This is really the only way to describe the flood of paganism that has been let loose inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River at this time of apostasy and betrayal.
This observation comes with an emphatic qualification: NONE OF THIS IS NEWS!
Apart from the fatigue associated with a low level of sodium in my blood and hyperhocysteinemia that makes it impossible to stay up more than two nights in a row to complete articles on an overnight basis, one of the reasons that I no longer race to post articles is that I have written on every subject imaginable for years now. Although my short-term memory on some matters is not as good as it used to be, the long-term memory is still pretty good, and it is thus with a look of frustration that I look at some of the histrionic reactions to all that is unfolding in and around the Aula Paulo Sick and the Casa Bergoglio with a strong temptation to do what a displaced and never-to-return New Yorker does in the face of madness: talk to the computer screen and shout “NONE OF THIS IS NEWS!” (If you doubt that New Yorkers are not prone to such fits of instant reactions to events around them, take a look at how a one hundred year-old New Yorker, Adeline Russo, yells at the television while watching telecasts of the New York Mets, something that many of us did over the years that we watched such telecasts which I had not seen in twelve years now. See Mets fan, 100, born 43 years before team arrived on scene. Actually, Adeline Russo was born forty-six years before the first Met, catcher Hobart Landrith, was picked in the expansion draft at the Warwick-Sheraton Hotel in Cincinnati, Ohio, on October 10, 1961, the Feast of Saint Francis Borgia and my late father's forty-second birthday.)
The next few installmens in this series will examine a few examples from the ongoing Circus Jorge of my wanting to scream: NONE OF THIS IS NEWS!
What the ringmaster at Circus Jorge calls "synodality" will be the first of these examples.
To wit, much is being made of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s call for “synodality” as means of furthering the conciliar revolution by means of a devolution of authority from the conciliar-occupied Vatican to the conciliar-occupied chancery offices, thus exacting his own revenge for what he believed were the “stifling” days of centralized Vatican control between the “election” of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II on Monday, October 16, 1978, and Thursday, February 28, 2013, the date on which the “resignation” of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI became effective. Those who want to read a favorable account of such “synodality” can do so by accessing the following article at America magazine online:
Here is but a brief excerpt from that article:
Speaking with passion, he nsisted that “church and synod are synonyms” because the church is nothing other than “the walking together” of God’s flock on the paths of history to that meeting with Christ the Lord. He recalled that Jesus established the church with the apostolic college at the top, in which (college) the apostle Peter is "the rock," which must confirm the brothers in the faith. He again reminded the bishops that those who exercise authority in the church are called “to serve” the people of God; and said the pope is “the servant of the servants of God.” Today as yesterday, “the only authority is the authority of service.”
Pope Francis told the assembly that “in a synodal church” the synod of bishops “is only the most evident manifestation of a dynamic of communion that inspires all ecclesial decisions.”
He identified three levels of the exercise of synodality in the church. The first is found at the level of the local churches, starting with the diocesan synod and including the other “organisms of communion”—the council of priests, the college of consultors, the chapter of canons and the pastoral council. He asserted that a synodal church can only become a reality if all these organisms remain connected with the grassroots; that is, with the people and their problems. He called for a “re-valuing” of these bodies “as an occasion for listening and sharing.”
Pointing to “the second level” of the exercise of synodality, Francis explained that this exists in the ecclesiastical provinces and regions, as well as in the particular councils, and “in a very special way” in bishops’ conferences. He underlined the need to reflect on how this synodality can be realized even more, through these “intermediate instances of collegiality.” He recalled that the Second Vatican Council had hoped that these organisms “could contribute to the growth of the spirit of episcopal collegiality,” but that hope “has not yet been full realized.” Indeed,“we’re only half way on the journey.”
Then in a clear reference to the bishops’ conferences, Francis told them that “in a synodal church it is not opportune that the pope replaces the local episcopates in the discernment of all the problems that present themselves in their territories.” For this reason, he said, “I feel the need to proceed in a healthy ‘decentralization.’” He had already stated this in his programmatic document “The Joy of the Gospel” (N.16 and 32), and today he declared categorically that he intends to move ahead with such decentralization.
Francis then came to what he called “the last level” in the exercise of synodality. This exists at the level of the universal church; here, the synod of bishops, representing the Catholic episcopate, becomes the expression of episcopal collegiality within one church that is entirely synodal.
Then, in another significant statement, Pope Francis told the assembly: “I am convinced that, in a synodal church, the exercise of the Petrine ministry can become clearer (receive more light). The pope is not, alone, above the church; but within it as one baptized among the baptized, and within the episcopal college as a bishop among bishops, called at the same time—as successor of the apostle Peter—to guide the church of Rome that presides in love over all the churches.”
That Francis has affirmed all this on the eve of the conclusion of the Synod on the Family is particularly significant not only for the internal life of the Catholic Church, and the follow up to the synod, but also for her relations with the other Christian churches and communities—beginning with the Orthodox Church, and her witness in the world.
When he finished speaking, the audience, that included some 300 cardinals and bishops, gave Pope Francis a standing ovation. (Bergoglio Reminds the Synod that He Has the Last Word.)
THIS IS NOT NEWS.
Here is what I wrote just last week in Circus Jorge, part two:
Moreover, it is none other than the man to whom Stanislaw Gadecki does obeisance as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, agrees with everything that Reinhard Marx believes on every issue, up to and including the decentralization of “doctrinal” decision-making away from the supposedly “rigid” conciliar Congregation for the Destruction and Deformation of the Faith. Bergoglio has in fact said this a number of times in his capacity as “Petrine Minister” Francis, something that he made clear in no uncertain terms in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013:
32. Since I am called to put into practice what I ask of others, I too must think about a conversion of the papacy. It is my duty, as the Bishop of Rome, to be open to suggestions which can help make the exercise of my ministry more faithful to the meaning which Jesus Christ wished to give it and to the present needs of evangelization. Pope John Paul II asked for help in finding “a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation”. We have made little progress in this regard. The papacy and the central structures of the universal Church also need to hear the call to pastoral conversion. The Second Vatican Council stated that, like the ancient patriarchal Churches, episcopal conferences are in a position “to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegial spirit”. Yet this desire has not been fully realized, since a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated. Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach.
