Just in case you need another reason to root against the Patriots

“The most important goal of a single Catholic man is to get his soul to heaven, but the most important goal of a married Catholic man expands to getting not only his own soul to heaven, but also those of his wife and children. It’s almost as if, as a result of the love that you share, you have one soul as a family.”

-Greg Zuerlein, Kicker, Los Angeles Rams

This guy is the goods. Full interview HERE.

Please note, this goal is not in any way selfish. It’s literally the reason God made us… so that we might know, love, and serve him in this world, in order to be together with him in the next. It’s basic Baltimore Catechism, which today lies buried beneath decades of felt banners and SJW virtue signalling of the post-conciliar era. This guy just gave greater witness in two sentences than sixty years worth of milquetoast catechesis. And yes, the husband as the head of the family does have a grave duty to get not only his own soul to Heaven, but also the souls of his wife and children.

Do you think a major reason some people are not practicing Catholics is that they see Catholicism as merely a religion of rules rather than a religion of love that also has rules?

“Some people see it as an either-or situation, as if you could love and then not be bound by any obligations. The opposite is true: The more you love, the more you willingly submit to obligations. They aren’t even seen as obligations by someone who loves, since the concern is showing love for the other person.

Maybe if people knew how much they were loved, they would love more in return. Thinking of the extensive sufferings Christ went through specifically for the good of our souls is really helpful. He suffered so intensely in the Garden of Gethsemane that he sweated blood. Then he was betrayed by someone close to him, publicly lied about, abandoned by almost all his followers, mocked, tortured and murdered.

That was all freely done so that we would be able to rise up from sin and become heirs to heaven. It helps us to see that being required to go to Mass on Sunday is not an arbitrary notion, but designed to draw us closer to the Source of holiness. It’s a matter of transforming us from sinners into saints.”

The commandments of God are the love of God. The way we show our love to God is by following them. They are not merely “ideals” which are impossible to live by. They are a road map to Heaven, revealed to us by a loving God. They are for our own good, because who knows what’s better for us than God does? Living by God’s law is the very means by which we grow in our relationship with Him… that “personal relationship with Jesus Christ”… that’s what this is. The commandments are love, the commandments are God, God is love, God is the Law. His commandments are the key to attaining the supernatural happiness which awaits us within the Beatific Vision, of which our human minds cannot remotely imagine, but they are also the key to finding contentment here in this vale of tears. And if you ever find yourself flirting with pride as you progress on this spiritual journey, remember that your success depends on, and comes only through, cooperating with grace; on our own, we merit nothing.

“I am so fortunate to have parents who take the Catholic faith seriously. In our family, it was made clear that certain things are required of us in order to get to heaven. The Church is there in so many ways for us to achieve that goal, so it is a matter of whether we want to cooperate with the grace available through the sacramental and devotional life of the Church. It’s all centered on Christ and radiates out through Mary, Joseph, the apostles, angels and so forth. I learned that growing up, but it’s becoming even clearer now.”

How many people alive today in the West are repulsed by the idea that something might be “required of them?” The entire culture is saturated with an unholy alliance of effeminacy, apathy, and acedia, to the point of being repulsive. It’s absolutely disgusting. I could go on, but this is supposed to be a good feelz post.

This next part is when I knew our favorite kicker was a ringer:

“…I finished Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett in two or three days. It’s about what Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons learned from the apostles. It indicates how Catholic the early Church was, since things like the importance of bishops and the unity of believers are written of.

The writings of the first leaders of the Church after the apostles are good things to point out to Protestant friends who tend to see history as having a 1,500-year gap between the apostles and the origin of Protestantism. The Church was Catholic from the beginning; we’ve always been a family in faith, led by bishops and priests who can trace their holy orders back to the apostles, who themselves were ordained by Christ. Apostolic succession means the continuation of the life of Christ in the world.”

Four Witnesses is my number one go-to book for Protestant friends who may be on the verge of converting. The arguments therein are absolutely devastating to the notion that the “true church” was underground for 1500 years. The content is truly irrefutable. I would be interested to hear from the readership any converts for whom this book was like scales falling from their eyes. Even if you are already firmly Catholic, buy this book.

