I ran across an article that quoted the V2 catechism about their V2 theology on the "new mass".  Let's examine the heresies just from this small article (I'm sure, unfortunately, there are many more):

1353 In the epiclesis (i.e. eucharistic prayer), the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing¹⁷⁸) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).

1.  This seems to falsely teach that the Holy Ghost is responsible for Transubstantiation/Consecration, instead of Christ, who offers Himself through the priest. 
2.  It also seems to deny the power of the priesthood to offer sacrifice and to be "another Christ". 
3.  It further seems to replace "Christ's offering" with the "Church asks".
4.  V2 explains (repeatedly) that "The Church" = "people of God".  This means, heretically, that the Church/people offer Mass together.  Again, a denial of the priesthood.

In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

1.  The consecration is not a narrative, but a 1st person offering, made by the Priest, who speaks as Christ Himself.  The narrative idea is condemned by Trent and is heresy.
2.  Another denial of the priesthood, when it says "action of Christ" and "power of the Holy Spirit".  No mention of the priestly nature (and necessity) of it.
3.  No mention of Christ's "soul and Divinity" just His "body and blood".  Another heresy for this humanistic, new age service.
4.  It's heresy to say that Christ's sacrifice was offered "once" when EVERY. SINGLE. MASS. is supposed to be His sacrifice again, and again, and again, until the end of the time.
5.  "For all".  Another heresy.

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice.

Heresy again.  The Eucharist is a sacrifice because it represents Christ's death on the Cross (Good Friday) not because it represents the Passover (Holy Thursday).  This is totally, diabolically, subtlely backwards!

the sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."¹⁸⁵

This is true, but it is misleading, based on the first sentence of 1365 above.  It is misleading because it implies that the sacrifice of the Mass = Holy Thursday.  The true "sacrificial character" is Christ's bloody passion and death for sins.  The Eucharist is the unbloody re-enactment of Good Friday.  This catechism tries to (heretically) explain the Mass ONLY by way of Holy Thursday, while COMPLETELY ignoring Good Friday.  This is a protestant heresy and quasi blasphemy.

In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."¹⁸⁶

This is also true, but based on all of the previous sentences, is misleading.  It is true that Christ is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow.  So it is true that Christ gives us "the very body" which He offered on the Cross.  But what is heresy, is the denial that each mass = ANOTHER calvary.  Each mass = Christ offering Himself on the Cross AGAIN.  So while Christ offers His "same body" at each Mass, this catechism implies that the Eucharist comes from the ORIGINAL Good Friday in 33AD and not the Good Friday (in an unbloody manner) which JUST HAPPENED on the altar.  Another denial of the (true, doctrinal) sacrificial nature of the Mass.


Again, why isn't the priest mentioned?  He's the one that gives us the sacrament.

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

Heresy!  The Mass is an ACTUAL sacrifice, not a broadway play that "makes present" something from the past; not a memorial.  

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross,

More protestant heresy.  Calvary is not a one-time sacrifice by Christ, but happens at every Mass.

to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented,

More heresy and use of "re-present".

its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.¹⁸⁷

The Mass is not a memorial but the ACTUAL calvary passion, in an unbloody manner.  The above is total heresy.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice:

What?  No, they are the same sacrifice, Calvary being bloody and Mass being unbloody.  They are equal in perfection and holiness.  But there is not only ONE sacrifice (which they imply is Good Friday)...but HUNDREDS of masses/sacrifices said every day, all around the world.

"The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."¹⁸⁸

This is probably the only orthodox idea in the whole catechism, but it's corrupted by all the half-truths, protestant errors and outright heresies listed above.  Bottomline - the new mass is not, and does not claim to be, an actual sacrifice.  It claims to be a re-presentation of calvary, a memorial of Holy Thursday, which remembers Christ's (heretical and backwards) "sacrifice" on Holy Thursday, by which He "offered" Himself to us in the Eucharist (...except, this is the wrong offering).


The theology is totally bonkers.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not, and cannot be, heretical. 

  Now you’re just making things up, Xavier.  

Pope St. John Paul II said the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a sure norm for teaching the Faith.

"Sure norm" = infallible?    No, it doesn't.  No theologian has ever claimed that a catechism is infallible. 

The errors in the new-catechism are GROSSLY at adds with Trent (and traditional, orthodox teaching).  It's not even close.  V2 created a new theology of the mass; a protestant/Martin Luther understanding.

Maybe you meant to say, “A catechism is not infallible simply because it is a catechism?”

Otherwise, it is certainly possible for a catechism to be infallible (eg., If it only recounted teachings made infallible through the OUM, then that catechism would certainly be infallible).

That said, the CCC would certainly not be infallible, because it would contain many points of doctrine not contained in Tradition, or made infallible by the OUM.  And neither is it the subject of a declaration of the extraordinary magisterium.  So, since it does not conform to either path to infallibility, the conclusion must be that it is not infallible.

The proof of it is the 1992 CCC changed its teaching on the death penalty in 2018 (with the newer/current position being the erroneous prohibition of capital punishment), which they could not have done if the 1992 CCC were infallible.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/the-2018-revised-catholic-catechism

Compare the 2018 teaching prohibiting capital punishment to the contradictory and perennial doctrine of the Church in this excellent article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_capital_punishment 

Maybe you meant to say, “A catechism is not infallible simply because it is a catechism?”

Otherwise, it is certainly possible for a catechism to be infallible (eg., If it only recounted teachings made infallible through the OUM, then that catechism would certainly be infallible).

That said, the CCC would certainly not be infallible, because it would contain many points of doctrine not contained in Tradition, or made infallible by the OUM.  And neither is it the subject of a declaration of the extraordinary magisterium.  So, since it does not conform to either path to infallibility, the conclusion must be that it is not infallible.

The proof of it is the 1992 CCC changed its teaching on the death penalty in 2018 (with the newer/current position being the erroneous prohibition of capital punishment), which they could not have done if the 1992 CCC were infallible.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/the-2018-revised-catholic-catechism

It's a bit of a silly distinction you're making here. Otherwise I could claim to be speaking infallibly because I'm recounting a dogma. But I wouldn't be: it's not that I'm speaking infallibly, but that I'm speaking of something that is infallible, and there is no guarantee that my recounting of it will be correct. Even the most minor of paraphrasings could turn an infallible dogma into an untruth. Now, a catechism can quote a dogma word for word, and so that quote would be infallible, but it wouldn't mean the book as a whole is, unless the book was literally nothing but a list of ex cathedra quotes. That wouldn't even be possible, since many of the Church's teachings were never explicitly defined like that.

Fr. Wathen's criticisms of the New Catechism were very sound, and should be listened to by more people. He points out, in particular, much of the secular humanist way of thinking that underlines this text and the Conciliar Revolution in general. 

A playlist containing some of his commentary on the New Catechism. 

Fr. Wathen ...

The Dimond brothers list some of his heresies.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not, and cannot be, heretical.

Agreed.  Not being heretical is not the same as being infallible.