33. Pastoral ministry in a missionary key seeks to abandon the complacent attitude that says: “We have always done it this way”. I invite everyone to be bold and creative in this task of rethinking the goals, structures, style and methods of evangelization in their respective communities. A proposal of goals without an adequate communal search for the means of achieving them will inevitably prove illusory. I encourage everyone to apply the guidelines found in this document generously and courageously, without inhibitions or fear. The important thing is to not walk alone, but to rely on each other as brothers and sisters, and especially under the leadership of the bishops, in a wise and realistic pastoral discernment. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)
Bergoglio's desire to shift decision-making powers even on doctrinal matters to the level of the national "episcopal" conferences is the realization of the goals of his fellow revolutionaries and makes prophets out of them for daring to assert what I was taught by a conciliar presbyter when riding from Emmaus, Pennsylvania, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's liturgical extravaganza at Logan Circle there on Thursday, October 4, 1979, the Feast of Saint Francis of Assisi, as he envisioned a day where "Rome was nothing more than a clearinghouse for the ideas and liturgies developed at the local level." While such has been the case on a de facto basis for a long time now, Bergoglio used Evangelii Gaudium to put his "official" seal of approval on that which about which he has discoursed for decades. After having felt what he believed to have been the "stinging wrath" of "Rome" during his time as conciliar "archbishop" of Buenos Aires, Argentina from 1998 to 2013, Bergoglio desires to institutionalize this devolution of power on a de jure (a matter of law) basis. Stanislaw Gadecki is thus opposing not only Reinhard Marx. He is opposing “Pope Francis” himself as Commissar Marx and Jorge are of one mind on everything.
Contrary to what some semi-traditional Catholics in the resist while recognize movement contend, the papacy is a monarchy as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter is the Vicar of The Monarch Himself, Christ the King, on earth, which is why true popes have been crowned with tiaras, and it is why the revolutionary antipopes of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have divested themselves of such vestiges of “authoritarianism” as they have been and continue to be champions of a false, Protestant spirit of egalitarianism that is from the devil himself.
Here is an account of how Pope Saint Pius X dealt with a heretical bishop from one of the chief nests of Modernism, France, also home of the Gallican heresy that was denounced by Pope Pius VI I Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, the Feast of Saint Augustine of Hippo, that is the foundation of the false resist while recognize position, who was a supporter of The Sillon even after its falsehoods had been condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
As Pope, St. Pius X had to correct and reprimand several bishops and priests who had fallen into heresy or were flirting dangerously close to that edge. Some of the French prelates who supported the Sillon (a precursor to modern Liberation Theology) were particularly problematic. One bishop who had been reprimanded continued to act against the Catholic Faith. Pope Pius X called him to Rome. When the bishop entered he made the customary genuflection before the Pope and waited to be acknowledged so he could rise. Pope Pius X remained busy at his desk ignoring the bishop for three quarters of an hour. This was a small penance which the saintly pontiff was imposing. At last, Pope Pius raised his eyes and looked the bishop directly in the eyes, holding his gaze steady and stern. Without a word he rose and walked over to the kneeling figure. Then he greeted him: “Good morning, your Excellency.” Before the Bishop could arise, Pope Pius X swiftly removed the zucchetto from the Bishop’s head and placed it on the edge of his desk. He then dismissed him, “Have a good day, Father.” And that was the end of the meeting. No more words had to be spoken. This great pope had sent a very clear warning shot across the bow of the Bark of Peter letting all know what the fate would be of those bishops, successors to Judas, who refused to resist and denounce heresy. (How St. Pius X handled a heretical Bishop. Two other such stories may be found at Saint Vincent Ferrer Foundation.)
1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence , which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd .
4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due." 
6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon . And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Pope Pius IX, Pastor Aeternus, Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.)
This condemns the "Roman Protestants," if you will, of the "resist while recognize movement" while at the same time condemning the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his precessors, including "Saint John Paul II" and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who have sought "new ways" in which the "Petrine Ministry" can be exercised to the satisfaction of Protestants and the Orthodox, "new ways" that are leading Jorge Mario Bergoglio to mandate an "official" "papal" devolution of almost all dogmatic, liturgical, moral and pastoral decision-making to the local diocesan offices, thereby universalizing a devolution that began with the liturgy as expressed in Sacrosanctum Concilium, December 4, 1963, the Feast of Saint Peter Chrysologus and the Commemoration of Saint Barbara:
22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, December 4, 1963.)
Bergoglio is simply making universal what his false religious sect began at the “Second” Vatican Council as he makes t eminently clear that the Jacobin/Bolshevik (or “Bologna School”) of interpreting the conciliar revolutionary is an irreversible fact of life, something that the Girondist/Menshevik conciliar revolutionaries are just going to have to accept,
There can be, however, no such thing as "pope sifting" or "council sifting," whether it is done by the conciliar "popes" under one aegis or another (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's "living tradition" or Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity") or by those in the "resist while recognize movement."
II. Goodbye, Saint John the Baptist, Goodbye, English and Irish Martyrs
As been much discussed even since Walter “Cardinal” Kasper was invited by the Argentine Apostate to make a presentation in behalf of administering what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service to Catholics who are divorced and civilly “remarried” without a conciliar decree of nullity to the consistory of “cardinals” on February 21, 2014, some of the Girondist/Menshevik revolutionaries have attempted to draw that proverbial “this will not stand” line in the sand to “defend” an already corrupted and undermined Catholic doctrine on the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
One of those who have done so is the protégé of the retired German “New Theologian,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Gerhard Ludwig Muller, the current prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Destruction and Deformation of the Faith. Muller, a heretic whose writings deny the doctrines of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Transubstantiation, and the very Resurrection of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, has felt the “papal” heat since putting his name to the now infamous letter that had been sent to Jorge by thirteen conciliar “cardinals” to protest the procedures of “Synod ‘15” which they believed leading to a predetermined outcome (gee, do ya think?).
Thanks to the work of those at Novus Ordo Watch Wire, we have an English translation of what Muller said to a German language magazine, Focus, about the possibility of administering what purports to be Holy Communion to Catholics who are divorced and civilly “remarried” without a conciliar degree of marital nullity:
Curial cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller does not rule out admitting remarried divorcees to Communion “in extreme individual cases”, according to media reports. Although a general admittance to Communion for such members of the faithful could not be granted, in specific cases there could be “an admittance in the realm of conscience”, the leader of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said in a conversation with “Focus” magazine. This was also the view of John Paul II’s 1981 document “Familiaris consortio” (n. 84), according to Muller. “It is possible to think further in this direction”, the German cardinal said. In any case one would have to proceed in accordance with “theologically justifiable perspectives”.
As prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Muller is participating in the world synod of bishops currently in session. He is part of the German language group, in which are represented nearly all synod participants from Germany and Austria, among them Cardinals Walter Kasper, Reinhard Marx, and Christoph Schönborn.
(“Kardinal Müller: Kommunion für Wiederverheiratete im Einzelfall denkbar”, Radio Vatikan, Oct. 18, 2015; translation: Novus Ordo Watch. Found at: Gerhard Muller on Communion to Unrepentant, Publicly Scandalous Adulterers.)
This must mean but one thing—and yes, it is speculation on my part. However, I believe that speculation is well-founded.