Let’s move on from apologetics and talk about apostacy:

“I know someone who said he doesn’t go to Mass because of Pope Francis (sic). There seems to be a lack of understanding that infallibility is a limited gift. We can disagree with what a pope says in a press conference; what we are called to believe in is what the Church has passed down to us through the generations. Even if today’s leaders don’t teach this clearly, it remains what it is, and we are still supposed to believe it and live it — especially at Sunday Mass.”

On the one hand, you might say that anyone who quit going to Mass because of the current Roman Fiasco didn’t have much of a faith to begin with. But I’m not sure about that. Two guys in white behind the Vatican walls, one of them a full blown Lutheran (at best)… is bound to be a little disconcerting to the average pewsitter, no? Not everyone is granted the same level of grace when it comes to faith; it’s a gift that is given in different measures. Since we know to expect a religious deception so diabolical that unless those times be shortened, even the elect would be deceived, we best tread carefully. First and foremost, we need to get out the word to all with ears to hear, that Bergoglio is an antipope who has usurped the Petrine see, and he must be removed (not deposed, mind you, because he holds no office and no legitimate power).

“It is unfortunate when Catholicism is not taught clearly, because then people can get really confused about the most basic things, even things that aren’t specifically Catholic. Abortion is sometimes presented as one issue among many or even overlooked, but you don’t even have to belong to the Church to know that killing babies is wrong and that it is more important than other issues.”

Maybe Greg can be the next governor of Virginia.

Amen and Go Rams.


Practicing what you preach: “Better to be an atheist” than a “hater”


Courtesy HERE.  This was at Vespers and Te Deum, 31 December 2018. Of course he’s done this many times before, with ample photographic evidence, and the winningest caption I’ve seen so far is, “Antipope Bergoglio stares down his opponent.”

He helpfully followed it up two days later with a homily about how daily Mass-goers are a bunch of hypocritical haters who would be better off staying home and living as atheists HERE.

Have you ever wondered why they keep putting out the prie dieu when they know he’s never going to use it? Do you ever wonder why he’s not embarrassed standing there in front of it, when it’s such a jarring sight? Do you ever wonder why, in six years, he’s never told them to stop bringing it out?

Because he wants it there, that’s why. It’s there for effect, you see. It’s an enhancement, an accessory. “I should be kneeling, but I won’t bow to you. Non Serviam. And (just to reinforce the point) look at this stupid kneeler they put here for me. How pathetic.”

Remember, the biggest rush he gets is not in the power play itself, but in the getting away with it.

Are you aiding and abetting him? Do you follow this man?



Gold from the combox: That feeling when someone else does the heavy lifting and gift wraps it for you

I really hate being pinched for time when a story is out there burning a hole through the internet, especially when you know there is information readily available that will be new news, but you just don’t have time to do the research and find the citations. Having found full time employment a few weeks ago after a three month unplanned vacation, I am grateful but… busy. So I always appreciate it when someone else does the dirty work for me.

Say hello to “Smith,” an anonymous reader who helpfully helped drop the following into my combox. The question at hand, as you’ll remember, is the potentiality of splitting the papacy into a “synodal body” with two or more members. This was the topic of great debate, for ecumenical reasons, among the German theological elite in the late 60s – early 70s, Ratzinger among them. There will be several more posts about this, and let me tell you up front, the ones who backed the idea of a synodal papacy were actually the moderates or even conservatives of this group. The real radicals of the time were arguing that the structure of the papacy could not only change, but that the papacy itself could be ABOLISHED. Oh, have you bought the Archbishop Miller book yet? Not even the $9 eBook version? The paperback is now on back order at Amazon (but you can still put in your order) because for some reason there was a run on the existing inventory HERE.

I have seen in the past month a flurry of comments on several sites pondering the Two Popes question, as in, “Well, maybe there really are two popes. I mean, that’s what it looks like, right? And the pope is above the law so he can do whatever he wants, right? And Ganswein said Benedict “resigned” in such a way that had never been done before, only taking a step to the side, such that the papacy is no longer the same… expended petrine ministry yadda yadda. So maybe that is really what Benedict did.”

Well, he didn’t, because he doesn’t have the power to change the essential nature of a divinely instituted office. He did and does have the power to resign, but that’s not what he chose to do.

