Let it be clear that John Paul II, like his immediate predecessors, saw Vatican II as being inspired by the Holy Spirit and saw in this 'spirit' a mandate to follow. 'Therefore, brothers, drink at these authentic fountains. Speak with the language of the Council, of John XXIII, of Paul VI: it is the language of experience, of the suffering, of the hope of modern humanity' (Puebla Speech). 'In these past ten years [since the Council], how much progress humanity has made, and with humanity and at its service, how much progress the Church has made' (ibid). John XXIII saw all this as a New Pentecost and 'un balzo in avanti' (a great leap forward).Paul VI described it as a new 'Epiphany.' And John Paul II, for some mystical reason, sees it more as a 'New Advent': 'We find ourselves in a certain way in the midst of a new Advent, at a time of expectation...' Vatican II provides 'the foundation for ever more achievements of the people of God's march towards the Promised Land a this stage of history...' 'How can we fail to trust,' he asks, 'in our Lord's grace as revealed recently through what the Holy Spirit said and we heard during the Council' (RH 6.2) (17). And is all this not an endorsement of 'ongoing revelation?' (18).
Ecumenism of John Paul II
On February 15, 1980 John Paul II instructed seminarians and Church educators that met with him at the Lateran University that loyalty to the Church is not to be defined, 'in a reduced sense, as maintaining standards, nor does it mean staying within the bounds of orthodoxy - avoiding positions that are in contrast to the pronouncements of the apostolic see, the ecumenical councils and the learned doctors of the Church.' He went on to tell this group that 'we must have a divergence of positions, although in the end, we must rely on a synthesis of all.' One is reminded of his statement to the Polish faithful on the Feast of Corpus Christ in 1978 - 'we respect all ideologies.'
Like his post-conciliar predecessors, he is a great advocate of ecumenism, and ecumenism in turn is, as we have shown elsewhere, but a step towards the unity of all mankind. As he said to the non-Catholic delegates at his inauguration: 'tell those whom you represent that the involvement of the Catholic Church in the Ecumenical movement, as solemnly expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is irreversible.' This concept of ecumenism requires one to embrace the false concept of Unity promulgated by Vatican II (a concept that implicitly denies that Unity exists in the Church.) 'I am glad to know,' he said, 'that were possible the attempt is being made to organize also common prayers with the other brother Christians, in harmony of sentiments, in order that, in obedience to the Lord's will, we may grow in faith, towards full unity, for the building up of the Body of Christ...' (L'Osservatore Romano, Jan. 22, 1979)
The phrase 'the people of God' was already enshrined in the 'doublespeek' of the Conciliar documents - whether used to refer to Catholics; to all those 'baptized in Christ' (i.e., Protestants) and to 'all men of good will' (the rest of mankind). The concept is further developed in his Encyclical Redemptor hominis where he teaches us that 'the Church is therefore the people of God' (21.1). He later elaborates: 'the people of God' are 'a community precisely because all its members form it together with Christ Himself, at least because they bear in their souls the indelible mark of Christ' (RH 21.2). And what is this indelible mark? We can only presume it is baptism. Hence it follows that the minimal requirement for belonging to the Church (He never once in the entire Encyclical uses the term 'Catholic') is Baptism. He then adds that 'What the Spirit said to the Church through the Council of our time, what the Spirit says in this Church to all the Churches cannot lead to anything else -in spite of momentary uneasiness - but still more mature solidity of the whole people of God, aware of their salvific mission' (RH 3.1) But the idea of the 'people of God' is to have an even further extension. 'Likewise the Church, which has struck root in many varied fields of life in the whole of present-day humanity, also acquires the certainty and, one could say, the experience of being close to man, to each person, of being each person's Church, the Church of the people of God (RH 22.5). 'True ecumenical activity means openness, drawing closer, availability for dialogue, and a shared investigation of the truth in the full evangelical and Christian sense...' The Church is seeking the universal unity of Christians (RH 6.2) and her most sacred act is to be subjected to this nebulous goal, for he also tells us that the Church 'is gathering particularly today in a special way around the Eucharist and desiring that the authentic Eucharistic community should become a sign of the gradually maturing unity of all Christians' (RH 20.7). Of course, this ecumenical spirit will eventually go beyond the Christian sects. 'What we have just said must also be applied - although in another way and with due differences - to activity for coming closer together with the representatives of the non-Christian religions, an activity expressed through dialogue, contacts, prayer in common, investigation of the treasures of human spirituality, in which, as we well know, the members of these religions are not lacking.'
