http://sedevacantist.com/wojtyla.htmThe Heresy of John Paul II
"We must now break silence, in order to expose before the whole Church, in their true colours, those men who have assumed this bad disguise." Pope St. Pius X.
The heresy of which JPII is guilty is known as Modernism, defined by Pope St. Pius X as the "synthesis of all heresies". However it would be most incorrect to infer from this definition that this heresy has no definite features of its own. Modernism, like all species of heresy has a peculiar set of characteristics which distinguish it from other brands of unbelief. To really understand it and recognise the Modernists who would steal our Faith from us today requires that we study the nature of it carefully.
As we proceed I remind the reader that no heretic ever exposes himself unnecessarily. Even Luther began by attempting to remain a visible member of the Church - until it became impossible to maintain the pretence, due to his excommunication for obstinate refusal to bow to the teaching authority of Holy Church. All heretics are liars and deceivers of the naive. This is how they fool Catholics into following their errors. This trait is especially true of Modernists, as stated in the article on the subject in the Catholic Encyclopedia, as follows; "...it is regrettable that certain avowed leaders of Modernism, carried away perhaps by the desire to remain within the Church at all costs - another characteristic of Modernism - have taken refuge in equivocation, reticence, or quibbles." (1)
The essence of Modernism lies in the existentialism of Kant, which attacks the value of knowledge by making everything subjective. Hence, for the Modernist, religious knowledge is not externally, objectively true, but only true for each individual insofar as it satisfies his own "religious feelings". All religion has this as a common source, and all religions have originated in the yearnings for religious fulfilment of some great individual or other. Jesus Christ is the "great religious soul" par excellence, but He is essentially no different from Buddha, Mohammed, Krishna et al. in that He too was giving to mankind his own "religious experiences", or as the Modernists prefer to say, His own "consciousness" of the Divine.
For Catholics, the truth exists in the mind of God irrespective of the very existence of men - it is prior to men, and men's ideas cannot change the truth one iota. In other words, it is objective. But for a Modernist, truth is relative, it serves a purpose - to express the "religious feelings" of men in each age. As Pope St Pius X explained, for a Modernist, dogma relative to men is but an "instrument." Hence, a key idea for Modernists is "consciousness" - individual and social, and we find this expressed repeatedly in their writings in terms such as "immanence", the "world spirit", "the spirit of the age", and other like terms. They never tire of repeating such terms for they express the essence of external religion for a Modernist since they relate to the specific state of religious experience as it exists at the time they write or speak. This "spirit" is always evolving, changing with the dominant ideas of the age, and hence external religion must change. The evolution of dogma and of all external religion is imperative. If religion doesn't change as the "world consciousness" changes it is worse than useless. Thus the Modernist agenda of change, constant change. To quote one of the most famous Modernists, Loisy "The avowed Modernists form a fairly definite group of thinking men united in the common desire to adapt Catholicism to the intellectual, moral and social needs of today."(2)
Pope St Pius X also highlighted this aspect of the Modernist agenda, pointing out that it is a clear sign of heresy in the following from Pascendi: 'They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavour by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' '
Let us now catalogue a few of the errors of the Modernist, John Paul II.
•Modernist error: Sacraments, as with all religious externals, are mere symbols which are adapted properly to the spirit of the age.
JPII presides over an era of unprecedented change in sacramental rites. For a Catholic, whose religion is essentially traditional, this is enough to know that it is false and that JPII is not Pope. But we can analyse it further. JPII's teaching is in full agreement with this spirit of change: "Since it effects the forgiveness of sins, the Faith should find in Baptism its own sacramental expression, so that man may share in the gift of the Holy Spirit."(3) Note how the concept is confused but that the idea expressed is that "Faith should FIND in Baptism" its EXPRESSION. The idea is clearly one of the sacrament symbolising the "faith". Of course, in Catholic teaching Baptism does not symbolise the Faith, it symbolises and effects cleansing from sin, but the Modernist holds that ALL externals are mere "expressions" of "religious consciousness" or "faith."
•Modernist error : All religions are to a greater or lesser extent good and praiseworthy.