Given the fact that Gerhard Ludwig Muller is a protégé of the man, Ratzinger/Benedict, who appointed him to be the prefect of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” in 2012 to succeed the drunkard who also had difficulty with the doctrine of Transubstatiation, William Levada, and that he, Muller, is the editor of the retired antipope’s collected works of apostasy, I believe that Muller’s interview with Focus, which was reported on the German language page of Vatican Radio, means that Ratzinger/Benedict is himself signaling that is all right to go along with a “limited” administration of the Novus Ordo unconsecrated host in certain “extraordinary cases.”
Although Ratzinger/Benedict XVI indicated last year that he no longer held to the conclusion of an article he wrote in 1972 on this matter, the master of contradiction and paradox has always been able to hold a variety of contradictory judgments at the same time, eschewing the “crystal clear logic of Saint Thomas Aquinas as he does.
In truth, though, Ratzinger has been pretty consistent on the issue of divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics, including what he wrote in 1972 as Father Joseph Ratzinger and what he wrote in 1994 as Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger in his own capacity as Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s prefect of the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
In like manner, those who want to live in a Manichean world have convinced themselves that a man who has long lived in a world of paradox and contradiction born of his rejection of Scholasticism in favor of Modernism’s precept of the “evolution of dogma,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, is a “defender” of the absolute indissolubility of a valid, ratified and consummated marriage. He is, of course, no such thing.
Ever the Hegelian, the then Father Joseph Ratzinger wrote a now-infamous article in 1972 that was mentioned favorably by Walter “Cardinal” Kasper in the address that he gave to the conciliar conclave of “cardinals” on Friday, February 21, 2014:
One notification was given to us by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith in 1994 when it established - and Pope Benedict XVI reiterated this during the world meeting of families in Milan in 2012 - that the divorce and remarried cannot receive sacramental communion but can receive spiritual communion. [. . .]
Many will be grateful for this response, which is an instance of true openness. But it also brings up a number of questions. In fact, someone who receives spiritual communion is one with Jesus Christ. [. . .] Why, then, can he not also receive sacramental communion? [. . .] Some maintain that non-participation in communion is itself a sign of the sanctity of the sacrament. The question that is posed in response is: is it not perhaps an exploitation of the person who is suffering and asking for help if we make him a sign and a warning for others? Are we going to let him die of hunger sacramentally in order that others may live?
The early Church gives us an indication that can serve as a means of escape from the dilemma, to which Professor Joseph Ratzinger referred in 1972. [. . .] In the individual local Churches there existed the customary law on the basis of which Christians who, although their first partner was still alive, were living in a second relationship, after a time of penance had available [. . .] not a second marriage, but rather through participation in communion a table of salvation. [. . .] (Kasper Uses Ratzinger Against Benedict.)
Heretics can be very clever. Walter Kasper was attempting to use an article written by Father Joseph Ratzinger in 1972 against the work of Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger in 1994 and “Pope” Benedict XVI in 2012.
Ratzinger, however, is unfazed by little things such as intellectual consistency as his “hermeneutic of continuity” can be employed to justify whatever apparent contradictions in his work just as he has used this hermeneutic to dispense with “past” teachings that he believes have become “obsolete” in their “particulars.”
In this instance, though, there is little “inconsistency” in the thought of Ratzinger/Benedict, such as it may be, as he, acting as “Cardinal” Ratzinger, issued a “clarification” on January 1, 1998, in response to his September 14, 1994, “notification” on the inadmissibility of divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics for the reception of what purports to be “Holy Communion” in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. The 1998 “clarification” contained “true elements,” which was republished in L’Osservatore Romano on November 30, 2011, borrowed heavily from a 1972 article of his that was published in 2014, albeit with an entirely different conclusion than the one he had been offered originally, in a book of his collected works that is under the editorial supervision of that other great “defender” of the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage, the aforementioned heretic named Gerhard Ludwig Muller (see the post from 2014 on this matter as found at Novus Ordo Watch Wire).
What contnues to miss the eye of Vaticanologists, however, is that the 1998 “clarification” of the 1994 “notification” was revolutionary in its own right as it both defended the ban of the divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics from the sacraments and undermined that ban at the very same time. It was, in other words, pure, unadulterated Ratzinger.
Two excerpts from the January 1, 1998, “clarification” will be provided below.
The first excerpt demonstrates Ratzinger’s pride in boasting of the overthrow of the primary end of marriage, the propagation and education of children, in favor of the personalist view of marriage that had been condemned by the Holy Office in 1944 and would serve as the basis of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick’s Humane Vitae’s endorsement of “natural family planning” as a means to engage in “responsible parenthood” (see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae):
Some theologians claim that at the new magisterial documents having to do with questions of marriage are based on a naturalistic, legalistic concept of marriage. Attention is given to the contract between the spouses and to the ius in corpus. It is claimed that the Council overturned this static understanding and described marriage in a more personalistic way as a covenant of love and life. Thus it would have opened up possibilities for resolving difficult situations more humanely. Thinking further along this line, some scholars pose the question of whether or not one could speak of the death of the marriage, if the personal bond of love between the spouses no longer exists. Others resurrect the old question of whether or not the Pope would have the capability of dissolving marriage in such cases.
Yet anyone who attentively reads the more recent statements of the Church will note that their central assertions are based on Gaudium et spes and that they further develop the teaching contained therein in a thoroughly personalist line, in the direction indicated by the Council. However, it is inappropriate to set up a contradiction between the personalist and juridical views of marriage. The Council did not break with the traditional concept of marriage, but on the contrary developed it further. When, for example, it is continually pointed out that the Council substituted the broader and theologically more profound concept of covenant for the strictly legal concept of contract, one must not forget that within covenant, the element of contract is also contained and indeed placed within a broader perspective. The fact that marriage reaches well beyond the purely juridical realm into the depths of humanity and into the mystery of the divine, has always been indicated by the word “sacrament,” although often it has not been pondered with the same clarity which the Council gave to these aspects. Law is not everything, but it is an indispensable part, one dimension of the whole. Marriage without a juridical dimension which integrates it into the whole fabric of society and the Church simply does not exist. If the post-Conciliar revision of canon law included the realm of marriage, this is not a betrayal of the Council, but the implementation of its mandate.
If the Church were to accept the theory that a marriage is dead when the two spouses no longer love one another, then she would thereby sanction divorce and would uphold the indissolubility of marriage only in word, and no longer in fact. Therefore, the opinion that the Pope could potentially dissolve a consummated sacramental marriage, which has been irrevocably broken, must be considered erroneous. Such a marriage cannot be dissolved by anyone. At their wedding, the spouses promise to be faithful to each other until death. (Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried Catholics.)
Personalism, however, directly leads to the undermining of marriage as it is premised first of all on the spouses and not on the honor and glory of God by bringing forth as many (or as few) children as He chooses them to have, and it was condemned by Pope Pius XII in a decree issued by the Holy Office on April 1, 1944:
Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.
