Taking on such
a monumental task as the study of the new Conciliar Catechism would
seem quite an ambitious undertaking, so the reader should not expect
an exhaustive and utterly complete review of this 600-page work.
However, seeing that we are facing the peril of certain first reactions
(some of them primary), we are not able to put off any longer those
conclusions to which a thorough perusal has led us. The faithful
are, after all, entitled to the truth, promptly and without delay.
SOME GENERAL REMARKS
1) Simply reviewing
the very heart and core of this new work places it in line with
the Second Vatican Council in its intent, in its letter, as well
as in its spirit.
On this point,
the reader should at least hearken to the Pope's own words: "As
for me, ...Vatican II has always been and still is, in a particular
way, in these years of my pontificate, the constant reference point
of all my pastoral actions....We must continuously return to this
source (May 30, 1986, as quoted in the introduction to this Catechism
- "Fidei Depositum. " "In this spirit" - continues
the Pope...and proceeds to announce the long development of this
project, which has now been brought to completion. In conclusion
(idem): "Following the renewal of the Liturgy as well as the
new codification of Canon Law...this Catechism will bring a very
important contribution to the work of completely renewing Church
life which was called for and implemented by Vatican II."
"short on Theology and true Philosophy" as St. Pius X
used to say, not having taken into account the pope's own above-mentioned
words, take all this as a return to Tradition. The truth of the
matter is that the new Catechism simply follows in the wake of the
liturgical Revolution just as it follows the new codification of
the Conciliar revolution in general.
As to the letter,
it is obvious: more than one third, if not half of the texts, is
taken from the Council or from John Paul II's quotations. In a work
of which (80%) are simply quotations, this is much too much.
As to its spirit,
the reader will easily and readily be convinced.
2) This Catechism
will never be able to fill the horrifying void of doctrinal teaching
to which Catholics are presently subjected. The word "void"
in this context is to be literally understood. The Catechism is,
first and foremost, the initial exposure or teaching of revealed
truth to neophytes or beginners. This new one is intended for adults
(no child will ever delve into it!), and only well-informed adults
at that! But, as we would expect the bishops to summarize or make
a resume of this volume, which could readily be assimilated by children
and novices (which the Pope invites them to do in the preface),
pigs will be able to fly when the children will have bread (of solid
Doctrine). Even were we to suppose this Catechism to be orthodox,
the void would still remain as it is: wide open.
the outline of the book is good, its pedagogy or teaching methods
are disastrous: a (good) catechism must affirm truths, declare that
which is true (even pastoral, but in small doses), but not tell
stories, propose, even discourse nor carry us away in commentaries
to the point of vagueness. Few, indeed, are those theses, which
do not immediately find their antitheses, to the point of contradiction.
Hegel went that way.
We are reminded
that the "Filioque," and only this word, is Catholic (the
Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son). But, they
right away justify the Orthodox proposition which denies it: this
"legitimate" complementarity, if it is not hardened, does
not affect the identity of the Faith in the reality of the same
confessed mystery (#248).
reminded that the Church makes use of such philosophical terms as
substance, nature, essence, person, in order to express the Dogma
on the Holy Trinity; adding immediately that the Church has given
new, unheard-of meanings to these words. How simple-minded then,
were those Fathers of the Church who fought 60 years defending the
homoousians! The reason is that they were defending the Faith itself
through these expressions.
as soon as a Catechism contains but one error, it is no longer reliable
and is therefore to be rejected in its entirety. It is ridiculous
as well as offensive to the intellectual, moral and doctrinal authority
(of the Church) to dislocate or separate this Catechism into two
parts; one section for error to be rejected and the other for truths
to be accepted. Truth is not obtained by percentage. And as for
those who would become scrupulous over a single error, let us reassure
them that this Catechism literally teems with them! We could give
you examples by the hundreds of this new-style pedagogy which seems
to shun clear thinking, reminding us of the Psalm: "Truth has
been diminished by the children of men."
THE THEOLOGY OF VATICAN II AND OF JOHN-PAUL II
1) But the
key to this new Catechism is to be found elsewhere: it succeeds
in its feat of bringing together all of Vatican II's theology within
the framework, the plan, and even the wording of the traditional
Catechism. We have no choice but to give a summary of this new theology.
