By Robert P. Banaugh, Phd.
"In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved,
etc." These are the well known words that appeared in Sister Lucy’s fourth memoir written sometime
between October and December of 1941. The words were written before Vatican Council II, hence it is obvious
the words refer to the tenets of the Catholic Church as they were defined prior to the Council. Since the
dogma of the Catholic Church consists of a set of tenets and practices of the Catholic Faith, Sister Lucy’s words
strongly imply that practices or changes in the tenets of the Faith will be changed, contradicted and/or eliminated.
Sufficient time has elapsed since the close of the council that indications, if any, of the implication should
be evident.
Almost immediately after the close of Vatican Council II in 1965
many novel changes in the Catholic Faith began to be imposed upon the Catholic Faithful. The book "IOTA
UNUM, A Study of the Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century" by Romano Amerio thoroughly documents
the changes and their consequences during the years 1965 to 1984. Since its publication, even more significant
changes have been imposed so that the cumulative effect of the changes is to establish a new Faith and hence a
new Church, The new changes have not been formally declared as tenets of the Faith, that is they are
not de Fide. However, because the Holy See has not denied the changes and has frequently encouraged
their promotion and imposition the faithful assume the changes are valid and so alter their beliefs and behavior
to accord with the changes. In this way the changes become de facto and hence, as far as the faithful are concerned,
the Post Vatican Council II Catholic Church is indeed a new Church with a new Faith. To distinguish The Church
as it was defined before the Council from the Church as it is defined after the Council, the former is usually
called the traditional Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church. The Church after the Council is called
the conciliar Church, the name given it by Pope Paul VI at the end of the Council.
Because the Church has always stressed obedience, and the alterations
were made by authority figures in the Church, the alterations have been readily accepted by nearly all of the faithful.
Since the Council, the ready acceptance of the new faith has been accelerated by the poor to non-existent teaching
of the traditional Catholic Faith.
Because it is the conciliar Church hierarchy that has been and
continues to be responsible for most of the alterations in the Faith, it is appropriate to present the Papal
Coronation Oath, an oath taken by a Pope upon assuming the office of the papacy, and thought to be taken by every
Pope for more than thirteen centuries. Although the oath applies directly to the Pope, for the universal
assurance of the integrity of the Faith, all members of the hierarchy and clergy of the Church should be guided
by it.
I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;
To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;
To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear;
To guard the Holy canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the grace of God, whose Vicarship I posses with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy divine tribunal over all that I shall confess;
I swear to God almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.
I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.
If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful day of Divine Justice.
Accordingly, without exclusion, we subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelical Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture. (Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, Patrologia Latina 1005, S. 54)
It is eminently clear that the purpose of the oath is to assure the
Pope will maintain the integrity of the traditional Catholic Faith by preventing the introduction of novelties
and changes which contradict, weaken or subvert the traditional Faith. The papal coronation oath was formalized
in the latter part of the seventh century by Pope St. Agatho. Pope Paul VI is thought to be the first Pope
who, in over thirteen centuries, did not take the oath. Since the major changes to the tenets of the traditional
Catholic Faith were made during the pontificates of the Post Vatican Council II Popes, Paul VI, John Paul
I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, it is significant that not one of these Popes took the oath.
Because the changes in the traditional Faith arose from the deliberations
of Vatican Council II it is important to note that every single participant in the Council took the Oath against
Modernism. This oath, as did the Papal Coronation Oath, stresses the preservation of the integrity of the
traditional Catholic Faith. The Oath Against Modernism contained such statements as:
“I sincerely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from that which the church held previously.”
and
“The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way, I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. This I promise, this I swear, so help me God ….”
Modernism denies the existence of absolute truth and hence
modernists believe the Catholic Faith cannot be based on the existence of absolute truth as is the traditional
Catholic Faith. For an excellent discussion of Modernism and its relation to the traditional Catholic Faith
see the article: “Modernism In a Nutshell” by John Vennari http://www.cfnews.org/mod-nut.htm
The Oath Against Modernism is perfectly in keeping with the fact that the Catholic Faith was established by Jesus
Christ who is God and therefore knew very well what would be the state of the world for all time in the future.
Thus, if He desired that His Church change its dogma according to the times He certainly would have made it clear
to do so. The fact that he did not do so, or even hint at the necessity for such a change, indicates the
dogma of the Faith, as He established it, was to hold for all time and not vary with the ever changing conditions
of the world nor with the latest politically correct fad.
Vatican Council II promulgated so many startling changes in the
traditional Catholic Faith that even before the close of the Council the public press highlighted them. The
Saturday Evening Post on November 28, 1964, carried a report on American Catholicism at this crucial period
in its history. The report, which took ten months in the making, came to the conclusion that a new Church
was being formed. On December 17, 1965, Life Magazine featured an article based upon the changes in
the Catholic Faith due to Vatican Council II. The article was entitled: “New Currents Swirling around
Peter’s Rock.” The February 9, 1965 issue of Look Magazine had as the front page headline:
“Catholic Revolution” and the cover page headline of the May 2, 1967 issue of Look was “Christians
and Communists, Strange Bedfellows”. Since the approved deliberations of the Council required a majority
vote and each Council member had taken the Oath Against Modernism, it is evident that the majority of the members
of the Council violated that oath. An article entitled: “The Great Moral Flaw in the Second Vatican Council”
by Professor Raymond M Marcin describes the denial of the Oath by the participants in Vatican Council II.
The article appears on line at http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-1015-moral-flaw-vatican-two.htm.
Each of the four conciliar Popes, upon being ordained to the priesthood prior to Vatican Council II,
also swore allegiance to the Oath and by their later teachings and actions violated the Oath.
Pope John Paul II had as the primary objective of his papacy,
the implementation of the deliberations of Vatican Council II. In the preface of the catechism he authorized,
“Catechism of the Catholic Church”, he wrote:
After its conclusion, the Council did not cease to inspire the Church’s life. In 1985 I was able to assert, “For me, then—who had the special grace of participating in it and actively collaborating in its development—Vatican II has always been, and especially during these years of my pontificate, the constant reference point of my every pastoral action, in the conscious commitment to implement its directives completely and correctly and faithfully at the level of each Church and the whole Church.
In this spirit, on January 15, 1985, I convoked an extraordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the 20th anniversary of the close of the council. The purpose of the assembly was to celebrate the graces and spiritual fruits of Vatican II, to study its teaching in greater depth in order that all the Christian faithful might better adhere to it and to promote knowledge and application of it.
From these words of Pope John Paul II it is not surprising that,
although Pope Paul VI presided over three of the four sessions of the Council and closed the Council, it was the
efforts of Pope John Paul II, during his long reign as Pope, that were primarily responsible for the many Council
de facto imposed changes on the traditional Catholic Faith. His successor, Pope Benedict XVI, while head
of the Congregation for the Preservation of the Catholic Faith and as Pope, has made striven diligently to justify
the deliberations of the Council in light of the traditional Catholic Faith but so far the effort has
been unsuccessful.
It is the purpose of this article to describe
some of these de facto changes.
Some Major Changes in the Traditional Catholic Faith
Ex. 1. It is no longer a tenet of the Catholic Faith that one must obey the first commandment
which is:
I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.( Exod. XX. 2-6). [Emphasis added] (From The Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 366, a dogmatic council)
On October 27, 1986, at the enthusiastic urging of Pope John
Paul II and amid great publicity and fanfare, a joint interfaith prayer meeting was held at Assisi, Italy. The
participants were official representatives of several different religious sects and each was personally invited
by the Pope. The purpose of the prayer meeting was to enable the representatives of the different religious
sects to pray to their respective gods for peace in the world.
At the meeting, the most obvious contradiction of the First commandment was the placing of a statue of
the false god, Buddha, atop the tabernacle resting on the altar in the interior of the church of St. Peter to enable
the Dalai-Lama and his disciples to adore the statue. [Peter Lovest Thou Me? Abbé Daniel Le Roux,
p. 164] As a consequence, in a Catholic Church consecrated to Our Lord Jesus Christ, a false god, Buddha,
was given preference over Our Lord. So egregious was the entire Assisi event that a protestant minister was
led to comment: "In such a communion of inter-religious prayer, we see an infraction of the first commandment."
[Ibid, p. 167]
The magnitude of the infraction is seen from the description of the Assisi prayer meeting as described by Fr. Johannes Dormann in his book: “Pope John Paul II’s Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi, Part 1. From the second Vatican Council to the Papal Elections”. Pp. 9-10. The description reads:
“The practical realization of the Prayer for Peace of the various religious took place in the following manner: One after the other, the Buddhists, Hindus, Jainas, Muslims, Shintoists, African tribalists, Parsees, Jews, and Christians, “out of deep loyalty to their respective religious traditions, commended their way of salvation and offered their “peace prayers” before their divinity. The ways of salvation, as taught by Siddhartha, Gautama and the Shantiveda, the Shankara, Vardhamana Mahavira, Mohammed, Nanak Dev, the mythical Ancestors, Zarathustra, Moses and Jesus of Nazareth all stood in line. One after the other and side by side, the following were presented before the eyes of whole world as the “Highest Power” or a “God”; Buddha, The Bodhisattvas’, the divine Braham, the Jina, the numinous Kami, Nam-Sat, the Great Thunder, Manitu, Ormazd, Yahweh and the Triune God.”
As if to emphasize the denial of the First Commandment, in
succeeding years several more such joint-prayer meetings have been held at the specific behest of Pope John Paul
II and each meeting featured prayers to strange gods. Pope Benedict XVI, the immediate successor to Pope
John Paul II, has carried on the “tradition” of forming gatherings of representatives of different religious sects
to jointly pray to their various false gods for peace. In fact, on June 17, 2007 Pope Benedict XVI tried
to “defend” his predecessor’s allowing a statue of the false god, Buddha to be placed atop the tabernacle on the
altar n a consecrated Catholic Church by saying the Pope’s permission was “authentic inter-religious dialogue.”
In other words, using the spin of “authentic religious dialogue”, the Pope attempted to justify the contradicting
of the First Commandment. Further evidence of Pope John Pail II’s disregard of the First Commandment is the
fact that at Lake Togo, Africa, he visited and prayed at a place consecrated to the worship of false gods and,
while there performed pagan ritual customs in a sacred forest. The Pope upon being presented with a receptacle
full of water and flour first made a slight bow and then dispersed the mixture in all directions. In the morning
he again performed the same action before celebrating the “new” Mass. [Peter Lovest Thou Me? pp.154-156]
Pope John Paul II also contradicted the First Commandment during a visit to Madras, India on February 5, 1980. While there, "A sugarcane, fashioned into the form of a cross, signifying a Hindu offering to a carnal god, was brought into the presence of the Pope. A little later, during the offertory procession, a coconut was carried to the altar. A coconut is a typical Hindu offering, which is offered to their idols. Finally, a man placed the sacred ashes Vibhuti on the Pope’s forehead.
Three days earlier, on February 2, the Pope had received on his forehead the Tilac or Tika, the red powdery
paste of the Hindus, the sign of recognition of the adherers of Shiva." [Peter Lovest Thou Me? pp.
