It was Joseph Goebbels, master Nazi propagandist and a trusted confidant of Hitler, who is credited with The Big Lie:
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
The Big Lie approach of the Nazis duped the German masses and The Big Lie approach of Modernists has similarly duped many of the faithful, in particular from among the Neo-Catholics. Try this simple substitution for the words of Goebbels:
“[Pope] Benedict did not intend to renounce the munus petrinus, nor the office, or the duties, i.e. which Christ Himself attributed to the Head of the Apostles [Peter] and which has been passed on to his successors. The Pope intended to renounce only the ministerium, which is the exercise and concrete administration of that office.” – Vittorio Messori
There have been some interesting developments in Rome over the past several months, which have brought to light some curious aspects of the Papal resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. The widely read Vittorio Messori – “the most translated Catholic writer in the world” - recently published an article in Corriera della Sera, in which he discusses a newly published study by Stefano Violi, esteemed Professor of Canon Law at the Faculty of Theology in Bologna and Lugano. Professor Violi’s study, which includes a detailed examination of the Latin text of the Papal resignation, argues that Pope Benedict did not intend to completely renounce the Papal office, but only the active exercise thereof. His intent was essentially to split the Papacy in two, thereby transforming the Papal Monarchy into a Papal Diarchy. In Messori’s words:
Reprinted from The Remnant 2004...
The following letter from Dietrich Von Hildebrand, who was described by Pope Pius XII as the 20th century Doctor of the Church, is not without interest in view of the recent critiques appearing in The Remnant of the article "Why Vatican II was Necessary", which appeared in the March 2004 issue of Crisis magazine.
In view of my almost totally negative attitude to the Council set out in my book Pope John’s Council, I felt very uneasy some years ago when reading certain enthusiastic remarks concerning Vatican II in Dietrich Von Hildebrand’s Trojan Horse in the City of God. Compared with Dr. Von Hildebrand I am an intellectual pygmy, and I wrote to him explaining the fact that I was very unhappy about our disagreement, particularly with regard to such instances as his praise for the official documents and "the greatness of the Second Vatican Council" found on page 1 of his book. He replied as follows in a letter, dated 22 April 1976: