In January, 2018, I wrote
a series of posts on the theme of the philosophical continuity between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, beginning with a translation of a review essay by Professor Antonio Livi. Livi is a former dean and professor of philosophy at the Lateran University in Rome, and was formerly incardinated in Opus Dei. The title of that essay, "Heresy is in Power," expresses a continuing theme in Livi's commentary on the current crisis in the Church. That essay lays much of the blame for the hegemony of Modernist thought in the Church at the feet of Ratzinger, and of Ratzinger's own philosophical errors.
Today
Gloria TV published a transcript of a recent interview with Livi in which Livi stated that Bergoglio "was elected to carry out a reform [of the Church] in the Lutheran sense”. He also flatly stated that:
Francis’ election was a big set-up which will eventually lead to the recognition of Luther and to the creation of a Mass without consecration. According to Livi this revolution was already planned in the early sixties. The last fifty years were marked by the activity of “evil and heretical” theologians in order to conquer power. “Now they have conquered it.”
I also wrote a pair of posts on this same theme--the continuity between Ratzinger and Bergoglio--in March, 2018, stemming from the controversy over Ratzinger's letter that offered a theological endorsement of Bergoglio:
Bergoglio's LetterGate--Continuity and Discontinuity
A Case Study On Continuity Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: The Spirit And "Living Tradition"
What follows is
a brief interview with Livi that appeared in Italian, and which I've translated. In the interview he touches on the same theme of continuity described above, in an enlightening way--including a brief reference to the resistance that otherwise intelligent and honorable people raise to what is "an undeniable theological fact". I will simply add, with regard to Livi's claim that "Today they [Modernists] are in charge of practically all the Vatican dicasteries ", that assuming that Livi is correct in his assessment of Ratzinger's thought--and he is--then this should come as no surprise. Most of the episcopal heroes of the Neo-Catholics of the V2 Church--men such Chaput, Burke, and Pell, have long proclaimed their adherence to Ratzinger's way of thinking. The simple fact is that Wojtyła and Ratzinger largely paved the way for Bergoglio and his German masters.
Monsignor Livi: "In the Church, heresy is in power and ignorance has been canonized"
For
the fifth anniversary of the pontificate of Pope Francis, Monsignor
Dario Edoardo Viganò, responsible for Vatican communication and Vatican
News, revealed a letter from Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI addressed to
Pope Francis. We interviewed Monsignor Antonio Livi on this matter.
Professor Livi, does this endorsement [of Francis] by the Pope Emeritus surprise you?
"No.
In the end, his letter, even if it does not touch doctrinal issues,
proves that I've been right in always maintaining that there is a
disturbing continuity between Ratzinger and Bergoglio in the way of
exercising the ecclesiastical magisterium. Many (and among them a very esteemed friend, Antonio Socci) do not want to admit it. But
from a theological point of view it's an undeniable fact, even if this
observation does not imply a critique of Benedict XVI from the point of
view of personal sanctity ".
Because?
"Because
even previous Popes, including those who are already canonized (like
John XXIII and John Paul II) or will soon be (like Paul VI), have not
prevented the growing [progressiva] hegemony of neo-modernist theology in the Church. I am presenting a very significant book throughout Italy: "A bishop writes to the Holy See on the pastoral dangers of dogmatic relativism" (Leonardo da Vinci, Rome 2017) [The letters are selected and annotated by Livi.]. These
are the letters that Monsignor Mario Oliveri, when he was bishop of
Albenga, wrote to Pope John Paul II and to Benedict XVI to implore them
to curb the invasion of neomodernistic ideas and praxis in the Church:
but bishop Oliveri received no positive response from these Popes. The
result is (as I always repeat) that today we have "heresy in power" in
the ecclesiastical structures for teaching theology and pastoral
government. I'm
not surprised by this statement by Ratzinger about the common doctrinal
criterion that inspired his pontificate yesterday and today inspires
the pontificate of Pope Francis: because Bergoglio and Ratzinger present two faces of the same coin. The
German is the cultured and professorial Pastor, the Argentine the
populist and demagogue, in search of consensus with the exponents of
secular culture ".
Why do you say these things about Ratzinger?
"I
know him well, I respect him and venerate him as a man of God. When I
had him read (in 2012) the first edition of my treatise on "True and
false theology ", he replied in writing praising my work. But
he certainly did not share my severe judgment on the false pro-Lutheran
Catholic theology, which is opposed to the immutability of dogma and
its metaphysical conceptualization, and was accepted by the
ecclesiastical magisterium on the basis of Thomist theology and the
scholastic tradition. Ratzinger
the theologian prefers personalist, existential and dialectical
theology: after all, he belongs to the theological progressivism of his
friend Karl Rahner. As
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal
Ratzinger often let heresy slide, or at least tolerated it. Maybe it also depends on his delicacy of mind and his meekness. However,
it isn't possible to be good theologians and above all good pastors if
you don't protect dogma from heresy (and the worst heresy is to say that
faith does not need dogmas). He,
Ratzinger, is inclined to the relativistic, historicist (according to
the hermeneutical school) interpretation of absolute fidelity to dogma
".
He probably wrote those things in defense of the unity of the Church, sensing the danger of a schism ...
"I don't believe it. A substantial schism is already underway. If
he really believed in dogma and intended to free the Church from
heresy, he did not have to resign or could subsequently disapprove the
theses of Pope Francis. I have the feeling that it's skillful role playing. Francis is the demagogue, Ratzinger the cautious one ".
And the Church?
"It's in trouble. It's
a result of the seizure of power by modernist theologians, first under
the pontificate of John XXIII and later with Vatican II. Today they are in charge of practically all the Vatican dicasteries ".
On
TV and in most of the media, to commemorate the five years of the
pontificate of Francis, no critical voices were heard or at least they
were not asked ...
"It shows that heresy is in power. And we have also canonized ignorance ".