155,156.]
On Nov. 11, 2002 a Zenit internet post (ZF2111707) described a pilgrimage of Catholic
bishops to a Buddhist sanctuary. The Archbishop of Delhi, Mgr. Vincent Concesso, said:
“The visit to the sacred Buddhist sanctuary represents one of the efforts of the Catholic Church of India to 'seek and find God on the face of his neighbor.' "
The archbishop is asserting that the Catholic Church in India
is seeking to find Our Lord in the faces of those who worship Buddha, a false god!
In the United States, a prince of the conciliar Church, Cardinal Law, publicly prayed to Allah, another false god. The event was described in an article in the Boston Globe on Nov. 25, 2002 entitled: "Cardinal Law Shares Prayers, Feast, Hope with Muslims." The opening paragraph read:
"It was Sunday, and Cardinal Bernard F. Law had come to pray. So, wearing a gold crucifix and a flowing black robe with red trim, Law removed his shoes. Then, as the imam chanted the sunset prayers, the bishop knelt with his forehead just inches from the carpet and offered praise to Allah."
It is difficult to imagine a more obvious infraction of the First Commandment.
When the Pope, an influential cardinal and a governing archbishop of a large and
prominent diocese each publicly worship, or encourage the worship of false gods, it is clear the faithful are being
told the conciliar Church now denies the First Commandment.
The worships of false gods is now so well established in the conciliar
Church that conciliar Church structures themselves reflect such worship. For example, in St. Ambrose Catholic
Church in Buffalo, New York, a stained glass window depicts pagan divinities and offers them as objects of worship
for Catholics. One window depicts a scene of Moses as a representative of Judaism and Mohammed as a representative
of Islam. Over the turban covered head of Mohammed is the crescent. Also depicted is Horus, a divinity
of ancient Egypt together with Shiva a Hindu divinity. Until the advent of the new faith of the conciliar
Church, the purpose of stained glass windows in a Catholic Church was to present scenes from the lives of Our Lord,
His Blessed Mother and the Saints as well as episodes of the Old and the New testament in order to increase the
Faith and devotion of the faithful to the one Triune God. However, since Vatican Council II, it is evident
that purpose no longer exists. For reference see (http:www.traditoninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A140rcWidnow_NonChristians.htm)
This site also has a photograph of the window.
The church caption for the window gives a “justification” for the window. The caption reads:
“On October 28, 1965, Second Vatican Council II issued an official decree on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions. The Latin designation for the document, NOSTRA AETATE, is taken from the opening words of the proclamation: “In this age of ours, people are drawing more closely together … The Church examines with greater care the relation she has with non-Christian religions.” The document is a masterpiece of understanding. The fathers admit that the Holy Spirit is free to operate and breathe where the Spirit wills. The document regrets past misunderstanding among Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists and specifically cites the good their followers have accomplished. God the Father and son dominate the window. With outstretched arms in a traditional sign of sending the Spirit, they bless Moses and Mohammed pictured together in the center of the window. The familiar crescent hangs over the head of Mohammed. The falcon-headed character is a remnant of mythological beliefs of ancient Egypt. He is identified as Horus, the son of Isis. The dark and whirling figure to the right is the Hindu God Shiva. The final figure at the bottom center depicts the Prince Siddhartha Gautama, more familiarly known as the “Buddha.” (Taken from the website of St. Ambrose Home Community, 65 Ridgewood Road, Buffalo, New York. 14220-2223)
Note that in the phrase “God the Father and the son”, the
first letter of the word “son” is not capitalized while the first words of the various prophets and false gods
are capitalized. The non-capitalization of the word “son”, when it is obvious the word “son” refers to Jesus
Christ, is a very devious and sly way of denying the traditional Catholic belief in the existence of a Triune God..
Another stained glass window in the same church is
entitled: “Window of Christian Ecumenism,” The description for the window reads:
“The window on ecumenism is a special tribute to Pope John Paul II who was anxious to heal the rift between Protestants and Roman Catholics, a struggle often bitter in nature that has persisted since Reformation time in the 16th century. From the very beginning, Protestant, Anglo-Catholic and Orthodox Catholics were invited to be present at the Council in special seating in the aula of the Basilica. On November 21, 1964 the council Fathers issued a decree on ecumenism: “UNITAS REDINTEGRATIO.” The decree signaled the end of the counter-reformation and the beginning of a fresh attempt to heal the wounds of division. This window is a tribute to a wonderful Spirit with men and women representative of all Christian faiths. At the bottom stand two priests, one Orthodox, the other Roman. The evangelical figure in the center is proclaiming the Word. Surrounding Jesus and the human figures holding hands are the logos of every Protestant and Episcopal Church in South Buffalo. At the bottom center is the seal of Martin Luther. To the left is the logo of the United Methodist church. Rising counterclockwise is the logo of the United Church of Christ. In the upper left center s the seal of the United Presbyterian Church; at the top left is the national symbol of the American Baptist Church, and at the top right is the logo of the Episcopal community.”
The description in the first window asserts the
differences between Jews, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists, and by inference, Catholics, is just a “misunderstanding.”
Thus, Catholics are supposed to believe that the various widely differing beliefs of the aforementioned sects are
merely a “misunderstanding.” Now Jews believe in one God, Hindus and Buddhists believe in several gods, while
Muslims believe in the prophet Mohammed and Catholics believe in a triune God. Furthermore, Catholics believe in
the divinity of Christ while the other four sects deny His divinity. Given that the author of the description
surely knew very well that the four listed sects deny the divinity of Christ and each of the five sects differ
on many fundamental tenets, to label their differences a “misunderstanding” is patently misleading. Furthermore,
by placing a window in a Catholic Church which honors sects that deny the divinity of Christ can only serve
to encourage Catholics to deny the Triune God and thus deny the first commandment.
The depictions in the second window are also very misleading. It is well known that the various
Protestant sects are a consequence of their rejection of the Traditional Catholic Faith. After all, this
rejection is the source of the name “Protestant.” In addition, it is well known that Martin Luther was the
source of most of the rejection of the Catholic Faith and he detested the Traditional Catholic Mass the primary
worship service of the Catholic Church. Thus, to label the many significant differences between Catholics
and Protestants as just a “rift” is borders on outright dishonesty. This window does not directly encourage
the denial of the first commandment. However, the window does encourage the honoring of sects which deny
one or more tenets of the Traditional Catholic faith which is the certain and full teaching of Jesus Christ.
Now Jesus Christ is God by virtue of being the second person in the Holy Trinity and thus the window implicitly
denies the divinity of Christ and hence implicitly denies the first commandment.
Many more such examples could be cited, however, those cited should be sufficient to show conciliar
Church faithful are now encouraged to deny the First Commandment. The denying of the first commandment by
the conciliar Church hierarchy is primarily due to the desire of that hierarchy to “dialogue” with representatives
of religious sects which deny the divinity of Our Lord such as Jews and Muslims in an attempt to build a civilization
of love through unity in diversity. The article, “Christians, Muslims and Jews Do we all Have the Same
god?” by Fr. Francis Knittel in Christendom N0 14, November-December, 2007, p.4 presents a good summary of
the contradictions arising from the concept that Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same God. The article
may be found on-line at http://www.dici.org/dl/fichiers/christendom_14.pdf
.
Ex. 2. It is no longer a tenet of the Catholic Faith that works and deeds are required for salvation because "one is now justified by faith alone."
On October 31, 1999 officials from both the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed the
"JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION." When asked if Catholics can now say that
individuals are justified by faith alone, Jeffrey Cross, a spokesman for the National Conference of bishops,
said:
"Yes, in fact the text says that very clearly.”
Nancy Frazier O’Brien of the Catholic News Service made a similar statement saying:
"The signing marked the end of a long, sometimes difficult journey from mutual Lutheran-Catholic condemnations to agreement that justification and salvation come by faith alone."
The preceding quotations are taken from the Internet article: "Review
of the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification" by Robert Sungenis. The article may be found
at www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/justification/jointdec1.html
Statements like the above from officials of the concilair Church when bolstered by the fact that the accord was
presented with great fanfare and Rome has not publicly or formally refuted the accord, in the eyes of the faithful,
the accord implies the conciliar Church now teaches one is justified by faith alone
The condemnations of the Lutheran teaching that one is saved
by faith alone were made at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. This was a dogmatic council whose deliberations
were approved by Pope Paul III. The fact that the Catholic doctrine on justification must be adhered
to for salvation was clearly stated in Session 6, Chapt. 16 of the Council:
“After this Catholic doctrine of Justification - which, unless he faithfully and firmly accepts, no one can be justified – it seemed good to the holy Synod to add these canons, so that all may know, not only what they must hold and follow, but also what they ought to shun and avoid.”
A portion of this doctrine is contained in Session 6, Canon 9 of the same Council and states::
"If anyone shall say that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification, and that it is no way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will: let him be anathema."
The doctrine that works are necessary for justification was reinforced in Session 6, Chapt.10, of the Council of Trent, which stated:
“You see that by works a man is justified and not by faith alone” (Jas, 2:24). (Author’s emphasis)
The authors of the Joint Declaration wished to emphasize the condemnations of the Council of Trent are no longer in force because the Joint Declaration contains three sections stating this fact. For example Section 41 of the Joint Declaration says:
“Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, that is the Council of Trent, in so far as they are related to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the council of Trent.”
while Section 13 of the Joint Declaration states:
“In light of this consensus, the corresponding doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, the Council of Trent, do not apply to today’s partner.”
and Section 5 of the Joint Declaration says:
“The present joint declaration does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences are no longer the occasion for doctrinal differences.”
Since Section 26 of the Joint Declaration states:
“According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners by faith alone.” (sola fide).
It is evident the Joint Declaration implies that sinners are justified by faith alone.
The following three comments from the Joint Declaration
expand on the Lutheran doctrine of sola fide.
Section 15 of the Joint declaration states in part:
“Together we confess that we are accepted by God and we receive the Holy Spirit, who in our hearts, empowers us, and calls us to do good works, not on the basis of our merits but only through grace and faith in the salvific work of Christ.”
Section 5 of the Joint Declaration says in part:
"It [the joint declaration] does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.
A portion of Section 13 of the declaration says:
"By appropriating insights of recent biblical studies and drawing on modern investigations of the history of theology and dogma, the post Vatican II ecumenical dialogue has led to a notable convergence concerning justification, with the result that this Joint Declaration is able to formulate a consensus on basic truths concerning the doctrine of justification. In light of this consensus, the corresponding doctrinal condemnations of the sixteenth century do not apply to today’s partner."
The subterfuge of “appropriation of insights of
recent biblical studies and drawing on modern investigations of history and theology and dogma” has frequently
been used by modernist conciliar Church theologians to justify their imposition of novelties and changes
in the traditional Catholic Faith. This subterfuge is very convenient as it provides a “rationale” for the
imposition of continuous change to the traditional Catholic Faith.
