“The hiatus between the statements of the 19th century Popes and the new vision that begins with Pacem in Terris is evident and there has been much debate about it. It also lies at the heart of Lefebvre and his followers' opposition to the Council.". It is not the first time that Joseph Ratzinger expresses his opinion on the irreconcilability between the teaching of the Church (“the statements of the Popes of the 19th century”) and the modern one (O human dignity - come who - Peace on earth): we have already talked about it in relation to his greeting speech to the Roman Curia of 22 December 2005, his Membership no. 59, pp. 41-43. The hiatus (in the figurative sense of “interruption”, “solution of continuity”) it is therefore "evident", that is, immediately and totally comprehensible.

The passage from Ratzinger that we cited is dated 29 September 2014, but it was hitherto unpublished (it was published by Il Foglio on 8 May 2018) and is taken from a text sent by the "Pope Emeritus" to the former president of the Senate, the liberal Marcello Pera, as a commentary on his book, published in 2015, Human rights and Christianity. The Church put to the test of modernity. There is no continuity, so, between the magisterium of the Popes and the new doctrine on religious freedom, it is evident: it catches the eye, it doesn't even need demonstration; in two lines Ratzinger throws into the theological wastebasket all the desperate attempts at conciliation implemented by those who still believe in the magisterium and its authority, eats Dom Basile del Barroux, father of Blignières, Don Lucien and so on. But this does not mean that Ratzinger believes for a moment that the Church's magisterium against religious freedom is still to be taken into consideration! In fact he does not write "magisterium" but "affirmations".

He doesn't say, like us, “of the Church”, ma: “of the Popes of the 19th century”. The Popes of the 19th century – for Ratzinger – do not teach but affirm, and they are confined, for goodness sake!, from the cage of historicism, in the 19th century (trouble getting out of it, Woe betide anyone who claims to teach an immutable truth, and not just a changing opinion).

Never like in recent years, since Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected (only elected, mind you) to the Papal Throne, the voices of some members are raised (materially) of the "hierarchy" who sometimes even speak of heresy, or to in any case question documents of the "magisterium". After the front opened by Amoris lætitia (where all Christian morality on sin is at stake, the wedding, adultery, the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist) the one concerning communion with heretics has also been opened, which divided the German episcopate. Cardinals like Burke, Brandmüller, the deceased Meisner and Caffarra, i cardinali Pujats ed Eijk, supported by bishops like the three Kazakhs, Peta, Contact Schneider, the Italians Vigano and Negri, Mons. Salary (auxiliary of Salzburg), a theologian (always strictly retired) come Mons. livi, not to mention the numerous “subsidiary correctors” among them, but look!, pure Mons. Fellay, they talked about breaking up, of incompatibility with Faith and Morals, even heresy. However, these disordered reactions do not work, for now, no hope. Why, first of all, they are precisely called "filial corrections", recognizing in J. M. Bergoglio his own Father and the Vicar of Christ. They therefore intend to oppose the Vicar of Christ, and documents of his Magisterium intend to condemn or set aside as if they did not exist.

Exactly as Ratzinger does with the "statements of the Popes of the 19th century". Why, Then, they all have (salvo Mons. Fellay, at least until now) accepted Vatican II and its reforms, religious freedom, collegiality, ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, the liturgical reform, the new code of canon law (which admits cases in which sacraments can be given to non-Catholics: cfr. Membership, The new code of canon law, the administration of the sacraments and ecumenism, n. 57, July 2004). And then with good reason the one they recognize as the Vicar of Christ replies to them that he does nothing other than apply the Council. And how can the "magisterium" of Paul VI and John Paul II be opposed to the matrimonial morality of Amoris lætitia, with all their canonized “holiness”.? Amoris lætitia opposes Paul VI and John Paul II? Ma anche Peace in the lands of Human Dignity if they oppose in maniera evident alle affirmazioni dei Papi del XIX secolo, and all these cardinals, resistant bishops and theologians, doubters and correctors had no problem in accepting religious freedom and forgetting the Popes of the 19th century.

Even the Novus Ordo Missæ of “Saint” Paul VI is impressively opposed, both overall and in detail, to Catholic theology codified at the Council of Trent (cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci), yet none of these cardinals, bishops and theologians consider the "ordinary" rite reformed by Paul VI to be illegitimate. It is the same hand that signed Amoris lætitia that signed the authorization to the priests of the Society of Saint Pius (who are very happy about it) to confess or bless the wedding, and the authorization for its bishops to ordain priests. And even those who resisted Mons. Fellay, in the name of closer loyalty to Mons. Lefebvre (let there never be a dialogue with the Pope and the "Romans"), come Mons. Williamson e don Nitoglia (Oh, how you have changed since that!) they no longer seem to have major problems with liturgical reform, considered legitimate, to choose, honored by divine miracles, why, for goodness sake, you can also attend the Reformed Mass (that great liberal Mons. Fellay has not yet come to say such things so clearly). Poor “traditionalism”, what state it is in! (not to mention the lay people, as is sadly evident in the Radio Spada phenomenon that we still write about in these pages).

We always hope that the occupants of the episcopal seats will finally renounce all the modernist errors conveyed by Vatican II and the reforms that followed it: At that time, and only then, their action will be beneficial to the Church and to all of Christianity. As long as the various "filial correctors" continue to recognize the legitimacy of Paul VI and his successors, thus attributing themselves the mission of "correcting" at will what for them is the Pope, the magisterium, the liturgy or discipline of the Church, they will only contribute to increasing the confusion in which we live and the gravity of the situation. May Our Lady of Good Counsel enlighten them, may Christ the King save us and reign.