In line with this outlook John Paul II has joined in common prayers with the Anglicans at their cathedral (stolen from the Catholics) at Canterbury, renewing his vows of baptism in unison with Mr. Robert Runcie (entitled 'archbishop,' and among other things a Freemason), giving him full recognition as a fellow bishop, and reciting with him the Credo. (All this with the 'pope' wearing his 'stole' which signifies that he was functioning in his sacerdotal role.) Following this he went on procession with him, candle in hand, to the 'Chapel of the Martyrs of the Twentieth Century' which holds up for veneration such individuals as Maximilian Kolbe (a true saint � Vendée Editorial Note), Oscar Romero (a subversive bishop killed by rightists in Central America), Martin Luther King, Bonhoffer and others of similar ilk. His general behavior during the visit was such that one non-Catholic newspaper commented: 'none of this, of course, should have surprised anybody. It has long been obvious that the Pope is a very good Protestant. What is more, it has also been obvious since Vatican II that the Roman Catholic Church has undergone the Reformation.'
In December of 1983 he acted in a similar manner with the Lutherans in Rome. Having previously stated that the Catholic church has to bear a share of the 'guilt' for 'divided Christianity' (Vienna, Sept. 12, 1983), and having praised Luther for his 'profound religiousness,' he proceeded to participate in the 500th anniversary of Luther's birth by attending a Lutheran service in Rome. vested in a stole, which is a liturgical vestment a priest is only supposed to wear when participating in sacramental functions (hence the stole in confession). On entering the Lutheran 'sanctuary' he bowed to the Lutheran communion table and then sat in an ordinary chair on the dais, at the same level as the other Lutheran ministers. During the service he joined the Lutheran pastor and congregation in reciting the Apostle's Creed and the Our Father, and during his sermon he spoke much of his longing for unity. Now all this clearly involves active communicatio in sacris, the recognition of the Lutherans as a 'sister Church,' the denigration of his function as the supposed Vicar of Christ, and the implicit denial of several points of Catholic doctrines. And to make matters worse, the Lutherans made it quite clear that they were making a concession in inviting the 'Bishop of Rome' (never referring to him as 'pope') and that the visit should in no way be seen as a compromise on their part with Lutheran principles. He is purported, following this, to have traveled to Switzerland where he joined the 'worship service' of the World Council of Churches at the Center's Chapel (National Catholic Register, Dec. 25, 1983). Perhaps when he visits Moscow, as he plans to in the near future, he will join in a service giving veneration to the Goddess 'Reason'!
The list of his ecumenical activities with non-Christians is endless. He joined the Jews in their synagogue service in Rome, bowing his head on the dais as they sang 'we are awaiting the comming of the Messiah.' These activiies were repeated ruing his various trips to Africa where he received the blessing of a 'snake priestess,' his trips to India where he received the 'Tilak' or ritual marks on his forehead, and finally in his Ecumenical prayer service in Assisi where the Buddhists were allowed to place a statue of the Buddha on top of the Tabernacle in a Catholic Church in order to perform their rituals.
Following the pattern of his predecessors, John Paul has no fear of desecrating the Holy Mass itself. On April 30, 1963 he hosted a concelebrated 'mass' in the immense Paul VI Hall of Vatican City under the auspices of the first International Congress of Priests and religious in which 5,500 priests concelebrated with him. Each priest had in his face only the back of his confrere: not an altar. None held hosts in their hands. 'Among the participants with full privileges, one notices the presence of 18 Anglican ministers, of a certain number of Lutheran and Reformed pastors, some Orthodox 'popes'...' Yet all concelebrated, for the Eucharist itself has become 'a symbol [what happened to the Real Presence?] of the unity of all mankind.'
John Paul's II Doctrine of Redemption
It is clear from multiple statements that John Paul II believes the 'Holy Spirit spoke to the Church in our times through the most recent Council'; that 'obedience to the teachings of the Council is obedience to the Holy Spirit,' and that the principle task of his pontificate was to 'bring these teachings to their full development.' Now, one of the most significant passages in Gaudium et Spes reads as follows: 'By the Incarnation, the son of God is in a certain manner united to every man.' The prepositional phrase 'in a certain manner' is never defined; nowhere does it teach that either a personal conversion, or even the desire to adhere to the truth is involved. All that is said in this document is that 'since human nature as He assumed it was not annulled, by that very fact it has been raised up to a divine dignity in our respect also' (Para 22). John Paul II, who repeatedly assures us that he will interpret the Documents of Vatican II 'in accord with tradition,' explains:. Recalling this seminal phrase from the Conciliar document, he tells in Redemptor hominis that 'Jesus Christ is united through this mystery to everyone for all eternity' (RH 13.3). Now the true Church admits that some men are united to Christ, either by the glory of heaven, or by charity, or at least by faith while in this world. She further admits that others are potentially united to Him for as long as they are alive. But those who die in enmity to Christ loose this unity and the possibility of this unity for all time. To quote St. Thomas directly, 'As long as they are alive, even infidels can be considered members of the Church [and thus united to Christ] in potential, but when they leave this world [in a state of enmity to the truth], they totally cease to be members of Christ' (Summa III a, q. 8, a. 3).
