Two For The Price of One

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

It's official now.

There will be "two for the price of one" come five months now, that is, in December of 2013.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis The Insidious Little Pest will indeed "canonize" Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII (see Two For The Price Of One, part one) and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, who is the subject of this particular commentary.

The "canonization" of Roncalli/John XXIII will proceed despite there being only one "miracle" attributed to his intercession. Wojtyla/John Paul II, who streamlined the conciliar "canonization" process to such an extent that his endless "beatifications" and "canonizations" came to be known as products of the "saint factory." is said to have two "miracles" attributed to his prayers.

Why not? As a former colleague of mine in the resist while recognize movement wrote about nine years ago, "Miracles? We don't need no stinkin' miracles."

Here is the official announcement from the Occupy Vatican Movement concerning the latest conciliar farce:

 

(Vatican Radio) Journalists in the Holy See Press Office busy getting to grips with Pope Francis’ first encyclical the Light of Faith, were somewhat surprised Friday lunchtime when Director Fr. Federico Lombardi S.J. called them back for a second announcement: Pope Francis had approved the cause for canonization of two of his venerable and much loved predecessors Blessed John XXIII and Blessed Pope John Paul II. Emer McCarthy reports:

Meeting with Cardinal Angelo Amato, Prefect of the Congregation for the Cause of Saints, Friday morning, Pope Francis approved the promulgation of the decree and also convoked a special Consistory of the College of Cardinals to discuss the canonization of the Polish pope in depth.

Furthermore, he approved the favorable votes of the Ordinary Session of the Congregations Cardinals and Bishops regarding the raising to the altars of sainthood of Blessed John XXII.

This slightly unusual gesture was explained by Fr. Lombardi who told journalists that despite the absence of a second miracle it was the Pope’s will that the Sainthood of the great Pope of the Second Vatican Council be recognized.

Fr. Lombardi stated that a canonization without a second miracle is still valid, given that there is already the existing miracle that lead to the Roncalli Pope’s beatification. He also pointed to ongoing discussions among theologians and experts about whether it is necessary to have two distinct miracles for beatification and canonization. Certainly, he added the Pope has the power to dispense, in a Cause, with the second miracle.

However, there was no mention of dates. Neither for the Consistory nor for the Canonizations. Fr. Lombardi did not rule out that both celebrations could coincide, and he did express his belief that they would take place by the end of the year. Either way any date would be established during the Consistory. (Francis the Insidious Little Pest signs "canonization" decrees for John XXIII and John Paul II.)

 

As noted in part one of this two-part commentary, this is all nothing other than the making of plaster "saints" for purely ideological reasons. The ideology being promoted in this instance is conciliarism itself and its false doctrines, sacrilegious liturgies and condemned pastoral practices. No believing Catholic should take this seriously as it is simply the work of enemies of Christ the King and the souls He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death.

Karol Joseph Wojtyla lost the Catholic Faith early in his life, something that Mrs. Cornelia Ferreira noted in the book that she coauthored with Mr. John Vennari, the editor of Catholic Family News, World Youth Day: From Catholicism to Counterchurch:

Like Focolare, other syncretic sects have received, or are in the process of receiving, canonical status, allowing them to masquerade as Catholic religious orders, complete with Statutes, community life, vows and even seminaries. The Neocatechumenate alone, founded by a lay man and ex-nun, has produced 196 priests from its Redemptoris Mater diocesan seminar in Rome and more than 1,000 from its 50 seminaries across the world. Besides the priests being developed by this and other sects, many other clergy live their spirituality. Bishops have already come from their heretical ranks, ordained by John Paul II and favoured with privileged positions, some within the Roman Curia and on Pontifical Councils. It is only logical to assume that they could produce a pope, loyal only to his particular "church" or movement. The ecclesial movements comprises priests, religious, single and married laity--each movement a parallel or an anti-Church within the bosom of the Catholic Church

But we don't have to look to the future for a pope produced by a lay movement. Pope John Paul himself was the "product" and progenitor of dynamic lay groups." In 1940, Karol Wojtyla, aged 19, fell under the sway of a Polish rationalist and self-taught psychologist, Jan Tyranowski, who had "developed his own spirituality" and had the reputation of a "mystic." Quite in line with Deweyite and Jungian adult church principles, Tyranowski preached a gnostic experiential religion; "inner liberation from the faith," i.e., from Catholicism; and "transformation of personality from within," i.e., spiritual growth, through the "friendship" of a community. He also preached a life of service, especially to those of one's community, as the fruit of the "practice and the presence of God." "To bring young people into this same faith"--not Catholicism--he led weekly discussion meetings for young men he recruited, "in which theological questions were argued." (Questioning the Faith is called "critical thinking" today.)

Tyranowski formed the Living Rosary, which shared many of the characteristics of modern lay movements. Its weekly meetings were run by lay people in homes, not by priests in parish halls. By 1943, there were 60 "animates" who reported to Tyranowski. One of these group leaders was Karol Wojtyla.

It is strange that Chiara Lubich also termed her group "the living Rosary." Did she get the idea from Bishop Wojtyla, whom Focolare got to know in Poland? "The Living Rosary as created by Jan Tyranowski consisted of groups of fifteen young men, each of which was led by a more mature youngster who received personal spiritual direction ... from the mystically gifted tailor." The difference between the two "living" Rosaries is that Tyranowoski's groups represented the decades of the Rosary, whilst Lubitch's members were Hail Marys.

The inner transformation taught by Tyranowski is what New Agers today call a change in consciousness or paradigm shift, in which one synthesizes two opposing ideas, such as believing one is a good Catholic even if holding superstitious or occult beliefs. It is similar to Dewey's merger of nature and grace or Jung's "wholeness." It is an occult, gnostic, kabbalistic method of producing a personal shift in values that engenders social transformation. Inner transformation led to religious orders abandoning the supernatural focus of Catholicism for naturalistic and social activism after Vatican II.

Pope John Paul II's acceptance of the gnostic philosophy of the sects is also the product of the theatrical experiences of his youth. Theatre for Karol was "an experience of community"; but more than that, it was a serious training in gnostic transformation by Mieczyslaw Kotlarczyk, director of the Rhapsodic Theatre, which he co-founded with Karol. This Theatre, with its "theme of consciousness," provided Wojtyla's "initiation to phenomenology." Kotlarczyk, who lived for some time in the Wojtyla home, tutored Karol in his method from the time Karol was sixteen until he joined the seminary six years later. He created a "theater of the inner world" to present "universal truths and universal moral values, which . . . offered the world the possibility of authentic transformation." Plot, costumes and props were not important. Instead, speech--the "word"--was his focus, the goal being to use it to transform the consciousness of the audience (and actor). Hence Kotlarczyk, insisted on every word being pronounced just so.

That this was a training in the kabbalistic, occult use of words became clear when Kotlarczyk's book, The Art of the Living Word: Diction, Expression, Magic, was published in 1975 by the Papal Gregorian University in Rome. Cardinal Wojtyla penned the preface to this book in which Kotlarczyk listed the sources of his ideas. The included the writings of several occultists and theosophists, amongst them some of the foremost kabbalists and occultists of modern times: Russian Mason Helena Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society and the New Age Movement; French occultist Eliphas Levi (who influenced Blavatsky, Albert Pike, Grand Commander of Scottish Rite Masonry, and sorcerer Aleister Crowley, long-time head of the high Masonic Ordo Templi Orientis or OTO); and Rudolph Steiner. Illuminatus, Rosicrucian, theosophist, OTO member, Communist and founder of the Anthroposophical Society and Waldorf Schools. Theosophy had been condemned by the Church in 1919, the Holy Office stating one could not "read [theosophists'] books, daily papers, journals and writings.

Kotlarczyk believed he was an "archpriest of drama," his living word method being a religion and "vocation," with the actor as priest. As with theosophists who use the title "Master" for highly evolved humans who guide humanist, he called himself "Master of the Word." He saw theater "as ritual" and "understood the liturgical character of theatrical action, . .. offering the possibility of entering into a new dimension. . . ." Theater could be "a way of perfection" if "the word" had absolute priority" over "externals and spectacles."

Compare Kotlarczyk's ideas with Anthroposophy or "Christian Illuminism," which is a Luciferian initiation" that forms the enlightened or "deified" man with occult abilities. Anthroposophy teaches that occult knowledge, or the "inner meaning" of realities can be obtained through a "disciplined use of the arts, words, colour, music and eurhythmic ("universal harmony"), a way of dance that Steiner (1861-1925) created to express the inner meanings of sound. The explosion in the Church today of theatrics, "creative liturgy," and eurhthmic-style"liturgical dance" (even at Papal Masses) as an experiential means of teaching the Faith, denotes both a Jungian and Steinerian influence. (Steiner's techniques are actually a "subversive" form of hypnosis applied to religious, political and educational groups to make them tools for effecting the Masonic Universal Republic. Destroying rational thought, they produce the "false idealist" and "soft peacemonger" who lives by feelings, finds goodness and beauty in ugliness and evil, does not criticized error, gives up his personality, and blends with another. He is then easily controlled and even obsessed.)

Karol and his friends committed themselves to "the dramatic exploration of the interior life" under Kotlarczyk. Amongst his man roles, Karol was the "Seer John" in Steiner's arrangement of the Apocalypse. Other esoteric works in which he acted or which had "significance in his spiritual formation" included productions by Juliusz Slowacki (1809-49) and Adam Mickiewicz (1789-1855). Slowacki was an evolutionist and reincarnationalist who believed Poland's political sufferings were "karma." Mickiewicz was a kabbalist and Martinist (a form of occultism). Both men subscribed to Polish Messianism, which was intertwined with Jewish Messianism and occultism. Their ideas were incorporated into other plays. To "rebuke" Pius IX, who did not support Polish nationalism and the Masonic revolution in Italy, Slowacki also composed a poem about a future "Slavic Pope" who would head a "reformed papacy," and would be tough, but "a brother of the people." As Pope John Paul II, Karol would later apply this poem to himself.

The following comment by Father Wojtyla (under a pseudonym) in 1958 shows how the Rhapsodic Theatre solidified his rejection of individualism in favour of the one mind enforced in the new ecclesial sects:

This theater ... defends the young actors against developing a destructive individualism, because it will not let them impose on the text anything of their own; it gives them inner discipline. A group of people, collectively, somehow unanimously, subordinated to the great poetic word, evoke ethical associations; this solidarity of people in the word reveals particularly strongly and accentuates the reverence that is the point of departure of the rhapsodists' word and the secret of their style.

After his ordination, Father Wojtyla created his own youth group, "Little Family," whose members called him "Uncle." Little Family became the core of a larger community known as Srodowisko or "milieu," which he led until elected Pope. The seeds for World Youth Day lay in the co-ed hiking across Poland, sleeping in barns, discussing anything, singing, praying, and attending his outdoor Masses. His good friend, Fr. Mieczyslaw Malinski, another Tyranowski graduate, admiringly referred to him as "Wojtyla the revolutionary," who shocked "the entire Cracow diocese." He was also the type of priest Focolare likes, "wholly devoid of clericalism." Tyranowski's training taught him to highly value the laity, and he tested his philosophical ideas on Srodowisko friends and his Lublin University doctoral students, encouraging a "mutual exchange" of ideas, happy to learn from them.

Having gone from lay leader to Pope, it is no surprise that John Paul became the greatest promoter and protector of the lay movements, starting with gaining them official recognition at Vatican II. Furthermore, Focolare, Neocatechumenal Way, Communion and Liberation and Light-Life (for Oasis) were well-established in Communist Poland, where Karol Wojtyla got to know them; and he championed them since his days as Archbishop of Cracow. He saw the movements as crucial "for achieving his vision": they are "privileged channels for the formation and promotion of an active laity ..." The following statement he made to Communion and Liberation in 1979 encapsulates the continuity of thought between his Tyranowski days and the modern sects: "the true liberation of man comes about, therefore, in the experience of ecclesial  communion. . . ."

Pope John Paul's Apostolic Letter for the Year of the Eucharist (October 2004-October 2005) shows that Vatican II was a bridge for this continuity. Citing Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, Pope John Paul says the Eucharist is a sign and instrument of "the unity of the whole human race"--i.e., it is meant to bring about the pantheistic Masonic one-world community! It should inspire Christians to "become promoters [sic] of dialogue and communion," and communities to "building a more just and fraternal society." (Cornelia Ferreira and John Vennari, World Youth Day: From Catholicism to Counterchurch, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Canisius Books, 2005, pp. 126-133.)

 

Leaving aside the authors' acceptance of the legitimacy of the "pontificate" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and their belief that the Catholic Church had or was even capable of endorsing the sects described so well and with such thorough documentation, I can say in all candor that I was fool for believing that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II had the mind of a Catholic. A fool. That is what I was for projecting into the very warped, Modernist and New Age mind of Karol Wojtyla a commitment to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church. I permitted myself to be deceived.

Oh, the evidence was there. I had heard about the "Lublin School," and was even given a book by the late Father Francis Lescoe, about the indecipherable phenomenology it taught when I was taking courses at Holy Apostles Seminary in the 1983-1984 academic year (as I was teaching a graduate course on the weekends at Saint John's University in Jamaica, Queens). I looked at it, deemed to be thoroughly un-Catholic, refusing, however, to question the Catholicity of the man who was the Lublin School's chief propagandist, the then currently reigning "pontiff." I had built up a illusion about a man based on my own willingness to suspend rationality and my willingness to accept a delusion as reality.

No person who believes in what Wojtyla came to believe under the tutelage of Jan Tyranowski is a member of the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII made it clear in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, that anyone who believes in things condemned by the Catholic falls from the Faith no matter how much, if even a great preponderance, of other truths of the Faith they hold, putting the lie, of course, to the "minimal beliefs" standard that has been fabricated entirely out of whole cloth by some apologists in behalf of the nonexistent legitimacy of the conciliar "popes:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

 

Karol Wojtyla was plainly a revolutionary, not a Catholic, one whose background as a student of Jan Tyranowski was on full display at the "Second" Vatican Council, as was noted by Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki in Tumultuous Times:

His [Wojtyla's] stand on atheism puzzled many of the bishops, especially those from Communist countries. Archbishop Wojtyla believed that the human person should find the truth on their own and that conversion was unnecessary:

"Wojtyla was deeply convinced that personalist ethics--which stresses the uniqueness and inviolability of the human personality--would never allow the imposing of ideas on anyone. He took the same line when the council discussed the problems of atheism--a question that vexed the Council Fathers almost from the beginning to the end of Vatican II. 'It is not the Church's role to lecture unbelievers,' Wojtyla declared on taking the floor on October 21, 1964. 'We are involved a quest along with our fellow men. ...Let us avoid moralizing or suggesting that we have a monopoly on the truth.' ...Talk at the council of actual 'relations with atheism' meant dialogue with Marxists." (Carl Bernstein and Marco Politi, His Holiness, pp. 102-103, quoted in Tumultuous Times, p. 540.)

These were revolutionary ideas, especially at a time when the West braced for nuclear war and when much of the world was held captive under Communist tyranny. He further expressed his ecumenical and Modernist persuasions a week later.

"He began with several previously expressed comments on the Church and the world and the president of the session was on the point of stopping him, when he quickly and skillfully captivated his audience and silenced all the noise in the auditorium. In a loud and distinct voice, he clearly explained that the Church should no longer pose as the sole dispenser of Truth and Goodness... She should, he went on, be in the world but not above it. ...The Church must alter her teaching; she should encourage Revelation and no longer dictate it." (Catherine and Jacques Legrand, John Paul II, p. 68.)

"Although he was only forty-two when the council opened, Wojtyla made eight oral interventions in the council hall, a rather high number, and often spoke in the name of large groups of bishops from Eastern Europe. (Altogether he made 22 interventions, oral and written.) He was an unusually active member of various drafting groups for Gaudium et Spes, and even a chief author of what was called the 'Polish draft.' His voice as crucial to the passage of the document on religious liberty.''"(William Madges and Michael Daly, Vatican II: Forty Personal Stories, p. 33)

The Modernists Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac and Jean Danielou worked closely with Archbishop Wojtyla to draft the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World [Gaudium et Spes]. In his speeches of September 23 and 28, 1965, Wojtyla championed the heresy of religious liberty and encouraged dialogue with atheists.

"Archbishop Wojtyla then took up the question of atheism as a pastoral issue, as part of the Church's 'dialogue with everyone.' ...The Church's dialogue with atheism should begin not with arguments or proofs about the existence of God, but with a conversation about the human person's interior liberty." (Tumultuous Times, pp. 540-541.)

 

How ironic is it that two trained actors, Karol Wojtyla and Ronald Reagan, were on the world stage together during most of the 1980s? Both used style and image--and carefully staged events--to communicate a sense of "connectedness" to the public.