And so let’s examine why the bifurcation was impossible and did not happen. Without further comment, I give you “Smith:”


Here is some authoritative confirmation of the Non-Bifurcatable papacy.

Vatican I, Sess. IV, Ch. I (Denzinger 1822)

St. Pius X, Lamentabili (Denzinger 2053)

St. Pius X, Pascendi (Denzinger 2091)

St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter “Ex Quo” (Denzinger 2147a)

There are numerous other quotes that would help to show that the Church was indisputably founded *by Jesus Christ Himself* as a monarchy. These quotes use the word ‘monarch’ in reference to the pope. The very word ‘monarch’ means ‘lone ruler’, for its Greek antecedents are ‘monos’ (alone) and ‘archein’ (to rule). I restrict myself to these four quotes only, simply because they make clearer reference to the fact.

Dz 1822:

“So we teach and declare that, according to the testimonies of the Gospel, the primacy of *jurisdiction* [nothing about prayer here, folks] over the entire Church of God was promised and was conferred immediately and directly upon the blessed Apostle Peter by *Christ the Lord*. For the *one* Simon [Unum enim Simonem], to whom he had before said: “Thou shalt be called Cephas, after he had given forth his confession with the words: “Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Lord spoke with these solemn words: “Blessed art thou [etc.]”… And upon the one Simon Peter [uni Simoni Petro], Jesus after His resurrection conferred the *jurisdiction* [nothing about prayer here, folks] of the highest pastor [= shepherd/guide] and rector [= ruler] over His entire fold… To this teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, *so manifest as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church*, *are opposed openly the vicious opinions of those who perversely DENY THAT THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN HIS CHURCH WAS ESTABLISHED BY CHRIST THE LORD; that to Peter *alone* [solum Petrum], before the other apostles, *whether individually or all together*, was confided the true and proper primacy *of jurisdiction* [nothing about prayer here, folks] by Christ; or of those who affirm that the same primacy was not immediately and directly bestowed upon the blessed Peter himself, *but upon the Church*, and through this Church upon him as the *minister* of the Church Herself.”

Important: The word ‘one’ in the above passage is to be understood in the sense of the official Latin (as always), which uses the *cardinal* number ´unus,a,um’. That number ‘one’ does not mean ‘first’. Nor does it mean ‘one’ as in ‘someone’; it means the numerically one, single (person) Simon. I’ve taught Latin for over 15 years, but you should not trust me on this. It will be a matter of minutes to look it up in a basic Latin grammar. You don’t even need to know any Latin to verify this.

The word ‘alone’ in “to Peter alone”, is in the Latin the adjective ‘solus,a,um’. The words ‘alone’ and ‘solus’ are exact synonyms.

Otherwise, the English translation given above of Dz1822 is quite literal, and speaks for itself. Anyone who does not see that Vatican I here condemns the idea of a bifurcated papacy is wilfully blind, or incapable of understanding plain language, or, worse yet…a Modernist whose intellect, even if perfectly functional, is corrupted by false philosophy…like…mmm…Ratzinger’s intellect is corrupted.

Next up:

Dz 2053 (Syllabus of Errors, or Lamentabili, of St. Pius X):

*Condemned* proposition: “The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable, but Christian society, just as human society, is subject to perpetual evolution.”


Dz 2091 (Pascendi, St. Pius X): It is a little long to quote, but in sum it condemns as a Modernist error that authority emanates from the Church itself, as a *collectivity* of consciences. It affirms that the authoritative structure of the Church is autocratic, and was given as such by an external mandate of God.


Dz 2147a: “…[It is] an error, long since condemned by Our predecessor, Innocent X…[cf. Dz 1091 — quite interesting], in which it is argued that St. Paul is held as a brother entirely equal to St. Peter…[also an error] that the Catholic Church was not in the earliest days a sovereignty of *one person*, that is, a monarchy…”

Now it occurs to me that all the above is a sort of dialogue with a lunatic.

Up until the supposed bifurcation of BXVI, the *very idea* that anyone should *need* to prove to the public at large that the papacy is

1) A *jurisdictional*, non-sacramental, revocable office, with NO “spiritual essence”; no integral component, or munus, of “prayer and suffering”.

2) A monarchy; an office that only one man can hold.