Not so for John Paul. For him, Christ, through His Incarnation is united for all times with each and every person, even though they make no act of personal conversion and have no implicit desire for this union. And as a result of this each man has a 'dignity' and participates supernaturally in the divine life. As he says, 'This dignity which each and every person attains and is able to obtain continually in Christ is the dignity of the grace of divine adoption and at the same time the dignity of the interior truth of humanity'(RH ll.4). He teaches the same false doctrine in another Encyclical: 'God is also the Father. He is united to man who He has called to exist in the visible world by a link even more profound than that of creation itself. It is love which not only creates this good, but which also makes it participate in the same life of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit' (DM 7, 4) . Thus 'man' in general is united to God by participation in the Trinity. In his Allocation of March 25, 1981 he develops this still further: 'Henceforth and for all time, without regret and without change, having become united with all of humanity, God will be with man in order to save him and give him His Son the Redeemer. The incarnation confers on man for all time His extraordinary, unique and ineffable dignity .'
Now, if this is true, if as a result of the Incarnation, God is for all time united to each and every person without any response on the individual's part being required, then we must ask, what is the purpose of Crucifixion? John Paul has a ready answer to this question. The Passion is God's 'witness' or 'testimony' to the grandeur and dignity of man! As he says in Dives in misericordia: 'On the road of the eternal election of man to his dignity as an adopted son of god, the Cross of Christ rises in history... as the ultimate witnessing of the admirable alliance of God with humanity , of God with man -with each and every man' (DM, ,5). 'The reality of the Redemption in its human dimension reveals the unprecedented grandeur of man who has merited such a great Redemptor.' Yes indeed, as another translator of the Encyclical puts it, 'on account of his unparalleled greatness man DESERVED to have such a great Redeemer'(DM ,1). Needless to say, it is somewhat difficult to reconcile these statements with our Creed. When did fallen man ever merit, much less deserve the Redemption. Surely, as the traditional liturgy states, it is the unworthiness of man, on account of sin, that the Redeemer makes atonement for. And moreover, God's gift was freely given, never earned, much less deserved!
It follows from John Paul II's premises that all men are saved. (The use of 'all' for 'many' in the new 'mass' is not accidental.) He made this clear on April 27, 1980 when he stated that 'Christ obtained, once and for all, the salvation of man: of each and every man, of those that none can pluck out of his hand... Who can change the fact that we are all redeemed? It is a fact as powerful and as fundamental as creation itself... We are once again made the property of the Father thanks to that Love that did not recoil even before the ignominy of the Cross in order to guarantee this for all men: ' and no man shall pluck them out of my hand' (John 10:28). The Church announces to us this day the Easter certitude of the Resurrection, the certitude of salvation.'
He says much the same thing in his Dives et misericordia: 'The mystery of the election concerns every man, the entire human family' (4,12). And reiterates the same in his Redemptor hominis: 'each person is included in the mystery of the Redemption, and Jesus Christ is united to each and every person for all time through this mystery' (13,3). As opposed to this we have the teaching of the Church as given by the Council of Carisiacum in 853: 'The All-powerful god desires that all men without exception be saved, even though not all men are saved. That some are saved is a gift of the Saviour, that some perish is their own fault.'
Now this heresy that all men are saved - Apocatastasis, to give it its technical name - is by no means without its logical consequences. These become apparent to us in another statement of John Paul II, his 'Act of Intrusting' the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary at Fatima in 1982.
'Before you, Mother of Christ, before your Immaculate Heart, I today, together with the whole Church unite myself with our redeemer (sic) in His consecration for the world and for people, which only in His Divine Heart has the power to obtain pardon and secure reparation. The power of this consecration lasts for all time and embraces all individuals, peoples and nations. It overcomes every evil that the spirit of darkness is able to awaken, and has in fact awakened in our times, in the heart of man and in his history. God's holiness showed itself in the redemption of man, of the world, of the whole of mankind and of the nations.....'
As Ursula Oxfort points out, this means that 'there are no nations today which are under the rule of satanic communism, forming the mystical body of the anti-Christ... Every evil, including the towering political evil of beastly Marxism, is overcome by Wojtyla's super-power manifest in his divinized 'act of entrusting' at Fatima. It should be clear that John Paul II frontally contradicts the warning of Our Lady of Fatima that if her requests are not met, 'Communism will spread its errors all over the world'.'
These ideas are not John Paul II's alone. They are all found in embryo in the documents of Vatican II and the writings of his predecessors. All John Paul II has done has been to 'develop' them further, or more correctly, made them more explicit. Now, if the whole world is saved, and if mankind need not make any response to the Passion of Christ which is but a 'witness' to man's guaranteed redemption and his 'dignity,' then all the other post-Conciliar errors such as its teachings on human dignity and religious liberty follow. But once one grants these premises, one is led to question to very need for a Church whose function is no longer to witness to the truth Christ entrusted to her and which is longer required to provide a means for the salvation of those men who will listen to her message. All she can do is 'to help the history of mankind to be more human,' to guide man along the evolutionary path towards a worldly unity and utopian perfection reminiscent of Teilhard's 'point omega.'