Wojtyla did so even more effectively than Reagan, conveying the impression to so many of us "in the pew" that he was going to come to our "rescue," that all we had to do was to be "patient" and to "fight in our parishes for the Faith," that our "Holy Father" would send us "good bishops" to undo the harm of the "bad bishops." The mass communications media provided Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II with the perfect stage for many of us to "connect" with him on an emotional level as our spiritual "father," making many of us inclined to overlook some of the things he said and did (constant support for ecumenism and religious liberty, the Assisi event, the "papal" extravaganza"Masses" replete with the incorporation of pagan rituals of one sort or another) for a very long period of time.

Some of us put aside the use of our reason to to "hope against hope" that Wojtyla/John Paul II was going to "restore" the Catholic Church after the darkness of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick.

1. It was within a week of his election on October 16, 1978, that John Paul II said that he wanted to see priests back in their clerical garb and women religious back in their habits. He's traditionally-minded, I told people repeatedly.

2. He tried to put catechesis back on the "right track" with the issuance of the post-synodal exhortation Sapientia Christianae

3. He told off the Communists in Poland in June of 1979, saying in a "homily" at an outdoor "Mass" in Victory Square in Warsaw that no one could ever remove Christ as the center of history. See, he's not an appeaser like Paul VI, I said triumphantly.

4. John Paul II whacked the American bishops over the head but good during his first pilgrimage to the United States of America in October of 1979, using some of their own pastoral letters against them, knowing full well that they were not enforcing their own documents. He told Catholic educators assembled at The Catholic University of America on October 7, 1979, and I was one of those educators in attendance that day, that the Church needed her theologians to be "faithful to the magisterium." I gloated as John Paul II said this, staring in the direction of the notorious dissenter named Father Charles Curran, a priest of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, who was sitting two rows in back of me, dressed in a jacket and tie. It was later that same day that the "pope" denounced abortion as the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America sat in the very front row of chairs on the Capitol Mall during an outdoor "Mass," saying in a most stirring manner, "And when God gives life, it is forever!"

5. Two months thereafter, in December of 1979, Father Hans Kung was declared by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to be ineligible to hold a chair in theology at Tubingen University in Germany (all right, all right, "other arrangements" were made to permit Kung to stay). "Let the heads roll," I told my classes at Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales that day. "Let the heads of the dissenters roll."

6. John Paul II wanted to correct abuses in the Novus Ordo Missae, using his Holy Thursday letter, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980, going so far as to state:

As I bring these considerations to an end, I would like to ask forgiveness-in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate-for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980.)

See, I said proudly, to one and all. He's going to "fix" things, isn't he? The issuance of Inaestimabile Donum two months later, which I would wave in the faces of "disobedient" conciliar priests for about a decade before it began to dawn on me that there was going to be no enforcement of "rules" in an ever-changing and ever-changable liturgical abomination, was "proof," I said at the time, of how the "pope" is "turning things around in right direction. I wasn't the only one. The Angelus, a publication of the Society of Saint Pius X, commented favorably on some of these things itself in 1980.

7. "Pope" John Paul II personally opened a Perpetual Adoration Chapel in the Piazza Venezia in Rome at the behest of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, also mandating daily periods of Solemn Eucharistic Adoration in each of the four major basilicas in Rome. He used his pilgrimage to South Korea in 1984 to state that he wanted to see Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration established in all of the parishes of the world.

8. Father Charles Curran was finally denied in 1986 the right to teach as a theologian in Catholic institutions and Father Matthew Fox, O.P., was forbidden to teach in Catholic institutions by John Paul II's "defender of the faith," Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, and dismissed from the Order of Preachers in 1992  for his New Age "creation spirituality" beliefs.

9. John Paul II would take various American "bishops" to task during the quinquennial (or ad limina apostolorum) visits, pointedly asking the late "Bishop" John Raymond McGann of the Diocese of Rockville Center in 1983 why sixteen of his diocese's parishes did not have regularly scheduled confessions during the recently concluded Easter Triduum. Being dissatisfied with McGann's answer ("Our priests are very busy, Your Holiness"), John Paul said, "Excellency, I was not too buy to hear Confessions in Saint Peter's on Good Friday." McGann got into further trouble later that day in April of 1983 when he was talking at lunch with John Paul and the other New York Province "bishops" about how most young people today do not know their faith and are thus in theological states of error, inculpable for their ignorance. John Paul II put down his soup spoon and said, "I agree with you. You are correct. However, the bishops and priests who are responsible for these young people being in states of error go directly to Hell when they die." McGann turned ashen, reportedly having difficulty eating for three days. "Ah, what a pope we have,"  I said when learning of this from Roman contacts.

10. Silvio Cardinal Oddi, then the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, told me personally in his office on the Via della Concilazione on October 10, 1984, the very day that the first "indult" for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition was issued, "I want the Mass of Saint Pius V back! The Pope wants the Mass of Saint Pius V back! We will get the Mass of Saint Pius V back!" Cardinal Oddi explained that there was much opposition to what the "pope" wanted to, that he had to move cautiously and with conditions. He made it clear, however, that it was the mind of the "pope" for the "old Mass" to return.

 

Sure, sure sure, I was always "uncomfortable" with ecumenism in particular and the whole ethos of Vatican II in general. John Paul II was going to "fix" things, I convinced myself. No more "Hamlet on the Tiber" as had been experienced under Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. I simply ignored those things that contradicted my delusional concept of who Karol Wojtyla was and what he believed, that he had been a leading revolutionary at the "Second" Vatican Council and was a thorough-going Modernist in both theological and philosophical terms.

I ignored the simple fact that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II praised false ecumenism in his inaugural address to the "cardinals" in the Basilica of Saint Peter on Tuesday, October 17, 1978, the exact thing that his "successor," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI would do on Wednesday, April 20, 2005.

I ignored John Paul II's embrace of the "archbishop" of Canterbury, who was no more a clergyman than was Mike Huckabee when he plied his trade as a Baptist "minister." I winced a little when John Paul II praised Martin Luther during his pilgrimage to the Federal Republic of Germany (also known at the time as "West Germany") in 1980.

I buried my head in the sand after the egregious sacrileges associated with the Day of World Prayer for Peace in Assisi, Italy, on October 27, 1986. I could not defend the indefensible, considering the Assisi event to have been an "aberration" rather than an actual symptom of the apostate heart beating within Karol Wojtyla's very soul.

And I was vocal, at least privately in my conversations with fellow "conservative" Catholics, about liturgical abominations at "papal" "Masses (half-naked women bringing up to the "gifts," rock music at "youth" "Masses," praise offered to voodoo witch doctors, etc.). Face facts that Wojtyla was not a Catholic? Perish the thought, which is what I did for a very long time.

Well, this is what I chose to ignore about the man in whom I project a devotion to the Catholic Faith that did not beat within his heart of Modernism and the "New Theology":

1. John Paul II, himself an active participant in the proceedings of the "Second" Vatican Council, told us that that council was a "milestone," "an event of utmost importance in the almost two thousand year history of the Church, and consequently in the religious and cultural history of the world." He told us so at the very beginning of his reign of ruin and destruction, a day after his "election:"

 

First of all, we wish to point out the unceasing importance of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and we accept the definite duty of assiduously bringing it into affect. Indeed, is not that universal Council a kind of milestone as it were, an event of the utmost importance in the almost two thousand year history of the Church, and consequently in the religious and cultural history of the world.

However, as the Council is not limited to the documents alone, neither is it completed by the ways applying it which were devised in these post-conciliar years. Therefore we rightly consider that we are bound by the primary duty of most diligently furthering the implementation of the decrees and directive norms of that same Universal Synod. This indeed we shall do in a way that is at once prudent and stimulating. We shall strive, in particular, that first of all an appropriate mentality may flourish. Namely, it is necessary that, above all, outlooks must be at one with the Council so that in practice those things may be done that were ordered by it, and that those things which lie hidden in it or—as is usually said—are "implicit" may become explicit in the light of the experiments made since then and the demands of changing circumstances. Briefly, it is necessary that the fertile seeds which the Fathers of the Ecumenical Synod, nourished by the word of God, sowed in good ground (cf. Mt 13: 8, 23)—that is, the important teachings and pastoral deliberations should be brought to maturity in that way which is characteristic of movement and life. (First Urbi et Orbi Radio message, October 17, 1978.)

 

John Paul II sure found "those things which lie hidden in" the "Second" Vatican Council" as he made manifestly explicit what he believed was "implicit" in his vaunted "Second" Vatican Council, fooling the sappy likes of me by throwing some conciliar fairy dust in our eyes as he talked about getting priests back in their clerical garb and consecrated religious sisters back into their habits and demanding doctrinal orthodoxy from theologians even though he was not doctrinally orthodox and let most of the ultra-progressive conciliar revolutionaries remain in perfectly good standing as sons and daughters of what he claimed was the Catholic Church.

2. John Paul II's brand of "spiritual ecumenism," whose basic premises were categorically condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, permitted him to enter freely into places of false worship and to be treated as an inferior by his hosts. He used numerous occasions to proclaim abject apostasies, including when he visited a Jewish synagogue in Mainz, Germany, in 1980:

“The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and second part of her Bible ... Jews and Christians, as children of Abraham, are called to be a blessing to the world. By committing themselves together for peace and justice among all men and peoples." Cited by John Vennari in Secret of John Paul II's Success. The full text is available on the Vatican website in Italian and German. Here are is the relevant passages in these two languages, including a paragraph not cited by Mr. Vennari:

Non si tratta soltanto della correzione di una falsa visuale religiosa del popolo ebraico, che nel corso della storia fu in parte concausa di misconoscimenti e persecuzioni, ma prima di tutto del dialogo tra le due religioni, che - con l’islam - poterono donare al mondo la fede nel Dio unico e ineffabile che ci parla, e lo vogliono servire a nome di tutto ii mondo.

La prima dimensione di questo dialogo, cioè l’incontro tra il popolo di Dio del Vecchio Testamento, da Dio mai denunziato (cf. Rm 11,29), e quello del Nuovo Testamento, è allo stesso tempo un dialogo all’interno della nostra Chiesa, per così dire tra la prima e la seconda parte della sua Bibbia. In proposito dicono le direttive per l’applicazione della dichiarazione conciliare “Nostra Aetate”: “Ci si sforzerà di comprendere meglio tutto ciò che nell’Antico Testamento conserva un valore proprio e perpetuo..., poiché questo valore non è stato obliterato dall’ulteriore interpretazione del Nuovo Testamento, la quale al contrario ha dato all’Antico il suo significato più compiuto, cosicché reciprocamente il Nuovo riceve dall’Antico luce e spiegazione” (Nostra Aetate, II) (Meeting with the representatives of the Hebrew community, Mainz, Germany, 17 November 1980, Italian)

Dabei geht es nicht nur um die Berichtigung einer falschen religiösen Sicht des Judenvolkes, welche die Verkennungen und Verfolgungen im Lauf der Geschichte zum Teil mitverursachte, sondern vor allem um den Dialog zwischen den zwei Religionen, die - mit dem Islam - der Welt den Glauben an den einen, unaussprechlichen, uns ansprechenden Gott schenken durften und stellvertretend für die ganze Welt ihm dienen wollen.

Die erste Dimension dieses Dialogs, nämlich die Begegnung zwischen dem Gottesvolk des von Gott nie gekündigten Alten Bundes, ist zugleich ein Dialog innerhalb unserer Kirche, gleichsam zwischen dem ersten und zweiten Teil ihrer Bibel. Hierzu sagen die Richtlinien für die Durchführung der Konzilserklärung ”Nostra aetate“: ”Man muß bemüht sein, besser zu verstehen, was im Alten Testament von eigenem und bleibendem Wert ist..., da dies durch die spätere Interpretation im Licht des Neuen Testaments, die ihm seinen vollen Sinn gibt, nicht entwertet wird, so daß sich vielmehr eine gegenseitige Beleuchtung und Ausdeutung ergibt“. (Meeting with the representatives of the Hebrew community, Mainz, Germany, 17 November 1980, German.)

 

This apostasy, which was a cornerstone of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's ecumenical beliefs, has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church, and he knew this to be so:

28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [28] "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

 

Did God the Holy Ghost permit the Catholic Church to be "wrong" on the matter of the invalidity of the Old Covenant prior to the "Second" Vatican Council? Can God change His Mind? Can God contradict Himself after the better part of over two millennia? Anyone who asserts this is an apostate of the first order. Apostates are not deserving of canonization by the authority of the Catholic Church as they have expelled themselves from her maternal bosom.

3. The theological foundation of John Paul II's spiritual ecumenism was laid by the late Abbe Paul Couturier, who was a disciple of the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. John Paul II cited Couturier in footnote fifty of Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995, an encyclical letter that was the exact opposite of Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928. Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, who was appointed as the President of the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on February 21, 2001, praised the "spiritual ecumenism" of Abbe Paul Couturier in a "reflection" published at the beginning of the conciliar church's 2008 "Week of Prayer for Christian Unity" that replaced the Catholic Church's Chair of Unity Octave that runs from the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome on January 18 to January 25:

In taking a fresh look at Paul Wattson's original intention, we note an important development in the understanding of the Week of Prayer. While Wattson maintained that the goal of unity was the return to the Catholic Church, Abbé Paul Couturier of Lyons (1881-1953) gave a new impetus to this Week in the 1930s, ecumenical in the true sense of the word. He changed the name "Church Unity Octave" to "Universal Week of Prayer for Christian Unity", thus furthering a unity of the Church that "Christ wills by the means he wills".

Paul Couturier's 1944 spiritual testament is very important, profound and moving; it is one of the most inspired ecumenical texts, still worth reading and meditating on today. The author speaks of an "invisible monastery", "built of all those souls whom, because of their sincere efforts to open themselves to his fire and his light, the Holy Spirit has enabled to have a deep understanding of the painful division among Christians; an awareness of this in these souls has given rise to continuous suffering and as a result, regular recourse to prayer and penance".

Paul Couturier can be considered the father of spiritual ecumenism. His influence was felt by the Dombes Group and by Roger Schutz and the Taizé Community. Sr Maria Gabriella also drew great inspiration from him. Today, his invisible monastery is at last taking shape through the growing number of prayer networks between Catholic monasteries and non-Catholics, spiritual movements and communities, centres of male and female religious, Bishops, priests and lay people. (Charting the road of the ecumenical movement.)

 

It is interesting to note that Kasper praised the work of the 1910 "World Missionary Conference" in Edinburgh, Scotland, that was much praised by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI throughout the course of the year 2010. Ratzinger/Benedict, who has praised Abbe Paul Couturier himself as the "father of 'spiritual ecumenism,'" knows that Pope Pius XI had condemned this false ecumenism. Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II knew this as well. Neither cared. Apostates do not care. Apostates do not get canonized by the authority of the Catholic Church.

4. John Paul II presided over the "rehabilitation" of the long deceased Father Antonio Rosmini, forty of whose theological propositions had been condemned in 1887 by Pope Leo XIII. This "rehabilitation," which was engineered by the then prefect of the conciliar church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, represented a direct application of John Paul II's and Benedict XVI's apostate belief that past dogmatic pronouncements and papal decrees are conditioned by the historical circumstances in which they were made, requiring them to be "adjusted," if not overturned, at other times. This view, of course, has been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church, but it was the very foundation of the Rosmini decision, which was vital to pave the way for his own conciliar "beatification," engineered by Ratzinger and approved by Wojtyla/John Paul II. Here is part of the text of the "Note" issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on July 1, 2001, that reveals the "true then, not true now" mentality that united John Paul II and the future Benedict XVI:

The events following Rosmini's death required a certain distancing of the Church from his system of thought and, in particular, from some of its propositions. It is necessary to consider the principal historical-cultural factors that influenced this distancing which culminated in the condemnation of the "40 Propositions" of the Decree Post obitum of 1887.

The first factor is the renewal of ecclesiastical studies promoted by the Encyclical Aeterni Patris (1879) of Leo XIII, in the development of fidelity to the thought of St Thomas Aquinas. The Papal Magisterium saw the need to foster Thomism as a philosophical and theoretical instrument, aimed at offering a unifying synthesis of ecclesiastical studies, above all in the formation of priests in seminaries and theological faculties, in order to oppose the risk of an eclectic philosophical approach. The adoption of Thomism created the premises for a negative judgement of a philosophical and speculative position, like that of Rosmini, because it differed in its language and conceptual framework from the philosophical and theological elaboration of St Thomas Aquinas.

A second factor to keep in mind is the fact that the condemned propositions were mostly extracted from posthumous works of the author. These works were published without a critical apparatus capable of defining the precise meaning of the expressions and concepts used. This favoured a heterodox interpretation of Rosminian thought, as did the objective difficulty of interpreting Rosmini's categories, especially, when they were read in a neo-Thomistic perspective. (Note on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees Concerning the Thought and Work of Fr Antonio Rosmini Serbati; please see Appendix A below for the view of a ultra-progressive conciliar revolution on the revolutionary meaning of this "note.")

