posted 03-22-2003 01:20 PM            

In order to achieve “unity in diversity” with non-Catholic sects and to adapt the Church to the modern world, the conciliar Church is determined to alter fundamental tenets of the traditional Catholic Faith. The alterations are made by bishops, cardinals and even the Pope, by their publicly participating in actions and publicly professing teachings which contradict the Catholic Faith. Since the Catholic Church has always stressed the importance of obedience, the fact that the contradictions are made by authority figures in the Church is a powerful impetus for the faithful to accept the contradictions. The contradictions are readily accepted by the faithful because the poor to non-existent teaching of the fundamentals of the Catholic Faith over the past forty years has made it very difficult, if not impossible, for the Catholic Faithful to recognize the alterations. The alterations have not been formally declared as tenets of the Catholic Faith and thus are not dejure. However, the alterations are defacto and as far as the faithful are concerned, the alterations urge the practicing of a Faith very different from, the traditional Catholic Faith.

Since it is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that is responsible for the alterations in our Holy Faith it is appropriate to present the Papal Coronation Oath, an oath taken by a Pope upon his assuming the office of the papacy. Although the oath applies directly to the Pope, all members of the hierarchy 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 rites 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 are 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)

The papal coronation oath was formulated in the latter part of the seventh century by Pope St. Agatho. Since its inception every Pope up to and including Pope John XXIII has taken the oath while Popes Paul VI and John Paul II refused take it.

It is evident that the purpose of the oath is to assure the Pope will maintain the integrity of the Faith by preventing the introduction of major changes in it. The papacy of Pope John Paul II has been replete with significant changes in the Faith. It is the intention of this paper to illustrate some of the more significant changes which are all defacto since none of them have been commanded.

1. Catholics may openly disobey the First Commandment which is: I am the Lord Thy God; thou shalt not have strange Gods before me.”

On October 27, 1986, at the enthusiastic urging of Pope John Paul II and amid great fanfare, a joint interfaith prayer meeting was held at Assisi, Italy. The participants came from several different religious sects and each participant had come at the specific request of the Holy Father. The most startling event at the meeting was the placing of a statue of 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?, Abbe’ Daniel Le Roux, p. 164] Thus, in a Catholic Church consecrated to Our Lord Jesus Christ, a strange 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] In succeeding years several such joint-prayer meetings have been held at the specific behest of Pope John Paul II and since each meeting was characterized by prayers to strange gods, each meeting was an infraction of the first commandment.

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.” Thus the archbishop asserted the Catholic Church was seeking to find Our Lord in 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, a prominent cardinal and a governing archbishop of a large and prominent diocese each publicly worship, or encourage the worship of false gods, the faithful are being told the conciliar Church now denies the first commandment.

2. Works and deeds are no longer required for salvation because “one is now justified by faith alone.”

The fact that works and deeds are no longer required for salvation is an essential part of The Joint Catholic-Lutheran Declaration of Justification. This is a direct contradiction of the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent which said in Session 6, Canon 9: “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.” Neither Pope John Paul II nor Cardinal Ratzinger signed the declaration but neither has Pope John Paul II nor Cardinal Ratzinger issued a public denial or disclaimer of the joint declaration. Since the accord received much publicity and Rome has remained silent, in the eyes of the faithful, the conciliar Church now teaches one is justified by faith alone.

3. Conversion to the Catholic Faith is no longer necessary for salvation.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, Pope John Paul II’s recently appointed Secretary of the Pontifical Council For the Promotion of Christian Unity, explained the Church’s position on Christian Unity is no longer to be understood as a return of the separated brothers to the true Church of Christ. The cardinal said: “the old idea of ‘return’ (modernist speak for conversion) is no longer applicable to the Catholic Church after Vatican Council II.” [Remnant, September 15, 2000. p. 13] At the time of his appointment it was well known that Bishop Kasper denied the necessity of converting to the Catholic Faith in order to save one’s eternal soul. Soon after his appointment Cardinal Kasper said: “Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned at Vatican II.” [37a. Heaven’s Request, Part III. By John Vennari. The Catholic Family News. August 2001. Vol. 8 Issue No. 9.] In a speech to the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee in New York on May 1, 2001 the cardinal also said: “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 this 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, 2002. Internet URL - www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/Conversion_of_the_Jews.htm]

A Vatican Internet Zenit post, ZE02121801, dated Dec. 18, 2002 reported that Archbishop Stanislaus Fernandez of the Gandhinagar Archdiocese in India stated: “Conversion is not the work of the Church, but rather of 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.”

Recently, the American Bishops committee under the direction of Cardinal Keeler, issued a document condemning efforts to convert the Jewish people. This committee even went so far as to declare that Jesus was not the messiah for the Jews.

From the above it is evident members of the hierarchy in the conciliar Church are proclaiming a teaching which is a clear contradiction of the De fide teaching that outside the Church there is no salvation. In light of the above, it should not be surprising that many faithful now believe other religions are as equally salvific as the Catholic religion. The preceding remarks also show the Church Militant no longer exists.

4. Jesus Christ is no longer the messiah for all the peoples of the world.

The publication of the document, “The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible”, was authorized by Cardinal Ratzinger. When addressing the Jewish belief that Christ is not the messiah for them, the document states: “ the Jewish messianic wait is not in vain.” The document also adds that Jews and Christians share their wait for the Messiah, although Jews are waiting for the first coming and Christians for the second coming. These statements are a clear refutation of the dogmatic teaching that Christ is indeed the messiah for all the peoples of the world, the Jews included. By issuing such a document it is evident Cardinal Ratzinger wants the faithful to believe the Church has abandoned the teaching that Christ is the messiah for all peoples. The statement: “the Jewish messianic wait is not in vain” is also a denial of the first commandment.

The statement by Cardinal Kasper [see item 3 above] that “the Jews believe in the true and one God,” denies that Jesus is the Messiah for all the peoples of the world because the aforementioned document authorized by Cardinal Ratzinger asserts Christ is not the Messiah for the Jews. Such statements by princes of the Church clearly tell the faithful that Christ is not the Messiah for all.

5. The Church no longer believes in the existence of the Triune God.

In item 3 above Cardinal Kasper bluntly states Jews believe in the one and true God. [My emphasis] Now Jews do not believe Christ is God. Hence, the cardinal’s statement: the Jews believe in the one and true God, implicitly denies the existence of the Holy Trinity. Since Christ is God by virtue of His being the third person in the Holy Trinity, the cardinal is proclaiming a belief in the Holy Trinity is no longer necessary. This proclamation was reinforced by the public statement of Pope John Paul II to several thousand Muslims in Morocco on August 15, 1985. The Holy Father 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 Abbe’ Daniel Le Roux, p. 141] At the time he spoke these words, the Pope knew very well 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.

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 usually omitted in a celebration of a Novus Ordo Mass. In contrast, in the celebration of a traditional Latin Mass the preface prayer is said except for special feast days thus regularly reminding the faithful of the reality of the Holy Trinity. The above actions of the Holy Father and a prominent cardinal together with the elimination of the preface extolling the Holy Trinity in nearly all celebrations of a Novus Ordo Mass, is an effective means of teaching the faithful that belief in the Triune God is no longer necessary.

6. The Church no longer believes in the Real Presence.

In many Novus Ordo liturgies the presider, by his cavalier and/or individualized consecration of the bread and wine, overtly signifies to the faithful there is no way, the body and blood of Christ could be present under the appearance of bread and wine. Also responsible for a non-belief in the real Presence at most Novus Ordo liturgies is a near complete lack of respect and adoration for Our Lord during the time of the distribution of Communion as is shown by communicants not kneeling before, after or while receiving the body of Our Lord, their receiving Our Lord in the hand, and their talking and greeting one another before 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 handle and distribute the Sacred Host, publicly emphasizes the Sacred Host is to be treated no differently than any temporal object and so reinforces a denial of the Real Presence.

Probably the most blatant examples of a denial of the Real Presence occur at the Papal Masses celebrated at World Youth Days, [WYD]. The WYDsare called by and presided over by Pope John Paul II. Gerry Matatics attended the WYD in Denver, Colorado in 1993. He Gave the following description of the reception of Holy Communion at the Papal Mass. “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 Façade, by Chris Ferrara and Tom Woods, p. 389] Michael Matt reports a similar desecration of the Hosts during the reception of Holy Communion at a Papal Mass 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.” [Ibid, p. 389] In the Fall, 2002 issue of the Latin Mass magazine on p. 5 the Rome correspondent, Alessandro Zangrando, describes his observations of the recent WYD held in Toronto, Canada. He writes: “Several participants at 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. More serious still was the distribution of Communion in card board boxes by girls while hundreds of priests remained at their seats.” 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 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.”