It should be noted that neither Pope John Paul II nor then Cardinal Ratzinger signed the declaration;
however, neither individual has issued a public denial nor a disclaimer of the joint declaration. Moreover, both
Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Cassidy, who was the principal negotiator of the pact, have publicly endorsed it
and throughout the entire negotiations the Pope encouraged the process. [“Pope John Paul II and the
Lutheran Catholic Accord” by John Vennari. The Catholic Family News, July, 1999.] In fact, Cardinal Cassidy
affirmed that the declaration had been approved by the congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by then
Cardinal Ratzinger and by Pope John Paul II. (http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/b002ht.htm)
The role of Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, was critical in the obtaining of the declaration as he is
credited with “saving” the declaration when it appeared there would be no agreement. See “Ratzinger Credited
With Saving the Lutheran Pact” by John Allen in The National Catholic Reporter, October 14, 1999. Protestant
theologian Joachim Track listed the three fundamental concessions made by Cardinal Ratzinger that permitted the
accord:
“First, he agreed that the goal of the ecumenical process is unity in diversity, not structural reintegration. This was important to many Lutherans in Germany, who worried that the final aim of this was coming back to Rome. Second, Ratzinger fully acknowledged the authority of the Lutheran World Federation to reach agreement with the Vatican. Finally, Ratzinger agreed that while Christians are obliged to do good works, justification and final Judgement remain God’s gracious acts.” (“The October Revolution” by Atila Sinke Guimaraes, at hhtp://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/b002aht.htm )
The anathemas and condemnations of the Council
of Trent are still in force since they have not been formally declared invalid by the Pope. The Joint
Declaration with the Lutheran churches is another example of a de facts action by Rome that contradicts the
Traditional Catholic Faith. The Joint Declaration is also an example of how little Rome cares for the eternal
welfare of the souls of the Lutherans since it encourages them to remain steadfast in their refusal to belong to
the Catholic Church.
Pope John Paul II had long admired Martin Luther,
the founder of the Lutheran sect. In1983, in a letter to Cardinal Willebrands, the Pope praised Luther for
his “deep religiousness.” (Pope Praises Luther in an Appeal for Unity on Protestant Anniversary.” New
York Times, Nov. 6, 1983.) This is a remarkable statement from a Pope since, when speaking about the Mass,
Luther said:
“No sin of immorality, nay not even manslaughter, theft, murder and adultery is so harmful as this abomination
of the Popish Mass.”
Luther further said:
“He would rather have kept a bawdy house or been a robber than to have blasphemed and traduced Christ for fifteen
years by saying the Mass.” (Hartmann Grisar, Luther, English translation, Herder, vol. 2, p.160, vol. 4.
p. 523)
Fr. Congar was a priest and Council expert, whom Pope John Paul II so greatly admired that soon after assuming
the office of the papacy, he elevated the priest to the rank of cardinal. Concerning Luther, Fr. Congar stated:
“Luther, is one of the greatest religious geniuses of all history. I would place him on
the same plane as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, or Pascal. In a certain sense, he is even greater.”
(Peter Lovest Thou Me? By Abbe Daniel Le Roux, p. 105)
The preceding evaluation of Luther by a theologian so greatly admired by Pope John Paul II should be contrasted
with Luther words:
“Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should
we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day.” (Luther’s Works, Erl. Edition,
vol. 9, p.106)
So false were the teachings of Luther that Pope
Leo X in 1521, pronounced the excommunication of Luther in the bull Exsurge Domine. In that document, Pope
Leo listed and condemned many of Luther’s teachings some of which were:
1. The Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Peter, is not the Vicar of Christ established by
Christ Himself in the person of Peter over all the churches of the entire world.
2. In all good works the just man sins.
3. A good work perfectly accomplished is a venial sin.
4. Free will, in regard to sin, is only a name.
The above are taken from Peter, Lovest Thou Me, by Abbe Daniel Le Roux, 1998 p. 103
Ex. 3. It is no longer a tenet of the Catholic Faith that outside the Church there is no salvation.
Cardinal Walter Kasper was appointed Secretary of the Pontifical Council For the Promotion of Christian
Unity by Pope John Paul II and retained in that position by Pope Benedict XVI. As such, the cardinal is the
principal interpreter of the Vatican’s position on Christian unity which he explains is to be no longer understood
as a return of the separated brethren to the Catholic Church. The cardinal said:
"the old idea of ‘return’ (modernist speak for conversion, author’s comment) is no
longer applicable to the Catholic Church after Vatican Council II." [Remnant, September 15, 2000. p.
13]
Soon after his advancement to cardinal, Cardinal Kasper said:
“Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of return, by which others would
be converted and return to being Catholics. This was expressly abandoned at Vatican II.”
The cardinal’s words also show the new belief is a direct result
of the deliberations of Vatican Council II and serve to contradict the frequent assertion by conciliar Church authorities
that deliberations of the Council did not contradict the traditional Catholic Faith.
The denial of the necessity to convert to the Catholic Faith was again stated by Cardinal Kasper in a speech he
made to the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison committee in New York on May 1, 2001. The cardinal proclaimed:
“Therefore the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable
covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to His promises. Thus mission, in this strict sense,
cannot be used with regard to Jews, who believe in the true and one God. Therefore – and this is characteristic
– there does not exist any Catholic missionary organization for Jews. There is dialogue with Jews, no mission
in the proper sense of the word towards them.” (Conversion of the Jews Not Necessary? The Apocalyptic
Ramifications of a Novel Teaching.” By Robert A. Sungenis, Catholic Apologetics International, Sept. 2, 2003.)
The preceding words by the cardinal are in direct
contradiction to the oath against modernism which he took when ordained priest. However, far more serious
is the fact that because of the thrice defined dogma “that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation”,
the words encourage the Jews and non-Catholics to not convert to the Catholic Faith and therefore truly endanger
the eternal welfare of their souls.
As if to confirm his words concerning the lack
of necessity to convert to the Catholic Church, Cardinal Kasper dismissed the idea of a group of 400,000
Anglicans being received into the Catholic Church. The group is known as the Traditional Anglican Communion
(TAC) and is a sub group of the Anglican Church with which the Vatican has had a long period of ecumenical dialogue.
The cardinal told The Catholic Herald: “It’s not our policy to bring that many Anglicans to Rome.”
It should be noted that the bishops of the TAC sent their request to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
(CDF) and not to Cardinal Kasper. (See the internet Post “Cardinal Pours Cold Water on Union With Rebel Anglican
Group.” at www.freerepublic.com/focu/f-religion/1935763/posts) However, if Vatican responses
to past requests for conversion are any measure, the request may well be denied. (See below) In addition,
the following paragraph describing portions of a Vatican document concerning ecumenical relations with other sects
is a further indication of a denial of the request by the Vatican.
In 1993 the Vatican issued a Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism. Item
#133 of the directory permits Protestants to conduct readings (except the Gospel) in a Catholic Church and item
#114 encourages common spiritual exercises and retreats between Catholics and Protestants. Item #138 recommends
the construction of single churches to be used by both Catholics and Protestants while item #139 recommends that
in these churches the Blessed Sacrament be placed in a separate chapel or room so as not to offend non-believers.
In other words, the conciliar Church is so desirous of not offending non-believers that it is willing to offend
Our Lord by hiding him away. Incredible! Such statements strongly encourage non-Catholics to remain
non-Catholics. Much of the above is taken from the article: “Ecumenical Chapel at St. Paul Outside the Walls”
by John Vennari. See The Catholic Family News, Feb. 2008.
On August 12, 2002, the web site of the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops announced the appearance of a document entitled: “Reflections on Covenant
and Mission.” The document was published by the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligous Affairs
chaired by Cardinal Keeler and was issued in consultation with the National Council of Synagogues. Two significant
propositions in the document were the condemnation of efforts to convert the Jewish people to the Catholic Faith
and the strong implication that Jesus was not the Messiah for the Jews. Because of the dogmas that Outside
the Catholic Church there is no salvation and Jesus is indeed God by virtue of being the second person in the Holy
Trinity, such propositions truly endanger the eternal souls of the Jewish people. This concern was expressed
very poignantly in a letter to Cardinal Keeler by Miss Rosalind Moss, a member of the Association of Hebrew Catholics.
A copy of the letter appeared in The Hebrew Catholic, #77, Fall 2003, pp-20-23. The letter described the
great concern Miss Moss had over the attempt by the cardinal and his group to truly endanger the eternal welfare
of the souls of Jews by encouraging Jews not to convert to the Catholic Faith. She also pointed out how the
content of Reflections on Covenant and Mission lead to the conclusion that Jesus is not the Messiah of Israel and
hence Jesus is no one’s Messiah. Such public pronouncements by a group of influential hierarchy of the conciliar
Church are indeed diabolical since the conclusions urge Jews to condemn their eternal souls.
The notion that conversion to the Catholic Faith is no longer
necessary is a direct consequence of the deliberations of Vatican Council II was confirmed as early as 1966 by
the words of then Fr. Ratzinger. As John Vennari writes in the booklet “Pope John Paul II and the Lutheran-Catholic
Accord”:
Father [now Pope Benedict XVI] Ratzinger, in his 1966 book “Theological Highlights of Vatican II” boasted of the
Council’s new orientation to non-Catholics which dispenses with conversion. Ratzinger explains: “The Catholic
Church has no right to absorb the other churches … [A] basic unit … of churches that remain churches, yet become
one church must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in
conscience motivated to seek it. (New York, Paulist Press, 1966, pp. 65-66) (My emphasis)
A Vatican Internet Zenit post, ZE02121801, dated Dec. 18, 2003, reported that
Archbishop Stanilaus Fernandez of the Gandhinagar archdiocese in India stated:
“Conversion
is not the work the Church, but rather the Holy Spirit.”
The archbishop added:
“We only proclaim the Gospel, the message of Jesus Christ. That
is our right and the proclamation of the gospel will go on. Nobody can take away this right. Anybody
can proclaim and promote his/her religion.”
In a Feb. 24, 2003 Zenit.org Internet post (ZE03022508)
the president of Italy’s Episcopal conference, Cardinal Camillo Ruini was quoted as saying:
“Italian Catholics have the possibility to proclaim Christ to 1.2 million non-Christian.”
However, the post further stated:
“At the same time, the cardinal
appealed to Italian Catholics to reject any intention or method of proselytizing: One must go out to meet people,
all people, with confidence and the hope that through this encounter Christ will be able to read His face.”
Pope John Paul II, in his New Year’s Day message
of January 19, 1999 said:
“Religious freedom therefore constitutes the very heart of human rights. Its inviolability
is such that individuals must be recognized as having the right even to change their religions, if their conscience
so demands.”
The Pope’s words imply the conscience
of the individual supersedes the Magisterium of the Church, that man is god and that all religious are equally
salvific. Assuming the Pope is not encouraging the damnation of souls, the Pope’s words also imply a baptized
Catholic can renounce the Catholic Faith in accord with his/her conscience and his/her soul will suffer no eternal
consequences for doing so. Furthermore, if a Catholic does renounce the Catholic Faith and/or joins another
sect, the conciliar Church policy of no proselytizing prevents any attempt to save his/her soul by trying to bring
him/her back to the Catholic Faith!