In these works, different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.
In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.
This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Eminent and Very Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of faith and morals, in a plenary session on Wednesday, the 29th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them: “Whether the opinion of certain writers can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation of children and raising offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative. (As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma–referred to as “Denziger,” by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, No. 2295, pp. 624-625.)
Pope Pius XII amplified this condemnation when he delivered his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of their Profession, October 29, 1951:
"Personal values" and the need to respect such are a theme which, over the last twenty years or so, has been considered more and more by writers. In many of their works, even the specifically sexual act has its place assigned, that of serving the "person" of the married couple. The proper and most profound sense of the exercise of conjugal rights would consist in this, that the union of bodies is the expression and the realization of personal and affective union.
Articles, chapters, entire books, conferences, especially dealing with the "technique" of love, are composed to spread these ideas, to illustrate them with advice to the newly married as a guide in matrimony, in order that they may not neglect, through stupidity or a false sense of shame or unfounded scruples, that which God, Who also created natural inclinations, offers them. If from their complete reciprocal gift of husband and wife there results a new life, it is a result which remains outside, or, at the most, on the border of "personal values"; a result which is not denied, but neither is it desired as the center of marital relations.
According to these theories, your dedication for the welfare of the still hidden life in the womb of the mother, and your assisting its happy birth, would only have but a minor and secondary importance.
Now, if this relative evaluation were merely to place the emphasis on the personal values of husband and wife rather than on that of the offspring, it would be possible, strictly speaking, to put such a problem aside. But, however, it is a matter of a grave inversion of the order of values and of the ends imposed by the Creator Himself. We find Ourselves faced with the propagation of a number of ideas and sentiments directly opposed to the clarity, profundity, and seriousness of Christian thought. Here, once again, the need for your apostolate. It may happen that you receive the confidences of the mother and wife and are questioned on the more secret desires and intimacies of married life. How, then, will you be able, aware of your mission, to give weight to truth and right order in the appreciation and action of the married couple, if you yourselves are not furnished with the strength of character needed to uphold what you know to be true and just?
The primary end of marriage
Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.
It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.
Would this lead, perhaps, to Our denying or diminishing what is good and just in personal values resulting from matrimony and its realization? Certainly not, because the Creator has designed that for the procreation of a new life human beings made of flesh and blood, gifted with soul and heart, shall be called upon as men and not as animals deprived of reason to be the authors of their posterity. It is for this end that the Lord desires the union of husband and wife. Indeed, the Holy Scripture says of God that He created man to His image and He created him male and female, and willed—as is repeatedly affirmed in Holy Writ—that "a man shall leave mother and father, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh".
All this is therefore true and desired by God. But, on the other hand, it must not be divorced completely from the primary function of matrimony—the procreation of offspring. Not only the common work of external life, but even all personal enrichment—spiritual and intellectual—all that in married love as such is most spiritual and profound, has been placed by the will of the Creator and of nature at the service of posterity. The perfect married life, of its very nature, also signifies the total devotion of parents to the well-being of their children, and married love in its power and tenderness is itself a condition of the sincerest care of the offspring and the guarantee of its realization.
To reduce the common life of husband and wife and the conjugal act to a mere organic function for the transmission of seed would be but to convert the domestic hearth, the family sanctuary, into a biological laboratory. Therefore, in Our allocution of September 29, 1949, to the International Congress of Catholic Doctors, We expressly excluded artificial insemination in marriage. The conjugal act, in its natural structure, is a personal action, a simultaneous and immediate cooperation of husband and wife, which by the very nature of the agents and the propriety of the act, is the expression of the reciprocal gift, which, according to Holy Writ, effects the union "in one flesh".
That is much more than the union of two genes, which can be effected even by artificial means, that is, without the natural action of husband and wife. The conjugal act, ordained and desired by nature, is a personal cooperation, to which husband and wife, when contracting marriage, exchange the right.
Therefore, when this act in its natural form is from the beginning perpetually impossible, the object of the matrimonial contract is essentially vitiated. This is what we said on that occasion: "Let it not be forgotten: only the procreation of a new life according to the will and the design of the Creator carries with it in a stupendous degree of perfection the intended ends. It is at the same time in conformity with the spiritual and bodily nature and the dignity of the married couple, in conformity with the happy and normal development of the child".
Advise the fiancée or the young married woman who comes to seek your advice about the values of matrimonial life that these personal values, both in the sphere of the body and the senses and in the sphere of the spirit, are truly genuine, but that the Creator has placed them not in the first, but in the second degree of the scale of values. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)
This was a ringing condemnation of the very philosophical and theological foundations of the indiscriminate, institutionalized teaching and practice of "natural family planning" in the lives of Catholic married couples. It is also yet another papal condemnation of conciliarism's view of marriage.
One cannot overemphasize the importance of Pope Pius XII's condemnation of the very personalist ideology that is at the root of what is called today "natural family planning" as it came just a little over seven years and one-half years after the Holy Office's condemnation of the work, which was identical to that of Dietrich von Hildebrand's, of Father Herbert Doms, who had inverted the end of marriage. The condemnation of Father Doms' work was alluded to in a passage from the October 29, 1951, address just cited above. Here it is once again for the sake of emphasis:
It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)
Yet is that Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger boasted in his “clarification” on January 1, 1998, that his September 14, 1994, “notification” did not reverse the “Second” Vatican Council’s commitment to “personalism,” which he endorsed very enthusiastically. Pope Pius XII’s condemnation of the personalist view of marriage, which he wrote himself, was one of those things that could be dispensed with by means of the “hermeneutic of continuity,” of course. And it is this “personalist” view of marriage that has led to the triumph of the naturalist sentimentality of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Reinhard Marx, Rene Cupich, Vincent Nichols, Walter Kasper, Bruno Forte, Lorenzo Baldiserri, Sean O’Malley, et al.
Importantly, though, Ratzinger noted on January 1, 1998, that the definition of what constituted a true indissoluble marriage was “open” to further study and clarification, meaning that the grounds for obtaining a conciliar decree of nullity could be expanded and the process streamlined. There is thus no inconsistency whatsoever between the revision that Ratzinger made in the conclusion of his 1972 article on the subject and what he had written in 1998:
a. Epikeia and aequitas canonica exist in the sphere of human and purely ecclesiastical norms of great significance, but cannot be applied to those norms over which the Church has no discretionary authority. The indissoluble nature of marriage is one of these norms which goes back to Christ Himself and is thus identified as a norm of divine law. The Church cannot sanction pastoral practices - for example, sacramental pastoral practices - which contradict the clear instruction of the Lord.
