Crossing The Threshold of Apostacy

A new book released by a SSPX sypathizer excoriates John Paul II as a destroyer of the Church, yet recognizes him as a true "pope." In Crossing the Threshold of Confusion Andrew McAuley tells us Wotyla was anything BUT "Great", specifically he notes that his "papacy" was a disaster for the following reasons:

1.his failure to enforce discipline in the Concilliar sect, especially against widespread sex crimes against children by his "bishops" and "priests"
2.his statements implying the heresy universal salvation
3.the destabilization of marriage caused by his novel "Theology of the Body"
4.his confusion of the Church's traditional position on the morality of capital punishment
5.his erroneous statements about the nature of the Church (i.e. "FrankenChurch")fabricated by the Modernist Council Vatican II
6.his appointment of many known homosexuals as bishops, as well as immoral bishops who undermined Catholic moral teachings and the doctrines of the Faith, allowing seminaries to become homosexual havens and allowing heresy and depravity to flourish in Newchurch
How could a man do this in his official capacity and still be "pope"?

For anyone who truly has the Catholic Faith could not:
· kiss the Koran, the Mohammedan “Bible.”
· say that all men are united to Christ solely by virtue of the Incarnation.(1)
· say that all men are saved.[2)
· say that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the Creed is present, in all its essential elements, in non-Catholic sects.[3]
· say that the Catholic Church is in communion with non-Catholic sects.[4]
· say that the Catholic Church is incapable of giving credibility to the Gospel, unless there is a “reunion of Christians.”[5]
· say that the Catholic Church shares a common apostolic faith with the non-Catholic sects.[6]
· say that non-Catholic sects have an apostolic mission.[7]
· say that the Holy Ghost uses non-Catholic sects as a means of salvation.[8]
· say that it is divinely revealed that men have a right to religious freedom and freedom of conscience.[9]
· say that a properly ordered society is one in which all religions are given free rein to practice, proselytize and propagate.[10]
· say that Our Lord’s descent into hell simply means that He was buried.[11]
· participate in all forms of non-Catholic worship, including that of the Lutherans, the Jews, the Hindus, the American Indians, the Polynesians, to mention only some;
· praise the voodoo religion;
· permit the abomination of Assisi, in which a golden statue of Buddha was placed upon an altar an incensed by a Buddhist priest;
· permit the ecumenical abominations contained in the Ecumenical Directory.
· approve of sacrilege to the Blessed Sacrament by permitting non-Catholics to receive It.
· hold and teach the blasphemous and heretical notion of the Church, that the Church of Christ is not exactly the same thing as the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine was taught by Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning has been upheld by John Paul many times, particularly in the Ecumenical Directory.
· say that Moslems and Catholics worship the same God.[12]
· Give public approval to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which contains many explicit heresies, and utterly contradicts the solemn teaching of the Council of Trent concerning justification.
These are merely some of the heresies of John Paul II. We must never forget that someone can manifest an adherence to heresy not only by word, but also by deed. Thus his many ecumenical acts which are an affront to the one, true God are manifestations of an interior adherence to heresy.
All of these errors and heresies are held and taught by John Paul II in the name of ecumenism. It is this ecumenism which is John Paul II’s apostasy. Ecumenism is apostasy, because it reduces all of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith to relativity. In the ecumenical system, all religions are seen to have a certain part of the truth, and all religions are seen to therefore have a certain value. For this reason, John Paul II has frequently repeated the heresy of Vatican II: that the Holy Ghost has not hesitated to use non-Catholic religions as means of salvation.
Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable, Karol Wotyla was an Anti-pope, John Paul "The Great Apostate."

Endnotes
Redemptor Hominis, 13.3
[2] Homily in Santa Maria in Trastevere, April 27, 1980
[3] Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion., (1992)
[4] ibid.
[5] Osservatore Romano, May 20, 1980
[6] ibid.
[7] Osservatore Romano, June 10, 1980
[8] Catechesi Tradendæ, October 16, 1979
[9] Redemptor Hominis, 12.2 and Dives in Misericordia, and his speech to the United Nations on October 2, 1979 and in many other places.
[10] Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanæ, a document which John Paul II says has a particular binding force.
[11] General Audience, January 11, 1989
[12] May 31, 1980 in a speech to the Moslems in Paris.

