I've not heard such a statement from Pope Benedict, and I rather doubt he would use terms such as "mockery" to describe Protestant sacraments; it doesn't sound like him at all. What was probably meant was that the sacraments of non-Catholic communities are defective, lacking a valid minister, and this was probably directly related to the Eucharist. Baptism can theoretically be performed by even a pagan in extreme emergencies (according to Roman theology), and provided that a person is baptized in the Trinitarian manner, that is, "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost," even by a Protestant minister, then that person is truly baptized. But if there are doubts about validity, and a person wishes to become Roman Catholic, then one is not re-baptized (an impossibility) but baptized sub conditione (conditionally): "If you are not already baptized, I baptise you in the name of the Father, etc." The Eucharist, however, is different matter. Some Catholic theologians have positid than a Lutheran Eucharist may be valid but defective, lacking a minsiter ordained in valid Apostolic Succession.

The Eastern Orthodox are yet again another matter. In some ways, their insistence upon being the "One True Church" is even more extravagant than that of Rome, from a non-Orthodox point of view. And let us not forget the Oriental (non-Chalecedonian) Orthodox and the isolated Church of the East (so-called Nestorians)! These latter do not seem to engage in One-True-Church polemics nearly as much as Romans and Eastern Orthodox, but are nevertheless convinced of their position. But the Oriental Churches are in growing dialog with the Eastern Churches, and John Paul II signed a Christological agreement with the Church of the East in 1994.



Indeed it is, though we are on different sides of the fence.

Ut unum sint!