 child victims. "The pope's brother was never named," the media said, but how would it have been possible that he didn't know what was going on when all who knew him said he controlled the choir completely? Inquiring minds would sure like to know.

Maybe, but we are all weak and sinners - I really think people should be more objective over Benedict and quit judging him subjectively. That's not a comment aimed at you (just in case it reads like that !) but some people seem to mix up assessing and judging his actions etc as Pope, Pope Emeritus, Priest and Cardinal etc. (obviously necessary), with judging him and his personal culpability. At the end of the day, both he and Francis and all the suspect characters are persons and souls whom God loves and wishes to see saved. None of us can see into their souls to know what's going on there or how God is choosing to act therein.

As I said, your comment was just the one which was convenient to reply to - probably because of its brevity! So please don't take offence.

This article connects all the dots of the dribs & drabs of my "waking up" four years ago to the horror of what happened at Vatican 2 (from seeing the carnage!). How stupid of us to be pining for the days of Pope Benedict, when it was all obviously a "progressive" (slowly now) construct of New Church! This bolsters my suspicion of anyone inside New Church! Stay away! Thank you (once again) Hilary White for this searing and important information.

It would not surprise me if the Mystical experience Pope Benedict experienced, had to do with the essence of The Filioque and The Unity of The Holy Ghost. Over time, I believe Pope Benedict realized the need to affirm The Unity of The Holy Ghost due to the false ecumenism of Vatican II. Rupture comes from the denial of The Unity of The Holy Ghost which affirms that there Is only Word of God, One Truth of Love Made Flesh, One Lamb of God Who Taketh Away The Sins of The World, Our Savior, Jesus The Christ, thus there can only be One Spirit of Perfect Love Between The Father and The Son, Who Proceeds from both The Father and The Son, in The Ordered Communion of Perfect Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity.l

May that be true, what you say.

Why not use The Charitable Anathema? Vatican II, erroneously did away with it, making it appear that it is possible to be with Christ, if one dissents from The Deposit of Faith, and thus denies the trinitarian relationship of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Teaching of The Magisterium. One cannot be in communion, and autonomous simultaneously; being in communion is not a matter of degree. If you are not with Christ, you are against Him.

Christ said: One Can Not Serve Two Masters.

As I recall, He said, "A man..."

True, perhaps we all have been too optimistic about Pope Benedict XVI simply because of a "few" things he said (getting rid of the "filth) and did (Summorum Pontificum), but we also have to remember that people evolve and change their opinions, from youth to adulthood to old, and the Pope is no different. I daresay he sees the 60's in a different light today than when he was young and being influenced by the Church Hierarchy and the World.

Still, Pope Benedict XVI had a meeting that we still cannot explain---to this day---with SSPX Bishop Fellay who said that Benedict could only get permission to leave his residence from Pope Francis, and that when asked why doesn't he change things, he said his power stopped "at the door" as he pointed to it, and that he felt he was living in "a cell". Bishop Fellay would have no reason to lie. How do we explain such frankness?

I cannot explain all these words & lack of deeds throughout time, but I do know one thing. When EVIL surrounds a person to the extent it has enveloped the Vatican since the 60's, it is very difficult to fight back--for anyone. We may never know what really happened, or what was in the mind of Pope Benedict XVI, or what he deep-down approves or disapproves of, or what his regrets are, BUT we can be sure of one thing. He was a much, much holier pope than what we have right now.

BTW, I don't believe that letter or note was Benedict's---at all.

I've recommended this book often, but Windswept House, by Malachi Martin is a critical read for anyone who is interested in the internal intrigues in the Vatican. Martin, amazingly, predicted the resignation of the Pope, even though the book was published in 1998. Under a thin veneer of fiction, he points out all the evil that infests the Vatican, including the overly powerful and quite honestly, evil bishops who really run things there. Unfortunately, we now have a pope who is a willing partner of those clergymen.

Regardless of the errors of JPII and Benedict, my love for Christ, His Mother and the Church has been perfected beyond comprehension. Benedict is going through his purification that only God can see, and surely shall be righted once he is restored. It would seem that Benedict's ultimate sacrifice would be that of Restoration. I believe Benedict is the Pope who'll work hand-in-hand with the Monarch; I also believe that this year, Benedict and the Monarch will cross paths in very peculiar circumstances that God has already arranged.