 

There are two things that stand out in this passage of the "note" reversing Pope Leo XIII's condemnation of the propositions of Father Antonio Rosmini.

First, "Cardinal Ratzinger," with the full approval and "papal" benediction of John Paul II, essentially said that Pope Leo XIII was too stupid to understand the complexity of Rosmini's admittedly ambiguous work, leading to that pontiff's misunderstanding of that work. Ratzinger's contention was that the "misunderstanding" served the Church well at the time as, in essence, most other people would have come to the same conclusions as they lacked the "tools" to unlock the "true" meaning hidden deep within Rosmini's words. Ratzinger, of course, had those "tools" at his disposal, most fortunately for the cause of conciliar "truth," you understand.

Second, Pope Leo XIII's "rigidity," if you will, was caused by his "adoption" of Thomism that created the "premises for a negative judgment" of Rosmini's work. Ratzinger was asserting that Pope Leo XIII "adopted" Thomism in Aeterni Patris rather than providing us with a cogent summary of how pope after pope had endorsed  the work of the Angelic Doctor and his Scholasticism as the official philosophy of the Catholic Church:

But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the bull 'In Ordine;' Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull 'Pretiosus,' and others bear witness that the universal Church borrows luster from his admirable teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull 'Mirabilis' that heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others, such as Clement XII in the bull 'Verbo Dei,' affirm that most fruitful blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church, and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: 'It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same.' Innocent XII, followed the example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6, 1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: 'is teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.'

The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the 'Summa' of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.

A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man -- namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church. A vain hope, indeed, but no vain testimony. (Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879.)

The rejection of Scholasticism by John Paul II and Benedict XVI has made it possible for the ultimate triumph of the former's concept of "living tradition" which the latter termed as the "hermeutic of continuity and discontinuity," which is simply a repackaging of the condemned Modernist proposition concerning the nature of dogmatic truth that Pope Saint Pius X dissected in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, and that Pope Pius XII condemned anew in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.

Thus it is that the rejection of the nature of dogmatic truth, which is in and of itself a rejection of the very immutability of God and represents a denial, therefore, of His essence as God, has been used to justify the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, false ecumenism, interreligious dialogue and prayer services, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, undermining the Council of Trent's Decree on Justification, treating the "clergy" of various Protestant sects as having valid orders even while maintaining the official position of the Catholic Church, and any number of other matters that time simply does not me to enumerate yet again. Undermine the nature of dogmatic truth, my good and very few readers, and you make the triumph of concilairism possible.

The list above, which is hardly exhaustive, contains only those things that I chose to ignore in the early years of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's "Petrine Ministry" as I served as one of his principal cheerleaders and admirers.

Vast is the amount of damage that Wojtyla/John Paul II did to the Catholic Faith. Vast. (For a few excerpts of "Blessed" John Paul II's praise of false religions, please see the appendix in Another Day In The Life Of An Antichrist.)

Wojtyla/John Paul II issued the heretical Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1993 (Although I had inserted a link to a crique of that "catechism" as found on the website of the United States of America district website of the Society of Saint Pius X, an alert reader wrote to me this morning to say that the link no longer worked. The original article, appended below, has been broken up into four parts and has been archived on the Society of Saint Pius X website: Is the New Catechism Catholic? Part 1. For your convenience, that I did copy the text as an appendix in an article that was posted in early-2009. You can find the full text of "The New Catechism: Is It Catholic" appended below), ten years after he had promulgated a new code of canon law that permitted Protestants and the Orthodox to receive what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.

It was in 1994 that the soon-to-be "canonized" Wojtyla/John Paul II, breaking with the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church permitted girls and women to serve as the extension of the hands of priests/presbyters during the stagings of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.

Perhaps most egregiously of all, though, was how Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II destroyed the integrity of Our Lady's Psalter, her Most Holy Rosary, by promulgating a "new" set of mysteries, the "Luminous Mysteries."

 

Some in the secular media have focused in the past few years on Wojtyla/John Paul II's role in protecting members of his clergy accused of committing sins against nature against children and others. There has been additional focus placed on the numerous financial scandals that unfolded during his 9,666 day "pontificate," including the Polish-born prelate's efforts to protect his personal body guard and the head of the scandal-plagued, Mafia-influenced and infiltrated Vatican's Institute for Works of Religion (Vatican Bank) from 1971 to 1989, the late "Archbishop" Paul Casimir Marcinkus, and on his refusal to do anything to sanction the sociopath who founded the Legionaries of Christ, the late Father Marcial Maciel Degollado (see Unimaginable Deceit and Duplicity).

These are certainly legitimate concerns and would be almost insuperable obstacles to any true pontiff's canonization process as an important element of a pope's sanctity is the faithful fulfillment of the duties imposed by his being the visible head of the true Church on earth, the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Indeed, doubting not for one moment the personal piety of Pope Pius XII, for example, and the great physical sufferings that he endured as a soldier in the Army of Christ in the latter years of his life, any authentic examination of his own life's work in a true canonization process conducted by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints in the Catholic Church undoubtedly would have to weigh his horrific judgment in appointing the very Modernist revolutionaries who have given us Holy Mother Church's counterfeit ape. Among those revolutionaries are the first two of the conciliar "popes", of course, Angelo Roncalli, who was appointed by Pope Pius XII as the Papal Nuncio to France on December 23, 1944 and elevated to the College of Cardinals on January 12, 1953, in conjunction with his being named three days later as the Patriarch of Venice, and Giovanni Montini, who was appointed to be the Archbishop of Milan on November 1, 1954, after spending years in the service of the Vatican Secretariat of State. Not to be overlooked as horrific appointees of Pope Pius XII, obviously, are the likes of Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., both of whom worked assiduously to plan and commence the liturgical revolution that would result on April 3, 1969, in Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick's promulgation of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service on April 3, 1969. Dishonorable mention must be made of the papal appointments of Americanists Richard Cushing (Boston), Francis Spellman (New York) and John Dearden.

These are not minor matters. The prelate appointed to be the Defender of the Faith in the case of a legitimate consideration of the canonization of Pope Pius XII would make a case against canonization on the grounds of the poor judgment demonstrated by these appointments that resulted in such a catastrophe for souls as so many horrific offenses were given to God in the decades since those appointments were made. The Promoter of the Cause  would counter with other considerations, including the late pope's personal piety, his unquestioned moral probity and, among many other considerations working in the cause's favor, his strong condemnation in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, of the "new theology" that was being used by professors to warp the mind of forming a young German seminarian by the name of Joseph Alois Ratzinger.

The existence of even proven miracles is not a guarantee that a particular candidate whose cause for canonization is underway will result in a positive outcome as not every miracle worker is seen to be fit to be raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church even though that person may well be a saint in Heaven as a member of the Church Triumphant. Not every member of the Church Triumph is worthy of being raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church, who has been judicious and cautious in her selection of candidates. Saint Joan of Arc's cause had to wait fourteen days shy of the 489th anniversary of her unjust execution by the English on May 30, 1431 for her canonization by Pope Benedict XV on May 20, 1920. The causes of Saints Thomas More and Saint John Fisher had to wait almost 400 years for their canonization by Pope Pius XI on May 19, 1935.

On the contrary, though, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II "beatified" and "canonized" more people than had been done in preceding four hundred years prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. John Paul II"canonized" 482 people from the first "canonization" ceremony at which he officiated, on June 20, 1922, to his last extravaganza, which was held on his eighty-fourth birthday, May 16, 2004 (see Table of the Canonizations during the  reign of John Paul II). He beatified 996 people between April 29, 1979 and October 3, 2004. The "heroic virtue" listed for one woman 'beatified by John Paul II in the early-1990s was that she prayed her Rosary every day! This prompted me to tell a then-friend in the conciliar clergy, "Hey, I got a shot at this!" (I was joking.) My now former friend laughed heartily after I had made comment. Saying one's prayers every day is not "heroic." It is our duty.

Beatification and canonization are not "merit badges" to be bestowed as a result of the appearance of popularity based upon emotional and, all too frequently, highly manipulative myth-making about a candidate's true legacy. See, for example, all of the myth-making behind the making of "saint" Josemaria Escriva Balaguer y Albas (see Not The Work of God), as a prime example of this. What is happening at present with Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, whose cheerleading enthusiast I served for well over fifteen years until the altar girl fiasco in 1994 that prompted me to recognize once and for all that "fighting to stop abuses in the Novus Ordo" was a complete waste of time as it was the abuse par excellence, dwarfs the efforts--and they were gargantuan and quite sophisticated and well-financed--that pushed along the cause of Josemaria Escriva Balaguer y Albas, the founder of Opus Dei.

There is so much more that can be written. Those who want to exult in the "beatification" of an enemy of Christ the King and thus of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood will do so. No one can be forced to accept the evidence that is presented to them for his consideration.

The stuff of conciliarism is the stuff of eternal perdition, not that of sanctity, less yet, of course of authentic beatification and canonization. It is that simple.

Some in the "resist but recognize" movement may assert in the coming days that not even the "canonization" process is infallibly protected, that no one has to "believe" in the 'canonization" of the man, John Paul II, whom they criticized endlessly and whose apostasies caused some of them to write massive books while still recognizing him as "the pope." Others may try to assert that it is even unsettled as to whether the solemn act of their true "pope's" canonization of a given person is infallibly protected. The intellectual gymnastics will boggle the mind as some people attempt to avoid looking at the apostate elephant who is sitting on their very chests and crushing their ability to see the logical conclusions that must be drawn from all of the evidence that some of them have presented in very clear and convincing terms: that those who defect from even one article of the Catholic Faith expel themselves from the maternal bosom of Holy Mother Church and cannot hold her ecclesiastical offices legitimately.

For a much more comprehensive examination of the heresies, apostasies, sacrileges and blasphemies of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, please see the late Father Luigi Villa's Karol Wojtyla Beatified?- Never!. I also happen to have a copy of a catalogue of many of Wojtyla/John Paul II's hideous words and actions. It's entitled The Great Facade. Perhaps you have heard of it. Yup, those in the "resist while recognize" crowd are going to have to "celebrate" the "obligatory memorials" of "Saint" John XXIII and "Saint" John Paul II. Will they "resist" this while "recognizing the "pope," Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis the Insidious Little Pest, who will preside over these false canonizations?

Although Wojtyla is now scheduled to be "canonized" at the "two for the price of one" ceremony later this year, Father Villa was indeed correct in stating that the late "Petrine Minister" would never be beatified or canonized by the Catholic Church as the Polish "pope" was an enemy of the Catholic Faith whose beliefs, words and actions were hideous in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity, and who enabled and protected clerical abusers to the point of having his own malfeasance in office come to light eleven and one-half years ago when the files of the Archdiocese of Boston were laid bare for public review (see the partial list of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's "nogoodniks" as provided in the appendix below.)

"As one perceptive reader of this site asked rhetorically, "I wonder if the Koran he [Wojtyla/John Paul II]  kissed is now considered a 'relic!' Good question. I've got my own: Am I a relic of some sort for having shaken his hand on six different occasions and for having served as his lector as he staged the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service in his private chapel in the Apostolic Palace on Wednesday, May 26, 1993? Is the Rosary he gave me after that liturgical service a "relic"?

Yes, absurd questions. The whole situation is absurd. 

It does not matter that only a tiny fraction of Catholics in the world have drawn those conclusions as truth does not depend upon how many people see it.

How many people saw the truth in Noe's admonitions?

No one outside of his family.

How many people saw the truth that those who opposed Arianism, such as Saint Athanasius, were correct?

How many bishops in England remained faithful to Holy Mother Church at the time of Henry VIII's revolt against Christ the King?

Just one.

Truth does not depend upon the fact that a tiny fraction of mostly warring Catholics now. It is that simple.

Once again, seeing the truth does not make anyone one whit better than those who do not. Each of us must work out our salvation in fear and in trembling. We must persevere in Charity and to perform the Supernatural and Corporal Works of Mercy. We must spend time in prayer before Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. And we must  pray our Rosaries with fervor and devotion as we keep shielding ourselves with her Brown Scapular and trust in the power of her Miraculous Medal.

We are not assured of our salvation just because we have been sent the graces by Our Lady to understand that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is false and is a tool of the adversary to lead souls away from sanctity as they become convinced that Holy Mother Church can contradict herself or that it is possible for true popes, whether now or in the past, to give his error and defective liturgies.

Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II kept his word to be faithful to the "Second" Vatican Council. Perhaps that is reason enough for the conciliarists to have "beatified" him two years ago now and to "canonize" him later this year no matter those false rites and doctrines and no matter his track record of "episcopal" appointments and the protection of men who were as morally derelict in the discharge of their duties as he was of his. Revolutionaries must always seek to lionize their own.

We must remain confident that the Triumph of her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will vanquish the foes of the Faith in the world and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism once and for all. Every Rosary we pray, offered to the Most Holy Trinity through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, will plant a few seeds for this triumph.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Appendix

A Reprise of the List of No Goodniks Who Were Appointed or Promoted by John Paul II

1. Joseph Bernardin, transferred from being the conciliar archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, to being the conciliar archbishop of Chicago, Illinois.

2. Roger Mahony, the conciliar "bishop" of Fresno, California, and then the conciliar "archbishop" of Los Angeles, California.

3. Tod Brown, the conciliar "bishop" of Boise, Idaho, and then the conciliar "bishop" of San Diego, California.

4. Sylvester Ryan, the retired conciliar "bishop" of Monterey, California, who had an actual, honest-to-goodness baby-killer serving on his priest-abuse advisory board  (See the news story at Catholic Citizens.)

5. Robert Brom, the conciliar "bishop" of Duluth, Minnesota, and then the conciliar 'bishop" of San Diego, California, who presided over the San Diego diocese's bankruptcy proceedings caused by the cover-up of clergy abuse cases.

6. Patrick McGrath, the conciliar "bishop" of San Jose, California, who, among his other offenses, denied the historicity of the Gospel accounts of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Passion and Death.

7. George Patrick Ziemann, the disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Santa Rosa, California.

8. Thomas Joseph O'Brien, the disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Phoenix, Arizona.

9. Joseph Keith Symons, the disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Palm Beach, Florida.

10. Daniel Leo Ryan, the disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Springfield, Illinois.

11. Robert Lynch, the conciliar "bishop" of Saint Petersburg, Florida, who gave encouragement to Michael Schiavo's efforts to starve and dehydrate his wife, Mrs. Threresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo.

12. Joseph Fiorenza, the former conciliar "archbishop" of Galveston, Houston, Texas, a protege of Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin who was a thorough supporter of the conciliar revolution.

13. Robert Joseph Banks, a former conciliar auxiliary "bishop" in the Archdiocese of Boston, Massachusetts, and then the conciliar "bishop" of Green Bay, Wisconsin.

13. Bernard Law, the disgraced former conciliar "archbishop" of Boston, Massachusetts, who was appointed to that post by Wojtyla/John Paul II. Law, who presided over the systematic cover-up and protection of predator priests and presbyters in Boston, was appointed by Wojtyla/John Paul II to be the archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in 2004.

14. Thomas Daily, the former conciliar "bishop" of Palm Beach, Florida, and the former conciliar "bishop" of Brooklyn, New York, who was one of Law's chief enablers in protecting the likes of the notorious Father Paul Shanley.

15. William Murphy, the conciliar "bishop" of Rockville Centre, New York, who was yet another participant in the great Boston-cover-up.

16. Richard Lennon, the conciliar "bishop" of Cleveland, Ohio, who was a major supporter of Bernard Law's policies while an auxiliary "bishop" there.

17. John McCormick, the conciliar "bishop" of Manchester, New Hampshire, who has been an enabler of predator priests and presbyters there as he had been as an auxiliary "bishop" in Boston, Massachusetts.

18. Matthew Clark, the conciliar "bishop" of Rochester, New York, who said in the 1990s that the Catholic Church would have to find a way to "bless" same-gender "unions."

19. Kenneth Untener, the late conciliar "bishop" of Saginaw, Michigan, who was an enemy of the Catholic Faith.

20. Harry Flynn, the retired "archbishop" of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, who was ever tolerant of the "rainbow" agenda and brought disgrace upon himself by terming the late Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., the founder of Human Life International, as an "anti-Semite."

21. William Levada, created by Wojtyla/John Paul II as conciliar auxiliary "bishop" of Los Angeles in 1983 before being appointed as the conciliar "archbishop" of Portland, Oregon, in 1986, being transferred to San Francisco, California, in 1995.

22. George Niederauer, the conciliar "bishop" of Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1995, promoted by Ratzinger/Benedict to be the conciliar "archbishop" of San Francisco, California, in 2005.