The Renewal of the Jovinian Heresy
Jovinian was a fourth century heretic who among other things preached the equality of marriage with virginity embraced for the love of God, and that Catholics who rejected this by giving celibacy priority to marriage were turning to Manicheism. Now in his catechetical instruction of April 14, 1982 John Paul II denied the superiority of virginity over marriage and accuses those who uphold the Catholic doctrine as expressed in Canon X (Session XXIV) of the Council of Trent of Manichein tendencies. He has made similar statements on at least eight occasions. (24)
CHAPTER IX, Part 7
Carol Wojtyla or 'pope' John Paul II 
The Social Teachings of John Paul II
It is not surprising to find John Paul II following his predecessors in bestowing praise (latria) on the United Nations, and above all on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Oct. 2, 1979). 'The governments and states of the world,' he says, 'must unite.' and this 'in a movement that one hopes will be progressive and continuous, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the other international and national juridical instruments are endeavoring to create general awareness of the dignity of the human being... the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and the right to manifest one's religion either individually or in community, in public and in private...' He further adds that the fundamental criterion for comparing social, economic and political systems is not and cannot be, the criterion of hegemony and imperialism; it can be, and indeed must be, the humanistic criterion...' Now what is extraordinary is that we have Christ's supposed representative on earth addressing the leaders of virtually all the nations and advocating all the principles of the political and social order established by the French Revolution, while never even mentioning the name of Jesus. (When one compares the official text as published by the Daughters of St. Paul, with the tape recording also available from them, one finds that the speech as given differs from the officially published document in that it deletes all mention of Our Lord.) In a similar manner, his Encyclical Redemptor hominis speaks much of man ( the word is used 350 times, somewhat of Christianity, but never once is the word Catholic used.
His attitude towards Communism is no different from that of his post-Conciliar predecessors. He once stated that 'Pius XII and others who had no experience of communism understood nothing about it. But I, John Paul II, I understand' (Manila, June, 1981). While it is true that he has on occasion criticized the 'excesses' of Communism (much less then he has criticized those of capitalism however), he has never once condemned Marxism or Communism as such. He fully shares the opinions of his predecessors that Communist governments as such are completely legitimate. (Catholics believe that no government in open rebellion to God can ever be considered 'legitimate'.) No wonder the Polish government was delighted with his election to the Papacy, and that one of his first official acts was to entertain Jablonski, the Polish minister of State. This was followed by his granting a long audience to Gromyko and the appointing of Cardinal Agostino Cassaroli, the architect of Ostpolitik, as his Secretary of State. Similarly, his views on private property reflect his leftist propensities. He finds nothing wrong with the Polish government nationalizing Catholic schools and hospitals, etc., and openly stated while in Mexico that there must not be any hesitation when it comes to the expropriation of private property 'correctly carried out' provided it is for the 'common good.' (No where does he define what such phrases mean.) Now surely the leftists in Latin America, like those of Stalin's era, plan to do away with private property in a 'correct' manner, and this for the 'common good.' But let us now consider his Encyclical Laborem exercens on the socio-economic order.
Once again we run into the use of ambiguous language, a pattern well established by Vatican II that tends to obfuscate the truth and make his meaning difficult to understand. Ursula Oxford tells the story of an American newsman who asked Rome what way the Encyclical could be applied to the U.S. air controllers' strike and was given the official response that 'there is no proper answer or to put it more precisely, it cuts whichever way a person wants it to cut.' The tale is somewhat misleading, for there are clear-cut clues as to what John Paul II is getting at. The Encyclical is but another step along the path outlines by John XXIII's Pacem in terris. In this Encyclical John Paul states 'Christian tradition has never upheld this right [to private property] as absolute and untouchable. On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation; the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone' (LE 14). He goes still farther in the same paragraph and states that this 'should make possible the achievement of the FIRST PRINCIPLE of this order, namely, the universal destination of goods and the right to the common use of them.' No one doubts but that the law of Christian Charity limits the use of one's private property, and certainly the Church has always insisted that this property be obtained in honorable ways. But John Paul says nothing of this in his Encyclical, implicitly leaving the regulation of economic forces in the natural order. Let it be clear that the Church has always taught that man has a right to private property. As Leo XIII said with characteristic precision: 'it surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the very reason and motive of his work is to obtain property and to hold it as his own private possession... it cannot but be just that he [man] would possess that portion [what he earns] as his own, and should have a right to keep it without molestation... To say that God has given the earth to the use and enjoyment of the universal human race is not to deny that there can be private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they please, but rather that no part of it has been assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry...' (Rerum novarum). What makes the John Paul's statement so damnable is that he never clearly explains these distinctions - rather he leaves the leader to assume that the Marxist attitude towards private property is completely compatible with Christian principles. What John Paul fails to realize, for all his supposed knowledge of Communism, is that a person without private property is always a slave of the state. As occurs in communist lands, whenever an individual is 'uncooperative,' his home and all his possessions are declared state property. At best, he is left free only to starve, though in point of face even this freedom is denied those who end up in the endless slave labor camps of Siberia.