In other words, if the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.
b. However the Church has the authority to clarify those conditions which must be fulfilled for a marriage to be considered indissoluble according to the sense of Jesus' teaching. In line with the Pauline assertion in 1 Cor. 7, she established that only two baptized Christians can enter into a sacramental marriage. She developed the legal concept of the Pauline privilege and the Petrine privilege. With reference to the porneia clauses in Matthew and in Acts 15:20, the impediments to marriage were established. Furthermore, grounds for the nullity of marriage were identified with ever greater clarity, and the procedural system was developed in greater detail. All of this contributed to delineating and articulating more precisely the concept of the indissolubility of marriage. One can say that, in this way, the Western Church also made allowance for the principle of oikonomia, but without touching the indissolubility of marriage as such. The further juridical development of the 1983 Code of Canon Law was in this same direction, granting probative force to the declarations of the parties. Therefore, according to experts in this area, it seems that cases in which an invalid marriage cannot be shown to be such by the procedural are practically excluded.
Since marriage has a fundamental public ecclesial character and the axiom applies that nemo iudex in propria causa (no one is judge in his own case), marital cases must be resolved in the external forum. If divorced and remarried members of the faithful believe that their prior marriage was invalid, they are thereby obligated to appeal to the competent marriage tribunal so that the question will be examined objectively and under all available juridical possibilities.
c. Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset. This is implied in the 1994 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it was stated that new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process (cf. No. 9). Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions. (Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried Catholics.)
The gist of this Ratzingerspeak can be translated as follows: Ratzinger was applying his “hermeneutic of continuity” to the “discovery” of new grounds for conciliar marriage tribunals to issue decrees of nullity, stating that what has been happening in recent years is simply part of a process of “clarification” that has been ongoing through the history of the Catholic Church. If this is so, one wonders if Jorge Mario Bergoglio is going to issue a posthumous decree of nullity to King Henry VIII to “clarify” Pope Urban VII’s firm defense of the validity of the lecherous monarch’s marriage to his devoted wife, Catherine of Aragon, who forgave her husband everything in a letter she wrote to him shortly before her death:
My most dear lord, King and husband,
The hour of my death now drawing on, the tender love I owe you forceth me, my case being such, to commend myself to you, and to put you in remembrance with a few words of the health and safeguard of your soul which you ought to prefer before all worldly matters, and before the care and pampering of your body, for the which you have cast me into many calamities and yourself into many troubles. For my part, I pardon you everything, and I wish to devoutly pray God that He will pardon you also. For the rest, I commend unto you our daughter Mary, beseeching you to be a good father unto her, as I have heretofore desired. I entreat you also, on behalf of my maids, to give them marriage portions, which is not much, they being but three. For all my other servants I solicit the wages due them, and a year more, lest they be unprovided for. Lastly, I make this vow, that mine eyes desire you above all things.
Katharine the Queen (January 7, 1536.) (Letter of Katharine of Aragon to her husband)
Catherine of Aragon did not seek to get “remarried” as her husband had done away with her in favor of his mistress, Anne Boleyn. Catherine of Aragon offered up her suffering for the salvation of the soul of her faithless husband, a concept that is foreign to men such as Ratzinger, the supposed “defender of marriage,” and Bergoglio, the supposed “revolutionary” who is attacking it. The former is just as much a revolutionary as the latter by embracing a personalist view of marriage that was condemned by Pope Pius XII and by stating that “clarifications” can find newer grounds and “reformed” legal processes to help couples while not, significantly, ruling out the use of the “internal forum” solution in some cases.
Indeed, Vaticanologist Sandro Magister reported on the publication of the 1998 article in L’Osservatore Romano on November 30, 2011, to this very same effect:
ROME, December 5, 2011 – During Benedict XVI's recent visit to Germany, many were expecting "openness" from the pope to divorced and remarried Catholics: with the attenuation, if not the revocation, of the ban on receiving communion.
This expectation was expressed by the president of the German federal republic himself, Christian Wulff, Catholic and remarried, in the official welcome he extended to the pope at his arrival in Berlin.
Neither during the four days of his voyage to Germany, however, nor afterward, did pope Joseph Ratzinger say anything on this issue.
But it is well known that this question is very close to his heart. He has spoken of it repeatedly in the past, and has said that "the problem is very difficult and must be explored further."
Last November 30, Benedict XVI returned to the issue in indirect form: with the republication in "L'Osservatore Romano" of a "little-known" essay of his from 1998, supplemented with a footnote presenting his remark on this issue to the clergy of the diocese of Aosta on July 25, 2005.
An important footnote, because it concerns precisely one of the points on which Benedict XVI maintains that an exception could be opened in the general ban on communion. (No Communion for Outlaws. But Benedict Is Studying Two Exceptions.)
In the third part of his essay, Pope Benedict replies to those who demand that the Catholic Church respect the choice of the divorced and remarried when "in conscience" they believe it just to receive communion, in contrast with the juridical norm that bans it.
Benedict XVI begins with a consideration that seems to close any sort of loophole:
"If the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception." A norm, the indissolubility of marriage, that is of "divine law" and "over which the Church has no discretionary authority."
But immediately afterward, he adds:
"However, the Church has the authority to clarify those conditions which must be fulfilled for a marriage to be considered indissoluble according to the sense of Jesus' teaching."
And, he writes, the ecclesiastical tribunals that should ascertain whether or not a marriage is valid do not always function well. Sometimes the processes "last an excessive amount of time." In some cases "they conclude with questionable decisions."In still others "mistakes occur."
In these cases, therefore – the pope recognizes –, "it seems that the application of 'epikeia' in the internal forum is not automatically excluded," meaning a decision of conscience:
"Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions". (No Communion for Outlaws. But Benedict Is Studying Two Exceptions.)
As noted before, this was vintage Ratzinger doublespeak.
The false "pontiff emeritus" was trying to appear to maintain the Catholic doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage while at the same time "rediscovering" the "sense" of a teaching that is very clear. This is just another manifestation of Ratzinger/Benedict's lack of understanding of the nature of the immutability of God, Who is immutable. Ratzinger/Benedict must analyze almost every point of Catholic doctrine and pastoral praxis on the basis of the agnosticism critiqued by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis. That is, Ratzinger/Benedict does not believe that anything about the Catholic Faith is ever truly settled once and for all, something that Pope Saint Pius X noted in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:
It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments. They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized. The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles? (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Everything must be "discovered" and expressed anew.
Therefore, what Ratzinger/Benedict has written on the issue of giving what he thinks is Holy Communion to those engaged in adulterous marriages can be summarized as follows: “We will uphold the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage by changing the meaning of what constitutes an indissoluble marriage, thereby making it possible for those who are divorced and civilly remarried to resort to a 'solution' within the confessional that is pastorally sensitive to their 'difficult' circumstances."