JMJ

Wow. I am going to print this article and read it again several times. As I see the entire situation of the Church since 1965, I believe Hillary White has hit the nail quite squarely on the head here. Hard to see where I can find any daylight between what I believe and what she writes here so cogently. This is masterful; no other word for it.

I think I'm going to have to say my rosary more........

Do so, and also renew your devotion to the Holy Mother. Sister Lucia of Fatima - the original one - has stated in 1957, in her last interview, that these will be the only things left to us, as the Abomination of Desolation will come. And that will come very, very soon, if the rumours about "Francis" abolishing both the TLM and the NO Mass and converting it into a Protestant-like memorial service, are based on truth. For now, the winds tell that we are going in that direction.

We will have underground churches if that happens.----What a nightmare this is...I have some friends that converted from catholic to bible alone and they said they would not be deceived no more..-they are in for a big surprise....Mother of Sorrows, pray for us...

You WANT to see it as speculative. While the references on the priest, doctor in theology and later cardinal Josef Ratzinger have been amply documented. There is no speculation at all in stating that Ratzinger has been known for many years, from the sixties till the seventies, as a radical reformist.
It's crossing the T's and putting dots on the I's. It's connecting the logical points. How can someone, who has been known in his theological works and sayings as a radical Vatican 2 reformist, come out as a conservative pope, and then finally applaud the destructive work of his successor?
If you can explain this total paradox in a logical way that is not speculative, I'll be the first one to applaud you. Till then, l will stick to the contents of this article and my observations on the pontificates of JP II, Benedict XVI and the one they call Francis, the current bishop of Rome.

Primarily it has much truth to it, which has obviously escaped you. Study the Church's history of the past 60 years; note well the changes from 1960 to 1970 and to today. I used to think John Paul II was the best thing since vanilla ice cream. Now I'm fairly certain of something else -- first, that he never should have been made a saint. Accent on 'made.' Second, we can draw a direct line from his pontificate to the monstrosity we labor under today. From his kissing the Koran to his Assisi prayerfest with heretics to his elevating numerous homosexuals to the episcopacy and the College of Cardinals and more, he was a dismal failure as the Church's supposed leader. But he was a bright man and an excellent theologian. There's an oxymoron there, probably from his desire to be a nice guy and offend no one.

Of course if you're a cino I understand where you're coming from.

Speculative character ? Did we read the same article ? If you are a neo-catholic you belong to the largest and most successful religious sect on the planet .

The church of Sardes, as described in Revelation chapter 2. Seemingly alive, yet dead in reality.

Et Tu, Benedict? No, which is why the Vatican intentially altered the letter from The Bishop In White, who, no doubt, had to flee from the wolves who desire that The Deposit of Faith be altered.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

That does not sound like Our Holy Father:
http://www.ncregister.com/b....

The Faithful have the right to ask Our Holy Father, in a neutral location, what he meant by that statement and what information he has access to in regards to the pontificate of Francis.

Your inquiry will be added to the bottom of the stack on his messy desk.

On the top of that stack sit 5 questions that have yet to be answered...

Be patient, he won't be getting to yours any time soon.

I doubt he has the freedom to leave The Vatican grounds.

I dont understand all the negativity. Pope Francis is opening the eyes of millions. The separating of the sheep and the goats. How much are you willing to do for our Lord. We dont worship the Church. Finally people are seeing how the modernists work.

TRUE! A thousand years ago, Christians would have rejoiced and thanked Heaven for the signs heralding the Troubles and the second coming of Christ. Now most of us are stiff scared, because we have grown very complacent with our lived. We all should be happy that the false prophet of Revelation 13 has finally showed up, the Great Apostasy as predicted is gathering momentum, and the truth is finally coming out. Because now, the clock is ticking. Get your Rosaries and start praying.

No doubt, as the veil is being lifted, a Great Apostasy has been exposed.

You have it exactly backwards. I like your first three words and agree with them; "I (meaning you) don't understand."