Actions and behavior at Novus Ordo liturgies such as those just described, as well as other similar actions and behavior have been very effective in inculcating a non-belief in the real Presence. This assertion is born out by recent statistics which show that three-fourths of the faithful and more than one-half of the clergy do not believe in the real Presence.

Denial of the real Presence has even been encouraged by Cardinal Ratzinger Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation that is charged with protecting and preserving the integrity of the Faith. In a little known book entitled: “Die Sacramentale Begrundung Christliker Existend.” the cardinal 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 church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.” The statement has not been disclaimed nor denied by the cardinal nor Rome even though it is a denial of the Real Presence. The statement also denies that Our Lord is present in the tabernacle and that the Church is the house of God. As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the cardinal occupies the second or third highest position in the Church. Thus, to many of the faithful, his words are a clear and authoritative affirmation that the Church no longer believes in the Real Presence. The words discourage visits to a church to pray before the tabernacle. Such visits were the source of graces for a great many saints. The cardinal’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.

The bishops and the Pope are well aware of the overt denial of the Real Presence by an overwhelming majority of the faithful and yet they have done next to nothing to correct this denial. Moreover, in most Novus Ordo liturgies celebrated today, during the distribution of communion, behavior which is insulting of Our Lord continues unabated. Thus increasing numbers of the faithful will no longer believe in the real Presence. 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.]

7. The Mass is not 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. However, soon after the close of the council, Pope Paul VI initiated a new rite designed to be a community meal and labeled as such by its primary designer, Msgr. Annabelle Bugnini. The rite became known as the Novus Ordo rite and emphasizes the temporal by encouraging a communal atmosphere. In contrast the liturgical rite of the traditional Latin Mass emphasizes the eternal by encouraging an atmosphere appropriate to a sacrifice. 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 are thus called presiders while the celebrants of the Latin Mass are called priests since they are offering a sacrifice. Even though the purpose and liturgy of the new rite is startlingly different from the old rite, the conciliar Church persists in calling the new rite a Mass. Now 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.” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott, p. 407.) Hence labeling the Novus Ordo liturgical rite a Mass is indeed misleading.

In many celebrations of the new Mass 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, 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. Such irreverent conduct is encouraged since the Masses are designed to attract the youth. Because of this irreverent conduct, the youthful attendees are taught the Mass is certainly not a re-enactment of Christ‘s sacrificial death at Calvary nor is the Mass a sacrifice. Since WYD Masses are seen by many of the faithful on TV, they too are being taught the Novus Ordo liturgy is assuredly not a sacrifice. In fact, to claim a liturgical celebration at a WYD Mass or a LTM is a Mass, could very easily be interpreted as an indication of glee at the horrible death suffered by Christ. It is difficult to imagine a more obscene insult to Our Lord.

The behavior at a typical WYD Mass, which is also typical of the behavior at a LTM, is well described by John Vennari in the 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: “John Allen, the Rome correspondent of NCR, explains that all of these papal ceremonies are arranged at the Vatican by Bishop Piero Marini, the Pope’s Master of Ceremonies and Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, the head of the Vatican‘s Congregation for Divine Worship. . . . The Pope approves of papal ceremonies where the influence of both of these men are present.” The ceremonies and liturgical rites are planned well in advance of a WYD. Thus, the Holy Father must surely be aware he is 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. Similarly, since the liturgical rites used at LTM’s are prepared by the presider, or the parish liturgical committee, 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 and hence it should not be surprising that more than 75% of the youth and the faithful 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 indeed a true Sacrifice of the Mass. However, in light of the reasons given above, neither Mass is a true Sacrifice of the Mass. Hence, the youthful attendees at these Masses are being deprived of the remission of sins as well as the supernatural and natural gifts that they would have received if had they attended a true Sacrifice of the Mass.