3) That this one man holds the entirety of the office, and cannot share any part of it with anyone.

…the very idea, I say, of a *need* to prove to the public at large that the papacy is such as the Church has always understood it…would have been considered bat**** crazy.

But here we all are, engaging in an exercise that actually dignifies this insanity with serious consideration — all because of the colossally arrogant posturing of kooks like Rahner, Ratzinger, Neumann (and don’t forget Walter Kasper!) and all the other Mad Modernist Muckrakers, who think they know better than the Church’s +two thousand years of experience, better than all previous popes, better even than Jesus Christ.

May God do with them as He sees fit…but do it quickly.

“In theory, the Petrine function could be performed either by a single individual presiding over the whole Church, or by some kind of committee, board, synod or parliament – possibly with a ‘division of powers’ into judicial, legislative, administrative, and the like”

The headline quote, from American Cardinal Dulles, is from 1955. So we know for a fact that the idea of an “expanded petrine ministry,” as glowingly described by Abp Ganswein in his speech at the the Gregorianum, is at least 63 years old. We also know that the Germans ran with this idea, led by Rahner, Kung, Neumann, and yes, Ratzinger. HERE.

So Pope Benedict did NOT dream up the idea of a papal diarchy in 2012-2013. Nope. Instead, he was part of an a elite team of theologians who came up with it and developed it. Each of them had particular slant on it, if you will. These details will be emerging from the uncovered German and Italian texts WITHIN HOURS. Trust me.

It’s important to understand the false premise which is necessary to arrive at such bad theology. At the time, there was a strong undercurrent, described in Abp Miller’s book, where the ontology of divine structures were called into question. Specifically, the question was this: Can structures within the Church change to meet the changing needs of the faithful, even if said structures were directly divinely instituted, either by God the Father or by Christ.  And yes, this would include structures as important as the papacy itself. A further question was whether the structures could merely be changed, or could they be entirely eliminated… as part of an ecumenical effort to over come stumbling blocks, let’s say.

Said another way, these men were proposing the God of Surprises. There is always the possibility that the Third Person of the Holy Trinity might swoop down and abrogate or alter things, EVEN THINGS THAT WERE DIRECTLY INSTITUTED BY THE FIRST OR SECOND PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY. This means everything goes, everything is on the table, nothing whatsoever can be looked at as rock solid, not even Matthew 16:18.


These men knew they were messing with the doctrine of immutability, and they knew it. So they had a plan for that too.

Sorry folks, I just started a new job and I am super short on time. Click on the link, go read what Ann had to say, buy the Miller book and do your own research.

We just sprinted past the tipping point. Toothpaste is out of the tube, and it ain’t going back in.


Adeste Fideles, Venite Adoremus!

Adeste Fideles, Venite Adoremus!

Yea, Lord, we greet Thee, born this happy morning,
Jesu, to Thee be glory given.
Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing;

See how the shepherds, summoned to His cradle,
leaving their flocks, draw nigh to gaze.
We too will thither bend our hearts’ oblations;

There shall we see Him, His eternal Father’s
everlasting brightness now veiled under flesh.
God shall we find there, a Babe in infant clothing;

Child, for us sinners, poor and in the manger,
we would embrace Thee, with love and awe.
Who would not love Thee, loving us so dearly?

Merry Christmas, everyone!

What if Rahner and Küng were the *so called* Voice of Reason in the 1960s Church, and there was a much more radical voice?

What if that much more radical voice were Johannes Neumann?

What if Neumann were very closely tied with Joseph Ratzinger in Munich in 1967-69?

What ideas did these men share, and how might it impact the Church? Did it have anything to do with the structure of the Petrine Ministry, and if its Ontological Nature could change?

Go ahead and do some research, folks. Things are about to become a lot more clear.

SMOKING GUN: The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, starring Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger

Pasting this straight from Barnhardt.biz, in two posts. Make sure you scroll well past the photos at the bottom of the first post and go on to the full German translation in the second post.

Hold on tight, folks.