During the early portions
of his long papacy, in a visit to Brother Roger of the ecumenical Taize Community on October 5, 1986, Pope John
Paul II said:
“By desiring to be yourselves a ‘parable of community,’ you will help all whom you meet to be faithful to their
denominational ties, the fruit of their education and their choice of conscience ,,,” (“A Future of Peace.”
Brother Roger, Zenit News, December 25, 2004.)
These words of the Pope are a clear encouraging
of Protestants to hold fast to their false creeds. The Council of Trent declared as anathema a belief in
such creeds. During his visit, the Pope made no mention of the need to covert to the Catholic Faith.
(See the article by John Vennari entitled: “The Secret of Pope John Paul II’s success.” http://www.cfnews.org/Jp2-Success.htm
The Vatican so strongly believes in the new policy of non-conversion
that the Vatican has actually refused the conversion of individuals. Padre Dr. Linus Dragu Popian, who was
raised in the Romanian Orthodox religion, resolved to become a Catholic while in the Orthodox seminary. In
1975, he and a fellow seminarian, who also wished to convert to the Catholic Faith, spent a perilous 24 days escaping
from communist dominated Romania. They then presented themselves at the Vatican asking to be accepted as
members of the Catholic Church only to be told by Cardinal Villot, then Vatican secretary of State, that they must
not become Catholic and they must not flee communism! (Author’s emphasis) Fr. Popian persisted in his quest
for conversion and finally found a German bishop who told him that he would incardinate them in his diocese.
However, the Vatican’s Archbishop Agostino Casaroli, who was the primary architect of Ostpolitik, and who later
became the Vatican Cardinal Secretary of State in 1979, contacted the German bishop and warned him: “Woe
to you if you ordain these men.” (Vatican says: ‘You Must Not Become Catholic.’”, by John Vennari,
Fatima Crusader, #69, p. 24.) www.fatimacrusader.com/cr69pg/24.asp?printer
Another example of the conciliar Church refusing conversion to the Catholic Faith is the case of Reverend Sven
Sandmark, pastor of the Lutheran parish of Oskarshamn, Sweden. Rev. Sandmark, along with one of his associates,
Joachim Svenson, approached the Catholic bishop of Sweden and informed the bishop of their desire to convert to
the Catholic Faith. The bishop replied: “No, remain as you are, it’s good for ecumenism.” The bishop
also advised Rev. Sandmark to remain Lutheran, while being “Catholic at heart.” (The Angelus, Oct. 2006,
p.41)
The belief that it is no longer necessary to
convert non-Catholics to the Catholic faith has been continued by Pope Benedict XVI. On August 18, 2005,
at an Ecumenical Meeting in Cologne in an address the Pope said:
“On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return; that is, to deny and
to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!” (Author’s emphasis)
In a Sept. 25, 2000 Zenit news item then Cardinal Ratzinger is quoted as saying:
“[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know
or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved …”
This statement is in direct contradiction to Christ’s words:
“No one comes to the Father but through Me.”
In the book: “God and the World”, 2000. pages 150-151, the then cardinal wrote:
“their [the Jews] no to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the
same time we know they are assured of the faithfulness of God, They are not excluded from salvation …”
On June 18, 2007, Cardinal Poupard, President
for the Pontifical Council for Culture spoke to students of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University in
Moscow. The cardinal stated:
“The Vatican does not want to convert Russia to Catholicism.”
He went on to say:
“ The Vatican never wanted to make Russia a Catholic country. The Holy See is praying for a Christian Russia
and further preaching by Orthodox and Catholic disciples.” (www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=3209)
This clear declaration by a high ranking conciliar Church authority that the conciliar Church has no desire to
convert Russia to Catholicism is in direct contradiction to the words of Pope Leo XII in his Bull, Satis Cognitum
on June 29, 1896 (#13). Pope Leo X III wrote:
“You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic Faith if you do not teach that the faith
of Rome is to be held.”
Of course good Pope Leo XIII was referring to the traditional Catholic Faith since the new Vatican Council
II Faith had not yet been cobbled up. The cardinal’s words also clearly contradict the words of God as given through
His emissary, the blessed Virgin to Sister Lucy when He asked for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate
Heart of Mary.
While in Cologne for a World Youth Day celebration,
Pope Benedict XVI visited a synagogue with the aim of improving Interreligous relations; not with the aim of converting
the Jews to the true Faith. (On Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X, (See A Joint Statement from The
Remnant and the Catholic Family News at www.cfnews.org/sspx-mm-jv.htm )
In October, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI lauded Fr. Hans
Urs Von Balthazar, a priest who taught that a Catholic may have hope that all men are saved. This is a clear
teaching of universal salvation. (Pope Praises Von Balthazar and His Theology. Zenit, October, 10,
2005.)
The preceding citations of actions and teachings by
members of the hierarchy of the conciliar Church are obvious denials of the dogma that “Outside the Catholic Church
there is no salvation.” This dogma has been declared ex-cathedra several times during the history of the
Church. For example, it was declared ex-cathedra by Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council, July
6, 1479, by Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctum, Nov. 1392, Ibid #468, by Pope Eugene IV in Cantate Domino 1441,
by Pope Pius IV, in Iniuncyum Nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, etc. More recently Pope Pius IX, in his Bull Quanto Confidiamur
Moerore, August 10, 1863 wrote:
“And here sons and Venerable brethren, it is necessary once more to mention and censure the serious error into
which some Catholics have unfortunately fallen. For they are of the opinion that men who live in errors,
estranged from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. This is in direct opposition
to Catholic teaching.
“We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully
keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared
to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light
and grace. For God, who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits
of all men, will not permit, in accordance with his infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a
voluntary fault to suffer eternal torments (supplicits).
“However, also well – known is the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and that
those who stubbornly remain separated from the unity of the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff
(to whom the Savior has entrusted the care of His vineyard), cannot attain salvation.”
Pope St. Pius X, in his Catechism of Christian Doctrine,
par. 132 wrote:
A person outside the Church
by his on fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside
with no fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites
unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is to the soul of the Church.
In his Encyclical Satis Cognitum, of June 29, 1896, Pope
Leo XII wrote:
“Whosoever leaves the Church
cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ. Whosoever observes not this unity observes not the law of God; whosoever
holds not the Faith of the Father and the Son, holds not to life and salvation.”
Pope Boniface VII, in his Bull Unam Sanctum, in speaking
of the Church, wrote
“We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither
salvation nor the remission of sins.”
Pope Pius IX in Singulari Quadam, Dec. 8, 1894, wrote:
“It must be held as being of Faith that nobody can be saved outside the ‘Apostolic
Roman Church, the only ark of salvation, into which if anybody does not enter he will perish by the flood; but
it must nevertheless be likewise held for certain that those who suffer from ignorance of the true religion,
provided that it is invincible, will not be held accountable for this.”
In addition to directly contradicting the teaching of many
past Popes, the new teaching of universal salvation also denies the existence of the Church Militant and, because
the new teaching implies one religion is as good as another, it is not surprising that many faithful leave the
Church and thus truly endanger the eternal welfare of their souls. Moreover, Pope John Paul II’s Jan 19,
1999 New Years Day Message was an assertion of his belief in universal salvation since he was certainly aware it
is a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church that if one willingly leaves the Church one truly and seriously
risks damnation of one’s soul. Finally, the fact that Rome, and authorities in the conciliar Church,
have actually refused to accept into the Church members of other sects who request to join the Catholic Faith shows
the tenacity with which the Conciliar Church adheres to a belief in universal salvation.
Ex. 4. It is no longer a tenet of the Catholic Faith that Jesus Christ is the messiah for all the peoples
of the world.
The publication of the document "The Jewish People
and its Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible" was authorized by Cardinal Ratzinger who emphasized his endorsement
of the work by writing the preface. The document states:
"the Jewish messianic wait is not in vain,"
and adds:
“… that Jews and Christians share their wait for the messiah, although Jews are waiting for the first coming and
Christians are waiting for the second coming.”
In section II, A, 5 of the same book, one reads:
“…to read the bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its pre-suppositions, that
is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions,
which exclude faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God. . . Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish
reading of the bible is a possible one. . .”
In a September 5, 2000 Zenit news story Cardinal Ratzinger
said:
“[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for other religions, does not need to know or
acknowledge Christ as the Son of god in order to be saved.”
Such statements clearly assert or imply Christ is not the messiah
for the Jews and thus imply Christ is not the messiah for all peoples. They are a refutation of the dogmatic teaching
that Christ is indeed the Messiah for all the peoples of the world, including the Jews. At the time then Cardinal
Ratzinger was the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and his primary duty was the assuring
of the integrity of the traditional Catholic Faith as well as its preservation. Consequently, to the faithful,
his strong authorization of the document is a forceful implication it is now a part of the Catholic Faith that
Christ is not the messiah for all the peoples of the world. Finally, since Christ is indeed God by virtue of His
being the second person in the Holy Trinity, the statement: "the Jewish messianic wait is not in vain,"
is also a denial of the first commandment. Furthermore, in the preceding example Cardinal Kasper was quoted as
saying: "The Jews believe in the true and one God" and since the cardinal knows very well Jews do not
believe Christ is God, the cardinal’s statement is also a denial of the divinity of Christ. Given the educational
background of both Cardinal Kasper and Pope Benedict XVI, the preceding statements were made with their undoubted
knowledge of the contents of the Talmud which is the book which contains the doctrines, laws and commentaries on
Judaism made by the most expressive rabbis throughout history. The Talmud contains many expressions
despising Christianity. Some examples of these expressions are:
As they await the coming of the messiah, Jews live in a state of continuous war with the other peoples. When
victory is definitive, the peoples will accept the Jewish faith, bit it is only the Christians who will not participate
in this grace. On the contrary, they will be completely annihilated, because they descend foam the devil
…
It is prohibited for the Jew to praise the learning or virtue of a Christian.
Whoever loves a Christian would
hate his own creator.
Those who deny the teaching of Israel, particularly the followers of the Nazarene, should
be killed and it is always a good work to execute them; if this is not possible, we should try to cause their deaths.
But whoever kills a soul of Israel will be judged as if he had killed the entire world … (apud H. Delassus, La
conjuration antichretienne, vol. 3, pp. 1125-1126)
During Pope John Paul II’s visit to the Synagogue
of Rome, the Pope participated in a ceremony with the Jewish Rabbi. At the close of the ceremony, the Hebrew
choir chanted:
“I believe with perfect
faith in the coming of the messiah.
And even
if he takes a long time coming, I will wait until he comes.”