This is similar to the conciliar protestations that the Assisi events have not been exercises in religious syncretism when, of course, they have been precisely this. Simply saying that something is not so does nothing to change the reality of what an event actually is in the eyes of God. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI "prayed" with ministers of false religions. He entered into their places of false worship. He esteemed the symbols of false religions. He extolled the nonexistent ability of false religions to "contribute" to the common good and the building of a just world order and world peace. Masquerading as a "true pope," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI even gave "joint blessings" with the likes of Rowan Williams, the layman then masquerading as the "archbishop" of Canterbury. None of this is from the Catholic Church. All of this represents efforts to destroy the Catholic Faith.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio has done like things, obviously, which should tell everyone who is looking for “good guys” and “bad guys” in what can be called “Communion Wars, 2015,” that such a search is delusional. There are no “good guys" to be found, only different shades of revolutionaries.
What remains astounding in the face of all of the fast-breaking apostasy flooding over the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River in this time of apostasy and betrayal is the unwillingness of some "conservative" and semi-traditionalist Catholics to accept the simple fact that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church and that its first five "popes" have been figures of Antichrist who have made possible the emergence of its ultimate fruition: Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a man who received revolutionary theological training during the years of the "Second" Vatican Council and its immediate aftermath. Bergolio is only making "universal" an interpretation of the conciliar revolutionary "spirit" that has been the actual practice in many archdioceses, dioceses, parishes, schools, colleges, universities and seminaries during the course of the past fifty years. As has been noted on this site so many times in the past thirty-one months now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is simply the face of an undisguised false religion, one that is the counterfeit ape of Catholicism.
At this late date, ladies and gentleman, as the farce represented by “Synod ’15,” which included Bergoglio’s “canonization” on Sunday, October 18, 2015, the Feast of Saint Luke and the Commemoration of the Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost, of Louis and Zelie Martin, the parents of Saint Therese of the Child Jesus and of the Holy Face, who went to great lengths to protect their daughters from the influences of sin and a society whose “culture” at celebrated it, plays out to its predetermined conclusions, it is truly reprehensible for any Catholic to keep using what the late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton referred to as the “shoddy tricks of minimism” to keep narrowing the scope of what is said to be covered by the infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Here is a reminder from the late Monsignor Fenton, who was the editor of the prestigious American Ecclesiastical Review from 1943 to 1963:
The text of the Humani generis itself supplies us with a minimum answer. This is found in the sentence we have already quoted: "And if, in their 'Acta,' the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves."
Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved. Once that magisterium has expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided. A man definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.
Thus, according to the clear teaching of the Humani generis, it is morally wrong for any individual subject to the Roman Pontiff to defend a thesis contradicting a teaching which the Pope, in his "Acta," has set forth as a part of Catholic doctrine. It is, in other words, wrong to attack a teaching which, in a genuine doctrinal decision, the Sovereign Pontiff has taught officially as the visible head of the universal Church. This holds true always an everywhere, even in those cases in which the Pope, in making his decision, did not exercise the plenitude of his apostolic teaching power by making an infallible doctrinal definition.
The Humani generis must not be taken to imply that a Catholic theologian has completed his obligation with respect to an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Holy Father and presented in his published "Acta" when he has merely refrained from arguing or debating against it. The Humani generis reminded its readers that "this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals." Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and "to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See." In other words, the Humani generis claimed the same internal assent for declarations of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals which previous documents of the Holy See had stressed.
We may well ask why the Humani generis went to the trouble of mentioning something as fundamental and rudimentary as the duty of abstaining from further debate on a point where the Roman Pontiff has already issued a doctrinal decision, and has communicated that decision to the Church universal by publishing it in his "Acta." The reason is to be found in the context of the encyclical itself. The Holy Father has told us something of the existing situation which called for the issuance of the "Humani generis." This information is contained in the text of that document. The following two sentences show us the sort of condition the Humani generis was written to meet and to remedy:
"And although this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth on matters of faith and morals for any theologian, as the agency to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the entire deposit of faith - that is, the Sacred Scriptures and divine Tradition - to be guarded and defended and explained, still, the duty by which the faithful are obligated also to shun those errors which approach more or less to heresy, and therefore 'to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,' is sometimes ignored as if it did not exist. What is said in encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs about the nature and constitution of the Church is habitually and deliberately neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they claim to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks."
Six years ago, then, Pope Pius XII was faced with a situation in which some of the men who were privileged and obligated to teach the truths of sacred theology had perverted their position and their influence and had deliberately flouted the teachings of the Holy See about the nature and the constitution of the Catholic Church. And, when he declared that it is wrong to debate a point already decided by the Holy Father after that decision has been published in his "Acta," he was taking cognizance of and condemning an existent practice. There actually were individuals who were contradicting papal teachings. They were so numerous and influential that they rendered the composition of the Humani generis necessary to counteract their activities. These individuals were continuing to propose teachings repudiated by the Sovereign Pontiff in previous pronouncements. The Holy Father, then, was compelled by these circumstances to call for the cessation of debate among theologians on subjects which had already been decided by pontifical decisions published in the "Acta."
The kind of theological teaching and writing against which the encyclical Humani generis was directed was definitely not remarkable for its scientific excellence. It was, as a matter of fact, exceptionally poor from the scientific point of view. The men who were responsible for it showed very clearly that they did not understand the basic nature and purpose of sacred theology. For the true theologian the magisterium of the Church remains, as the Humani generis says, the immediate and universal norm of truth. And the teaching set forth by Pope Pius IX in his Tuas libenter is as true today as it always has been.
But when we treat of that subjection by which all Catholic students of speculative sciences are obligated in conscience so that they bring new aids to the Church by their writings, the men of this assembly ought to realize that it is not enough for Catholic scholars to receive and venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but [they ought also to realize] that they must submit to the doctrinal decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations and also to those points of doctrine which are held by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that, even though the opinions opposed to them cannot be called heretical, they still deserve some other theological censure.
It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes. It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching. The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his "Acta" is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian. (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)
Are there any further questions about the binding nature of what a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter places in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis?
Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton denounced "the shoddy tricks of minimism to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down his his 'Acta'."
The fact that no one in the resist while recognize movement has as of yet acknowledged that Catholics are forbidden to resist the decisions and pronouncements of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, if not reject them entirely, speaks of the intellectual dishonesty and/or emotionalism that underlies the “resist while recognize” movement. It takes a fair degree of nerve to ignore the writing of Monsignor Fenton on such a matter of vital importance to the absolute fealty that Catholics must have to the decisions and pronouncements of the magisterium of the Catholic Church, and it is no refuge at all for anyone, presbyter or layman, to try to make a false, novel distinction between the “authentic magisterium” of “Eternal Rome” and the “governing magisterium” of “Conciliar Rome.” It is either one or the other: the Catholic Church cannot be spotted by the least stain of error or heresy.
Pope Pius XI put this in the simplest terms imaginable in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925:
Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)
Excuse me, what part of this is hard to understand?