23. Thomas Ludger Dupre, the disgraced retired "bishop" of Springfield, Massachusetts.

24. John Magee, the disgraced conciliar "bishop" of Cloyne, Ireland, and the long-time secretary to Giovanni Montini/Paul VI and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II.

25. Christoph Schonborn, the conciliar "archbishop" of Vienna, Austria, who has committed one offense against God after another (see Almost Always At Odds With Themselves, Negotiating To Become An Apostate, They Continue to Caricature Themselves, and Meltdown.)

26. Robert Zollitsch, the conciliar "archbishop" of Freiburg in Breisgau, who, of course denied on Holy Saturday, April 11, 2009, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not die on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins.

27. Hans Hermann Groer, the late, disgraced "archbishop" of Vienna, Austria, who was removed after "bishops" and members of the laity complained about his predatory behavior, which he denied until the day he died. (See Austria Cardinal Groer Exiled Over Sex Abuse.) Christoph Schonborn is now saying that the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger urged Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II to remove Groer, Schonborn's predecessor, but was stymied for a long time by John Paul II. Just another conciliar voice throwing John Paul II as the Benedict XVI continues to promote the fiction of his late predecessor's "sanctity" even though no one who protected moral derelicts is possessed of any sense of true sanctity.

28. Jean-Louis "Cardinal" Tauran, appointed as a "bishop" by John Paul II in 1990 and elevated to the conciliar colleges of cardinals in 2003. Ratzinger/Benedict appointed Tauran as the president of the "Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue." It was in this capacity that he said the following in 2008:

Interviewer: There was a sense that Islam mustn't monopolise the proceedings?

Tauran: Yes, the people are obsessed by Islam. For example I'm going to India next month and I want to give this message that all religions are equal. Sometimes there are priorities because of particular situations, but we mustn't get the impression there are first class religions and second class religions.(Interview with Terrasanta.net, a Website of the Holy Land Review.)

 

29. Walter Kasper, appointed as a "bishop" by John Paul II in 1989 and elevated to the conciliar "college of cardinals" in 2001. Need one say anything more?

30. Bruno Forte, who was recommended by Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger for the conciliar "episcopate" in 2004 despite Forte's having denied the actual fact of Our Lord's Bodily Resurrection on Easter Sunday:

Another example of this alarming situation, which threatens to make the Pope’s disciplinary laxity seem strictly conservative by comparison, is the little-noticed story of how Bruno Forte, a priest of the Archdiocese of Naples, was suddenly made a bishop five months ago.

Forte, who last year was brought to the Vatican to preach a Lenten retreat to an already incapacitated Pope, is rumored to be Cardinal Ratzinger’s replacement as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  How this happened is anybody’s guess.  The rumor has caused a great deal of consternation for one simple reason: Forte is a flaming neo-modernist.  As noted in the Winter 2005 issue of The Latin Mass in a report by its Italian correspondent, Alessandro Zangrando, Forte was a pupil of none other than the infamous Cardinal Walter Kasper.  (In yet another sign of things falling apart at the top, immediately after Kasper’s own elevation to the rank of cardinal he publicly declared to the press that the Old Covenant remains in force and is salvific for the Jews, and that Protestants are under no obligation to convert and become Catholics.) 

Worse still, Zangrando, a respected journalist not given to reckless claims, relates that Forte’s 1994 essay Gesu di Nazaret, storia di Dio, Dio della storia (Jesus of Nazareth, history of God, God of history) reveals Forte as nothing less than “the standard-bearer of theories so radical as to the point of putting in doubt even the historicity of the resurrection of Christ.  The empty tomb, he argues, is a legend tied into the Jewish-Christian ritual performed at the place of Jesus’ burial. It is a myth inherited by the Christians from Jesus’ early disciples. Therefore, the empty tomb, along with other details surrounding the resurrection, is nothing but a ‘proof’ made up by the community. In other words, Forte is trying to change the resurrection of Christ into a myth, into a kind of fairy tale that cannot be proven.”

Forte’s elevation to bishop was rather mysterious. Zangrando notes that Forte’s name did not appear in any list of possible candidates submitted to the Italian Nunciature, and even his ordinary, Cardinal Michele Giordano, Archbishop of Naples, “was reportedly against that appointment.” But, “in an apparent attempt at putting to rest a growing controversy” over Forte’s candidacy, he was personally consecrated a bishop by none other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the very man Forte will succeed as head of the CDF, according to the rumors.  Yes, “our only friend in the Vatican” has struck again.  More and more it becomes apparent that this man is perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the post-conciliar epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance of building up.  The longer Ratzinger “guards” Catholic doctrine, the more porous the barriers that protect it become.

Indeed, as I have pointed out more than once on these pages, it was Ratzinger who wrote in 1987 (in the second edition of his Principles of Catholic Theology) that the “demolition of bastions” in the Church is “a long-overdue task.”  The Church, he declared, “must relinquish many of the things that have hitherto spelled security for her and that she has taken for granted. She must demolish longstanding bastions and trust solely the shield of faith.” Now it seems that with the bastions all but demolished, even the shield of faith is about to clatter to the ground. 

There is no doubt the Holy Ghost will save the Church from extinction and bring about her restoration. In the end, no other result is possible. 

Before this happens, however, the difference between extinction and non-extinction may come to be far smaller than even traditionalists might have supposed. On the other hand, the very next Pope could be another Saint Pius X, who will finally take arms against our enemies and impose immediate restorative measures we could scarcely have imagined.   Who knows which way it will go?   All we can do is continue our loyal opposition, pray for the advent of a kingly, militant pope, and hope that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will soon be upon us. (Christopher A. Ferrara, Ratzinger Consecrates Modernist Bishop)

 

31. Theodore McCarrick, the founding conciliar "bishop" of Metuchen, New Jersey, and later the conciliar "archbishop" of Newark, New Jersey, and Washington, District of Columbia, who indemnified pro-abortion politicians and said openly that men suffering from the affliction of being "attracted" to other men should not be prohibited from studying for the conciliar presbyterate.

32. Emerson Moore, an auxiliary "bishop" of the Archdiocese of New York who engaged in rank immorality and died of auto immune deficiency disease.

33. Eugene Marino, appointed by John Paul II to be the conciliar "archbishop" of Atlanta in 1988 but had to resign two years later after it was revealed that he had gotten married in a civil ceremony in 1988 to a lay-ministerette with whom he had been keeping company.

34. Emil Wcela, appointed by John Paul II to be a conciliar "bishop" of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, despite officials in the Vatican knowing that Wcela was an open supporter of the impossibility known as "woman's ordination to the priesthood.

35. Jacques Gaillot, the conciliar "bishop" of Evreux, France, from 1982 to 1995 who supported, among other things, the French abortion pill, RU-486 and who "blessed" the union of two men who had entered into a perverted "union." It took a revolution among the laity in Evreux to effect Gaillot's forced removal by the Vatican on January 12, 2005. Gaillot remains in perfectly "good standing" in the conciliar structures.

36. Sean Brady, the conciliar "archbishop" of Armagh, Northern Ireland, who has presided over the systematic protection of clerical abusers.

37. Michael Sheehan, the conciliar "archbishop" of Santa Fe, New Mexico, in whose diocese is located one of the institutions most responsible for the phony "rehabilitation" of clerical abusers and who has keep in perfectly good standing the notorious "Father" Richard Rohr and has praised Barack Hussein Obama (see Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby.)

38. Joseph Adamec, the conciliar "bishop" of Altoona-Johnston, Pennsylvania, who went so far in 2003 as to silence all of his priests and presbyters from criticizing his handling of predators among their ranks.

39. Paul Loverde, the conciliar "bishop" of Arlington, Virginia, who persecuted whistle blower priest Father James Haley (Bishop Loverde, Where is Fr. James Haley?: Letters to Bishop Loverde.)

40. James T. McHugh, the late conciliar "bishop" of Camden, New Jersey, and--for a brief time--Rockville Centre, New York, who was one of the chief agents of promoting the corruption of the innocence and purity of the young by means of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. (See Mrs. Randy Engel's The McHugh Chronicles.)

41. Edward Egan, the former conciliar "archbishop" of New York who, as the conciliar "bishop" of Bridgeport, Connecticut, went so far as to assert that his diocese could NOT be held legally liable for the actions of priests as the latter were "independent contractors" paid by their parishes, not by their dioceses.

42. Rembert G. Weakland, the disgraced former conciliar "archbishop" of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, whose warfare against the Faith that was of international scope should have been stopped long before he was forced to resign in disgrace in 2002. He remains in "good standing" in the conciliar structures.

43. Thomas Gumbleton,  a retired conciliar auxiliary "bishop" of Detroit, Michigan, an appointee of the late Giovanni Montini/Paul VI whose work in behalf of moral perversion should have resulted in his suspension decades ago. He remains in "good standing" in the conciliar structures.

44. Sean O'Malley, O.F.M. Cap., the conciliar "archbishop" of Boston, Massachusetts, who has distinguished himself as an ardent defender of the "legacy" of the late United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy and a sycophantic tool of the ancient enemies of the Catholic Faith by serving the role in early-2009 of a demagogue against Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X.

45. William Keeler, the former conciliar "archbishop" of Baltimore, Maryland, who specialized in overseeing relations between the conciliar church and adherents of the Talmud, producing a document in 2002, "Reflections on Covenant and Mission", that had to be revised in 2009 because of its lack of clarity on several doctrinal points.

46. Howard Hubbard, the conciliar "bishop" of Albany, an appointee of the late Giovanni Montini/Paul VI who has spent the past thirty-three years as a thorough champion of the conciliar religion. Not even an adoption arranged by Catholic Charities in Albany for a "couple" engaged in perversity could prompt Wojtyla/John Paul II to remove him.

47. John Raymond McGann, the conciliar "bishop" of Rockville Centre, New York, from June 24, 1976, to January 4, 2000, who presided over a full-bore implementation of the conciliar revolution in my home diocese, going so far as to persecute traditional-leaning pastors and priests and presbyters. Report after report was sent to Rome, some delivered personally to those close to the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. McGann, who protected his own share of clergy abusers (see Swinging Clubs To Protect The Club).

48. Daniel Pilarczyk, Bernardin's worthy "successor" as the conciliar "archbishop" of Cincinnati, Ohio, who protected clerical abuses and even had an actual Freemason serving as the archdiocese psychologist who screened the mental and emotional fitness of candidates who were applying to study for the conciliar presbyterate.

49. Donald Wuerl, the conciliar "bishop" of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (since promoted by Ratzinger/Benedict to be the conciliar "archbishop" of Washington, District of Columbia), who has been one of the chief proponents of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

50. John Joseph O'Connor, the conciliar "archbishop" of New York, from March 19, 1984, to May 3, 2000, who protected his own share of pederasts in the conciliar clergy and who told the ABC News program Nightline that "God was smiling" on the conversion of a Catholic man to Judaism.

 

Appendix:

The New Catechism: Is it Catholic? (This link no longer works.)

 

INTRODUCTION

"After the renewal of the liturgy and the new codification of the Canon Law ... this Catechism will bring a very important contribution to the work of the revival of all ecclesial life, willed and put into application by the Second Vatican Council."  Pope John Paul II on page 1 of the New Catechism.

The reading and study of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church are baffling for a classic or Thomistic spirit. One rarely finds here simple definitions and clear distinctions. This Catechism resembles a mystical poem, a symphony where all is harmonized, the classic and the modern, elements of the old Catechism and the teachings of the Conciliar Church, in order to chant with enthusiasm the splendor of God and of man. Among the happy reminders, one can note: the fact of creation, the existence of the Angels, the reality of Adam and Eve, original sin as well as personal sin, Hell and Purgatory, the ten commandments, the impossibility of women’s ordinations and the marriage of divorcees, the criminal character of abortion and of euthanasia, the possibility of the death penalty, etc. But along side of that, one finds silences, things forgotten, contradictions and a certain number of "recurring themes" foreign to the Catholic Church, and which we are going to analyze here. From this mixture results an impression of confusion which steers the spirit off course. In brief, a reading capable of "seducing even the elect themselves." 1 However, before giving ourselves over to the analysis of certain themes of this symphony, we begin by giving certain authentic interpretations of the Catechism.

The "authentic interpretations" declared by Pope John Paul II The New Catechism is "the ripest fruit of the conciliar teaching."

Pope John Paul II ordered the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church by means of the apostolic constitution, Fidei Depositum 2, of October 11, 1992. One reads there the following: After the renewal of the liturgy and the new codification of the Canon Law of the Latin Church and the canons of the oriental Catholics, this Catechism will bring a very important contribution to the work of the revival of all ecclesial life, willed and put into application by the Second Vatican Council. (p.1) For myself, who had the grace of participating there and of actively collaborating in its unfolding, Vatican II has always been, and particularly so during these years of my pontificate, the constant point of reference of all my pastoral action, in a conscious effort of translating its directives by a concrete and faithful application, to the level of each Church and of all the Church. One must without ceasing return to this source (p.1). We are then advised that this Catechism is a putting into application of Vatican II. One must take count of the explanations of doctrine that the Holy Spirit has suggested to the Church in the course of the centuries. (p.2) It will include then things new and old. (Ibid) What is old is above all, "The traditional order already followed by the Catechism of St. Pius V," (Ibid) whereas "the content is often expressed in a new fashion." (Ibid) In other words, "a new wine in old wineskins," contrary to the counsel of Our Lord (Mt.9:17). The ecumenical aim of the Catechism is also clearly explained by the pope: "It wishes to provide a support to ecumenical efforts animated by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians" (p.3). The pope declares also that this Catechism is the fruit of a broad collaboration and "reflects thus the collegial nature of the episcopate." Finally, as for its doctrinal value, the pope presents it as "an authorized and worthwhile instrument in the service of ecclesial communion and as a sure norm for the teaching of the Faith." (p.2) But it "is not destined to replace the local Catechisms composed by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan bishops and the episcopal conference, above all when they have received the approbation of the Apostolic See." (p.3) One cannot use it then to demand the suppression of bad Catechisms, even if they have not received the approbation of Rome. The pope presented the Catechism on the morning of December 7, 1992. On this occasion, he insisted on the value and the significance of the Catechism. It is, he says, "an event of great richness and of an incomparable importance." 3 "The publication of the text should be placed, without any doubt, among the major events in the recent history of the Church." The pope confirms that this Catechism wishes to conform itself "to the teachings of Vatican Council II." "In this authorized text, the Church presents to her children, with a renewed self-awareness thanks to the light of the Spirit, the mystery of Christ where the splendor of the Father is reflected." "This Catechism constitutes above all a ‘veracious’ gift, to know a gift which presents the Truth revealed by God in Christ and which He confided to His Church. The Catechism expresses this truth in the light of the Second Vatican Council, such as it is believed, 4 celebrated, lived, and prayed by the Church." Before, we were asked to accept the council in the light of Tradition. Today, the method is reversed. One finds the same expression again in the Catechism at paragraph 11. We point out also at this occasion that for the pope, the truth is first of all believed and lived before being expressed. This is a typically modernist method, since modernism thinks that the Faith comes from the subconscious and from the interior experience of each person. But that is contrary to the thought of St. Paul, for whom the Faith is ex auditu (Rom.10:17), that is to say, from preaching. The pope also confirms the ecumenical intent of the Catechism: In defining the lines of Catholic doctrinal identity, the Catechism can constitute an affectionate call for all those who not equally form part of the Catholic community. May they understand that this instrument does not reduce, but broadens the scope of a multiform unity, in offering a new impulse on the path towards this fullness of communion which reflects and in a certain manner anticipates the total unity of the heavenly city, "where truth reigns, where charity is the law, and where the extension is eternity" (St. Augustine, Epistle 138, 3). Men, both today and always, need Christ. Through many, and sometimes incomprehensible paths, they seek him with insistence, invoke him constantly and desire him ardently. We find in this last phrase an analogy with the new theology of Karl Rahner, for whom every man is an anonymous Christian.5 The next day, December 8, 1992, the pope "presided at the Holy Mass in the basilica of St. Mary Major." 6 In the course of the homily, he returned to the question of the Catechism. He insisted anew on the bond between the Catechism and the council: With the Mother of God, we give thanks today for the gift of the council...7 The community of believers gives thanks today for the post-conciliar Catechism... It constitutes the ripest and the most complete fruit of the conciliar teaching, which is presented in the rich framework of all the ecclesial Tradition. The ripest fruit of the conciliar teaching. This expression renders the thought of the pope so well that L’Osservatore Romano did not hesitate to make of it the title of this sermon. O Mary... thou who wast present on the day of Pentecost as Mother of the Church, welcome this fruit which is the labor of the entire Church. All together we place the New Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is at the same time the gift of the Word revealed to humanity and the fruit of the labor of bishops and theologians —between the hands of she who... The pope himself uses the expression of the "new" Catechism. Let us point out in the passage this expression, "the fruit of labor," which reminds us of the new Offertory, and also the allusion to Pentecost. We continue to live, since the Council, a new revelation which the bishops and the theologians must express for the service of the ecclesial community.