All The Right Premises, But A False Conclusion

It never ceases to amaze me how members of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and other pseudo-Traditionalists will get the problem in the Church correct, but get the answer wrong by continuing to affirm Ratzinger and the post-concilliar "popes" as true Vicars of Christ. One John Vennari starts out an article concerning the 100th anniversary of St. Pius X's Anti-Modernist Oath this way:

"Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, the eminent American theologian, called the Oath Against Modernism 'the most important and most influential document issued by the Holy See during the course of the 20th Century. It is a magnificent statement of Catholic truth in the face of errors which were being disseminated within the Church by the cleverest enemies the Mystical Body of Christ has encountered in the course of its history.'

The Oath Against Modernism was abolished two years after the close of the Second Vatican Council, yet the men who took the Oath at ordination are still bound by it. Those who swore this sacred Oath and then promoted the modern program of Vatican II, including the Council’s new ecumenism and religious liberty, have shown themselves unfaithful to the Oath they swore solemnly before God.

Stressing the seriousness of the matter, Msgr. Fenton noted in 1960 that a man who took the Oath Against Modernism, and who then promoted Modernism himself, or allowed it to be promoted, 'would mark himself not only as a sinner against the Catholic Faith but also as a common perjurer.'

He who takes the Oath Against Modernism swears solemnly: 'I sincerely hold that the doctrine of Faith was handed down to us from the Apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation (eodem sensu eodemque sententia). Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another, different from the one which the Church held previously.'

At the end of the Oath, he makes this solemn Promise before God Himself: 'I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hand.'

It is hard to see how a person who holds to the countersyllabus of Vatican II can claim to have kept the Faith 'in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation' as the Church always held. It is hard to see how someone who accepts the Council’s new program of ecumenism and religious liberty can claim to have “guarded inviolate”, and 'in no way deviated' from the clear teachings of the pre-Vatican II Popes regarding true Christian Unity and the Social Kingship of Christ.

Both Cardinal Ratzinger and Yves Congar stated openly, as if it’s something to be proud of, that Vatican II is a countersyllabus – that it says the opposite of key teachings from pre-Vatican II Popes.

The spirit of infidelity to traditional Catholic doctrine, the lust towards change and novelty that Pius X’s anti-Modernist measures condemned, and the violation of a Sacred Oath against God by highly-placed Churchmen, is the true legacy of the Second Vatican Council and its consequence reforms." (Internal Citations omitted).

If Ratzinger allows and promotes the heresy of Modernism to be promoted and is guilty of perjury, he is a heretic. The Church teaches that a heretic can NOT be pope! We can not "recognize and resist" a true pope; we must obey.Theologian Vitoria puts an end to the myth that a Catholic can "recognize and resist" when he writes in De Potestate 22, Obras, 485: “Non videtur permittendum cuicumque privato sua auctoritate resistere et non parere mandatis Pontificis… Probatur. Quia esset magna irreverentia et quasi contemptus, si cuilibet hoc concederetur respectu Pontificis… non licet propria auctoritate discedere.” Translation:

“Proposition 23: ‘It would not seem permitted for any private person on his own authority to resist and not obey the Pope’s directives, however much these would contradict a Council’s decision.’ This is correct. For it would be a great act of irreverence and near-contempt for supreme authority if anyone were allowed to act towards a Pope in a way that would not be permitted towards a bishop, whose directive (however unjust) one may not disobey on private authority.”

Since the 16th century nearly all canonists and theologians who have addressed the issue teach that a pope who becomes a manifest (public) heretic “would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence.” M. Conte a Coronata, Institutiones Juris Canonici (Rome: Marietti 1950) 1:316

To paraphrase Fr. Cekada:Ratzinger openly denies the rule of faith. He commits the sin of heresy.

We Traditionalists need not hesitate to call a heretic a heretic — even though no Council has convicted him — any more than we hesitate to call an abortionist a murderer.

Nor should Traditionalists hesitate to point out the consequences: A public heretic cannot be a true pope. He deposes himself.