When a Czech newspaper recently characterized John Paul II as anti-communist and 'reactionary,' an unsigned article in L'Osservatorio Romano expressed strong indignation and called the charge 'grossly offensive' and 'absurd.' Mary Martinez informs me that it is well known in Rome that unsigned articles in this paper are traditionally written by the pope himself. Archbishop Lefebvre has also accused him of actively 'changing the bishops to replace them with Communist collaborator bishops...' (Paris press conference, Nov. 21, 1983). And even Michael Davies has noted that 'there can be no doubt at all that the Kremlin must consider the Catholic bishops of the U.S.A. its most effective agents anywhere in the world' (The Remnant, July, 1983). We have been frequently informed that the post-Conciliar Church eschews any desire to be aligned with the 'powers' of this world. Will not the 'Catholic' slaves of the future Communist world order increasingly resent the role this Church has played in bringing about such an Advent? Will they not realize that, like their Divine Master, they also have been sold out and betrayed?
John Paul is of course a 'humanist' along the lines of his spiritual father Paul VI. As he said to the United Nations, 'we must affirm Man, for his own sake, and not for some other motive or reason, solely for himself. Even further, we must love man because he is Man, by reason of the special dignity he possesses' (Address to UNESCO, June 2, 1980). Indeed, he tells us that the Church is 'centered on man,' that it is 'anthropocentric' (Dives in misericordia, 1,4). Returning to the Encyclical (LE) we find this humanism developed still further and related to work. He tells us that 'the proper subject of work continues to be man, and reiterates this at least seven times - stating elsewhere for example that 'the primary basis of the value of work is man himself;' 'in the final analysis it is always man who is the subject of the work' etc., etc. Work becomes an idol, the idol of the communist worker's paradise to which everybody must submit. Even Christ Himself is depicted as THE MAN OF WORK.' (The Communists in Italy print up pictures of Christ as a factory 'working man.') Now this entire concept of work is offensive to any real craftsman, for if one's work is a 'calling,' then laborare est orare. Neither work nor man is an end in itself. The only work worth doing is what is worthy of being offered up to God and practiced as a means of personal sanctification.
One is not surprised to find Laborem exercens also speaking of 'satisfactory socialization,' without ever defining what the term means. Placing the phrase in the context of the post-Conciliar Church, one finds it first used by John XXIII in his Mater et magistra. The term is again found in Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes, where its meaning is said to derive from John XXIII's Encyclical. And once again we see the term in paragraph 14 of John Paul's Encyclical, this time prefaced by the adjective 'satisfactory.' Now the term 'socialization' can only mean one thing, and that is an economic order based on Marxist principles. Like all his post-Conciliar predecessors, John Paul hesitates to call a spade a spade. He skirts the real issue for fear of giving offence to the erstwhile faithful (Pius IX said that 'no one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist' Quad anno.) who provide his financial support out of their private property.
What is most tragic about this scenario is that the post-Conciliar 'popes' not only fail to condemn Communism; they also fail to make any distinctions between Capitalism which is capable of reformation and Communism which is not; and above all, they totally fail to teach that there is even such a thing as a traditional Catholic social and economic order. Such was never the case with the traditional Church which condemned Communism in some 200 documents and which, while being highly critical of laisez-faire Capitalism, never described it as 'intrinsically evil.' As Pius XI said of capitalism, 'it is obvious that this system is not to be condemned in itself. And surely it is not of its own nature vicious...' while 'Communism is intrinsically evil, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever' (Quadragesimo anno).
The New Code of Canon Law
Brief mention must be made of the New Code of Canon Law introduced by John Paul II - a subject that will be dealt with in greater detail later. In essence, the new 'code' represents the last step in a triad. Any religious body can be characterized by its Doctrine, its Liturgy, and its law of governance. Up until 1983 the post-conciliar Church gave lip service to the Canon Law of the traditional church, though for all practical purposes it had lapsed into disuse. Now, with the New Code, the changes in doctrine and liturgy have been confirmed by law. Like a snow-ball on a hill, the new Church has been launched. Time can only carry it in one direction. To give but one brief example, John Paul II tells us that the New code 'determines the relations which should exist between the particular churches and the Universal Church and between collegiality, and the primacy; the doctrine moreover, according to which all the members of the People of God, in the way suited to each of them, participate in the threefold office of Christ: priestly, prophetic and kingly' (Sacrae Disciplinae Leges). Once again we are brought back to the 'double-speak' of the new Church. Traditional Catholics will understand by 'the People of God' only Catholics. Those who are familiar with the true meaning of the phrase (God is after all, 'in a certain way' united to all men) understand them to include heretics, Communists, sodomites, and mini-antichrists who are manifestly destroying Christian civilization at its roots 'in a way suited to each of them.'