Cardinal Ratzinger "After the fall of the ideologies, the problem of man, the moral problem, poses itself today in a totally new fashion to the order of the day."

He was the president of the commission and of the committee of redaction during six months in order to develop this Catechism. He is then well placed to speak to us of it. He made a presentation concerning it in the press room which was published in L’Osservatore Romano (French language edition) of December 15, 1992, on page 6. Let us briefly analyze this text. First of all, he teaches us that the French edition was presented first on November 16 in Paris. Then, between this date and December 7, the Italian and Spanish versions were published. The official text in Latin will be published later; it will be able to take into account what the experience of the translations 8 has made to appear or what it can still suggest. It seems that the Roman Church, or at least its "governing board" is not very sure of its faith; it has need of a "trial run." What is the fundamental question treated by the Catechism? After the fall of the ideologies, the problem of man, the moral problem, poses itself today in a totally new fashion to the order of the day." As an accessory, they will speak also of God. "The Catechism speaks of the human being, but with the conviction that the question concerning man cannot be separated from the question concerning God. One does not speak correctly of man if one doesn’t speak also of God. Whence will come the response to this problem concerning man and "also" concerning God? The Catechism formulates the response which comes from the great communitarian experience of the Church throughout the centuries. It’s always the same modernist tactic: the profession of the Faith is the expression of the interior experience of believers. And what will be the response to this question? The fundamental knowledge concerning man in the Catechism is thus formulated: 9 man is created in the image and likeness of God. Everything that is said on the just conduct of man is founded upon this central perspective. It is here that, according to us, resides the fundamental ambiguity of the Catechism. Indeed, this passage from Genesis can receive two different meanings. A classic interpretation is to interpret "image" as the intellectual nature of man, and "likeness" as sanctifying grace. Thus understood, this phrase is only applicable to Adam. Indeed, all men after him will be created in the image of God, but without the likeness to God. They must await baptism in order to recover this resemblance. Still, one can be more precise and say that the image is deformed by the aftermath of original sin. One can also interpret the words "image" and "likeness" as two synonyms. In this case, one can apply this phrase of Genesis to every man to signify that every man receives from God a spiritual soul. But then one abstracts from sanctifying grace. We will not be able to deduce then the true dignity of man since this consists in participating in the Divine Nature. Man does not truly possess dignity because he is a man (sinner), but because he has become a son of God by grace. As Archbishop Lefebvre used to say, there is not a dignity of man; there is only the dignity of the Christian. And this Christian will possess all the more dignity the more he is a friend of God. Our Lord does not have the same dignity as any other man, and the Most Holy Virgin shall have a supereminent dignity, etc. In not making these elementary distinctions between nature and grace, the cardinal, and the Catechism in its turn, are going to draw from this phrase from Genesis many errors. Now the cardinal takes care to warn us himself: Everything which is said concerning the just conduct of man is founded upon this central perspective (namely, man is created in the image and likeness of God). Upon this are founded human rights...Upon the likeness of God is founded also human dignity, which remains intangible in each man precisely because he is a man. Let us cite some examples given by the cardinal himself: "Every human being has an equal dignity." This is false. One who is baptized does not have the same dignity as someone who isn’t baptized; neither does a sinner have the same dignity as a saint. The requirement of happiness constitutes part of our nature. The moral of the Catechism has as its starting point what the Creator has placed in the heart of each man —the necessity of happiness and of love. Here it becomes visible what exactly "likeness" to God signifies: the human being is like unto God from the fact that he can love and because he is capable of truth. This is why moral behavior is, in the profoundest sense of the word, a behavior measured by creation. All this is false and follows from this grave confusion between nature and grace. Indeed, our true happiness is only found in the supernatural love of God. The human being can only love God (as he should) by charity, and he is only capable of (complete) truth by Faith. But all this does not constitute "part of our nature." God has not "placed [it] in the heart of each man." Our nature without grace is incapable of desiring efficaciously true happiness. It cannot know to "require it." If it would require it, this happiness would no longer be gratuitous. The cardinal specifies that the behavior according to nature of which the Catechism speaks, is a: behavior beginning with what has been placed in our being by the Creator. Consequently, the heart of every moral [act] is love and, in following always this indication, one inevitably encounters Christ, the love of God made man. This is perhaps poetic, but it is also always false. Love, such as our nature is capable of without grace, "beginning with what has been placed in our being by the Creator," is incapable of making us encounter Christ. It is at most a disposition; in order to encounter Christ, one needs above all else the help of grace in order to produce in us the act of Faith. This silence concerning grace, which equivocates here even to a negation, is obviously very grave.

First Conclusion This Catechism is very important because it is going to permit the new conciliar and post-conciliar ideas to be better diffused, notably in the matter of ecumenism.

Before even studying the Catechism we can draw several teachings from this examination of these "authentic interpretations." First of all, the importance of the new Catechism. The pope himself insists upon the importance and the authority of this Catechism. This importance is confirmed by the success of the publisher. Certainly there was a vast publicity which no other Catechism had ever known. But this doesn’t suffice, without doubt, to explain the sale of more than 500,000 copies in several weeks. One must also take into account that the faithful have been deprived of doctrinal teaching for the last thirty years. There was the council; but despite its desire of being a pastoral council, Vatican II is not in the reach of every Catholic, and the majority are not taken up in the study of these numerous texts. As far as the catechisms and other "Living Stones" [a modernist catechism in France], the least that one can say concerning them is that their doctrinal content is weak, if not inconsistent. The faithful have had to live according to the practices imposed upon them in the name of obedience. Now the possibility has finally been given to them to know the principles which have guided these reforms. One can understand their desire to learn, for it is satisfying to a person to know why he acts. Unfortunately the New Catechism will not cause the tenets of the Faith, which they were living badly or with difficulty, to penetrate their souls: Rather, it is to be feared that they will only adhere more completely to the "new truths" which they have been in the habit of living for the past 30 years. Moreover, as we have noticed, the pope insists also on the fact that this Catechism is the logical consequence of the council, "the ripest and most complete fruit of the conciliar teaching." This Catechism is very important because it is going to permit the new conciliar and post-conciliar ideas to be better diffused, notably in the matter of ecumenism. The pope insists above all upon the authority of the Catechism and its importance in applying Vatican Council II. Cardinal Ratzinger puts the accent more on its content and indicates to us its fundamental error which is at the root of the errors of ecumenism and religious liberty: a pseudo-supernatural naturalism. Human nature is not only capable of grace, but it requires it for the happiness of man; the redemption is universal; the world is full of grace. But let us not look at the content in greater detail. We will distinguish four principal themes in the Catechism: the dignity of man, his character of friend and Son of God, the nature of the Church, and the principles of morality. For each of these, we shall cite the Catechism, to clearly show the readers that it is not we who are attributing to it our thoughts. However, we shall not cite everything, not wanting to tax the patience of the readers nor risking that we be condemned for having recopied integrally a Catechism protected by copyright (!).

I.  THE DIGNITY OF MAN "The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him..."

There are forty references to the word "dignity" in the index, of which several indicate a fairly long passage. Let us cite first what Cardinal Ratzinger quoted above as:  the fundamental knowledge concerning man: To know the unity and the true dignity of all men: all are made in the image and likeness of God10 (§ 225)*.   * This and all following references to the New Catechism are indicated by the symbol § (meaning paragraph) and the paragraph number.   We have already explained the error of this new theory. Man, marked by original sin, is born without the grace of God. Therefore, he does not have his true dignity, that of being a son of God. This he receives at Baptism. This fundamental error concerning the dignity of man brings along with it others, for example, saying that the dignity of man cannot be lost. A criminal does not lose his dignity, since this consists in having a spiritual soul; taking this to its limit, the damned in hell (if there are any) will still have their dignity. Man and woman have a dignity which cannot be lost, which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.11  Man and woman are, with the same dignity, in the image of God. In their "being man" and "being woman" they reflect the wisdom and the goodness of the Creator (§ 369). Another false consequence: all men have the same dignity. A saint will not be any more worthy than a sinner; the Blessed Virgin will not be more worthy than any other woman. Amongst all the faithful of Christ, by the fact of their regeneration in Christ, there exists, insofar as dignity and activity, a true equality, in virtue of which all co-operate in the building up of the Body of Christ, each according to his condition and proper function12 (§ 872). Although this paragraph founds the dignity of the Christian upon its true foundation, "the regeneration in Christ," it is just the same erroneous since it draws from this a false conclusion, which is that all Christians are equal. This is contrary to the Scriptures, which warns us that there are all sorts of gifts of grace and that the members of the Church are complementary, but unequal (the foot is not the eye, says St. Paul). Man and woman are created, that is to say, they are willed by God, in a perfect equality in as much as they are human persons on one hand, and on the other hand, in their respective being of man and woman. "Being man" and "being woman" is a reality both good and willed by God (§ 369).  As to this equality between man and woman, it exists in the order of grace (in Christ there is neither male or female, St. Paul tells us), but not in the order of nature where there is a natural hierarchy between man and woman. Another erroneous consequence: all men will have an equal dignity, and all discrimination will be unjust. Equality between men lies essentially with their personal dignity and the rights which flow from it: "every form of discrimination touching the fundamental rights of the person, whether it be founded on sex, race, color of skin, social condition, language, or religion, must be gotten beyond, as contrary to the design of God" 13 (§ 1935). There also exists wicked inequalities which strike millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction with the Gospel: ‘"The equal dignity of persons requires that one reaches conditions of life more just and more human. The economic and excessive social inequalities between the members or peoples of the one human family create a scandal. They place an obstacle to social justice, to equity, to the dignity of the human person, as well as social and international peace." 14 (§ 1938). Dignity is liberty. We have seen that the Catechism makes the dignity of man consist in the fact of having been made in the image and likeness of God. For St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and all of Tradition, man is in the image of God because his soul is a spiritual substance endowed with intelligence and will, and thus he resembles the Holy Trinity. But for the New Catechism, that which characterizes the image of God before all else is liberty: In virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intelligence and will, man is endowed with liberty, "the privileged sign of the Divine image." 15  Are we convinced that "we know not what to ask so as to pray as we ought?" 16 Let us ask God for "suitable goods." Our Father knows well what we need before we ask Him,17 but He awaits our prayer because the dignity of His children is in their liberty. Now one must pray with one’s spirit of liberty in order to be able to know in truth his desire.18 (§ 2736) God has created man as reasonable in conferring upon him the dignity of a person endowed with the initiative and the mastery of his acts. ‘"God has left man to his own counsel’" (Sirach 15:14) so that he can seek by himself his Creator, and in adhering freely to him, reach full and blessed perfection" 19: ‘"Man is reasonable, and by that very fact, like unto God; he was created free, to be master of his acts" 20 (§ 1730). We remark in passing that the citation from St. Irenaeus expresses rather that the resemblance of man with God consists in his reason, liberty being only a consequence. This doesn’t keep the authors of the Catechism from choosing this citation in order to affirm that the dignity of man consists in his liberty. Since the dignity of man consists in his liberty, man will evidently have an inalienable right to liberty: Liberty is exercised in the relationships between human beings. Each human person, created in the image of God has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible person. All owe to each person this duty of respect. The right to exercise one’s liberty is an inseparable exigency from the dignity of the human person, notably in moral and religious matters.21  This right must be recognized by civil law and protected within the limits of the common good and public order 22 (§ 1782). Thus, liberty must be favored under all its forms and every inequality or constraint is an offense against the dignity of man: Man has the right to act according to his conscience and freely in order to take personal responsibility for his moral decisions. "Man must not be constrained to act against his conscience. What’s more, he must not be impeded from acting according to his conscience, above all in religious matters" 23 (§ 1782). Charity always goes through respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: In speaking against the brethren or in wounding their conscience ...it is against Christ that you sin.24  That which is good is to abstain ...from all that makes thy brother to stumble or to fall or to weaken25 (§ 1789). If one looks at the citations of St. Paul in their context, one sees that he tries to avoid acts which are indifferent in themselves so as not to scandalize someone who might misinterpret them and make of them an occasion of sin. It is not a question of respecting his conscience in the modern sense employed by the Catechism, that is to say, not impeding his sinning. This solicitation of a scriptural text is quite characteristic and proves that the modern theory of the liberty of conscience has no foundation in revelation. Thus, the role of the Church in the political realm, which hitherto consisted in making it respect the law of God and recalling to the heads of state their duty to help in the salvation of souls, now consists only in recalling this doctrine of the rights of man founded upon the dignity/liberty of the human person: Social justice can only be obtained by respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him: ‘"The defense and promotion of human dignity has been confided to us by the Creator. In all the circumstances of history, men and women are rigorously responsible and debtors to it." 26 (§ 1929). "Respect for human dignity implies those rights which flow from his dignity as creature. These rights are anterior to society and impose themselves on it. They constitute the moral legitimacy of all authority. By heckling them or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.27  Without such a respect, an authority can only support itself by force in order to obtain the obedience of its subjects. It comes back to the Church to recall these rights to the memory of men of good will, and to distinguish them from abusive or false claims (§ 2246). It appertains to the mission of the Church to "bring a moral judgement, even in those matters which touch the political domain, when the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it, in using all the means, and those only, which are conformed to the Gospel and are in harmony with the good of all, according to the diversity of times and of situations" 28 (§ 2246). Let us note that in this last paragraph, the defense of the rights of man comes before preoccupation for the salvation of souls. Another way to say the same thing: the Church is charged to defend the transcendence of the human person, this transcendence consisting precisely in its dignity / liberty: The Church, because of its mission and its competence, is not confused in any manner with the political community, and is at the same time the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and promotes political liberty and the responsibility of the citizens" 29 (§ 2245). Among the rights of man that the Church must defend, there is evidently the right to religious liberty, founded as the others upon the dignity/liberty of man. "In religious matters, let none be forced to act against his conscience, nor to be hindered from so acting, within just limits, following his conscience in private as in public, alone or associated with others." 30 This right is founded upon the nature itself of the human person of which its dignity makes it to adhere freely to divine truth which transcends the temporal order. This is why it "persists even in those who do not satisfy their obligation to search for the truth and to adhere to it" 31 If, because of the particular circumstances in which peoples find themselves, a special civil recognition is accorded in the juridical order of the city to a given religious society, it is necessary that at the same time, for all the citizens and all the religious communities, the right to liberty in religious matters be recognized and respected32 (§ 1930). The right to religious liberty is neither the moral permission to adhere to error,33 nor a supposed right to error,34 but a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, that is to say, to immunity from exterior constraint, within just limits, in religious matters on the part of the political power. This natural right must be recognized in the juridical order of society in such a manner that it constitutes a civil right35 (§ 2108). Behold the citation of Pius XII which the note makes mention of: That which does not correspond to the truth or the moral law has not any right, objectively, to existence, nor to propagation, nor to action. Pius XII does not condemn only "a supposed right to error," as the Catechism says, but also a right to propagate it and the action of error and of evil. Now to recognize a "natural right to immunity from constraint" for a false religion, isn’t this precisely to recognize for them a right of action and of propagation? The right to religious liberty cannot be of itself either unlimited,36 or limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.37  The "just limits" which are inherent must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the exigencies of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority according to "juridical rules conformed to the objective moral order" 38 (§ 2109). One senses in this last paragraph and in the references to Pius VI and Pius IX an attempt to justify the conciliar doctrine on religious liberty in the face of the accusations of traditionalists. To make this new doctrine in conformity with the traditional doctrine, the "just limits" would have to be respect for the moral law in a pagan country and respect for the Christian law in a Christian country. But this is contrary to the conciliar teaching such as it is interpreted by Rome itself.39

I.  EVERY MAN IS A FRIEND & SON OF GOD The Covenant with Noah ...the Catechism leave[s] one to understand that the pagan religions are the consequences of the covenant of Noah...