The Words “Ministry” and “Office” Are Not Synonyms in Any Language, Including Karl Rahner’s German

Pope Benedict’s partial attempted renunciation speech of 11 February, ARSH 2013:

I am well aware that this office [munus], according to its spiritual essence, ought to be exercised not only by acting and speaking, but no less than by suffering and praying.  Moreover, in the world of our time, subjected to rapid changes and perturbed by questions of great weight for the life of faith, there is more necessary to steer the Barque of Saint Peter and to announce the Gospel a certain vigor, which in recent months has lessened in me in such a manner, that I should acknowledge my incapacity to administer well the ministry [ministerium] committed to me.  On which account, well aware of the weightiness of this act, I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals on April 19, 2005, so that on February 28, 2013, at 20:00 Roman Time [Sedes Romae], the see of Saint Peter be vacant, and that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those whose duty it is [ab quibus competit].

An OFFICE and its MINISTRY or ADMINISTRATION are two different things.  Let’s take a couple of examples to understand why these words are NOT synonyms, and have never been considered such.

For the first example, let’s look at the American OFFICE of the Presidency.  When President Reagan was shot and taken into surgery wherein he lost over half his blood volume, he did not lose the OFFICE of the Presidency.  Even in an induced coma he was still 100% the sole occupant of the OFFICE of the Presidency.  What did happen is that the ADMINISTRATIVE authority passed to Vice President Bush (Alexander Haig’s claims to administrative authority notwithstanding) who immediately returned to Washington D.C., and ADMINISTRATIVE authority remained with Bush until Reagan regained consciousness.  In this period, Vice President Bush did NOT become the President, he was merely the person with Administrative authority, and was still “Mr. Vice President”.  Because, of course, there can never be two Presidents of the United States (Hillary Clinton’s claim to being co-President during Bill Clinton’s administration notwithstanding.)

Note that adMINISTRATION and MINISTRY have the same root, the Latin MINISTERIUM.

President Reagan, while temporarily unable to exercise the ADMINISTRATION of the OFFICE of the Presidency, did NOT lose his OFFICE, nor was his OFFICE conferred upon anyone else.  ADMINISTRATIVE authority temporarily passed to Vice President Bush, who remained Vice President even while holding temporary ADMINISTRATIVE authority.  Vice President Bush became neither President nor co-President in ARSH 1981.

The second example is the assasination attempt of Pope John Paul II a few weeks later in ARSH 1981.

Like Reagan a few weeks earlier, Pope JPII was rushed into surgery wherein he lost most of his blood volume after being shot, and went into cardiac arrest on the operating table wherein he had to be resuscitated.  While Pope JPII was incapacitated by anesthesia/induced coma, he was incapable of carrying out the Papal MINISTRY because… he was in a coma.  But he did not lose the OFFICE of the Papacy.  The OFFICE remained with him and him alone, and would have remained with him no matter how long he was comatose.

If you think about it, you will realize that many DOZENS of Popes have been rendered unable to perform the Petrine MINISTRY for various lengths of time – usually at the end of their lives – but retained the OFFICE until they died.  As we all know, some people get old and their death is near-instant, that is they “drop dead”.  Pope John Paul I died this way.  He dropped dead.  But, many times, the end stage of life is not sudden.  Many people “go downhill” and are bedridden and unconscious for a period of time before they expire.  Cancer, organ failure, neurodegenerative diseases, even surviving an incapacitating stroke.  Do we honestly believe that this has NOT happened to previous Popes?  Of course it has happened.  Many, many times.  The Vatican simply did not publicly announce these things up until just a few decades ago.  Popes were rarely seen, and even more rarely heard.  The era of the “highly visible Pope” began, more or less, with Pope Pius XII, and was taken into overdrive by Pope JPII himself. When a Pope would near death or merely fall gravely ill, the day-to-day running of the Vatican continued apace even though the Pope was no longer able to administer the Petrine MINISTRY. The OFFICE remained his until he died.  If he recovered such that he was able to resume the Petrine MINISTRY, he would do so as the sole holder of the Petrine OFFICE.

Let it also be noted that a Pope could also lose his ability to exercise the Petrine MINISTRY by virtue of being imprisoned – but an imprisoned Pope would still retain 100% the OFFICE of the Papacy.  An imprisoned Pope would remain Pope until he died.  If he were to be liberated from imprisonment, he would then resume the Petrine MINISTRY as the holder of the Petrine OFFICE.