Finally a word on the liturgy. It is obvious that for Catholics brought up in the traditional Church, the LITURGY - the Mass and the Sacraments are the most important issues. Conservative Catholics constantly assure us that John Paul II is returning the Church to tradition and point to 'Mass indult,' and more recently to the 'Society of St. Peter' which describes itself as 'The Pope's own Traditional Order' as proof of their contention. Let us examine these with care.
Both these gestures are aimed at keeping conservative Catholics within the post-Conciliar Church. Seen by some as a concession, by others as a return to sanity, it is important for us to know just where John Paul II really stands on these issues.
He recognizes that there are still Catholics who have 'been educated on the basis of the old liturgy in Latin.' He notes that 'it is necessary to show not only understanding, but also full respect towards these sentiments and desires.' But then he insists that this preference for Latin (as if Latin was the issue) be honored through the New Mass which is the source of unity in the new Church. To again quote him directly, 'as far as possible these sentiments and desires are to be accommodated, as is moreover provided for in the new dispositions.' Returning once again to the same topic he states:
'Liturgical renewal carried out correctly in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council is, in a certain sense, the measure and the condition of putting into effect the teaching of that Council which we wish to accept with profound faith, convinced as we are that by means of the Council the Holy Spirit has spoken to the Church the truths and given the indications for carrying out her mission among the people of today and tomorrow.'
And so it is that in offering the conservatives the 'Mass Indult,' (the 'Mass of John XXIII.' ) he is in fact only trying to accommodate the 'sensibilities and desires' of an older generation. Those how accept the offer do so however, at a great price. For along with this Mass (said on a monthly basis) they must declare their acceptance of the Novus Ordo Missae and all the errors of Vatican II.
The Society of St. Peter was established primarily by the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre who abandoned him after he ordained four individuals to the Episcopacy in direct violation of the orders of John Paul II. This new Society plans to use the Mass of John XXIII and is establishing seminaries that will ordain young men to the priesthood by the traditional rites. All this sounds wonderful. John Paul is giving them what he refused to Lefebvre. But is he? What is not recognized in all this tomfoolery is that the individuals who will do the ordaining were themselves raised to the Episcopacy by the post-Conciliar rites and as such almost certainly lack the Apostolic Succession and power to ordain. The net result will be a group of laymen saying the Latin Mass of John XXIII. Such men will truly be wolves in sheep's clothing.
Conservative Catholics who point to these and other actions of John Paul II as proof of his return to Tradition should be aware of his statement in Mexico, the country with the largest number of traditional Catholics: 'those who remain attached to incidental aspects of the Church, aspects which were valid in the past, but which have been superseded, cannot be considered the faithful.'
Here we hear, not the voice of Peter, but the voice of Paul VI. Since when are the Mass and the Sacraments 'incidental aspects of the Church?' And why are some Catholics still attached to them? The answer is clear. We have not received the 'charism of transformation.' We have not been 'blessed' with the 'renewal of the Church in the Spirit of Vatican II.' And the price he tells us we must pay is that 'we cannot be considered the faithful.' Traditional Catholics may not be faithful to Wojtyla's post-Conciliar Church, but this Church is clearly no longer 'The Church of All Times,' the Church that Christ established
(1) Mary Craig, Man from a Far Country, N.N: Morrow, 1979
(2) He is reputed to be the principal author of this Document.
(3) Michael Davies, Pope John's Council, Devon (Eng.): Augustine, 1977. Among other things this document teaches that 'Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth.'
(4) Maritain described Husserl as a person who 'abhorred wisdom' and Raissa Maritain quotes Chestov as saying Husserl 'awoke in him (Maritain) all the indignation of which he was capable.' Raissa Maritain, Adventures in Grace, N.Y.: Image, 1962.
(5) John Paul II also describes himself as an 'existentialist.' Existentialism basically holds that experience has more 'authenticity' than reason, and indeed, is the only thing that is authentic and real. This is to forget that it is precisely experience that demonstrates that reasoning is something effectual - otherwise no one would reason. Indeed, it is the very existence of reason which shows that experience must have an object. Animals of course experience, but they do not reason, whereas on the contrary man can avoid many experiences by reasoning. To wish to replace reasoning by experience on the practical plane and in a relative fashion could still be meaningful; but to do so on the intellectual and speculative plane, as the empiricists and existentialists wish to do, is properly speaking demented. For the inferior man, only what is contingent - what he experiences - is real, and he seeks by his this philosophy to lower principles to the level of contingencies (when he does not simply deny them). To reduce faith to experience as John Paul II does, is to deprive it of any objective character.