The above is taken from “Is the Catholic Church
Becoming a Branch of the Synagogue? An analysis of the 1986 Visit of the Visit of Pope John Paul II to the
synagogue of Rome” ) The article may be found at: http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a028htJPII_VisitToSynagogue1986.htm
Early in February 2008 Pope Benedict XVI issued a revised
version of the Traditional First Friday Prayer for the Jews which called for the Jews to “acknowledge Jesus Christ
as the savior of all mankind..” However, the call for the Jews to so acknowledge Christ was severely criticized
my many Jews one of whom was a Rabbi Rosen, a prominent Rabbi in Italy. In a letter to the Rabbi responding
to the criticism Cardinal Kasper wrote:
“The reformulated text no longer speaks about the conversion of the Jews as some Jewish critics wrongly
affirm. The text is a prayer inspired by Saint Paul’s letter to the Roman, chapter 11, which is the very
text that speaks also of the unbroken covenant. It takes up Paul’s eschatological hope that in the end of
time all Israel will be saved. As a prayer the text lays all in the hands of God and not in yours. Is says
nothing about the how and when. Therefore there is nothing about missionary activities by which we may take
Israel’s salvation in our hands.”
The words imply that even though the prayer
calls for the Jews to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the savior of all mankind, the conciliar Church has no intention
of trying to convert the Jews and hence no missionary effort, other than the Good Friday Prayer, to get the Jews
to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the savior of mankind.
The above statements, as well as some of the comments in the document
“Reflections on covenant and Mission” published on August 12, 2002 jointly by the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical
and Interreligous Affairs, SCCB and the National Council of Synagogues demonstrate a remarkable callousness towards
the eternal welfare of the souls of Jews. By once again telling the Jewish people there is no need to convert
to the Catholic Faith since Judaism is salvific in and of itself, the Jewish People are being urged to deny the
dogmatic teaching that Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and thus place their eternal souls in
extreme jeopardy. St. Paul, who was himself a Jew, spent much of his ministry proclaiming the gospel to Jews.
Distressed by their incredulity, he was prepared to wish himself accursed for the sake of their conversion.
(Rom. 9.3) Most importantly, Christ Himself said: “No one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6)
and “that to reject Him was to reject the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)
The Statements in the preceding sections by Cardinal Kasper and then Cardinal Ratzinger further confirm the
assertion that the conciliar Church no longer believes Christ is the Messiah for all the peoples of the world since
the statements contradict the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church that "Jesus Christ is True God and True
Son of God." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, 2nd. Ed. 127). The statements also contradict
the biblical assertion that during the transfiguration on Tabor a voice from out of the clouds spoke: "This
is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him." (Mt. 17,5; Mk. 9,7; Luke 9,35; cf. 2 Peter 1, 17)
(Ott, p. 128)
.
Ex. 5. It is no longer a tenet of the Catholic Faith that God is a Triune God.
It is a de fide teaching of the Catholic Church that:
"In God, there are three persons, the Father, the Son
and the Holy Ghost. Each of the three persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence. (Ott, p. 52.)
The existence of three persons in one God is expressed by the titles "Triune
God" and the "Holy Trinity." Now, in section 3 above Cardinal Kasper bluntly states: "Jews
believe in the one and true God." In section 4 above, the quotations from the Talmud show the
falsity of the cardinal’s words, and because the cardinal is well aware of the what the Talmud teaches, his
words are a denial of the divinity of Christ. Denial of the existence of the Holy Trinity was reinforced
by the public statement of Pope John Paul II to several thousand Muslims in Morocco on August 15, 1985. The Pope
said:
"Abraham is the same model of faith in God for us, a model of submitting to His will and of confidence in
His bounty. We believe in the same God, the living God, the God who creates worlds and brings its creatures to
perfection." [Peter, Lovest thou Me? by Abbé Daniel Le Roux, p. 141] [Author’s emphasis.]
At the time he spoke these words, Pope John Paul II was well aware that the
Muslims despise Christ and therefore do not believe Christ is God. Hence the Pope’s words are also a denial of
the existence of the Holy Trinity. The Pope reinforced this teaching when he publicly kissed the Koran before a
group of Muslims. A photograph of the Pope kissing the Koran was shown repeatedly on predominantly
Muslim television stations. The Pope’s kissing the Koran not only told the Muslims they do not need
to believe Jesus Christ is God but that they should not convert to the one true Church established by Christ in
order to save their eternal souls.
The opinion that Muslims believe in the same God as do Catholics was reiterated by Pope Benedict XVI in a general
audience on Sept. 12, 2006. According to a Sept. 20, 2006 Zenit Internet Report, ZE06092004, “the Holy Father
sought to make clear his “deep” respect for the great religions, in particular for Islam – whose members ‘adore
the one God’ and for all mankind social justice, moral issues, peace and freedom.” [Author’s italics]
In the conciliar Church, to further promote the teaching that belief in the Holy
Trinity is unnecessary, the preface prayer extolling the Holy Trinity is rarely recited in the celebration of a
Novus Ordo liturgy. In contrast, during a celebration of a traditional Latin Mass, the preface prayer is usually
said except for special feast days thus regularly reminding the faithful of the reality of the Holy Trinity. The
preceding declarations by the Holy Father and a prominent cardinal together with the elimination of the preface
prayer extolling the Holy Trinity in nearly all celebrations of a Novus Ordo liturgy, de facto teaches the faithful
that belief in the Triune God is no longer necessary.
Ex. 6. It is no longer a tenet of the Catholic Faith that Christ is truly present in the Holy Eucharist.
In many Novus Ordo liturgies the presider or presbyter by his cavalier
and/or individualized consecration of the bread and wine, overtly signifies to the faithful there is no possible
way, the body and blood of Christ could be present under the appearance of bread and wine. ‘Presider’, and
‘presbyter’ are labels introduced by the conciliar Church to designate the individual who presides over the Novus
Ordo liturgy, which because it was designed to commemorate a community meal, and not a sacrifice, is more accurately
labeled a Community Meal Liturgy. Non-belief in the real Presence is also encouraged at most Novus Ordo liturgies
by the permission or encouragement of behavior designed to show a lack of respect and reverence for Our Lord during
the time of the distribution of Communion. Such behavior is characterized by communicants not kneeling before,
after or while receiving the Body of Our Lord, receiving Our Lord in the hand and talking and greeting one another
before, during and after receiving Communion. The absence of a period of silent prayer of thanksgiving after the
distribution of communion and the almost universal use of lay people as "Eucharistic ministers" further
contributes to a lack of belief in the Real Presence. The hands of a priest are consecrated for the specific purpose
of handling and distributing the Sacred Host. Permitting the unconsecrated hands of "Eucharistic ministers"
to distribute the Sacred Host and the unconsecrated hands of communicants to receive the Sacred Host, publicly
emphasizes the Sacred Host is to be treated no differently than a cookie or small patty of bread and so further
reinforces a denial of the Real Presence.
Non belief in the Real Presence is further encouraged
by the Novus Ordo liturgy itself. In modifying the Tridentine Mass to cobble up the Novus Ordo liturgy, there
were a great many prayers removed from the Tridentine Mass. (IOTA UNUM, A Study of the Changes in the Catholic
Church in the XXth Century, by Romano Amerio”, p. 640.) Many of the removed prayers emphasized the existence
of the Real Presence. For example consider the Veni Sanctificator prayer of the Tridentine Mass. Concerning
the removal of this prayer, The Critical Study, also known as the Ottoviani Intervention, commented:
“The suppression of the invocation to the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity that He may descend upon the oblations,
as once before into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin to accomplish the miracle of the divine Presence, is yet
one more instance of the systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence.”
The Critical Study or Ottoviani Intervention
was a document sent to Pope Paul VI in 1969 explaining why the New Mass should not be allowed. See “The Ottoviani
Interventions” Tan Books, 1992, Rockford Illinois. The Study was composed by twelve Roman Catholic theologians.
Cardinal Ottoviani wrote a cover letter to Pope Paul VI supporting the conclusions of the Study. Hence the
name “The Ottoviani Intervention.” (The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy by Fr. Paul Kramer.)
The article: “Confessions of a Eucharistic Minister”
by Charles St. George describes an experiment whose purpose was to estimate the number of particles that were detached
from the Host when communion was given in the hand. It was found that, on the average four particles
were detached from the host. This means that for any Novus Ordo liturgy at which communion was received
in the hand, it was highly probable that for each communicant there were, on the average, at least 2 or 3 particles
of the Sacred Host which were not consumed. The unconsumed particles were dropped on the floor, wiped off,
shaken off, or disposed of in some other irreverent manner. Since any portion, even a small particle, of
the Sacred Host is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, it follows that for liturgies at which communion is given
in the hand, Jesus is repeatedly insulted and disgraced. Because at nearly all Novus Ordo liturgies
communion is given in the hand, it is evident Our Lord is being regularly insulted and disgraced on a regular basis.
For reference see http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr83/cr83pg8.asp
Certainly some of the most blatant examples of the denial of the Real Presence occur during
Papal liturgies celebrated at World Youth Days, [WYD’s]. Most WYDs were called by and presided over by Pope
John Paul II. Gerry Matatics [Catholic convert] attended the WYD in Denver, Colorado in 1993 and gave the
following description of the reception of Holy Communion at the Papal liturgy presided over by Pope John Paul II.
"When the time came for reception of Holy Communion I knelt at the front of my little quadrant of people in
an attempt to receive the Sacred Host on my knees. Hosts were being distributed from big, shallow bowls that could
have been used for punch or potato chips. People were reaching over each other’s shoulders to grab the consecrated
Hosts from the priests. I saw Hosts falling into the mud, where they were being trampled upon. I reached down and
rescued as many as I could and consumed them." [The Great Facade, by Chris Ferrara and Tom Woods, p. 389]
Michael Matt (editor of the Remnant
Newspaper) reports a similar desecration of the Hosts during the reception of Holy Communion at a Papal liturgy
in Des Moines, Iowa. Michael writes:
“ At an outdoor Papal Mass in Des Moines during the Pope’s visit to that city, consecrated Hosts were being distributed
from cardboard boxes that were passed through the crowd. A group of Hell’s Angels helped themselves to Holy
Communion. I saw them washing down the body of Christ with cans of beer. I was only a child then but
I will never forget that awful sight as long as I live.” (The Great Façade, p.289)
In the Fall, 2002 issue of the Latin Mass magazine on p.
5 the Rome correspondent, Alessandro Zangrando, describes his observations of a recent WYD held in Toronto, Canada.
He writes:
"Several participants in the recent Toronto WYD were scandalized by the way singing, dancing and boisterous
laughing were going on at a Mass while bishops and cardinals were concelebrating. It wasn’t clear when the
festivities ended and the Mass began.”
.The following comment from the article entitled: "The World Youth Day Sleep Over" by John Vennari in
the Sept. 2002 issue of The Catholic Family News is particularly relevant for the behavior of celebrants and attendees
at Papal WYD liturgies. The comment is:
"It should be noted that all Papal liturgies for these trips are drawn up at the Vatican by Bishop Piero Marini,
the Pope’s Master of Ceremonies in Rome, and by Cardinal Medina Estevez, the Head of the Vatican’s Congregation
for Divine Worship. The liturgies are not "sprung" on the Pope unexpectedly when he arrives in a foreign
land."
Denial of the Real Presence is also emphasized by labeling the new liturgy a meal and by celebrating the new liturgy
in anything but a reverent manner. For example, in a celebration of the new liturgy in Chile that was broadcast
on television, the celebrant was the Auxiliary Bishop of Santiago along with fifteen to twenty concelebrants.