Once the unity of the human race was divided by sin, God sought first of all to save humanity by passing by each one of its parts. The covenant with Noah after the flood40 expresses the principle of the divine economy towards the "nations," that is to say, towards the men regrouped according to their countries, each according to his language, and according to their clans41 (§ 56). We learn then that "God sought to save man by passing by each of its parts," which leaves us supposing that God has accorded to each part of humanity a religion which continues this covenant with Noah. The sign of the covenant with Noah having been the rainbow, one is not astonished that this symbol was widely used by the Conciliar Church in order to express its ecumenism, for example at the time of the inter-religious meeting at Brussels in September, 1992. Up to Vatican II, Catholics rather believed that which St. Paul said, that the pagans before the Incarnation had to observe the natural law in order to be saved. The only true past covenant between God and men with a view to constituting a religion for a part of mankind was the covenant of Sinai. And since the Incarnation, Jews and pagans must embrace the Christian religion in order to be saved. The covenant with Noah is in vigor for as long as the time of the nations42 endures, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel. The Bible venerates several great figures from the "nations," such as "Abel the just," the king-priest Melchisedech,43 figure of Christ,44 or the just "Noah, Daniel, and Job" (Ezek. 14:14). Thus, the Scriptures express what heights of sanctity those can attain who live according to the covenant of Noah in the expectation that Christ "gather into unity all the scattered children of God" 45 (§ 58). Not only does the Catechism leave one to understand that the pagan religions are the consequences of the covenant of Noah, but it lets one now clearly think that this covenant has not been suppressed since it remains valid until the universal proclamation of the Gospel and until "Christ gathers together in unity all the scattered children of God," which isn’t realized as long as ecumenism hasn’t yet come to an end. Thus, it seems that even today "those who live according to the covenant of Noah can attain [a great] height of sanctity."

The Old Covenant "...the Jewish faith has already responded to the revelation of God in the Old Covenant..."

If pagans can claim to be friends of God thanks to the covenant with Noah, it is even clearer for the Jews, since the "Old Covenant has never been revoked": The Old Testament is an inadmisible part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and preserve a permanent value46 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked (§ 121). The relation of the Church with the Jewish people, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers, in scrutinizing its own mystery, its bond with the Jewish People,47 "to whom God has first spoken."  48 Unlike the other non-Christian religions, the Jewish faith has already responded to the revelation of God in the Old Covenant. It is to the Jewish People that "belong the adoption of sons, the glory, the covenants, the law, the cult, the promises and the patriarchs, and he who was born according to the flesh, the Christ" (Rom. 9:4-5), for the "gifts and the call of God are without repentance" 49 (§ 839).

Christ has died for all "He affirms ‘to give His life in ransom for the multitude’ (Matt. 20:28); this last term is not restrictive."

It is true that Christ has offered His life for all men and that His death, offered with love, is capable of saving all sinners. However, it is necessary to apply to each one this redemption. This application is made by Baptism, Penance, and the other sacraments which take their power from the passion of Christ.50  It is also by Faith that the passion of Christ is applied to us in order that we harvest the fruits of it.51 Consequently, even if Christ has offered His life for all, all shall not be saved, for all do not profit from His death by the Faith and the Sacraments. The Catechism is, at best, ambiguous on this question: This love is without exclusion. Jesus has recalled this at the end of the parable of the lost sheep: "So your Father who is in heaven does not will that even one of his sheep be lost" (Matt.18:14). He affirms ‘to give His life in ransom for the multitude’ (Matt. 20:28); this last term is not restrictive. It opposes the mass of humanity to the unique person of the Redeemer who delivers Himself up to save it.52  The Church, following the apostles,53 teaches that Christ has died for all men without exception. "There is not, neither has there been, nor shall there be, any man for whom Christ has not suffered" 54 (§ 605). This translation of the Latin pro multis is faulty when one specifies that this term "is not restrictive." This term is beautiful and quite restrictive. "It is the ‘love even to the end’ (Jn. 13:1) which confers its value of redemption and of reparation, of expiation and of satisfaction to the sacrifice of Christ. He has known and loved all of us in offering up his life.55 "The love of Christ presses us, to the thought that if one also died for all, then all have died" (II Cor. 5:14). No man, be he the most holy, was in the position to take upon himself the sins of all men and offering himself in sacrifice for all. The existence of the divine person of the Son in Christ, which goes beyond and at the same time embraces all human persons, and which constitutes him Head of all humanity, renders possible his redemptive sacrifice for all (§ 616). In assuming an human nature, Jesus Christ has not assumed all our persons. He has assumed the human nature of His own divine person, but not that of each of our persons. He died for all, but He only applies the salvific virtue of His blood for the souls who come to Him with humility, faith and love.

Limbo? "All the more pressing is the call of the Church to not hinder the little children to come to Christ by the gift of Holy Baptism"

Limbo is denied in practice, and that agrees completely with what we are going to see. Since it is not necessary any more that the virtue of the passion of Christ be applied to us by faith and the sacraments, there is no more reason to close the door of heaven to the little children who have died without Baptism: Concerning the infants who have died without Baptism, the Church can only confide them to the mercy of God, as she does in the rite of funeral for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God which desires that all men be saved,56 and the tenderness of Jesus towards the children who made Him say, "Suffer the little children to come to me, and hinder them not" (Mk. 10:4), permits us to hope that there was a path of salvation for the children who died without Baptism. All the more pressing is the call of the Church to not hinder the little children to come to Christ by the gift of Holy Baptism (§ 1261). This negation of Limbo is very grave. The Catholic doctrine on Limbo is not defined, but it is certain. Let us recall it briefly. The punishment for original sin is the privation of the vision of God.57  Those who die with original sin go to Limbo where they will remain for all eternity.58  In Limbo, they enjoy a natural happiness, without hatred of God or pain of sense.59  These three affirmations are not defined, but they are taught as certain.

The death of the Christian "It is by the Eucharist ... [that the faithful] learns to live in communion with he who has ‘fallen asleep in the Lord,’ in communicating with the Body of Christ of which he is a living member and by praying afterwards for him and with him"

Reflection upon death has always been for Christians the occasion for a salutary fear. The Christian draws from it the lesson that he must above all avoid every mortal sin (for there is no greater misfortune than to die in the state of mortal sin), that one must make an effort to avoid venial sin, and also to seek to do penance so as to avoid purgatory. But for the Catechism, there is nothing to fear from death. Only look at what the rite of Christian burial says. First of all, it describes thus the meaning of death:   The Christian meaning of death is revealed in the light of the paschal mystery of the death and resurrection of Christ, in whom reposes our only hope. The Christian who dies in Christ Jesus "quits the body to go to remain next to the Lord" 60 (§1681). The day of death inaugurates for the Christian, at the end of his sacramental life, the fulfillment of his new birth begun at Baptism, the definitive "resemblance" to the "image of the Son" conferred by the unction of the Holy Ghost and the participation in the banquet of the kingdom which was anticipated in the Eucharist, even if some last purifications are still necessary in order to put on the nuptial robe" (§ 1682). The Church, which as a mother, has borne the Christian sacramentally in her bosom during his earthly pilgrimage, accompanies him at the close of his journeying in order to deliver him "into the hands of the Father." She offers to the Father, in Christ, the child of her grace, and she deposits in the earth, in hope, the seed of the body which shall rise again into glory.58 This offering is celebrated fully by the Eucharistic Sacrifice; the blessings which precede and follow are sacramentals (§ 1683).   One sees by this how little the Catechism is pastoral. For if there is an occasion to make Christians reflect, it is certainly the occasion of the death of a loved one. One must do it with charity, of course, but one must not confuse charity with an anesthesia of consciences. Even on the occasion of a suicide, the Catechism seeks to the greatest degree to reassure consciences: One must not despair of the eternal salvation of those persons who have taken their own lives. God can provide them, by ways which He alone knows, with the occasion of a salutary repentance. The Church prays for the persons who have taken their own lives (§ 2283). We are far from the "pre-conciliar" pastoral which refused a Christian burial to suicides, when they hadn’t given any signs of contrition. Moreover, it is this attitude which corresponds to true charity. By this refusal, the Church showed the gravity of suicide and greatly contributed to diminish the temptation for Christians to commit it, aiding them thus to save their souls. After having reflected on the meaning of death, the Catechism gives several indications on the celebration of funerals. We retain this one: It is by the Eucharist thus celebrated in common that the community of the faithful, especially the family of the deceased, learns to live in communion with he who has "fallen asleep in the Lord," in communicating with the Body of Christ of which he is a living member and by praying afterwards for him and with him (§ 1689). The Catechism encourages then all the assistants to communicate at the Mass of Christian burial, without saying anything about the dispositions required to do so. When one knows that at the occasion of funerals there are many people coming who ordinarily do not set foot in the church, one measures the number of sacrileges that the Catechism encourages.

III:  THE CHURCH IS HUMANITY ...the Catechism tell us that "all men without exception that the grace of God calls to salvation" makes up the Church...

The Catechism proclaims the dogma of the Church: Outside of the Church there is no salvation; but it empties its content according to the typically modernist manner: How must one understand this affirmation often repeated by the Fathers of the Church? Formulated in a positive fashion, it signifies that all salvation comes from Christ the Head by means of the Church which is His Body; ‘"Based upon Holy Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that this Church working upon the earth is necessary for salvation. Christ alone, indeed, is the Mediator and Way of salvation. Now He becomes present in His Body which is the Church; and in teaching us expressly the necessity of the faith and baptism, it is the necessity of the Church itself, in which men enter by the gate of baptism, that He has confirmed at the same time. This is why those who would refuse either to enter into the Catholic Church or to persevere there, whereas they would know that God founded it by Jesus Christ as necessary, those would not be able to be saved"1 (§ 846). This affirmation does not concern those who without any fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church: "Indeed, those who without fault on their part, do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but nonetheless seek God with a sincere heart and strive under the influence of His grace to act in such a fashion as to accomplish His will such as their conscience has revealed to them and has dictated to them, these can reach eternal salvation" 2 (§ 847). Certainly, the Church has always admitted the possibility of those who do not know the Church through no fault of their own to be saved. They can then obtain the grace of God by a baptism of desire.3  But the Church formerly had a clearer manner of expressing this under Pius XII, in the letter addressed by the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing on August 8, 1949: Neither must one think that any sort of desire whatsoever to enter into the Church suffices to be saved. For it is necessary that the desires ordain someone to the Church be animated by perfect charity. The implicit desire can only have an effect if the man has supernatural faith. "He who cometh to God must believe that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares: "Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6) and to arrive to partake of the lot of His children." But other passages of the Catechism are clearer still in their undermining of this dogma "Outside of the Church, no salvation." Alas, it’s meaning is emptied of all which might be the least bit limiting. Let us see, for example, the passage which answers the question: "Who belongs to the Catholic Church?" "To the Catholic unity of the People of God... all men are called; to this unity, they belong or are ordained, both the Catholic faithful and those who, furthermore, have faith in Christ, and finally all men without exception that the grace of God calls to salvation" 4 (§ 836). Those are incorporated fully to the society which is the Church who having the Spirit of Christ accept integrally its organization and all the means of salvation instituted in it, and who moreover, thanks to the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, the ecclesiastical government and communion, are united in the visible assembly of the Church, with Christ who directs it by the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops. Incorporation into the Church does not assure salvation for those who for lack of perseverance in charity, remain indeed bodily in the bosom of the Church, but not in their heart5 (§ 837). With those who, being baptized bear the fair name of Christians without, however, professing integrally the faith of preserving the unity of communion with the successor of Peter, the Church recognizes being united for many reasons.6 Those who believe in Christ and who have validly received baptism, find themselves in a certain communion, although imperfect, with the Catholic Church.7 With the orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that very little is lacking for it to attain the plenitude authorizing a common celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord" 8 (§ 838). Finally, there is not therefore any disquietude for those who belong to other religions than the Catholic Religion since the Catechism tell us that "all men without exception that the grace of God calls to salvation" makes up the Church. The sole disquietude expressed by the Catechism is for those who, amongst Catholics, are of the body in the bosom of the Church, but not of the heart. These affirmations seem quite close to the propositions condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus:9 Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion that the light of reason has drawn to judge to be the true religion (proposition 15). Men can find the way of salvation and obtain eternal salvation in the cult of it matters not what religion (proposition 16). One can at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who are not in any manner in the true Church of Christ (proposition 17). Protestantism is nothing other than one of the forms of the same and true Christian religion in which it is possible to be pleasing to God, as in the Catholic Church (proposition 18).

All the Religions are Good "...The Spirit of Christ makes use of these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation..."

We are going to see that the Catechism thinks that all men are more or less part of the Church. Another manner of saying the same thing is to affirm that all religions contain a part of the truth. Thus all religions are "means of salvation":

Moreover, "many elements of sanctification and of truth"10 exist outside of the visible limits of the Catholic Church: "the written word of God, the life of grace, faith, hope, and charity. Both the interior gifts of the Holy Spirit and visible elements."11 The Spirit of Christ makes use of these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, the force of which comes from the plenitude of grace and truth that Christ confided to the Catholic Church. All these goods come from Christ and lead to Him 12 and in themselves call for the perfection of "Catholic unity." 13 Propositions condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors Proposition 15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion that the light of reason has drawn to judge to be the true religion. Proposition 16. Men can find the way of salvation and obtain eternal salvation in the cult of it matters not what religion. Proposition 17. One can at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who are not in any manner in the true Church of Christ. Proposition 18. Protestantism is nothing other than one of the forms of the same and true Christian religion in which it is possible to be pleasing to God, as in the Catholic Church.

All men are bound to seek for the truth, above all in what concerns God and His Church; and when they have found it, to embrace it and to be faithful to it.14  This duty flows from "the nature itself of man." 15  It does not contradict a "sincere respect" for the diverse religions which "often bear a ray of the truth which enlightens all men," 16 neither does it contradict the need for charity which presses Christians to "act with love, prudence, and patience, towards those who find themselves in error or in ignorance concerning the faith" 17 (§ 2104). Does not one find expressed there "this erroneous opinion that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, in this sense that they reveal and translate all equally —although in a different way —the natural and innate sentiment which carries us towards God" 18 ?

The "Subsistit in" "...It is indeed by the sole Catholic Church of Christ, which is the general means of salvation, that all the fullness of the means of salvation be obtained..."

Already, the Second Vatican Council had inaugurated the expression, "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church," in place of affirming with all of Tradition that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. The Catechism continues in the line of the Council: The unique Church of Christ... is that which Our Savior, after His Resurrection, remitted to Peter that he might be the shepherd, that He confided to him and to the other apostles, to extend it and direct it... this Church as a society constituted and organized in the world is realized in ("subsistit in") the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops who are in communion with him19: The decree on ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council explains, "It is indeed by the sole Catholic Church of Christ, which is the general means of salvation, that all the fullness of the means of salvation be obtained. For it is to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that the Lord confided, according to our faith, all the riches of the New Covenant, in order to constitute upon the earth one sole Body of Christ to which it is necessary that all those who in a certain fashion appertain already to the People of God may be fully incorporated" 20 (§ 816). The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It asks them to make known the cult of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church21 (§ 2105).

Catholic Unity Vatican II had inaugurated the expression, "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church," in place of affirming with all of Tradition that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.  The Catechism continues in the line of the Council

We know that the note of unity is the fundamental note of the Catholic Church, that which manifests its form.22   Let us see what the Catechism says: Which are the bonds of unity? "Above all, [it is] charity, which is the bond of perfection" (Col. 3:14) (§ 815). However, until the present, the Church never separated the bond of charity from the bond of the faith which is even, in a sense, the more fundamental one: We are said to be justified by faith because the faith is the beginning of the salvation of man, the foundation and the root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to arrive at the partaking of the lot of His children.23 The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to perpetuate the salutary work of the redemption decided to build Holy Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful would be joined by the bond of one sole faith and one sole charity.24 No society separated from the unity of the faith or from the unity of His Body can be called a part or member of the Church.25  Since charity has as its foundation a sincere and integral faith, unity of faith must be, consequently, the fundamental bond uniting the disciples of Christ.26 As for unity, "Christ granted it to His Church from the beginning. We believe that it subsists inadmissibly in the Church and we hope it will increase from day to day unto the consummation of the ages." 27 Christ always gives to His Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, strengthen, and perfect the unity that Christ wishes for it. This is why Jesus Himself prayed at the hour of His passion and why He ceases not to pray to the Father for the unity of his disciples: "...that all may be one as thou Father art in Me and Me in Thee, that they may be one in us, in order that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me" (Jn 17:21). The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit28 (§ 820). Since the Catechism says that we must have the desire to recover unity, it is obvious that this unity is lost, at least in part. This teaching does not appear compatible with the instruction of the Holy Office to the bishops on December 20, 1949:  The Catholic doctrine must be proposed and exposed totally and integrally; one must not pass over in silence or veil by ambiguous terms what the Catholic Church teaches concerning ...the only true union by the return of the separated Christians to the one, true Church of Christ. One could without doubt tell them that in returning to the Church they shall lose of the good that by the grace of God, is realized in them even to the present, but that by their return this shall rather be completed and brought to its perfection. One will avoid speaking on this point in such a manner that, in returning to the Church, they imagine that they bring to it an essential element which it had lacked up to now.

Ecumenism Since the unity of the Church is to be recovered, it is not surprising that the Catechism insists on the duty of ecumenism and dialogue.