(6) Scheler was born a Jew, became a Catholic convert and then went on to leave the Church.
(7) Mary Martinez, From Rome Urgently, Rome: Statimari, 1979.
(8) This text contains many philosophical statements that are overtly heretical. Some of these have been collected and published by Mr. Herman Humbert in St Pius V Sodalitas Information, Plantinkaai, 2, Anvers, Belgium (March 1989).
(9) Karol Wojtyla, Faith according to St. John of the Cross, San Francisco: Ignatius, 1981. Ursula Oxfort, Christian Counter-Revolution, bulletin No. 36, Sept. 1083, provides an interesting discussion of this book (available from P.O. Box 369, Lake Worth, Fl. 33460).
(10) Karol Wojtyla, The Sign of Contradiction, N.Y.: Seabury, 1979.
(11) Philip Trower, The Church Learned and the Revolt of the Scholars, St. Paul (Minn.), Wanderer, 1979.
(12) Quoted in Catholics Forever, (Monroe Conn.) November 1989. Such a statement is virtually a definition of Modernism.
(13) op. cit.
(14) Hans Kung has denied the divinity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the indefectibility of the Church, and the infallibility of the Pope. The penalty he has incurred for his apostasy from the faith was the repudiation of his status as a 'Catholic theologian.' The censure does not denounce him for heresy, and does not declare him to be excommunicated, suspended or under interdict . thus Hans Kung remains a 'priest in good standing' in the conciliar Church. In so far as his teaching salary came from the state, he was not even deprived of his teaching position. He continues to be professor of ecumenical theology and director of the Institute for Ecumenical Research at the University of Tubingen. This is canonically speaking, but a slap on the wrist as compared to the 'suspension' of Archbishop Lefebvre. Conservative Catholics who accept John Paul II as legitimate Pope are in 'full communion' with this individual and others of similar ilk. It is of interest to note the Lutheran reaction to this 'Catholic'. When he was accused of being 'a little Luther,' the Lutheran weekly 'Christian News' stated 'Luther was a Christian who believed that Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin, rose physically from the dead and is truly God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Kung denies these fundamental doctrines... his views about Christ are thoroughly anti-Christian1' (March 10, 1980).
(15) Jacques Pohier's Quand je dis dieu denies nearly every tenet of the Catholic faith. Hardly anyone had heard of this individual before his existence was brought to public attention by his condemnation. Far more typical is the 'silencing' of Father Boff, Franciscan exponent of Liberation Theology. this silencing was lifted several months after it was imposed, and no retraction ever asked or given. Similarly with others who have been 'condemned,' such as Hans Kung, no retraction is ever demanded.
(16) Lest I be accused of misrepresenting his statements in this Encyclical, I shall give them more completely. 'The Second Vatican council did immense work to form the full and universal awareness of the Church, or which Pope Paul VI wrote in his first encyclical. This awareness - or rather, self-awareness - by the Church is formed 'in dialogue'' (11.1). 'The rich inheritance of the pontificate of Pope Paul VI... has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously' (3.1). 'The Church's consciousness enlightened and supported by the Holy Spirit... must remain the first source of the church's love, as love in turn helps to strengthen and deepen her consciousness' (3.2). Now it may be legitimate 'in a certain way' to speak of the Church's 'self-awareness' and 'consciousness,' but the Church - the Body of Christ - is a perfect society and so it is in no way legitimate to speak of this consciousness being further 'enlightened,' 'developed' and 'deepened.'
(17) RH for John Paul II's Encyclical Redemptor hominis
(18) The Church in the Modern World, the document that Carol Wojtyla was primarily responsible for, also taught that 'Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth.' Wojtyla may be seeking the truth, but traditional Catholics believe that Christ has already given it to us. Listen to St. Athanasius speaking about the Arian Councils of the Fourth Century: 'the whole world was put into confusion, and those who at the time bore the profession of clergy ran far and near, seeking how best to learn to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ... if they were believers already, they would not have been seeking, as though they were not... no small scandal... that Christians, as if waking out of sleep at this time of day, should be inquiring how they were to believe... while their professed clergy though claiming deference from their flocks as teachers, were unbelievers on their own showing, in that they were seeking what they had not... What defect of teaching was there for religious truth in the Catholic Church that they should enquire concerning faith now, and should fix this year's date to their profession of faith...'
(19) The Sunday Telegraph of London, June 6, 1982 and The Mail-Star of Halifax, June 8, 1982.