Pope Pius XI wrote nothing new in Quas Primas. He was simply reiterating a truth of the very nature of the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church that had been expressed from time immemorial:
66. And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity,  she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name she prays to God daily: "Forgive us our trespasses"; and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health. When therefore we call the Body of Jesus Christ "mystical," the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo: "Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a member."  (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
This passage from Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, bears a bit of emphasis as it was on August 15, 2015, the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio issued a revision to the conciliar code of canon law that “streamlined” the process by which those applying to diocesan marriage tribunals for worthless decrees of nullity while expanding the “grounds” for such decrees to include the “brevity of conjugal life” and “procured abortion”:
Art. 14 § 1 . The circumstances which may allow the handling of the case of nullity of the marriage by means of the process shorter according to cann. 1683-1687, for instance include: the lack of faith that can generate the simulation of consent or the error that determines the will, the brevity of married life, procured abortion to prevent procreation, the stubborn persistence in a extramarital affair at the time of the wedding or at a time immediately following, the malicious concealment of infertility or a serious or contagious disease of children born from a previous relationship or incarceration, the cause of marriage completely foreign to married life or substantial the unplanned pregnancy of the woman, the physical violence inflicted to extort the consent, the lack of use of reason proved by medical documents, etc. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus, August 15, 2015.)
How can either brevity of married life or having a procured abortion signify the lack of the reception of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony?
Also, please tell me what is an “unplanned pregnancy”?
Does Jorge Mario Bergoglio believe that unmarried Catholics who engage in fornication or married Catholics should “plan” the conception of a child?
It’s a fair question, a very fair question.
These are bogus conditions.
No, the “resist while recognize” crowd has attacked the new provisions announced by their “pope.” So much for holding the faith inviolate, huh?
There is no way for the “resist while recognize” crowd to claim that the Catholic Faith has been held inviolate by the conciliar “popes” and their “bishops.”
Undaunted by this, however, men such as Raymond Leo “Cardinal” Burke, who is not in favor Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the Jacobin/Bolshevik revolutionaries believe that it will be necessary to “resist” proposals contrary to the Faith that receive the official endorsement of “Pope Francis” once “Synod ‘15” has ended by adhering to the conciliar sect’s so-called “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” which contains heresy and permits what purports to be Holy Communion to be given to non-Catholics in some circumstances (please see the appendix of a devastating critique, authored by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X, of this heretical piece of conciliar propaganda that proves the falsity of the Society's contention that it could be issued by the Catholic Church, which makes no terms with error or heresy of any kind as she enjoys a perpetual immunity form both):
The former prefect of the Apostolic Signatura in its conciliar captivity made this declaration when speaking on the record to Life Site News:
What are the faithful to think and to do when they see Synod Fathers suggesting heterodox positions regarding homosexuality and divorce?
Burke: We follow our Lord Jesus Christ. He is our Master. And we are all held to be obedient to him and to his word, beginning with the Holy Father and with the Bishops. If a bishop, or a priest, or anyone, should announce something or declare something that is contrary to the truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as it’s communicated to us in the teaching of the Church, we follow Christ.
I say to people who are very anxious, because it seems in this time that there is simply a lot of confusion and statements that are really quite stunning about the faith, that we should remain serene. Because, in the Catholic Church, we have teaching authority, which is expressed, for instance, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and we simply need to study those things more deeply, adhere to them more ardently, and not be led astray by false teaching, from whatever source it comes. (Controversial Synod proposal 'simply contrary'.)
This is false and offensive to pious ears as it is based on the belief that the error can emanate from the Catholic Church. Here are more proofs that Raymond Leo Burke does not understand the Catholic Faith of which he is considered be a champion:
These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Constantinople III).
These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.
Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho: "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church . . . .
But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)
As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)
In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)
For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the intention and the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
Perhaps it is wise for those in the "resist while recognize" movement to consider once again the following words of Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., that he wrote concerning the reign of Pope Saint Clement I and an epistle he had written:
Its tone is dignified but paternal, according to St. Peter's advice to pastors. There is nothing in it of a domineering spirit; but the grave and solemn language bespeaks the universal pastor, whom none can disobey without disobeying God Himself. These words so solemn and so firm wrought the desired effect: peace was re-established in the church of Corinth, and the messengers of the Roman Pontiff soon brought back the happy news. A century later, St. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, expressed to Pope St. Soter the gratitude still felt by his flock towards Clement for the service he had rendered. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)
Dom Prosper reminds us that the authority of the Vicar of Christ is absolute, that the pope is one "whom none can disobey without disobeying God Himself." Indeed. Although I am late to have my own eyes opened to the ramifications of this truth, suffice it to say that a legitimate pontiff commands our obedience in all things that do not pertain to sin, in all things that pertain to faith and morals. No one can oppose a legitimate pontiff without opposing Our Lord Himself. And no legitimate pontiff can give us bad doctrine or defective worship. He cannot express in his capacity as a private theologian, no less publicly or in exhortations or encyclical letters that are published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, things contrary to the defined, irreformable teaching of the Catholic Church.
No, Raymond Burke, error and the Catholic Church are mutually exclusive. There can be no such thing as "pope sifting" or "council sifting," whether it is done by the conciliar "popes" under one aegis or another (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's "living tradition" or Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity") or by those in the "resist while recognize movement"—or by a supposed “cardinal” from La Crosse, Wisconsin.
Insofar as “studying” the so-called “Catechism of the Catholic Church” is concerned, readers would be advised to read the appendix below, which contains excellent material written by those whose standard of the Catholic Faith is the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, not the teaching of our trues such as Popes Leo XIII and Saint Pius X that obedience to a true and legitimate Sovereign Pontiff must be absolute and unequivocal:
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path . . . .
On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.
When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.
In the same way, by forgetting or neglecting these principles, the door is opened wide to divisions and dissensions among Catholics, to the grave detriment of union which is the distinctive mark of the faithful of Christ, and which, in every age, but particularly today by reason of the combined forces of the enemy, should be of supreme and universal interest, in favor of which every feeling of personal preference or individual advantage ought to be laid aside.
That obligation, if it is generally incumbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists. If they have not been imbued with the docile and submissive spirit so necessary to each Catholic, they would assist in spreading more widely those deplorable matters and in making them more burdensome. The task pertaining to them in all the things that concern religion and that are closely connected to the action of the Church in human society is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected. He who would act otherwise in such a way that he would serve the aims and interests of those whose spirit and intentions We have reproved in this letter would fail the noble mission he has undertaken. So doing, in vain would he boast of attending to the good of the Church and helping her cause, no less than someone who would strive to weaken or diminish Catholic truth, or indeed someone who would show himself to be her overly fearful friend. (Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885.)
Not only must those be held to fail in their duty who openly and brazenly repudiate the authority of their leaders, but those, too, who give evidence of a hostile and contrary disposition by their clever tergiversations and their oblique and devious dealings. The true and sincere virtue of obedience is not satisfied with words; it consists above all in submission of mind and heart.