In the words of a witness,
“During the ceremony the Auxiliary Bishop explained to the faithful, including everyone who was looking at the
television, that this was a meal, and he saw no reason why one should not smoke during a meal. And he himself
smoked during that concelebration!” (The Horn of the Unicorn, by David Allen White, 2006, p.229.) It
is obvious such a celebration is in no way a sacrifice nor a re-enactment of Christ’s horrible death at Calvary
and hence was not a Mass.
Actions and behavior at Novus Ordo liturgies
such as those described above have been very effective in inculcating in the faithful and the clergy a denial of
a belief in the Real Presence. The reality of the denial is born out by recent statistics which show that
more than three-fourths of the faithful and more than one-half of the clergy do not believe in the Real Presence.
(Index of Leading Catholic Indicators, K. C. Jones, 2003.)
It is a De Fide teaching of the Catholic Faith that “The
Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really and substantially present in the Eucharist.” (Ott, p. 373)
Now, if the authorities in the conciliar Church, including Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, actually believed
the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ were truly, really and substantially present in the consecrated host, how could
these Popes possibly have presided over, and/or permitted such terrible insults and defamations of His Body and
Blood as occurred at WYD “Masses”, LFT “Masses” and at a great many other Novus Ordo “Masses” throughout the world?
Such insulting and arrogant defaming of Our Lord is all the more evil when considered in light of the words of
the angel during his third visit to the three little children at Fatima in the fall of 1916.
The angel appeared to the children and held
a
chalice in his left hand with the Sacred Host suspended over the chalice from which drops of blood fell into the
chalice. After giving a prayer to the three children, the angel rose and gave the Sacred Host to the oldest
child, Lucy, and then shared the Sacred Blood with the two younger children, Jacinta and Francisco. While
doing so the angel said:
Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men!
Make reparation for their crimes and console your God. (The Whole truth about Fatima, Vol. 1, p. 76)
The appearance of the angel and
the words he spoke are a direct manifestation of will of God. Consequently, if God through the words of His
emissary, the angel, considered the Body and Blood of His beloved Son to be horribly outraged by ungrateful men,
one shudders at what God must think about the far more outrageous treatment of the Body and Blood of His son at
WYD “Masses”, at LFT “Masses” and at many Novus Ordo “Masses” throughout the world as celebrated by clergy and
members of the hierarchy of the conciliar Church.
God, through His emissary the Blessed Virgin.
emphasized the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist on July 5, 1973, almost a decade after the
close of Vatican Council II. On that date, in Akita, Japan the Blessed Virgin delivered a message to Sister
Agnes Sasagawa, a member of the Institute of the Handmaids of the Eucharist, whose members, as the name suggests,
are devoted to Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. The basic prayer of the members was:
“Most sacred Hear of Jesus present in the Holy Eucharist, I consecrate my body and soul to be entirely one with
Your Heart, being sacrificed at every instant on all the altars of the world and giving praise to the Father, pleading
for the coming of His Kingdom.”
“Please receive this humble offering of myself. Use me as You will for the glory of the Father and the salvation
of souls.”
“Most Holy Mother of God, never let me be separated from Your Divine Son. Please defend and protect me as
Your special child”
“Amen.”
As Sister Agnes was saying this prayer she had just said the words: “Most sacred Heart of Jesus present in
the Holy Eucharist,” when the voice of the blessed Virgin interrupted to say “truly present.” To impress
on Sister Agnes, the blessed Virgin added: “From now on you will add the word TRULY.” The fact that this
message was delivered after a sufficient number of years had elapsed to enable the wide spread use of the Novus
Ordo Liturgy, indicates that God Himself was seriously concerned with the many insults to His beloved Son by the
irreverent and unorthodox celebrations of that liturgy.
Denial of the Real Presence has been encouraged by Pope Benedict XVI when
he was a bishop. In a little known book entitled "Die Sacramentale Bedgrundung Christlicher Existend"
." (Freising, Meitingen, Germany, Kyrios Pub. 1966)
the then Bishop Ratzinger wrote:
"Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must
not be thought of as conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined
way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept
of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to
a church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully
rejects." ,
This statement is a blunt denial of the Real Presence because
it denies Our Lord is present in the tabernacle. The statement is also denial that a Catholic Church is a
house of God. The statement has not been denied nor disclaimed by Pope Benedict XVI nor by Rome. Because
the Pope occupies the highest position in the Catholic Church, many faithful will readily, but mistakenly, interpret
his words as being a clear and authoritative affirmation that it no longer is necessary to believe in the Real
Presence. Since the former bishop’s words discourage visits to a church to pray before the tabernacle, his
words deprive the faithful of the many graces flowing from such visits. Such visits have been
the source of grace for a great many saints. Finally, the former bishop’s words also deny the validity of
the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, which for many centuries has been a central devotion in the Church.
“Transubstantiation” is a word used to describe the transformation of
the bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ with the bread and wine retaining the
physical characteristics of color, taste, figure, smell, hardness, etc. (Baltimore Catechism, #4, p. 198)
Thus, a disparaging of the word “Transubstantiation” is a disparaging of the Real Presence. Cardinal Levada,
the recently appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, when an archbishop said:
“’Transubstantiation’ is a long and difficult term and we don’t use that term anymore.”
(Priest, Where is Thy Mass, Mass Where is Thy Priest?” Angelus Press, 2004)
Given Cardinal Levada’s opinion of transubstantiation, the very fact that
he was selected by Pope Benedict XVI to be the ‘watch-dog” of the integrity of the Catholic Faith is yet another
indication that those now in authority in the conciliar Church are not about to stress a belief in the Real Presence.
On Oct. 7, 2007 Archbishop Niederauer, the successor
to Cardinal Levada as Archbishop of San Francisco, continued the disparaging of the Real Presence of Our Lord in
the Holy Eucharist by celebrating a “Mass” for the members of a mock “religious order” that calls itself the “Sisters
of Perpetual Indulgence.” The “order” is made up of male homosexuals who ridicule Catholic Morals and publicly
promote the homosexual lifestyle. At the “Mass” Archbishop Niederauer gave the Eucharist to two men dressed
in “drag” apparel. (Archbishop Niederauer’s Desecration of the Holy Eucharist, www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A230rcNiederauerHomo.htm)
The incident and the archbishop’s empty excuse for his action were widely publicized. Thus the public was
told the Catholic Church no longer believes in the Rail Presence and that the Catholic Church now approves of such
indecent and immoral behavior. This action by the archbishop was in keeping with his lack of objection earlier
that year in April to a very public obscene display by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence mocking the Passion
of Christ. (Niederauer Silent on Parody of the Passion, www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A250rcPassionParocy.htm)
The hierarchy of the Church is well aware of the increasing numbers of both the faithful and clergy who overtly
deny the Real Presence and yet neither the conciliar Popes nor the bishops have done anything effective to correct
the denial. Moreover, in most Novus Ordo liturgies celebrated today, during the distribution of communion, behavior
which is truly insulting to Our Lord continues unabated. Furthermore, it appears the new modifications of the post-conciliar
Roman Missal may well encourage even more unbelief in the Real Presence. [Slowing the Pace of the Liturgical Revolution,
Reflections on the third Millennium Missal, by Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., Latin Mass, Fall, 2002.]
Still further encouragement of the denial of the Real Presence is found in a declaration
on October 25, 2001 by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The declaration asserts Chaldean and
Assyrian Catholics can receive Communion at each other’s liturgies when a priest of their own church is not available.
The Assyrian liturgy is characterized by an absence of Christ’s words at the Last Supper, "This is my Body"
and "This is my Blood". Assuming the Vatican is not overtly denying transubstantiation, the Vatican’s
permission implies the host becomes the real Body and Blood of Our Lord, without the words of consecration! This
"fact" has been boldly proclaimed by Jesuit Father Robert Taft, a liturgist at the Oriental Institute
in Rome and one of the theologians the Vatican consulted in making its declaration. Fr. Taft said the declaration
is
"extremely important" since "It says the Catholic Church recognizes the validity
of a Eucharistic prayer which does not have the words of institution, abandoning a ritualistic insistence which
began in the Middle ages and showing enormous openness to the ancient traditions of another church." (See
the Internet web site of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois at www.dio.org/catholictimes/archive/2001/011104/feature4.htm)
The consequences of this decision are now felt in the United States since
a priest in New York has proclaimed that the decision:
"is a tacit admission that the consecration of the Mass is not linked to particular words or moments, but
to the meaning and power of the entire Eucharistic prayer." (The Wanderer, March 27, 2003. P. 3)
As consequences of this decision become more widespread, it is
obvious that non-belief in the real Presence can only increase. The Vatican’s "justification" for such
a decision was the assertion that the Assyrian prayer was a centuries old prayer. In light of the preceding comments,
it should not be surprising if the prayers of the consecration in the Novus Ordo liturgy are eventually eliminated.
When this occurs, the last 25% of the conciliar Church faithful who believe in the real Presence will lose that
belief.
From the above discussion, it is difficult to
avoid the conclusion that a principal purpose of the Novus Ordo Liturgy is to inculcate a denial of the Real
Presence. Furthermore, Rome and the conciliar Popes may occasionally speak out against such denigrations
of the Real Presence but Rome and the conciliar Popes have done absolutely nothing effective to curb the denigrations.
Furthermore, their number is rapidly increasing due primarily to the many irreverent celebrations of the Novus
Ordo liturgy. Rome’s attitude toward such irreverent celebrations is very similar to its attitude toward
abortion. Rome frequently speaks out for the protection of the unborn but does little or nothing effective
to curtail priests, bishops and cardinals who publicly sanction the mortal sin of abortion by persisting in giving
communion to those who aid and abet that terrible sin. For more evidence of the conciliar Church’s weak to
non-existent stance against abortion see Ex. 8 below.
Ex. 7. It is no longer a tenet of the Catholic Faith that the Mass is a sacrifice and a re-enactment of Our Lord’s
sacrificial death at Calvary.
For many centuries prior to Vatican Council II the liturgical rite of the Mass was that codified by Pope St. Pius
V in his Bull Quo Primum. This rite is a re-enactment of Christ’s sacrificial death at Calvary and since it is
a sacrifice it is celebrated on an altar. However, soon after the close of the Council, Pope Paul VI initiated
a new rite designed to be a celebration of a community meal and was defined to be a community meal by its primary
designer, Msgr. Annabelle Bugnini. The rite became known as the Novus Ordo rite and, as befitting a meal, it is
celebrated on a table and encourages a communal atmosphere to emphasize it is not a sacrifice. (See also the description
of the celebration of the new liturgy by the Auxiliary Bishop of Santiago, Chile as described in a preceding section.)
In contrast, the liturgical rite of the traditional Latin Mass emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the rite.