So, we can clearly see and easily understand that these two terms are DIFFERENT THINGS, and are NOT SYNONYMOUS.

The notion that Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger is “too stupid” to be aware of this difference is laughable.  If an American convert gal with a degree in Animal Husbandry (but definitely NOT Latin) can see and understand this, then it goes without saying that Joseph Ratzinger does too.  To argue otherwise would be to argue that Ann Barnhardt is more intelligent than Jospeh Ratzinger.  And do we REALLY want to do that?  I mean, if you really, really want to, go ahead, but I would strongly advise against it.

But wait, there’s more….

We KNOW that Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger had heard of the false hypothesis of bifurcation of the Papacy into a collegial, synodal office precisely by having a sitting Pope renounce the MINISTRY but not the OFFICE, thus resulting in an “active” and a “contemplative” Pope simultaneously.

How do we know this?  Because Pope Benedict’s good friend and mentor, to whom he looked up tremendously, KARL RAHNER, proffered EXACTLY this false notion in ARSH 1974 in his work “Vorfragen zu einem okumenischen Amtsverstandnis”.  In the opening pages of this work, Rahner advocated the dissolution of the Petrine OFFICE such that multiple people could simultaneously exercise the Petrine MINISTRY.

Karl Rahner was greatly admired by Ratzinger, and they were close friends.  Rahner died a liberal, but Ratzinger drifted back toward orthodoxy as he grew older and saw the damage done by the very heterodoxy that he, Rahner and all of the other “Nouvelle Theolgie” (New Theology) proponents of the 20th Century inflicted upon the Church, with its zenith at Vatican II.

Pullquote from the Wiki page on the Nouvelle Theologie, with hyperlinks intact:

“The theologians usually associated with Nouvelle Théologie are Henri de LubacPierre Teilhard de ChardinHans Urs von BalthasarYves CongarKarl RahnerHans KüngEdward SchillebeeckxMarie-Dominique ChenuLouis BouyerJean DaniélouJean MourouxHenri Bouillard, and Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI)

Here is what I need, and perhaps my German readers can help with this.  I need the exact passage from Rahner’s “Vorfragen zu einem okumenischen Amtsverstandnis” and its English translation.  While I can see the book available online, even if I bought it, I couldn’t read it and find the passage because I speak ZERO German.  The German language is just squiggles on a page to me. I can see numerous references to it by others, but I can’t find the text itself.

But remember folks, there is NO EVIDENCE of Substantial Error or that Pope Benedict XVI intended to “fundamentally transform the Papacy into a collegial, synodal office” along the lines of OFFICE vs MINISTRY, and to even discuss such a thing is “grasping at straws” due to an inability to accept that Vatican I “might have been wrong”, and that Our Lord’s promise to Peter was a “pretty useless guarantee”. And also, SHUT UP. YOU’RE INSANE. </sarcasm>

As always, I hope this helps.

Here are some pictures of Rahner and Ratzinger together over the years, including at Vatican II:


Second post:

And the Germans Come Through IN SPADES….

Here’s the Smoking Gun, folks….

First read the post immediately below.

Now, from the German readership:


Dear Ann,
peace of Christ be with you. The complete work is not online but is discussed with citations at

Scroll down a little over quarter the way down, on the right there is a heading “Gewaltenteilung?”   This is the section I am posting below with the English Translation. The sections between RAHNER and /RAHNER are his own words.



Noch weiter geht Karl Rahner in seinem kürzlich erschienen Buch “Vorfragen zu einen ökumenischen Amtsverständnis”. Er veranschaulicht am Beispiel der Papstwahl, dass es einen Träger einer für die Kirche äußerst wichtigen Entscheidung geben müsse, der nicht der Papst sein kann und seine Vollmacht auch nicht vom Papst herleitet, weil es zu dieser Zeit ja keinen Papst gibt. Könnte ein solcher Träger nicht auch zu Lebzeiten des Papstes in Aktion treten? Rahner denkt an ein institutionalisiertes Gremium, das eine “brüderliche” Mahnung zur Amtsführung des Papstes aussprechen kann:

RAHNER: “Ist sicher jedvede Art von “Gewaltenteilung” auf höchster Ebene in der Kirche der Lehre des I. Vatikanum eindeutig zuwider? Könnte eine solche Gewaltenteilung nicht genausogut iure humano in der Kirche denkbar sein, wie der Papst durch Konkordate eine ihm an sich zustehende Bischofsernennung mit einem weltlichen Machtträger teilt?”   (/RAHNER  Quaestiones Disputatae 65, Freiburg i.Br. 1974 ´, page 26 f)

Die Kirche als Ganze ist nach Rahner der eigentliche und ursprüngliche Träger aller Gewalten, die in den jeweiligen Einzelträgern gegeben sind. Daraus zieht er eine zweite, noch erstaunlichere Konsequenz: Man könnte fragen, ob die Kirche

RAHNER:  “wesensnotwendig als einen solchen Träger ihrer Vollmacht immer nur einen einzeln bestellen kann oder unter Umständen auch eine kleine Gruppe ( “synodal”) zu einem solchen Träger machen könnte, die natürlich jene Vollmacht tragen würde, die das I. Vatikanum der einzelnen Person des Papstes zuerkennt.”  /RAHNER Quaestiones Disputatae 65, Freiburg i.Br. 1974 ´, page 29

Muss die “monarchische” Form des Bischofsamtes und Papsttums, die sich ja offenbar im zweiten Jahrhundert erst herausbildete, die einzig mögliche bleiben?

English Translation:

Separation of powers?
Karl Rahner goes even further in his recent book “Preliminary Questions on an Ecumenical Understanding”. He uses the example of the papal election to illustrate that there must be a holder of a decision that is extremely important for the Church, who can not be the Pope and who does not derive his authority from the Pope, because at that time there is no Pope. Could not such a bearer come into action during the Pope’s lifetime? Rahner thinks of an institutionalized body that can issue a “fraternal” warning to the Pope’s administration:

(RAHNER) “Is it certain that any kind of separation of powers at the highest level of the Church was opposed by Vatican I? Could not such a separation of powers be conceivable iure humano in the Church, just as the pope, by means of concordats, shares episcopal appointments, which he alone is entitled to, with a world power?”

(/RAHNER page 26 f)

According to Rahner, the church as a whole is the real and original bearer of all powers that are given to the respective individual bearers. From this he draws a second, even more astounding consequence: One might ask if the Church

(RAHNER) “essentially as such a bearer of its supreme authority can only ever commission one individual at a time or, under certain circumstances, make a small group (” synodal “) such a bearer, who would of course carry the authority which Vatican I confers only upon the individual person of the Pope.” (/RAHNER , page 29)

Must the “monarchical” form of episcopacy and papacy, which evidently evolved in the second century, remain the only possible one?



Now here’s a beauty for you Ann. Rahner was not even the first to come up with this crackpot idea. One Johannes Neumann came up with the idea in 1968. Neumann was a canon lawyer at the University of Tübingen

Now, who was appointed Chair of Dogmatic Theology at Tübingen in 1966? You only get one guess ;+)

(Joseph Ratzinger!!!)

Here is what the above article says of Neumann’s ideas (same page, 204) First the German, then the English.

In die gleiche Richtung gehen die Vorstöße des Tübinger Kirchenrechtlers Johannes Neumann, die synodalen Traditionen der Kirche wieder neu zur Geltung zu bringen. Seine Vorschläge zur Neuordnung des Petrusamtes : 

1. Ein Bischofsrat, der mit dem Papst zusammen die eigentliche primatiale Führungsspitze der Kirche bildet;

2. Die Frage, ob das Petrusamt nur durch eine Person verwaltet sein darf;

3. Neuordnung der Papstwahl: das Wahlgremium müßte die Gesamtkirche in echter Weise repräsentieren. (

English Translation:

In the same direction are the efforts of the Tubingen church lawyer Johannes Neumann to bring new validity the synodal traditions of the church . His proposals for the reorganization of the Petrine Office:
1. A council of bishops, together with the pope, forming the actual primatial leadership of the church;
2. The question of whether the office of Peter may only be administered by one person;
3. Reorganization of the papal election: the electoral body would have to represent the universal Church in a genuine way. (Johannes Neumann, A Constitution for Freedom, Word and Truth 23 (1968) pp. 387-400.)


Anyway, that’s all I’ve got. Enjoy!

God be with you always,