But since We are here dealing with the lapse of a newspaper, it is absolutely necessary for Us once more to enjoin upon the editors of Catholic journals to respect as sacred laws the teaching and the ordinances mentioned above and never to deviate from them. Moreover, let them be well persuaded and let this be engraved in their minds, that if they dare to violate these prescriptions and abandon themselves to their personal appreciations, whether in prejudging questions which the Holy See has not yet pronounced on, or in wounding the authority of the Bishops by arrogating to themselves an authority which can never be theirs, let them be convinced that it is all in vain for them to pretend to keep the honor of the name of Catholic and to serve the interests of the very holy and very noble cause which they have undertaken to defend and to render glorious.
Now, We, exceedingly desirous that any who have strayed return to soundness of mind and that deference to the sacred Bishops inhere deeply in the hearts of all men, in the Lord We bestow an Apostolic Blessing upon you, Venerable Brother, and to all your clergy and people, as a token of Our fatherly good will and charity. (Pope Leo XIII, Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. The complete text may be found at: Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. See also Pope Leo XIII Quashes Popular “Resist-And-Recognize Position.)
And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.
Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope!” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)
No, ifs, ands, or buts, and that means you, Raymond Leo Burke and everyone else who believes that they can “resist” the decisions of one they accept to be the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth. Ignorance of this essential point of Catholic doctrine is inexcusable at this late date.
The Catholic Church does not speak with the cacophony of voices that are being given full vent at Circus Jorge inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River, and it has never been the case that men such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his clones have made open war on the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments as is being done in Circus Jorge. "Cardinal" Burke and the Polish "bishops" are simpy wrong to believe that they are free to "resist" decisions of the man they believe to be a true and legitimate Sovereign Pontiff, the very Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth.
What part of the following passage, highlighted from Pope Saint Pius X's allocution quoted above is unclear?
Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope. (“Love the Pope!” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)
Tomorrow's segment will focus on a North American clone of Bergoglio's, Rene Cupich.
Today is the Feast of Saint John Cantius, whose love of Our Lord in His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and of holy purity, which some conciliar revolutionaries believe have nothing to do with the sanctification and salvation of souls, should inspire us all:
This John was the son of godly and respectable parents named Stanislaus and Anne, and was born in the year of our Lord 1397, in the town of Kenty, a place in the diocese of Crakow in Poland, from which he took the Latin name of Cantius. By his gentleness, innocency, and seriousness he gave great hopes even from his childhood. He studied Philosophy and Theology in the University of Crakow, wherein he rose step by step to be a Professor and teacher of those sciences wherein he lectured many years, not only enlightening the minds of his hearers, but stirring up in them all godliness, instructing them by ensample as well as by word. Having taken Priests' orders, he ceased not to busy himself with letters, but added thereto the striving after Christian perfection. He grieved exceedingly that God should be offended on all hands, and offered up to Him, day by day, not without many tears, the Unbloody Sacrifice for a propitiation for himself and for his people. He was for some years a faithful Parish Priest at Ilkusi, but after a while gave it up for fear of the danger of souls, and accepted the call of the University to take up again his Professorship.
What time was left him over from his work, he gave up partly to the profit of his neighbour, more especially in preaching, and partly in prayer, wherein he is said sometimes to have had heavenly visions and messages. The sufferings of Christ took such hold upon him, that he sometimes passed whole nights without sleep in thinking thereon, and that he might more keenly realize them, he made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. There he was seized with such a passionate longing to be a martyr, that he preached Christ crucified even to the Turks. He went four times to Rome to the thresholds of the Apostles, on foot, and laden with a wallet, partly to do honour to the Apostolic See, for which he had a great reverence, and partly (to use his own expression) that he might clear off the pains of his own purgatory by use of the Pardons for sin which are there daily offered. In one of these journeys he was set upon by highway robbers, who plundered him, and having asked him if he had any more, whereto he answered, Nay, left him and fled. Then he remembered that he had some gold pieces sewn up in his clothes. So he ran after the robbers with shouts, and offered them these also, but they were so amazed at the simplicity and charity of the holy man, that they gave him back even that which they had already taken. To hinder scandal-mongering, he wrote up upon the walls, after the ensample of holy Austin [Saint Augustine], certain texts, to be an unceasing warning to himself and others. He gave his own bread to the hungry, and clothed the naked, not with bought raiment only, but by stripping himself of his own garments and shoes, himself meanwhile letting down his own cloak to trail upon the ground, lest any should see that he returned home barefoot.
He slept very little, and that upon the ground; his clothing was enough only to clothe his nakedness, and his food to keep him alive. He kept his virgin purity guarded like a lily among thorns by rough hair-cloth, scourging, and fasting. For about thirty-five years before his death he never tasted flesh- meat. At length, when he was full of days and good works, he felt that death was near, and made himself ready to meet it by a long and careful preparation, and to be the freer, he gave to the poor everything that was left in his house. Strengthened by the Sacraments of the Church, and having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, he took flight to heaven upon the 24th day of December, (in the year of our Lord 1473.) He was famous for miracles both before and after his death. His body was carried into the University Church of St Anne, hard by his dwelling, and there honourably buried. The popular reverence and the crowds around his sepulchre grew greater day by day, till he hath come to be held in honour as one of the chiefest holy defenders of Poland and Lithuania. At the glory of more wonders, Pope Clement XIII., upon the 16th day of July, in the year 1767, with solemn pomp, enrolled his name among those of the Saints. (Matins, Divine Office, Feast of Saint John Cantius.)
Saint John Cantius remains a contrast with the conciliar revolutionaries, men who mock Holy Purity and bodily morifications, who are continuing their revolutionary work at Circus Jorge.
Entrusting these truly tumultuous times to Our Lady through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart and by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, we beg her, the very Mother of God, to help us to make reparation for our own many sins by enduring the crosses of the moment with love, joy, fortitude and gratitude as her consecrated slaves of her Divine Son that her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, which will indeed triumph in the end!
The conciliarists lose in the end. Christ the King will emerge triumphant once again as the fruit of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of His Mother and our Queen, Mary Immaculate. The Church Militant will rise again from her mystical death and burial.
Keep praying. Keep sacrificing. Keep fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima Message in your own lives.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary right now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
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.
Saint John Cantius, pray for us.
(As found on a Society of Saint Pius X website. The material contained below proves that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church and thus indicts the Society of Saint Pius X's insistence that the errors documented below can ever receive the official sanction of the true Church founded by Our Lord Himself upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.)
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.
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.
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.
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 (!).
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)*.
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
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."
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).
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 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.
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.
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
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":
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 ?
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).
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.
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:
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
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 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:
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).
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"?
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 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.
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:
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:
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.
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, 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