They do not
attack the Faith head-on. At the outset, they admit the great Christian
dogmas, in principle. Trouble begins when the shock or the absence
of it, which these cardinal truths will provoke (or not provoke)
in the world. Once again, in this harmful and ill-fated preoccupation,
we encounter the primary concern of the Council. That being the
case, it is not surprising to find clearly stated those dogmas which
do not hinder the Church in its relations with the world; at least
do they try to present or bend them in such a way as not to hamper
those same relations - with the world.
From here on,
the new theology is implacable in its logic:
at the very heart of this Revolution. The declaration whereby the
Church affirms the dogma that It alone possesses the truths of Eternal
Salvation must be modified, attenuated and extenuated or reduced.
And this is what we find in the main chapter on the Church, and
which was hastily denounced by our clear-sighted Father Lorans (cf.
Chardonnet #81). A new notion is introduced, that is, the People
of God (#781), which is supposed to be the Church of Christ, but
which is not the Catholic Church since it only subsists in It (#816).
The new translation "is realized" in the Church changes
nothing in this affair, since it is only the identity, which is
possible. The Catholic Church IS the Church of Christ. Pius XII
declared it so in "Humani Generis" and Archbishop Lefebvre
held the contrary novelty to be nothing but heresy. This new Church,
or People of God, which is therefore larger than the Catholic Church,
since the latter is nothing more than a manner or mode of subsistence
to it, admits other church communities which the Holy Ghost uses
as means of (Eternal) Salvation (#819: a new heresy). From here,
#820 voices the hope that the unity of the Church will "continue
growing until the end of time (Unitatis Redintegratio)." A
new heresy, since unity is already a mark of the Catholic Church
and a dogma of our Faith. Now we understand what is meant by the
expression "People of God": it is nothing but a super-Church,
which changes with time and place. In the section "who belongs
to the Church?" we find not only baptized souls united in Faith
and subject to Authority, but also heretics and schismatics who
have "been baptized without professing fully the Catholic Faith
and without keeping or adhering to the unity of communion with the
successor of Peter. (#838)" "For many reasons, the Church
knows Itself to be united to them" while they, on the other
hand, "find themselves in a certain communion, although quite
imperfect, with the Catholic Church. "These religious groups,
which keep changing both in time and place in their communion, have
often been described by John Paul II as "spheres of membership."
Numbers 839 to 845 enumerate various sects while underlining their
points of unity with the Catholic Church! Thus: "The People
of God of the Old Alliance and the new People of God are now headed
toward similar goals: both are awaiting the coming (or the return)
of the Messiah. (#840)" The Jews are waiting for the (first)
coming of Jesus Christ!!! Sheer lunacy! Finally, all men are religious
because "they form but one community, they have one common,
one sole origin...they have, as their last end, God, whose Providence
extends to all until the elect (?) be reunited in the Holy City.
(#842)" To be just, let us add that no mention is made either
of atheists or of Martians!
But, one will
ask, how are we to reconcile or accommodate this delirious theology
with the rest of the dogma? That's the question.
2) They answer,
"by His Incarnation, the Son of God has united Himself in some
way to every man. (#521 and #618 quoting Gaudium et spes)"
These two quotations, completely irrelevant as they are in this
context, are used: one (in 521), as proof that each and every man
is saved through the Mystery of the Incarnation (to be united to
Christ, is this not Salvation?) because from that point "all
the richness of Christ is intended for each person and belongs to
each one" (#519); the other (618) to illustrate the role of
(Christ's) Passion, which right away becomes another problem since
every man is already united to Christ: through His Passion "Christ
offers to all men, in a manner that (only) God knows, the possibility
of being associated with the paschal mystery."
or theses, developed in John Paul II's writings (Universal Salvation
through the Incarnation) are again taken up here as they were in
the Council of Vatican II: in a thinly veiled (but real) manner.
Errors are therefore maintained, although reduced to their principles.
These principles are easier to swallow than their conclusions which
disgust the Christian conscience and for which Salvation is obtainable
only through a personal and free adherence to Jesus Christ and to
His Sacrifice which has most effectively wrought our Salvation.