This is the natural child of the erroneous and blasphemous idea of the foundation of religion which Modernists hold. Since all religions are simply external expressions of the "consciousness" of the age in which they exist, they are all, subjectively considered, true (and there is no objective truth, remember). JPII has made this idea the cornerstone of his "pontificate". It would be superfluous to list the immense number of occasions on which he has outraged the first Commandment by indulging in acts of public prayer and/or worship with non-Catholics, pagans and other non-Christians. He is faithful to Vatican II in this : "...for the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using (these separated Churches) as means of salvation..."(4) In fact, he has applied this Modernist concept to VII itself : "The Church's consciousness, enlightened and supported by the Holy Spirit and fathoming more and more deeply her divine mystery and even her human weaknesses -..." (5) He is referring to the new spirit given to the Church at Vatican II by the Holy Ghost, which for him is just a further development in the "consciousness" of the divine which IS "faith." For him, this new spirit is the spirit of universality which proclaims the brotherhood of all men and reveals for the first time that Catholics must work toward "coming closer together with the representatives of non-Christian religions, an activity expressed through dialogue, contacts, prayer in common, investigation of the treasures of human spirituality, in which, as we know well, the members of these religions also are not lacking. Does it not sometimes happen that the firm belief of the followers of the non-Christian religions - A BELIEF WHICH IS ALSO AN EFFECT OF THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH OPERATING OUTSIDE THE VISIBLE CONFINES OF THE MYSTICAL BODY - ..."(6) Do I need to quote one of the hundreds of statements in which the Church and her theologians have condemned this idea? Surely not. It is heresy, par excellence, but for a Modernist it is the logical working out of his premisses. It manifests constantly, not least spectacularly in Africa a couple of years ago when JPII addressed a group of Voodoo adherents (Satanists) and told them they ought to be grateful to their fathers who passed on to them their beliefs. There was no record of his telling them they might consider Catholicism as an alternative. If we think of this man as a Catholic, this behaviour is inexplicable, but when we realise he is a Modernist then such activities are perfectly consistent and logical.
•Modernist error : The Church is a sign or symbol of the inner yearning of mankind for God. Its source is in the religious feelings of man. Here we consider the Church Herself, not simply Faith.
JPII : The Church is "a Sacrament of the symphonic unity of the multiple forms of one single plenitude, in the likeness of the Trinitarian Mystery, the source and foundation of all unity." (7) (Referring here to the diverse non-Catholic sects and their unity [sic] with the Catholic Church.) And again : The Church is "a sacrament or sign and means of intimate union with God, and the unity of all mankind." (8) For those who think the mistranslation of "pro multis" in the Novus Ordo Missae was a mistake, it too is an example: "for you and for ALL men so that sins may be forgiven." The term "pro multis" - "the many" - refers to the Mystical Body. The Modernists maintain that the term "for ALL" refers to the Mystical Body also, but of course their definition of the Mystical Body includes ALL men so that is perfectly logical. Since the Church, in their twisted thinking, is but a manifestation of the divine immanence in, firstly, Christ, the religious spirit par excellence, and secondly, in the believers of today considered collectively, then it is no more "valid" a body than any other religious institution. But, worse than that (if possible) Vatican II and JPII constantly emphasize the Redemption of all men by Our Lord on the Cross, and never mention the necessity for membership in the Catholic Church for salvation. This leads to the error that ALL MEN are "in some way" united to Christ in the Mystical Body, which leads logically to the doctrine of universal salvation. Furthermore, each false religion has essentially the same source and origin (vital immanence - "consciousness") and hence each and every one is "valid." Two conclusions follow logically. Firstly, Holy Church must change as "consciousness" changes - we considered this above. Secondly, all men are saved, since all men have some form of religion, even atheists, who profess that there is no personal God. I've never bothered to actually count them, but the words "all men" must appear in the docuмents of VII literally hundreds of times, if not thousands. There is not, in my reading, one single reference to damnation in the entire collection of waffle and error. The implication is clear, and that is that all men are indeed saved.
If you are one of the many who has never been able to understand the writings of these modern "Popes" then study Pascendi, and all will become clear.
References :
1. Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) v.10, p. 417.
2. Op Cit. p. 416
3. L'Osservatore Romano, Nov. 20, 1989
4. Vatican II - Unitatis Redintegratio
5. Redemptor Hominis
6. Redemptor Hominis
7. Address for Christian Unity Week
8. Redemptor Hominis (quoting Paul VI in Lumen Gentium)
Topic: The Heresy of John Paul II (Read 1009 times)