See how the Catechism says that we must respond to this desire to recover the unity of the Church: To respond adequately to this, these are required: a permanent renewal of the Church in a greater fidelity to its vocation. This renovation is the springboard of the movement towards unity29 conversion of heart "in view of living more purely according to the Gospel" 30 for it is the infidelity of the members to the gift of Christ which causes the divisions prayer in common, for "conversion of heart and sanctity of life, united to public and private prayers for the unity of Christians, must be regarded as the soul of all ecumenism and can be with reason called spiritual ecumenism" 31 reciprocal and fraternal knowledge32 the ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of the priests33 dialogue between theologians and meetings between Christians of different Churches and communities34 collaboration between Christians in the various domains of service to men35 (§ 821) Since the unity of the Church is to be recovered, it is not surprising that the Catechism insists on the duty of ecumenism and dialogue. In defending the capacity of the human reason to know God, the Church expresses its confidence in the possibility of speaking of God to all men and with all men. This conviction is the point of departure of its dialogue with the other religions, with philosophy and the sciences, and also with the unbelievers and atheists (§ 39). All men are bound to seek the truth, above all in what concerns God and His Church; and when they have known it, to embrace and to be faithful to it.36  This duty flows from "the nature itself of man." 37 It does not contradict a "sincere respect" for the different religions which "bear often a ray of the truth which enlightens every man," 38 nor the exigence of the charity which urges Christians "to act with love and prudence towards those who walk in error or in ignorance of the faith" 39 (§ 2104). The mission of the Church summons the effort towards the unity of Christians.40 Indeed, "the divisions between Christians hold the Church back from realizing the plenitude of Catholicity which is proper to it in those of her children who, it is certain, belong to it by Baptism, but who find themselves separated from full communion. Even more, for the Church itself, it becomes more difficult to express under all its aspects the plenitude of Catholicity in the reality itself of its life" 41 (§ 855). The missionary task implies a respectful dialogue with those who do not as yet accept the Gospel.42 The believers can draw profit themselves from this dialogue in learning to better know "all that is already found of truth and of grace among the nations as by a secret presence of God." 43 If they announce the good news to those who know it not, it is to consolidate, complete and lift up the truth and the good that God has scattered among men and peoples, and to purify them of error and evil "for the glory of God, the confusion of the demon, and the happiness of man" 44 (§ 856). However, Our Lord did not send His Apostles to dialogue, but to teach, and the task of the Church is to continue this teaching of the truth that God has confided to it, not to dialogue with anyone. Catholic doctrine teaches us that the first duty of charity is not in the toleration of erroneous opinions, however sincere they might be, nor in theoretical or practical indifference towards error or vice when we see our brothers plunged in them, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral betterment no less than for their material well-being.45

The Hierarchy Does the Catechism prepare us for the new age of the Church when there shall no longer be laymen and bishops?

In the paragraph on the hierarchy, after having spoken about the episcopal college, the Catechism examines the laity. Nothing in particular is said concerning the priests. The laity receive such a participation in "the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ" which the bishops possess that one does not see why there should be any need of other members of the hierarchy. Does the Catechism prepare us for the new age of the Church when there shall no longer be laymen and bishops? The differences themselves that the Lord willed to establish between the members of His Body serve its unity and mission. For "there is in the Church a diversity of ministers but unity of mission. Christ conferred to the apostles and their successors the office to teach, sanctify, and govern in His name and by His power. But the laity, made participants in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ, assume in the Church and in the world, their part in that which is the mission of the entire people of God" 46 (§ 873). These magnificent privileges recognized for the laity are in no way recognized for the priests in the passages where things of this kind is on the way of disappearing (Cf. § 1562-1568). Sometimes one begins to ask if the laity are not superior to the priesthood since "the ordained ministry, or ministerial priesthood 47 is at the service of the baptismal priesthood" (§ 1020). Certainly, the priests exercise "a special service" in the sacramental liturgy (§ 1020). But is this service truly indispensable since "it is all the community, the Body of Christ united to its head, which celebrates"? It is the entire community, the Body of Christ united to its head, which celebrates. "The liturgical actions are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity; that is to say, the holy people brought together and organized under the authority of bishops. This is why they belong to the entire Body of the Church, but they manifest it and attest it differently; but they touch each of its members in a different fashion according to the diversity of orders, of functions and of effective participation." 48  This is also why "each time that the rites, according to the proper nature of each, include a common celebration, with the frequentation and participation of the faithful, it underlines that this ought to have the preference over their individual and quasi-private celebration" 49 (§ 1140). The assembly which celebrates is the community of the baptized who, "by the regeneration and unction of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, in view of offering spiritual sacrifices." 50 This common priesthood is that of Christ, the unique Priest, participated in by all His members... (§ 1141). St. Thomas explains to us more precisely that it is by the sacramental characters of the sacraments that we can participate in the priesthood of Our Lord: "These are nothing other than certain kinds of participation in the priesthood of Christ, which flow from Christ Himself."51 But He also tells us that the character is a spiritual power, passive in the case of Baptism, active in the case of Holy Orders. The priesthood of Christ and of priests is then an active power and the common priesthood of the faithful is a passive power. This is an important distinction which unfortunately is not pointed out by the Catechism.

The Liturgy The Catechism even insists on the fact that the Christian liturgy is similar to the "faith and religious life of the Jewish people, such as they are professed and lived even now."

The Catechism insists upon the harmony between the two Testaments to the point of telling us that "the Church guards as an integral and irreplaceable part, making them its own, some elements of the worship of the Old Covenant": The Holy Spirit fulfills in the sacramental economy the figures of the Old Covenant. Since the Church of Christ was "admirably prepared in the history of the people of Israel and in the Old Covenant," 52 the liturgy of the Church guards as an integral and irreplaceable part, in making them its own, some elements of the worship of the Old Covenant: principally the reading of the Old Testament the prayer of the Psalms and above all, the memory of the saving events and significant realities which have found their fulfillment in the mystery of Christ (the promise and the covenant, the exodus and the Pasch, the Kingdom and the Temple, the Exile and the Return) (§ 1093) The Catechism even insists on the fact that the Christian liturgy is similar to the "faith and religious life of the Jewish people, such as they are professed and lived even now." This expression is a bit unfortunate and it lacks the necessary precision concerning the fundamental difference between the faith of the ancient Jews and the present Jewish people: Jewish liturgy and Christian liturgy. A better knowledge of the faith and the religious life of the Jewish people, such as they are lived and professed even now, can help to better understand certain aspects of the Christian liturgy. For Jews and Christians, Holy Scripture is an essential part of their liturgies: it is used in the proclamation of the Word of God, the response to this Word, the prayer of praise and of intercession for the living and the dead, and the recourse to the divine mercy. The liturgy of the Word, in its structure, takes its origin from Jewish prayer. The prayer of the Hours and other texts and liturgical formulas have parallels there, as well as the formulas of even our most venerable prayers such as the Our Father. The eucharistic prayers take their inspiration also from models of the Jewish tradition. The relation between the Jewish liturgy and the Christian liturgy, but also the difference between their contents, are particularly visible in the great feasts of the liturgical year, such as Passover. Christians and Jews both celebrate the Passover: the Passover of history, looking towards the future for the Jews; for the Christians, the fulfilled Passover in the death and resurrection of Christ, although always in wait for the definitive consummation" (§ 1096).

The Mass and the Sacraments The Catechism ... teaching remains gravely deficient on... [the] point [of the propitiatory sacrificial nature of the Mass], just at the time when the propitiatory finality is denied in practice by the new Mass.

On the subject of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Catechism speaks of thanksgiving and praise (§. 1359), of the sacrifice which represents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, which is the memorial of it and applies the fruit of it (§ 1366). It says that the sacrifice is also offered for the faithful departed. If it does not deny its propitiatory end, one would search in vain for any clear affirmation of it. Let us recall the canon of the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise or of thanksgiving, of a simple commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice... let him be anathema." 53 The Catechism doesn’t go that far, but its teaching remains gravely deficient on that point, just at the time when the propitiatory finality is denied in practice by the new Mass. Concerning marriage, the Catechism repeats the error of the 1983 Code of Canon Law by making equal the ends of marriage (and even by putting them in inverse order since the second is placed first). However this error wasn’t able to be approved at the Council, for Cardinals Browne and Ottaviani had vigorously opposed it.54 The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman constitute between themselves a lifelong community, ordained by its natural character to the good of the spouses as well as to the generation and education of children, has been elevated by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.55 (§ 1601). The conjugal community is established upon the consent of the spouses. Marriage and the family are ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children. The love of the spouses and the generation of children create between the members of a family personal relations and primordial responsibilities (§ 2201). Such an inversion turns conjugal morality upside down. In particular, it permits to the spouses, without sufficient reason to make use of the conjugal right while dispensing themselves from the serious duty of procreation that it contains in itself.56 The Catechism draws itself this conclusion: A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of births. For just reasons, the spouses can desire to space the births of their children. It is up to them to insure that their desire does not depend upon egoism, but is conformed to the right generosity of a responsible paternity. Moreover, they shall regulate their comportment following the objective criteria of morality: When it treats of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of behavior does not depend solely upon the sincerity of intention or an appreciation of the motives; but it must be determined according to objective criteria, drawn form the nature itself of the person and his acts, criteria which respect, in a context of true love, the total signification of a reciprocal gift and of a procreation at the stature of man; something impossible if the virtue of conjugal chastity is not practiced by a loyal heart57 (§ 2368). We are far from the luminous teaching of Pius XII concerning the "grave motives" which can justify a (natural) regulation of births.58 Periodic continence, the methods of regulating births founded upon self-observation and recourse to infertile periods59 are conformed to the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the body of the spouses, encouraging tenderness between them and fostering the education of an authentic liberty. On the other hand, "every action, whether it be in anticipation of the conjugal act or in its unfolding, or in the development of its natural consequences, which would be proposed as the end or as a means of making procreation impossible, is intrinsically evil." 60:  "In the language which naturally expresses the mutual and total self-giving of the spouses, contraception opposes a language objectively contradictory according to which there is no longer the total gift of one to the other. What flows from this is not only the positive refusal of any openness to life, but also a falsification of the internal truth of love, called to be a gift of all the person. This anthropological and moral difference between contraception and recourse to the periodic rhythms implies two conceptions of the person and human sexuality contradictory to each other" 61 (§ 2370). Certainly, it is good to condemn artificial contraception. It nonetheless remains that the Catechism greatly distances itself from the traditional doctrine on marriage by the encouragement that it gives to "the ‘Catholic’ variant of contraception [commonly called "NFP"]." 62 The passage from the Catechism which treats of mixed marriages is also very insufficient: In numerous countries, the situation of mixed marriages (between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) presents itself rather frequently. It demands a particular attention of spouses and pastors; the case of marriages with disparity of cult (between a Catholic and one not baptized) demands a greater circumspection still (§ 1633). "The difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for the marriage when they put in common what each one has received into their community, and each one learns from the other how he lives out his fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They are due to the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the drama of the disunion of Christians in the bosom of their own home. Disparity of cult can aggravate even more these difficulties. From divergences concerning the faith, the conception itself of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can constitute a source of tensions in marriage, principally regarding the education of children. A temptation can then present itself: religious indifference (§ 1634). In many regions, thanks to ecumenical dialogue, concerned Christian communities have been able to establish a common pastoral for mixed marriages. Its task is to aid these couples to live out their particular situation in the light of faith. It must also help them to overcome tensions between the obligations the spouses have towards one another and towards their ecclesial communities. It must encourage the growth of what they have in common in the faith and the respect of what separates them (§ 1636). Thus, the principal difficulty seen by the Catechism consists in the tensions which risk arriving suddenly between the spouses. And still this danger tends to disappear thanks to "ecumenical dialogue" and the "common pastoral for mixed marriages." The Catechism does not speak of the peril for the Catholic spouse of losing his or her faith due to the contact with an heretical spouse. How could it speak of that since it presents heresy to us as another form of "fidelity to Christ"?

IV:  THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY "...the human person is and must be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions..."  Vatican II

With the question of marriage, we have already come in contact a little with the domain of morality. But it is fitting to study this question separately. St. Thomas teaches that what governs morality is the "last end."  Man must orient his life towards heavenly beatitude, and, consequently, use all the means that the good Lord puts at his disposition to attain that end. This is why St. Thomas begins the second part of the Summa Theologica consecrated to morality by the treatise on the last end of man, where he shows that the true end of human life can only be the beatific vision. Consequently, man must regulate his actions in order to arrive at this end. But the Catechism so exalts the human person that it seems to become the end of human life. Man is the end and the summit of all; he must be loved more than all. Next, Christ came to reveal man to himself, which seems to make of man the end of divine revelation, the revelation of the Father being only a means of manifesting to man the sublimity of his vocation: "Christ, in the revelation of the mystery of the Father and his love, fully manifests man to himself and reveals to him the sublimity of his vocation."  65 It is in Christ, the "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15),66 that man has been made to "the image and likeness" of the Creator. "It is in Christ, redeemer and savior, that the divine image, altered in man by the first sin, has been restored in its original beauty and ennobled with the grace of God" 67 (§1701). The law of the Gospel is summed up in love for one’s neighbor: The law of the Gospel includes the decisive choice between "the two ways," 68 and the putting into practice of the words of Our Lord69; it is summed up in the golden rule: "Whatsoever you desire that others do for you, do likewise to them; this is the law and the prophets" 70 (Mt. 7:12). The entire law of the Gospel is contained in the "new commandment" of Jesus (Jn. 13:34) of loving one another as he has loved us71 (§1970). The Catechism "forgets" the first commandment of the evangelical law, which is, however, the greatest, according to Our Lord, so as to remember only the second which is like to it. And what’s more, it barely explains that the second includes priorities, and that the order of charity demands that we should love first that neighbor who is the closest: God first, then our soul, then our Christian brothers before other men, our family and our fellow citizens before foreigners, etc. The respect for the dignity of every man and the quality of our relations with others is going to become the primary and fundamental virtue, more important than the faith and the other virtues which bind us to God. We shall find more or less the vocabulary and even the order of Thomist morality, but all shall be biased by this accent placed on the dignity of man. Read, for example, the lines which introduce the first chapter consecrated to morality in the Catechism, a chapter entitled The Dignity of the Human Person: The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and the likeness of God (Article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (Article 2). It appertains to the human being to achieve this freely (Article 3). By his deliberate acts (Article 4), the human person conforms himself or not to the good promised by God and attested by his moral conscience (Article 5). Human beings build themselves up and grow from the interior; they make of all their sensible and spiritual life a matter of their growth (Article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (Article 7), avoiding sin, and, if they have committed it, returning like the prodigal son72 to the mercy of our Father in heaven (Article 8). They arrive thus to the perfection of charity (§1700). Thus the principal reason for which one must fulfill the moral law is not that man is held to obey God, or that he must work to save his soul so to glorify God, but that by this means, he attests to the dignity of the person: By his reason, man knows the voice of God, which urges him "to accomplish the good and avoid evil." 73  Each one is held to follow this law, which resounds in the conscience, and which is completed in the love of God and of one’s neighbor. The exercise of the moral life witnesses to the dignity of the person (§1706). Application of this principle: respect for the rights of man, the dignity of man, etc. We have already spoken, in the first part of our study, of the defense by the Church of the rights of man and of the dignity of man. These same themes are found again, naturally enough, when it is a question of determining what are the moral duties of Christians. Since each man is the end of everything, as we have seen, all the duties of Christians are going to consist in protecting, in one way or another, the rights or dignity of the human person: Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, the human being must recognize the rights of the person, among which the inviolable right of every innocent being to life:74  "Before being fashioned in the maternal womb, I knew you. Before your leaving the womb, I have consecrated you’"(Jer. 1:5). "My bones were not hidden before you when I was made, when I was made in secret, embroidered in the depths of the earth" (Ps. 139:15) (§2270). Whatever might be the motives or the means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the life of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally inadmissible. Thus an action or an omission which, of itself or in the intention, causes death in order to suppress suffering constitutes a crime gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person, and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error in judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this criminal act, which is always proscribed and excluded (§2277). As we see in this last text, the Catechism speaks also sometimes of the respect due to God; but it is symptomatic that it places this respect after that of the dignity of the human person. Chastity represents an eminently personal task; it also implies a cultural effort, for there exists an "interdependence between the development of the person and that of society itself." 76  Chastity supposes the respect of the rights of the person, particularly that of receiving the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life (§2344). Pornography consists in separating sexual acts, real or simulated, from the intimacy of the partners in order to exhibit them in a deliberate manner to third persons. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, which is an intimate gift that the spouses give to one another. It gravely endangers the dignity of those who give themselves up to it (actors, dealers, and the public), since each becomes for the other the object of a rudimentary pleasure and of illicit profit. It plunges both in the illusion of being world-makers. It is a grave fault. The civil authorities must prevent the production and the distribution of pornographic materials (§2354). "In the beginning, God confided the earth and its resources to the common management of humanity for them to take care of it, to master it by their labor and to enjoy its fruits.77  The goods of creation are destined for all the human race.  However, the earth is divided between men so as to assure the security of their life, exposed as it is to shortage and menaced by violence. The appropriation of goods is legitimate so as to guarantee the liberty and dignity of persons, to aid each one to provide for his fundamental needs and to the needs of those of whom he has charge. It must permit a mutual solidarity to be manifested between men (§2402). In economic matters, respect for human dignity demands the practice of the virtue of temperance to moderate the attachment to the goods of this world; of the virtue of justice to preserve the rights of one’s neighbor and to accord him what is due him; and of solidarity following the golden rule, and according to the liberality of the Lord who "from being rich made himself poor so as to enrich us by his poverty" (II Cor.8:9) (§2407). Prostitution endangers the dignity of the person who prostitutes herself, who is reduced to the venereal pleasure that one takes from her. He who pays sins gravely against himself; he breaks the chastity to which he is engaged by baptism, and soils his body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit.78  Prostitution constitutes a social plague. It habitually concerns women, but also men, children or adolescents (in these latter two cases, the sin is doubled by that of scandal). If it is always gravely sinful to give oneself over to prostitution, misery, blackmail and social pressure can extenuate the imputability of the fault (§2355). This question of "extenuating the imputability of the fault" of prostitution merits, however, to be treated separately.