(20) Reported in Introibo, No. 43, Jan-Mar, 1984. (Published by l'Association Sacerdotal Noel Pinot, Angers, France.
(21) Thanks are expressed to Father Blignieres (Jean-Paul II et la Doctrine Catholique, Conference du 13 Mai, 1981, Paris: Mutuality) and Wigand Siebel (The Program of John Paul II, P.O. Box 21, W. Va., Liberty Bell Publications and Philosophie et Theologie de Karol Wojtyla, Bale, Saka, 1988) for the contents of the next few paragraphs. Many others such as Ursula Oxfort and Myra Davidaglou, have written on the same subject.
(22) DM - Dives et misercordia.
(23) Ursula Oxfort, Pope Floundres in the 'Act of Entrusting,' Christian counter-Reformation, Bull No. 24. P.O. Box, 369, Florida, Lake Worth, 1981.
(24) Gustavo Daniel Corbi, Joviniano 82 - La resurreccion de una herejia, Guenos Aires, Editorial Iction, 1982).
(25) Ursula Oxfort, 'Laborem exercens' John Paul II's Labor Encyclical is communistic. Christian counter-Reformation, Bull. No. 25. op. cit. I know of one conciliar Catholic who claims that no one can call John Paul II a heretic because no one can ever know exactly what he means.
(26) An excellent example of this is provided by Victor Krasin, How I was Broken by the KGB, New York Times magazine, March 18, 1984. The mediaeval serf who could neither be kicked off his land nor taxed on the goods he produced for his family's use was far more secure than any laborer in any communist land.
(27) In line with this playing up to the powers of this world consider the fact that John Paul II received the Trilateral commission in a special audience at the Vatican. He spoke of the 'ethical dimension' of their activity, of how they have a 'responsibility for encouraging people to face their duty in international human solidarity,' and of how the Commission must 'do everything for the service of the human person.' Photographs were taken showing Z. Brezesinski and Henry Kissinger sitting in the front row of the audience, and of John Paul shaking hands with David Rockerfeller, the chairman of the U.S. section (Trialogue 33, April, 1983). Now the Trilateral commission is probably one of the most subversive of all possible organizations created by man. Cf. The Plot Against America, What we must know about the Trilateral Commission, by Ursula Oxfort, June, 1978).
(28) Of course, people often will work at tasks with no redeeming value in order to support a family, but such is never a craft, a form of work which involves both the intellect and will of the worker.
(29) As noted in the section on the Liturgy, this rite, according to traditional criteria, still retains its validity. However, The indult in no way guarantees that the priest who offers it is properly ordained.
(30) The Indult actually requires that those who take advantage of it sign a statement to this effect. Despite the fact that this is not 'enforced,' those who take advantage of the Indult implicitly accept its obligations.
(31) Archbishop Lefebvre's position is highly untenable. One cannot recognize John Paul II as a valid pope, the in se validity of all the new sacraments, the authority of the new Code of Canon law, the possibility of interpreting Vatican II in accordance with tradition, and then refuse obedience. Thus it is understandable that many of his followers abandoned his cause. The post-Conciliar Church was of course delighted and established the Society of St. Peter to accommodate these men.
CHAPTER X, part 1
VATICAN II - THE INTRODUCTION
'... Any Council called to make drastic change in the church is beforehand decreed to be void and annulled.'
Pius II, Execrabilis
The nature of an Ecumenical Councils
Before considering Vatican II in detail, it is necessary to understand just what an Ecumenical or General Council is. It is, as Hubert Jedin defined it in 1960: 'An assembly of Bishops and other specified persons invested with jurisdiction, convoked by the Pope and presided over by him, for the purpose of formulating decisions on questions of the Christian faith, or ecclesiastical discipline. These decisions, however, require papal confirmation to assure the proclamation of the faith by delimiting the Catholic doctrine from contemporary errors. There have been councils which issued no disciplinary canons, but none at which some error was not rejected.' (1)
The first point to be made is that the term 'ecumenical' means 'universal' (i.e., the gathering of Catholic bishops from all over the world), and has nothing to do with the potentially common activities or relationships of different religions. There have been some 20 Ecumenical Councils since Christ established His church on earth. Vatican II, supposedly the 21st, differed from its predecessors in several ways. It was the first to invite non-Catholic 'observers' to participate in its proceedings (2). It was the first Council to be declared 'pastoral' rather than 'dogmatic' (3). It was the first council that seemingly neither delimited Catholic doctrine from contemporary errors, nor issued disciplinary canons (4). It was the first such Council to reform, not the Church 'in its head and members' but the Church itself. And most important of all, it was the first such council to depart from the teaching of previous Councils, and indeed, from the traditional teaching of the Church's Magisterium. So much was this the case that Cardinal Suenens described it as 'the French Revolution in the Church' and Y. Congar likened it to the October (1917) Revolution in Russia (5).