8. The Church no longer denies a belief in universal salvation.

Prior to Vatican Council II, a homosexual act was such a serious mortal sin that the Church considered it one of the four sins crying out to heaven for vengeance. 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 of the Church. 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 and each is fully aware that the homosexual act is a sin that so endangers the eternal soul, that one who commits the sin and dies without having made a proper confession of the sin, damns his/her soul to hell forever. Despite this awareness, none of the articles and comments by members of the clergy or the hierarchy, 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. In the United States the scandals were so damaging to the Church that the Holy Father met with all the cardinals from the United States. Following the meeting there was no public mention of concern for the souls of those involved in the scandals nor has there been expressions of concern for the eternal welfare of these souls in any of the U. S. Bishop’s plans for the “handling” of members of the clergy who commit pedophile or homosexual acts. Since an act of pedophilia or homosexuality is an act which most seriously endangers the eternal welfare of the soul of the one committing the act and the hierarchy of today’s conciliar Church have expressed absolutely no concern for the souls of those committing such acts, it is obvious this hierarchy no longer considers the committing of mortal sin as seriously endangering the eternal welfare of a soul. This is a clear indication of a belief in universal salvation by the hierarchy of the conciliar Church. An added indication of such a belief is bishops and cardinals sponsoring or permitting Dignity liturgies in their dioceses. It is well known that a major objective of such liturgies is to force acceptance by the Church of the homosexual lifestyle. Since the bishops and cardinals know full well the dangers of such a lifestyle to the eternal welfare of souls, they are certainly not concerned with the eternal fate of the souls of those adopting the homosexual lifestyle. Hence this support of dignity liturgies by bishops and cardinals is yet another indication of a belief in universal salvation by members of the hierarchy of the conciliar Church.

The American Catholic Church rarely refuses the request of a Catholic married couple for an annulment. In fact, so readily are annulments granted that they are known as ’Catholic divorces.’ It is well known that in nearly all such annulments, upon receiving the annulment usually one or both of the parties remarries and so violates the sixth commandment. Thus, another mortal sin is blithely permitted by the conciliar Church hierarchy and, in the eyes of the faithful, a belief in universal salvation is again taught. In Germany, only three out of the 50 or so bishops in that country obeyed a request by 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. P. 39] Thus, a prince of the conciliar Church blithely urges the violation of the sixth commandment!

Abortion is another sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance and therefore is a mortal sin necessitating absolution through a valid confession and reparation by those participating in the sin. Yet it is not unusual that bishops of the conciliar Church urge Catholics to vote for public office candidates who support abortion, even the horrible third term abortion. For example Cardinal Mahoney in Los Angeles has supported known abortion advocates for public office. It is very common for bishops to give tacit approval to candidates advocating abortion by ignoring or not reprimanding members of the clergy in their diocese who urge or provide support for such candidates. For example, 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. It is all to common for bishops to not warn the faithful in their charge that voting for a candidate who supports abortion is indeed being an accomplice to the abortion. By such inaction the bishops are again teaching the faithful that universal salvation is now a tenet of the Faith in the conciliar Church of today.

As far back as 1978, the French bishops as a body had pronounced against the doctrine of hell, thus reinforcing what was being taught by many of their parish priests. [Iota Unam, A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century. By Romano Amerio. P. 695] In a footnote, Amerio notes that the auxiliary bishop of La Rochelle, France wrote: “Hell is simply a manner of speaking that Christ used when addressing people whose religious outlook was somewhat primitive; we have developed further since.” In his book Amerio also points out that several of the influential periti at Vatican Council II were of the belief hell did not exist and, if perhaps hell did exist, any soul so unfortunate as to be sent there, did not stay there for all eternity. In stark contrast, St. John Vianney, who was noted for the great number of souls he saved, rarely gave a sermon in which he did not mention hell and the terrible consequences to souls that had been condemned to go there.

Further evidence for alleging the conciliar Church no longer denies a belief in universal salvation is seen in the documents of Vatican Council II. [See for ex. “The documents of Vatican II” by W. M. Abbott, S.J.] In the documents, the word ‘hell’ does not appear. Since the council was touted as a pastoral council, the absence of the word ‘hell’ strongly suggests hell is no longer a concern of the conciliar Church and the lack of such a concern is a manifestation of universal salvation.

Finally, Fr. Johannes Dormann in his book, “Pope John Paul II’s Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religious at Assisi, Part I.” shows that Pope John Paul II himself has long believed in universal salvation, On p. 85, Fr. Dormann writes: “In the first encyclical of John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (13), 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 for ever. 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.