3) From here,
they have provided us with a long chapter on the mission of the
Church and which changes its very notion. If every person is (already)
saved through the Incarnation, all there is left to do is to announce
these good tidings (Gospel) of Salvation already attained (by everyone).
Thus does "the Church travel along with humanity partaking
with it its worldly fate; it is as a leaven, and so to speak, the
soul of human society. (#854)" Missionary efforts therefore
set in motion the inculturation process (idem) as well as a respectful
dialogue with those who do not yet accept the Gospel." There,
as elsewhere, are basic truths recalled: but they always refuse
to expurgate them of those errors tainting them for the last 30
4) As in the
case with the Church, the Sacraments are also affected by this new
conception of Salvation. They "manifest and pass on to men,
especially in the Eucharist, the mystery of the communion of the
God of Love."
it is recalled that their effectiveness depends on Our Lord, and
their effectiveness is manifested in the Faith and Communion already
realized or obtained, nowhere is it even mentioned that the Sacraments
confer grace since they have succeeded in defining them (#1113 to
1130) without a single reference to grace!
if they were instituted by Christ (#1114), the Church "through
the Spirit guiding It, little by little acknowledged this treasure
received from Christ and, in the course of centuries, It discerned
that amongst the liturgical celebrations, there are seven which
have been instituted by Our Lord. (#1117) "We are therefore
to understand that Saint Peter and the others did not know the number
nor the nature of the Sacraments. Typically modernist. Everything,
in this Catechism, mixes truth with falsehood and this brief survey
could easily stretch out to another 600 pages. But then, at what
price was this maneuver carried out?
AT THE PRICE OF CONTRADICTION
The act of
mixing so closely error to truth would suppose internal contradictions.
Indeed, they are there, and in profusion. A few examples out of
1) First noticed
by Father Sulmont, the scandalous translation of the new "Our
Father" has been maintained. The paragraph "do not submit
us to temptation" (#2846) explicitly states the contrary of
the title! Because God can never submit us to temptation. Moreover,
the translation of James 1?13 covers itself with ridicule when it
gives "God puts no one to the test," since God does this
constantly (cf. Abraham!). If God tempts no one (the contrary would
be blasphemous), why maintain this horrible translation: do not
submit us to temptation? What (therapeutic) relentlessness on a
#2112 recalls that the first commandment "requires that man
must not believe in other gods but in God only, and that he must
not revere other divinities but the One and Only God." But
#2106 brings back religious liberty as we find it in the Council
(quoted) and speaks of "a sincere respect towards various religions
which often bring a ray of truth which enlightens all men. (2104)"
Who does not see that in recalling the first commandment and then
authorizing men to freely practice their false cults in the name
of personal dignity while preparing yet another Assisi (where all
religions are brought together), constitutes nothing but a veritable
imposture or deception?
3) We are told
that "outside the Church, there is no Salvation," and
right away they add that "this affirmation is not directed
to those people, who, without fault on their part, ignore Christ
and His Church." And since nowhere is it mentioned that these
same individuals do belong to the soul of the Church, and even (virtually)
to Its body, we are left to conclude that they are saved outside
the Church, etc, etc.
therefore, is clear: the "Catechism of the Catholic Church"
is nothing but yet a further deception or hoax; its recalling of
numerous truths is radically polluted and vitiated by its anxiety,
its preoccupation of seeing them coexist with the errors of Vatican
II. It may reassure the ignorant, even accidentally do some good;
it nevertheless remains a fundamentally modernist document, following
as it does the pure logic of the Conciliar rupture with the added
bit of Machiavellianism of having added some sauce to make the poison
go down more easily. When I first heard of a universal Catechism,
I thought that it would require a strange or unusual audacity to
actually go through with it, seeing that the very nature of a Catechism
is to make things clearer, to clarify them. Well, they have so dared,
indeed. But it is now unmistakably evident that, from the outset,
the true intent was that of permanently establishing the new religion
in the official and day?to?day teaching (of the Church) in order
to more surely bring around the unyielding, unwilling, and resisting
faithful to the aberrations and distortions of the Conciliar revolution;
and it has all been done while reassuring the ordinary man. They
have achieved their goal and achieved it well: it spells yet another
new disaster for the Church.