The sacrificial nature is further encouraged by the reverence with which it is celebrated which is an atmosphere
of respect and awe appropriate to the incredible sacrifice made by Our Lord at Cavalry. To emphasize the Novus
Ordo liturgy is a community meal celebration, the celebrant faces the audience and celebrates the meal on a table
very much like “cooking shows” on TV. The distinction between the two rites is also reflected in the names
given the celebrants. The celebrants of the Novus Ordo rite preside over a community meal being prepared on a table
and are thus called presiders or sometimes, presbyters. In contrast, the celebrants of a traditional Latin
Mass are called priests because they are offering a sacrifice on an altar. The fundamental characteristic of a
Mass is that it is a sacrifice which is why the Mass is properly called the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is a
De Fide teaching of the Catholic Church that: "In the Sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross
is made present, its memory celebrated, and its saving power is applied." (Ott, p. 407.) Hence labeling the
Novus Ordo liturgical rite a Mass is actually very misleading since the Novus Ordo rite was designed to be and
truly is a celebration of a community meal and not a sacrifice.
In most celebrations of the new Novus Ordo liturgy, the deportment of both the celebrant and the attendees is certainly
not the deportment they would exhibit if they were in actual attendance at the terrible ordeal and death of Our
Lord at Calvary. At a World Youth Day [WYD] Mass or at a Life Teen Mass [LTM] the youthful attendees are encouraged
to enjoy themselves, be happy, relax, dress casually, sing songs set to modern rock and roll music, dance and in
general conduct themselves in a manner completely contradictory to that which they would if they were actually
present at Our Lord’s agony at Calvary. Thus, the youthful attendees are taught the Mass is anything but a re-enactment
of Christ‘s sacrificial death at Calvary and hence can in no way be considered a sacrifice. Since WYD Masses are
well publicized and are seen by many of the faithful on TV, the faithful are also being taught the Mass is assuredly
not a sacrifice. Because the Mass is by definition, a re-enactment of Christ’s terrible suffering and death
at Calvary, to claim a liturgical celebration at a WYD is a Mass or a celebration at a Life Teen Day is a Mass
is not only false but is also an indication of glee at the horrible death suffered by Christ. It is difficult to
imagine a more obscene insult to Our Lord.
It is not surprising that the behavior of attendees at the celebration of a typical WYD or at a Life Teen liturgical
celebration is irreverent and insulting to Our Lord because the liturgical rites of these Masses are designed to
be enticing to modern youth to encourage their attendance. In order to assure their attractiveness to youth the
rites are planned well in advance. The advanced planning is described by John Vennari in the 2002 September and
October issues of the Catholic Family News. As stated previously, liturgical rites at WYDs are not "sprung"
unexpectedly on the Holy Father when he arrives in a foreign country. Footnote #52 in Mr. Vennari‘s articles states
in part:
"."
Since the ceremonies and liturgical rites are planned well in advance of a WYD, Pope John Paul II must surely have
been aware he was promoting and participating in a liturgical rite which does not in any way honor and respect
the memory of the sacrificial death of Our Lord. A similar comment holds for Pope Benedict XVI and his celebration
of a 2004 WYD in Germany. Liturgical rites used at LTMs are also prepared in advance by the presider, or
the presider in conjunction with the parish liturgical committee. Consequently, the presiders of these Masses are
aware they too are encouraging the insulting of Our Lord’s ordeal at Calvary. It should also be noted that the
irreverent behavior encouraged at a WYD Mass or at a LTM teaches the youth that Christ could not possibly be truly
present in the Eucharist thus encouraging the youth to deny the Real Presence.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a many faceted sacrifice. It is a De fide teaching of the Church that: "The
Sacrifice of the Mass is not merely a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but also a sacrifice of Expiation and
Impetration." (Ott, p. 412.) As a propitiatory sacrifice, the Sacrifice of the Mass is a sacrifice which
effects the remission of sins. It is also a sacrifice of appeal (sacrificial impetratorium) which brings about
the conferring of supernatural and natural gifts. Now the conciliar Church advertises a liturgical rite used at
a WYD, or at a LTM, as a Mass and therefore it is telling the youth and the faithful that a WYD Mass or a LTM is
both a true Sacrifice of the Mass and a sacrifice of appeal. However, in light of the facts given above, neither
a WYD Mass nor the LTM is a true Sacrifice of the Mass nor is either a sacrifice of appeal. Hence, the attendees
at these rites are being deprived of the remission of sins as well as the supernatural and natural graces they
would have received if had they attended a traditional Latin Mass celebrated in accord with the rubrics defined
by Pope St Pius V.
Finally it should be noted that more than 70% of the prayers in the TLM have been eliminated in forming the New
Novus Ordo Liturgy. In addition, in twenty-two places the reform has expunged whole verses from the text
of the Gospels used at TLMs in order to remove references to the Last Judgment, the condemnation of the world and
sin. (IOTA UNAM, p. 640) These facts, coupled with the fact that the Novus Ordo Liturgy is a
meal rather than a re-enactment of Our Lord’s horrible sacrifice at Calvary, implies attendees at a Novus Ordo
Liturgical celebration receive far fewer graces than do attendees at a TLM.
Chapter 1 of the book: “The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy” by Fr. Paul Kramer presents further evidence
of the denial of the sacrificial nature of the Mass by the Novus Ordo Liturgy.
Ex. 8. It is no longer a tenet of the Catholic Faith that one must adhere to the dogmas of the Catholic Faith.
In his October, 2003 Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation to the Bishops, PASTORES GREGIS , Pope John Paul II announced
his belief in universal salvation. The last paragraph of section #65 of the exhortation reads:
In his zeal for mission, the Bishop should be seen as the servant and witness of hope. Mission is the sure index
of our faith in Christ and his love for us. Men and women are thereby inspired to a new life motivated by hope.
In proclaiming the Risen Lord, Christians present the One who inaugurates a new era of history and announce to
the world the good news of a complete and universal salvation which contains in itself the pledge of a new world
in which pain and injustice will give way to joy and beauty. At the beginning of a new millennium marked by a clearer
awareness of the universality of salvation and a realization that the Gospel daily needs to be proclaimed anew,
the Synodal Assembly raised an appeal that our commitment to mission should not be lessened but rather expanded,
through ever more profound missionary cooperation. [My emphasis.]
This blunt statement of a newly created belief in universal salvation implies that belief in, and adherence to,
the dogmas of the traditional Catholic Faith is no longer necessary for the salvation of one’s eternal soul. In
fact such a belief implies there is no need for the Catholic religion or any religion! Even more, such
a belief denies the need for a pope and for the papacy and even denies any need for the Catholic Church!
The belief also explains the concentration by the conciliar Popes and the conciliar Church hierarchy on the temporal
welfare of man rather than on the eternal welfare of the soul of man. In direct contrast, the primary objective
of the Pre-Vatican Council II Catholic Church was the eternal welfare of the soul of man and efforts devoted to
the temporal welfare of man were used as an aid to fulfilling that objective.
Soon after his election to the Papacy, Pope John Paul II, in a general audience on Dec. 27, 1978 said:
“Jesus is the Second person in the Holy Trinity become man; and therefore the whole of humanity,
is redeemed, saved, ennobled to the extent of participating in ‘divine life’ by means of grace.” (L’Osservatore
Romano, Jan 1, 1979, p. 8)
Such a statement and other similar statements by Pope John Paul II have caused many theologians to suspect the
Pope believed in universal salvation. One such theologian was Fr. Johannes Dormann. In his book, "Pope
John Paul II’s Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religious at Assisi, Part I.", on p. 85, Fr. Dormann
writes:
"In the first encyclical of John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (13), March 4, 1979, we find in a major section
the twin concepts imagosimilitudo Dei in a context which leaves no doubt as to the exact sense of the statement
and expresses the thesis of universal salvation with crystal clarity in "scholastic language."
In this encyclical, the Pope writes:
"Accordingly, what is in question here is man in all his truth, in his full magnitude. We are not dealing
with the "abstract" man, but the real, "concrete,""historical" man. We are dealing
with "each" man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption, and with each one Christ
has united himself forever. Every man comes into the world through being conceived in His Mother’s womb and being
born of His mother, and precisely on account of the mystery of the Redemption, is entrusted to the solicitude of
the church. Her solicitude is about the whole man and is focused on him in an altogether special manner. The object
of her care is man in his unique, unrepeatable human reality, which keeps intact the image and likeness of God
himself. (Author’s emphasis)
In his encyclical Redemptor Missio, (4), Dec.
7, 1990, Pope John Paul II writes:
“The Redemption brings salvation to all, ‘for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption
and with each one Christ united himself forever through this mystery.’” (Author’s emphasis)
Also. In his encyclical Centisimus Annus, (53) the Pope wrote:
“We are not dealing here with man in the ‘abstract’ but with the real ‘concrete’ ‘historical’ man.
We are dealing with each individual, since each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and through this
mystery Christ has united Himself with each one forever.” (Author’s emphasis)
The assertion: “and with each one Christ has united Himself forever”,
clearly shows the Pope believes in universal salvation since it has always been a basic teaching of the traditional
Catholic Faith that souls in Hell are eternally separated from God and this eternal suffering is by far the greatest
suffering endured by the poor souls.
The Pope emphasizes his new belief in universal salvation and in the overwhelming importance
of man by writing:
“The council points out this very fact when, speaking of that likeness, it recalls that "man
is the only creature on earth that God willed for itself." Man as "willed" by God, as "chosen"
by Him from eternity and called, destined for grace and glory, this is "each man," "the most concrete"
man, "the most real"; this is man in all the fullness of the mystery in which he has become a sharer
in Jesus Christ, the mystery in which each one of the four thousand million human beings living on our planet has
become a sharer from the moment he is conceived beneath the heart of his mother." [Theses quotations are taken
from The Papal Encyclicals 1958-1981, trans, Claudia Carlen, IHM McGrath Publishing Co. 1981, p. 255.]
Fr. Dormann comments on these passages in this way.
"But one simply cannot
say from this standpoint that "in the unique, unrepeatable human reality" of every "real, concrete,
historical man" the image and likeness of God is kept intact. For the doctrine of original sin maintains with
certainty the wounding of the imago and the loss of the similitude Dei in the concrete, historical reality of every
man. The redemption presupposes the condition of original sin in every man, and is only removed through the justification
of the sinner."
Fr. Dormann adds:
"The Council of Trent defined justification "as being a translation from
that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the sons’
(Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, Our Savior" (Denzinger-Bannwartk 796) It is evident
from the crucial statement of the text of the first encyclical [See the last line of first paragraph of the preceding
quotation of the Pope] which runs: In the unique unrepeatable reality of the individual man, the "image and
likeness of God are kept intact," is incompatible with Catholic doctrine. It stands in direct contradiction
to the teaching of the Council of Trent on justification by which man "is born a child of the first Adam and
is translated to the state of grace and the ‘adoption of the sons’ of God through the second Adam."