THE EXCUSING CAUSES OF SIN For Pius XII, social conditions can be occasions of sin when they are opposed to the law of God. For the Catechism, social conditions are "structures of sin" when they are opposed to the rights of man.

The first excusing cause of sin consists for the Catechism in the "structures of sin": Thus sin makes men accessories of each other, makes concupiscence reign among them as well as violence and injustice. Sins provoke social situations and institutions contrary to divine goodness. The "structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to commit evil in their turn. In an analogical sense they constitute a "social sin" 79 (§1869). These structures of sin are, for example, those societies which do not respect the rights of man: The consequences of original sin and of all the personal sins of men confer upon the world in its entirety a sinful condition, which can be designated by the expression of St. John: "the sin of the world" (Jn. 1:29). By this expression is also signified the negative influence that community situations and social structures which are the fruit of the sins of men exercise over persons80 (§408). Menaces for liberty. The exercise of liberty does not imply the right to say or do everything. It is false to pretend that ‘man, subject of liberty, is sufficient to himself in having for his end the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods.81  Moreover, the conditions of the economic and social, political and cultural order required for a right exercise of liberty are too often misunderstood and violated. These situations of blindness and injustice burden the moral life and place the strong as well as the weak in temptation against charity. By turning away from the moral law, man endangers his own liberty, he cleaves to himself, breaks the fraternity of his fellow men and rebels against divine liberty (§1740). "There also exist iniquitous inequalities which strike millions of men and women. These are in contradiction with the Gospel: ‘The equal dignity of persons demands that we arrive at conditions of life more just and human. "The excessive economic and social inequalities between members or the peoples of the one human family are the cause of scandal. They place an obstacle to social justice, to equity, to the dignity of the human person, as well as to social and international peace" 82 (§1938). Certainly, it is true that social conditions can be occasions of sin. Christians experience this each day in this laicized and materialistic society in which we live. But it is an inversion to pretend that those societies which do not respect the rights of man are the "structures of sin." Rather, it is much more the societies which take as their fundamental law the rights of man that urge men to sin by inciting them to forgetfulness of God and to revolt. The inversion of means and of ends83 which ends up giving an ultimate value to what is only a means, or to consider persons as simply means in view of an end, engenders unjust structures which "make any Christian conduct arduous and practically impossible that is conformed to the commandments of the divine Legislator" 84 (§1887). It is interesting to see in this citation how the Catechism pretends that it is continuing the former doctrine of the Church when it contradicts it. The phrase cited from Pius XII does not speak of societies which observe or do not observe the rights of man, the dignity of man, equality among men, etc. Pius XII said several lines further back, "From the form given to society, in harmony or not with divine laws, depends the infiltration of good or evil into souls..." For Pius XII, social conditions can be occasions of sin when they are opposed to the law of God. For the Catechism, social conditions are "structures of sin" when they are opposed to the rights of man. To see between these two positions an "homogeneous evolution of dogma," one would have to establish that the Declaration of the Rights of Man is another formulation of the Decalogue. The Catechism also finds an excusing cause for sin in ignorance and physical and social factors: The imputability and responsibility of an action can be diminished, even taken away altogether, by ignorance, inadvertence, violence, fear, habits, immoderate affections, and other psychic and social factors (§1735). The human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he acted deliberately against the latter, he would condemn himself. But it happens that the moral conscience may be in ignorance, and makes erroneous judgments upon future acts or those already accomplished (§1790). Certainly, the Catechism recalls that ignorance can be culpable, and that in this case, it does not excuse from sin: This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. It is so "when man tries little to seek the true and the good, and when the habitude of sin little by little makes the conscience blind." 85  In these cases, the person is culpable for the evil that he commits (§1791). However, in practice, the Catechism greatly extends the domain of invincible (that is, non-culpable) ignorance and the other excusing causes for sin: In so far as it rejects or refuses the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.86  The imputability of this fault can be largely diminished by virtue of one’s intentions and circumstances. In the genesis and the diffusion of atheism, "the believers can have no small part, in the measure where, by their negligence in the education of the faith, by false representations of doctrine, and also by failures in their religious, moral and social life, one can say that they violate the authentic face of God and of religion more than they reveal it" 87 (§2125). Agnosticism can sometimes contain a certain search for God, but it can equally represent an indifferentism, a flight before the ultimate question of His existence, and a laziness of the moral conscience. Agnosticism is too often equivalent to practical atheism (§2128). If it is committed with the intention of giving an example, especially for the young, suicide has the added gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. Serious psychological troubles, anguish, grave fear of trial, suffering or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one who commits suicide (§2282). By masturbation is to be understood the voluntary excitation of the genital organs in order to have venereal pleasure. "In the constant line of tradition, the Magisterium of the Church as well as the moral sense of the faithful have affirmed without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered act." "Whatever might be the motive, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside of normal conjugal relations contradicts the finality of that act.’ Sexual enjoyment is sought outside of ‘the sexual relation required by the moral order, that which realizes in the context of true love the integral sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation." 88  In order to form an equitable judgment on the moral responsibility of subjects, and to orient pastoral action, one should take account of emotional immaturity, of the strength of habits already formed, of the state of anguish or other psychological or social factors which lessen or extenuate moral culpability (§2352). In cauda venenum says the Latin proverb; that is, the venom is in the tail. Notice how in the last two examples, after having recalled the law, the Catechism completely waters down its strength. Certainly, the law exists; that is the thesis. In practice, in the hypothesis, it excuses so as to escape the consequences. This is a typically liberal approach.

CONCLUSION: A NON-CATHOLIC CATECHISM Questioning, Indignation, Admiration There where one awaits God one finds man. For example: the title of the first chapter consecrated to the faith (Man is Capable of God); the title of the first chapter consecrated to morality (The Dignity of the Human Person).

On the word of such favorable reports made by Catholic writers, amongst them friends of tradition, I opened with hope the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I read it ...I closed it again ...and this question which haunted the young Thomas Aquinas came to my mind: Who is God? What is God? Would I dare add that the cry of indignation which shook the heavens when Lucifer revolted failed to shake my soul: Quis ut Deus? Who is like God? And I was further tempted to take up again for myself the admiration of Jesus Christ for the dishonest steward:  Et laudavit dominus villicum iniquitatis quia prudenter fecisset, "and the master praised the dishonest steward for the prudence of his conduct." Questioning, indignation, and admiration; such are the sentiments between which my mind oscillates at the end of this reading that I wished to be made with good will. Questioning, for I didn’t find clear answers to the great questions that one can ask the Church: What is God?  What is the Church?  What is grace?  What is a sacrament?  What is the priest?  I found many descriptions, qualifications, and sometimes very beautiful and true considerations on these things, but hardly one of those good, precise definitions without ambiguity by which the Church has always loved to protect Her Faith. Not one time will you find, in order to define God, the words of St. John, "God is spirit," even though the Old Testament is abundantly cited. Of course, the other words of St. John, "God is love" are quoted. The Faith itself is presented to us firstly as "the response of man to God who reveals Himself" (§26). We must wait until paragraph 153 and following to see a more exact description, and until paragraph 1814 to have the definition of it. Indignation, not only because of the manner in which God is treated, but because of the lot reserved to His Church. There is the mortal sin of this Catechism, which makes its own and puts into a structured form the sins of the Second Vatican Council: doctrinal ecumenism, religious liberalism, collegiality, and promotion of the common priesthood of the faithful to the detriment of the ministerial priesthood of priests (§§874-933), the disappearing of the propitiatory finality of the Mass (§§1356-1381), the judaizing of the Church (among other things, compare the subtle slide from the Jewish Passover to the Sacrifice of the Cross [§§1363-64]; the memorial seems to be the same). We are beginning to ask ourselves what separates us from the Jews (§839) since we both await the same thing (§840), and since nearly all that is Catholic comes from the Jews (even the Our Father. §1096). We must even place ourselves in their school to be good Catholics (ibid.). We are more culpable than they for the death of Our Lord (§598: the Church does not hesitate to impute to the Christians the gravest responsibility for the suffering of Jesus), and above all, do not seek to know if our first martyrs were massacred by the Jews. The Protestant and like sects are ordinary means of salvation (§819). As far as the Orthodox are concerned, one could ask oneself truly if there is any problem (§839). The Moslems believe in God the Creator (and therefore the Trinity?) and even, without doubt, in Jesus Christ since they have the faith of Abraham (§841). With all of that, what above all constitutes the unity of the Church? You might think perhaps that it is the Faith? Certainly not!  It is charity! It is also faith, but in second place (§815). The Faith, even if it is affirmed as necessary for salvation (§161), is no longer considered as the beginning of salvation. It is no longer the point of departure for justification, and thus the fundamental bond of the Church. What a contrast with the magnificent decree of the Council of Trent concerning justification, so clear and precise! The Catechism teaches that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church, which is not the sole church of Christ, but only one of its manifestations (§816). Thus it can affirm that "outside the Church (understood as the church of Christ, and not the Catholic Church) there is no salvation". As for the State, in these conditions, it is clear that it must not favor any religion whatever (§§2107, 2244 ff.), especially our own, which should not pretend to be the only true one, mistress of truth. We can keep all our dogmas —and the essential is preserved except where the Church is concerned —but on condition that we admit and respect all the "elements of sanctification and of truth" contained in the other religions. Some other questions merit a mention: the ends of marriage are inverted (§1601 and §2201), the regulation of births seems conformed to this inversion, since it suffices for "just reasons" (which?) to legitimize it; the human conscience is the first of all the vicars of Christ (§1178); charity is always expressed by respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience (§1789); the human person is the principle, the subject and the end of all the social order (§§1881, 1907, 1929, and 1930); respect for his dignity and his rights is the fundamental norm which rules the entire social order, and is expressed in the ten commandments (see for example abortion, §§2270-2273).

Finally, admiration before the cleverness of the editors, specialists of the modernist method. This work is very well done, and the method is skillful and cunning. Such is the great dishonesty of this work; there are indeed very beautiful reminders that one is happy to read, but the intellectual method is false and perverts all that the Catechism contains of good. St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici gregis, September 8, 1907: ...to understand them, to read them, one would be tempted to believe that they fall into contradiction with themselves...far from that; all is weighed, all is willed. One page of their work might have been written by a Catholic; turn the page, you think that you are reading a rationalist.

What is the point of departure of these reflections? Man, still more man, and always man. There where one awaits God one finds man. For example: the title of the first chapter consecrated to the faith (Man is Capable of God); the title of the first chapter consecrated to morality (The Dignity of the Human Person). Equally, there is this other specialty of modernist thought: "to understand them, to read them, one would be tempted to believe that they fall into contradiction with themselves...far from that; all is weighed, all is willed. One page of their work might have been written by a Catholic; turn the page, you think that you are reading a rationalist." 89 For example, there is paragraph 1698: the first and last reference of this catechesis shall be Jesus Christ. On the following page, the first question is: the dignity of the human person. Another example is paragraph 2105: the Church manifests thus the royalty of Christ over all creation and particularly over human societies. Turn the page and there is paragraph 2108: the natural right to civil liberty in religious matters.

Ultimum in executione, primum in intentione "...a Church for man..."

This Catechism illustrates the justice of this adage of St. Thomas: Ultimum in executione, primum in intentione —That which is first in the order of intention is last in the order of execution. It comes at the last, but it reveals to us the intention of the reformers who have been at work in the Church for the past thirty years (an intention laid bare and denounced since the Council by Archbishop Lefebvre): to make, beyond a conciliar Church which no one can define, a new Catholic Church where the word universal signifies collegial, world-wide and cosmic, a Church for man, for all humanity justified by the incarnation of the divine Word. To this Church of the New Age of man, all men belong, whatever their religion, if they are faithful to their conscience and respectful of the conscience of others. The role of religion, in this liberal and cosmic Church, is not to transmit a truth of which it is the depository, but to give to men, in agreement with the other religions, a minimum ethic which permits each one to live happily and peacefully with his neighbor. What is this minimum? Recognition and respect for the dignity and rights of the human person. This Catechism is the conclusion, the achievement, and the synthesis of thirty years of conciliar upheaval. It’s hour has come, as for Napoleon, to put an end to excesses —which strengthen its conservative side —and to structure in a coherent and ordered fashion the work of the Revolution. Thus, it puts within the reach of all, as a summa theologica, all that remained inaccessible to the ordinary layman, all that was diffused, confused, and dispersed in a multitude of texts, discourses, and actions. It gives to all these errors legal and obligatory force. No one can not know any longer the conciliar law. A remark: scrutinize the list of references. Amongst all the popes cited by the Catechism, for the twentieth century, only three are lacking: John Paul I (that is easily explained), Benedict XV (that is still plausible), and finally St. Pius X. This last, along with St. Pius V (who is mentioned once by Pope John Paul II in the Apostolic Constitution), is never cited. Without doubt, he had nothing to teach us concerning the catechism, doctrine, the Mass, the Eucharist, or the priesthood?  Unless he had too much to teach us concerning modernism?

Bonum ex integra causa... Good only exists if the thing is entirely good...

Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu —Good only exists if the thing is entirely good, evil where there is one sole fault, the scholastic adage rightly teaches us. This is even more true, one might say, in matters of faith. See what St. Thomas says:  faith no longer remains in a man after he refuses one sole article of faith (Summa Theologica IIa IIae, Q. 5, A. 3); he who refuses with pertinacity to believe one of the points contained in the faith does not have the habitus of faith, while he possesses it who does not believe all explicitly, but is disposed to believe all (Summa Theologica IIa IIae, Q. 5, A. 4, ad 1); an infused habitus is lost by one sole contrary act (de Veritate, Q. 14, A. 10, ad 10). Just as the Virgin Mary would not be immaculate if she had the lightest blemish, so the Catechism is not Catholic if the faith that it teaches is not whole, total, and clearly explained. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is therefore not Catholic.  It expresses the conciliar ecstasy before the splendor of man, and can only seduce the poor Christians severed for the past thirty years from all serious doctrinal formation. It is a symphony too discordant not to grate on the Catholic faith; it is the symphony of the new world, for the New Age of man in the third millennium. The ancient or recent heresies have all been subtly danced around with such ambiguity so as to teach a new, more subtle one, and which one day shall be formally condemned as heresy; this new error bears upon the relations between the natural and supernatural order, which are theoretically distinguished but practically confused. It places in man a need for happiness in place of recognizing in him a natural desire for happiness. It confuses, moreover, this desire-need for happiness with the search for God or Jesus Christ. Its argument can be reduced to the following line of reasoning: God wants all men to be saved; now, God is good and powerful enough to save all men; therefore, he has placed in each one the need for happiness. This passage taken from the Catechism is, in some way, its self-portrait, at the same time that it depicts perfectly the baleful and mortal imposture which has invaded the Church since Vatican II: Before the coming of Christ, the Church must pass through a final trial which will shake the faith of numerous believers.90  The persecution which accompanies its pilgrimage upon earth91 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity," under the form of a religious imposture offering to men an apparent solution to their problems, at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious imposture is that of the Antichrist, that is to say, that of a pseudo-messianism where man glorifies himself in the place of God, and of His Messiah come in the flesh92 (§675). The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a non-Catholic Catechism, that of "a religion more universal than the Catholic Church, reuniting all men finally become brethren and comrades in ‘the Kingdom of God.’ One does not work for the Church, one works for humanity." 93

The New Catechism: Is it Catholic?