The Council's Catechism, or the "Cate-Schism" of the Catholic Church

by Fr.Philippe Laguerie

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.


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."

Some commentators, "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.

3) Although 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).

We (blushingly) 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.

4) Finally, 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."


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:

Ecumenism is 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."

These proposals 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 years.

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."

Even though 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!

Moreover, even 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?


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 hundreds.

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 blasphemous formula.

2) Question #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.

Our conclusion, 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.


Home | Newsletters | Library | Vocations | History | Links | Search | Contact