The Pope’s words in the last two sentences of the first paragraph
of the above quote from Redemptor Hominus emphasize that he also believes it is the human reality of man that is
the primary concern of the conciliar Church. This is a contradiction of the very reason Christ established His
Church since He established it to assist man to save his eternal soul. Christ did not establish His Church to assist
man in his humanity here in the temporal world. In response to the question: “Why did God make you?”
the Baltimore catechism’s answer is: “God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him is this world, and
to be happy with him forever in the next.” [Baltimore Catechism, No. 4, p. 20] This question and answer combined
with the question: “Why did Christ found the Church?” and answer: “Christ founded the Church to teach, govern,
sanctify and save all men.” [Ibid, 115.] clearly show the traditional Catholic Faith considered the eternal
welfare of man (his soul) as all important and the temporal welfare of man as almost incidental. Redemptor
Hominus was the first encyclical of many issued by Pope John Paul II during his very long pontificate. In
light of the fact that his very first encyclical stresses a belief in universal salvation along with the overwhelming
importance of man, it is not surprising that Pope John Paul II devoted nearly all of his papacy to the temporal
welfare of man while virtually ignoring the eternal welfare of man’s soul.
The enshrining of the Church to a devotion to
‘man-become–god’ was first clearly stated by Pope Paul VI on Dec. 7, 1965 in his closing speech to the Council:
The Pope said:
“The conciliar Church has also, it is true, been much concerned with man, with man as he really
is today, with living man, with man totally taken up with himself, with man who not only makes himself the centre
of his own interests, but who dares to claim that he is the end and aim of all existence ...”
“Secular, profane, humanism has finally revealed itself in its terrible shape and has, in a
certain sense, challenged the council. The religion of God made man has come up against a religion -- for
there is such a one -- of man who makes himself God.”
“And what happened? An impact, a battle, an anathema? That might have taken place,
but it did not. It was the old story of the Samaritan that formed the model for the council’s spirituality.
It was filled only with an endless sympathy. Its attention was taken up with the discovery of human needs---which
become greater as the son of the earth (sic) makes himself greater ...”
“Do you at least recognize this its merit, you modern humanists who have no place for the transcendence
of the things supreme, and come to know our new humanism: we also, we more than anyone else, have the cult of man.”
(Author’s emphasis) (The Book of Accusation Against Pope Paul VI, 1973. p.1 of the section entitled:
“Heteropraxy: Religious Liberty.” The work is on-line at www.crc-internet.org/lib1.htm)
Some years later, on Dec7, 1969 the Pope also said:
“Man is both giant and divine, in his origin and in his destiny. Hence therefore to man, honor to his dignity,
to his spirit, and to his life.” (“What Has Happened to the Catholic Church?” Revs. Francis & Dominic
Radecki, CMRI, p. 111.)
Vatican Council II was a revolutionary Council and Pope John Paul II relied on the deliberations of the Council
to substantiate his belief in universal salvation and the overwhelming importance of man. The fact
that the Council was indeed a revolutionary Council was emphasized by Cardinal Suenens, a very influential member
of the Council, when he stated:
“Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church.” (The Devil’s Final Battle,
Fr. Paul Kramer, Terryville, Ct. The Missionary Association, 2002. p.6)
The implication of the cardinal’s words are more fully appreciated when it is recognized that the French revolution
was: “a romantic spiritual revolt, an attempt to replace the Christian God with a Jacobin one.” (Liberal
Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg, p. 41) Since the Jacobin objective was the glorification of the people,
the French revolution was essentially the replacement of the Christian God with notion that Man is god. Thus,
the cardinal’s words are an admission that Vatican Council II changed the purpose of the Church from honoring God
and saving souls to honoring man and improving his temporal welfare.
Further evidence that the Second Vatican Council broke with the past of the Church are the words of Cardinal Suenens
in the book: ”Renewal of religious Structures”, which is the second of two volumes entitled: “Theory of Renewal.”
The books include lectures given at an International Congress of Theology in Toronto, Canada in 1967 under the
presidency of Cardinal Leger. In his introduction to the second volume, Cardinal Suenens wrote:
The Second Vatican Council marked the end of
an epoch or even of several epochs depending on one’s historical perspective. It brought to a close the Constantinian
era of Christendom” in the medieval sense, the era of the Counter-Reformation and the era of Vatican Council
I. In reference to that past, it marks a turning pint in the Church”
Further support for the assertion that the Council introduced revolutionary teachings is the comment of Reverend
Robert M. Brown, an invited Protestant observer at the Council. Rev. Brown said:
“The Council effectively banished the teaching that it is necessary for non-Catholics to convert to the Catholic
Faith for their salvation.”
Such an impression bluntly contradicts the thrice defined
dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. (The Ecumenical Revolution, Robert McAfee Brown,
1967, 2nd Ed. 1999. pp. 67-68)
As a direct consequence of the false belief in universal salvation,
sermons and much of the literature in the conciliar Church very rarely have as their topic hell or purgatory. Moreover
if per chance, hell or purgatory is the subject of a sermon, they are usually addressed in a dismissive manner
to minimize a clash with the new false belief of universal salvation. Consequently, it should not be surprising
that the conciliar Church faithful are unaware of the serious and very real consequences of sin on the eternal
welfare of their souls.
The following are some examples illustrating how the conciliar
Church teaches the faithful that universal salvation is now a basic tenet of the Catholic Faith.
Prior to Vatican Council II, the committing of a homosexual
act was such a serious mortal sin that the Church held it to be one of the four sins crying out to heaven for vengeance.
(See The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X where the he says: “These sins are said to cry out to God for vengeance because
the Holy Ghost says so, and because their iniquity is so great and so manifest that it provokes God to punish them
with the severest chastisements.”) In the past few years the Church has been afflicted with a multitude of
homosexual and pedophile scandals involving members of the clergy and the hierarchy. The scandals have been worldwide
and have been the subject of numerous articles and discussions. Many of the articles and comments were from members
of the clergy and hierarchy who certainly were well aware of the extreme danger to the eternal welfare of the soul
of one who willfully commits a homosexual act. Despite this awareness, very few, if any, of the articles and comments
by members of the clergy or the hierarchy of the conciliar Church, including the Pope himself, expressed any concern
for the eternal welfare of the souls of the victims or the victimizers. Rather, the articles and comments were
concerned only with the temporal consequences of the commission of this mortal sin.
Further evidence of the conciliar Church’s implicit
sanction of the homosexual act is the display of the apostles copulating in an Art exhibit at the Commuseum
in Vienna which is attached to the historic Catholic cathedral of St. Stephen in Vienna. The display is so
crude as to display Christ on the cross without a face but with uncovered genitals. The display was entitled:
“Religion, Flesh and Power” The museum is located adjacent to the palace of Christoph Cardinal Schonborn,
O. P. (Vienna Cathedral Museum Exhibits Lewd, Blasphemous Homosexual “Religions “ Art. Artist said
to be very please his works displayed in museum associated with the Church.” By Hillary White, Life Site
News, Wednesday March 26, 2008, www.lifesitenews.com/Idn/2008/mar/08032608.html)
In the United States the scandals were so damaging to the Church
that Pope John Paul II met with all the cardinals from that country. Following the meeting neither the Pope nor
any of the cardinals publicly expressed even the slightest concern for the eternal welfare of the souls of the
people involved in the scandals nor has there been expressions of concern for the eternal welfare of souls in any
of the bishops’ plans for the "handling" of members of the clergy and the hierarchy who commit pedophile
or homosexual acts. Since the committing of such acts are mortal sins and the members of the hierarchy of today’s
conciliar Church have expressed absolutely no concern for the eternal welfare of the souls of those committing
such acts, it is obvious this hierarchy no longer considers the committing of mortal sins as seriously endangering
the eternal welfare of a soul. This is a clear indication of a belief in universal salvation.
Another indication that universal salvation is now a tenet of
the faith of the conciliar Church is the permission and sponsorship by many bishops and cardinals of “Dignity”
liturgies in their dioceses. It is well known that a major objective of such liturgies is to force acceptance by
the faithful of the homosexual lifestyle. The bishops’ support and active participation in these liturgies illustrates
the bishops’ total lack of concern for the eternal welfare of the souls of those attending the liturgies. Furthermore,
because the faithful know that the willful commission of the homosexual act is a mortal sin, the encouragement
of these rites by the hierarchy confirms in the minds of the faithful that the hierarchy of the conciliar Church
does indeed believe in universal salvation. This confirmation is further enhanced by the obvious contrast between
the hierarchy’s support of dignity liturgies and its widespread forbidding of the traditional Latin Mass.
It is unusual for authorities in the conciliar Church
to refuse a request by a Catholic married couple for an annulment of their marriage. In fact, so readily are annulments
granted in the United States that they are known as ‘Catholic divorces.’ It is also well known that in nearly all
such annulments, upon receiving the annulment, and frequently before receiving the annulment, usually one or both
of the parties has remarried and so violates the sixth commandment. In Germany, only 3 out of the approximately
50 bishops in that country obeyed a request by then Cardinal Ratzinger to refuse communion to Catholic divorced
remarried people. Cardinal Meissner of Cologne commented that the Church should grant more annulments because then
there would be no more problem! [Adoremus, December, 1997] Thus, a prince of the conciliar Church blithely urges
the violation of the sixth commandment!
Abortion is another mortal sin whose commission cries
out to heaven for vengeance and, like the homosexual act, it requires absolution through a valid confession as
well as a sufficient act of reparation. However, despite knowing full well abortion is such a terrible sin, many
bishops and priests of the conciliar Church urge Catholics to vote for candidates for public office who support
abortion, even the horrible third term abortion. For example Cardinal Mahony in Los Angeles has supported known
abortion advocates for public office. By giving support to such candidates, the bishops and priests are aiding
and abetting the mortal sin of abortion. It is very common for bishops to give tacit approval to a candidate
advocating abortion by ignoring or not reprimanding members of the clergy in their dioceses who urge or provide
support for such candidates. That nearly all of the bishops in the United States indirectly support abortion
is shown by the fact that, during the 2004 national election, by a vote of 183 to 6, the bishops voted to not refuse
communion to candidates for public office who support abortion.
Cardinal Maida in Detroit did not reprimand the priest who permitted
Al Gore, during his run for the presidency, to give a speech during a Novus Ordo Sunday liturgy even though Al
Gore was a well known advocate of abortion. Similarly, Cardinal George of Chicago permitted another candidate for
president, Al Sharpton, to speak in a Catholic Church in the archdiocese of the cardinal. The cardinal was very
much aware that Mr. Sharpton was a vigorous proponent of abortion. Furthermore, the cardinal refused the pleas
of many of the faithful to prevent Mr. Sharpton from speaking in the church with the dismissive comment that: "It
would be useless to prevent him from speaking!" By over-ruling the pleas of the faithful to not permit
a well known advocate of abortion to speak in a Catholic church, the cardinal is telling those faithful that abortion
is not a mortal sin, and, since the faithful know very well abortion is indeed a mortal sin, the cardinal’s dismissive
comment also implies it is useless to prevent the advocacy of mortal sin! In 2006, Nancy Pelosi became the
first woman to head the House of Representatives. For nearly a quarter century she has used her position
to aide and abet abortion. Soon after assuming her new leadership role and proudly proclaiming she was a
Catholic, Mrs. Pelosi received communion in the chapel of Trinity College which is in the archdiocese headed by
Archbishop Wuerl. Despite many public pleas from the faithful to the archbishop t