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. [This quotation is taken from The Papal Encyclicals 1958-1981, trans, Claudia Carlen, IHM McGrath Publishing Co. 1981, p. 255.]

Fr. Dormann comments on the passage 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.”

For the above reference to Fr. Dormann’s work I am indebted to John Clay.

In the preceding quote from the encyclical of Pope John Paul II, when speaking of man, the Pope said: “…and with each one Christ has united himself forever.” [My emphasis]. This clearly shows the Pope believes in universal salvation since it has always been a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Faith that souls in hell are eternally separated from God and this eternal separation is their greatest suffering. Thus when the Pope asserts man will be united with Christ forever, the Pope is asserting there will be no souls in hell which is equivalent to an assertion of universal salvation.

The Pope’s words in the last two sentences of the first paragraph of the above quote from Redemptor Hominus emphasize the that it is the human reality of man that is the primary concern of today’s conciliar Church. This, of course, is false since Christ established His Church 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. The assertion that the primary concern of the Church is the humanity of man is an implicit assertion of universal salvation since Our Lord established His Church for the specific purpose of the salvation of souls.

A belief in universal salvation was placed last on the list of examples since such a belief explains the readiness of the conciliar Church to jettison or contradict many tenets of the traditional Catholic Faith.

The preceding examples of teachings and actions by members of the hierarchy of today’s conciliar Church were examples which deny or contradict one or more fundamental tenets of the Catholic Faith. Given that actions are frequently a better teacher than words, actions such as those described effectively inform the faithful conciliar Church no longer adheres to many of the De fide tenets of the Catholic Faith. Admittedly the changes in Faith described above have not been made official Church doctrine. However, neither have they been formally and effectively denied by the Holy Father or Rome. In other words the new teachings are defacto but not dejure. The papacy of Pope John Paul II has been characterized by the granting of increased power to the bishops to teach the Faith, as each sees fit, and only very rarely has he publicly corrected a teaching of a bishop which contradicts the traditional teaching of the Church. The increased power and independence of individual bishops and committees of bishops, is a direct consequence of the Pope’s strict adherence to collegiality on the mistaken belief that the governance of the Church should be more democratic. This independence for members of the hierarchy has resulted in contradictory teachings among bishops and cardinals. For instance, an American bishops committee issued a pastoral document: “Always Our Children” which was a thinly veiled promotion of homosexuality. Cardinal Mahony defended the document while cardinal O’Connor condemned it. Bishop Bruskewitz has condemned active homosexuality while Bishops Gumbleton and Cawcutt have promoted it. Bishop Kurt Krenn and Cardinal Shoenborn, both of Austria had such a serious dispute over a matter concerning retired Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer that the dispute reached public television. [ETWN News Brief, Nov. 24, 1998.] A May 28, 2001 Vatican City Internet Post, ZE105280, entitled: “Which Comes First, the Universal Church or the Diocesan Church?” describes a lengthy and serious disagreement between Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Walter Kasper over a matter which directly affects the unity of the Church. As a final example there were not a few members of the clergy and the hierarchy who opposed the prayer meeting at Assisi, a meeting vigorously promoted by Pope John Paul II. In the eyes of the faithful, such open conflicts between members of the hierarchy reinforces, the belief that the Catholic Faith is not immutable and that it can change with the times. The reinforcement of this false belief is not diminished by the Holy Father maintaining public silence in such serious disagreements.

Such public differences between bishops and cardinals was predicted by the Blessed Virgin during her third visit to Sister Agnes Sasagawa in Akita, Japan. The visit occurred on October 13, 1975, the anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima while Sister Agnes was praying the Rosary before the Blessed Sacrament. The Blessed Virgin told sister: “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops.” [Akita, The Tears and Message of Mary, by Teiji Yasuda, O.S.V., p. 78]

Moreover, it is well known that poor to non-existent teaching of the fundamentals of the traditional Catholic Faith is responsible for most of the faithful knowing nothing, or next-to-nothing, about their traditional Faith. Consequently, when the faithful see and/or read about a teaching or action by a member of the hierarchy of the Church, which teaching or action is a contradiction of a basic tenet of the Faith, most of the faithful are not even aware of the contradiction or have no reason to not believe the contradiction. In other words, the faithful’s ignorance of their Holy Faith prevents their recognizing and taking proper cognizance of an action or teaching of a bishop or a cardinal which contradicts or denies a traditional tenet of the Catholic Faith. This failure to recognize and properly react to a contradiction to the Faith is abetted when the Pope or a member of the hierarchy does nothing effective to point out and correct the contradiction. The new faith tenet novelties are also confirmed in the minds of the faithful by many of the faithful believing the Faith is defined by whatever the Pope or a member of the hierarchy says about the Faith. In this way obedience is used to destroy the Faith of the faithful. It is often said that it is a masterstroke of satan to use obedience to destroy the Faith.

Since a Catholic is required to believe in and hold fast to all the basic tenets of the traditional Catholic Faith, the implicit banishing or contradicting of significant tenets of the traditional Catholic Faith by those in authority in the conciliar Church makes it exceedingly difficult for the faithful to remain Catholic in the traditional meaning of the word. Thankfully there are some bishops and not a few clergy who have remained faithful to the tenets of the traditional Catholic Faith and it is to these bishops and to these clergy that one must turn in order to be assured one is being taught those tenets of the traditional Catholic Faith which enable the eternal salvation of one’s soul. Consequently, always remember that, when faced with a novelty of the Faith, “Hold Fast to Tradition.”

The method by which those in authority in the conciliar Church change the Faith is simplicity itself. Members of the hierarchy by their actions and teachings just boldly teach the new novel beliefs or act in accord with them. In other words, “they just do it.” The faithful, who have been taught to obey and follow the actions and teachings of the hierarchy then naturally assume the novelties are indeed the teachings of the Church. As stated before, the gullibility of many of the faithful in assuming the validity of the novel actions and teachings is greatly abetted by the past forty years or so of poor to non-existent teaching of the traditional Catholic Faith.

In conclusion, the continued defacto banishing or changing of tenets of the traditional Catholic Faith will eventually result in the faith of the conciliar Church being based solely upon an ever changing temporal value system. When this happens the conciliar Church will then be a complete manifestation of the cult of man thus confirming the proud boast of Pope Paul VI at the close of Vatican council II that: “We too, now have the ‘cult of man’, even more than others.” The implementation of a ‘cult of man’ church has been and will continue to be strongly abetted by the over-riding concern of the Papacy of Pope John Paul II with the temporal to the near exclusion of a concern for the eternal.

The assertions in this article challenge the actions and teachings of those in authority in the conciliar Church. Thus it is relevant to examine what the church has taught about obedience to the teaching of Church authorities which contradicts the traditional teaching of the Church. Most of the following remarks are taken from the document “The Limitations of Papal Authority” which appears in the List of Files on the TRADITIO web site, www.traditio.com.

St. Thomas Aquinas-The Angelic Doctor and Principal Theologian of the Church. “Hold firmly that your faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” (Unity is one of the marks a Church must have to be Catholic.)

Juan Cardinal De Torquemada. Given by Pope Eugenius IV the title of: “Defender of the Faith.” “‘One ought to obey God rather than man’; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands passed over.” All of the teachings and actions cited above were defacto, that is, none were formally commanded by the Pope. This statement by Cardinal De Torquemada shows that if the Pope, or the bishops in consort with the Pope, were to command obedience to any of the teachings or actions described in the preceding examples, the command should not be obeyed.

St. Giacomo Tommaso De Vio Gaetani [Cajetan]. Cajetan points out that the famous axiom, “Where the Pope is, there is also the Church.” holds true only when the Pope acts and behaves as the Pope, because Peter “is subject to the duties of the office”; otherwise, “neither is the Church in him nor is he in the Church.” [My emphasis]

The following comment by Pope St. Pius X describes a primary duty of the individual holding the office of the Papacy.

Pope St. Pius X wrote: “One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the Deposit of Faith delivered to the Saints, rejecting profane novelties of words, and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so-called.”

Venerable Pope Pius IX, in a letter to Bishop Brizen wrote: “If a future Pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.”

St. Vincent of Lerins wrote: “What then should a Catholic do if some portion of the church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What choice can he make if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole church at once, then his greet concern will be to attach himself to antiquity which can no longer be led away by any lying novelty.” This quotation was obtained from another web site.

In conclusion, Catholic obedience must always be to the Faith, and not to an individual or a group of individuals.

Bob Banaugh
Jan 21, 2003